In my humble opinion, antiwar.com’s justin raimondo is one of the leading, radical, political commentators in the english speaking world ­ alongside the christisons, stephen j. sniegoski, noel ignatieff, jeffrey blankfort, israel shamir, and even, on occasions, uri avnery. This is not to imply he is a great political theorist or a great political philosopher - so far at least, there are simply too many major political issues about which he has said nothing. The reason for such praise is that he is amongst the few commentators to expose the seriousness of the zionist threat to america. He never shirks from pointing out neocon misdeeds in the same way as john pilger, robert fisk, or juan cole. My only reservations about his political commentary is that he is not anti-zionist enough.

The following commentaries on raimondo’s articles are in reverse chronological order ­ latest first.

Raimondo rightly believes the jewish owned american media, the jewish lobby in america, and the jews-only state in palestine, are trying to push the united states into another proxy zionist war in the middle east. "The Israelis are now engaging in a bit of blustering, hinting broadly that they are ready to nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud by conducting a raid similar to that carried out at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed Saddam's nascent nuclear facility. That probably isn't going to happen in this case, however, for two reasons: (1) The geographical spread of the various suspected nuclear sites prevents any attempt to knock them out in a single blow, or even several blows, and (2) Instead of fighting their own battles, the Israelis would much rather use the U.S. to do their dirty work, whenever possible ­ and that seems highly possible given their past success in this area." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ January 25, 2006).

"As I have said on many occasions, the process by which we were lied to and lured into the Iraqi quagmire resembles, in all its essentials, a classic disinformation campaign such as would be run by a foreign intelligence operation. The usurpation of authority in the national security bureaucracy, the corruption of the intelligence-gathering process ­ including the introduction of forged documents ­ and the deployment of an extensive network both inside and outside of government, all point to a large-scale covert action designed to drag us into war. It wouldn't be the first time a foreign intelligence agency played a key role in getting us into a foreign war, and ­ as long as the Empire lasts ­ it won't be the last." (Justin Raimondo ‘Scooter's Motive’ November 28, 2005).

Raimondo would scoff at the idea of jewish world domination if he could ever bear to think such a radical thought but he is the first commentator who has argued that the jews-only state in palestine is now a world power. "Aside from Zunes' conflation of "Jewish" and "Israeli," which diverts attention away from Israel's ruthless support of its national interests, one has to ask: who is "really" responsible? Why, the U.S., of course: it's the Americans who really are in the saddle when it comes to the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the Jewish state. Israel, according to this classic leftist view, is a "colony" ­ specifically, a "settler colony," made possible first by the British and today by the American "ruling class." This view, however, neglects the growth of Zionist power in its own right as an independent force in world politics." (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph’ January 6, 2006); "The new power relationship between the U.S. and Israel is not recognized by Professor Zunes and much of the antiwar Left, just as it is ignored by neoconservative apologists for Israel and their evangelical cheering section on the Right, yet this is the major achievement of Sharon as politician and statesman. He was and is, first and foremost, an Israeli nationalist who always put the interests of his own country first. While much is made of his supposed turning away from the radical Zionist agenda of Likud, a good argument could be made that instead of betraying it he went a long way toward fulfilling it. After all, who would have dreamed, at the height of the first Intifada, that Israel's influence would one day extend all the way to Kirkuk ­ and that a longtime ally, Ahmed Chalabi, would become Iraq's oil minister? If Israel was once subservient to the Western powers, and their willing instrument, it has now largely broken free in an important sense. The Jewish state is, today, a rising world power: one of the few that successfully bargains with ­ and often defies ­ the United States, all without being bombed into submission or targeted for regime change." (Justin Raimondo ‘Sharon's Epitaph. He made Israel into a world power’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8352 January 6, 2006).

Raimondo is one of the few mainstream internet commentators who has supported the idea of iran developing nuclear weapons. "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat ­ as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister ­ perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority ­ might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) ­ that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…). Secondly, as I've said above, the evening out of the Middle East playing field might not be such a bad idea after all. With the threat of an Israeli first strike removed, the process of general disarmament ­ starting with nuclear disarmament ­ can begin. Let the International Atomic Energy Agency ­ the UN's official nuclear weapons watchdog ­ inspect Israel's nuclear sites and make their findings public. Then the Security Council can deal with the allegations against Iran in context ­ and, perhaps, forge the basis for negotiating the general and complete nuclear disarmament of the entire region, setting in place safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that conduct surveillance on an equal basis." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ January 13, 2006).

Raimondo has recently pointed out the existence of a new phenomenon in american politics ­ pseudo israelis ­ non-jewish americans who believe they’re citizens of the jews-only state in palestine.

Raimondo’s efforts to get to the truth about what is going on in the bush administration seems to me to put him well ahead of other commentators in the Truth stakes - especially since alexander cockburn’s criticisms of raimondo seem to suggest he was too frightened about the political implications of raimondo’s thesis to give raimondo the support he deserves.

For raimondo's views on vladimir putin's efforts to curb zionist control over russia please see the section, Justin Raimondo

From the early 1970s, the jewish neocons managed to erect a taboo around their existence making it difficult for the american public to discuss their common goals and their open conspiracy. "But wait - I used the word "neoconservative." Mr. Wald says not only that neoconservative originated as a pejorative used by Michael Harrington (true, if irrelevant) but that there never really were any self-identified "neoconservatives" (false). This line that there never really were any neoconservatives has long been used by Irving Kristol in interviews. I used to laugh about it with other of Kristol's employees. The non-existence of neoconservatism, except in the minds of conspiracy-mongers, certainly would have come as news to me and my fellow neoconservatives when I worked for Kristol and attended conferences and dinner parties with Gertrude Himmelfarb, Bill Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Peter Berger, and other self-conscious neocons. Unaware that we were not supposed to exist, according to Mr. Wald, we neocons were well aware of the shared views on the Cold War, race, and other topics that distinguished us from the Buckley Tories and the Buchananite Old Right." (Michael Lind ‘I Was Smeared’ History News Network June 30th 2003). Even in 2004 the neocons were still pretending they didn’t exist. Here was a group of jews, with a splattering of goys to maintain a non-racist, multi-cultural facade, whose history stretched back to the early 1970s when, for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine, they wrecked nixon and kissinger’s détente with the soviet empire. In other words, for thirty years they’d managed to prevent their political identity from becoming a matter of public debate even though they’d been responsible for some of america’s most pivotal political decisions over that time. This wasn’t a group of conspirators working behind the scenes surreptitiously manipulating events to serve their interests like the so-called Elders of Zion. This was a massive network of highly influential jews in the media and political domain who operated openly in public because they knew the non-jewish media was too frightened out the jewish actors on the political stage. This is similar to the media treatment of events after the collapse of the soviet empire when a group of jews managed to wrest control of virtually all of russia’s major industrial assets. The western media referred to them solely as "the family" or "the oligarchs" rather than what they were i.e. "zionist oligarchs" or, even more accurately, israeli traitors i.e. jewish traitors to the russian state.

In november 2004 raimondo made the interesting point about the political consequence of the bush administration arming the jews-only state with the weapons needed to attack iran, "The Israelis are in a position to blackmail both the Iranians and the Americans. They can threaten Tehran with nuclear annihilation ­ or threaten the U.S. with unilaterally taking out Iran's reactors and plunging the entire region into war. With U.S. troops, as it were, in the midst of it." (Justin Raimondo ‘Arafat and Vanunu: Two Prisoners of War’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3970 November 12, 2004).

The question that needs to be asked is why the bush administration gave the jews-only state in palestine the long range fighter aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs that would make a zionist attack on iran possible given that, if the zionists did act unilaterally out of their own national interests, then iranian retaliation would pose a considerable danger to the 150,000 american soldiers stationed in iraq not to mention the thousands more stationed in afghanistan and other middle eastern countries? What this seems to suggest is that the bush administration has no sense of america’s national interests. It also seems to suggest the bush administration has been completely taken over by israeli traitors supporting what is in effect zionist world domination. The israelis in the bush administration are now in a position to blackmail bush only because bush put himself in a position to be blackmailed. Funny that neither of the shabbat goy puppets in the 2004 presidential elections discussed this issue.

Raimondo’s promotion of the idea of "red-state fascism" is another example of the weakness of his anti-zionist critique. In a march 2005 article he stated, "From the moment the twin towers were hit, the fascist seed began to germinate, to take root and grow. The Republican Party's response to 9/11 was to push through the most repressive series of laws since the Alien and Sedition Acts, starting with the "PATRIOT Act" and its successors ­ making it possible for American citizens to be held without charges, without public evidence, without trial, and giving the federal government unprecedented powers to conduct surveillance of its own citizens." (Justin Raimondo ‘A Fascist America. How close are we?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5070 March 4, 2005). He then proceeded to delineate what he believed was the most important aspect of the fascist mentality .. "the seizure of power as an "emergency" measure to prevent some larger catastrophe, is a common theme of fascist coups everywhere, and in America it is playing out no differently." He concluded, "The neoconservative movement represents the quintessence of fascism …" (Justin Raimondo ‘A Fascist America. How close are we?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5070 March 4, 2005).

Raimondo’s failure to adopt a radical critique of zionism is obvious in his April 2005 article on extremism in the jews-only state, "Over the years, as the actions of the Israeli government have become more extreme ­ and less concerned with international public opinion ­ very little of what Israel's leaders say or do seems all that surprising. Invading the West Bank and Gaza, demolishing peoples' homes, defying the U.S. on the settlements issue as they angle for more "foreign aid" from the clueless Americans ­ even running over people with tanks! ­ it all makes a twisted kind of sense, given the fanatical nationalism that motivates Israel's partisans both here and in Palestine. (A fanaticism, I might add, that flourishes on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Yet, even amid all this emotional and political hysteria, the Israelis have often exhibited an admirable pragmatism: they were willing to make concessions (or not) depending on Israel's national security needs at the time. Sharon's "strategic disengagement" plan ­ in spite of being compromised by all sorts of hemming, hawing, and hedging ­ is a good example of this commonsense approach." (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel Goes Extremist’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5495 April 8, 2005).

As the trial of franklin has come closer, raimondo has increased his anti-zionist rhetoric. He alleges that the neocons pulled off a coup d’etat to psuh america into a proxy zionist war against iraq, "In effect, the neocons pulled off a coup d'etat, a palace revolution in which veteran government officials like Richard Clarke, and the CIA and Pentagon "old guard," were pushed aside. If the purpose of the U.S. government is to protect American security and interests, then why did there need to be a "separate" and competing government ­ unless that government was pursuing other, non-American interests?" (Justin Raimondo ‘Plan of Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2340 April 19, 2004).

Raimondo’s response to gilad atzmon’s statement, "American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least." Is, "Brought up in a right-wing ultra-Zionist family, Atzmon appears so enamored of his own ability to provoke that he has lost sight of either truth or common sense." (Justin Raimondo ‘Comrade Aaronovitch Strikes Again’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6472 June 29, 2005).

For further information please see

Reade attacks those on the left and right of the political spectrum over their views on the p*ny bombings. He’s too decent to adopt the right wing perspective and would find himself unemployed if he’d taken a radical stance so he creates an untenable proposition in order to demolish it and get the issue out of the way, “Those who argue that uncle sam had it coming have been made to look ridiculous by the sheer scale of the slaughter. The notion that 5,000 innocent people somehow deserved to die because american support for israel is sub sixth form politics.”[75] It is absurd to believe that the bombers were motivated solely by the appalling treatment of palestinians in zionist occupied palestine. It is absurd to believe that the victims were criminals who were being punished for a crime they’d committed.

Routledge argued, “That hideous process (the violence in the middle east) will continue, and get worse, until the united states addresses the root cause of the middle east conflict: Israeli oppression of the palestinian people. America arms, finances and, by want of diplomacy, encourages the ariel sharon regime in its strategy of crushing a people whose lands it has occupied. By doing so the usa placed itself in the front line of a conflict that is of virtually no significance to most americans. Washington shows no sign of understanding this fatal flaw in the nation’s foreign policy. And if the bush administration simply bombs with no thought of diplomatic solutions, the cycle of revenge will never be broken.”[76] There is a great deal of truth in routledge’s analysis. However, to argue that “Washington shows no sign of understanding this fatal flaw in the nation’s foreign policy” is absurd. The zionist lobby and the zionists in the american government, clearly understand what is going on and the non-zionists in the american government would have to be pretty dumb if they didn’t notice the direction in which the zionists were pushing the government. When western, liberal democracies pretend that the zionist state in palestine is a liberal democracy rather than an apartheid regime; and that zionists are liberal democrats rather than crypto-nazis; and that palestinians are terrorists rather than freedom fighters, etc they are never going to create justice, fairness, and equality, in palestine let alone anywhere else around the world. Routledge is old labour and thus sympathetic to the palestinian cause - but he won’t talk about zionist domination let alone anti-racist racism.

Routledge pointed out that when mcblair addressed parliament on september 14th 2001 he .. “devoted only one sentence to the root cause of the terror - the arab-israeli conflict. He argued that the peace process should “if at all possible” be moved forward but later admitted he had no specific ideas on how this should, or could be done. There you have it. A call to arms, with the imprecise objective of stamping out worldwide terror and - very much in third place - sorting out the causes of terror.”[77]

Routledge suggested afghanistan would need a marshall plan to restore the country after the war, “This nation on its knees needs a new marshall plan to help to rebuild a shattered way of life.”[78]

Routledge is one of the country’s less pro semitic journalists but whilst he supported the capture and trial of bin laden he said nothing about the capture and trial of henry kissinger and ariel bin sharon, “The perpetrators of the attack on america cannot go unpunished.”[79] The reason he didn’t demand that zionist terrorists like sharon should be treated the same way as moslem terrorists is because he knows his career would go down the drain if he ever told the truth. Routledge proceeds, “By their indulgence towards bin laden and his deranged followers, the taliban have invited the destruction that awaits them.”[80] But he doesn’t say this about zionist state terrorists in palestine which not merely harbours one of the world’s worst terrorists but elects him as prime minister.

Routledge’s analysis of the prime minister’s september 27th 2001 press conference with the country’s religious leaders was devastating. Mcblair tried to emphasize that the war against (moslem) terrorism was not a war against moslems. With a selection of moslem representatives standing behind him he stated, “Our fight is not with islam or with the people of afghanistan. Our fight is with those who planned these terrible atrocities and those who harbour them.”[81] But routledge was wary of mcblair’s promise, “This had better not be a new labour exercise in cynical manipulation of the muslim community at home and international opinion abroad. If tony blair goes back on the spirit of his downing street statement, he will properly be excoriated for lying in the face of a humanitarian crisis. It will be the end of mr nice guy. His premiership will be consigned to the cesspit of political history. So many people will die if he proves to be a fake. For their sake, this had better be the real thing.”[82]

Routledge’s response to mcblair’s labour party conference speech in october 2001, a few weeks after the p*ny bombings, was typical of this down to Earth, anti-european, know-nothing about global burning, isolationist, “I have just heard the sermon on the mount from tony blair, and i do not know whether to laugh or cry. Nobody but a true believer in this never-never land could have put such thoughts on paper without bursting a blood vessel through laughter.”[83]

Mcblair has tied .. “britain to the us like a dog to a lamppost in the war against terrorism.”[84]

“Tony blair and his military side-kick geoff hoon are softening up public opinion for all-out war against iraq.”[85]

Sacks provided a classic example of zionist propaganda about the jew as a helpless victim whose existence is constantly under threat from vastly superior forces, “This week the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, claimed a similar anti-Israeli bias operated in the British media. Mr Sacks told BBC Radio 4's Today that Israel had been "very unfairly treated in the media". Comparing Israel's offensive against certain West Bank towns to America's anti-terrorism efforts, Mr Sacks said Israel was "very much alone in its war against terror". "People have not understood it is fighting for its right to be," he said.”[86] Now let’s get this straight. The zionist army is more powerful than hitler’s third reich could possibly hope to imagine and is currently engaged in a deadly conflict with a people who have only stones and a few sticks of gelignite to rub together. Does this sound like the zionists are under threat from an overwhelming force? What sacks’ statement shows is pathological paranoia brought about by incessant zionist indoctrination.

Sacks is a keen promoter of ariel bin sharon’s extreme zionist propaganda, “Britain's chief rabbi came to the defence of Israel yesterday in the face of international condemnation of the Sharon government's policies. Referring to the military onslaught against Palestinian towns in the occupied West Bank, Professor Jonathan Sacks said: "What is happening now is the direct equivalent of what America is doing in Afghanistan. If we support the latter, I think we also have to understand the former. They're the same policy."”[87]

"Britain's chief rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks said. “In mainland Europe we've had many, many attacks on synagogues in France, Belgium and elsewhere. It's not that bad [here] .. ”[88] Pro-semitism is rife in virtually all countries in europe and yet sacks focuses solely on the residual traces of anti-semitism. This once again indicates sacks’ self-induced zionist paranoia.

.. “when you challenge Israel's very right to exist you are certainly calling into question the Jewish people's right to exist collectively."”[89] According to sacks, demands for the abolition of the zionist state in palestine are equivalent to demands for the extermination of the jews. This is absurd. It further evidence of zionist paranoia. Even if the zionist state did not exist, jewish people have their own state in new york - albeit only at the local government level. Jews have survived for thousands of years and there is not the slightest doubt they will survive as long as any other race on Earth. Perhaps there are many people who turned their backs on the jews when they were under threat of extermination in europe. But there are many, including those of us who condemn crypto-nazis like sharon, who are determined to do their bit to prevent this from happening again. For sacks to have made such a statement about the jews makes it even more bizarre that he doesn’t appreciate that palestinians are in a far worse predicament and that they deserve a state for their own survival.

Alexander Cockburn has written about the pressure put on michael scheuer to resign. "And, no surprise, into retirement goes Mr "Anonymous", Michael Scheuer, leader of the CIA unit hunting Osama bin Laden. I'm with Goss on that one. Scheuer probably spent most of each day hunting down his next book advance and kibbitizing about royalties from Imperial Hubris with his true "Controls" at Brassey's Inc, owned by shadowy Books International." (Alexander Cockburn ‘Politicize the CIA? You've Got to be Kidding!’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12042004.html December 4 / 6, 2004).

“One day the unfinished business of the gulf war, toppling saddam, will have to be faced.”[90]

Described the zionist minister assassinated by palestinian freedom fighters as “a respected minister.”

The zionists’ global conspiracy of silence in brutland is very strong amongst the ranks of the anti-racist, politically correct brigade who believe that discussions of zionist racism are irrelevant to solving europe’s refugee crisis. Take for example polly toynbee who believes the best way of solving the flood of refugees into europe from the mid 1990s onwards is by ending civil wars and redistributing wealth to poorer countries. Her argument has a great deal of validity but it is inadequate because she believes the issue of zionist racism in palestine is irrelevant to this problem - despite the fact that there are between 3-5 million palestinian refugees around the world, and despite the fact that the allies’ pro-semitic racism led to the gulf war against iraq and the terrible sanctions which have led to many people fleeing the country. America props up decadent arab regimes such as the algerian government which further boosts the number of refugees moving across the continent. These refugee problems are caused by the zionist league of nations and yet she refuses to believe any discussion of zionist racism is relevant, “But the majority of asylum seekers will never be sent back, even if they are not genuine. Most arrive from countries that will not take them back, such as china. It is impossible to land planeloads of refused asylum seekers in iraq, iran or afghanistan. Look where refugees come from. Afghanistan, tops the list, followed by somalia, iraq, sri lanka, turkey (kurds mainly), pakistan, iran .. Refugees flee the most horrible regimes and war torn areas, not the silent poverty of the world’s hungriest nations. The politics of immigration are poisonous. A mori poll finds that there are too many immigrants here. Clueless, they think nonwhites are 26% of the british population (the proportion is 7%). But there is no big answer. Only ending civil wars and more fairly distributing global wealth would reach root causes of mass migration. The un wasted its scant energy this week on empty rows about race and history, when the crises that force millions to flee wait for international solutions.”[91]

The vast majority of brutish journalists are virtually bereft of integrity. They can be induced by global zionist propaganda into calling a racist regime a freedom loving liberal democracy. And they treat zionist racists as respectable citizens and great political leaders. They are just a bunch of marionettes.

Zunes’ article ‘Israeli Human Rights Abuses and the U.S. Attack on the U.N. and the NGO Community’ published in July 2005 is a useful analysis of the current state of the relationships between the u.s., the u.n., ngos, and the jews-only state in palestine. That is until zunes, a theoretician, wanders off into the realms of fantasy land with his explanation for these relationships.