Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters.

George bush junior was not a creature of the jol when he entered politics nor when he became president of the united states in 2000. "In the 2000 presidential campaign he pronounced himself opposed to Bosnia-type interventions. He had to be convinced of the utility or necessity of a conventional war in Iraq that risked military occupation of it and a degree of nation-building. Likewise, Cheney had opposed going to Baghdad with US troops, and had to be convinced it was desirable. Who convinced them? And how would they have been "exploiting" (as opposed to "drawing on") the persons who convinced them?" (Juan Cole ‘More on Autonomous Regions’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_05_01_juancole_archive.html May 02, 2006). This is not to say, of course, that he, like most other american politicians, wasn’t receiving financial assistance from the jol. "Mr. Abramoff was an early backer of the president, having been listed as a co-chairman pledged to raise $25,000 for Mr. Bush at a 1999 Washington reception. He gave money to the president's recount committee in 2000 and was in the elite tier of fund-raisers for the president's 2004 re-election committee. An Abramoff aide, Susan Ralston, later went to work as Mr. Rove's executive assistant at the White House." (Jeanne Cummings ‘White House Can't Sweep Aside Abramoff’ http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113935546071667719-
auNBNLep_LngFIKDTwQ9vhhx3eY_20070208.html February 8, 2006); "Abramoff, who raised over $100,000 for Bush ..." (Don Monkerud ‘Corruption Reform?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/monkerud04292006.html April 29 / 30, 2006).

It was the pentagon and new york bombings that began bush’s conversion to extreme zionism. With little understanding of global politics and little idea how to respond to an event whose magnitude was deemed as significant as pearl harbour, bush was basically a tabula rasa upon which sharon wrote america’s foreign policies not only for the jos but for the middle east. Sharon was getting bush to implement the foreign policies of the jos "The main reason we are hated in the Middle East is because of our one-sided support of Israel. Israel can commit any atrocity against the Palestinians, break any international law, flout any United Nations resolution, and the United States does absolutely nothing and says nothing. Just recently, the Israelis announced a large expansion of the settlements on the West Bank. This is despite their acceptance of the president's so-called road map to peace, which calls for a freeze on settlements. Now, you would think that the president could at least say to Israel, "This isn't helpful to the peace process," or "You've broken your promise." No, George Bush is as silent as a timid mouse. If Israel wants to take more Palestinian land, it's OK with him. No president in history has been as fall-on-your-knees-kiss-their-feet subservient to the Israelis as President Bush. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can, in effect, spit in Bush's face, and the president will say, "My, what fine-smelling dew."" (Charley Reese ‘Inept President, Craven Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=3501 September 4, 2004). Brent scowcroft rightly suggested that sharon had wrapped bush around his little finger, "Quite aside from partisan attacks coming from the Kerry camp, the most biting critique has come from Brent Scowcroft, who mused to Britain's Financial Times the other day that while the transatlantic relationship is "in general bad," George W. Bush's attention is elsewhere: "[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized. When there is a suicide attack [followed by a reprisal] Sharon calls the president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the president says, 'Yes, you are. . . ' He [Mr. Sharon] has been nothing but trouble." (Justin Raimondo ‘Bizarro Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ October 22, 2004).

John j. mearsheimer and stephen m. walt devote nearly two pages in their recently published paper to the relationship between bush and sharon highlighting the time when sharon likened bush to chamberlain and then openly defied bush’s repeated demands for the jos’s army to pull out of palestinian occupied areas in the west bank. (see ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.27-28). It is also interesting to note that such was the power of the jol in america that over these issues the american congress sided with sharon rather than their own president who was being humiliated on the global stage a phenomena which has also happened many times in the past. "Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On May 2, it overrode the Administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming support for Israel." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.28).

In effect, bush, a wasp, has ended up becoming a front man for the jos and its agent in america, the jol. Every time he opens his mouth out come words written for him by jewish racists to promote the racist nature of the jos. For a more detailed look at the relationship between bush and sharon please see ‘Bush is Sharon’s Muppet’.

The bush administration’s preoccupation with promoting the interests of the jos has become so acute that bush has pledged to protect the jos as if it was the 51st american state. "After all, President Bush has just recently given Israel NATO-like status without so much as a murmur from Congress. "I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel," Bush said. This was the second or third time he's made this pledge, crossing a line that previous administrations would not - in effect, promulgating a treaty seemingly on the spot. No other country gets this sort of treatment." (Richard Cohen ‘No, It's Not Anti-Semitic’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2006/04/24/AR2006042401396_pf.html April 25, 2006). Either bush believes that american military power is almost omnipotent, although this is difficult to accept after the debacle in iraq, or he’s lost all sight of his own identity and his country’s own global interests.

Jews in america currently control vast slabs of the bush administration. "The neoconservatives … control the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the police-state apparatus known as "Homeland Security." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Outfoxed by bin Laden’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=4898 February 21, 2005). Wayne madsen has suggested they’re aiming to take control of the super secret National Security Agency (NSA) - America's premier electronic surveillance body. "What has some NSA officials worried is that with pro-Israeli neocons now engrained within the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), State Department, and National Security Council, NSA is ripe for penetration by Israeli intelligence. With outside contractors now permeating NSA and a major Israeli espionage operation being discovered inside the Pentagon, once again there is a fear within NSA that foreign intelligence services such as the Mossad could make another attempt to penetrate America's virtual "Fort Knox" of intelligence treasures and secrets." (Wayne Madsen ‘The neocon power grab at NSA and an attempt to stifle the press’ http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Madsen
/052405madsen.html May 24th 2005).

If the jos had not been established, it is likely that the middle east would now be peaceful, prosperous, and secular. It is true that america would probably have imposed dictatorships on many arab/islamic states in order to protect its oil interests but, even so, most would now have acquired a prosperous and increasingly westernized, middle class that would have the potential for developing western orientated, democratic systems. America would be doing vast amounts of business with middle eastern countries selling consumer commodities and military armaments which would benefit both the america and the middle eastern economies.

Unfortunately, america’s devotion to the jos has brought about a situation where both america and the middle eastern world lose out economically and politically solely for the benefit of the racist jewish hate state. "The enormous, ignored fact of the Palestinian story is that America is not, as the left so loves to think, pursuing some vital interest in its alliance with Israel. On the contrary, America is acting against its vital interests. And by America I don't just mean the wonderful, real-as-dirt Americans of Denzel Washington flicks. I also mean corporate America and the American government." (Michael Neumann ‘Protect Me from My Friends’ http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0820.html August 20, 2002); "If leftists really wanted to restrain Israel rather than moralize about American complicity, they would make clear that US policymakers are more stupid than evil, because Israeli policies run entirely contrary to America's strategic and economic interests." (Michael Neumann ‘Protect Me from My Friends’ http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0820.html August 20, 2002); "The unconditional commitment to the Israeli colonial state has eroded US relations with the richest and most populous states in the Arab and Islamic world. In market terms the difference is between hundreds of billions of dollars in sales versus defending a receiver of massive US aid handouts. The economic losses far outweigh any small-scale questionable military benefits. The Arab states are net buyers of US military hardware. The Israeli arms industry is a stiff competitor." (James Petras ‘Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses’ March 2006).

It is the increasing power of the jos which has been responsible for pushing middle eastern peoples into poverty and religious fundamentalism.

In 1974 the jewish owned media, the jewish sponsored congress, the jol, and the jos, campaigned to undermine nixon’s efforts to bring about détente between america and russia which would have ushered in an era of economic and political co-operation between the two superpowers. This would have undoubtedly resulted in massive economic growth in both countries as russia could have used its vast natural resources to fund vast imports of american goods. It would have been not only a period of peace but of prosperity for both countries which would have had equally beneficial effects for most other countries as well. The policy of détente was buried under an avalanche of lies from america’s jewish neocons who made up the complete fabrication that russia was posing an increasing military threat to america. This jewish fabrication about russian military power is little different from their fabrication that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Michael neumann has explained america’s calamitous global, strategic error in vivid terms, "The fact -the fact leftists bust a gut to ignore -is that The Big Corporations would be far, far better off if the US switched sides completely, and supported the Palestinians to the hilt. It is difficult to argue this just because it is so screamingly obvious. The Big Corporations want oil: Israel pisses off the oil producers, bigtime. Israel does not, contrary to leftist orthodoxy, help the US control the oil. For Christ's sake guys - Israel would have to shove through Syria or Lebanon or Jordan to get near any oil. That would cause a major conflagration and -guess what -destroy enormous amounts of oil-producing capacity." (Michael Neumann ‘A Study in Dogma: The Palestinians and the Party Line’ http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11182005.html November 18, 2005). This point has recently been reiterated by mearsheimer & walt, "We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence." (John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt ‘Letters: The Israel Lobby’ http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html May 11th 2006).

The jol was responsible for passing legislation boosting the political and military interests of the jos even though they undermined america’s economic interests. "as a result of pressure that pro-Israeli groups were able to exert on Congress, a set of antiboycott laws was passed that severely limit [US] business in the Arab world. As a result, American companies and the United States economy suffer an estimated $1 billion loss per year." (Professor Cheryl Rubenberg quoted in Jeffrey Blankfort ‘Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict April 2005).

American presidents have initiated economic and technology boycotts against other countries in favour of the jos even though this has undermined the interests of america’s biggest multi-national corporations. In 1995, president clinton banned american energy companies from investing heavily in iran to exploit the country’s vast fossil fuel reserves. Clinto enhanced the ban in the following year, "Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC et al wanted more. The result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha’aretz, noted at the time, "Israel is but a tiny element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot influence those within the Beltway." (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ rwp_06_011_walt.pdf March 2006 p.36). The consequence has been that over the last decade america’s oil industries have lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars in profits. For more details please see ‘How the Jewish Neocons are Bleeding America to Death’.

This point was recently made by james petras, "The most striking illustration of Jewish power in shaping US policy in the Middle East against the interest of Big Oil is demonstrated in US-Iran policy. As the Financial Times notes: "International oil companies are putting multi-billion dollar projects in Iran on hold, concerned about the diplomatic standoff (sic US economic-military threats) over the country’s nuclear programme" (FT March 18/19, 2006 p.1). Despite the fact that billions of dollars in oil, gas and petro-chemical contracts are in play, the pro-Israel lobby has influenced Congress to bar all major US oil companies from investing in Iran. Through its all out campaign in the US Congress and Administration, the US-Jewish-Israeli lobby has created a war-like climate which now goes counter to the interests of all the world’s major oil companies including BP, the UK-based gas company, SASOL (South Africa, Royal Dutch Shell, Total of France and others." (James Petras ‘The Ascendancy of Finance Capital: Record Profits and Rising Authoritarianism - March 28, 2006).

On a more mundane, practical level, as a result of america’s blind subservience to the interests of the jos, "Meanwhile, hassling Arab visitors and making their visas difficult to get and being mean to them while they are here is costing the US $20 billion a year in lost tourism, and universities have lost $42 million in tuition money, and hospitals have lost wealthy Arab patients. My guess is that we are also losing big time in the area of exports to the Arab world, and that these losses will accelerate over time." (Juan Cole ‘WSJ: $20 Billion a Year in Lost Arab Tourism’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 21, 2006).

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/