Unfortunately We Are To Witness A Revival of Europe’s Greatest Nightmare

[Europe’s nightmare soul is awakening.  And all of you thought that the scourge of Nazism had faded (SEE:THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS).]

Europe’s far-right in steady crawl toward power

 

France’s far right National Front political party leader Marine Le Pen reacts after delivering her speech in front of the Opera following the National Front’s annual May Day rally in Paris, May 1, 2012. — Photo by Reuters

PARIS: Marine Le Pen wants to bust the French political system — and people across Europe and beyond should take note.

Her stunning score in the first round of French presidential elections won her anti-immigrant National Front a place in the Europe-wide march of nationalist — sometimes extremist — parties toward seats of power.

Le Pen’s rage will be on millions of voters’ minds, both her critics and fans, as they elect a president Sunday.

The same day, Greek citizens, strapped by austerity measures in a nation crushed by debt, could vote in about a dozen lawmakers from the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn.

Bit by bit, far-right parties from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia are gaining momentum among the populace and a foothold in their nations’ power structures.

The European debt crisis has added a sharp edge to the mix.

More than two dozen parties around Europe denouncing immigrants — mainly Muslims — as invaders, and calling globalisation and the European Union devils in disguise, are gnawing at the political mainstream.

“Islamism is the totalitarianism of religions and globalisation is the totalitarianism of trade,” Le Pen, who won almost 18 per cent of the first round vote, said at a news conference this week. “The nation is the only structure capable” of vanquishing the evil.

The Dutch nationalist Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, the third-largest in the Netherlands’ parliament, brought down the minority government last week simply by withdrawing support — an inspiration to Le Pen who cites it as an example of what she and her party could do.

Le Pen’s strong third place showing in the first round caused conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy to blatantly borrow from her rhetoric in hopes of wooing her voters and saving his job when he faces a runoff Sunday with Socialist Francois Hollande.

Hungary’s populist centre-right government headed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban is worrying the European Union because of a repressive media law and other restrictive measures. But the country also counts extreme-right Jobbik as its largest opposition party, one with anti-Roma and anti-Semitic overtones.

No one reason can be cited for the rise of populism or the extreme right in a Europe with such varied political, economic and social landscapes and, for former Soviet satellites in central Europe, widely divergent histories.

“There is a need to react to the feeling of the decline of Europe…many people, the middle and lower middle classes, feel that their social status has escaped them,” said Erwan Lecoeur, a sociologist who studies the far right.

This perceived loss pushes them to reconstruct a new, redefined sense of honour — with the nation as its centre and outsiders, including the elite, as the enemy.

Lecoeur cites the term used by renowned turn-of-the-century sociologist Max Weber to refer to whites too poor to own slaves — “the syndrome of poor white trash” — as an apt description of the psychology underlying adhesion to populist parties.

But identifying the parties in question is itself confounding. Are they populist? Nationalist? Extreme right? That depends. They come in all shades.

Anders Behring Breivik, the fanatic extremist who killed 77 people in a July bombing and shooting rampage, was a member of the Progress Party in Norway for seven years, until 2006. The anti-immigration Progress is Norway’s biggest opposition party, with 41 of 169 parliamentary seats. Yet it is more moderate than many of its European counterparts and thinks of itself as conservative.

Few parties wish to be referred to as extreme right, which conjures up images of Hitler or the rabble of jack-booted neo-Nazis now being kept at a distance by parties like the National Front.

The varying degrees of extremism and the very nationalism these parties espouse have thus far prevented any meaningful alliances between Europe’s far-right groups.

Le Pen contends the neo-Nazi label doesn’t suit her and is used to discredit her party, although her National Front, founded in 1972 by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen — convicted numerous times of racism and anti-Semitism — has long been described that way. Experts say the party is deeply anchored in extreme-right ideology.

Le Pen prefers to describe her party as patriotic and nationalist and says she can live with the term “populist,” increasingly used to describe Europe’s far-right parties.

The National Front under Marine Le Pen, party leader since January 2011, embodies the new far-right, out to prove that immigrants are stealing jobs, multiculturalism is sapping national identities and Europe is severing nations from their souls.

Le Pen and Wilders of the Netherlands are the most visible symbols of the rise of the European far-right. Both are outspoken and charismatic in their bids to bring change.

Le Pen hopes to pierce France’s power structure, converting her first round score — a record for her party — into seats in parliament in June elections. Her short-term dream is to become the chief of the French opposition under a leftist president.

Wilders’ Freedom Party, which is anti-EU, anti-Muslim and pro-Israel, already has. It won 25 of 150 parliamentary seats in 2010 elections. This week, Wilders launched his English-language autobiography, “Marked for Death, Islam’s War Against the West and Me,” with a trip to the United States.

Another Freedom Party, this one in Austria, holds 34 of 183 parliamentary seats and polls second in opinion polls, just behind the Social Democrats, one of two parties in the governing coalition. Like France’s National Front, it has — under new leader Heinz-Christian Strache — pulled the curtains on its anti-Semitic bent to exploit fears of Islamist domination and the EU.

The Nordic countries each count populist parties opposed to immigration, and the Danish People’s Party, Denmark’s third largest, pushed the government to adopt some of Europe’s strictest immigration laws.

Europe’s debt crisis has been fodder for anti-EU parties. Marine Le Pen, like others blaming the euro currency for her country’s ills, says, “I knew it would take us into the abyss.” She wants a return to the franc.

There is real concern that Europe’s debt plight will further stoke dormant tensions.

The Council of Europe’s Commission Against Racism and Intolerance warned in its annual report issued Thursday of a rise in intolerance of immigrants and minority groups like the Roma, or Gypsies, due to scarce job opportunities and welfare cuts.

“Xenophobic rhetoric is now part of mainstream debate,” the body said after country visits last year. “Resistance to racism is essential to preserve Europe’s future,” said Jeno Kaltenbach, chairman of the commission.

Far-right parties often advance in small steps, pressuring governments to align laws to fit their populist ideology. Others trumpet their message inside parliament with hopes of finding a place in the mainstream right.

“There is a very strong possibility of contamination of the classic parliamentary right,” said Nicolas Lebourg, an expert on the extreme right at the University of Perpignan.

Le Pen herself has said she sees her role as undermining the traditional right so she can eventually embody it.

“You only need to be a spoiler to have an enormous weight,” she said. “This victory is inevitable, like that of others in Europe who defend the nation.”

Whether the far-right can win real power — for example, running a major European city — is far from certain. But a party need not be in power to do severe damage as it fans social tensions.

“Europe today is a dry prairie waiting for someone to light a match,” Lebourg said.

Washington And Israel Threaten Humanity

Washington And Israel Threaten Humanity.

By Stephen Lendman

So does NATO. It’s America’s imperial tool. An alliance for war, not peace, enemies were invented post-Soviet Russia.

Communism then was the alleged threat. Today it’s terrorism. Strategically intervening under US control, world peace and humanity are threatened.

NATO wages America’s wars. Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asian ones involve Israel. Both countries threaten world peace.

Israel wants unchallenged regional power. Washington wants it globally. Together, they threaten humanity. Hell hath no fury like their alliance.

Obama is America’s latest warrior president. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He accomplished the impossible. He governs to the right of George Bush. Yet he retains enough support so far for reelection.

In November, perhaps the economy will undo him. Perhaps he’ll avoid it by heightening fear for more war. He’s more belligerent than all his predecessors.

Public apathy lets him get away with it. People worry more about pocket book issues. Manipulated fear diverts them to security. It works most every time.

Peter Bergin’s an establishment figure. He directs national security studies for the New America Foundation. He’s also a right-wing print and television contributor, as well as a member of the National Security Preparedness Group. It replaced the 9/11 Commission to perpetuate its whitewash.

On April 28, his New York Times op-ed headlined “Warrior in Chief,” saying:

After getting the Nobel Peace Peace prize months into his tenure, he “turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.”

He’s worse than that, of course. He exceeds all his predecessors by far. No one’s been more belligerent. No one waged more wars simultaneously and threatens more. No one endangers humanity like he does.

Candidate Obama promised peace. President Obama doubled down George Bush and then some. Discussing Afghanistan on October 27, 2007, he said:

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank.”

Months earlier he said:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Afghan) President Musharraf won’t act, we will. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.”

Perhaps no remembers either statement. Perhaps too few know America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Terrorism is a catch-all term used to incite fear and justify conflict. When it wears thin, something else will replace it.

Bergin tried having it both ways. His title implies criticism. His content combines praise and muted disapproval. He avoided rule of law principles, truth and full disclosure.

His article ignores Obama’s threat to world peace, his Nobel award hypocrisy, and how he and Bush alienated more countries than any previous US leader.

Liberals helped elect him, said Bergin “in part because of his opposition to the Iraq (and Afghan) war(s).” They “probably don’t celebrate (his) military accomplishments.”

Bergin calls them “sizable,” but couldn’t name any. He tried, of course, but failed. He “decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership,” he claimed. In fact, popular resistance across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia looks stronger than ever. The more deaths at America’s hands, the more enemies it makes.

“He overthrew the Libyan dictator.” In fact, Africa’s most developed country was ravaged, not liberated. Libya’s a charnel house, a raging cauldron. No central authority exists. Battles rage for control. Libyans are terrorized, traumatized, and impoverished. Some accomplishment!

“He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia, and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan.”

Is Bergin pleased or critical? It’s hard to say. He admitted that Obama “became the first president to authorize the assassination of a (US) citizen.” He falsely called Anwar al-Awlaki a threat. He also claimed Obama killed Osama.

He ignored the staged event. Bin Ladin wasn’t killed or targeted. Seriously ill, he died naturally in December 2001. On December 26, 2001, Fox News reported it, saying:

He “died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended (his) funeral.”

Other media also reported his death. In October 2007, appearing on BBC with David Frost, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said bin Laden died years ago. In December that year, she was assassinated in Rawalpindi. Perhaps her admission played a part.

Obama didn’t kill Osama. Dead men don’t die twice.

Bergin wonders why Obama supporters ignore his “acting as judge and executioner” by ordering hundreds of drone strikes, killing thousands since 2009.

There’s been a “dramatic cognitive disconnect between (his) record and the public perception of his leadership.” Despite his belligerence, conservatives and others think he’s a “peacenik.”

Political posturing, of course, explains it. Supporter views are another matter. Clear facts are in plain sight. Many don’t accept them. Obama’s rhetoric belies his policies.

During Bush’s tenure, drone attacks struck Pakistan “every 43 days.” In Obama’s first two years alone, it was “every four days.”

Perhaps it’s now multiple times daily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, other targeted countries, and more to come. Obama the peace candidate is “more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter.”

In 1906, TR won a Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t wage war on humanity. Carter was the 2002 recipient. Obama elevated Nobel hypocrisy to new heights. Bergin noted how fast he opts for military intervention.

Knowledgeable supporters shouldn’t be surprised. Politicians always say one thing and do another, especially on issues matter most like waging war.

In office, Bush expanded CIA funding, staff, and operations. Obama outdid him and then some for covert missions, drone wars, and other initiatives. Stopping short of calling him “trigger-happy,” Bergin said he’s “completely shaken the ‘Vietnam syndrome….”

Perhaps he forgot GHW Bush saying on March 2, 1991, after the Gulf War:

“By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

He was right. From January then to now, America’s been at war with Iraq, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere from North Africa to Central Asia. Obama’s its latest exponent. Trigger-happy fits him well.

Waging multiple wars, he can’t wait to start another. In a second term, who knows what he’ll do.

Partnered with Israel should give supporters pause. Both nations are modern day Spartas. Militarism and war is their way of life, overtly and covertly. Both are also nuclear armed and dangerous.

Under its current leadership, Israel is especially threatening. On April 28, Haaretz headlined “Israel’s former Shin Bet chief: I have no confidence in Netanyahu, Barak,” saying:

Yuval Diskin harshly criticized both leaders. They’re not worthy to lead Israel, he said, explaining:

“My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war.”

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings.”

Both are “messianics,” he said. One’s from “Akirov or the Assuta project.” The other’s from “Gaza Street or Caesarea.” He referred to where they live. They ought to be cordoned off and kept there.

“Believe me, I have observed them from up close…. They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people who I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event.”

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.”

In March, former Mossad head Meir Dagan said attacking Iran would be “devastating” for Israel. Doing so would ignite regional war. You know how things start, but not end. Attacking Iran will put Israel “in a very serious situation for quite a time.”

Diskin added that over the past 10 or 15 years, Israel got “more racist….toward Arabs and foreigners, and we are also….a more belligerent society.”

He also worries about extremist Jews. He fears another political assassination like Yitzhak Rabin, and wonders what could come next.

Commenting at the time, Haaretz contributor Amos Harel headlined “Shin Bet chief’s vote of no confidence is another blow to Netanyahu and Barak,” saying:

His rebuke and Diskin’s elevated “the confrontation over the Iranian question to another level….Dagan seems to be on a divine mission to stop the bombing.”

Diskin feels the same way. So do other cooler heads, but they’re outnumbered in high places.

Nonetheless, senior Israeli security officials “whisper” similar views. Shouting might work better.

Diskin’s rebuke followed IDF chief Benny Gantz calling Iran’s leadership “very rational.” He doubted Tehran would “go the extra mile” to develop nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu, Barak, and others around them go to great lengths to cite nonexistent threats, Israel’s determination to remove them, and efforts to enlist America’s support. In an election year. Perhaps 2013, not now.

Political Washington wants regime change. Whether by war isn’t known. Even America has cooler heads but not enough.

“Nothing has been determined in the Iranian story, and the spring is about to boil over into another summer of tension,” said Harel.

If Obama heads for Israel soon, it’ll show Washington’s going all out to avoid war this year. Wait ’till next year, he may say. Belligerent partners may delay another fight, but seldom decline them.

For now, Syria is top priority. Obama and Netanyahu want Assad replaced with a puppet regime subservient to Washington and Israel. Western generated violence rages for it. Intervention may follow.

Harel left that issue unaddressed or the legitimacy of waging wars against non-belligerent states. What’s more important than that.

Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy believes “Nothing has changed in Israel since 1948,” saying:

Business as usual continues. “In 1948, new immigrants were brought straight from the ships into abandoned Palestinian homes with pots of food still simmering in the kitchen, and no one asked too many questions.”

“In 2012, the Israeli government is trying to whitewash the theft of Palestinian lands, all the while scorning the law.”

Earlier crimes repeat now. Those in power “us(e) the same corrupt means” as before. War crimes then become today’s. Justifications always are fraudulent. At issue are land and power grabs.

Continuing them sends the world a message. “We will never stop this crushing, ultranationalist melody – then as now, in 1948 and in 2012.”

Levy also came down hard on Zionist ideology headlining “After 115 years, it’s time for Zionism to retire,” saying:

It should have happened long ago. Something more legitimate is needed. In its 64th year as a state, “no one even knows what” role Zionism has or “how it is defined.”

Consign it to the history books and be done with it. It’s no longer relevant. It’s done enough damage. Reinvigorating or reinventing a bad idea assures something worse as a result.

“In Israel 2012, a pursuer of justice and human rights is by definition not Zionist.” Even discussing morality and rule of law principles “is blatantly ‘not Zionist.’ ”

“Anyone who blindly supports all of Israel’s misdeeds (is) Zionist. Critics are called anti-Semites, even if they are Jewish.”

“Zionism is a negative epithet and….mark of shame.” It’s time has passed. It never should have been in the first place.

Imagine the bloodshed avoided. Imagine how many lives will be spared if peace, reconciliation, and justice replace Zionist instigated conflict.

It’s about dominance, not Jewishness. Everyone for right over wrong should want it sent to history’s dustbin and rejected.

It might even slow Washington’s war machine. Stopping it takes heavier lifting. What better time to start than now.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/


Norwegian Scholar Connects Breivik to Mossad – Israel National News

Norwegian Scholar Connects Breivik to Mossad

Israel National News.

Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung connects Mossad to Breivik massacre, claims Jews control 96% of world media.
 

By Elad Benari

 
Anders Behring Breivik
Anders Behring Breivik
Reuters

Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung has said that he is not ruling out the possibility that the Mossad was involved in the massacre carried out by Anders Behring Breivik last July.

The comments were made by Galtung last September at a lecture entitled “Ten Theses on July 22” at theUniversity of Oslo. July 22 was the date on which Breivik shot panicked youths at point-blank range at the Utoya island, killing 69 people.

He also claimed that Breivik “belonged to the Freemasonry organization which is based on Judaism.”

Galtung, who founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo in 1959, noted that the date on which the massacre took place is the same date when, in 1946, the underground Jewish movement the Irgun planted explosives at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British Army at the time. Warnings were given by members of the Irgun to clear the hotel, but were ignored by the British.

Furthermore, in a recent interview with the Norwegian magazine Humanist quoted by the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv on Monday, Galtung claimed that Jews control the world media and tilt public opinion in favor of Israel.

“The Jews control 96 percent of world media,” Galtung claimed during the interview, adding that the directors of Walt Disney, Warner Brothers and Viacom are all Jews, as are directors in the big American television networks.

“Is this accidental? If there is a Jewish boss it means Jewish control,” he claimed.

Referring to the massacre in Norway, Galtung told the newspaper that a European journalist who had surmised that the Mossad was behind the massacre “was vilified.” He then added that there was also a conspiracy to assassinate a former U.S. senator known for his anti-Israel positions.

Galtung claimed that Israel is the only place in the world in which the issue of anti-Semitism is permitted to be dealt with and said that Jews think that only they are allowed to speak out against themselves.

“I remember a famous professor in Israel who said, ‘Anti-Semitism means opposing us more than we deserve,’” Galtung said. “The meaning of his words is that he believes that Jews deserve some of the accusations, but thinks that only Jews can say that.”

Soon after Breivik carried out his horrendous attack, anti-Zionists tried to pin it on Israel and the Mossad.

The Al Jazeera network, for example, published an article by Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born British jazz saxophonist and political activist known for his criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity, and Judaism.

Atzmon harped on the Norwegian Labor party’s support for boycotting Israel and noted, “The Labor Party Youth Movement have been devoted promoters of the Israel Boycott campaign. Many of the children who were gunned down by Breivik earlier had held up anti-Israel signs.”