The easy lies of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the dark, loathing, foreboding place that is a Talmud-indoctrinated mind

From:
Benjamin Netanyahu’s heart of darkness
(Mondoweiss) -- by Adam Horowitz --

Did you two see Benjamin Netanyahu's Youtube interview posted yesterday? He claims again and again that Israel fully provides equal rights for Arabs in Israel. I wrote down the claim: "There's only one country in the heart of the Middle East that has no tremors, no protests. That's Israel. Because we're the only one where we respect human rights. The only one that respects the rights of Arab citizens. Twenty percent of our population are Arabs. And they enjoy full civil rights in Israel. It's the only place in this entire vast expanse where Arabs and Muslims enjoy complete freedom and complete equality before the law."

This is crazy stuff. No protests? What, then, were the two intifadas? How about protest within Israel? And a claim of full civil rights within a week of the vote on the Nakba and small communities of under 400 families in the Galilee and Negev? Does he think nobody's paying attention? Harold Meyerson wrote about the latter piece of legislation on the op-ed page of the Washington Post today.

He consistently returns to this equality misrepresentation throughout the interview. But the first time is about 5:17 in.

About 8 minutes in he says, nobody expects us to dismantle these places (referring to some settlements); "fair-minded" people recognize Israel will keep these areas. In claiming this, he's implicitly dismissing a large number of people who do, in fact, regard the settlements as illegal and if not to be dismantled then to be handed over to Palestinians as some form of compensation for decades of illegal occupation.

It's probably worth checking out the claim (including from Netanyahu in the interview) that Palestinians never made settlements a pre-condition. I'd like to see what was said about Har Homa/Jabal Abu Ghneim in the mid-1990s. I remember enormous concern then...

Later, he says, "Around us, you know, there's a vast expanse of darkness."Joseph Conrad couldn't have said it better...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Jews are perpetually surrounded by a sea of hostile Gentiles. They can never give quarter. They should lie, cheat, steal, swindle and murder to get ahead and stay ahead, because if they do not, they will be relentlessly persecuted. Gentiles are sub-human animals who will tear them limb from limb or even devour them whole.

Is this the post-Holocaust reality that crucible-tested, battle hardened, responsible Jews must face and deal with if they want to survive?

No, this is the world view as inculcated by the rabbinical authorities and the Jewish Talmud, the highest "holy" book of Judaism, for the past 2,000 years.

As religious scholar Ted Pike notes in one small sampling of Jewish ethics below:

The bad example of the most respected sages of Israel had a widespread and corrosive effect on the relations of Jews with their neighbors. One wonders if the Gentiles were aware of their position as fair game to predatory Jews. Choschen Ham spells out some of the ground rules for exploiting Gentiles:

If a Jew is doing good business with an Akum [Gentile] it is not allowed to other Jews in other places to come and do business with the same Akum. In other places, however, it is different, where another Jew is allowed to go to the same Akum, lead him in, do business with him and to deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be regarded as common property and belongs to the first who can get it.

And again:

If a Jew is doing business with an Akum and a fellow Israelite comes along and defrauds the Akum, either by false measure, weight, or number, he must divide his profit with his fellow Israelite, since both had a part in the deal, and also to help him along. [4]

...What if these [racist, swindling instructions] from the Talmud weren’t written in the Talmud by authority of the Pharisees but in the New Testament by authority of Jesus? If they were, Jesus’ followers would have become the most despised and mistrusted of men. Christians (if any survived) would have faced discrimination and even banishment from civilized society. People today would laugh at any Christian reply that their sufferings were caused by bigoted nations.

Yet history books in our educational system describe the long saga of Jewish suffering as primarily caused by Christian “anti-semitic” bigotry against “innocent” Jews.

Why have the Jews been exiled from 60 countries since they began to follow the leadership of the Pharisees nearly two millennia ago? It’s because of something toxic within the religion of the Pharisees.

But today, the Christians are being subordinated to enemy #2, and the Muslims elevated to enemy #1 by contemporary rabbinical Zionist Jewry and its political stooges in Israel and the U.S.

Indeed, Zionist Jewry hopes to kill two birds with one stone by getting the still nominally Christian West to fight World War III on supremacist Jewry's behalf, which it hopes will be the final nail in the coffin of the former Christendom/Western civilization, and of current Islamic civilization.

Netanyahu says in the interview cited above that the 20th Century passed the Islamic world by. Perhaps. But more importantly, two millennia of Christian cultivation, refinement, and enlightenment have passed the tribal Judeofascists by.

They and their political collaborators are playing a dangerous game. If they're not careful, the final nail in the coffin may be their own.

Hard core Jewish Zionists declare even unabashed Israel-first neocons "anti-Semitic" for not viewing geopolitics entirely through Israeli eyes

From:
Jihad Hunters vs. the Neocons
(AntiWar.com) -- by Kelley B. Vlahos

When David Horowitz starts throwing around the label “neoconservative” as if it were a four-letter word, you know a real schism is at hand.

That’s because right-wing jihad hunters like Horowitz, Caroline Glick and others are reaching levels of near hysteria over the prospect of Islamic movements gaining political power in a post-revolution Middle East, particularly right now in Egypt. Sure, they believe everyone has the inalienable right to freedom, but not if they live on “hostile soil” or when it is not in America’s “core regional interests.” Under those circumstances, the despots and dictators—as long as they are pro-western and maintain vital security agreements with Israel—are always preferred.

“The neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US’s core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny,” writes Glick, an American who emigrated after college to Israel, where she joined the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), retired at the rank of captain and worked in the Israeli government. She is now the managing editor of The Jerusalem Post and a senior fellow at the D.C-based Center for Security Policy, which was founded by Frank Gaffney, yet another hyperbolic jihad hunter who recently declared that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

“In some cases, like Iran and Iraq, the neoconservatives’ view was in consonance with US strategic interests and so their policy recommendation of siding with regime opponents against the regimes was rational,” Glick wrote in a March 21 column. However, “the problem with the neoconservative position is that it makes no distinction between liberal regime opponents and illiberal regime opponents. It can see no difference between pro-US despots and anti-US despots.”

In other words, neoconservatives, at least in her mind, have no concept of freedom a la carte.

Glick calls President Obama’s response to the Arab revolutions—particularly in Egypt and Libya— a “descent into strategic dementia,” and “insanity.” She blasts Obama for hewing to an “anti-imperialist” agenda that would end “US global hegemony.” Of course such “irrationality,” as she puts it, puts at risk those important “core interests” in the Middle East, which she defines as cheap oil, deterring enemies and fighting “pan-Arabists and the jihadists that advance a political program inherently hostile to US power.”

She doesn’t invoke Israel, but she doesn’t really have to. Others do that for her. Horowitz jumped in immediately in a blog post stating that “if Caroline Glick is correct in this analysis of what is happening in the Middle East,” it in part, “signals the beginning of the next war with Israel.”

Horowitz continued on this thread the next day. “The reality is that a totalitarian Islam is the vibrant and increasingly dominant movement in the Arab world,” he wrote under the headline “Why I am not a Neoconservative,” on his own FrontPageMag, a roiling cauldron of Islamophobia and second only to Atlas Shrugs as the boobyhatch of unreconstructed right-wing weblogs.

Not entirely unlike when he rejected his Marxist loyalties 40 years ago, Horowitz wrote that he was regretfully “swept up” into the neoconservative vision during the Bush years and in the run up to the Iraq War, by far the biggest and most expensive American foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War (at least when Horowitz was “swept up” then, it was in opposition to the war. Perversely, he now blames the antiwar protesters for prolonging Vietnam).

Horowitz on Iraq:

“Bush did the right thing. When he named the campaign Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was also an enthusiast. It put the Democratic Party, which soon betrayed the war, and the political left, which instinctively supports America’s enemies, on the defensive. When he said he was going to establish democracy in Iraq, I almost believed him. And that seemed to put me in the camp of the neo-conservatives for whom democracy in Iraq was not only a wish but an agenda. In any case, people labeled me that not least because I am a Jew and ‘neo-conservative’ functions for the ominously expanding anti-Semitic Left as a code for self-serving Jews who want to sacrifice American lives for Israel.”

(One wonders, if “Neoconservative” is merely “Anti-Semitic Left” code, why does Horowitz use it to describe his former compatriots, as well as himself?)...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Horowitz and Glick are where U.S. Zionism taken to its natural conclusion ends: railing that any American who isn't an Israel-firster at levels approaching treason is "anti-Semitic." (Ironically, the neocons are now getting bit by their own bad will and manipulative, extortionist rhetorical device, and they well deserve it.)

It's not just Jewish Zionists and neocons who eventually become neurotic, latent Jewish supremacists perpetually gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands about the plight of wicked little Israel, though; it's Judeo-Christian Zionists and politically correct, statist-liberal Judeophiles, as well.

Through media propaganda, political co-dependence indoctrination, Hollywood drama and popular culture brainwashing, and general mass manipulation, the lot of them are seduced into becoming pathetic, modern day Oskar Schindler clones, wailing and sobbing like hysterical little girls about "I didn't do enough" for the Jews.

Horowitz is well past the point where he should simply move to Israel and enlist in the IDF just as Glick did; doing so might be the only way to save what's left of his sanity.

Perhaps all these other hysterical, sobbing, Israel-first clowns should do the same. Israel can take care of itself; Jewry always manages to find a way to land on its feet, and with a thick-wallet, to boot.

Let the Zionist swindlers and their political bootlickers pay the price for Israel for once instead of honest, average, hard-working Americans.

Jewry played a central role in implementing French N. African colonialism as both colonists and double agents, yet is wailed over as "victimized"

From:
Jews and French Colonialism in Africa
(Occidental Observer) -- by Peter Stuyvesant --

The institution of the United Nations Holocaust Remembrance Day and the UN outreach program to promote the worldwide teaching of the Holocaust is a dubious policy of this supra-national organization: Is the suffering of one people more significant than the suffering of another? Is the suffering of ethnic persecution a sound basis for universal morals?

Such programs are central to reinforcing the ideology of Jews as eternal victims. However, there are many aspects of Jewish history that are quite embarrassing to this view.

In this article I wish to point out Jewish complicity in colonialism. Although colonialism has been an ongoing source of guilt and reparations for the European powers, the complicity of Jews in colonialism is seldom mentioned. However, the reality is that, as so often in Jewish history, Jews came to play the role of middlemen between oppressive alien elites and the native population. This theme of Jewish history going back to the ancient world and is a prominent theme of historical anti-Semitism (see Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 2, p. 31ff).

European colonization of North Africa

Jews had been living in North Africa for many centuries when Europeans expanded their toehold on the dark continent in the 19th century. Some Jewish communities trace their presence in North Africa from Roman times. The expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula in the late 15th century gave the local Jewish communities a demographic and economic boost, especially in Oran and Algiers. A lot of Jews kept their Iberian tongue (Ladino) as a lingua franca among themselves, similar to the function of Yiddish for their Eastern European brethren.

In 1830 the French occupied most of the coastal plains of modern day Algeria and gradually began to root their colonial occupation into local communities. Indigenous tribes supplied soldiers for auxiliary colonial troops called Harkis and the Jews were recruited as local officials. From 1845 rabbis from the French mainland were sent to local Jewish communities “to inculcate unconditional obedience to the laws, loyalty to France, and the obligation to defend it.” The French government granted Algerian Jews French citizenship in 1870, putting them on a par with the French colonists from the mainland.

During the 19th century most Jews in North Africa discarded local customs and clothing in favor of the French language, culture and dress. Their affiliation with French culture and power also brought Jews protection, as in Tunisia after 1855. After a legal dispute with the local Arab Prince about blasphemy, the French emperor Napoleon III intervened with a naval force in favor of the Jews. Jews were subsequently granted equal religious rights but more legal rights than locals: Jewish assessors were attached to criminal courts to provide input on the sentences incurred by Jews charged with crimes in order to safeguard a fair trial.

Jewish collusion with the French in the occupation of North Africa, ultimately encompassing Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, had also negative side-effects in regions which were not firmly in French control. In Morocco, which remained independent until the beginning of the 20th century, Jews were always targeted by the public when the French launched military campaigns against Morocco or other local powers defying French expansion. Jews were seen as traitors by the local population, which were deprived of the right to vote and were economically deprived in favor of French settlers and their Jewish henchmen.

In Algeria the number of French citizens reached 1.4 million in 1961 (13% of the total population), including 140,000 Jews (10% of all French citizens). Those settlers dominated public life in the big cities, enjoyed colonial privileges and were in control of the economy. Jews were often the middlemen between the French rulers and the local subjects, because they knew the country best. The local Muslim population resented French occupation, not in the least place by their display of cultural-religious power by erecting huge cathedrals and synagogues. The Algerian war of independence was an exceptionally brutal one with terrorism, torture and murder squads from both sides. It was been estimated that approximately 1,000,000 Algerians lost their lives in the struggle for independence...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

It's truly perverse that the U.N. holds up organized Jewry as uniquely victimized and persecuted when the truth is that it is the very same cohesive organization that has been instrumental in inflicting so much human suffering and decimation upon the world for centuries through its central roles in murderous ideologies and power and land grabs like colonialism, Marxism/Jewish Bolshevism (Communism), Zionism, and more recently, neocon/neolib Globalism.

What a sadistic state of affairs that such a low-cunning, murderous group of racketeering gangsters with so much historical blood on its hands is simultaneously wailed over by our corrupt elites as deserving of special recognition and treatment for its supposedly unjust persecution.

If this "endangered species" suddenly went extinct, or decided to dismantle itself out of sheer self-disgust and shame, would the world be in a better or worse position, with a brighter or darker future?

Anyone who is semi-literate in the entirety of current-era Jewish history and who isn't morally and spiritually corrupt beyond all hope for salvation won't hesitate to answer "Good riddance."

Current-era Judaism’s cultural doctrine of racial and religious supremacy clearly spelled out in Jewish high holy book the Talmud

From:
The Jewish Talmud Exposed
(Real Zionist News) -- by Nathanael Kapner --

Evidence piling up that Jewish Zionist neocons and neolibs were motivated by Israeli interests to engineer Iraq war

From:
CIA Analyst Reveals Zionists’ Role in Planning U.S. Invasion of Iraq
(AmericanFreePress.net) -- by Dave Gahary --

According to a retired CIA analyst, new evidence has emerged revealing the full extent to which Israel was involved in the direct planning of America’s aggressive war on Iraq that was initiated by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

During a March 10 interview, former 27-year CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern broke some news with AFP concerning former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. This information on the extent of Wolfowitz’s war making agenda was derived, McGovern said, from “an unimpeachable source.”

McGovern began, “Enough distance has been created between Wolfowitz and our government that I feel free to tell this story. Since Wolfowitz was largely responsible for the Iraqi invasion, his father wrote him a note that said: ‘Paul, I’m an ardent Zionist, but first and foremost, I’m an American. What you have done for the Zionist cause is beyond the pale, and you should be ashamed of yourself.’ ”

The war happened, explained McGovern, because “son Paul put Israel before the interests of the United States.”

McGovern continued, “That’s why I say, particularly in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, the socalled neo-conservatives—Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, [Douglas] Feith, the whole coterie of folks who were running our policy at that time—they had great difficulty distinguishing between what they considered to be the strategic interests of Israel on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. They tend to see them as identical, and they’re not.”

He next addressed the ramifications of these decisions. “When you look at the hatred that our policies in the Middle East have caused among 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and when you see that a lot of their behavior is conditioned by our being joined at the hip with Israeli policy, however violent, then you can see what damage this is doing to the interests of the United States.”

In separate interviews with The Washington Post and MSNBC, along with testimony to a congressional committee, McGovern used the term “O.I.L.” to explain why the U.S went to war with Iraq: oil, Israel and logistics. War was waged, he believes, so the U.S. and Israel could dominate that part of the world. Moreover, Israel was intimately involved with war planning.

“Was Israel part of the calculation? We have empirical evidence now. Before it was largely analysis,” McGovern explained.

The evidence he’s referring to is from former Prime Minister Tony Blair testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry earlier this year. Blair admitted that while he and Bush were scheming about Iraq in April 2002 at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas near Waco, they were in constant communication with the Israelis.

As expected, McGovern’s appearance before Congress created controversy. “Within three hours of my testimony, prominent congresspersons from New York issued a collective statement calling me anti-Semitic because I said Israel and the United States wanted to dominate that part of the world.”

Unshaken by these attacks, McGovern struck a defiant tone. “If I say Israel is a major factor in our country’s decision to initiate a war of aggression, that is fact supported by evidence. People should not shy away from that.”...MORE...LINK

In 60 Minutes interview prior to overthrow by Islamists, Shah of Iran bitterly warned Americans that Jewish-lobby power in U.S. was out of control

From:
Shah of Iran discussing the zionist power over American media and government
(YouTube.com) -- by garuchillajoe --



Chris Moore comments:

The Shah of Iran was a corrupt, quasi-tyrant beholden to U.S. interests, but could have been worked with to bring about progress and reform for the Iranian people.

Instead, Zionist and Israeli-expansionist forces kept jerking the Middle East region's chain, and he finally issued a veiled warning that they were imperiling his rule, as this interview makes clear.

In 1979, he was finally overthrown by an Islamic revolution fed up with the endless Middle East wars and intrigue perpetually orchestrated by the pathologically racist and aggressive Zionist agitators, and Iran became a theologically Islamic state.

So thanks to Jewish-American Zionist cells and dimwitted and corrupt Israel-firsters operating in the U.S., America once again lost a strategic ally, and its reputation in the Islamic world fell further into disrepute.

The Iranian revolution -- yet another strategic U.S. fiasco that can be laid at the feet of treasonous Zionists and their corrupt dupes and collaborators who today reside on the neocon/Bushcon Right and as a powerfull Zionist faction in the Democrat Party.

Whether operating under Red fascist or Zionist guise, these corrupt opportunists, self-serving schemers and warped, pseudo-patriot buffoons are the greatest threat to America's future -- far greater than any external threat -- and have been for quite some time.

Jewish starring role in U.S. and world economic meltdown largely ignored in documentary film 'Inside Job'...or is it?

From: Gilad Atzmon: Inside What Job? A film review
(gilad.co.uk) -- by Gilad Atzmon --

...In America, academics and academic institutions are largely funded by business interests and industries, establishing a relationship that, to a large extent, significantly determines the curriculum. Needless to mention that such a situation is having some grave consequences on American scholarship -- In the long term, America has managed to shoot itself in the foot -- It has produced generations of scholars who lack the necessary means to think theoretically and critically, let alone bring about change. America’s young economists, for instance, are more than likely to be indoctrinated by the liberal ideologies that were planted initially by the likes of Milton Friedmann, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Martin Feldstein. These four were adamant supporters of zero Governmental intervention and excessive deregulation. For more than a decade American academic institutions have been producing economists who excel in speculation and risky markets -- people who know how to make money out of money -- yet they know very little about production, productivity and manufacturing.

This fact alone may mean that America is farther than it hopes to be from recovery. It simply lacks the brain to bounce back into the world economy. America is gravely stuck in its service economy phase.

“Inside Job” ends by contending that -- despite the financial turmoil and those who are culpable for an emerging global disaster -- the underlying system has not changed. The clique that turned world finance into a “Global Ponzi scheme” remain largely untouched. The protagonists who impoverished hundreds of millions around the world, have been left with hundreds of millions in their pockets; and as if this is not enough, they are still running America’s financial world.

As much as the film is brilliantly made, it has some crucial blind spots: Almost every individual or figure linked to the colossal disaster disclosed in the film is either a Jew, or a goy who worked for a company that is recognised as ‘being Jewish’. And yet, the film (probably consciously) fails to address this highly sensitive issue.

I would not suggest that Jews, as a people, are collectively responsible for the economic crisis -- I have never accused Jews as a collective -- And yet, a few questions need to be raised here. How is it that so many amongst the culprits of the current global disaster are Jews? Are they Zionists? Do they form a class -- or are they just a bunch of individuals? Is such a severe lack of ethics (which they surely so profoundly performed) imbued within ‘Jewish secular culture’?

These questions are likely to be considered by historians of the future, and I do not see any reason not to elaborate on them now. In fact Jewish media outlets have admitted that the situation and its implications might well prove to have complex repercussions -- already in 2008, The Jewish chronicle was envisaging a tidal wave of anti Semitism. The ADL too, was concerned. In 2009 the Wall Street Journal also expressed concern about the rise of anti Jewish feelings.

The film obviously fails to address the topic, but this may as well be a very clever move, since such an omission leaves these questions to the viewer.

I am convinced that Ferguson wasn’t at all blind to the disproportionate representation of Jews within his cast. Though the word ‘Jews’ or Jewish symbols are avoided, Christianity is actually clearly featured in the film -- During the film, Ferguson discloses the excessive life style of his corrupted protagonists: more than once we meet a ‘fair escort girl’, who is there to tell us about the boys in Goldman Sachs’ and Lehman Brothers’ most ‘elementary needs’. Interestingly enough, on her well endowed breast, clearly visible, hangs a substantial crucifix.

In cinematic language, this symbolism is very telling. Also towards the end of the film the camera introduces us to the victims of the ‘financial shoa’. We are taken to a tent-city built for the impoverished Americans; those who lost everything they ever had while a bunch of corrupted bankers pocketed millions. In this island of poverty we meet a volunteer for a Catholic charity who is there to introduce hope.

Whether Ferguson intended to give this impression or not is unclear, but the symbolism is devastatingly obvious; the Christians here are either prostituting themselves, or just left to pay the bill.

There is more omission. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of the war in Iraq. Yet, it is an obvious fact that at the time Alan Greenspan, Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Bros, Larry Summers and Martin Feldstein were leading America and the world economy into a total disaster, America was fighting a war that was set to demolish one of the last enemies of the Jewish state. At the time that America was led to believe in its miraculous financial boom, some bankers were manufacturing false dreams.

These two occurrences go hand in hand. While America was implementing ‘the Wolfowitz doctrine’ and fighting a Zionist war, a cabal of corrupted bankers pocketed billions, creating an economy bubble that diverted the public attention from the war in Iraq...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

One component of the film that bothered me was how in repeated interviews, the filmmaker offered up Jewish Zionist Congressman Barney Frank as some sort of voice of responsibility and authority in evaluating what caused the housing meltdown, and whose advice could be relied upon to make the right corrections.

The truth is that Barney Frank himself played a starring role in the housing meltdown. As Jeff Jacoby reported about Frank back in 2008:

...his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing. Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

And Wikipedia notes:

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[63] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll":[64] "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."[65] Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[66]

Additionally, Frank was involved in a sexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive for years:

Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive... The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

The game these Jewish Zionists seem to be playing is two-fold: use corrupt government insiders like Frank (and guys like Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and Alan Greenspan) to rig the rules and "oversight" in favor of criminal Jewish Zionist Wall Street networks who consequently rip off the country, which leads to economic disasters; and when the sh*t finally hits the fan, these same Jewish Zionist government "officials" then demand more power for themselves as the "remedy" to the problem.

Net effect: the self-serving Jewish Zionist networks get fabulously wealthy by robbing average Americans blind, and then Jewish Zionist network politicians grab even more power for themselves with the Big Government "solution" -- power that they will no doubt sooner or later use to fleece average Americans yet again.
--------------------------
Corrupt Jewish Zionist Congressman Barney Frank -- dishonestly portrayed as a voice of wisdom in Academy Award winning Best Documentary Film Inside Job
-------------------------
Update 3/29: Thinking back about the film a little more, another aspect that bothered be was how the filmmakers portrayed another Jewish Zionist, Senator Carl Levin, as a fiery voice of retribution against injustice, taking the corrupt bankers to task for their abuses.

In one clip, Levin repeatedly swears up a firestorm at the sleazy Goldman Sachs bankers who are testifying before a Senate committee on the financial crisis. This was pure grandstanding on Levin's part, all done for the media, but the filmmakers made it look like Levin was some kind of heroic voice speaking out for the people.

Here was the original hearing from which the clip in the movie was taken, as described by Huffington Post:

Chairman Carl Levin, to the delight of the crowd at the hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, continually repeated a descriptive, colorful word typically left out of family newspapers that was used by a top Goldman executive to describe a deal it made for clients. The security, named Timberwolf I, a collateralized debt obligation of other CDOs that were based not on actual home mortgage bonds but instead on those bonds' movements, was referenced in a June 22, 2007, email from one Goldman senior executive, Tom Montag, to another, Dan Sparks. Sparks is testifying today before Levin's panel. In his email, Montag remarked of the Timberwolf I deal, "[B]oy, that timeberwof [sic] was one shitty deal." Levin used the word "shitty" 12 times -- eliciting multiple rounds of quiet giggles -- in questioning Sparks, the former head of Goldman's mortgage department, about why Montag would describe it as "shitty," how long they had known it was "shitty," and whether they knew the deal was "shitty" when they peddled it to clients.

But where was Democrat Levin when both the Clinton and Obama administrations were recycling sleazy Goldman Sachs banksters in and out of the "public service" racket in order to enable the kinds of schemes that he was taking the Goldman Sachs employees to task for once the cameras started rolling?

Jewish banksters like Goldman Sachs have massive influence in the Democrat Party, which not coincidentally is the same party in which nearly all of the hugely disproportionate number of Jewish Zionist politicians reside.

Why isn't Levin holding hearings on the influence of Wall Street banksters over both parties, who are apparently collaborating to maintain a political duopoly in America, and who have jointly agreed they will split the loot they are stealing from the American people by way of public-private graft?

The fact that the filmmakers held up two corrupt Jewish Democrats as heroes in the film suggests that they were sensitive to the Jewish question, aware of the extent to which Jewry dominates Hollywood, and more interested in angling for box office income and Academy Awards than they were about getting to any kind of real truth about the foremost forces of government and Wall Street corruption in America, which not coincidentally largely revolve around ideological Zionism and Jewish Zionist rackets.

***

Update #2, 3/29: While reading back through Wikipedia's notes on Barney Frank and the housing bubble that eventually burst, another characteristic of the Zionist modus operandi occurred to me: they routinely couch their self-serving rackets in humanitarian term and rhetorical hyperbole about helping others.

Frank, speaking of quasi-government, public-private entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quoted prior to the housing collapse, said: "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

So Frank was able to fend off regulation and reform by claiming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were engaged in the humanitarian enterprise of pursuing affordable housing for the poor. Yet, when the bubble popped, millions of poor lost their down payments, any money they had put into their homes for improvements, and any equity they had attained in their homes prior to the collapse. Many of these were consequently impoverished.

Frank and his fellow collaborators in Congress and in the bankster rackets weren't helping the poor, they were enriching themselves under the guise of helping the poor through what amounted to massive, government-engineered and laundered wealth transfer; in fact, they were robbing the poor and the working class, as well as the middle class, which got stuck with the bankster bailout bill and itself collectively lost hundreds of billions in home equity which it may never fully recover.

This reminds me of how Jewish neocons and neoliberals sold the Iraq war in part as a "humanitarian" effort to liberate women and moderates from tyrannical Islamic rule, and to spread democracy and liberal values across the Middle East, which turned out to be yet another Jewish-orchestrated fraud.

These Zionists are fraudelent, poisonous and counterfeit on every level.

Case study: How war-agitating Jewish-American Zionist MSM "journalists" disingenuously conflate Palestinians and Arabs with Holocaust

From:
Israel, right or wrong
(Redress) -- by Paul J. Balles --

"If I were an Israeli, I'd be worried. If I were an Arab, I'd be insulted. If I were a critic only of Israel, I'd be ashamed."

Thus concluded Richard Cohen in the Washington Post (28 February 2011)

What Cohen would be worried about is what he perceives as anti-Semitism in the Arab world, fuelled in World War II by the Muslim cleric Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem.

According to Cohen, Al-Husseini "the titular leader of Muslim Palestinians, broadcast Nazi propaganda to the Middle East, recruited European Muslims for the SS, exulted in the Holocaust and after the war went on to represent his people in the Arab League."

Cohen not only faults Arabs for their support of Al-Husseini, but for Cohen's conclusion that “the Arab world is saturated by Jew-hatred".

This is a propaganda line that serves no other purpose but to instil fear in Jews everywhere.

Voices like Cohen's – and there are many – have a much greater impact on Israelis and their worldwide supporters than any biased statements made by a single Muslim cleric.

But then Zionists in America feed their own paranoia by deceiving themselves and distorting reality in their image twisting house of mirrors.

Cohen says "If I were an Arab I'd be insulted."

To Cohen, an Arab should be insulted by Al-Husseini seeking support from the Axis of Germany and Italy prior to World War II.

In 1941, Al-Husseini sought a public declaration of support from the Axis nations for: 1) Arab independence from British and French rule; 2) the freedom for the independent Arab nations to unite in some form; 3) and for the elimination of the proposed Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Why should those goals give cause for anyone except an Israeli to suggest that Arabs should be insulted?

Instead of putting Al-Husseini's mission to save Palestine for the Palestinians into proper perspective, Cohen attempts to distort history.

Al-Husseini also sought military and financial assistance for an Arab uprising that he promised he could unleash, though only in conjunction with the Axis declaration.

Finally, Cohen crows "If I were a critic only of Israel I'd be ashamed."

If American supporters of Israel were more critical of Israel when Israel deserves it, there would be little call to complain of the crimes committed by Israelis.

Israel stands in constant denial of any wrong-doing, whether the wrong happens to be killing by the Stern Gang, apartheid treatment of Palestinians, murders in Gaza or illegal Jewish settlements.

If the rest of the world attempts to pass a resolution finding Israel guilty of wrong-doing, the US, under Zionist control, vetoes it. This has happened 36 times in the past four decades.

Jews who criticize anything that Israel does, no matter how horrendous, have been dubbed "self-hating Jews".

Major US Jewish organizations, from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, are committed to defending Israel whether right or wrong.

"Any time you engage in an activity critical of Israel you are trying to destroy the state of Israel,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, said.

Israel isn't even able to accept criticism by Zionist Jews. Judge Goldstone is a case in point. He was severely faulted for identifying wrongdoing by Israel in Gaza even though his investigation was thorough and fair.

While Israel continues with apartheid practices, illegal settlements and attempts to get the US to bomb Iran, its blind supporters promote anti-Semitism.

It's time for reflection and self-criticism. Thinking like Richard Cohen's only increases fear by Jews and disdain by others...LINK
-------------------------

Jewish Zionists increasingly drop pretense of "secularism," openly engage in Judaic jihad at U.S. taxpayer's expense

From:
BBC Newsnight: The Rise of Israel's Military Rabbis (Part 1 of 2)
(YouTube.com) -- by AtheistMediaBlog --



Chris Moore comments:

And this isn't going on only in Israel; it's happening in America, too. See this, for instance:

Jewish lawmaker's religious doctrine curses Jesus, so she wants his name permanently stricken from the record under guise of "separation"

Voltaire on the Jews

(Compiled by Chris Moore)

''They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race...

''You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.'' Source

"The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous -- cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity." Source

On another occasion Voltaire charged that "the Jew does not belong to any place except that place which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King on behalf of the Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?" (Katz, 44). Thirty of 118 of Voltaire's essays in his Dictionary of Philosophy address Jews, usually disparagingly. Voltaire calls Jews "our masters and our enemies ... whom we detest ... the most abominable people in the world." Source

"If we read the history of the Jews written by an author of another nation, we would have sorrow to believe that there were indeed fugitive people of Egypt which came by express order from God immoler seven or eight small nations that they didn't know; to cut the throat without mercy of a woman, old men and children with the udder, and to reserve only the small girls; that these holy people were punished of his God when it had been enough criminal to save only one man devoted to the anathema. We would not believe that so abominable people (Jews) had been able to exist on the earth. But as this nation itself brings back all its facts in its holy books to us, it should be believed. —Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 1, pages 158–159

"[The Jewish nation] dares spread an irreconcilable hatred against all nations; it revolts against all its masters. Always superstitious, always avid of the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous, crawling in misfortune, and insolent in prosperity. Here are what were the Jews in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans who could read their books. —Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 1, page 186

"If these Ismaélites (Arabs) resembled to the Jews by the enthusiasm and the thirst for plundering, they were prodigiously higher by courage, by the nobility of soul, by the magnanimity: their history, or true or fabulous, before Mahomet, is filled of examples of friendship, such as Greece invented some in the fables of Pilade and Oreste, of Thésée and Pirithous. The history of Barmécides is only one continuation of amazing generosities which raise the heart. These features characterize a nation. We do not see on the contrary, in all annals of the Hebrew people, no generous action. They do not know nor hospitality, nor liberality, nor leniency. Their sovereign happiness is to exert wear with the foreigners; and this spirit of wear, principle of any cowardice, is so natural in their hearts, that it is the continual object of the figures that they employ in the species of eloquence which is proper for them. Their glory is to put at fire and blood the small villages they can seize. They cut the throat of the old men and the children; they hold only the girls nubiles; they assassinate their Masters when they are slaves; they can never forgive when they are victorious: they are enemy of the human mankind. No courtesy, no science, no art improved in any time, in this atrocious nation. —Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 2, page 83

"You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.[2] —Voltaire, From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his antisemitism in L'Essai sur le Moeurs

"… [Jews] are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.[2] —Voltaire, Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron (1771)

"I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made... But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth." —Voltaire, Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166

Source
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Whether the Holocaust truly happened the way in which our Zionist masters and their corrupt collaborators have indoctrinated us or not, it's clear that the most profound Enlightenment thinkers (e.g. Voltaire above, or Immanuel Kant HERE) had serious issues with Jewry, just as did the most profound Christian thinkers before them.

I raise the Holocaust because, similar to the questionable narrative of the 9/11 attacks which was used to indict the entirety of Islam, the Holocaust has been used as a pretense to not only discredit Christendom, but discredit the Enlightenment as well (and line the pockets of those who dwell in the war profiteering class, too).

And true, in retrospect, certain facets of the Enlightenment have indeed been poorly implemented. But is this the fault of the Enlightenment thinkers and their Christian intellectual forbears, or is it because anti-Christian, hard core Jewish supremacist, racist and greedy elements of Jewry (Zionists) and their political, material, intellectual and spiritual collaborators have refused to get with the Western Civilization program, and indeed sought to sabotage it at every turn?

Might we be far closer to world harmony, peace and prosperity by now, (in the West via Christendom and the consequential Christian-modeled Enlightenment, in the East perhaps via Buddhism) but for these opportunistic, neoliberal money-worshippers, and pathologically aggressive Zionist saboteurs?

Jewish -supremacist Washington sides with Zionism over its allies, tolerates no criticism of Israel at UN, no matter how reasonable or moderate

From:
US Israel's sole HR violations supporter
(Press TV) --

The U.S. was the only country to vote against all six United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolutions on Israel, which were approved in Geneva this Thursday and Friday.

"We are deeply troubled to once again be presented with a slate of resolutions replete with controversial elements and one-sided references that fail to address the real challenges of the region," U.S. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe told the council.

HIGHLIGHTS

Israel needs to stop settlement activity in the West Bank and improve movement and access for the Palestinians, Donahoe said; but she added that progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not be achieved through one-sided resolutions, such as the ones presented to the council.

The six resolutions the UNHRC approved condemned Israeli settlement activity and human rights violations in the "occupied" Palestinians territories and Golan Heights, and called for the right of Palestinian self-determination.

They also dealt with a follow-up report on last May's Gaza flotilla and Israel's military incursions in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in late December 2008 and January 2009.

In contrast, the two resolutions on Israeli activity in the West Bank and east al-Quds (Jerusalem) had the approval of 45 members, with only the U.S. voting against them.

The Palestinian representative to the UN in Geneva, Ibrahim Khraishi, said that Israeli policy for decades has been reduced to the phrase, "Shut up, there is a war going on." JPost

FACTS & FIGURES

The U.S. has almost vetoed all United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel.

Since 1982, the U.S. has vetoed 33 UN Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel. Antiwar

Earlier, the U.S. had offered Israel 20 F-35 fighter planes in exchange for a 90-day West Bank building moratorium. An offer Israel rejected.

Israel receives about $3 billion from the U.S. in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's foreign aid budget. ifamericansknew.org

The U.S. has been equipping Israel with the most advanced weapons. Israel has received more U.S. military assistance than any other country in the world...MORE...LINK

Jewish Hollywood filth, Wall Street bankster rackets and Zionist atrocities prove Jewry forfeited any righteous “chosen” status long ago

From:
The Myth Of The Chosen People
(Real Zionist News) -- by Nathanael Kapner --

The Holocaust linchpin/casus belli of so much Keynesian military and Zionist largesse is of course legally off-limits to academic inquiry and debate

From:
Holocaust, Hate Speech & Were the Germans so Stupid?
(Vimeo) -- by SomberImperil --

Editor's note, 3/30: The video, linked above, originally appeared on YouTube, but was deleted (censored) over a trivial copyright complaint. However, it can still be viewed on Vimeo by clicking on the link above.

Update, 3/31 -- The producer of the censored video rebuts YouTube's ridiculous decision to pull the media HERE, which was apparently based on totally unsubstantiated copyright infringement claims made by a person whose existence hasn't even be substantiated.

Chris Moore comments:

What motivates the suppression of Holocaust inquiry? From Hollywood to Washington to Tel Aviv, it's the casus belli and linchpin of so much successful warmongering and consequent Keynesian military and Zionist wealth-transfer largesse, it's no surprise they've attempted to turn it into a sacred cow that academics and individuals can be legally punished for debating.

Little wonder these people are so fixated on the Holocaust; it has next to nothing to do with historical justice, and nearly everything to do with filthy lucre and wealth transfer from average Americans and Europeans to the Keynesian/Pentagon/Zionist network (not to mention the New York banksters that underwrite and coordinate the wealth transfer) -- all of which has facilitated the greatest concentration, centralization, and corruption of wealth in world history via neocon/neoliberal statism.

Jewish lawmaker's religious doctrine curses Jesus, so she wants his name permanently stricken from the record under guise of "separation"

From:
Minn. legislator wants Jesus out of Senate prayers
(Associated Press) --

Jewish Minnesota lawmaker is asking Senate leaders to allow only nondenominational prayers to open sessions, after feeling "highly uncomfortable" when a Baptist pastor repeatedly mentioned Jesus Christ and Christianity in one of the invocations.

Democratic Sen. Terri Bonoff says she wants Republican Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch to change the letter submitted to all visiting chaplains to say they are "required," rather than "requested," to make prayers nondenominational.

"I'm a very religious woman and believe deeply in God," said Bonoff, of the Minneapolis suburb of Minnetonka. "We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that's proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state."

Koch said Wednesday she wouldn't support such a requirement. She said the Senate invites leaders from numerous Christian and non-Christian faith traditions to pray, and notifies them that senators come from a diverse background. "I'm not going to get into the process of sort of editing prayer," Koch said.

Several Jewish senators, all Democrats, are backing Bonoff's request but she's also meeting resistance from other Republicans. The GOP gained control of the Senate after November's election.

"I believe we don't have a right to censor their prayers," Sen. David Brown, R-Becker, said of visiting chaplains...

It's not the first time Jewish legislators have taken issue with how prayers are conducted in state Capitol sessions. A decade ago, a handful of state representatives unsuccessfully fought for House guidelines similar to what Bonoff is proposing for the Senate.

Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, said he has spent several years outside the House chamber during opening prayers. He said he spoke to Speaker Kurt Zellers after a pastor opened a February session with a Christian prayer that made several Jewish members uncomfortable. Paymar said he'd likely push for further steps if it happens again.

"It makes anyone who doesn't pray through Jesus Christ, or believe in Jesus Christ — it makes them feel like they don't belong," said Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is Jewish. "It makes me feel like I don't belong on the Senate floor to which I was duly elected by my constituents. In a government chamber, I and others should not be made to feel that way."

The Hawaii State Senate in January ended opening prayers altogether out of concern over possible lawsuits on First Amendment grounds...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Under the guise of separation of church and state (which in the U.S. was originally implemented not to protect government from religion, but rather to protect religion from government), fanatical Jews will often demand Jesus' name never be uttered in their presence because their religious doctrine curses his being.

But notice how Jewish supremacist lawmakers don't have a "separation" problem with voting tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the officially "Jewish state" of Israel.

In fact, in Israel, Jews routinely spit on Christians or when passing a Christian church.

Perhaps in Minnesota, these Jewish-American lawmakers feel compelled to spit every time they hear Jesus' name. Notice how one of the Jewish lawmakers "said he has spent several years outside the House chamber during opening prayers." Obviously he despises the name of Jesus Christ that much.

Why, next these Jewish-American lefties will demand America tear down all of its churches so they don't have to be offended by the sight of the cross on their way to doing "the people's work" (which is exactly what the Jewish Bolsheviks did in early Soviet Russia -- razed churches, but spared synagogues).

Wait a minute...the vast majority of the people in America are Christians!

But I guess this is the kind of abuse Christians are asking for when they vote in Jewish supremacists to "represent" them.

Religious scholar Ted Pike on one of Judaism's holiest religious documents, the Talmud:

The Talmud says:

On Passover Eve, they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went before him forty days, and proclaimed ‘Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come present that argument on his behalf.’ But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, and so they hanged him on Passover Eve. 4

The Talmud describes torture inflicted on Jesus before His death. “All four legal methods of execution – stoning, burning, decapitation and strangling were employed”. 5 The Talmud elaborates on “burning.” It involved Jesus being:

“lowered in dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound around his neck and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then lit, and thrown into his mouth, so that it descended into his body, burning his bowels.” 6

Jesus, says the Talmud, was excommunicated for the thought of seducing a woman. In His ensuing grief and confusion, He fell down and worshipped a brick. 7 The Talmud says Jesus “…was a fool and we do not pay attention to what fools do.” 8 According to the Talmud, Jesus is now in hell, writhing in eternal agony. The Talmud asks: “‘What is your punishment?’ He replied, ‘With boiling hot semen…’”

Flashback: Why Judeofascists and their U.S. Israel-first allies hate Western Civilization, as articulated by Zionist rabbi living in Orange County

From:
We're Right, the Whole World's Wrong
(rabbidov.com) -- by DOV FISCHER --

"The whole world is demanding that Israel withdraw. I don't think the whole world, including the friends of the Israeli people and government, can be wrong."

— Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General, speaking in Madrid, Spain

(APRIL 19, 2002) -- At this moment in time, many Jews who love and support Israel hear the soft voice within, asking the question to which Kofi Annan recently alluded in Madrid: Can we alone be right, while the whole world around is wrong?

The evidence that we are standing on the other side of the "whole world" is manifest. The Arab League is united in condemnation, and Egyptian students march for an end to their country's diplomatic relations with Israel that were engraved at Camp David. The United Nations Security Council roundly condemns Israel several times in mere weeks, and its human rights commission again takes up the Durban chant against Zionism that was silenced by September 11. The European Union is rife with talk of boycotting the Jewish state. Synagogue attacks in France give vent to the feeling expressed with gentility by the French diplomat who termed Israel "that sh—-y little state." All three major political parties in Germany vie to lead their nation in condemning Israel. England accuses Israel of using British-made tanks illegally. Mobs attack Jews from Ukraine to Belgium to the Netherlands. The pope condemns Israel for its military presence outside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, while armed Arab terrorists repose inside, holding monks and nuns as icons for terror.

We Jews are bemused. Are we the only ones who see the unrelenting suicide bombings of women and children at pizza stores, of teenagers at a discotheque, of families at a Seder celebration? After 19 months of slaughter at open-air fruit markets and bus stations and bat mitzvah parties, deadly shootings of motorists, stabbings of school children in caves, has no one seen this but us? Do we alone notice that the attacks target Jewish and Arab civilians alike throughout pre-June 1967 Israel, from Haifa to Hadera, West Jerusalem to Beersheba?...

Well, yes. If we Jews are anything, we are a people of history. From our first patriarch to Israel's precision-targeted destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, which laid the foundation for a successful Operation Desert Storm and the rescue of Kuwait, our history provides the strength to know that we can be right and the whole world wrong.

We have confronted the question many times. The whole world was polytheistic, and we alone preached belief in one God. We preached a Day of Rest, and the whole ancient world mocked us as lazy people. We were right, and the whole world was wrong. They said we crucified a Jew — as if the Romans would have allowed any of its subjects to do such a thing, as if Jews ever had such a punishment in our code — and we insisted such a thing was beyond impossible. We were right, and the whole world was wrong. In the Middle Ages, the whole world said that we use children's blood to make matzo; we denied it. They said that we poisoned the wells of Europe, and we denied it. We were right, and the whole world was wrong. The Crusades. The blood libels and Talmud burnings in England and France, leading those nations to expel Jews for centuries. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition. The ghettoes and the Mortara case in Italy. Dreyfus in France. Beilis in Russia and a century's persecution of Soviet Jewry. The Holocaust. Kurt Waldheim in Austria. Each time, Europe stood by silently — or actively participated in murdering us — and we alone were right, and the whole world was wrong.

Today, once again, we alone are right and the whole world is wrong. The Arabs, the Russians, the Africans, the Vatican proffer their aggregated insights into and accumulated knowledge of the ethics of massacre. And the Europeans. Although we appreciate a half-century of West European democracy more than we appreciated the prior millennia of European brutality, we recognize who they are, what they have done — and what's what. We know, if they don't, that they need Arab oil more than they need Jewish philosophy and creativity. We remember that the food they eat is grown from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish blood they have sprinkled onto it. Atavistic Jew-hatred lingers in the air into which the ashes rose from the crematoria. Finally, the best of Europe truly are wracked by the burdened conscience of what they, their parents and their bubbes and zeides did, or failed to do, in the 1940s. So, instead of confronting a shameful past that belies their self-vaunted Romantic civilization, they seek now to assuage their consciences with the mendacity that Israel 2002 is no different from Europe 1942.

Yes, once again, we are right and the whole world is wrong. It doesn't change a thing, but after 25 centuries it's nice to know...MORE...LINK

Israeli Parliament debates whether Israel-first left-wing of diaspora Jewish nation is sufficiently treasonous to its American hosts

From:
U.S. Group Stirs Debate on Being ‘Pro-Israel’
(The New York Times) -- by ETHAN BRONNER --

JERUSALEM — On one side were members of the Israeli Parliament and advocates who argued that there was only one legitimate way to support Israel from abroad — unconditionally. On the other were those who insisted that love and devotion did not mean withholding criticism...

At the center of the parliamentary debate was a three-year-old American advocacy group, J Street, which calls itself pro-Israel and pro-peace, a left-leaning alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States. J Street opposes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and urged President Obama not to veto an antisettlement resolution in the United Nations Security Council recently.

The conveners of Wednesday’s hearing, a hawkish Likud legislator named Danny Danon and a conservative colleague from the centrist Kadima party, Otniel Schneller, wanted to expose J Street for what they believed it to be — a group of self-doubting American Jews more worried about what their neighbors say than what is good for the state of Israel.

“This is a dispute between those who care what non-Jews will say and those who believe in being a light unto nations, between the mentality of exile and that of redemption,” Mr. Schneller said. “J Street is not a Zionist organization. It offers love with strings attached. They say, ‘We love you only if you behave the way we like.’ ”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s founder, came from Washington to defend his group, which claims about 170,000 supporters.

“We should work through our differences with respect, vibrant discussion and open dialogue,” he told the legislators. “It only weakens Israel and the Jewish people to make differences of opinion into something greater and to accuse those who criticize Israeli policy of being anti-Israel or worse.”

The committee meeting, which drew a crowd and often descended into shouting matches, was unprecedented, according to many Israelis. No one could recall a debate inside Israel’s Parliament examining whether an American group calling itself pro-Israel was living up to the name...MORE...LINK

Immanuel Kant on the Jews

(Compiled by Chris Moore)

"Every coward is a liar; Jews for example, not only in business, but also in common life." Source

"The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning...They are a nation of swindlers." Source

The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behavior in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” Source

"The Palestinians [Jews thought to have originated in Palestine] living among us have, for the most part, earned a not unfounded reputation for being cheaters, because of their spirit of usury since their exile. Certainly, it seems strange to conceive of a nation of cheaters; but it is just as odd to think of a nation of merchants, the great majority of whom, bound by an ancient superstition that is recognized by the State they live in, seek no civil dignity and try to make up for this loss by the advantage of duping the people among whom they find refuge, and even one another. The situation could not be otherwise, given a whole nation of merchants, as non-productive members of society (for example, the Jews in Poland). So their constitution, which is sanctioned by ancient precepts and even by the people among whom they live (since we have certain sacred writings in common with them), cannot consistently be abolished — even though the supreme principle of their morality in trading with us is "Let the buyer beware." I shall not engage in the futile undertaking of lecturing to these people, in terms of morality, about cheating and honesty. Instead, I shall present my conjectures about the origin of this peculiar constitution (the constitution, namely, of a nation of merchants)." [Quoted in Immanuel Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, tr. Mary J. Gregor (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), p. 77.] Source

Kant highlights the story where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his young son as a test of loyalty. This is completely immoral, encouraging human sacrifice. Why, Kant argues, would an all loving God command this? It also must be realized, that it is irrational to believe that we can communicate with the infinite via our finite senses; any such experience is an illusion. Kant also made personal reference to Judaism; he believed that it was not in actual fact a religion, devoted towards serving God through moral acts, but simply a ‘pseudo-religion’ revolving around rituals and observances.

This was naturally devastating to the stability of Judaism; Kant had questioned its whole fundamental basis. Within Jewish communities the accepted interpretation of the Torah and leadership from authoritative rabbis stemmed from rabbinic scholarship. Their literal interpretation was unquestioned, and the Torah, both oral and written was the Word of God. Jews followed faithfully Mosaic laws, and obeyed the observances of past generations. Now applying Kant’s views to their situation, Kant was telling them they were not only behaving as children, but they were immoral too, failing to have an individual morality not reliant on God. The Jewish people believed them set apart from other religions, especially favored by God. Kant however was merging all religions into one, just looking at religion’s overall social function. Moreover Kant believed Judaism could not be called a religion due to the high observance of rituals. This statement would have shattered a great deal of Jews.

The Torah is considered sacred by the Jewish people; not just anyone can read or interpret it and touch the scrolls within the synagogue, especially not women. Although Kant was analyzing the Christian Bible, his message was universal; all scriptural texts should be rationally interpreted by individuals. Thus in Jewish eyes here was Kant treating Christian and consequently Jewish Scriptures as an ordinary book, disregarding the authority of tradition, presenting ideas which stood completely in opposition to Jewish practice. Kant’s criticism of the story of Abram would have been very poignant to the Jewish people for the historical accounts of their forefathers are highly regarded. Source
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

A lot of what Kant says and writes about the Jews resonates with my own opinion not necessarily of each and every Jew, but certainly with the essence of many factions of organized Jewry, and ALL factions of Judeofascists.

The roots of their enmity, usury, and haughty and imperious delusions of grandeur and entitlement, of course, lie in their ethno-religious and cultural dogma, particularly the Talmud and the Kabbalah, which essentially instruct that Jews are God's chosen race, and all non-Jews are essentially animals, to be manipulated, used, exploited, cheated, plundered, swindled and even murdered as the chosen race sees fit.

Additionally, this attitude gets transmuted to petite Judeofascists, including Judeo-Christian Zionists and Judeophile statist liberals (of the Bolshevik type) who then manifest those attitudes into personal, social and political policy that itself manifests in an overall cynical, misanthropic, usurious, colonialist, parasitical or fascist approach to the world or view of the world, which ironically eventually blows back upon the Jews themselves (e.g. Nazism).

It's alarming and depressing how many non-Jews have made a free will decision to adopt and emulate the Judeofascist "ethic," which explains so much of America's decline into Keynesian swindle and fascism itself.

The Judeofascists and their admirers, allies, emulators, and collaborators: what a truly poisonous and destructive pariah class.

Or, as Kant might put it: An immoral and vile nation of cheaters and low-cunning swindlers.

When Zionists attack: Israeli president convicted of rape, but only because victims were Jews?

From:
Ex-President of Israel Sentenced to Prison in Rape Case
(The New York Times) -- by ISABEL KERSHNER --

JERUSALEM — An Israeli court sentenced Moshe Katsav, the country’s former president, to seven years in prison for rape on Tuesday.

The sentencing is the latest stage in a sordid case that Israel’s leaders point to as proof of the principle of equality before the law, but also one in which the prestige of Israel’s highest office has been brought to a historic low.

Mr. Katsav, who has consistently maintained his innocence, burst into tears upon hearing the sentence, according to reports from inside the Tel Aviv courtroom, and shouted at the judges that they had made a mistake, crying out: “It is a lie! The girls know it is a lie!”

In December, Mr. Katsav, 65, was convicted of raping an employee — identified only by her first initial, A. — on two occasions while he was minister of tourism in 1998.

The court also convicted him of sexually abusing and harassing another woman and of harassing a third while he was president — a distinguished, if mostly ceremonial, position that Mr. Katsav held from 2000 to 2007. He was also convicted of obstruction of justice.

The sentencing came four years after accusations of sexual offenses were made against Mr. Katsav while he was still the head of state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the sentencing that this was “a day of sadness and shame” for Israel, “but it is also a day of deep appreciation and pride for the Israeli justice system.”...

Mr. Katsav resigned from the presidency in disgrace in 2007, two weeks before the end of his seven-year term, to a chorus of public criticism over a deal he had reached with state prosecutors.

According to the terms of the deal, the rape charges against him were to be dropped in exchange for an admission of guilt for lesser offenses. Mr. Katsav was to serve no jail time under the deal. But in a surprising courtroom twist in April 2008 Mr. Katsav backed out of the plea agreement, saying that he wished to fight for his innocence in court...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Because organized Jewry's culture of racism and supremacy instructs its adherents that non-Jews are beasts of burden meant to serve Jews, and hence essentially to be treated like animals with no human rights, the only time the Judeofascists will meet out justice is when one Jew victimizes another, but not when a Jew or organized Jewry victimizes non-Jews.

Hence, even the Israeli president gets jailed for raping a fellow Jew, but Judeofascists who murder non-Jews in cold blood get hardly a slap on the wrist. In fact, believe it or not, one Judeofascist has even written an instructional book as a kind of complete guide for killing Gentiles called The King's Torah.

Here's are some excerpts from the book:

“In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created…When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed...The [Din Rodef] dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly...Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer…Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. 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 a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directled mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers."

Additionally, religious scholar Ted Pike notes:

The groundswell of possibly homicidal activism against Arabs and even Jews who defend them is especially dangerous for a powerful reason: It derives its authority from Orthodox Judaism’s most sacred Scriptures, the Talmud and its mystical/revolutionary companion, the Zohar, or Kabbalah, written by the fathers of modern Judaism, the ancient Pharisees.

Perhaps the most highly esteemed Pharisee in the history of Judaism is the “great” Maimonides. He said concerning the “Akum,” or Gentiles: “Do not have any pity on them, for it is said…Show no mercy with them. Therefore, if you see an Akum in difficulty or drowning, do not go to his help. And if he is in danger of death, do not save him from death.”

Speaking of idolaters (those who worship the false prophet Jesus), Maimonides decreed: “Do not eat with idolaters, nor permit them to worship their idols…Either turn them away from their idols, or kill them” (Hilkoth Akum (X, 1)). (1.) Such venerable Judaic authority underlies The King’s Torah. Its homicidal sentiments are literal interpretations of the 2,000-year-old Talmud and Zohar, the highest ethical and spiritual authorities of Judaism...

Echoing Maimonides, this work extensively clarifies that “idolaters” who violate the Talmud’s Noahide laws (Christians) must also be executed: “When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated.”

Readers who would like to become familiar with rabbinical passages teaching the Jewish right to murder both Gentiles and Christians may read my articles “The Talmud: Scalpel That Bleeds the Mideast” and “The Jewish Kabbalah: Root of Mideast Violence” at www.Truthtellers.org. Ultra-Orthodox fanatics are not inventing a new Judaism. They are only returning to a literal interpretation of the Talmud/Kabbalah and applying it in the modern anti-Arab, anti-Christian context...

Clueless Judeo-Chrisian Zionist Sarah Palin had no idea Judeofascists keep birthplace of Jesus in lockdown

From:
Sarah Palin's Geography Lesson: Bethlehem Is Where? Oh, Whoops.
(Forward.com) -- by J.J. Goldberg --

Sarah Palin has been raising eyebrows in Israel since she set out Monday morning, on her second day in Israel to visit the birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem. According to several news reports, which appear to trace back to this one in the London Telegraph, her car headed south from Jerusalem but stopped just short of the Israeli military checkpoint at the entrance to Bethlehem, hesitated for a moment, then did a U-turn and scooted back to Jerusalem. The news reports say nobody left Palin’s car before it turned and left. There’s no mention of any sort of communication her party and the soldiers at the checkpoint. Why did they leave? It’s a mystery.

The Telegraph story and others indicate that Palin’s party had not applied to the Israeli army’s West Bank civil administration for permission to enter the West Bank city, citing officials at the civil administration. The application is described as customary, though apparently not mandatory. The army had no record of anyone from Palin’s staff asking for the permit. Was there a last minute cell-phone communication between Palin’s people and the authorities when they got to the checkpoint? No indication.

The likeliest answer comes from the Israeli news site Nana10, which reports that Palin and her staff apparently were unaware that Bethlehem was not in sovereign Israel but in occupied Palestinian territory. I mean, who knew? Palin’s itinerary is just full of historical goodies like that...MORE...LINK

Why are Judaics so historically despised, and increasingly disliked today? Could it be their egocentric, theological and cultural misanthropy?

From:
Quote of the Day: Alan Dershowitz on Anti-Semitism
(The Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

A quote from Alan Dershowitz:

How does one understand — not even forgive, simply understand! – the virulently anti-Jewish statements of intellectuals throughout history? Their numbers included H. L. Mencken (‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of’); George Bernard Shaw (‘Stop being Jews and start being human beings’); Henry Adams (‘The whole rotten carcass is rotten with Jew worms’); H.G. Wells (‘A careful study of anti-Semitism, prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritation they inflict’); Edgar Degas (characterized as a ‘wild anti-Semite’); Denis Diderot (‘Brutish people, vile and vulgar men’); Theodore Dreiser (New York is a ‘kike’s dream of a ghetto,’ and Jews are not ‘pure Americans’ and ‘lack integrity’); T. S. Eliot (a social as well as literary anti-Semite, even after the Holocaust); Immanuel Kant (‘The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning … They are a nation of swindlers.’) Other famous anti-Semites include Tacitus, Cicero, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, of course, Richard Wagner. This honor roll of anti-Jewish bigotry goes on, and included people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age. The answer to the question why? probably lies more in the realm of abnormal psychology than in any rational attempts to find understandable cause in history, or economics. Anti-Semitism is a disease of the soul, and diseases are best diagnosed by examining those infected with them (Dershowitz, Alan. Chutzpah. Little, Brown, and Co. Boston, Toronto, London, 1991; p 113). (see here)

So, according to Dershowitz, anti-Semites may be found among “people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age.” And his theory is that people in all these different categories are suffering from some kind of abnormal psychology (!). The normal as abnormal. Thereby absolving him from having to find a rational explanation...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Can Judaism's and Alan Dershowitz's hatred of Whites, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, etc, (which at this point can only be described as misanthropy) be explained by abnormal Judaic psychology?

Indeed, it can, just as all the other “anti-Semitism” can be explained by the abnormal psychology of the Jewish supremacists -- an abnormal psychology instilled by their various supremacist, post-OT holy books and their ethno-religious culture of cohesive racketeering.

One historical theological “anti-Semite,” I can’t recall right now which, believed that cohesive Jewish racketeering is all about the afterbirth of the necessary cohesion it took to deliver up the Messiah.

Others speculate that after doing so, and drunk on vainglory, they didn’t want to relent their power, and so abandoned God and entered into a pact with the devil.

That would certainly explain why the U.S. has come under a curse ever since their ascension into the highest ranks of wealth and power in this country.

It all make me wonder whether, when Judeo-Christian Zionists say "God blesses those that bless the Jews," they aren't all essentially money-worshippers (another atheist-materialist ideology and the mere flip side of communism) whose "God" is actually Satan, and truly mean "Satan rewards with money those that bless the Jews."

There are certainly undeniable parallels between the Church of Satan and Zionism, particularly with regard to the concept that "the Jewish people have become their own God," hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

All of this would additionally explain the warlike ways of the lot of them.

***

Trying to understand the Jewish question without including a theological analysis will ultimately be totally off of the mark and futile, given that theology motivates so much of Jewry's machinations. It's like trying to understand the success of Western Civilization while ignoring the hugely important and influential, perhaps decisive, role of Christianity.

Interrelated, it's no accident that America has basically gone over a cliff ever since supremacist Jewry ascended to the helm and eradicated Christian moral authority.

A generalized Christianity was the necessary common denominator and moral and ethical glue that held the country together, and once it was marginalized and replaced with atheist-materialist formulations like money-worship and FDR-style government worship, and warped, quasi-theological formulations like Zionism (both Jewish and Judeo-Christian), nearly the entirety of society was essentially atomized, except incredibly cohesive organized Jewry, which then became the “big dog” social, political and moral authority that relatively isolated individuals or sub-groups could no longer compete with or subordinate.

***

Look at this video of David Horowitz ranting and raving about Palestinians who "can't get along with anyone." Of course, he's projecting what he knows to be the truth about the Judeofascists onto his opponents.

One interesting characteristics of Judeofascists like Dershowitz and Horowitz, as well as those non-Jews who have entered into spiritual and ideological pacts with them, is that the older they get, the more uptight, delusional, hypocritical, irrational and paranoid they get. It's as if, once they realize their end is nigh and the devil will soon be collecting for his temporal services and earthly rewards rendered, they start to lose their marbles.

The huge and crass financial success of so many modern Judaics is yet more verification of the existence of their devil's bargain.

Of course, most Judaics and their collaborators attempt to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible. And some, like Ariel Sharon's family, will even keep their Judeofascist patriarchs alive in a vegetative, undead state indefinitely in a desperate, futile attempt to keep the devil from getting his due.

But ultimately, it's all for not as the Judeofascists and their collaborators deep down know they've got to pay the price for their worldly crimes against humanity, and the devil will sooner or later collect his debt.