The Third Player

Everyone is asking why the Democrats refuse to say that racism is what is driving the far right wing’s hatred of Obama. People are asking why the right wing hates Obama so much and why the hate seems to increase rather than decrease as time goes on. In a representative Republic that is as old as the United States, after more than half a year, we should be getting used to having a Black man in the White House, rather than getting angrier by the day.

The obvious answer is exactly what everyone is saying, that it’s better to ignore the race baiting right wing, because they are trying to incite a revolution that would drive the Democrats out of power, and put the Republicans back into power. The not so obvious answer is that the people on the right that are driving the hatred of Obama, and who are actually hoping to create an environment of hatred and polarization that might lead to civil war and/or Obama’s assassination, are likely the same group, with operatives on the left, who are misguiding Democrats to remain silent, allowing the hate speech and the incitement to continue unchallenged, perhaps in hope of the same tragic outcomes.

The right claims that they want revolution, and the left claims that it wants change, which is another word for revolution depending upon the amount of change and the method one chooses to bring that change about. Both are lying. It is clear to many people that what they both seem to want, is to pit American against American and to throw this country into chaos through a civil war. While the right wing screams about fighting socialism, the left screams about the rise of the south through the Republican Party, painting the south as a threat to the union and the cause of homosexual killings, the reason for no health care reform and an increase in racism against immigrants and minorities.

Zionists in this country are perhaps seeking to recreate the hatreds between the north and south that once turned brother against brother in this country, and that filled America’s fields and meadows with American blood, and the eyes of our people with tears.

Strange isn’t it that it’s the neoconservatives who run the Republican Party and the Zionists who run the Democrats who are absent from the political stage at this critical time in our country. We know why the neoconservative leadership is silent; they have the far right wing Christian Zionist fanatics to do their dirty work. These fanatics are more than willing to call Obama Hitler, and to claim that they are fighting socialism, as they hurl not so subtle racial slurs at the White House, because they believe they are serving God’s chosen people, the Jews. They don’t understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism.

The Zionist Democrats are also strangely silent, but possibly for a different reason. They don’t want to interfere with the good work of their Zionist brothers on the right. If the Democrat’s were to take up former President Jimmy Carter’s challenge to the country, to confront our racial fears and prejudices, it might lead to national reconciliation, which is not the goal. The goal is civil war, and the few of us who have not fallen under the spell of hatred and intolerance that was cast over our country after 9/11, have an obligation to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

Edmund Burke, one of the founders of the true conservative movement, in his critique of the French Revolution brought some important observations to our attention that might be relevant to our situation in the US today. One of those observations was that the antagonists, who were busy inciting hatred against the monarchy in France that led to the revolution, did so from the pulpits of the protestant churches in England, even though they were not Englishmen and were in fact strangers in the communities. Burke also observed that these preachers of intolerance and protestant religious fanaticism were not Frenchmen, and referred to them as the Old Jewry. Burke wrote:

It appears to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe. All circumstances taken together, the French revolution is the most astonishing that has hitherto happened in the world. The most wonderful things are brought about, in many instances by means the most absurd and ridiculous, in the most ridiculous modes, and apparently by the most contemptible instruments. Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled together with all sorts of follies. In viewing this monstrous tragicomic scene, the most opposite passions necessarily succeed and sometimes mix with each other in the mind: alternate contempt and indignation, alternate laughter and tears, alternate scorn and horror.

It cannot, however, be denied that to some this strange scene appeared in quite another point of view. Into them it inspired no other sentiments than those of exultation and rapture. They saw nothing in what has been done in France but a firm and temperate exertion of freedom, so consistent, on the whole, with morals and with piety as to make it deserving not only of the secular applause of dashing Machiavellian politicians, but to render it a fit theme for all the devout effusions of sacred eloquence.

On the forenoon of the fourth of November last, Doctor Richard Price, a non-conforming minister of eminence, preached, at the dissenting meeting house of the Old Jewry, to his club or society, a very extraordinary miscellaneous sermon, in which there are some good moral and religious sentiments, and not ill expressed, mixed up in a sort of porridge of various political opinions and reflections; but the Revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the cauldron. I consider the address transmitted by the Revolution Society to the National Assembly, through Earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the sermon and as a corollary from them. It was moved by the preacher of that discourse. It was passed by those who came reeking from the effect of the sermon without any censure or qualification, expressed or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen concerned shall wish to separate the sermon from the resolution, they know how to acknowledge the one and to disavow the other. They may do it: I cannot.

For my part, I looked on that sermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers and intriguing philosophers, with political theologians and theological politicians both at home and abroad. I know they set him up as a sort of oracle, because, with the best intentions in the world, he naturally philippizes and chants his prophetic song in exact unison with their designs.

That sermon is in a strain which I believe has not been heard in this kingdom, in any of the pulpits which are tolerated or encouraged in it, since the year 1648, when a predecessor of Dr. Price, the Rev. Hugh Peters, made the vault of the king's own chapel at St. James's ring with the honor and privilege of the saints, who, with the "high praises of God in their mouths, and a two-edged sword in their hands, were to execute judgment on the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron".[1] Few harangues from the pulpit, except in the days of your league in France or in the days of our Solemn League and Covenant in England, have ever breathed less of the spirit of moderation than this lecture in the Old Jewry. Supposing, however, that something like moderation were visible in this political sermon, yet politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agreement. No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this confusion of duties. Those who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong to them are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave and of the character they assume. Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the passions they excite. Surely the church is a place where one day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and animosities of mankind.

Burke called these dissenters a Third Estate that was inciting the people of France against the French monarchy. Frenchmen, fighting against Frenchmen caused France to fall to Zionism. It was Edmund Burke who said to us that when two parties are drawn into conflict and there is a third party, the power of the two in conflict will fall to the third party. The French monarchy was the only barrier to Zionist rule because it was based upon blood lineage and not a popular vote. After the French revolution and the murder and exile of the royals, who claimed blood lineage to Jesus Christ, France was left to the Zionists who bought France with the power of the purse. In the United States today, Zionism is that same third party. Burke talked about the affects of Zionist rule in France saying:

They have found their punishment in their success: laws overturned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigor; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid, yet the people impoverished; a church pillaged, and a state not relieved; civil and military anarchy made the constitution of the kingdom; everything human and divine sacrificed to the idol of public credit, and national bankruptcy the consequence; and, to crown all, the paper securities of new, precarious, tottering power, the discredited paper securities of impoverished fraud and beggared rapine, held out as a currency for the support of an empire in lieu of the two great recognized species that represent the lasting, conventional credit of mankind, which disappeared and hid themselves in the earth from whence they came, when the principle of property, whose creatures and representatives they are, was systematically subverted. Zionism is also the third party in the US today, and we are also feeling and witnessing these same effects.

It is interesting that the hatred of Obama, and the anti Obama rhetoric and gun toting symbolism and threats of violence and revolution, seem to grow in proportion to US calls for Israel to end illegal settlement building in Palestine and a reinvigorated peace process that would see Israel make concessions to the Palestinians that Israel does not intend to make, and also calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve.

It is also interesting that this is exactly how the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin took place. First right wing Zionists began the seemingly harmless verbal insults, calling Rabin a self hating Jew, etc. When Rabin refused to challenge the rhetoric, it got worse, until they were carrying signs in the street calling Rabin Hitler, and even went so far as to burn him in effigy. Soon after a few cries from the left went out for the rhetoric to tone down, Rabin was gunned down by a right wing Zionist settler.

Of course to some people,suggesting that Zionists are pushing the United States into a civil war, or even a revolution if that is the case, seems as crazy as calling Obama Hitler, and also as difficult to believe as the silence of the Democrats. The difference is that suggesting that Zionists are pushing the United States into civil war and chaos could save this country, if given serious consideration, and if the necessary steps are taken to stop the momentum that is pushing us in that direction. Neither Republican incitement, nor the Democrat’s silence can, or will do that.

http://www.constitution.org/eb/rev_fran.htm