Gil-White: “It doesn’t matter who you vote for.”

10 Comments / 10 Comments

1. From my point of view, no subject is taboo. I began to explore the truth of Serbia and much to my surprise was won over to the idea that Serbia was the victim.

   I gave prominence to “transfer” when it was still in the closet and with abrogating Oslo.

   I am happy to swim upstream if needs be. While was a supporter of Bush when he was first elected I came to the conclusion very early that he botched the effort and that war on terror was a phony war.

   I am fiercely pro-Israel but anti the GoI.

2. Mr.Belman,

   You are to be commended for placing articles such as this on your site.

3. Control is not the most precise term to use in regards to the CFR. However this group has great power to steer things in the direction they wish them to go. They can do this with either party behind the wheel, for they are the ones in the back seat of the limo. One may take more than a single route to the same place. Anyone who will take time to do the research can find out all they need to know to verify their influence and power, unless they have an aversion to the truth. A good place to start is with “The Round Table” which was the model for think tanks to follow. It was put together in England at the turn of the century in hopes of averting the decline of the British Empire and the Anglo people. The CFR, The Club of Rome, and others were molded in the same form afterwards.

4. It was not my intention to misrepresent Francisco and appreciate the fact that he sets the record straight.

   As for my comments about leaving Israel alone, I am referring to the fact that they did not push a peace process. Aside from this, I am aware of all the things that they did which were anti-Israel and didn’t mean to negate their existence.

5. I need to make a couple of corrections to Ted Belman’s characterization of our phone conversation (comment #2).

   First, I emphatically did not say that “the CFR controls most everything in government and media.” This is the view of many conspiracy theorists low on research and high on emotional rhetoric, who often also talk about the “Illuminati” and so forth, but not my own. Those who listen to my interview with Tamar Yonah will hear me defend that “It is a mistake to speak of the CFR as if it were the Pope of everything that happens,” which specifically denies the characterization that Belman makes above about my views. The CFR is important, but because it is one of the organizations controlled by the US ruling elite, the collection of very wealthy men who, through their pseudo-private organizations (e.g. the CFR), and through the foundations (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and others) that fund them, get to direct most of US politics beyond the scrutiny of the citizenry and their democratic processes. But the CFR is not the only organ of power, merely a convenient one, and an important one, that adds its weight to that of other organizations. My article about the CFR that Ted Belman links to, and which I asked him to read, also makes this point about the proliferation of pseudo-private organizations controlled by the US ruling elite to affect US politics (domestic and foreign) and explains that the CFR is one of them.

   Second, I believe it is false that the US left Israel alone during the 1980s, as Ted Belman states. I have given a rather detailed documentation of US foreign policy toward Israel during the 1980s, and Ted has in fact referred to this documentation several times, specifically to make the point that US foreign policy has been anti-Israel, so I am puzzled by the claim that “America left Israel alone during the eighties.” In fact some of the harshest US attacks against Israel took place during the 1980s, for example, when the US prevented Israel from destroying the PLO (1982-83). Interested readers may consult my documentation for the 1980s — starting with the year 1981 — here:

   Finally, I did not say that “the ultimate goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state and also to destroy the Jews. In order to undo the US as a state based on Judeo Christian values and anchored in the Constitution they must strike at its core, Jerusalem.”

   This would in a sense be a complete contradiction of what I believe, because as I have made clear in a number of articles, Israel is not a democratic state, and its leadership cares not at all about the Jewish people. So Jerusalem cannot be held as an example for Washington. On the contrary, Jerusalem is Washington’s lackey, in my view. Those who would like to consult my series of articles on the Israeli leadership (and the Jewish leadership more generally) may do so here:

   Neither did I say that subverting US politics is the main goal of the US ruling elite. I believe this is in part the goal, but I also believe the US ruling elite has a more ambitious goal: they wish to destroy worker protections and liberal politics all over the world. In order to do this they must destroy not “Israel” but the Jews, for the Jews are the custodians of the Law of Moses, born in a slave revolution against an oppressive Egyptian king, according to tradition (Exodus), and therefore designed with exquisite care to protect the working classes, and the poor, generally, from the attacks of repressive ruling elites. For this reason Jewish thought has played a leading role producing liberal ideologies in Western history, and in consequence the Jews have always been under attack by repressive ruling elites. I have begun to explain this here:

   While I am at it, I will comment also on Sultan Knish’s contribution (comment #1). This may not be obvious but a statement such as “We are still a democracy” is in fact a hypothesis about the US political system.

   To decide whether this hypothesis is true, what one does is investigate the way the political system operates. Regardless of what the options are in the case where the US is no longer a democracy, one can only find out whether it still is a democracy by doing research of the sort I have presented.

   It would be more useful to Israpundit readers if Sultan Knish actually took the trouble to read my piece and then told us why he thinks that the data I present do not support my conclusions. Then we could have a discussion of the merits of the research and or the conclusions, instead of pounding our fists on the table just because we are afraid of the consequences if the U.S. turns out not to be a democracy. It is not proper scientific methodology for Knish to reason backwards from what he thinks is a forced remedial strategy to the actual state of affairs in the world.

   Best,

   Francisco Gil-White
   Editor, Historical and Investigative Research
   

6. I wish FGW was wrong, but it seems like the very consistent pro-Islamist, pro-nazi stance we’ve seen from all government personnel for the past 10+ years regarding Yugoslavia would prove his point.

   The attack on the Serbs is embraced by both sides of the aisle, and even big ‘patriots’ like Dole and McCain can’t be trusted. Very discouraging.

7. He said you have an hypothesis that The US is a democracy and that leaders honour their commitments to their constituencies. On the other hand he said, my hypothesis is that the CFR controls most everything in government and media. Now we must test our hypothesis. When had US policy to Israel namely to reduce it ever changeged. Name one administration that supported Israel rather than worked to reduce it. We both knew the answer to that.America left Israel alone during the eighties while the USSR was still a threat but the moment the USSR imploded, the pressure started up again.

   Thus according to him regardless of who wins the result will be the same.

   From a logical standpoint there are a number of problems with that hypothesis.

   First of all while in a general sense most administrations have looked for Israeli concessions, there are significant differences in to what extent and whether pressure was exerted and how much. So while in a general sense it is accurate to say that most administrations wanted Israeli compromises, this does not mean, as he asserts, that there is no difference which administration is in office.

   In the same way, you might characterize all administrations as being in favor of national defense, because they all have a sizable military budget, but there’s no comparing the Carter administration to the Reagan administration, just because in a general sense, they all favored a military budget.

   Secondly, it ignores the extent to which foreign policy is made in the entrenched bureaucracy, rather than through elected officials. Something we’ve seen up close recently in the way CIA and State Department officials have sabotaged the Bush Administration. Elected officials change, but the State Department remains the same from election to election. Conspiracy theorists will call them part of the vast conspiracy, but then they will also claim that Bush is part of the conspiracy, which is internally contradictory.

   The fact of the matter is that given the political realities, 1 billion Muslims, an oil economy and an extensive domestic oil industry, there are plenty of common sense political reasons why America continually pressured Israel while playing up to the Arabs — no conspiracy theories required.

   The only practical reason why America should not have been doing that is that in the long run, the same threats faced by Israel would come to America. But seeing that required foresight, which politicians are notoriously poor at.

8. Does it matter if you vote or who you vote for? Yes and no. The candidates are all insiders, who, having the same aspirations, hold different visions of what the final outcome should look like. Obama and Hillary are not all that far apart in their idea of building a national and global village, in which, the national tribe participates in, and is subordinate to the international village. McCain is of the same mindset with a few reservations, and that’s about it. They are all funded and powered by many of the same corporations and organizations. They will all lead us to the same place if only at a different pace. Obama is clearly the most radical, though Hillary is not too far behind.

   McCain, on the other hand, definitely understands some things the other two don’t, but he is where he is because he holds the vision of a global system where the nation state is weak and there is a strong international system which is the final arbitrator and has the final word. He is from the school of GW Bush’s daddy, Herbert, who called for the creation of a new world order on a number of occasions – not just the one Tamar Yonah.

   I personally heard The first president Bush speak out at the Rose Bowl for the formation of the New World Order. In 1991 President Bush praised the New World Order in a State of Union Message:

   “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea — a new world order…to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind…based on shared principles and the rule of law….The illumination of a thousand points of light….The winds of change are with us now.”

   He also stated: “My vision of a new world order foresees a United Nations with a revitalized peacekeeping function.”

   McCain has the same authoritarian global mindset, and the only difference between him and Hillary or Obama is that their visions are more Marxist in design. However, McCain still is an internationalist, if only with more democratic philosophies. In the end, with either party, it will all lead to an authoritarian global system unless it is stopped.

   We don’t choose our president, we are given a few choices from a select pool. The powers that fund their campaigns have their favorites, but they have their representatives in both parties so that they can’t loose even if they don‘t get who they really desire.

   There is a thin line between the truth and conspiracy land.

   I am not sure if I will vote this year or not. McCain for sure is better on some points and doesn‘t freak me out as much as the thought of Obama or Hillary, but I cannot say that in the long run we will end up better off.

9. I had a long conversation with Gil-White about our difference of opinion.

   He said you have an hypothesis that The US is a democracy and that leaders honour their commitments to their constituencies. On the other hand he said, my hypothesis is that the CFR controls most everything in government and media. Now we must test our hypothesis. When had US policy to Israel namely to reduce it ever changed. Name one administration that supported Israel rather than worked to reduce it. We both knew the answer to that America left Israel alone during the eighties while the USSR was still a threat but the moment the USSR imploded, the pressure started up again.

   Thus according to him regardless of who wins the result will be the same.

   He goes further and believes the ultimate goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state and also to destroy the Jews. In order to undo the US as a state based on Judeo Christian values and anchored in the Constitution they must strike at its core, Jerusalem.

10. It matters quite a bit whom you vote for. We’re still a Democracy and really for anyone who believes we aren’t, nothing is left short of an armed revolt or moving to found your own country.

    Tamar Yonah has unfortunately gone way down the pipe into conspiracy land, repeatedly interviewing people like Barry Chamish, despite their ties to 9/11 Deniers, Holocaust deniers and radical anti-semites on the far right and the far left.

    To Davidstill, as I’ve pointed out in my own post, Obama’s Church was neo-Muslim for all intents and purposes. Religions crossbreed and absorb ideas. Obama’s friend Pfleger runs an Afro-centric Catholic Church that for all intents and purposes looks like a Baptist church. Obama’s pastor Wright runs a Church that’s heavily influenced by his past as a Muslim and his Muslim studies.