« What happened to the Red Crescent convoy? | Main | Russia asks for formal UN investigation of convoy attack. »

20 September 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

elkern

"Oil" would have been a more plausible explanation when Bush/Cheney ruled. Obama & Democrats are NOT on friendly terms with the PetroChem plutocrats in the USA.

The one thing that Democrats & Republicans in Congress can agree upon is that Israel's strategic interests are more important than ours (USA). KSA & Turkey have some influence, but it's trivial compared to the influence of the Israel Lobby. Obama is probably attracted to the R2P framework; that tendency is being exploited by people high up in State & CIA bureaucracies who are essentially acting as agents of Israel.

Maybe I'm paranoid; maybe I'm oversimplifying. But maybe not?

mike

Good points all, Babak.

But then who are the Iranians: Persian, Azeri, Kurd, Lur, Gilak, Mazani, Arab, Baluch, Turkmen, Qashqai, Talishi, Armenian, and many others? Your people are the ‘Raza Cosmica’ that the Brazilians lay claim to and are probably as ethnically diverse as us Americans, and probably more than any other country on earth except India or the old Soviet Union.

As for the Kurds, they lay claim to descent from the Median Kingdom. Maybe so, I won’t argue that point. And wasn’t the Ayubbid dynasty of Kurdish origin?

mike

Babak - Was Mohammad Mokri a Kurd?

different clue

robt willman,

No "so called" about it. Obama really is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, officially and on the record.

Does the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have rules and by-laws permitting the revocation of a Peace Prize? If they do, might they finally invoke and apply those rules in the Obama case? Even if they can't make him send back the money, can they still cancel the title?

Peter Reichard

The prevalence of occult symbolism in Nazi Germany has led me to believe that at its inner core the Nazi movement was as much a crypto-Satanic cult as a political party and was driven by a confused amalgamation of Germanic and Norse mythology, Nietzschean philosophy and the Secret Doctrine of Madame Blavatsky with her "root race" theory. Forty years ago I ran these ideas by one of my taxicab passengers, the Jazz legend Jon Hendricks, who replied " the Nazis were afraid of the Kabbalah." His comment I think goes a long way towards explaining the Holocaust.

LeaNder

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that Georg Kreisler was accused of plagiarizing Tom Lehrer, thus thanks for that link. In any case didn't know Tom but loved Georg, and they obviously are very, very similar.

LeaNder

thanks Babak, it's probably difficult to grasp oral traditions and how they leave traces in the written one. But recently a new theory on the Holy Grail attracted me. It relied heavily on Arabic manuscripts ...

In connection with calling the “Adamic” language Syriac, we have written elsewhere about “primitive” Syria; this name, properly speaking, signifies the “solar land” of which Homer writes as being an island situated “beyond Ogygia”; this allows of no other identification than Hyperborean Thule or Tula.

AEI's special threat assessment scenario, I discovered yesterday does list Syria under Iran, I guess that's one point for you:
http://www.criticalthreats.org/

I never got down to look into the curious esoteric studies of the Nazis more closely but I am aware of some angles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism#Collective_Aryan_unconscious

this article uses the black sun instead of the swastika in it's German version.

Re/Aton-Sol-Helius - ????

Pat used Kali occasionally and strictly the swastika originates in India ... My knowledge in Indian mythology is pretty limited, though.

******
When we had the first wave of arsons post German reunion over here a painter friend's landscapes changed abruptly. One was quite fascinating it was quite idyllic from far off, except maybe for the black sun, once you moved closer you realized the lower layer was built up with burned wood corresponding with the color of the sun.

Babak Makkinejad

Yes, Mokris are Kurds. That is the name of clan.

irf520

If they tried you might find one or two of them mysteriously commit suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head with a .22

Babak Makkinejad

"Iranain" is an appellation used to indicate the inhabitants of the region of the Iranian plateau ruled by Safavids, and later Qajars and now Islamic Republic.

What characterizes them is adherence to Shia Islam or, alternatively and concomitantly, the idea of Ancient Eran-Shahr of Sassanid dynasty.

Ethnographically, one has to conduct research as to what there various groups that you have mentioned are; mind you, their identity is in the state of flux as universal education and universal media penetrates all corners of the Islamic Republic.

Shahnameh traces the origins of Kurds to men who were spared the fate of their brains being fed to snakes coming out of Zahak's shoulders. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Kurds had anything with ancient kingdom centered in Ecbatana - Hamadan, today.

Anabasis is the only place, as far as I know, that mentions anything that could correspond to Kurds; where they were throwing rocks at the Greeks from the height...

kooshy

yes it did, Thank you, since i have read your past comments, I did wondered if i miss understood

kooshy

Yes, they are all Iranians, an belive as such, one Iranian scholar called this mix Noorozistan. Some claim there are 150 ethnicities in LA area.

David Habakkuk

Walker,

A critique of the Kennedy article by Gareth Porter has just appeared, under the title ‘The War Against the Assad Regime Is Not a “Pipeline War”.’

(See http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37685-the-war-against-the-assad-regime-is-not-a-pipeline-war .)

For what it is worth – and I am emphatically not an expert in this area – I think the deeply entrenched nature of the alliances with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia which Porter discusses is one critical factor in both American and also British policy.

Another however is the fact that the steadily increasing range and accuracy of the Hizbullah missile arsenal in the south of Lebanon is perceived as an ‘existential threat’ by the Israeli leadership. Both Michael Oren and Moshe Ya’alon have stated candidly that they prefer Islamic State to Iranian allies in Syria.

Taken together, these pressures mean that the breaking the ‘Shia Crescent’, either by toppling the Assad régime or by effectively partitioning Syria, has become a central objective both of American and British policy.

However, the whole intellectual framework behind this policy has been in the process of collapsing.

Underpinning it has been what has been a critical premise of a good deal both of British and American thinking, as well as that of the Turks, Qataris and Saudis: that the willingness to fight of jihadists could be used against our common enemies, without risking catastrophic ‘blowback’ against ourselves.

However, recent terrorist attacks both in Europe and the United States, together with the crisis relating to refugee flooding into Europe, has revealed this premise for a catastrophic miscalculation.

It has always been difficult to be clear how far the insistence of American and European officials that there was some kind of ‘third force’ of ‘moderate insurgents’ who could provide an alternative both to the Assad régime and jihadists was simply the product of a failure to confront the real options – and how far of their inability to be as candid as Oren and Ya’alon about their preferences.

It is clear however that a ‘rendez-vous with reality’ has been happening among elements of the British élite.

An interesting case in point is a report by the House of Commons Defence Committee, chaired by Dr Julian Lewis, which appeared yesterday.

A discussion in the ‘Independent’ by one of the best of British correspondents dealing with the Middle East, Patrick Cockburn, is reproduced on the ‘Unz Review’ site, where it is succinctly entitled: ‘No Strategy, No Plan and Only ‘phantom’ Allies: UK’s Syria Flaws Laid.’

(See http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/no-strategy-no-plan-and-only-phantom-allies-uks-syria-flaws-laid/ .)

The conclusion reads:

‘Having ruled out acting in concert with the Assad government, whose displacement is a centrepiece of British policy, British military action in theory presupposes the existence of a powerful “third force” on the ground in Syria. The report says that “despite extensive correspondence with the Ministry of Defence, the committee was unable to obtain the Government’s list of which groups the UK was supporting in Syria.” It concludes that the real reason why the UK air operation in Syria is so small, despite rhetorical comparisons with resisting Hitler during last year’s Commons debate, is “mainly the lack of partners on the ground, other than Kurdish forces.”

‘The Government’s explanation on why it cannot reveal the identity of the potent but invisible Syrian armed moderates is that this information would help the Assad government. But Dr Lewis and the report strongly suggest that the very limited nature of the British air campaign is a tacit admission that no such force exists on the ground in Syria which British air strikes might assist. But the existence of such a moderate body is a necessity if both Isis and Assad are to be removed simultaneously.

‘In the light of this, the report is sceptical about government goals in Syria which “are not only to defeat Daesh [Isis], but also to help bring into being a government which will be neither authoritarian and repressive, on the one hand, nor Islamist and extreme on the other.” It says that these aims cannot be achieved by military means alone.’

David Habakkuk

Thomas,

As to Strauss, I think the conclusion of his May 1933 letter to Karl Löwith is fundamental:

‘There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought. And even then: rather than any cross, I’ll take the ghetto.’

(See http://balkin.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/letter_16.html .)

This is, I think, a sneering denunciation aimed at that very substantial number of his fellow German Jews who had sought to assimilate.

Such people moved in many different ideological directions, but a non-negligible number did convert to Christianity, and many would have been liberals, in the sense of having a strong commitment to constitutional government.

LeaNder

as ethnically diverse as us Americans ... except India

be careful, it all depends on how far back you are willing to go. If it was such a ethnically "non-diverse country", why does/did it have the multitude of languages and writing systems?

Apparently in this context the "Aryans" are still alive and well while it's usually Indo-European nowadays:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Languages_of_India

Babak Makkinejad

The fundamental planning flaw is, and has been, the expectation of quick victory.

In the War Between the States, as far as I could tell, the South expected a short war and a quick victory.

In World War I, all of the protagonists expected a short war - if historical accounts are to be believed. They ignored the lessons of WBS.

In World War II, both Germany and Japan expected a short war followed by a redrawing of the borders.

In Iran-Iraq War, the expectation was the quick collapse of the nascent Islamic Republic.

The Israel-Lebanon War, in spite of quick initial victories in 1982, has been followed by a long war with no end in sight.

In US-Iraq War of 2003 and in US-Afghanistan War of 2001, also initial victories were followed by a long war.


Furthermore, I think the major political error of US, EU, Arabs, and USSR was their inaction when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. From the decisions of those actors has flowed everything else and will continue to do so in coming years and decades.

It is very clear that no one learns anything from Historical Writing or Analysis.

rjj

Maybe it not sneering, not a denunciation, just a stand contra apostasy.

Strauss was probably the most interesting lecturer in the US. Would have loved to have taken his courses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQGkT-rhu-M

David Habakkuk

rjj,

A ‘stand against apostasy’ – perhaps.

A quite consequential piece of ‘apostasy’ was published around the time Strauss was writing – the polemic ‘Germany Puts the Clock Back’ by the ‘Chicago Daily News’ correspondent in Berlin, Edgar Ansel Mowrer. He was born in Bloomington, Illinois.

(For his career, see http://spartacus-educational.com/SPYmowrer.htm .)

With the extraordinary temerity of the philosophically ill-informed, Mowrer had the presumption to argue that it was possible to mount a critique of Nazi Socialism from a liberal perspective.

Profoundly contemptuous of communism, he argued that the most dangerous revolutionary force in Europe was not Stalinist communism, but Hitler’s ‘national socialism’. And he would argue repeatedly over the years that followed that the only realistic prospect of ‘deterring’ or ‘containing’ Hitler lay in an alliance between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union.

(Part of the reason was that, rather than searching for ‘esoteric meanings’ in the classics of philosophy, he had spent a great deal of time pouring whisky down the throats of Nazis. It does sometimes help to be ‘down to earth’.)

A revised edition of ‘Germany Puts the Clock Back’ was published as the first ‘Penguin Special’ by the popular paperback house Penguin in November 1937, and had a shaping influence on the movement of British opinion against ‘appeasement’ over the months that followed.

My late father was one of those who followed down the path charted by Mowrer.

Doubtless, he should have realised that his notion that one could seriously oppose Hitler on the basis of liberal principles with ‘seemliness’ marked him out as an intellectual inadequate, and gone off and joined Oswald Mosley’s BUF, and tried to persuade the ‘blackshirts’ that Hitler was not really the right kind of ‘fascist’.

It does not seem to me that it would have been a very promising approach, but who am I to question the ‘esoteric’ wisdom of the great Strauss?

I should say that I knew two refugees from Hitler whose families had ‘crawled to the cross’ – both of whom ended up as professors of German literature, after having served as sergeants in the British military.

They were both fine scholars, who made notable contributions to British intellectual life, and also greatly influenced my own thinking – in particular, helping me emancipate myself from the intellectually lazy Germanophobia which is, alas, still all too common in Britain.

The notion that a pompous ass like Strauss had a right to look down on people like Peter Ganz and Peter Stern, I am afraid, makes me incandescent.

It may be that, as an old Jewish friend of ours remarked, in a conversation after a few drinks following ‘Operation Cast Lead’, part of the problem with the contemporary United States is ‘too many ghetto Jews.’

Thomas

David,

That was how he felt at that time, and what was his complaint?

"I see no acceptable possibility of living under the swastika, i.e., under a symbol that says nothing more to me than: you and your ilk, you are physei(3) subhumans and therefore justly pariahs."

He was not acceptable via his religion but, with a soul changing over time, if he was accepted, and supporting the state in his field while living in the ghetto, the euphoria of a Roman Style conqueror by the spring of '41 would have been too tempting to not bow down since it would be the fulfillment of his worldview.

And today we are in the 16th year of his disciples trying to reach that fulfillment only being stifled by all sorts of subhuman Irredeemable Deplorables (Muslims especially of the Shia variety, Russians, White Anglo Saxons, etc.) across the globe not accepting their innate exceptional superiority and willfully submitting to it. A problem with followers of false idols is their seeing patience and tolerance as capitulation thus leaving our current generations at that same moral crossroad those of the Thirties faced: resist, join, or surrender.

Thomas

" " the Nazis were afraid of the Kabbalah." His comment I think goes a long way towards explaining the Holocaust."

That is why they made a special emphasis to get at the Chasidim, the popular practitioners of the art since the movement's founding.

Walker

According to the article, the purpose of Syrian regime change would be to support US geopolitical goals (doing down the Russians and Iran; halting Europe's dependence on Russian energy; supporting allies like Qatar, KSA, Turkey and Israel). US corporate interests aren't mentioned.

Walker

I think the major political error of US, EU, Arabs, and USSR was their inaction when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980.

I don't think that was an error. Didn't Kissinger say that he wished both sides could lose? That's what happened in that long bloodletting, during which the US quietly supported both antagonists.

My country has conspicuously never had the well-being of the inhabitants of the Middle East at heart, except for Israel.

Babak Makkinejad

I think Kissinger was wrong.

I think one only needs to look at the consequences of that war.

I cannot see any upside to US, EU, and the Arabs; not in that war, not in the EU economic war against Iran, and not in the continuing war in Syria.

All those wars were predicated on quick victory, when that quick victory was proved to be demonstrably beyond reach, the calculations and computations of profit and loss went out of the window.

Perhaps that is when the Peace of Yalta started disintegrating; when Iranians developed only deep contempt for UN and later were joined in that by Iraqis.

LeaNder

David, I didn't like the Leo Strauss discussion, similarly I disliked the "assimilation" argument. Let me put it provocatively: how serious do Christians take the cross?

The Nazis had a predominantly Christian background too, after all. Never mind that you concentrate on the esoteric (pagan?) part of their ideology.

Concerning your meditations on the Ukraine above, thanks for the articles, on the top of my head surfaces a book that probably doesn't quite fit into some of your central takes on matters. It is quite interesting, although, I suppose highly criticized by the larger historical trade, as maybe to simplistic, meaning not completely fitting into the academic stream. ... For me it was one of the books were a Nazi-Ukraine-network surfaced, including a little bit of the history. It's not the central focus, though. The central focus is the connections of the Nazis with some members of the White Emigres community ...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/Nazis-and-the-White-Emigres

LeaNder

thanks, rjj.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad