The Edge of Treason

Thursday, April 1, 2010 3:55 AM

In modern times, the concept of treason is considered dated and has fallen into disfavor. In the final analysis, we are all citizens of the world. We naturally tend to think in terms of humanity as a whole, even though we maintain allegiance to our own country and nationality. So how can one be truly disloyal?

A specific problem arrises, say, when one's country is ruled by cretins and criminals, who are engaged in despicable, outrageous activity. An extreme example of this in the recent past would be the Soviet puppet regime in East Germany or the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. The less extreme example might be the duo of Dick Cheney and G.W. Bush, under the framework of what I call the Cheney Regency, using Bush Jr. and the Bush Presidency as a pliable, complicit front. Such aberrations are assumed to be passing phases, like Communism itself and the Cold War. We may denounce the passing phase without becoming traitors to the country to whom we owe allegiance.

In any event, treason is a charged word that ought not be tossed around lightly. Otherwise, the term will be denuded of meaning. Take, for example, the overused terms "anti-Semitism" and "The Holocaust". These words are radioactive. The accusation of someone being "anti-Semitic" has been employed so frequently for the specific purpose of silencing criticism of the Zionist experiment in Palestine that the term has been completely devalued and is now a joke. For starters, those individuals most often employing it, and who by implication claim to be the victims of "anti-Semitism", are not Semites. Rather, they are Ashkenazi Jews descendent primarily from the 8th century Khazars of central Asia. It is Russian and European Jewish immigrants who are the perpetrators of serious malefactions against genuine Semites, to wit, the Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian.

As for "The Holocaust", a term coined by the Zionists in the 1970's, it has not been devalued. Just the opposite. It has been deliberately leveraged and overvalued to advance the Zionist agenda. It means everything, but at the same time no one knows precisely what it entails, because we are forbidden to examine the historical events to which the term applies. Inquiry is off limits, a taboo. And in Europe, it is a crime. Should an independent researcher arrive at the wrong conclusions, jail time is in order. The enormous intimidation value of "The Holocaust" is what matters, not the historical facts pertaining to the Second World War. "The Holocaust" is Pavlovian. Everyone salivates when it is brought into the discussion. The aim is to silence criticism of what Jews have done and are doing to Arabs in Palestine. The specter of "The Holocaust" somehow makes these actions acceptable. What is going on in Palestine and environs would otherwise be indefensible. 

How does treason fit into this picture? Jewish dual-loyalty is not treason. But there is the important matter of Gentile subordination of one's own country for the greater glory of Zion, in the certain belief of increasing the size of one's campaign coffer and advancing one's political career. That could be termed quid pro quo treason, committed as part of a protection and influence-peddling racket. Naturally, those offering the incentives, directly or implied, share the blame and the guilt. 

The charge has just been leveled in a YouTube video entitled "Treason by Members of the United States Congress" that a majority of lawmakers on Capitol Hill committed an act of treason by their unqualified support for Bibi Nut&Yahoo during Bibi's recent visit to Washington. As usual, the Congress acted in a sycophantic manner which we have all come to expect, but did the whole degrading spectacle cross over the line and degenerate into outright treason against the United States? Watch the video and decide. I believe it raises valid and provocative points, and I tend to agree with the conclusions.

But I must quickly add, so what else is new? Treasonable conduct at the highest levels in Washington is nothing new. It is now almost routine, for the reason given by Sir John Harrington at the Court of Queen Elizabeth I: "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." In short, treasonable conduct is rewarding to Washington politicians. There is no downside and a comfortable upside. I covered this issue briefly last summer in "Judgement Day: Bush and Cheney"....

" one knows what treason is anymore, especially when committed by the highest officials in Washington. Don't such characters have a kind of immunity? They must think so. As a practical matter, who is to sit in judgement upon them? 

"Did FDR commit treason when he finessed the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor in December of 1941, while seeking to make good on his commitments to Churchill to jump into the war in Europe? Did LBJ commit treason when he ordered Navy jets to turn around and not come to the rescue of the defenseless USS Liberty, when it was under a murderous assault by Tel Aviv's navy and air force in June of 1967? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" in both instances. 

"These Oval Office traitors must have felt supremely confident that they could get away with such effrontery, and that they were invulnerable to the consequences. They were correct. In FDR's case, Washington was shot through with Communists and Communist fellow travelers as well as with Anglophile fifth columnists. The handful of clear-thinking incorruptibles left in the corridors of power had been marginalized. The overarching agenda was to destroy fascism, no matter what.

"By LBJ's time, the Zionists were in the saddle in America, Marxist ideology having lost its punch with educated individuals. No honest person was left in Washington to blow the whistle on LBJ's treachery, because his actions were in service to Zionism, which had taken over as a sacrosanct cause, like the Comintern had been among Western intellectuals at an earlier hour."