Ex-KGB Spies Shape the New America

In a  “News with Views” article from 2003 Charlotte Iserbyt analyzes the dynamics of “convergence”whereby the soi-disant capitalist USA merges with the communist USSR, while the population is brain-washed to believe in a Cold War victory of “capitalism” over “communism”:

Reading:  Convergence Theory. 

Also: Convergence Theory (Social Sciences)

and Convergence Hypothesis.

[I use quotation marks around the two terms, because the manner in which they exist today suggests that they are simply two different versions of the same totalitarian system:

“United States-Russian Merger: A Done Deal?”

 Charlotte Iserbyt, News With Views, October 16, 2003

“The average American when confronted with world news that has Putin and Bush embracing one another one year and quarreling/threatening to target one another with missiles the next year, sinks into a state of “cognitive dissonance” whereby he is unable to make sense of anything or to carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject at hand, reacting to one’s comment with nothing more than a “glazed expression.”

This back and forth “planned” agenda is, of course, a brilliant psychological strategy, part of the dialectic, and highly effective in keeping the “sheeple” in line.

When, as a result, none of the conditioned “sheeple” utter a peep over such pre and post-9/11 actions, the “traitors” know that it’s “safe” to take actions such as naming Henry Kissinger, a Soviet agent, to lead an investigation of 9/11… if ever there was a fox overseeing the hen house! (Please refer to Iserbyt article, “Kissinger Out of the Closet” for documentation regarding Kissinger being a Soviet agent.)…..

..The New York Times, in an article dated 8/24/03 entitled “Former Top Russian Spy Pledges Allegiance” stated that the above Center…….

Lila: The Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, http://www.cicentre.com a consulting service in Alexandria, Virginia.

“…provides expertise and advice in counterintelligence, counterterrorism and security for the government (repeat government, ed) and companies.”

The hiring of these ex-KGB agents appears to be a result of FBI/KGB collaboration. The New American, July 30, 2001 discussed such collaboration in a news item entitled “Community Policing, East and West.”

It said: “Among Louis Freeh’s supposedly commendable achievements as FBI director, according to Robert S. Bennett, (brother of William Bennett, former Secretary of Education, ed) was the realization of his vision of a ‘global FBI.’…..

….The New York Times article also says, and this is interesting in light of the U.S.-Soviet education exchange agreements which have been going on since President Eisenhower signed the first one in 1958, “Kalugin’s relationship with America began in the late 1950’s, when Communist officials noticed his skill with languages. He was a K.G.B. trainee when he was sent to Columbia University as an exchange student.The New York Times goes on to reveal the following: “He was one of the generals of the cold war, a K.G.B. leader who did his best to undermine Western capitalism by recruiting Americans to work for Moscow….

…It was Kalugin, a frequent TV commentator and regular guest on Fox News, who stirred up a hornet’s nest last spring by spilling the beans (to an unnamed intelligence agent) on a spy cruise (go to http://www.cicentre.com and click on SpyTrek) regarding his associates, ex-K.G.B. Chiefs Primakov (also former President of Russia and close associate/advisor to Saddam Hussein who visited with Saddam in February of this year, prior to the war in Iraq) and General Alexander Karpov working for recently retired Admiral Poindexter’s Office of Information Awareness which is attached to the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of new technology by the military.

This information is covered in detail in an article in the April 2003 issue of Soviet Analyst (www.sovietanalyst.com) entitled “Architect of Soviet Middle East Terror to ‘Advise’ Washington“…Convergence Acquires New Meaning” by Christopher Story, a highly respected researcher and author with offices in London and New York City.

The story was also covered in the May 15, 2003 issue of The Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin in an entry entitled “GWB Names Kremlin Spymaster Primakov as Consultant to U.S. Homeland Security Team”.

Please see Iserbyt’s two articles on this subject at www.NewsWithViews.com: “Former KGB Heads to Help Spy on Americans” 4/24/03 and “Former USSR/Russian Premier to Work for Homeland Security” 4/22/03, both of which included information taken from an article in American Free Press entitled “Get Ready for the Sovietization of America”, 4/21/03 by Al Martin, www.almartinraw.com, a former intelligence agent.

Al Martin’s information can also be traced to the same important source, Oleg Kalugin.”

Fake Indian “rape crisis” driven by Western elite media

Update: My blog post on the bogus nature of UN rape studies:

An Indian “rape crisis” has been evoked in the major media in the wake of the infamous Delhi gang-rape of 2012.

The “rape culture” narrative about India has come to signal the regressive, medieval nature of traditional Indian masculinity.

Palash Ghosh argues that Indian men, who, after 9/11, were conflated with the category “terrorist,” are now being conflated with the category, “rapist.”

Delhi gang-rape trial: A new and negative image for Indian men? Palash Ghosh, Ibntimes.com, Feb 5, 2013

I would suggest that this conflation is intentional and it is typical of the demonization campaigns carried out by the Western state media against countries targeted for intervention, whether that takes the form of bombing or of proxy wars or of NGO psyops.


I would suggest that there is no “rape crisis” in India in need of such international intervention.

There is, however, an over-hyped, UN-backed,  elite-manufactured issue that functions as a site for state intervention.

The ” rape crisis” is actually the creation of  the left-liberal ideology that fronts for the corporate interests of Western elites.

This can be readily deciphered from the media stories about the Delhi gang rape.

The major media (Western elite) coverage of the Delhi rape posited it as typical of the medieval village culture characterizing Delhi, in which no Westernized/modern woman can ever be safe.

In contrast, the truly cosmopolitan cities of the West protect women, ran the elite narrative.

Statistics, of course, do not bear this story out.

Poulami Roychowdhury has argued as much in her lengthy academic analysis of the story:

“The Delhi Gang Rape: The Making of International Causes.”


“CNN likened the assailants to men in other “traditional societies” who “see improvements in the status of women as a challenge to their own” and who use rape as a weapon of power against such advances.”

Roychowdhury shows how the international media created a false narrative of a Westernized, modern woman attacked by traditional, patriarchal, village men.

The truth is both the victim and her assailants were remarkably similar in moving from lower-class agricultural backgrounds into an urban setting.

The international media narrative also ignored the Indian man who attempted to save the victim.

He was also stripped and assaulted.

But the media erased him entirely from public consciousness.


It goes almost without saying that Pandey’s case illustrates the ongoing resilience and appeal of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s “white men saving brown women from brown men.”
Spivak’s theory illuminates why Pandey’s male friend, Awindra Pandey, disappeared from the pages of international media while Pandey and her assailants took pride of place in the discussion. Commentators seemed to forget that Awindra was even on the busand was also physically assaulted, stripped naked, and dumped on the side of the road. He disappeared, Firstly, because his body stood outside the economy of international care: white men are not in the business of saving brown men from other brown men
. He also had to disappear because brown men are not typically viewed as allies of brown women.”

Chowdhury also demonstrates how the  emancipated female subject in the third-world  exists in a  narrative that ties her emancipation to her full participation in the neo-liberal economy.

She is described as going to malls and movies on her own, wearing Western clothes and accoutrements.

Meanwhile  the atavism of her male attackers is tied to their lack of integration into that economy.

Neither construction is accurate.

The “rape crisis” was a creation of  radical feminism embedded in the neo-liberal market-place, not an off-shoot of traditional Indian culture.

ITEM A The rape crisis is driven by financial incentives created by misguided, if not malicious, laws put in place by feminist ideologues.

See, “India to pay women big money to cry rape,” False Rape Society, January 8, 2010

It describes the law which has driven the “crisis of rape” now bearing fruition.

” It [India] has decreed that every woman who testifies that a male raped her will be handed the equivalent of 4,374.96 US dollars, a not-insignificant sum anywhere, but a huge payday in India.”

[Lila: in terms of Indian salaries, this would be the equivalent of $200,000 in the West, if we use the exchange rate prevalent at the time. Of course, this translation doesn’t account for the differing purchasing powers of the currencies, but $4, 374.96 is nonetheless a very large sum in India.]


The “rape  crisis” is driven by cultural Marxism

The goal of cultural Marxism is to create morally and biologically neutral “genders” that are fungible and detached from the traditional family structure.

Indeed, it is to construct “gender” so that it is inimical to family life.

In that regard, it’s notable that the man behind many of the protests following the Delhi gang-rape case was a left-wing radical.


He was a communist radical from the hot-bed of left-wing ideology, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The protests following the rapes were also organized mainly by left-wing radicals.

Many of the protests turned violent, injuring nearly 150 people.


“The protests, largely by students, saw hooligan elements mingled in the crowd uproot wooden poles erected for the Jan 26 Republic Day event and set them afire at five places. They upturned vehicles, smashed window panes of buses and other vehicles and also hurled stones and water bottles on policemen in response to tear gas and baton attacks to prevent protesters from marching towards Raisina Hills, where prohibitory orders were put in place.”

Pictures of the protests were circulated world-wide, bringing even the UN into the picture.

The UN made official pronouncements about a “rape culture” in India.


This led to the usual politically-motivated commentary from the liberal-left spectrum of the Western media.

However, a few conservative/men’s rights blogs didn’t buy the story and correctly diagnosed the “rape crisis” as a concoction of left-feminist ideological activism.

Similar accusations of an American “rape-culture” have been accurately deconstructed by Dr. Christina Hoff Summers

Researching the “rape-culture” of America,” Christina Hoff Summers, False-rape.net.

Only a year after the Delhi gang-rape case, the JNU communist who was behind the Indian “rape-crisis” agitation was himself accused of rape. He became the subject of the usual  trial-by-media-innuendo-and-womyn’s-assertion.

He killed himself, a victim of the left-anarchist monster he created.

The extremist ideology behind the “rape crisis” is evident in the new unequal laws in India.

In the case of rape:

See “Only men can be booked for rape, Nagendra Sharma, Hindustan Times, March 5, 2013

“Bowing to pressure from women activists, the government has decided to restore the term rape in criminal law that states only men can be booked for committing the offence against women. It has also decided to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years.”

This is not gender-neutrality but gender-privileging.  It means that a female assault of a male, or a male assault of a male, or a male or female assault of a male child, are lesser crimes, to be treated under the separate section in the Indian legal code that pertains to unnatural sexual acts.

But that section does not make the rape of a male a crime against a person. Instead, it treats it as a crime against nature, like voluntary homosexuality.

That means female rapists/molesters of men or children can be guilty of unnatural acts, but not of rape, a most significant perversion of equal justice under the law.

In the case of domestic violence:

A woman can get a restraining order against her husband or boyfriend if he threatens suicide.

Under Indian law, threats of suicide by a man, however, are treated as domestic violence against the woman.

The reverse does not obtain.

If India were really a woman-hating patriarchy, as the feminists proclaim, would such laws pass?

At one men’s rights site, an activist writes:

[Note added: Paul Elam, the founder of the site, “A Voice for Men,” seems to have anger management problems that have led him to make incendiary statements I do not in any way endorse. I also do not support the harassment of feminist activists.]

“We’ve already seen men in that country [India] forced to the back of buses like African-Americans in 1950s America.  We’ve seen them beaten up by members of the public and female police officers alike for accidentally boarding the “female only” carriage of a train.  And now we’re seeing the government actively denying them equal protection under the law in sexual assaults.

Conclusion: What is going on in India is not a rape crisis but a crisis of misandry.

1. “Indian Communist feminist Khurshid Anwar commits suicide after rape allegations, Anil Kumar, A Voice for Men, Dec. 30, 2013.

2.” Woman should be booked for filing fake rape case, says HC,” Urvi Mahajani, DNA India, August 1, 2013

3. “Be vigilant about false rape cases: HC to trial judges,” Harish Nair, Hindustan Times, May 24, 2013

4. “18% rape cases false, study,” Times of India, Dec. 27, 2008

5.  Delhi gang-rape case: Police find discrepancies in victim’s statement,” FirstPost, Jan 28, 2014

6.  Activists: Indian media sensationalized Delhi gang-rape case, Venus Upadhyaya, Epoch Times, October 11, 2013

7. Attributing rapes to unique Indian culture reeks of bias, Gajanan Khergamker, Eurasia Review, March 28, 2013

8. Indian government – men don’t matter, David Cuspis, A Voice for Men, March 29, 2013

9. One in four men in Asia ‘admits to committing rape’? It doesn’t add up, Stuart Brown, The Guardian, Sept 18, 2013.

10. A sad day for male rape victims in India,  Toy Soldiers, March 6, 2013

Foot-noting Ilana Mercer at EPJ

Update 3

A link rebutting Ilana Mercer that I posted at EPJ:

“Nelson Mandela and the Jews,” Sam Davidson,  Counter Currents

(I have no idea who Davidson is but his account tallies with other reading I’ve done. If it turns out he’s actually a frothing anti-Semite, that’s too bad, but it still doesn’t change the facts he dug up.)

Update 2

After Mercer’s response at EPJ, I added a link to an article documenting my claim that Mandela was inducted into communism by Communist Jews who were fronts (wittingly or not) for the Rothschild financial cartel, known euphemistically as the power-elite.

I haven’t added all those links yet, because some of the original articles are at “anti-Semitic’ sites and I would like to sort out which parts I agree with.

Secondly, as LRC is never tired of repeating in relation to Muslim terrorists, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.

I linked and then delinked Tom Di Lorenzo’s article on Mandela, which is a much more accurate piece than Mercer’s, except that Di Lorenzo also omits several very salient aspects of the whole story. That is why I delinked it, after a closer read.

I’ll post on all that later in more detail as I’m awfully rushed and do not want to return to blogging for awhile.

(December 12.  I see that Charles Burris at LRC has done some of the work for me.  Just as I called the communists who inducted Mandela into their movement dupes, he calls them useful idiots. While many (not all) were well-meaning, they allowed themselves to be conned and used by the Rothschild cartel).


It seems that Mandela was more than just a fellow-traveler of communism, as I’d thought, but an active member of the communist party, something which had been rumored but was only recently  confirmed by the party itself.

So  I’m wrong on that.

But my criticism of Mercer on the whole is accurate.

Mandela’s career was  part of a nationalistic struggle that was subverted by the power-elites. Mandela was a terrorist in the same sense George Washington and Patrick Henry were.

Mandela’s communism was like that of the Vietnamese and other colonized people.

Do you need to be a communist to be a freedom-fighter? Of course not.

But, in the third world, the communists were the most sympathetic toward native people. That is precisely why they had credibility with people. That is why communism spread.

The Afrikaner nationalist party was also Bolshevik. So communism was part of the spirit of the times and must be understood in that context.

Apart from Christians, it was only some communists who actually helped oppressed third-world people in various ways….and I don’t mean politically.

I mean in humanitarian ways.

Many communists were only idealistic and naive.

All were dupes, of course. But to simply call Mandela an evil terrorist and blame him entirely for the mess in South Africa is uninformed, ungenerous, and finally, untrue.


I made a comment at EconomicPolicyJournal on Ilana Mercer’s narrative about Nelson Mandela and the ANC that focuses on Mandela’s socialism (that part is correct) while omitting naming the ideologues and financiers who actively promoted Mandela, every step of the way.

This creates a false narrative blaming only black people for what is happening in South Africa.

After I wrote the comment (anonymously) a couple of people responded positively to it.

Ms. Mercer graciously replied, pointing out that people were misrepresenting her writing.

Fair enough. But she still dodged the question I asked, which is this: Why blame only black people for what is happening in South Africa (murder of farmers), when the whole scenario has come about over decades, with the instigation and active connivance of white liberals, especially Jewish liberals?

Is socialism/communism not a doctrine born in the West?

Wasn’t Mandela educated in the West? Wasn’t he recruited by mostly Jewish communists?

Wasn’t he funded, supported, instigated and abetted by these Jewish communist revolutionaries?

Wasn’t what he did no different from what Israeli forces did in establishing Israel, with far MORE justification, since South Africa is where blacks lived?

Violence shouldn’t be condoned. But to omit crucial facts turns a narrative into witting or unwitting propaganda

The Anglo-Jewish elites have used the colored populations as guinea-pigs for their theories, destroyed their communities, stifled their true patriots and planted opportunists and lackeys, and then, instead of shouldering some responsibility, have blamed the targets solely.

And yet, in slavishness, third-world intellectuals keep imitating their mouth-pieces, assenting to  their false and pernicious leadership.

If we were to blame ordinary Americans solely for what their  rulers have foisted on them, would that be fair? Are youngsters in today’s West, undisciplined, narcissistic, and irresponsible as many of them are,  completely at fault or have their elders failed them? Hasn’t the government literally brain-washed them?

Can readers be blamed for being ill-informed about the world, when the media conspires against the truth?

Another point: After posting on EPJ, I noticed that my article about Wikileaks at Veterans Today was showing up on my first Google page with Gilad Atzmon’s picture and name under the title, then followed by my name.

  1. VT STAFF: ZIONIST MINDCONTROL – The Case Against Wikileaks


    Dec 12, 2010 – By Lila Rajiva STAFF WRITER. (Part II of this ongoing series is now also available at Veterans Today). Let me first say that harassing Julian 

Atzmon, author of “The Wandering Who,” interrogates Jewish identity as such, claiming there is no such thing.  I don’t. He’s a socialist. I’m not.  So why is his name plastered over my article in a Google search? Why does it even show up that way?

[Note: I contributed my Wikileaks articles to Gordon Duff, not because I had any but a brief contact with his site and that was only so my pieces could reach a wide audience without being dismissed completely as anti-American. If I’d posted them at Dissident Voice only, that would have been the case.

I would have liked to send them to LRC but by then many of LRC’s positions had begun to grate on me and they seemed to have become close to my enemies at Agora Inc.  I disliked their timidity on the Goldman story, for one thing.  {They got better at it with time, hopefully after reading some of my criticism of them on that.]

The Wikileaks pieces (December 2010) were published around the time the Daily Bell was hosting a troll called Al Kyder, who actually threatened me with a libel action, claiming it was originating from Assange’s legal team. That threat (almost certainly spurious), the Bell’s strange “perception management”  and its owners ties to the banking industry and to Agora Inc. became uncomfortable for me and I stopped posting there.  I liked Duff’s in-your-face attitude in posting pieces on Mossad and Israel,  but I considered some of the contributors at his site war criminals, so I stopped after the Wikileaks pieces.

I did ask Duff (formerly of US intelligence, so he writes on his website), whether he knew who was behind the many attacks on me both before and after my Assange articles, but he didn’t know. He told me it was unlikely to be anyone in the government, since my language is generally temperate, even when I don’t mince words.

Duff did think some part of it might have had to do with the ADL’s decision to coordinate attacks on journalists who were critical of Wikileaks.

Apart from that, and apart from an exchange regarding the troll (Ryals) who’s libeled me over the internet, I’ve had no contact with Duff.

One more point. Duff was one of the few people courteous enough to block Ryals’ flaming on his forum. That of course led to the accusation, also plastered over the net, that I was “censoring” Ryals.

As for Gilad Atzmon, I’ve never even exchanged an email with him. He’s written for Counterpunch and knows other contributors there, but not me. I once made a few critical comments on an article of his at Veterans Today.  That’s it.

That meager association has led the spooks, psychotics,  and operatives on the net to get their jaddis in a bunch and accuse me of all sorts of malfeasance.

This is the not the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing. In fact, it’s the second incident with the VT site. I took a screen shot, so I have a record even if the site changes it. No idea if  the error is just a technical glitch or web mischief.

Another odd thing was the deletion of a comment  I made at EPJ under a post about Gene Callahan suggesting that Callahan’s remark about “brainwashed” libertarians referred not to those who believe in the non-aggression principle but to those who  think it can be assumed when making an argument for libertarianism.

[That is, Callahn called those who refused to see the circularity of their defense of libertarianism brain-washed.]

The comment was mild and didn’t take sides with Callahan, who seems to be unpopular at EPJ, or with Bob Wenzel.

Added, Dec. 9: I deleted a passage here about this deleted comment because I now wonder if what was deleted was mine. It might have been someone else’s comment and mine simply never went through at all.

Anyway, in the comment, I  was simply trying to say that Callahan’s remark didn’t seem all that nasty. Libs say such things all the time.  In fact libs often do make very circular arguments and any attempt to show them the circularity is met with cries of  statist, authoritarian, evil, etc. After some time, you begin to think, why bother?

I certainly didn’t say anything about cartoon libertarians, as Brennan at Bleeding Heart Libertarians has.   Brennan’s remarks annoyed Wenzel:

  1. I am quoting the headline to your [Lila: Brennan’s] post!

    As for your entire post, I still haven’t been able to understand what your thought process is in the post, given that it is so poorly written, as commeters  [sic] above have noted. Further your asshole remark about “cartoon libertarians” and then linking to EPJ suggests you don’t deserve to be read carefully.

I also deleted a paragraph in this post in which I gave Jason Brennan the first Rajiva award for outspokenness under fire, for his spirited attacks on N. Stephan Kinsella, Hoppe, Rothbard, and Block, all of whom I have criticized for much the same reason as he does – for the weakness of their arguments.

I like Brennan’s refusal to bow to the Olympian pronouncements of some libertarians and his determination to be for a freer world on his own terms, rather than on someone else’s.

That doesn’t mean I endorse anything else he says.

So why did I delete that paragraph? Because some libertarians, being utter sheep, would immediately take an appreciative comment about a BLH’er as a sign of secretive anti-Rothbardian alliances, a nefarious agenda, covert co-option of libertarianism, and other unspeakable crimes and acts of treachery on the part of unwashed statists.

Nope. None of the above.

Just a big mouth ….trying to press rewind on yet another impulsive blog-post.


Ilana Mercer is a classical liberal, as I am.

Brennan and Wenzel are both hard anti-state capitalists (or anarcho-capitalists), although I am not sure that is an accurate term. Brennan is an anti-Rothbardian and Wenzel is a Rothbardian.

I am a  classical liberal of an intellectual conservative bend.


Dear Ilana,

You are a lovely lady with a brilliant mind. I admire you…
Until you become dishonest about something, which I concede, is probably hard for you to see.
But let me try.

Mandela wasn’t a socialist of the kind you are trying to make him out to be (Che).

He spoke well of Zionism and Jews and learned his guerilla fighting from ISRAEL not Castro:-

“Mandela’s memoirs are full of positive references to Jews and even Israel. He recalls that he learned about guerilla warfare not from Fidel Castro, but from Arthur Goldreich, a South African Jew who fought with the Palmach during Israel’s War of Independence. He relates the anecdote that the only airline willing to fly his friend, Walter Sisulu, to Europe without a passport was Israel’s own El Al. And the ultimate smoking gun—the equation of Israel’s democracy with apartheid—doesn’t exist.”


More importantly, Mandela was backed and instigated every step of the way by Jewish helpers like Joe Slovo (whom you don’t mention) and the entire Jewish liberal elite (that you don’t mention).

Most importantly, he was also financed by Jewish billionaires, like Igor Ichikowitz ( whom you don’t mention).


You quietly ignore the fact that the African National Movement, like so many other “nationalist” movements, was instigated and manipulated by the globalist cartel, which, to put it gently, was not black, but rather closer to you.

In fact, it is largely Jewish or Anglo-Jewish. Just as the black liberation movement in this country was instigated and helped by white liberals, whose funding can be traced back to foundations and trusts, run by Jews.

But, if anyone points that out, you would suddenly call that anti-Semitic, right?

Meanwhile, dear lady, you also missed this:

Electronic Intifada:

“Yesterday I wrote a piece entitled “Israel’s House of Horrors” about the openly murderous statements of Israeli cabinet ministers. Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse, I read a news article on the website of The Jerusalem Post that Israel’s former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu — one of the most senior theocrats in the Jewish State “ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings” (“Eliyahu advocates carpet bombing Gaza,” The Jerusalem Post, 30 May, 2007).

The Jerusalem Post reported that Mordechai made this ruling in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert citing biblical authority. The letter was published in a weekly journal distributed in synagogues throughout Israel. The report states that “According to Jewish war ethics, wrote Eliyahu, an entire city holds collective responsibility for the immoral behavior of individuals. In Gaza, the entire populace is responsible because they do nothing to stop the firing of Kassam rockets.”

Eliayahu’s son, Shmuel Eliayhu, himself chief rabbi of Safad, amplified his father’s comments, stating: “If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand.” He added, “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”

This kind of genocidal hatred of Palestinians is not unusual in Israel.”


Again, Ilana, I think you’re great and your defense of European culture is great.
But, if we’re going to be honest, let’s really be honest.


More at Conwebwatch about the disingenuous propaganda of Ilana Mercer here:

1. Pined for a eugenicist and racist immigration law
2. Misrepresented the numbers on leprosy to portray non-white immigrants as diseased
3. Misrepresented the nature of some of the targets of black killing in Africa, who were really
violent white supremacists
4. Expressed preference for white rule in a black country, S. Africa.

Ilana Mercer is in denial or ignorant about the globalist cartel, which is natural.

But no one else needs to be.
Racial violence in S Africa or in the US is the direct result of the activities of the cartel.

Note: Ms. Mercer responded that ConWebWatch was lying and misrepresenting her book. I accept that. I apologize if she felt libeled by that comment.

However, my major objection to her narrative still stands.

Murray Rothbard: Hooray For Che!

File under ideological insanity – Rothbard gives props to the people’s poseur, Che Guevara, whom even the anarchist left today has rejected:

“What made Che such an heroic figure for our time is that he, more than any man of our epoch or even of our century, was the living embodiment of the principle of Revolution. More than any man since the lovable but entirely ineffectual nineteenth-century Russian anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, Che earned the title of “professional revolutionary.” And furthermore, to paraphrase Christopher Jencks in a recent perceptive, if wrongheaded, article in the New Republic, we all knew that his enemy was our enemy–that great Colossus that oppresses and threatens all the peoples of the world, U. S. imperialism.

Trained as a physician in Argentina, witnessing CIA-fomented counter-revolution by the thug Castillo Armas in Guatemala, Guevara dedicated the rest of his life to the Revolution. He found a promising field first in Cuba, where, as everyone knows, Che was second only to Fidel Castro in waging and then winning the revolution there.”

and this:

But in his mighty heart Che could not refrain from leaping a whole raft of stages, from plunging romantically but recklessly into the premature adventure of armed struggle in Latin America. And so, with tragic irony, Che Guevara, in his daring and courage, was betrayed by the very Bolivian peasantry whom he was trying to liberate, and who barely understood the meaning
of the conflict. Che died from violating his own principles of revolutionary war.

And this, enthusiastically quoting from Fidel Castro’s praise of Che:

“Newspapers of all tendencies have univermlly recognized Che’s virtues… . He is an almost unique example of how a man could win the recognition and respect of his enemies, of the very enemies he faced with his arms in his hands, of those who have been ideological enemies and have nevertheless expressed feelings of admiration and of respect toward Che.”

Murray Rothbard, “Ernesto Che Geuvara: RIP,” Mises.org http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_1.pdf

See also this article from a strict anarcho-capitalist position about Rothbard’s misrepresentation of his views to placate or mislead followers: The 10 Points Of The Libertarian Party Abolitionist Caucus.pdf.

Note – My main objection to an-cap positions is that they are easily manipulated by the state (national and transnational) for its own ends. An an-cap world is possible, but only spottily.

Now, in contrast to Rothbard’s glowing portrait, here is a more candid assessment of Che’s actual record from the anarchistlibrary.org (Che Guevara: why anarchists should view him critically):

Organise, Issue 47, Winter 1997/1998

QUOTE: “After all, the Che cult is still used to obscure the real nature of Castro’s Cuba, one of the final bastions of Stalinism.”

QUOTE: “He demanded the death penalty for “informers, insubordinates, malingerers and deserters.” He himself personally carried out executions. Indeed the first execution carried out against an informer by the Castroists was undertaken by Che. He wrote: “I ended the problem giving him a shot with a.32 pistol in the right side of the brain.” On another occasion he planned on shooting a group of guerrillas who had gone on hunger strike because of bad food. Fidel intervened to stop him. Another guerrilla who dared to question Che was ordered into battle without a weapon!”

QUOTE: “With the Castroite victory in 1959, Che, along with his Stalinist buddy Raul Castro, was put in charge of building up state control. He purged the army, carried out re-education classes within it, and was supreme prosecutor in the executions of Batista supporters, 550 being shot in the first few months. He was seen as extremely ruthless by those who saw him at work. These killings against supporters of the old regime, some of whom had been implicated in torture and murder, was extended in 1960 to those in the working class movement who criticised the Castro regime. The anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists had their press closed down and many militants were thrown in prison. Che was directly implicated in this.”

QUOTE: “Photo opportunities with the peasantry and proletariat, good looks and a dramatic death in no way exonerate him from his historical role in the suppression of the popular classes, state terror and capitalism, and changing Cuba from the semi-colony of one great power the US, to another, the USSR.”

QUOTE: “I’d like to confess, papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing” “Hate will be an element of the battle, a merciless hate for the enemy, that will inspire the guerrilla-soldier to superhuman efforts of strength and changes him into an effective, violent, selected, in cold blood killing machine”