Crass Jewry unabashedly projects its warped sexual fetishes onto US society to the point of pornographic saturation and spiritual bankruptcy

From:
Sex and the Jews: Letter to a Jewish Correspondent
(Occidental Observer) -- by Dr Lasha Darkmoon --

...No class of men appears to be quite as sex-obsessed as the Orthodox Jews and the rabbinate. If you compare the religious texts of the various world religions, you will find that all of them — with the single exception of Judaism — maintain a high moral tone throughout. They don’t keep harping on about breasts and penises, prostitutes and semen. Judaism does.

Consider this inflammatory passage from the Hebrew English Bible, enough to bring a blush to any maidenly cheek:

There she lusted after her lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. (Ezekiel 23: 20-21).

The number of Victorian damsels who must have swooned away over that passage is probably beyond computation.

Turn to the Babylonian Talmud and you will find yourself suddenly transported into a hothouse world of indelicate anecdotes dealing specifically with prostitutes and their rabbinical (or yeshiva student) clients. There are so many of these stories in the Talmud that a special name had to be invented for them: aggadah. Though these instructive anecdotes touch on all conceivable topics, usually with a rabbi as the central figure, sex often looms large. It can certainly be argued that Judaism is more obsessed with sex than any other world religion. (Scroll down to “Contents”, here.)

One such story starts like this: “They said of Rabbi Elazar ben Dordia that he did not leave one prostitute in the world that he did not come to. One time he heard that there was a certain prostitute in a town by the sea who took a purse of dinars for her price. He took a purse of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her…” (Tractate Avodah Zara 17a). Another story begins: “There was once a man who heard that there was a prostitute in a town by the sea who took four hundred gold coins as her price. He sent to her four hundred gold coins and set a time to come to her. When his time came, he went. She said ‘Let him come in’. When he entered, she sat naked on the top bed…etc. etc. ” (Tractate Menachot, 44a)

The Talmud is full of such stories about rabbis and their students paying visits to prostitutes. Since the word “pornography” literally means “writing about prostitutes,” the Talmud is perhaps the only religious classic that could be described — in a literal sense — as pornographic.

We read in the Talmud of Rahab the harlot, for example, first mentioned in the book of Joshua. One of the most bewitching femmes fatales of antiquity, on a par with Helen of Troy and the fabulous Corinthian courtesan Lais mentioned by Demosthenes, the beautiful Rahab first began to sell her body at the age of ten. "There was no prince or ruler who had not slept with Rahab the prostitute," the Talmud informs us breathlessly. (Tractate Zavachim 116b).

The rabbis, being the religious rulers of the day, were among the first to enjoy this nubile nymphette’s favors. Pedophilia? Yes, the Talmud is full of it. We are told of this Jewish Lolita: "They [the rabbis] allow her an honored place in Jewish tradition....Her past as a harlot is not held against her, and is almost entirely forgotten once she converts to Judaism." (See here).

Nothing changes. Plus ça change. Pedophilia is okay, it seems, if you happen to be a Jewish rabbi or Roman Polanski — but not if you’re a Catholic priest.

Pedophilia is not the only sexual perversion to which the Talmud appears to be tolerant. There is also voyeurism. An interesting anecdote relates how Kahane, a yeshiva student, hides under his rabbi’s bed and eavesdrops on him making love to his wife. He is discovered there and severely reprimanded by his teacher who orders him to leave the room at once. The student refuses. “No, I won’t!” he says. “For this is Torah, and I must learn!”

The rabbi is forced to take this into consideration. Spying on people having sex is arguably okay if your motive for doing so is a passion for the Higher Knowledge. (See The Passionate Talmud, Introduction, p. 1).

Another section of the Talmud deals with bestiality. Widows are advised not to keep dogs. Why? “Because”, one is told, “there’s some suspicion about what a woman who’s already tasted the pleasures of the flesh might do with her pet.”

I am not exaggerating when I say that the Talmud’s obsession with sex is unique among world religions. Amazingly, it has to be the only religious text in the world to discuss and compare the penis size of its most venerated sages. (See The Passionate Talmud, Introduction, p. 1).

Fast forward to the 21st century and we find that the contemporary rabbinate can hardly be cited as models of sexual restraint.

Turn from the Talmud to Ilana Hammerman’s In Foreign Parts: Trafficking in Women in Israel and you will read harrowing accounts of Israel's contemporary sex-service industry. Innocent young girls, many of them underage, are kidnapped in Russia and Eastern Europe and forced into a life of prostitution in Tel Aviv. Locked up without food, subject to threats and violence by their Jewish pimps, these wretched girls are sometimes expected to sleep with up to sixty customers a day. Their most assiduous clients, sporting black hats and bushy beards, are “religious” Orthodox Jews taking a sabbatical from their wives.

Here is the kind of eye-popping revelation we come across in Hammerman’s shocking book:

I had a very famous rabbi who would come and order a girl to have sex with him in the doggie position, and would ask her to bark," a former brothel owner testified at a [Knesset] parliamentary committee. One of the working women, presented as a devout Christian, expresses an aversion to her religious clients: "They had a big black hat and under it [another] little black hat and they were real perverts. (See here).

According to a CNN report in 1998, Israel now has the highest per capita consumption of prostitute services in the world. One million visits are paid to prostitutes each month, making brothel hopping one of the nation’s most popular pastimes. Thousands of women are abducted annually — mostly from Russia, Ukraine, Moldavia, Uzbekistan and China — and sold into sex slavery in Israel. "The situation," Jewish author David Weinberg wrote in a 1998 article about prostitution in Israel, entitled Not So Holy Land, "is enough to make you cry in despair — or vomit from shame."

Jews certainly have sex on the brain.

“I’m such a sex machine,” Radio talk show host Howard Stern boasts. “I could take a piece of wood and turn it into something erotic.”

Woody Allen, loyal supporter of pedophile Roman Polanski, was accused by his estranged wife Mia Farrow of sexually abusing their 7-year-old daughter Dylan. Woody is best known today for his brilliant witticism: “Don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love.”
------------------------

------------------------
Hope Weissman, a Jewish professor at Wesleyan university in Connecticut, was the first to give a course on pornography in which her students were expected to “study” the most obscene pornographic magazines and witness a striptease performance by (Jewish) porn star Annie Sprinkle which may have included her famous routine of letting people peer up her vagina with a flashlight.

In 2001, Jewish professor Peter Singer put in a good word for bestiality at Princeton university, suggesting in an essay called Heavy Petting that one might like to get it on with a dog. Again in 2001, a Jewish community in England made big news when three strippers were invited to perform sexually explicit acts in a synagogue, possibly with the resident rabbi in full attendance.

In 1998, Israeli commentator Jonathan Rosenblum, noting that a CNN documentary had revealed that Israel now had the highest rate of prostitution in the world, had this to say: "Once again anti-Semites portray us as sexual libertines and perverts to undermine our moral authority. Today we cheerfully admit the charges.” (See here).

Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: any society that attracts large numbers of Jews can expect within a few years to enter a spiral of decadence. Moral anarchy sets in. Sexual promiscuity throws open its Pandora’s box of evils. We saw it in Weimar Germany. We see it gathering pace in America today. We see it above all in Israel, a society of fanatical settlers and rabid right-wing rabbis: a country surely doomed to implode from within, sooner or later, under the pressure of its own moral and military excesses.

I cannot help feeling that a great storm is brewing and that only a military coup or revolution can now save America. Save it from what? From the spiritual cancer that is consuming it from within, and from the foreign wars into which it is being lured — Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon perhaps Iran — on behalf of another nation and its indefatigable agents in America...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Jewish satirist Peter Sellers mocks Judeofascist Henry Kissinger and his Zionist lack of impulse control in Stanley Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove'

From:
"Mein Führer...! I can walk!!"
(YouTube.com) -- by prestoagitato2

Jewish Zionists from Israel to New York attempt to conceal Jewish theological foundations of their murderous enterprise from public view

From:
How To Kill Goyim And Influence People: Leading Israeli Rabbis Defend Manual for For Killing Non-Jews
(maxblumenthal.com) -- by Max Blumenthal --

When I went into the Jewish religious book emporium, Pomeranz, in central Jerusalem to inquire about the availability of a book called Torat Ha’Melech, or the King’s Torah, a commotion immediately ensued. “Are you sure you want it?” the owner, M. Pomeranz, asked me half-jokingly. “The Shabak [Israel's internal security service] is going to want a word with you if you do.” As customers stopped browsing and began to stare in my direction, Pomeranz pointed to a security camera affixed to a wall. “See that?” he told me. “It goes straight to the Shabak!”

As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha’Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book’s contents as “230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.” According to the book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, “Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder,” Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In January, Shapira was briefly detained by the Israeli police, while two leading rabbis who endorsed the book, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, were summoned to interrogations by the Shabak. However, the rabbis refused to appear at the interrogations, essentially thumbing their noses at the state and its laws. And the government did nothing. The episode raised grave questions about the willingness of the Israeli government to confront the ferociously racist swathe of the country’s rabbinate. “Something like this has never happened before, even though it seems as if everything possible has already happened,” Israeli commentator Yossi Sarid remarked with astonishment. “Two rabbis [were] summoned to a police investigation, and announc[ed] that they will not go. Even settlers are kind enough to turn up.”

In response to the rabbis’ public rebuke of the state’s legal system, the Israeli Attorney General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kept silent. Indeed, since the publication of Torat Ha’Melech, Netanyahu has strenuously avoided criticizing its contents or the author’s leading supporters. Like so many prime ministers before him, he has been cowed into submission by Israel’s religious nationalist community...


The disturbing philosophy expressed in Torat Ha’Melech emerged from the fevered atmosphere of a settlement called Yitzhar located in the northern West Bank near the Palestinian city of Nablus. Shapira leads the settlement’s Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, holding sway over a small army of fanatics who are eager to lash out at the Palestinians tending to their crops and livestock in the valleys below them. One of Shapira’s followers, an American immigrant named Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze’ev Sternhell with a mail bomb. Teitel is suspected of many more murders, including an attack on a Tel Aviv gay community center.

Despite its apparent role as a terror training institute, Od Yosef Chai has raked in nearly fifty thousand dollars from the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs since 2007, while the Ministry of Education has pumped over 250 thousand dollars into the yeshiva’s coffers between 2006 and 2007. The yeshiva has also benefited handsomely from donations from a tax-exempt American non-profit called the Central Fund of Israel. Located inside the Marcus Brothers Textiles store in midtown Manhattan, the Central Fund transferred at least thirty thousand to Od Yosef Chai between 2007 and 2008...

Despite his longstanding involvement in terrorism, or perhaps because of it, Shapira counts Israel’s leading fundamentalist rabbis among his supporters. His most well-known backer is Dov Lior the leader of the Shavei-Hevron yeshiva at Kiryat Arba, a radical Jewish settlement near the occupied Palestinian city of Hebron and a hotbed of Jewish terrorism. Lior has vigorously endorsed Torat Ha’Melech, calling it “very relevant, especially in this time.”

Lior’s enthusiasm for Shapira’s tract stems from his own eliminationist attitude toward non-Jews. For example, while Lior served as the IDF’s top rabbi, he instructed soldiers: “There is no such thing as civilians in wartime… A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail!” Indeed, there are only a few non-Jews whose lives Lior would demand to be spared. They are captured Palestinian militants who, as he once suggested, could be used as subjects for live human medical experiments...MORE...LINK

NY Times keeps rehashing old Jewish "liberal" trick of scapegoating religious Jews for crimes committed by the Jewish nationalist entirety

From:
NYT Op-Ed offers tiresome dichotomy of good Zionists vs bad religious settlers
(Mondoweiss) -- by Matthew Taylor --

Gadi Taub's NYT oped on the coming negotiations is so problematic, ahistorical, Israeli-centric, and rife with elisions, it reads like... well... a lot of other stuff cluttering the pages and electrons of said publication.

It leads off with the rhetorical question, "Will Israel remain a Zionist state?" - as if this is the most important issue to be tackled at the talks. Not "Will the systematic and willful oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian people finally come to an end?" (Which all sane observers are doubtful will be the result.) Then he sets up the Zionist left's desperate, tiresome good guys vs. bad guys frame: the pious seculars vs. the evil religious nuts.

The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state.

David Ben-Gurion and his allies also orchestrated what can only be described as a "fundamentally democratic" ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians, which "set them free" from their home, their lands, their lives....

Taub contrasts his Ben-Gurion good guys with the loathsome bad guys:

This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers’ movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different.... Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his father’s theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible.

Wait a second... The colonization of the West Bank has been a national project of every government of Israel for decades.

Whether Likud or Labor, so-called "left, "center," or "right," all Israeli governments have devoted massive financial, military, and human resources to the expulsion of Palestinians, confiscation of their farmlands, demolition of their homes, and construction of illegal settlements. But that's an inconvenient fact for Taub, who wants to blame the religious kooks. He then glorifies the secular Zionists some more:

Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.

Notice he doesn't mention Ben-Gurion here. Ben-Gurion never doubted that his militias must expel the multitudes of indigenous Arabs in order to fulfill his dream (their nightmare) of an artificial Jewish majority.

Palestinians inside Israel have never had "full and equal rights." From day one Israel has treated Palestinians as second class citizens if that -- see, for example, the Association of 40 unrecognized Palestinian villages inside Israel that still, 60 years later, seek recognition and basic social services like garbage collection. Several Palestinian orgs inside Israel are trying to get the country to (finally) adopt a constitution to protect their rights.

On the subject of apartheid, Taub's op-ed rambles on about how there's no apartheid now, but there will be someday soon if the pernicious religious settlers get their way. What, I'd like to ask Taub, do you anticipate the settlers would do that they aren't doing already, that would get you to call it apartheid? No doubt, you will return to the NYT and write a new oped entitled "Now it's finally apartheid, and it's all the fault of the religious settlers -- but not the government of Israel of course." Taub also claims that if (?) Israel becomes an apartheid state, "Israel will betray the beliefs it was founded on." Maybe Martin Buber's beliefs, but certainly not Ben-Gurion's, who insisted on Israel as a de facto apartheid state from the very beginning - how else to describe the impact of ethnic cleansing on those who are not allowed to return to their homes, not recognizing Palestinian villages, differing social services, etc.?

Predictably, Taub busts out that time-worn line of hasbara about how Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza was an anti-settlement move, ignoring of course that it was a ploy to solidify Israel's hold on the West Bank, as Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass proudly proclaimed.

But the most outrageous elision above all elisions is that Taub skips a chance to report some real news in his oped, about how far senior religious settler leaders have gone: calling for genocide of the Palestinians...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

NewsBusters rips CNN and MSM for venerating dumbed-down, "mutant" version of Christianity, but censors who's REALLY behind the golem

From:
CNN Advocates Watered-down Politically Correct Christianity
(NewsBusters) -- by Candance Moore --

CNN on Friday disgustingly advocated for a watered-down, more politically correct version of Christianity.

Highlighted at its website was research from a Princeton theology professor on the state of Christianity among teenagers. The study found that American churches have fallen for PC feel-good morality that's afraid of confrontation - and the result is a generation unable to distinguish Christianity from simple theism.

The author of the study, Kenda Creasy Dean, said the process was "depressing" as she interviewed one Christian after another describing God as a "therapist" who exists to validate their "self-esteem." Worse yet, many of them could not give a coherent explanation of the Gospel, content with a general belief that God wants them to "feel good and do good."

And in MSM newsrooms across the fruited plain, there was much rejoicing. Incessant pressure to water down Christianity has finally paid off.

CNN reporter John Blake wrote a piece on the sad phenomenon with no introspection as to who might be causing it:

If you're the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning:

Your child is following a "mutant" form of Christianity, and you may be responsible.

Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls "moralistic therapeutic deism." Translation: It's a watered-down faith that portrays God as a "divine therapist" whose chief goal is to boost people's self-esteem.

...Hmmm, why on Earth would pastors feel pressure to promote a gospel of niceness? Why would they be afraid of making their communities angry? Blake was clueless. There was no more discussion of the PC culture, no research into who came up with spineless Christianity...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The article goes on to lament the left-liberal MSM and Hollywood sabotage of Christianity in general and evangelical Christianity in particular, but of course fails to note that the most powerful force in mainstream media is organized Jewry.

At one point, the article even ads:

When faced with evidence of systematic cultural mocking toward Christianity, liberals' fallback argument is to claim that all religions are scorned in American media. Yet some religions seem to be more hated than others.

Try searching for a list of anti-Muslim movies on New York Magazine's website. Or anti-Wiccan. Or anti-Hindu. Hollywood projects that mock those faiths are not so highly celebrated.

Yes, and where are the Hollywood projects that mock the Jewish faith? Why, they're even less "celebrated" than the others. Why might this be?

Perhaps it's because, as the L.A. Times' Joel Stein bragged in 2008, "Jews totally run Hollywood."

When is NewsBusters going to "bust out" that fact? Its entire professed mission is "to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias," but somehow it never manages to get to the Jewish Zionists at the root of that liberal bias, who use liberal media and left-liberalism in America to keep Americans and Christians dumbed down, manipulated, disorganized, soft and off balance even as those same Jews prescribe and defend religious conservatism and even theocracy for their Jewish cousins in Israel.

Americans need to root out liberal media bias, alright; and the even more powerful Zionist media bias as well. But don't look to NewsBusters for the latter. They're far more interested in inciting American wars for Israel against Islam.

By the way, doesn't the critic's reference to "mutant" Christianity more strongly suggest criticism of "Judeo-Christianity" than anything else, particularly in light of inferences that Christianity has become therapeutic and neurotic, and now "portrays God as a 'divine therapist'"?

Indeed, such a neurotic golem version of Christianity might be one that Jewish narcissist Woody Allen would conjure. And given their propensity to ridicule and degrade Christianity, there's little doubt all those squirming Jewish Zionist minds that have saturated MSM are really not that much different than his own.

At his core, Judeofascist-Right standard-bearer Netanyahu is driven by irrational, hypocritical, racist anti-Christian animus

From:
Like Father, Like Son
(The Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

The War Party is beating the drums again, and much of the media is obediently falling into line. Jeffrey Goldberg, whose article for the New Yorker was an important part of the disinformation campaign that was so central to the successful neocon push for the Iraq war, is leading the charge once again. His recent Atlantic article, “The Point of No Return,” is a brief for another war, this time with Iran. Rather than present his own doubtless warmongering views, he slants his article as objective reportage on the mindset of Israel’s leaders, particularly Benjamin Netanayahu’s “belief … that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.

“Duty-bound”? That’s quite a sense of duty. The world has a duty to deal with a regime whose overt animus is directed at Israel, and if it doesn’t, Israel will do it itself. Goldberg claims that a military strike is also favored by Arab states, a point cogently disputed by Marc Lynch writing in Atlantic. In any case it’s a bit difficult to believe that “Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran.” How about America’s standing in the region depending on its ability to pressure Israel from its expansionist aims and end Israeli oppression of the Palestinians?Nah, the Arabs could care less about that.

In any case, one still wonders how attacking Iran is in the interests of the US or the rest of the world. But of course, interest is irrelevant. That’s the thing about duties. When one has a duty, self-interest and personal desire are irrelevant. You have a duty. Be a good soldier. Do it and don’t ask questions. End of story.

Goldberg never tells us why the US has a duty to initiate a military strike against Iran (although one can infer it has something to do with the Holocaust). So his main thrust is to show that Netanyahu would do it unilaterally if the US won’t. And why is Netanyahu so gung-ho on war? It’s because of the influence of his father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu: “To understand why Netanyahu possesses this deep sense—and why his understanding of Jewish history might lead him to attack Iran, even over Obama’s objections—it is necessary to understand Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.”

The senior Netanyahu is a premier example of a Jewish academic ethnic activist. Goldberg informs us that he was Vladimir Jabotinsky’s secretary. Jabotinsky was the father of racial Zionism and the inspiration of the terrorist wing of Zionism prior to 1948. Since that time, Jabotinsky has been the inspiration for the pro-expansion, pro-settler Likud Party—racial Zionism in all but name. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

Goldberg describes Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s most important work, The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain (1995), as follows: “He argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was spurred by the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood; it was proto-Nazi thought, in other words, not mere theology, that motivated the Inquisition. Ben-Zion also argued that the Inquisition corresponds to the axiom that anti-Semitic persecution is preceded, in all cases, by carefully scripted and lengthy dehumanization campaigns meant to ensure the efficient eventual elimination of Jews. To him, the lessons of Jewish history are plain and insistent.”

Netanyahu’s apologetic account of the Spanish Inquisition is a major topic of Chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents (”Rationalization and Apologia: The Intellectual Construction of Judaism”), including especially a long appendix. I remember when I first read his work that I was struck at how baldly apologetic it was—up front and in your face. One reviewer referred to his “almost mystical jeremiads against the Inquisitors” — not exactly the mark of an objective historian.

Basically, it’s the same old story: the behavior of Jews is irrelevant to the hostility people have against them. In this case, he tried to show that the Jews who converted to Christianity were sincere in their beliefs so that the Inquisition was at bottom racialist. I accept that some of the New Christians may have been sincere (and even Netanyahu admits that some were not). But I point out that, whatever their beliefs, there is a lot of evidence that the New Christians continued to intermarry and retain all the other ingroup connections that have always characterized Jews. The result was that an ethnically alien group came to dominate Spanish society even though it had adopted a surface of Christianity. In other words, Jewish racialism came first, followed by the Inquisition as a reaction. In the absence of surface religious differences, the only clue the Inquisition had was suspicion based on their ethnic ties—limpieze de sangre. Ethnicity matters as a point of conflict, even when people have the same surface beliefs.

One of Netanyahu’s comments made an indelible impression because it depicted Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of princely “massive exploitation”—a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes in traditional societies...

One would think on the basis of his portrayal of Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of massive exploitation in alliance with corrupt elites that Netanyahu would realize the rationality of traditional anti-Jewish attitudes. However, there is little evidence of that, and certainly his treatment of the motives behind the Inquisition strongly suggest that he thinks Jews are blameless. (I can’t resist pointing out the parallel to our current situation—that our new American elite is substantially composed of ethnically conscious Jews with a heavy sprinkling of corrupt White people with no allegiance or loyalty to their own people—exactly the Jewish formula for success in traditional societies.)...MORE...LINK

Authoritarian Left apparatchiks in blogosphere and MSM use censorship to shield their Judeofascist commissar masters from liberal criticism

From:
‘Firedoglake’ is progressive– just don’t talk about Palestine(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

Here is an important matter that I have been sitting on for days and that people who care about American support for Palestinian oppression need to be aware of: the extent to which Firedoglake, a leading progressive site, suppresses criticism of Israel. The battle demonstrates that even inside the left, the Israel lobby is a strong force. Indeed, the founder of the site, movie producer Jane Hamsher, has dismissed concern for Palestinians as a "pet issue."

As I have said often, our country cannot make progress on this critical policy issue until people who care about Palestinian freedom find one another and make a political combination to take on the Israel lobby. And one way we will find one another is by taking on the corruption inside the left when it comes to human rights in Palestine.

The latest evidence of FDL's entrenchment is an exchange yesterday at Firedoglake's community site, The Seminal. An FDL author whom I follow-- Kathleen Galt, who writes under the name Leen and for whom Palestine is front and center-- did a post called "Change?" saying that Israel/Palestine continues to be off limits for the liberal mainstream media:

Does the Israeli Palestinian conflict, expanding illegal settlements, humiliation of Palestinians, bulldozing of Palestinians homes, destruction of Palestinian olive trees, continue to be off limits to so called progressive MSM host like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Dylan Ratigan, Ed etc? I think this critical issue is still off limits to most MSM outlets.

Galt did a search of several progressive broadcasts and found not a peep about Palestine.

"So my question is this. Do folks think that anything has changed about the amount, depth, honesty of coverage by our T.V. MSM over the last several years? Has anything changed?"

In the subsequent comment thread, Galt complained that leftwing blogs were also blindered. And she specifically mentioned Rayne, the moderator of The Seminal.

I am also very interested in which so called progressive sites were blocked to discussing this critical issue, which sites drug their progressive feet on the issue, demanded higher standards of definitions of terms “zionism” than they demand of other over used general terms? Selective discrimination etc of certain issues but not others. Avoid having their heavy hitters or bringing on a heavy hitter to blog about this critical issue every week? Blog clogs of sorts specifically clogged on this issue.

Crooks and Liars has been closed down to this issue from the beginning, Huffington Post has opened up...

Still wondering why Rayne has specifically targeted this topic and is demanding higher standards for this issue more so than any other issue?

Rayne responded with a sharp rebuke:

...Let’s make this perfectly clear again that you are not an editor, moderator, site owner or host at this site, and that simply because you personally feel an issue should be handled in a particular fashion doesn’t mean it’s going to happen as you demand.

Give some thought to the possibility that your constant harangue about the manner in which this site operates drives off others — readers, commenters, diarists alike — who may not want to encourage your posts and posts like yours by recommending them.

Inside the last several weeks you’ve already attacked the owner/founder of the FDL family of sites for not fulfilling your personal expectations. You did not take the hint at the time about your behavior. And don’t think I haven’t seen your terse comments directed at me, either. This is yet another warning to you that you need to focus on subjects of your choice, stop haranguing the site’s policies and operations, or risk moderation....

...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Hitler was a Judeofascist!

Solid DNA evidence of Hitler's Jewish ancestry puts statist-authoritarian dictator and his Zionist-like obsession with race and blood in new light:

Zionist operatives in America mask or downplay their Jewish identity (in order to hide their true agenda)

From:
I wish Jewish journalists would emulate Aslan and Zakaria in being transparent about their religious identity
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

One of the interesting things about the debate about the Islamic center near Ground Zero is that American Muslim journalists have offered confessions about their identity in taking a stand in favor of the mosque/center. I have heard Reza Aslan and Fareed Zakaria speak openly about their degree of Muslim orthodoxy-- low in both cases. Zakaria said that he drinks alcohol. Aslan said something about his secularization.

These confessions are helpful and admirable. They help listeners (both situations were broadcast interviews) make an assessment of the merit of his ideas based upon their own life choices, for the journalists are explaining how they've responded to the strong dictates of authority in their lives. I think, I'd be like that if I were a Muslim.

I wish that more Jewish journalists would do this when they are talking about Zionism.

Even Peter Beinart's landmark piece attacking the Jewish leadership on Israel said nothing about his own degree of religiosity/his own Jewish identity. Well Beinart is an orthodox Jew. I learned that from some other journalist. It would be helpful to readers to know just how religious a person is in assessing his or her views on a fundamentally religious/political issue, the Jewish connection to Jerusalem. I can't remember Gershom Gorenberg offering this confession, at least since his first book on Jerusalem. I can't remember David Frum or Richard Perle or Douglas Feith offering it when they were pushing the Iraq war or talking about Palestinian terror. I can't remember Paul Berman ever saying a word about his religious identification, even as he trashes Muslims as terrorists.

Elliott Abrams certainly offered his confession of Jewish identity, in a book of 1997 on the subject, but he only did it because he didn't imagine being back in politics when he wrote the book. David Brooks recently offered a confession about his Jewish identity, that he gets "gooey-eyed" whenever he goes to Israel. But that was about it.

I can't remember a time when Richard Cohen, the pro-Israel columnist for the Washington Post, explained his degree of Jewish identification.

Tony Judt, by comparison, openly described his degree of Jewish identification, when he was criticizing the Jewish state. We knew that he was intermarried, we knew about his own falling out with Zionism. He understood that Jewish identity confronting multicultural modernity was a significant part of the problem here-- as Muslim identity confronting modernity is a part of the problem on the other side.

I venture that one reason the Muslim journalists make these confessions is that they lack power in the political equation (the mosque debate) and they are trying to win people to their side. They feel like outsiders. By contrast, Peter Beinart and David Frum don't lack power. And the powerful tend to be more assumptive. They don't interrogate themselves. They say, Well we are all for Israel; everyone in the establishment is for Israel...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Related: Fascinating article on crypto-Jews:

Opinion of Israel in U.S. sinks like a rock; Could what Zionists call "anti-Semitism" actually be staving off yet another Judeofascist-instigated war?

From:
SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL SAGS IN US
(National Prayer Network) -- by Rev. Ted Pike --

Israel and its PR arm, the Anti-Defamation League, claim that, despite worldwide condemnation of Israel’s attack on the “Free Gaza” flotilla on May 31, support for Israel among the American people remains robust.

Yet early this month, concerned leaders of Israel met to consider a recent Israel-endorsed poll which showed that, as the result of a month of controversy following Israel’s raid, American belief that we need Israel as an ally plunged from 63 percent to 51 percent. “The survey was carried out by pollster and strategist Stanley Greenberg and sponsored by the American-Jewish organization The Israel Project which organizes and executes pro-Israel campaigns with a focus on North America. Greenberg, along with Israel Project heads, presented the poll's findings to senior Israeli officials including President Shimon Peres…” ("U.S. Support for Israel is Decreasing, New Poll Shows," Haaretz, August 10)

If that 12-percent decline is representative of American attitudes in general, it means that, primarily as a result of Israel’s attack, almost 37 million Americans changed their minds, deciding to no longer reflexively support Israel. Result: Nearly one in two Americans (over 150 million) would answer negatively the poll's question, “Does the US need to support Israel?”

Greenberg's poll also reveals a sharp decline in Americans' belief in the sincerity of the government of Israel. Haaretz says that “…in December of 2007, 60 percent of respondents said the [Israeli] government…was committed to peace with the Palestinians.” By July, 2010, one month after the raid, “only 45 percent of Americans said they felt Netanyahu was committed to the peace process.”

“Greenberg has analyzed the poll results and says that the section of the American public where Israel is most rapidly losing support is among liberal Americans who align themselves with the Democratic party.”

Israel is having to face the fact that not only Europeans but also millions of Americans do not buy Israel’s spin that Israeli commandoes, armed with machine guns, were innocently victimized by kitchen knife and baton-wielding activists when they boarded the largest vessel, the Mavi Mamara. Clearly, millions reject Israel's claim she had no option but to shoot more than 50 with live ammunition, killing nine...

According to the Greenberg poll, “anti-Semitism” is very high in Europe with 50 percent of Germans experiencing “very cold” or “unfavorable” feelings toward Israel; 49 percent of Swedes feel “cold” or “very cold” toward the Jewish state. ADL/Israel claim such antipathy is stimulating acts of bigotry and violence against Jews in Europe. Of course, it is deplorable when, in reaction to Israel’s arrogance and inhumanity toward the Palestinians, violence erupts against innocent Jews. The reality, however, is that, unless the world’s righteous indignation rises, there is little to restrain Israel from further violations of human rights, international law and UN resolutions. Israel will only expand illegal settlements, expropriating and further persecuting the Palestinians, as well as militarily violating national boundaries of its neighbors and carrying out foreign assassinations.

Over the past several weeks, Israel has been poised with a very itchy trigger finger, straining for an opportunity to attack Iran. Iran is doing what most nations of Europe have been forced into: emerge from inefficient fossil fuel sources of the “green” late 20 th century and return to the nuclear power alternative. Israel, however, says Iran really wants to make atomic weapons to destroy Israel. Such WMDs are what Israel also convinced us Saddam Hussein possessed, persuading America to launch military action in Iraq 10 years ago. Such weapons didn't exist. Following 9/11, Israel also intensely encouraged America that we could destroy Osama bin Laden and end the Islamic terrorist threat in Afghanistan. Actually, in all these ploys Israel has only one intention: utilizing America's military might to make the Mid-East safe for Israel. The cost in American lives and suffering is unimportant. America went seriously astray by believing Israel to be credible then. Will we continue to do so?

It could well be that, had it not been for the restraining influence of negative world opinion, Israel might now be plunging the Mid-East and America into a new dimension of Mid-East conflagration with truly catastrophic global consequences. Israel may be held back now only because its government is terrified of even more bad PR.

It is clear that, in cases of Israel’s clearest wrongdoing, constructive criticism is the furthest thing from actual anti-Semitism.

Such criticism of Israel is good...MORE...LINK

The Samson option: Are Jewish anti-Zionists the new prophets?

(Comment Compilation, By Chris Moore) -- It seems there are more than a few Jews who sincerely believe that Jewry indeed brings nearly all of the s**t storms it regularly inspires straight down upon its own head. They should know, and I would trust an anti-Zionist Jew’s analysis on the subject way before I would trust any Zionist Jew’s, because the anti-Zionist Jew is the one who is usually merely hoping to survive or prevent what he knows will be the inevitable blowback that domineering Jewry and its totalitarian quest will inevitably bring down upon all Jews.

Thus, who are the true Jewish heroes? The Jewish “anti-Semites” (or so called). And the prophets were rejected in their own time by Jewry as well. Supremacist Jewry is apparently allergic to truth.

***

It’s a bit of conundrum for Jewry. To “survive” through the centuries, it’s had to make itself impervious to criticism by adopting a group sociopathic narcissism. But it’s that same narcissism that is today turning it into an international pariah.

But “survival” for modern Jewry seems to be something very different than how others define the word. For modern Jewry, survival seems to correlate with lording over non-Jews in some way, and finding ways to manipulate, exploit, plunder and even murder them in a way so that everybody knows what they are doing, but isn’t in a position to do anything about.

For example, many knew Jewry was behind the Iraq war scam, but no one could do anything about it because it has the Political Class triangulated; same goes for the various epic financial swindles. And as KM noted, often this means forming a useful alliance with a corrupt elite looking to plunder its own people; Jews make the perfect partners, because they have mastered all the sleight of hand tricks, and won’t show any pity for the Goyim, whom they hate anyway.

The other point about Jewish “survival” is that modern Jewry has always polarized itself from non-Jews deliberately. Its polarizing attitude is written into and inherent in its Talmudic religion. This is how it maintains its hard core. The Jews that get disgusted by this, throw up their hands and walk away are merely viewed as a cost of doing business, and unworthy of being Jews anyway.

There is now a growing army of these, and many of them are out for blood — yet another example in a long litany of how Jewry goes through a constant cycle of digging its own grave. On some level, I think it resents its burden and wants an end.

***

For what its worth, I think Norman Finkelstein is legitimately anti-Zionist. The man was blacklisted out of his job at DePaul University by Zionists. He’s bitter, and seems to hate them with a vengeance. And there are others. Phil Weiss, for example. And Gilad Atzmon, who is regularly attacked as a full blown “anti-Semite.”

In all these cases, some of their anti-Zionism flows from their left-wing politics, but reading between the lines, it’s clear they know the score. (In the case of Atzmon, one doesn’t even need to read between the lines.) And often their anti-Zionism trumps their left-wing politics. For example, Weiss recently did a blog pointing up that Obama has basically been surrounded by Jewish money and handlers going back to his Chicago days.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/jewish-voter-meme-is-journalistic-mystification.html

It’s not in the interests of Lefties to point this out, but he did it anyway.

I think Jewish anti-Zionists are going to be crucial in the fight to throw off the Zionist yoke, and should be welcomed and encouraged in the cause (but short of accepting their left-wing politics, of course).

***

What Jewish anti-Zionists demonstrate is that White anti-Zionists aren’t just a bunch of raving anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.

One of modern Jewry’s most effective tricks is to declare of critics, “Oh, they’re just anti-Semites out to get us and have always been.”

When their own children start setting out to “get” them, it becomes clear there’s something profoundly wrong with their culture.

***

Many Jews hate Whites (consciously or sub-consciously) for the same reason White/Western/Christian-conscious Whites hate Jews: they see them as trying to eliminate their race and culture. Many left-wing Jews who are anti-White are catering to that race-preservation impulse, whether they acknowledge it or not. And it’s not totally irrational.

But the reason I don’t have much sympathy is that hateful, scurrilous and subversive modern Jewish culture and behavior is what inspires White/Western/Christian contempt towards Jewry to begin with. As I said above, on some level, elements of Jewry appear to be trying to do themselves in by relentlessly sticking it to their hosts, decade after decade, century after century, every chance they get; and they can't seem to help themselves.

In a weird aping of this pathology, perhaps Finkelstein and certain other left-wing, anti-White, Jewish anti-Zionists have elected for the Samson option, only for the entire West instead of just Jewry; but that doesn’t make their critiques of Jewry any less valid. Indeed, it demonstrates how Jewish pathologies continue to haunt those who can't quite let a Judeo identity go -- Jew, Gentile, Left-wing or Right-wing alike.

It's no accident that America, under a Judeo-Left and a Judeo-Right synthesised Political Class and cultural identity, is slouching towards an apocalyptic self-destruction. Hopefully the long dormant Christian West can rise again to meet the challenge of this lumbering Frankenstein monstrosity and put an end to its madness before the Judeo Class manages to start World War III.

From Bolshevik Russia to Neocon America to Zionist Israel: Judeofascists use duped "secular" bodyguard to advance Jewish supremacist agenda

From:
The Israeli right’s secret strategy to promote ‘Greater Israel’
(Mondoweiss) -- by Shalom Boguslavsky --

“I think I will always want to stay behind the scenes. I think that’s where I have the greatest influence. When everyone else is busily thinking about what to say on stage, I’m busily building the stage, [deciding] who actually listens to you. After they start listening, then we can talk about what we’ll say.”

- Moshe Klughaft, in an interview to Israel’s Channel 7 television.

Introducing Moshe Klughaft: Forbes magazine has crowned him the second most influential strategic consultant in Israel, and one of the 300 most influential young adults. He is the man behind the campaigns against the New Israel Fund, both the one by Im Tirzu and the Arab Gas campaign...

Klughaft is a man of many talents and schemes, but it seems that the thing that most concerns him is how to convey the right wing, religious message to secular people in their own language. Here is a quote, straight from the horse’s mouth:

For religious Zionism and the right, in general, even to penetrate the public, they must move into the colorful, secular rhetoric of the playing field they are in. What you think and how you see the world is nice, but when you get to this specific playing field of politics, of public action, you have to play by the rules that suit the place you are in.

In the two years following the disengagement, which is when planning started for the coordinated attack against everything that bears even the faintest scent of democracy, this point became critical. We are beginning to feel the results on this campaign only now. The leaders of the right wing religious public, the public which sees itself following Rabbi Kook as the 'vanguard' and the secular public as the 'troops', looked back and saw that the troops were no longer with them. In demonstrations against disengagement, almost all demonstrators wore yarmulkes, which is a hallmark of identification with the religious right.

This led to a strengthening of the separatist, ultra-orthodox wing, which has stopped seeing the Zionist state as “the beginning of redemption” and instead preaches right wing post-Zionism. According to this belief, secular Zionism has finished its job and it is now time for a “faith-based revolution”. The more traditional right wing, represented in the “Yesha council” settler leadership, which believes that secular people have a role in the divine plan as “the ass on which the Messiah shall ride upon” understood that the new trend distances secular people from the right wing. If it were to continue, the right wing would stop leading the country and become a marginal faction, just another one of many religious factions. Israel Harel along with his secular disciple Ronen Shoval have both stated that the rise of the ultra-orthodox nationalist post-Zionism is what called them to action.

It is important to understand how the religious right reads reality. Most of the Israeli public leans to the right, but it is a pragmatic right. In other words, it is a right which could, following various real-world constraints, declare its support for two states for two nations, freeze construction of the settlements, et cetera. In contrast, as far as the religious right is concerned, it is not some constraint of reality that leads to this but rather “a weakness of resolve” on the one hand and subversive elements of impurity that have lodged themselves in powerful focus points: civil society organizations, the academic world, the media, and the courts, on the other hand.

They believe the Jewish nation, which Rabbi Kook portrays as a direct delegation of divine presence onto the world, was contaminated by that riffraff and exchanged Messianic zeal with a passion for the comforts of secular life. They are of the opinion that when the Nation of Israel is committed to their vision the constraints of reality will have no meaning. The leaders of this group came to the understanding that in order to salvage the religious right, secular people must be recruited, ones who are not interested in messianic theology but self-identify as Zionists and are open to the idea that the problems of Israel are not due to stupid policy but rather, to internal subversiveness.

How do you do it? Like this: “You have to make this arena into an exciting one, you just have to. You have to bring in people so that some will say one thing and some will say another. You have to have it be exciting, colorful, to get people to talk about you, to evoke arguments, to have factions leaning this way and that,” said Moshe Klughaft. He has long since developed a theory of “in disunion there is strength." According to Klughaft, decisions like the Gaza disengagement were made possible because secular people supported parties like Shinui and the Retired Citizens Party, who did not declare a policy in matters of state, and these parties won votes due to other issues, but when it came down to brass tacks, they voted for what he saw as a left-wing policy. The religious right must deploy niche organizations and parties which are attractive to a broad secular public which would, at the moment of truth, vote for the Greater Eretz Yisrael. Pay attention to this: “Do you want to preserve Eretz Yisrael? Wipe it off your map! If it is important, shut up and don’t talk about it.”

That is why the Institute of Zionist Strategy, who established the Yesha Council, and its subsidiary, Im Tirzu, whose opinions on this matter are also well known, consistently avoid taking a stand on the matter of Greater Eretz Yisrael and object so vociferously when anyone tries to mark them as “right wing” organizations. No, they deal in “Zionist consciousness”, in strengthening the flagging national spirit, and in battling that very same riffraff (which would translate as “post Zionists”, when spoken in secular vernacular) which contaminates them: mainly democratic organizations, the academic world, the media, and the courts...MORE...LINK

Pot, kettle...Zionist Dr. Laura says Blacks too sensetive about word "nigger"

From:
Dr Laura Racist Remarks? Uses N Word 11 times
(YouTube.com) -- by theneDOTws --



-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Judeofascists and Judeo-Christian Zionists (see below) like Dr. Laura Schlessinger aren't really interested putting an end to racial animosity, as she professes. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and (anti-Christian) Judeo-Christians are the primary instigators of racial conflict and institutionalized racial supremacism, as their blind support for instiutionally racist Israel, and Mideast race wars on behalf of it, demonstrate. In fact, to a barely lesser degree, the same goes for statist-socialist supporters of Israel like the Democrat Party, Obama, and his Jewish Zionist-heavy administration.

The only people really interested in race blind policy and a race blind society are libertarians who advocate race neutral policies both foreign and domestic; all others, Left and Right, are poseurs, frauds and cynical opportunists looking to use authoritarian government to line their own pockets (e.g. Obammunists) or gore someone else's ox to affirm and enforce their own delusions of racial or ethno-religious supremacy or entitlement (e.g. Neocons and Bushcons).

-------------------------

Related: Dr. Laura just another pathetic, confused Judeo-Christian Zionist in search of an identity

Dr. Laura Loses Her Religion
Radio Host Drops Judaism, ‘Envies’ Christian Friends
(The Forward) -- by Lisa Keys --

With 12 million Americans tuning in daily, controversial syndicated radio-show host Laura Schlessinger — known to all as “Dr. Laura” — is arguably the best-known Orthodox Jew in the United States.

Rather, she was.

In a shocking if little-noticed revelation, Schlessinger — who very publicly converted to Judaism five years ago — opened “The Dr. Laura Schlessinger Program” on August 5 with the confession that she will no longer practice Judaism. Although Schlessinger said she still “considers” herself Jewish, “My identifying with this entity and my fulfilling the rituals, etc., of the entity — that has ended.”

And with that, Orthodox Judaism lost its loudest mouthpiece and its most prominent “rabbi,” as it were, with the largest American pulpit — with the exception of, perhaps, presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman...MORE...LINK

Partisan Democrat Juan Cole rips the “Jewish” neocon Right, but won’t touch the even more powerful Jewish-American Zionist Left

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- On his widely read blog Informed Comment, influential writer and Middle East scholar (and partisan lefty) Juan Cole recently wrote a scathing attack on the neocons' latest push for war on Iran that decried their insipid and perpetual warmongering, and framed them as inherently driven by bloodlust. He went out of his way to note in the opening paragraph that at neoconservatism's core are "extremely wealthy Jewish former Democrats who broke with their party in the 1980s to become war hawks in Republican administrations, and most of whom are rooted in Rightwing Zionism as exemplified in the thought of prominent fascist theorist Vladimir Jabotinsky."

Here are some of the choice cuts from the piece depicting neoconservatism's bloodlust:

What should a poor warmongering Neoconservative do?...The Neoconservative faction is in the political wilderness in the United States. Eager to play the role in Iran that the enormous floods have played in Pakistan, of paralyzing and destroying much of a thriving country, eager to reduce the shining city of Isfahan to rubble and displace its population into massive tent cities, they find their path blocked at every turn.

Always much happier when the militant and aggressive Likud Party is in power in Israel, they are nevertheless impatient with what they see as the timidity of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, compared to the reckless warmongering of the previous Kadima Party and its Labor ally (who managed to set back the Lebanese economy a decade in 2006 and to reduce the large penal camp of Gaza to further misery and rubble)...

But being a Neocon means never having to say you are sorry, or that you were wrong, and it means never giving up on the dressing up of illegal and aggressive wars as Necessary and Right and Bright Shining Cities on a Hill that will Make the World Safe for “Democracy” and more importantly for Apartheid Israel...

...in 1998 at the height of their impotence, the Neocons got up a hawkish letter with the support of the Republicans in Congress, insisting that President Clinton go to war against Iraq. It was absurd and monstrous. Iraq had been reduced to a poor weak fourth-rate power, its economy devastated, its children dying in droves, by US and UN sanctions pushed by the Neocons and their allies. Only five years later, under a different administration, they got their wish...

They have more assets than is visible on the surface. They have perhaps half of America’s 400 billionaires on their side. They have the enormous military-industrial complex on their side. They have the Yahoo complex of besieged lower middle class White America on their side. They have the Israel lobbies on their side. They have important segments of the Oil and Gas lobbies on their side. They have the whole American tradition of permanent war on their side. They should not be underestimated...

In the comments section below the the piece, one of Cole's readers, identifying himself as Fillmore Hagan, wrote: "Jews do account for about half of America’s billionaires, but your implication that all of these support the neo-cons and a war with Iran goes too far IMHO. Although many of them undoubtedly are pushing for such a war, George Soros (and probably a number of others) do not support such an approach."

Cole quickly replied: "I did not say anything about Jews. I said half of the 400 billionaires would support a war on Iran."

Indeed, in the main body of the piece, Cole made sure to insert a parenthetical caveat on Jewish neoconservatives, claiming that they "are almost mirror images of the general American Jewish community, 79 percent of which voted for Barack Obama, which is skittish about foreign wars and liberal on social issues."

The intellectual acrobatics necessary for Cole and his readers to defend and apologize for left-wing plutocrat Judeofascists like Soros (a shock doctrine, war profiteering globalist who tries to paper over his sociopathic machinations by buying off cash-starved alternative media) , and to maintain that the powerful strains of American organized Jewry that reside in the Democrat Party are "the mirror image" of warmongering Judeofascist neocons are so intellectually disingenuous as to be incoherent.

Let's start with some of Cole's grievances outlined above, which themselves betray that Judeofascists reside on both the Left and the Right, and in the Democrat and Republican parties alike.

Cole says that right-wing Prime Minister Netanyahu is relatively tame "compared to reckless warmongering of the previous Kadima Party and its Labor ally (who managed to set back the Lebanese economy a decade in 2006 and to reduce the large penal camp of Gaza to further misery and rubble) [in the '08-'09 Gaza war]..."

It should be noted here that in Israel, Kadima is considered a centrist party, while Labor is considered center-left. So Cole is essentially noting (correctly) that Israeli Jewish Zionists of center and center-left have an historical record of being even more belligerent and destructive than the right-wing Likud (Netanyahu's party) when holding the reins of power. It should also be noted that it was Democrat Bill Clinton and his meddling liberal internationalist braintrust who helped instigate the Likud/Labor ascension to power by sending James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Robert Shrum to help run Ehud Barak’s campaign for Prime Minister that unseated Netanyahu from his first term in 1999.

Cole seems to want his readers to believe that even though center-left Jewish Zionists in Israel are at least as belligerent and warlike as right-wing Jewish Zionists there, in America, center-left Jewish Zionists of the type that currently predominate in the Democrat-controlled Congress are somehow "the mirror image" of Judeofascist neocons, and less likely to take us to war with Iran.

Perhaps he's never read The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which documents the extent to which the Jewish lobby has triangulated both the Democrats and the neocon Right. For example, he criticizes Israel's treatment of Lebanon, and implies that blind support for Israeli actions like those that decimated the Lebanese economy by reducing large swaths of the country to rubble during the 2006 Lebanon war are an outgrowth merely of Jewish neocon influence on the American Right, but totally ignores Walt And Mearsheimer's findings that Democrats have blood all over their hands in this case as well:

As we have seen in other contexts, Israel usually finds its strongest support in the U.S. Congress, and congressional behavior during the Lebanon conflict unequivocally confirmed this tendency. Democrats and Republicans competed to show that their party, not the rival one, was Israel's best friend. One Jewish activist said he thought that 'it's a good thing to have members of Congress outdo their colleagues by showing that their pro-Israeli credentials are stronger than the next guy's.' In the end, there was virtually no daylight between the two parties regarding Israel's actions in Lebanon, which is remarkable when you think of the sharp differences between Democrats and Republicans on most other foreign policy issues, like Iraq, for example. Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, made this clear when he said, 'The Democrats who are opposed to [President Bush] on 99 percent of things are closing ranks on Israel.'

Reflecting this bipartisan consensus, on July 20, 2006, the House of Representatives passed a strongly worded resolution condemning Hezbollah and supporting Israeli policy in Lebanon. The vote was 410-8. The Senate followed suit with a similar resolution, sponsored by sixty-two senators, including the leaders of both parties. A number of prominent Democrats, including the party's leaders in both the House and the Senate, tried to prevent Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, from addressing Congress, because he had criticized Israeli policy in Lebanon. Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic party, who had been targeted by the lobby in the past, went so far as to call the Iraqi prime minister an anti-Semite. Support in Congress for Israel was so overwhelming that it left Arab-American leaders stunned."

So it seems that the Democrats are only "skittish" about killing Arabs and Muslims when it is the U.S. military doing the job; when it's Jewish Zionists hammering away at women and children -- whether in Lebanon or Gaza -- "bombs away" is their mantra. In fact, recall the Obama administration's response to U.N. calls for Israel to be held accountable for the war crimes it committed during the war on Gaza. As reported by Alternet:

The Obama administration has declared — in the words of U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice — that such a recommendation is "basically unacceptable." It has insisted that any legal remedies be handled by the respected parties internally. Since neither Hamas nor the Israeli government will likely prosecute those responsible for war crimes, the administration's action will essentially prevent these Palestinian and Israeli war criminals from ever being brought to justice.

Indeed, the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress appear to be continuing the Bush administration's policy of ignoring and denouncing those who have the temerity to report violations of international humanitarian law by the United States or its allies.

And in truth, Democrats aren't really that "skittish" about the U.S. military undertaking assaults on Middle Eastern Goyim at all, so long as it's good for Israel. For example, Cole complains that the Iraq war wasn't even necessary because "Iraq had [already] been reduced to a poor weak fourth-rate power, its economy devastated, its children dying in droves, by US and UN sanctions pushed by the Neocons and their allies." But Cole fails to note that "the allies" he is referring to were primarily comprised of the Israel lobby working in tandem with the Clinton administration itself.

In fact, when the television news program 60 Minutes asked Clinton's secretary of state, crypto-Jewess Madeleine Albright, about the Iraq sanctions, she couldn't have been clearer that the decision to impose them was undertaken by the Clinton administration with full knowledge that they were murderous.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

In addition to being a crypto Jew with Zionist inclinations, why would Albright want to kill half a million Iraqi children for no good reason? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Jews comprise a majority of Democrat Party campaign funding, and over 90% of American Jews are Zionists who demand Israel be recognized as an explicitly "Jewish state," and like Democrat Party honcho Haim Saban, they are "one issue" donors, "and that issue is Israel."; Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Jewish Zionists own and run the deep pockets of the Federal Reserve bankster racket; Perhaps Albright merely enjoys spilling Islamic blood because like so many of these Zionist sociopaths, deep down she hates every non-Jewish controlled civilization.

All of this begs the question: Why does Cole continue to defend the Obama administration and the left-liberal globalization Dems, particularly given the fact that Obama is surrounded by Jewish money and handlers, and has been since his days as a Chicago political hustler?

Again we can only speculate. Perhaps Cole himself despises the lower middle class American complex of White "yahoos" and sub-consciously wants to see them hammered; Perhaps Cole puts his hatred of Americans and his ideology of liberal internationalism ahead of his concerns for stopping another Middle Eastern war.

More charitably, perhaps Cole and left-liberals like him have calculated that the chances of America attacking Iran are lower under a Democrat administration than they are under a Republican one. After all, Clinton's enforced sanctions against Iraq weren't quite as devastating as Bush II's bombing and ground invasion campaign (although they were close), and John McCain, the losing GOP candidate beaten out by Obama, used to enjoy singing a sadistic little ditty called "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' 'Barbara Ann.'

But another way to look at Democrats like Obama and Clinton is that they are mere Zionist placeholders for the Israel lobby until a more "manly" Zionist Republican who won't be encumbered by a "soft" constituency eventually comes along and takes care of business. In other words, because Cole refuses to address the Judeofascist Left element in the Democrat party, he merely sweeps the problem of Israel-firsters setting a Zionist agenda under the carpet, and kicks the war can down the road a bit further. Out of political correctness and a fear of Jewish money, political influence and firepower fleeing Right, he treads softly on the Jewish Zionist Left and wrings his hands as Zionists on both the Left and Right continue to ratchet the noose around Iran and the entire Middle East tighter and tighter.

Now contrast this with paleocons and populists in the Pat Buchanan vein on the Right who never were afraid of condemning the Jewish lobby on both the Left and the Right, nor were they afraid of being called "anti-Semites" by traitorous Israel firsters and their bootlickers in the establishment GOP for condemning those who refuse to put American interests first.

Where is the Pat Buchanan of the Left who refuses to soft-pedal criticism of Zionist Jewry with all kinds of politically correct platitudes about organized Jewry in America supposedly having next to nothing in common with the Jewish Zionist neocons in outlook, agenda and world view? We all know this simply isn't true, and that the mostly statist-authoritarian Jewish left-liberals have plenty in common with Jewish Zionist neocons. For example, they all put Israel first; they all hate the Christian element of Western civilization and are deeply suspicious if not hateful of Christianity in its entirety; they all hate Islam; and they all seek to use Big Government as their proxy instead of going to the trouble of proselytizing, which conflicts with their Jewish supremacist racism anyway.

By cowardly refusing to confront the powerful Jewish Zionist element on the left, Juan Cole and his ilk become a party to Judeofascist plans for murder. If anti-Zionists of left and right got together, there is at least the sliver of a possibility that a war against Iran could be stopped. But anti-Zionists on the left can't do much if they don't even realize how many Jewish supremacist Zionists posing as "liberals" reside in their ranks. And Juan Cole, who seeks to force all Americans into either the Democrat or Republican camps, is doing next to nothing to enlighten them.

Is the man a shill, or just a single-minded liberal internationalist ideologue?


*Chris Moore is editor of LibertarianToday.com and Judeofascism.com
-------------------------
JUAN COLE, SMUG LIBERAL INTERNATIONALIST; ZIONIST USEFUL IDIOT

American debt servitude: Who gets the interest on runaway spending Obama charges on U.S. credit card? Jewish Zionist-owned and run Federal Reserve

From:
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
(YouTube.com) -- by zionget --

Surrounded by Jewish money and handlers from Chicago to today, media still maintain fiction Obama is his own man

From:
'Jewish voter’ meme is journalistic mystification
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

I’m at my parents’ house in Cape Cod and am reading the New York Times on newsprint and noticed that the usual fiction about Jewish influence in the political process appears twice in the same day. Both an op-ed on Obama’s failing traction among Jewish voters by Charles Blow and an analysis of the peace negotiations by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper insists on the significance of Jewish "voters" in explaining why Obama has given up on the '67 borders. Blow emphasizes the Jewish vote in Florida. Cooper and Landler say:

He has always been viewed with a degree of wariness by some Jewish voters in the United States, and undertaking a high-profile initiative heading into the midterm elections could hold both opportunity and peril for him and his party.

This is a form of mystification. While Blow states honestly that "their influence outweighs their [2-3 percent] proportion," he does not cite the true source of our influence, we are likely the most significant bloc of the American meritocratic establishment.

We are prominent in media and political consulting and thinktanks; and in terms of wealth we far outstrip even privileged Episcopalians. This is the source of our influence. Money is the mother's milk of American political ambition, and good sources report that Jews provide the majority of money to Democratic presidential candidates. The billionaire Chicago families Pritzker and Crown were early important backers of Barack Obama and Penny Pritzker headed his fundraising. The two most important offices in theWhite House, after Obama’s, are held by Jews, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel; and Crown plays a key role in the discussion of American policy re Iran, per Jeffrey Goldberg's war-drums piece in the Atlantic. This is power...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Jewish Marxist goes to Talmudic lengths to manipulate Wikipedia favorably towards Judeofascism

From:
Zionists in bid to subvert Wikipedia
(Redress) -- by Gilad Atzmon --

Gilad Atzmon views the latest attempts by Israelis, Zionists and “anti-Zionist” pretenders to sabotage the free encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

The British newspaper the Guardian reported on 18 August that two Israeli groups have set up training courses in subversive Wikipedia editing with the aim to “show the other side” of the Jewish state.

Those who lend their pen to the Palestinian cause know about Wikipedia Jews, a term that was coined a few years ago. It refers to a bunch of rabid crypto-Zionists who constantly vandalize encyclopaedia entries related to Palestine, Palestinian activists and Israeli atrocities.

According to the Guardian, two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing".

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, ran its first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to “rewrite” and “revise” some of the most “hotly disputed pages of the online reference site”.

The Wikipedia project is a phenomenal humanist and universalist initiative. Hence, we should not be surprised that its biggest opponents are tribal operators, among them Zionists, crypto-Zionists and so-called “Jewish anti Zionists”.

One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor told the Guardian that publicizing the new Zionist conspiratorial initiative might not be such a “good idea”. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and, unfortunately, the way to fight it has to be underground," she added.

One should not be surprised to discover that chief among the “Wikipedia Jews” is alleged “anti Zionist” Roland Rance.
Rance, is a London-based Jewish Marxist who spends most of his time peppering Wikipedia entries with Judaeo-centric context. He was also one of the leading opponents of Deir Yassin Remembered, probably the most successful Palestinian solidarity operation in the UK.

Below is a snapshot of Rance’s relentless attempt to vandalize Israel Shamir’s Wikipedia entry, taken last week...

Wikipedia Jews have history behind them. According to the Guardian, in 2008 members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators. There is a war going on my own Wikipedia entry. More than once Wikipedia administrators have been called in just to remove contamination by Rance and other Zionists.

The Wikipedia project is all about knowledge and the availability of knowledge. Is it a coincidence that political Jews on the right and on the left are united to subvert this project? I do not think so. Once again, we are witnessing an episode in the Zionist continuum. They are all united against knowledge...MORE...LINK

Confused rabbi denies Jewish state is Jewish, refuses to see inherent connection between Jewry and fascism

From:
Does Orthodox Jewry control it all?
(YouTube.com) -- by 108morris108 --

A case that Israel did 9/11

(By Brian J.) -- 911 was a false flag masterminded by Israel ’s intelligence agency the Mossad. Here is the powerful evidence:

This may be hard to believe, however, if you go to the FBI's website http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm you will see that Osama bin Laden is wanted for a couple of crimes (flimsy evidence) but not the 911 attacks. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page (30), [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Obviously the FBI realizes the widely viewed confession tape of Osama bin Laden is phony.

A former President of Italy stated in a major Italian Newspaper http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html that everyone in the European and American intelligence communities knows that Israel 's Mossad was responsible for the 911 attacks. The Mossad is Israel 's intelligence agency.

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11." http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html

WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT COVERING UP THE LATEST ISRAELI SPY RING? WHAT WAS THE ISRAELI SPY RING DOING THAT IS SUCH A THREAT TO THE US GOVERNMENT THAT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE OVER A HUNDRED SPIES ESCAPE THAN RISK A PUBLIC TRIAL? "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.html

The Mossad motto: "By way of deception, thou shall do war"

Research strongly indicates that Israel 's Mossad (their intelligence organization) masterminded the 911 attacks. Why did they do it? Here are the words from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel )." The USA also attacked Israel 's enemy Iraq and is trying to control the Middle East which is beneficial to Israel .

Here is another powerful quote from Netanyahu: The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel .

"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq ," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8738

Inept Arab hijacking terrorists did not plan 911. The supposed terrorist pilots for 911 were incompetent pilots. The Mossad has a history of infiltrating Arab groups and they infiltrated a so called terrorist organization and orchestrated the attacks. They have a long history of false flag attacks - USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, the false flag which caused Reagan to bomb Libya etc.

Here is a major item: The Dancing Israelis (from Urban Moving Systems) were actually Mossad and Israeli Defense Forces personnel and were seen dancing and celebrating while video taping the first tower being hit. The authorities developed their pictures which showed them rejoicing while holding a lit lighter with the burning twin towers in the background. They were arrested and failed lie detector tests but were let go due to orders from Michael Chertoff. When they returned to Israel they went on a talk show where one of them mentioned they were there to document the event. The confession video is at Youtube and other web pages including at this link: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html How could they have be there to document the event unless they had prior knowledge of the attacks!

This information is from an article written by the Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh: Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.”http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/08/011008fa_FACT

Leaving clues behind was another part of the Mossad plan to blame the Muslims for the 911 attacks.

This article about the Dancing Israelis is a must read. It also includes information about the Dancing Israelis that indicates they planned to blow up the George Washington Bridge on 911, fortunately they were arrested.

After the 911 attacks Osama bin Laden was interviewed by a Pakistan newspaper and said he had nothing to do with the attacks and had no knowledge of the attacks. If he was responsible he would have bragged about it. http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

The Osama bin Laden confession video that was miraculously found has been shown to be inaccurate and misleading by a German television show. Please read both articles. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html

Another fake video Osama bin Laden appeared. This one has been thoroughly discredited by an expert. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html

The Israeli Art students (arrested spies) were following and living very close to the hijackers in Florida including Atta. http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/questions/israelis/israeli-art-students-canvassed-DEA-offices.txt

They were also living down the street from the hijackers residing in the Northeast coast. The street addresses are available on the Internet. They were really military surveillance and explosive experts and some were Mossad members. Surely at a minimum they intercepted the communications of the hijackers yet did not provide us the details. However, they were following the patsies to make sure they did their jobs.

Odigo Systems, an Israeli company with a New York City office received an advanced warning by email that an attack was going to occur in New York City the day of the attack. This is verified by their CEO. They were probably not tipped off by Arabs! http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_warnings_odigo.html

Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, also considered to be a front for the Mossad and the CIA broke their lease in one of the twin towers which cost them $50,000 and moved out about a week before the attack. Perhaps they had an advance warning. According to Ex-Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen, the company was controlled by the CIA and the Mossad. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/09/AmericanFreePress0902.html

Commercial pilots and military pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org claim that the maneuvers of the hijacked planes are impossible for these inexperienced, inept small plane pilot hijackers to have performed. Regarding the plane maneuvers at the Pentagon, experienced pilots claim they could not have performed the maneuvers themselves. It would have been impossible for the lousy pilot Hanjour to have hit the Pentagon. http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html

"In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie , MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Source".

Regarding hitting the Pentagon: "It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!" Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html

Why would terrorists ask incompetent pilots to fly the attacks planes? The Mossad used them as patsies because the planes were flown by remote control.

It gets even more intriguing: Eddie Shalev was the man who certified the incompetent pilot Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 just three days after Marcel Bernard the chief instructor at Freeway refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The shocker is that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14290

System Planning Corporation, an Israeli company produces the Flight Termination System that is used to take over and fly airplanes by remote control. Perhaps the system was used with the 911 attack planes.

An Israeli security company provided airport security at Boston and Newark airports which were the airports used by some of the 911 attack planes, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4401

From the article: the airline security company who is responsible for the shocking security lapses at both the Boston and Newark airports on 9-11 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Israeli company (ICTS) headed by Israelis with clear ties to Israel's military intelligence agency, the Mossad.

There is no video tape of any of the hijackers at the Logan International airport where two of the attack planes took off from and phony video from another attack airport. The only Atta (imposter) video is from the Portland Maine airport. Please read this compelling evidence that should be all over the news: http://www.waarheid911.nl/video_surveillance_tapes.html

This well researched article strongly indicates there is no evidence that Muslims got in the 911 attack planes:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GJCen6fpk8YJ:www.newdemocracyworld. org/Noevidence.pdf+911+no+muslims+on+the+planes&cd=2&h l=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

About one third of the hijackers are alive. They had their passports stolen.

Atta the supposed ringleader was being impersonated. According to friends, family and former college friends in Germany , he was a shy, very conservative man in real life and not the drinking womanizer as the Mossad impersonator played him at bars just before 911. Atta and the supposed hijackers were supposedly devout fundamentalist Muslims and their drinking and womenizing doesn't make sense. Read this amazing article which is a must read about Mohamed Atta and two other supposed hijackers. This is from the article: "They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said 'Wait 'til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,"' said John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack's Sports Bar. I don't think terrorists would want to attrack attention to themselves and jeopardize their mission. Kap said he also told the FBI they spent money on drinks and lap dances.

Also, it would have been ridiculuos for Atta and his two collegues to be in Florida the eve before 911 because if the flight to Portland Maine or the connecting flight to the airport in Boston had been delayed the hijacking operation would have been at risk. The very stunning Atta information that shows he was being impersonated at bars and making a spectacle of himself starts with the paragraph that begins with: The Friday before the attacks.
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/168489

Very interesting information about the hijackers that are alive: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/stf3.html

The amazing passport of one of the hijackers found near the twin towers that supposedly made it safely through the airplane crash was a ridiculous ploy by the Mossad. Seems to me the Mossad, Israel 's intelligence organization, infiltrated the so called terrorist group and planned the whole event and used the hijackers as patsies. They wanted America to hate Muslims and attack Muslim countries for Israel and not care that Israel illegally occupies Palestine.

Read this amazing article about the Mossad involvement in the 911 attacks by Albert Pastore at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/stf1.html?q=stf1.html

This information needs to be available to people. There needs to be a new investigation of the 911 attacks that includes people that know about the Israeli involvement in the event. If you do some of your own research, which I encourage you to do, be aware that the Zionists have a few websites that intentionally mislead people about the compelling evidence of the Israel 911 connection. Fortunately, they cannot stop the evidence from being available.