(By Chris Moore) -- A big problem with the socialists is that they’re internationalists, just like the Jewish nationalists and their web of Diaspora colonies spanning the globe that together comprises international Zionism. One of the MO’s of this latter web is for its members to penetrate and colonize their respective societies, become interconnected with their elite, influence those societies towards interdependence upon other societies that have been infiltrated by the Zionists, and before long countries all over the world are implicated and complicit in the corruption and rackets of the Jewish nationalist web, and a party to its wars (i.e. the Iraq war). One way to comprehend the phenomenon is as a tangent to the international central banking web, whose members are all interconnected and interdependent upon one another by way of their common federal reserve systems, with the (disproportionately Jewish-run) American Fed holding the catbird seat. That scheme has been able to stay afloat for a time because so much Western international finance has been tied to that system, but is today collapsing because it is fraudulent at the core, and has become an anchor dragging all of those countries to which it has been tethered into the economic depths.
The socialists seek to operate under a similar MO, with a similar intent of creating a system based on elitist deception, international racketeering, and Statist plutocratic-socialist profiteering under the guise of good works, with a web of socialist countries who are all tied to one another through common grifts and economic treaties (e.g. cap and trade), and hence can’t be challenged without bringing down the entire framework. In fact, the socialists probably learned the scam of using “progressive” rhetoric from Jewish Communists, who used slogans like “social justice” to paper over their totalitarian intentions and deeds, and to make themselves appear as the more measured and intellectually sophisticated “good guys” who were operating totally objectively and scientifically, as opposed to their “selfish” and “superstitious” Western opposition.
Just like the Zionists, Western socialists are running an elaborate, highly complex and sophisticated scam; and like the Jewish “Communists,” (most of whom were crypto Jewish nationalists who sought to set up international Communism as a vessel for their Zionist racket) they’ve managed to rope in a lot of Gentile useful idiots by repeating ad nauseum that they (the socialists) are animated by nothing but good intentions, benevolence and a desire for social “progress,” and that a return to the Dark Ages is coming by way of environmental and economic disaster unless they are unquestionably, uncritically, and unthinkingly followed. In fact, they are all stylistically the same as the medieval Church prior to the Reformation, which declared it must be unquestionably and uncritically followed, or the world was destined for hell.
The problem with the socialist scam is the same problem that afflicts all international scams: they are economically unsound, totally unprincipled, and hollow at the core, and hence degrade over time and eventually either collapse, or require wars to sustain them.
Far from being “progressive,“ the socialist masses are essentially children whose selfish demands for a Peter Pan existence comes at the cost of global wars and mass murder. Just as America today has to engage in global authoritarianism to prop up the dollar, (now long degraded by massive deficit spending, debt, and the socialist dependency of countries under its defense umbrella who don’t financially contribute to its costs), any international socialists system will eventually have to resort to world war to prop itself up as well, only a lot sooner than America has, because the socialist model is even more economically unsound than America’s corrupted system, and hence piles up massive deficits and debt even faster.
*Chris Moore is editor of LibertarianToday.com and Judeofascism.com
Sunday, November 29, 2009
How Israel and its agents colonized the U.S. government and Congress through bureaucratic intrigue and simply ignoring the law
Israel’s Illegal Settlements in America
(AntiWar.com) -- by Grant Smith, November 28, 2009
US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell was highly enthusiastic about Israel’s partial, temporary illegal settlement freeze stating "it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help move toward agreement between the parties." In fact, Israel has done more. In 2005 Israel reversed settlement construction and its overt occupation of Gaza. Palestinians situation worsened under a strangulating economic blockade and total Israeli control of borders, airspace and maritime access. Ironically, those Americans seeking a permanent end to Israeli settlement activities face a predicament similar to the Palestinians. Peace in the Middle East depends on reversing a peculiar manifestation of illegal Israeli settlements right here at home. These US settlements were built not on stolen land, but the strategic territory of US governance through violations of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Among Israel’s first international efforts as a state was establishing an "Israel Office of Information" (IOI) in the United States in the fall of 1948. The IOI registered as a foreign agent with the US Department of Justice which required it not only to file activity reports about its efforts on behalf of Israel every six months, but also place a stamp on pamphlets and other materials circulating in the US that their true origin was the Israeli government.
The IOI quickly ran into trouble. It was cited by the FARA section for failing to disclose the existence of a California office. The FBI noticed it wasn’t affixing disclosure stamps to the material it circulated. Isaiah Kenen, registered as a foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, soon tired of such regulatory oversight and disclosures. He coordinated his IOI departure with the Israeli government from the IOI to lobby from a domestically chartered lobbying organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC). The DOJ ordered him to reregister, but he never did.
During a 1952 summit meeting, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proposed that leaders of major organizations centralize US lobbying and fundraising coordination under the American Zionist Council (AZC) rather than the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency. The AZC was a small umbrella organization that united the leadership of top organizations such as Hadassah and the Zionist Organization of America. But the AZC continued to rely heavily upon financial support from the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency in Jerusalem for public relations and lobbying until the 1960s. Between 1962-1963 a Senate and Justice Department investigation found the AZC and Kenen had received direction and the equivalent of $35 million from the Jewish Agency via its American Section in New York to lobby for US taxpayer-funded aid and arms. The Justice Department ordered the AZC to register as an Israeli foreign agent on November 21, 1962. This initiated a fierce DOJ/AZC battle that lasted until 1965, when the DOJ allowed the AZC to file a secret FARA declaration expecting it to shut down operations. The Jewish Agency was also forced shut down its American Section in New York after a rabbi and George Washington University legal scholar forced it to file its secret 1953 "covenant agreement" with the Israeli government which conferred governmental powers to the Jewish Agency.
The AZC quietly and quickly reorganized lobbying operations within its former division, internally referred to as the "Kenen Committee" (today called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC) which Isaiah Kenen led until 1975. The Jewish Agency also executed a shell company paper reshuffle, reemerging as the World Zionist Organization-American Section within the same building, with the same staff, management and publications.
Today, the most important nucleus of the Israeli government’s power in America lies far outside its Washington DC embassy, official consulates, or properly registered FARA entities. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations consists of only two key paid employees according to its 2008 charitable tax return (PDF). Like the AZC under Ben-Gurion’s mandate, the Conference of Presidents has only one true role: corralling American organizations into a US power base for the Israeli government...Cont'd...LINK
(AntiWar.com) -- by Grant Smith, November 28, 2009
US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell was highly enthusiastic about Israel’s partial, temporary illegal settlement freeze stating "it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help move toward agreement between the parties." In fact, Israel has done more. In 2005 Israel reversed settlement construction and its overt occupation of Gaza. Palestinians situation worsened under a strangulating economic blockade and total Israeli control of borders, airspace and maritime access. Ironically, those Americans seeking a permanent end to Israeli settlement activities face a predicament similar to the Palestinians. Peace in the Middle East depends on reversing a peculiar manifestation of illegal Israeli settlements right here at home. These US settlements were built not on stolen land, but the strategic territory of US governance through violations of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Among Israel’s first international efforts as a state was establishing an "Israel Office of Information" (IOI) in the United States in the fall of 1948. The IOI registered as a foreign agent with the US Department of Justice which required it not only to file activity reports about its efforts on behalf of Israel every six months, but also place a stamp on pamphlets and other materials circulating in the US that their true origin was the Israeli government.
The IOI quickly ran into trouble. It was cited by the FARA section for failing to disclose the existence of a California office. The FBI noticed it wasn’t affixing disclosure stamps to the material it circulated. Isaiah Kenen, registered as a foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, soon tired of such regulatory oversight and disclosures. He coordinated his IOI departure with the Israeli government from the IOI to lobby from a domestically chartered lobbying organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC). The DOJ ordered him to reregister, but he never did.
During a 1952 summit meeting, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proposed that leaders of major organizations centralize US lobbying and fundraising coordination under the American Zionist Council (AZC) rather than the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency. The AZC was a small umbrella organization that united the leadership of top organizations such as Hadassah and the Zionist Organization of America. But the AZC continued to rely heavily upon financial support from the quasi-governmental Jewish Agency in Jerusalem for public relations and lobbying until the 1960s. Between 1962-1963 a Senate and Justice Department investigation found the AZC and Kenen had received direction and the equivalent of $35 million from the Jewish Agency via its American Section in New York to lobby for US taxpayer-funded aid and arms. The Justice Department ordered the AZC to register as an Israeli foreign agent on November 21, 1962. This initiated a fierce DOJ/AZC battle that lasted until 1965, when the DOJ allowed the AZC to file a secret FARA declaration expecting it to shut down operations. The Jewish Agency was also forced shut down its American Section in New York after a rabbi and George Washington University legal scholar forced it to file its secret 1953 "covenant agreement" with the Israeli government which conferred governmental powers to the Jewish Agency.
The AZC quietly and quickly reorganized lobbying operations within its former division, internally referred to as the "Kenen Committee" (today called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC) which Isaiah Kenen led until 1975. The Jewish Agency also executed a shell company paper reshuffle, reemerging as the World Zionist Organization-American Section within the same building, with the same staff, management and publications.
Today, the most important nucleus of the Israeli government’s power in America lies far outside its Washington DC embassy, official consulates, or properly registered FARA entities. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations consists of only two key paid employees according to its 2008 charitable tax return (PDF). Like the AZC under Ben-Gurion’s mandate, the Conference of Presidents has only one true role: corralling American organizations into a US power base for the Israeli government...Cont'd...LINK
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Is the Israel lobby running a "protection racket" for Jewish nationalism in America? Is The New York Times part of it?
NYT protects its readers from a small newspaper’s criticisms of Israel
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss
I’m sorry to go after the Times so much, but I’m at my parents, and I love reading the actual newspaper. Today there’s a long piece in the Times about the Berkeley Daily Planet newspaper being accused of anti-Semitism because of its criticisms of Israel and Jews. The editor of the paper, Becky O’Malley, 69, a veteran journalist, is plainly in my camp on the Israel lobby. She says, Why of all subjects in the world is Israel off-limits? Why can’t we talk about this vital issue? "Frankly the term that crossed my mind was ‘protection racket,’" O’Malley says. Right.
And what are the examples that the reporter, Jesse McKinley, offers of this taboo speech? Two vile anti-Semitic comments in letters that the editor published because she believes so much in free speech.
In short: Not a word about the anti-Israel criticism that the Daily Planet is publishing. I’m sure a lot of it is close to stuff we publish here. Why, Henry Norr writes for the Daily Planet, and I believe he’s an anti-Zionist Jew.
When you are reading the Times article, notice that this is not some casual business. No: businesses are waging a war against the Daily Planet, it has lost 60 percent of ad revenues because of the stance that the brave editor has taken. She has laid off reporters and is doing a fundraising drive.
A protection racket– and how far does it go? Shouldn’t the Times have told us anything about that stance? Shouldn’t the Times pass along at least a taste of the criticism of Israel so that its readers can make up their minds about how whacky that editor is? Walt and Mearsheimer called the Israel lobby a "loose coalition" of partisans of the Jewish state, and included some Times coverage. This story is an example why...LINK
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss
I’m sorry to go after the Times so much, but I’m at my parents, and I love reading the actual newspaper. Today there’s a long piece in the Times about the Berkeley Daily Planet newspaper being accused of anti-Semitism because of its criticisms of Israel and Jews. The editor of the paper, Becky O’Malley, 69, a veteran journalist, is plainly in my camp on the Israel lobby. She says, Why of all subjects in the world is Israel off-limits? Why can’t we talk about this vital issue? "Frankly the term that crossed my mind was ‘protection racket,’" O’Malley says. Right.
And what are the examples that the reporter, Jesse McKinley, offers of this taboo speech? Two vile anti-Semitic comments in letters that the editor published because she believes so much in free speech.
In short: Not a word about the anti-Israel criticism that the Daily Planet is publishing. I’m sure a lot of it is close to stuff we publish here. Why, Henry Norr writes for the Daily Planet, and I believe he’s an anti-Zionist Jew.
When you are reading the Times article, notice that this is not some casual business. No: businesses are waging a war against the Daily Planet, it has lost 60 percent of ad revenues because of the stance that the brave editor has taken. She has laid off reporters and is doing a fundraising drive.
A protection racket– and how far does it go? Shouldn’t the Times have told us anything about that stance? Shouldn’t the Times pass along at least a taste of the criticism of Israel so that its readers can make up their minds about how whacky that editor is? Walt and Mearsheimer called the Israel lobby a "loose coalition" of partisans of the Jewish state, and included some Times coverage. This story is an example why...LINK
Israel colonizes foreign airports by using national airline El Al as front for Shin Bet
Israeli spies ‘infiltrate’ Johannesburg airport
(The National) -- By Jonathan Cook
NAZARETH, Israel // South Africa deported an Israeli airline official last week following allegations that Israel’s secret police, the Shin Bet, had infiltrated Johannesburg international airport in an effort to gather information on South African citizens, particularly black and Muslim travellers.
The move by the South African government followed an investigation by local TV showing an undercover reporter being illegally interrogated by an official with El Al, Israel’s national carrier, in a public area of Johannesburg’s OR Tambo airport.
The programme also featured testimony from Jonathan Garb, a former El Al guard, who claimed that the airline company had been a front for the Shin Bet in South Africa for many years.
Of the footage of the undercover reporter’s questioning, he commented: “Here is a secret service operating above the law in South Africa. We pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. We do exactly what we want. The local authorities do not know what we are doing.”
The Israeli foreign ministry is reported to have sent a team to South Africa to try to defuse the diplomatic crisis after the government in Johannesburg threatened to deport all of El Al’s security staff.
Mr Garb’s accusations have been supported by an investigation by the regulator for South Africa’s private security industries.
They have also been confirmed by human rights groups in Israel, which report that Israeli security staff are carrying out racial profiling at many airports around the world, apparently out of sight of local authorities.
Concern in South Africa about the activities of El Al staff has been growing since August, when South Africa’s leading investigative news show, Carte Blanche, went undercover to test Mr Garb’s allegations.
A hidden camera captured an El Al official in the departure hall claiming to be from “airport security” and demanding that the undercover reporter hand over his passport or ID as part of “airport regulations”. When the reporter protested that he was not flying but waiting for a friend, El Al’s security manager, identified as Golan Rice, arrived to interrogate him further. Mr Rice then warned him that he was in a restricted area and must leave.
Mr Garb commented on the show: “What we are trained is to look for the immediate threat – the Muslim guy. You can think he is a suicide bomber, he is collecting information. The crazy thing is that we are profiling people racially, ethnically and even on religious grounds … This is what we do.”
Mr Garb and two other fired workers have told the South African media that Shin Bet agents routinely detain Muslim and black passengers, a claim that has ignited controversy in a society still suffering with the legacy of decades of apartheid rule.
Suspect individuals, the former workers say, are held in an annex room, where they are interrogated, often on matters unrelated to airport security, and can be subjected to strip searches while their luggage is taken apart. Clandestine searches of their belongings and laptops are also carried out to identify useful documents and information.
All of this is done in violation of South African law, which authorises only the police, armed forces or personnel appointed by the transport minister to carry out searches...Cont'd...LINK
(The National) -- By Jonathan Cook
NAZARETH, Israel // South Africa deported an Israeli airline official last week following allegations that Israel’s secret police, the Shin Bet, had infiltrated Johannesburg international airport in an effort to gather information on South African citizens, particularly black and Muslim travellers.
The move by the South African government followed an investigation by local TV showing an undercover reporter being illegally interrogated by an official with El Al, Israel’s national carrier, in a public area of Johannesburg’s OR Tambo airport.
The programme also featured testimony from Jonathan Garb, a former El Al guard, who claimed that the airline company had been a front for the Shin Bet in South Africa for many years.
Of the footage of the undercover reporter’s questioning, he commented: “Here is a secret service operating above the law in South Africa. We pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. We do exactly what we want. The local authorities do not know what we are doing.”
The Israeli foreign ministry is reported to have sent a team to South Africa to try to defuse the diplomatic crisis after the government in Johannesburg threatened to deport all of El Al’s security staff.
Mr Garb’s accusations have been supported by an investigation by the regulator for South Africa’s private security industries.
They have also been confirmed by human rights groups in Israel, which report that Israeli security staff are carrying out racial profiling at many airports around the world, apparently out of sight of local authorities.
Concern in South Africa about the activities of El Al staff has been growing since August, when South Africa’s leading investigative news show, Carte Blanche, went undercover to test Mr Garb’s allegations.
A hidden camera captured an El Al official in the departure hall claiming to be from “airport security” and demanding that the undercover reporter hand over his passport or ID as part of “airport regulations”. When the reporter protested that he was not flying but waiting for a friend, El Al’s security manager, identified as Golan Rice, arrived to interrogate him further. Mr Rice then warned him that he was in a restricted area and must leave.
Mr Garb commented on the show: “What we are trained is to look for the immediate threat – the Muslim guy. You can think he is a suicide bomber, he is collecting information. The crazy thing is that we are profiling people racially, ethnically and even on religious grounds … This is what we do.”
Mr Garb and two other fired workers have told the South African media that Shin Bet agents routinely detain Muslim and black passengers, a claim that has ignited controversy in a society still suffering with the legacy of decades of apartheid rule.
Suspect individuals, the former workers say, are held in an annex room, where they are interrogated, often on matters unrelated to airport security, and can be subjected to strip searches while their luggage is taken apart. Clandestine searches of their belongings and laptops are also carried out to identify useful documents and information.
All of this is done in violation of South African law, which authorises only the police, armed forces or personnel appointed by the transport minister to carry out searches...Cont'd...LINK
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dems profess to be party of diversity, but leadership stacks U.S. Senate with Jews, slights blacks and Latinos
Paul Hodes could be 14th Jewish senator
(By Jeffrey Blankfort, MondoWeiss) -- November 22, 2009 -- The National Jewish Democratic Coalition may play up the fact that New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, now a candidate for Senate, is pro-choice but this organization exists for one reason. This was expressed in the first sentence in a letter to its subscribers:
"In 2010, we have the unique opportunity to elect a strong progressive, guitar strumming, Israel supporting, New Hampshire congressman who comes from a Hungarian and Russian Jewish immigrant family to be Senator of the State of New Hampshire."
Times have changed. In "Jews and American Politics," the very revealing book by Stephen Issacs, published in 1974, and, according to Isaacs, the first written on the subject, the dust jacket asked three questions, one of which was, "Why do Jews seldom run for office,and why do so many work behind the scenes as strategists?"
In 1974, there were three Jewish Senators, today there are 13– not enough, per the NJDC. There is one Black senator, Roland Burris, who is not long for his office and not a single Latino. One would think that those in the Democratic Party who decide such things would see something wrong with this picture. As for those who say that religious affiliation shouldn’t make a difference, I would agree– and I’m Jewish– were it not for the dominant role that Jewish Americans in Congress have played in maintaining America’s unconditional support for Israel’s continuing dispossession and repression of the Palestinians and for its war against them and the people of Lebanon. Even the nominally Independent Bernie Sanders has, unfortunately, contributed his share to that...LINK
(By Jeffrey Blankfort, MondoWeiss) -- November 22, 2009 -- The National Jewish Democratic Coalition may play up the fact that New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, now a candidate for Senate, is pro-choice but this organization exists for one reason. This was expressed in the first sentence in a letter to its subscribers:
"In 2010, we have the unique opportunity to elect a strong progressive, guitar strumming, Israel supporting, New Hampshire congressman who comes from a Hungarian and Russian Jewish immigrant family to be Senator of the State of New Hampshire."
Times have changed. In "Jews and American Politics," the very revealing book by Stephen Issacs, published in 1974, and, according to Isaacs, the first written on the subject, the dust jacket asked three questions, one of which was, "Why do Jews seldom run for office,and why do so many work behind the scenes as strategists?"
In 1974, there were three Jewish Senators, today there are 13– not enough, per the NJDC. There is one Black senator, Roland Burris, who is not long for his office and not a single Latino. One would think that those in the Democratic Party who decide such things would see something wrong with this picture. As for those who say that religious affiliation shouldn’t make a difference, I would agree– and I’m Jewish– were it not for the dominant role that Jewish Americans in Congress have played in maintaining America’s unconditional support for Israel’s continuing dispossession and repression of the Palestinians and for its war against them and the people of Lebanon. Even the nominally Independent Bernie Sanders has, unfortunately, contributed his share to that...LINK
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Why do Diaspora Jews advocate staunch liberalism and internationalism for Gentiles, but Jewish nationalism for themselves?
(By Chris Moore) -- A recent American Jewish Committee survey of American Jewish opinion found that 94% of U.S. Jews think the Palestinians should be required to acknowledge Jewish nationalist Israel as an explicitly Jewish state (see question #12 at the link). This fact suggests that the maintenance of Jewish nationalism and an explicitly Jewish identity is very important to the vast majority of world Jewry, whether located in Zionist Israel or in the Diaspora.
Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews are also staunch advocates of secularism, internationalism, and left-liberalism (for Gentile countries only) in their Diaspora political identity. For example, Wikipedia’s “American Jews” entry, under the sub-heading of “politics,” notes “many [Jewish immigrants] came to America with experience in the socialist, anarchist and communist movements as well as the Labor Bund, emanating from Eastern Europe,” and “the majority [of American Jewry] has voted Democratic or leftist since at least 1916.” The entry itemizes strong Jewish-American support for left-liberal internationalist and interventionist Democrats like FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton, who all received 80% or more of the Jewish vote.
The juxtaposition of these two contradictory (simultaneously Jewish nationalist-Zionist and anti-nationalist/liberal) but equally strong components of Diaspora Jewish identity, particularly in the context of the crucial role played by the Israel lobby in instigating the Iraq war, begs the question: Is such a political identity and program conducive to instigating interventionism and internationalist war-making on behalf of Israel (and other less explicit Jewish nationalist interests) on the one hand, while simultaneously discouraging inquiry into domestic Jewish-nationalist ethnic racketeering and intrigue under the rubric of liberal tolerance, pluralism and secularism on the other?
And beyond that, can’t such a powerful form of ethnically cohesive “liberalism” be used to subversively undermine and head off Gentile nationalist, populist, conservative, libertarian, and Christian identity movements, or any other Western political movements likely to be hostile, confrontational or intolerant towards subversive crypto-Jewish nationalism and its agenda?
Yet the overwhelming majority of Jews are also staunch advocates of secularism, internationalism, and left-liberalism (for Gentile countries only) in their Diaspora political identity. For example, Wikipedia’s “American Jews” entry, under the sub-heading of “politics,” notes “many [Jewish immigrants] came to America with experience in the socialist, anarchist and communist movements as well as the Labor Bund, emanating from Eastern Europe,” and “the majority [of American Jewry] has voted Democratic or leftist since at least 1916.” The entry itemizes strong Jewish-American support for left-liberal internationalist and interventionist Democrats like FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton, who all received 80% or more of the Jewish vote.
The juxtaposition of these two contradictory (simultaneously Jewish nationalist-Zionist and anti-nationalist/liberal) but equally strong components of Diaspora Jewish identity, particularly in the context of the crucial role played by the Israel lobby in instigating the Iraq war, begs the question: Is such a political identity and program conducive to instigating interventionism and internationalist war-making on behalf of Israel (and other less explicit Jewish nationalist interests) on the one hand, while simultaneously discouraging inquiry into domestic Jewish-nationalist ethnic racketeering and intrigue under the rubric of liberal tolerance, pluralism and secularism on the other?
And beyond that, can’t such a powerful form of ethnically cohesive “liberalism” be used to subversively undermine and head off Gentile nationalist, populist, conservative, libertarian, and Christian identity movements, or any other Western political movements likely to be hostile, confrontational or intolerant towards subversive crypto-Jewish nationalism and its agenda?
Case study: How the ADL and cronies use "hate" charges to intimidate open debate, sabotage American democracy
ARE HATE CRIME LAWS LEGALIZING TREASON?
(Intifada Voice of Palestine) --
The Anti-Defamation League silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the US was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence, says Jeff Gates.
Lawful Treason?
Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on winning the battle for public opinion. Thus the opinion-shaping role of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it attacked a high profile California professor for his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.
That ADL intimidation campaign successfully chilled debate on campuses nationwide during several time-critical months while a new president, promising the hope of change, reassessed U.S.-Israeli relations. His only change—endorsing more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land—quashed any hope of peace.
This ADL silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the U.S. was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence. From the provocation of September 11, 2001 until the invasion of March 2003, war-planners ignored, dismissed or sought to silence anyone critical of the spurious premises offered for war.
Only later did we discover that the intelligence was fixed around a preset agenda. Even now, Americans are unaware that the U.S.-led invasion had long been an Israeli goal.
In similar fashion, an ADL campaign silenced on-campus criticism of Israel’s December 2008 assault on Gaza. At the University of California Santa Barbara, ADL-initiated charges were lodged against sociology Professor William Robinson. The disciplinary action dragged on until June 24th when 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded an end to all proceedings.
By then the damage was done-to the reputation of Professor Robinson, to academic freedom at the University of California and to national security as this campaign silenced academics countrywide. While Robinson’s reputation can be restored, the damage to national security is irreparable.
Manipulating Thought
The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles coordinated the assault on Robinson after he shared with students from his globalization website a photo essay critical of Israel. The essay had circulated for weeks on the Internet.
Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee, collaborated with Santa Barbara Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson in the local community and urged-along with the ADL-that he be disciplined by the university for his “anti-Semitic” behavior.
Chancellor Henry Yang was subjected to threats to withhold funding featuring a campaign led by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Rabbi Marvin Heir from the Wiesenthal Center.
Professor Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B’nai B’rith, an ADL affiliate. Rabbi Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, an on-campus ADL affiliate.
Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene even as this silencing campaign attracted international attention. Yudof’s wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel.
As with the dominance of Jewish Zionists among neoconservative war-planners, the pro-Israeli bias was all-pervasive. Richard Blum chairs the statewide Board of Regents for the University of California. His wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What was their reaction as this professor was silenced? Silence.
Coincidence or Faith-Based Coordination?
Would a professor and a local rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that-based on the shared bias of university administrators and government officials-they could intimidate with impunity? Absent such implied support, would this silencing operation have dragged on for so long?
Absent their silence-with its tacit approval-what might have been the impact of campus criticism when Israel’s assault on the captive population of Gaza left 1300 dead, one-third reportedly women and children? Those complicit in this silencing campaign knew the impact on public opinion of student protests against the Vietnam War-particularly on California campuses.
Those concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this broadly coordinated intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that public opinion was manipulated prior to an invasion that launched the Global War on Terrorism, this campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand Israel’s role in provoking that terror.
Absent access to facts, how can the U.S. preserve a system of self-governance founded on the premise of informed consent? Without facts, how can national security be protected from those who “fix” intelligence in order to deploy the U.S. military for the interests of a foreign nation?
Unless those complicit are held accountable, how will American youth learn the essential role of free and open debate on topics of direct relevance to their lives?
In a representative system of government, the greatest threat to liberty is manipulation of the facts required for informed citizen participation. Anyone who cherishes freedom should be alarmed at the ongoing success of such manipulation and outraged that its common source traces to a purported ally.
Psychological warfare targets knowledge as a means to manipulate thought, opinion and emotion (the “hearts and minds”) and thereby influence behavior. At the center of such disinformation is the displacement of facts with false beliefs meant to prod decision-making toward a preset goal.
Thus the false reports of Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and so forth. Thus the high profile assault on a high-profile center of learning to silence a professor who threatened to replace manipulated beliefs with confirmed facts.
Where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake, facts are routinely suppressed to shape debate. Such strategic deceit systematically undermines U.S. national security.
Treason in Plain Sight
Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such “psy-ops” know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.
That’s why this form of treason instead targets knowledge to corrupt the facts required for informed choice. That focus denies those targeted a meaningful choice while leaving intact the appearance of open debate. Meanwhile the perpetrators seek refuge behind the very freedoms they undermine-freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.
In this case, pro-Israeli operatives silenced on-campus criticism of Israel while Israel committed dozens of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of those crimes was depicted in the Internet-posted photo essay that the ADL attacked as “anti-Semitic.”
What was the strategic result? That assault on Gaza marked yet another violent provocation guaranteed to catalyze a violent reaction (aka “terrorism”), adding plausibility to the narrative of “militant Islam.” The result made the U.S. appear guilty by its association with this criminality.
We then compounded our complicity by covering up the facts when the Congress, dominated by the Israel lobby, overwhelmingly approved a resolution portraying as “irredeemably biased” a chronicle of those war crimes in “The Goldstone Report,” a comprehensive account by an eminent Jewish jurist. [See How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy http://criminalstate.com]
The U.S. was doubly damaged. We not only discredited ourselves, we also endangered our national security by condoning criminality destined to provoke more violence directed at our troops.
When such psy-ops campaigns are detected, defenders of democracy must fight back by making the perpetrators transparent and their common motivation apparent. This is how Israel wages war on the U.S. from inside the U.S.-by deceiving us to wage its wars and by provoking others to hate us due to our alliance with religious extremists and their apartheid policies...--Jeff Gates...Cont'd...LINK
(Intifada Voice of Palestine) --
The Anti-Defamation League silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the US was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence, says Jeff Gates.
Lawful Treason?
Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on winning the battle for public opinion. Thus the opinion-shaping role of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it attacked a high profile California professor for his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.
That ADL intimidation campaign successfully chilled debate on campuses nationwide during several time-critical months while a new president, promising the hope of change, reassessed U.S.-Israeli relations. His only change—endorsing more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land—quashed any hope of peace.
This ADL silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the U.S. was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence. From the provocation of September 11, 2001 until the invasion of March 2003, war-planners ignored, dismissed or sought to silence anyone critical of the spurious premises offered for war.
Only later did we discover that the intelligence was fixed around a preset agenda. Even now, Americans are unaware that the U.S.-led invasion had long been an Israeli goal.
In similar fashion, an ADL campaign silenced on-campus criticism of Israel’s December 2008 assault on Gaza. At the University of California Santa Barbara, ADL-initiated charges were lodged against sociology Professor William Robinson. The disciplinary action dragged on until June 24th when 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded an end to all proceedings.
By then the damage was done-to the reputation of Professor Robinson, to academic freedom at the University of California and to national security as this campaign silenced academics countrywide. While Robinson’s reputation can be restored, the damage to national security is irreparable.
Manipulating Thought
The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles coordinated the assault on Robinson after he shared with students from his globalization website a photo essay critical of Israel. The essay had circulated for weeks on the Internet.
Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee, collaborated with Santa Barbara Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson in the local community and urged-along with the ADL-that he be disciplined by the university for his “anti-Semitic” behavior.
Chancellor Henry Yang was subjected to threats to withhold funding featuring a campaign led by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Rabbi Marvin Heir from the Wiesenthal Center.
Professor Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B’nai B’rith, an ADL affiliate. Rabbi Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, an on-campus ADL affiliate.
Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene even as this silencing campaign attracted international attention. Yudof’s wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel.
As with the dominance of Jewish Zionists among neoconservative war-planners, the pro-Israeli bias was all-pervasive. Richard Blum chairs the statewide Board of Regents for the University of California. His wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What was their reaction as this professor was silenced? Silence.
Coincidence or Faith-Based Coordination?
Would a professor and a local rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that-based on the shared bias of university administrators and government officials-they could intimidate with impunity? Absent such implied support, would this silencing operation have dragged on for so long?
Absent their silence-with its tacit approval-what might have been the impact of campus criticism when Israel’s assault on the captive population of Gaza left 1300 dead, one-third reportedly women and children? Those complicit in this silencing campaign knew the impact on public opinion of student protests against the Vietnam War-particularly on California campuses.
Those concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this broadly coordinated intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that public opinion was manipulated prior to an invasion that launched the Global War on Terrorism, this campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand Israel’s role in provoking that terror.
Absent access to facts, how can the U.S. preserve a system of self-governance founded on the premise of informed consent? Without facts, how can national security be protected from those who “fix” intelligence in order to deploy the U.S. military for the interests of a foreign nation?
Unless those complicit are held accountable, how will American youth learn the essential role of free and open debate on topics of direct relevance to their lives?
In a representative system of government, the greatest threat to liberty is manipulation of the facts required for informed citizen participation. Anyone who cherishes freedom should be alarmed at the ongoing success of such manipulation and outraged that its common source traces to a purported ally.
Psychological warfare targets knowledge as a means to manipulate thought, opinion and emotion (the “hearts and minds”) and thereby influence behavior. At the center of such disinformation is the displacement of facts with false beliefs meant to prod decision-making toward a preset goal.
Thus the false reports of Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and so forth. Thus the high profile assault on a high-profile center of learning to silence a professor who threatened to replace manipulated beliefs with confirmed facts.
Where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake, facts are routinely suppressed to shape debate. Such strategic deceit systematically undermines U.S. national security.
Treason in Plain Sight
Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such “psy-ops” know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.
That’s why this form of treason instead targets knowledge to corrupt the facts required for informed choice. That focus denies those targeted a meaningful choice while leaving intact the appearance of open debate. Meanwhile the perpetrators seek refuge behind the very freedoms they undermine-freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.
In this case, pro-Israeli operatives silenced on-campus criticism of Israel while Israel committed dozens of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of those crimes was depicted in the Internet-posted photo essay that the ADL attacked as “anti-Semitic.”
What was the strategic result? That assault on Gaza marked yet another violent provocation guaranteed to catalyze a violent reaction (aka “terrorism”), adding plausibility to the narrative of “militant Islam.” The result made the U.S. appear guilty by its association with this criminality.
We then compounded our complicity by covering up the facts when the Congress, dominated by the Israel lobby, overwhelmingly approved a resolution portraying as “irredeemably biased” a chronicle of those war crimes in “The Goldstone Report,” a comprehensive account by an eminent Jewish jurist. [See How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy http://criminalstate.com]
The U.S. was doubly damaged. We not only discredited ourselves, we also endangered our national security by condoning criminality destined to provoke more violence directed at our troops.
When such psy-ops campaigns are detected, defenders of democracy must fight back by making the perpetrators transparent and their common motivation apparent. This is how Israel wages war on the U.S. from inside the U.S.-by deceiving us to wage its wars and by provoking others to hate us due to our alliance with religious extremists and their apartheid policies...--Jeff Gates...Cont'd...LINK
Friday, November 20, 2009
Plocker: Israel and Israelis viewed as pariahs the world over
(YNet) -- I’ve been invited to deliver a lecture about Israel’s economy and society at Oxford University. As it is a short lecture, and a respectable forum, I gladly accepted the offer. The invitation was extended about six months ago. Yet now, as my trip approaches, I feel concern. I’m hesitating. My acquaintances are warning me: Don’t go. Hostile elements will cause disturbances, protest, shout and interfere. The atmosphere at British universities is anti-Israel to an extent unseen in the past. Israel is perceived as a thorn in the civilized world’s side.
An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: “My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized.” “Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel,” he said. “Today it isn’t enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration.”
British academia’s radicalism highlights the accelerated deterioration in Israel’s status and image. We are in the midst of a freefall on the foreign affairs front. The cold peace with three Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey – has turned into a cold war. Israelis are unwelcome guests in these and many other states, where in the past we were embraced. Meanwhile, Israel failed in its efforts to isolate Ahmadinejad’s Iran and disqualify it as a member of the family of nations. Ahmadinejad is having a grand time. The intimate dialogue that in the past characterized the relationship between the US president and Israel’s prime minister is paralyzed. The pipeline of dialogue is clogged. India and China, the two emerging powers, voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report at the UN’s human rights commission. Ever since then, it has been etched on Israel’s forehead as a Sign of Cain. Friendly governments, such as France and Britain, are turning their backs on us while currying favor with local sentiments. Israel’s membership in OECD, which was largely a done deal in the past, is distancing again – because of the growing negativity vis-à-vis Israel and not because any technical dispute. By coincidence, or not, large foreign investors are pulling out of Israel.--Sever Plocker...Cont'd...LINK
An Israeli professor who quietly left a prestigious British university told me: “My academic and social life there was intolerable. Colleagues stayed away from me as if I was a leper. I was not invited to meetings, which were shifted from university buildings to private residences in order to keep me out. The fact I openly expressed leftist views was to no avail. My objection to the occupation and endorsement of a return to the 1967 borders made no difference. In practice, I became ostracized.” “Today you are a welcome guest in the British and European academic world only if you reject the very existence of the colonialist and imperialistic creature that methodically commits war crimes, known as Israel,” he said. “Today it isn’t enough to condemn Bibi and Barak; in order to be accepted by academia outside of Israel one must condemn the Balfour Declaration.”
British academia’s radicalism highlights the accelerated deterioration in Israel’s status and image. We are in the midst of a freefall on the foreign affairs front. The cold peace with three Muslim states – Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey – has turned into a cold war. Israelis are unwelcome guests in these and many other states, where in the past we were embraced. Meanwhile, Israel failed in its efforts to isolate Ahmadinejad’s Iran and disqualify it as a member of the family of nations. Ahmadinejad is having a grand time. The intimate dialogue that in the past characterized the relationship between the US president and Israel’s prime minister is paralyzed. The pipeline of dialogue is clogged. India and China, the two emerging powers, voted in favor of adopting the Goldstone Report at the UN’s human rights commission. Ever since then, it has been etched on Israel’s forehead as a Sign of Cain. Friendly governments, such as France and Britain, are turning their backs on us while currying favor with local sentiments. Israel’s membership in OECD, which was largely a done deal in the past, is distancing again – because of the growing negativity vis-à-vis Israel and not because any technical dispute. By coincidence, or not, large foreign investors are pulling out of Israel.--Sever Plocker...Cont'd...LINK
New York Times' Frank Rich on why he won't give the Palestinians a fair shake in print: "I'm Jewish"
(U.S. Media and Israel) -- I long regarded Frank Rich a champion, whose fearless exposures of moral hypocrisy in our culture and the media rang true. My view changed after this New York Times columnist gave a talk at Cornell University. Mr. Rich was asked about our media’s reporting in the Middle East and their unwavering presentation of Israel-as-victim. How is it that Americans are so poorly informed that a large fraction believes that the Palestinians are the illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories? Mr. Rich was asked why he, as a media critic, had remained silent on this biased coverage? Mr. Rich replied, “I’m Jewish.”
His candor is refreshing but what does he mean? Is Mr. Rich suggesting that being Jewish precludes criticizing Israel? Is he suggesting that Jewish American reporters, (and more insidiously, publishers) feel compelled to defend Israel? Where is professional responsibility to the American public? My criticism extends beyond the failings of a single reporter. As studies have shown, many Americans believe that the Palestinians are the illegal settlers on their own land. How can we be so poorly informed? And why hasn’t the news media worked to correct this misconception?The answer, some say, is that a conspiracy exists among mainstream media to sift and shape news to favor the Israeli government. Media’s fear, according to this belief, is that a truly informed American people would realize that the Israeli agenda and policies clash with US values and strategic interests...--David Morris...Cont'd...LINK
His candor is refreshing but what does he mean? Is Mr. Rich suggesting that being Jewish precludes criticizing Israel? Is he suggesting that Jewish American reporters, (and more insidiously, publishers) feel compelled to defend Israel? Where is professional responsibility to the American public? My criticism extends beyond the failings of a single reporter. As studies have shown, many Americans believe that the Palestinians are the illegal settlers on their own land. How can we be so poorly informed? And why hasn’t the news media worked to correct this misconception?The answer, some say, is that a conspiracy exists among mainstream media to sift and shape news to favor the Israeli government. Media’s fear, according to this belief, is that a truly informed American people would realize that the Israeli agenda and policies clash with US values and strategic interests...--David Morris...Cont'd...LINK
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sniegoski: J Street – Progressives or Propagandists?
(By Stephen Sniegoski, Transparent Cabal Blog, November 18, 2009) -- Here is a little follow-up to my article on J Street with my summary of this revealing video, “Israel and the American Left,” from the J Street conference, which was called to my attention by the indefatigable James Morris.
Earlier article: “The False Hope of J Street and the Gentile Problem,”
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/article8.html
Video: “Israel and the American Left,”
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289632-2
The video is of a J Street panel, “American Progressives and Israel:
Friends, Enemies, or ‘It’s Complicated’?,” comprised of Michelle Goldberg,J.J. Goldberg and Ezra Klein, with Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of “The Nation,” serving as the moderator. The fundamental goal of the panelists was to try to reconcile the Jewish exclusivism of Zionism with the universalism of the Left. It should be emphasized that they find it much more important to make this ideological reconciliation than to reconcile loyalty to Israel with loyalty to the United States. Quite obviously, in progressive circles, being attacked for being “right-wing” carries an infinitely greater sting than being called disloyal to the United States (and besides, no respectable mainstream figure would dare to call a partisan of Israel disloyal to the United States). Moreover, those progressive intellectuals not immune to critical self-reflection do have to overcome the obvious contradictions between Zionism and the Left in their own minds.
The reconciliation of Zionism and the Left is more than “complicated,” requiring the panelists to engage in various mental gymnastics and contortions transcending straightforward logic. Why should liberal and leftist Jews support Israel? The progressive panelists understandably did not express the religious view that God had given Jews the land or the tribalist, historical argument that modern Jews had rightful ownership of the land because their co-ethnics had controlled it over 2000 years ago. Moreover, they did not take the victimologist position that Jews deserved the land because in the Holocaust they had suffered more than any other people in world history. In fact, the panelists did not provide any rational reason to support Israel beyond saying that they supported and even loved the Jewish state because they themselves were Jewish. It is hard to see how this explanation could mesh with the universalism of the Left, since if all ethnic groups took a comparable position there could be no universalism, or at least a very different type of universalism from that advocated by Leftist Jews for countries other than Israel, namely, a world consisting of a congeries of ethno-states.
This issue of group loyalty, of course, becomes most salient in regard to the Israel-Palestine issue. It is not apparent how people who are loyal to their own ethnic group could possibly be unbiased in disputes where their beloved ethno-state is involved. Yet this seems to be exactly what many pro-peace gentiles seem to expect as they look to J Street to endorse a fair resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict.
While these J Streeters identify with Israel, they do differ with the hard-line Zionists in their willingness to acknowledge Israel’s flaws. They admit that the conventional Jewish presentation of Israel as a completely benign state is false and that effective efforts have been made by pro-Zionists to distort and suppress the truth. They go much further than mainstream media figures in acknowledging the existence of taboo truths regarding Israel. Undoubtedly, any mainstream gentile writer who dared to say anything comparable would be inundated by attacks of anti-Semitism.
However, the J Streeters only provide a partial truth. They never explain what allows these taboos to exist. In essence, a discussion of the inordinate power of Jews in America is off limits (despite J.J. Goldberg’s book “Jewish Power.”) Moreover, they exonerate Jews of culpability for suppressing truth by saying that this censorship of negative facts about Israel is understandable because Jews, at least older Jews, have memories of the Jewish persecution, which they fear could return if these inconvenient facts were aired in the mainstream. Placation of Jewish emotions is thus considered at least as important as truth. Such concern for people’s feelings, however, does not seem to apply to gentiles. What about the
feelings of the oppressed Palestinians? What about the feelings of those people who are punished for expressing the truth regarding Israel? What about the feelings of Americans who must support Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and consequently engender the hatred of most of the world?
Most detrimental to the expression of truth, the panelists imply that the public airing of truths can lead to trouble if these truths are used improperly by “anti-Semites” to make Israel and Jews in general look bad. Michelle Goldberg refers to the disturbing phenomenon whereby various truths cross the line to become “anti-Semitic.” Since her review of my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” had placed my book in this lethal category, it would seem that even a candid presentation of the facts is unacceptable if it puts Israel or its supporters in too negative a light, as perceived by liberal supporters of Israel.
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/reviewrebuttle.html
An overall assessment of their view of criticism of Israel leads to the conclusion that their concern about the suppression of truth reflects not a concern about truth per se or about freedom of expression, but rather a concern that suppression of truths about Israel is counterproductive.Promiscuous use of the anti-Semitism charge has become so debased that it alienates potential supporters of Israel and provides a favorable environment for anti-Zionists and anti-Semites to effectively sell their version of the truth as a believable alternative. Michelle Goldberg opined that these extreme Zionist falsehoods and taboos created a “Petri dish” for anti-Semitism.
But while the panelists were opposed to the existing Zionist censorship, they did not seek an environment of unhindered expression. Rather, they sought the replacement of outright censorship by what might be called managed truth. There was a need to air unflattering truths about Israel and Israel’s supporters, but the airing should be done by people who have the interests of Jews and Israel at heart. Factual truths would be revealed but only in a benign context in regard to Israel and its supporters. Doing otherwise would be seen as tabooed anti-Semitism. Progressive Zionists, rather than hard-line right-wing Zionists, would presumably serve as the gatekeepers. Obviously, the anti-Semitic charge coming from liberal J Streeters arries far more weight than the same charge coming from neocons and hard core Zionists such as Norman Podhoretz.
Now what type of concrete policy toward the Palestinians do the panelists really want? Once again, their concern is not so much about providing justice to the Palestinians as about protecting the Jewish nature of Israel. They fear that the failure to provide a two-state solution would ultimately lead to demands for a one-state solution, which Israel would be unable to resist. And in the unified state, Jews, no longer representing a substantial majority of the population, would be unable to maintain a Jewish-dominated state. This would spell “finis” for Zionism.
Although the J Streeters’ fundamental objective is to protect Israel, they also profess to believe that justice for the Palestinians is essential to achieve that goal. So, if true, justice for the Palestinians would result from the rational self-interest of Zionist Jews-it would be the only way to preserve the Jewish state. But do the J Streeters really offer a solution that would provide the Palestinians with true justice?
While the panelists are vocal about the fact that a majority of Israeli Jews and most Israeli political leaders have, in recent years, supported a two-state solution, they fail to point out the salient fact that no Israeli government in the various “peace” processes has ever offered the Palestinians a viable state. There are always Jewish settlements remaining in key areas, Israeli military roads criss-crossing the territory, Israeli control of the West Bank aquifers (the Palestinians’ principal supply of water), Israeli control of the boundary along the Jordan River, etc. In short, no Israeli government, Left or Right, has been willing to offer the Palestinians anything more than a series of non-contiguous, waterless Bantustans, existing on only a portion of the West Bank. However, it seems that the panelists believe that Israel has offered fair deals to the Palestinians, which, recently, have been undermined by the Israeli Right and Hamas.
Looking at all this, it becomes apparent that the actual effect of J Street will be not to change Israel’s actual policies, but instead simply to change the perception of Israel by liberal opinion in the United States and the West. J Street’s achievement will be to provide a “moderate” and “fair” image to Israeli plans for a Palestinian “state.” The fact that the Zionist Right would likely be yelling appeasement and condemning J Street as a bunch of “self-haters” would do even more to bolster the “fairness” image of any Israeli peace proposal endorsed by J Street. Conversely, any Palestinian rejection of such “liberal” peace terms supported by J Street would provide greater justification for their demonization and harsh treatment by the Israeli government. But all of this should be understandable given the fact that J Streeters explicitly identify with Israel. When lobbies dominate the policy-making process, it is conventionally assumed that such policies do not advance the general good. There is no reason to think otherwise in the case of an Israel lobby-even a lobby that comes cloaked in the veneer of justice and moderation.
This is not to imply the J Streeters have ulterior motives. With their ideological blinders and ethnic loyalty, the J Streeters probably are sufficiently self-deceived to believe that Israel will treat the Palestinians justly. But all the evidence shows that, to the contrary, the Israeli government is unwilling to provide the Palestinians with a viable state. Quite likely, the Israeli governing elite believes that the security of the state of Israel precludes making the requisite concessions to the Palestinians to actually allow for a viable state. Thus, despite any intentions to the contrary, J Streeters simply serve as public-relations propagandists for perpetuating the policy of subordinating the Palestinians to Israel.
Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
Amazon: http://tiny.cc/zNV06
My recent article “Obama, nuclear-arms reduction, and the power of the
Israel Lobby” is posted at
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/sniegoski_israeli_nukes.htm
Stephen Sniegoski
Earlier article: “The False Hope of J Street and the Gentile Problem,”
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/article8.html
Video: “Israel and the American Left,”
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289632-2
The video is of a J Street panel, “American Progressives and Israel:
Friends, Enemies, or ‘It’s Complicated’?,” comprised of Michelle Goldberg,J.J. Goldberg and Ezra Klein, with Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of “The Nation,” serving as the moderator. The fundamental goal of the panelists was to try to reconcile the Jewish exclusivism of Zionism with the universalism of the Left. It should be emphasized that they find it much more important to make this ideological reconciliation than to reconcile loyalty to Israel with loyalty to the United States. Quite obviously, in progressive circles, being attacked for being “right-wing” carries an infinitely greater sting than being called disloyal to the United States (and besides, no respectable mainstream figure would dare to call a partisan of Israel disloyal to the United States). Moreover, those progressive intellectuals not immune to critical self-reflection do have to overcome the obvious contradictions between Zionism and the Left in their own minds.
The reconciliation of Zionism and the Left is more than “complicated,” requiring the panelists to engage in various mental gymnastics and contortions transcending straightforward logic. Why should liberal and leftist Jews support Israel? The progressive panelists understandably did not express the religious view that God had given Jews the land or the tribalist, historical argument that modern Jews had rightful ownership of the land because their co-ethnics had controlled it over 2000 years ago. Moreover, they did not take the victimologist position that Jews deserved the land because in the Holocaust they had suffered more than any other people in world history. In fact, the panelists did not provide any rational reason to support Israel beyond saying that they supported and even loved the Jewish state because they themselves were Jewish. It is hard to see how this explanation could mesh with the universalism of the Left, since if all ethnic groups took a comparable position there could be no universalism, or at least a very different type of universalism from that advocated by Leftist Jews for countries other than Israel, namely, a world consisting of a congeries of ethno-states.
This issue of group loyalty, of course, becomes most salient in regard to the Israel-Palestine issue. It is not apparent how people who are loyal to their own ethnic group could possibly be unbiased in disputes where their beloved ethno-state is involved. Yet this seems to be exactly what many pro-peace gentiles seem to expect as they look to J Street to endorse a fair resolution of the Palestine-Israel conflict.
While these J Streeters identify with Israel, they do differ with the hard-line Zionists in their willingness to acknowledge Israel’s flaws. They admit that the conventional Jewish presentation of Israel as a completely benign state is false and that effective efforts have been made by pro-Zionists to distort and suppress the truth. They go much further than mainstream media figures in acknowledging the existence of taboo truths regarding Israel. Undoubtedly, any mainstream gentile writer who dared to say anything comparable would be inundated by attacks of anti-Semitism.
However, the J Streeters only provide a partial truth. They never explain what allows these taboos to exist. In essence, a discussion of the inordinate power of Jews in America is off limits (despite J.J. Goldberg’s book “Jewish Power.”) Moreover, they exonerate Jews of culpability for suppressing truth by saying that this censorship of negative facts about Israel is understandable because Jews, at least older Jews, have memories of the Jewish persecution, which they fear could return if these inconvenient facts were aired in the mainstream. Placation of Jewish emotions is thus considered at least as important as truth. Such concern for people’s feelings, however, does not seem to apply to gentiles. What about the
feelings of the oppressed Palestinians? What about the feelings of those people who are punished for expressing the truth regarding Israel? What about the feelings of Americans who must support Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and consequently engender the hatred of most of the world?
Most detrimental to the expression of truth, the panelists imply that the public airing of truths can lead to trouble if these truths are used improperly by “anti-Semites” to make Israel and Jews in general look bad. Michelle Goldberg refers to the disturbing phenomenon whereby various truths cross the line to become “anti-Semitic.” Since her review of my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” had placed my book in this lethal category, it would seem that even a candid presentation of the facts is unacceptable if it puts Israel or its supporters in too negative a light, as perceived by liberal supporters of Israel.
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/reviewrebuttle.html
An overall assessment of their view of criticism of Israel leads to the conclusion that their concern about the suppression of truth reflects not a concern about truth per se or about freedom of expression, but rather a concern that suppression of truths about Israel is counterproductive.Promiscuous use of the anti-Semitism charge has become so debased that it alienates potential supporters of Israel and provides a favorable environment for anti-Zionists and anti-Semites to effectively sell their version of the truth as a believable alternative. Michelle Goldberg opined that these extreme Zionist falsehoods and taboos created a “Petri dish” for anti-Semitism.
But while the panelists were opposed to the existing Zionist censorship, they did not seek an environment of unhindered expression. Rather, they sought the replacement of outright censorship by what might be called managed truth. There was a need to air unflattering truths about Israel and Israel’s supporters, but the airing should be done by people who have the interests of Jews and Israel at heart. Factual truths would be revealed but only in a benign context in regard to Israel and its supporters. Doing otherwise would be seen as tabooed anti-Semitism. Progressive Zionists, rather than hard-line right-wing Zionists, would presumably serve as the gatekeepers. Obviously, the anti-Semitic charge coming from liberal J Streeters arries far more weight than the same charge coming from neocons and hard core Zionists such as Norman Podhoretz.
Now what type of concrete policy toward the Palestinians do the panelists really want? Once again, their concern is not so much about providing justice to the Palestinians as about protecting the Jewish nature of Israel. They fear that the failure to provide a two-state solution would ultimately lead to demands for a one-state solution, which Israel would be unable to resist. And in the unified state, Jews, no longer representing a substantial majority of the population, would be unable to maintain a Jewish-dominated state. This would spell “finis” for Zionism.
Although the J Streeters’ fundamental objective is to protect Israel, they also profess to believe that justice for the Palestinians is essential to achieve that goal. So, if true, justice for the Palestinians would result from the rational self-interest of Zionist Jews-it would be the only way to preserve the Jewish state. But do the J Streeters really offer a solution that would provide the Palestinians with true justice?
While the panelists are vocal about the fact that a majority of Israeli Jews and most Israeli political leaders have, in recent years, supported a two-state solution, they fail to point out the salient fact that no Israeli government in the various “peace” processes has ever offered the Palestinians a viable state. There are always Jewish settlements remaining in key areas, Israeli military roads criss-crossing the territory, Israeli control of the West Bank aquifers (the Palestinians’ principal supply of water), Israeli control of the boundary along the Jordan River, etc. In short, no Israeli government, Left or Right, has been willing to offer the Palestinians anything more than a series of non-contiguous, waterless Bantustans, existing on only a portion of the West Bank. However, it seems that the panelists believe that Israel has offered fair deals to the Palestinians, which, recently, have been undermined by the Israeli Right and Hamas.
Looking at all this, it becomes apparent that the actual effect of J Street will be not to change Israel’s actual policies, but instead simply to change the perception of Israel by liberal opinion in the United States and the West. J Street’s achievement will be to provide a “moderate” and “fair” image to Israeli plans for a Palestinian “state.” The fact that the Zionist Right would likely be yelling appeasement and condemning J Street as a bunch of “self-haters” would do even more to bolster the “fairness” image of any Israeli peace proposal endorsed by J Street. Conversely, any Palestinian rejection of such “liberal” peace terms supported by J Street would provide greater justification for their demonization and harsh treatment by the Israeli government. But all of this should be understandable given the fact that J Streeters explicitly identify with Israel. When lobbies dominate the policy-making process, it is conventionally assumed that such policies do not advance the general good. There is no reason to think otherwise in the case of an Israel lobby-even a lobby that comes cloaked in the veneer of justice and moderation.
This is not to imply the J Streeters have ulterior motives. With their ideological blinders and ethnic loyalty, the J Streeters probably are sufficiently self-deceived to believe that Israel will treat the Palestinians justly. But all the evidence shows that, to the contrary, the Israeli government is unwilling to provide the Palestinians with a viable state. Quite likely, the Israeli governing elite believes that the security of the state of Israel precludes making the requisite concessions to the Palestinians to actually allow for a viable state. Thus, despite any intentions to the contrary, J Streeters simply serve as public-relations propagandists for perpetuating the policy of subordinating the Palestinians to Israel.
Transparent Cabal Website:
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
Amazon: http://tiny.cc/zNV06
My recent article “Obama, nuclear-arms reduction, and the power of the
Israel Lobby” is posted at
www.thornwalker.com/ditch/sniegoski_israeli_nukes.htm
Stephen Sniegoski
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
QOTD: How many Diaspora Jews are raised into liberalism because ethnocentric-racketeering Jewry needs a powerful State to protect its ethnic racket?
Question of the Day
(By Chris Moore) -- Many Diaspora liberal Jews are taught to believe that the reason they should support and attempt to influence or take leadership positions in a powerful central government is for “social justice” purposes, with a subtext that unless Jews have secular power and a powerful government in their corner, they will be persecuted by the Gentile masses. Yet a powerful, co-ethnic run or influenced central government is also probably the best means to protect any ethnic racket, prevent it from being antagonized by government authorities, and actually put those authorities to work on its behalf. And it has become increasingly evident in America, for example, that the ethnic Jewish Zionist racket couldn’t care less about social or economic justice, and is merely using its power to pursue its own economic and political interests and those of Zionist Israel, and using its influence upon the powerful U.S. central government for similar purposes as well.
Hence, how many liberal Diaspora Jews who thought they were supporting powerful central governments and their intolerant, Statist policies (e.g. intolerant of States rights, and of Christian culture and religion) for all these years out of the social justice imperative, were actually being manipulated by the larger ethnocentric Jewish Zionist community to influence the federal government in order that it could be put to work and behalf of Jewish ethnic racketeering interests (e.g. Zionism)?
Similarly, how many Gentile left-liberals who have been taught and influenced by leftist Jews never realized that much of the value system into which they were indoctrinated was engineered to do the bidding of Diaspora ethnic-racketeering Jews, and that they were being used?
Similar to gullible Christian Zionists who have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and played for fools by Jewish Zionists to put Israel first, for these Gentile and Jewish left-liberal Statist “true believers,” wouldn’t such a revelation cause such painful cognitive dissonance as to be nearly incomprehensible?
(By Chris Moore) -- Many Diaspora liberal Jews are taught to believe that the reason they should support and attempt to influence or take leadership positions in a powerful central government is for “social justice” purposes, with a subtext that unless Jews have secular power and a powerful government in their corner, they will be persecuted by the Gentile masses. Yet a powerful, co-ethnic run or influenced central government is also probably the best means to protect any ethnic racket, prevent it from being antagonized by government authorities, and actually put those authorities to work on its behalf. And it has become increasingly evident in America, for example, that the ethnic Jewish Zionist racket couldn’t care less about social or economic justice, and is merely using its power to pursue its own economic and political interests and those of Zionist Israel, and using its influence upon the powerful U.S. central government for similar purposes as well.
Hence, how many liberal Diaspora Jews who thought they were supporting powerful central governments and their intolerant, Statist policies (e.g. intolerant of States rights, and of Christian culture and religion) for all these years out of the social justice imperative, were actually being manipulated by the larger ethnocentric Jewish Zionist community to influence the federal government in order that it could be put to work and behalf of Jewish ethnic racketeering interests (e.g. Zionism)?
Similarly, how many Gentile left-liberals who have been taught and influenced by leftist Jews never realized that much of the value system into which they were indoctrinated was engineered to do the bidding of Diaspora ethnic-racketeering Jews, and that they were being used?
Similar to gullible Christian Zionists who have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and played for fools by Jewish Zionists to put Israel first, for these Gentile and Jewish left-liberal Statist “true believers,” wouldn’t such a revelation cause such painful cognitive dissonance as to be nearly incomprehensible?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Treacherous Dov Zakheim personifies threat that dual Israeli-Americans and Zionists pose to U.S. interests and national security
(Onlin Journal)--...Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov (linked below) tells us Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. He is, as I described him earlier, the bionic Zionist. In fact, Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
Judicial Inc also points out that Israel, a country of 4.8 million Russian and Polish Jewish émigrés, flies on one of the biggest Air Forces in the world, thanks to Dov. Conflict of interest here? Depends on what you’re interested in. That is, in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.
More from the resume: Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
As to Dov’s hell-raiser lineage, Judicial Inc points out that Grandpa Zakheim was born in 1870, Julius Zakheim (Zhabinka), in the Ukraine, a Russian rabbi who married a relative of Karl Marx. He was a Menshevik/Bolshevik and played a leading role in the 1905 turmoil that paved the way for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik master plan called for the state of Israel, which was chosen for its proximity to the world's oil and an area of religious significance.
Dov’s Father, Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim was born in 1910 and reared in Poland’s swarm of Zionist hard guys, read assassins and bombers. His Polish town, near Bilaystok, also brought us Yitzhak Shir, and family friends included Menachem Begin and Moshe Arens. Dov’s father was an active member of Betar, formed in 1923 in Riga, Latvia. Its goal was to control the Middle East (and its oil). It was known that the Jewish people needed their own country and they chose Palestine and claimed it a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan.”
Betar was in essence a terrorist organization formed because Zionists were sick of being chased from and arrested in country after country. They wanted both a place to escape and a base for their power. Betar joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern gangs. With no prospect of a Jewish state in sight, they argued that armed struggle against the British was the only way. Since Britain occupied Palestine and was containing them they went on a blood feast of bombings that killed hundreds of British soldiers. The British pulled out, but the Zionists continue to maul the Arabs to this day.
For a concise history on the Formation of Israel in 1947, I suggest this link to theocracywatch.org.
For an interesting look at “The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology” compiled from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel by Michael T. Benson, link above. For a rounded look at Israel, see Wikipedia.
Returning to Dov: he was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and attended exclusive Jewish schools, spent summers in Israel Zionist camps, which trained the Zionists of the future. As to Dov’s formal education, he graduated from Columbia University in 1970 and the University of Oxford in 1972. From 1973 to 75, he attended the London school of Jewish studies, described as a “Harry Potter” type cauldron; among the subjects Jewish supremacy, Advanced Bible, Talmud, Jewish Mysticism, Holocaust, Anglo-Judaica, and Zionism. After, he was ordained a Rabbi. From 1975 to 80, Zakheim was an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.
As he stepped into the Reagan administration, he talked them into funding development of the Lavi Fighter at a cost of $3 billion. The Lavi was a total flop and Israel dropped it, though it owed $450 million in contract fees that were cancelled. Israel, according to Judicial Inc, also created a story that China was eager to buy the Lavi. Zakheim convinced Reagan that China had to be sandbagged. Reagan gave Israel $500 million for its lost contracts. Reagan then threw in a wing of F-16’s as a bonus and sign of good will. Do we see a pattern here, personal, familial, career-wise, of over-the-top Israeli advocacy?
Again, during Zakheim’s tenure as Pentagon controller from May 4, 2001, to March 10, 2004, over $3 trillion dollars were unaccounted for. Additionally, military Information was jeopardized and military contractors billed the US for Israeli items: $50 million dollar fighter jets were rated as surplus and the list rolls on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaced and Dov resigned, Israel was handed the finest fighter jets in the US inventory while 15 percent of US jets were grounded for lack of parts. In whose best interest was this?
But Dov is not alone. He is one of an elite group of Jewish Americans/Israelis who inter-marry and enter government. They and their Christian counterparts are called neocons and their sole purpose is directing US policy. Most of them are dual citizens and few serve in the US military. Think of Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Ben Wattenberg, to mention a few. Whether their motivation is anger at the Muslim world, seen as a religious and territorial enemy, or a deep-rooted reaction to the Holocaust, the culmination of European anti-Semitism, their reactionary militarism becomes a world-threatening force unto itself. Hence our concern...--Jerry Mazza...Cont'd...LINK
Judicial Inc also points out that Israel, a country of 4.8 million Russian and Polish Jewish émigrés, flies on one of the biggest Air Forces in the world, thanks to Dov. Conflict of interest here? Depends on what you’re interested in. That is, in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.
More from the resume: Wikipedia points out that Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
As to Dov’s hell-raiser lineage, Judicial Inc points out that Grandpa Zakheim was born in 1870, Julius Zakheim (Zhabinka), in the Ukraine, a Russian rabbi who married a relative of Karl Marx. He was a Menshevik/Bolshevik and played a leading role in the 1905 turmoil that paved the way for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik master plan called for the state of Israel, which was chosen for its proximity to the world's oil and an area of religious significance.
Dov’s Father, Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim was born in 1910 and reared in Poland’s swarm of Zionist hard guys, read assassins and bombers. His Polish town, near Bilaystok, also brought us Yitzhak Shir, and family friends included Menachem Begin and Moshe Arens. Dov’s father was an active member of Betar, formed in 1923 in Riga, Latvia. Its goal was to control the Middle East (and its oil). It was known that the Jewish people needed their own country and they chose Palestine and claimed it a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan.”
Betar was in essence a terrorist organization formed because Zionists were sick of being chased from and arrested in country after country. They wanted both a place to escape and a base for their power. Betar joined forces with the Haganah, Irgun, and Stern gangs. With no prospect of a Jewish state in sight, they argued that armed struggle against the British was the only way. Since Britain occupied Palestine and was containing them they went on a blood feast of bombings that killed hundreds of British soldiers. The British pulled out, but the Zionists continue to maul the Arabs to this day.
For a concise history on the Formation of Israel in 1947, I suggest this link to theocracywatch.org.
For an interesting look at “The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology” compiled from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel by Michael T. Benson, link above. For a rounded look at Israel, see Wikipedia.
Returning to Dov: he was born in Brooklyn in 1943 and attended exclusive Jewish schools, spent summers in Israel Zionist camps, which trained the Zionists of the future. As to Dov’s formal education, he graduated from Columbia University in 1970 and the University of Oxford in 1972. From 1973 to 75, he attended the London school of Jewish studies, described as a “Harry Potter” type cauldron; among the subjects Jewish supremacy, Advanced Bible, Talmud, Jewish Mysticism, Holocaust, Anglo-Judaica, and Zionism. After, he was ordained a Rabbi. From 1975 to 80, Zakheim was an adjunct professor at the National War College, Yeshiva University, Columbia University and Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut.
As he stepped into the Reagan administration, he talked them into funding development of the Lavi Fighter at a cost of $3 billion. The Lavi was a total flop and Israel dropped it, though it owed $450 million in contract fees that were cancelled. Israel, according to Judicial Inc, also created a story that China was eager to buy the Lavi. Zakheim convinced Reagan that China had to be sandbagged. Reagan gave Israel $500 million for its lost contracts. Reagan then threw in a wing of F-16’s as a bonus and sign of good will. Do we see a pattern here, personal, familial, career-wise, of over-the-top Israeli advocacy?
Again, during Zakheim’s tenure as Pentagon controller from May 4, 2001, to March 10, 2004, over $3 trillion dollars were unaccounted for. Additionally, military Information was jeopardized and military contractors billed the US for Israeli items: $50 million dollar fighter jets were rated as surplus and the list rolls on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaced and Dov resigned, Israel was handed the finest fighter jets in the US inventory while 15 percent of US jets were grounded for lack of parts. In whose best interest was this?
But Dov is not alone. He is one of an elite group of Jewish Americans/Israelis who inter-marry and enter government. They and their Christian counterparts are called neocons and their sole purpose is directing US policy. Most of them are dual citizens and few serve in the US military. Think of Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Ben Wattenberg, to mention a few. Whether their motivation is anger at the Muslim world, seen as a religious and territorial enemy, or a deep-rooted reaction to the Holocaust, the culmination of European anti-Semitism, their reactionary militarism becomes a world-threatening force unto itself. Hence our concern...--Jerry Mazza...Cont'd...LINK
Atzmon: A British consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up
(Gilad Atzmon Homepage) -- On Monday the British TV broadcaster, Channel 4 screened Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, a devastating expose of the Jewish lobby in the UK*. ‘We couldn’t find a conspiracy’ affirmed Peter Oborne the Daily Mail’s political commentator behind the film. He was right. After running the show for so many years, the Jewish lobby’s purchasing of British politicians and media presence is in the open. The Guardian reported today that two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy “but Britain's pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far too less scrutiny.” This is indeed the case, and as Oborne disclosed, both British politicians and Zionist pressure groups enjoy it to the max.
In the film Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached." I would suggest that ‘strings attached’ is a very gentle way of putting it. ‘Chained to submission’ would be far closer to the truth. Seemingly a British, consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up. The Jewish community is not happy at all. After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they are used to being untouchable...--Gilad Atzmon...Cont'd...LINK
In the film Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached." I would suggest that ‘strings attached’ is a very gentle way of putting it. ‘Chained to submission’ would be far closer to the truth. Seemingly a British, consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up. The Jewish community is not happy at all. After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they are used to being untouchable...--Gilad Atzmon...Cont'd...LINK
No Christianity allowed: ADL rebukes Maureen Dowd for column on bankster greed, says New Testament references raise "classic themes of anti-Semitism"
(Examiner.com) -- The ADL is accusing the New York Times Maureen Dowd of anti-semitism over a recent op-ed titled "Virtuous Bankers? Really!?!" The article about corruption on Wall Street specifically involving Goldman Sachs. In a letter to the Editor in the NYT, ADL National Chair Robert G. Sugarman stated, "While one can agree or disagree with Maureen Dowd's portrayal of Goldman Sachs and other bankers (column, Nov. 11), her statement that "the bankers who took government money and then gave out obscene bonuses are the same self-interested sorts Jesus threw out of the temple" potentially raises one of the classic themes of anti-Semitism linking Jews and abhorrent money-lending practices. However unintentional, Ms. Dowd's invoking the New Testament story to illustrate our current financial mess conjures up old prejudices against Jews."
Writing in The New Jersey Jewish News Menachem Rosensaft and Jason H. Dolinsky also suggested that Dowd's article was anti-semitic, saying "we have heard these terms far too often to let them pass. Anti-Semitic tracts and Web sites are replete with references to “blood-sucking Jews.” And Ms. Dowd is too intelligent not to have realized that the depiction of Jews as greedy money-lenders has resulted in persecution and pogroms over the course of the past two millennia. Ms. Dowd has given new life to such ancient anti-Semitic incitements. We dread the prospect of swastikas smeared outside Goldman Sachs offices, or of learning that some street hood, inspired by Ms. Dowd’s column, broke an observant Jew's leg shouting "let Goldman Sachs buy you a new leg. At a time when a virulent Judaeophobia is on the rise, especially in Europe and throughout much of the Muslim world, politicians, journalists and columnists have a responsibility to refrain from using inflammatory anti-Semitic code words. Our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech does not bestow on any of us a license to incite to bigotry or violence."...--Robert Stark...Cont'd...LINK
Writing in The New Jersey Jewish News Menachem Rosensaft and Jason H. Dolinsky also suggested that Dowd's article was anti-semitic, saying "we have heard these terms far too often to let them pass. Anti-Semitic tracts and Web sites are replete with references to “blood-sucking Jews.” And Ms. Dowd is too intelligent not to have realized that the depiction of Jews as greedy money-lenders has resulted in persecution and pogroms over the course of the past two millennia. Ms. Dowd has given new life to such ancient anti-Semitic incitements. We dread the prospect of swastikas smeared outside Goldman Sachs offices, or of learning that some street hood, inspired by Ms. Dowd’s column, broke an observant Jew's leg shouting "let Goldman Sachs buy you a new leg. At a time when a virulent Judaeophobia is on the rise, especially in Europe and throughout much of the Muslim world, politicians, journalists and columnists have a responsibility to refrain from using inflammatory anti-Semitic code words. Our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech does not bestow on any of us a license to incite to bigotry or violence."...--Robert Stark...Cont'd...LINK
Monday, November 16, 2009
Question of the day: Is the elitist, atheist-materialist, internationalist/globalizationist mindset and agenda the true enemy of America and the West?
(By Chris Moore) -- To what extent are Americans cutting their own throats by acceding to atheist-materialist, globalizationist ground rules and environments, be it via internationalist, money-worshipping crass Capitalism and Empire-building on the Right, or via internationalist, Big Government, State-worship on the Left?
When engaged in combat, it’s never wise to be drawn into a battlefield unprepared for the environment and terrain (think Napoleaon’s 1812 Russian campaign). The social cesspool begotten in colonized, post-Christian, Corporatist America is terrain in which the eternally-materialistic Judeofascist seems to flourish, e.g. the Israel lobby in the increasingly Godless U.S. Yet so is the authoritarian, atheist-Statist terrain begotten by Big Government, e.g. the Jewish Bolsheviks in the early years of the officially atheist former Soviet Union.
What is the middle road that will deprive the Judeofascists and their Goy-Zionist and Judeophile left-liberal collaborators from successfully cultivating an atheist-materialist environment that is conducive to the enslavement of the Gentile masses to the totalitarian, racialist-Jewish-exceptionalist, globalizationist agenda that has taken root in the West? Indeed, have the elites of the former Western civilization been so fatally co-opted and Judaized by this corporatist, internationalist, hyper-materialistic mindset and mentality that they are today incapable of pursing the best interests of the Gentile masses of the former Western civilization they profess to be championing, and now, like the Judeofascists and organized Jewish colonizers themselves, view the Western masses as a menace best kept under increasingly-totalitarian lock and key, and corporatist yoke? Or, like the Jewish Zionists in the Levant, view the Western masses as nothing but a fattened material source to be wrung for all their worth and summarily discarded?
When engaged in combat, it’s never wise to be drawn into a battlefield unprepared for the environment and terrain (think Napoleaon’s 1812 Russian campaign). The social cesspool begotten in colonized, post-Christian, Corporatist America is terrain in which the eternally-materialistic Judeofascist seems to flourish, e.g. the Israel lobby in the increasingly Godless U.S. Yet so is the authoritarian, atheist-Statist terrain begotten by Big Government, e.g. the Jewish Bolsheviks in the early years of the officially atheist former Soviet Union.
What is the middle road that will deprive the Judeofascists and their Goy-Zionist and Judeophile left-liberal collaborators from successfully cultivating an atheist-materialist environment that is conducive to the enslavement of the Gentile masses to the totalitarian, racialist-Jewish-exceptionalist, globalizationist agenda that has taken root in the West? Indeed, have the elites of the former Western civilization been so fatally co-opted and Judaized by this corporatist, internationalist, hyper-materialistic mindset and mentality that they are today incapable of pursing the best interests of the Gentile masses of the former Western civilization they profess to be championing, and now, like the Judeofascists and organized Jewish colonizers themselves, view the Western masses as a menace best kept under increasingly-totalitarian lock and key, and corporatist yoke? Or, like the Jewish Zionists in the Levant, view the Western masses as nothing but a fattened material source to be wrung for all their worth and summarily discarded?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Judeofascism.com readers might find of interest: Internet exchange between Chris Moore and Jewish Trotskyite A. Aarons, with cameo by Jeff Blankfort
[UPDATED 11/16]
This exchange took place in the reader responses section underneath a post by Sami Jamil Jadallah titled "Major Nidal Hasan and Rabbi/Senator Joseph Lieberman", featured on Palestine Think Tank. (Read Jadallah's excellent article as well, for both edification and background.)
*****
In response to Aaron Aaron's claims that the Vietnam war was fought by America for soley imperial and racist purposes:
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Aaron Aarons,
Why do you ignore the context of the agenda of totalitarian communist mass murder and genocide against which the Vietnam war was fought? To be sure, in retrospect, America went to far, made some incredibly stupid decisions, and indeed, should never have entered that particular battle field. The liberal and quasi socialist LBJ was nothing but a dumb hick with pretensions of attaining left-liberal utopia by means of epic cynicism. But the wrongs that America committed do fall under the category of “road to hell paved with do-gooder intentions.”
In contrast, the road to the war against Islam was not paved with good intentions, but rather venal intentions, greedy intentions, and Zionist expansionist intentions. But the Zionist ideology really isn’t that far off the mark from your own; indeed, don’t you Leftists believe that Big Religion is backward, intolerant of Jews and homosexuals, superstitious, and primitive? Haven’t most Zionists always been Jewish socialists? Haven’t they always professed to be bringing enlightenment and modernity to the Levant?
Don’t most Jewish socialists regard Islam the same way they regard Christianity — as a noxious menace — and view "secular" Big Government as a method of Christian and Islamic pest control?
Perhaps your only problem with Israel is the religious Jews. Perhaps Jewish-Lefty bigots should consider the possibility that they have a problem, too. Or perhaps their egos are too big to consider that possibility, being raised to believe they're "the chosen" and all — or do Jewish-Lefty parents use other semantics to get the same message through?
If Jewish bigots would just check their outsized egos at the door, and try to gain some self-awareness of their control-freak tendencies, and could realize that their pseudo-secular power-grabbing ploys have now been identified as the scams they are and give up the ghost, half their problems would disappear, almost instantly.
You all need to adjust to the new, post-Communist reality. Christianity and Islam aint going away any time soon, and certainly not before Judaism. Zionists and Jewish leftists should put an end to that particular fantasy right now.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
To Chris Moore:
Imperialist-capitalist mass murder has easily killed over a billion people, mostly through malnutrition and outright starvation, since the end of World War II. So the fact that Stalinists killed a few tens of millions, including many thousands of my comrades, is important only in that they killed people who could have done a much better job than they did of fighting capitalism and imperialism. One example of that is the killing of Vietnamese Trotskyists by the Vietnamese Stalinists
I defend the right of Moslems, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others to their religious beliefs and, up to a point, their practices. In fact, I defend them more consistently than most serious believers in any of those religions defend that right for anybody whose religious beliefs differ from theirs, even in small ways.
Most of the early Zionists did call themselves 'socialists', just as the German Nazis did, but in both cases it was a means to harness the socialist idealism of workers and others to a nationalist program where the capitalists were in charge behind the scenes.
BTW, we aren't in a post-communist world. We're either in a pre-communist world, or a global-genocide-by-capital world. It's a choice that will be decided in the next couple of decades, at most
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Well, AA, I'm glad to hear your Communist revolution of one will allow the peons their religion, even if its only "up to a point." That's more than your hero Trotsky, his comrade Stalin and their Jewish Bolshevik henchmen allowed in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it still sounds like something that would spring from the mouth of Thomas Friedman or one of the Neocons when holding forth on what should or shouldn't be tolerated out of the Islamic world.
Deep down, you delusional Jewish ideologues really do believe yourselves to be a gift to the gentile peons from the cosmos, don’t you?
-------------------------
Jeff Blanfort wrote:
Chris, why don't you say something that is relative to this thread?
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Would you stay on topic of an ethnic German neo-Nazi was jabbering forth with warmed over fascist rhetoric? Yet some can't understand why ethnic Jewish neo-Bolshevism and Trotskyism grates?
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Sorry, Chris Moore, but I think most of us reject Nazi and fascist rhetoric regardless of the ethnicity of the person spouting it, whether they be Hitler-loving German or Zionist Jews. The only Germans I've had to break with politically in my lifetime are those supporting Israel. I did also, when I was in Germany in the early 1990's, join with Kurds and German leftists in demonstrations against the classical-style Nazis, and for the freedom of Kurdish revolutionaries held by the German state.
Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that.
C.M.: "Yet some can't understand why ethnic Jewish neo-Bolshevism and Trotskyism grates?"
While I'm glad to do anything that grates on you, C.M., I'll point out for those who care that the three countries where Trotskyism developed a mass following were Vietnam, Ceylon, and Bolivia — none of them known for the presence of large numbers of Jews.
Also, when the Trotskyist movement in the U.S., which was the largest at the time outside of Vietnam, split over the question of continued defense of the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it was mainly the Jewish sections, under the leadership of Max Schachtman, that left the party and moved towards a 'third-camp' anti-USSR position, which was also the position of the Palestine-born Jewish Trotskyist leader in Britain, Ygael Gluckstein, a.k.a. Tony Cliff. It was gentiles like James P. Cannon and Farrell Dobbs who led the Soviet-defensist faction that supported Trotsky.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
AA: "Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that."
—–
Unlike you, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation. Post-Torah, Jewish-supremacist Talmudic culture undoubtedly played a role in the formulation of Bolshevism (see Moses Hess), Zionism, Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism.
I can't say whether this is the case with AA or not, but often out of the imperative of masking his hidden Jewish-supremacist agenda, the (counterfeit) Jewish Leftist will deny and suppress this reality of God-made ethnic and cultural differences (that can theoretically add up to a highly functional whole the same way God-made variegation works in the natural environment) by denying that there is a cosmic God, and turning the totalitarian State (and its Jewish functionaries) into the New God as a means of supplanting the genuine God.
I can see the appeal of this to pseudo-secular Jewish Neocons, Neoliberals, and Zionists, too, given that so many of them are raised to believe that they were once God's medium and stand-in. Milton wrote eloquently on the phenomenon of how this heady role can inspire delusions of grandeur and ultimate group rebellion against God, in Paradise
Lost.
BTW, I note that Christian Zionists, money worshipping Capitalists, and other contemporary connoisseurs of atheism-materialism (masked and unmasked) are in open rebellion against God, as well. Little wonder these all often rally around the Jewish Zionists. Again, see Milton's chief rebel angel and his henchmen.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Chris Moore on November 13th, 2009 at 15:09:
[Quoting] AA: "Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that."
—–
[C.M.] Unlike you, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation.
No, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation, either. But I don't support or oppose people on the basis of what ethnicity helped shape them, but on the basis of where they are now, regardless of what ethnicity or other factors in their formation led them there. I think most Palestinians would agree with me that an ethnic Jew like Barbara Lubin or Joel Kovel (or even Aaron Aarons!) is more on the side of the Palestinian people against their Jewish oppressors than is Mahmoud Abbas, Muhammed Dahlan or Hosmi Mubarak. (But that might be a case of damning us with very faint praise, indeed!)
Aside from this point, C.M., there's no way to have a rational exchange with you when you invoke this "God" character that nobody can know, and that those who claim to know interpret in many different, often contradictory, ways.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
AA: "I don't support or oppose people on the basis of what ethnicity helped shape them, but on the basis of where they are now"
Fair enough. And neither do I. But you have revealed yourself as currently being of the Judeofascist Left. Here is a relevant descriptor of this orientation from my other web site, Judeofascism.com:
**********
What about Zionist and non-Zionist irreligious Jews? Again, irreligious Jewish supporters of the Jewish supremacist program of Palestinian subjugation and disenfranchisement that is inherent to contemporary Zionism would have to fall into the Judeofacist camp by definition. But how about self-identifying left-wing Jews, for instance, who are non-Zionist? Is it possible for them to be Judeofacists even if they profess to be irreligious and opposed to Zionism?
I maintain that it is possible when their political orientation reflects clear latent beliefs in Jewish exceptionalism, and a desire and program to utilize an authoritarian State to impose de facto Jewish exceptionalism upon non-Jews by means, in part, of ethnic racketeering that results in high concentrations of Jewish authorities administering a powerful central government.
Have we encountered such a people before? Indeed we have — in the revolutionary Jewish Bolsheviks, who played a hugely disproportionate role in the Russian coup that led to Communism and later in the Communist hierarchy of the early Soviet Union, as well as the implementation of the systematic Soviet state murder of millions of Christians, peasants, and anti-Communist dissidents…Cont'd
**********
So, Aaron, your platitudes about being anti-Zionist and irreligious ring hollow, given the fact that you embrace an authoritarian brand of politics (Socialism/Bolshevism) that has, like Zionism, historically been utilized to assert organized Jewish primacy.
Socialist Moses Hess, whom I cited above, and who was highly influential upon the works of Marx and Engels, also professed to be a post-racial and post-religious Jew, as you do, but quickly reverted to Zionism and anti-German racism as a result of that Gentile people’s resistance to Jewish supremacism and ethnic racketeering, which he correctly sensed would spell trouble for the "socialist" Jewish-supremacist project (which later manifested in Soviet Bolshevism) in the future. Indeed, WWII was fought, in part, as a result of German resistance to Stalinist/Jewish Bolshevik mass murder and totalitarian expansionism.
Authoritarian politics embraced by any Statist Jew, from left-wing (ie Bolshevism) to right-wing (ie Zionism), are an indicator that that Jew in fact has not left his supremacist orientation, authoritarian pretensions, and Jewish delusions of grandeur behind, and remains dangerously murderous and totalitarian, and likely to re-embrace Jewish supremacy at any opportune time, or when he deems it safe to take off the “secular” mask.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Re Chris Moore #55
Mr. Moore should perhaps be congratulated for getting through a post of a couple of hundred words without the word "God" being one of those words. But he reveals another, rather ugly, side of his ideology when he writes:
> Indeed, WWII was fought, in part, as a result of German resistance to Stalinist/Jewish Bolshevik mass murder and totalitarian expansionism.
So now we have an open Nazi apologist! Apparently, Germany's 'drang nach osten' had nothing to do with the desire for "lebensraum" and Slavic labor, nor the fact that German imperialism had been locked out of most of the rest of the world by Western European colonialism and U.S. neo-colonialism. Really!
I know, for me to make such arguments proves that I'm a materialistic Jew who's in rebellion against "God". But if your "God" is omnipotent, he/she/it must want me to be "in rebellion against" him/her/it, so I must
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Re Aaron Aarons, #60,
There would have been no Nazi Germany but for Stalinist,/Jewish Bolshevik State organized and engineered Communist mass murder that preceded it, set precedents, and inspired the Nazi anti-thesis.
Nazi Germany and the Holocaust…yet another tragic and sadistic phenomenon that can be laid at the feet of Judeofascists and their sick, demented, and Godless collaborators.
-------------------------
Jeff Blankfort wrote:
It's time to order some new sand for this sandbox. And another box of diapers.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Peoples the world over have been killing, conquering and colonizing one another since man first crawled from the swamps and organized himself into a tribes. And there have always been different types of colonization depending the culture and character of those doing the colonizing.
For example, native Americans fought vicious tribal wars of conquest and slavery for eons before the first Europeans set foot on the continent. Today, they have citizenship, and all the rights and privileges bestowed upon non-native Americans, plus the (heirloom, racially handed down) treaty privileges that grant them partial sovereignty, and which they have utilized to make tens of billions from casinos and other reservation operations that non-natives are not allowed to compete with. Much of their profit is tax-free.
Now contrast this with Jewish colonization in modern time alone: the Jewish Bolsheviks murdered, terrorized, genocided and plundered millions in the Soviet Union in the name of "social justice." The Jewish Zionists have been on a similar tribal rampage (under cover of "self-determination") in the Levant, only on a smaller scale, for decades. And the Israel lobby (organized Jewish colony) has utilized its power to force the American taxpayer to write Israel a blank check; strong-arm the U.S. government to give Israel a "pass" on all its aggression and murder, and veto UN resolutions against it…on and on — all of which contributed to 9/11.
The Israel lobby (organized Jewish colony) initiated, undertook and fulfilled a campaign to lie America into the Iraq war (see ‘The Israel Lobby’ by Walt and Mearsheimer, Clean Break, and Project for a New American Century) and has aggressively supported and pushed other warmongering aggression in the Mideast before and since. To be certain, it had plenty of help from craven, war profiteering, money-worshipping Gentiles in these projects. But it's interesting how much more craven, debased and unabashedly venal these have become since the Jewish colony "Judaized" America. I mean, America always had its "wonderful little wars," but the Iraq war took the phenomenon to a whole new, shamelessly corrupt and nakedly murderous level.
So in modern times alone, from Russia to the Middle East to America, the organized Jewish colonies have proven not only aggressive and murderous, but also seem to take a special sadistic pride and glee in the subversiveness and insidiousness of their treachery, taking it all to the level of a series of well-planned homicides — which makes their actions premeditated, as opposed to evolutionary.
No wonder Jewish Leftists like Chomsky and his acolytes, and Jewish Zionists, always seek to put the Gentile on the defensive: it’s a means of hiding and intimidating inquiry into Jewish colonizing, and historical and contemporary Judeofascist aggression and murder. Of course, point any of this out, and immediately rings out the tribal hue and cry of "anti-Semitism" — which itself, of course, is just another cynical means of camouflaging their premeditated crimes and criminal intentions.
This exchange took place in the reader responses section underneath a post by Sami Jamil Jadallah titled "Major Nidal Hasan and Rabbi/Senator Joseph Lieberman", featured on Palestine Think Tank. (Read Jadallah's excellent article as well, for both edification and background.)
*****
In response to Aaron Aaron's claims that the Vietnam war was fought by America for soley imperial and racist purposes:
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Aaron Aarons,
Why do you ignore the context of the agenda of totalitarian communist mass murder and genocide against which the Vietnam war was fought? To be sure, in retrospect, America went to far, made some incredibly stupid decisions, and indeed, should never have entered that particular battle field. The liberal and quasi socialist LBJ was nothing but a dumb hick with pretensions of attaining left-liberal utopia by means of epic cynicism. But the wrongs that America committed do fall under the category of “road to hell paved with do-gooder intentions.”
In contrast, the road to the war against Islam was not paved with good intentions, but rather venal intentions, greedy intentions, and Zionist expansionist intentions. But the Zionist ideology really isn’t that far off the mark from your own; indeed, don’t you Leftists believe that Big Religion is backward, intolerant of Jews and homosexuals, superstitious, and primitive? Haven’t most Zionists always been Jewish socialists? Haven’t they always professed to be bringing enlightenment and modernity to the Levant?
Don’t most Jewish socialists regard Islam the same way they regard Christianity — as a noxious menace — and view "secular" Big Government as a method of Christian and Islamic pest control?
Perhaps your only problem with Israel is the religious Jews. Perhaps Jewish-Lefty bigots should consider the possibility that they have a problem, too. Or perhaps their egos are too big to consider that possibility, being raised to believe they're "the chosen" and all — or do Jewish-Lefty parents use other semantics to get the same message through?
If Jewish bigots would just check their outsized egos at the door, and try to gain some self-awareness of their control-freak tendencies, and could realize that their pseudo-secular power-grabbing ploys have now been identified as the scams they are and give up the ghost, half their problems would disappear, almost instantly.
You all need to adjust to the new, post-Communist reality. Christianity and Islam aint going away any time soon, and certainly not before Judaism. Zionists and Jewish leftists should put an end to that particular fantasy right now.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
To Chris Moore:
Imperialist-capitalist mass murder has easily killed over a billion people, mostly through malnutrition and outright starvation, since the end of World War II. So the fact that Stalinists killed a few tens of millions, including many thousands of my comrades, is important only in that they killed people who could have done a much better job than they did of fighting capitalism and imperialism. One example of that is the killing of Vietnamese Trotskyists by the Vietnamese Stalinists
I defend the right of Moslems, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and others to their religious beliefs and, up to a point, their practices. In fact, I defend them more consistently than most serious believers in any of those religions defend that right for anybody whose religious beliefs differ from theirs, even in small ways.
Most of the early Zionists did call themselves 'socialists', just as the German Nazis did, but in both cases it was a means to harness the socialist idealism of workers and others to a nationalist program where the capitalists were in charge behind the scenes.
BTW, we aren't in a post-communist world. We're either in a pre-communist world, or a global-genocide-by-capital world. It's a choice that will be decided in the next couple of decades, at most
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Well, AA, I'm glad to hear your Communist revolution of one will allow the peons their religion, even if its only "up to a point." That's more than your hero Trotsky, his comrade Stalin and their Jewish Bolshevik henchmen allowed in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it still sounds like something that would spring from the mouth of Thomas Friedman or one of the Neocons when holding forth on what should or shouldn't be tolerated out of the Islamic world.
Deep down, you delusional Jewish ideologues really do believe yourselves to be a gift to the gentile peons from the cosmos, don’t you?
-------------------------
Jeff Blanfort wrote:
Chris, why don't you say something that is relative to this thread?
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Would you stay on topic of an ethnic German neo-Nazi was jabbering forth with warmed over fascist rhetoric? Yet some can't understand why ethnic Jewish neo-Bolshevism and Trotskyism grates?
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Sorry, Chris Moore, but I think most of us reject Nazi and fascist rhetoric regardless of the ethnicity of the person spouting it, whether they be Hitler-loving German or Zionist Jews. The only Germans I've had to break with politically in my lifetime are those supporting Israel. I did also, when I was in Germany in the early 1990's, join with Kurds and German leftists in demonstrations against the classical-style Nazis, and for the freedom of Kurdish revolutionaries held by the German state.
Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that.
C.M.: "Yet some can't understand why ethnic Jewish neo-Bolshevism and Trotskyism grates?"
While I'm glad to do anything that grates on you, C.M., I'll point out for those who care that the three countries where Trotskyism developed a mass following were Vietnam, Ceylon, and Bolivia — none of them known for the presence of large numbers of Jews.
Also, when the Trotskyist movement in the U.S., which was the largest at the time outside of Vietnam, split over the question of continued defense of the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it was mainly the Jewish sections, under the leadership of Max Schachtman, that left the party and moved towards a 'third-camp' anti-USSR position, which was also the position of the Palestine-born Jewish Trotskyist leader in Britain, Ygael Gluckstein, a.k.a. Tony Cliff. It was gentiles like James P. Cannon and Farrell Dobbs who led the Soviet-defensist faction that supported Trotsky.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
AA: "Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that."
—–
Unlike you, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation. Post-Torah, Jewish-supremacist Talmudic culture undoubtedly played a role in the formulation of Bolshevism (see Moses Hess), Zionism, Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism.
I can't say whether this is the case with AA or not, but often out of the imperative of masking his hidden Jewish-supremacist agenda, the (counterfeit) Jewish Leftist will deny and suppress this reality of God-made ethnic and cultural differences (that can theoretically add up to a highly functional whole the same way God-made variegation works in the natural environment) by denying that there is a cosmic God, and turning the totalitarian State (and its Jewish functionaries) into the New God as a means of supplanting the genuine God.
I can see the appeal of this to pseudo-secular Jewish Neocons, Neoliberals, and Zionists, too, given that so many of them are raised to believe that they were once God's medium and stand-in. Milton wrote eloquently on the phenomenon of how this heady role can inspire delusions of grandeur and ultimate group rebellion against God, in Paradise
Lost.
BTW, I note that Christian Zionists, money worshipping Capitalists, and other contemporary connoisseurs of atheism-materialism (masked and unmasked) are in open rebellion against God, as well. Little wonder these all often rally around the Jewish Zionists. Again, see Milton's chief rebel angel and his henchmen.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Chris Moore on November 13th, 2009 at 15:09:
[Quoting] AA: "Unlike you, I don't care about the ethnicity or 'race' of people I support or oppose, but I don't expect you to understand that."
—–
[C.M.] Unlike you, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation.
No, I don't deny that ethnicity plays a role in culture formulation, and culture plays a role in political formulation, either. But I don't support or oppose people on the basis of what ethnicity helped shape them, but on the basis of where they are now, regardless of what ethnicity or other factors in their formation led them there. I think most Palestinians would agree with me that an ethnic Jew like Barbara Lubin or Joel Kovel (or even Aaron Aarons!) is more on the side of the Palestinian people against their Jewish oppressors than is Mahmoud Abbas, Muhammed Dahlan or Hosmi Mubarak. (But that might be a case of damning us with very faint praise, indeed!)
Aside from this point, C.M., there's no way to have a rational exchange with you when you invoke this "God" character that nobody can know, and that those who claim to know interpret in many different, often contradictory, ways.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
AA: "I don't support or oppose people on the basis of what ethnicity helped shape them, but on the basis of where they are now"
Fair enough. And neither do I. But you have revealed yourself as currently being of the Judeofascist Left. Here is a relevant descriptor of this orientation from my other web site, Judeofascism.com:
**********
What about Zionist and non-Zionist irreligious Jews? Again, irreligious Jewish supporters of the Jewish supremacist program of Palestinian subjugation and disenfranchisement that is inherent to contemporary Zionism would have to fall into the Judeofacist camp by definition. But how about self-identifying left-wing Jews, for instance, who are non-Zionist? Is it possible for them to be Judeofacists even if they profess to be irreligious and opposed to Zionism?
I maintain that it is possible when their political orientation reflects clear latent beliefs in Jewish exceptionalism, and a desire and program to utilize an authoritarian State to impose de facto Jewish exceptionalism upon non-Jews by means, in part, of ethnic racketeering that results in high concentrations of Jewish authorities administering a powerful central government.
Have we encountered such a people before? Indeed we have — in the revolutionary Jewish Bolsheviks, who played a hugely disproportionate role in the Russian coup that led to Communism and later in the Communist hierarchy of the early Soviet Union, as well as the implementation of the systematic Soviet state murder of millions of Christians, peasants, and anti-Communist dissidents…Cont'd
**********
So, Aaron, your platitudes about being anti-Zionist and irreligious ring hollow, given the fact that you embrace an authoritarian brand of politics (Socialism/Bolshevism) that has, like Zionism, historically been utilized to assert organized Jewish primacy.
Socialist Moses Hess, whom I cited above, and who was highly influential upon the works of Marx and Engels, also professed to be a post-racial and post-religious Jew, as you do, but quickly reverted to Zionism and anti-German racism as a result of that Gentile people’s resistance to Jewish supremacism and ethnic racketeering, which he correctly sensed would spell trouble for the "socialist" Jewish-supremacist project (which later manifested in Soviet Bolshevism) in the future. Indeed, WWII was fought, in part, as a result of German resistance to Stalinist/Jewish Bolshevik mass murder and totalitarian expansionism.
Authoritarian politics embraced by any Statist Jew, from left-wing (ie Bolshevism) to right-wing (ie Zionism), are an indicator that that Jew in fact has not left his supremacist orientation, authoritarian pretensions, and Jewish delusions of grandeur behind, and remains dangerously murderous and totalitarian, and likely to re-embrace Jewish supremacy at any opportune time, or when he deems it safe to take off the “secular” mask.
-------------------------
Aaron Aarons wrote:
Re Chris Moore #55
Mr. Moore should perhaps be congratulated for getting through a post of a couple of hundred words without the word "God" being one of those words. But he reveals another, rather ugly, side of his ideology when he writes:
> Indeed, WWII was fought, in part, as a result of German resistance to Stalinist/Jewish Bolshevik mass murder and totalitarian expansionism.
So now we have an open Nazi apologist! Apparently, Germany's 'drang nach osten' had nothing to do with the desire for "lebensraum" and Slavic labor, nor the fact that German imperialism had been locked out of most of the rest of the world by Western European colonialism and U.S. neo-colonialism. Really!
I know, for me to make such arguments proves that I'm a materialistic Jew who's in rebellion against "God". But if your "God" is omnipotent, he/she/it must want me to be "in rebellion against" him/her/it, so I must
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Re Aaron Aarons, #60,
There would have been no Nazi Germany but for Stalinist,/Jewish Bolshevik State organized and engineered Communist mass murder that preceded it, set precedents, and inspired the Nazi anti-thesis.
Nazi Germany and the Holocaust…yet another tragic and sadistic phenomenon that can be laid at the feet of Judeofascists and their sick, demented, and Godless collaborators.
-------------------------
Jeff Blankfort wrote:
It's time to order some new sand for this sandbox. And another box of diapers.
-------------------------
Chris Moore wrote:
Peoples the world over have been killing, conquering and colonizing one another since man first crawled from the swamps and organized himself into a tribes. And there have always been different types of colonization depending the culture and character of those doing the colonizing.
For example, native Americans fought vicious tribal wars of conquest and slavery for eons before the first Europeans set foot on the continent. Today, they have citizenship, and all the rights and privileges bestowed upon non-native Americans, plus the (heirloom, racially handed down) treaty privileges that grant them partial sovereignty, and which they have utilized to make tens of billions from casinos and other reservation operations that non-natives are not allowed to compete with. Much of their profit is tax-free.
Now contrast this with Jewish colonization in modern time alone: the Jewish Bolsheviks murdered, terrorized, genocided and plundered millions in the Soviet Union in the name of "social justice." The Jewish Zionists have been on a similar tribal rampage (under cover of "self-determination") in the Levant, only on a smaller scale, for decades. And the Israel lobby (organized Jewish colony) has utilized its power to force the American taxpayer to write Israel a blank check; strong-arm the U.S. government to give Israel a "pass" on all its aggression and murder, and veto UN resolutions against it…on and on — all of which contributed to 9/11.
The Israel lobby (organized Jewish colony) initiated, undertook and fulfilled a campaign to lie America into the Iraq war (see ‘The Israel Lobby’ by Walt and Mearsheimer, Clean Break, and Project for a New American Century) and has aggressively supported and pushed other warmongering aggression in the Mideast before and since. To be certain, it had plenty of help from craven, war profiteering, money-worshipping Gentiles in these projects. But it's interesting how much more craven, debased and unabashedly venal these have become since the Jewish colony "Judaized" America. I mean, America always had its "wonderful little wars," but the Iraq war took the phenomenon to a whole new, shamelessly corrupt and nakedly murderous level.
So in modern times alone, from Russia to the Middle East to America, the organized Jewish colonies have proven not only aggressive and murderous, but also seem to take a special sadistic pride and glee in the subversiveness and insidiousness of their treachery, taking it all to the level of a series of well-planned homicides — which makes their actions premeditated, as opposed to evolutionary.
No wonder Jewish Leftists like Chomsky and his acolytes, and Jewish Zionists, always seek to put the Gentile on the defensive: it’s a means of hiding and intimidating inquiry into Jewish colonizing, and historical and contemporary Judeofascist aggression and murder. Of course, point any of this out, and immediately rings out the tribal hue and cry of "anti-Semitism" — which itself, of course, is just another cynical means of camouflaging their premeditated crimes and criminal intentions.
Question of the day: Is holding ethnic-racketeering, criminal Jews accountable for their crimes against Americans anti-Semitic?
The daughter of a convicted Orthodox Jewish fraudster seems to think so.
From USA Today:
So Roza Weiss infers that Rubashkin was convicted not because he was found guilty of 86 of 91 felony fraud charges by a jury of his peers (perhaps she also believes anyone who isn’t Jewish can’t possibly be peer to a glorious chosen Jew); infers that he faces 72 more immigration charges not because he imported an illegal immigrant workforce in order to exploit them and pay slave wages; infers that he was led away by federal marshals not because he was a convicted felon; but rather, all of his tribulations were the result of being “Jewish and proud of it.”
Agriprocessors was a criminal, ethnic-racketeering Jewish organization. The Israel lobby is a criminal, ethnic-racketeering (mostly) Jewish organization.
One day, those running the Israel lobby (and their collaborators) will be convicted and led away by armed guards just as Rubashkin was. And undoubtedly, other beneficiaries of the criminal, ethnic racketeering enterprise will declare in response: “We’re Jewish, and proud of it.”
After he serves his sentence, Rubashkin should be encouraged to immigrate to Israel, where he can live out his life amongst an assortment of other criminal, ethnic-racketeering Jews. And his collaborators should be encouraged to join him, and so should their collaborators, and so on and so on, until all the Jews who want to engage in ethnic racketeering crimes against the American people, and all their shabbos goy bootlickers, can be "Jewish," and proud of it -- in Israel. -- Chris Moore
From USA Today:
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — The former manager of a kosher slaughterhouse was found guilty on all but five of the 91 felony fraud charges he faced for his role in a massive bank fraud scheme at his former meat plant, Agriprocessors Inc., in Postville. Jurors declared Sholom Rubashkin, the former vice president at Agriprocessors Inc. guilty of bank fraud, making false statements to a bank, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering…Rubashkin is the sixth high-level Agriprocessors manager convicted of federal charges, although he most likely will face the most severe prison sentence. The other five — two line managers, two financial officers, and the human resources director — all struck plea deals and testified against Rubashkin…
His lawyer, Guy Cook, said Rubashkin will appeal after his sentencing at undetermined date in Cedar Rapids. The defense team also will push for his release on bail pending a second trial on 72 immigration charges that begins Dec. 2...
Rubashkin's children, who showed no emotion as Reade read the verdicts, said their Jewish faith would help their father. "We're in God's hands, and it's going to be good," Getzel Rubashkin said. Rubashkin's oldest daughter, Roza Weiss, said: "It's unbelievable. My only comment is, we're Jewish and we're proud of it."
So Roza Weiss infers that Rubashkin was convicted not because he was found guilty of 86 of 91 felony fraud charges by a jury of his peers (perhaps she also believes anyone who isn’t Jewish can’t possibly be peer to a glorious chosen Jew); infers that he faces 72 more immigration charges not because he imported an illegal immigrant workforce in order to exploit them and pay slave wages; infers that he was led away by federal marshals not because he was a convicted felon; but rather, all of his tribulations were the result of being “Jewish and proud of it.”
Agriprocessors was a criminal, ethnic-racketeering Jewish organization. The Israel lobby is a criminal, ethnic-racketeering (mostly) Jewish organization.
One day, those running the Israel lobby (and their collaborators) will be convicted and led away by armed guards just as Rubashkin was. And undoubtedly, other beneficiaries of the criminal, ethnic racketeering enterprise will declare in response: “We’re Jewish, and proud of it.”
After he serves his sentence, Rubashkin should be encouraged to immigrate to Israel, where he can live out his life amongst an assortment of other criminal, ethnic-racketeering Jews. And his collaborators should be encouraged to join him, and so should their collaborators, and so on and so on, until all the Jews who want to engage in ethnic racketeering crimes against the American people, and all their shabbos goy bootlickers, can be "Jewish," and proud of it -- in Israel. -- Chris Moore
It's the money, stupid. Why American politicos roll over for Israel and its lobby every time, including on issues as grave as war
(Mondoweiss) -- When people ask why Obama has capitulated to the prime minister of a tiny state– Bibi Netanyahu– various theories are offered about Health care first, or the economy, or Afghanistan, or oil. Few say directly: Netanyahu feels invulnerable because of the Israel lobby in the U.S. As readers of this site know, I am a bull on this issue: I think the lobby has a tremendous amount of power. And all efforts to poohpooh its influence strike me as foolish until such time as the media address it openly and vigorously, as they do, say, the gun lobby. Once there’s information and sunshine, we can argue about its magnitude. The difficulty is that you cannot be plain about this matter without addressing the idea of Jewish influence. Israelis are often more plain about this. Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Haaretz the other day, "the most significant joint endeavor of America’s Jews [is] six decades of unswerving support for the Israeli government of the day." I.e., a hammerlock on U.S. policy. And last year at the NYPL, former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg described "two structures" built by Jews, one being Israel, the other "the semi-autonomous American Jewry, which was not here 150 years ago– powerful influence, access to the corridors of power, impact on the culture, and civilization… plus the infrastructure of the community of solidarity and fraternity and support system and education etc."
Obama’s crumple cannot be explained without talking about that influence, and Obama’s/Rahm Emanuel’s fears for a second term. Some of this power is media/Establishment presence, to which I was long a personal witness. (And yes I wonder why Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel as "Rahm" three times in a report last night on NPR.) Some of it is financial. As former AIPAC boss Tom Dine told Helena Cobban lately of a political epiphany he had on the Kennedy campaign in 1980: "[Jews] were the kings in every city!" The Jews were kings because of money. As I insist on stating, more than half of the money in Democratic politics comes from Jews, the richest group by religion in the U.S. The two baronial families that lifted Barack Obama in Chicago, the Crowns and the Pritzkers, are both Jewish (and one, the Crowns, includes fire-and-brimstone Israel supporters; I am not sure about the Pritzkers). Money is famously the mother’s milk of politics, and the money that the lobby directs is playing a huge role in limiting debate of Israel/Palestine in the U.S. What follows are several items. The first three are from the recent J Street conference, which prompted this post. The later items are recycled:
–If you look at Video 5 here from J Street, at Minute 48 or so, Congressman Bob Filner speaks openly about the financial threat to a politician in going against the Israel lobby. "Campaign contributions," he explains, are the reason "why you get 400 votes for these measures" in support of Israel. "An economic weapon?" moderator Bob Franken ventures. "Of course," Filner says, with feeling. "On the issue of Israel, people are taking positions that could lead to war on the basis of…’Am I going to get a campaign contribution?’… The dangerous thing here is that people are making decisions– you could have nuclear war in this whole world, and they’re making it on narrow political, parochial grounds."--Philip Weiss...Cont'd...LINK
Obama’s crumple cannot be explained without talking about that influence, and Obama’s/Rahm Emanuel’s fears for a second term. Some of this power is media/Establishment presence, to which I was long a personal witness. (And yes I wonder why Nina Totenberg referred to Emanuel as "Rahm" three times in a report last night on NPR.) Some of it is financial. As former AIPAC boss Tom Dine told Helena Cobban lately of a political epiphany he had on the Kennedy campaign in 1980: "[Jews] were the kings in every city!" The Jews were kings because of money. As I insist on stating, more than half of the money in Democratic politics comes from Jews, the richest group by religion in the U.S. The two baronial families that lifted Barack Obama in Chicago, the Crowns and the Pritzkers, are both Jewish (and one, the Crowns, includes fire-and-brimstone Israel supporters; I am not sure about the Pritzkers). Money is famously the mother’s milk of politics, and the money that the lobby directs is playing a huge role in limiting debate of Israel/Palestine in the U.S. What follows are several items. The first three are from the recent J Street conference, which prompted this post. The later items are recycled:
–If you look at Video 5 here from J Street, at Minute 48 or so, Congressman Bob Filner speaks openly about the financial threat to a politician in going against the Israel lobby. "Campaign contributions," he explains, are the reason "why you get 400 votes for these measures" in support of Israel. "An economic weapon?" moderator Bob Franken ventures. "Of course," Filner says, with feeling. "On the issue of Israel, people are taking positions that could lead to war on the basis of…’Am I going to get a campaign contribution?’… The dangerous thing here is that people are making decisions– you could have nuclear war in this whole world, and they’re making it on narrow political, parochial grounds."--Philip Weiss...Cont'd...LINK
Friday, November 13, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
GOP minority whip Cantor blatantly puts Israel first in speech to international Jewish assembly; pseudo-patriot Right doesn't bat an eye
(By Chris Moore) -- The only Jewish Republican in Congress claims Israel and world Jewry are in "mortal danger" and "dire straights," and that "Israel's security is synonymous with our own." He also wants someone to do something about Ahmadinejad, but is vague on whether that should be Israel or the U.S.; given the context of his speech, though, it appears he believes American Jewry should pressure Washington to pull the trigger on Iran. From JTA:
Imagine if a Muslim-American member of Congress who was an Islamist advocate of Muslim supremacism (as staunch Zionists are advocates of Israel-centered Jewish supremacism) declared that hostile forces were menacing Islam, putting it in mortal danger and dire straights, and that Islam's security was synonymous with America's own because there are significant numbers of Muslims living in America. Imagine he advocated sending U.S. troops to the Mideast to defend an Islamic caliphate. What would be the response on the Right? Indeed, what would be the response among the left-liberal intelligentsia?
On the Right, the airwaves and Internet would immediately light up with outraged hysteria, that person would be derided as a traitor, dragged through the mud as treasonous, and there would probably be demands to arrest him as a terrorist. The left-liberals wouldn't be quite so vociferous in their attacks, but most certainly would turn the screws until he was ground into disrepute.
Now contrast this with the complete absence of patriotic American reaction to Jewish Zionist Cantor's speech: Ho hum...business as usual...the man's a loyal Jewish nationalist...good for him...
Cantor said in his speech, "When we allow ourselves to be lulled into silence when political correctness beckons, it may be too late."
Oh, how very true. Americans have been lulled into silence and a failure to speak out against the agenda of Jewish nationalism and Jewish supremacism in the U.S. due, indeed, to the imperatives of political correctness. And the damage has been astronomical: attacked on 9/11 partly because of Washington's blank check support for Israel; manipulated and lied into wars in the Middle East in large part by and on behalf of Jewish nationalism and Israeli expansionism and security; the interests and heritage of average Americans domestically subordinated to those of the Jewish supremacist network and its collaborators;...the list is nearly endless.
So really, hasn't the time arrived to start treating Jewish nationalism in America as the hostile, alien force inimical to American interests, tradition, beliefs, principles and values that we consider "Islamofascism" to be? And if we have decided that Jewish-American nationalism isn't the threat it's cracked up to be, why haven't we granted Muslims the same benefit of the doubt? Is it because Jewish Zionists like Cantor and their war-profiteering comrades have been using their network to whip up hysteria against Islam since the end of the Cold War? Or is it because Jewish Zionist Americans are far more banal, wealthy, powerful and influential than their Islamist-American counterparts?
Either way, the "pass" granted to Jewish supremacism in the U.S. is anti-American artifice based on elitist sleight of hand and manufactured false consciousness, and thus, short of totalitarian imposition, simply cannot last much longer.
"Many men are pointing guns at Israel, indeed at Jews, everywhere," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor in Washington at the opening session of the Jewish Federations of North America's annual General Assembly. But, he said, "too many Jews have become desensitized" and believe "it can't happen to us"When a Jewish Zionist American engages in rhetoric like this in front of an international Jewish body, can Gentile-Americans be forgiven for asking whether Cantor's primary loyalties are to the interests and agenda of Zionist world Jewry ahead of the interests and agenda of America and the lives of its troops?
"When we dally and threat and wring our hands but fail to do anything to really stop" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "where are we then?"
Imagine if a Muslim-American member of Congress who was an Islamist advocate of Muslim supremacism (as staunch Zionists are advocates of Israel-centered Jewish supremacism) declared that hostile forces were menacing Islam, putting it in mortal danger and dire straights, and that Islam's security was synonymous with America's own because there are significant numbers of Muslims living in America. Imagine he advocated sending U.S. troops to the Mideast to defend an Islamic caliphate. What would be the response on the Right? Indeed, what would be the response among the left-liberal intelligentsia?
On the Right, the airwaves and Internet would immediately light up with outraged hysteria, that person would be derided as a traitor, dragged through the mud as treasonous, and there would probably be demands to arrest him as a terrorist. The left-liberals wouldn't be quite so vociferous in their attacks, but most certainly would turn the screws until he was ground into disrepute.
Now contrast this with the complete absence of patriotic American reaction to Jewish Zionist Cantor's speech: Ho hum...business as usual...the man's a loyal Jewish nationalist...good for him...
Cantor said in his speech, "When we allow ourselves to be lulled into silence when political correctness beckons, it may be too late."
Oh, how very true. Americans have been lulled into silence and a failure to speak out against the agenda of Jewish nationalism and Jewish supremacism in the U.S. due, indeed, to the imperatives of political correctness. And the damage has been astronomical: attacked on 9/11 partly because of Washington's blank check support for Israel; manipulated and lied into wars in the Middle East in large part by and on behalf of Jewish nationalism and Israeli expansionism and security; the interests and heritage of average Americans domestically subordinated to those of the Jewish supremacist network and its collaborators;...the list is nearly endless.
So really, hasn't the time arrived to start treating Jewish nationalism in America as the hostile, alien force inimical to American interests, tradition, beliefs, principles and values that we consider "Islamofascism" to be? And if we have decided that Jewish-American nationalism isn't the threat it's cracked up to be, why haven't we granted Muslims the same benefit of the doubt? Is it because Jewish Zionists like Cantor and their war-profiteering comrades have been using their network to whip up hysteria against Islam since the end of the Cold War? Or is it because Jewish Zionist Americans are far more banal, wealthy, powerful and influential than their Islamist-American counterparts?
Either way, the "pass" granted to Jewish supremacism in the U.S. is anti-American artifice based on elitist sleight of hand and manufactured false consciousness, and thus, short of totalitarian imposition, simply cannot last much longer.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Elie Wiesel-issued tweet 'on the GOP Tea Party's anti-Semitism and Holocaust comparisons: "This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting" '
LINK
Chris Moore asks: So according to Wiesel’s innuendo, the Tea Party participants are now to be regarded as a mob of anti-Semites?
Why is it that whenever an American populist uprising begins in earnest, no matter how moderate and well-behaved, the Zionist and Holocaust profiteering complex that is so integral to (and interwoven within) the corrupt establishment, immediately seeks to marginalize it as "anti-Semitic"? If those merely seeking just and competent governance and representation are anti-Semitic for having the temerity to exercise their democratic and Constitutional rights of assembly and expression, what does that say about those establishmentarians leveling the charge? That they despise democracy?
This contempt and hatred for average (goy) Americans seeking self-determination (as opposed to being treated by the establishment as dumb cattle unworthy of consideration) would certainly be consistent with the Judeofascist attitudes towards Gentiles, and the attitudes of Judeofascism’s elitist collaborators towards the American masses.
It seems Judeofascist contempt for the average folk may be virulent, and endemic among the new American elite.
Chris Moore asks: So according to Wiesel’s innuendo, the Tea Party participants are now to be regarded as a mob of anti-Semites?
Why is it that whenever an American populist uprising begins in earnest, no matter how moderate and well-behaved, the Zionist and Holocaust profiteering complex that is so integral to (and interwoven within) the corrupt establishment, immediately seeks to marginalize it as "anti-Semitic"? If those merely seeking just and competent governance and representation are anti-Semitic for having the temerity to exercise their democratic and Constitutional rights of assembly and expression, what does that say about those establishmentarians leveling the charge? That they despise democracy?
This contempt and hatred for average (goy) Americans seeking self-determination (as opposed to being treated by the establishment as dumb cattle unworthy of consideration) would certainly be consistent with the Judeofascist attitudes towards Gentiles, and the attitudes of Judeofascism’s elitist collaborators towards the American masses.
It seems Judeofascist contempt for the average folk may be virulent, and endemic among the new American elite.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Question of the day: Are Jewry's claims of being motivated by the pursuit of social justice merely an elaborate, power-grabbing ploy?
(By Chris Moore) -- Jewish leftists, socialists and liberals in the Diaspora have nearly invariably described themselves as on a mission for social justice, progress and equality. Yet whenever Jews have gained governmental authority in large numbers, they have leveraged that power in the service of authoritarian, police state abuses of the majority -- from the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia who used the soviet to direct the murder millions of dissidents, Christians and peasants, to the Jewish Zionists (many of them former Communists from Russia and Eastern Europe) who invaded the Levant and have been killing and terrorizing the natives there for decades since, to the ex-Marxist Jewish Neocons, and the Israel lobby, who have leveraged their influence in the U.S. to help engineer the invasion and subjugation of large swaths of the Mideast on behalf of Zionism and its war-profiteering tangents and partners.
Since Jewry have almost invariably abused their governmental authority and influence to the detriment of the Gentile majority, is it fair to conclude that most Jews who profess to be pursuing power on behalf of some higher egalitarian principle are merely utilizing sophisticated left-wing rhetorical techniques in order to manipulate and insinuate their way into influence with the ultimate goal of co-opting the "secular" State and using it as a bludgeon against those standing in the way of Jewry's ambitions?
Since Jewry have almost invariably abused their governmental authority and influence to the detriment of the Gentile majority, is it fair to conclude that most Jews who profess to be pursuing power on behalf of some higher egalitarian principle are merely utilizing sophisticated left-wing rhetorical techniques in order to manipulate and insinuate their way into influence with the ultimate goal of co-opting the "secular" State and using it as a bludgeon against those standing in the way of Jewry's ambitions?
Friday, November 06, 2009
Even as much of world endorses findings of Goldstone report, a few Zionist lackeys (including US Congress) continue to obstruct justice
(AntiWar.com) -- A 575-page blistering report by Justice Richard Goldstone detailing war crimes in Gaza last December is refusing to die despite an aggressive Israeli smear campaign to kill it. The report, which was favorably voted by the 47-member Human Rights Council in Geneva last month, received overwhelming support Thursday in the 192-member General Assembly. The vote was 114 in favor and 18 against, with 44 abstentions. The 18 countries that voted against the resolution included the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Israel. Ambassador Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, singled out Ireland, one of the few Western nations to vote for the resolution, for "supporting" it. He also noted that a "sizeable number of European nations" abstained on the resolution. Among the abstentions were Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Denmark and Greece...
Last month, the 15-member Security Council debated the report but refused to take a vote primarily because of the opposition by the United States, a veto-wielding member of the Council. In Geneva, the Human Rights Council endorsed the report last month by a vote of 25 in favor, six against, 11 abstentions and five no-shows. The report was also the subject of a vote Tuesday by the U.S. House of Representatives, traditionally sympathetic towards Israel. That vote, condemning the report, was 344 in favor and 36 against...Cont'd...LINK
Last month, the 15-member Security Council debated the report but refused to take a vote primarily because of the opposition by the United States, a veto-wielding member of the Council. In Geneva, the Human Rights Council endorsed the report last month by a vote of 25 in favor, six against, 11 abstentions and five no-shows. The report was also the subject of a vote Tuesday by the U.S. House of Representatives, traditionally sympathetic towards Israel. That vote, condemning the report, was 344 in favor and 36 against...Cont'd...LINK
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The strange Jewish-exceptionalist fascination with murderous narcissism and egotism extended to Alan Greenspan's hero Ayn Rand
(The Truth Will Set You Free) -- Right: Russian Jewish writer Ayn Rand (born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum), her "ideal man", axe murderer William Edward Hickman, and Hickman's 12 year old victim, Marion Parker, who Hickman kidnapped, raped and dismembered. Hickman stated that he wanted as much publicity as the then famous child murderers Leopold and Loeb.
From Slate.com:
The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.
Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."...Cont'd...LINK
From Slate.com:
The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.
Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."...Cont'd...LINK
Question of the day: What came first--Jewish supremacism or anti-Semitism?
(By Chris Moore) -- Are American Jewish exceptionlists, Jewish Zionists, Judeophile liberals and evangelist Zionists who single out Jews in general and the Jewish state in particular for special treatment (e.g. setting up the U.S. State Department Office of anti-Semitism, supporting Israel with an inordinate amount of U.S. aid and arms, which also serves as a de facto underwriting of Israeli nukes, rubber stamping vetoes of UN resolutions critical of Israel's abuse and discrimination against non-Jews as routine, encouraging American wars for Israel’s defense against America’s own best interests) engaged in formulaic singling out of Jews that is merely the flip side of formulaic anti-Semitism? How can Jewish-exceptionlists of any stripe object to the singling out of Jews by anyone when Jewish exceptionalism is behaviorism they reflexively engage in themselves?
Is there really any qualitative difference between an anti-Semite and a Jewish or gentile philo-Semite who claims Jewish mystical abilities or historical Jewish exceptionalism, and seeks to confer upon Jewry institutionalized rights and privileges by mere virtue of birth lines that are arbitrarily denied to gentiles for lack of Jewish lineage, or lack of a PR machine to publicize and broadcast their own “unique” histories or plight? Isn’t the entire Jewish uniqueness doctrine itself in fact prima-facie a form of anti-Semitism?
And isn't most so called "new anti-Semitism" merely a reaction by non Jewish-supremacists to contemporary attempts and successes by Jewish-supremacists and their gentile sycophants to internationally formalize and institutionalize doctrines of Jewish exceptionalism, and impose them upon non-Jews?
Is there really any qualitative difference between an anti-Semite and a Jewish or gentile philo-Semite who claims Jewish mystical abilities or historical Jewish exceptionalism, and seeks to confer upon Jewry institutionalized rights and privileges by mere virtue of birth lines that are arbitrarily denied to gentiles for lack of Jewish lineage, or lack of a PR machine to publicize and broadcast their own “unique” histories or plight? Isn’t the entire Jewish uniqueness doctrine itself in fact prima-facie a form of anti-Semitism?
And isn't most so called "new anti-Semitism" merely a reaction by non Jewish-supremacists to contemporary attempts and successes by Jewish-supremacists and their gentile sycophants to internationally formalize and institutionalize doctrines of Jewish exceptionalism, and impose them upon non-Jews?
Obama's about-face on Mideast peace: Yet another administration self-destructs by putting Israel and its U.S. lobby first
(Telegraph) -- Signalling an end to the brief flirtation with the Palestinian cause, the US secretary of state flew to Jerusalem to voice full American support for Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In an effort to repair badly strained US-Israeli relations, she heaped praise on Mr Netanyahu, lauding his offer to limit settlement construction – even though it falls well short of President Obama's original demands. She said: "What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements... is unprecedented in the context of prior to negotiations." Risking the ire of the Arab world, she also joined Israeli calls for an immediate Palestinian return to the negotiating table without preconditions. America's about-turn on the most contentious issue stalling a resumption of Middle East peace talks has delighted Israel. But it will also damage Mr Obama's reputation as a peacemaker for many Arabs, bolster critics who have accused him of naïvety and enhance a growing sense of betrayal in the Palestinian territories...Cont'd...LINK
Monday, November 02, 2009
Question of the day: Why is raising "Jewish Bolshevism" a faux pas, but the "anti-Semitism" charge a cause célèbre?
Since raising the historical fact of Soviet Jewish Bolshevism is considered by some to be in poor taste due to Hitler’s utilization of the connection between Jews and Stalinist mass murder as a partial rationale for the Holocaust, why aren’t reckless “anti-Semite” charges hurled by political Jewry and partisans considered in poor taste due to Stalin utilizing the “anti-Semite” accusation as a partial rationale for the Soviet-perpetrated holocaust? Is this yet another Jewish-exceptionalist double standard? -- Chris Moore
The weakest generation: Are effete WASPs atoning for "anti-Semitic" faux-pas through Israel blank checks, acquiescence to US wars for Israel?
(The American Conservative) -- After thumbing through The Israel Test, blogger Matthew Yglesias speculated that Gilder may be a kind of WASP who “likes Israel in part because he wishes American Jews would leave him alone and go live there instead.” This interpretation strikes me as insufficient. Perhaps a better one can be derived from Gilder’s final chapter, in which he paints a portrait of his artistically and financially successful ancestors and the upper-class WASP world in which he was raised. The focal point is an incident that occurred when he was about 17. While trying to impress an older girl, his summer tutor in Greek, he blurted out something mildly anti-Semitic. The young woman dryly replied that she was in fact “a New York Jew.” Gilder was mortified. He relates that he has never quite gotten over the episode. It is the kind of thing a sensitive person might long remember. Variations on this pattern are not uncommon in affluent WASP circles to this day: guilt or embarrassment at some stupid but essentially trivial episode of social anti-Semitism serve as a spur for fervent embrace of Likud-style Zionism. Atonement. It would not be surprising if a similar process helped to shape George W. Bush’s mentality...Cont'd...LINK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)