Friday, October 30, 2009

How many of Madoff's "victims" were actually part of the fraud?

(Forward) -- When billionaire Madoff investor Jeffry Picower was found dead at the bottom of the swimming pool at his oceanfront estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on October 25, he left behind lingering questions about the nature of Bernard Madoff’s $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Could Madoff have pulled off the massive fraud on his own, or were others aware of, and even complicit with, the record-breaking scam? While only Madoff and his accountant have faced criminal charges in the affair, few believe that they acted alone. Picower, who allegedly withdrew at least $5 billion in profits from Madoff accounts, was the subject of a civil suit brought by the trustee of the Madoff bankruptcy, claiming that he “knew or should have known” that Madoff’s operations were fraudulent. An autopsy found that Picower drowned following a massive heart attack. The lawsuit against Picower will continue, according to Irving Picard, the Madoff bankruptcy trustee. With Picower’s death, however, no one will have the chance to question him under oath...During the immediate fallout from the fraud in December 2008, Picower and his family were perceived to be among the hardest-hit victims of the scandal...Rather than being an unwitting beneficiary of Madoff’s misdeeds, Picard alleges that Picower “knew or should have known” that he was profiting from a fraud...cont'd...LINK

It takes an Islamic civil rights group to defend Jesus from crude attacks by Jewish elements in Hollywood?

CAIR Seeks HBO Apology for ‘Curb’ Episode Mocking Jesus

(Breitbart) -- A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on HBO to apologize for an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” in which the main character splattered urine on a painting of Jesus.

SEE: Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting

In a letter to HBO Chairman and CEO Bill Nelson, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote:

“It is beyond tasteless to insult the religious sensibilities of billions of people in America and around the world with such a cheap and vulgar publicity stunt. Jesus, peace be upon him, is loved and revered by both Christians and Muslims. Muslims view him as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind...

“We understand the drive for ratings, but no one benefits from such a crude attempt to boost the network’s bottom line by manufacturing a religious controversy. HBO should apologize.”...cont'd...LINK

Video: ABC News' Brian Ross tells Diane Sawyer that Ruth Madoff blamed "the Gentiles" for her corrupt Jewish husband's plight

Click on LINKED video.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Spielberg and his performers among most convincing Holocaust-industry profiteering troupes ever

Video detailing the merits of a lawsuit filed in Florida Circuit Court against Steven Spielberg, Irene Weisberg Zisblatt, as well as others.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Latent fascist Bloomberg spends a quarter billion dollars to get elected mayor of New York City

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent $74 million of his own money to first narrowly win office in 2001, and another $85 million in the campaign to retain the office in 2005, is on pace to spend at least $110 million more of his own funds to purchase the mayoral office yet again this year, bringing his total self-financed campaign spending for all three elections to well over a quarter billion dollars. This is a new record, according to reports.

From Times Online:
The mayor, valued at $16 billion, now easily beats the total campaign spending by other plutocrat politicians who have used their own money to run for office, according to figures compiled by The New York Times.

Jon Corzine, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, now in a tight re-election battle as Governor of New Jersey, has devoted $130 million of his personal fortune to two races for Governor and one for the US Senate.

[Bloomberg's] opponent, William C. Thompson, a Democrat, has spent just $6 million in the race. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday told the Times the mayor's spending was "obscene."
Also obscene was staunch Jewish Zionist Bloomberg's defense of Israel's war on the Palestinian people of Gaza last December and January in an offensive dubbed Operation Cast Lead that killed 415 women and children, and has since been declared a war crime in an investigation carried out by Judge Richard Goldstone for the United Nations, which also found abuses by Hamas, but nowhere near the level of those committed by Israelis. Even as 2,000 pound bombs and white phosphorous were rained down by the Israeli army on the hemmed-in civilian population of Gaza, Bloomberg told a CNN interviewer that his fellow Jewish Zionists were justified in their actions because they were responding to the same kind of terror that had been inflicted upon New York City in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on The World Trade Center towers by Al Qaeda.

"I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody that's a victim of terrorism, and a feel terribly strongly that if the terrorists can win in one place, they will be emboldened and they will attack us every place," Bloomberg said in an interview on CNN during Operation Cast Lead, without elaborating about what made the women and children of Gaza "terrorists" with commonalities with Afghanistan-based Al Qaeda other than the fact that many Gazans are also Muslims.

Bloomberg claimed the firing of rockets into Israel by elements of Hamas justified the Israeli offensive: "The fact of the matter is, since the Israelis pulled out of Gaza in 2005, Hamas, rather than trying to build up Gaza, has tried to destroy Israel for their own political purposes."

Yet as journalist Andrew Sullivan notes in the Atlantic Online: "Here's a graph that tells the story of the comparative human toll in the year before the [Gaza war] broke out [click on graph below]. Over eight years, 28 Israelis were killed by Hamas rockets in what were clearly [also] war crimes, as Goldstone emphatically reports. Four times that many Palestinians were killed by Israelis in one month in 2008. In the subsequent conflict, the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths was close to 100 - 1."So apparently in Bloomberg's deranged mind, 28 Israelis killed over eight years is an attempt by Hamas to "destroy Israel," whereas Israel's killing of four times as many Palestinians in one month is merely self-defense?

On top of that, Western human rights workers on the ground in Gaza have reported that the Israeli army regularly carries out provocations like taking pot shots with high powered rifles at Palestinians from its border positions as hungry Gazans engage in activities as innocuous as trying to pick their vegetables from adjacent fields within Gazan territory. Clearly such assaults are designed to bait Hamas into responding with rockets -- actions that are then cited by Israel, powerful Western Jewish Zionist politicians like Bloomberg, and their corrupt cronies and sympathizers in politics and media as a legitimate rationale for massively disproportionate responses like Operation Cast Lead.

To objections that Israel's use of force in the attack on Gaza was disproportionate, in his interview with CNN, Bloomberg responded: "There's no such thing as proportional response to terrorism...proportionalism is for theoreticians. The real world is, governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens with everything that they have."

Yet apparently the Hamas government of Gaza isn't allowed the same doctrine of self-defense.

It's becoming increasingly evident that many powerful U.S. elective offices are being bought by wealthy Jewish Zionists and/or their networks, and then utilized to divert funds, political aid and propaganda support (hasbara) to Jewish Zionist Israel, as demonstrated by Bloomberg himself, and also by the hugely disproportionate number of Jewish Zionists elected to Congress with the help of the wealthy and powerful groups like the Israel lobby.

Obviously, Jewish Zionists are big supporters of disproportion, whether its disproportionate force in savaging their enemies in the Levant, or disproportionately inserting themselves into positions of control and power in America by buying elections in order to enable their fellow Jews in Israel to get away scot-free with war crimes against Palestinians. -- By Chris Moore

Saturday, October 24, 2009

JUDEO-FASCISTS OUT! Video: Jewish Zionist operatives finally meet American resistance as Gaza-Butcher Olmert's US tour relentlessly harassed, heckled

Citizen's arrest and mass disruption of former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in San Francisco

Protestors shut down Ehud Olmert speech at University of Chicago

Friday, October 23, 2009

Why American left-liberalism conceals Jewish power in the U.S. and Zionist influence in the Democratic Party

(By Chris Moore) -- The Mondoweiss blog has some great points in an excellent post by Philip Weiss that lays the problem of disproportionate Jewish Zionist influence in America mostly at the feet of dishonest left-liberalism, and that takes on the liberal canard that the primary reason America so staunchly supports Israel is simply because it is in American strategic interests to do so (e.g. the “Israel is our Mideast aircraft carrier” myth). Weiss basically makes the case that the primary reason America is so dedicated Israel is because the powerful Jewish lobby and Jewish predomination in left-liberal politics, finance and culture see to it.

Nearly as crucial as the question of Jewish power in America is the question of why the liberal establishment covers the fact of this power up. Weiss claims it's more an issue of liberal self-deception than of malice, and that "liberals perform this self-deception because they do not want to be guilty of echoing 'anti-Semitic tropes,' as the saying goes, and they do not want to foster pogroms."

But here is where I part with Weiss; that's only one small (and largely irrelevant) rationale behind liberal dishonesty on the question of Jewish-American power.

The fact of the matter is, most American-establishment left-liberals ignore the truth of American Jewish power for number of deeply disingenuous, cynical and self-serving purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with fear for Jewish safety: 1) they don’t want to take responsibility for the fact that left-liberalism and its doctrines have granted entry to politically alien Jewish Zionists interests and their various apparatus’ into the highest levels of influence and government for decades, which they have consequently used to incite wars against Israel’s enemies, and a clash of civilization with Islam; 2) the Democratic leadership doesn’t want its mass constituency, which is generally dovish, to know that it is in bed at the highest levels with the ideological kin of some of the most tenacious warmongers in the history of America; 3) Democratic leadership wants to keep all that Jewish money in the Democratic Party, while at the same time continue to scapegoat conservatives for all the wars America is currently stuck fighting for Israeli interests in the Mideast -- which the Democrats themselves helped start and today are escalating; 4) the Democratic electoral model is based upon cobbling together tribal ethnic and racial interest groups. Many of those groups are not interested in a melting pot America of shared values based on a common dedication to the principles of America's founding documents that frowns upon identity politics; they prefer a multi-cultural America where separate groups leverage their cohesive unit for maximum self-gain (e.g. the Jewish lobby, La Raza, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc.) usually at the expense of the American whole. (Of course, La Raza and black identity groups have nowhere near the power that Jewish-identity groups have within left-liberalism, and the Jewish interests intend to keep it that way).

I notice Weiss uses one of my points from the anti-Semitism brouhaha to help establish the fact that Jews predominate at the highest levels of American left-liberalism (Jews are two percent of the country, yet 20 percent of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate) and I’m glad he does. The other multi-cultural groups within the left-liberal coalition need to understand that the Judeofascist-Left grants no quarter to anyone, and will continue to greedily gobble up all the power that it possibly can for itself and its agenda because it is comprised of crypto-racists, as its tenacious support for quasi-fascist Israel demonstrates. If high-ranking Jewish Democrats were interested in helping other minorities attain proportionate representation, they wouldn't have continually so disproportionately inserted themselves into positions of power.

As the Jewish influence in the Democratic hierarchy grows ever larger, it's obvious that it will continue to favor Jewish interests, and continue to send an increasingly brown American underclass off to fight wars for Jewish-Israeli tribal interests with no qualms whatsoever.

Here’s the the meat from Weiss’ case that Jews have hugely disproportionate power in the American establishment in general, and within left-liberalism in particular:
Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power
...Over and over, American presidents have said they oppose the [Israeli] colonization program; over and over these instincts have been nullified politically because of the Jewish presence in the power structure. The Senate is dominated by Democrats, and 1/5 of them are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. The Washington Post has said that over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)? As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew, who got engaged in 2000 with the specific aim of nullifying the "peace process." Today is Obama frustrated by "hardliners"? No: he’s frustrated by the likes of Chuck Schumer, who refuses to go to J Street.

More on Jews in the Establishment: In the last week or so I typically found myself counting Jewish names in media broadcasts. Everyone from Ezra Klein commenting on Charlie Rose about the Congress to Andrew Ross Sorkin on Terry Gross yesterday, talking financial policy, to Brian Lehrer having on three different Jewish journalists today, and one of them, Nina Totenberg, kvelling about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Last week on Charlie Ross, the political theorist Michael Sandel, who I believe is Jewish, said that the chief criterion of a society’s view of justice is not how it deals with killers but how it confers honors and recognition. Well our society confers honors and recognition on Jews way out of proportion to other groups. I don’t see this imbalance as a political issue, except as it touches on questions of Jewish identity and support for Israel. Because support for Israel is today a tenet of American Jewish identity construction– Ezra Klein’s criticism of the Gaza war being a heretical one inside Jewish life, Daniel Schorr’s Zionism being far more representative. And to think that the Jewish presence in the media is not also a factor in the disastrous American foreign policy re the Middle East is not to think at all...

The Israel lobby is powerful for a lot of reasons. Because it’s a special interest, and because it cares more than anyone else. But also because of the Jewish presence in the Establishment. It is a piece of heartwarming liberal nostalgia to put the blame for the settlements on big bad American hardliners. Like Chomsky talking about corporations–that’s how the world works...

Of course, none of this excuses the fact that the corrupted GOP allowed openly subversive Jewish Zionist Neocons to worm their way into the conservative coalition, and then partnered with them (and Zionist-swayed Democrats) to lie America into the Iraq war. My theory is that it allowed all of this 1) for Corporatist war-profiteering and oil imperialism purposes; 2) because it knew Christian Zionists wouldn't be opposed, and would likely be supportive; 3) because it wanted to attract some of that American Jewish Zionist money for itself; 4) because it regularly seeks to play the "national security" card the same way the Democrats regularly seeks to play the "race card"; and 5) because it hopes to paper over all these problems that arise from ethnic identity politics and the increasing balkinization of the U.S. by unifying America in a war against Islamofascism...which takes us right back to the problem of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy of encouraging ethnic tribalism in order to profit politically (and its cronies to profit economically).

America is being ill-served by its corrupt two-party regime, and Jewish Zionism is at the very core of that corruption. Because Jewish Zionist power in America roosts primarily within left-liberalism and the Jewish Neocons have made strong inroads into the GOP, the pressure to oust it is clearly going to have to come from a conservative-libertarian-populist insurrection on the Right. The Left is simply working at too many cross-purposes to ever mount a serious challenge to the Zionists, as is the GOP in its current Neocon incarnation.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Just as they denied genocide of Armenians, Zionists deny Communist-perpetrated genocide of Ukrainians, all to advance a Jewish-exceptionalist agenda

(By Chris Moore) -- Dr. Efraim Zuroff, Director of the Simon Weisenthal Center in Jerusalem, claimed in a recent interview that the push in many countries formerly under Communist control or domination to recognize the millions of 20th Century victims of Communism as on par with the victims of Fascism by passing official resolutions comparing Stalinism to Nazism is an attack on the allegedly “unique” nature of the Holocaust.

Zuroff claims Communist crimes are different than those of Fascism because the Nazis were engaged in genocide, “a deliberate attempt to destroy a people, wipe them off the face of the earth. And that was never the case as far as the crimes of Communism were concerned...There was never an intention to destroy an entire people.”

This is a risible lie that totally ignores the Holodomor (death by starvation) engineered by Joseph Stalin and his Communist henchmen (many of them Jewish) of the Ukrainian people from 1932-33, which murdered six to eight million people in order to steal Ukrainian grain for export to the West, and make an example to those who would resist submission to Communist totalitarianism.

From Wikepedia:
“As of March 2008, Ukraine and nineteen other governments have recognized the actions of the Soviet government as an act of genocide. The joint statement at the United Nations in 2003 has defined the famine as the result of cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime that caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Russians, Kazakhs and other nationalities in the USSR. On 23 October 2008 the European Parliament adopted a resolution that recognized the Holodomor as a crime against humanity.”

Outrageously, Zuroff ascribes dark motives to those in the Baltic states who seek to commemorate the victims of Communism, as motivated by a desire to cover up their own collaboration with the Nazis -- even though millions of victims murdered by Communism were killed well before the rise of Hitler.

Zuroff’s attempts to minimize the deaths of nearly ten million people (which is merely the tip of the iceberg of the total Communist death toll of some 100 million people world wide) is not only an insult to the murdered, but is apparently being done for the most cynical of purposes: to maintain the underpinning rationale for Jewish supremacy in the Levant.

As Zuroff admits: "As long as the Holocaust is a unique historical phenomenon, then those events will get a lot more attention, a lot more interest...If you dislodge the Holocaust from its unique status, that will reduce the interest, reduce the research, and reduce the study of those events."

In other words, Israel will lose its Holocaust-related meal ticket granted by the West, and the "pass" granted by Western-dominated human rights institutions to subjugate, murder, and discriminate against non-Jews under its control or domination in the Levant. Scholar Norman Finkelstein, in a summary of his book The Holocaust Industry, wrote about the centrality of this “uniqueness doctrine” to the cause of Jewish exceptionalism:

“The main proponent of the "uniqueness" doctrine is Elie Wiesel. For Wiesel, The Holocaust "leads into darkness," "negates all answers," "defies both knowledge and description," and so forth. Such formulations obscure more than they illuminate. The "uniqueness" doctrine, although intellectually stifling and morally discreditable (the suffering of non-Jewish victims "cannot compare"), persists on account of its political utility. Unique suffering confers unique entitlement.”

Crucial to the “uniqueness doctrine” is the denial of genocides not afflicting Jews, says Finkelstein. This Wikipedia passage on The Holocaust Industry summarizes how Zionist interests have systematically worked to deny the Armenian Genocide in order to preserve the uniqueness doctrine.

“Finkelstein scathingly compared the media treatment of the Holocaust and the media treatment of the Armenian Genocide, particularly by members of what he calls "The Holocaust Industry". (1 to 1.5 million Armenians died in the years between 1915 and 1917/1923 - denial includes the claim that they were the result of a Civil War within World War I, or refusal to accept there were deaths). In 2000, Finkelstein documented in this book how, in 1982 and 1995, the genocide (and even the suffering) of the Armenians was rejected by Israel, by Elie Wiesel and the US Holocaust Council. In 2001, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres went so far as to dismiss it as "allegations," and Armenian accounts of the mass slaughter as "meaningless".”

Today, it appears Jewish Zionists as epitomized by Dr. Zuroff are working to dismiss the murder of millions of victims of Communism for the same cynical, Jewish-exceptionalist purposes.

Video: Ukraine famine engineered by Communists and covered up by Western collaborators

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Video: Racist Israeli professor says millions murdered by Communism don't deserve equal recognition with victims of Nazism due to lack of "uniqueness"

"As long as the Holocaust is a unique historical phenomenon, then those events will get a lot more attention, a lot more interest...If you dislodge the Holocaust from its unique status, that will reduce the interest, reduce the research, and reduce the study of those events." --Dr. Efraim Zuroff, Director of Simon Weisenthal Center in Israel

Does being the child of a Holocaust survivor convey a right to cheat on taxes? Sure, says the federal government

On October 13, National Public Radio had an an interesting item on wealthy Americans who own Swiss bank accounts and other foreign tax-dodging shelters:
An amnesty deal for Americans seeking to come clean about income hidden in offshore accounts expires Thursday. Barbara Kaplan, the head of the New York tax practice at the law firm Greenberg Traurig, says her firm represents close to 100 people who are taking advantage of the government's offer.

NPR host Robert Siegel asked Kaplan: “Well, typically, who are these people? I mean, what kind of individuals are you talking about?”
Ms. KAPLAN: These are holocaust survivors, these are the children of holocaust survivors, these are foreigners who have become U.S. citizens or U.S. residents, who are here with green cards, and then there are some which is a smaller percentage of the clients I've seen, who are business people who conducted business overseas and put their profits overseas.

An interesting first response, clearly designed to elicit sympathy for her tax-cheat clients: “These are holocaust survivors, these are the children of holocaust survivors…”

In other words, many of them are Jews who claim to be refugees from World War II, or the children of refugees from WWII. Hence, they kept their money in tax free accounts for all these years (and presumably continued to deposit large amounts of income earned in America in the decades since) not because they were greedy cheapskates who thought taxes are only for the “little people," (as Jewish billionaire Leona Helmsley once famously quipped), but rather, out of some sort of fearful reflex-instinct induced by Nazism and suffering.

Totally reasonable, no?


There are a large number of Americans who fled from the equally traumatic Communist camps and gulags of Eastern Europe, Russia and Asia, refugees from vicious Communist totalitarianism, who, when combined with their offspring, probably total in the millions. Yet how often does one hear about their experiences and their plight? And how many of them are using their background as an excuse to hide large sums of money in offshore bank accounts in order to dodge American taxes? Can anyone imagine them as a group stooping to the excuse: “We cheated on our taxes because we are the children of Communist survivors”?

Now, don’t misunderstand. I believe that Americans are overtaxed and abused by the federal tax code no end. And I most certainly don’t approve of much of what the federal government uses those taxes for (including wars for Israel). But not only do most of these wealthy Jewish tax cheats with offshore bank accounts have more than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, but on top of that, Jews are one of the most liberal, big government-advocating demographics in the country -- in no small part because they want a powerful centralized government to protect their tribal interests, including Israel. And big government costs big money.

So utilizing the Holocaust as a cudgel to get them what they want (and get them out of paying taxes to cover the cost) is one of their dirtiest tricks.

Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth blog recently posted an entry on this phenomenon of Jewish opportunists relentlessly dragging up the Holocaust as a convenient excuse for all manner of abhorrent behavior in general, and abhorrent Jewish Zionist behavior in particular -- a phenomenon that has become known as Holocaustianity:

The idea that the existence of the Jewish state is intrinsically and existentially tied to wielding the Holocaust whip against the gentile world is a no-brainer. For half a century, the Holocaust has been the proverbial golden goose that not only birthed the Jewish state, but has continuously suckled and coddled it.

But, alas, just as all things rooted in untruth, the old girl is growing weary. She does not spit out those golden eggs with as much ease or frequency as in years past. World leaders are now beginning to ridicule the very idea of the holocaust and people have just plain had their fill of it. They’re tired of hearing the same broken record all the time used as an excuse by Jewish interests to pick their pockets, rob them of their freedom and send their loved ones off to fight in Israel’s wars. Making matters worse is the fact that every other week it seems yet another holocaust memoir is being revealed as a fraud.

And besides this, there are the demographics to consider. The bottom line is that they’re running out of Holocaust survivors and have not (yet) perfected the business of cloning so that new survivors can be kept around in perpetuity. Yes, they have been somewhat successful in getting the kids and grandkids involved in this shtick so as to create a whole new chorus line, but as of this moment no one is kicking down the doors to listen to the same old worn out testimony from 3rd and 4th hand sources.

Well, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Apparently being The Child of a Holocaust Survivor conveys certain amnesty rights and waiver of penalties for decades of tax cheating, so don’t be surprised if years from now, the great, great, great Grandchild of a Holocaust Survivor is granted clemency on some charge or another by merit of the fact that he has a Holocaustianity blood line -- particularly if the trend towards an increasingly disproportiantely Jewish group of overlords running the U.S. Congress continues unabated. -- By Chris Moore

Monday, October 19, 2009

An open letter to Mondoweiss on its cover story for The Nation

Phil and Adam,

Congratulations on The Nation cover. One problem with the article, though:

"Then came the rise to power of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose explicitly anti-Arab platform was at odds with an American Jewish electorate that had just voted 4 to 1 for a minority president."

American Jews may have liberally voted 4 to 1 for a left-liberal minority U.S. president, but this is consistent with Judeofascism's modus-operandi of supporting left-liberalism in the diaspora (ie Jewish-Leftism) and fascism in the Levant fatherland. The more relevant survey as to the claim to liberalism of American Jewry is the one showing 94% of US Jews demanding the Palestinians recognize Israel as an officially Jewish state.

It's easy for Judeofascists as a U.S. minority to prescribe statist-liberalism for American marks they seek to infiltrate, degrade, exploit, and subjugate in order to advance the Judeofascist agenda; but the test of an authentic conversion to liberalism is whether one prescribes it for their own tribe. Clearly, Judeofascist Americans (94% of Jewish-Americans?) are NOT authentically liberal.

Phil and Adam, ask yourselves: Are you being used? And how much use will Judeofascist-Left media have for non-Judeofascist secularists in the long run?


By Chris Moore

Question of the day: Are there fascist patterns to modern Jewish ideology?

To elaborate: Are there intractable patterns of fascistic manifestations of the modern practice of organized Jewry that infer an inherent relationship between modern (as opposed to ancient historical religious) Jewish ideology, and the racially and doctrinal supremacist ideology known as fascism?

The fascist characteristics of Israeli Zionism are well known: its institutional discrimination against non-Jews; it’s definition of Judaism as a racialist doctrine that assigns rights and privileges to Israeli Jews (and all Jews anywhere who may want to live in Israel) over Levant-native Gentiles based upon mere bloodlines; its clear categorical interpretation of Jewish “choseness” as a racially ordained caste that exists above Gentiles in the eyes of God and/or history, destined to rule over the Gentiles with whom it comes into contact.

And the violent, fascist-supremacist approach of naked indifference to non-Jewish life Israeli-Zionism has historically taken towards its dealings with those who resist its supremacist agenda has been well-documented too, from its very founding to the West Bank to Lebanon to Israel’s recent incursion into Gaza.

Then there are the modern Jewish diaspora examples of organizational fascism and supremacy: the Jewish Bolsheviks and their ethnic racketeering that resulted in a de facto Jewish supremacist hierarchy in the early Soviet Union that exhibited a murderous indifference to non-Jewish life on a scale infinitely larger than that currently on display in Israel; the “Jewish lobby” ethnic racketeering that was an integral “critical element” to the propagation of the Iraq war, which was instigated and is being fought largely at the behest of Israel and its Jewish-American lobby; the phony Jewish “civil rights” ethnic racketeering groups that have been central to the creation of institutionally Jewish-exceptionalist U.S. government offices like the U.S. State Department’s Office of Anti-Semitism (there are no other specifically identified American racial-religo ideological groups assigned special departmental status and favoritism within the U.S. federal government).

Thus, on balance, its seems a fair assessment that there are some inherently supremacist elements to the modern practice of organized Jewry that have regularly manifested in outgrowths that can only be described as possessing characteristic consistent with many of the characteristics of categorical fascism (ie Nazism).

Hence, is "Judeofascist" really an epithet, (as some have suggested) or is it a documentable category that comprises modern practitioners who subscribe to a manifestly fascist interpretation of organized Judaism? -- Chris Moore

Friday, October 16, 2009

Stalin's Jews; Stalin's Willing Executioners

Stalin's Jews

( -- by Sever Plocker --

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish

Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened

to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin...LINK

"Stalin's Willing Executioners"?

( -- by Kevin MacDonald --

Yuri Slezkine's book The Jewish Century, which appeared last year to rapturous reviews, is an intellectual tour de force, alternately muddled and brilliant, courageous and apologetic. Slezkine's greatest accomplishment is to set the historical record straight on the importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. He summarizes previously available data and extends our understanding of the Jewish role in revolutionary movements before 1917 and of Soviet society thereafter. His book provides a fascinating chronicle of the Jewish rise to elite status in all areas of Soviet society—culture, the universities, professional occupations, the media, and government. Indeed, the book is also probably the best, most up-to-date account of Jewish economic and cultural pre-eminence in Europe (and America) that we have.

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography. The current view, accepted by almost all contemporary historians, is that Jews played no special role in Bolshevism and indeed, were uniquely victimized by it.

Slezkine's book provides a bracing corrective to this current view.

Slezkine himself [email him] is a Russian immigrant of partially Jewish extraction. Arriving in America in 1983, he moved quickly into elite U.S. academic circles and is now a professor at U.C. Berkeley. This, his second book, is his first on a major theme.

While the greater part of The Jewish Century is an exposition of the Russian experience, Slezkine provides what are in effect sidebars (comparatively flimsy) recounting the Jewish experience in America and the Middle East. Together, these phenomena can in fact be seen as the three great Jewish migrations of the 20th century, since within Russia millions of Jews left the shtetl towns of the Pale of Settlement, migrating to Moscow and the other cities to man elite positions in the Soviet state.

Slezkine attempts to understand Jewish history and the rise of Jews to elite status in the 20th century by developing the thesis that the peoples of the world can be classified into two groups.

The successful peoples of the modern world, termed Mercurians, are urban, mobile, literate, articulate, and intellectually sophisticated.

The second group, termed Apollonians, is rooted to the land with traditional agrarian cultures, valuing physical strength and warrior virtues.

Since Slezkine sees Jews as the quintessential Mercurians, modernization is essentially a process of everyone becoming Jewish. Indeed, Slezkine regards both European individualism and the European nation state as imitations of pre-existing Jewish accomplishments—both deeply problematic views, in my opinion.

There are problems with the Mercurian/Apollonian distinction as well. The Gypsies whom he offers as an example of another Mercurian people, are basically the opposite of Jews: having a low-investment, low-IQ reproductive style characterized by higher fertility, earlier onset of reproduction, more unstable pair bonds, and more single parenting.

The Overseas Chinese, another proposed parallel, are indeed highly intelligent and entrepreneurial, like the Jews. But I would argue the aggressiveness of the Jews, compared to the relative political passivity of the Overseas Chinese, invalidates the comparison.

We do not read of Chinese cultural movements dominating the major local universities and media outlets, subjecting the traditional culture of Southeast Asians and anti-Chinese sentiment to radical critique —or of Chinese organizations campaigning for the removal of native cultural and religious symbols from public places.

Moreover, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were hardly the modern Mercurians that Slezkine portrays.

Well into the 20th century, as Slezkine himself notes, most Eastern European Jews could not speak the languages of the non-Jews living around them. Slezkine also ignores their medieval outlook on life, their obsession with the Kabbala—the writings of Jewish mystics—their superstition and anti-rationalism, and their belief in magical remedies and exorcisms.

And these supposedly modern Mercurians had an attitude of absolute faith in the person of the tsadik, their rebbe, who was a charismatic figure seen by his followers literally as the personification of God in the world.

Slezkine devotes one line to the fact that Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century. The grinding poverty that this produced caused an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems.

By proposing the basically spurious Mercurian/Apollonian contrast, Slezkine obscures the plain fact that Jewish history in the period he discusses constitutes a spectacularly, arguably uniquely, successful case of what I have described as an ethnocentric group competitive strategy in action.

Slezkine conceptualizes Mercurianism as a worldview and therefore a matter of psychological choice rather than a set of psychological mechanisms, notably general intelligence and ethnocentrism. He appears to be aware of the biological reality of kinship and ethnicity, but he steadfastly pursues a cultural determinism model. As a result of this false premise, he understates the power of ethnocentrism and group competitiveness as unifying factors in Jewish history.

This competitiveness was of course notorious in Eastern Europe before the 1917 revolution. Slezkine ignores, or at least does not spell out, the extent to which Jews were willing agents of exploitative elites in traditional societies, not only in Europe, but in the Muslim world as well. Forming alliances with exploitative elites is arguably the most reliably recurrent theme observable in Jewish economic behavior over the ages.

Indeed, Slezkine shows that this pattern effectively continued in Russia after the Revolution: Jews became part of a new exploitative elite. But here boundaries between Jews and non-Jews were unusually blurred—in traditional societies, barriers between Jews and non-Jews at all social levels were always high.

Slezkine supposes that Jews and other Mercurians performed economic tasks deemed inappropriate for the natives for religious reasons. But this is only part of the story. Often these were situations where the natives were simply comparatively less ruthless in exploiting their fellows, which put them at a competitive disadvantage. This was especially the case in Eastern Europe, where conducive economic arrangements, such as tax farming, estate management, and monopolies on retail liquor distribution, lasted far longer than in the West.

Slezkine also ignores the extent to which Jewish competition may have suppressed — arguably sometimes reversed — the formation of a native middle class in Eastern Europe. He seems instead to simply assume the locals lacked the abilities required.

But the fact is that in most of Western Europe Jews were expelled in the Middle Ages. And, as a result, when modernization occurred, it was accomplished with an indigenous middle class. Perhaps the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of £116,346 in return for expelling 2000 Jews in 1290. If, as in Eastern Europe, Jews had won the economic competition in most of these professions, there might not have been a non-Jewish middle class in England.

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine's book is to document that Communism was, indeed, "good for the Jews." After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from "antibourgeois" quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude. (Some might argue that the parallel with post '65 Civil Rights Act America ironic!)

Beyond the issue of demonstrating that the Jews benefited from the Revolution lies the more important question of their role in implementing it. Having achieved power and elite status, did their traditional hostility to the leaders of the old regime, and to the peasantry, contribute to the peculiarly ghastly character of the early Soviet era?

On this question, Slezkine's contribution is decisive.

Despite the important role of Jews among the Bolsheviks, most Jews were not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway, the vast majority of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active participants.

Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as leaders in the army and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For example, there were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in October, 1917. Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro's comment that "anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator."

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, "was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions", with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine's remarkable phrase, "Stalin's willing executioners".

Slezkine appears to take a certain pride in the drama of the role of the Jews in Russia during these years. Thus he says they were

"among the most exuberant crusaders against 'bourgeois' habits during the Great Transformation; the most disciplined advocates of socialist realism during the 'Great Retreat' (from revolutionary internationalism); and the most passionate prophets of faith, hope, and combat during the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis".

Sometimes his juxtapositions between his descriptions of Jewish involvement in the horror of the early Soviet period and the life styles of the Jewish elite seem deliberately jarring. Lev Kopelev, a Jewish writer who witnessed and rationalized the Ukrainian famine in which millions died horrible deaths of starvation and disease as an "historical necessity" is quoted saying "You mustn't give in to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our revolutionary duty."

On the next page, Slezkine describes the life of the largely Jewish elite in Moscow and Leningrad where they attended the theater, sent their children to the best schools, had peasant women (whose families were often the victims of mass murder) for nannies, spent weekends at pleasant dachas and vacationed at the Black Sea.

Again, Slezkine discusses the heavily Jewish NKVD and the Jewish leadership of the Great Terror of the 1930s. Then, he writes that in 1937 the prototypical Jewish State official "probably would have been living in elite housing in downtown Moscow . . . with access to special stores, a house in the country (dacha), and a live-in peasant nanny or maid". He writes long and lovingly detailed sketches of life at the dachas of the elite—the "open verandas overlooking small gardens enclosed by picket fences…"

The reader is left on his own to recall the horrors of the Ukrainian famine, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and the Gulag.

Slezkine attempts to dodge the issue of the degree to which the horrors perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in the traditional attitudes of the Jews who in fact played such an extensive role in their orchestration. He argues that the Jewish Communists were Communists, not Jews.

This does not survive factual analysis.

One might grant the possibility that the revolutionary vanguard was composed of Jews like Trotsky, apparently far more influenced by a universalist utopian vision than by their upbringing in traditional Judaism. But, even granting this, it does not necessarily follow for the millions of Jews who left the shtetl towns, migrated to the cities, and to such a large extent ran the USSR.

It strains credulity to suppose that these migrants completely and immediately threw off all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture—which, as Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and hatred of peasants, hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very negative attitude toward Christianity.

In other words, the war against what Slezkine terms "rural backwardness and religion" — major targets of the Revolution — was exactly the sort of war that traditional Jews would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing Jews.

However, while Slezkine seems comfortable with the notion of revenge as a Jewish motive, he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself as a possible contributor to Jewish behavior in the new Communist state.

Moreover, while it was generally true that Jewish servants of the Soviet regime had ceased being religious Jews, this did not mean they ceased having a Jewish identity. (Albert Lindeman made this point when reviewing Slezkine in The American Conservative [article not on line].)

Slezkine quotes the philosopher Vitaly Rubin speaking of his career at a top Moscow school in the 1930s where over half the students were Jewish:

"Understandably, the Jewish question did not arise there…All the Jews knew themselves to be Jews but considered everything to do with Jewishness a thing of the past...There was no active desire to renounce one's Jewishness. The problem simply did not exist."

In other words, in the early decades of the Soviet Union, the ruling class was so heavily a Jewish milieu, that there was no need to renounce a Jewish identity and no need to aggressively push for Jewish interests. Jews had achieved elite status.

But ethnic networking continued nonetheless. Indeed, Slezkine reports that when a leading Soviet spokesmen on anti-Semitism, Yuri Larin (Lurie), tried to explain the embarrassing fact that Jews were, as he said, "preeminent, overabundant, dominant, and so on" among the elite in the Soviet Union, he mentioned the "unusually strong sense of solidarity and a predisposition toward mutual help and support"—ethnic networking by any other name.

Obviously, "mutual help and support" required that Jews recognize each other as Jews. Jewish identity may not have been much discussed. But it operated nonetheless, even if subconsciously, in the rarified circles at the top of Soviet society.

Things changed. Slezkine shows that the apparent de-emphasis of Jewish identity by many members of the Soviet elite during the 1920s and 1930s turned out to be a poor indicator of whether or not these people identified as Jews—or would do so when Jewish and Soviet identities began to diverge in later years: when National Socialism reemphasized Jewish identity, and when Israel emerged as a magnet for Jewish sentiment and loyalty.

In the end, despite the rationalizations of many Soviet Jews on Jewish identity in the early Soviet period, it was blood that mattered.

After World War II, in a process which remains somewhat obscure, the Russian majority began taking back their country. One method was "massive affirmative action" aimed at giving greater representation to underrepresented ethnic groups. Jews became targets of suspicion because of their ethnic status. They were barred from some elite institutions, and had their opportunities for advancement limited. Overt anti-Semitism was encouraged by the more covert official variety apparent in the limits on Jewish advancement.

Under these circumstances, Slezkine says that Jews became "in many ways, the core of the antiregime intelligentsia". Applications to leave the USSR increased dramatically after Israel's Six-Day War of 1967 which, as in the United States and Eastern Europe, resulted in an upsurge of Jewish identification and ethnic pride. The floodgates were eventually opened by Gorbachev in the late 1980s. By 1994, 1.2 million Soviet Jews had emigrated—43% of the total. By 2002, there were only 230,000 Jews remaining in the Russian Federation, 0.16% of the population.

Nevertheless these remaining Jews remain overrepresented among the elite. Six of the seven oligarchs who emerged in control of the Soviet economy and media in the period of de-nationalization of the 1990s were Jews.

As mentioned above, Slezkine's discussions of the Jewish experience in the Middle East and America are quite perfunctory in comparison.

Slezkine views the Jewish migration to Israel as heroic and believes the moral debt owed to Jews by Western societies justifies the most extreme expressions of Jewish racialism:

"The rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic deportations, tabooed elsewhere in the West is a routine element of Israeli political life… no other European state can have as strong a claim on the West's moral imagination."

He sees the moral taboo on European ethnocentrism, the designation of Nazism as the epitome of absolute evil, and the identification of Jews as what he calls "the Chosen people of the postwar Western world" as simply the inevitable results of the events of World War II. In fact, of course, the creation and maintenance of the culture of the Holocaust and the special moral claims of Jews and Israel might be more fairly viewed the intended result of Jewish ethnic activism.

Slezkine's caricature of American history is close to preposterous. He sees the United States as a Jewish promised land precisely because it is not defined tribally and "has no state-bearing natives". In fact, of course, the Founding Fathers very explicitly saw themselves as Englishmen defending a specific political tradition. But (somewhat like the Soviet Union's Jews in the early decades) they felt no need to assert the cultural and ethnic parameters of their creation; they asssumed the racial and cultural homogeneity of the Republic and perceived no threat to its control by themselves and their descendants.

And when the Founding Fathers' descendents did percieve such a threat, they reacted powerfully and decisively, with the Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s and the Immigration Restriction (and associated "Americanization" requirements) in the early 20th Century Slezkine's acceptance of the "Proposition Nation" myth reflects the triumph of intellectuals and propagandists, many of them Jewish, led by Horace Kallen in the 1920s. These succesfully replaced the previously standard view by which many Americans thought of themselves as members of a very successful ethnic group derived from Great Britain and with strong cultural and ethnic connections to Europe, particularly Northern Europe.

The fate of Russia in the first two decades following the Revolution prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American communists and their sympathizers assumed power. Sectors of American society might perhaps have been deemed unacceptably backward and superstitious and even worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.

Those "red state" voters who have loomed so important in recent national elections would have been the enemy. The cultural and religious attitudes of "red state" America are precisely those attitudes that have been deemed changeworthy by the left, particularly by the Jewish community, which has been the driving force of the left in America throughout the 20th century.

As Joel Kotkin points out, "for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain."

And, as Elliott Abrams had noted, the American Jewish community "clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism…"

The dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that caused so many Eastern European shtetl Jews to become "willing executioners" in the name of international socialism is unmistakably related, however remotely, to the views of some contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

Slezkine's main point is that the most important factor for understanding the history of the 20th century is the rise of the Jews in the West and the Middle East, and their rise and decline in Russia. I think he is absolutely right about this.

If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews not only became an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and cultures of all three areas they came to dominate.

So far, the greatest human tragedies have occurred in the Soviet Union. But the presence of Israel in the Middle East is creating obvious dangers there. And alienation remains a potent motive for the disproportionate Jewish involvement in the transformation of the U.S. into a non-European society through non-traditional immigration.

Given this record of Jews as a very successful but hostile elite, it is possible that the continued demographic and cultural dominance of Western European peoples will not be retained, either in Europe or the United States, without a decline in Jewish influence.

But the lesson of the Soviet Union (as also Spain from the 15th–17th centuries) is that Jewish influence does wane as well as wax. Unlike the attitudes of the utopian ideologies of the 20th century, there is no end to history...LINK

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. This article is adapted from a longer review [pdf] published in the Fall 2005 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

Question of the day: Has Jewish Communist anti-American subversiveness morphed into Jewish Zionist anti-American subversiveness?

Since the FBI found that up to 60 percent of Communist Party members in circa 1940's America were Jewish, has a large percentage of contemporary American Jewry merely transmuted its anti-Christian and anti-Western civilization subversiveness from Communism to Zionism? Is this another possible reason that the Israel lobby was such a “critical element” (as Walt and Mearsheimer found in their seminal study on the Israel lobby) in what has been revealed as the operation to lie America into the Iraq war -- as yet another means of subverting, undermining, denigrating and tormenting the hated old guard “Christian” and European "goyim" establishment, in the same vein as previous Communist operations to erode the fabric of American and European society?

If so, why are "Christian" Zionists on the Right and liberal interventionists on the Left collaborating with subversive Jewish Zionists not only on existing Mideast wars, but on the objective to stir conflict with Iran? Is it possible that all of these now hate America as well, and that Judeofascist subversiveness is virulent?

With these bi-partisan subversive forces now themselves comprising large sectors of the establishment, and colluding in the erosion, denigration, usury and exploitation of America, who speaks for average Americans? Who will defend the interests of average Americans? Troubling questions. -- By Chris Moore

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Bruce Wasserstein, Rahm Emanuel's bankster sugar daddy and big Dem donor, dies of heart failure

Jewish Banker Bruce Wasserstein, Chairman and CEO of Lazard, one of world's largest investment banks, died of heart failure on October 14.

From the Telegraph:
Never shy of controversy, Wasserstein could claim to have had a hand in more than 1,000 merger and acquisition deals in the course of his career, amounting to some $250 billion in value. Whether in defence or on the side of the hostile bidder, he deployed a mastery of takeover techniques, a sharp tongue and formidable powers of persuasion to keep his clients in the game to the last hand – hence "Bid 'Em Up Bruce", a sobriquet which he was said to hate.

Wasserstein was a big Democratic Party donor, and apparently knew how to grease the skids by "investing" in politicians and political operatives, as well.

From Current:
Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, earned more than $18 million in just two and a half years when he left Bill Clinton’s White House, where he was an aide, to join big time Democratic donor and Wall Street dealmaker Bruce Wasserstein’s investment banking boutique, Wasserstein Perella & Company, as a consultant. He also benefited from the sale of Wasserstein Perella to a German bank, which provided him with an unusually large payout, The New York Times reports. Not only did the dalliance with banking make Emanuel rich, it provided him with strong ties to the banking sector at a time when the new Obama administration is planning a sweeping regulatory overhaul of Wall Street. Emanuel says his links with bankers will not lead to special favors. “I would say I’ve been as tough on my friends as others,” he said. “I call it like I see it.”

After Emanuel's tenure, Wasserstein was quoted on his hiring by the New York Times:

“I had this idea that this could work and that it had upside. It worked out better than I could have hoped.”

The Times went on to note:
The period before he was elected to a House seat from Illinois is a little-known episode of Mr. Emanuel’s biography. Former colleagues said the insight it afforded him on the financial services sector is invaluable especially now. But Mr. Emanuel built up strong ties with an industry now at the heart of the economic crisis, one that will be girding for a pitched lobbying battle next year as the incoming Democratic administration considers a potentially sweeping regulatory overhaul.

After Mr. Emanuel left banking to run for Congress, members of the securities and investment industry became his biggest backers, donating more than $1.5 million to his campaigns dating back to 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mr. Emanuel also leaned heavily upon the industry while he was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the 2006 midterm elections. Financial industry donors contributed more than $5.8 million to the committee, behind only retirees.

--compiled by Chris Moore

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The real reason Chris Mathews and his left-liberal Jewish panel declined to play 'Hardball' on Israel

Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss notes that Chris Mathews had left-leaning (Jewish) investigative journalists David Corn of Mother Jones and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek on Hardball yesterday to talk about Liz Cheney's new think tank, Keep America Safe , and while the trio yucked it up about how it is essentially yet another Neocon front financed by guys like (Jewish Zionist) hawk Sheldon Adelson and prominently features (Jewish Zionist) Neocons like William Kristol, there was no mention whatsoever made about the Israel-connection, nor about ginning up yet another war for Israel being a motive behind the creation of the new organization.

Weiss says Mathews subtly served up the opportunity for both Corn and Isikoff to raise the subject of Israel without bringing it up directly himself, and each demurred.
"The segment was a disgraceful charade. Adelson and Kristol care about Israel. That is the core of their political engagement. That is why Kristol, a proudly parochial Jew, wants to attack Iran. The subject was never broached...What is the role of Jewish money in our politics, and how much of that Jewish giving is wrapped around a dedication to the Jewish state? How many liberal hawks also care about Israel? Why did Chuck Schumer vote for the Iraq war? Why did Hillary? Matthews would never cut Christians a break in a similar religious/political context."

Good point. If Corn and Isikoff had been a couple of Catholics, and the Iraq war had been fought on behalf of the Vatican, as dedicated members of the left-liberal media, they would have been all over the subject in a second, and would be pounding away at whether or not the Vatican was behind the gestating war with Iran, and whether deep-pocket Catholics were funding think tanks out of loyalty to the Vatican.

The question is, did Mathews give Corn and Isikoff a "pass" because they are Jews, or because Jewish money is by far the largest block of funding behind the Democratic Party , and because the party has disproportionately large numbers of Jewish Zionists in national elective office and in the party's hierarchy?

I submit that Chris Mathews is just another party hack who doesn't want to raise the issue of Israel mainly because it would damage the Democratic Party if its rank and file realized that party dogma is being formulated primarily at the behest of Zionism in much of the foreign-policy realm, and at the behest of pseudo-secular, left-liberal Jewish interests in much of the domestic-policy realm. Raising the issue of Israel and Jewish money in the Democratic Party opens up a can of worms that left-liberal phonies, who want to continue to shuck, jive and deceive their way into authoritarian power, don't want opened. Ever.

And I further submit that Corn and Isikoff didn't want to open the can of worms for the same reason.

Just like the Judeofascist-Right and its useful idiots, the Judeofascist-Left and its useful idiots all tend to be closed-mouthed and cohesive on the subjects of American wars for Israel and the role of Jewish Zionist money and influence on party policy. In both cases, such a discussion would betray the corrupt, unprincipled and venal nature of each party's hierarchy.

On a sidebar, while apparently David Corn did acknowledge on Hardball that the Neocons are spawn of the "Communist/Trotskyite/Stalinist sectarians of the 30s" (as Weiss puts it) Corn failed to acknowledge that his own statist, centralizing and deeply disingenuous, Zionist-coddling left-liberal politics are spawn of the same heritage. -- By Chris Moore

Friday, October 09, 2009

Video: "Post-religious" Soviet Russia leveled churches, spared synagogues

Rabbi Shmuley says "Jewish values" are America's way forward

Let me get this straight. After helping to turn America into a social cesspool through decades of radiating smut, violence and cultural pollution from largely Jewish Hollywood, and after the Israel lobby and multitudes of Jewish Zionist operatives played a “decisive” role in lying America into the Iraq war, which has only accelerated American decline, and after largely Jewish Wall Street bamboozled millions of Americans out of their lifelong savings (along with corrupt Washington bunglers like the powerful Jewish congressman Barney Frank) by engineering a series of economic bubbles that finally ended with the housing meltdown…after all that, the U.S. is supposed to look to “Jewish values” to "heal America"?

"Yes!," says celebrity Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of “Kosher Sex” fame, who is Founder and Executive Director of This World: The Jewish Values Network, which is sponsoring a series of symposiums on “Jewish values” and how they can “heal America” featuring the good rabbi himself, a coterie of fellow celebrity Jews, and a handful of Shabbat Goy bootlickers.

But get this -- panel participants include Dennis Prager, who as a columnist for Jewish World Review was one of the Jewish Zionist operatives who helped gin up the Iraq war, (and who, after endless columns of moral preening, apparently dumped his wife of 19 years in 2006); and O.J. Simpson-lawyer Alan “blood and guts” Dershowitz, who famously argued that the American government can and should engage in brutal torture in its "war on terror" effort just so long as it gets a warrant, first. (Now there's some good Talmudic reasoning we can all point to as sublime moral philosophy.)

Also appearing in the "values" panel will be Elie Wiesel, who scholar Norman Finkelstein identified as a key player in the The Holocaust Industry and who has tirelessly (and profitably) propagated the "uniqeness doctrine" which holds that Jewish suffering is more meaningful than Gentile suffering. According to Finkelstein, Wiesel played key roles in minimizing Turkish genocide of the Armenians and Nazi genocide of the Roma in order to elevate the concept that Jews are history's ultimate victims and thus deserve special accord from the world (a concept that has been key to the moral "pass" Israel has been granted by the U.S. to perpetrate war crimes against the Palestinians).

"Slowly but surely, Jewish values are sculpting and molding the mainstream culture," says Rabbi Shmuley. "My aim with the creation of the Jewish Values Network is to greatly accelerate this trend."

Gee, with “Jewish values” like those epitomized by Rabbi Shmuley and his panel leading the way, Americans might finally be ready to scratch their way out of the toilet...and down into the sewer! -- By Chris Moore

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Video: Zionism, the genesis of modern terrorism

Question of the day: Do certain liberals demand zero conflation between Judaism and Zionism in order to preserve unconstitutional aid to Israel?

I have never quite been able to put my finger on exactly why certain liberals and leftists demand that Judaism and Zionism not be conflated in any way, shape, or form, and will often go to ridiculous lengths to insist that they are in no way related. It’s always been clear to me that Zionism is one interpretation of Jewish thought, a supremacist interpretation, but not necessarily the definitive interpretation -- just as some have traced Nazism to Christian thought, but don't necessarily declare Nazism the definitive interpretation of Christianity (although plenty on the Left do).

And yet, regularly the same liberals and leftists who are more than happy to conflate Christianity and Nazism are often the most vociferous in their objections to conflating Judaism and Zionism in any way whatsoever.

I always assumed it was either because the objectors were liberal Jews who couldn’t psychologically handle the cognitive dissonance such a conflation between their own beliefs and quasi-fascist Zionism created, or because both Jewish and Gentile lefties didn’t want the case for multi-cultralism being undermined by the fact that it had given entry to Jewish subversives who had exploited the tolerance, pluralism and ecumenicalism granted them by liberalism to propagate a quasi-fascist, self-serving ideology.

I then started looking into the fact that Leftist doctrine itself has roots in authoritarian Jewish thought, and so inherently-authoritarian left-liberalism would be additionally motivated to cover up its common and perhaps unbroken Jewish ancestry with Zionism, particularly since Zionism has lately completely gone of the rails and its fascist characteristics are increasingly difficult for anyone to deny -- which implicates left-liberalism as perhaps having fascist roots, as well.

Recently, though, another explanation occurred to me: It’s also because liberal American Zionists, (for example, most or all of the disproportionately large number of Jewish Zionists representing the Democratic Party, and comprising its hierarchy) are worried about getting caught up in the problem of violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

What this means is that every piece of legislation that Congress passes on behalf of Israel, and every dime that Congress votes to Israel, is a violation of the First Amendment, and is unconstitutional once it is determined that Zionism is a Jewish enterprise and Israel is a Jewish state.

So by demanding no conflation of Judaism and Zionism whatsoever, what certain liberals, leftists, and left-liberals are actually accomplishing is the perpetuation of Zionist fascism by keeping aid flowing to Israel in a "Constitutional" manner.

For the record, I don’t believe that Zionism equals Judaism, either. But I do believe it is one interpretation of Judaism, and should be recognized as such. -- By Chris Moore

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Question of the day: Since the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust of Jews entitles contemporary Jewry to

special protections against gentiles worldwide, then why doesn’t the Jewish Bolshevik/Stalinist-perpetrated holocaust of millions of Christians in the Soviet Union entitle contemporary Christians to special protections against Jewish-bigots working in concert with Leviathan worldwide? -- By Chris Moore

American Jews are progressive, secularist, pluralistic, tolerant and democratic, right? That’s what everyone keeps saying

But apparently not when it comes to their own tribal interests.

The latest American Jewish Committee survey of American Jewish opinion finds that 94% of U.S. Jews demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as an officially Jewish state in any final peace agreement. (See question #12 at the link.)

So what? Plenty of Middle Eastern states officially identify themselves as “Islamic.” Why can’t the the Jewish state officially identify itself as Jewish?

Well, it can. But it can’t do that and simultaneously declare itself Western and democratic, and expect the U.S. to continue to routinely veto U.N. resolutions on its behalf, go to war to protect its interests, and underwrite its Jewish exceptionalist existence indefinitely (tiny Israel is already by far "the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II" according to think-tank WRMEA).

Or should I say, it shouldn’t have expected to receive such coddled treatment from pre-Zionized America, back when the U.S. still attempted to stay true to its founding political ideals. In today’s America, there are no ideals left other than money worship on the Right, and Leviathan worship on the Left, so I guess anything goes.

After all, America itself has already become a Jewish exceptionalist country by fiat of its Isreal lobby-engineered, decades-long unconditional support for Zionist Israel completely divorced from the maintenance of any political or human rights standards for minorities or the occupied people at its mercy.

Why, next the federal government will open departments in the U.S. specifically oriented towards enforcing Zionist and Jewish exceptionalism domestically.

Whoops, looks like it's already happened. The State Department has established the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, which “develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism,” and does so “both in the U.S. and internationally.”

Christian scholar Ted Pike asks: "Are you an unintentional anti-Semite? The US State Department’s “Office of Global Anti-Semitism” warns not just of conscious, intentional anti-Semitism but of another lurking form of potential bigotry: unintentional anti-Semitism. According to our government, this consists of criticisms of Israel which, though true, might be manipulated by others to Israel ’s detriment. To avoid assisting Israel ’s enemies, the state department recommends that every comment about Israel (including its leaders and military) first be scrutinized for whether it could put Israel in a bad light. If so, it shouldn’t be said. Only then can we consider ourselves both consciously and unconsciously free from anti-Semitism."

Can anyone imagine a U.S. federal office of anti-Christianism, or anti-Islamicism? Under such a scenario, large factions within the federal government would have to investigate, indict, arrest, and imprison themselves (not to mention the legions of Jewish groups systematically working towards the construction of monolithic anti-Christian and anti-Islamic racism in America).

I guess in Zionized America, all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others…

-- By Chris Moore

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Jewish supremacism of the Neocons and Left-authoritarians, revisited

(By Chris Moore) -- Amongst the whole “anti-Semite” brouhaha, German socialist 'LeaNder' dragged up one of my old comments (out of context) from my days at Mondoweiss posting as 'Ed.' I think she was attempting to suggest I was a racist, given the anti-Semite charge. (Nearly all those brainwashed, post-war German Boomer socialists who have been indoctrinated by the State to think as Leftists tend to see a Nazi under every rock.)

Anyway, she actually did me a favor because I had forgotten all about the post. I think the discussion that day back in January was particularly interesting (and relevant to today's question of Jewish supremacism) so I have reposted my comments in their true context here, which revolved around Jack Ross’ assessment after a viewing of the documentary “Arguing With the World” that “the roots of [neocon] pathologies are ultimately cultural.”

Here’s how my portion of the discussion went down:

Jack Ross: "[the film's] subjects are Jewish, and [the story} is about little more then a group of 30s radicals who fell in love with America, never mind that their abstract America was another world from the real America…the roots of their pathologies are ultimately cultural, not ideological,… except for those who are obviously Zionists first and foremost (Abe Foxman, Marty Peretz, Ruth Wisse) they are ideologists (neocons either left or right) first and Jews of whatever stripe second."

Ed (Chris Moore): If the roots of their pathologies are cultural (ie religious, Jewish ethnographic) doesn’t that imply that their motives are the "preservation" (or from my perspective, the "supremacy") of Judaism? Certain Jews and gentiles may differ with their methods and mentality, but it is pretty clear that they believe Jews are supreme beings and should be in a supreme [position] over the rest of humanity (if they truly even regard non-Jews as fully human), which is totally consistent with a certain and seemingly not-uncommon interpretation of "chosen" doctrine.


David Green: [I agree with Finkelstein that] Zionism and Israel were of no use to neocons until they could be integrated into American anti-communism and domestic reactionism against the Civil Rights movement and academic radicalism, such as it was.

Ed: I view this as Christian-imperialist-string-puller theory designed to obfuscate Zionist-string-puller theory. In fact, I wonder if Finkelstein really even believes it himself anymore.

Here is how I view the modern Jewish-ideologue chronicle: They started as Mensheviks and later Bolsheviks, primarily to gain power but also in reaction to anti-semitism, but deep down maintained their Jewish identity and cohesiveness. They exercised power ruthlessly in the Soviet Union/block countries, but eventually their Jewish supremacist beliefs came into conflict with Leftist racial and anti-religious doctrine, and many found their way to America and Israel. In proudly Jewish Israel, racialism developed fairly quickly and openly, whereas in America due to their minority status and to race politics, they had to mask their racialism, hence neconservatism, which in addition to being Jewish-supremacist, also actually encourages large scale non-European immigration to cover its own racism, but also as a way of watering down the white Christian majority, which has historically always been the most ruthless and effective opponent of organized Jewry.

Neocon anti-communism was only the result of Leftism forcing Jewry to abide by Leftist doctrine, and when Jewry refused and was punished, those that were to pioneer Neconservatism turned on Communism angrily. (Some Leftists are engaged in a similar battle of wills with organized Jewry again today). The Jewish ideologues would have happily stayed with murderous Communism and continued to wield their power ruthlessly and Jewish-networked their way into control of the Communist Leviathan had they only been given a pass on the forced melting-pot Leftist racial ideals, (as they mostly have by the half-ass Left in America).

As far as "civil rights" goes, as exercised by most components of organized Jewry, it's just another ploy to gain power, pit competing races against each other at its own behest in a divide-and-conquer strategy, cover its Jewish-supremacist tracks, and deftly angle their way to the top. Abe Foxman's ADL, for example, describes itself as a "civil rights" organization. We all know its just a Zionist/Jewish supremacist front.


David Green: "Religion is of no use to Jewish neocons."

Ed: By your standard, religion is of no use to the Christian imperialists, either, or most of the Christian Zionists.

Judeophiles on the Left want to pick and choose who they categorize as a Jew according to their own political needs, whereas in the case of Christians, they want to glom them all together as bigots.

This is just another variation of Jewish supremacy — let's call it the "sacred Jews are an exception to our anti-religious/anti-racialist existential standards" variation.

There has been a strong streak of Jewish supremacy on the Left since Jews were so predominant in early Communism, and the Jewish supremacist type of Leftist and their Judeophile useful idiots (LeaNder is a contemporary example of the latter) may well be a major reason Communism mutated into an utterly murderous enterprise, as well as the source of its murderous anti-Christianity.

There are huge numbers of anti-Christian, pro-Zionist Judeophiles in the Democratic Party, as well as anti-Christian, Zionist-neutral Judeophiles.

Apparently for many on the Left, religion is always the opiate of the masses — except when it’s Judaism.


Leander: Would Ed's "Christian America" not ultimately offer a similar set of tools in population control?

Ed: LeaNder, I have never advocated a "Christian America," I have advocated a free-will libertarian America (consistent with the beliefs of America's Founders) where people are at liberty to choose their own value systems as opposed to being socially engineered and manipulated in this direction or that by the Big Government State working in conjunction with its authoritarian, control-freak partners — be they Leftists, Neocons, Neolibs or Zionist (both Christian and Jewish).

I would anticipate (but not presume) that Christianity would re-grow organically under such conditions, (but I may be wrong about that). But your type, which has been thoroughly indoctrinated into anti-Christianity (in part by Jewish supremacists) is scared to death of true freedom for that very reason.

You have no faith in anything except the heavy hand of government and the high priests of the Left, many of who are Judeophiles and/or Jewish supremacists.