September 18, 2026

Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico Warns of War Spreading To Europe, Says Peace Is The Only Option


Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico has delivered a very important message that needs to be heard far and wide.

He warns that the war in Ukraine can potentially spread to the rest of Europe and says the war rhetoric coming out of Brussels must end.

He probably wants to say a lot more but can't.

The threat to Europe comes not from Russia but from within and amongst its allies.

A warning to Mossad, CIA, MI6, and Ukrainian intelligence: any attack on any European city, civilian building, sidewalk, streetcar, bus, hospital, etc., will be attributed to you, and only you! Tread carefully. 


The EU Begins Its Transition From An Economic Bloc To A Global Military Power



I'm all for a strong military. There's nothing wrong with that. Weakness invites many problems.

But when the military is in the hands of devils, trannies, faggots, Communists, Jews, Satanists, Occultists, terrorists, end times religious nutcases, and Talmudic ideologues, which is the case for the Pentagon, Iran, Israel, and now the EU, then look out. 

These types of people should not be anywhere near power.

That's when you get nasty and hateful policies like the calculated emptying of Ukraine of its male population. 

The Neocon and Neo-Nazi takeover of that country in 2014 has been a cataclysmic disaster for the people of Ukraine and the world. 

Ukraine was sacrificed on the altar of the U.S., the EU, and the Jews. Let's just be real about it. This has been a Western-assisted national suicide of Ukraine disguised as a war against Russia. They sent an army of literal retards to their doom, in many cases without giving them proper military training. 

Whatever blowback the EU gets they'll deserve. What they've done to Ukraine can only be categorized as pure evil.


Preparing For The Next Global Pandemic

When the next global pandemic hits the global political elite want the population to be in a state of starvation and thus easier to kill off. Famine and disease traditionally go together. And war is the catalyst for both. 

A starving population has the added benefit of being totally subservient to the government’s criminal dictates. 

We've all witnessed how a state acts when it is under existential pressure in the war in Ukraine. They are literally dragging people out of their homes to take them to the trenches. Don't think that won't happen here. Or in Russia. Or in China. Or wherever.

We also saw in 2020 how all these governments coordinate with one another during a planetary emergency. They were thinking and acting with one brain. A global government was coming into being. It is in labor right now, but it will come out kicking and screaming in the next engineered global crisis.

Last time the global message was "no vaccines, no job for you."

During the next crisis the message will be, "no vaccines, no food for you."

Those of you who have the means and the luxury to grow your own food, do so, but, do not assume one can ride out what's to come in relative peace and obscurity unless you're in the billionaire class. Most of us will again be given no choice. 

They want us on our knees to beg for their prepared solutions. 

Unemployment combined with mass starvation are what revolutions are made of and our criminal overlords fully understand this. We're ruled by expert psychologists who are master manipulators of the public psyche. They're well prepared to crush riots and give handouts at the same time. They have the stick and the carrot all lined up. 

This post is not about fear-mongering. I have avoided covering this topic at length because it's too depressing. But we need to face the writing on the wall and try to psychologically prepare ourselves for the global famine that is being planned. 

On a personal level that means strengthening our bodies and sharpening our minds. We need to start cutting out gluttonous foods so that during the transition we can have an easier time just eating the basics and essential nutrients. The less shocks our bodies absorb in stressful times the easier it will be to handle dramatic changes.

On a personal level I have cut out sugar from my diet entirely for the past month. I have experienced greater intensity and vividness in my dreams. But that's the bonus. The real benefit is to wean ourselves off of unnecessary foods because there may come a time when they will be luxuries. I'm not suggesting you go on a spartan diet, but it's a fact that without strong bodies and strong minds it'l be more difficult to navigate the challenges ahead of us.

Mike Adams On The Deliberate Destruction of Global Oil Refining Capacity

 


Mike Adams the Health Ranger:

September 17, 2026

Europe Is On Their Bullshit Again



 

The End of The House of Saud

 


It costs nothing to be allies in good times. 

Now that bad times have come for the House of Saud they are learning where they truly stand in the imperial pecking order. 

The Saudis invaded and attacked Yemen more than a decade ago with no long-term strategy. They just financed a lot of Al-Qaeda terrorism, mass bombings, and assassination strikes. 

They acted from a false sense of military superiority. They lost then and they're losing now.

Without a strong military it's foolish to project power. Saudi Arabia assumed it was a great power. But it is a collection of tribes with an ungodly amount of oil money. Yemen is the true power of the Arabian peninsula. The Houthis are reasserting Yemen’s natural position in the region. And it's not wise to assume they won't deviate ideologically if push comes to shove. 

The Saudis still have some economic leverage over Washington, but do they have the guts to financially punish the United States and try to devalue its currency? I don't think so. 

The Jews can afford to act like renegades and pirates because of the immense power they wield in Washington. The Saudis do not have that luxury. Besides, good times have made them weak and cowardly. And the Houthis smell that fear. 

They should have made peace. 

They should have known attacking a neighbouring country was a foolish thing to do.

II.

An excerpt from, "From Pawns to Global Powers: The Nations of the Middle East Strike Back" by Chas Freeman, February 14, 2023:

For the past two centuries, the West Asian and North African sub-region we call the Middle East has been the playground of external empires and great powers.  But for millennia it was itself the birthplace of its own great empires and religions.  Now, in the new world disorder, the nations of the Middle East are re-emerging as powers with regional and global influence. This is altering the relations of the United States and other external powers with them in ways that cannot be explained by “great power rivalry” and cannot be addressed by military means.

. . .The United States has assumed formal and informal commitments to come to the defense of countries in the Middle East, most clearly Israel and Saudi Arabia, but no Middle Eastern country, including Israel or Saudi Arabia, has ever accepted any reciprocal obligation to defend the United States or American interests. The classic definition of an alliance is a relationship between two or more nations embodying a broad commitment to mutual assistance in defense of common interests. By this standard, U.S. relations with Middle Eastern countries, other than Turkey (which is a member of NATO), are not “alliances” but “protected state” or “client state” relationships. They are a manifestation of American regional hegemony.  In the new world disorder, the lack of reciprocity inherent in U.S. defense commitments in the region invites their reconsideration.

Israel was for long the only Middle Eastern country to disregard admonitions from its American great power patron and to act without consulting it. Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty and has murdered American citizens like Rachel Corrie, and, more recently, Shireen Abu Akleh with impunity.  Foreign statements of concern, including American statements, over each new display of Israeli racism and disrespect for international law evoke nothing but derision from Israel’s leaders. In the Middle East, sovereign indifference to patrons is apparently contagious.  Neither Israel nor any Arab country has joined the United States in condemning and sanctioning Russia for its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  None is on board with isolating China.

Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to stage the 2003 invasion of Iraq from its territory.  More recently, its air and land forces have repeatedly threatened U.S. units protecting the so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF), which Turkey considers to be linked to and led by terrorists.  Despite Turkey’s formal membership in NATO, in practice, it is now best described as an “entente partner” of the United States and Europe – an entente being a limited partnership for limited purposes.

In 2015, Saudi Arabia assembled a “coalition of the billing” and invaded Yemen, demanding and receiving reluctant American support for its operations there.  In 2018, Saudi agents murdered a Saudi journalist affiliated with the Washington Post.  In 2022, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman refused to take a call from President Biden before accepting an apologetic visit by the president during which the crown prince rebuffed his pleas for actions that could lower the price of gasoline at the pump before elections in the United States.

Clearly, the days are over when presumed client states in the Middle East could be counted upon to comply automatically with directives from Washington.  So is their exclusive reliance on Britain, France, Russia, or the United States for their strategic defense.  They are busily establishing their own military presences and bases abroad to project power against each other and to control key strategic chokepoints.  They now mount military operations beyond their borders that are not linked to those of any patron state or coordinated with one.

Joe Viglione's Classic Chat with Raymond T. McNally on Visual Radio

 



Wikipedia:

Raymond Thomas McNally (April 15, 1931 – October 2, 2002) was an American author and a professor of Russian and East European History at Boston College. He specialized in the history of horror and wrote many books on the subject. He co-authored several books with Radu Florescu (1925–2014), who was also a professor at Boston College.

American Historical Association: 

Born in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio in 1931, Raymond McNally received a Jesuit education at St. Ignatius High School, where he distinguished himself as a musician and student. The latter attribute earned him a scholarship to Fordham University. Initially a French major, he spent his junior year abroad living with a Russian family while studying at the University of Paris. He returned to America with a newfound interest in Russia.

After graduating from Fordham with highest honors in 1953, he was awarded a Fullbright Scholarship to study at the Free University of Berlin, where he pursued his doctoral degree. During that time, he specialized in 19th-century Russian intellectual history under the tutelage of Werner Philipp. His research culminated in 1956 with the publication of his dissertation, “Das Russlandbild in der Französischen Publizistik Zwischen 1814 und 1843.” Upon returning to the United States, McNally taught at John Carroll University in Cleveland for two years. In 1958, he began his career at Boston College, where he taught until he retired in 1999. Within the field of Russian intellectual history, McNally was a particular authority on the liberal intellectual Peter Chaadayev, an edition of whose major works McNally published in 1969. In 1971 he published Chaadayev and His Friends: An Intellectual History of Peter Chaadayev and His Russian Contemporaries.

McNally’s keen interest in classic horror literature and films, in particular the 1931 version of Dracula and the Bram Stoker novel on which it was based, led him next to investigate Dracula as an historical figure. The outcome of this inquiry was In Search of Dracula, co-authored with his colleague, Radu Florescu. A number of other Dracula volumes followed, including Dracula: A Biography of Vlad the Impaler, 1431–76 (1974) and Dracula: Prince of Many Faces (1989). More recently, he and Florescu published The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. At the same time, McNally continued to give papers and publish articles on Chaadayev and his circle as well as on other aspects of Russian intellectual history.

A colorful and dynamic teacher, McNally acquired a broad following among students, both for his mainstream courses on Russian and European history and his more deliberately popular courses on Terror and Horror. His seminar in Russian intellectual history and his thesis direction enriched the preparation of several graduate students who went on to make important contributions to the field.

In addition to his roles as professor and mentor Raymond McNally founded in 1964 and headed the Russian and East European Center at Boston College, and in 1995, with the late Donald Carlisle, established the Balkan Studies Institute, housed at Boston College. His academic pursuits were complemented in the 1960s and 1970s by political activism and community service. An outspoken opponent of the war in Vietnam and of the military dictatorship in Greece, he also served for 12 years on the town of Brookline school committee and on the Democratic State Committee of Massachusetts.

II. 

This is a great interview of Raymond T. McNally and worth the listen despite the less than stellar audio at times. 

It's rare for learned men to be engaging speakers and good storytellers. They usually talk dryly and without the audience in mind. Not so with Mr. McNally. He must have been a great professor.

Video Title: Joe Viglione's Classic Chat with Raymond T. McNally on Visual Radio. Source: joeviglione. Date Published: October 13, 2011. Description:

Dr Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, In Search Of Dracula, In Search of Frankenstein, Ray McNally's classic interview on Visual Radio. Thanks to guitarist Fred Pineau for introducing me to Ray in 1974 when we interviewed him together for Varulven Magazine. Ray invited me to Boston College in my Dracula cape one Halloween a couple of decades back.

The Origins of Russophobia

 


An excerpt from, "The British Russophobia in the first half of the XIX century: the Military Aspect" By Evgeniy V. Kryzhko, Petr I. Pashkovsky,  Nickolay N. Chemodurov, Timofey A. Charusov, Bylye Gody, 2019, Vol. 52, Issue 2:

The article considers the problem of the military aspect of the British Russophobia in the first half of the XIX century. It is established that in this period the foreign policy strategy of Great Britain was guided by the logic of the need to counter the growing military-political power of the Russian empire, demanding the development of appropriate ideological tools to give legitimacy to such a course and reach a public consensus on its implementation. Therefore, the British elites are beginning to develop and implement a large-scale anti-Russian information campaign, contributing to the emergence of the phenomenon of Russophobia, an important component of which was the military aspect. At the same time, the views of the military, on the one hand, seem to be rather restrained, reflecting the positive image of the Russian soldier, which was probably the result of the memory of the British-Russian allied relations during the Napoleonic wars. On the other hand, the first resident reports are being published on the possible directions of Russian aggression against British India and the need to neutralize this threat by diplomatic and military methods. Based on the analysis of a broad source base and numerous studies, it is revealed that in the period under review, the genesis and spread of Russophobic sentiments among the political elite of Great Britain and their projection regarding the foreign policy aspirations of the Russian empire in the context of their interpretation as a direct or indirect threat to British society, the state and Europe as a whole can be traced. Such imperatives, which emanated from the British officers, were directed to the formation of stable Russophobic attitudes among the population of Great Britain so that the people would support the government’s political line to increase geopolitical pressure towards the Russian Empire.  

An excerpt from, "The Origins of Russophobia in France: 1812-1830" By Raymond T. McNally, The American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1958:

In the second two decades of the nineteenth century the picture of Russia presented in French journalistic writing was fear-inspiring. In particular, during the Napoleonic Wars and, even more pronounced after the advent of Nicholas I to the throne, French publicists initiated anti-Russian campaigns, which were destined to culminate later in the mid-nineteenth century as one of the catalyzing causes in the final alignment of France against Russia during the Crimean War. The purpose of this article is to trace the origins of this Russophobia in French pamphlets, travel books, and other popular works about Russia, as well as in diplomatic reports, before 1830. In the critical years of Franco-Russian relations, 1814-15 and 1825-26, I have also utilized the newspaper accounts of these times in tracing the roots of Russophobia.

The traditional view is that widespread fear of Russia in Western Europe was caused by the attitude and actions of Nicholas I when the liberal revolutions broke out in France, Belgium, and especially in Poland in 1830.1 However, it will be seen that a detailed study of the popular writings in France from 1812-30 requires us to make a serious modification of this traditional view held by most historians concerning the rise of Russophobia in the early nineteenth century.

In October, 1812, appeared one of the most influential works in the entire history of Russophobia: Des progres de la puissance russe by Charles-Louis Lesur (1770-1849), founder of the L'annuaire historique. In this book Lesur published the infamous and much misquoted "Testament of Peter the Great." Napoleon I had issued an order to publish a series of articles to show that "Europe is inevitably in the process of becoming booty for Russia." This "testament" was thus published through the designs of the French ministry of foreign affairs. The "will" was circulated again during the Crimean War; Napoleon III ordered it posted on public buildings in Paris and in the whole of France. Adolf Hitler had it republished during the last war. There appears little doubt that the "testament" was a forgery. Harry Breslau in the Historische Zeitschrift (1879) was the first to prove this.

The true writer appears to have been Michael Sokolnicki, a Polish general who presented the document to the French Directory on Oct. 19, 1797, with the title Aperqu sur la Russie. His text is substantially the same as Lesur's, which purported to be a resume of the original document.

September 16, 2026

No True Allies In Realpolitik



I don't know the veracity of this report about Trump backchanneling with the Houti terrorists. It could be bullshit. But this guy made a deal with the Taliban in a massive prisoner swap, which eventually led to the destruction of morale in the Afghan army and the surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban. So it could very well be true.

My advice to the Saudis and others in the Middle East: choose your protectors wisely! If you're not a Jew you're going to get screwed by Washington. U.S. policy is as simple as that. 



 

Anti-Russian Rhetoric Must Stop



Russia is not a saint in international affairs.

I am fully aware of the crimes of Russian imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. My grandmother was at risk of being raped by invading Russian troops in Iran in the early 20th century. And of the infinite rape cases during WWII, Soviet troops were infamous, especially in Germany. 

I don't think the moral qualities of Russian soldiers has improved much since then. In victory they are still a pack of animals. And I fear for Ukrainian women should Russia finally take Kyiv, but considering their shared religious history and racial commonalities I think the Russian military leadership will demand better behaviour from their troops.

Whether Russia wins in Ukraine is a matter of time now. It is the moral actor in this conflict. And it is militarily superior.

Ukraine and the West will learn that Russia must be respected. 

The anti-Russian discourse coming out of Western and Eastern European countries is extremely dangerous and must stop. 

We often hear about the dangers of antisemitism and Islamophobia. Why is anti-Russian rhetoric allowed at the official and diplomatic level?

Words matter. 

The war in Ukraine won't end until Ukrainian politicians and their crazed Western backers change their language and learn a little respect.

II.

An excerpt from, "Russian Embassy’s Statement on the promotion of anti-Russian hatred in Australia" Embassy of The Russian Federation In Australia:

The title of the latest article in the Australian "We train Ukrainians to be better at killing Russians’: ADF troops warn of key shortages" speaks for itself.

It is hate speech directed against the entire ethnic group. It originates from quotes by Australian military personnel training Ukrainian troops. They describe their objective as making their trainees "better at killing Russians" or "best skilled in killing Russians". This murderous narrative, binding together the two words "kill" and "Russians", is spread as something positive by irresponsible journalists. Now it has been enshrined in political circles by Senator James Paterson, Shadow Minister for Defence, who posted the article on his website.

We would like to remind all supporters of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime and trainers of its troops that the Ukrainian army widely uses foreign assistance and skills it receives to murder Russian civilians. There is ample evidence of the crimes of the Kiev junta. Thus, those who continue to equip the regime bear responsibility for the blood of innocent victims.

Europe Must Choose Peace With Russia



The stage managed war in the Middle East has entered a new and more unpredictable phase with the military advances of the rebels in Yemen. 

Saudi Arabia announced that it is being forced to cancel oil shipments to Europe because of the attacks on their pipelines.

Europe is in a precarious position. It has borne the brunt of Necocon adventurism and Israeli wars. It has paid a demographic price and it is facing higher energy costs because of the wars against Russia and Iran.

America has plenty of oil. Ditto for Israel. They are relatively immune to the destruction to Middle Eastern pipelines and the disruption of global energy routes. 

They're more more than willing to externalize the economic pain of their folly. I think they secretly want it. 

There's no doubt in my mind that the messianic Zionists and Masons controlling Washington and Jerusalem would love nothing more than to see Europe fall to its knees. 

Netanyahu, Trump, and their Rabbis are no friends of Europe and Western civilization.

If Europe is to survive it must grow a spine. Berlin and Paris must cease acting like conquered capitals and make political decisions that are in the best interests of their peoples and the continent as a whole. 

Washington, Jerusalem, and London must be freezed out. They have proven they have nothing but ill will towards Europe.

Germany and France must tell them to go to hell and make a new deal with Moscow.

It's never too late to choose peace.

It's never too late to tell the Devil to take a hike.

September 14, 2026

Fritz Strich on The History of The Development of World Literature


Wikipedia:

Fritz Strich (13 December 1882) – 15 August 1963) was a Swiss-German literature historian.

Born in Königsberg, Strich was a student of Franz Muncker and became a lecturer at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München in 1910. In 1915 he was appointed extraordinary professor in Munich and in 1929 professor at the University of Bern. In this way he escaped the persecution of Jews in the German Reich. In 1941 Strich was awarded the Swiss nationality and worked as a professor until his emeritus in 1953.

Strich received the Goethe Medal for Art and Science in 1932, the Berner Literaturpreis [de] in 1951 and the Goethe Plaque of the City of Frankfurt in 1953. Strich was a member of the German Academy for Language and Poetry.

An excerpt from, "Goethe And World Literature" By Fritz Strich, Routlege & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1945, Pg. 52 - 58:

Goethe's idea of world literature took the form neither of a command on his part that it should develop nor of a seer's vision that it was bound to do so. The idea evolved from his realisation that a world literature was in actual fact taking shape in his own time. It was only a new name for an actual historical process which Goethe was witnessing, and which presaged the dawning of a new literary age. For Goethe nothing had real existence unless he had himself experienced it. Therefore his idea of world literature developed out of his own feeling of in-debtedness to foreign literatures. The culture he had imbibed from them had helped to make him what he was, a power in the literary world of Europe. The rising generation in Europe hailed him as its leader and spiritual head. This experience indicated to Goethe that German literature was now no longer merely receptive, modelling itself on others which despised and neglected it. It now had something to contribute ; it played an active part in the development of European literatures, and in particular had a rejuvenating effect on the jaded spiritual life of Europe.

So, when Goethe speaks of world literature as something that is taking shape, we must ask the question whether it was really only beginning to develop in his time. In the Middle Ages and the Age of Humanism there existed a universal language, Latin, in which not only could the learned men of every nation exchange their thoughts but in which also an extra-national poetry grew up. Although Goethe himself refers expressly (when opposing linguistic "Purism ) to the beneficial influence which this had on the intellectual coherence of Europe, Latin literature cannot be claimed as world literature in Goethe's sense. For, in the first place, the circle which knew and used it was limited to scholars, and in the second place world literature ought to be not a colourless unity but a lively conversation. The nations ought not thereby to lose their special characteristics, but with one another's help should develop their common human qualities and learn tolerance for each other. Goethe saw in Ancient Greece a universal model for all literatures. When he developed his idea of world literature in conversation with Eckermann, and spoke of the need for aquainting oneself (as he did) with foreign literatures, he added that, however much one admired them, none could serve as a pattern. If we look for a model we must turn to the ancient Greeks, in whose works the perfection of human endeavour was represented. We must look at everything else from the historical point of view, appropriating, as far as we can, what is good in it. But Goethe certainly did not recognise as world literature merely any literature written in one universal language. On the other hand there had been, from classical times onwards, contacts between the peoples suggesting world literature in Goethe's sense. If we take German literature in particular, it has always been open to literary influences from abroad, has modelled itself on them, interested itself critically in them, and developed a vast activity in the work of translation. Through every age, German literature shows a tendency to look to the Romance literatures for guidance in form and proportion, purity and beauty. Middle High German literature took its formal and social education from France. Through the influence of Chancellor Johannes von Neumarkt (whose enthusiasm for Italy had almost the same origins as Goethe's) at the court of the Emperor Charles IV, famous writers of the Italian Renaisaance, Petrarch and Rienzi, became models for a Latin and also a German literary style. Translations from Boccaccio, Poggio and Æneas Silvius affected the incipient German Renaissance. French literature was used in the 16th century to help to overcome German crudity in art and society. Even the Baroque movement, consciously national in its ambition to raise German literature to the level of other European literatures, employed translation and imitation to show that what was possible in other languages was possible also in German. German classicism, superseding the Baroque style, copied the example of the French from whom it learned to endow German poetry with symmetry, clarity, good taste and reasonableness. And the German Rococo, the Anacreontic poetry of which Wieland's is the finest example, learned from French poetry charm, grace, and lightness, until finally both classicism and rococo were superseded by the foreign---though this time Germanic---help of England. Foreign literary influence on German literature assumed such proportions that German writers of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries had repeatedly to oppose it. 

. . .The more German literature struggled by means of imitation to achieve significance, the farther it went astray. Even its efforts passed unnoticed or were regarded as barbarous eccentricities. This came to an end in the 18th century, when the nations, filled with the idea of one universal humanity, began to look beyond their frontiers and to attempt just criticism. But although Gottsched, Wieland, Gellert and other German writers now found acknowledgment and acceptance in French literature, we must remember that this happened only because these writers were themselves the product of the French school, and France was merely getting back what she had given. German literature had as yet nothing of its own to bestow. Even Lessing could hardly give anything to France which Diderot had not already expressed.

But there were signs which can be regarded as a beginning of world literature in Goethe's sense. In the first place there were the new journals which appeared in the course of the 18th century. The second half of the 17th century had of course its journals, such as the fournal des Savants (from 1665), the Nouvelles de la Républigue des Lettres (from 1684), the Bibliothegue Universelle (from 1685). They adopted a universal European tone and dealt with the German point of view, but their main concern was with scientific literature. Imaginative literature came only exceptionally within their purview. These journals were supranational in their desire to found a republic of the sciences. The 18th century, on the other hand, witnessed the founding of the Bibliotheque Anglaise (1717), the Bibliotheque Germanique (1720), the Bibliotheque Italique (1729), and these were conscious attempts to familiarise the nations of Europe, whose interests so far had been restricted to French literature, with English, German and Italian literature. While each of these journals had its specialised sphere of activity, the Bulletins litteraires of Fr. Melchior Grimm, the Journal étranger and the fournal littéraire (from 1754) and many other journals in France had real influence in the direction of world literature. This was especially the case with the Journal étranger, in the preface to which the hope was expressed that this journal would be popular in France, would find a wide circulation throughout Europe and would help to unite the individual literary republics in one single intellectual confederation, in a "réspublique des lettres". Every nation, the Journal goes on to say, will be enriched by the treasures of its rivals without losing any of its own, and so the whole of Europe will become better educated, more philosophical; and the Journal étranger hopes to have the good fortune to help in this task. Many voices were saying much the same thing. The most influential was of course Voltaire's. In a dedicatory letter for a French translation (by Antelmy) of Lessing's Fables he writes: French literature is very widely known in Germany, and journals publish reports of all our doings. There is also much just criticism. The .example that Germany gives ought to incite France to emulation, "que votre langue devînt plus commune parmi nous; que nous puissions nous intéresser à vos travaux littéraires, comme vous vous intéressez aux nôtres; qu'après avoir contribué avec deux de nos nations voisines à épurer votre goût, nous profitassions à notre tour de vos lumières (1764). These journals did justice to German literature by pointing out how far it was from being barbarous and rough. Soon, too, contributors began to mention their hopes for the wholesome and rejuvenating influence which German literature might have on French. This is particularly noticeable after France had become aware of Albrecht von Haller, Salomon Gessner and certain German writers who carried on their traditions. Huber's Choix de Poésies Allemandes, which appeared in 1766, was so successful that one can almost say there was a germanophil fashion in France in the sixties, and can trace Swiss and German influences in the works of the greatest French writers. Tacitus, in his Germania, had contrasted the simple moral and religious life among the German peoples with an over-civilised and decadent Rome. In the same way the idyllic poetry of a Haller or Gessner is contrasted as the ideal image of return to nature, to simplicity, to morality and religion. The Swiss and German writers make their entry into French literature with Rousseau. In the seventies and eighties the works of the younger German dramatists became known in France through the Thédtre Allemand, edited in 1772 by Junker and  Liebault, and the Nouveau. Thédtre Allemand by Friedel and Bonneville (1782-85). Even the early dramas of Goethe and Schiller 'are included among them. There is no doubt that this paved the way for the tremendous influence of Werther, which swept across France.

In Goethe's early years, then, world literature in his sense had made a beginning. But this was all a prelude compared with what happened in Europe after the publication of Werther; the traffic in ideas between the peoples gained not only in scope and speed but in depth and productiveness. 

Nearer, My God, to Thee



Today is the 125th anniversary of the death of President William McKinley. He was a Republican President who did everything better than Trump and probably every other President. Wars. Tariffs. Taking an assassin's bullet. He even died well.

McKinley's legacy is proof that there's nothing wrong with fighting wars and smacking tariffs on everything. But they must be done with wisdom, precision, and always with the national interest in mind, not for ideological reasons, the benefit of special interests, and the enrichment of a chosen few. 

Wikipedia:

William McKinley (January 29, 1843 – September 14, 1901) was the 25th president of the United States, serving from 1897 until his assassination in 1901. A member of the Republican Party, he led a realignment that made Republicans largely dominant in the industrial states and nationwide for decades. McKinley successfully led the U.S. in the Spanish–American War and oversaw a period of American expansionism, with the annexations of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and American Samoa.

. . .On the morning of September 13, McKinley's condition deteriorated. Specialists were summoned; although at first some doctors hoped that McKinley might survive with a weakened heart, by afternoon they knew that the case was hopeless. Unknown to the doctors, gangrene was growing on the walls of McKinley's stomach and slowly poisoning his blood. McKinley drifted in and out of consciousness all day, but when awake he was a model patient. By evening, McKinley too knew he was dying, "It is useless, gentlemen. I think we ought to have prayer." Relatives and friends gathered around the death bed. The first lady sobbed over him, saying, "I want to go, too. I want to go, too." Her husband replied, "We are all going, we are all going. God's will be done, not ours", and with final strength put an arm around her. He may also have sung part of his favorite hymn, "Nearer, My God, to Thee", although some other accounts have the first lady singing it softly to him.

At 2:15 a.m. on September 14, 1901, McKinley died. Theodore Roosevelt rushed back to Buffalo and took the oath of office as president. Czolgosz, put on trial for murder nine days after McKinley's death, was found guilty, sentenced to death on September 26 and executed by electric chair on October 29, 1901.

 
 

September 13, 2026

David Lynch on Mulholland Drive


I've been on a Criterion Picks binge on YouTube this weekend, just trying to fall in love with films again by watching filmmakers passionately discuss them. 

I can't remember the last movie I watched in one sitting without any interruption. And I miss being in that state of total surrender. The problem I have these days is picking what to watch. So I just choose nothing and read a book instead. 

But it's always good to revisit favourites and start from there. Exercising the movie muscles is easier when you know you're in for a good time.


Video Title: David Lynch on Mulholland Drive. Source: Laurent Touil-Tartour. Date Published: November 18, 2021.

Mocha




Related: 

The Protestant Prophecies: Britain, Prussia, And Palestine In 1840.


An excerpt from, "Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East" by Jonathan Parry, Princeton University Press, 2022, Pg. 67-73:

The Indian army's voyage towards Egypt in 1801 required an accommodation with the Arab chiefs along the Red Sea coast. Two were regarded as particularly important: the sharif of Mecca and the imam of Sanaa. The sharif of Mecca was the hereditary guardian of the Holy Cities, the most important political influence in Jeddah, Mecca's port, and the most powerful local embodiment of Ottoman sovereignty over the Hijaz. At the southern end of the Red Sea, the independent imam of Sanaa rather than the Ottoman sultan exercised sovereignty over Yemen and the Yemeni ports, of which the most significant was Mocha. Indian merchants, especially the Banyan, had had trading links with Jeddah and Mocha for centuries, which the French occupation of Egypt had badly damaged. Overwhelmingly, British interest in 1801 focused on the eastern shore of the Red Sea. On the western coast, the two main harbours south of Kosseir, at Suakin and Massawa, still owed the Ottomans allegiance.

As Britain had learned in the 1770s and 1780s, Muslim concern to safeguard Mecca and Medina gave Red Sea politics its distinctive flavour. From 1798, British policymakers stressed that their pursuit of influence in the Red Sea would rest on defence of Islam---against the French soldiers from a revolutionary secularist regime who were now so near the Holy Cities of the Hijaz.

In July of that year, Spencer Smith pledged to the Porte that British ships there would show the "most exact and scrupulous respect" for Islam, and for "religious institutions of every persuasion," just as Britain did in India. In 1801, Baird's army brought presents from Governor-General Wellesley for the sharif of Mecca, the imam of Sanaa, and the sultan of Aden, together with letters reassuring them that the British troops were there "to provide for the security of the Mahomedan possessions on the Arabian side of the Red Sea." On landing at Kosseir in Upper Egypt in 1801, Murray made the same pledge, urging the inhabitants to "fulfil the sacred precept of the Koran which teaches 'you must put to death your enemies wherever you may find them, and rout them out from places from whence they have driven you', for the loss of your religion is more to be dreaded than death itself." This was shrewd politics, but it was not original. Napoleon had initiated this game by sending warm letters in early 1799 to the sharif and to the imam of Muscat, at the same time as to Tipu Sultan in Mysore, urging mutual cooperation to defeat "the Iron yoke of England." These letters were intercepted by Captain Wilson at Mocha, and alerted Bombay to the urgent need to woo the Arab chiefs.

Jonathan Duncan, governor of Bombay, had a more ambitious plan to mobilise Arab Muslim sentiment. He sent Mahdi Ali Khan, a financially astute Persian Muslim and long-time associate of his, to Jeddah and Mecca to lead an Arab revolt against the French, to coincide with the arrival of Baird's army. Mahdi Ali Khan had made the pilgrimage to Mecca twenty-five years before and claimed that, by repeating it, he could rouse an independent Arab army. His formal function would be to recruit camels and horses for Baird's impending invasion of Egypt, but his underlying obiective would be to find "7 or 8 principal people among the Arabs to send them as agents among the different tribes of the wild Arabs to bring these last into the interest of our government," and ideally to begin an Arab land march up the eastern Red Sea coast into Egypt. Duncan allowed any "reasonable expense" for this mission, and Mahdi Ali Khan set off with 61,000 rupees, plus a pearl rosary, muskets and pistols, mirrors, a watch, fine cloths and spices for the sharif of Mecca. After arriving at Jeddah in May 1801, he claimed to have arranged that the sharif would supply the cause with six thousand Arabs. Within a couple of months, he expected also to assemble, from desert tribes, a force of potentially one hundred thousand, "some thro motives of gain, and others influenced by religious zeal."

Mahdi Ali Khan's plan was probably always fanciful, but any initial warmth that the sharif may have displayed to the enterprising pilgrim dissipated once he realised his connection with the impending arrival of over five thousand Indian troops under Baird, seeking to replace the French in Egypt with a revived Ottoman sovereignty. The sharif was dependent for corn on the French regime in Egypt; he also enjoyed great practical independence from the sultan in Constantinople, which Baird seemed to threaten. When Baird arrived at Jeddah with this army, the sharif became hostile to all his British visitors. He complained about an outrage inflicted on one of his merchants who had been arrested at Bombay, and demanded a more beneficial customs arrangement for his coffee there. Baird realised that it was prudent to leave Jeddah as soon as possible, and sail to Kosseir, taking the gamble that Murray whom he had sent ahead, could get camels and horses there.

The negotiations between the British and the sharif at Jeddah were led by the naval officer Home Popham, who was accompanying Baird. He had arrived in the Red Sea in order to pursue the trade mission to the sharif, the imam, and the sultan of Aden that he had planned with Dundas in 1800. Popham's aim was to knit these chiefs, and the Mamluks in Upper Egypt, into a network of commercial allies. None would become too powerful; all would be bound into British trade: there would be no reason for them to side with French agents instead. Popham claimed that his mission was in the interests, and in the name, of the sultan.

The sharif, however, successfully disputed Popham' claim to speak for the sultan, asserting his own loyalty to his caliph and understanding of his interests. Popham's attempt to intimidate him with British power was a failure. Moreover, Popham had to rescue Mahdi Ali Khan, whom the sharif had effectively imprisoned, and to pay his debts. Mahdi Ali Khan had not helped himself by supporting the party of the sharif's rival Abdullah. Popham had likewise hoped---albeit more subtly---to help the local faction opposed to the sharif's rapacity, confident that replacing him would boost British popularity. Wellesley, however, vetoed any British challenge to the guardian of Mecca, on the grounds that it risked inflaming "every Mussulman state in India." As it happened from 1803, Sharif Ghalib's local power was seriously compromised, not by Britain, Constantinople, or local enemies, but by the Wahhabi, and eventually by Mehmet Ali.

Popham was no more successful on the western side of the upper Red Sea, where he faced a similar problem in deciding how far to distance himself from the Ottoman interests that he was in principle sent to uphold. His main aim was a treaty with the powers of Upper Egypt, which would get the corn of Kosseir into British hands. In April 1802, when he returned to Kosseir to escort Baird's troops home, he tried to make a trade arrangement directly with the Mamluk leaders there. This was, naturally, vetoed by the Ottomans, and also by Wellesley, who insisted that any arrangements for Egyptian trade must be made only with those who had been authorised to do so by Constantinople.

Popham was left with nothing to show for his efforts in the northern Red Sea. Once the French had been removed from Egypt, Arab chiefs had no incentive to pursue his offers of alliance, British assertiveness now risked appearing alien and threatening. Once again, it was clear that Europeans interfered in the Hijaz at their peril. There was less and less urgency on the British side as well. From 1803, civil war in Egypt and Wahhabi incursions in the Hiiaz underlined regional instability. The Red Sea remained almost impossible to navigate in the monsoon season.

However, the sea's southern end was more promising. There had twice been an EIC factory at Mocha, reflecting its historic importance as a coffee trading port, though in recent decades most coffee had been taken north by Ottoman traders. Since the seventeenth century, Mocha had owed allegiance to the imam of Sanaa, rather than to the Ottomans. Murray had been based there when Red Sea commissioner, and had left behind a Bombay surgeon, John Pringle, as acting resident. American merchants from Salem had started buying coffee there in 1801 as an alternative to Java, which suggested that an international market could be re-established there. In 1801, Baird and Popham sent Pringle to Sanaa to court the imam, with Wellesley's letter, and he agreed to allow the British expedition to use Mocha as a base for their expedition up the sea. Popham returned in 1802, invested by Wellesley as ambassador to Arabia and commissioner for the Red Sea (replacing Murray), in order to underline his authority to make commercial treaties. Popham's idea was to resurrect the Mocha trade on such a large and lucrative scale that the imam and the local chief, the dola of Mocha, would become dependent on British wealth rather than Ottoman or French.

His planned treaty making failed. Popham and his guard got only a quarter of the way inland to Sanaa, encountering many indignities en route. They were waylaid and tricked by a "hoary villain"; some of the party had their buttons torn off by Arabs looking for gold; their surgeon was lucky not to be judged guilty of killing a dying man by giving him an opium pill. Where they had hoped to encounter commercial potential, they found grinding poverty and hostility. Moreover, the imam had little power in Mocha itself, where the local chief, the dola, treated Popham's party with "every insult." This was perhaps because he saw no reason to disrupt the existing trade links, especially in view of the promising new connection with Massachusetts. Popham left Pringle in Mocha and appointed him resident---an appointment resented by Bombay, which had to pay for it. Popham fell back on Aden, and in September 1802 signed a treaty of amity and commerce with its ruler, Sultan Ahmed, securing a low duty of 2 per cent for British goods for ten years, which would then rise to a maximum of 3 per cent. Popham hoped thereby to make the imam jealous of Aden's trade benefits. He was also aware of Aden's strategic potential, just as Murray had been, and anxious to stop France taking it. 

Soon after Popham's mission, Mocha, like most of the Red Sea's east coast, became vulnerable to a new threat---the expansionist Wahhabi Arabs from the centre of the peninsula. They had taken Mecca briefly in 1803, and forced the sharif to recognise their interpretation of Islam. Over the next few years, they imposed heavy tolls on the hajj, took effective control of Medina. and raided the Yemeni ports. Wellesley sent his own man to report on the area in 1804, partly in order to find out more about their threat and their popularity. This was Viscount Valentia, an Irish peer and political connection of his, who had arrived in Calcutta from Britain in early 1803, fascinated with Wellesley's new Indian empire, but also seeking to reinvent himself. He had left home after his wife had had a child by another man, alleging his preference for male servants: these affairs were aired in two court cases, which gripped society. In Calcutta, Wellesley and Valentia hatched a plan for the latter to explore and chart the Red Sea and its peoples, an adventure with clear geographical, anthropological, and strategic benefits. Valentia had been inspired by William Vincent's 1800 edition of the Periplus. He believed that Britain and India could learn valuable lessons from its account of the Roman-era Red Sea trade route, its peoples, and its navigation difficulties. He sought to make a name for himself as intellectual and patriot, by applying modern science to supplement the ancient Alexandrian author's observations. Wellesley agreed to give him a Bombay cruiser, the Antelope, and a captain to go with it. Armed with the Periplus, he left Bombay for the Red Sea in March 1804.

Valentia found his trip very frustrating. Captain Keys did not want to sail hundreds of miles up an uncharted coast under the orders of a vain, camp, and headstrong Irish peer---who seized much of the cabin as his private space. Keys preferred the security of Mocha, which Valentia hated because there was much less respect for Britain, and himself, than he had imagined. This was typifed by the behaviour of the dola, who ran a system of kidnapping sailors off boats, getting them drunk, forcing them to convert to Islam, and selling them into slavery as "renegadoes." Valentia blamed the upstart American traders for tolerating this practice, and exploiting Arab avarice in other ways, in order to get preferential access to local coffee. He was even more annoyed that neither Keys (who acquired two boy slaves) nor the resident, Pringle, seemed willing to challenge this system. Pringle had succumbed to drink, leaving Valentia to fight to liberate the sailors on his own. Valentia's contempt for the dola extended to the seventy-eight-year-old imam of Sanaa, a debauchee preoccupied with his "sooty harem." Valentia prophesied that neither man could resist the oncoming Wahhabi, who would subdue and purify the area as Muhammad had swept away previous dissolute Arabian rulers. There was no point in relying on existing authorities. Britain's future relationship would probably have to be with the Wahhabi.

Valentia drew the same conclusion as Murray and Popham: the best local port was Aden, which was independent of the Ottomans and could become free of Sanaa if the British induced the Yemeni coffee trade to switch there from Mocha. The Periplus's account of its history and harbour confirmed his conclusion. But the Bombay government wanted no territory in this confused part of the world, nor to make a deal with the Wahhabi: it worried that their recent victories so far from their base at Diriyya might be contested and temporary. It recalled Pringle in 1805 and Mocha was once again left without a resident.

The British might have given up on the Red Sea, had the European situation not got progressively worse. In 1805 and 1806, it seemed that the war with France would probably spread to the East again, and several rumours arose about French activities in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, instigated from their Mauritius base. One fear was that France would exploit local tensions over the island of Kamaran near the mouth of the Red Sea, between the Yemeni ports of Luhaya and Hudayda. In late 1805, a powerful merchant, Sayyid Muhammad Aqil, bought the island from the sharif of Abu Arish, who had established an independent position in northern Yemen. Aqil probably did so in order to assert himself against the Wahhabi, but three French naval officers from Mauritius visited the island with him, apparently seeking to restore a French factory in the area. Pringle and Valentia both reported that Aqil was courting French support in order to safeguard his position, and would offer them Kamaran. In April 1806, his "pirate" followers boarded an American ship from Salem, the Essex, and killed all but one of the crew. This showed his power and ruthlessness, but also justified a British intervention. In July 1806, two warships were sent from Bombay to force him from the island, though in fact he had already left. This intimidating military expedition had the side benefit of impressing the local Arab chiefs. Sharif Hamud of Abu Arish now confirmed that the sale of the island had been a mistake, pledged peace with Britain, and promised to supply the EIC with two thousand bales of coffee. This arrangement passed the test of Jonathan Duncan in Bombay--that visiting British naval officers could make deals with Arab coastal chiefs as long as they did not ofend the Wahhabi, or the imam.

The End of Saudi Arabia And Ukraine

The God of War has no sectarian sympathies, nationalist loyalties, or special affiliations. He is cruel, but just.


Ukrainian Nazis and Saudi Wahhabists dutifully played their roles in the imperial wars. They were great useful idiots for the Neocon projects in Ukraine, Syria, and throughout the Middle East. 

But their time is coming to an end.

War is primarily about manpower, willpower, resources, and geography. Russia can check off all four in Ukraine. It will win. It is only a matter of time. 

I have a strong suspicion that Putin is taking his sweet time in this war because he wants Ukraine repopulated with his Jewish allies and cronies. The less Ukrainians the better seems to be the Russian logic from afar.

The Ukrainians themselves have nowhere to turn to but Russia. Europe will always view the makeshift country as a cesspool and a backwater. 

Their evil leaders are reaching the point of grabbing fetuses from mothers' wombs to fill their zombie army. They don't have the oil money to buy stupid mercenaries like the Saudis do. And you can only beg so much before the global goodwill dries up.

Sooner or later the bill comes due.

And that is true for Ukraine. 

An army of fetuses, cripples, and geriatrics is what it is rolling out with these days. All the best and most willing soldiers have already been sacrificed.

The war has reached the level of the absurd. Ukraine must cease its aspirations to join a dying NATO and a collapsing EU. 

I don't have much hope for the future of the country unless Russia fully takes it over and remolds it again in its own image. This time with a Christian bent, not a retarded socialist one. 

But I don't see that happening. Russia lacks the resolve for that. They don't have the ambition or the spirit. They surrendered Syria without much of a fight. And Syria is the key link in the West Asia puzzle. 

The road to Jerusalem goes through Damascus. Russia and Iran did not fight to the last man for it because they're not strong or wise enough. They let a jewel slip from their hands. I think the same will be repeated in Ukraine. Russia will bleed and die for it but it won't inherit it.

As for Saudi Arabia, what is there to inherit? 

What is Saudi Arabia without the world's need for oil?

Nothing.

September 11, 2026

Pakistan's Bargain With The Devil

The ISI and the CIA treat Afghanistan and Mexico like drug laboratories, and then turn around and wonder why they have so many problems on their border. The Mexican cartels and the Taliban will only get stronger until the global drug trade is ended for good. 


An excerpt from, "How Pakistan Got Hooked on the Drug Trade" By Natiq Malikzada, The National Interest, June 9, 2026:

Within Afghanistan, methamphetamine is produced from a wild plant locally known as Yama or Waman, plants within the family known as Ephedra. The family of plants can be found widely in Afghanistan and serve as an alternative to opium. (The chemical compound pseudoephedrine, an anticongestant used as the base ingredient in illicit methamphetamine production, is found naturally in Ephedra plants, but is typically chemically synthesized for mass production for the pharmaceutical industry.)

Unlike the opium poppy, Ephedra cultivation is not monitored by the UN or other international organizations, so it is unknown how abundant it is. While the plant offers a solid foundation and provides a unique form of methamphetamine, it is somewhat difficult to extract pseudoephedrine from it, requiring vast quantities of harvested plant material for comparatively little base drug material. Accordingly, drug producers in Afghanistan have shifted to laboratory methods, using industrial-grade ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to mix with Ephedra plants in order to offset high production costs. According to Samiullah, methamphetamine production, like opium-processing laboratories, is taking place across the southwestern provinces, and many high-ranking Taliban members have used it as a source of revenue. Factories processing methamphetamine are known to be located in the provinces of Helmand, Farah, Nimroz, Uruzgan, Kandahar, and Zabul, each with local officials taking a cut.

The widespread export of this drug by traffickers mostly takes place through Pakistan, and many in the Pakistani army are involved in this business,” Samiullah added. “Without the help and cooperation of Pakistani officials, from border authorities to deep government agencies, it would not be possible for it to continue to the extent it does now.”

. . .Yet Pakistan’s central role in the drug trade is undeniable. Throughout 2024, India seized 2,596 kg (5,723 lb) of heroin nationwide, with Punjab alone accounting for 1,150 kg (2,535 lb), much of it connected to Pakistan-border trafficking and drone drops. During one high-profile seizure in March, the Coast Guard in Gujarat arrested six Pakistani men after intercepting a boat that had sailed from Pakistan loaded with drugs worth tens of millions of dollars. In 2025, India’s Border Security Force reported seizing hundreds of drones coming from Pakistan into Punjab to drop heroin. And as recently as May 2026, the Indian Coast Guard in Gujarat seized 100 kilograms of cocaine off the Kutch coast after intercepting a ship that had arrived from Port Qasim in Pakistan.

In short, Pakistan has never abandoned the old model of using the drug business for geopolitical ends, but has increasingly needed to intervene when its own people are affected. As with Islamist extremism, which Pakistan sought to nurture as a weapon against its enemies before it found itself in the crosshairs, Islamabad may have created a monster it can no longer control.

Saudi Arabia Is Finding Out It's On The Menu




It takes some countries and some leaders a longer time than others to finally realize that the Judeo-Masonic U.S. government is only interested in preserving the state of Israel and nothing else in the Middle East. 

Apparently the King of Saudi Arabia requested President Trump to intervene in Yemen and bomb the Houthi rebels to stop their advance.

Trump refused.

He refused because Saudi Arabia is on the menu.

This is a tough pill to swallow for the royals in the Persian Gulf fiefdoms. They thought they were part of the inner circle that would slice and dice the region as the West did a century ago. 

They're finding out the hard way that they're not at the table. 

Towards A More Rational Middle East (Or A Redeclaration of War On The 9/11 Lie)


I don't care for anniversaries, but twenty five years is a long time to put up with a big lie and all of its horrific consequences. 

Every one alive on that day can recollect where they were and what they were doing. I was in school. I remember the front pages and the tears. 

"America Under Attack."

Looking back, the psyop was handled beautifully. A true Hollywood production. 

9/11 was a piece of high propaganda art. It was a lie well told for the television age, but the dawn of the Internet age broke the spell soon after.

What did 9/11 accomplish?

It led to the needless deaths of so many, the transformation of three continents for the worse, and the destruction of an empire. 

America was under attack, that is true, but the killers were inside the gates. They were smoking cigars on Wall Street, not shisha in a cave.

And the killers still haven't been brought to justice. That's what I'm most angry about. 

Criminals and murderers must be punished or else there's no order, no society, no rule of law, no civilization.

Terrorists, the real terrorists, must be hanged, ideally on the new Freedom Tower.

I'm also angry that priests, rabbis, and Islamic clerics have not volunteered to fight the civilizational war they're all cheering on from the sidelines. Neither have their children put on the uniform. 

These religious vultures expect the sons and daughters of the poor to die for their Messiah and their religion. But if their long awaited saviour is so great why not die in the struggle? Why sacrifice the gullible goys? Does the Messiah not accept Jewish blood? 

The only one of these leaders who sacrificed their own body in this war was Nasrallah of Hezbollah. And he didn't face death in an open field. He hid in a bunker like every other leader, from Cheney to Netanyahu. They all hid like rats on their day of judgment. They tripped over themselves getting to their bunkers. 

But you can't hide forever. Death comes for us all. What matters is how you face it, for what purpose, and to what end. 

The victims of 9/11 died not knowing their fate. And their deaths were not avenged. Their deaths were used to justify more murder and terrorism.

And until the true terrorists are brought to justice, the real doers of the deed, the 9/11 Lie will be used to inflict even greater miseries. 

The Trickster Archetype In The Old Testament

An excerpt from, "The Old Testament Use of An Archetype: The Trickster" By Richard D. Patterson, Evangelical Theological Society, September 1999:

Trickery appears to be a common trait of human culture. For not only does it form an important part of several human activities such as battle and sports strategies as well as humor and entertainment, but wherever the traveler goes he must be acutely aware of trickery. It is small wonder, then, that the antics of the trickster are given literary expression in many parts of the world. Indeed, one may say that the trickster forms an important archetype common to the writings of numerous cultures.

. . . The biblical story of trickery par excellence is that of Jacob. Interestingly, one denominative verb (aqab) associated with his name (ya Aqob) stresses the element of trickery while retaining its nominal origin associated with the heel of the foot. Indeed, “The supplanting of Jacob becomes synonymous with the deception of Jacob.” Further, two of the nominal derivatives from the denominative verb carry some reflection of the thought of deception or trickery: (aqob, “deceitful”; oqbâ, “trickery”). Jacob is quickly portrayed as a trickster, first tricking his brother out of his birthright in exchange for a bowl of stew (Gen 25:27–34) and then tricking his father out of Esau’s rightful blessing (Gen 27:1–40). In all of these early dealings “Jacob shows himself resourceful, crafty, dishonest, greedy—exactly what we have come to expect of this trickster.”

Jacob’s trickery became legendary. Accordingly, it served as a ready symbol for the prophets to seize upon in condemning the grasping, greedy ways of contemporary society. Thus Jeremiah describes the Judahites of his day in terms of Jacob’s deception of his brother: “Do not trust your brothers. For every brother is a deceiver” (Heb. aqôb ya qob, Jer 9:4). The mention of brothers and the choice of the verbal form yaçqob make the allusion to the patriarch Jacob (ya Aqob) unmistakable.

The use of Jacob’s trickery to denounce Israel’s treacherous ways becomes crucial to the understanding of two of Hosea’s prophetic oracles. Hosea 12:2–6[3–7] records the prophet’s observations on God’s condemnation of Israel’s deceitful political policies (11:12–12:1[12:1–2]). He points out that his people have a history of deceit stretching back to their forefather Jacob.