Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Jewry has long exploited and subjugated blacks, from the slave trade to Israel to the American political scene today

Why Do So Many Jews Hate Black People?

(The Bilzarian Report) -- by Adam Bilzerian --

Dov Lior, a popular chief rabbi in Israel, recently called Obama a Kushi, which is Israel’s equivalent to nig*er. Most Americans are completely unaware of the general contempt that many Jewish people have towards blacks, as Max Blumenthal found out when he interviewed dozens of young people in Israel who reiterated the Rabbi’s sentiments about Obama. Blumenthal’s video titled Feeling the Hate in Israel was removed from YouTube, Vimeo, and the Huffington Post shortly after going viral.

In order to understand the nature of this hatred we need to understand the historical context, which dates back hundreds of years. Although Jews were just a tiny percentage of the European population, they dominated the African slave trade. Jewish historians were so proud of this accomplishment that they bragged endlessly about their involvement and dominance of the industry in their historical texts. In Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History, prominent Jewish Historian Marc Raphael wrote “Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French, British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the triangular slave trade that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses….”

Jewish historical records show that Jewish involvement in the North American slave trade was so dominant that slave posts were frequently closed on Jewish holidays. Arnold Wiznitzer, a Jewish historian, wrote, “the buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of their lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed” In The United States Jewry 1776-1985 Jacob Marcus wrote, “all through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth century, Jews in the North were to own black servants. In 1820 over 75% of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves. Almost 40% of all Jewish householders in the United States owned one slave or more.” In the South, which had a much higher ratio of slave ownership than the North, only 5% of white people owned slaves.

White Europeans would have ended the morally corrupt practice of slavery in North America much sooner if it weren’t for powerful Jewish businessmen lobbying to keep their profitable industry alive. As Rabbi and historian, Bertram Korn said, “many Southern Jews believed slavery to be indispensable to their happiness and security. “The road to social and economic advancement and acceptance” (for the Jews) “was made easier by the institution of slavery.”

The honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan discovered these facts and published the book: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which quotes Jewish historical records such as the aforementioned to prove the case. The Anti-Defamation League, mainstream media, and many other Jewish American organizations slandered Farrakhan for publishing the book, even calling him anti-semitic for merely assembling a collection of Jewish historical records.

This racism has not abated in recent times unfortunately. For example, when black African Jews returned to Israel in 1969 under the Right of Return Act, the government ruled that they were not real Jews and therefore did not qualify for citizenship or any legal status. The black Hebrews were also denied state benefits and work permits. It wasn’t until 2003 that black Hebrews were granted permanent residency, but not the automatic citizenship granted to all other races returning on the exact same provision. If it wasn’t for a group of Americans who shamed the Israeli government into granting black African Jews some legal status, they would probably never have received it. To this day black Jews are still not accepted by the Jewish community in Israel. Racial slurs, insults, and discrimination in housing rentals are commonplace. This treatment has reached such an unbearable level that Ethiopan Jews have taken to the streets to protest. In response, Sofa Landver, the Israeli Immigrant Absorption Minister, smugly replied that they should be grateful for all that Israel has done for them. This is reminiscent of white supremacist rhetoric in the America, which claims that Africans should be grateful their ancestors were brought to America. Israel was clearly created under the premise of future safety for all Jews, not just white European Jews. Therefore, black African Jews should have the same rights and entitlements to Israel as any other Jews.

The Israeli government has even been caught attempting to sterilize Ehtiopan Jews by giving them the controversial birth control, Depo-Provera, without warning them of the potential side effects. Ethiopian Jews are less than 1% of Israel’s population, but yet account for 60% of the women on Depo-Provera. The side effects are quite severe, including pain in the hands and back, heavy bleeding, and in some cases permanent sterilization. Around 10% of the women taking this drug develop substantial side effects. In 2004, the FDA warned against the dangers of the drugs. Unfortunately, many Ethiopan Jews fear being deported if they speak up about these types of human rights abuses...

The Jewish controlled media spends a ridiculous amount of airtime focusing on racial strife in America in order to cause a divide between blacks and whites. The truth of the matter is that there is very little inequality between whites and blacks when Jewish people are subtracted from the white column. Jewish people only comprise 2% of the population yet comprise 33% of the Supreme Court, 12-35% of the Ivy League student population and nearly 80% of the top administrative positions, 64% of the Federal Reserve including the top two spots, 10% of the Senate, and 6.5% of the House of Representatives. In addition, Jewish people control about 90% of the American media and make up 33% of America’s millionaires, 40% of America’s billionaires, and 45% of Forbes’ 40 richest Americans. Given these figures, it is statistically impossible for white gentiles to be over-represented in many of these positions. What is really taking place is that Jewish tribalism and nepotism keeps black people from positions of power and influence, but uses their media to blame the inequality on white racism.

The Jewish owned American media (see http://thebilzerianreport.com/?p=114 for the names, pictures and titles, to prove this fact) spends amazing amounts of airtime on Israel and Middle East, but little to no airtime on Africa, even though America has just as much strategic and humanitarian interest in the continent. America gets more oil from Nigeria than Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, and Iran combined. The media has fooled the American people into believing that they get their oil from the Middle East so they continually intercede on Israel’s behalf. The reality is that America produces half of its own oil and gets the vast majority of the rest from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. And given the history, Americans certainly owe much more to Africa than to Israel and the greater Middle East. Miraculously the Jewish controlled media ignored the Rwandan genocide, which killed nearly one million Africans; most likely because they didn’t care about the black people they once enslaved and didn’t want take away from the sympathy of the Jewish holocaust. There are dozens of Jewish lobbies in America that have secured vast aid to the Middle East, but there are no Jewish lobbies for black African countries.

Even to this day the Jewish community is yet to apologize or acknowledge any role in the African slave trade. In fact, they even deny it, and crucify anyone who discusses it, which is similar one would think to holocaust denial. The denial of Jewish involvement in the slave trade, considering all the Jewish documentation, is equally as preposterous as denying the Jewish holocaust...MORE...LINK
"What is really taking place is that Jewish tribalism and nepotism keeps black people from positions of power and influence, but uses their media to blame the inequality on white racism."
Chris Moore comments:

This is how the Zionists operate in the larger Mideast, as well, pitting tribe against tribe and laughing about the conflicts they have incited.

Jewry has played the game of self-serving tribal machinations longer than anyone, and hence has a highly evolved system of Gentile exploitation and manipulation that most people simply can't fathom. Of course, it's all based on an elaborate system of lies and false history designed to keep the majority of the tribe polarized from the larger world and on the Jewish reservation, and ultimately drooling with hatred, contempt, fear and loathing of non-Jews.

It is this usurious, exploitive, systematically polarizing approach to the non-Jewish world (what we today call Zionism) that is behind the vast majority of historical "persecution" of Jewry.

In other words, their own system itself is what has brought the furies down upon Jewry, not some sort irrational, superstitious bigotry, as claimed by the Zionist narrative. The so called "bigotry" is actually blowback.

Yet when it inevitably comes, the Zionists point to the blowback and tell their Jewish captives: “See, we told you can’t trust the goyim.”

It’s diabolically brilliant in a sinister sort of way, yet at its core, truly about as sick as it gets.

"Progressives" are working with Zionist-extraordinaire P.R. firm to get back in good graces with Jewish-American moneybags

Lobby’s bedfellows: CAP’s new PR outfit also worked for Sheldon Adelson’s pet project

(Mondoweisss) -- by Philip Weiss --

The public relations firm hired by the Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party-linked thinktank, to restore its image after it was charged with being critical of Israel has also worked closely with Republican Sheldon Adelson's pet project, Birthright Israel, which sends young American Jews for free to Israel so as to cement American Jewish support for the country.

Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications had Birthright as a client for at least three years, from 2006-2008, and got nearly $300,000 for its services, according to federal tax forms filed by Birthright.

Dorf was hired lately by the Center for American Progress (CAP) as a form of damage control because the PR firm has such close ties to the Jewish community and Zionist groups. CAP had come under attack from a neoconservative smear campaign that said CAP was sheltering anti-Semites because some of its bloggers had criticized Israel. One of those bloggers has since left the organization, and CAP has backtracked on some of its writings.

The hiring of Dorf underlines the fact that the Israel lobby transcends political parties. The smear campaign against CAP was led by neocons and Republicans. Had the issue been women's rights or immigration or gay rights, the Democratic Party surely would have taken on the fight. But the smear campaign gained traction inside the Democratic Party establishment, and even the White House distanced itself from the CAP writings.

Birthright is one of Republican Sheldon Adelson's favorite charities. He has given it more than $100 million since 2007, including $10 million last year. In December he told a gathering of hundreds of Birthright travelers in Israel that he agreed with Newt Gingrich's comment that the Palestinians are an invented people.

Adelson has also given millions to Gingrich's campaign and said that he might spend $100 million on the race this year...MORE...LINK

Powerful Israel lobby has Communist background, has long been a mere Zionist tentacle subverting American democracy

The Mossad Has Long Given Marching Orders to AIPAC

(Antiwar.com) -- by Grant Smith --

AIPAC’s Washington policy conference next month is drawing intense scrutiny and unprecedented resistance. AIPAC has worked quietly for years to tripwire the United States into war with Iran. Soon it will “ask” Congress and the president to define “nuclear weapons capability” as the threshold for war, essentially demanding an immediate attack. Because Iran presents no military threat to the United States, many Americans wonder exactly where such costly and potentially disastrous policies are formulated. Recently declassified FBI files reveal how Israeli government officials first orchestrated public relations and policies through the U.S. lobby. Counter-espionage investigations of proto-AIPAC’s first coordinating meetings with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the head of Mossad provide a timely and useful framework for understanding how AIPAC continues to localize and market Israeli government policies in America.

Although AIPAC claims it rose “from a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s,” its true origin can be traced to Oct. 16, 1948. This is the date AIPAC’s founder Isaiah L. Kenen and four others established the Israel Office of Information under Israel’s U.N. mission. It was later moved under the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The IOI opened offices in New York City, Washington, and Los Angeles, which became testbeds for working out how Israeli government leaders would promote lobbying initiatives through public relations harnessing the power and financial support of American organizations and supporters. Although the FBI nervously noted IOI founder Kenen had become a member of the Communist Party in 1937 while working as a newspaperman at the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, he was never the subject of a criminal investigation. Only because Kenen interacted with so many U.S. and foreign nationals who were targets of espionage, foreign counter-intelligence, and domestic security investigations (such as super-lobbyist Abraham Feinberg, Israeli diplomats, and assorted Mossad officers) did Kenen’s movements appear as cross-references in hundreds of pages of recently declassified FBI documents [.pdf].

Isaiah Kenen became a savvy PR operative working as the director of public relations for the Israeli United Nations delegation after he left the Plain Dealer. It is because of Kenen’s public relations acumen and contacts the IOI could insert Israeli propaganda directly into establishment U.S. media. One IOI Public Relations Board meeting held in the Israeli Consulate General in New York on May 9, 1949, pushed U.S. media initiatives aimed at boosting Israel’s economy. The IOI wanted to “place a series of pieces in from eight to twelve top magazines” including Reader’s Digest and Cosmopolitan by “making funds available for important propaganda programs.” New York IOI focused on “U.N., Organizations (Jewish), and the press emanating from New York” while the IOI Washington office covered “other embassies, Congress, Washington Press, and the National Press Club.”...MORE...LINK

Monday, February 27, 2012

Ultimately, what good are politically correct "progressives" like Elizabeth Warren who exist in the pocket of neo-fascist, war-inciting Israel lobby?

Progressive Democratic hero Elizabeth Warren enlists to serve AIPAC's pro-war agenda

(Alakhbar English) -- by Max Blumenthal --

Few congressional candidates have excited the progressive base of the Democratic party as much as consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren has. With her tenacious advocacy for a consumer protection agency to fight unfair lending practices and her consistent framing of economic issues in terms of structural inequality has earned her enthusiastic promotion from major progressive figures from Markos Moulitsas to Rachel Maddow to Michael Moore...

While progressives celebrate Warren for her fight against the big banks and the financial industry's lobbying arm, they have kept silent over the fact that she has enlisted with another powerful lobby that is willing to sabotage America's economic recovery in order to advance its narrow interests. It is AIPAC, the key arm of the Israel lobby; a group that is openly pushing for a US war on Iran that would likely trigger a global recession, as the renowned economist Nouriel Roubini recently warned. The national security/foreign policy position page on Warren's campaign website reads as though it was cobbled together from AIPAC memos and the website of the Israeli Foreign Ministry by the Democratic Party hacks who are advising her. It is pure boilerplate that suggests she knows about as much about the Middle East as Herman "Uzbeki-beki-stan-stan" Cain, and that she doesn't care.

Warren's statement on Israel consumes far more space than any other foreign policy issue on the page (she makes no mention of China, Latin America, or Africa). To justify what she calls the "unbreakable bond" between the US and Israel, Warren repeats the thoughtless cant about "a natural partnership resting on our mutual commitment to democracy and freedom and on our shared values." She then declares that the United States must reject any Palestinian plans to pursue statehood outside of negotiations with Israel. While the US can preach to the Palestinians about how and when to demand the end of their 45-year-long military occupation, Warren says the US "cannot dictate the terms" to Israel.

Warren goes on to describe Iran as "a significant threat to the United States," echoing a key talking point of fear-mongering pro-war forces. She calls for "strong sanctions" and declares that the "United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon" -- a veiled endorsement of a military strike if Iran crosses the constantly shifting American "red lines." Perhaps the only option Warren does not endorse or implicitly support is diplomacy. Her foreign policy views are hardly distinguishable from those of her Republican rival, who also marches in lockstep with AIPAC.

The same progressives who refused to vet Barack Obama's views on foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008, and who now feel betrayed that he is not the liberal savior they imagined him to be, are repeating their mistake with Warren. With AIPAC leading the push for war at the height of an election campaign, there is no better time to demand accountability from candidates like Warren. Who does she serve? The liberal grassroots forces that made her into a populist hero or the lobby seeking to drag the US into a dubious, potentially catastrophic war? It is far better for progressives to grill her on her foreign policy positions before the campaign is over than after the next war begins...MORE...LINK

Sunday, February 26, 2012

CNN's Piers Morgan in textbook example of how Zionists and Globalists exploit mythology, Jews, the Holocaust, 9/11 to legitimize fascist aggression

"Where Is Ahmadinejad Currently Threatening To Destroy Israel?"

(YouTube.com) -- by MoxNews.com --


Chris Moore comments:

Anti-Semitism!...blah, blah, blah...Another Holocaust!...blah, blah, blah...Save the Israeli Jews!...blah, blah, blah...9/11 blah, blah, blah...honestly, how much longer do the Zionists and Globalists believe they are going to be able to get away with ushering in neo-fascism within the Trojan horse of the Jewish victim shtick?

Zionists and Globalists and their left-right neolib-neocon accomplices had a good run...they've exploited the whole WWII/Holocaust/anti-Semitism meme to its absolute maximum in terms of Israeli expansionism, self-enrichment and Mideast wars for Israel, Keynesian dollar hegemony, fiat currency, and the Military-Industrial complex, and now it's time to take their profits and throw in the towel.

You've got to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. It's time to fold 'em, because the "anti-Semitism" racket has run out of steam.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Zionist ownership of the Democratic establishment continues to keep liberalism pinned down by neoconservatism and its war agenda

‘Center for American Progress’ doubles down with lobby

(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

More evidence that the only game in Washington is the Israel lobby. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Democratic Party thinktank under steady attack from neoconservatives for being critical of Israel, has taken on a pr firm associated with Jewish organizations, including the neoconservative Jewish Council for Public Affairs, so as to maintain its street cred...

Earlier this week, Ilene Cohen made the pointed observation that in the eyes of many in the Jewish community, the New York Times is a Jewish house organ and not the paper of record. But this is the political reality of the Democratic establishment; the Israel lobby is in the saddle. Obama raised $1.2 million last June at a dinner at the home of David Cohen, the executive vice president of the company that owns NBC and MSNBC. You can be sure that many of the people who gave $10,000 came from Cohen's network at the Jewish Federations, which he had headed-- and an organization that CAP's new p.r. firm also represented.

As for CAP's new bedfellow, JCPA, here is the thinktank stirring up fears of Iran's "existential" threat to Israel.

Just imagine the pressure on the journalists at CAP not to say that AIPAC is pushing war with Iran...MORE...LINK

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Israel-first, Diaspora Jewish Zionists routinely and illegally abuse citizenship rights by turning government-issued passports over to foreign agents

Foreign nationals willingly gave passports to Mossad

(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

During the recent flap over the use of the term "Israel firster," I insisted that the words have a worthy meaning-- how else does one characterize American political player Sheldon Adelson's statement that he only cares about being a good citizen of Israel?

Well when I was in Palestine last week, friends pointed me to reporting of a related nature by the Times of London that is behind a paywall, but was picked up by Haaretz:
The Times report revealed several testimonies of Israeli émigrés which ended up giving their passports to the Mossad. “Matthew” first emigrated to Israel after leaving his parents’ London home in 2009, and volunteered to join the Israeli military shortly afterwards. It was just before his first week of army duty that he was approached by a young woman from Mossad and asked if he was “committed to the State of Israel.”

According to the article, Matthew received his passport back after 18 months of military service, and was surprised to find stamps in it from Turkey and Azerbaijan, countries that he had never visited.

In another testimony to The Times, “Peter," a Frenchman who emigrated to Israel last year, had a similar story. Months after arriving in Israel and volunteering for military service, he began meeting “a sexy woman," who asked him if he wanted to help her. He said his passport was taken and returned a year later with stamps from Russia and several other countries.
These cases are not aberrations. Duality of loyalty, or actually singularity, was built into Jewish nationalism, which is one reason that anti-Zionists repudiated Zionism; they said it would raise questions about their patriotism. If there is controversy over the question today, it is because these reports-- and the push for war on Iran by American neoconservatives--make the question of whose national interest an important one...LINK
Related: Sayanim — Israeli Operatives in the U.S.

The Jewish-supremacism problem at the New York Times

Jodi Rudoren, Another Member of the Family

Meet the New York Times’ New Israel-Palestine News Chief
(CounterPunch.org) -- by ALISON WEIR --

Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun Magazine, is known for his frequent condemnations of Israeli violence against Palestinians. He is labeled “pro-Palestinian” for such statements and is regularly attacked by pro-Israel zealots who charge that he is disloyal to the Jewish state.

Yet, in reality, Lerner frequently speaks of his devotion to Israel and states that his actions are taken in considerable part to protect it.

A while ago Lerner explained the difference in his feelings about Israelis compared to his feelings about Palestinians. “[T]here is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides,” Lerner said.

“On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family.”

This statement comes to mind when one considers the New York Times bureau chiefs who cover Israel-Palestine.

The most recent person to be chosen for this powerful post at arguably the most influential newspaper in the United States is Jodi Rudoren. She takes the place of Ethan Bronner, who was preceded by Steven Erlanger, who was preceded by James Bennet, who was preceded by Deborah Sontag. All, according to an Israeli report, are Jewish.

Most Americans — particularly those who would object to only white reporters covering racial issues or only male reporters covering gender issues — are reluctant to discuss the potential bias in such a profoundly un-diverse system, having been conditioned to fear that such discussion would be “anti-Semitic” or would open the commentator to this extremely damaging accusation.

In Israel, however, it is considered appropriate to discuss the Jewish roots of American politicians and journalists since Israel was created specifically to be “the Jewish state,” Jews have elevated status in it, and the vast majority of Israeli land is officially owned by “world Jewry” (although some individuals have publicly opted out).

An article on the Jerusalem Post website, a major Israeli newspaper, focuses on this aspect. The article, “Judaism at the New York Times”, reports that “all New York Times’ bureau chiefs for at least the last fifteen years have been Jewish.”

The article’s author, Ashley Rindsberg, notes that “the Times doesn’t consistently send Russian Americans to its Moscow bureau… or Mexican Americans to lead its Mexico City bureau…” and asks, “Why does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head their central office in the Jewish State?”

Rindsberg, who like many conservative Israelis considers the Times’ reporting anti-Israel, provides a somewhat convoluted answer. The Times’ Jewish owners, Rindsberg posits, are uncomfortable with their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claims, they “would just as soon as not have reporters who could be identified for their Jewishness. And to prove it, they send Jews to the Jewish State to report in a most un-Jewish way.”

The Times’ history of pro-Israel coverage

Despite Rindsberg’s view of Times, analysis shows its coverage to be consistently pro-Israel. A 2005 study found that the Times reported on Israeli deaths at rates up to seven times greater than its reports on Palestinian deaths, even though Palestinian deaths occurred first and in far greater numbers.

A 2007 study of the Times’ coverage of various international reports on human rights violations by Israelis and by Palestinians found that the Times covered reports condemning Israeli human rights violations at a rate only one-twentieth the rate that it covered reports condemning Palestinian human rights violations. The investigation found that during the study period there had been 76 reports by humanitarian agencies condemning Israel for abuses and four condemning Palestinians for abuses. The Times carried two stories on each side.

In its early years the Times specifically avoided assigning Jewish reporters to cover Israel out of concern that such journalists would have an inherent conflict of interest. This policy was reversed in 1979 after Abe Rosenthal became the paper’s executive editor and explicitly decided to choose Jewish journalists for the position.

While his first attempt failed (he had thought his choice, David Shipler, was Jewish), the Columbia Journalism review reports that most of the journalists who succeeded Shipler, beginning with Thomas Friedman, have been of Jewish ethnicity. The article notes that “for a century [the Times] has served, in effect, as the hometown paper of American Jewry.”

Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who was an editor at the Times from 1972 through 2000, admitted in his memoirs: “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”

An article by star reporter and author Grace Halsell describes her firsthand experience with pro-Israel bias at the Times in the early 1980s.

Halsell had written books about the plight of Native Americans, African Americans, and undocumented Mexican workers. She was a great favorite of New York Times matriarch Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, whose father had acquired the Times in 1896, whose husband and then son had run it next, and whose grandson is now in charge.

When Halsell next wrote a powerful book describing the Palestinian plight, she incurred Mrs. Suzberger’s displeasure and was quickly dropped by the Times. Halsell writes: “I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered—from her point of view—the ‘wrong’ underdog.”

In her article Halsell quotes a revealing statement by an Israeli journalist following Israel’s 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Lebanon that killed more than 100 civilians sheltering in it: “We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”

Since 1984 New York Times bureau chiefs have lived in a house that was acquired for the Times by then Jerusalem Bureau Chief Thomas Friedman (now the Times’ lead foreign policy columnist). The building originally belonged to a Palestinian family forced out in Israel’s 1947-49 founding war. Israel afterward prevented the family from returning and reclaiming their home. Therefore, Times’ bureau chiefs are in the strange position of living in a home that was stolen from Palestinians (acquiring property by violent conquest is illegal in today’s world)...MORE...LINK

From the essay:
An article by star reporter and author Grace Halsell describes her firsthand experience with pro-Israel bias at the Times in the early 1980s.

Halsell had written books about the plight of Native Americans, African Americans, and undocumented Mexican workers. She was a great favorite of New York Times matriarch Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, whose father had acquired the Times in 1896, whose husband and then son had run it next, and whose grandson is now in charge.

When Halsell next wrote a powerful book describing the Palestinian plight, she incurred Mrs. Sulzberger’s displeasure and was quickly dropped by the Times. Halsell writes: “I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered—from her point of view—the ‘wrong’ underdog.”
Now, one would think that any authentically "liberal" and "progressive" and "humanitarian" person would care about the plight of all oppressed peoples, regardless of who is oppressing them. But somehow, when it is her own tribe is doing the oppressing, suddenly the wealthy Mrs. Sulzberger loses her compassion.

What gives?

The answer is that Zionist Jews of any stripe are not authentically liberal, progressive, humanitarian or even compassionate when it comes to non-Jews at all; that's just a pose they adopts to gain moral authority on the left, and eventually with the entire establishment as they move to the right, and the oppressed plight of the people they "champion" is used as a battering ram to destroy the previous reigning moral authority, and replace it with a Zionist Jew-dominated Judeo moral authority.

And what is the motive behind this? Well, besides the agenda of institutional Jewish supremacism, it is motivated by greed, because he (or she) who sets the standards usually ends up holding the purse strings.

The true essence of Zionist Jewry: Self-serving moral posturing, noxious hypcrisy, insatiable greed, and rank Jewish supremacism.-- C.M.

American people opposed, but Israel and its fifth column want Iran's scalp, so off we go to war; (Is this called "democracy"?)

AIPAC Declares War

(AntiWar.com) -- by Philip Giraldi --

The American people don’t particularly want a new war in the Middle East, but apparently Congress and Washington’s most powerful lobby do. Thirty-two senators have co-sponsored a resolution that will constrain the White House from adopting any policy vis-à-vis Iran’s “nuclear weapons capability” that amounts to “containment.” The senators include the familiar figures of Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both of whom have persistently called for military action. They and the other senators have presented their proposal in a particularly deceptive fashion, asserting that they are actually supporting the White House position, which they are not. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta repeated on Feb. 16 that Iran does not have and is not currently building a nuclear device. Before Christmas, he stated clearly that the “red line” for the United States is actual Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon. Even Israel’s intelligence services agree that Iran is not building a bomb. What we are seeing play out in Congress is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) position, which is that Iran has already crossed a “red line.” The AIPAC argument will no doubt be spelled out in more detail next month at the group’s annual convention in the nation’s capital, a meeting that will be addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and will attract nearly all of Washington’s power brokers.

Rejection of containment in this context and as spelled out in the resolution means that the United States will be forced to go to war if Iran attains the capability to put together a nuclear weapon. Indeed, one might argue that the United States should be at war already, based on the resolution. “Capability” is one of those particularly useful expressions that is extremely elastic and can be interpreted subjectively. By most standards, Iran already has the technical know-how to make a nuclear bomb and has most of the materials on hand to put one together, assuming it can enrich the uranium it possesses to the required level. The Iranians may not, in fact, have the engineering skills to do so, and the task of creating a small, sophisticated device that can be mounted on a ballistic missile is certainly far beyond their current capabilities and probably unachievable given the costs involved and the poor state of their economy.

There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they chose to do so, making Iran far from unique but for its persistence as a thorn in the side of Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States. In other words, Iran does not have to actually produce a nuclear weapon for it to be subject to attack by either Israel or the United States. It only has to continue to be an irritant for Israel.

The new threat of war takes the Bush doctrine of preemption to a whole new level. Some sources in the Obama administration are anonymously warning that war with Iran is nearly certain and are predicting it to break out in late summer. That would be just before the presidential election, a time in which Obama will be seeking desperately to seize the high ground on Israel’s security from whomever the Republicans nominate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will not even have to mimic Colin Powell by going to the United Nations to seek authorization for an attack using false and fabricated information. Everyone can agree that the mullahs do not actually have a weapon and may not even want to acquire one, but it’s fine to bomb them anyway. The U.S. Senate approves, so off we go to another misadventure in the Middle East...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Diaspora Jewry is "progressive" and "tolerant" claim its coddling liberal allies, but poll shows even young Jews are hard-core Zionists

Young Jews are Pro-Israel

(The Jerusalem Post) -- Mitchell Bard --

Today, it has become popular to malign young Jews and to suggest that they are turning away from Israel. We hear that they have been turned off to Israel by policies of the Israeli government and have become increasingly supportive of the Palestinians. Those of us who work with students know this is rubbish and now a new poll provides evidence that young Jews feel close to Israel, have little sympathy for the Palestinians, are hawkish on peace issues, and don’t believe public criticism of the government advocated by Jews on the far left is helpful.

The nationwide poll of 400 Jewish college students sponsored by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and The Israel Project found:

· 90% agree that Israel is the spiritual center of the Jewish people.
· 83% said caring about Israel is an important part of being Jewish.
· 73% said American and Israeli Jews share a common destiny.
· 89% have warm/favorable feelings toward Israel.
· 78% sympathize with Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
· 84% think America should support Israel.

To further drive a stake in the idea that young Jews feel less connected to Israel than their elders, we can compare our results to the findings of the American Jewish Committee’s latest national poll. The AJC found that 68% of American Jews feel close to Israel and 31% said they feel very close. In the AICE/TIP survey, 66% of college students said they feel close to Israel and 26% answered very close.

Jewish students also have positive associations with Israel. When asked for a word to describe Israel, they chose words such as “Homeland,” “Jewish,” “Home,” “Strong,” and “Beautiful.”

By contrast, young Jews have mostly negative views toward the Palestinians. Only 15% of Jews rated their feelings toward the Palestinians as warm or favorable, only 2% said they sympathize with the Palestinians and only 1% think America should side with the Palestinians.

Jewish students are also relatively hawkish on final status issues. For example,

· 54% oppose a Palestinian state (only 27% support one).
· 62% say Jerusalem should stay under Israeli control; only 11% favor dividing the city.
· 47% favor dismantling some or all of the settlements; however, more Jews say no settlements should be dismantled (32%) than favor dismantling all of them (6%).

Young Jews also do not buy into the far left view that American Jews should express greater criticism of Israel. Nearly half (47%) the Jewish students said American Jews should support Israel and the policies of its democratically elected government and should express their disagreements privately; only 37% thought American Jews should speak out publicly against policies with which they disagree. A majority (58%) agreed that American Jews and Israelis have different experiences, knowledge, responsibilities and audiences and, therefore, criticism of Israeli policy by Israelis does not justify criticism of Israeli policy by American Jews in the United States.

To preempt the charge that the survey was biased toward more conservative Orthodox Jews, a plurality of the sample were Reform (43%) another 29% were Conservative and only 15% said they were Orthodox...MORE...LINK

The corrupt establishment left is in bed with the neocon right, and Zionist organized Jewry (the vast majority of Jews) are agents of the neocon right, which is how the gullible and duped liberal masses are controlled by the neo-fascists. To maintain the fiction that organized Jewry is NOT part of the neocon agenda, corrupt lefties constantly go on and on about how "progressive" and "tolerant" American Jews are, and that only older generations of Jews are hard-core Zionists. This is a lie, as this poll of younger U.S. Jews reveals. -- C.M.

Diaspora Jewry-engineered multiculturalism turns against it: Jewish assailants clash with pro-Palestinian protesters at London School of Economics

Introduction by Chris Moore:

From within both Western government bureaucracy and the State Capitalist corporatocracy, Diaspora Zionist Jewry and its corrupt left-right goyim accomplices in crime went about engineering Western multiculturalism to replace the melting pot assimilation of America and traditional Western civilization for multiple reasons:

1) They didn't want Diaspora Jewry, the eternal "nation within a nation," to continue to stick out like a sore thumb, hence they wanted to encourage other tribalistic "nations" to take root in the West, and encourage their insularity.

2) They wanted to maximize both corporate and government revenue by maximizing the population in the Western sphere, and for example, by having illegal immigrant workers with false Social Security cards pay into government programs like Social Security retirement, but never get anything out, hence keeping the long plundered-by-government program solvent, and keeping corporatist profit margins ever-growing along with the size of the marketplace.

3) Their modus-operandi and expertise has long been using their money and influence to pit the various tribes against one another, just as Israeli Zionists do in the Middle East, and then exploiting the conflict to their own benefit. So just as Israel does routinely, they go about deliberately stirring up trouble between groups in the West, and then Diaspora Jewry adopts a grand pose as the "wise" and "ethical" moral authority who will guide the West through the troubled waters.

Of course, because their intentions are malign, and they can only conceal their bad will machinations for so long, their schemes eventually and inevitably blow up in their faces, as has happened today both in terms of their State Capitalist Ponzi scheme, and in terms of the social, political and racial clashes as a consequence of their neo-fascist, Zionist scheming.

They thought they could conceal their corrupt, "hidden hand" role forever by dominating Big Government (via Jewish Zionist domination of the Democratic Party and the neocon Right), Big Banking and Big Media; but they never anticipated the revolution in information democracy that the Internet has facilitated.

Hence, as demonstrated below, Zionist Jews have now been forced to take to the streets themselves to defend their Zionist racket from the very forces of multiculturalism that they and their partners socially engineered.

Eventual and inevitable hostile blowback against malignant Zionist scheming, warmongering and attempted mass social engineering -- the never-ending story of arrogant, delusional and self-serving Jewry's narcissistic "plight."


Jewish LSE Students Clash With Palestinian Protesters

(Huffington Post) -- by ? --

Students at the London School of Economics have been embroiled in a fight over the university's Palestinian Society protest against Israel's human rights record.

Houghton Street, part of LSE's campus, was the scene of a violent altercation on Monday as a protest by the LSE’s student Palestine Society came to blows after water balloons were hurled at the protesters.

After the attack on the protesters, which was captured on film, a fight broke out with one participant being punched in the face. Protesters claim that those who threw the balloons were members or supporters of the Students’ Union Jewish Society, although leaders of that organisation have condemned the attack.

It began as members of the Palestine Society formed a mock checkpoint outside of the St. Clements Building. Students were stopped before entering the building and asked by protesters for “ID” or “papers.” As the protest continued, certain Jewish students complained of “harassment and intimidation” as access to St. Clements was supposedly blocked.

Palestine Society members taking part in the protest claimed while students were asked for their “papers,” only protesters were physically stopped from entering the building.

Niamh Hayes, a member of Palestine Society, said: “we are only trying to recreate the conditions Palestinians have to face on a day-to-day basis".

Soon after making those comments, a group of counter-protesters ran down Houghton Street screaming “death to Israel” launching water-filled balloons at the protest. After soaking the protesters, they retreated with the Palestine Society members following.

Quickly a brawl broke out with a member of the Palestine Society protest punching a counter-protester in the face and various skirmishes taking over Houghton Street...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Zionist-occupied Washington has normalized same barbaric human rights "standards" routinely practiced in Israel, and that it condemns in China

Khader Adnan and now-normalized Western justice

Practices once denounced by the U.S. as the hallmark of tyranny are now so normalized they barely register notice
(Salon.com) -- by Glenn Greenwald --

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a “Human Rights Report” which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it’s often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The “principal human rights problems” of the tyrannical Chinese government include “a lack of due process in judicial proceedings” and “the use of administrative detention.” Indeed, “arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges.” Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?

Time‘s Tony Karon today writes about the case of Khader Adnan, a 33-year-old Palestinian baker currently imprisoned without charges by the Israeli government on accusations that he is a spokesman for Islamic Jihad. To protest his due-process-free imprisonment and that of thousands of other Palestinians, Adnan has been on a sustained hunger strike and is now close to death. Karon writes:
Israel has not charged Adnan with any crime . . . Israel deals with such cases using a legal framework based on emergency laws left over from British colonial rule to detain any suspect for six months at a time without needing to provide evidence or lay charges against them. When a detainee’s six-month spell has expired, the detention can simply be renewed.
Writing today about the Adnan case in The National, Joseph Dana explains that Israel imprisons Adnan and so many like him pursuant to “a framework of laws and statutes to govern all aspects of life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” and “many, if not most, of the laws governing movement of Palestinians, freedom of speech and association are draconian in nature; none is more alarming than the administrative detention order. The order enables Israel to hold prisoners indefinitely without charging them or allowing them to stand trial.”...

Of course, the U.S. has its own system of indefinite detention now firmly in place. Both within war zones and outside of them, the Obama administration continues to hold hundreds of prisoners who have never been charged with any crime even as they have remained captive for many years. Put another way, both the U.S. and its closest client state have completely normalized exactly the type of arbitrary, due-process-free imprisonment the U.S. has long condemned as the defining attribute of despotism. And, of course, the U.S. Congress just enacted, and President Obama just signed, a law that expressly permits indefinite detention.

Worse, these countries have normalized this practice not merely in terms of government policy, but also the expectations of their own citizens. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found widespread support across the American ideological spectrum for maintaining Guantanamo, where more than 150 prisoners are still held without any charges of any kind, while Dana today writes that “to date, Mr Adnan’s hunger strike has stirred little debate in the Israeli press about the legitimacy of administrative detention” (this is the seventh time Adnan has been imprisoned without charges). The hallmark of the Supremely Authoritarian Citizen — dutifully reciting unproven Government accusations as Truth to justify due-process-free punishment (he’s a Terrorist!) — is now extremely commonplace in the citizenries of both countries.

Even random glances at State Department Human Rights reports will lead one to the most suffocatingly hypocritical denunciations by the U.S. Government. It condemns China, for instance, for the harsh detention conditions of one detainee who “was repeatedly subjected to solitary confinement. . . . The longest period of such confinement reportedly lasted 11 months.” Accused WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning, convicted of no crime, spent 10 months in extreme solitary confinement; the U.S. prison industry is teeming with prisoners who are subjected to this abuse (as one American held for 10 years in solitary confinement by China put it last month in an Op-Ed: “Imagine how shocked I was to find years later that we, the United States of America, hold more human beings in long-term solitary confinement than any other country in the world. I had supposed it would be China — but, no, it’s us”); meanwhile, Israel routinely uses harsh solitary confinement for Palestinian prisoners and even places Palestinian children in solitary confinement for weeks on end.

The State Department report on China also accuses the Communist state of “extrajudicial killings, including executions without due process.” That, of course, is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing continuously with its manic fixation on drone murders in at least six Muslim countries and its targeted, due-process-free execution of its own citizens (and their children). Again, not only does this provoke very little controversy among Americans, this power long cited by the State Department as the ultimate indiciator of tyranny — “executions without due process” — now provokes widespread cheers from majorities of all American political factions. Israel, of course, has been using due-process-free “targeted assassinations” for many years.

What’s so notable here isn’t merely that the U.S. and Israel are engaged in the very practices which the U.S. annually and flamboyantly condemns as “human rights abuses” when done by others. It’s that these abuses have now been going on for so long in the two countries, are so entrenched, that they have been absorbed into the political landscape as barely noticed accoutrements. They have become completely normalized — not just legally and politically but culturally – to the point where they are scarcely controversial...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Hypocrisy and terror, thy name is the Judeo "value system": Judeo-Bolsheviks, Judeo-Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists...time to flush the lot into the sewers of history.

This isn't 500 B.C., in case these tribal troglodytes hadn't noticed.

Isn't it ironic that Diaspora Zionist Jews attempt to pass themselves off as so sophisticated, intellectual, and progressive, yet everywhere they go, from the Jewish Bolsheviks in the early Soviet Union to the Jewish neocons and neolibs in Zionist occupied Washington, they leave a wake of totalitarian government policy, mass murder and primitive barbarism that harkens back to a pre-Western civilization, pre-Christian era.

No wonder they hate Christianity and Western civilization so much -- they're fish out of water. And no wonder they attract a gaggle of intellectually primitive, limbic-brained, left-right thugs and sociopaths as accomplices, collaborators and useful idiots.

They're all simple-minded birds of a feather.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Another intellectual charlatan and Jewish patriarch of nutty leftist thought, Freud still an object of veneration...in Hollywood, at least

A Dangerous Method

(Occidental Observer) -- by Penelope Thornton --

David Cronenberg’s latest movie gives us his view of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his pupil, Carl Jung, and even more centrally it tells the story of the affair between Jung and his patient, Sabina Spielrein. It is set in Vienna in the early years of the 20th century.

The battle between Freud and Jung is fairly well known. Jung was the heir apparent of the psychoanalytic dynasty founded by Freud. But he began to go astray because Freud demanded a strictly sexual explanation for all neurosis. Jung wanted to incorporate more; he rejected the orthodoxy.

For Freud everything boiled down to sex. All conflicts in the psyche were rooted in early sexual experiences. Jung challenged this core concept, telling Sabina that there must be “another hinge to the universe.” In the words of Sabina, Jung did not want his patients to simply understand why they were the way they were but to become whom they might have been.

Jung is an idealist but Freud sees him as a threat to psychoanalysis because of what he considers his mysticism and mumbo-jumbo. He dismisses Jung’s approach as simply replacing one delusion with another. You then have to ask yourself why he chose Jung to carry on his work. The usual explanation is because he needed a non-Jew to cross the bridge to the European society in which he lived, as the world of psychoanalysis was understood at the time to be Jewish...

Jung is a very devout student of the father figure Freud, but when he goes in search of other theories and explanations, his very search is portrayed as part of his own psychopathology. Jung had the naïve belief that psychoanalysis was a real science where the idea was to keep searching for new ideas and honing old ones rather than simply accepting Freudian dogma. This idea plays throughout the film and though not landed on too heavily, it is developed as the underlying theme. Jung, it is pointed out, is an Aryan. From the standpoint of the film (and Freudian orthodoxy), the very fact that he cannot see what Freud considers the scientific basis of psychoanalytic theory is portrayed as a by-product of his repressed German Protestant culture. His very search for an ideal is a flight from sex, or a flight from seeing life as it is, or a flight from the pragmatic. His two antagonists are Jewish: Sabina is a Russian Jewess and Freud a German Jew.

At one point Jung counters Freud’s suggestion that Sabina had been arrested at the anal stage of development by saying that she was quite the opposite: disorganized, emotionally generous and quite idealistic. Freud dismisses these characteristics as “a Russian thing” — as a German Jew he would have looked down on Russian culture. We do seem to be seeing the world from Freud’s perspective in the film. Freud is the watcher and so are we as we see the others through his eyes. Psychoanalysis as the art of watching.

In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud theorized that those discontents arise from its suppression of sex. In repressing your sexuality you become distorted and the family, particularly the patriarchal family inflicts this on the individual. But according to Freud, the Jews managed to avoid all this. The Jewish religion “formed their [the Jews’] character for good through the disdaining of magic and mysticism and encouraging them to progress in spirituality and sublimations. The people, happy in their conviction of possessing the truth, overcome by the consciousness of being the chosen, came to value highly all intellectual and ethical achievements” (Freud 1939, 109). In contrast, “The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared” (Freud, 1939, 112).

Jung’s essential failure was that was that he was an Aryan, a Swiss one at that, and a product Christianity. He has a perfectly lovely wife to whom he is loyal, a beautiful home provided by her money, and beautiful children. Jung’s wealth is underscored while it is pointed out to the audience that Freud bears the financial burden of supporting a large family. Jung’s is a life without passion, an “inauthentic life,” as it would be called in the psychobabble of the age to come. He has the exterior wealth but not the interior richness, the latter seen as typical of Jews. This sense of psychological superiority is, of course, a favorite theme of the Jewish world view, which we have all seen depicted time and again. What is interesting in the film is that although Jung will critique Freud’s theory, Freud criticizes Jung’s character. Freud’s character remains above reproach...MORE...LINK

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Are Zionists keeping the world in a state of arrested development?

Tribalism, Racism and Projection – Part 2

(gilad.co.uk) -- by Gilad Atzmon --

...I tend to believe that in contemporary multi ethnic societies, most cases of anti-black bigotry and discrimination are various manifestations of deep, thuggish xenophobic feelings mixed with some examples of deep, and sinister cultural intolerance. In other words, often enough, the contemporary bigot is not concerned at all with biological matters but rather with social constructs and culturally driven symbolism(1). This is surely a matter of serious concern, and in some case it is driven by murderous inclinations and it must be dealt with, but it isn’t necessarily (biological) racism per se.

But if it is not racism, what is it then? I reiterate, that these are better understood as different forms of deep cultural and political intolerance within the context of some severe and troubled ethnic interrelations.

So one might ask, why do we restrict our understanding of what fighting ‘racism’ means, when it is actually more likely to be forms of intolerance, ethnic tension and cultural discrimination which we should be protesting against?

I suggest that the confusion here between ‘deep intolerance’, ‘cultural discrimination’ and ‘racism’ is actually no coincidence -- rather it is there to serve a clear Zionist political cause. Peculiarly enough, it is there to maintain a clear racial orientation and segregation at the heart of the multi-cultural discourse. In many cases, those who ‘oppose’ racism must be able to think in racial categories first, otherwise their opposition would be in vain.(2)

Paradoxically then, ‘anti racism’ which many of us identify with, may in some cases evolve into a racially driven discourse. Often, it can even jeopardise the process of natural integration and the shift towards harmonious social relationships (3). It may even dismantle true self-reflective and mirroring process amongst both the victim and the aggressor.

For within a public discourse controlled by ‘anti-racist’ ideology, the victim of any racist slur is immediately redeemed. He or she does not have to self-reflect on his or her actions, for there is not much he or she can do about their ‘biologically determined conditions’. Zionists and Hasbara campaigners(4), for instance, tend to dismiss any possible criticism of Jewish politics and Israeli actions as ‘anti-Semitism’. By so doing, they basically ‘switch off’. They are able to ignore their surrounding reality by referring to any possible criticism of their actions as just another example of blind, ‘racially’ driven hatred towards Jews. Instead of taking the criticisms on board and examining them by means of self-reflection, Jewish political discourse has evolved into an insular and window-less discourse.

Equally, the so-called ‘racist’ or ‘aggressor’ can also dismiss the anti-racist call because his or her criticism is largely ignored. The ‘aggressor’ knows that in most cases, the issue is not actually about ‘race’ per-se but rather about some acute political, cultural and ideological issues, so this enables him or her to ignore the issue altogether. In spite of the fact that within the contemporary anti Zionist discourse no one criticises Jews for being Jews or employing any racially driven ideology or terminology, Israeli Hasbara and Zionists agents attempt to silence Israel’s political critics by tossing the anti-Semitic label in the air. This tactic obviously fails to silence Israel’s critics but it certainly maintains an abyss of mutual deafness between Zionists and their critics. So we are left with two parallel discourses that have lost all hope of any future exchange.

I believe that this fact alone emphasises how grave is the prospect of peace. Anti-racist politics is in constant danger of erecting walls of deafness that maintain intellectual, political and ethnic segregation at the heart of our public discourse. Rather than promoting hope, integration, tolerance, harmony, assimilation and dialogue - anti-racism could easily promote deafness and insularity exactly where attentiveness and exchange are most needed.

It took me some time to realise that in many cases it is Zionist and Jewish lobbies that maintain and promote the ‘anti-racism’ political discourse, and they do so for two main reasons:

1.Being submerged in a racially driven discourse themselves, they are bound to think in terms of racial political categories.
2. Racism/anti racism is convenient because it removes any responsibility from the victim. If Jews are hated just for ‘being Jews’, then the Jew is ethically flawless.
The implications of all this are grave - as long as Jewish identity politics and Zionism are shielded by categorical definitions of 'anti-racism', Jews can avoid any form of self-reflection.

But Jews and Zionists are not alone here: the Left also is interested in an anti-racist discourse because it maintains the Left’s relevance as being in the vanguard of progressive ‘ethical insight’. The Left has set itself up as the defender of the weak, and this is indeed adorable. Through the years the Left has sided with the ‘blacks’, with the ‘Zionists’, with the ‘Jew’, with the ‘Iraqi,’ and even with the ‘Palestinian’. But for some reason, the Left has failed to side with the leading contemporary anti-imperialist force -- the Muslim. The Left has also failed to recognise that in Europe, the Muslim is the real oppressed working class and the Left clearly failed to side with the democratically elected Hamas or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. I suggest that the Left's failure to side with the Muslim is symptomatic of a deep and inherent Western intolerance: the Left is not racist, but it is fundamentally soaked with cultural and ideological intolerance -- possibly a state of mind related to the practicality and pragmatism of being ‘a progressive’ (5). I guess that some people may feel very ‘special’ just because they believe in equality

Naturally, the 'cause' of ‘anti racism’ binds together some elements within the Left with the Zionists and the Hasbara campaign. Arguably, so-called 'anti racist' politics has become just another symptom of the Zionification of the Western political discourse with the supportive Left seen as a mere Zionist instrument. This may explain why the UK's leading anti-racist campaign group Hope not Hate(6) is an offshoot of the Zionist Searchlight Magazine, it also explains why the same Zionist Hope not hate attempts to censor the freedom of speech of Muslim leaders in Britain. It explains why the alleged ‘anti’ racist Harry’s Place (closely affiliated with Hope not hate) won the UK section of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s 'Annual Islamophobia Awards' in 2006. In Germany the ‘anti’ racist Antideutsche –Anti Fa coalition is openly pro-Israel, pro-Zionist and also anti Islam. My guess is that these rabid Zionist and pro Zionist campaign groups planted themselves at the heart of the so-called Left just to make sure that from there they would be better able to fight Israel’s enemies. But it goes further. In the last UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign's AGM, two Jewish campaigners who openly operate within an exclusive ‘Jews only’ political cell (J-BIG) proposed a motion against racism. I guess that the absurdity of the situation is clear and doesn’t need further elucidation.

So, as we can now see, some of the leading supremacist and intolerant forces within our contemporary political discourse have managed to locate themselves directly at the very heart of the ‘anti-racist’ call. Furthermore, as it becomes clear that Israel and its lobbies are the driving force behind Islamophobia, it is pretty astonishing to find out that Zionist bodies also dominate the ‘anti-racist’ discourse. The meaning of it is pretty simple - racism and its opposition has gradually become an internal Jewish affair...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Ironic, isn't it, that the Jewish gurus of "anti-racism" have implemented and imposed the most byzantine system of institutional racism on earth -- Zionism. In fact, they're so sophisticated in their machiavellianism that they can get away with imposing blatant institutional racism in Israel under the guise of "plurality," "tolerance," and "progressivism."

This is similar to the neocons and neolibs bombing Islamic civilization into oblivion under the guise of "democracy," "human rights," and "anti-terrorism."

It's certainly no coincidence that the guilty in criminal court turn to Jewish lawyers, left-wing gangsters and con artists turn to Jewish intellectuals, and neocon and neolib politicians hell bent on treachery, mass murder and mass theft turn to Jewish Zionist advisers, accomplices, and partners in crime.

The devil can cite scripture for his own evil purposes, and the Zionists can cite politically correct dogma for theirs.

Another irony is that in a world with less tolerance for the Zionist mentality, the problem of "intolerance" that the Jews are ostensibly so adept at combating would likely have long been solved, and might never have existed in anything approaching its historic worst in the first place.

One has to wonder if "the gifts of the Jews" are all that desirable, and amount to smoke, mirrors, snake oil, and charlatanism more than anything else, and whether "the curse of the Jews" is a actually a far more profound phenomenon.

It's hard to imagine how the world can ever progress into a truly post-ideological, post-racial era until these opportunistic, tribal consciousness-obsessed Jewish inciters of turmoil, division, and conflict, right along with their left-right collaborators in ideological fanaticism and crime, are outed for what they truly are: murderously infantile gangsters, thieves and troublemakers.

Is Jewish festival of Purim a religiously sanctioned incitement of terrorist violence?

Genocidal Jews celebrating mass murder

Purim, the Judaic festival of revenge.
(Fourwinds10.com) -- by David Rolde --

According to the Megillah or Book of Esther in the Hebrew Bible, Purim is a celebration of the killing of 75,000 Persians by the Jews. According to the story, Esther, a Jew was the wife of an ancient Persian king. Esther found out about a plot by the king’s Prime Minister (named Haman) to kill Jews. Esther went to the king and told him. The plot was foiled. The king had the prime minister and his ten sons hanged, and made Esther’s father the new prime minister. But even though the plot had been foiled, the Jews went ahead and slaughtered 75,000 people. Then the feast of Purim was declared in celebration.

Some Jews today who celebrate Purim may think of it as celebrating only Esther’s foiling Haman’s plot. They may not think of it as celebrating the killing of the 75,000 people, even though the Book of Esther, that they read at the ceremonies, does say that that is what the celebration is about. Some Jews who celebrate Purim today may think of the Book of Esther as an ancient or even mythical story that is not relevant to current events and is not a model for how Jews should behave in the modern world.

However a lot of Zionist imperialist Jews today around the world, including Zionist Jews in Palestine and in Massachusetts, use or misuse the Purim holiday to falsely claim that there are modern day plots against the Jews. These Zionist Jews use Purim to call for war, killing and genocide against people in the modern world whom they label as enemies of the Jews. In some cases they even carry out massacres of non-Jews on Purim.á

On Purim 1994, Baruch Goldstein, a “US”-born follower of Meir Kahane who became a settler in 1967-occupied Palestine, massacred 29 áPalestinian Arabs and wounded over 100 in a mosque in Hebron. Rightwing Zionist Jews are still praising Goldstein and his Purim massacre.

Some Zionist Jews think of the 2003 “US” shock-and-awe attack and invasion of Iraq as a Purim execution of enemies of the Jews, something that should be celebrated...MORE...LINK

Massive, coordinated mainstream media campaign distorts, exaggerates Iranian threat; only Zionist shadow government has the power to pull that off

Feeding the Frenzy Over Iran

(The American Conservative) -- by Philip Giraldi --

TAC supporters have likely noted the torrent of editorials and opinion pieces calling for war against Iran. On February 7th alone there were nine lead editorials in major newspapers throughout the country calling for the use of force as the best option for dealing with Tehran. Coordinated? You bet. Since that time the flow has continued unabated with no one in the mainstream media making the obvious point that nearly everyone who has actually followed the issue agrees that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and has not made the essentially political and economic decision to actually develop one.

A good example of deliberate distorting of the truth regarding what we actually do know about Iran and its intentions was on display in the Washington Post today in an op-ed piece by Ray Takeyh. The piece, entitled “Why Iran Thinks It Needs the Bomb” in the print edition, appeared on the first page of the Opinion section but was also banner headlined on the front page of the paper. Takeyh, who is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is certainly knowledgeable of his subject and was once a reasonable voice on things Iranian but he has pretty much gone over to the neocon view of the Middle East of late. Some of his analysis of Iran’s internal politics is excellent but he makes several key judgments that are questionable at best and which are not supported by any evidence. As the article title indicates, he believes that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon and throughout his piece he equates Iran’s highly popular nuclear energy program with a weapons program. That cannot be demonstrated and, in fact, it is contradicted by the best intelligence available on the issue. The second assumption he makes is that Iran is an active hegemon that is seeking to export its revolution, which means, putting the two together, that Iran is seeking a weapon of mass destruction that it will use aggressively, leaving military force as the best option to discourage such a development. That is all sheer conjecture and would seem to be belied by the generally pragmatic behavior of the Iranian government, which is more interested in regime preservation than in any attempt to bring the rest of the Middle East in line with its views.

Given the fact that the mainstream media gives no space whatsoever to anyone opposing the prevailing wisdom on Iran, i.e. that it is a threat, the US public is being subjected to a thorough brainwashing to accept starting yet another war. The parallels to the lead-up to Iraq are eerie – weapons of mass destruction, terrorist groups, and mushroom clouds on the horizon. If the Ray Takeyhs of the world get their war it will be a catastrophe for the United States and well as for Iran and will do precious little good for Israel, which is aggressively using its lobby to promote the military option. Next month’s AIPAC conference will no doubt incorporate a virtual feeding frenzy of anti-Iranian rhetoric...LINK

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Diaspora Zionist media mogul uses his Spanish language network to fear monger and brainwash viewers with pro-war, neocon-Zionist propaganda

Univision goes neoconservative

(Aljazeera) -- Charles Davis --
The Spanish-language TV network recently aired a saber-rattling report on Iran, focussing on its ties to Latin America.

Washington, DC - It's not often that Univision, the leading Spanish-language television network in the United States, releases its content in languages other than Spanish. It is, after all, a Spanish-language television network. But earlier this month the broadcaster did something out of the ordinary, screening an English version of a recent report on Iran that's received a rapturous reception from neoconservatives in Washington. And it at least appears to have done so at the behest of its hawkish new fan club.

Why would a network best known for sappy telenovelas shift to producing sloppy war propaganda - and English-language propaganda at that? Perhaps, as is usually the case with the corporate press, Univision's bias and peculiar programming choices are best explained by simply noting who owns it: Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban, a self-described “one-issue guy” - that issue being Israel - who has been up front about purchasing media outlets to promote his own political views.

While those views are well-known if you look for them - hint: his public statements on Iran have invoked the Holocaust - they're also not hard to gather from the right-wing-infused investigative reports Univision has been airing since he took over.

Originally broadcast in Spanish late last year, the ever-so-subtly titled report that's driving the neoconservative community wild - “La Amenaza Iraní”, or “The Iranian Threat” - received an unusual February 8 screening, in English, at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank that counts former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, convicted felon Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as one of its top scholars. Focussed on Iran's relations with Latin America, the hour-long piece regurgitates all the pro-war right's by now familiar talking points about nefarious Islamists acting in concert with leftist Bolivarians to bring Terror to the US' doorstep, complete with all the ominous music and images of swarthy foreigners one would expect from a Hollywood movie or a corporate news report.

“Iran is looking for all the support that it can get to fight back against its fiercest enemies, Israel and the United States,” declares reporter Vytenis Didziulis in the opening minute of the piece. “Latin America, because of its geographical and cultural proximity, may present the most direct way for Iran to challenge - or even attack - the US.”...MORE...LINK

Friday, February 17, 2012

Diaspora Zionists plot to co-opt and politically exploit U.S. racial minorities the same way they've used and exploited evangelicals

Pro-Israel handbook explains how to attack professors and ‘co-opt’ students of color

(Mondoweiss) -- by Phan Nguyen --

Last week, the David Project released its “white paper” on Israel advocacy in US colleges and universities, titled A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges.

The David Project is perhaps best known for its smear campaign against Columbia professor Joseph Massad in 2004–05, and more recently, for creating the most boring and uninspiring “Shit People Say” video.

Unlike previous hasbara handbooks, A Burning Campus? dispenses with the usual talking points and approaches Israel advocacy on college campuses more strategically.

As I demonstrate below, the report is surprisingly frank about how the anti-Semitism charge is used as a weapon, what is the best way to attack college professors, and which minority groups are best to, in their words, “co-opt.”

The anti-Semitism charge as a tactic

The report is candid about how the anti-Semitism charge is used as a tactic. What it determines however, is that the tactic is ultimately ineffective and that other tactics should be employed.

Throughout the report, the authors assert that anti-Semitism is not a pervasive problem on college campuses:
Most American campuses are not hostile environments for most Jewish students....The chief concern therefore is not the welfare of Jewish students but that a pervasively negative atmosphere will affect the long-term thinking of current college students, negatively affecting strong bipartisan support for Israel.


Racial antisemitism of the kind most associated with the Nazis is not likely a serious problem on any American college campus. Swastikas appearing on a dorm room door or other similar manifestations are often dealt with quickly and seriously.


Campus is largely not a hostile environment for Jewish students. There has probably never been a richer array of ways for students to engage in meaningful Jewish activities today than there has ever been, including at schools where anti-Israelism is widespread.
Because anti-Semitism is not pervasive, such accusations are ineffective:
Pro-Israel organizations have often cast the challenge on campus as an assault on Jewish students rather than as a spreading pervasive negativity toward Israel. Casting the issue in these terms does not jive with the lived experience of many Jewish students, who know they can identify as Jews and largely not suffer repercussions...

[D]epicting campus as hostile to Jews has not to date proven to be an effective strategy for decreasing anti-Israelism on campus...
Therefore other tactics must be utilized.

How to attack professors

Instead of accusing your professors of anti-Semitism, accuse them of abusing their positions. This will produce higher returns:
[A]ccusing faculty members who propagandize against Israel of “academic malpractice” is likely to be a much more effective strategy than challenging specific allegations or invoking anti-Jewish bigotry. Rightly or wrongly, the current campus atmosphere is much more sympathetic to charges that teachers are not satisfactorily teaching their subject than to complaints of anti-Jewish bias and Israel supporters will likely have a greater practical impact by framing their concerns in this manner.
Apparently the David Project has come a long way since the days when founder Charles Jacobs labeled Jewish Columbia professors who disagreed with him as “the Marranos of Morningside Heights”—essentially Jew traitors.

Targeting specific racial groups

The report calls for pro-Israel students to build alliances with other groups on campus, notably with students of color:
Campus Israel advocates often overlook the importance of emerging groups with great potential to shape the campus conversation.

Many of these groups also have the potential to be co-opted into the anti-Israel coalition on campus. Preventing them from allying themselves with the anti-Israel effort or even co-opting them into pro-Israel efforts is an opportunity for a significant “win” by Israel advocates on many campuses.
Translation: If left unchecked, students of color might be “co-opted” into believing that Palestinians are subjected to racist oppression. We need to co-opt them first...MORE...LINK

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Parasites who turn bees into "zombies" before finally killing them behind collapse of bee civilization?

Parasitic fly creates “zombie bees” — a new factor explaining Colony Collapse Disorder

(Natural News) -- by Tara Green --

Researchers at a California university have found a parasitic fly which causes honeybees to become disoriented and abandon their hives before dying, behavior which made one of the researchers compare them to zombies. Scientists believe this may be a contributing factor to Colony Collapse Disorder, which has decimated honeybee populations, affecting the honey market and the pollination of crops as well as raising concern about environmental toxins.

The insect version of a horror movie

The parasitic flies were discovered by chance when John Hafernik, professor of biology at San Francisco State University, collected some dead bees, found under a light on campus, as food for a praying mantis he had just captured. “Being an absent-minded professor, I left them in a vial on my desk and forgot about them. Then the next time I looked at the vial, there were all these fly pupae surrounding the bees.”

The flies were later identified as Apocephalus borealis. The female A. borealis fly deposits its eggs into the bee’s abdomen, and about a week later, mature fly larvae emerge from the host’s head and thorax. Infected bees move their limbs in a jerky limb fashion and walk in circles. They leave their hives and seek bright lights as if they were moths rather than bees. They die shortly afterwards and as many as 13 parasite fly larvae may then crawl out from the body of their host.

One member of the research team, biology graduate student and study co-author Andrew Core, observed that the bees “kept . . . falling over. It really painted a picture of something like a zombie.” The researchers found that bees which leave the hive to forage at night, rather than those that forage by day, seem most likely to become infected. In addition, the researchers believe the parasitic flies may multiply within a hive, infecting other members of the swarm, even pregnant queen bees.

The research team analyzed several hives in the both the Central Valley and Bay areas of Northern California and also some hives from South Dakota. Seventy-seven percent of the hives they sampled contained evidence of A. borealis. The scientists believe this may be a recent change in the behavior of this particular species of fly. The A. borealis fly has been known in the past to be a parasite of bumblebees and paper wasps but has not previously been known to inject its eggs into honeybees...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Norman Finkelstein articulates how left-wing ideologues and flakes are blocking justice for Palestinians, and sabatoging Mideast peace

Introduction by Chris Moore:

International leftists who fantasize about a one world "utopia" run by an international leftist elite that uses one world government to socially engineer all its critics, antagonists, opponents and competing ideologies into good little compliant comrades, have over the last decade or so, firmly fixed their gaze upon the Israel-Palestine conflict, coming down on the side of the Palestinians.

On the one hand, this is normal, given that international Zionism is now, in partnership with State Capitalist Globalism, self-evidently a neo-fascist movement. (Fascists and leftists have historically been opposing forces, although I'm not really sure why, given that they are both totalitarian, government-based ideologies, and both ideologically racist; Ironically, I guess, it's because Communism was authored by Diaspora Jews prior to the advent of Israel, when most Jews were racist against White European Christians and their traditionally "anti-Semitic" [read: opposed to Jewish gangsterism and racketeering] culture, and needed an ideological device to enlist non-Jews into their gangster cause of smashing and plundering the Christian elites, some of whom consequently morphed into fascists).

At any rate, the way things stand today, the Jewish gangsters have partnered up with the Globalists, migrated to Israel, and over time transitioned from their former Bolshevik gangsterism to their current Zionist gangsterism (which is much more in keeping with their truly racist, ethno-religous-ideological essence, anyway).

But this has put them at odds with their left-wing, former comrades in crime.

I don't want to put words into his mouth, but it seems that, based on the following video, this might be how ex-leftist and consummate Zionist critic Norman Finkelstein now sees things, as well.

Unlike most Jews, Finkelstein never transitioned from leftism to Zionism. Indeed, he has been a foremost critic of Zionism for some 30 years. I'm not sure how he would describe his current ideology, but it is clear that he has now dropped his leftism, and from the video, it is also clear why.

Finkelstein is highly critical of the left now, and says it is not really interested in Palestinian justice or a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but is more interested in playing "gotcha" games with Israel, on the way to seeing to the destruction of the Jewish state by demanding an unconditional Palestinian right of return, which would swamp Israel with millions of Palestinian non-Jews, and undoubtedly end Israel as a state.

This is how I view the motives of the left, as well. Not only does it not really care about the Palestinians and their culture, but it also doesn't really care about any Arabs or their Islamic culture, either. The left is militantly secularist, militantly atheist-authoritarian, and militantly worshipful of government and pseudo-liberal, statist-authoritarianism. It is simply feigning concern about Palestinians and Muslims to enlist them in the cause against its rival gangsters, the neo-fascist Zionists and Globalists.

Now, don't get me wrong; opposition to Zionism and Globalism is noble, but only if the ultimate goal is to replace them with a more responsible, humanitarian, fair and VIABLE moral authority.

But that's not what the left wants to do.

All the left really wants to do is replace once set of Islamic-hating gangsters with itself -- a set of gangsters that hates ALL religions.

And while he doesn't explicitly say so, Finkelstein seems to now see this big picture, as well.

And so, as you will see if you watch the entire video below, he has come out aggressively for imposition of the two state solution, and come out swinging against the left for its disingenuous game playing, intellectual dishonesty, and general immaturity.

And I fully agree on all points.

Not unlike the Zionists and Globalists, leftists seem to suffer from a congenital arrested development that ultimately puts the two competing forces in a pointless tit-for-tat, with the left today more often than not simply spinning its wheels. The end effect of this is to suck troops, momentum and moral authority away from anti-fascists in the Christian-libertarian-populist Ron Paul vein, and steers it into Marxist, Troskyite, and Chomskyite dead-end alleys.


Arguing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign with Norman Finkelstein
(YouTube.com) -- by jbrothersblog --

How Israeli leader Netanyahu is using Israel lobby assets, including those within the Democratic Party itself, to sabotage Obama's reelection

(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- In his memoirs, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, related how Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright, a staunch advocate of the bombing of Serbian Christians in favor of a breakaway Albanian insurgency in the former Yugoslavia, once shockingly declared to him: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Apparently, great Zionist minds think alike, because that seems to be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's perspective with regard to the Israel lobby and its utility in strong-arming the U.S. Congress into doing the Jewish state's bidding vis-a-vis Iran: What's the point of having this superb lobby that you're always talking about if we can't use it?

In an extraordinary article for Huffington Post, dissident, former Israel lobbyist M.J. Rosenberg has blown the whistle on the gangster ethic of Zionist Jewry in general, and on the intention of Netanyahu to wring both the powerful Israel lobby, and its influence over the U.S. Congress, for all its worth.

Rosenberg sets up his piece by relating an anecdote about how AIPAC operates behind the scenes in the halls of Congress:
One Member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC "ask." Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all U.S. contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.

In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a terrorist supporter and warned that her behavior "would not be tolerated." In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologized.

McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way. She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.

As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics -- but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC's arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion.
But Rosenberg does not believe Netanyahu wants to use Zionist control over Congress to press President Obama, the U.S. Military and the United States of America into a war with Iran at the behest of Israel right away. Rather, like a cat toying with a mouse, Netanyahu is currently manipulating Congress into a position to do his bidding when the time is right, and a president more prepared to take the extreme measures that Netanyahu requires has been put into place:
Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it's not like we don't know).

As for Obama, he may just be playing along with Netanyahu and AIPAC because he understands their strategy. Perhaps he knows that it isn't war they want but the illusion of control.

Only, it's not an illusion. And it certainly won't be if Netanyahu gets the president he wants in November, a Republican who will fight the war Netanyahu wants but isn't eager to fight himself. Surely Mitt or Rick or Newt will do it for him.
Rosenberg's reporting dovetails with Gene Lyons' assessment at Salon.com that Netanyahu's real current target is not Iran, but rather President Obama.
To put it bluntly, it’s not so much the regime in Tehran that Netanyahu is keen to destabilize as the one in Washington. The question now is how far he’s willing to take it...

Netanyahu appears to see an Obama second term as an impediment to further Israeli expansion into the West Bank — or “Judea” and “Samaria,” as Likudniks style it — and has cast his lot with the Republican right. He’s made public appearances with notables like Glenn Beck and “End Times” evangelist John Hagee. Adelson himself has pledged his vast resources to Obama’s defeat.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama reiterated his determination to prevent Iran’s getting nuclear weapons. He said he was “taking no options off the table.” But he also expressed hope that international sanctions could lead to a peaceful resolution.

On cue, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen called this “startlingly naïve.” Only a fool or a Frenchman, the same pundit once opined, could doubt the existence of Saddam Hussein’s WMD. Bombs away!
It seems that with the Israel lobby, the Diaspora Jews who might be opposed to starting a conflagration in the Middle East, or who might put Obama's interests ahead of Israel's, have created a monster they can no longer control.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the Zionist crime family boss, and as in any crime family, what the top boss wants, goes.

Thus, we can infer that Netanyahu's plan seems to be this:

a) Have the Israel lobby and its assets toy with Congress through the rest of Obama's term, with its "lobbyist" thugs continuously patrolling the offices of the meek Congress critters that currently comprise American "leadership" to remind them time and again who is really boss (and it's not the American people).

b) In the mean time, the lobby will work with the Jewish Zionist politicians within the Democratic Party itself (Zionist Jews almost completely control the Democratic Party at the national level) to secretly undermine and perhaps even sabotage Obama's re-election effort.

c) Once an appropriately hawkish Republican has been installed in the Oval Office, with all of the Congressional ducks in a row, Netanyahu makes the phone call to the White House, and bang! yet another U.S. war for Israel, this one with the potential to be bigger than ever, is game on!

Ain't Jewish-supremacist "multiculturalism" grand?