American Jews and Israel: A divorce in the making?

Share

By Alan Hart

In a very interesting piece on the news website Mondoweiss, Philip Weiss has speculated that the day is coming when American Jews will divorce Israel.

If it really happens, the president of the day will be free to use the leverage America has to cause or try to cause Israel to end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for Palestinians. And if an American president gave that lead, European governments would follow him or her.

According to Weiss an important “sociological trend” is underway.

American Jews, even mainstream ones indoctrinated to love Israel, are breaking more and more publicly with the Jewish state. The Netanyahu government is proving to be embarrassing to American Jews; they do not want to be associated with right-wing apartheid policies… The divorce that we have long predicted on this site is now on the horizon; and in years to come this separation will yield an even bigger reward: mainstream American Jews will declare themselves anti-Zionist.

This crisis will not end until American Jews declare Zionism is racism. And one day they will.

In support of his speculation Weiss quoted Gary Rosenblat. He’s a hard-core supporter of Israel and the editor and publisher of The Jewish Week. In an article for it, and as summed up by Weiss, he revealed that Jewish leaders are saying that it’s getting impossible to sell Israel to young Jews.

American Jewish leaders confide that generating support for the Jewish state is becoming increasingly difficult these days – even within the Jewish community, and especially among younger people.

The hard fact is that Israel’s leadership is moving in a direction at odds with the next generation of Americans, including many Jews, who want to see greater efforts to resolve the Palestinian conflict and who put the onus for the impasse on Jerusalem. It is not only President Obama who feels that way… Whether or not it is fair, the strong perception today is that the Israeli government is moving further right, and intransigent, at a time when the rest of the world is fed up with the Israel-Palestinian impasse.

A related point made in Weiss’s article was that when the present generation of major Jewish funders passes, raising substantial dollars for Israel will be much harder.

Weiss concluded with this prediction. “This crisis will not end until American Jews declare Zionism is racism. And one day they will.”

Serious consideration of whether Weiss is guilty of wishful thinking and being naively optimistic or could be proved right by events to come requires the asking and answering of this question.

Why, really, have the overwhelming majority of the Jews of the world, American Jews especially, supported Israel (the Zionist not Jewish state) right or wrong and/or remained silent even when they were deeply troubled by its policies and actions?

It’s worth recalling for starters that prior to the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in detail in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews of the world did not support Zionism and many were opposed to it. Those who voiced their opposition believed the Zionist enterprise was morally wrong. They also believed it would lead to unending conflict. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

Though it was Britain that gave Zionism a spurious degree of legitimacy with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, if there had been no Nazi holocaust it is most likely that there would have been no Israel because without Adolf Hitler as its best recruiting sergeant Zionism would probably have failed to command enough financial and political support to impose its will on the Palestinians.

It was the 1967 war that dramatically changed how most Jews of the world thought about Israel and that was because they believed without question the big, fat lie Zionism told in the countdown to the war.

Also to be recalled is that from the creation of Israel mainly by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing in 1948 until the Six Days War of 1967, most Jews of the world were not much interested in Israel. At an early point in its life Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was very concerned that not enough Jews were coming in to start a new life there and give Israel the manpower needed for territorial expansion. One consequence of Ben-Gurion’s concern was that Mossad agents posed as Arab terrorists and bombed Jews out of Iraq and into Israel.

It was the 1967 war that dramatically changed how most Jews of the world thought about Israel and that was because they believed without question the big, fat lie Zionism told in the countdown to the war.

The lie was that the Arabs were intending to attack and that Israel was in real danger of being annihilated.

The truth was that despite some stupid Arab rhetoric to the contrary, which played into Zionism’s hands, the Arabs were not intending to attack. It was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defence.

For those readers who still believe that Israel’s Jews were in danger of being driven into the sea I recommend Chapter 1 of Volume Three of my book which is titled “America Takes Sides, War With Nasser Act II and the Creation of Greater Israel”.

In this chapter I quote a number of Israeli leaders who years after the events said on the record that they knew that the Arabs were not intending to start a war. Here are just five examples.

In an interview with Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Yitzhak Rabin, who was chief of staff in the 1967 war, said:

I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of Israel’s wartime national government:

The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.

On 4 April 1972, General Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv as follows:

We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War and we never thought of such a possibility.

In the same newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, who was chief of operations during the Six Days War, was quoted as saying:

There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.

In an unguarded public moment in 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said this:

The Egyptian army concentrations did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We decided to attack him.

But the vast majority of the Jews of the world (probably 99 per cent of them) believed Zionism’s pre-war propaganda. They were absolutely convinced that the Arabs were about to attack and that Israel’s existence was in real danger. In the absence of the truth, which was not on the mainstream media’s agenda, they were brainwashed by Zionist propaganda.

One result of Israel’s stunning military victory was that most Jews of the world were not only greatly relieved, they were proud like never before to be Jewish and campaigners for Israel. Some took Israel’s victory as indication of divine intervention, proof that the Jews were indeed the “Chosen People” and evidence that God would be with Israel whatever it did.

And that was the beginning of the real love affair between most Jews everywhere and Israel.

Now to my answer to the question of why, really, the overwhelming majority of the Jews of the world, American Jews especially, have supported Israel right or wrong and/or remained silent even when they were deeply troubled by its policies and actions.

For starters, it has to be said that criticism of Israel can and does tear Jewish families apart. And that alone seems to be reason enough for some, or many, American and European Jews to remain silent.

[Jews] must open their closed minds to the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.

But there’s much more to it.

The root cause of American and European Jewish support for Israel right or wrong and/or silence on the matter of its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians is the unspeakable fear that a second holocaust may at some point be inevitable.

This fear is the product of persecution on and off down the centuries which climaxed with the Nazi holocaust and Zionism’s propaganda to the effect that the world has always hated Jews and always will. Zionism’s message to the Jews of the world is in effect, “You will need Israel one day so don’t question whatever it does to keep itself secure.”

It is therefore not surprising that very many Jews of the world believe that in the event of another great turning against them, Israel will be their refuge of last resort, so, they tell themselves, say nothing and do nothing that could assist Israel’s enemies and put this insurance policy at risk.

Despite all of that I think it’s not impossible that Weiss could be right and that time and events will see American (and European) Jews breaking with Zionism and all its represents. But, in my view, it won’t happen as a consequence of more and more Jews becoming “embarrassed” by Israel’s policies and actions. Embarrassment is not a strong enough motivation to cause the Jews of the world (American and European Jews especially) to do what they must if they are to best protect their own interests.

What is it that they must do?

Short answer: they must open their closed minds to the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.

If they did they would discover that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab military force and that it could have had peace with the Palestinians many years ago on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.

Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world. (Yehoshafat Harkabi, Director of Israeli Military Intelligence)

In other words, exposure to the truth of history would prove to them that Zionism’s version of it – a version to which most Western politicians and the mainstream media are still attached – is, generally speaking, a pack of propaganda lies.

Perhaps even more to the point is that exposure to the complete truth of history would make American and European Jews of today aware of the warnings that were voiced by Jewish leaders who opposed Zionism before the Nazi holocaust. As I indicated above, their main fear was that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

What it has been provoking for many years is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, but the danger for American and European Jews is that this could be transformed into anti-Semitism if American and European Jewish support for Israel right or wrong is interpreted as complicity (even if by default) in Zionism’s crimes.

The most explicit warning of this danger was delivered by Yehoshafat Harkabi, the longest serving director of Israeli military intelligence in his 1986 book, Israel’s Fateful Hour. In my book I quote him at length but here in one paragraph with my emphasis added is the essence of his warning.

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

If Harkabi was alive today (he died in 1994), and given that Israel is not going to change course and that its brutal oppression of the Palestinians will only get worse and worse, I think he might agree with me that unless the Jews of the world divorce themselves from Zionism, anti-Israelism will be transformed into anti-Semitism at some point in the future.

It’s that vision of the future that ought to motivate American, European and other Jews of the world to come to grips with the truth of history and the conclusion it invites – that Zionism is their real enemy.

The problem for some and perhaps many American, European and other Jews of the world is that divorcing Zionism would mean that they were saying, in effect, that they no longer had need for the insurance policy of Israel as a refuge of last resort. And that would raise a perfectly valid question. How can they be certain they will be safe and secure in their American, European and other homelands if they do abandon the Zionism?

My answer (as in my book) is this.

After the Nazi holocaust, and because of it, the giant of anti-Semitism would have gone back to sleep, remained asleep and, in all probability, would have died in its sleep – If Zionism had not been allowed by the major powers, first Britain and then America, to have its way, as Balfour put it, “right or wrong”.

In that light I say there is every reason to believe that the Jews of the Western world will remain safe and secure if they demonstrate by divorcing Zionism they are not complicit, even by default, in its crimes.

Source: American Jews and Israel: A divorce in the making?

Share

Probing the SITE Intelligence Group

Share

beheading2By James F. Tracy

Since mid-August 2014 major news organizations have conveyed videos allegedly found online by the SITE Intelligence Group. Unsurprisingly the same media have failed to closely interrogate what the private company actually is and whether the material it promotes should be accepted as genuine.

[Image Credit: i24news.tv]

The Search for International Terrorist Entities Intelligence Group was co-founded by Rita Katz in 2001. Katz is an Iraqi-born Jew. Her father, an Israeli spy, was executed by Iraqis as a result of his intelligence activities.

In 2003 Katz authored a book, Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman Who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America, which she published using the pseudonym, “Anonymous.”

In the book Katz explains how she took on the trappings of a Muslim woman to infiltrate the meetings of radical Muslim terrorists. The plot is unlikely, especially when one considers that such secret fundamentalist gatherings are almost always segregated along gender lines and no woman, however elaborate her costume, would be granted entry without her identity being firmly established.

SITE Intelligence Group consists of Katz and two “senior advisers,” one of whom is Bruce Hoffman, the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation and former director of the RAND’s Washington DC office.

The SITE Intelligence Group “constantly monitors the Internet and traditional media for material and propaganda released by jihadist groups and their supporters,” the company’s website announces. “Once obtained, SITE immediately translates the material and provides the intelligence along with a contextual analysis explaining the source of the material and its importance to our subscribers.”[1]

In 2003 and 2004, though claiming to be a 501c3 non-profit, SITE received more than $500,000 from the US government. Also in the early 2000s Katz received $150,000 from the FBI for consulting services.[2] A Guidestar search for nonprofits yields no recent records for SITE, suggesting how it has abandoned its non-profit status and now relies on corporate and individual subscriptions for revenue. In 2005 the private mercenary contractor Blackwater hailed SITE as “an invaluable resource.”[3]

The majority of “jihadist groups” operate one or more media outlets that produce and publish  “the group’s multimedia, and in some cases, communiqués and magazines,” SITE explains on its website. “These media units involve production teams and correspondents who report directly from the battlefield, and craft propaganda to indoctrinate and recruit new fighters into the group’s ranks.” SITE provides no direct links to the jihadist groups’ websites or multimedia productions from its own platform.[4]

Katz describes SITE as geared toward international Islamic jihad. In fact, it performs an international function akin to what a Southern Poverty Law Center or Anti-Defamation League do domestically–ferreting out and publicizing terrorist and “extremist” threats. “[W]e at SITE for over a decade monitor, search, and study the jihadists online,” she explains.

We have been studying and monitoring the jihadists online, which also as they get more sophisticated, we follow their techniques and study them. And based on that, we could predict where they will be uploading their video.

After all, we have to remember that much of this propaganda is being posted online. Their releases are released online [sic]. So they have to be able to use certain locations to upload their releases before they are published.[5]

Though routinely overlooked in the flurry of front-page coverage corporate media have allotted the three beheading videos–the most recent of which featured British aid worker David Cawthorne Haines–it is common knowledge that SITE uncannily secures terrorist statements and videos well before the US’s wide array of lavishly-funded intelligence services.

For example, as the Washington Post reported in 2007,

[a] small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7 … It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release. Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company’s Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.[6]

The video later proved to be fraudulent.

With the above in mind, one may ask, If parties within a US presidential administration or the State Department sought to bypass the potential scrutiny of a wide-ranging intelligence community concerning such matters, while simultaneously providing itself with the means to effectively propagandize the American public toward a broader end, what better way than to contract the services of an entity such as SITE?

beheadingIf there is some merit in the above appraisal, the arrangement is now being pushed to an extreme by the Obama administration to pave the road toward a long-sought goal: war with Syria’s Bashar Al Assad regime. Indeed, services such as SITE’s are a potent and valuable means for moving public opinion, as they have done in recent weeks concerning military action against the Islamic State. Along these lines, a decade ago both John Kerry and George W. Bush credited the latter’s re-election to a surreptitious appearance by Osama bin Laden via video tape several days before the vote.[7]

[Image Credit: ibtimes.co.in]

Playing a role similar to SITE, IntelCenter acts as an intermediary between Al-Qaeda’s supposed media arm, As-Sahab, and major media. In other words, “they acquire the tapes and pass them on to the press, and have occasionally even predicted when tapes would be released beforehand,” Paul Joseph Watson reports.

“IntelCenter is run by Ben Venzke, who used to be the director of intelligence at a company called IDEFENSE, which is a Verisign company. IDEFENSE is a web security company that monitors intelligence from the Middle East conflicts and focuses on cyber threats among other things. It is also heavily populated with long serving ex-military intelligence officials.[8]

As noted, news outlets seldom see fit to closely analyze SITE or Katz concerning their research and function as conduits for terrorist propaganda. A LexisNexis search for SITE Intelligence in the article content of US newspapers and major world publications over the past two years produces 317 items—an admittedly low figure given the prominence of SITE’s recent disclosures. Yet a similar search for “Steven Sotloff” alone yields over 1,000 newspaper stories and 600 broadcast transcripts, suggesting the sensationalistic usage and effect of SITE’s data and how neither SITE nor Katz are called upon to explain their specific methods and findings.

Indeed, a similar search for “SITE Intelligence” and “Rita Katz” yields only 26 entries over a two year period. Of these, 14 appear in the Washington Post, a publication with well-established links to US intelligence. Four New York Times articles feature the combined entities.

In a CNN interview on the heels of the Sotloff beheading, Katz explains how again SITE curiously surpassed the combined capacities of the entire US intelligence community in securing the Sotloff footage.

“The video shows the beheading of Steven Sotloff,” Katz cautiously begins after being queried on the document’s authenticity.

The location from where the video was obtained from is the location where ISIS usually uploads their original videos to [sic]. The video shows a clear message from ISIS that follows the same message that it had before. And in fact within a short time after our release, ISIS’ account on social media indicated that within a short time [sic] they would be releasing the video, only we actually had that video beforehand and were able to beat them with the release (emphasis added).

This unusual statement alongside SITE’s remarkable abilities, should put news outlets on guard concerning the reliability of SITE statements.

Undoubtedly this is a great deal to ask from a news media that all too frequently participate in orienting public opinion toward war, a feat it has once again accomplished with the aid of SITE.

The interests and alliances of the transnational entities owning such media make them poised to profit from the very geopolitical designs drawn up by SITE’s corporate and government clients–the most important of which may be those seeking to broaden Middle Eastern conflict. No doubt, the widescale acceptance of such propaganda is also the result of the vastly diminished critical capacities of the broader public, now several decades in the making.

Notes

[1] “Services,” SITE Intelligence Group, , accessed September 15, 2014,

[2] Berni McCoy, “So, a ‘Charitable Organization’ Released the bin Laden Video,” Democratic Underground, September 10, 2007, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_

[3] “SITE Institute,” Sourcewatch.org, Center for Media and Democracy, n.d.

[4] “Media Groups,” SITE Intelligence Group, n.d., accessed September 15, 2014.

[5] Karl Penhaul, Pamela Brown, Alisyn Camerota, Don Lemon, Paul Cruickshank, “Joan Rivers on Life Support; Chilling Words From ISIS Terrorist; How to Fight Radical Recruitment” (transcript), CNN, September 2, 2014.

[6] Joby Warrick, “Leak Severed a Link to Al Qaeda Secrets,” Washington Post, October 9, 2007.

[7] Paul Joseph Watson, “Another Dubious Osama Tape Appears When the Neo-Cons Need It Most,” Prisonplanet.com, July 16, 2007.

[8] Ibid. See also, Kurt Nimmo, “Sotloff Video Found by Group Responsible For Releasing Fake Osama Bin Laden Video,” Infowars.com, September 3, 2014.

Republished at ActivistPost and GlobalResearch.ca on September 15, 2014.

Share

Winston Churchill: Britain’s “Greatest Briton” Left a Legacy of Global Conflict and Crimes Against Humanity

Share

Sunday January 24th 2016 marks the anniversary of the death of one of the most lionized leaders in the Western world: Sir Winston Churchill.

The current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has called Churchill “the greatest ever Prime Minister”, and Britons have recently voted him as the greatest Briton to have ever lived.

The story that British schoolbooks tell children about Churchill is of a British Bulldog, with unprecedented moral bravery and patriotism. He, who defeated the Nazis during World War II and spread civilisation to indigenous people from all corners of the globe. Historically, nothing could be further from the truth.

To the vast majority of the world, where the sun once never set on the British empire, Winston Churchill remains a great symbol of racist Western imperialist tyranny, who stood on the wrong side of history.

The myth of Churchill is Britain’s greatest propaganda tool because it rewrites Churchill’s true history in order to whitewash Britain’s past imperialist crimes against humanity. The Churchill myth also perpetuates Britain’s ongoing neo-colonial and neo-liberal policies, that still, to the is day, hurt the very people around the world that Churchill was alleged to have helped civilise.

The same man whose image is polished and placed on British mantelpieces as a symbol of all that is Great about Britain was an unapologetic racist and white supremacist. “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion”, he once bellowed. As Churchill put it, Palestinians were simply “barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung.”

In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission:

“I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

It is unsurprising that when Barack Obama became President, he returned to Britain a bust of Churchill which he found on his desk in the Oval office. According to historian Johann Hari, Mr. Obama’s Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for daring to resist Churchill’s empire.

Apart from being an unrepentant racist, Churchill was also a staunch proponent of the use of terrorism as a weapon of war.

During the Kurdish rebellion against the British dictatorship in 1920, Churchill remarked that he simply did not understand the “squeamishness” surrounding the use of gas by civilized Great Britain as a weapon of terror. “I am strongly in favour of using gas against uncivilised tribes, it would spread a lively terror,” he remarked.

In the same year, as Secretary of State for War, Churchill sent the infamous Black and Tans to Ireland to fight the IRA. The group became known for vicious terrorist attacks on civilians which Churchill condoned and encouraged.

While today Britons celebrate Churchill’s legacy, much of the world outside the West mourns the legacy of a man who insisted that it was the solemn duty of Great Britain to invade and loot foreign lands because in Churchill’s own words Britain’s “Aryan stock is bound to triumph”.

Churchill’s legacy in the Far East, Middle East, South Asia and Africa is certainly not one of an affable British Lionheart, intent on spreading civilization amongst the natives of the world. To people of these regions the imperialism, racism, and fascism of a man like Winston Churchill can be blamed for much of the world’s ongoing conflicts and instability.

As Churchill himself boasted, he “created Jordan with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon,” thereby placing many Jordanians under the brutal thumb of a throneless Hashemite prince, Abdullah. Historian Michael R. Burch recalls how the huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze” because Churchill carelessly drew the expansive boundary after a generous lunch.

Churchill also invented Iraq. After giving Jordan to Prince Abdullah, Churchill, the great believer in democracy that he was, gave Prince Abdullah’s brother Faisal an arbitrary patch of desert that became Iraq. Faisal and Abdullah were war buddies of Churchill’s friend T. E. Lawrence, the famous “Lawrence of Arabia”.

Much like the clumsy actions in Iraq of today’s great Empire, Churchill’s imperial foreign policy caused decades of instability in Iraq by arbitrarily locking together three warring ethnic groups that have been bleeding heavily ever since. In Iraq, Churchill bundled together the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra that was predominantly Shiite, Baghdad that was Sunni, and Mosul that was mainly Kurd.

Ask almost anyone outside of Iraq who is responsible for the unstable mess that Iraq is in today and they are likely to say one word, either “Bush” or “America”. However, if you asked anyone within Iraq who is mainly responsible for Iraq’s problems over the last half century and they are likely to simply say “Churchill”.

Winston Churchill convened the 1912 Conference in Cairo to determine the boundaries of the British Middle Eastern mandate and T.E. Lawrence was the most influential delegate. Churchill did not invite a single Arab to the conference, which is shocking but hardly surprising since in his memoirs Churchill said that he never consulted the Arabs about his plans for them.

The arbitrary lines drawn in Middle Eastern sand by Churchillian imperialism were never going to withstand the test of time. To this day, Churchill’s actions have denied Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds and Palestinians anything resembling true democracy and national stability.

The intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced directly back to Churchill’s door at number 10 Downing Street and his decision to hand over the “Promised Land” to both Arabs and Jews. Churchill gave practical effect to the Balfour declaration of 1917, which expressed Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland, resulting in the biggest single error of British foreign policy in the Middle East.

Churchill’s legacy in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya in particular is also one of deep physical and physiological scars that endure to this day.

Of greater consequence to truth and history should be a man’s actions, not merely his words. Whilst Churchill has become one of the most extensively quoted men in the English speaking world, particularly on issues of democracy and freedom, true history speaks of a man whose actions revolved around, in Churchill’s own words, “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples”.

One such war was when Kikuyu Kenyans rebelled for their freedom only to have Churchill call them “brutish savage children” and force 150,000 of them into “Britain’s Gulag”.

Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins, highlights Churchill’s many crimes in Kenya in her book Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Professor Elkins explains how Churchill’s soldiers “whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects”, all in the name of British “civilization”. It is said that President Obama’s grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama never truly recovered from the torture he endured from Churchill’s men.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved how in Bengal in 1943 Churchill engineered one of the worst famines in human history for profit.

Over three million civilians starved to death whilst Churchill refused to send food aid to India. Instead, Churchill trumpeted that “the famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” Churchill intentionally hoarded grain to sell for profit on the open market after the Second World War instead of diverting it to starving inhabitants of a nation controlled by Britain. Churchill’s actions in India unquestionably constituted a crime against humanity.

Churchill was also one of the greatest advocates of Britain’s disastrous divide-and-rule foreign policy.

Churchill’s administration deliberately created and exacerbated sectarian fissures within India’s independence movement, between Indian Hindus and Muslims that have had devastating effects on the region ever since.

Prior to India’s independence from Britain, Churchill was eager to see bloodshed erupt in India, so as to prove that Britain was the benevolent “glue holding the nation together”. For Churchill, bloodshed also had the added strategic advantage that it would also lead to the partition of India and Pakistan. Churchill’s hope was this partition would result in Pakistan remaining within Britain’s sphere of influence. This, in turn, would enable the Great Game against the Soviet empire to continue, no matter the cost to innocent Indian and Pakistanis. The partition of India with Pakistan caused the death of about 2.5 million people and displaced some 12.5 million others.

According to writer, Ishaan Tharoor, Churchill’s own Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery,  compared his boss’s understanding of India’s problems to King George III’s apathy for the Americas. In his private diaries Amery vented that “on the subject of India, Churchill is not quite sane” and that he didn’t “see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s.”

Churchill shared far more ideologically in common with Hitler than most British historians care to admit. For instance, Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he shared in common with Germany’s Nazi leadership, who were estimated estimated to have killed 200,000 disabled people and forcibly sterilised twice that number. Churchill drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation, which mandated that the mentally ill be forcibly sterilized. In a memo to the Prime Minister in 1910, Winston Churchill cautioned, “the multiplication of the feeble-minded is a very terrible danger to the race”. He also helped organise the International Eugenics Conference of 1912, which was the largest meeting of proponents of eugenics in history.

Churchill had a long standing belief in racial hierarchies and eugenics. In Churchill’s view, white protestant Christians were at the very top of the pyramid, above white Catholics, while Jews and Indians were only slightly higher than Africans.

Historian, Mr. Hari, rightfully points out, “the fact that we now live in a world where a free and independent India is a superpower eclipsing Britain, and a grandson of the Kikuyu ‘savages’ is the most powerful man in the world, is a repudiation of Churchill at his ugliest – and a sweet, ironic victory for Churchill at his best.”

Amid today’s Churchillian parades and celebratory speeches, British media and schoolbooks may choose to only remember Churchill’s opposition to dictatorship in Europe, but the rest of the world cannot choose to forget Churchill’s imposition of dictatorship on darker skinned people outside of Europe. Far from being the Lionheart of Britain, who stood on the ramparts of civilisation, Winston Churchill, all too often, simply stood on the wrong side of history.

Churchill is indeed the Greatest Briton to have ever lived, because for decades, the myth of Churchill has served as Britain’s greatest propaganda tool to bolster national white pride and glorify British imperial culture.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on garikai.chengu@gmail.com

Share

Israeli Settler Rabbi Praises Islamic Takeover Of Europe

Share

“…there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity…”

Rabbi Baruch Efrati,jpg
Rabbi Baruch Efrati

After the recent election of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman as the mayor of a Bosnian city, the first time in Europe’s history a traditional Muslim woman had been elected to such a high office, a student who studies orientalism reportedly used the Kipa website’s ask the rabbi feature to ask Rabbi Baruch Efrati a question.

“How do we fight the Islamization of Europe and return it to the hands of Christians and moderates?,” the student asked.

Efrati, who heads a yeshiva and serves as the community rabbi in the West Bank city of Efrat, didn’t see the Islamization of Europe as a bad thing.

“With the help of God, the gentiles there will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt,” Efrati wrote.

“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” Efrati continued, quoting descriptions from rabbinic literature from the middle ages about atrocities committed by Christians against Jews.

“We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly…Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity…and now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for,” Efrati claimed.

According to Efrati, the theological reason for this alleged fall of Christianity is that Christianity, which Efrati claims is idolatrous, tends to “destroy normal life and abstain from it on the one hand, while losing modesty on the other hand,” as it “ranges between radical monasticism to radical Western licentiousness.”

But Islam, Efrati claimed, is “a religion which misjudges its prophets but is [otherwise] relatively honest. It educates a bit more for a stable life of marriage and creation, where there is certain modesty and respect for God.”

“[E]ven if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity,” Efrati asserted.

Despite this clear preference for Islam, Efrati added that Jews must still pray that the Islamization of of Europe won’t hurt the people of Israel.

Efrati did not need to ask his readers to pray that Israel and the Jewish people be protected from believing Christians, who have largely been friends of the Jewish State and Jews for the past 65 years. He also did not note that some of Hitler’s closest collaborators were Muslims like the Mufti of Jeruslaem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and that Hitler easily formed a Muslim Bosnian SS unit to exterminate the area’s Jews.

Source: Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

Also see: Jewish World http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html

Share

The Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Israelites

Share

The Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the so called Kingdom of Judea.

By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

A Palestinian and an Israeli arguing over the disputed land.

Speaking at a cabinet meeting held in Tel Hai last february, Israeli PM Netanyahu said “Our existence depends not only on the IDF or our economic resilience – it is anchored in our store of knowledge and the national sentiment that we will bestow upon the coming generations, in our ability to justify our connection to the land.

Netanyahu was so eloquent in his statement and he managed to touch upon the problematic status quo of the state of Israel when he mentioned Israel’s ability to justify its connection to the occupied land of Palestine. But is it true? Are the Israelis of today the descendants of the ancient Israelites? Does merely being a Jew give anyone the right to claim connection to the land of Palestine and its history? I think it is up to historians not politicians to decide that.

Only by understanding history can we understand why things are the way they are right now. Many of the past events and histories in the world have shaped what we are as of now.

Historians agree- despite the scanty archeological findings- that the ancient Israelites inhabited part of Palestine- or the southern Levant- thousands of years ago. But so did the Phoenicians, the Canaanites, Philistines , the Hittites and the Aramaeans. Nevertheless we do not find some Canaanite people – whom were at least mentioned in the Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian texts. – appearing in modern age after thousands of years had elapsed with claims to the right to return to the land of their ancestors.

How did the ancient Israelites live in that part of the ancient Near East?

Their old Bible states that they lived in a monarchy of a political and military power close enough to be the rival of magnificent kingdoms like the Egyptian, the Babylonian and the Hittites. But history and archeology says different.

The Biblical Israelites

In his book “the Bible unearthed” The archeologist Israel Finkelstein states that although the book of Samuel, and initial parts of the book of Kings, portray Saul, David and Solomon ruling in succession over a powerful and cosmopolitan united kingdom of Israel and Judah, Finkelstein  regards modern archaeological evidence as showing that this is a pious fiction.

The Israelites lived as herders and farmers who never left their land.

The united kingdom of Israel and Judah depicted in the bible was nothing more than a sparsely populated rural region, nomadic tribes at best until the 7th century BCE. And the whole region was an Egyptian protectorate extending north to where Syria is today.

And by following the Biblical story of the Israelites we will find out that they were driven out of their land in the form of mass exile in 607 BCE by the Babylonians, and from Judea in 70 CE by the Roman Empire.  Somehow we are more concerned with the second mass exile or what is better known as the “Diaspora” as it is the Zionists` pretext for claiming the right to return to their homeland.

According to Shlomo Sand in his bestseller book “ The invention of the Jewish people”, the description of the Jews as a wandering nation in exiles, “who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland,” is nothing but “national mythology.” For the ancient Israelite never left their homeland nor wandered across different parts of the world in what is known as the “Diaspora

Inventing the Diaspora

“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom” – thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand’s book, entitled “The Invention of the Diaspora.” Sand argues that the Jewish people’s exile from its land never happened.

“The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of ‘the people of the Bible’ that preceded it,” Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

Sand added “I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book of shlomo sand was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

In his historical research, sand attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the so called Kingdom of Judea. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).

 The same conclusion was adopted by Arthur Koestler in his famous book The Thirteenth Tribe (1976). It advances the controversial thesis that the modern Jewish population originating from North / East Europe and Russia including their descendants, or Ashkenazim, are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a people originating and populating the Caucasus region (historical Khazaria) who converted to Judaism in the 8th century and later voluntarily migrating or were forced to move westwards into current Eastern Europe (Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Germany and other places outside the Caucasus region) before and during the 12th and 13th century when the Khazar Empire was collapsing.


YouTube – Veterans Today -Ashkenazi Jews are NOT descendents of the Biblical Israelites!

History’s final word

So this is how history unfolds to refute the Biblical narration of a kingdom of David and Solomon, negates the Diaspora ever happened and tells us that the current Jews are mainly the descendants of Khazar tribes, berber tribes in north Africa and Arabic tribes in Yemen who converted to Judaism and have no strong Genetic link to the Jews who lived in Palestine during Roman times something that Israel now is trying to prove otherwise by financing Genetic clinical trials that only revealed Genetic similarities amongst Jews expected of people with the common ancestral origins mentioned above.

A flag and the memories of the lost land of Palestine.

The UN records show that there are 5 million uprooted Palestinians today do not have the right of return to their homes despite the fact that Ashkenazi Jews (European, with no ties to biblical Israel other than their adoption of the Jewish religion) do. 

History negates that the ancient Israelites ever left their home land and approves the thesis of their conversion to Islam in the 7th century and in doing so undermines the historical connection of modern Jews to the land of modern day Palestine.

History says the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that modern Israelis are its descendents.

Share

Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency?

Share

Washington, D.C. – In spite of French-led U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 creating a no-fly zone over Libya with the express intent of protecting civilians, one of the over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve, contain damning evidence of Western nations using NATO as a tool to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. The NATO overthrow was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.

The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region.

The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions.

The Foreign Policy Journal reports:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

which uses..

New Hillary Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold

according to the email:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Read more at

Hillary Clinton admitted what she had done on national Tv

Hillary Emails Reveal True Reason for Libya Intervention

The New Year’s Eve release of over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department included this from an April, 2011 email from Sidney Blumenthal

“The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war.

The actual email released by the State Department can be accessed through the article

Link available through this tweet

Clinton emails: Libya regime change may have been because Gaddafi’s gold backed currency threatened EU status quo http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/ 

Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal

By ForeignPolicyJournal @ForPolJournal

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.

Clinton emails may lead to corruption charges

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

Source: Declassified Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency?

Share

The Desperate Search for Guy Montag

Share
. . . among indifferent and alienated dupes
oblivious to their own impending demise

Guy Montag, Guy Montag, you think, tapping your fingers on your desk. Where have we heard that name before? Suddenly you remember.

He was the conflicted hero in arguably the most famous science fiction story of all time, something almost everybody in America read in school, and marveled over its frightful foresight. Guy Montag was the enigmatic fireman who burned outlawed books in Ray Bradbury’s epic novel Fahrenheit 451.

fahrenheit-451-3
Guy Montag from the film adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s classic novel.

One day a woman chose to die with her books. But before she immolated herself, Guy stole a book from her to try to learn why she should do such a thing. Then Guy started smuggling books home. His suicidal wife turned him in to the authorities. When they came to burn down HIS house, Guy turned on his chief, sprayed him with fire, and burned him to a crisp. Following that, Guy escaped and lived with the impoverished intellectual hobos, with the hopeful aim of restoring sanity to a deranged society.

In a series of ironic twists years after it was written, small minded school boards tried to ban Fahrenheit 451 without ever realizing they were unwittingly mimicking the book’s plot — destroying books society has been persuaded not to read because their thoughts were too dangerous.

Bradbury’s narrative describes how Montag gradually began to doubt his mission after he saw how important books were to people willing to die rather than give them up, and his brittle life crumbled around him. When the book’s hero changed his mind about books and what he should be doing to them, he brought the power of the totalitarian state down upon him, before escaping into the shadows and yearning for revolution.

Bradbury never mentioned how that revolution turned out, but the future has revealed an uncanny twist in what the famous science fiction author wrote and the way reality has turned out.

Firemen are supposed to put fires out, but Bradbury’s firemen burned books the government deemed illegal.

fahrenheit451

This is how our future has progressed; what was once the truth is now a lie. Suddenly, forces once thought necessary and beneficial have now turned into their opposite — a destructive menace.

Think cops killing people’s pets while trying to bust somebody at the wrong address. Or a woman pulled over for not signaling a lane change winds up a few hours later supposedly hanging herself in the cell of a local jail.

Politicians and presidents preach for peace yet incinerate defenseless foreign countries while insisting they are killing innocent people to preserve freedom. It’s the modern variation of the old Vietnam proverb: We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

What is the shocking reversal dominating society today? It should be obvious to you. It’s the false flag syndrome, in which the government creates disasters that it then cleans up and boasts how efficiently and vigilantly it has protected the population. The list of FBI provocations reveals there would be practically no crime at all if not for the sadistic schemes like Oklahoma City and 9/11 that our government cooks up.

Firemen who burn things rather than extinguish them are exactly the opposite of the way things should work in a normal world. Most of us know by now the world is nowhere near normal.

Instead of trying to protect us, the police are killing us in record numbers, and then refusing to say how many they’ve killed, or why.

Today, judges ostensibly profess to protect the rights of individuals but consistently rule in favor of big businesses that demolish these very rights. Instead of seeking justice in courts, the judges and the lawyers are deciding how they can fleece and convict us to fulfill the contracts they have with the private prison corporations to keep the jails full.

And as we have seen most recently in Oregon, the government wants to put us in jail in order to take our land because that land contains valuable minerals that our bellicose bigwigs want to sell to the very corporations that provide the campaign finances that keep them in office. As long as the Hammonds are in jail, we are all incarcerated.

I think the thing that got me thinking about this reversal of intent was the discovery that bodies supposedly massacred in a Paris nightclub turned out to be dummies, mannikins, planted by the spinmeisters who arranged the whole hoax to convince the public that the bloody stunt really happened. <http://nodisinfo.com/dead-people-france-concert-theater-dummies-not-real-humans/>

Police in Paris had conducted drills on the same day as the theatre "massacre"
Police in Paris had conducted drills on the same day as the theatre “massacre”

This kind of ridiculous effort on the part of the authorities fits right in with the Sandy Hook school affair, in which children were claimed to have been killed but no bodies were ever reported being seen by local hospitals. <http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html> It was a prima facie example of the cops who are supposedly assigned to protect us preventing us from knowing about the truth of a major crime.

The Boston Marathon bombing was another government sponsored charade, with one designated patsy murdered in the streets by police and his brother sentenced to die by a kangaroo court without ever being allowed to speak candidly. <http://deepinsidetherabbithole.com/The_Boston_Bombing_Hoax.html>

The conspiracy conducting this long-running political campaign to get people to give up their guns is insidious and seemingly inextinguishable, despite the fact that it only increases gun sales. It includes the entire Jewish controlled media, of course, and journalists and cops at every level willing to participate in scams for which, in the specific case of Sandy Hook, they are sometimes paid millions of dollars for their participation in the charade. <http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/27-million-sandy-hook-victims-families-workers-far-counting/>

Why does the government want us to give up our guns? To put us all in prison and to take everything we own before eventually taking our lives. The process is well underway, as the Hammond family of Oregon knows so well. Ammon Bundy’s supporters bivouacked in a nearby forest know it, too, and despite the media slander that calls them vigilantes are really defending the rest of us from a future nobody really wants to see — total government control of every aspect of our lives.

oregon

The heroes who try to reveal government criminality — Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, Julian Assange, Bill Cooper — are constantly killed or jailed by those who resent their lucrative criminal schemes being exposed.

The doctors who try to circumvent the poisonous medicines of Big Pharma — James Bradstreet, Theresa Sievers, Nicholas Gonzalez— are suicided by those who want to continue to poison their patients and deny life saving techniques and medicines from people who really need them.

But what sticks in my mind is the similarity between Bradbury’s descriptive prediction of firemen doing exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to be doing — putting out fires instead of lighting them — and the behavior of the U.S. military monster today, murdering innocents for totally false reasons, and the intelligence community creating phony terrorist incidents and then prosecuting and convicting innocent patsies to make government agents look good when in reality they are criminals.

As deranged firemen scorched neighborhoods as well as the minds of would be intellects oppressed by their governments, so our military and police today do exactly the opposite of what they have been charged to do — preserve our safety and defend our freedoms.

Instead they intimidate the majority into silence and leave them cringing in silence while secretly hoping to avoid the fickle finger of fate and a violent SWAT team crashing through their front door even though it is the wrong address.

swat

This is not to say there aren’t heroic individuals in the U.S. military. This would account for all the generals the last few presidents have fired for counseling common sense rather the following homicidal orders.

And now happening in Oregon, quasi government agencies of questionable authenticity steal land from legitimate farmers, throw them in jail, and the dumbfounded population stands around with their mouths open, criticizing those who would save farmers from being hoodwinked out of their land and homes by corrupt judges in kangaroo courts. <http://www.dailywire.com/news/2303/here-are-five-reasons-you-should-side-hammond-ben-shapiro>

The potential course of the future now depends on the resolve of a small group of patriots gathered in a cold forest sorely lacking in support from the general population. It is no exaggeration to predict that whatever happens to them will happen to the rest of us.

The Jews who run our country are never going to listen to reason and suddenly strive to behave in a reasonable and rational manner. They are going to keep stealing and killing until they are stopped.

The shooting has to start somewhere. Burns, Oregon might be a sensible place to begin.

US-UNREST-MILITIA-PROTEST

But the vast majority of Americans don’t want to be bothered with matters of justice. Even as their privately owned land disappears, stolen by the government, they don’t think these issues will affect them. They just sit home and watch TV and wonder what they’ll do when the ATMs stop working and the banks all close.

At exactly the time we need more people to behave like Guy Montag and stop this slide into insanity when truth is what our voracious government says it is, and justice cannot intrude into the consciousness of a citizenry intent on watching TV and texting their friends, we observe an unprecedented turning away from what needs to be done to survive, and misplaced intent leading to the widespread destruction of our species and every other species as well.

Sorry to have to tell you again, but those who sleep now will be the first ones to die in the very near future. Our criminal, Jew-run government must be disenfranchised, detoxified and, where appropriate, disemboweled as soon as possible.

If you must pick a day to start fighting back, today might just be the best choice of all.

Source: The Desperate Search for Guy Montag | Renegade Tribune

Share

Vladimir Putin: It’s Time to Call The Great Satan a Threat to Russia

Share

The United States is “The Great Satan” because it has abandoned the light of reason in the political and moral firmament and has embraced the Neoconservative ideology, which is essentially Talmudic, which is diabolical, and which is contrary to all mankind.

"Look, man. Today I'll give you carrots. But if you continue to play the same old game and has no plan to change, don't expect carrots tomorrow. It will be sticks."

“Look, don’t be too comfortable now. Today I give you carrots. But if you continue to play the same old game and has no plan to change, don’t expect carrots tomorrow. It will be sticks. You know that I’m a man of my word.”

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Some people have accused Vladimir Putin of playing in the hands of the powers that be by rubbing shoulders with pernicious people like Benjamin Netanyahu,[1] a man who has been perpetuating lies from time immemorial.[2]

For readers who are new to VT and do not think that the mad man in Tel Aviv has never produced deliberate and categorical lies, let us take a brief look at his own book, Fighting Terrorism. Netanyahu said way back in 1995 (I was only sixteen years old and knew nothing of Zionism and subversive movements):

“The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons.

“After this time, the Iranian Islamic republic will have the ability to construct atomic weapons without the importation of materials or technology from abroad…The first phase of construction and electrical work will be completed within three to four years.”[3]

Fighting Terrorism was hailed as a breakthrough by the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Detroit News, etc. Yet seventeen years later, the New York Times itself documented that based on U.S. intelligence findings, Iran was not interested in building a bomb.[4]

And even if Iran wanted a bomb, 28-year veteran of the C.I.A. and academic Paul R. Pillar argues that based on the standards that the West is imposing on Iran, “we can live with a nuclear Iran.”[5] Jewish scholar Avner Cohen has said pretty much the same thing.[6]

So, when people see Putin shaking Netanyahu’s hand and trying to reach out to him, they seem to be thinking that Putin himself is part of the New World Order. Those people seem to ask, how is it that Putin hasn’t really exposed the mad man from Tel Aviv for what he truly is?

This is certainly a legitimate concern and it merits some answers. Let us understand that it is unrealistic for Putin to fight every single ideological battle across the political firmament. That is too much for one man and for one country.

One step at a time is much more plausible and strategic than opening ten unwinnable conflicts, particularly when you may not have enough political and strategic resources from other Western countries to fight those conflicts, and particularly when you have the entire world watching over every step you make.

Putin certainly knows the history of Russia and that Jewish revolutionaries played a central role in the Bolshevik Revolution.[7] Putin personally knew Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the man who meticulously documented that millions upon millions of precious Christians and other political dissents died at the hands of Bolshevik leaders.[8]

In fact, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin.[9] In fact, Putin has specifically made Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago “as required reading for Russian high school seniors about the crimes of the Soviet regime.”[10]

Putin “has granted a top state award to Alexander Solzhenitsyn to honor the Nobel Prize winning writer as a champion of humanitarian causes…”[11] “Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people,” said Solzhenitsyn of Vladimir Putin,

“And he started to do what was possible, a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately. In any case, one is hard-pressed to find examples in history when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by other governments.”[12]

Putin declared,

“We are proud that Alexander Solzhenitsyn was our compatriot and contemporary. We will remember him as a strong, courageous person with a great sense of dignity. His activities as a writer and public figure, his entire long, thorny life journey will remain for us a model of true devotion, selfless service to the people, motherland and the ideals of freedom, justice and humaneness.”[13]


"Our ways must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where teh lies begin--step back from that gangrenous edge!"

“Our ways must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where teh lies begin–step back from that gangrenous edge!”

So, it is really unpersuasive to say that Putin is part of the New World Order. He obviously knows that it is suicide to hastily produce a full frontal and political attack on Israel at this present moment. As we shall see, he did something far more strategic than expected.

In all probability, Putin is trying to give the mad man in Tel Aviv some carrots and presents sticks later. In fact, historical evidence shows us that Russia has “lowered its political profile in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much to Tel Aviv’s satisfaction.”[14]

We know that Israel and the Zionist state of America are two sides of the same coin. And we know that Putin has strategically attacked the Zionist State of America and NATO. He has even made it clear that the U.S. and NATO are a threat to Russia.[15]

Why? Is it because Putin is always looking for trouble? Is it because he wants to rebuild the former Soviet Union, as New World Order agents have perversely and incoherently declared? Or is it because no serious politician and thinker can stand the bloodbath that the U.S. and its allies are perpetuating in the Middle East and elsewhere? Is it because the New World Order continues to play double standards?

For example, Saudi Arabia continues to behead people in broad daylight and without due process, and all they have to do to chop people’s heads off is say that those people have done something wrong.[16] But when any other Middle East country even remotely uses the same tactic, the U.S. calls it barbaric. There is again an explicit contradiction here. Even Newsweek itself did not hesitate to declare in 2014:

“The escalation of the war against the Islamic State was triggered by widespread revulsion at the gruesome beheading of two American journalists, relayed on YouTube. Since then, two British aid workers have met a similar grisly fate. And another American has been named as next in line by his terrorist captors.

“Yet, for all the outrage these executions have engendered the world over, decapitations are routine in Saudi Arabia, America’s closest Arab ally, for crimes including political dissent—and the international press hardly seems to notice. In fact, since January, 59 people have had their heads lopped off in the kingdom, where “punishment by the sword” has been practiced for centuries.”[17]

So, the U.S. and their allies continue to violate international law and continue to use double standards. Moreover, the Zionist media continues to take those double standards and spread them across America and much of the world, leaving the untrained mind in a hopeless quandary.

Listen for example to a mush-head at Forbes. In response to Donald Trump’s view that no one has produced serious evidence showing that Putin has killed journalists and political dissents, Paul Roderick Gregory declared:

“Only the naïve would know there will be no such proof when the Kremlin controls prosecution, justice and the secret police. Putin’s hybrid warfare and its plausible deniability complicates proof of crimes against the international order, despite obvious Russian military engagement in Georgia and Ukraine.

“First, Trump must know that Putin ordered the hybrid war against Ukraine that has, according to conservative United Nations estimates, killed more than 9,000 and wounded nearly 21,000. Combatants and civilians are being killed daily despite a so-called truce brokered by Russia. More than one and a half million people have been displaced and almost four million are living under desperate circumstances.”[18]

First of all, I fail to see the point that “Putin’s hybrid warfare and its plausible deniability complicates proof of crimes against the international order” is itself proof that Putin has killed journalists and political dissents. But let us suppose that this nonsense were true. Let us suppose that Gregory is right in all his statements. Here is a question for him.

How does he explain the fact that “Final results of the referendum in Crimea show that 97 percent of voters have supported leaving Ukraine to join Russia”[19]? Can Gregory name one American presidential candidate who has even reached that figure in recent memory?

This is a slam dunk and a hard punch in the face of New World Order agents! And are all those people dumb? They knew that Putin was committing crimes by the thousands, and they still voted for him? Gregory certainly does not make sense at all.

Moreover, if Putin is the aggressor here, how is it that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were completely wiped out in Gregory’s analysis? How did this man manage to publish his nonsense without any remorse or moral clarity? Who is he kidding? Does he really think that there are no serious thinkers in the world who can actually detect his perversion?

Gregory cannot make sense because his oppressors tell him what to think. In fact, Lord Rothschild declared last March that “Russian aggression and expansion” were two of the most dangerous events in recent memory.[20]

Gregory certainly needs to pick up a copy of Hegel’s Lectures on History and realize that double standards always come back to hunt their creators. Why?

Because double standards are not based on reason. And reason, as Hegel points out, will eventually triumph, despite the fact that pernicious men will seek to thwart its appearance. A classic example would be the events leading up to the NSA crisis. Republicans and Israeli puppets were on the front line defending the covert program. They all suspended the Constitution to maintain this diabolical operation.

But the chicken once again had suddenly come home to roost. It was discovered that the Obama administration spied on Israel. Israeli puppets and Jewish Neocons were on the front line saying that this was an unpardonable sin. Jewish Neocon Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary declared then that “Obama crosses the line on spying.”[21]

Commentary has produced hundreds of articles over the past few years denouncing Snowden as a traitor to America and declaring that spying on virtually every single American is a moral right. But when the same program spies on Israel, all of a sudden those same Jewish Neocons lose their minds.

Tobin flip-flops like a literal buffoon who hasn’t quite realized that his previous articles have been recorded.[22] For example, when Snowden declared that the NSA was spying on virtually everyone, Tobin unequivocally said:

“No one should doubt that the U.S. spies on its friends and that, in turn, its allies spy on America. Thus, the latest round of Snowden leaks published in the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the New York Times on Friday giving further details about such spying should surprise and outrage no one.”[23]

So, why is Tobin upset now? Why can’t he accept the fact that the United States has been snooping on Israel, particularly when it comes to national security? Didn’t he say that “the U.S. spies on its friends”?

In the same vein, Jewish Neocon Max Boot of the same magazine declared when Snowden caught them by surprise that “metadata collection must be continued.”[24]

GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio, one of the flaming puppets of the Israeli regime, declared that “America needs a real commander in chief and a president that will keep us safe” because Obama “spies on Israel.”[25] In an article entitled, “Is Marco Rubio a Sleeper Agent for Netanyahu?,” even Mother Jones, of all places, had to document the perversity of Israeli puppets like Rubio in one bombshell:

“Israel’s espionage activities in America are unrivaled and unseemly…going far beyond activities by other close allies, such as Germany, France, the U.K. and Japan. A congressional staffer familiar with a briefing last January called the testimony ‘very sobering…alarming…even terrifying.’ Another staffer called it ‘damaging.’ No other country close to the United States continues to cross the line on espionage like the Israelis do.”[26]

Did Rubio think about any of these issues? No. He only knows what to think, not how to think, because he has been programmed by the Zionist machine to portray the Israeli regime in a positive light. In that sense, he is an agent of the New World Order.


"Yes, my dear. I live in the land of contradiction."

“Yes, my dear. I live in the land of contradiction.”

Another question is this: how did other Zionist media respond to Putin’s slam dunk in Crimea? Listen to the Financial Times: “Crimea vote is no slam dunk for Putin.”[27] What did Obama do then? Order more sanctions.[28]

So, it wasn’t about “democracy” and “freedom” after all. It was about following a diabolical ideology, which always uses words like “democracy” and “freedom” in a perverse way. So, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago was right after all, that “the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault.”[29]

So, is Putin right in saying that the United States is a threat to Russia? The answer is yes. The United States has been running a diabolical course for far too long. And by calling the United States a threat, Putin seems to agree with the Ayatollah Khomeini when he used the term probably in 1979. He said then:

the Great Satan has summoned its agents and instructed them to sow dissension among the Muslims by every imaginable means, giving rise to hostility and dispute among brothers in faith who share the belief in tauhid [unity], so that nothing will stand in the way of complete domination and plunder…

“There is no crime America will not commit in order to maintain its political, economic, cultural, and military domination of those parts of the world where it predominates.

“It exploits the oppressed people of the world by means of the large-scale propaganda campaigns that are coordinated for it by international Zionism. By means of its hidden and treacherous agents, it sucks the blood of the defenseless people as if it alone, together with its satellites, had the right to live in this world.”[30]

Michael Jones writes that “Khomeini was here referring to Iraq, which had already launched a full-scale attack on Iran, as the proxy of America and Israel.”[31]

But Khomeini’s insight is very easy to demonstrate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pick up a copy of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, and you will see that the speech that was delivered in 1979 is still relevant today.

The United States is “The Great Satan” because it has abandoned the light of reason in the political and moral firmament and has embraced the Neoconservative ideology, which is essentially Talmudic, which is diabolical, and which is contrary to all mankind.

St. Paul would have concurred here. The spiritual descendent of the Neoconservatives, he would say, “both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15).

Unless those people drop their subversive movement and embrace Logos in all its manifestation, most specifically in the moral and political realm, they are still going to be contrary to all men.

Again, was Putin right in saying that the United States is a threat to Russia? Ideologically, yes.


[1] “Netanyahu, Putin and their so-called ‘chemistry,’” Jerusalem Post, November 21, 2013.

[2] See for example Scott Peterson, “Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline of Warnings Since 1979,” Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011; John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York; Farrar & Straus, 2007).

[3] Benjamin Netanyahu, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995), 121, 122.

[4] James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, NY Times, February 24, 2012.

[5] Paul Pillar, “We Can Live with a Nuclear Iran,” Washington Monthly, March/April 2012.

[6] Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).

[7] For those who are new to this topic, see Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), chapter 3; Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), chapter 3; Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

[8] E. Michael Jones has a long chapter on this in his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).

[9] Luke Harding, “WikiLeaks cables: Solzhenitsyn praise for Vladimir Putin,” Guardian, December 2, 2010.

[10] Richard Boudreaux, “’Gulag Archipelago’ Re-Issued for Russian Students,” Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2010; see also “Russian Revelations: Putting Putin In Perspective,” International Business Times, March 13, 2014.

[11] “Russian writer Solzhenitsyn awarded state humanitarian prize,” Sputnik News, May 6, 2007.

[12] Quoted in Peter Finn, “Toward end, Solzhenitsyn embraced Putin’s Russia,” Boston Globe, August 5, 2008.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), 147.

[15] Precious Silva, “Russia declares the United States and NATO as threats to its national security,” International Business Times, January 3, 2016.

[16] David Harding, “Beheadings in Saudi Arabia, at least 19 die,” NY Daily News, August 23, 2014; Angus McDowall, “Saudi Arabia steps up beheadings; some see political message,” Reuters, October 20, 2014; “Leaked video gives glimpse into Saudi beheadings,” CNN, January 21, 2015.

[17] Janine di Giovanni, “When It Comes to Beheadings, ISIS Has Nothing Over Saudi Arabia,” Newsweek, October 14, 2014.

[18] Paul Roderick Gregory, “Seven Warnings To Donald Trump About Vladimir Putin,” Forbes, January 8, 2016.

[19] “97 percent back Russia in final Crimea vote count,” NY Post, March 17, 2014; see also “Crimea referendum: Voters ‘back Russia union,’” BBC, March 16, 2014; “Crimea Referendum Vote On Joining Russia Scheduled For March 16,” Huffington Post, March 6, 2014.

[20] “Geopolitics most dangerous since WWII, Lord Rothschild warns investors,” Russia Today, March 5, 2015.

[21] Jonathan S. Tobin, “Obama Crosses a Line on Spying,” Commentary, December 30, 2015.

[22] Jonathan S. Tobin, “Spying on Americans, Then and Now,” Commentary, January 7, 2014.

[23] Jonathan S. Tobin, “Snowden, Spying, and Pollard,” Commentary, December 22, 2013.

[24] Max Boot, “Metadata Collection Must Be Continued,” Commentary, May 7, 2015.

[25] David Corn, “Is Marco Rubio a Sleeper Agent for Netanyahu?,” Mother Jones, January 8, 2016.

[26] Ibid.

[27] John Thornhill, “Crimea vote is no slam dunk for Putin,” Financial Times, March 6, 2014.

[28] Alissa de Carbonnel and Luke Baker, “Crimea votes to join Russia, Obama orders sanctions,” Reuters, March 6, 2014.

[29] John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusion That Provoked Putin,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014 Issue.

[30] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August 2015.

[31] Ibid.

Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master’s degree in education.

 

Share