Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion  from STRATEGIC-CULTURE.ORG
It seems so strange, twenty-seven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, to be living through a new Cold War with (as it happens, capitalist) Russia. The Russian president is attacked by the U.S. political class and media as they never attacked Soviet leaders; he is personally vilified as a corrupt, venal dictator, who arrests or assassinates political opponents and dissident journalists, and is hell-bent on the restoration of the USSR.
(The latter claim rests largely on Vladimir Putin’s comment that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a “catastrophe” and “tragedy” — which in many respects it was. The press chooses to ignore his comment that “Anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, while anyone who wants to restore it has no brain.” It conflicts with the simple talking-point that Putin misses the imperial Russia of the tsars if not the commissars and, burning with resentment over the west’s triumph in the Cold War, plans to exact revenge through wars of aggression and territorial expansion.)
The U.S. media following its State Department script depicts Russia as an expansionist power. That it can do so, so successfully, such that even rather progressive people—such as those appalled by Trump’s victory who feel inclined to blame it on an external force—believe it, is testimony to the lingering power and utility of the Cold War mindset.
The military brass keep reminding us: We are up against an existential threat! One wants to say that this — obviously — makes no sense! Russia is twice the size of the U.S. with half its population. Its foreign bases can be counted on two hands. The U.S. has 800 or so bases abroad.

Retired [Lt. Gen] Michael Flynn, one of Donald Trump’s senior foreign policy advisers responded to the claim made by Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook that Russian intelligence agencies were behind the Democratic National Committee hack that exposed tens of thousands of staffers’ emails. 'The corrupt Democratic machine will do and say anything to get #NeverHillary into power. "This is a new low," Flynn tweeted, sharing a link to a tweet from user Saint Bibiana who wrote '>CNN implicated "The USSR is to blame!" … Not anymore, JEWS. Not anymore.'"
Flynn, who spoke at the Republican National Convention last week, deleted the Tweet and issued an apology hours after posting it, saying it was “a mistake” and that he only meant to share the CNN video. 

It seems Trump will actually gain votes on this news of an innocent error. This general was saying that since the DNC had their servers hacked where they were going to challenge Bernie's religion, they now have to divert the attention away from what was in the emails to blame somebody for the hack irrespective that no one on the DNC or Hillary's team is denying the veracity of the emails.

This election is a referendum on the residual political power of white resentment.
​"When racism is "mainstream", anti-semitism isn't far behind." That will become a legitimate feature of right-wing as they gain more prominence.
The hard Right feels that the Zionists, and their partners in Hollywood and the media are exploiting the themes of multi-culturalism, sexual equality and gun safety to undermine national sovereignty and Western society, weaken the moral fiber of societies, disarm patriots and foist an international New World Order on populations.
The hard Left feel the Zionists continue to push the US into endless wars on behalf of Israel and the military industrial complex, and promote trade deals that punish the working classes for the benefit of financial elites.
There is such a strong confluence between the hard Left and Right wings...​

"Russian president Vladimir Putin. What explains Putin’s success? Two years ago, amid plummeting oil prices, a plummeting ruble, a contracting economy, the flight of investors and sanctions over Crimea, pundits were predicting Russia’s, and Putin’s, demise. Yet Putin’s popularity at home has soared — hovering well above 80 % according to the Associated Press’s and other reputable polls — despite the hardships caused by rising food prices and falling employment.

Western naysayers who dismiss his popularity as rooted in false values — his control over the press, his bare-chested publicity stunts or chauvinism stirred by his military muscle — misunderstand the great respect and moral authority he commands within Russia and neighboring countries.

Putin stands for everything craved by a country debased and diminished by 75 years of 'communism': A principled leader who protects his country from Western aggression, Western contempt and Western values. While we in the West see ourselves as paragons of enlightenment, the envy of the people who don’t enjoy Western-style liberal democracy, only one in 20 Russians wants to become more like us.

The overwhelming majority hews to Putin’s vision of Russian exceptionalism and puritanism. Unlike almost every other country in the world, Russians have rising birth rates and growing families; unlike almost every other country in the West, Russians are undergoing a religious Renaissance.

Putin, who is baptized, is arguably a greater defender of traditional Christian values than the Pope, who has been tolerant of divorce, abortion, gay marriage and the transformation of what was once an unabashedly Holy Christian Europe into a part-atheistic, part-Muslim continent.

"The U.S. Has Already Completed Regime Change In Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Iraq (Twice), Afghanistan (Twice), Turkey, Libya and Other Oil-Rich Countries Posted on September 17, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog 
Syria
Everyone knows that the U.S. and its allies have heavily backed Islamic terrorists in Syria in an attempt to implement regime change in that country.
But did you know that the U.S. previously carried out regime change in Syria?

The CIA backed a right-wing coup in Syria in 1949. Douglas Little, Professor, Department of Clark University History professor Douglas Little notes:
As early as 1949, this newly independent Arab republic was an important staging ground for the CIA’s earliest experiments in covert action.
The CIA secretly encouraged a right-wing military coup in 1949.

The reason the U.S. initiated the coup?  Little explains:
 In late 1945, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) announced plans to construct the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterra- nean. With U.S. help, ARAMCO secured rights-of-way from Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  The Syrian right-of-way was stalled in parliament.
In other words, Syria was the sole holdout for the lucrative oil pipeline.
(Indeed, the CIA has carried out this type of covert action right from the start.)

In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria. Historian Little notes that the coup plot was discovered and stopped:

False Flags Explained, who what where how and why.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q__1IdkYqLs    
- Zelen Plav:"The axis of evil, Bush and company. 911 was a false flag and not the first in history, to take away of any freedoms we had. We now live in a military police state. They do every thing little by little, so people don't notice. The youth are busy with their entertainments, phones, clothes etc. History? Hell no. Politics? What is that? Put it to music, they might listen, maybe."

As George Carlin, famous American comedian, said: "If you believe in American Dream - you have to be asleep to believe it". See the Video: "The Reason Education Sucks" As George Carlin, one of the smartest and most aware outspoken Americans (he was famous comedian) to ever live, said: "If you believe in American Dream - you have to be asleep to believe it". He really gives you something to think about. He describes the American election right now. See this Video: "The Reason Education Sucks". This speaks the truth. The sad truth. He is the last true prophet. For me Mr. Carlin is not a comedian, for me he is a great teacher, scholar, mentor. He is more preacher than comedian. In my opinion he was the best cultural critic that ever lived. He had already passed away. I learned a lot of things through his comedy. Just take a look at today's screwed up world, Carlin would have material for at least 1000 more years... This guy knew about the Illuminati before all of us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98  For me Mr. Carlin is not a comedian, for me he is a teacher, scholar, mentor.

"GOP: Obama endorsement undercuts Clinton FBI probe"
By Louis Nelson 06/09/16 : http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/fox-news-obama-hillary-clinton-fbi-224143#ixzz4BIA5yD6K  Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook  "President Barack Obama has guaranteed that the FBI's investigation into his former secretary of state’s private email server will be carried out without political influence, but his endorsement of Hillary Clinton Thursday resurrected the issue — for Republicans, at least. Fox News' Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen brought up the probe during Thursday’s White House press briefing, asking Press Secretary Joshua Earnest if Obama’s endorsement would trickle down and affect the Department of Justice employees involved in the investigation...." read more on the link. Russians would mention this famous phrase in such situation:"FISH SPOILS FROM THE HEAD". Give it a deep thought.​

Paul Grubach
I
As the distinguished scholar, Noam Chomsky, has noted elsewhere, even in open democratic societies such as ours, which lack the cruder forms of ideological control, there is still a public orthodoxy: a set of assumptions, ideas, and doctrines which is rarely, if ever, questioned. /1 A key aspect of the public orthodoxy is the psychosocial taboo. The latter can be defined as a private emotional aversion and a public social ban attached to certain modes of thinking and public criticism.
Specifically, if a belief deemed to be a component of the public orthodoxy is rejected, or even questioned, in public, the offender is liable to be labeled as "evil" and be subjected to social ostracism. There is a private, internal counterpart to this public inhibition if an individual who accepts the reigning public orthodoxy rejects, or questions, one of its tenets privately, he will likely subject himself to feelings of guilt approaching a kind of a holy dread." In the words of Sigmund Freud, "The violation of the taboo makes the offender himself taboo." /2
Examples of societies with public orthodoxies, which are in turn protected by psychosocial taboos, are not hard to find. For instance, consider the status of the Catholic Church and its theological doctrines in Medieval Europe and during the era of the Inquisition. To question the cardinal tenets of Christian belief was to risk not only ostracism but imprisonment, torture, and death. A more contemporary example is the case of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union. Every Soviet citizen is aware that to criticize the Communist party or its ideological doctrines exposes one to charges of "bourgeois corruption," "anti-Soviet slander," and "retrogressive counter-revolution," and corresponding censure and punishment. Finally, every sentient, dutiful American citizen knows that to criticize Jews as a group, Jewish culture, Jewish behavior patterns, the alleged Holocaust, etc., is to partake of "immoral, anti-Semitic racism." Carefully nurtured by the public media, the taboo on criticizing Jewry is deeply lodged in the consciousness of the great majority of Americans, directly influencing their acceptance or rejection of criticisms of Jewish attitudes and behavior, irrespective of the truth or falsity of such claims.
Is direct criticism of the Jews anti-Semitism, and, by implication, morally and politically illegitimate, and thus unworthy of serious examination? If not, what is the true meaning of the label "anti-Semitic" applied to such criticism?
This paper is directed toward those who harbor the following beliefs:

1. Criticism of the Jewish people, Jewish culture and behavior, etc., is synonymous with immoral racism;
2. At best this criticism is only to be tolerated due to First Amendment protection of free speech, or, at worst, to be censured and censored.

May the psychic chains of these opponents of taboo-free speech be broken. (continued on the next page)

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0th3WPLAcM
​The longer version of the series a 35 minute special. A video not for the faint hearted, if you want to follow the white rabbit, keep watching and understand the other side. Fmr Rep James Traficant, Vanessa Redgrave, Beatles, John Lennon, Mel Gibson, Gary Oldman, Sean Ali Stone, Shah of Iran, President Hugo Chavez, Former President Carter, President Vladimir Putin, President John F Kennedy, Colonel Ghadafi, Princess Diana, Bobby Fischer, Russell Brand, George Galloway, Dr.David Duke, Immortal Technique, Lowkey, Dodi Al Fayed, Princess Diana, Aron Russo are all against Zionist supremacy. Which celebrity spoke out the most?"
- Kaiser Wilhelm II:"And one only wonders why they have such bad reputations. Perhaps it's because they spoke out against the Jews."
- TheRequiemMask:"Immortal Technique said it best here. We are not against the Jewish people but the Zionist movement. There are many non Jews within the NWO Zionist conspiracy."
- Colin Hastings:"Did JFK pay the ultimate price for his criticism of the Jews?"
- Lillian Jenkins:"Jimmy Carter was demonized for this, for telling the truth."
- Gypsy Prepper:"God Bless the Shah of Iran. He knew even then."
- Ricardo Santos:"He died for the same reason that Jesus and Julius Caesar died. They all harmed the business of the money changers of their era. In JFK case he was printing money without the Unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve involvement. That was the reason he was murdered." (read more on the next page)

Read more comments of the people on the next page.

From: 'The Student Revisionists' website
"There is no label more feared by prominent Gentiles than "anti-Semite." To receive this label is to kiss one's career goodbye. Well, sometimes a good old-fashioned, Marlon-Brandoesque retraction might save a career, but not without permanent damage. All politicians, journalists, stock brokers, lawyers, etc., had better know which side their bread is buttered on. Most of them do, which is how they make it to such positions in the first place. Many revisionists, even, preferring to remain apolitical, will simply deny anti-Semitic motives, and move on. This is legitimate, so long as one does not give tacit recognition to the absurd concept in the process. We at the SRRS choose to challenge this hollow accusation head-on.

We have recently discovered Paul Grubach's excellent article "A Critique of the Charge of Anti-Semitism," which perfectly outlines the problems we have with the concept.[...]

Also, the following is a passage from Neil Camberly's John Stuart Mill, Speech Prohibition, and "Neo-Nazism."

"Anti-Semitism" is a word the Jews have developed to describe speech that is critical of Jewry. It is used in almost exactly the same way the word 'scapegoating' is used: to render Jews immune to criticism (continued on the next page).​​