Wars, as history shows, could, should have been avoided. The warnings are numerous, and we illustrate them with the following quotations.
“In politics, nothing happens by chance. Whenever something happens, you can be sure it was intended to happen that way.’ Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT.
“The fact that men do not learn much from history is the most important lesson that history teaches us.” Aldous Huxley.
“The real men of progress are those whose starting point is a profound respect for the past. Everything we do, everything we are, is the culmination of centuries of work. “Ernest Renan.
“And no matter what evil the wicked may do: the evil which the good do is the most harmful of evils.” Friedrich Nietzsche, 1885).
“The world is dangerous to live not because of those who do evil, but because of those who watch and let it happen.” A. Einstein.
More than a warning, Albert Einstein, who understood what fascism and dictatorship are with their racist, supremacist ideologies and fanatical religious theocracies, did not fail to take responsibility for ensuring that the return of Jews to their former homeland would not also sink into fascism and exaggerated nationalism.
Document:
There have always been Jewish intellectuals, who, through their intelligence and insight, have been light-spreaders. Albert Einstein was one of those. At the twilight of his life, and well before the creation of the State of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948, he wrote:
« I would much rather see a reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Practical considerations aside, my understanding of the essential nature of Judaism also resists the idea of a Jewish state, with borders, an army, and some measure of temporal power, however modest. I am afraid of the internal damage this would cause to Judaism, and especially of the development of a narrow nationalism in our own ranks ».
Source of this text
Document, excerpts:
Albert Einstein’s Letter on the Objectives of Mr. Menachem Begin (Deir Yassine Arab Village Massacre) Published text (December 2, 1948) republished USA – 02-03-2008 (Source: ISM) Letter to the New York Times from Albert Einstein and other progressive Jews about Menachim Begin and the Zionist entity.
By Albert Einstein Albert Einstein and other Jewish figures (see list below of the persons who signed this letter published in the New York Times on 2 December 1948) Before irreparable damage is done by financial contributions, public demonstrations in support of Begin and before giving the impression in Palestine that a large part of America would support fascist elements in occupied Palestine, the American public must be informed about the past and the objectives of Menachem Begin and her movement. Today, they speak of freedom, democracy, and anti-imperialism, whereas, until recently, they openly preached the doctrine of the fascist state.
…/… The Deir Yassin incident illustrates the character and actions of the Freedom Party. In the Jewish community, they preached a mix of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other fascist parties, they were used to break strikes, and they themselves encouraged the destruction of free trade unions.
…/… The Freedom Party men did not take part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They took no land, built no settlements, and only weakened the Jewish Defense. Their publicized immigration efforts were meticulous, and focused mainly on bringing in fascist compatriots.
…/… It is the unmistakable stamp of a fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, as well as the British), and false declarations are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal. In light of the above, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be known in this country. More tragic, the senior leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own elements the dangers to Israel of supporting Begin.
The undersigned therefore take these steps to present publicly some striking facts about Begin and his party; and to recommend to all those concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, etc.
source:
Document, excerpts:
He also closely followed the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. A few days after the founding of the Jewish state, he wrote a letter on May 19, 1948, to Chaim Weizmann, his longtime friend, who became the first president of the young Jewish state a few months later. Einstein writes, for example, that one “cannot say that the powerful people on this earth want us well. The game the English are playing with us is miserable, and American attitudes seem ambivalent. But I am confident that our people will overcome this initial fear and that we will live to experience how we created a happy Jewish community.”
…/… On November 9, 1952, the State of Israel lost its first president, Chaim Weizmann, at the age of 77. As a successor to this charismatic leader, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proposed to Albert Einstein to become “the first elected representative of the people elected.” Indeed, he is a great admirer of the scientist he considers “the greatest of all Jews, perhaps the greatest of men.”
…/… Albert Einstein learns the news in the pages of the New York Times. A telegram confirms the information at lunchtime. The scholar knows that this is a bad idea because his version of Judaism is not unanimous. Later, he told his daughter, “If I were to be president, I would sometimes have to say things to the Israeli people that they don’t want to hear.”
…/…As we mourn the man who, in particularly tragic circumstances, has so long borne the burden of our destiny and the burden of our struggle for independence [Chaim Weizmann] on his shoulders, I wholeheartedly hope that there will be someone who can, through his past activities and personality, take on this heavy and difficult task.
Albert Einstein, Princeton N. J.”
Ben-Gurion was reported to have breathed a sigh of relief when he learned that Einstein refused. He is said to have whispered to his then adviser, Yitzhak Navon, in his memoirs: “Tell me what to do if he ever says yes,” and then added: “I was obliged to make the offer to him because it was impossible not to make it, but if he accepts, we will be in big trouble!”
source:
We use here the books of Albert Slosman and more especially the one on Moses the Egyptian.
Moses the Egyptian had emerged from the repression of the Sun worshippers (Ra) who had taken power, the Egyptians who wanted to continue to follow their god Ptah, the Hebrews, the peoples of the sea and other foreign communities present on the banks of the Nile.
Moses gave them the political regime of the Egyptian cities, a confederation of tribes, finally the 12 tribes that settled in the region of the ancient Canaanites.
What then became the Jewish and Israeli people had to remain faithful to Moses and keep this union of tribes in a confederation to live in peace among them.
Albert Slosman says that 40 years after the exit from Egypt, the Sun worshippers (Ra) with Akhenaton, were in turn defeated and the Egyptians returned home, the others stayed on the Land Promised by Moses while retaining their union of twelve tribes…
Albert Einstein and many others knew this story of Moses and the twelve tribes united in a confederation, without monarchy or centralized power and even less without the domination of a theocracy. They lived under the political system of participatory local direct democracy with a confederation.
Indeed, the creation of a Jewish state in Israel, wanted by the Anglo-Saxons, is contrary to the origins of the twelve tribes of Moses who had gathered the Hebrews together with diverse peoples of the countries of the Sea and refugees on the banks of the Nile.
The word “the Hebrews ” refers to tribes traveling between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and the Nile River. Moses’ political project was to settle them in the Canaan region, which was often attacked by the people of the sea and who then asked for the Pharaoh’s help and protection.
On fileane.com we present the institutions of the Networks of Life that are characterized by the non-use of the political structure of control of the populations that is called State. Social peace is thus developed without the presence of a state.
The drift of states set up to control populations is inevitable and leads to autocratic and despotic regimes, as was the case in France after Friday October 13, 1307..
In our chapter on the Wars after 1945, we use an excerpt from Jacques R. PAUWELS’ book Big Business with Hitler, Aden Publishing, February 2013, pages 333 et seq., to explain how US leaders and the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy used fascism.
“American big business came out of World War II with almost total control of the American state. Not surprisingly, both domestic and international politics in Washington after 1945 consistently sought to achieve big business’s great goal of maximizing profits. Only in light of this reality can we explain two paradoxes of a country’s post-war history of posing as the flagship of pacifism and democracy:
Before World War II, fascist dictatorships proved to be extraordinary instruments for turning a profit or accumulating capital. In this respect, fascism remained useful after the war. That is why the US government not only tolerated, but actively supported, fascist dictatorships or other authoritarian regimes in countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Chile, Argentina, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and South Africa.
This “pro-fascist” policy offered major American (and international) companies every opportunity to make big profits in the way that they had in Nazi Germany – that is, through the elimination of trade unions, a system of low wages and long working hours, the ordering of weapons, and so on. »
end of document
To use fascism among allies, the US had to have an enemy. In fact, they created and financed it through the communist movement and Russia’s two revolutions. The war of 1917 finally succeeded, which helped prepare World War II for the German Nazi armies to conquer Russia’s much-coveted wealth from London and Wall Street.
At the Cold War’s end, as the Soviet Union and other countries became communist in their liberation from colonialism, a new enemy had to be found, and it was terrorism that served as an “enemy,” especially the terrorism of religious Muslim fanatics after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York.
Of course, their primary target is the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, which, like any other state, has also evolved into fascism. Yet there are many states on Earth today whose populations under Tyrannies have probably never been so numerous. Indeed, it is with the aim set by the Anglo-Saxon puritan sect that animates its world government: to destroy the peoples who refuse the divine directives of this sect in order to be able to rebuild a world without those miscreants who circulate on the highways of sin.
This is the wish of Albert Einstein and other Jewish leaders, who understood how political regimes that enslave their peoples in systems of power led by tyrants and fascist political parties work.
—unless it was put in place to sow civil disorder and military conflict throughout the Middle East.
Together with the Anglo-Saxon oligarchy that specializes in the direction of conflicts around the world, including the two world wars, this crucial issue has taken on the most important criminal news and Einstein’s position as that of Moses and Egyptian civilization, presents an unavoidable solution there as well as at home in Europe to eliminate these sources of wars and terrorism led by religious fanatics and their theocracies.
We are no longer in the year 1090 in front of the Benedictine plan to go to Jerusalem and transform this city in order to finally create a spiritually free city capable of marrying the different religions that translate according to their cultures the encounter with the mysteries of life but in 2023, our ambition must have the same level of audacity as at that time without this time leaving us betrayed once again by warlords of the tribe of the francs and today by hordes of religious fanatics and leaders of the systems of power.
So far, we have seen the mistakes made in establishing a Jewish state in Israel despite the warnings of Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and so many other Jews, mistakes that led to the fascism of the Zionist minority that gained political power.
Without reassuring anyone, mistakes were also made on the Arab side, and still by the same Anglo-Saxon leaders in England, but well before 1948, since the First World War.
Document, excerpts:
In 1916, Lawrence knew that Ibn Saud’s intentions were potentially belligerent toward his neighbors, but for him and the British authorities in Cairo, Ibn Saud’s power to inflict harm still seemed limited: “Faisal [son of sheriff Hussein] considers Ibn Saud very powerful, but only at home; his armies are unorganized, and he cannot move around deploying large forces. I have noticed, as before among the Hejaz Arabs and their leaders, a great deal of distrust and dislike for the principles and followers of Wahabism”3.
Yet this emir on the margins of the desert is very present in the concerns of the Hashemites. As Lawrence noted in a note on Sharif Hussein’s religious views, Hussein is well aware that Wahhabis, who advocate jihad and a very rigorous form of Islam, consider him an unbeliever, placing him in the same position as the kafirin (disbelievers), as do all Sunni and Shia Muslims.
…/… In October 1916, Hussein was declared “king of the Arabs” (malik al-arab) by Mecca’s notables, without bothering to consult his British and French allies; they would recognize him only as a junior title, “king of the Hejaz,” to circumscribe ambitions that they did not underestimate. “His expressed or implied designs are aimed at creating a real power that will go beyond the geographical limits of Arabia,”5 wrote a French government diplomat, Si Kaddour Ben Ghabrit.
In the summer of 1918, Lawrence still does not seem to have grasped how dangerous Ibn Saud was to his Hashemite patrons, a view that is certainly supported by the information at his disposal. According to him, the emir of the Nedj’s ability to cause harm is limited by the Islam he advocates, the Wahhabi doctrine being quite marginal, as is that of another potentate of the peninsula, Idrissi: “Fortunately, both men are heretics in Islam, not much better than the Agha Khan in the Orthodox opinion”6; and he added that the radicalism of Ibn Saud’s supporters could well lead to his demise: “Ibn Saud is now trying to limit the renaissance groin that becomes too strong for him.”
Such an interpretation of the Wahhabi phenomenon would have led to the wrong conclusion: “If it is carried away by it [the Puritan Renaissance] and attacks holy sites, Orthodox Islam will act with it as it did with its ancestor. If he can control it, he will remain the Nedj’s Emir after a military failure warns him that he must recognize Sharif [Hussein] as overlord. I believe Ibn Saud is sympathetic to us, and only to his territory.” Lawrence thus seems unaware that Ibn Saud has forged a fanatical troupe of at least 30,000 fighters of the faith
…/… Hussein’s stubbornness was blindness and fatal. The sheriff of Mecca decided to be proclaimed a caliph in March 1924. To the Emir of the Nedj, it is inconceivable that he would have such authority. Unpopular and deprived of British subsidies, Hussein is no longer able to withstand Wahhabi attacks. Ibn Saud, for his part, is determined to break the encirclement of the British-ruled Hashemite states of Hejaz, Iraq, and Jordan, which now surround his territory. In the summer of 1924, Ibn Saud unleashed the Ikhwan on Taif, where his fanatical supporters carried out mass slaughter and looting. In October, leaders in Mecca and Jeddah called on Hussein to surrender, which he did in October, shortly before Mecca’s fall. Ibn Saud can turn to the second holy city, Medina. After the pilgrimage of 1925, the siege was placed in front of the city. Medina surrendered on December 5, 1925.
In 1927, Lawrence summarized the drama of the Hashemite-Wahhabi confrontation in a few lines: “We offered him [Hussein] a treaty in the summer of 1921 that would have saved the Hejaz if he abandoned his hegemonic claims to the Arabian Peninsula; but he held on to his self-proclaimed title of ‘king of Arab countries.’ So Ibn Saud of the Nedj warned him and now rules the Hejaz.” Lawrence seems to have taken full measure of the character.
…/… Many of Lawrence’s contemporary Middle East experts, such as H. St. John Philby, wrote that by supporting the Hashemites instead of Ibn Saud, Lawrence was wrong. History proved them right. Yet there is no denying that in 1916, British realpolitik supported the Hashemites rather than the Emir of the Nedj.
Nonetheless, Lawrence’s relative blindness to the true stature of Ibn Saud and the potential of his Wahhabi movement may be surprising. As if the Emir of the Nedj had not been in the field of view of this expert connoisseur of desert politics. Ultimately, however, this miscalculation should be put into perspective: Lawrence, like other observers of British rule in Cairo, suffered from a lack of information about Ibn Saud’s activities and the labyrinthine tribal relations in the peninsula’s interior.
Source:
Whether in the years 1916 and 1921, in Arabia or in 1948 in the ancient country of Canaan then the Promised Land of the twelve tribes organized by Moses, we find the same source of error among the English and American Anglo-Saxons: wanting to create a Jewish state or an Arab empire in the political scheme of Western states. These states carry within them their inevitable evolution towards the autocracy of the minority in power. These leaders then use fascism to subjugate people and obtain the highest profits.
The consequence of these mistakes, or rather of this political will to control peoples through the structure of a state, is always the same: the rise of fascism and now terrorism, essentially practiced by religious fanatics.
It is as if Muslim theocracies have replaced the countries of the Soviet Union, and as if the Cold War has given way to the wars in the Middle East, for once again winning through higher oil and gas prices, not to mention endless US spending on weaponry.
In October 2023, Hamas’s attack on Israel unleashed a war along the classic lines of military confrontation between two radicalized, fascist countries or organizations, at the whim of leaders of the Anglo-Saxon puritan sect, the Deep States of Washington.
So we can now demonstrate in our streets for a ceasefire, an end to the bombing and killing of civilians. But who proposes a peace plan without states, without fascism, without theocracies, without nations but with some peoples who find an agreement to live together in a union of twelve or more tribes with their confederation?
Who knows who is responsible for past mistakes? Who still listens to the warnings of the women and men who carry light and peace proposals?
This political regime taught by Moses and so many others throughout the history of our humanity is always used as a reference point to leave our systems of power and once again hand over a flourishing civilization that has been pacified. Their institutions are described on fileane.com.
The two Albert (yes, let’s leave aside the third Albert who has already helped us so much), Einstein and Schweitzer, like Hannah Arendt and so many others, also wanted these stateless and theocratic institutions, especially to ban the use of atomic weapons…
A war, now fought by fascist leaders or fanaticized by their theocracies, creates an opportunity to eliminate in droves the disbelievers and infidels that almost everyone on earth looks to them, if the Anglo-Saxon leaders make mistakes again to leave such weapons in their hands.
“I don’t know what weapons will be used for World War III, if it happens. But the fourth will be solved with clubs.” Albert Einstein.
“Real democracy will come not from a few taking power, but from the power of all to oppose the abuse of power.” Mahatma Gandhi
“In this world there are only two forces, the sword and the mind. In the long run the spirit has always defeated the sword” Napoleon Bonaparte.
New
When presenting his latest book in France: Bureaucracy, the author multiplies the interviews that have the gift of questioning us by the level of imprecision and confusion of the analysis presented. Henceour responses on a few points that we have selected. Extract from the interview given to Libération on 16 October 2015 Let’s stop with […]
New
Published on 21/10/2021 à 10:56 by France Soir.Author(s): Moufid Azmaïesh, for FranceSoir Compel the world’s population to submit to the dictates of private interests under the pretext of “public health. On September 22, Langemann Medien published on his YouTube channel an interview – viewed nearly 500,000 times to date – with a young mathematician and […]
New
Document: Before delving into the many specific benefits of hemp cultivation, it is important to emphasize that hemp is the ideal source for achieving a wide range of objectives set out in the European Green Pact. This agreement is a set of European Commission policy initiatives aimed at making Europe climate neutral by 2050. Hemp, […]