Majorityrights News > Category: Promethianism

Press image above or here for video, Part 4: If we take a historical perspective of ethnonationalists acting in good faith as opposed to that of the empires that were in control of Europe just prior to the World Wars, we can see that it was imperialism, not nationalism, that in fact spawned these wars. If we want to do justice to the homeostatic systemic correction that ethnonationalism affords against runaway liberal internationalism, we need to take advantage of interactive correctability through a more honest historical frame of reference, to locate where ethnonationalism lost homeostatic correctiive reference and became subject to imperial stasis.

That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great - when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.

As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.

We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.

Typically disregarded is the Versailles committee’s valid reasoning for areas granted to Poland and of the Sudetenland retained for Czech by the Treaty of St. Germain.

Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.

Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:

“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.

Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?

Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”

Though historically disputed and shifting in demographics, Danzig was occupied by Germans at that time.

In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framrwork of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.

Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.

Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress - on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.

Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia - anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.

Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland - such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising - in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.

But before we re-animate a German - Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will - before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then - let us reinvoke principle once again.

One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping ...particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…

And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.

It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.

__________________________

* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.

Audio of Part 3

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.

There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalists have not utilized to anything like its full potential.

That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.

To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism - which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.

Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, though Nazi apologetics usually claim the truth as their mission.

On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.

Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.

There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.

We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”

We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.

But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.

In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany - Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.

First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.

More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.

Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.

Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…

No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I. And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration to the Treaty of Versailles.  But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

Part 2 Audio, Hitler was NOT White or any kind of ethnonationalist - and text:

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.

To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.

As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed - this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America - German/Irish - and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.

The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.

Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..

And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?

Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.

Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.

His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.

Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies are not ready to quote, “understand” - nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.

It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too - for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group - we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them - they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.

WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.

With that said.  Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:

As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.

Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.

The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.

We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.

We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.

(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )

We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war - George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?

And a great deal more.

Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll commentor had said that I am a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and that is why MR is unpopular); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction - it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:

1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).

2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).

3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism - the clear chauvinism - as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites where not otherwise sending us headlong into disaster. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles, other ‘goyim.’

4) Failing that they will encourage sundry and motley no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:

a) No account scientism and objectivism for the higher I.Q.

b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent;
or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).

I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on illusion and lies; along with (((marketing))) of tropes and memes in YKW interest.

Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.

Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.

Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism - viz., scientistic reaction - is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis instead, get with the ethnonational program.

J.F. Gariepy: “One of the major historians of World War II” Thomas Goodrich: “From what I’ve read..

..from what I’ve read it was a virtual massacre of German residents living in areas under Polish control.”

J.F. Gariepy: “Alright, so that would be quite shocking.”    Thomas Goodrich: “Or maybe”...

The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.

For the answer, return to the top of the page and read again (further orienting clue, it’s part and parcel of the YKW’s interest in having Whites identify with right wing reaction).

The Independence March in Warsaw is the largest annual patriotic gathering in Europe. Photo: Radio Maryja

Visigrad Post, Poland will soon celebrate the Centenary of her recovered Independence”, 11 Oct 2018:

Poland – In a month, on Sunday, November 11, 2018, Poland will celebrate 100 years of recovery of her independence.

November 11 is a day of celebration and commemoration in Poland. For several weeks, the white and red flags float proudly to celebrate the freedom, so dear to the Polish people and for which they were long deprived. In 1795, the once powerful Poland was disappeared from the map of Europe for the benefit of its neighbors. From 1795 to 1918, the Russian Empire, Prussia and Austria took over the entire Polish territory.

During this long period of 123 years, the country was the subject of a major campaign of depolonization. In addition to the occupation of the territory, the Russian and German invaders also conducted a policy to annihilate the “polonity”. The mere use of Polish in the occupied territories was severely punished in this context of Germanization (in the West) and Russification (in the East). This partly explains the attachment of Poles to their identity (national, cultural, religious, …). It was not until the signing of the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that Poland reappeared on the world map.

It must be kept in mind that Poland is one of the oldest countries in Europe. The foundation of the Polish state dates from the year 966. During the seventeenth century, Poland was one of the largest European powers, with a territory extending over an area (largely) greater than that of the present day France (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, 815,000 km²).

A war of words that went too far

Every year, an “Independence March” is organized on November 11 in the capital, Warsaw. This grand parade is organized by several patriotic-conservative movements to celebrate the anniversary of this “revival” of the homeland.

The people present are also very diverse. Entire families coming from the provinces are also present. Mothers with their strollers parade alongside groups of young people, themselves surrounded by older people.

The 2017 edition of the Independence March took place in a respectful and serene ambience, without major incident. The many smoke bombs gave the streets of the city center a football stadium atmosphere. Of a total number of citizens between 60,000 (police estimate) and 125,000 (estimate of organizers), a handful of extremists (between 50 and 100) unfortunately made themselves known by brandishing racist or hateful banners. One of them read: “Europe will be white or uninhabited. “

A large part of the foreign press (CNN, BBC, The Washington Post, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde, Libération, Russia Today, Al Jazeera …) quickly took the opportunity to launch a real campaign of denigration of this popular gathering, of the government which tolerates it and, by extension, of the country which hosts it.

These media painted tens of thousands of people with the same brush as these activists, not worrying in this case about the amalgam that they are so prone to denounce after each terrorist attack. In this case, no nuance: all the participants were treated as extremists.

“Fascists” “xenophobes” “anti-Semites”, “Islamophobes”, “racists”, “homophobes”, … One would have thought they were attending a contest for the most insulting term to designate this human wave of Poles parading peacefully to celebrate the recovered freedom of their homeland and their show of love for it.

The first prize in this defamation exercise undoubtedly goes to former Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt - now, President of the ALDE group in the European Parliament, he declared in the same Parliament that “60,000 Fascists walked on Saturday in Warsaw, neo-Nazis, white supremacists (…) about 300 kilometers from Auschwitz-Birkenau”.

It is hard to believe that such absurd remarks could have been made by an experienced politician. They nevertheless reveal two interesting observations. On the one hand, this statement shows Mr Verhofstadt’s profound ignorance of Poland’s history as well as its past and present geopolitical situation. On the other hand, it confirms the tendency towards the complex of superiority (moral, ideological, cultural, …) of many members of the “western” elite (of which Verhofstadt is one of the front runners) vis-à-vis what is pejoratively attributed “Eastern Countries”. This attitude makes it virtually impossible to discuss coherently the points of disagreement between “old Europe” and the CEECs (Central and Eastern European Countries) that joined the EU later.

A necessary clarification

If Mr Verhofstadt had even a minimum of good faith and / or basic knowledge of history, he would know that the Poles constitute the first European nation to have resisted Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime, at least as early as 1939, and consequently paid a heavy price. He would also know that the Germans looted and razed Warsaw in 1944 and that tens of thousands of civilians were killed by Wehrmacht soldiers throughout the Second World War.

To speak of “Polish neo-Nazis” is therefore at least intellectually dishonest and insulting, especially regarding the families of the victims who died under the “fascism” that Verhostadt claims to denounce.

The height of the perfidy of these remarks can be illustrated by the presence at this Independence March of veterans of the Second World War who themselves fought the real Nazis! A surrealism worthy of George Orwell’s “1984” universe.

By Sébastien Meuwissen, Belgo-Polish student in journalism at IHECS.

Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival - not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization - the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our individuals and group, systemic survival thereupon.

And now these selfish pigs are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests - either naively or disingenuously - to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble - instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” ...the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).

Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.

... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.

“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”

The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over-emphasis on concerns over collectivization - but rather recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof; which is destroying the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that European species affords.

                               
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

        The WN Right-Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.

Mueller Documents: Manafort Conspired With Israeli Official To Influence Obama’s Ukraine Policy

Inquisitor, 14 Sept 2018:

According to the document, Manafort and an unnamed senior Israeli official conspired to tarnish the reputation of Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of anti-semitism.

In 2012, while working as a lobbyist for the pro-Russian government of Ukraine, Paul Manafort conspired with a senior Israeli official to pressure Barack Obama’s administration to disavow Ukraine’s then-opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, Haaretz reports.

The Manafort-Israel-Russia connection appears on the pages of the plea deal signed between Donald Trump’s former campaign manager and Robert Mueller’s office. The following is stated in the document.

“Manafort sought to undermine United States support for Tymoshenko. He orchestrated a scheme to have, as he wrote in a contemporaneous communication, ‘Obama Jews’ put pressure on the [Obama] administration to disavow Tymoshenko.”

According to the document, Manafort and an unnamed senior Israeli official conspired to tarnish the reputation of Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of anti-semitism.

Manafort and the Israeli official’s strategy was simple. The two men authored a written statement, slandering Tymoshenko. Manafort then spread the story to U.S. media.

“I have someone putting it in the New York Post. Bada bing bada boom,” he wrote to one of his associates.

“The Jewish community will take this out on Obama on Election Day if he does nothing,” Manafort told an associate, according to the document, implying that his goal was to pressure Barack Obama’s administration into acting against Tymoshenko, Manafort client’s biggest rival at the time.

By accusing Tymoshenko of anti-semitism, with the help of his Israeli co-conspirator, Manafort planned on spreading the story to American media. Eventually, it would reach the American Jewish community (“Obama Jews,” as Manafort put it), which would then pressure Obama to work in the favor of Manafort’s client.

According to Haaretz, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s then-foreign minister could be the mysterious Israeli official mentioned in the document. In October, 2012, Lieberman published a statement viciously attacking political rivals of Manafort’s pro-Russian client. Ukrainian elections were held on October 28, 2012.

“Israel condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms, and expresses hope that common sense will prevail,” the statement read.

If Avigdor Lieberman is indeed the mysterious Israeli official mentioned in court documents, his and Manafort’s tactic worked, at least to an extent, considering the fact that various American media outlets published his statement, including Breitbart and the New York Times.

Avigdor Lieberman is currently the Defense Minister of Israel. Today, Lieberman denied ever meeting with, speaking to, or working with Paul Manafort.

Manafort weaponized antisemitism with ‘senior Israeli official’ in Ukraine lobbying scheme

https://t.co/W75z6Conqx

— The Jerusalem Post (@Jerusalem_Post) September 14, 2018

According to the Jerusalem Post, along with Manafort’s deep ties to Ukraine’s pro-Russia politicians, political influence campaigns directed by other states, such as Israel, through Manafort, are also attracting Robert Mueller’s attention.

The Jerusalem Post, too, noted that Avigdor Lieberman appears to be the unnamed Israeli official mentioned in court documents.

These developments may come as a surprise to the American public, but some intellectuals have warned that other foreign powers, along with Russia, have meddled in U.S. elections multiple times.

As the Inquisitr previously reported, renowned linguist Noam Chomsky recently argued — without denying Russian election interference — that Israel meddles in U.S. internal affairs “openly, brazenly and with enormous support.”

Manafort weaponized antisemitism with ‘senior Israeli official’ in Ukraine lobbying scheme

Jerusalem Post, “Muller: Manafort used ‘Obama’s Jews’ to smear Ukrainian leader”, 14 Sept 2018:

Israeli Defense Minister Liberman seems to be implicated in the affair.

Paul Manafort tried to use misleading charges of antisemitism against a senior Obama administration official to pressure the former president to go soft on his Ukrainian client, Viktor Yanukovych, in 2012, according to documents released on Friday by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

New “superseding” criminal information was released this morning as part of a plea agreement reached between Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman who faced charges for lobbying law violations, and Mueller, the special prosecutor investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort has already been convicted on several counts of federal bank and tax fraud brought by the special counsel.

Mueller describes a scheme by Manafort to manipulate “Obama’s Jews”– in Manafort’s own words– to pressure the administration to disavow Yanukovych’s political archrival, Yulia Tymoshenko, by highlighting her alleged ties to antisemitic groups and spreading stories that an Obama “Cabinet official” supporting her cause was antisemitic by proxy.

Manafort “coordinated with a senior Israeli government official” to publicize the story, Mueller charged, seeking to convince the administration that “the Jewish community will take this out on Obama in the [2012 presidential] election if he does nothing.” The Israeli official is not named.

According to archived articles from the time, the cabinet official referenced in the Mueller documents appears to be then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the Israeli official appears to be Avigdor Liberman, then minister of foreign affairs.

He then fed claims to Obama officials that Yanukovych was working to quell the manicured crisis, hoping to ingratiate him with the administration.

Manafort’s deep ties to Ukraine’s pro-Russia figures, paired with his prominent role in Trump’s presidential campaign, has drawn Mueller’s attention as he investigates whether US persons coordinated with Moscow to influence the 2016 race.

The Hill, “Trump: Japan ties could sour when ‘I tell them how much they have to pay”, 6 Sept 2018:

President Trump touted his good relations with Japan on Thursday but warned the relationship may sour over trade.

“Of course that will end as soon as I tell them how much they have to pay,” the president said of his strong ties with Japan in a call to Wall Street Journal assistant editor James Freeman.

Freeman shared the president’s remarks in a WSJ op-ed published Thursday. Freeman said Trump had called him shortly after the editor appeared in a segment on the Fox News Channel praising the president for the strong U.S. economy.

Trump’s comments about Japan come as the U.S. finds itself in a number of trade fights with allies and other countries.

Trump has slapped tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. And he has threatened new tariffs on auto imports. Japan’s trade minister in August warned the country could possibly retaliate.

Trump last week announced a trade deal with Mexico to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement. The U.S. is separately negotiating with Canada but both countries have dug in during the contentious talks.

Trump has warned he is willing to go ahead and sign the deal with Mexico if Canada does not get on board.

“[T]here is no political necessity to keep Canada in the new NAFTA deal,” Trump tweeted last week.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau has vowed his country is “not going to accept is that we should have to sign a bad deal just because the president wants it.”

Trump is also escalating a trade war with China. Trump has floated another $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods.

Stratford, “Japan’s Built-in Resistance to Pressure”, 5 Sept 2018:

Past protectionist pushes by the United States prompted Japan to build up a degree of insulation that could help it weather the current tariff threat. Even as it pursued its Cold War-era strategy to build up the Japanese economy as a U.S. bulwark in the Pacific, the United States moved to protect the U.S. domestic sector from Japanese competition. In the 1970s, the United States piled pressure on Japan, which ultimately agreed to self-imposed voluntary export restrictions on automobiles, which lasted from 1981 to 1994. This squeeze on Japanese automakers spurred a flurry of joint ventures and the movement of Japanese production onto U.S. shores.

Between 1978 and 1989, the top seven Japanese carmakers each set up production in the United States — an acceleration that gathered momentum with production of Japanese cars climbing from 620,000 units in 1986 to 2.15 million by 1994. This trend of increased Japanese manufacturing in the United States has continued to strengthen. The number of vehicles manufactured by Japanese carmakers in the U.S. rose from 3.3 million to nearly 4 million between 2006 and 2016. And of the 20 most popular light-duty vehicles sold on the U.S. market, five were Japanese models containing upwards of 50 percent of components produced in the United States.

The strong onshore presence of Japanese production facilities will partly blunt the effectiveness of the tariff tactics as the United States presses Japan to enter a bilateral dialogue. Japan still holds out hope that it can persuade the United States to reverse course on its abandonment of the CPTPP. This trade agreement fits more into Japan’s overall strategy in the Asia-Pacific to counter China’s rise by pulling the Asia-Pacific region’s economy more closely into both the U.S. and Japanese orbits. During the most recent high-level meeting of U.S. and Japanese trade officials on Aug. 9 — more than two months after the auto tariff threat — Japan continued to seek a U.S. return to the CPTPP, and the United States continued to push for bilateral talks. Instead of caving to U.S. pressure, Japan has offered up expanded investment, increased purchases of U.S. natural gas and large-scale military procurements in hopes of mollifying Washington by chipping away at the trade deficit.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, right, visited Tokyo in May where he agreed with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to cooperate on investment in infrastructure projects overseas.  Reuters

Asian Review, “Japan and China take first step toward joint infrastructure abroad”, 4 Sept 2018:

Thai high-speed rail among candidates to be discussed at inaugural committee this month

TOKYO—Japan and China are moving ahead with their plans to cooperate on overseas infrastructure projects, with a newly established public-private committee scheduled to hold its first meeting in late September in Beijing.

A high-speed rail project in Thailand is seen as the first candidate for cooperation.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang met in Tokyo in May and agreed to cooperate on infrastructure projects in third countries. Abe is considering visiting China in October and seeks to reach agreements on specific projects there.

Japan aims to avoid excessive competition with China on infrastructure projects by collaborating. Showing support for Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative could also lead to better bilateral ties. China, for its part, seeks to avoid being labeled overseas as a disreputable investor by bringing Japan on board.

The public-private committee’s first meeting will be led by Hiroto Izumi, special adviser to the prime minister, from Japan, as well as Gao Yan, a vice minister of commerce, and Ning Jizhe, a vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, from China. Senior officials from Japan’s top business lobby, Keidanren, will also participate.

The committee discussion will form the basis for a high-level bilateral forum on cooperation to take place when Abe visits China. Tokyo and Beijing are planning to sign memorandums of understanding on 20 to 30 projects then.

READ MORE...