KALI YUGA REPORT 120526

PROVIDING INFORMATION NOT FOUND IN THE ZIONIST CONTROLLED MEDIA,


MONITORING THE AGE OF DARKNESS, IGNORANCE, GREED AND STUPIDITY

& THE ZIONIST WARS FOR GLOBAL DOMINANCE.

SETTING STRAIGHT THE RECORD OF HISTORY.





KALI YUGA REPORT 120526





1 - Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France’s Ban on Monsanto’s GMO Maize - Anthony Gucciardi

2 - Fighting Erupts in Lebanon: US, Israeli, and Saudi-funded terrorists destabilizing Syria now under fire in Lebanon - Tony Cartalucci

3 - NATO - "1984" Revisited - When "War is Peace" - Ross Ruthenberg

4 - Legitimizing Global Tyranny : Moving Towards World Government - Jurriaan Maessen

5 - GLOBAL NATO : A Geostrategic Instrument of Worldwide Military Conquest - Ludo De Brabander and Georges Spriet

6 - Israel — Bane and Boon for Jewish Power ? - Ariadna Theokopoulos +

Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist - Sharmine Narwani +

Israel’s ‘Right’ to Exist, A question of legitimacy - Genevieve Cora Fraser

7 - THE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPRESSING INFORMATION : Public Opinion in America's 21st Century Police State - Prof. James F. Tracy

8 - Time Profiles a World Class Thug + Headlines Reveal Life in Occupied Palestine - Stephen Lendman

9 - Ellen Brown : Cooperative Banking is the Exciting Wave of the Future





10 - Arthur Topham Arrested in Zionist Canada

11 - QUOTES FOR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY, ADDITION 120525

12 - Dear Mr. President : Letters from Israel partisans that took America to war - Maidhc Ó Cathail

13 - ZIONISTS' ATTEMPT TO RULE THE WORLD - FROM ISRAEL

14 - The price of victory is our damned nation - Greg Felton

15 - Israelis run organ trafficking network +

Turkey seeks indictment against ex-Israeli commanders over 2010 raid

16 - Bohemian Grove ; Cult of Conspiracy - Texe Marrs

17 - Investment bankers salivate over North Africa

18 - The Politics of Language and the Language of Political Regression - Prof. James Petras





19 - How the US Deliberately Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply - Prof. Thomas J. Nagy

20 - AMERICA SHIFTS GEAR FOR WAR ON IRAN, The covert war on Syria is an integral part of the US-led covert war on Iran - Finian Cunningham

21 - DRUG-FINANCED SALAFI JIHADISM : The Afghan Drug Trade, A Threat to Russia and U.S.-Russian Relations - Prof. Peter Dale Scott +

Syria : The Road to War Continues - Devon DB

22 - RISE OF GOLDEN DAWN TERRIFIES GLOBALISTS - Pete Papaherakles

23 - Breaking the Taboo on Jewish Ritual Murder /The Bloody Passovers of Dr Toaff - Israel Shamir, Preface – David Duke

24 - Joe Walsh and the 9/11 cover-up : Jewish power on display - Kevin MacDonald

25 - Douglas Reed : The Controversy of Zion, A Summary - Knud Eriksen

26 - The Russian Revolution (The Nameless War) - Archibald Maule Ramsay

27 - Soviet collective farms run by Jews - Major Francis Charles Claypon Yeats-Brown





28 - THE WORLD REVOLUTION AGAIN

29 - Revisiting the 19th-Century Russian Pogroms, Part 1 : Russia’s Jewish Question - Andrew Joyce

30 - Myth and the Russian Pogroms, Part 2 : Inventing Atrocities - Andrew Joyce

31 - Myth and the Russian Pogroms Part 3 : The Jewish Role - Andrew Joyce

32 - The Murder of Little Mary Phagan

33 - BOLSHEVISM IS JEWISH - A. S. Leese

34 - From the Archive : A.K. Chesterton’s ‘Learned Elders and the B.B.C.’

35 - Is there a "Metaphysical" component between Dark Matter/Plasma and the Human body ?

36 - DNA-Destroying Chip Being Embedded Into Mobile Phones









All articles are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and are for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. The material presented underneath does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editor. Then : everybody should do research of his own and check for deception or some 'agenda'. As always it is : 'Caveat Lector'!

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













1 - Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France’s Ban on Monsanto’s GMO Maize

Anthony Gucciardi

Prisonplanet.com

Thursday, May 24, 2012



Just after France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.



That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing and startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.



One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:



“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”



And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?



It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.



Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA was a leading employee of Monsanto?



This post first appeared at Natural Society



Similar/Related Articles





France Takes Stand Against GMOs, Monsanto Despite End of Ban

Poland Announces Complete Ban on Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Maize

Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops

France overturns ban on GM crops

Exposing Monsanto’s Financial Interest in Government

Monsanto Forced Out of UK by Activists

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize Fields

France Bans GM Corn Amid Mass US Protests against Monsanto

Protesters Occupying Monsanto Corp. Arrested

French court annuls ban on Monsanto GM crops

Monsanto’s magic beans

Mainstream Media Catches Up – WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops







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



















2 - Fighting Erupts in Lebanon : US, Israeli and Saudi-funded terrorists destabilizing Syria now under fire in Lebanon





By Tony Cartalucci



Global Research, May 14, 2012





According to a 2007 New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, "The Redirection," the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia had been assembling a region-wide army of extremist-mercenaries to battle Hezbollah in Lebanon, destabilize and overthrow Syria, and create a united front against Iran. The forces recruited for this effort would come from the ranks of the CIA-created "Arab foreign legion," Al Qaeda itself - extremist groups fresh back from fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including listed terror organizations like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) from Libya.







Hersh's 2007 report exposed the groundwork for the very violence unfolding in Syria today, and now Lebanon. Forces to destabilize Syria were primarily to be staged in northern Lebanon, as explained in the article, and indeed the heaviest fighting over the last year has been seen in the Syrian city of Homs, just across the border from northern Lebanon. Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and his government have been, since the beginning of the violence, attempting to illustrate just this - explained in detail in 2007, and demonstratively being carried out today, with responsibility for deadly bombings being claimed by terrorists, the Pentagon itself admitting Al Qaeda is present in Syria, and reports indicating foreign fighters, weapons, and cash are flowing over Syria's borders.



Lebanon's Turn?



Now, the very staging ground in northern Lebanon being used to destabilize neighboring Syria has erupted into violence. Not by Syrian troops crossing the border, but by indigenous Lebanese factions facing off against each other. News is trickling out slowly and the Western media appears intent on keeping the violence as nebulous and confused as possible, but initial information indicates that extremist groups backed by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are fighting factions connected to Hezbollah. Extremist leaders across the region are attempting to frame the violence as "Sunni verses Shi'ia," a ploy Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned against back in 2007:







"Nasrallah accused the Bush Administration of working with Israel to deliberately instigate fitna, an Arabic word that is used to mean “insurrection and fragmentation within Islam.” “In my opinion, there is a huge campaign through the media throughout the world to put each side up against the other,” he said. “I believe that all this is being run by American and Israeli intelligence.” (He did not provide any specific evidence for this.) He said that the U.S. war in Iraq had increased sectarian tensions, but argued that Hezbollah had tried to prevent them from spreading into Lebanon. (Sunni-Shiite confrontations increased, along with violence, in the weeks after we talked.)" -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh



Far from genuine sectarian violence, it was planned since 2007, to use terrorist proxies in a battle stretching from Lebanon to Iran with Arab nations from North Africa to the Middle East aiding the effort, dominated by freshly installed US proxies (Tunisia & Libya) and the Muslim Brotherhood, stated in Hersh's 2007 article to be wards of the West.



Violence has raged for nearly a week, in and around Lebanon's northern port city of Tripoli. While being depicted as violence "spilling over" from Syria, it is clear that the violence is indigenous, sectarian in nature, and directly related to the larger conflict envisioned by US-Israeli-Saudi machinations in 2007 - pitting Sunnis against Shi'ia. An editorial from NOW Lebanon reveals the "sectarian" nature of the violence in Lebanon and how both sides identify as either supporters or opponents of the neighboring Syrian government.



This prevailing "sectarian" aspect reveals what has been stated by geopolitical analysts since the beginning of unrest in Syria - that the violence was driven not by "pro-democratic" aspirations, but by sectarian violence exploited for the sole purpose of advancing the agenda of foreign meddlers - sectarian violence that has now manifested itself in attacks on Christians, Druze, and Alawites, as well as moderate Sunnis across Syria in the midst of this so-called "democratic revolution."



The sectarian violence now unfolding in Tripoli is not unheard of in Lebanon. The Lebanese military has already been reportedly deployed but is sitting on the sidelines as factions war in the streets. The violence may ebb, as it has in the past, but with the Syrian unrest reaching a critical point and foreign powers desperate to change momentum that's been working against them, foreign-backed terrorist forces could try to ignite a wider sectarian battle in Lebanon. This could be to paralyze Hezbollah ahead of either a coup de grâce delivered to Syria by Turkey, or to simply inflame the entire region in conflict, making the movement of weapons, cash, and foreign support to proxy forces easier to move around, as well as grease the skids for introducing a Kosovo-style intervention.



Regardless, "sectarian" differences between Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims were planned for exploitation since at least as early as 2007 by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, for the sole purpose of advancing their self-serving hegemonic agendas throughout the region. The violence that both sides are playing into will deprive their communities of the security and stability needed for all to prosper and progress, and ultimately leave them at the mercy of foreign dominion.





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



















3 - NATO - "1984" Revisited - When "War is Peace"





By Ross Ruthenberg



Global Research, May 21, 2012





Considering the current state of world peace and NATO's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) policy and to maintain a proper sense of balance, George Orwell's book "1984" should be reviewed periodically. In the spirit of the NATO Summit in Chicago, I present a few quotes from that textbook-for- tomorrow:



* "If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."



* "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."



* "All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers."



* Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:



WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"



* Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him."



* The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.



* The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.



* The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture, and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in DOUBLETHINK. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely."



* He also said they were wrong in equating the military alliance to a "war machine." "If that's the basis for the protests, it's actually based on lack of knowledge. our organization is a peace movement.



[Oh wait! That's not the Ministry of Truth speaking, that's NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen! [1] ]







I and so many others have struggled to understand why we need a world "war machine" in society today and finally, Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's titular leader, has provided the enlightenment:



NATO is a "peace movement"!



I now understand that the NATO dropping of the most bombs since WWII on Yugoslavia in the early '90s was actually just blanketing the area with peace droppings.



Clarity now exists for NATO's recent peace initiative in Libya, i.e. just exercising their Responsibility to Protect, using the tools of peace such as missiles, bombs, etc.



NATO's decade long Afghanistan mission comes into view as actually one of "spreading peace" near and far while roundly scolding the indigenous folks if they didn't understand.



Then there is the on-going U.S. and NATO supported march towards peace in Syria, with assistance from many of Syria's friends such as Saudi Arabia. Syria's leader, Assad, just doesn't seem to get it that War is Peace and peace is what is being thrust upon him and his country, gushing in from Turkey, Iraq, etc.



Russia should not be concerned about the ring of Aegis missile systems being deployed around them, as it is merely a "friendship ring of peace".



Finally, well not really finally, as "1984" reminds us that "The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war" (reminder: war is peace), which now makes clear to me and hopefully the millions of citizens of Iran that they should just hold on through the many debilitating sanctions being imposed upon them, because peace is coming!



NATO and friends/partners are even now preparing their peace offerings and delivery tools because they fully understand their responsibility to protect you! Peace to all!





"Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth."



Ross Ruthenberg is a Chicago area political analyst rossersurf@comcast.net



Note



[1] Excerpt from: "The stage is set for summit, protests", By Bob Secter, Chicago Tribune reporter, May 20, 2012



Andy Thayer, one of those organizers, said he and colleagues met briefly Thursday with a top NATO official and told her that "we are very aware of the immense violence and oppression that the U.S. and the U.S. in its NATO guise does to the world, and that no amount of words from her or pronouncements from the summit itself will obscure that."



Speaking to the Tribune's editorial board Saturday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he recognizes the right of protesters to express themselves but also said they were wrong in equating the military alliance to a "war machine."



"If that's the basis for the protests, it's actually based on lack of knowledge. NATO is a peace movement," said Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark.



"During more than 60 years, NATO has been the bedrock of security in Europe and North America. And thanks to NATO, we have maintained peace and stability in Europe during that long period, since the 2nd World War. It is the longest period of peace in the history of Europe. That's quite a success. That's what I call a peace movement," he said.



Citing NATO's role in helping to reunify Europe, develop new democracies after the fall of communism and develop actions to protect civilians in Libya, Rasmussen said, "It's not justified to call NATO a war machine. But again, in a free society, it's a constitutional right to express yourself — even if your statements are not justified or incorrect or inaccurate."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-hd-nato-chicago-0520-20120520,0,1571541.story







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



















4 - Legitimizing Global Tyranny : Moving Towards World Government





By Jurriaan Maessen



Global Research, May 21, 2012

ExplosiveReports





Gideon Rachman’s 2008 article titled ‘And now for a world government’ and, more recently, Scientific American- editor Gary Stix’s piece Effective World Government Will be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe, illustrate a widespread and dangerous misconception. It also demonstrates the cunning of one world- propagandists in the crafting of their arguments. In Rachman’s article we are shown typical Palaeolithic artistry: horses, warriors, deer and, portrayed on the very same rocky surface, a globe. It is almost admirable were it not so deviously cunning, to bundle within a single image the primitive with the “modern” and by doing so, considering the latter as the logical conclusion of the former. Rachman explains:



‘For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.’



This statement may be considered as the basic assumption out of which a lot of these globalists’ musings emanate. Point of departure is always the human journey, that once upon a time began with cave-scribbling tribes scattered aimlessly on the planet surface, in the course of time crystallizing into sophisticated city-states, in turn evolving into even more sophisticated nation-states- and finally, approaching present-day, culminating into one world-state, eclipsing all of the above.



It sounds logical, treacherously logical. As we take a closer look at this line of reasoning however, we immediately encounter difficulties. The logic as it turns out, is not so logical after all- and besides, without long term historical precedent. History is certainly littered with tyrants and their attempts to bring about overarching supranational states. And without exception, their enterprises eventually failed, forcing freedom loving people throughout history to build firewalls against tyranny, at the same time compelling the elite to refocus their eyes on more modest ambitions.



That the implementation of a one world government is not some magical or mysterious suggestion that can only be understood by an arduous reading between the lines, as some naive debunkers have suggested, has been disproven by the fact that the aim of global government has been spelled out for us word for word by overeager transnationalists and the think tanks they tend to assemble in. Like any governmental decree, the implementation of an actual world state to replace the nation-state of old requires a theoretical legitimization. The people designated to clear the theoretical brushes, so to speak, have been picked from the marble halls of academia. In this article I will shed some light on some of these.



Professor Saul Mendlovitz, founder and co-director of an international think tank ominously called the World Order Models Project (WOMP) has since 1968 attempted to formulate an answer to the question what world government should look like. The World Policy Institute gives a description of the project by stating that “this was one of the first truly global think tanks, with partners and contributors in India, China, Africa and Europe.”



Mendlovitz, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, received his first funding for the project from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation. As Daniel Taylor points out in his excellent 2007 article on the World Order Models Project:



“Saul H. Mendlovitz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, directed the project. Richard A. Falk, also a member of the CFR, contributed academic work. The goals of the WOMP, according to Mendlovitz, were to “…go beyond the nation-state system…to use a much broader range of potential actors, including world institutions, transnational actors, international organization, functional activities, regional arrangements, the nation-state, subnational movements, local communities, and individuals.”



Taylor goes on to write that “The long term goals of WOMP (2011-2013), as Mendlovitz states, is to establish “…a global tax scheme to establish and maintain a basic needs regime for global society… a complete and general disarmament with alternative security system in place…”



Richard Falk, the CFR member mentioned by Daniel Taylor, has openly written about WOMP’s endeavors throughout the last half of the 20th century, claiming world government is not one of them. In his Global Constitutionalism and World Order Falk writes:



“Contrary to many outside critics, the Models Project has never identified itself with the advocacy of world government or world federalism (…). And yet, more than anyone in his generation, Mendlovitz (…) has kept alive the notion that a global constitutional order is theoretically necessary and historically inevitable.”



The notion that Mendlovitz is not an advocate of world government, as Falk suggests, contrasts sharply with statements made by Mendlovitz himself at his acceptance speech at the award ceremony of the 1990 UNESCO ‘Prize for Peace Education.’ Mendlovitz, as co-Director of the World Order Models Project (WOMP) stated (page 36):



“it is my personal belief (not shared by all members of WOMP) that there is an overwhelming surge in the direction of global polity and that a world state is emerging. Indeed, some of the policy elite are beginning to discuss a single world central bank and a single currency.”



All this is not science, of course. Rather, it is an attempt to scientifically legitimize a move toward world government. It is not a new concept, the idea that the large emerges from the small, rising in the steadiest of lines upward in time. This idea accommodates our most intimate fancies about time, evolution and progression. The mind, after all, tends to construct scientific parameters around the immeasurable unpredictability of the universe hoping to encapsulate infinity. It also watches nature and then, one on one, projects it onto political systems. The problem is that once these counterfeit scientists have calculated their way towards world government, and propagate its inevitableness, the sociopaths move in to seize control.



Two years after Mendlovitz’s speech, two term President of the European Commission Jacques Delors gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled ‘The European Community and the New World Order’. Invoking the famous New World Order-speech of George Bush senior, Delors took it a step further, speaking of “world government”, “transferring sovereignty” and a “worldwide single market”.



In his speech, Delors advocates the destruction of sovereignty of all nation-states as a remedy. Furthermore, he states this to be neseccary in order to prevent “human rights violations”:



“International apathy about human rights violations will not be able to hide behind pretext of immutable, inviolable national sovereignty much longer.”



As it turns out, also in this respect Jacques Delors has proven himself a prophet- as the borders are eroding worldwide while the central banks consolidate power. After he elaborates further on the fact that globalisation is often counteracted by grass roots movements, attempting to preserve national sovereignty, Delors throws up his arms in feigned indignation:



“I would add- and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government.”



Here we see that all transnational institutions have global government in mind- or better: they have all been erected with the aim of establishing it.



In 2003, University of Chicago’s Alexander Wendt witch-crafted a philosophical monstrosity under the header “Why a World State is Inevitable: teleology and the logic of anarchy”. Carefully avoiding any moral implications clinging to his manuscript, Wendt argues the case for world government as the necessary and inevitable end result of the current merging of nation-states into ever-larger bodies of influence.



“(…) this article argues that a global monopoly on the legitimate use of violence- a world state- is inevitable.”



Wendt invokes many of the major philosophers in order to add credibility and substance to the concept of the inevitability of a world state emerging out of the ruins of national sovereignty. After parading big names to invigorate his “big idea”, the author finally departs from a neo-Darwinian predisposition and the self-organizing principles included in it. In the struggle of nation-states, Wendt concludes, there can be no other outcome than the formation of a world state to settle all scores. He forgets to mention that neo-Darwinism can just as easily be applied to the idea that life organizes itself into more complexity as it evolves. But Wendt pays no heed: he raises his finger in foreboding: the greatest threat on the path to world government, he states, is national sovereignty. Wendt:



“Rather than go down with the ship of national sovereignty, states should try to “get the best deal” they can in the emerging global constitution.”



After identifying the main enemy to world dictatorship, he then proposes to co-opt the natural drive towards auto-determination in order to bring about his desired world state.



“Nationalist struggles for recognition are by no means over, and more new states- “more anarchy”- may yet be created. But while further fragmentation is in one sense a step back, it is also a precondition for moving forward, since it is only when difference is recognized that a larger identity can be stable. (…) Far from suppressing nationalism, a world state will only be possible if it embraces it.”



Everyone dedicated to fight the push for world dictatorship should wash their ears well with this statement. For the New World Order will pull out all the stops, including flirtations with national sovereignty, courting true libertarianism and align itself with any and every grassroots movement springing up out of the soil. The anti-venom is education, education and some more education. Anything too much centralized leaves itself wide open to infiltration.



Self-education that is. As we know, all institutionalized schooling has for many decades now been infiltrated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). At a meeting in 2009, Mr. Olabiyi Babalola Joseph Yai, Chair of UNESCO’s executive board, admitted the organization was created to “think global governance”:



“You will recall, dear colleagues, that I said, before Mr Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, that UNESCO’s role is to think global governance. That is why the Organization was founded. We come to the rescue of the system especially when the economic machine runs out of steam, as it clearly has today. It is thus a matter of urgency to set up a long-term working group on global governance. I hope that a State or group of States will seize on this worthy proposal, and that the Organization, as of this session, will give it the attention it warrants.”



At her installment as Secretary-General of UNESCO in October 2010, Irina Bokova stated:



“I am convinced of the need for global governance, founded on universal ethics, in order to take up these common challenges.”



In a 1968 publication by Louis Francois for UNESCO, the author elaborates on the need for a worldwide education-system as opposed to the old, discarded one which still recognized sovereignty of the nation-state (page 18):



“We are witnessing the establishment of a new world order based upon the system of the United Nations”, Francois explains.



He links a growing world population as one of the main obstacles to be overcome in the quest for a global educational system (page 25):



“(…) not only is the population of the world increasing; it is also growing younger (…). So the first obstacle to be overcome by education is that of quantity. The first problem to be solved by a ministry of education is that of accommodating and teaching these rapidly increasing multitudes of young people.”



On page 32 the author arrives at the logical destination of his train of thought:



“Educational expansion is hard put to it to keep up with the huge growth of population.”



In order to effectively guide the population toward slavery, the number of people should be reduced lest its effectiveness wear off.



“Wherever we look“, says Francois on page 36, “education is striving to forestall the demographic explosion.”



All these statements do not fall out of the clear blue sky. UNESCO’s founder, Vice President of the Eugenics Society and foremost transhumanist Julian Huxley explained why global governance is crucial in his UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:



“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”



Another “founding father” of the scientific dictatorship, Sir Bertrand Russell once explained:



“Every government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen …”



With a sharp sense of foresight when it comes to media matters, Francois describes the future of education and what its ground principles are on which this future should be founded (page 80):



“Promoting the recognition of the fact that, if the countries of the world are still divided by their interests and their political convictions, they are, day by day, growing more closely interdependent in matters of economics, science, technology and culture. Promoting awareness of the fact that nations must cooperate, that is to say work together for their common good within international organizations.”



“To sum up”, the author concludes on page 98, “UNESCO serves as a catalyst for dynamic ideas. Well placed to hear of what is happening in the world, sensitive to the nation’s needs, UNESCO is aware of the very first stirring of ideas, follows their development and can, at the proper time, co-ordinate, harmonize and finally impose them in their full force.”



It would almost be amusing, this notion that UNESCO is merely picking up on ideas, if it were not so horribly cynical in the end. The calculated and synchronized move toward a brave new world is not a bottom-up thing, somehow evolving naturally from the grass roots; it is a top-down system, posing as grass roots, crafted to brainwash as large an audience as it can through the use of mass media, schooling systems and other available instruments of propaganda.



In 1974, the Director-General of UNESCO, Rene Maheu, stressed the importance of gathering all media, irrespective of its medium, under the great wing of UNESCO and the globalists. At a banquet of the International Coordinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere Programme in Williamsburg, USA, Maheu starts out by giving some insight in UNESCO’s long-term vision for mankind (page 2):



“The rationale behind the MAB (Man and the Biosphere) programme is to ensure that the physical, biological and other environmental requirements of man are placed in the hands of each of us (present) and remain under our overall control.”



Explaining to his listening audience that the earth will disintegrate if not for “a collective effort planned, organized and executed by the international community acting in concert”, the Director-General goes on to state:



“I believe that we have now reached the point in world affairs where we must have a systematic reorganization of international relations on all levels.”



He of course favors the UN as the proper body to do the reorganizing, gives it its proper name (page 4):



“I wish to reiterate my firm conviction- together with my hope- that a new world order- political, monetary, economic and social- should now be established.”



Precisely ten years after Louis Francois outlined the plans for a new world order, a meeting of “consultants” was organized at UNESCO Headquarters discussing “the free and balanced flow of information in a new communication order.”



The participants were carefully selected (page 1):



“Fifteen consultants and observers from university and professional circles and representatives of international journalists’ organizations attended this meeting. The main purpose of the meeting was to review briefly the origins of the concept of a free and balanced flow of information, to analyze the current state of discussions and the components of a new world order, together with its legal, technological and socio-economic implications, and to maker suggestions and recommendations for future action by UNESCO and other international organizations.”



One of the aims described in the document, was (page 2): “Preparing and carrying out “pilot programmes” of education incorporating these principles.” Regarding the before mentioned “legal implications”, one of the proposals was to “draw up regulations relating to international mass communications (page 3).”



There is nothing like a strong choke hold to force your subjects into submission. When the status of the journalist in this new world order was discussed, the participants agreed that they would first have to “assess the feasibility of establishing an international code of ethics which would be adopted by journalists possessing a “universal” sense of mission, that is to say transcending their national origin in the defense of peace and fraternity (page 3).” After we strip off the Orwellian euphemisms, this code of ethics clearly equals a strangling oath of obedience.



Among the many disturbing recommendations made by the panel, such as setting up “an international fund for the purpose of renting news transmission channels”, the need was expressed “to set up a “World Press Council” to help ensure the truthfulness and objectivity of information, in the event of it proving impossible to devise and adapt an “international code of ethics (page 6)”’.



A transnational body, in other words, that will decide whether a news item is truthful or not. While the going was good, the participants also called for (page 4) “seminars for professionals in order to make them understand the need to broaden the concerns of those who, in the mass communication process, have the responsibility for selecting information, in other words, those who act as information filters (Gate-Keepers).”



At a 1983 UNESCO conference, there seemed to be an even greater consensus on the strategies that should be implemented in order to reach a new world order- and it appears that those in attendance had a swell time debating semantics (page 16):



“The participants regarded the new world order as a recognized concept, developing but irreversible, which would be established stage by stage.(…) The establishment of a new world communication order appeared to one participant as a participation, a world response to the communications revolution, whereas another emphasized the importance of the word “new” in describing the concept.”



Bordering on the ridiculous, this exchange between globalists is nevertheless significant for it occurred long before papa Bush delivered his famous ‘new world order’ speech before the US congress in 1991. It became part of the nomenclature long before that within the seclusion of key globalist meetings. On page 10 some participants of the conference declared that “the effort to establish a new world information and communication order in stages could not be separated from the effort to promote a new international economic order.”



Or, if I may add, a scientific world order. Just recently I covered statements made by professor of physics at California State University and American representative to the UN, Roger Dittmann, who in 2004 wrote that all policies related to Agenda 21 should be pursued with the aim of worldwide population reduction and population control: “The Big Die Off”, as the professor calls it.



In his presentation Sustainable Development, the New International Scientific Order, and UN Reform Dittmann outright calls for a new “International Scientific Order” to make sure the entire scientific community will be made ready to implement worldwide population reduction objectives. Dittmann:



“Not only do people require organization about their (multiple) identities (including professional, scholarly, and scientific), they need international, even supranational affiliation, facing a common adversary.”



This common adversary-remark neatly ties in with the Club of Rome’s 1993 The First Global Revolution in which the authors state:



“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”



As the theoreticians pancake hypothesis upon hypothesis to prove their position, namely that a world state is inevitable, a closer inspection of their work reveals it is a false understanding, manufactured by a biased predisposition: both time and space have stunningly little regard for our fancies, phasing- as they do- in and out of our grasp as quickly as you can say ‘fallacy’. History, it seems, does not support their arguments.



After the Roman Empire had collapsed, other, smaller kingdoms emerged out of its ruins. This applies to the Greeks, the Babylonians, and almost every other system with imperial designs. The Egyptian kingdom, once a vast and powerful culture, grew to be just a shadow of its former self at the beginning of our calendar. Charlemagne established the great Frankish empire only to unwittingly lay the groundwork for the establishing of sovereign states in the centuries to come, like Germany and France. We have only to study history in order to counter the mythology of a gradual evolution towards a one world system. There is no evidence supporting an historic, chronological pattern of progression from the small to the great. More often than not it is the other way around, for excessive power always provokes resistance.





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



















5 - GLOBAL NATO : A Geostrategic Instrument of Worldwide Military Conquest





A Historical Review and Analysis (1949-2012)





By Ludo De Brabander and Georges Spriet



Global Research, May 18, 2012

vrede.be - 2012-05-17





The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was founded in 1949. Its supporters claim that this military alliance succeeded in building a dam against the aggressive expansionist communist system that threatened to wage war over Europe. This discourse of a threatening war was highly polarised by the media. They were keen on pointing at the Berlin blockade, the Korean war, the repression of the Hungarian uprising, the Prague spring, etc. Historical phrases such as the famous “Nous avons peur” in Paul-Henri Spaak's speech – the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs - before the UN general assembly of September 1948 were to highlight the perception of a real threat. This context urged the West to arm itself and create NATO to deter the enemy and to respond militarily if necessary.



A more thorough reading and analysis of the facts, however, give a strongly nuanced and even different story. NATO's founding had less to do with the external military threat of the Soviet Union than with ideological, economical and geopolitical interests. Even hardliner John Foster Dulles, US Secretary of State (1953-1959) said back in 1949 that “I do not know of any responsible high official, military or civilian in this government or any other government, who believes that the Soviet now plans conquest by open military aggression.”



Moreover, Paul-Henri Spaak was guided by political opportunism when he pronounced his famous speech. It has become clear in the meantime that neither he, nor any of his colleagues, really believed that the Soviet Union represented a concrete military threat. Originally Spaak was opposed to the establishment of an Atlantic Pact because this would confirm the European division. He essentially thought that Belgian interest lay in a rapid German recovery and therefore American assistance was crucial.(1)



The Marshall Plan



This assistance came with the Marshall plan, which wasn't built on American altruism but was to serve American economical and political purposes. A first reason is to be found in the then worrisome situation of the American economy. After World War II the US risked an economic crisis due to the lack of European purchasing power. William Clayton, under-secretary of state for economic affairs in 1947, wrote the following to his chief George Marshall. "Let us admit right off," he said in defence of the idea of foreign aid, "We need markets--big markets--in which to buy and sell." (2) The intent was not to help foreign countries; it was to reward US-based multinationals who actually got the cash as the government purchased political influence abroad. The Marshall plan was also to the benefit of the US companies in Germany which had continued to produce during the years of war, and were now in need of markets. A huge West European recovery plan was to repair the production and consumption capacity. Another reason was the fear that European economic problems would increase the influence of the communist parties and thus of the Soviet Union in various countries which in turn would form an obstacle for American capitalist ambitions.



Germany played a crucial role. Washington was persuaded that a European recovery was only possible if the German economic recovery was part of the plan. In other European capitals the fear was still omnipresent that an economically strong Germany would entail a military strong Germany. At the Yalta conference the allied leaders – Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin – had agreed that the big German industrial companies of the Nazis, mainly in the Ruhr, had to be dismantled. This however would have been a tremendous setback for US capital and its German investments. President Truman – who succeeded the deceased Roosevelt – did all he could to gain the control over the Ruhr region which belonged to the British occupation zone. January 1, 1947, the American and British occupation zones were unified. In fact this was a first step for the split up of post war Germany. At the same time the Soviet Union was given a serious blow because Moscow had real interest in a unified, neutral and demilitarised Germany that should be capable of paying the war reparations to Moscow. The Ruhr was thus essential for Moscow. The one-sided separation of West-Germany, joined later on by the French zone, was accompanied by the installation of a German government and the introduction of a new currency in these zones. This caused a furious Soviet reaction with the Berlin blockade. The cold war turned into a very concrete reality in Europe.



Washington succeeded in taking away the distrust of the European nations in a new strong Germany by a double policy. Firstly, the mutual European cooperation was stimulated and the Marshall plan executed by a newly founded multilateral organisation of 16 countries, the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). Secondly, a military alliance between Europe and the US was initiated which in the eyes of the European countries was to guarantee the impossibility of a German military rebirth.



NATO and the military build up also served economical and geopolitical purposes as president Eisenhower explained: “We know that we are linked to all free peoples not merely by a noble idea but by a simple need. No free people can for long cling to any privilege or enjoy any safety in economic solitude. For all our own material might, even we need markets in the world for the surpluses of our farms and our factories. Equally, we need for these same farms and factories vital materials and products of distant lands. This basic law of interdependence, so manifest in the commerce of peace, applies with thousand-fold intensity in the event of war.”(3) Behind the NATO shield Western European countries could thus with the help of the Marshall plan rebuild and modernise their economies. In this way US capitalism could further develop as it gained access and control over Western Europe.



Economic Interests and Armament



US business was well aware of the advantages of overestimating the threat of the Soviet Union. The president of General Electric was really happy about the economic results a war could offer and made the proposal of a “permanent war economy” via a lasting alliance between business and army.(4) President Truman and his administration did their utmost to create a cold war atmosphere. The propaganda in the first post war years and during the Korean war (1950-1953) pushed towards a climate of fear and even hysteria about communism, and resulted in giant military orders giving the US economy a terrible boost. The US government did not have to face much of a resistance against its policy of rearmament. The high military expenditures lead to big military orders for the arms industry. In the year 1955 US military budget reached 40 billion dollar on a total budget of 62 billion.



The companies working for defence gained fortunes. Two thirds of all military orders were placed with only twelve giant corporations which exclusively produced for the government's military needs. The situation grew to the kind that forced president Eisenhower to warn the nation in his farewell address, January 1961, of what he called the military industrial complex. Although he thought the US was to develop a permanent war industry he stated that we should be vigilant for unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.(5) When Germany became a member of NATO in 1955 the Cold War got really institutionalised. Nine days later the Soviet Union reacted with the establishment of the Warsaw Pact together with the Eastern European communist states.



A year later the North Atlantic Council, NATO's highest decision-making body, would adopt a resolution to approve a report of experts with recommendations for political, economical and cultural cooperation. In a clear reference to the communist economies the report states that a policy under the condition of competitive co-existence will show the superiority of free institutions in promoting human prosperity and economic progress.(6) The resolution suggested softly to expand the Treaty's application zone to the whole world, because influence and interests of its members could be jeopardised outside the NATO area. NATO was thus formally given an economic task, i.e. to support free market.



In 1973, at the initiative of David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission was established which would give anti-sovietism a push and was to lead to a closer cooperation between the United States, Europe and Japan. The Commission wanted to stop the ideological, political and economical threat of communism and the revolutionary movements in the third world through a tricontinental capitalism, internationalisation and expansion of the system. The members of this elite group were situated in the up high political and economical circles of the three continents. It reached a plain sailing level when one of the founders, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was appointed security advisor by president Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). He had been chosen by Rockefeller to help establish the Commission. Brzezinski focused particularly on the normalisation of relations with the Popular Republic of China. At the same time he challenged the Soviet Union by arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan in their fight against a Moscow leaning government that had asked for the military assistance of the Soviet Union.



US policy inside and outside NATO would generally take form via the policy lines as Brzezinski had drawn them. He would develop his strategy later in more detail in his book The Grand Chessboard (see further). In Europe the US presence was to be consolidated as bridgehead for American geo-strategic and economical interests. The Soviet Union was to be isolated and pushed back, which seemed to be plausible through the support of the Afghan resistance which caused the Red Army a lot of problems. The breaking up of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the nineties would liberate the way for the Great Game over the oil and gas rich Central Asian region. Afghanistan was to play a key role for the opening up of that region.



End of the Cold War



At a historic summit between US president George Bush and Soviet leader Michail Gorbachev in Malta on December 3 1989, both world leaders made cold war era history. In media and political circles the idea emerged that the end of the cold war would also mean the end of the military pacts. With the breaking up of the Warsaw Pact (mid 1991), the Soviet Union (end 1991) and also the German unification (October 1990) the official reasons of existence for NATO had disappeared. Before being dissolved the Warsaw Pact launched the proposal of a 'new European security system' including both the former rival alliances.



Others dreamed of a prominent place for the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of which all countries concerned were member. It has the advantage of a political forum instead of a military organisation and moreover OSCE has regional security organisation status as described in the United Nations' Charter. The US, however, were very concerned that with the end of NATO they would lose the politico-military and consequently economic control over Europe. So they opted to reform NATO through the establishment of cooperation structures (partnership for peace) with the former East-block countries or simply through admitting former Warsaw pact countries as new NATO members.



Although the heads of state confirmed the end of the cold war during the London NATO summit July 1991 there was no question of dissolving NATO, rather to reform it. They put it quite clear that the danger that could come from the Soviet Union was not completely over yet. It didn't sound very convincing. In Atlantic circles the argument was therefore used that new threats forced NATO to get prepared: 'When oppressing regimes disappear, the possibility emerges that long pent up political, economical and ethnical grievances could burst out' according to the then British permanent representative to NATO, sir Michael Alexander.(7) He pleaded for a new out-of-area strategy to deal with NATO's southern flank, North Africa and the Middle East, which was believed to provide the main sources of threat for the European security.



It was presumably not a fantasy that new threats could emerge from the breaking up of the political system in Eastern Europe, but quite other reasons did also push to maintain NATO. Some years after the fall of the Berlin wall a Pentagon security strategy paper for Europe and NATO (June 1995) mentioned political, economical and cultural arguments why Europe continues to be of great importance to the US. 'It is in the interest of the US to have a democratic, undivided, stable and prosperous Europe, which is open to trade and investment opportunities and gives support to political, economical and military cooperation with the USA, in Europe and in other important parts of the world”(8). In this security strategy the Pentagon emphasised the many economical advantages for the US, thanks to cooperation with Europe. 'These ties generate jobs for American workers, quality goods for American consumers, and benefits for American entrepreneurs.'(9) This document also explains why the US can accept an own European security policy: it not only reduces the American defence costs, but increases the security of the vital economic interests.



The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 gave an additional dimension to the old geostrategic incentives. An important part of Central and Eastern Europe was soaked off from the Soviet-Russian zone of influence. The Soviet Union ceased to exist on December 25 1991. The field lay open for new players. NATO didn't miss the opportunity. Economic considerations certainly played a role. NATO ministers declared in Copenhagen (June 1991): 'We continue to support with all possible means the reform of the East and West European states... just like the efforts aimed at a modern and competitive market economy.'(10) In Rome, November 1991, the declaration was still clearer about the developments in the Soviet Union: 'The allies are absolutely convinced that political change has to be accompanied by economic freedom and the development of market economies. We support the development of an economic policy that promotes trade and economical cooperation between the republics in the interest of growth and stability.'(11) Of course, the US saw here an important role for NATO, for the alliance gives Washington the necessary presence in Europe and at the same time makes it possible for Washington to take the lead. European member states do not necessarily feel the same way. Germany – which later on would emerge as the strong engine for NATO's first expansion round with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – seems to act in a very opportunistic way. Berlin was indeed concerned over a possible instability at its eastern borders, but its economical 'Ostpolitik' that was to give new oxygen to the “Deutsche Wirtschaft' had at least the same importance. This latter objective could also be realised through the European Union. Germany was betting on two horses and so was an actor of changing coalitions.



Out of Area



The 1949 NATO treaty made quite some restrictions in the alliance's territorial action radius. Article 6, that regulates the application of common reaction on an attack against a member state (art 5), was during the cold war commonly interpreted very restrictively so that out of area missions were excluded. The underlying objective was to avoid NATO getting involved in the decolonisation struggles of some member countries and to safeguard that the attention would stick paramount to Europe. Moreover, Germany's war past made its political class extra sensitive to out of area operations. In 1983 the then German Minister of Defence, Manfred Wörner, wrote that for his country 'troops deployment outside the NATO area was unmentionable.' (12) The fall of the Berlin wall and particularly the Yugoslavia crisis would change this attitude.



The end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union made the whole strategic environment change. The trans-Atlantic alliance was presented with an existential dilemma which was often summarised as “out of area or out of business”.(13) NATO answered its fundamental threat for the first time with the extension of its powers in its new strategic concept (NSC), which was adopted at the Rome summit of November 7 and 8 1991.(14) Justification was found in Central and East European transformation that lead to economical, social and political difficulties, ethnical tensions and territorial disputes with possible consequences for security in the European NATO zone. Yugoslavia's disintegration – in which some western countries hadn't played an innocent role at all – was a suitable example to underline this argument, but NATO leaders certainly also had the Mediterranean and the Middle East in their mind. This first new strategic concept was to be the go ahead for a gradual transformation of the alliance from a collective defence force towards an intervention force. Initially emphasis lay on the security threats that had to be responded to. NATO member states would however claim the role of operating outside the treaty zone in order to control crises which could jeopardise the stability of the NATO zone.



On the eve of the 1999, Washington Summit NATO secretary general Javier Solana described the stake of the meeting as follows: 'Kosovo shows us clearly the necessity that diplomacy is backed by military force'.(15) The principle that NATO should take up other than purely defensive tasks had been accepted at the beginning of the nineties and was amply tested in Bosnia. NATO bombing of Serb positions around Sarajevo presumably brought the fighting parties to the negotiation table at Dayton, USA. The point is on which legal base this is to happen. January 1994 NATO government leaders still stated that peacekeeping and other operations should be realised under the 'authority of the UN Security Council'.(16) Washington, however, didn't see the necessity to act any longer under explicit UN rule. Already in summer 1993 the US ambassador presented a memorandum to the allies at NATO headquarters in Brussels under the title: With the UN, whenever possible, without it when necessary. The document was produced some months after the disastrous ending of the Somalia operation which pushed Washington to a critical approach of military operations under the UN flag. It was to become the basic reasoning for the Kosovo war: NATO should not be limited to military actions under UN mandate, but should, if necessary, be ready to act without permission of UN Security Council.(17)



What effectively occurred with the bombing of Belgrade, March 1999. Washington wanted in the first place to get rid of Russian and Chinese consent – both veto countries in UN - for NATO's out of area operations. Britain followed the US point of view, as usual. A spokesman for the British government said before his parliament: '...all NATO operations must have an adequate base in international right... which should not always mean a resolution of the UN Security Council'.(18) In their declaration of the Washington summit for the 50th anniversary, April 1999, the heads of the NATO member states cryptically said there was to be respect paid to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, instead of the proposal from France 'under the authority of the Security Council'. What this could mean was already clear in the nineties. NATO as well as leading member states began to operate beyond the Security Council. After Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999) the war in Afghanistan was presented as a 'defence' against an attack (and so no UN permission was necessary) and also the British-American war against Iraq (2003) bypassed UN. The invasion of Afghanistan was followed by the biggest military operations ever in NATO's history.



Towards a Global NATO



The formal inclusion of non-article 5 operations (i.e. out of area) in NATO's core business at the Washington summit 1999 was on the one hand a logic next step in the gradual transformation of NATO towards a global military organisation. On the other hand it was still limited to contributions to 'peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region'. (19) One could deduct from this second 'new strategic concept' that NATO's operational zone had a limited geographical size. But this implicitness of the wording gave NATO leaders enough space for interpretation; for there was quite a lack of consensus between the US and most European countries. In the eyes of Washington NATO remains the instrument to help better defend its global strategic interests. The US National Military Strategy of 1997 speaks about a global commitment: 'Because America is engaged worldwide, even in peacetime, significant portions of our Armed Forces are present overseas or readily available to deploy overseas, where many of our interests are found. US troops also preserve our access to important infrastructure'.(20) 'Our troops abroad serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to sustained democratic and economic development'. US interests divide into three categories: vital, important and humanitarian. The important interests have an „influence on our well-being and the quality of the world we live in. Applying military power can be fruitful to protect our interest'. The same reasoning can be found in the reference book The Grand Chessboard by the former influential national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski. This book is about the basic objective of the United States, i.e. the will to be the sole but also the last world power. In this perspective Eurasia is the most important battleground in the power struggle for world-wide dominance. Eurasia goes according to Brzezinski from Lisbon to Vladivostok where three quarters of mankind live and which contains the same proportion of global energy resources.



In recent years NATO has constructed strengthened alliances at the southern and eastern flanks of this Eurasiatic region with Japan and Australia, that are essential partners to control the Pacific, and with Israel which continues to be the most important western ally in the Middle East.



Afghanistan



Gradually, a debate on article 5 was started, in which the original central mission of the military alliance is formulated: an armed attack on one of the NATO-members shall be considered to be an attack on all members, whereby the allies assist the attacked party with, if necessary, armed violence. This principle risks making the boundaries between the defense of the territory on the one hand and the military tasks outside the zone on the other hand increasingly vague. The response to the terrorist September 11 attacks of 2001 would make this clear. Even though the US attacked Afghanistan in practice at first outside the military alliance, they contributed to the fact that NATO responded with the creative application of article 5. In that manner, the US and the allies could start an external war one month later without asking the UN Security Council for permission, because the Charter of the United Nations allows violence in case of defense against an armed attack. It was not important that the attacks were conducted by an organization (Al-Qaeda) and not by the Afghan Taliban regime. Further, in the background, the opening of natural gas resources from Turkmenistan played an important role and therefore the control over Afghanistan was a necessity. The energy project would finally take shape in the form of the TAPI-pipeline (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India). An arrangement on this gas pipeline had been come to in April 2008. (21) Up to the present, the concrete realization of this TAPI-pipeline is hindered by the situation of war in Afghanistan.



After the regime was changed and replaced by a pro-western government, the “defense against an attack” became a long-drawn occupation war. The first time that one could talk about a real out-of-area operation far away from the Euro-Atlantic zone happened with the NATO taking command of the ISAF-troops from the end of 2003 onwards. This was a clear move in the direction of a global NATO.



The conduct of operations in Afghanistan and the experiences gained there would be determining for the further remodeling of the NATO towards a global alliance in the run-up to the major NATO-top in Lisbon in November 2010, where a third NSC would be agreed on. In one of the preparatory seminars Secretary General of NATO Rasmussen declared that it was no longer satisfactory to draw up soldiers, tanks and military materials at the borderlines. Instead of doing that, NATO-members should address the threat and pull it up by the roots.(22) In another seminar, in Warsaw, Rasmussen said that the significance of territorial defense is changing. He argued that if we want to defeat terrorism, we should defeat it at its source and that this is what is happening in Afghanistan.(23)



This striking at the roots of the evil was considered on a gathering organized by NATO and Lloyd‟s of London, for a select audience out of the security and trade community on October 1 2009.(24) Organizer Lord Levene introduced the meeting as follows: “Our sophisticated, industrialized and complex world is under attack from a myriad of determined and deadly threats.” Furthermore Rasmussen enumerated a series of threats – going from climate change, droughts and food production drop to cyber security and energy supply problems – which have the non-military aspect in common. The tendency to include social and environmental problems in the military sphere is complementary to the globalization of the NATO and it engages the Treaty Organization ever more emphatically on the field of the UN.



After 10 years of war in Afghanistan, the officials in most NATO countries claim that the NATO mission is succeeding in stabilizing the country. It is asserted that the Afghan authorities are well on their way to take the helm and guarantee the country‟s security. With regard to human rights, NATO would also be doing well. However, reality is different. A leaked internal NATO document which states that the influence of the Taliban is growing amongst citizens and that the collaboration between rebels and Afghan security troops is getting closer, proves this.(25) According to the report, Afghan civilians would prefer Taliban governance to the corrupt Afghan Karzai government. Pakistan‟s intelligence service (ISI) is said to be still in touch with the Taliban.



After 10 years the situation in this country as a consequence of large-scale military intervention can be described as dramatic: insecurity and violence, poverty, hopelessness, corruption. An 'International Crisis Group' report entitled 'Aid and Conflict in Afghanistan' confirms this.(26) After a decade of massive security support, development aid and humanitarian assistance the international community has not succeeded in making Afghanistan a politically stable and economically livable country. As an international organization, Al-Qaeda is not at all tied to one country. By the time the US-invasion took place, the most important leaders had already fled. Meanwhile, they installed cells in other countries. The Taliban was initially quickly chased away from power but almost immediately responded with a strong defense. Especially since 2005 the influence of the Taliban grew considerably again and due to the permanent presence of foreign troops it even gained an image of nationalistic resistance. Already at that time a Spanish general did not question whether the foreign troops should leave rapidly, but rather how this could be sold not to make it look like a defeat, because such a perception could cause damage to the future of the NATO.



Presently, many areas are de facto under control of the Taliban or individual warlords not connected with the central regime. This central government, with president Karzai as their signboard, is extremely unpopular with ordinary citizens. It is seen as a puppet government of the US and is known for its obstinate corruption. The training of the national army seems to get nowhere but is nevertheless the straw at which foreign leaders grasp. France, the US and also NATO now propose 2013 as the end of the combat operations, a year earlier than their former intentions. The US are looking for a way that would still ensure a 'non-combatant' military presence after the official retreat. Afghanistan indeed does have a strong geo-strategic importance.



Foreign Military Expeditions becoming Defense



In Lisbon the principle was accepted that there no longer is a difference for the future NATO between standard defense-missions and intervention actions far away from the own territory. In the NSC is written: “The Alliance can be hit by political and safety developments outside the borders or can influence these latter. The Alliance will engage actively in reinforcing international security, by way of partnerships with relevant countries and other international organizations.” NATO must therefore “develop and support stalwart, mobile and deployable troops in order to be able to execute both responsibilities mentioned in article 5 and the expeditionary operations of the Alliance, including the NATO Response Force”. In other words, in this new strategy every military action on or outside NATO-territory will be defined as an action in the interest of its members‟ security. Nevertheless the NSC states frankly that it can be necessary to take actions if the energy supplies are menaced. The capacity has to be expanded to “contribute to energy safety including critical energy infrastructure as well as regions and lines of transits…”



Further Militarization



The consequence of this principle is that NATO needs to have very mobile, well-equipped armies at its disposal, which costs a lot of money. This is the reason why former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized the unwillingness of the European allies to follow the Americans‟ example and invest more in their military devices. In the year 2011, the US provided a record investment of 708 billion for military spending. As Robert Gates says: “The demilitarization of Europe has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st”.(27) In the NSC, member states of NATO make the commitment to “maintain the necessary levels of defense-spending…”. It also states that countries commit themselves not to take any decisions regarding arms control and disarmament without thorough consultation with NATO.



Furthermore member states engage in getting a maximal deployment of the troops and their capacity in order to keep operations going in the field. This means a de facto hollowing-out of the parliamentary sovereignty to take their own decisions on this matter, for example as a consequence of budgetary or political choices.



Nuclear NATO



NATO started its nuclearization in the 1950s. Under US president Eisenhower (1953-1961), the US developed as a global nuclear power and opted plainly for a reinforcement of the nuclear capabilities. Investing in nuclear striking power seemed cheaper and more effective than maintaining large, conventional military forces. The technological advances themselves pushed towards new nuclear doctrines. During the 1970s and 1980s the number of nuclear weapons placed in the US and the European allies as well as in the Cold-War enemy Soviet Union reached absolute peaks.



The official nuclear strategy remained nearly unchanged, despite the fact that in the preparatory process for the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon in November 2010 several member states signed with reservations about the American atomic weapons on European territory, that are of no strategic use anymore because their range of action is limited to the former Eastern bloc. In addition, Obama‟s dramatic speech in Prague on April 5 2009 in which he advocated a nuclear weapon-free world, is now downsized to nothing more than a general agreement without commitment to make further disarmament efforts in the final text of the third NATO Strategic Concept (NSC) as approved in Lisbon.



In the NSC it is written that the warning intimidation based on an adapted mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities remains a central element in the entire strategy. Article 17 states firmly that NATO continues to be a nuclear alliance, as long as nuclear weapons will exist. On the subject of the European nuclear weapons stored by the US on the territories of certain NATO members it is said that “the safety of our allies is chiefly ensured by the strategic nuclear powers of the Alliance, more specifically those of the US; the independent strategic nuclear powers of the United Kingdom and France, which function as nuclear deterrents and contribute to the deterrence in general and the safety of our allies”.



Political circles agree upon the fact that the tactical nuclear weapons are militarily not very useful anymore, but would still constitute a necessary political unity for the allied countries, in particular for a number of Eastern European countries. The NATO missile defense system needs to provide these countries with an alternative proof of the US solidarity with European defense, but apparently does not offer sufficient assurance to the Baltic States and countries such as Poland and Czech Republic. In other words, both nuclear weapons and a missile defense system are presently the political cement among NATO members.



The Missile Defense System becomes a NATO-mission



The 2010 Lisbon summit has indeed decided to include a territorial missile defense system in the NATO strategy. The US have lobbied actively for this change. In the International Herald Tribune (November 15) the American NATO ambassador Ivo Daalder emphasized the importance of the inclusion of the missile defense system as a NATO capability. And according to Daalder, only a small extra cost of 200 million dollars is involved, spread over the next 10 years. Although there is not much enthusiasm in Europe to invest in this useless project and although the majority of the European population probably absolutely does not support this, as was proved in the Czech Republic when former plans wanted to install a missile defense radar there, all governments, including the Belgian government, followed Washington at the Lisbon Summit. The NATO will now “develop the capability to defend our population and territories against ballistic missiles as a central element of our collective defense plan, which contributes to the invisible safety of the Alliance”.



President Obama had already changed the project of the missile defense system in Europe of his predecessor G.W.Bush in September 2009 by adapting the fundamental goal. Whereas G.W. Bush regarded this plan as a part of the US‟ continental defense, Obama declared the defense of the European territory and the Middle East as an objective that needs to be dealt with immediately. This had to comfort Russia but also the allies who wanted to avoid building up tension with Moscow. When he emphasized the use of functioning technology, Obama responded to the criticism over the technical readiness of the large-scale defense missile system.



To realize this thorough reorientation, the Pentagon had elaborated a Phased adaptive approach to the missile defense system in Europe. Firstly, from 2011 onwards, the US develops functioning anti-missile systems in Europe: inter alia the cruiser Aegis at sea (US base Rota in Spain), Patriot-rackets (Poland), SM-3 missile interceptors (Romania, Bulgaria) and sensors such as the „forward based‟ Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance System (AN/TPY-2 in Turkey). In latter phases both components – interceptors and sensors – are developed further and made more powerful.



Europe



The past debate whether our armies should be either European or trans-Atlantic, seems to be slid into the background definitively. During last years, the consensus that NATO too will benefit from the reinforcement of a European Common Safety and Defense Policy is growing. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen stated in November 2009 that he does not see the development of a European Security and Defense Policy in competition with NATO, but rather complementary to NATO. The European Lisbon Treaty (article 42 subsection 2) legitimized NATO as an important institution in terms of the common defense in Europe. In an attached protocol it is said that a more explicit role of the Union in the field of security and defense will enhance the vitality of a renewed Atlantic Alliance. EU countries who traditionally adopt a neutral standpoint and who are not members of NATO are nevertheless connected to the trans-Atlantic Alliance and thus to US politics via this Treaty.



Moreover, in the third NATO Strategic Concept (NSC) the relation between EU and NATO is highlighted and the partnership between the two is even reinforced, with the improvement of the practical cooperation during crisis operations, the broadening of the mutual consultation and more participation in developing military capabilities. “The EU is a unique and essential NATO partner”, as reported by the NSC. “NATO acknowledges the importance of a stronger and more competent European defense”.



Recently, nervousness in the Pentagon has seemed to increase about the limited European enthusiasm to raise the military budgets. The departing US minister of defense Robert Gates argued in mid-2011 in favor of more military expenses by the European NATO members. Otherwise, it is said that the danger of Americans no longer willing to pay a lot of money to finance the defense of others is growing. Robert Gates also repeated his concern with a stratified alliance: “In the past, I‟ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: between members who specialize in “soft” humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the “hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don‟t want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.” (28)



His second point concerned the NATO operations in Libya in 2011. Because of the lack of will and resources NATO may risk not continuing to realize an integrated, effective and persistent military campaign both in the air and at sea. He gives attention to the consensus decision on the operation in Libya taken by NATO, but points out that less than half of the members participate and that less than a third of the allies effectively take part in the air attacks. “For many of them it is not because they do not want to, but because they cannot participate. They simply do not possess the military resources”. He argues that certain missions can only be realized by virtue of an extra effort made by the US. “The most powerful alliance of history started an operation against an opponent that is not heavily armed in a sparsely populated country only 11 weeks ago, yet several allies are starting to run out of ammunition and once again the US have to come to their rescue”.



The military campaign against Libya shows clearly that NATO focuses on the oil-rich states, in which Europe and the US see a common interest. In order to protect civilians the NATO started bombing Libyan cities and places where Gaddafi-supporters resided during months in 2011.



Several issues are involved in the operation in Libya. European as well as American enterprises profited from the plunder of African raw materials. From a western point of view a new competitor has shown up as China is seeking to expand its presence in Africa. This is why the old European colonial countries feel constrained to give their partnership with Washington a new dimension: a cooperation to secure their interests on the African continent. A strong warning is to be given to China and other rivals that they are setting foot on private hunting ground. That is the raison d‟être of the Pentagon-department Africom and the current structural connection with Eucom and NATO.



The political and moral justification for an intervention in Libya – in which the Libyan leader Gaddafi was accused of attacks against his own civilians – primarily originated from Paris and London. NATO took over the military charge and coordination from France and Great Britain. On the official pretext of citizens‟ protection (with a UN resolution based on the „Responsibility to Protect‟ principle) a change of regime was compassed. Today, there is no question of a safe and stable Libya, among other reasons because the armed militias, supported by the NATO, refuse to disarm. During the Libyan war 30 to 50,000 people died, racist violence against black Libyans and African immigrants was organized and the insurgents are guilty of large-scale executions of opponents in Sirte. The „Responsibility to Protect‟ does not seem to have any value anymore for post-Gaddafi Libya in the western capitals, be it in the US, in Canada or in the EU. Full attention has turned to Syria and Iran.



Conclusion



In the whole course of its history NATO has tried to justify its existence with all kinds of arguments. During the Cold War emphasis lay on the military threat of Central and East European communism. When the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved new arguments were to be put forward. First it was about the consequences for our security caused by the unstable ex-communist states. When the latter were at the point to join NATO or the European Union, NATO saw itself play the role of humanitarian intervention force. After nine-eleven the war on terror, the danger of rogue states and cyberterrorism became the headlines of all speeches and analisys papers in western strategic and political circles.



NATO has little to do with the 'defense of values, democracy, human rights, freedom and a law based state' as then NATO secretary general Javier Solana claimed on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of NATO. NATO is about defense of economic and geostrategic interests, as its history shows abundantly. A number of memberstates were all but examples of good practice. Just to mention in this field Portugal under Salazar, the military regime of the colonels in Greece, the serial military coups in Turkey and the atrocities committed by the colonial NATO members. After the Cold war NATO continued to manifest itself as the military shield for the economic interests of its member states. Every now and then this is overtly admitted bu the NATO protagonists themselves as in the following quote of the former secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in his Brussels New Year's speech of January 8, 2008. "This century will be, to a large extent, about energy. Energy security is a theme where NATO is in the process of defining its added value. Protection of critical energy infrastructure. You've heard me before. It has been discussed already previously. NATO certainly doesn‟t carry the primary responsibility in the framework of energy security. NATO's not an economic organization. But there is certainly added value to be defined and you can be sure and certain that energy security will also figure on the agenda of the Bucharest Summit"



The Libya operation seems now to show something like the beginning of a new strategy. This is how president Barack Obama expressed it in his speech on defence January 5, 2012. "As a global force, our military will never be doing only one thing. It will be responsible for a range of missions and activities across the globe of varying scope, duration, and strategic priority. This will place a premium on flexible and adaptable forces that can respond quickly and effectively to a variety of contingencies and potential adversaries.



Again, that's the nature of the world that we are dealing with. In addition to these forces, the United States will emphasize building the capacity of our partners and allies to more effectively defend their own territory, their own interests, through a better use of diplomacy, development, and security force assistance." Although conservative America reacted as if the end of the US as world power was announced, Obama's speech doesn't diminish at all his will to maintain both US hegemonical position and US war capacity. "As we shift the size and composition of our ground, air and naval forces, we must be capable of successfully confronting and defeating any aggressor and respond to the changing nature of warfare. Our strategy review concluded that the United States must have the capability to fight several conflicts at the same time." 28



Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described this new strategy as building more on the air force and on indirect operations through mandated partners, in view of the lowest possible commitment of own American forces.



NATO as executor of US strategy, history repeats itself.



Notes



(1) Coolsaet, R., België en zijn buitenlandse politiek 1830 – 2000. Uitgeverij van Halewijck, Leuven, 2001

(2) Zinn, H., Geschiedenis van het Amerikaanse volk. EPO, Berchem, 2007, p. 504

(3) Julien, C., L'empire Américain. Editions Bernard Grasset, Paris, 1968, p. 218

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwighteisenhowerfirstinaugural.htm

(4) Zinn, H., Geschiedenis van het Amerikaanse volk. EPO, Berchem, 2007, p.519 - 520

(5) Sloan S., NATO, the EU and the Atlantic Community, Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2003, p. 29 - 35

(6) NATO, Report of the Committee of Three on Non-Military Cooperation in NATO approved by the North Atlantic Council, 13 december 1956

(7) Alexander, M., De rol van de NAVO in een veranderde wereld. In: NAVO Kroniek, nr. 2, april 1990

(8) Department of Defence. Office of International Security Affairs, United States Security Strategy for Europe and Nato, Washington DC, 1995, p. 3

(9) Department of Defence. Office of International Security Affairs, United States Security Strategy for Europe and Nato, Washington DC, 1995, p. 4

(10) NATO, Partnership with the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Statement issued by the North Atlantic Council Meeting in Ministerial Session in Copenhagen, 6-7 of June 1991, punt 6

(11) NATO, Developments in the Soviet Union. Statement issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Rome 8 November 1991, punt 4

(12) Quoted in Yost David S. NATO transformed. The Alliance’s New Roles in International Security, United States Institute of Peace, Washington DC, 1998, p. 189

(13) Achcar, G., La nouvelle guerre froide. Le monde après le Kosovo, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1999, p. 67

(14) NATO, The Alliance’s New Strategic Concept, Rome, 7-8 of November 1991

(15) The Guardian, 22 of April 1999

(16) NATO, Declaration of the Heads of State and Government, Brussels, January 11 1994, punt 7

(17) Portela, C., Humanitarian Intervention, NATO and the International Law. Can the institution of Humanitarian Intervention Justify unauthorised Action?, Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security, Berlin, 2000, p. ii

(18) Geciteerd in Butler, Nicola, „NATO in 1999: A Concept in Search of a Strategy‟. in Disarmament Diplomacy, nr 35, maart 1999

(19) NATO, The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, NAC-S(99)65. Washington DC, 23 – 24 april 1999, punt 29, 31, 41, 43, 47, 49, 53, 54 en 61

(20) Shalikashvili, John M., Shape, Respond, Prepare Now. A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy, 1997

(21) Foster, J., Afghanistan, The TAPI Pipeline, and Energy Politics. In: Journal of Energy Security, 23 maart 2010 (zie: http://www.ensec.org)

(22) Persbericht AFP, 4 maart 2010

(23) Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at NATO's New Strategic Concept - Global, Transatlantic and Regional Challenges and Tasks Ahead – Warschau, Polen, 12 maart 2010 (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_62143.htm)

(24) Rozoff, R., Thousand Deadly Threats: Third Millennium NATO, Western Businesses Collude On New Global Doctrine, 2 oktober 2009 (http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/thousand-deadly-threats-third-millennium-nato-western-businesses-collude-on-new-global-doctrine/ )

(25) Pakistan helping Afghan Taliban – Nato, BBC, 1 februari 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218 )

(26) International Crisis Group. Aid and Conflict in Afghanistan, 4 augustus 2011

http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/210-%20Aid%20and%20Conflict%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf

(27) Gates Robert M., NATO Strategic Concept Seminar. Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, National Defense University, Washington, D.C., 23 februari 2010 (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1423 )

(28) Gates Robert M., The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO), 10 juni 2011

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1581







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



















6 - Israel — Bane and Boon for Jewish Power?

aletho



By Ariadna Theokopoulos
Uprooted Palestinians
May 24, 2012

There is a lot of talk about Israel as the State for Jews being bad for Jews worldwide, engendering increasing anti-Israel as well as anti-Jewish sentiment, but I submit that it is primarily bad for Jewish Power, the so-called Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), insofar as it throws an unwelcome spotlight on it. There have always been subscribers to the Protocols but until relatively recently they have been easily dismissed if not ostracized as anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and Jews have managed to restrict the gentile book-keeping of influential Jews to counting the Jews on the Nobel Prize winners list.



Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians whose land they took over has been beyond despicable from the very beginnings of the state yet a well-organized hasbara has managed to inculcate into the minds of the Western Goyim the dichotomy: Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims = terrorists vs Israeli Jews = peace-loving, long-suffering victims. Not so anymore. Israel is no longer seen as even a “legitimate” state but a rogue nuclear power, a racist, expansionist war criminal and war monger. Of more concern, in attracting scrutiny of its successful flouting of international laws, it has led to an examination of what exactly allows it to act with complete impunity. It has exposed the lines of power that move the governments of the major world powers, like puppets on a string, to act as its enablers, indeed as its agents. The lines are now seen by more people than ever before to lead to the Jewish lobbies, to the ZPC, which does not reside in Israel, but permeates the power centers of the US and the UK, and not only.



The ZPC needs Israel, the flag under which the sayanim can be rallied to march in lockstep (notwithstanding the minor kvetchings that serve to depict “plurality” and “diversity” of Jewish opinion) and to do its work in the “diaspora.” Without Israel the very useful concept of “diaspora” could not exist and the Jews might take it into their heads that they are nationals and citizens of their own countries first, foremost and last. Israel is a boon for the ZPC.



But what kind of Israel would serve the ZPC best? Definitely not the one in existence. The Palestinian “problem” has not only refused to go away in more than six decades, it has in fact grown due to Israel’s egregious actions (and its lack of action) into an impossible to hide or paper over hideous contradiction of Israel’s hasbara posters of itself. More and more people, organizations and governments worldwide are reacting to the reality staring them in the face, and concerted Jewish blackmail or cajoling is not making them back down any more. Israel is a bane to the ZPC.



These facts are recognized by the likes of big ZPC movers and shakers like Soros and by new Jewish organizations like J Street, who seek to address them, while the old guard — AIPAC, ADL and its dershes refuse to do so, not only because they think it can still be all made to go away with the old “anti-Semitism!” cudgel, but also because, on a personal level, they fear the new gang would eventually make them unclasp their paws from the high branch on which they have been perched for so long.



The ZPC needs an Israel it can both wave to the Sayanim as the heart-touching symbol, the call to arms, the reproach, the unity symbol, the house that Yad Vashem built, as well as a world-wide salable story of the success of Jews–a nation like any other (just a little bit more so…), peace-loving (say Shalom loudly and say it often), long-suffering, democratic, moral and just.



If that is what the ZPC needs then they must think that Israel is run by complete idiots. Their idiots but catastrophic idiots nonetheless. Their inability to solve the Palestine problem in the simplest and most advantageous way is proof of it.



What would happen if Israel became one state legally, not just militarily and, where it really counts, de facto, as it is now, and if the Palestinian refugees who wished to return would be allowed to do so? The Jews may become a minority in Israel. So? Is it a problem for the ZPC and indeed for Jews in the US and the UK that they are a tiny minority there? Why would it be a problem in Israel? The “demographic bomb” nonsense ignores the reality of Jewish Power. Were Jews to become a minority in a putative Palestine-Israel state, their status might well emerge elevated for all practical and political purposes. They would become the minority to watch for and protect like nobody’s business. What’s not to like in this?



Attractions for the Israeli Jews in the new Formerly Known as Israel (FKI) state: they can have a Jewish Lobby there, and an ADL too! Jewish historians will be busy writing a Revised Revisionist history, recounting their ethnic cleansing in the FKI state during which, say, 600,000 Jews disappeared. They can have it all, the same, yet new and cleaned up.



Most of all, the highly inconvenient spotlight on the Jewish Power worldwide could be turned off and everything would be business as usual again quietly. Critics of the ZPC, of any and all its aspects, from the international banking to the media ownership and the political levers of power in the governments of the major powers will more easily be made into crass “anti-Semites” again.



Israel could stop being a bane for the ZPC if only the ZPC “deciders” were really as smart as they are supposed to be, according to the ethnic hype. This is just a Goyische opinion but it is offered freely to Zionist plagiarists.



Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist

By Sharmine Narwani – Al Akhbar – 2012-05-17

The phrase “right to exist” entered my consciousness in the 1990s just as the concept of the two-state solution became part of our collective lexicon. In any debate at university, when a Zionist was out of arguments, those three magic words were invoked to shut down the conversation with an outraged, “are you saying Israel doesn’t have the right to exist??”



Of course you couldn’t challenge Israel’s right to exist – that was like saying you were negating a fundamental Jewish right to have… rights, with all manner of Holocaust guilt thrown in for effect.



Except of course the Holocaust is not my fault – or that of Palestinians. The cold-blooded program of ethnically cleansing Europe of its Jewish population has been so callously and opportunistically utilized to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arab nation, that it leaves me utterly unmoved. I have even caught myself – shock – rolling my eyes when I hear Holocaust and Israel in the same sentence.



What moves me instead in this post-two-state era, is the sheer audacity of Israel even existing.



What a fantastical idea, this notion that a bunch of rank outsiders from another continent could appropriate an existing, populated nation for themselves – and convince the “global community” that it was the moral thing to do. I’d laugh at the chutzpah if this wasn’t so serious.



Even more brazen is the mass ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population by persecuted Jews, newly arrived from their own experience of being ethnically cleansed.



But what is truly frightening is the psychological manipulation of the masses into believing that Palestinians are somehow dangerous – “terrorists” intent on “driving Jews into the sea.” As someone who makes a living through words, I find the use of language in creating perceptions to be intriguing. This practice – often termed “public diplomacy” has become an essential tool in the world of geopolitics.Words, after all, are the building blocks of our psychology.



Take, for example, the way we have come to view the Palestinian-Israeli “dispute” and any resolution of this enduring conflict. And here I borrow liberally from a previous article of mine…



The United States and Israel have created the global discourse on this issue, setting stringent parameters that grow increasingly narrow regarding the content and direction of this debate. Anything discussed outside the set parameters has, until recently, widely been viewed as unrealistic, unproductive and even subversive.



Participation in the debate is limited only to those who prescribe to its main tenets: the acceptance of Israel, its regional hegemony and its qualitative military edge; acceptance of the shaky logic upon which the Jewish state’s claim to Palestine is based; and acceptance of the inclusion and exclusion of certain regional parties, movements and governments in any solution to the conflict.



Words like dove, hawk, militant, extremist, moderates, terrorists, Islamo-fascists, rejectionists, existential threat, holocaust-denier, mad mullah determine the participation of solution partners — and are capable of instantly excluding others.



Then there is the language that preserves “Israel’s Right To Exist” unquestioningly: anything that invokes the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and the myths about historic Jewish rights to the land bequeathed to them by the Almighty – as though God was in the real-estate business. This language seeks not only to ensure that a Jewish connection to Palestine remains unquestioned, but importantly, seeks to punish and marginalize those who tackle the legitimacy of this modern colonial-settler experiment.



But this group-think has led us nowhere. It has obfuscated, distracted, deflected, ducked, and diminished, and we are no closer to a satisfactory conclusion… because the premise is wrong.



There is no fixing this problem. This is the kind of crisis in which you cut your losses, realize the error of your ways and reverse course. Israel is the problem. It is the last modern-day colonial-settler experiment, conducted at a time when these projects were being unraveled globally.



There is no “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” – that suggests some sort of equality in power, suffering, and negotiable tangibles, and there is no symmetry whatsoever in this equation. Israel is the Occupier and Oppressor; Palestinians are the Occupied and Oppressed. What is there to negotiate? Israel holds all the chips. They can give back some land, property, rights, but even that is an absurdity – what about everything else? What about ALL the land, property and rights? Why do they get to keep anything – how is the appropriation of land and property prior to 1948 fundamentally different from the appropriation of land and property on this arbitrary 1967 date?



Why are the colonial-settlers prior to 1948 any different from those who colonized and settled after 1967?



Let me correct myself. Palestinians do hold one chip that Israel salivates over – the one big demand at the negotiating table that seems to hold up everything else. Israel craves recognition of its “right to exist.”



But you do exist – don’t you, Israel?



Israel fears “delegitimization” more than anything else. Behind the velvet curtain lies a state built on myths and narratives, protected only by a military behemoth, billions of dollars in US assistance and a lone UN Security Council veto. Nothing else stands between the state and its dismantlement. Without these three things, Israelis would not live in an entity that has come to be known as the “least safe place for Jews in the world.”



Strip away the spin and the gloss, and you quickly realize that Israel doesn’t even have the basics of a normal state. After 64 years, it doesn’t have borders. After six decades, it has never been more isolated. Over half a century later, and it needs a gargantuan military just to stop Palestinians from walking home.



Israel is a failed experiment. It is on life-support – pull those three plugs and it is a cadaver, living only in the minds of some seriously deluded foreigners who thought they could pull off the heist of the century.



The most important thing we can do as we hover on the horizon of One State is to shed the old language rapidly. None of it was real anyway – it was just the parlance of that particular “game.” Grow a new vocabulary of possibilities – the new state will be the dawn of humanity’s great reconciliation. Muslims, Christians and Jews living together in Palestine as they once did.



Naysayers can take a hike. Our patience is wearing thinner than the walls of the hovels that Palestinian refugees have called “home” for three generations in their purgatory camps.



These universally exploited refugees are entitled to the nice apartments – the ones that have pools downstairs and a grove of palm trees outside the lobby. Because the kind of compensation owed for this failed western experiment will never be enough.



And no, nobody hates Jews. That is the fallback argument screeched in our ears – the one “firewall” remaining to protect this Israeli Frankenstein. I don’t even care enough to insert the caveats that are supposed to prove I don’t hate Jews. It is not a provable point, and frankly, it is a straw man of an argument. If Jews who didn’t live through the Holocaust still feel the pain of it, then take that up with the Germans. Demand a sizable plot of land in Germany – and good luck to you.



For anti-Semites salivating over an article that slams Israel, ply your trade elsewhere – you are part of the reason this problem exists.



Israelis who don’t want to share Palestine as equal citizens with the indigenous Palestinian population – the ones who don’t want to relinquish that which they demanded Palestinians relinquish 64 years ago – can take their second passports and go back home. Those remaining had better find a positive attitude – Palestinians have shown themselves to be a forgiving lot. The amount of carnage they have experienced at the hands of their oppressors – without proportional response – shows remarkable restraint and faith.



This is less the death of a Jewish state than it is the demise of the last remnants of modern-day colonialism. It is a rite of passage – we will get through it just fine. At this particular precipice in the 21st century, we are all, universally, Palestinian – undoing this wrong is a test of our collective humanity, and nobody has the right to sit this one out.



Israel has no right to exist. Break that mental barrier and just say it: “Israel has no right to exist.” Roll it around your tongue, tweet it, post it as your Facebook status update – do it before you think twice. Delegitimization is here – have no fear. Palestine will be less painful than Israel ever was.



Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.



Related articles

Revisiting the Palestine question: An interview with Ilan Pappe (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Solidarity and Realpolitik: My Response to Jeff Halper (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Top 10 Facts You Probably Didn’t Know About the #Nakba (alethonews.wordpress.com)







Israel’s ‘Right’ to Exist

aletho



A question of legitimacy



By Genevieve Cora Fraser
InterNews
2006-06-09

"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed, and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land." --Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in an address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, May 24, 2006



In 1947, the United Nations arrogantly attempted to give away Palestine by floating the non-binding Resolution 181. Although the resolution was accepted by the General Assembly, it was not accepted by both parties, which was legally necessary for the General Assembly's recommendations to be implemented.



If it had been implemented it would have prepared the foundation for the creation in Palestine of an Arab state and a Jewish state. However, the Arab nations voted in a block against it and were joined by others. Altogether 13 nations, Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen voted against it. Ten nations, Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia abstained.



Following the rejection of the resolution by the Arabs, over 65,000 well-trained Zionist forces led by Jewish terrorist gangs -- Irgun, Stern, and others -- stormed Palestine armed with $12 million worth of armaments and were met by 25,000 Palestinian militia equipped with antiquated weapons, known as Al Nakba.



Following the take-over of Palestine, U.N. Resolution 194 mandated Israel to accept the Palestinian's right to return to their homes, and own up to the fact that "compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property." That too was ignored and Israel's legitimacy hung on it.



Later came the Six-Day-War (1967), which resulted in the Occupation -- the complete takeover of what remained of historic Palestine -- and the fulfillment of the Zionist claim to their so-called 2,000-year-old Biblical birthright.



It is a serious violation of international law to acquire territory by force. Indeed, the case against the Nazis during the Nuremburg Trials asserted that the rationale behind their acquisitions was to acquire territories already inhabited by so-called "racial Germans" and those it needed as additional living space for "racial Germans" -- all at the expense of other countries. This indictment echoes the Zionist/Israel defense of its claim to historic Palestine by "racial Jews" and its subsequent actions which include hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes against humanity, such as their nonstop deadly raids into Gaza and the West Bank, hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks, the illegal construction of the racist, Apartheid Wall and the current ethnic cleansing of Arab-Israeli citizens within the Negev.



The basic fact is Israel was created in violation of international law and remains so. Israel's illegitimacy is the point that Hamas asserts and which the world is starving and economically boycotting the Palestinians to force them to reject -- by demanding they recognize Israel's right to exist. (These tactics also violate international law -- threatening genocide to force Palestinians to accept what is false.)



Has any other nation on the planet gone to such lengths to get a group to recognize their right to exist? If Israel were comfortable with its claim of legitimacy, Hamas' stance would be a non-issue, a joke to be ignored. But Hamas persists in not recognizing this "right," which has little to do with "wiping them off the face of the earth," and everything to do with recognizing their legitimacy.



Israel takes the threat from Hamas so seriously that Olmert is risking what until now has been sacrosanct -- Israel's security -- by arming Fateh, the party of their former nemesis, Yasser Arafat. The further irony is that Hamas has posed NO security risk to Israel in over 16 months, since declaring and abiding by the truce which Israel has broken thousands of times with the non-stop shelling of Gaza and its incursions into the West Bank, all of which has resulted in hundreds of Palestinian lives lost and thousands of injuries.



Barring entry into Gaza, depriving Palestinians of food and medicine, enforcing a financial boycott of the government, which have also led to starvation and violence, is another example of Israel's as well as America's and the EU's violation of Article 33 of the Forth Geneva Convention prohibiting collective punishment and attempted genocide. Meanwhile, Fateh continues to lob Quassam rockets into Israel and to create chaos within Gaza and the West Bank. Yet, it is Fateh that is being armed by Israel. So who's kidding who?



Israel has been "recognized" by nations across the globe but that does not change the fact that it operates outside of international law -- as is obvious to all who pay attention. The solution is for Israel to operate within the law through a one state solution. But Zionists reject the obvious solution. Instead they implement the propaganda strategy that emphasizes their so-called Biblical birthright and their god given right to exist as a Jewish state. Somehow, these claims are supposed to convey legitimacy. But it is all a great hoax.



Based on scholarship, widely publicized in books such as Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe," historic records demonstrate that the Ashkenazi Jews converted and are not descendants of the ancient Hebrews. This is backed by DNA analysis that has consistently demonstrated that they are not a so-called Diaspora.



One recent study involved over 1,000 Ashkenazi Jews in 67 countries. Over 60 percent had NO Middle Eastern ancestry. The remaining 40 percent showed genetic markers indicating that four women of Middle Eastern descent had entered the Ashkenazi gene pool over a two thousand year period. Four women does not a Diaspora make and given the time period involved they could very well have been Christian or Muslim. Yet, Israeli leaders and too many Jews throughout the world speak of their 3,000-year history, ignoring the Palestinians, whose history they pretend is their own.



Israel was born through the actions of Zionist terrorist organizations. It is still led by criminal elements. Today, the Israeli appetite and trade in marijuana, cocaine, heroine, and hashish may be brushed off as a sign of the times. But Israeli drug lords control the global Ecstasy market, a drug that causes permanent, irreversible brain damage.



In 2000, the Boston Globe reported, "To avoid detection, one Israeli criminal group enlisted ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn and Monsey, N.Y., to bring shipments of Ecstasy into the United States. With their traditional black hats, black coats and locks of hair dangling around their ears, the Hasidic Jews looked like unlikely suspects."



The Israeli crime rate in human trafficking is among the highest in the world. They are listed by America as "second tier" only because in recent years, there have been marginal efforts to do something about it. Over 10,000 women have been brought into Israel and forced into sexual bondage, according to reports in the BBC (May 18, 2000), the Forward, Ynetnews, the Associated Press and other news organizations.



This industry is reputed to bring in over $1 billion a year. In fact, only a few months ago, in March 2006 the Israeli High Court overturned an Israeli law that facilitated slavery. Granted, if the new law prohibiting slavery is enforced, it should help to offset the prostitution industry in Israel and their international export of sex slaves. Last year, commenting on the sexual slavery market within Israel, an Israeli Parliamentary Inquiry Committee reported, in the words of Ynetnews.com, "some 10,000 such women currently reside in about 300 to 400 brothels throughout the country."



The Israeli Kav LaOved Newsletter reported in 2004, in an article titled, "The legal battle against the binding arrangement":



"The state of Israel is involved both directly and indirectly in turning foreign workers -- who entered the country legally -- into victims of trafficking in persons, as defined in the proposed legislation. The view of migrant workers in Israel as the employers' property is reflected above all (in) the 'binding arrangement' which makes the worker the employer's slave.



"The binding arrangement is based on Section 6 of the Entry to Israel Law, 1952. Under this section, the Interior Minister has the power 'to stipulate conditions in a visa or in a residence permit, compliance with which shall be a condition for the validity of the visit or the residence permit.' As this arrangement is applied by the Interior Ministry, the work permit belongs not to the worker but to the employer; the worker is in fact bound or fettered to the specific employer whose name is stamped in his passport. Such binding to an employer is an imperative condition for the worker's legal status in Israel."



In addition to human and drug trafficking, Israel is also replete with maintaining the best politicians that money can buy. Prior to his debilitating stroke, Sharon, and his sons, were plagued by corruption scandals and threats of indictments. Corruption is also frequently linked to Shimon Peres and Olmert to name a few.



Isn't it time for the world to stop pussyfooting around the basic fact. Israel is not legitimate and will not be until they accept Palestinians as belonging in the whole of historic Palestine with full rights as citizens. Palestinians must also be compensated for the 68 years of theft and bloodshed for which the aggressor -- Israel -- is responsible.



Although I support a two state solution as realistic until the parties in the conflict can reconcile, only a one state solution would bring a guarantee of peace within the region.

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

















7 - THE FRAMEWORK FOR SUPPRESSING INFORMATION : Public Opinion in America's 21st Century Police State





By Prof. James F. Tracy



Global Research, May 20, 2012





The police state’s framework for suppressing information and opinion arguably threatens all forms of independent thought and appears poised to intensify as the “war on terror” continues. As the recent emergence of US plans for indoctrination in reeducation camps reveals, Western governments’ actual enemy is the capacity for a people to exercise critical thought en route to intervening in and altering political-economic processes.



Public opinion—defined by 19th century English political thinker William MacKinnon as “that sentiment on any given subject which is entertained by the best informed, most intelligent, and most moral persons in the community”—is fundamentally at odds with police state prerogatives also exemplified in recent US Department of Homeland Security documents.



The technocratic mindset of agencies such as the DHS and Federal Bureau of Investigation that oversee federal, state, and local policing procedures seeks to short-circuit and quell dissent by identifying transgressive thought that deviates from an assumed normalcy, then interlinking it with perceived threats or violent actions against the state. In a grand governmental exercise of Freudian-style projection, the DHS’s usage of inflammatory terms such as “terrorist” and “extremist” are routinely utilized to emphasize the nature and degree of various activist groups’ alleged deviant ideologies. This practice proceeds in light of the fact that most every “terrorist” act within the US since 9/11 has been carefully guided by the FBI or, as was the case with the initial “underwear bomber, Western intelligence agencies likely working in concert.



A November 2011 DHS document, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon”, is the agency’s recent codification of terms intended to instruct and aid government officials in recognizing “threats of terrorism against the United States by facilitating a common understanding of the terms and conditions that describe terrorist threats to the United States [sic].”



Then, in a fashion that will be familiar to those who understand the tactics of groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, an untenable array of activist pursuits spanning the political spectrum—“Anarchist Extremists”, “Animal Rights Extremists”, “Anti-Abortion Extremists”, “Environmental Rights Extremists”—are libelously lobbed together and defined alongside designations including “Racist Skinhead Extremists”, “Homegrown Violent Extremist”, “Radicalization”, and “Terrorism”.



As with the phalanx of totalitarian-like legislation such as the PATRIOT Acts that potentially pit the militarized security state against the US population, through intentional ambiguity Homeland Security’s definitions of “terrorism” and “radicalization” come perilously close to classifying critical thought and expression of almost any sort as terrorism.



“Terrorism” is defined as “any act that is dangerous to human life, critical infrastructure, or key resources … and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [sic]” (author’s emphasis). Under such a definition social protest—speech protected under the First Amendment—is impermissible. After all, any effective protest seeks through various ways to effectively petition authorities for a redress of grievances.



The curious term “radicalization” will be of special interest to academics and journalists capable of engaging with and examining controversial issues and concerns that their students or readers may become passionate enough to weigh in on in some consequential way. According to DHS, a person is “radicalized” through indoctrination “from a non-violent belief system to a belief system that includes the willingness to actively advocate, facilitate, or use violence as a method to effect societal or political change.”



Alongside DHS’s vague definition of terrorism and the broader prerogatives of police state ideology and practice, “violence” may be conceived in a number of ways, such as a person with of a certain racial demarcation peacefully sitting in the front of a segregated bus, or a concerned citizen occupying the lobby of a zombie bank.



In reality the actual target of such policing metrics is the small percentage of the population that have somehow escaped the enforced process of “de-radicalization”—those who, in other words, still possess the capacity to think and act critically on meaningful political matters.



Indeed, it is not beyond reason to point out that America is one serious terrorist attack or mass civil disturbance away from the implementation of policies to seriously limit or curtail the traffic of ideas, made all the more easy for authorities through the internet’s centralized configuration. Society will then be left with the corporate media and their custom inability (or refusal) to honestly examine and publicize the corrupt nature and practices of the national security state.



With alternative media outlets providing a broad spectrum of analyses and perspectives the tiny demarcation between critical thinking and terrorism outlined in the government’s missives is understandable. Minds not fully regulated and that risk awakening (radicalization) through an intellectual epiphany triggered by a professor, journalist, or author prone to encouraging thought crimes may become "radicalized" and carry out “terrorist” activities. They may, for example, recognize and critique the “war on terror” as an extravagant and monstrous deception.



Moreover, individuals capable of possessing, articulating, and acting upon meaningful ideas and information—of exercising an informed and self-determined opinion in furtherance of their shared security and welfare—have no need for a police state to "protect" them, which in all likelihood is why critical thought and public opinion are the New World Order’s greatest enemies.



James F. Tracy is Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University.





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













8 - Time Profiles a World Class Thug





by Stephen Lendman





Time magazine's May 28 cover features "King Bibi: He's conquered Israel. But will Netanyahu make peace - or war?"





Managing editor Richard Stengel titled his profile "Bibi's Choice."Readers got him sanitized, not accurately presented. Omitted was what they most need to know.





Time included, America's scoundrel media feature managed news and information. Truth and full disclosure are excluded and prohibited.





Netanyahu heads Israel's worst ever government. Bipartisan MKs are racist, hardline rogues. What little opposition exists is weak-kneed. Most go along to get along.





Netanyahu exceeds the worst of Ariel Sharon and previous hardline leaders. He's an embarrassment to democratic governance.





Israel is more hypocrisy than democracy. Few benefit. Most don't. Arab citizens are entirely denied. Arundhati Roy calls India a "limbless, headless, soulless torso left bleeding under the butcher's clever with a flag driven deep into her mutilated heart."





Netanyahu's Israel replicates it. Rogue government rules. Official policies reflect belligerence, violence, racist hate, exploitation, occupation harshness, neoliberal rapaciousness, and war when Israel chooses.





Netanyahu deplores peace. Negotiations were always stillborn from inception. Writer Henry Siegman once called them "the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history."





Netanyahu calls them "a waste of time." Palestinians can't negotiate without a legitimate partner. Talks every time reflect tragedy and travesty. Israel's all take and no give. Oslo was unilateral surrender, a Palestinian Versailles.





Israel got what it wanted. Palestinians got nothing for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel's right to exist, and agreeing to leave major unresolved issues for later final status talks.





Nearly two decades later, they're still unresolved. They include an independent sovereign Palestine free from occupation, the right of return, settlements, borders, water rights, and East Jerusalem as Palestine's future capital.





Israel yields nothing. Netanyahu won't give an inch. He doesn't negotiate. He demands. He also spurns peace and social justice.





Last summer, unaffordable housing prices sparked weeks of nationwide protests. Other issues were raised.





They include high food and energy prices, low wages and eroding social benefits, onerous taxes on working households, weak labor rights, education and healthcare deficiencies, as well as other ways neoliberal harshness harms most Israelis.





Netanyahu turned a blind eye. Wealth transfers from Israeli workers to privileged elites and corporate favorites is policy. In early May, public anger again erupted. Expect another long, hot summer.





Perhaps he plans more war to shift public attention. He threatened Iran for months. At issue isn't its nuclear program. It's unchallenged regional hegemony.





The alleged Iranian threat is baseless. It's program is peaceful, not belligerent. It conforms to Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) provisions. Nothing proves otherwise. It's well known but not acknowledged.





Israel's a nuclear outlaw. It spurned NPT. It prohibits IAEA inspections. It threatens the region menacingly. Neighbors know the threat. Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years.





War is official Israeli policy. So is state terror. Fear is stoked to enlist popular support.





Most Israelis oppose attacking Iran without US support. Given administration and congressional hawkishness, expect it after November elections.





Israel's Likud/Kadima unity government increased chances for what will inflame the entire region and threaten general war beyond it.





Netanyahu, Obama, and officials in both countries have greater aims than world peace and sparing humanity a potential holocaust.





No matter. Time gave "King Bibi" top billing. Stengel anointed him rock star status. He's:





"poised to become the longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister since David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel. He has no national rival."





"His approval rating, roughly 50%, is at an all-time high. At a moment when incumbents around the world are being shunted aside, he is triumphant."





"Like his father, he sees Jewish history as a succession of holocausts. Like his father, he has an almost mystical belief in the abiding power of anti-Semitism, as though it were more biological than cultural."





He has "a governing coalition that will not leak or collapse if he opens negotiations. He will no longer have to look over his shoulder."





"He will not have to call elections at the drop of a hat. He has not had that before, and it gives him room to maneuver and room to compromise."





Abbas said: "Now he is the emperor....he can do anything."





He always took full advantage. Imagine what he'll do now. Imagine the regional consequences. Imagine how much more Palestinians will suffer. Imagine the threat to world peace.





Israelis watch and wait. At best, they express luke warm support.Haaretz contributor Bradley Burston says they're "exhausted by war, graft, bureaucracy, failed ideologies, the compendium of false promises," and major unaddressed issues.





For years, thousands of Israelis voted with their feet and left. Many others consider going for good reason. Like America, Israel increasingly isn't fit to live in. For Arabs it's hell. For Jews, promised land illusions vanished long ago.





Netanyahu ignores public needs. War is prioritized. Removing a nonexistent Iranian threat is planned. He'll risk a potential holocaust for Israeli hegemony and personal ambitions. That elevates rogue status to a higher level.





Is there reason to think he wants peace with Palestinians? He favors hardline persecution instead. He threatens war on Gaza. Another potential Lebanon conflict looms. He's involved with Western-generated insurgent violence in Syria.





He's a regional menace. Yet he had the effrontery to tell Time that Palestinians "will never have a better partner than me....I can make (peace) happen and make it stick."





His agenda excludes peace in our time. He deplores it like US administration and congressional hawks, as well Knesset hardliners.





Like Obama, Netanyahu's a war criminal multiple times over. Peace isn't on his mind. Neither is compromise. He spurns democratic values and rule of law principles. He practices state terror. He's more rogue than statesman. He's a destroyer, not builder or visionary.





In June 1996, after being elected prime minister for the first time, Time's cover story headlined "Can He Make Peace?"





He spurned it then and does now. As long as he leads Israel, peace in our time remains illusory, not real. The region's fate hangs in the balance, and maybe a lot more.





Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.





His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"





http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html









Headlines Reveal Life in Occupied Palestine



Posted: 2012/05/25

by Stephen Lendman



They also reflect rogue Israeli leadership threatening humanity. More on that below.



Gaza remains isolated and besieged. Its health minister said the lives of 404 kidney failure patients are threatened. Enough dialysis "Bloodline" supplies aren't available.



Health Ministry spokesperson Ashraf Al-Qudra said without them, dialysis machines stop. Patients need treatment two - three times weekly. Without it they'll die.



Supplies are nearly exhausted. Around 150 patients are treated daily.



"When supplies run out, clinics will shut down and dozens of patients will face serious deterioration in their health conditions," said Al-Qudra. "Their lives will be the tax they pay for this 6-year long Israeli siege imposed on Gaza."



He appealed to the ICRC and WHO, as well as local and other international aid and humanitarian organizations for help. Time is running out.



Israel's prison gulag remains a moral outrage. Deal or no deal, appalling abuses continue daily.



In April, Defence for Children International/Palestine Section (DCI-P) said children imprisoned increased 63% since December.



An urgent appeal for Beit Ummar, West Bank youths was issued. Children young as nine are affected.



Nine-year old Mahmoud A. was arrested, detained, traumatized, then released. Twelve year old Jameel Z. was arrested, detained, abused, and bogusly accused of throwing stones.



Middle-of-the night apprehensions are common. Children are traumatized. Parents are tormented. Anything can happen and often does. Many children face prison, fines or both.



Beit Ummar lies halfway between Bethlehem and Hebron. It's about three kilometers south of Gush Etzion and adjacent Karmi Zur settlements. Each Friday, demonstrations protest against being denied access to their farms.



Children participate with parents and older youths. Middle-of-the-night arrests and baseless charges follow. Since January 2009, DCI-P documented 26 child arrests for alleged stone-throwing from Beit Hummar alone.



Overall UN figures show 43 in 2010 and another 27 through February 2011.



Virtually all targeted children report arrest-connected physical violence. Harsh interrogations follow. Most face prosecutions and detentions.



Each year, 500 - 700 West Bank children (aged 12 - 17 or younger) are arrested, interrogated, prosecuted, and detained. Since 2000, around 7,500 were affected on largely bogus or exaggerated charges. Stone-throwing is most common. Imagine facing prison for something this minor, whether or not true.



"Credible reports of torture and/or ill-treatment" follow. Torment begins from arrest. Children are awakened, shackled, blindfolded and abused. Parents aren't told where they're taken. They're denied visitation rights.



Prolonged mistreatment includes exposure to the elements, lack of food, water and toilet facilities, verbal abuse and physical violence, as well as isolation with no parental or legal contacts.



Interrogation techniques include physical abuse, mental torment, and pressure to confess, or else. Intimidated children plead guilty. It's the quickest way out of their ordeal.



An April 2012 DCI-P report is titled "Bound, Blindfolded and Convicted: Children in military detention."



It discussed 311 documented cases from time of arrest through prosecution. Within days of apprehension, children face military tribunals shackled, traumatized, and terrified. Despite their innocence, most plead guilty to end their ordeal as quickly as possible.



Within days of arrests, they're detained in Israeli prisons. Doing so violates international law. So does torture and other abuse.



Family visits are denied. So is legal counsel until close to initial court appearances. Sometimes, it's hours or less before proceedings begin.



DCI-P disclosed a systematic pattern of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Torture is routinely used. Effective complaint mechanisms are absent. Arrested children are guilty by accusation. So are virtually all Palestinian detainees.



Common complaints DCI-P heard included shackling, blindfolds, physical violence, detention inside Israel, arrests between midnight and 5:00AM, forced confessions, verbal abuse, humiliation and other threats, strip searches, solitary confinement, and more.



Under this type abuse, adults struggle to cope. Imagine the effect on children.



Nations treating them this abusively don't hesitate dispensing appalling treatment to anyone, in or out of prison, domestically or abroad.



Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners sustained hunger strikes for justice. Deal agreements left Israel wiggle room to systematically violate provisions early on or later.



Mahmoud Sarsak, Akram al-Rikhawi, and Mohammad Abdul Aziz continue striking. They refused terms they consider unacceptable. Sarsak wants POW recognition. Al-Rikhawi protests against administrative detention uncharged.



Redress won't come until thousands of lawlessly held political prisoners are freed, occupation ends, and Palestinian sovereignty is universally recognized.



Israeli prisons replicate Guantanamo harshness. Deal or no deal, they won't change enough to matter unless current abuses end entirely. A system practicing guilt by accusation, torture, ill-treatment, and humiliation to young children on baseless charges reflects one too abusive to tolerate.



Israel's Military Order 378 grants extraordinary powers to tribunals and judges. Defendants haven't a chance. Numerous other military orders criminalize ordinary daily life. Military occupation denies due process and judicial fairness. Virtually everyone charged is guilty by accusation.



Daily life in Palestinian communities reflect other common abuses. Israel chooses violence over peaceful coexistence, confrontation over diplomacy, and strength through militarism, intimidation, and lawless aggression.



Wars of choice, not necessity, are waged. Longstanding policies are racist and discriminatory. Land theft is policy.



On May 18, a new project was announced. Around 2,100 housing units are planned on stolen Palestinian land. Qalqiliya and Tulkarem governorates are affected.



Ariel settlement will expand in two phases. Palestinian towns and villages are affected. They include Azzoun, Jinsafut, Baket AlHatab, Ozba, Abu Hamada, and Kafr Aboush.



Other West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements expand daily, gradually and quietly. Israel wants all valued parts of Judea and Samaria, as well as Jerusalem for its exclusive capital. Palestinians are denied, abused, and shut out.



Netanyahu Threatens Humanity



Netanyahu is a world class criminal. He wages wars at home and abroad. His Justice Ministry proposed a new bill to expand police state surveillance. He wants cell phones and emails monitored. Privacy advocates are outraged.



The bill almost doubles the number of state agencies given access to personal data when conducting investigations or monitoring Israelis and Palestinians for specific reasons or none at all.



Violating personal privacy reflects police state harshness. America's done it for years. Israel wants to replicate the worst FBI and other US agency abuses.



The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Israel Bar Association called earlier Big Brother legislation excessive. Unjustifiable intrusions followed. Netanyahu wants more and may get it.



He also may wage war on Iran. He calls its peaceful nuclear program "the paramount issue of our time." He claims ongoing negotiations a "chess game." It buys Tehran time, he said.



"....I see no evidence whatsoever that Iran is serious about ending its nuclear program."



Why should it? It's peaceful. It complies with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provisions. No evidence suggests otherwise. In contrast, Israel is a nuclear outlaw. It's armed and dangerous. It maintains stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It threatens to use them if endangered.



Washington's Israeli envoy, Dan Shapiro, said US plans to attack Iran are "fully available" either alone or jointly with Israel.



Shapiro said what Netanyahu wants to hear. America "guarantee(s) that the military option is ready and available to the president at the moment he decides to use it."



"Ready" doesn't mean bombs away, but suggests war remains an option. Baseless allegations are made. Evidence disproves them. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Facts are ignored.



A Final Comment



World peace hangs by a thread. Hawkish leaders hold nuclear triggers. Imagine if they squeeze. Imagine what's next if they do.



Obama and Netantanyu are war criminals multiple times over. Perhaps they want their resumes embellished. Millions globally want imperial wars ended.



Nuclear weapons use should scare everyone. The possibility of ending human life is "the paramount issue of our time."



Netanyahu said it right but pointed fingers the wrong way. Global peace actions can reverse things responsibly. That's how real change begins. Hopefully it'll gain traction in time.

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













9 - Ellen Brown : Cooperative Banking is the Exciting Wave of the Future

Posted: 05/23/2012





As our political system sputters, a wave of innovative thinking and bold experimentation is quietly sweeping away outmoded economic models. In 'New Economic Visions', a special five-part AlterNet series edited by Economics Editor Lynn Parramore in partnership with political economist Gar Alperovitz of the Democracy Collaborative, creative thinkers come together to explore the exciting ideas and projects that are shaping the philosophical and political vision of the movement that could take our economy back.



According to both the Mayan and Hindu calendars, 2012 (or something very close) marks the transition from an age of darkness, violence and greed to one of enlightenment, justice and peace. It’s hard to see that change just yet in the events relayed in the major media, but a shift does seem to be happening behind the scenes; and this is particularly true in the once-boring world of banking.



In the dark age of Kali Yuga, money rules; and it is through banks that the moneyed interests have gotten their power. Banking in an age of greed is fraught with usury, fraud and gaming the system for private ends. But there is another way to do banking; the neighborly approach of George Bailey in the classic movie It’s a Wonderful Life. Rather than feeding off the community, banking can feed the community and the local economy.



Today, the massive too-big-to-fail banks are hardly doing George Bailey-style loans at all. They are not interested in community lending. They are doing their own proprietary trading—trading for their own accounts—which generally means speculating against local interests. They engage in high-frequency program trading that creams profits off the top-of-stock market trades; speculation in commodities that drives up commodity prices; leveraged buyouts with borrowed money that can result in mass layoffs and factory closures; and investment in foreign companies that compete against our local companies.



We can’t do much to stop them. They've got the power, especially at the federal level. But we can quietly set up an alternative model, and that's what is happening on various local fronts.



Most visible are the Move Your Money and Occupy Wall Street movements. According to the Web site of the Move Your Money campaign, an estimated 10 million accounts have left the largest banks since 2010. Credit unions have enjoyed a surge in business as a result. The Credit Union National Association reported that in 2012, for the first time ever, credit union assets rose above $1 trillion. Credit unions are non-profit, community-minded organizations with fewer fees and less fine print than the big risk-taking banks, and their patrons are not just customers but owners, sharing partnership in a cooperative business.



Move “Our” Money : The Public Bank Movement







The Move Your Money campaign has been wildly successful in mobilizing people and raising awareness of the issues, but it has not made much of a dent in the reserves of Wall Street banks, which already had $1.6 trillion sitting in reserve accounts as a result of the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing in 2010. What might make a louder statement would be for local governments to divest their funds from Wall Street, and some local governments are now doing this. Local governments collectively have well over a trillion dollars deposited in Wall Street banks.



A major problem with the divestment process is finding local banks large enough to take the deposits. One proposed solution is for states, counties and cities to establish their own banks, capitalized with their own rainy day funds and funded with their own revenues as a deposit base.



Today only one state actually does this: North Dakota. North Dakota is also the only state to have escaped the credit crisis of 2008, sporting a sizeable budget surplus every year since. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, the lowest default rate on credit card debt, and no state government debt at all. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) has an excellent credit rating and returns a hefty dividend to the state every year.



The BND model hasn’t yet been duplicated in other states, but a movement is afoot. Since 2010, 18 states have introduced legislation of one sort or another for a state-owned bank.



Values-based Banking: Too Sustainable to Fail



Meanwhile, there is a strong movement at the local level for sustainable, “values-based” banking—conventional banks committed to responsible lending and service to the local community. These are George Bailey-style banks, which base their decisions first and foremost on the needs of people and the environment.



One of the leaders internationally is Triodos Bank, which has local offices in the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany. Its Web site says that it makes socially responsible investments that are selected according to strict sustainability criteria and overseen by an international panel of “stakeholder” representatives representing various community, environmental, and worker interest groups. Investments include the financing of more than 1,000 organic and sustainable food production projects, more than 300 renewable energy projects, 33 fair trade agricultural exporters in 22 different countries, 85 microfinance institutions in 43 countries, and 398 cultural and arts projects.



Two U.S. banks exemplifying the model are One PacificCoast Bank and New Resource Bank. Operating in California, Oregon and Washington, One PacificCoast is comprised of a sustainable community development bank with around $300 million in assets and a non-profit foundation (One PacificCoast Foundation). Its commercial lending business focuses on such sectors as specialty agriculture, renewable energy, green building, and low-income housing. Foundation activities include programs to “help eliminate discrimination, encourage affordable housing, alleviate economic distress, stimulate community development and increase financial literacy.”



New Resource Bank is a California based B-corporation (“Benefit”) with $171 million in assets, which focuses its lending and banking services on local green and sustainable businesses. New Resource was recognized in 2012 as one of the “Best for the World” businesses, being in the top 10 percent of all certified B-Corporations and scoring more than 50 percent higher than 2,000 other sustainable businesses in overall positive social and environmental impact.



All this might be good for the world, but isn’t investing locally in a values-based bank riskier and less profitable than putting your money on Wall Street? Not according to a study commissioned by the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV). The 2012 study compared the financial profiles between 2007 and 2010 of 17 values-based banks with 27 Globally Systemically Important Financial Institutions (GSIFIs)—basically the too-big-to-fail banks, including Bank of America, JPMorgan, Barclays, Citicorp and Deutsche Bank. According to the GABV report, values-based banks delivered higher financial returns than some of the world’s largest financial institutions, with a return on assets averaging above 0.50 percent, compared to just 0.33 percent for the GSIFIs; and returns on equity averaging 7.1 percent, compared to 6.6 percent for the GSIFIs. They appeared to be stronger financially, with both higher levels of and better quality capital; and they were twice as likely to invest their assets in loans.



CDFIs



Along with the values-based banks, community investment is undertaken in the United States by Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), including community development banks, community development credit unions, community development loan funds, community development venture capital funds, and microenterprise loan funds. According to the CDFI Coalition, there are over 800 CDFIs certified by the CDFI Fund, operating in every state in the nation and the District of Columbia. In 2008 (the last year for which a report is available), CDFIs invested $5.53 billion “to create economic opportunity in the form of new jobs, affordable housing units, community facilities, and financial services for low-income citizens.”



Two of many interesting examples are the Alternatives Federal Credit Union and Boston Community Capital. Alternatives FCU, located in Ithaca, New York, is committed to community development and social change and is part of the Alternatives Group, which includes a non-profit corporation (Alternatives Community Ventures); a 40-year old trade association of community groups, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses and individuals (Alternatives Fund); and a not-for-profit organization that facilitates secondary capital investment in the credit union (Tomkins County Friends of Alternatives, Inc.). The credit union has over $70 million in assets and offers many innovative financial products, including individual development accounts—special savings accounts for low-income residents that offer matching deposits of two to one up to a certain amount—in addition to more traditional services such as loans for minority and women-owned businesses, and affordable mortgages. The credit union also offers small business development (classes, seminars, consultation, and networking programs), free tax preparation, and a student credit union.



Although its lending programs focus on lower-income borrowers, Alternatives FCU has had lower delinquency and charge-off rates than many major banks that avoid these types of customers. Boston Community Capital (BCC) is a CDFI that is not actually a bank but invests in projects that provide affordable housing and jobs in lower-income neighborhoods. BCC includes a loan fund, a venture fund, a mortgage lender, a real estate consultation organization, a solar energy fund, and a federal New Markets Tax Credit investment vehicle. Since 1985, it has invested over $700 million in local organizations and businesses. These funds have helped build or preserve more than 12,800 affordable housing units, as well as child care facilities for almost 9,000 children and healthcare facilities that reach 56,000 people. Their investments have helped renovate 850,000 square feet of commercial real estate, generate 5.9 million KW hours of solar energy capacity, and create more than 1,500 jobs.



Less Money for Banks and More for Workers: The Models of Germany and Japan



Values-based banks and CDFIs are a move in the right direction, but their market share in the U.S. remains small. To see the possibilities of a banking system with a mandate to serve the public, we need to look abroad.



Germany and Japan are export powerhouses, in second and third place globally for net exports. (The U.S. trails at 192nd.) One competitive advantage for both of these countries is that their companies have ready access to low-cost funding from cooperatively owned banks.



In Germany, about half the total assets of the banking system are in the public sector, while another substantial chunk is in cooperative savings banks. Germany’s strong public banking system includes 11 regional public banks (Landesbanken) and thousands of municipally owned savings banks (Sparkassen). After the Second World War, it was the publicly owned Landesbanks that helped family-run provincial companies get a foothold in world markets. The Landesbanks are key tools of German industrial policy, specializing in loans to the Mittelstand, the small-to-medium size businesses that drive the country’s export engine.



Because of the Landesbanks, small firms in Germany have as much access to capital as large firms. Workers in the small business sector earn the same wages as those in big corporations, have the same skills and training, and are just as productive. In January 2011, the net value of Germany’s exports over its imports was 7 percent of GDP, the highest of any nation. But it hasn’t had to outsource its labor force to get that result. The average hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) of German manufacturing workers is $48—a full 50 percent more than the $32 hourly average for their American counterparts.



In Japan, the banks are principally owned not by shareholders but by other companies in the same keiretsu or industrial group, in a circular arrangement in which the companies basically own each other. Even when there are nominal outside owners, corporations are managed so that the bulk of the wealth generated by the corporation flows either to the workers as income or to investment in the company, making the workers and the company the beneficial owners.



Since the 1980s, U.S. companies have focused on maximizing short-term profits at the expense of workers and longer-term goals. This trend stems in part from the fact that they are now funded largely by capital from shareholders who own the company and want simply to grow their returns. According to a 2005 report from the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, equity financing is more than twice as important in the U.S. as in Europe, accounting for 116 percent of GDP compared with 62 percent in Japan and 54 percent in the eurozone countries. In both Europe and Japan, the majority of corporate funding comes not from investors but from borrowing, either from banks or from the bond market.



Funding with low-interest loans from cooperatively owned banks leaves greater control of the company in the hands of employees who either own it or have much more say in its operation. Access to low-interest loans can also slash production costs. According to German researcher Margrit Kennedy, when interest charges are added up at every level of production, 40 percent of the cost of goods, on average, comes from interest.



Globally, the burgeoning movement for local, cooperatively owned and community-oriented banks is blazing the trail toward a new, sustainable form of banking. The results may not yet qualify as the Golden Age prophesied by Hindu cosmology, but they are a major step in that direction.



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

















10 - Arthur Topham Arrested in Zionist Canada

Arthur Topham, publisher of the Radical Press website, was arrested on May 16, 2012, at 11:30 am on the Barkerville Highway near Quesnel, B.C., put in handcuffs and taken to jail. Apparently, Arthur's home had been staked out for quite some time by the RCMP.



The warrant for his arrest read "commission of hate crimes" and was endorsed by Arthur's special "friends" and professional denunciators Richard Warman and Harry Abrams of B'nai Brith, Canada.



What the Canadian Hate Crimes Tribunal failed to do, seems to have been a cinch for Rich and Harry, law or no law. In Canada, when B'nai Brith whistles, the RCMP jumps.



While in jail, Arthur's house was raided and his computer equipment confiscated, including all his files. During the raid, Shasta, Arthur's wife, wasn't allowed into her home for 9 hours. Once the RCMP had taken what they wanted -- we wonder where the bugs are now hidden -- and finished questioning Arthur, he was released at 11:00 pm.



Arthur is now back home again, but prohibited from sending ANY emails or expressing any opinions about the issues all too familiar to us. In other words, freedom of speech, which he so passionately fights for, has now been stymied by unconstitutional summersaults, technically and "legally" muzzling him, for the time being. Without compunction, might is right in Canada.



Arthur advises NOT to send him any emails, since those would only wind up at the RCMP instead. What Arthur would like to have send to him -- by snail mail etc. -- is money, since he is -- always has been -- chronically broke. It would help to defray some of the legal expenses he will now incur. Arthur has asked Doug Christie, prominent defense lawyer in the Ernst Zündel case, for legal assistance and Doug agreed to help him without hesitation. He is one in a million!



During the last 14 years Arthur has literally spent tens of thousands of hours, and God only knows how much energy, sleepless nights and missed opportunities for personal advancement, in defense of our right to free speech and the exposure of vital truths, to the benefit and enlightenment of us all. That's unselfishness at it's best and I think it deserves some signs of appreciation.



So, please, kindly express them.

H. K.

May 17, 2012, Quesnel, B.C. Canada















11 - QUOTES FOR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY





ADDITION 120526





1866 (2012) - ALPHONSE DE ROTHSCHILD (1827 - 1905), FRENCH FINANCIER, VINEYARD-OWNER, HORSE-BREEDER. Dr. E. Michael Jones (''Zombie Apocalypse on Wall Street'') drops this rich quote in the midst of his analysis of OWS :

''In March 1866, Alphonse Rothschild, scion of the famous Jewish banking family from the Judengasse in Frankfurt, was asked by a friend after dinner “why, when he was so rich, he worked like a negro to become more so. ‘Ah!’ he replied : ‘You don’t know the pleasure of feeling heaps of Christians under one’s boots''.

Will Christians ever come to see that Jewish Talmudism is akin to Nazism; that is, Talmudic Jews, are a people who consider themselves racially superior to all other groups of people and, by Divine Right, they have God's Blessings to put all other races under their yoke,by means fair and foul, so that their goal of world domination will be realised.

Quoted and commented by blogger ''I-am-not-Spartacus''.









1918 - USA PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT (1858-1919)

“These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these newspapers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”

Theodore Roosevelt as quoted in the March 27th edition (year ?) of the New York Times.









1919 - M. OUDENDYK, DUTCH AMBASSADOR IN RUSSIA

... I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue before the World, not even excluding the war which is till raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole World, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things." Mr.M.Oudendijk, the Netherlands' Embassador to Petrograd on September 6, 1918, to the British Government, published in the unexpurgated edition of A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, April, 1919"









1923 - WILLIAM MATHER LEWIS (1878-1945), TEACHER, POLITICIAN, UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT, AUTHOR OF ''THE VOICES OF OUR LEADERS'', 1917.

"Today the world is the victim of propaganda because people are not intellectually competent.

More than anything the United States needs effective citizens competent to do their own thinking."

Dr.William Mather Lewis.





1931 - ARTHUR NELSON FIELD (1882-1963), NW.ZEALAND : JOURNALIST, AUTHOR OF ''THE BRETTON WOODS PLOT'' AND OTHER BOOKS. "The World today, however provides a spectacle of a great concentration of Jewish power. In New York there is a concentration of Jewish financial power dominating the entire world in its material affairs, and side by side with it is the greates physical concentration of the Jews ever recorded. On the other side of the globe, there has taken place in Russia the greatest concentration of the Jewish revolutionary activity in all history...

The enormously significant thing in the world today is that both this power of the purse (Theodor Herzl's "terrible (Jewish) power of the purse") and revolutionary activity are working in the direction of destroying the entire existing order of things, and not only are they working in a common direction, but there is a mass of evidence that they are working in unison." A. N. FIELD in his book ''The Truth About the Slump'', page 208.









1931 - ARTHUR NELSON FIELD (1882-1963), NW.ZEALAND : JOURNALIST, AUTHOR OF ''THE BRETTON WOODS PLOT'' AND OTHER BOOKS.

"Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise puzzling features become understandable. Hatred of Christianity, for instance, is not a Russian characteristic ; it is a Jewish one." A. N. FIELD in his 35 page pamphlet : ''Today's greatest problem''.









1935 - SMEDLEY D.BUTLER (1881 - 1940), UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MAJOR GENERAL, AN OUTSPOKEN CRITIC OF USA MILITARY ADVENTURISM, ONE OF THE MOST DECORATED MARINES IN US-HISTORY AND AUTHOR.

"The trouble is that when American dollars earn only six percent over here, they get restless and go overseas to get 100 percent. The flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers. We should fight only for the defense of our home and the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It had its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations and a 'Big Boss' - supernationalistic capitalism.

"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

General Smedley D. Butler in his 1935 book "War is a racket" explaining how business interests commercially benefit from warfare.







1937 - H. H. BEAMISH (1873 - 1948), BRITISH AUTHOR OF ''THE JEWS' WHO IS WHO : ISRAELIT FINANCE, ITS SINISTER INFLUENCE''(1921). "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918." Beamish spoke these words in his speech on October 30, 1937 before the German American Bund gathering at the Hippodrome in New York. His experience in the Boer War had lead him to conclude it was fought for Jewish gold and diamond interests. In addition, the Jewish-inspired Bolshevik Revolution in Russia with the assistance of Jewish financiers from Wall Street made him aware of the sinister activities of International Jewry.











1937 - ADRIEN ARCAND (1899 - 1967), POLITICIAN & NEWSPAPER EDITOR.

"There is nothing else in Communism - a Jewish conspiracy to grab the whole world in their clutches ; and no intelligent man in the world can find anything else, except the Jews, who rightly call it for themselves a "paradise on earth."

Jews are eager to bring Communism, because they know what it is and what it means.

It is because Communism has not been fought for what it really is - a Jewish scheme invented by Jews - that it has progressed against all opposition to it.

We have fought the smoke-screen presented by Jewish dialecticians and publicists, refusing to fight the inventor, profiteer and string-puller.

Because Christians and Gentiles have come to fear the Jews, fear the truth, and they are paralyzed by the paradoxical slogans shouted by the Jews."

REV. KENNETH GOFF, in STILL 'TIS OUR ANCIENT FOE, page 99 : "The Frankenstein of Communism is the product of the Jewish mind, and was turned loose upon the world by the son of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, in the hopes of destroying Christian civilization - as well as others. The testimony given before the Senate of the United States which is take from the many pages of the Overman Report, reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jewish bankers financed the Russian Revolution." Adrien Arcand, Canadian political leader in his New York Speech of October 30, 1937.











1941 - SIR DOUGLAS JARDINE, BRITISH GOVERNOR OF SIERRA LEONE

When the German army was gaining ground in N.Africa, the British Governor of Sierra Leone received a proposal from the German High Command to come to Berlin and discuss the situation. Sir Douglas wrote to Whitehall (the centre of Her Majesty's Government) that he wanted to go and meet Hitler, with in his pocket a box of Swan Vesta matches, with yellow-fever germs sealed inside. Yellow-fever is a fatal disease against which Jardine was vaccinated. While talking with Hitler, Jardine would light his pipe or cigarette and crush the box of matches. Whitehall replied that ON NO ACCOUNT he was to do ANY SUCH FOOLISH THING : ''It would NOT BE CRICKET to murder Hitler'' (DCH for clarity : If something ''is not cricket'', it is considered ''unfair'').

Penelope Jardine (daughter of Sir Douglas) in ''The New Yorker'' of 28 July 1997 and quoted in ''Hitler was a British Agent'', by Greg Hallett and the Spymaster, second edition, 1 Oct 2006, backside of third page.





1949 - CARDINAL MINDSZENTY, of Hungary quoted in B'nai B'rith Messenger, January 28, 1949

"The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews... they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary."









1956 - DOUGLAS REED (1895–1976) : BRITISH POLITICAL ANALIST, AUTHOR, JOURNALIST, PLAYWRIGHT & NOVELIST.

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government's White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: "Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things". The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying. to start a worldwide social revolution". M. Oudendyke's report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record. (p. 274)

Douglas Reed in his book ''The Controversy of Zion''(1956).









1957 - HILARY COTTER, AUTHOR.

"Communism and Judaism are one and the same."

Hillary Cotter in his book ''Cardinal Mindszenty, The Truth About His Real Crime", page 6.







1969 - FATHER DENIS FAHEY (1883 - 1953), IRISH CATHOLIC PRIEST & AUTHOR OF ''GRAND ORIENT FREEMASONRY UNMASKED AS THE SECRET POWER BEHIND COMMUNISM'' (1950), ''MONEY MANIPULATION AND THE SOCIAL ORDER'' (1974), ETC.

"The real forces behind Bolshevism is Russia are Jewish forces and Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom."

Father Dennis Fahey in his book The Rulers of Russia, page 25,1969 edition.







1984 MORDECHAI NISAN, ISRAELI PROFESSOR AND SCHOLAR OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, ROTHBERG INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF THE HEBREW UNIV. OF JERUSALEM, AUTHOR OF ''ONLY ISRAEL WEST OF THE RIVER : THE JEWISH STATE AND THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION'' (2011) AND OTHER BOOKS.

“If Gentiles [non-Jews] refuse to live a life of inferiority, then this signals their rebellion and the unavoidable necessity of Jewish warfare against their very presence.”

Mordechai Nisan, Kivunim (official publication of the World Zionist Organization), August, 1984, pp. 151-156









1996 - ISRAEL'S INVOLVEMENT (ARIEL SHARON/MIKE HARARI) IN LARGE SCALE HARD DRUGS TRAFFICKING

Hercules transport planes of the Israeli Air Force transported on a large scale hard drugs from the Far East to Panama, where MIKE HARARI - a former Israeli Intelligence Officer

took care of further transport and sale. Harari was the previous third man of the MOSSAD and a partner of the Israeli arms merchant PESAKH BENOR. In Panama Harari also instructed and trained 'Death Squads' for the whole of S.America. Harari's business network was built up by ARIEL SHARON, who was a member at that time of the Netanyahu administration.

Ari Ben Menashe in his ''Profits of War'', as quoted by Andreas von Buelow in his book ''Im Namen des Staates'' (p 249 & 556), 5th edition 2002. Von Buelow was a member of the German 'Bundestag' (Federal parliament) for 25 years and the chairman of the committee overseeing the activities of the BND, the German intelligence agency.





2007 - DR.ARIEL TOAFF, PROFESSOR OF MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE HISTORY AT BAR ILAN UNIV., SON OF ELIO TOAFF, FORMER CHIEF RABBI OF ROME.

“During this period, Jewish merchants, from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and in Germany from the centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague – were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. (addition DCH : ISRAEL SHAHAK stated : ''In order to promote this abomination Maimonides allowed Jews, in the name of the Jewish religion, to abduct Gentile children into slavery and his opinion was no doubt acted upon or reflected contemporary practice'').From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice…”

Prof.Dr. Ariel Toaff, Chapter Eight, BLOOD PASSOVER





2010 SEPTEMBER - DEANNA SPINGOLA, RADIO HOST & AUTHOR OF MANY ARTICLES AND SEVERAL BOOKS INCLUDING : ''THE RULING ELITE, A STUDY IN IMPERIALISM, GENOCIDE AND EMANCIPATION'' AND ''THE RULING ELITE : THE ZIONIST SEIZURE OF WORLD POWER''.

The Muslims are not the enemy. They don’t extort usury through the Federal Reserve; they aren’t manufacturing population-reducing vaccines and GMO seeds; they didn’t devise our abortion laws (about fifty million dead); they didn’t bail out the banks; they didn’t create the Department of Homeland Security and impose the PATRIOT Act; they aren’t wiretapping our private conversations or scanning us at the airport; they didn’t impose godless Communism on several countries and cause the death of millions of innocent people; they haven’t instituted the draconian healthcare laws; they have not orchestrated the nation’s economic crashes; they have not deindustrialized the nation and outsourced so many jobs; they haven’t wiped out the middle class by passing trade laws like NAFTA ; 88 and they haven’t foreclosed on thousands of homes; they are not the reason thousands of people live in tent cities; they haven’t developed depleted uranium weapons. Instead of worrying about a mosque, consider what’s going on behind the closed doors at the Federal Reserve, the Pentagon, the Senate and House chambers, the CFR, the State Department, the UN or dozens of other places. The Muslims didn’t instigate the attacks on the USS Liberty or the USS Cole and they didn’t orchestrate the highly organized attack in Manhattan on 9/11.

Deanna Spingola in her article ''By Way of Deception, We Shall Do War''. Her radio program is on the Republic Broadcasting Network, on M-F, 11 am - 1 pm (CDT).









2012 APRIL - E. MICHAEL JONES (1948), WRITER, FORMER PROFESSOR & CURRENT EDITOR OF CULTURE WARS MAGAZINE

Opening the Talmud at random, here are a dozen pearls of wisdom the impressionable young student is likely to encounter :

(1) “It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles. All lies are good.”

(2) “If a Jew has stolen something from a Gentile and the Gentile discovers it and demands it back, the Jew should simply deny it all. The Jewish court will stand by the Jew.”

(3) “A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.”

(4) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.”

(5) “Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.”

(6) “Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.”

(7) “A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old … When a grown-up man has intercourse with a litte girl it is nothing.”

(8) “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated … A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”

(9) “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day : Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.”

(10)“When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”

(11) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.”

(12) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there''.

E. Michael Jones in his article ''WHO IS THE REAL ENEMY'', an edited extract from his book 'Francis’s Legacy'.









2012 APRIL - GEERT WILDERS (1963), DUTCH ANTI-ISLAM POLITICIAN, ZIONIST & SELF-CONFESSED MOSSAD AGENT

''The people ? I don't care in the least about the people''.

Words spoken by Geert Wilders during the 'Catshuis negotiations' on austerity measurements, in the presence of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Mr.Sybrand van Haarsma Buma, Mrs.Fleur Agema and several others, implicitely admitting that he is only in politics to demonize Muslims and to further the zionist agenda. Mr.Van Haarsma Buma (leader of Christian Democrats) confirmed these words on Dutch National TV on Monday, April 23rd, 2012.









2012 MAY - PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS (1939), AMERICAN ECONOMIST, ASST. SECRETARY OF TREASURY IN REAGAN ADMINISTR., EDITOR AND COLUMNIST of WALLSTREET JOURNAL, BUSINESS WEEK, etc.



"China’s rise is a great boon to the U.S. military-security complex, which governs an America in which there is a pretense of “freedom and democracy.China is the profitable replacement for the “Soviet threat. As the days go by, the presstitute media will create in the feeble minds of Americans “The China Threat.”

Soon, whatever little remains of the U.S. standard of living will be sacrificed to Washington’s confrontation with China, along with the seizure of our pensions and personal savings in order to deter “the China threat.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts in his article ''Brewing A Conflict With China'', May 1, 2012.

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













12 - Dear Mr. President : Letters from Israel partisans that took America to war



By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
March 14, 2012

According to its June 3, 1997 Statement of Principles, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was created to advance a “Reaganite foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity,” a policy PNAC co-founders, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had advocated the previous year in Foreign Affairs to counter what they construed as the American public’s short-sighted indifference to foreign “commitments.” Calling for a significant increase in “defense spending,” PNAC exhorted the United States “to meet threats before they become dire.”



The Wolfowitz Doctrine



The idea of preemptive war also known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine—subsequently dubbed the “Bush Doctrine” by PNAC signatory Charles Krauthammer—can be traced as far back as Paul Wolfowitz’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East,” which was based on “a raft of top-secret documents” his influential mentor, Cold War nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, somehow “got his hands on” during a post-Six Day War trip to Israel. The “top-secret” Israeli documents supposedly showed that Egypt was planning to divert a Johnson administration proposal for regional civilian nuclear energy into a weapons program. Among those who signed PNAC’s Statement of Principles were Wohlstetter protégés Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Wolfowitz, who despite having been investigated for passing a classified document to an Israeli government official through an AIPAC intermediary in 1978 would be appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, where he would be the first to suggest attacking Iraq four days after 9/11; Wolfowitz protégé I. Lewis Libby, who later “hand-picked” Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff mainly from pro-Israel think tanks; Elliott Abrams, who would go on to serve as Bush’s senior director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs, his mother-in-law, Midge Decter, and her husband, Norman Podhoretz; and Eliot A. Cohen, who would later smear Walt and Mearsheimer’s research on the Israel lobby’s role in skewing U.S. foreign policy as “anti-Semitic.”



On January 26, 1998, PNAC wrote the first of its many open letters to U.S. presidents and Congressional leaders, in which they enjoined President Clinton that “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power […] now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” Failure to eliminate “the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use” its non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the letter cautioned, would put at risk “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” An additional signatory this time was another Wohlstetter protégé, Richard Perle, a widely suspected Israeli agent of influence whose hawkish foreign policy views were shaped when Hollywood High School classmate and girlfriend, Joan Wohlstetter, invited him for a swim in her family’s swimming pool and her father handed Perle his 1958 RAND paper, “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” thought to be an inspiration for Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.



Having helped sow the seeds of the Iraq War five years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, PNAC wrote a second letter to Clinton later that year. Joining with the International Crisis Group, and the short-lived Balkan Action Council and Coalition for International Justice, they took out an advertisement in the New York Times headlined “Mr. President, Milosevic is the Problem.” Expressing “deep concern for the plight of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo,” the letter declared that “[t]here can be no peace and stability in the Balkans so long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in power.” It urged the United States to lead an international effort which should demand a unilateral ceasefire by Serbian forces, put massive pressure on Milosevic to agree on “a new political status for Kosovo,” increase funding for Serbia’s “democratic opposition,” tighten economic sanctions in order to hasten regime change, cease diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise, and support the Hague tribunal’s investigation of Milosevic as a war criminal. Now that “the world’s newest state” (prior to Israel’s successful division of Sudan) is run by a “mafia-like” organization involved in trafficking weapons, drugs and human organs, there appears to be much less concern for the plight of the ethnic Serbian population of Kosovo.



A New Pearl Harbor



One year after the publication of its September 2000 report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the “new Pearl Harbor” PNAC implied might be necessary to hasten acquiescence to its blueprint for “benevolent global hegemony” occurred on 9/11. Nine days after that “catastrophic and catalyzing event,” it wrote to endorse President Bush’s “admirable commitment to ‘lead the world to victory’ in the war against terrorism.” However, capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, the letter stressed, was “by no means the only goal” in the newly-declared war on terror. “[E]ven if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,” cautioned the PNACers. “Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.” Disingenuously characterizing Israel’s enemy Hezbollah as a group “that mean[s] us no good,” the Israel partisans called on the administration to “consider appropriate measures of retaliation” against Iran and Syria if they refused to “immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah.” Touting Israel as “America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism,” they counseled Washington to “fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism.” The letter concluded by urging President Bush “that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.”



PNAC’s concern for “America’s staunchest ally” was even more evident in its next letter to the White House. On April 3, 2002, it wrote to thank Bush for his “courageous leadership in the war on terrorism,” commending him in particular for his “strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism.” Evoking the memory of the September 11 attacks “still seared in our minds and hearts,” the Israel partisans thought that “we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence […] targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles—American principles—in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.” Returning to its favorite theme of regime change in Iraq, PNAC cautioned, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors.” Prefiguring the cheerleading of Kristol and Kagan et al. for the “Arab Spring,” they assured Bush that “the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part […] to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.”



PNAC Redux



Having “developed, sold, enacted, and justified” a disastrous war over non-existent WMD, PNAC’s final report in April 2005 entitled “Iraq: Setting the Record Straight” claimed that “the case for removing Saddam from power went beyond the existence of weapons stockpiles.” Smugly concluding à la Madame Albright that “the price of the liberation of Iraq has been worth it,” PNAC soon after quietly wound up its operations. However, in 2009, PNAC co-founders Kristol and Kagan were instrumental in setting up its successor organization, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), whose self-appointed mission is to address the “many foreign policy challenges” facing the United States “and its democratic allies,” allegedly coming from “rising and resurgent powers,” such as China and Russia, and, perhaps most significantly, from “other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens.”



FPI’s February 25, 2011 letter to President Obama gave a clear indication of the significance of that mission statement. Approvingly citing the president’s declaration in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that “Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later,” they told him that he “must take action in response to the unfolding crisis in Libya.” Warning of an impending “moral and humanitarian catastrophe,” the letter recommended establishing a no-fly zone, freezing all Libyan government assets, temporarily halting importation of Libyan oil, making a statement that Col. Qaddafi and other officials would be held accountable under international law, and providing humanitarian aid to the Libyan people as quickly as possible. “The United States and our European allies have a moral interest in both an end to the violence and an end to the murderous Libyan regime,” averred FPI. “There is no time for delay and indecisiveness. The people of Libya, the people of the Middle East, and the world require clear U.S. leadership in this time of opportunity and peril.”



With Libya in the midst of a genuine catastrophe brought on by that “humanitarian intervention,” FPI turned its attention to the foreign-stoked strife in Syria. On February 17, 2012, it joined the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank closely aligned with the Israel lobby whose leadership council is dominated by PNAC alumni, in urging President Obama “to take immediate steps to decisively halt the Assad regime’s atrocities against Syrian civilians, and to hasten the emergence of a post-Assad government in Syria.” Acknowledging that Syria’s future is “not purely a humanitarian concern,” the letter writers revealed their primary concern about Syria in their remark that “for decades, it has closely cooperated with Iran and other agents of violence and instability to menace America’s allies and partners throughout the Middle East.”



Wars of Muslim Liberation



Commenting on Obama’s reluctance to intervene in Libya, Bill Kristol mocked the president’s “doubts and dithering” about “taking us to war in another Muslim country.” Declared the founder of the Emergency Committee for Israel, “Our ‘invasions’ have in fact been liberations. We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.” In a follow-up note to the Weekly Standard, Paul Wolfowitz had “one minor quibble”: “Libya, by my count, is not ‘America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation,’ but at least the seventh: Kuwait – February 1991, Northern Iraq – April 1991, Bosnia – 1995, Kosovo – 1999, Afghanistan – 2001 and Iraq – 2003.” With Syria awaiting its “liberation” in 2012, perhaps it’s too early yet to say, “Shukran, Israel.”



Maidhc Ó Cathail writes extensively on the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy.



Related articles

The Host and the Parasite – How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Eliot Cohen, Mitt Romney’s Man on Iran (alethonews.wordpress.com)

Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government (alethonews.wordpress.com)

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





VIDEOS









13 - ZIONISTS' ATTEMPT TO RULE THE WORLD - FROM ISRAEL







ZIONISTS' ATTEMPT TO RULE THE WORLD - FROM ISRAEL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq0_n7ZBX_c&feature=related





London 7/7-bombings ludicrous diversion

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/video-77-london-bombings-ludicrous-diversion/





Zionist Israel Crypto-Jews caught RED-HANDED Busted "OUTRIGHT" and Nobody Gives a Shit.. WHY? - Video



SUPERPOWER: Behind the Scenes of America’s National Security Apparatus

A not-to-be-missed feature documentary





"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know." -Harry S. Truman



SUPERPOWER: A documentary film by Barbara-Anne Steegmuller









WATCH THE OFFICIAL TRAILER ON GRTV



SUPERPOWER is a comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions. Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.



Featuring interviews with Michel Chossudovsky, Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky, among many others.



SUPERPOWER has won a number of awards, including the 5th Annual Hollywood F.A.M.E. Award for Documentary of the Year 2011 as well as the 2011 32nd Annual People's Choice Bronze Telly Award.









Available to order from GLOBAL RESEARCH

CLICK HERE for more information







Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.



The heart of SUPERPOWER lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history through a series of interviews with historians, documentarians, and academians such as Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson, Michel Chossudovsky, and Noam Chomsky, and others with expertise in this subject such as the Executive Producer of The Unit, Command Sergeant (Ret.) Eric Haney; former Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds; three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Kathy Kelly; and Lt. Col. (Ret) Karen Kwiatkowski. Examining key moments in America’s history elicits a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions guided by global expansion and military dominance, rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.



Should citizens trust that their government will keep them safe, a government that keeps secrets, and lies, in the name of national security? Does the simple act of withholding information lead to a world of eroding civil liberties and corruption? SUPERPOWER presents a view of US foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world. SUPERPOWER illustrates how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue a grand strategy which will ensure itself unilateral world domination through absolute economic and military superiority. It shows a consistent pattern of government deception.



The United States emerged from World War II with its industrial base still intact and the only nation with the atomic bomb. It was without question the most powerful country on earth. What was done with this unprecedented power, the effects it’s had on our Republic and the rest of the world is the story of SUPERPOWER.



WATCH THE OFFICIAL TRAILER ON GRTV









ELIS REGINA E TOM JOBIM - AGUAS DE MARÇO (WATERS OF MARCH)

24 MAY 2012

JAMI SIEBER - MANDLOVU MINDJAMI SIEBER - MANDLOVU MIND

JAMI SIEBER SUDDENLY, I AM SINGLE MIND EXTENDED ACROSS, AN UNKNOWN GEOGRAPHY. IMPRINTED, AS IF BY A RIVER, ON THE MOMENT, HER MIND HELD IN UNISON BY A LARGE, GREAT, TRIBE. MEANDERING IN REVERENT CONCERT AMONG TREES, FEASTING ON LEAVES.[…]



CREATED ON: 23 MAY 2012

23 MAY 2012

ELEPHANTS ACCOMPANY CELLIST JAMI SIEBER

22 MAY 2012

BILL HICKS - IT'S JUST A RIDE

22 MAY 2012

ECLIPSE LIVE FROM FUJIYAMA BY SOLAR POWER

20 MAY 2012





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













14 - The price of victory is our damned nation



De•mo•cra•cy— n. a system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

(dictionary.com)

To•tal•i•tar•i•an•ism— n. a system of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens’ lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority.

(Britannica Concise Encyclopedia)



gregfelton.com

(May 23, 2012)



All culture is essentially exclusionary; beliefs and practices distinguish one people from another precisely because they are different. The two systems of government defined above, for example, look as dissimilar as any two dissimilar things could possibly be. One depicts a society of self-governing free citizens; the other depicts its polar opposite.



For much of the last 100 years, these two systems of government were in a state of war (hot or cold), and out of this bi-polar world came the Western, democratic conceit that ours is the best of all possible worlds: free elections vs. rigged elections; rule of law vs. police state; civil society vs. coerced conformity; peace vs. war.





Advertisement



Click here to order from Amazon

Now available in the U.K. and Europe!

To all intents and purposes, this superiority complex dates to 1945 with the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and effectively ended in 1989 with “victory” over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Having defeated both communism and fascism (however defined) we wallowed in our own crapulence, the din of triumphalism drowning out any understanding of how our nemeses helped form our democratic identity. In fact, we have gone out of our way not to learn.

German fascism, for example, has been stripped of historical context and made into a cartoonish stereotype with its proponents reduced to simplistic pejorative clichés. Don’t like Iran’s president? Liken him to Hitler. Want to shut down criticism of Israeli war crimes? Play the Jew-as-victim card and invoke the Holocaust®. Don’t like having to obey a strict rule? Call the enforcer a fascist.



Yet if we do not make the effort to understand the Nazis, how do we avoid becoming like them in their absence? Hitler singled out Jews for persecution because he believed they represented a threat to the German people and were responsible for Germany’s failure in World War I. Though they were full citizens of Germany, Jews were not afforded protection under the laws of the 1919Weimar Constitution.



Democracies today single out Muslims for persecution—torture, denial of due process, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, assassination—because they are deemed to be “terrorists.” The rule of law does not apply to them, or for that matter to any citizen who protests official edicts. So how, exactly, does our persecutory police state differ from Hitler’s? How is it proper to flog the dogma that Hitler and the Nazis were evil, when we are so similar?



“Communism,” “Russia” and “Stalin” are abused even more, largely because they symbolized everything opposed to our worship of the individual and the Labour Theory of Value. We condemned the Soviet Union and other “red” countries for their centralized, planned economies that treated their people as mere economic factors of production for a soulless state-run apparatus.



We, on the other hand, are expected to accept the dogma that governmental control of the nation must be kept to an absolute minimum. Regulation, even taxation itself, is an attack on a corporation’s god-given right to maximize profit and exploit people’s labour. Raising taxes to pay for such public services as medical care, the post office, parks, broadcasting, government oversight agencies, or education is hysterically denounced as “socialist” or “communist” because redistributing wealth is something that “communists” do.



For example, when Israel’s U.S. governor Barack Obama, in one of his few acts on behalf of theAmerican people, tried to bring in a national health-care program to ensure that all citizens had a basic level of care, he was vilified as “communist,” and had his program mocked as “Obamacare.” In our “free” world, constitutional protections against exploitative economic or political extremism are being eviscerated as governments rewrite legislation to serve the new robber barons.



In a democracy, public spending does not equate with ruthless, centralized government. Citizens are people, not serfs, and the state exists to serve their interests, not the other way around. But anti-statist prejudice in Canada and the U.S. has reached such extremes that debate over the merit of social welfare is anathematized. The quasi-religious embrace of low corporate taxes, corporate lawlessness, and social Darwinism for everyone else have reduced free citizens to economic inputs in a parasitic corporatocracy.



The public good, far from being the summum bonum of our society, has been reduced to an accidental by-product of private greed. So, exactly, how is our “democracy” any different from the repressive communist societies we once held in contempt?



We used to boast that the free press was a defining characteristic of a democracy, that the press wasn’t merely a propaganda tool of the state. When I was in university, it was common to deride the Soviet daily newspaper Pravda as typical of false, inflammatory, distorted news. Yet we now know that the New York Times deliberately larded its Middle East reporting with false, inflammatory, distorted “news”—led by Pentagon stenographer Judith Miller—and these distortions were integral to selling unprovoked military aggression to the U.S. public.



Now, outright media fraud could become law. As columnist Juan Cole reports: “Two congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the Department of Defense to subject the U.S. domestic public to propaganda. The bipartisan amendment was introduced by Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas and Rep. Adam Smith from Washington State.” Just how is our press superior to the state controlled propaganda mill of the former Soviet Union?



The contrast at the top of this essay isn’t really a contrast at all. It’s s false dichotomy. Our democracy is mutating into “democratic totalitarianism” because our victory over fascists and communists has caused our governments to take over their totalitarian roles. It is March 23, 1933. We are at war, but this time the enemy is us, and the war we will fight will be a civil one.







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













15 - Israelis run organ trafficking network





An illegal network of organ harvesters and traffickers, which exploits both the organ donors and recipients, has been uncovered in Israel.





According to Ha’aretz, at least 10 Israeli citizens were arrested for membership in the organ trafficking gang. Investigation into the ring began after representatives of several countries contacted the Israeli authorities and provided them with the names of suspects, who are all Israeli citizens.



In a November report, CNN said that the organs of the individuals trying to enter Israel from the Sinai desert had been trafficked.



The Italian New Generation Foundation for Human Rights and the Everyone Group has presented evidence indicating that Sinai locals harvest the organs of the people they transfer to Israel. In this connection, a number of mass graves have been found containing the corpses of Africans who were missing some of their organs.



MSH/HGH/AZ





Turkey seeks indictment against ex-Israeli commanders over 2010 raid

Thu May 24, 2012

Turkey has proposed an indictment against four former Israeli commanders over a 2010 attack on a Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla that killed nine Turkish activists.





According to a report published by the Turkish Sabah daily on Wednesday, the indictment was proposed by Istanbul Prosecutor Mehmet Akif Ekinci.



The 144-page indictment seeks 10 life imprisonment sentences for former Israeli Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, former Navy commander Eliezer Marom, former Air Force Intelligence chief Avishai Levi and former Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin.



On May 31, 2010, Israeli forces attacked the Gaza-bound humanitarian Freedom Flotilla in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, killing nine Turkish nationals aboard Turkish ship Mavi Marmara and injuring about 50 other activists who were part of the six-ship convoy.



Another Turkish national, Suleyman Soylemez, who was injured during the raid, is still in a coma, Turkish media say.



Turkey described the attack as a violation of international law “tantamount to banditry and piracy.”



The four ex-Israeli commanders face the proposed life sentences for “inciting to kill monstrously, and by torturing,” Turkish media said.



The court in Istanbul received the proposed indictment on Wednesday, and it is expected to decide on its approval within 15 days.



Reports say the Turkish prosecutor also proposed in the 144-page document that the court press several other charges against members of the Israeli military, including “commandeering vehicles, voluntary manslaughter, attempted murder, persecution and causing damage” to the Mavi Marmara.



HSN/JR/MA

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













16 - Bohemian Grove : Cult of Conspiracy





Texe Marrs



The Greatest Men’s Party on Earth—Where America’s Next President and Future Wars are Plotted









“And He said unto me, go in and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.”

—

Ezekiel 8:9









A good friend of mine, Michael Hanson, photojournalist and researcher, has authored a ground-breaking book exposing the conspiracy of the Bohemian Grove. I am pleased to have written the foreword.







We now have available for you Mike Hanson’s ground-breaking book, Bohemian Grove: Cult of Conspiracy. Texe Marrs was pleased to write the Foreword for this book.





I first learned about the Bohemian Grove in 1988 from a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer. Retired from that agency and privy to many of its deepest secrets, he was intent on exposing the sinister plans of elite conspirators. He asked what I knew about a secretive group of powerful men that meets in the redwood groves near Santa Rosa, California, each year in July.



“Absolutely nothing,” I responded.



He then went on to tell me strange and incredible things about the Bohemian Grovesters, things that seemed to be both bizarre and almost impossible.



I say “almost” because, just the year before, an insider, a graduate of Yale University, had provided me detailed information about yet another secretive group, the Order of Skull & Bones, headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. Most “Bonesmen,” as they are called, are graduates of the elite, Ivy League Yale University. For a year each actually resided in a building called the “Tomb” where they participated in satanic Masonic rituals, including one in which the newly initiated candidate lay nude in a coffin as a demonic, pagan ritual was conducted in a dark foreboding sanctuary.



The Order of Skull & Bones, I discovered, included some of America’s most well-known and most powerful men. Among them—three generations of the Bush Dynasty: Prescott Sheldon Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush. There were also Bonesmen who became U.S. Senators, top corporate CEOs, bank presidents, university chancellors and other such famous persons on the Skull & Bones membership rolls.



Having investigated the weird but very real Skull & Bones organization, you might say that I was more ready to believe that similar groups also existed. The CIA operative assured me that the Bohemian Grove was one such occult secret society, and so I energetically sallied forth to find out more about the crazy antics and improbable behavior of the world’s most auspicious leaders. Leaders who have been meeting in the mysterious forests some fifty miles from San Francisco since the year 1872.



My Discoveries Were Disturbing

What I dug up during my probing investigation of the Bohemians greatly disturbed me. It still does. In 1991, I recorded a lengthy audiotape summarizing my findings, which I entitled “The Wicked Men of the Bohemian Grove” (Available on Tape or CD). Imagine if you will, hundreds of men—the President of the U.S., perhaps a few guest Prime Ministers, Premiers, or Chancellors from foreign countries, an assortment of oil company titans, Hollywood actors, the heads of corporate giants like IBM, Bechtel, Halliburton, Bank of America, etc.; the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the list goes on—cavorting about, casually and sparsely clothed, urinating on trees and alongside walking and hiking trails, and incredibly behaving in an ungentlemanly, sordid sexual manner.











President Nixon’s Personal Observation

Then President Richard M. Nixon is quoted in the White House tapes (available at California’s Nixon Presidential Library) as complaining to his White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman:



“The Bohemian Grove—which I attend from time to time—is the most faggy g-- d--- thing you could even imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can’t shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.”



Nevertheless, Nixon also admitted that it was the warm and enthusiastic reception he received after one of his talks at the Bohemian Grove encampment that proved to be the catalyst for his subsequent successful political campaign for the presidency of the United States. President Ronald Reagan also gave credit to his personal contacts made at the Grove for his election to the White House.









The “Cremation of Care” Ritual

As I explained in “The Wicked Men of the Bohemian Grove,” the centerpiece of the two week encampment is the “Cremation of Care” ritual ceremonies. A virtual devilfest, this pagan drama is a massive theatrical production with outstanding actors and actresses (male actors portray the female parts in the drama). Similar to the bacchanalias of ancient Europe in which the various gods and goddesses were worshipped, animalistic idols were venerated, sexual orgies were engaged in, and human beings sacrificed, the Bohemian ritual ranks at the top of the occultic Secret Society dramas.



It appears that the ancient Canaanite and Hebrew deity “Moloch” is represented at the Bohemian ritual by a 42-foot tall (some say forty foot) owl-like figure. Shrouded in flames, this owl deity is surrounded by Druidic priests and other characters. During the ceremony, chosen “victims” are sacrificed. Their screams and shrieks pierce and shatter the still night air.



Mike Hanson, author of Bohemian Grove: Cult of Conspiracy, knows about the wicked and terrible ritual and other unspeakable things that go on at the Grove. He and Alex Jones were the two who, in 2000, bravely and clandestinely got in and actually videotaped the amazing spectacle. They risked their lives to do so. Now you can have the benefits of their exploits through Mike’s astonishingly documented book. I do hope you will order this outstanding book from the ministry. As God told Ezekiel long ago, “Go in and behold the wicked abominations that they do here” (Ezekiel 8:9).









These satanic abominations are being performed by some of the most powerful men on earth. They imagine that their grievous behavior is hidden from God and from you and me. But God sees all. His judgement awaits. And now, with the book Bohemian Grove: Cult of Conspiracy, we, too, may observe the wicked sins of these arrogant and violent men.



The Bohemians hold the lives of billions of human beings in over 175 nations across the globe in the palm of those hands that former President Richard Nixon said are “faggy” and unclean. Be wary, dear friends. Your very life and that of your loved ones is at stake here







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













17 - Investment bankers salivate over North Africa



Chaos and strife create the revolutionary atmosphere in which opportunity abounds



Written by Atheo
Aletho News
March 8, 2011

Investment banking is usually thought of as a field that values stability. Yet the greatest rewards are often attained throughdestabilization.



North African regimes and leaders have their obvious faults and flaws. Autocracies have an inherent weakness in their tendency to ossification. This basic reality is reflected not just in the obvious lack of democratic institutions, but also in the economic structures of the North African states. Regimes which have persisted for many decades tend to retain many of the economic characteristics of the era in which they were formed.



In the developing economies, during the decades prior to the neo-liberal reforms of the 1990′s, state owned industries were fostered in order to provide basic services such as telecommunications, transport and public utilities. Local manufacturing industries were protected from offshore competition as a means of furthering development goals and enhancing balance of trade accounts. These well established practices have come to be seen by today’s promoters of ‘free trade’ and privatization as an impediment to maximizing profits. Once established, these industries are in many cases difficult to dislodge.



Therefore, a clean break is required for restructuring primary domestic industries in order for international investors to reap a greater share of locally generated profits. This process is referred to as ‘creative destruction’. To facilitate the emplacement of the new order, the old order must first be swept aside. This requirement of upending the existing order explains why Western neoconservatives have been promoting the revolutionary uprisings in North Africa. Neoconservative think tanks and publications are closely associated with the banking interests. Evidence of their designs on North Africa is abundant.



A 2010 Bertelsmann evaluation titled Transformation Tunisia reported:



Tunisia’s decision makers have once again advanced transformation too sluggishly. Despite the formal abolition of trade barriers for industrial goods with the European Union as of 1 January 2008, in practice, Tunisia has seen too little progress in terms of trade liberalization [emphasis added].



[The] Tunisian banking sector and capital market are regularly cited as one major hindrance to the country’s economic modernization. Although they have been formally brought up to international standards, financial supervision and regulation remain subject to political influence. This is partly due to direct state control over financial flows and partly to the state’s direct involvement therein. Although it sold its stakes in two banks in 2002 and 2005, respectively, the state remains the controlling shareholder in at least four other banks because it controls 50% of their assets. Under these conditions, top-rank bank executives are de facto appointed by the president through a controlling body.



On January 7, 2011, Elliott Abrams wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations:



“Tunisia, whose literacy rate has long been the highest in Africa at nearly 80% and whose per capita GDP is about $8,000, should have the ability to sustain a democratic government—once the Ben Ali regime collapses [emphasis added].



“Tunisians are clearly sick of looking at all the giant photos and paintings of Ben Ali that appear on walls, posters, and billboards all over the country. [...]



“If Tunisia can move toward democracy, Algerians and Egyptians and even Libyans will wonder why they cannot. This kind of thing may catch on [emphasis added]. In fact, in Algeria it may already be catching on.” (Elliott Abrams: Is Tunisia Next?)



On February 13, the New York Times described Robert Kagan as “a Brookings Institution scholar who long before the revolution helped assemble a nonpartisan group of policy experts to press for democratic change in Egypt.” [emphasis added]



Maidhc Ó Cathail has noted that:



Arianna Huffington … was prescient in a December 13, 2010 op-ed in Lebanon’s Daily Star titled “Social media will help fuel change in the Middle East.”



And also that:



Robert Kagan, who co-founded the Project for a New American Century with William Kristol in 1997, was joined on that “nonpartisan group” by PNAC founding member Elliott Abrams and PNAC deputy director Ellen Bork. Bork is currently “democracy and human rights” director at PNAC’s successor, Foreign Policy Initiative, where Kagan and Kristol are directors. Not surprisingly, Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on January 29 that he was “in complete agreement” with his fellow PNACers’ Working Group on Egypt in its demands that the U.S. suspend aid to Mubarak. [...]



Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Kagan looked positively sanguine about the prospects for a post-Mubarak Egypt. Like George Soros, he seems confident that Israel has “much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East.”



It should be recalled that many of these same individuals and institutions were principle actors in the promotion of the ‘color revolutions’ in many of the former Soviet Republics as well as in Iran’s failed ‘green revolution’ during the summer of 2010.



Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi points out that the direction that events take is not being left to local forces:



Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was interviewed by Rachel Maddow several weeks ago and revealed that Washington has already begun meddling. Albright denounced Egyptian ex-president Mubarak … and then confirmed that the National Endowment for Democracy was already hard at work in Egypt, even though Mubarak had not yet stepped down, building up infrastructure and supporting party development. Recall for a moment that Albright believes that a heavy fist is an essential part of diplomacy and that US interests always trump whatever suffering local people have to endure. [...]



Those who are aware of the insidious activities of the National Endowment for Democracy or NED, an ostensibly private foundation that spreads “democracy” and is largely funded by the government, will not be surprised to learn that it is already active in North Africa because it is almost everywhere. NED, which has a Democratic Party half in its National Democratic Institute, and a Republican Party half in its International Republican Institute, was the driving force behind the series of pastel revolutions that created turmoil in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. Remember when the Russians and others complained about the activities of NGOs interfering in their politics? NED was what they were referring to.



Albright is in charge of the NED Dems while John McCain leads the NED GOP. [...]



Neoconservative Ken Timmerman has identified the core NED activity overseas as “training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques,” surely a polite way to describe interfering directly in other countries’ politics.



On February 27, John McCain and Joe Lieberman visited Cairo. As reported by Politico:



Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who’s on a quick trip through the Middle East, said Sunday he found Cairo to be a “very exciting place.”



“We went to Tahrir Square today. Got a warm, enthusiastic welcome,” he said of his visit to Cairo with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).



Of course, to suggest that the uprisings have been orchestrated solely by these interests would ignore genuine grassroots concerns. Nothing here is meant to suggest that conditions for unrest were not present or that sacrifices for social change have not been made by the peoples of North Africa. This article is only meant to inform as to the activities of the interventionists. The real accomplishments of the uprisings may yet predominate.



Within a month after demanding cessation of military aid to Mubarak, the very same neocon cabal was demanding military intervention in the less pliable Libya. Jim Lobe reports for IPS:



In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage U.S. intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to “immediately” prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week.



The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organised and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC).



Warning that Libya stood “on the threshold of a moral and humanitarian catastrophe”, the letter, which was addressed to President Barack Obama, called for specific immediate steps involving military action, in addition to the imposition of a number of diplomatic and economic sanctions to bring “an end to the murderous Libyan regime”.



In particular, it called for Washington to press NATO to “develop operational plans to urgently deploy warplanes to prevent the regime from using fighter jets and helicopter gunships against civilians and carry out other missions as required; (and) move naval assets into Libyan waters” to “aid evacuation efforts and prepare for possible contingencies;” as well as “(e)stablish the capability to disable Libyan naval vessels used to attack civilians.”



Among the letter’s signers were former Bush deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Bush’s top global democracy and Middle East adviser; Elliott Abrams; former Bush speechwriters Marc Thiessen and Peter Wehner; Vice President Dick Cheney’s former deputy national security adviser, John Hannah, as well as FPI’s four directors: Weekly Standard editorWilliam Kristol; Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan; former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor; and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman.



It was Kagan and Kristol who co-founded and directed PNAC in its heyday from 1997 to the end of Bush’s term in 2005.



The letter comes amid growing pressure on Obama, including from liberal hawks, to take stronger action against Gaddafi.



Two prominent senators whose foreign policy views often reflect neo-conservative thinking, Republican John McCain and Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman, called Friday in Tel Aviv for Washington to supply Libyan rebels with arms, among other steps, including establishing a no-fly zone over the country.



By March 6, Reuters was already reporting the hoped for results:



As entrenched monopolies and patronage give way in the Middle East and North Africa, governments in the region could open their markets further and divest some state assets.



Wealthy Gulf states such Kuwait and Qatar have little cause to sell, but post-revolutionary states such as Tunisia will likely lower protectionist barriers…



“… this crisis is going to reveal some opportunities as structures linked to old regimes will be unwound,” said Julian Mayo, investment director at Charlemagne Capital. [...]



“When you have an economy moving from socialist dictatorship to full-fledged free market, the spider in the web of that transformation will be the banks,” [emphasis added] said Bjorn Englund, who runs an investment fund focused on Iraq.



~



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



















18 - The Politics of Language and the Language of Political Regression





By Prof. James Petras



Global Research, May 24, 2012





Capitalism and its defenders maintain dominance through the ‘material resources’ at their command, especially the state apparatus, and their productive, financial and commercial enterprises, as well as through the manipulation of popular consciousness via ideologues, journalists, academics and publicists who fabricate the arguments and the language to frame the issues of the day.







Today material conditions for the vast majority of working people have sharply deteriorated as the capitalist class shifts the entire burden of the crisis and the recovery of their profits onto the backs of wage and salaried classes. One of the striking aspects of this sustained and on-going roll-back of living standards is the absence of a major social upheaval so far. Greece and Spain, with over 50% unemployment among its 16-24 year olds and nearly 25% general unemployment, have experienced a dozen general strikes and numerous multi-million person national protests; but these have failed to produce any real change in regime or policies. The mass firings and painful salary, wage, pension and social services cuts continue. In other countries, like Italy, France and England, protests and discontent find expression in the electoral arena, with incumbents voted out and replaced by the traditional opposition. Yet throughout the social turmoil and profound socio-economic erosion of living and working conditions, the dominant ideology informing the movements, trade unions and political opposition is reformist: Issuing calls to defend existing social benefits, increase public spending and investments and expand the role of the state where private sector activity has failed to invest or employ. In other words, the left proposes to conserve a past when capitalism was harnessed to the welfare state.



The problem is that this ‘capitalism of the past’ is gone and a new more virulent and intransigent capitalism has emerged forging a new worldwide framework and a powerful entrenched state apparatus immune to all calls for ‘reform’ and reorientation. The confusion, frustration and misdirection of mass popular opposition is, in part, due to the adoption by leftist writers, journalists and academics of the concepts and language espoused by its capitalist adversaries: language designed to obfuscate the true social relations of brutal exploitation, the central role of the ruling classes in reversing social gains and the profound links between the capitalist class and the state. Capitalist publicists, academics and journalists have elaborated a whole litany of concepts and terms which perpetuate capitalist rule and distract its critics and victims from the perpetrators of their steep slide toward mass impoverishment.



Even as they formulate their critiques and denunciations, the critics of capitalism use the language and concepts of its apologists. Insofar as the language of capitalism has entered the general parlance of the left, the capitalist class has established hegemony or dominance over its erstwhile adversaries. Worse, the left, by combining some of the basic concepts of capitalism with sharp criticism, creates illusions about the possibility of reforming ‘the market’ to serve popular ends. This fails to identify the principle social forces that must be ousted from the commanding heights of the economy and the imperative to dismantle the class-dominated state. While the left denounces the capitalist crisis and state bailouts, its own poverty of thought undermines the development of mass political action. In this context the ‘language’ of obfuscation becomes a ‘material force’ – a vehicle of capitalist power, whose primary use is to disorient and disarm its anti-capitalist and working class adversaries. It does so by co-opting its intellectual critics through the use of terms, conceptual framework and language which dominate the discussion of the capitalist crisis.



Key Euphemisms at the Service of the Capitalist Offensive



Euphemisms have a double meaning: What terms connote and what they really mean. Euphemistic conceptions under capitalism connote a favorable reality or acceptable behavior and activity totally dissociated from the aggrandizement of elite wealth and concentration of power and privilege. Euphemisms disguise the drive of power elites to impose class-specific measures and to repress without being properly identified, held responsibleand opposed by mass popular action.



The most common euphemism is the term ‘market’, which is endowed with human characteristics and powers. As such, we are told ‘the market demands wage cuts’ disassociated from the capitalist class. Markets, the exchange of commodities or the buying and selling of goods, have existed for thousands of years in different social systems in highly differentiated contexts. These have been global, national, regional and local. They involve different socio-economic actors, and comprise very different economic units, which range from giant state-promoted trading-houses to semi-subsistence peasant villages and town squares. ‘Markets’ existed in all complex societies: slave, feudal, mercantile and early and late competitive, monopoly industrial and finance capitalist societies.



When discussing and analyzing ‘markets’ and to make sense of the transactions (who benefits and who loses), one must clearly identify the principle social classes dominating economic transactions. To write in general about ‘markets’ is deceptive because markets do not exist independent of the social relations defining what is produced and sold, how it is produced and what class configurations shape the behavior of producers, sellers and labor. Today’s market reality is defined by giant multi-national banks and corporations, which dominate the labor and commodity markets. To write of ‘markets’ as if they operated in a sphere above and beyond brutal class inequalities is to hide the essence of contemporary class relations.



Fundamental to any understanding, but left out of contemporary discussion, is the unchallenged power of the capitalist owners of the means of production and distribution, the capitalist ownership of advertising, the capitalist bankers who provide or deny credit and the capitalist-appointed state officials who ‘regulate’ or deregulate exchange relations. The outcomes of their policies are attributed to euphemistic ‘market’ demands which seem to be divorced from the brutal reality. Therefore, as the propagandists imply, to go against ‘the market’ is to oppose the exchange of goods: This is clearly nonsense. In contrast, to identify capitalist demands on labor, including reductions in wages, welfare and safety, is to confront a specific exploitative form of market behavior where capitalists seek to earn higher profits against the interests and welfare majority of wage and salaried workers.



By conflating exploitative market relations under capitalism with markets in general, the ideologues achieve several results: They disguise the principle role of capitalists while evoking an institution with positive connotations, that is, a ‘market’ where people purchase consumer goods and ‘socialize’ with friends and acquaintances. In other words, when ‘the market’, which is portrayed as a friend and benefactor of society, imposes painful policies presumably it is for the welfare of the community. At least that is what the business propagandists want the public to believe by marketing their virtuous image of the ‘market’; they mask private capital’s predatory behavior as it chases greater profits.



One of the most common euphemisms thrown about in the midst of this economic crisis is ‘austerity’, a term used to cover-up the harsh realities of draconian cutbacks in wages, salaries, pensions and public welfare and the sharp increase in regressive taxes (VAT). ‘Austerity’ measures mean policies to protect and even increase state subsidies to businesses, and create higher profits for capital and greater inequalities between the top 10% and the bottom 90%. ‘Austerity’ implies self-discipline, simplicity, thrift, saving, responsibility, limits on luxuries and spending, avoidance of immediate gratification for future security – a kind of collective Calvinism. It connotes shared sacrifice today for the future welfare of all.



However, in practice ‘austerity’ describes policies that are designed by the financial elite to implement class-specific reductions in the standard of living and social services (such as health and education) available for workers and salaried employees. It means public funds can be diverted to an even greater extent to pay high interest rates to wealthy bondholders while subjecting public policy to the dictates of the overlords of finance capital.



Rather than talking of ‘austerity’, with its connotation of stern self-discipline, leftist critics should clearly describe ruling class policies against the working and salaried classes, which increase inequalities and concentrate even more wealth and power at the top. ‘Austerity’ policies are therefore an expression of how the ruling classes use the state to shift the burden of the cost of their economic crisis onto labor.



The ideologues of the ruling classes co-opted concepts and terms, which the left originally used to advance improvements in living standards and turned them on their heads. Two of these euphemisms, co-opted from the left, are ‘reform’ and ‘structural adjustment’. ‘Reform’, for many centuries, referred to changes, which lessened inequalities and increased popular representation. ‘Reforms’ were positive changes enhancing public welfare and constraining the abuse of power by oligarchic or plutocratic regimes. Over the past three decades, however, leading academic economists, journalists and international banking officials have subverted the meaning of ‘reform’ into its opposite: it now refers to the elimination of labor rights, the end of public regulation of capital and the curtailment of public subsidies making food and fuel affordable to the poor. In today’s capitalist vocabulary ‘reform’ means reversing progressive changes and restoring the privileges of private monopolies. ‘Reform’ means ending job security and facilitating massive layoffs of workers by lowering or eliminating mandatory severance pay. ‘Reform’ no longer means positive social changes; it now means reversing those hard fought changes and restoring the unrestrained power of capital. It means a return to capital’s earlier and most brutal phase, before labor organizations existed and when class struggle was suppressed. Hence ‘reform’ now means restoring privileges, power and profit for the rich.



In a similar fashion, the linguistic courtesans of the economic profession have co-opted the term ‘structural’ as in ‘structural adjustment’ to service the unbridled power of capital. As late as the 1970’s ‘structural’ change referred to the redistribution of land from the big landlords to the landless; a shift in power from plutocrats to popular classes. ‘Structures’ referred to the organization of concentrated private power in the state and economy. Today, however, ‘structure’ refers to the public institutions and public policies, which grew out of labor and citizen struggles to provide social security, for protecting the welfare, health and retirement of workers. ‘Structural changes’ now are the euphemism for smashing those public institutions, ending the constraints on capital’s predatory behavior and destroying labor’s capacity to negotiate, struggle or preserve its social advances.



The term ‘adjustment’, as in ‘structural adjustment’ (SA), is itself a bland euphemism implying fine-tuning , the careful modulation of public institutions and policies back to health and balance. But, in reality, ‘structural adjustment’ represents a frontal attack on the public sector and a wholesale dismantling of protective legislation and public agencies organized to protect labor, the environment and consumers. ‘Structural adjustment’ masks a systematic assault on the people’s living standards for the benefit of the capitalist class.



The capitalist class has cultivated a crop of economists and journalists who peddle brutal policies in bland, evasive and deceptive language in order to neutralize popular opposition. Unfortunately, many of their ‘leftist’ critics tend to rely on the same terminology.



Given the widespread corruption of language so pervasive in contemporary discussions about the crisis of capitalism the left should stop relying on this deceptive set of euphemisms co-opted by the ruling class. It is frustrating to see how easily the following terms enter our discourse:



Market discipline – The euphemism ‘discipline’ connotes serious, conscientious strength of character in the face of challenges as opposed to irresponsible, escapist behavior. In reality, when paired with ‘market’, it refers to capitalists taking advantage of unemployed workers and using their political influence and power lay-off masses workers and intimidate those remaining employees into greater exploitation and overwork, thereby producing more profit for less pay. It also covers the capacity of capitalist overlords to raise their rate of profit by slashing the social costs of production, such as worker and environmental protection, health coverage and pensions.



‘Market shock’ – This refers to capitalists engaging in brutal massive, abrupt firings, cuts in wages and slashing of health plans and pensions in order to improve stock quotations, augment profits and secure bigger bonuses for the bosses. By linking the bland, neutral term, ‘market’ to ‘shock’, the apologists of capital disguise the identity of those responsible for these measures, their brutal consequences and the immense benefits enjoyed by the elite.



‘Market Demands’ – This euphemistic phrase is designed to anthropomorphize an economic category, to diffuse criticism away from real flesh and blood power-holders, their class interests and their despotic strangle-hold over labor. Instead of ‘market demands’, the phrase should read: ‘the capitalist class commands the workers to sacrifice their own wages and health to secure more profit for the multi-national corporations’ – a clear concept more likely to arouse the ire of those adversely affected.



‘Free Enterprise’ – An euphemism spliced together from two real concepts: private enterprise for private profit and free competition. By eliminating the underlying image of private gain for the few against the interests of the many, the apologists of capital have invented a concept that emphasizes individual virtues of ‘enterprise’ and ‘freedom’ as opposed to the real economic vices of greed and exploitation.



‘Free Market’ – A euphemism implying free, fair and equal competition in unregulated markets glossing over the reality of market domination by monopolies and oligopolies dependent on massive state bailouts in times of capitalist crisis. ‘Free’ refers specifically to the absence of public regulations and state intervention to defend workers safety as well as consumer and environmental protection. In other words, ‘freedom’ masks the wanton destruction of the civic order by private capitalists through their unbridled exercise of economic and political power. ‘Free market’ is the euphemism for the absolute rule of capitalists over the rights and livelihood of millions of citizens, in essence, a true denial of freedom.



‘Economic Recovery’ – This euphemistic phrase means the recovery of profits by the major corporations. It disguises the total absence of recovery of living standards for the working and middle classes, the reversal of social benefits and the economic losses of mortgage holders, debtors, the long-term unemployed and bankrupted small business owners. What is glossed over in the term ‘economic recovery’ is how mass immiseration became a key condition for the recovery of corporate profits.



‘Privatization’ – This describes the transfer of public enterprises, usually the profitable ones, to well-connected, large scale private capitalists at prices well below their real value, leading to the loss of public services, stable public employment and higher costs to consumers as the new private owners jack up prices and lay-off workers - all in the name of another euphemism, ‘efficiency’.



‘Efficiency’ – Efficiency here refers only to the balance sheets of an enterprise; it does not reflect the heavy costs of ‘privatization’ borne by related sectors of the economy. For example, ‘privatization’ of transport adds costs to upstream and downstream businesses by making them less competitive compared with competitors in other countries; ‘privatization’ eliminates services in regions that are less profitable, leading to local economic collapse and isolation from national markets. Frequently, public officials, who are aligned with private capitalists, will deliberately disinvest in public enterprises and appoint incompetent political cronies as part of patronage politics, in order to degrade services and foment public discontent. This creates a public opinion favorable to ‘privatizing’ the enterprise. In other words ‘privatization’ is not a result of the inherent inefficiencies of public enterprises, as the capitalist ideologues like to argue, but a deliberate political act designed to enhance private capital gain at the cost of public welfare.



Conclusion



Language, concepts and euphemisms are important weapons in the class struggle ‘from above’ designed by capitalist journalists and economists to maximize the wealth and power of capital. To the degree that progressive and leftist critics adopt these euphemisms and their frame of reference, their own critiques and the alternatives they propose are limited by the rhetoric of capital. Putting ‘quotation marks’ around the euphemisms may be a mark of disapproval but this does nothing to advance a different analytical framework necessary for successful class struggle ‘from below’. Equally important, it side-steps the need for a fundamental break with the capitalist system including its corrupted language and deceptive concepts. Capitalists have overturned the most fundamental gains of the working class and we are falling back toward the absolute rule of capital. This must raise anew the issue of a socialist transformation of the state, economy and class structure. An integral part of that process must be the complete rejection of the euphemisms used by capitalist ideologues and their systematic replacement by terms and concepts that truly reflect the harsh reality, that clearly identify the perpetrators of this decline and that define the social agencies for political transformation.





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



















19 - How the US Deliberately Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply





By Prof. Thomas J. Nagy



Global Research, May 23, 2012







In September 2001 Professor Thomas Nagy of George Washington University, D.C., revealed the existence of Defense Intelligence Agency documents “proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War.





"The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.” On May 12, 1996 some of the horrible consequences of this policy were revealed when the CBS news program 60 Minutes reported that roughly half million Iraqi children had died as a consequence of U.S. imposed sanctions.



This led to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s infamous answer to the question, “is the price worth it?” Her reply was yes “we think the price is worth it.” Albright later apologized, not for the murderous policy for which she was partially responsible, but rather for the fact that her answer to the above question had “aggravated our public relations problems” in the Middle East.



As to domestic reaction, her comment “went unremarked in the U.S.” Subsequently, in 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the strategy of “rapid dominance” (more popularly known as “shock and awe”). The object of this strategy was to “paralyze” the enemy’s “will to carry on” through the disruption of “means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure.” One of the targets of the bombing campaign that led off the invasion was Iraq’s electrical grid. That directly impacted the country’s ability to process clean water."



Lawrence Davidson, Loopholes in International Law



This important study by Professor Nagy was among the first articles to be published by Global Research. It was part of the launch of the site on September 9, 2001. The article was dated August, 29 2001.



The original URL of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAG108A.html









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



Confirmed by documents of the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), "the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway."





Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.



Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease.



The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."



The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."



Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.



The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.



Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs.



The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater.



Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains, it says. Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water.



As an alternative, Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons, the document says. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements.



In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."



The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June 1991) before the system is fully degraded."



This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil. (I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)



Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.



The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says:



Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems.



The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.



The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."



The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states:



Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks.



This document lists the most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely).



Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."



The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says:



Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases.



Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states:



There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks.



The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says:



Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation.



The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again.



The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children.



The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."



In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out."



The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."



The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."



It minimizes the extent of the damage.



Although current countrywide infectious disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes.



And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends completely on the Iraqi government."



As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.



The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article 54, it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."



But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.



At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."



Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to import the few chemicals and items of equipment it needed in order to clean up its water supply.



Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in 1990. . . . Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."



For more than ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The United Nations has estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue to die every month for this reason.



No one can say that the United States didn't know what it was doing.





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



See for Yourself

All the DIA documents mentioned in this article were found at the Department of Defense's Gulflink site.



To read or print documents:



go to www.gulflink.osd.mil

click on "Declassified Documents" on the left side of the front page

the next page is entitled "Browse Recently Declassified Documents"

click on "search" under "Declassifed Documents" on the left side of that page

the next page is entitled "Search Recently Declassified Documents"

enter search terms such as "disease information effects of bombing"

click on the search button

the next page is entitled "Data Sources"

click on DIA

click on one of the titles

It's not the easiest, best-organized site on the Internet, but I have found the folks at Gulflink to be helpful and responsive.





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



The URL of this article is:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAG108A.html





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



















20 - AMERICA SHIFTS GEAR FOR WAR ON IRAN

The covert war on Syria is an integral part of the US-led covert war on Iran





By Finian Cunningham



Global Research, May 17, 2012





America’s war plans for full spectrum dominance in the oil-rich Middle East and Central Asian region shifted up a gear this week with three significant and inter-related developments.



Forget about viewing events in countries as separate incidents. Syria, Iran and the Gulf monarchies are closely bound up in US-led war plans in the Middle East that are aimed at projecting American political, economic and military power across this vital region and beyond. Events today are but a continuum with US wars of conquest in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Libya as part of an unfolding agenda for hegemony.



First, this week it emerged that the purported Kofi Annan Peace Plan is all but dead. For the past four weeks, the US-led foreign powers have done everything to make sure the supposed peace plan would fail, from Western governments and media constantly excoriating Syrian President Bashar Al Assad for allegedly not abiding by the ceasefire, while these same powers have assiduously supported mercenary groups to go on a full terror assault involving no-warning car bombs and shootings.



US officials are not yet declaring the Annan ceasefire over, but actions on the ground speak volumes. An influx of more powerful weaponry is reported to now have reached the so-called Syrian rebels. The mercenaries trying to topple the Assad government are largely foreign jihadist elements from Libya, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In weeks prior to the 12 April ceasefire, the Syrian government forces were gaining the upperhand, routing these armed groups from their base in the city of Homs.



Under the strictures of the ceasefire, which were tightly and unilaterally applied by Western governments and media to the conduct of the Syrian army, the armed opposition groups appear to have taken advantage of the respite to inflict their worse and to reorganise. Two massive car bombs in the capital, Damascus, on 10 May killed 55 and injured more than 400. The blasts were so powerful they left two large craters in the roads.



This week the foreign-backed mercenaries were reported to have killed 23 Syrian army troops in the town of Rastan, near Homs. The surge in deaths among civilians and security forces reflects the increased firepower that is now making its way into the hands of the mercenaries.



According to the Washington Post, the Gulf monarchies, mainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are financing the new shipments of weapons. This is drawn from the war-chest of $100 million that was pledged by the US-backed Arab autocrats at the conference in Istanbul at the beginning of April. Officially, the Obama administration is maintaining a cynical fiction that it is only supplying “non-lethal material” to the Syrian armed groups. But it is the US that is now assuming the crucial lead role of overseeing the distribution and deployment of new weapons flowing into Syria.



“The US contacts with the rebel military and the information-sharing with Gulf nations mark a shift in Obama administration policy as hopes [sic] dim for a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Many officials now consider an expanding military confrontation to be inevitable,” reports the Washington Post on the 16 May.



The intensified US-led assault on Syria is not merely aimed at taking out the Assad government. It is an integral part of a long-held Washington plan for imperial dominance across the entire region that has been conducted under the pretexts of “war on terror” and “responsibility to protect”. That is why two other developments this week bear wider significance. Claims disseminated in the Western media that Iran has been using a blast chamber to test nuclear explosions are aimed at elevating again the “rogue spectre” of Iran and criminalizing the government of Tehran. The latest accusations of nuclear weaponisation by Iran come ahead of the second round of P5+1 negotiations next week, which the US-led Western powers have relentlessly used to browbeat Tehran over its legitimate right to develop civilian nuclear energy.



Of course, “nuclear ambitions” – so often said in pejorative tones by the Western powers and their subservient media – have got little to do with the real agenda, which is all about trying to engineer regime change in Tehran to one that will be pliable to Western imperialist interests.



The fatuous Western media coverage on events in Syria over the past year has tried in vain to portray them as part of an heroic Arab Spring revolt by the masses seeking democratic rights. In truth, the Western powers and their Arab/Israeli/Turkish proxies have been inflaming violence in Syria with callous disregard for human rights and democracy, with the immediate goal of achieving pliable regime change in Damascus and ultimately likewise in its regional ally, Tehran.



The covert US-led war on Syria is an integral part of its covert war on Iran. When this war on Syria moves up a gear as signalled by the influx of heavy weapons now flowing into that country, then the corollary is a stepwise aggression towards Iran.



The poisoning of P5+1 negotiations, before they have even resumed, with lurid, baseless claims about Iran testing nuclear weapons is a signal of stepped-up aggression.



Finally, the third development this week pertaining to America’s permanent war ambitions in the oil-rich region was the unveiling of plans for a closer political and military union between the US-backed Gulf monarchs, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. These autocratic Sunni regimes have grown increasingly hostile towards Iran under Washington’s tutelage in recent years.



Provocatively, the Gulf union plans cited the “threat of Iran” without providing an iota of evidence to support such a tendentious allegation. Significantly, when Iran objected to the proposed hostile Sunni bloc, it was met with fiery denunciations from its Persian Gulf neighbours of “flagrantly violating” their sovereignty in what sounded like a choreographed collision course.



The idea for a closer Gulf union was previously promoted by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton when she visited the Saudi capital Riyadh at the of March on her way to the weapons fundraiser in Istanbul to support the Syrian mercenaries. On the agenda in her meeting with the Gulf dictators in Riyadh was the setting up of a joint missile system for the Persian Gulf shaihkdoms.



Taken together, the escalation of war in Syria, the imputing of casus belli against Iran, and the lining up of hostile Gulf Arab states, represent more than a sinister pattern of coincidences. It’s a plan of war.



Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent cunninghamfinian@gmail.com





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



















21 - DRUG-FINANCED SALAFI JIHADISM : The Afghan Drug Trade, A Threat to Russia and U.S.-Russian Relations





By Prof. Peter Dale Scott



Global Research, May 23, 2012





Preface for a North American Audience



I delivered the following remarks at an anti-NATO conference held in Moscow on May 15, 2012. Unlike other speakers, my paper urged Russians -- despite the expansionist and aggressive activities in Central Asia of the CIA, SOCOM, and NATO -- to cooperate under neutral auspices with like-minded Americans, towards dealing with the related crises of Afghan drug production and drug-financed Salafi jihadism.



Since the conference I have continued to reflect intensely on the battered state of U.S.-Russian relations, and my own slightly utopian response to it. Although the speakers at the conference represented many different viewpoints, they tended all to share a deep anxiety about US intentions towards Russia and the other former states of the USSR. Their anxiety was based on shared knowledge of past American actions and broken promises, of which they (unlike most Americans) are only too aware.



A key example of such broken promises was the assurance that NATO would not take advantage of détente to expand into Eastern Europe. Today of course Poland is a member of NATO, and there are still proposals on the table to expand NATO also into the Ukraine – i.e. the very heart of the former Soviet Union. This push was matched by U.S. joint activities and operations – some of them under NATO auspices – with the army and security forces of Uzbekistan. (These began in 1997 – i.e. in the Clinton administration.)



Some of the conferees I spoke to see Russia has having been threatened for two decades after World War Two by active US and UK plans for a nuclear first strike against Russia, before it could gain nuclear parity. While obviously these plans were never implemented, those I spoke to were sure that the ultras who desired them have never abandoned their desire to humiliate Russia and reduce it to a third-rate power. I cannot refute this concern: my recent book American War Machine also sees a relentless push since World War Two to establish and sustain global American dominance in the world.



Thus the conference speakers were bitterly opposed to Putin’s endorsement, as recently as April 11 of this year, of NATO’s military efforts in Afghanistan. They are particularly incensed by Putin’s agreement this year to the establishment of a NATO base in Ulianovsk, two hundred kilometers east of Moscow in Russia itself. Although the base has been sold to the Russian public as a way to facilitate US withdrawal from Afghanistan, one speaker assured the conference that the Ulianovsk outpost is described in NATO documents as a military base. And they resent Russia’s support of the US-inspired UN sanctions against Iran; they see Iran instead as a natural ally of Russia against American efforts to achieve global domination.



Apart from the remarks below, I was mostly silent at the conference. But my mind, almost my conscience, is heavy when I think of the recent revelations that Rumsfeld and Cheney, immediately after 9/11, responded with an agenda to remove several governments friendly to Russia, including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran.[1] (Ten years earlier the neocon Richard Perle told Gen. Wesley Clark in the Pentagon that America had a window of opportunity to remove exactly these Russian clients, in the period of Russian restructuring after the breakup of the USSR.)



What we have seen, even under Obama, looks very much like a progressive implementation of this agenda, even if we acknowledge that in Libya and now Syria Obama has shown much greater reluctance to put large numbers of US boots on the ground. (Small numbers of US Special Forces were reportedly active in both countries, stirring up resistance to first Qaddafi and now Assad.)



What particularly concerns me is the relative absence of public response in America to a long-term Pentagon-CIA agenda of aggressive military expansion – of dominationism, if you will. No doubt many Americans may think that a global pax Americana will secure a period of peace, much like the pax Romana of two millennia ago. I myself am confident that it will not: rather, like the imperfect pax Britannica of a century ago, it will lead inevitably to a major conflict, possibly another nuclear war. For the secret of the pax Romana was that Rome, under Hadrian, withdrew from Mesopotamia and accepted strict limits to its area of dominance. Britain never achieved that wisdom until too late; America, to date, has never achieved it at all.



And so very few in America seem to care about Washington’s global domination project. We have seen much critical examination of why America fought in Vietnam, and even the American involvement in atrocities like the Indonesian massacre of 1965. Authors like Noam Chomsky and Bill Blum have chronicled America’s criminal acts since World War Two. But only a few, like Chalmers Johnson and Andrew Bacevich, have written about the progressive consolidation of a war machine that now dominates America’s political processes.



The nascent Occupy movement has little to say about America’s unprovoked wars; I am not sure they have even targeted the militarization of surveillance, law enforcement, and detention camps – the so-called “continuity of government” (COG) measures by which America’s military planners have prepared never again to have to deal with a successful American anti-war movement.



If I were to return to Russia I would again, as a former diplomat and as a Canadian, call for US-Russian collaboration to deal with the world’s pressing problems. But for a week I have been wondering whether I have not perhaps been blinding myself to the realities of America’s intransigent strive towards dominance.[2] Here in London I have just met with an old friend from my diplomatic days, a senior UK diplomat and Russian expert. I was hoping that he would dissuade me from my negative assessment of US and NATO intentions, but if anything he increased them.



So I am now publishing my talk with this preface for a North American audience – to see who if anyone shares my concerns, and to learn what steps if any are being taken to remedy them. I believe that the most urgent task today to preserve the peace of the world is to curb America’s drive towards dominationism, and to re-energize the UN”s prohibition of unilateral and preemptive wars, for the sake of coexistence in a peaceful and multilateral world.



Notes



[1] Rumsfeld initially wanted to respond to 9/11 with an attack against Iraq rather than Afghanistan, on the grounds that there were “no good targets in Afghanistan.”

[2] Two nights ago I had a vivid and unnerving dream, in which at the end I saw the opening of a conference where I would again speak as I did in Moscow. Immediately after my talk the conference agenda called for a discussion of the possibility that “Peter Dale Scott” was a fiction serving some nefarious covert end, and that no real “Peter Dale Scott” in fact existed.











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





Presentation to Anti-NATO Conference, Moscow, May 15, 2012



I wish to thank the organizers of this conference for the chance to speak about the acute problem of the Afghan drug traffic, a current threat to both Russia and U.S.-Russian relations. I will discuss today the deep political perspective of my book Drugs, Oil, and War, which looks at factors underlying the international drug traffic and also U.S. interventions harmful to the interests of both the Russian and American people. I will also talk about the role of NATO in facilitating strategies for U.S. hegemony in Asia. But first I want to look at the drug traffic in the light of an important factor that is prominent in my book: the role of oil in U.S. policies for Asia, and also the role of the major international U.S.-aligned oil companies, including BP.







Oil has been a deep driving force behind all recent U.S. and NATO offensive actions: one has only to think about Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011.[1]







My book studies the role of oil companies and their representatives in Washington (including lobbies) in all of the major U.S. interventions since Vietnam in the 1960s.[2] The power of U.S. oil companies may need a little explanation to an audience in Russia, where oil companies are controlled by the state. In America the relationship is almost reversed: oil companies tend to dominate both U.S. foreign policy and also the U.S. Congress.[3]This explains why presidents from Kennedy to Reagan to Obama have been powerless to limit the oil industry’s special tax break called the oil depletion allowance, even now when most Americans are sinking deeper into poverty.[4]







The underlying cause of U.S. activity in Central Asia, in traditional areas of Russian influence like Kazakhstan, lies in the heightened interest of western oil companies and their representatives in Washington, for three decades or longer, in developing and above all controlling the underdeveloped oil and gas resources of the Caspian basin.[5] To this end Washington has developed policies that have produced forward bases in Kyrgyzstan and for four years in Uzbekistan (2001-05).[6] The overt purpose of these bases was to support U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. But the U.S. presence also encourages the governments in nearby Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, both areas of U.S. oil and gas investment, to act more independently of Russian approval.







Washington serves the interest of western oil companies, not just because of their corrupt influence over the administration, but because the survival of the current U.S. petro-economy depends on western domination of the global oil trade. A passage in Drugs, Oil, and War describes this policy, and how it has contributed to recent American interventions, and also the impoverishment of the Third World since 1980. In essence, the U.S. handled the quadrupling of oil prices in the 1970s by arranging, by means of secret agreements with the Saudis, for the recycling of petrodollars back into the U.S. economy. The first of these deals assured a special and on-going Saudi stake in the health of the U.S. dollar; the second secured continuing Saudi support for the pricing of all OPEC oil in dollars.[7] These two deals assured that the U.S. economy would not be impoverished by OPEC oil price hikes. The heaviest burdens would be borne instead by the economies of less developed countries.[8]







The U.S. dollar, weakening as it is, still depends largely on the OPEC policy of demanding U.S. dollars for payment of OPEC oil. Just how strongly America will enforce this OPEC policy can be seen by the fate of those countries that have chosen to challenge it. “Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar."[9] Three years later, in March 2003, America invaded Iraq. Two months after that, on May 22, 2003, Bush by executive order decreed that Iraqi oil sales would be returned from euros to dollars.[10]







Shortly before the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, Qaddafi, according to a Russian article, initiated a movement, like Saddam Hussein’s, to refuse the dollar for oil payments.[11] Meanwhile Iran, in February 2009, announced that it had “completely stopped conducting oil transactions in U.S. dollars.”[12] The full consequences of Iran’s daring move have yet to be seen.[13]







I repeat: every recent U.S. and NATO intervention has served to prop up the waning dominance of western oil companies over the global oil and petrodollar system. But I believe that oil companies themselves are capable of initiating or at least contributing to political interventions. As I say in my book (p.8):







There are recurring allegations that US oil companies, either directly or through cutouts, engage in covert operations; in Colombia (as we shall see) a US security firm working for Occidental Petroleum took part in a Colombian army military operation "that mistakenly killed 18 civilians.”







More relevant to Russia was a 2002 covert operation in Azerbaijan, a classic exercise in deep politics. There former CIA operatives, employed by a dubious oil firm (MEGA Oil), “engaged in military training, passed ‘brown bags filled with cash’ to members of the government, and set up an airline…which soon was picking up hundreds of mujahideen mercenaries in Afghanistan.”[14] These mercenaries, eventually said to number 2000, were initially used to combat Russian-backed Armenian forces in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh; but they also backed Muslim fighters in Chechnya and Dagestan. They also contributed to the establishment of Baku as a transshipment point for Afghan heroin to both the Russian urban market and also the Chechen mafia.[15]







In 1993 they also contributed to the ouster of Azerbaijan’s elected first president, Abulfaz Elchibey, and his replacement by Heidar Aliyev, who then agreed to a major oil contract with BP, including what eventually became the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to Turkey. Note that the U.S. background of the MEGA Oil operatives is unmistakable. However who financed MEGA is unclear; and may have been the oil majors, many of which have or have had their own covert services.[16] There are allegations that major oil corporations, including Exxon and Mobil as well as BP, were “behind the coup d’état” replacing Elchibey with Aliyev.[17]







It is clear that Washington and the oil majors have a common perception that their survival depends on maintaining their present dominance of international oil markets. In the 1990s, when it was widely believed that the world’s largest unproven reserves of hydrocarbons lay in the Caspian basin of Central Asia, this region became the central focus for both corporate U.S. petroinvestment and also for U.S. security expansion.[18]







Clinton’s close friend Strobe Talbott, speaking as Deputy Secretary of State, attempted to put forward a reasonable strategy for this expansion. In an important speech of July 21, 1997,







Talbott outlined four dimensions of U.S. support to the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia: 1) The promotion of democracy; 2) The creation of free market economies; 3) The sponsorship of peace and cooperation within and among the countries of the region: and, 4) integration into the larger international community.… Inveighing against what he considers an outdated conception of competition in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Mr. Talbott admonished any who would consider the "Great Game" as a model on which to base current views of the region. He proposed, instead, an arrangement where everyone cooperates and everyone wins.[19]







But this multipolar approach was immediately attacked by members of both parties. Only three days later, the right-wing Heritage Foundation, think-tank for the Republican Party, charged that, "The Clinton Administration -- intent on placating Moscow -- has hesitated to take advantage of the strategic opportunity to secure U.S. interests in the Caucasus."[20] In October this critique was echoed in a new book, The Grand Chessboard, by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, perhaps Russia’s most important opponent in the Democratic Party. Conceding that the “ultimate objective of American policy should be… to shape a truly cooperative global community,” Brzezinski nonetheless defended for now the “great game” that Talbott had rejected. “It is imperative,” he wrote, “that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of … challenging America.”[21]







Meanwhile, behind this verbal debate, the CIA and Pentagon, through NATO, were developing a “forward strategy” in the area that was antithetical to Talbott’s. Under the umbrella of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PFP) Program, the Pentagon in 1997 began military training exercises with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, as “the embryo of a NATO-led military force in the region.”[22] These CENTRAZBAT exercises had in mind the possible future deployment of U.S. combat forces; and a deputy assistant secretary of defense, Catherine Kelleher, cited “the presence of enormous energy resources” as a justification for American military involvement.[23]Uzbekistan, which Brzezinski singled out for its geopolitical importance, became the linchpin of U.S. training exercises, despite having one of the worst human rights records locally.[24]







The American sponsored “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (March 2005) was another conspicuous product of the CIA-Pentagon forward strategy doctrine. It came at a time when George W. Bush repeatedly spoke of a “forward strategy of freedom,” and Bush later, when visiting Georgia, endorsed the changeover (more like a bloody coup d’etat than a “revolution”) as an example of “spreading democracy and freedom.”[25] But the new Bakiyev regime, in the words of Columbia University Professor Alexander Cooley, "ran the country like a criminal syndicate.” In particular many observers accused Bakiyev of taking over and running the local drug traffic as a family enterprise.[26]







To some extent the Obama regime has retreated from the hegemonic Pentagon rhetoric of (in its words) “full spectrum dominance.”[27] But it is not surprising that under Obama pressures to reduce Russian influence (e.g. in Syria) have continued. For a half century Washington has been divided between a minority (principally in the State Department, like Talbott) who have envisaged a future of cooperation with the Soviet Union, and those hegemonic hawks (principally in the CIA and Pentagon, like William Casey, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) who have pushed for a U.S. strategy of unipolar global domination.[28] The latter have not hesitated to use drug-trafficking assets in pursuit of this unattainable goal, notably in Indochina, Colombia, and now Afghanistan.[29]







Significantly, the hawks have used the drug eradication strategies of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) as well.[30] As I wrote in Drugs, Oil, and War (p. 89),







The true purpose of most of these campaigns … has not been the hopeless ideal of eradication. It has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under the control of those traffickers who are allies of the Colombian state security apparatus and/or the CIA.[31]







This has been conspicuously true in Afghanistan, where the U.S. recruited former drug traffickers to join in its 2001 invasion.[32] Later the U.S. announced a drug reduction strategy that was explicitly limited to attacking those drug traffickers supporting the insurgents.[33]







Thus those concerned (as I am) with reducing Afghan drug flows are faced with a dilemma. Effective strategies against international drug trafficking must be multilateral, and in Central Asia they will require increased U.S.-Russian cooperation. On the other hand the energies of the principal pro-U.S. forces currently on the ground there – notably the CIA, U.S. armed forces, NATO, and the DEA – have in the past been intent primarily not on cooperation but on U.S. hegemony.







The answer I believe will lie in team efforts using the expertise and resources of both countries, housed in bilateral or multilateral agencies not dominated by either. A successful drug strategy will also have to be multi-faceted, like the successful campaign in northern Thailand, and will probably require both countries to consider people-friendly strategies not yet adopted by either.[34]







Russia and America share many features and concerns. They are both still superstates, even if now losing preeminence in the face of a rising China. As superpowers both were tempted into Afghan adventures that many wiser heads regret. Meanwhile Afghanistan, now a ravaged country, presents urgent problems for all three superstates: the menace of drugs, and the related menace of terrorism.







The whole planet has a stake in seeing Russia and America deal with these menaces constructively and not exploitatively. And any progress made in reducing these shared threats will hopefully be another step in the difficult process of learning to consolidate peace.







The last century saw a Cold War between the US and the USSR, two superstates which both armed heavily in the name of defending their people. The USSR lost, leaving an unstable Pax Americana much like the Pax Britannica of the 19th century: that is, a dangerous mix of globalizing commerce, increasing disparity of wealth and income, and wildly excessive and expansive militarism, leading to increasing conflict (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya), and increasing danger of a possible new world war (Iran).







To preserve its perilous dominance the US today is arming against its own people, not just in defense of them.[35] All the peoples of the world, including the American, have a stake in seeing that expansive dominance reduced, towards a less militarist and more multipolar world.







Notes







[1] Less obviously, but unmistakably, oil (or in this case an oil pipeline) was a factor also in the 1998 NATO intervention in Kosovo. See Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 29; Peter Dale Scott, “Bosnia, Kosovo, and Now Libya: The Human Costs of Washington’s On-Going Collusion with Terrorists, July 29, 2011, http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3578.



[2] Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 8-9,11.



[3] Exxon for example is said to have paid no U.S. federal income tax in 2009, at a time of near-record profits (Washington Post, May 11, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-oil-companies-really-pay-in-taxes/2011/05/11/AF7UNutG_story.html). Cf. Steve Coll, Private Empire: ExxinMobil and American Power (New York: Penguin Press, 2012), 19-20: “In some of the faraway countries where it did business,… Exxon’s sway over local politics and security was greater than that of the United States embassy.”



[4] Charles J. Lewis, “Obama again urges end to oil industry tax breaks,” Houston Chronicle, April 27, 2011, http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Obama-again-urges-end-to-oil-industry-tax-breaks-1683058.php; “Politics News: Obama Urges Congress to End Oil Subsidies,” Newsy.com, March 2, 2012, http://www.newsy.com/videos/obama-urges-congress-to-end-oil-subsidies.



[5] Cf. an article in 2001 from the Foreign Military Studies Office of Fort Leavenworth:



The Caspian Sea appears to be sitting on yet another sea—a sea of hydrocarbons. …The presence of these oil reserves and the possibility of their export raises [sic] new strategic concerns for the United States and other Western industrial powers. As oil companies build oil pipelines from the Caucasus and Central Asia to supply Japan and the West, these strategic concerns gain military implications. (Lester W. Grau, “Hydrocarbons and a New Strategic Region: The Caspian Sea and Central Asia. (Military Review [May–June 2001]. 96; quoted in Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 31)



[6] See discussion in Peter Dale Scott, "Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, March 15, 2012, http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723. There have also been diplomatic discussions of a possible U.S. base in Tajikistan: see Joshua Kucera, “U.S.: Tajikistan Wants to Host an American Air Base,” Eurasia.net, December 14, 2010,http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62570).



[7] David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999), x: "In 1974 [Treasury Secretary William] Simon negotiated a secret deal so the Saudi central bank could buy U.S. Treasury securities outside of the normal auction. A few years later, Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal cut a secret deal with the Saudis so that OPEC would continue to price oil in dollars. These deals were secret because the United States had promised other industrialized democracies that it would not pursue such unilateral policies." Cf. 103-12.



[8] "So long as OPEC oil was priced in U.S. dollars, and so long as OPEC invested the dollars in U.S. government instruments, the U.S. government enjoyed a double loan. The first part of the loan was for oil. The government could print dollars to pay for oil, and the American economy did not have to produce goods and services in exchange for the oil until OPEC used the dollars for goods and services. Obviously, the strategy could not work if dollars were not a means of exchange for oil. The second part of the loan was from all other economies that had to pay dollars for oil but could not print currency. Those economies had to trade their goods and services for dollars in order to pay OPEC" (Spiro, Hidden Hand, 121).



[9] Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003. Cf. Coll, Private Empire, 232: “A desperate Saddam Hussein, toward the end of his time in power, had signed production-sharing contracts with Russian and Chinese companies, but these agreements had never been implemented.”



[10] Scott, Road to 9/11, 190-91. Cf. also William Clark, “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Marker,” Global Research, 27 October 2004,http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html.



[11] “Бомбежки Ливии – наказание Каддафи за попытку введения золотого динара,” Live Journal, March 21, 2011, http://sterligov.livejournal.com/4389.html; discussion in Peter Dale Scott, “The Libyan War, American Power and the Decline of the Petrodollar System,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus,” , April 27, 2011, http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3522.



[12] “Iran Ends Oil Transactions In U.S. Dollars,” CBS News, February 11, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-4057490.html.



[13] In March 2012 Swift, the body that handles global banking transactions, moved to cut Iran's banks out of the system, in response to American and UN sanctions (BBC News, March 15, 2012). Business Week (February 28, 2012) commented that the action “might roil oil markets on concern that buyers will be unable to pay the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for its 2.2 million barrels a day of oil exports.”



[14] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, 163-64; cf. Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 7.



[15] Scott, The Road to 9/11, 164



[16] The World War II covert operations agency OSS was thrown together in part by recruiting Asia hands from oil companies like Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso). See Smith, OSS, 15, 211.



[17] “BP oiled coup with cash, Turks claim”, Sunday Times (London), March 26, 2000; quoted in Scott, The Road to 9/11, 165.



[18] In 1998, Dick Cheney, when chief executive of the oil services company Hallibuton, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian" (Guardian [London], October 23, 2001, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11).



[19] R. Craig Nation, “Russia, the United States, and the Caucasus,” Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil. Talbott’s words are worth quoting at length: “"For the last several years, it has been fashionable to proclaim or at least to predict, a replay of the 'Great Game' in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The implication of course is that the driving dynamic of the region, fueled and lubricated by oil, will be the competition of great powers to the disadvantage of the people who live there. Our goal is to avoid and to actively discourage that atavistic outcome. ….. The Great Game, which starred Kipling's Kim and Fraser's Flashman, was very much of the zero-sum variety. What we want to help bring about is just the opposite, we want to see all responsible players in the Caucasus and Central Asia be winners." (M.K. Bhadrakumar, “Foul Play in the Great Game,” Asia Times, July 13, 2005, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GG13Ag01.html).



[20] James MacDougall, “A New Stage in U.S.-Caspian Sea Basin Relations,” Central Asia, 5 (11), 1997, http://www.ca-c.org/dataeng/st_04_dougall.shtml; quoting from Ariel Cohen, “U.S. Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia: Building A New"Silk Road" to Economic Prosperity,” Heritage Foundation, July 24, 1997, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1997/07/bg1132. In October 1997 Sen. Sam Brownback introduced a bill, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997 (S. 1344), providing incentives for the new Central Asian states to cooperate with the United States, rather than with Russia or Iran.



[21] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books, 1997), xiv.



[22] Ariel Cohen, Eurasia In Balance: The US And The Regional Power Shift, 107.



[23] Michael Klare, Blood and Oil (New York: Metropolitan Books/ Henry Holt, 2004), 135-36; citing R. Jeffrey Smith, “U.S. Leads Peacekeeping Drill in Kazakhstan,” Washington Post, September 15, 1997. CF. Kenley Butler, “U.S. Military Cooperation with the Central Asian States,” September 17, 2001, http://cns.miis.edu/archive/wtc01/uscamil.htm.



[24] Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard, 121.



[25] Peter Dale Scott, “Kyrgyzstan, the U.S. and the Global Drug Problem: Deep Forcesand the Syndrome of Coups, Drugs, and Terror,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3384; quoting President Bush, State of the Union address, January 20, 2004; “Bush: Georgia’s Example a Huge Contribution to Democracy,” Civil Georgia, May 10, 2005,http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=9838. Likewise Zbigniew Brzezinski was quoted by a Kyrgyz news source as saying “I believe revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were a sincere and snap expression of the political will” (http://eng.24kg.org/politic/2008/03/27/4973.html, March 27, 2008).



[26] Scott, “Kyrgyzstan, the U.S. and the Global Drug Problem;” citing 19 Owen Matthews, “Despotism Doesn’t Equal Stability,” Newsweek, April 7, 2010 (Cooley); Peter Leonard, “Heroin trade a backdrop to Kyrgyz violence,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 24, 2010; “Kyrgyzstan Relaxes Control Over Drug Trafficking,” Jamestown Foundation, Eurasia Daily Monitor, 7:24, February 4, 2010, etc.



[27] U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Vision 2020, May 30, 2000; discussion in Scott, Road to 9/11, 20.



[28] U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark has reported that back in 1991 one of the neocons in the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, told him that “we’ve about five or ten years to clean up those old soviet client regimes - Syria, Iran, Iraq -- before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us” (Wesley Clark, Talk to Commonwealth Club, October 3, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU). Ten years later, in November 2001, he heard in the Pentagon that plans to attack Iraq were “being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, …beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” [Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars (New York: PublicAffairs, 2003], 130).



[29] See Scott, American War Machine.



[30] For the hegemonic perversion of the DEA’s “war on drugs” in Asia, see Scott, American War Machine, 121-40.



[31] Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 89.



[32] An example was Haji Zaman Ghamsharik who had retired to Dijon in France, where British and American official met with him and persuaded him to return to Afghanistan (Peter Dale Scott, “America’s Afghanistan: The National Security and a Heroin-Ravaged State,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, http://www.japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3145; citing Philip Smucker, Al Qaeda’s Great Escape: The Military and the Media on Terror’s Trail [Washington: Brassey’s, 2004], 9. For other drug traffickers, see Scott, Road to 9/11, 125.



[33] Scott. American War Machine, 235 (insurgents); James Risen, “U.S. to Hunt Down Afghan Lords Tied to Taliban,” New York Times, August 10, 2009: ”United States military commanders have told Congress that... only those [drug traffickers] providing support to the insurgency would be made targets.”



[34] Russia has understandably been aggrieved by America’s and NATO’s failure over a decade to deal seriously with the huge Afghan drug crop (e.g. “Russia lashes out at NATO for not fighting Afghan drug production,” RT, February 28, 2010, http://rt.com/usa/news/afghanistan-drug-heroin-nato/). But the simple remedy Russia has proposed, destruction of crops in the field, would by itself probably drive peasants further into the arms of Afghanistan’s militant Islamic fundamentalists, another threat to Russia and America alike. Many observers have noted that poppy field eradication leaves the small farmers in debt to the landowners and traffickers, often having to repay “in cash, land, livestock, or – not infrequently – a daughter…. Poppy eradication just pushed them deeper into the poverty that led to their growing opium in the first place” (Joel Hafvenstein, Opium Season: A Year on the Afghan Frontier, 214); cf. “Opium Brides,” PBS Frontline, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanistan-pakistan/opium-brides/transcript-15/). Opium eradication in Thailand, often cited as the most successful program anywhere since China’s in the 1950s, was achieved by combining military enforcement with comprehensive alternative development programs. See William Byrd and Christopher Ward, "Drugs and Development in Afghanistan," World Bank: Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Unit, Working paper series, Vol. 18 (December 2004); also “Secret of Thai success in opium war,” BBC News, February 19, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7899748.stm.



[35] See e.g. Peter Dale Scott, "Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society," Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, November 28, 2010, http:/1/japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3448.





Syria : The Road to War Continues





By Devon DB



Global Research, May 24, 2012





It has been revealed in recent days that the US and Turkey are in fact aiding the Syrian rebels and that the push for intervention is growing. It is important to realize the affects of this not only in Syria, but also for that of Iran and Russia, two of the most prominent and vocal backers of the Assad regime.



The Washington Post stated recently that the Syrian rebels “have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.” [1] (emphasis added) It was also recently noted by The Telegraph that Turkey is arming the Syrian rebels. Michael Weiss wrote





Rebel sources in Hatay told me last night that not only is Turkey supplying light arms to select battalion commanders, it is also training Syrians in Istanbul. Men from the unit I was embedded with were vetted and called up by Turkish intelligence in the last few days and large consignments of AK-47s are being delivered by the Turkish military to the Syrian-Turkish border. No one knows where the guns came from originally, but no one much cares. [2] (emphasis added)



There is also help from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which has “opened its own supply channel to the rebels, using resources from wealthy private individuals and money from gulf states.”



This influx of weapons is having a positive effect on the fighting as the Post noted that a clash that occurred in May 14th near the city of Rastan, the rebels overran a Syrian army outpost, killing a total of 23 Syrian troops according to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights. Yet, it could potentially boost the Assad regime as now the Syrian government's claims [3] that the violence is being caused by outside interference are verifiable.



It is quite important to factor in the role of the Russian government, one of the staunchest supporters of the Assad regime. Russia has been one of the few countries involved in Syria that seems to be legitimately interested in peace.



The New York Times reported in February that two senior Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Mikhail Fradkov, the director of Foreign Intelligence, had gone to Damascus to discuss “dialogue with the opposition, offering a referendum on a new constitution, and the Arab League resuming its ‘stabilizing’ mission.” [4] But they too, have their own interests namely military and commercial. Militarily, the Kremlin are concerned with ensuring that they are able to maintain their naval facilities at the port of Tartus, the only naval access Russia has into the Mediterranean, whereas commercially, Russia has made a considerable amount of money by selling arms to the Assad regime such as $500 million in weapons contracts. [5] Thus, if the Assad regime falls, the Russians will have to deal with a serious economic loss and have to confront the fact that they may be ejected from the Mediterranean, leaving them not only with a loss of power projection, but also being left out of the massive amount of oil and gas found there [6] and the economic and geopolitical power that comes with controlling such natural resources.



Iran, another major backer of the Assad regime, must also be kept in mind. It has been noted that Iran is aiding Assad financially by sending them money which is “funneled in through banks in Lebanon” and is assisting in other ways “includ[ing] small arms and assistance in helping the Syrian government use computer monitoring to root out opposition using social media and other Internet tools.” [7] Iran is aiding Syria due to the fact that Syria is Iran’s only ally in the greater Middle East region. If Syria falls, Iran will be completely isolated and that, when coupled with the push to go to war in both the US and Israel, may very well result in an attack or invasion of Iran.



The increase in violence plays into the hands of the West, especially the United States. Weiss wrote that “Turkey wouldn't take such a course of action without express American consent or encouragement” and that Senator Joseph Lieberman wouldn’t “indicate that the administration was inching toward a military response to the humanitarian crisis […] unless he was fairly sure it was indeed doing so.” Thus, the violence is being fomented by the US and its allies in an order to make way for ‘humanitarian’ intervention which will only result in regime change. This may be coming closer than we think as CNN reported that







While troops from 19 countries, including the United States, have converged in Jordan for the Eager Lion military exercise, U.S. and Jordanian elite forces are doing additional training to prepare for potential fallout should Syria's government collapse.







U.S. Army Green Berets are training Jordanian special forces in a number of so called "worst-case scenarios" including Syria's chemical and biological weapons falling out of the control of government forces, U.S. sources tell CNN. (emphasis added) [8]



One must question as to why the US and Jordanian military would be preparing to go into Syria if it doesn’t seem as if the current regime is going to go under anytime soon. It may be because the US and its allies are currently in the process of creating a situation as to where they will be able to send boots on the ground to secure Syria’s chemical and biological weapons as well as have soldiers there to train and aid the Syrian rebels.



The road to war continues.



Notes



1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html?wprss=rss_world

2: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100159613/syrian-rebels-say-turkey-is-arming-and-training-them/

3: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/17/syrian-leader-says-terrorists-are-behind-unrest/



4: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/why-russia-supports-assad.html?_r=1



5: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0123/Russia-closes-deal-on-550-million-worth-of-warplanes-for-Syria



6: http://www.rt.com/news/reserves-offshore-middle-east-engdahl-855/



7: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/iran-propping-up-syrias-dwindling-cash-reserves/



8: Ibid







Devon DB is a 20 year old independent writer and researcher. He is currently majoring in political science at Fairleigh Dickinson University.





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

















22 - RISE OF GOLDEN DAWN TERRIFIES GLOBALISTS

MAY 04, 2012 AFP

It seems certain at this point that Golden Dawn will enter Parliament



By Pete Papaherakles



Golden Dawn, Greece’s most-recognized populist political party has the establishment shaking in their pants in fear of a huge victory in the upcoming May 6 elections. Their fast-rising popularity due to a strong patriotic message along with crippling economic woes and massive illegal immigration, has seen the party that was only a grass roots nationalist movement with only a 0.29% showing in the 2009 election explode to 5.5% in official polls; just four months ago they were only at 1.5%. Many feel that their real numbers are much higher.



Although the preferred strategy by the media had been to completely ignore them, their popularity is growing so rapidly that the current plan is to constantly defame and slander them in order to scare the masses from joining their ranks. As is done throughout Europe and the West in general, nationalist groups are routinely portrayed as fascists, Nazis and hooligans. The ultimate big gun of defamation is to compare the party leader to Adolph Hitler. Browbeaten since WW II with horror stories of a monstrous Hitler and his alleged “holocaust” of the Jews, the people are conditioned into a Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction of repulsion to anyone portrayed as a Nazi.



The roughly two million illegal aliens that entered Greece over the past two decades, mostly in the last five years, are portrayed by the media as innocent refugees, although Greece’s crime rate, once one of the lowest in the world, has skyrocketed in recent years exclusively due to illegal immigration. Golden Dawn’s support of the victimized Greeks and their insistence that the borders be closed and illegals deported has been portrayed as fascist and cruel by the mainstream media even as Greece’s 22% unemployment rate is twice the Eurozone average and bare survival is becoming impossible for Greeks. In fact, Golden Dawn alone has provided food and assistance to the neediest Greeks, completely at their own expense.



Even though Golden Dawn’s policies strictly prohibit violence and seek only political solutions to these problems, they are consistently portrayed as violent thugs and are routinely provoked into situations of self-defense by agents provocateurs in order to incriminate them as Nazi thugs in the mainstream media.



Not only are the Greek media and rival political parties pursuing this mudslinging, but as Golden Dawn’s popularity is surging, the international media is joining in this smear. Recently, both The New York Times and Bloomberg News have written derogatory articles about them with constant references to Hitler and “goose-stepping Nazis.” Their ancient Greek symbol of the meander design has been called a “disentangled swastika” by Bloomberg. The leader of Golden Dawn, Nikos Michaloliakos has been accused of being a Nazi for giving a raised arm salute in the Athenian Council in protest to being called a fascist by an adversary. That image has been played over and over again in the mainstream media.



On May 1st, in an exclusive AMERICAN FREE PRESS interview with Michaloliakos, this writer asked him about the allegations of Nazi salutes and swastika flags.



“First of all we don’t have any official salute of any sort. The so-called Heil Hitler! salute did not originate with the Nazis anyway. The Romans used it and the ancient Greeks used it before them. The same applies to our flag. Those that see a swastika on our flags need to have their eyes checked because what we have is the traditional Greek key design which everyone recognizes as Greek and is on so many ancient Greek artifacts. The swastika, by the way, also did not originate with the Nazis and is again found on many ancient Greek designs as well as Egyptian, Hindu and even Chinese. It was a symbol of the life force that emanated from the Sun. All this is an attempt to scare people with Nazi ghosts.”



Michaloliakos is optimistic about the upcoming elections. Asked to predict what type of a vote share Golden Dawn will get, he replied, ” I feel pretty confident that although the polls give us 5 ½%, we will get at least 8%.”



In Greece’s Parliamentary system it is not winner takes all as it is in the U.S. two-party system. Once a candidate reaches 3% of the vote, the minimum needed to enter Parliament, they are awarded their percentage share of the 300 Parliament seats.



“If we get 8% of the vote, we will have about twenty Golden Dawn members in Parliament,” said Michaloliakos.



That is a huge victory considering that they have never had a single representative there before. Also, unlike the U.S. two-party system, there are currently 16 parties competing in the Greek election. Half will probably enter Parliament with the top ones forming a ruling coalition but all of them having some influence.



What issues will Golden Dawn promote?



“Our main priorities are to expel all illegal immigrants, to repudiate the illegal debt and to massively increase productivity in order to get the Greek economy moving again. Also, we need to restore our national values and bring back justice. Criminals have to be punished.”



Interestingly, Michaloliakos did not feel that exiting the Eurozone and returning to the drachma was the right move at this time.



“First we need to increase productivity and then we can talk about returning to the drachma” he said. “Without a productive economy it would be a mistake to return to the drachma.”



One thing is certain. Golden Dawn will be in the Parliament and it will be a strong force for nationalist Greek interests as opposed to internationalist banking interests.



——

Peter Papaherakles, a U.S. citizen since 1986, was born in Greece. He is AFP’s outreach director. If you would like to see AFP speakers at your rally, contact Pete at 202-544-5977.



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





23 - Breaking the Taboo on Jewish Ritual Murder





Feb 21, 2007




Left — pictured is typical of the numerous art works depicting the charge of Jewish ritual murder, a charge that has been made in specific cases against Jews in many countries and in many eras.



The Bloody Passovers of Dr. Toaff

By Israel Shamir



Preface Commentary – By David Duke



In my book, Jewish Supremacism, I wrote nothing about the accusation Jewish leaders call, “Blood Libel.” From ancient times all the way into the 20th Century there have been repeated accusations by Christian authorities that some extremist Jews have acted their out their deep hatred of Gentiles by kidnapping and then ritually sacrificing Christian children. From the Jewish Talmud and from the writings of prominent Jewish leaders I document many, almost insanely hateful pronouncements against Christians in my book, but I thought discussion of Jewish ritual murder of Christians would be beyond the pale for many of my readers and might throw doubt upon the larger body of my well-documented research. Now the taboo on discussion of Jewish ritual murder has been broken, and by none other than a very prominent Jewish, Israeli scholar, Dr. Ariel Toaff, who is considered the perhaps the most knowledgeable Jewish professor in the world on Jewish life in the Middle Ages. As Israel Shamir writes, “His three-volumed Love, Work, and Death (subtitled Jewish Life in Medieval Umbria) is an encyclopaedia of this admittedly narrow area.” Dr. Toaff teaches at the respected Jewish University at Bar Ilan, close to Tel Aviv and his father was no less than the lead Jewish Rabbi of Rome.



Dr. Toaff’s book, Bloody Passover, chronicles the finding in the year of 1247 the murdered-and-bled body of a two year old Christian boy named Simon in the basement of a Jewish family in Trent, Italy, and the book reports on the subsequent trial of the Jews allegedly responsible for the murder. In the book, Dr. Toaff presents compelling evidence that the Christian child was murdered in a Jewish extremist blood ritual. He doesn’t say that this ritual is common among Jews, but argues that during the Medieval period some extremist Jews, animated by hatred against Christian persecution, committed these and other heinous crimes against Christian children. As one can imagine, this book by a famous and respected Jewish scholar has caused a deluge of hateful commentary from Jewish extremists such as Abraham Foxman of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith), so much so that after threats and attacks, the professor had the book withdrawn and it will not be available to the general public. However a few review copies are out and the book is extremely well documented and reasoned. Jewish ritual murder has classically been characterized as extremist Jews ritually murdering Christian children and then using their blood in ritual foods. Some Jewish scholars have attacked the book’s thesis by saying the use of blood that way would be completely against Jewish laws, because Jews view any blood as unclean. These rabbis conveniently forgot to mention that some Orthodox rabbis actually suck the blood from the freshly circumcised penises of infants. This sounds very strange, but is true and one Jewish organization even published pictures of the ceremony.



Another interesting corollary is that on Purim, Orthodox Jews have some very strange rituals and dietary habits. Purim is a major Jewish celebration of the murder of Haman, all of his sons and 70,000 Persians that Jews claim plotted a pogrom against them. In Synagogues at Purim, Jewish children beat willow branches which symbolizes the beating of Haman, a fairly hateful ceremony to be sure. Even stranger is the cuisine made up for Jewish Purim feasts. They make and eat with glee Hamantaschen, which are triangle shaped cookies that symbolize Haman’s ears. But, the height of their dietary oddness might be the dish they call Kreplach, which are dough pockets filled with ground beef, the ground beef is meant to represent the beaten flesh of Haman. Some of you who are new to the world of Jewish extremism might not believe me but I document these facts from mainstream Jewish sources in my book Jewish Supremacism.



Israel Shamir is and Israeli Jew who served in the military, and was a distinguished scholar of the Talmud. He gradually realized that hardcore Judaism and the Zionist State are perhaps the most extreme forms of racism and supremacism in the world. He began to champion the obvious victims of this supremacism: the Palestinians, but gradually learned that Zionism and Jewish extremism are powerful in many nations (such as the United States) and had become the biggest dangers to world peace and freedom. You find by this article that Israel Shamir is brilliant writer, and I guarantee that you will be shocked by what this courageous Israeli conveys to us. I met Dr. Shamir at the World Anti-Zionist Conference at my university in Kiev, Ukraine where he gave one of most powerful lectures I have ever heard on the dangers of International Zionism.



The taboo on the ancient charge of Jewish Ritual Murder has been broken, read on about this fascinating subject. — David Duke







The Bloody Passovers of Dr Toaff

By Israel Shamir







Blood, betrayal, torture, and surrender are intervowen in the story of an Italian Jew, Dr Ariel Toaff, as if penned by his compatriot Umberto Eco. Dr Toaff stumbled onto a frightful discovery, was horrified but bravely went on, until he was subjected to the full pressure of his community; he repented, a broken man.



Dr Toaff is the son of the Rabbi of Rome and a professor in the Jewish University of Bar Ilan, not far from Tel Aviv. He made a name for himself by his deep study of medieval Jewry. His three-volumed Love, Work, and Death (subtitled Jewish Life in Medieval Umbria) is an encyclopaedia of this admittedly narrow area. While studying his subject he discovered that the medieval Ashkenazi Jewish communities of North Italy practiced a particularly horrible form of human sacrifice. Their wizards and adepts stole and crucified Christian babies, obtained their blood and used it for magical rituals evoking the Spirit of Vengeance against the hated Goyim.



In particular, he dwelt on the case of St Simon of Trent. This two-year old child from the Italian town of Trent was kidnapped by a few Ashkenazi Jews from his home on the eve of Passover 1475 AD. At night, the kidnappers murdered the child; drew his blood, pierced his flesh with needles, crucified him head down calling “So may all Christians by land and sea perish”, and thus they celebrated their Passover, an archaic ritual of outpouring blood and killed babies, in the most literal form, without usual metaphoric “blood-wine” shift.



The killers were apprehended, confessed and were found guilty by the Bishop of Trent. Immediately, the Jews took their protest to the Pope and he had sent the bishop of Ventimiglia to investigate. He allegedly accepted a hefty bribe from the Jews and concluded that the child was murdered by a Hamas mine in order to besmirch Israel, as there was no Tsahal ordnance found on the beach of Trent. “Simon had been killed by Christians with the intention of ruining the Jews”, said the pre-war Jewish Encyclopedia, in a clear case of premonition: the same argument was used by Jews in 2006 whileexplaining away the mass murder of children in Kafr Qana.



However, in 15th century the Jews were influential, yes, but all-powerful, no. They could not deal with the world like they did in 2002 after their massacre of Jenin by ordering everybody to buzz off. They had no American veto in the Security Council. They could not bomb Rome, and the word “antisemitism” was invented 400 years later. They were given a fair deal which is much worse than preferred treatment: Pope Sixtus IV assembled a commission of six cardinals chaired by the best legal mind of that time, for retrial; and this Supreme Court found the murderers guilty. See more for a Catholic version and a Jewish version of the events. The records of the trial have survived centuries and are still available in Vatican.



In 1965, the Roman Catholic Church entered a perestroika[i]. These were the halcyon days of the Vatican II when the modernizers uprooted the foundations of tradition hoping to update the faith and to fit it into the new Jewish-friendly narrative of modernity; in plain prose, the bishops wanted to be loved by the liberal press.



The ever-watchful Jews used the opportunity and pushed the bishops to decommission St Simon of Trent. They were happy to oblige: already in bizarre ritual, the Church leaders had found the Jews free from guilt for Crucifixion of Christ while admitting the Church’s guilt for persecution of Jews; the crucifixion of an Italian baby was a small matter compared with this reversal. In a hasty decision, the bishops ruled that the confessions of the killers were unacceptable because obtained under torture, and thus the accused were innocent, while the young martyr was anything but. His cult was discontinued and forbidden, and the remains of the martyred child were removed and dumped in a secret place to avoid resumption of pilgrimage.



And now we come back to Dr Ariel Toaff. While going through the papers of the trial, he made a staggering discovery: instead of being dictated by the zealous investigators under torture, the confessions of the killers contained material totally unknown to the Italian churchmen or police. The killers belonged to the small and withdrawn Ashkenazi community, they practiced their own rites, quite different from those used by the native Italian Jews; these rites were faithfully reproduced in their confessions, though they were not known to the Crime Squad of the day. “These liturgical formulas in Hebrew with a strong anti-Christian tone cannot be projections of the judges who could not know these prayers, which didn't even belong to Italian rites but to the Ashkenazi tradition," Toaff wrote. A confession is of value only if it contains some true and verifiable details of the crime the police did not know of. This iron rule of criminal investigation was observed in Trent trials.



This discovery has the potential to shake, shock and reshape the Church. The noble learned rabbi Dr Toaff brought back St Simon, the double victim of 15th century vengeance and of 20th century perestroika. This called for repentance of the Vatican doctors who forgot the murdered child while looking for friendship with important American Jews, but they still do not admit their grave error. Monsignor Iginio Rogger, a church historian who in the 1960s [mis]led the investigation into St Simon's case, said that the confessions were completely unreliable for “the judges used horrible tortures”. This was an antizionist and hence antisemitic remark, for rejection of confessions obtained under torture would let all the Palestinian prisoners out of Jewish jails; this was an anti-American remark, for the US recognizes the value of torture and practices it in Guantanamo and elsewhere. This was a holocaust-denier remark for thus they invalidate the Nürnberg trials. The renown Jewish American lawyer and adept of torture Alan Dershowitz could have argued against Rogger; but somehow he did not.



"I wouldn't want to be in Toaff's shoes, answering for this to historians who have seriously documented this case," said Rogger to USA Today. Toaff’s shoes are vastly preferable to those of Rogger who will have to answer for slighting the saint in Heaven.



Moreover, this Trento crime was not an exception: Toaff discovered many cases of such bloody sacrifices connected with the mutilation of children, outpouring of blood and its baking in Matzo(unleavened bread) spanning five hundred years of European history. Blood, this magic drink, was a popular medicine of the time, and of any time: Herod tried to keep young bathing in blood of babies, alchemists used blood to turn lead into gold. Jewish wizards meddled in magic and used it as much as anybody. There was a thriving market in such delicacies as blood, powder made of blood and bloody matzo. Jewish vendors sold it accompanied with rabbinic letters of authorization; the highest value was blood of a goy katan, a gentile child, much more usual was blood of circumcision. Such blood sacrifices were "instinctive, visceral, virulent actions and reactions, in which innocent and unknowing children became victims of the love of God and of vengeance," Toaff wrote in the book's preface. "Their blood bathed the altars of a God who, it was believed, needed to be guided, sometimes impatiently pushed to protect and to punish."



This somewhat cryptic remark can be understood by reading Israeli professor Israel Yuval’s bookTwo Nations in Thy Womb. Yuval explained that blood libations were necessary (in the eyes of Jewish magicians) to bring forth Divine Vengeance upon the Goyim. He also quotes an irrefutable (i.e. not denied by Jews) instance of blood sacrifice by a Jew. ( Read about it in my article Bloodcurdling Libel.) Toaff improved upon Yuval by stressing the ordinary magic use of blood by Jews in the Middle Ages, and by allowing for the anti-Christian element: crucifixion of victims and the cursing of Christ and Virgin. Here his book is supported by (admittedly, more timid) Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence by Elliott Horowitz. Horowitz tells his reader of strange rituals: flagellation of the Virgin, destruction of crucifixes and the beating up and killing Christians.



Now it is behind us. We can look at the past and say: yes, some Jewish wizards and mystics practiced human sacrifices. They murdered children, mutilated their bodies and used their blood in order to outpour Divine Wrath on their non-Jewish neighbours. They mocked Christian rites by using Christian blood instead of blood of Christ. The Church and the people all over Europe were right. The Europeans (and the Arabs, and the Russians) weren’t crazy bigots, they understood what they saw. They punished the culprits but they left the innocent in peace. We, humans, can look at this dreadful page of history with pride, and shed a tear or two for the poor children destroyed by these wrath-seeking monsters. Jews may be more modest and cease carrying their historical wounds on the sleeve: their forefathers thrived despite these terrible doings by some of their coreligionists, while in the Jewish state, sins of some Palestinians are visited upon all of them. We can also dismiss with shudder the whining of Israel’s friends when they want us not to see the Jenin Massacre or Qana Massacre for – yes, exactly, this is like the “blood libel”, i.e. not a libel at all.



Let us hope that the great daring act of Professor Toaff will become a turning point in the life of the Church. The swing caused by perestroika of Vatican II went too far. Remember that the Russian perestroika ended with the collapse of the whole structure. While anti-papists feared an anti-Christ on the See of St Peter, there is the real danger of a Gorbachev.



In an Italian town of Orvieto on the Adriatic shore, the Jews demanded the removal of an exhibition of great artistic value and the cessation of the procession commemorating the miracle of Trani. There, a millennium ago, a consecrated host was stolen from the church by a Jewess, the thief decided to fry the body of Christ in oil, but miraculously the host turned into flesh and started bleeding profusely so that the holy blood poured all over the house. Indeed such cases of host desecration are well attended all over Europe; they were well described by Yuval, Horowitz and Toaff; they indeed occurred, and only infamous Jewish chutzpah pushed The Roman Association of Friends of Israel into writing a letter to the Pope demanding an end to a one-thousand-year-old observance. And they got it. The Church bent over, the panels were dismantled, the procession cancelled and profound apologies to Jews were issued, to the vast satisfaction of Israeli ambassadors Gideon Meir (to Rome) and Oded Ben Hur (to the Vatican) who dictated the capitulation.



“Strange world indeed ours. – wrote Domenico Savino in the excellent web-magazine Effedieffe. - The offense is brought to the Christian Faith and forgiveness is asked of those who had perpetrated it.” Savino muses whether it was impossible just to politely ignore the demand of Friends of Israel, and he quotes at length the words of Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican representative at this capitulation. Kasper is doing full Monty: he denies that the Church is the True and Only Chosen Israel, asserts the equal position of the Jews as “elder brothers”, denies the necessity of Christ, asks forgiveness of the Jews while promising “a new spring for the Church and the world”.



“Spring for the Church?! - exclaims Savino. - Ah, but we have heard it already! The Pope said after Vatican II “We waited for the spring and the storm has come ». That spring has been enough for us and after this reconciliation in Orvieto I do not want more to hear the word ‘spring’ and see the wide smirk of satisfaction of “elder brothers” Gideon Meir and Oded Ben Hur!”



The perestroika came not only in Italy, and not only within the Catholic Church. In Germany a new sacrilege is being prepared: a “politically correct Bible” with the story of Passion being changed so as not to cause discomfort to Jews. The title is misleading: they may not call their bastard product “new German translation of the Bible free of gender bias and anti-Semitism”, like one can’t call one’s waste water, “wine free of intoxicants”. Changing one letter in the Bible is equivalent to ruining the world, says the Talmud, and adduces an example of a Torah scroll where one word is changed, from “meod” (very) to “mavet” (death). Such a death-celebrating Torah would surely cause our world to perish. “Antisemitism-free” scripture probably will center on Jewish suffering while the Church will play the role of the villain of the piece. It will extol Judas and reject Christ. Likewise, removing “gender bias” will also remove the Annunciation, this great divide between sterile monocausality of the Jews and the Christian meeting of Heaven and Earth. Indeed the Christian model was so much more successful that even Jews adopted it in their Cabbala, and apparently decided to dump the redundant old monocausality to the Germans.



In England, an old liberal weekly, the Observer, changed its feathers and became the neocon nest supporting the war and Bush-Blair alliance. In perfect logical sequitur the paper also renounced Christ and preferred Jews, as in this review of a new English book. Adam Mars-Jones prefers Oscar Schindler to General Adam von Trott who was executed for his part in Generals’ Plot in 1944: “That's what made Schindler's List such a startling film: it followed Jewish ethics by showing the hero's outer journey, for once, rather than an inner one. The guy was tainted - so what? That's his business, as long as he saved Jews. His mitzvahs earned him his place among the Righteous Gentiles, and in the absence of an afterlife (not really a feature of Jewish belief) that's all that can be said. Let's have more of that tone, and less of a cult of martyrdom. Veneration for sacrifice, for purely symbolic victory, can distort the most well-meaning enterprise, and risks insulting the dead, who had no options.”



The Observer reviewer made clear his choice for Judas or Caiaphas (“though tainted, he wanted to save Jews”) and against Jesus Christ who was the Sacrifice. His call for “less of a cult of martyrdom, less veneration for sacrifice, for purely symbolic victory” would make Golgotha the final last word, with no Resurrection in sight. Who needs Christian virtues? Man’s faults and vices are “his business, as long as he saved Jews”, and the best a goy may hope for is a “place among the Righteous Gentiles”. From this point of view, St Simon and other children did not die in vain; they helped the Jews call for God’s Vengeance, and that is the best they could possibly wish. Likewise, British soldiers could not hope for a better fate than to die for Israel on the streets of Basra, or Teheran, or elsewhere.



Thus, in Rome, Berlin or London, the Jews won a round or two in their competition with the Church. By stubbornly hanging on and never regretting, never apologizing, always working against Christianity, they succeeded in replacing in many simple minds the image of the Via Dolorosa, Golgotha and the Resurrection with their gross misrepresentation of human history as of a long line of innocent Jewish suffering, blood libels, holocausts and the Zionist redemption in the Holy Land. Though people reasonably rejected the idea of Jewish guilt in death of Christ, they installed instead an even more absurd idea of Church’s guilt in death of Jews.



The consequences are not purely theological. Britain, Italy and Germany acquiesce in Jewish strangulation of Christian Palestine, in the blockade of Gaza, in the robbery of Church lands in Bethlehemand Jerusalem. They support American Drang Nach Osten. Worse: they lose their connection to God, their empathy to fellow human beings dries up, as if the blind spirit of vengeance conjured up by innocent blood caught up with them.



The publication of Dr Toaff’s book could become a not-a-minute-too-early turning point in the Western history, from apology of Judas to adoration of Christ. Yes, his narrative of murdered children makes just a small crack in the huge edifice of Jewish exceptionalism built in Europeans’ mind. But great edifices can fall in a moment, as we learned on 9/11.



Apparently, the Jews felt it and they attacked Toaff like maddened swarm. A renown Jewish historian, rabbi and a son of a rabbi, wrote about 500-year old events – why should they bestir themselves? In the Middle ages, use of blood, necromancy, black magic were not an exclusively Jewish realm. Witches and wizards of gentile background did it too. So just join the human race, warts and all! But this is too demeaning to the arrogant Chosenites.



“It is incredible that anyone, much less an Israeli historian, would give legitimacy to the baseless blood libel accusation that has been the source of much suffering and attacks against Jews historically," said ADL National Director Abe Foxman. The Anti-Defamation League called the book “baseless and playing into the hands of anti-Semites everywhere.”





Not much of an historian, not much of a rabbi, Foxman has a priori knowledge, based on faith and conviction, that it is “baseless”. But then, he said the same about the Jenin Massacre.



In a press release, Bar-Ilan University “is expressing great anger and extreme displeasure at Toaff, for his lack of sensitivity in publishing his book about blood libels in Italy. His choice of a private publishing firm in Italy, the book's provocative title and the interpretations given by the media to its contents have offended the sensitivities of Jews around the world and harmed the delicate fabric of relations between Jews and Christians. Bar-Ilan University strongly condemns and repudiates what is seemingly implied by Toaff's book and by reports in the media concerning its contents, as if there is a basis for the blood libels that led to the murder of millions of innocent Jews.”



These are firing words. Toaff came under strong community pressure: he was about to find himself at 65, on the street, probably without pension, without old friends and students, ostracized and excommunicated. Probably his life was threatened as well: Jews employ professional secret killers to deal with such nuisances. In the old days, they were called rodef, now they are called kidon, still as efficient as of old, and they were intercepted less often than bloodthirsty maniacs. His reputation would be annihilated: a Sue Blackwell would “consult her Jewish friends” and call him a Nazi, an ADL-sponsoredSearchlight would discover, invade or invent his private life, many small Jews in the Web would denigrate him in their blogs and in their flagship, the Wikipedia. Who would befriend him? Probably not a single Jew, and not many Christians.



In the beginning of the attack, he tried to brave it: “I will not give up my devotion to the truth and academic freedom even if the world crucifies me.” Toaff told Haaretz earlier this week that he stood by the contention of his book, that there is a factual basis for some of the medieval blood accusations against the Jews.



But Toaff was not made of stern stuff. Like Winston Smith, the main character of Orwell’s 1984, hebroke down in a mental cellar of Jewish inquisition. He published a full apology, stopped distribution of his book, promised to submit it to Jewish censorship, and “also promised to donate all the funds forthcoming from the sale of his book to the Anti-Defamation League” of good Abe Foxman.



His last words were as touching as those of Galileo recanting his heresy: "I will never allow any Jew-hater to use me or my research as an instrument for fanning the flames, once again, of the hatred that led to the murder of millions of Jews. I extend my sincerest apologies to all those who were offended by the articles and twisted facts that were attributed to me and to my book."



Thus Ariel Toaff surrendered to the community pressure. Not that it matters what he says now. We do not know what mental tortures were prepared for him in the Jewish Gestapo of ADL, how he was forced to recant. What he gave us is enough. But what has he given us? In a way, his contribution is similar to that of Benny Morris and other Israeli New Historians: they repeated the data we knew from Palestinian sources, from Abu Lughud and Edward Said. But Palestinian sources were not trusted - only Jewish sources are considered trustworthy in our Jewish-centered universe. Thus Morris et al helped millions to free themselves from the enforced Zionist narrative. This would not be necessary if we were able to believe a goy vs. Jew: an Arab about the Expulsion of 1948, an Italian about St Simon, maybe even a German about war deportations. Now Ariel Toaff has freed many captive minds by repeating what we knew from a variety of Italian, English, German, Russian sources. If “blood libel” turned out to be not a libel but a regular criminal case, maybe other Jewish claims will go down, too? Maybe the Russians were not guilty of pogroms? Maybe Ahmadinejad is not a new Hitler bent on destruction? Maybe Muslims are not evil Jew-haters?



Ariel Toaff gave us also a window to view processes inside Jewry, in order to learn how this incredible discipline of Swarm is maintained, how dissidents are punished, how uniformity of mind is achieved. Jewry is indeed exceptional from this point of view: a Christian (or Muslim) scientist who would find a blemish in the long history of the Church will not hide it, he is not likely to be terrorized into obedience; he will not be ostracized if he embraces the most vile view; even if excommunicated, the scientist or the writer will find enough support, as Salman Rushdee, Voltaire and Tolstoy discovered. Nor Church neither Ummah command this sort of blind discipline, and nor Pope neither Imam wields the power of Mr Abe Foxman over his coreligionists. And Foxman does not care for truth, but goes for what is (in his view) good for the Jews. No amount of witnesses, not even a live broadcast of Jewish blood sacrifice would force him to accept unpleasant truth: he will find a reason why. We saw it in the case of Qana bombardment, when Israeli planes destroyed a building and killed some fifty children, surely more than the wizards of Umbria did. Thus do not expect Toaff’s book will convince Jews – nothing can.



Do not envy this unity of Jewish hearts and minds; this unity’s obverse side is that No Jew Is Free. A man is forced to become a Jew by his parents; he has no freedom of mind on any stage; he has to follow the orders. My Jewish reader, if you’ll understand that you are a slave, not in vain you’ve read that far. Until you are able to answer the rhetoric question “Aren’t you a Jew?” with simple “No”, you’ll remain a prisoner on parole, a captive on the string. Sooner or later they will pull the string. Sooner or later you’ll have to lie, to search for weasel words, to deny what you know is right and true. Freedom is at your gate; stretch your arm and take it. Like the Kingdom of Heaven, freedom is yours for asking. Freedom is Christ, for a man chooses Christ with his heart, not with his foreskin. You are free when you accept Christ and are able to reply as the Gospel says (Matth 5:37) “Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes, I am a Christian' and your 'No' mean 'No, I am not a Jew.' Luckily, it is possible. Toaff could have had it; what a pity his courage failed him!



His fate reminds me that of Uriel (almost the same name!) Acosta. A noble forerunner of Spinoza, Acosta (born c. 1585, Oporto, Portugal - died April 1640, Amsterdam) attacked Rabbinic Judaism and was excommunicated. “A sensitive soul, Acosta found it impossible to bear the isolation of excommunication, and he recanted, writes Encyclopedia Britannica. Excommunicated again after he was accused of dissuading Christians from converting to Judaism, he made a public recantation after enduring years of ostracism. This humiliation shattered his self-esteem, and he shot himself.” Acosta’s error was that he went far, but not far enough.











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



[i] Uncannily, this church process practically coincided with the first Perestroika (Debunking of Stalin) initiated by Khrushchev on the XXII Party Congress in 1961, when the Communist Party repented sins and crimes of its great old leaders. One generation, thirty years later the Party collapsed, its membership was decimated by the second Perestroika. Penitence is good for soul, but then, soul is immortal.



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













24 - Joe Walsh and the 9/11 cover-up : Jewish power on display

Kevin MacDonald on May 14, 2012

Congressman Joe Walsh has a sure-fire way to end the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: Palestinians move to Jordan, and those who don’t move reconcile themselves to permanent second-class status. As Robert Wright notes :



Offhand, I don’t recall a member of Congress in my lifetime saying anything so grotesquely at odds with American ideals about ethnic relations and for that matter basic human rights. Will the Anti-Defamation League denounce Walsh? Will the American Jewish Committee? Will AIPAC have anything to say about the congressman whose strongly pro-Israel views its newsletter approvingly highlighted? If not, why not? (“Congressman endorses ethnic cleansing, apartheid for Palestinians“; The Atlantic)



Walsh’s proposal contravenes the entire zeitgeist of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the West. It dovetails nicely with Newt Gingrich’s statement during the Republican primaries that the Palestinians already have a state: Jordan. Except that Gingrich apparently would like the Palestinians to be expelled.



The mere fact that Walsh could propose such a thing is a telling sign of Jewish power. There is no other group in the entire world whose permanent subordination could be advocated by a US politician.



But there will be no outrage by Jewish activist organizations, even though they are a major support for utopian multiculturalism in the US and even though they routinely act as arbiter on statements related to Israel by US politicians. The Jabotinskyists are in charge in Israel, and, given Israeli demographic trends favoring the religious and secular ethnonationalists, there is no going back. The Israel Lobby will support whatever Israel does.



Walsh’s statement is a trial balloon—an attempt to get us used to the idea that such a move would be acceptable to the US political establishment, if not the rest of the world. Ideas like this have a great future. In a way, Walsh is simply being realistic. It’s really hard to see any other outcome that would please Israel and its fifth column in the US. Might as well get used to it.



And when the Palestinian question is solved by expulsion, or by voluntarily leaving for Jordan and becoming permanent second-class citizens in Israel, the organized Jewish community must square the circle by continuing to enforce obeisance by US politicians combined with a silenced media.



But that is definitely doable. Here’s another example from a recent article by Christopher Ketcham who convincingly argues that there was huge pressure to prevent media coverage of the Israeli Mossad agents who were caught high-fiving in the immediate aftermath of 1/11 (“What did Israel know in advance of the 9/11 attacks?“).



Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were “high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials”, a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified ”prominent New York congressmen” were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government. (Dershowitz declined to comment for this article.) And so, at the end of November 2001, for reasons that only noted they had been working in the country illegally as movers, in violation of their visas, the men were flown home to Israel.



What’s incendiary is the idea – supported, though not proven, by several pieces of evidence – that the Israelis did learn something about 9/11 in advance but failed to share all of what they knew with American officials. The questions are disturbing enough to warrant a Congressional investigation. …



Yet none of this information found its way into Congress’s joint committee report on the attacks, and it was not even tangentially referenced in the nearly 600 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s final report. Nor would a single major media outlet track the revelations of The Forward and ABC News to investigate further. “There weren’t even stories saying it was bull***”, says The Forward’s Perelman. “Honestly, I was surprised”. Instead, the story disappeared into the welter of anti-Israel 9/11 conspiracy theories.



So a credible aspect of a very serious attack on the US and an eventual motive for the Iraq war (massively promoted by the Israel Lobby—no wonder the Israelis were happy!) simply disappears from public consciousness, relegated to one of those theories that only crazy anti-Semites believe.



I take it that these two recent examples are quite persuasive that Jews do indeed have quite a bit of power. And, of course, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. But the ADL continues to put out surveys where public attitudes that Jews have too much power (e.g., here, on Europe) are simply labeled as “anti-Semitic”—no attempt deal with the factual basis of such attitudes. Another recent report on anti-Semitism “defines anti-Semitism as social prejudice directed against Jews simply because they are Jews,” but then goes on to note that anti-Semitism includes perceptions that Jews have too much power. Again, there is no assessment of how much power Jews actually have.



A group that can effectively silence any public discussion of credible evidence of Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11—with all the ramifications such a discussion would have for evaluating the war in Iraq and the diplomatic and military support the US gives to Israel—is powerful indeed. The same goes for their ability to be a pillar of utopian multiculturalism in the West while also being able to rally support for an ethnonationalist, expansionist Israel dedicated to apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Anyone who doesn’t realize that is simply not paying attention.



















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

















25 - Douglas Reed : The Controversy of Zion



A Summary







by Knud Eriksen







In the foreword to the 1985-edition of Douglas Reeds book, the author Ivor Benson describes, how the intervening years from 1956, when the book was completed, until 1985, have confirmed Douglas Reeds interpretation of the past 2.000 years of history in every way. He covers the continued role of the Middle East as the tinderbox, that can become the cause of the next world war, and the continued suppression and misrepresentation, in the media, of all news and discussion.



It was only the few who knew the background of talmudic Zionism and Communism, who had a chance to understand such decisive events as the so-called “Six-days-war” and the later massive invasion of Lebanon i 1982. The invasion was supposed to do away with the PLO, it was said, but in reality it was simply a part of the old Great-Israel-plan (Eretz-Israel). Just as is todays invasion of Iraq.



The worlds pro-israeli massmedia picture of Israel as a small, innocent democracy, which was constantly in need of help, became more and more untrustworthy, so not many were surprised, when the English Institute of Strategic Studies could report, that Israel had become the worlds fourth greatest military power after The United States, Soviet and China, but way ahead of nations like England and France. After the fall of the Soviet Union, this country, with a population about the same size as the tiny danish one, may even have risen further on this top-4-list!



The change in the reactions of the Jews themselves at this time - 1982 - was significant: After the massacre of 1.500 men, women and children in two palestinian refugee-camps in Beirut, the Western media timidly withheld comments, while 350.000 inhabitants of Tel Aviv protested against their own government.



Douglas Reed seems to have foreseen this development also, for among the last words in his book – from 1956 – are the following: “I think, that the Jews of the world are beginning to realize the wrong of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, Communism, and that towards the end of this 20th Century they will finally have decided to join in the ranks of mankind.”



The book starts out with a 1789-quotation from the philosopher Edmund Burke who, in Reflections on the Revolution, directed a literary attack on the French Revolution:



“Something has happened which it is hard to speak about and impossible to keep silent about.”







World Revolution, Zionism and World Government



The World Revolution, which in this century (20th) has destroyed human civilization to an unheard of degree - so far - was only one of the two revolutionary movements, which spead like an epidemic pest over the world from the same week in October 1917. Both sprang from talmudic-lead Eastern Jews. The World Revolution has been the climax, so far, of judaic world conquest. The defeat of the Revolution is only apparent. Its destructive effect continues a bit more covertly without Soviet, but still with China as an example of this type of terror-lead slavesociety, and with judaic agents solidly placed on the most important posts in the world. All the “spiritual values” continue, as f.ex. also in the EU.



And its twin, Revolutionary Zionism, grows ever stronger towards the envisioned Eretz-Israel - Great Israel, which is to stretch from the Nile to the Eufrat in the whole “original area”, with all the”Jews” of the world brought together there, and with Jerusalem as the world capital and centre of the “World Peace of the World Government”.



Everything is supported by the Pentateuch of the Old Testament, supplemented by the Talmud, concerning the predestination of the “Chosen People” to exterminate or subjugate all other nations. Among the Zionist leaders this is taken one hundred percent seriously. Like a military operation the two groups work together with incredible synchronisation towards the all-domineering World Government. It will not be long before it becomes a reality. We see it happening every day: UN, NATO, EU, WTO, International Treaties and Conventions, International Courts with transnational jurisdiction and the hundreds- even thousands - of international mergers and take-overs in business.



Also the idea of world government has its background in The Old Testament and the Talmud. It is “The Chosen People”, which arranges matters according to the text, with the rest of the world as slaves. The greatest achievements of both movements took place in the periods of confusion close to the end of-, and right after the two worlds wars, which were started by the leaders of these two movements. Only the Revolution and Zionism came out as winners after the two global wars, with their inconcievable suffering.







Victors in the first global war



After the First World War the Revolution was fixed in Russia with terror and extermination of all “classes” down to - and including - the culac, a farmer with 3 cows. It was an almost exclusively Jewish government, which wielded this terror. It was to last for 70 years, with roughly 20 million murders on its conscience (And Communism worldwide a total of 100 million).



Although western media, especially from 1952 on, carried on about “anti-semitism” in the Soviet, this was never anything but bluff, because these Soviet Jewish leaders simply got cold feet as the reign of terror came to be known as the Empire of Evil. In reality it was only different fractions fighting each other. The most obvious “Jewish” representatives were withdrawn, but the power structure, especially in the secret police, that had the decisive power, remained “Jewish”. “Anti-semitism” was severely punished (right up until the fall of the Soviet Union, and possibly still is) and was therefore quite unthinkable.



Right after the Revolution there was a death penalty for being in possession of “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, which was appearantly one of the “Jews’” plans for world conquest through revolution, and for breaking down Christian countires.



At the same time Zionism, with the Balfour-Declaration of October 1917, had obtained a promise from Great Britain, in return for bringing The United States into the World War, to give to the Jews “a national home” in Palestine.



Slowly the pressure on the politicians of the West was increased, in order to make this a reality. Especially on the American ones, who were surrounded by Jewish “advisers”, and the immigration to the area increased enormously by the miraculous remedy of “Anti-semitism”, combined with the support of jewish tycoons and western pro-Zionist leaders in the inter-war period.



And the League of Nations became the first core of the World Government, also with Zionists on high posts, pulling strings.







And in the next global war..........



In the same way it was only these three movements – Communism, Zionism, and World Government, that profited from the suffering and destruction of the Second World War. The Western Powers helped the World Revolution to entrench itself deep in Europe.



General Eisenhower ordered the Western generals to stop at a line Vienna-Berlin. All of the Eastern European countries, the “liberation” of which had supposedly been what the whole war was all about, were sacrificed to the revolutionary terror at the Yalta-conference.



At first Zionism supported Hitler financially and with a hesitant or even obliging press. Then, in 1933, it declared Holy War on him.



Zionists obtained so much compassion for Jews after the persecution and the much-advertised extermination, that the world powers and the populations of the West accepted a division of Palestine and the “re-settling” of Jews in the area. The arabs were deliberately sacrificed, and this started one of our times’ most dangerous anti-Western hate-waves – strongly maintained ever since.



Reed gives many examples of the “special sufferings” of the Jews during the war being only media-fabricated lies. In ratio to their numbers they didn’t suffer any more or any less than other people, but this was an example of the phenomenon, that everything must focus on Jews. Other peoples have suffered far more, numerically. At the end of the war, and shortly thereafter, Zionists received enormous loads of weapons from the Soviet Union. And several hundred thousands of Jews emigrated from a country, which no-one else could get out of, so that soon they became a well-armed majority, being able to drive the original population away by Old Testament terror. The result was 600.000 miserable refugees.



The United Nations, which was originally planned and organized by Alger Hiss and and the Jew Harry Dexter White, both later exposed as communist spies, was to become a temporary climax of a judaic-dominated World Government. It’s many ramifications all had as their most important purpose to reduce the sovereign nations to municipalities, and to give unlimited power to the organisation itself. Naturally in order to “secure peace”, just like the League of Nations. For many years the organisation was communist-dominated, and its many condemnations of israeli terror were never followed up by action.



The unconditional support from Western leaders for an ever-growing Great-Israel leads towards a World Government with-, or without a Third World War. Israel’s open nationalism and racism gets no serious criticism from a Zionist-dominated “public opinion”. The West is closing down its own states as “antiquated”, and they are more and more under the control of the swelling international organisations, dominated by “Jewish” agents. The pattern of setting Western powers up against each other and letting them bleed to death, is now worked in thoroughly, and has become almost an exact science.



The “Jewish Agents” of the West, who are working for either Zionist or Communist success, are now behaving in an unrestrained, treasonable manner and quite in accordance with “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” for destruction of “Christian Nations”. A Third World War could be the third act, which these forces consider necessary to gain complete control in the ensuing need and confusion.



Sacrificing many of their “own people” has been acceptable, even necessary, before, in order to maintain a government based on fear, and also for populating Israel through manufactured “anti-semitism”.



And then we get the war ... unless enough people, the world over, wake up and pull the war-mongers away from the “handle for the big bang.”







The history of the previous 2.000 years



The author supports his arguments by quoting statements, writings and actions made by “Jews”. The desciption of the development of Zionism, in the last Century, for instance, focuses on Chaim Weizmann, who was a key figure in the political Zionist intrigues, and who became the first president of Israel. A special source is Weizmanns auto-biography from 1949, Trial and Error.



The Jewish background of Communism and World Revolution is a fact, and enormous amounts of money have been spent exactly to try to hide this. Probably no other secret has cost as much to maintain. But Jewish sources exist, that admit it. Both Jewish historians, communist leaders, newspaper articles and reports from the time of The Revolution are used as source material.



As to the longer historical perspective, Reed particularly supports his arguments by reference to the stongly Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein, whose book, History and Destiny of the Jews, appeared in 1933. However, he also uses many other sources, all mentioned in the bibliography in the book. Kasteins book covers the same time-span as “The Controversy”, and much information in Dr. Kasteins book can be taken as direct evidence of Douglas Reeds conclusions.





The Master Race



The misery began in the year 458 b.C., when a small tribe in the old Judea accepted a creed based on race. The tribe had previously been expelled by the Israelites for such racism. This seemingly unimportant event has probably caused more destruction for Mankind than both the existence of explosives and epidemics. The tribe adapted the creed of the Master Race as nothing less than “The Law”.



The Judeans were a small tribe under the Persian king. The creed of Judaism was not the beginning of monotheism, as has been propagated. Monotheism dates all the way back to The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2.600 years b.C. and maybe even further. Judaism, on the contrary, was the exact anti-thesis, namely the worship of a racist tribal god.



“The Law” or “The Pact” was – and is – unique in being based on a statement from a tribal god, to the effect that his “chosen people”: “the Israelites” (in reality, the Judeans) would be set above all other peoples and settled in a “promised land”, if only they would stick to all of his rules and judgements. If Jehova, then, was to be worshipped in a certain place, it followed, that when the worshippers were not actually in that place, they were being “persecuted”, in “captivity” and had to “destroy” the “strangers” that “kept them in captivity”. Only in this way was Jehova to be a god for all other peoples – as the punishing god, who punished his own people first – by a “captivity” among the heathens for their “transgressions against the law” and then, as by an exact script, punished the strangers by a predestined extermination, when “the chosen people” had followed all the rules to the letter.



It was probably not even a pact with the Judaeans, for according to “The Holy Scripture”, the pact was made with the Israelites, who had long since mingled with the rest of Mankind, and who have never known this racist creed as far as we know. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, that the Judeans “probably were a non-Israeli tribe”. The Israelites turned away from the racism of the Judeans. The creed has gone down in history as having been created by the Levites from Judea.



What happened before 458 b.C. is mainly mythology, unlike the later, most important events. The written record predates 458 b.C. by a couple of centuries, when the Israelites rejected the Judeans. The history of Moses was taken by the Israelites from the widespread mythology, which goes all the way back to the history of the Babylonean king, Sargon the Elder, 2.000 years earlier. The ten commandments are much like similar commandments from the Egyptians, the Babyloneans and the Assyrians. These common ideas about one god for all mankind, the Levites, the rulers of Judea, then put in reverse, when they wrote down their laws. They founded the permanent counter-movement against all universal religions and identified the names Judea and Jews, with the doctrine of self-made separation from Mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge. Also the personification of treason, a Judas, was included right from the beginning of Judea.



The stories of Moses, leading a mass-exodus from Egypt, can not be true, even according to Dr. Kastein. It was invented, as a necessity, in order to fit into the pattern of “Jehovas revenge”, the destructive basic principle of Judaism.



The Israelites had, as the larger part of a segregated group of people, settled in the northern part of Canaan. In the south, sorrounded by the original canaanites, the tribe of Judah took shape. Thus the name “Judaism” and “Jew”.



This tribe was isolated from-, and did not get along well with, the neighbours, right from the start. There is much mystery concerning it, including its beginnings. It seems more to have been expelled than chosen. And in the following editions of “The Holy Scriptures”, written by their scribes, who wrote whatever suited them arose, in the course of the centuries, and in more and more places, the commands “destroy completely”, “tear down”, “exterminate” etc.



The Israelites had withdrawn, then, from the Judeans’ racist beliefs and had mingled with the rest of Mankind. They “disappeared” in this way as a separate people, while the Judeans kept to themselves by strict racial laws.



In the course of time these were further sharpened and expanded to regulate even the most trivial daily details. The punishments for breaking the laws were severe, and common “Jews” came completely under the control of the scribes. It was this spiritual ghetto, which became the forerunner for the physical ghetto and for the antagonism and exclusion by others, of the Jews, as a retribution.





Talmud and Treason



In the Babylonean “captivity” the scribes added four “Mose”-books to the 5th, which had been the first. They expanded, in this way, further the intolerant racial religion, which would keep the Jews separated from the rest of mankind forever, if it could be enforced. And in Babylon they found the means. The religious leaders actually succeeded in keeping their congregation completely separated from the surroundings. They obtained authority with those, who kept them “in captivity” for use against “their own”, and finally, in the year 536 b.C., to show their gratitude, they destroyed the entire host-country through treason, through the help of the army of a new ruler, king Cyprus of Persia, who, in turn, they then destroyed etc……..the well-known pattern, which was later perfected and used, among many other occasions, in the two world wars in The 20th Century. “The Jews”, by the way, at least the leaders, had a fine time in Babylon, according to Dr. Kastein. They were completely free. The narrative of the destruction of Babylon created an image of an irresistible destructive power. This was another pattern, which was further expanded by the scribes.



Treason was always the return for hospitality. According to Dr. Kastein, the Jews were instrumental in the destruction of the Babyloneans, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans. Each time by “streching out open arms” to a conqueror.



This situation has continued up through the centuries. Simultaneously, the chains of the common Jews were tightened more and more, and from the time of Jesus the Talmud had been developed, as a collection of scriptures, which contain rules of conduct for everything, particularly directed against Christianity. The new religion of tolerance, which was the direct opposite of the Levitical racial hatred, constituted the worst danger for the scribes - that of loosing their grip on the congregation. If the many Jewish rules of conduct were broken, this was punished severely, even by death. The Jewish authorities held the common Jews in a grip of terror by means of an authority, given them by the “Christian” rulers. After Rome had lost its patience with the Jews, Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 and the Jews were scattered in the surrounding countries.



Sanhedrin



The world leadership in Judaism, which in Jerusalem was called the Sanhedrin, “the wise men of Zion”, moved around during the next centuries, as a mobile government with incredible power over the scattered congregations. After the destruction of Jerusalem the headquarters were moved to Jamnia, where it remained for about 100 years. Thereafter it was Usha in Galilea, then, as always because of “persecution”, it moved back to Sura in Babylon. For 600 years the world leadership remained in Jamnia, Usha and Galilea, in the oriental climate, where it belonged. When the world center was then moved to Spain, as a result of the moslem conquests (!) a long painful coexistence with the Christian countries began, in which the “oriental” mentality was not understood and appreciated. These sufferings are about to destroy the West in our time.



Treason in “Spanish”



In the Christian Spain treason was repeated. As in Babylon and Egypt the Jews turned against the people among whom they lived. They opened the gates of the city for the conquerors and was thereafter given custody of the raped city by the moslems ... against whom they also turned in the end. Once more they were thrown out for bad behaviour, in 1492. They obviously were identified with the moslem conquerors and thrown out together with them. Among the worst “persecutions” they had had to endure, was being forbidden to keep slaves! (prof. Graetz): “hereafter the Jews could neither buy Christians as slaves nor recieve them as presents.”



They had, by this time, been in Spain for 800 years. Most of them went back to Northern Africa, from where they had come, or they went to Egypt, Palestine, Italy, The greek Islands and Turkey. Other colonies had arisen in France, Germany, Holland and England, and these also recieved some of the expelled. Wherever they settled down, the religious leaders always had the local prince help them retain power over their congragation. Total power. Some of these Jews became very wealthy and they particularly developed loan capitalism as their power base. They lent large sums to extravagant princes, and in return for these recieved many privileges as court Jews. The best known representative for this money-power was the Rotschild family, which in the 19th century had become the real rulers of Europe.



Then the world leadership of Judaism was then moved to Poland.





The Chazars



This is one of the central mysteries. Why Poland? There was no information about any considerable part of the Spanish Jews having moved to Poland, or information that any earlier mass-immigration of Jews into Poland had taken place. In the 15-hundreds a (Jewish) population, counting millions, suddenly arose (Dr. Kastein). But populations of millions do not suddenly arise, and Dr. Kastein evades the question. Behind this suppressed knowledge lies the key to understanding the following history of Zionism. The Jewish headquarter was established amidst these so-called Eastern Jews, of whom even the Western Jews had, until then, only heard rumors, and of which the rest of the world knew nothing. From then on they took over the leadership of World Judaism. They were descendants of the Chazars, a people of Turkish-mongoloid origin, who had converted to Judaism around the 7th Century a.C. From here an even harsher segregation was ordered by “the wise ones”. Meanwhile, the western Jews were slowly becoming “assimilated” in the Western European population, especially after the legislation that followed the French Revolution, which gradually gave them full civil rights. This eastern group gradually took over the leadership of “Judaism” to such a degree, that the Jewish “statistics” – which by the way have always been quite untrustworthy – practically let them disappear. Today eastern Jews constitute at least 90 % of all Jews, according to these statistics, both in Israel and in the rest of the world.



The western Jews who, by using fantasy and a maximum of twisting of truth, claimed to have once lived in Palestine, were slowly becoming assimilated, after having been thrown out of Spain, and almost “disappeared” as en entity. In their stead appeared the Eastern Jews, an Asian people, which had never had the slightest connection with Palestine.



And, suddenly, also the the world headquarters of the Jews disappeared. According to Dr. Kastein it “ceased to exist”.





World Government without Address



There was, however, not much indication that this was so. But it became secret after 1772, when Poland was divided, and the larger part of the Jews came under Russian rule. Such a world headquarter had existed for over 2.500 years, and now it was supposed to have suddenly disappeared. It could, nevertheless, be assembled, when Napoleon called in “The great Sanhedrin” in 1807, in order to get clarity concerning the loyalty of French Jews or lack of same. Dr. Kastein, himself, reveals joyfully, that “in the 19th Century a Jewish International took shape”.



The 19th Century belonged to the revolutionary conspiracies of both Zionism and Communism, which unfolded in the 20th Century. It was also in that Century, that the physical ghetto was replaced by a mental one: the fear of “Antisemitism”. In Jewish families, the question was whether to further Revolutionary Communism or Revolutionary Zionism (Weizmann). It ended up being both. Communism should tear down all nations. Zionism should establish one. A World Government without an address was becoming a fashion, which has been followed undeviatingly all through the 20th Century.





World Revolution and Master Race



The British statesman, Benjamin Disraeli (a baptised Jew) said, that Jews were behind all the revolutions in the middle of the Century (from 1848), and there was significant participation by Jews also in the French Revolution. However, according to Reed, no Jewish leadership of the initial intrigues has been traced. It was secret societies, especially the Jacobins, who played the leading part, and these could be traced back to the German professor Adam Weishaupt, who in 1776 founded the Illuminati, a secret society, directed against all Christian authorities. Soon it had infiltrated all of the European freemasonry and it then went on to America. The conspiracy of the Illuminati, which was accidentally revealed by the Bavarian government in 1787, contained almost, word by word, the same text in their program as the later “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” (Nesta Webster) and it was clearly recognizable in the theories of the Russian Revolution. The “Russian” Revolution was the first, which was Jewish without any doubt (around 90% of the leaders were Jews) and this revolution, along with the First World War was the first clear evidence, that “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” were being followed literally in the major events of the world.



Reed gives several other examples of this script being an exact prophecy for the nearest future or a frightening plan for world conquest. (See Chapter “The Protocols”, in Reeds book and the whole text of the Protocols under "Links" and "More"). It may never be proven, whether they are “Jewish” or not. More importantly, Reed frequently points out, that it has been mostly Jewish dissidents, who have warned against them. He mentions several. But the details of the World Government are being put in place day after day.



Knud Bjeld Eriksen, February 6., 1998



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









26 - The Russian Revolution (The Nameless War)



Archibald Maule Ramsay



Monsieur Francois Coty, the celebrated scent manufacturer, wrote in Figaro on 20th February, 1932:



"The subsidies granted to the Nihilists at this period (1905-1917) by Jacob Schiff, of Kuhn Loeb and Co., New York, were no longer acts of isolated generosity. A veritable Russian terrorist organization had been set up at his expense. It covered Russia with its emissaries."

This creation of terrorist formations by Jews within a country marked down for revolution, whether they be called Nihilists or as in France in 1789, "Sacred Bands," or "Marseillais"; or "Operatives," as in the Britain of Charles I, now stands revealed as standard technique.



Jacob Schiff also financed Japan in her war against Russia 1904-5, as we learn from the Jewish Encyclopedia.



This war was immediately followed by an attempt at revolution on a considerable scale in Russia, which, however, proved abortive. The next attempt, during the Great War, met with complete success.



On the 3rd January, 1906, the Russian Foreign Minister supplied to Emperor Nicholas II a report on this revolutionary outbreak, which, as revealed in the American Hebrew of July 13th, 1918, contained the following passages:



"The events which took place in Russia in 1905 . . . plainly indicate that the revolutionary movement . . . has a definite international character . . .

the revolutionaries possess great quantities of arms imported from abroad and very considerable financial means . . .



one is bound to conclude that there are foreign capitalists' organizations interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. If we add to the above that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part is played by Jews . . .



as ring-leaders in other organizations as well as their own . . .



always the most bellicose element of the revolution . . .



we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles."



The assumption in the foregoing report was indeed well justified. It was to be confirmed by an even more important official document penned at the height of the revolution itself, in 1918, by Mr. Oudendyke, the representative of the Netherlands Government in St. Petersburg, who was in charge of British interests in Russia after the liquidation of our Embassy by the bolsheviks.



So important indeed was this report of Mr. Oudendyke's held to be by Mr. Balfour, to whom it was addressed, that it was set out in a British government white paper on bolshevism issued in April 1919. (Russia No. 1.)



In it I have read the following passage: [Emphasis by author]



"I consider that the immediate suppression of bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe, and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

A still clearer light is thrown on these happenings by an article written on 12th April, 1919, in a paper called The Communist, at Kharkov, by one M. Cohen:



"The great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews. There are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the Committees, and in the Soviet organization as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses.

The symbol of Jewry has become the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the five-pointed star, which in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry."



Mr. Fahey, in his important and authenticated work, The Rulers of Russia, is more specific, stating that in 1917 of the 52 persons who took over the direction in Russia, all but Lenin were Jews.



[Mr. Fahey must somehow have missed the fact that Lenin himself WAS a Jew. That would mean then that ALL who took over the direction in Russia were Jews. - jackie]



So thorough was the mass liquidation of all but hewers of wood and drawers of water in Russia, that this Jewish grip remained unaltered. Dr. Fahey tells us that in 1935 the Central Executive of the Third international, which ruled Russia



"consisted of 59 men, of which 56 were Jews. The other three, including Stalin, were married to Jewesses. Of 17 principal Soviet ambassadors, 4 were Jews." (Rulers of Russia, pages 8 and 9.)

The Rev. George Simons, who was Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Petersburg from 1907 to October 1918, appeared before a Committee of the United States Senate on the 12th February, 1919, and gave them a report of his personal knowledge of the happenings in Russia up to the time he left. Dr. Fahey quotes him as saying during this evidence:



"In December, 1918, out of 388 members of the revolutionary government, only 16 happened to be real Russians; all the rest were Jews with the exception of one U.S. Negro. Two hundred and sixty-five of the Jews come from the Lower East Side of New York."

Such has been the condition of affairs in the U.S.S.R. from that day to this.



Though a number of Jews were liquidated in the so-called "Moscow Purge," this affected the situation in no way. It merely signified that one Jewish faction had triumphed over, and liquidated, another. There has never been anything in the nature of a Gentile revolt against the Jewish domination.



The fact that some Jews were liquidated by winning factions behind the iron curtain could be used to deceive the world outside into thinking that this was the result of an anti-semitic revolt, and from time to time a hoax of this kind has been systematically propaganded.



As world opinion gradually turned hostile to the U.S.S.R. important Jews began to fear that this feeling, combined with a gradual realization that bolshevism is Jewish, might have unpleasant reactions for them.



About 1945, therefore, a further powerful campaign was organized from influential Jewish circles, notably in the U.S.A., to put out the story once again that Russia had turned on the Jews. They evidently failed, however, to advise their lesser brethren of this move; and indignant and informed denials were soon forthcoming.



A journal called Bulletin, the organ of the Glasgow Discussion Group, wrote in June 1945:



"Such rubbish as is now being spread as to the growth of anti-Semitism in Russia is nothing but malicious lies and pure invention."

On 1st February, 1949, the Daily Worker carried an article in which a Mr. Parker gave a few names and figures of Jews in high office in the U.S.S.R., from which he had evidently recently returned, for he wrote:



"I never heard a breath of criticism over this state of affairs. . .

anti-Semitism would render a Soviet official liable to prosecution in the same way that a private citizen may be brought before the courts for anti-Semitism."



On the 10th November, 1949, the Daily Worker, that constant and burning champion of the Jews, printed an article by Mr D. Kartun, entitled "Stamping Out Anti-Semitism," which shows the complete Jewish control behind the iron curtain when he writes:



"In Poland and the other people's democracies anti-Semitism in word or deed is most heavily punished."

Between 1945 and 1949 the propaganda to convince Gentiles outside the iron curtain, that within that area anti-Semitism was rampant, and the Jews driven from high office everywhere was energetically pursued. It began to be believed by quite a number of people, who should have known better; so much so, that in the autumn of the latter year I thought it worth while to get out a list showing the number of vital positions held by Jews behind the iron curtain. Here is an extract from those lists.



U.S.S.R.:

Premier Stalin Married to a Jewess

Vice-Premier Kaganovitch Jew

Ministry of State Control Mekhlis Jew

Military & Naval Construction Ginsburg Jew

Minister Cominform Organ Yudin Jew

Chief Publicist Abroad for U.S.S.R. Ilya Eherenburg Jew

Ministry of Building Enterprises Machinery Yudin Jew

Foreign Minister Molotoff Married to a Jewess



POLAND:

Virtual Ruler Jacob Bergman Jew

Public Prosecutor T. Cyprian Jew

O.C. Youth Movements Dr. Braniewsky Jew



HUNGARY:

Virtual Ruler Mathias Rakosi Jew



ROUMANIA:

Virtual Ruler Anna Pauker Jewess (Since removed for "deviationism" but replaced by another Jew.)



YUGOSLAVIA:

Virtual Ruler Moishe Pyjede Jew





[Note: "Kagan" or 'Khagan' is the Khazarian word for 'King'. More than 90% of Jews today are not Semitic, nor are their ancestors. They are of the Turko-Mongolian tribe of Khazars, whose Kagan adopted Talmudism around 740 A.D.]



In May 1949, the Daily Worker, which is, of course, consistently and ardently pro-Jewish, printed an article by Mr A. Rothstein praising the U.S.S.R. to the skies; and about the same time another article on similar lines about the paradise behind the iron curtain by Mr Sam Aronvitch.



On the 10th November the same paper printed an article in which D. Kartun,writing of the "People's Democracies" and the stamping out of anti-Semitism there, wrote:



"No one could dream of making an anti-semitic speech or writing an anti-semitic article in any of these countries. If they did their jail sentence would be both immediate and lengthy."

In the last few years we have been supplied with further dramatic proof of the vital inter-relation between Jews and the U.S.S.R.



From the Canadian spy trials, which focused the spotlight on atom spying for the U.S.S.R., with the conviction and imprisonment of Frank Rosenberg (alias Rose), the Canadian Jew Communist Member of Parliament, and several Jews, to the conviction and imprisonment of many others of the same gang in Britain and the U.S.A., including Fuchs, Professor Weinbaum, Judith Coplon, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Julius Rosenberg, Miriam Moskewitz, Abraham Brothanz, and Raymond Boyer, who — though a Gentile by birth — married a Jewess and, I believe, adopted the Jewish creed on that occasion.



Finally, we had the flight to the U.S.S.R. with atom secrets also of the Jew Professor Pontecorvo, who had been working in close association with Fuchs.



No doubt we shall continue to be regaled with plausible stories proving that Russia has gone anti-semitic; but it is not hard to realise that such a Jewish grip backed by the most elaborate spy and liquidation squads known to man, would cause a convulsion which would shake the world before its grip could be broken.





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





















27 - Soviet collective farms run by Jews













Major Francis Charles Claypon Yeats-Brown, DFC (1886 – 1944)

was a career soldier, war hero, and award winning writer.





In 1939 he published European Jungle, containing

a synopsis on Jewish Bolshevism/Communism





In 1917, Lenin was smuggled into the country with four Jews, Leiba Bronstein (alias Leon Trotsky), Apfelbaum (alias Zinoviev), Rosenfeld (alias Kamenev), and Sobelsohn (alias Radek), with the help of the Germans and a Jewish banking house in New York, and through the agency of Israel Lazarevitch Helphand, alias Parvus, a Russian Jew who made his fortune in Denmark out of German coal.



Karl Marx, the father of Bolshevism, whose real name was Mordecai, was the son of a rabbi in Treves. He hated the Jews, it is true, but then he held most of the human race in scorn, except the Proletariat, with whom he rarely came in contact.



According to the Rev. George A. Simons, of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Petrograd, out of the 388 members of the first Bolshevik Government which met in Petrograd in December, 1918, no less than 265 were Jews from the Lower East Side of New York City. There were 106 European Jews, one North American negro, and only 16 genuine Russians. Sixteen Russians, a negro, 371 Jews! The president of this collection of aliens was the Jew Zinoviev.



M. Oudendyke, the Dutch Minister in Petrograd, sent a report to the British Government at this time stating that "unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread all over Europe, in one form or another, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose object it is to destroy the existing order." This report was published as a White Paper by the British Government, but disappeared almost immediately from circulation. When reprinted, the above passage was deleted.



The population of Russia was then (in 1918) 158,400,000, of whom 7,800,000 were Jews. The present population is about 170,000,000, and probably the same proportion — say 5 per cent — are Jews. Yet in 1935, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, consisting of 59 members, 95 per cent were Jews — i.e., 56 members — while the other three members were married to Jewesses: Stalin, Lobov, and Ossinsky.



Among the Ambassadors and Ministers of the U.S.S.R. in 1935 the following were believed to be Jews:



In Berlin: M. Suritz.

In Paris : M. Louritz.

In Rome : M. Stein.

In Tokyo : M. Yureneff .

In Ankara : M. Karakhan.

In Brussels : M. Rubinin.

In Oslo : M. Yakoubowich.

In Stockholm : Mme. Kallontai.

In Bucharest : M. Ostrovski.

In Riga: M. Brodovsky.

In Tallin: M. Karski.

In Helsingfors : M. Asmous.





In the same year (1935) the League of Nations Delegation consisted of one Georgian, M. Swanidze, and seven Jews, MM. Litvinov, Rosenberg, Stein, Markus, Brenners, Hirschfeld, Helphand.



At present, with the purges in progress, it is impossible to give the Semitic percentages in the Russian Government. Certain it is that they are very much higher than the percentage of Jews to the population, both in the lower and upper grades of the State service, which means, in Russia, of practically all employment.



During his travels along the border districts of the U.S.S.R., M. Jean Fontenoy found that90 per cent of the directors and secretaries of the collective farms he visited were Jews. Field workers received a maximum of 27 days' pay a month: the president and secretary 80 to 90 days' pay a month. The words Communist and Jew were synonymous with the peasants: they thought that the Jews were the rulers of the land.



In Kremlin circles the two brothers-in-law of Stalin, Lazarus and Moses Kaganovitch, are Ministers of Transport and Heavy Industry respectively; the guard of the Kremlin is confided to the Jewish Colonel Jacob Rappoport; while the concentration camps, with their population of 7,000,000 Russians, are in charge of a Jew, Mendel Kermann, aided by Lazarus Kaman and Semen-Firkin, both Jews. The prisons of the country are governed by the Jew Kairn Apeter. Foreign policy is almost wholly in Jewish hands, beginning with that man of many aliases, M. Meyer Moses Polyanski, alias Enock Finkelstein, alias Gustav Graf,alias Buchmann, Harrison, Maximovitch, Wallach, Berr, and Litvinov, the Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at whose breakfast-table Mr. Eden found pats of butter stamped with the slogan, "Peace is indivisible." What peace, M. Litvinov may sometimes ask himself, will Russian Jews have in the days to come?







click image to enlarge





European Jungle









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













Page 272



Chapter 32





28 - THE WORLD REVOLUTION AGAIN







The simultaneous triumphs of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events, The identity of their original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: "Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations"; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.



1917 gave proof of Disraeli's dictum about the revolution in its 1848 phase, when he said that Jews headed "every one" of the secret societies and aimed to destroy Christianity. The controlling group that emerged in 1917 was so preponderantly Jewish that it may be called Jewish. The nature of the instigating force then became a matter of historical fact, not of further polemical debate. It was further identified by its deeds: the character of its earliest enactments, a symbolic mockery of Christianity, and a special mark of authorship deliberately given to the murder of the monarch. All these bore the traits of a Talmudic vengeance.



In the forty years that have passed great efforts have been made to suppress public knowledge of this fact, which has been conc1usively established, by non-sequential rebukes to any who c1aim to discuss history. For instance, in the 1950's an able (and deservedly respected) Jewish writer in America, Mr. George Sokolsky, in criticizing a book previously cited wrote, "It is impossible to read it without reaching the conclusion that Professor Beaty seeks to prove that Communism is a Jewish movement". In respect of the leadership it was that for a long period before 1917 (as to later and the present situation, subsequent chapters will look at the evidence). It was not a conspiracy of all Jews, but neither were the French revolution, Fascism and National Socialism conspiracies of all Frenchmen, Italians or Germans. The organizing force and the leadership were drawn from the Talmudic-controlled Jewish areas of Russia, and in that sense Communism was demonstrably Eastern Jewish.



As to the purposes revealed when the revolution struck in 1917, these showed that it was not episodic or spontaneous but the third "eruption" of the organization first revealed through Weishaupt. The two main features reappeared: the attack on all legitimate government of any kind whatsoever and on religion. Since 1917 the world-revolution has had to cast aside the earlier pretence of being directed only against "kings" or the political power of priests.



One authority of that period knew and stated this. In the tradition of Edmund Burke and John Robison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Disraeli, Mr. Winston Churchill wrote:



"It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. . . From the days of 'Spartacus' Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others".



This is the last candid statement (discoverable by me) from a leading public man on this question. After it the ban on public discussion came down and the great silence ensued, which continues to this day. In 1953 Mr. Churchill refused permission (requisite under English law) for a photostat to be made of this article (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920), without saying why.



The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.



At the time, the facts were available. The British Government's White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: "Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things". The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying. to start a worldwide social revolution". M. Oudendyke's report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.



274



This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).



These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians(including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People's Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly "Socialist" or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of "opposition" was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).



Mr. Wilton made a great and thankless effort to tell newspaper readers what went on in Russia (broken, he survived only a few years and died in his fifties). He did hot choose the task of reporting the most momentous event that ever came in any journilist's path of duty; it devolved on him. Educated in Russia, he knew the country and its language perfectly, and was held in high esteem by the Russians and the British Embassy alike. He watched the rioting from the window of The Times office, adjoining the Prefecture where the ministers of the collapsing regime took refuge. Between the advent of the Kerensky government in the spring of 1917 and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, his duty was to report an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs: the rise of a Jewish regime to despotic supremacy in Russia and to overt control of the world-revolution. At that moment he was made to realize that he would not be allowed faithfully to report the fact.



The secret story is told, with surprising candour, in the Official History of his paper, The Times, published in 1952. It shows the hidden mechanism which operated, as early as 1917, to prevent the truth about the revolution reaching the peoples of the West.



This volume pays tribute to the quality of Mr. Wilton's reporting, and his standing in Russia, before 1917. Then the tone of the references to him abruptly changes. Mr. Wilton's early warnings of what was to come in 1917, says the book, "did not at once affect the policy of the paper, partly because their writer did not command full confidence".



Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires.



275



The narrative continues that Mr. Wilton began to complain about the "burking" or suppression of his messages. Then The Times began to publish artic1es about Russia from men who had little knowledge of that country. As a result the editorial articles about Russia took on the tone, exasperating to Mr. Wilton, with which newspaper-readers became familiar in the following decades: "those who believe in the future of Russia as a free and efficient democracy will watch the vindication of the new regime with patient confidence and earnest sympathy". (Every incident of Mr. Wilton's experience in Moscow, which Colonel Repington was sharing in London, was repeated in my own experience, and in that of other correspondents, in Berlin in 1933-1938).



The "interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost "confidence" in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. TheOfficial History of The Times says, "It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages . . . should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite" .



"Zionist circles", the reader will observe; not even "Communist circles"; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should "Zionists" (who wanted the British government to procure them "a homeland" in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of "Zionists", this was "anti-semitism", and the mere allegation was enough to destroy "confidence" in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained "happy" and have retained "confidence". Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day's news!



When I read this illuminating account I wondered by what route "Zionist circles" had spread to "the Foreign Office", and the Foreign Office to Printing House Square the "idea" that Mr. Wilton was "an anti-semite". The researcher, like the lonely prospector, learns to expect little for much toil, but in this case I was startled by the large nugget of truth which I found in The Times Official History thirty-five years after the event. It said that "the head of propaganda at the Foreign Office sent to the Editor a paper by one of his staff" repeating the "allegation", (which apparently was first printed in some Zionist sheet). TheOfficial History revealed even the identity of this assiduous "one".



It was a young Mr. Reginald Leeper, who three decades later (as Sir Reginald) became British Ambassador in Argentina. I then looked to Who's Who for information about Mr. Leeper's career and found that hisfirst recorded employment began (when he was twenty-nine) in 1917: "entered International Bureau, Department of Information in 1917". Mr. Leeper's memorandum about Mr. Wilton was sent to The Timesearly in May 1917. Therefore, if he entered the Foreign Office on New Year's day of 1917, he had been in it just four months



276



when he conveyed to The Times his "allegation" about the exceptionally qualified Mr. Wilton, of seventeen years service with that paper, and the effect was immediate; the Official History says that Mr. Wilton's despatches thereafter, during the decisive period, either miscarried or "were ignored". (The editor was the same of whom Colonel Repington complained in 1917-1918 and to whom the present writer sent his resignation in 1938 on the same basic principle of reputable journalism.)



Mr. Wilton Struggled on for a time, continually protesting against the "burking" and suppression of his despatches, and then as his last service to truthful journalism put all that he knew into his book. He recognized and recorded the acts which identified the especial nature of the regime: the law against "anti-semitism", the anti-Christian measures, the canonization of Judas Iscariot, and the Talmudic fingerprint mockingly left in the death-chamber of the Romanoffs.



The law against "anti-semitism" (which cannot be defined) was in itself a fingerprint. An illegal government, predominantly Jewish, by this measure warned the Russian masses, under pain of death, not to interest them selves in the origins of the revolution. It meant in effect that the Talmud became the law of Russia, and in the subsequent four decades this law has in effect and in growing degree been made part of the structure of the west.



The short-lived anti-Christian deeds of the French phase of the revolution reappeared in more open form. The dynamiting of churches and the installation of an anti-God museum in the Cathedral of Saint Basil were the most ostentatious indications of the nature of the regime, which Mr. Wilton indicated: "Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevist Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater". This was plain reporting, and if the report had related to "Ukrainians", for instance, instead of "Jews", none would have objected; the mere act of reporting a fact became the ground for secret denunciation because the fact related to Jews.



The memorial to Judas Iscariot, recorded by Mr. Wilton, was another deliberate intimation to Christendom. If the Jewish rulers merely wanted to bring about an equalitarian society in 1917, there was no relevance in bestowing a halo of heroism on a deed of AD 29; the revolution in Russia cannot be understood at all unless the symbolism of this act is comprehended.



The aspect of a Talmudic vengeance on "the heathen" was unmistakably given to the massacres of hat period. In August 1918 a Jew, Kanegisser, shot a Jew, Uritsky; thereon a Jew, Peters, at the head of the Petrograd Cheka ordered "mass terror" on Russians and another Jew, Zinovieff, demanded that ten million Russians be "annihilated"; the British Government's White Book on Bolshevism (1919) records the massacre of Russian peasants which followed.



By far the most significant act was the form given to the murder of the



277



Romanoff family. But for Mr. Wilton this story would never have reached the world, which to this day might believe that the Czar's wife and children ended their lives naturally in "protective" custody.



The Czar acted constitutionally to the end, abdicating at the advice of his ministers (March 5, 1917). Thereafter (during the Kerensky period and its first aftermath) he was relatively well treated for a year as the prisoner at Tobolsk of a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April 1918, when the Jewish regime had gained control, he was transferred, by order from Moscow, to Ekaterinburg. The Russian guards were then withdrawn and their place inside his prison house was taken by men whose identity has never been established: The local Russians later recalled them as "Letts" (the only foreign-speaking Red soldiers known to them), but they seem to have been brought from Hungary.



The Russian commandant's place was taken by a Jew, Yankel Yurovsky (July 7). That completed a chain of Jewish captors from the top, Moscow, through the regional Urals Soviet, to his prison at Ekaterinburg (which is in the Urals). The real ruler of Russia then was the terrorist Yankel Sverdloff, president of the Moscow Cheka, who was a Jew. The Ekaterinburg Cheka was run by seven Jews, one of them Yankel Yurovsky. On July 20 the Urals Soviet announced that it had shot the Czar and sent his wife and son to "a place of security". The Moscow Cheka issued a similar announcement, signed by Sverdloff, "approving the action of the Regional Soviet of the Urals". At that time the entire family was dead.



The truth only became known through the chance that Ekaterinburg fell to the White armies on July 25, that Mr. Wilton accompanied them, and that their commander, General Diterichs, a famous Russian criminologist, M. Sokoloff, and Mr. Wilton uncovered the buried evidence. When the White troops withdrew Mr. Wilton brought away the proofs; they appear in his book and include many photographs.



The murders had been carried out by order from and in constant consultation with Sverdloff in Moscow; records of telephone conversations between him and the Chekists in Ekaterinburg were found. Among these was a report to him from Ekaterinburg saying "Yesterday a courier left with the documents that interest you". This courier was the chief assassin, Yurovsky, and the investigators believed that the "documents" were the heads of the Romanoffs, as no skulls or skull-bones were found.



The deed was described by witnesses who had not been able to escape, and at least one was a participant. At midnight on July 16 Yurovsky awoke the Czar and his family, took them to a basement room and there shot them. The actual murderers were Yurovsky, his seven unidentified foreign accomplices, one Nikulin from the local Cheka, and two Russians, apparently professional gunmen employed by the Cheka. The victims were the Czar, his wife, ailing son (who was held in his father's arms as he could not walk), four daughters, Russian



278



doctor, manservant, cook and maid. The room was still a shambles, from the shooting and bayoneting, when M. Sokoloff and Mr. Wilton saw it, and his book includes the picture of it.



The circumstances having been determined, the investigators almost despaired of finding the bodies, or their remains; they learned that Yurovsky, before escaping the town, had boasted that "the world will never know what we did with the bodies". However, the earth at length gave up its secret. The bodies had been taken by five lorries to a disused iron pit in the woods, cut up and burned, 150 gallons of petrol being used; one Voikoff of the Urals Cheka (a fellow-passenger of Lenin in the train from Germany) as Commissar of Supplies had supplied 400 lbs. of sulphuric acid for dissolving the bones. The ashes and fragments had been thrown down the shaft, the ice at the bottom having first been smashed so that the mass would sink; then a flooring had been lowered and fixed over the place. When this was removed the search reached its end. On top lay the corpse of a spaniel belonging to one of the princesses; below were fragments of bone and skin, a finger, and many identifiable personal belongings which had escaped destruction. A puzzling find was a small collection of nails, coins, pieces of tinfoil and the like. This looked like the contents of a schoolboy's pockets, and was; the little boy's English tutor, Mr. Sidney Gibbes, identified it. The precautions taken to dispose of the bodies and of other evidence were of the kind that only criminals of long experience in their trade could have devised; they resemble the methods used in gang warfare, during the Prohibition period, in the United States.



These discoveries, becoming known in the outer world, exposed the untruth of Sverdloff's announcement that only the Czar had been "executed" and his family sent to "a place of security". The murderers staged a mock trial of "28 persons on the accusation of having murdered the Czar and his family". Only eight names were published, all of them unknown in connection with the crime, and five persons were said to have been shot, who if they existed at all cannot have had any part in it. The arch-assassin, Sverdloff, was soon afterwards killed in some party dispute and thousands of innocent people died in the indiscriminate massacres which followed. Ekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlovsk to give enduring fame to his part in the symbolic deed.



The chief reason for recounting the details of the pogrom of the Romanoffs is to point to the "fingerprint" which was left in the room where it was done. One of the assassins, presumably their leader, stayed to exult and put a significant signature on the wall, which was covered with obscene or mocking inscriptions in Hebrew, Magyar and German. Among them was a couplet which deliberately related the deed to the Law of the Torah-Talmud and thus offered it to posterity as an example of the fulfilment of that law, and of Jewish vengeance as understood by the Levites. It was written in German by someone who parodied the Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine's lines on the death of Belshazzar, the imaginary potentate whose murder is portrayed in Daniel as God's punishment for an



279



affront offered to Judah:



Belsazar ward aber in selbiger Nacht



Von selbigen Knechten umgebracht.



The parodist, sardonically surveying the shambles, adapted these lines to what he had just done:



Belsatsar ward in selbiger Nacht



Von seinen Knechten umgebracht.



No clearer clue to motive and identity was ever left behind.



The revolution was not Russian ; the eruption was brought about in Russia, but the revolution had its friends in high places everywhere. At this period (1917-1918) the student for the first time is able to establish that leading men began to give that secret support to Communism which they were already giving to its blood brother, Zionism. This happened on both sides of the fighting-line; once the secret, but overriding purposes of the war came into play the distinction between "friend" and "foe" disappeared. The Zionists, though they concentrated "irresistible pressure" on the politicians of London and Washington, long kept their headquarters in Berlin; the Communists obtained decisive support from Germany at one moment and from Germany's enemies the next.



For instance, Germany when the 1914-1918 war began started "sending back to Russia Russians of revolutionary tendencies who were prisoners here, with money and passports, in order that they may stir up trouble at home" (Ambassador Gerard in Berlin to Mr. House). Mr. Robert Wi1ton says the decision to Foment the revolution in Russia was formally taken at a German and Austrian General Staff meeting at Vienna late in 1915. The German Chief-of-Staff, General Ludendorff, 1ater regretted this: "By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed. . . a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low; but our government should have seen to it that we were not invo1ved in her fall".



That, taken as an isolated case, might be a simple human error: what appeared to be a sound military move produced catastrophic political consequences not foreseen when it was made. But what explanation can be found for American and British politicians, whose foremost military and political principle should have been to sustain Russia and yet who supported the alien revolutionaries who "laid Russia low"?



I have already quoted the editoria1 about the revolution (". . . a free and efficient democracy . . . the vindication of the new regime . . .") which appeared in The Times of London while its experienced correspondent's despatches were being "ignored" and "confidence" withdrawn from him because the newspaper had received "an allegation" that he was "an anti-semite". On the other side of the Atlantic the true ruler of the Repub1ic, Mr. House was confiding to his diary simi1ar sentiments. For him the alien revolutionaries smuggled into Russia



280



during wartime from the West ("this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America", Mr. Churchill) were honest agrarian reformers: "the Bolshevists appeared to the peace-hungry and land-hungry Russians as the first leaders who made a sincere effort to satisfy their needs" .



Today all know what happened to the Russians' "land-hunger" under Bolshevism. In 1917 the Czars and their ministers for fifty years had been toiling to satisfy this "land-hunger" and by assassination had been thwarted. Apparently Mr. House was ignorant of that. When the revolution was accomplished he instructed the shadow-president: "that literally nothing be done further than that an expression of sympathy be offered for Russia's efforts to weld herself into a virile democracy and to proffer our financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible". *



The resemblance between the first phrase of this sentence and the editorial of The Times in London may be noted; powerful behind-scene groups in both capitals evidently were agreed to present the public masses with this false picture of a "virile" and "efficient" democracy in the making. The second phrase cancelled the policy initially recommended of "literally doing nothing" beyond uttering sympathetic words, by giving the order literally to do everything; for what more can be done than to give "financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible"? This was American state policy from the moment that Mr. House so instructed the president, and it exactly describes the policy pursued by President Roosevelt during the Second World War, as will be shown.



Thus the West, or powerful men in the West, began to range itself with the world-revolution against the Russians, which meant, against all men who abhorred the revolution. Not all the powerful men, or men later to become powerful, lent them selves to this hidden undertaking. At that time Mr. Winston Churchill again stated the nature of the revolution:



"Certainly I dispute the title of the Bolshevists to represent Russia . . . They despise such a mere commonplace as nationality. Their ideal is a worldwide proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks robbed Russia at one stroke of two most precious things: peace and victory, the victory that was within her grasp and the peace which was her dearest desire. The Germans sent Lenin into Russia with the deliberate intention of working for the downfall of Russia . . . No sooner did Lenin arrive there than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgo,, in Berne and other countries" (the reader will perceive whence the "Russian" revolutionaries were



* It might be significant of the influences which continued to prevail in the entourage of American presidents during the next two generations that President Eisenhower in 1955, from his hospital room in Denver, sent a personal message of congratulations to the Soviet Premier, Bulganin, on the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, November 7. The democratic and parliamentary revolution, legitimized by the Czars abdication, occurred in March 1917; November 7 was a day on which the Bolsheviks overthrew the legitimate regime. By 1955 American presidents were habitually warning their people against the menace of "Soviet" or "Communist" (i.e., Bolshevik) aggression.



281



brought to Russia) "and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world. . . With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state and nation depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low . . . Her sufferings are more fearful than modern records hold and she had been robbed of her place among the great nations of the world". (House of Commons, 5 November 1919).



Mr. Churchill's description remains valid, particularly the phrase, "the most formidable sect in the world", which resembles the phrase used by Bakunin in his attack on Jewish usurpation of the revolution fifty years earlier. The passage quoted from Mr. Churchill's article earlier in this chapter shows that he was equally aware of the identity of this sect.



Thus Dr. Chaim Weizmann's youthful fellow-conspirators from the Talmudic area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the start, was that between "revolutionary-Zionism" and "revolutionary-Communism", as he shows. In his student days in Berlin, Freiburg and Geneva, he had waged many a hot debate about this point of difference, which for those who reject revolution as such is a distinction without meaning. Mr. Balfour's amanuensis, Mrs. Dugdale, portrays the blood-brothers of the revolution in argument during the years when their simultaneous triumph was in preparation:



"Lenin and Trotsky took power in the same week of November 1917 that Jewish nationalism won its recognition. Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafés in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them Russian-born. . . . they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a most strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream".



In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries "Russian-born" (but not Russian).



For Dr. Weizmann and his associates in London and Washington, the event in Moscow was a passing embarrassment, in one respect. They had based their demand for Pa1estine on the legend that "a place of refuge" must be found for Jews "persecuted in Russia" (an obvious non sequitur but good enough for "the mob"), and now there was no "persecution in Russia". On the contrary, in Moscow a Jewish regime ruled and "anti-Semitism" was a capital offence. Where, then, were the Jews who needed "a place of refuge"? (This is evidently the reason why Mr. Robert Wilton had to be prevented from reporting the nature of the new regime in Moscow).



Rabbi Elmer Berger says, "The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews.



282



. . . at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of the suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone".



That did not deter Dr. Weizmann. At once he informed the Jews that they must not expect any respite:



"Some of our friends. . . are very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist movement after the Russian revolution. Now, they say, the greatest stimulus for the Zionist movement has been removed. Russian Jewry is free. . . Nothing can be more superficial and wrong than that. We have never built our Zionist movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. These sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable striving of Jewry to have a home of its own".



Dr. Weizmann spoke truth in untruth. It was true that the organizers of Zionism, in their private hearts, had never in reality built their movement on "the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere"; they were indifferent to any suffering, Jewish or other, caused by Zionism. But they had beyond all dispute used "the sufferings of our people in Russia" as their argument in beleaguering Western politicians, who from Mr. Wilson in 1912 onward repeatedly alluded to it.



In this crucial week, the falsity of the entire contention, though revealed, made no difference, for the British Government, as Mrs. Dugdale recorded, was at length committed. Not even a pretence could be maintained that any Jews needed "a place of refuge" but Mr. Lloyd George had undertaken to conquer Palestine for "the Jews".



The basic fallacy of the enterprise was exposed at the very instant when it was c1amped like a millstone round the neck of the West. Although this irreparable flaw in its foundation must cause its ultimate collapse, like that of Sabbatai Zevi's messiahship in l666, the tragi-comedy thenceforth had to be played to its ruinous end.



But for one later event, the undertaking would have died a natural death within a few years and would survive today in the annals merely as Balfour's Folly. This event was the coming of Hitler, which for a while filled the gap left by the collapse of the legend of "persecution in Russia" and produced in some Jews a desire to go even to Palestine. For the Zionists Hitler, had he not arisen, would have needed to be created; a collapsing scheme was made by him to look almost lifelike for some time. The Hitlerist episode belongs to a later chapter in this narrative.



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













29 - Revisiting the 19th-Century Russian Pogroms, Part 1 : Russia’s Jewish Question

May 8, 2012

Andrew Joyce





The anti-Jewish riots, or “pogroms” of late 19th-century Russia represent one of the most decisive periods in modern Jewish, if not world, history. Most obviously, the riots had demographic implications for western countries – around 80% of today’s western Diaspora Jews are descendants of those Jews who left Russia and its environs during the period 1880–1910. But perhaps the most lasting legacy of the period was the enhancement of Jewish “national self-awareness,” and the accelerated development of “modern, international Jewish politics.”[1]



The pogroms themselves have consistently been portrayed by (mainly Jewish) historians as “irrational manifestations of hatred against Jews,”[2] where peasant mobs were the unwitting dupes of malevolent Russian officials. Other explanations are so lacking in evidence, and so devoid of logic that they stretch credulity to breaking point. For example, University of British Columbia Professor, Donald G. Dutton has asserted that the mobs were not motivated by “the sudden rapid increase of the Jewish urban population, the extraordinary economic success of Russian Jews, or the involvement of Jews in Russian revolutionary politics” but rather by the “blood libel.”[3]



Little or no historiography has been dedicated to peeling back the layers of “refugee” stories to uncover what really happened in the Russian Empire in the years before and during the riots. This lack of historical enquiry can be attributed at least in part to a great reluctance on the part of Jewish historians to investigate the pogroms in any manner beyond the merely superficial. In addition, historical enquiry by non-Jewish historians into the subject has been openly discouraged. For example, when Ukrainian historians discovered evidence proving that contemporary media reports of Jewish casualties in that nation were exaggerated, the Jewish genealogy website ‘JewishGen,’ respondedby stating: “We believe that [these facts] are more than irrelevant because it redirects public attention from the major topic: the genocidal essence of pogroms.”



It should suffice to state here that this response contravenes the very essence of historical enquiry – to uncover history as it actually happened, irrespective of the uncomfortable truths which may lie therein. The statement could be translated as “Let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story.” Also, as this paper will show, the tendency to portray the riots as “genocidal” is completely lacking in foundation. University of California Los Angeles Professor of Sociology, Michael Mann, has provided substantial evidence indicating that “most perpetrators did not conceive of removing Jews altogether.”[4]



JewishGen’s allusion to genocide should also be seen as part of a broader problem in modern Jewish historiography. Rather than seeing the pogroms as products of specific local circumstances, in which Jews would play at least an implicit role, there has been a tendency to use them for comparative purposes. John Klier states that when used in a comparative sense, “examples are drawn almost exclusively from the 20th century, and these events are then read back into the earlier period of 1881–2,” making any objective historical enquiry difficult, and implying the presence of some non-existent ‘pan-European’ malaise in anti-Jewish actions.



Nonetheless, this series of essays will seek to peel back the myths, to tease a few threads of truth from the veil which covers these events. Encouragingly, some work has already begun in this respect. I.M. Aronson’s assertion that the pogroms were “planned or encouraged to one degree or another, by elements within the government itself,”[5] has been dealt a death blow in recent years through the concerted work of a small number of non-Jewish historians, mostly notably, University College London’s Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, John Doyle Klier. In his 2005 work, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–2, Klier asserts that “contemporary research has dispelled the myth that Russian officials were responsible for instigating, permitting, or approving the pogroms.”[6]



This series of essays will attempt to move further, adhering to the belief that the facts of the events remain paramount to historical enquiry rather than being a ‘distracting’ irrelevance. The series will begin with an explanation of the origins of Russia’s “Jewish Question.” Subsequent articles will concern the pogroms themselves and how myth and exaggeration have plagued our conception of them. Finally, I will examine why these myths were developed, and the broader implications of the prevalence of myth in Jewish ‘history.’



Part One : Russia’s Jewish Question.



In 1772 the Russian Empire orchestrated the first partition of Poland, “erasing from the geopolitical map of Europe a large kingdom, which in the seventeenth century had extended over broad areas between Prussia and southern Ukraine.”[7] Significantly, in doing so, the Russian Empire also oversaw “the dissolution of the largest Jewish collective in the world.”[8] Polish Jewry was divided into three parts – those in Posen came under the sovereignty of Prussia, those in Galicia came under the sovereignty of Austria, and those in Poland proper came under the sovereignty of the Russian Empire.[9] In Poland proper, the Polish public turned in on itself, searching frantically for the reasons for the ruin of the nation, and in doing so, states Israel Friedlander, “the Jewish problem could not but force itself on its attention.”[10]



Investigations carried out by special committees discovered that in the decades prior to partition, Polish Jewry had enjoyed a demographic explosion, with Jews now representing almost 20% of the entire population. In addition, it was discovered that Jews controlled a full 75% of Polish exports, and that many were now spilling out of over-populated urban centres into the countryside, making a living by monopolising the sale of liquor to peasants.[11] By 1774, complaints were reaching Russian officials from non-Jewish merchants who argued that Jewish ethnic networking was propping up the monopoly of exports, and that this monopoly would shortly have dire implications for the consumer.[12] These revelations were the key motivating factors in the decision to expel Warsaw’s Jews in 1775, and until the early 19th century there was a kind of stand-off between Poles and Jews.[13] Napoleon’s establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 did little to alter the situation, as Napoleon acceded to local sentiment which held that Jews should not feel the benefit of the new constitution until they had “eradicated their peculiar characteristics.”[14] In 1813, the government of the Duchy moved to break the Jewish monopoly on liquor, banning all Jews from selling alcohol in the villages, bringing an end to the activity of “tens of thousands” of Jewish liquor merchants in the provinces. Not surprisingly, when the Duchy was dissolved in 1815 following Napoleon’s failed attempt to invade Russia, Polish Jewry shed no tears.



In late 1815, the Congress of Vienna was held. The aim of the congress was to give its assent to the formation of a new autonomous Polish kingdom under the sovereignty of Russia. Although the bulk of Polish Jewry remained within the newly established kingdom, tens of thousands also poured forth into other areas of the Russian Empire, ushering in an uncomfortable age of fraught Russian-Jewish relations. The immediate reaction of the Russian government to the acquisition of such large, and unwanted, Jewish populations was to prevent the penetration of these populations from intrusion into the old Russian territories, and the solution reached was one of containment. A new kind of settlement was created in provinces along the western frontier, and it became known as the “Pale of Settlement.” Although a large amount of negative connotations have been attributed to the Pale, it was not an impermeable fortress. Certain Jews were permitted to reside outside these provinces, they could visit trade fairs, and Jews were even permitted to study at Russian universities provided they did not exceed quotas. By 1860, more than half of world Jewry resided in the Pale.



Following the Congress of Vienna, wherever Jews resided in the Russian Empire, they overwhelmingly “served in a variety of middleman roles.” In some cities, “the Jewish mercantile element was numerically superior to the Christian,” and there was a gradual move towards the reacquisition of the liquor trade.[15]According to Klier, by 1830 Belorussian Jews were found to be “totally dominating trade” in that country.[16] It was largely Klier’s work in the late 1980s which began to truly shed light on the origins of Russian-Jewish relations prior to 1914. Klier, born into a Catholic family in Kansas, “rejected what might be called the Fiddler on the Roof pieties and simplifications. In book after book, he emphasised that what the tsars and their ministers wanted, above all else, was for the Jewish settlements to be orderly and productive.”[17] Klier further stressed that the much-maligned Pale of Settlement was simply the only response that the Russian administration could come up with, faced as they were with the “baffling question” of how to deal with the “fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jewry” which was thoroughly “unassimilable to official purposes.”[18]



In 1841, investigations were carried out into Russia’s Jewish communities, and the subsequent reports pointed to three significant problems. The first was persistent Jewish difference in dress, language, and religious and communal organization. The idea underpinning this aloofness from non-Jewish society, the ‘Chosen’ status of the Jews and an accompanying ethnic chauvinism, was said to be particularly harmful to Jewish-Gentile relations, particularly when it was reinforced through “a system of male education that was thought to inculcate anti-Christian interpretations of the Talmud.”[19] The second, related, problem was that Jewish economic practices were also rooted in this aloofness. The Talmud “encouraged and justified unreserved economic exploitation based on cheating and exploiting the non-Jews,”[20] in a validation of Max Weber’s theory of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ ethics, whereby “members of a cohesive social unit observe different moral standards among themselves compared with those observed in relation to strangers.”[21] The third aspect of the Russian ‘Jewish Question,’ was the issue of Jewish loyalty. The Jews of the Russian Empire had evidently retained the kahal of pre-partition Polish Jewry. The kahal was a formal system of Jewish communal leadership and government, entirely separate from the Russian state. Although tacitly tolerated by the state for its tax collection capabilities, Jewish loyalty to the kahal was absolute, going beyond the merely fiscal. Almost all Jews continued to resort to Jewish courts.



John Klier states that following these revelations, “state and society shared a consensus that Jews could be – and must be – reformed and transformed into good subjects of the realm.”[22] Under Emperor Alexander I (1801–25) there had been attempts to encourage Jews to pursue more productive economic activities. Generous concessions were made to Jews in the hope that they would abandon their middleman roles, as well as the distilleries and taverns of the provinces, and take up work in agricultural colonies. Klier states that the “embeddedness of the Jews in the economic and social life of the imperial borderlands ensured that despite legislative initiatives, Jewish economic life remained largely unchanged.”[23]



In 1844, under Nicholas I, the Russian government began a program of reforms and legislation designed to break down Jewish exclusivity and incorporate the nation’s Jews more fully into Russian society. Not surprisingly, the government first took aim at the kahal, banning it as “an illegal underground structure.”[24]The significance of the banning of the kahal went beyond tackling the issue of Jewish loyalty. The mutual assistance offered by the kahal was felt to have had economic implications – “it was the mutual support provided by the kahal that ensured that Jews were more than a match for any competitor, even the arch-exploiter of the Russian village, the kulak.”[25] The civil rights of any “Jews who were perceived to be engaged in productive undertakings” were extended, though there were few takers. Nicholas I even conceived of, and supported, the establishment of state-financed Jewish schools, in the hope that such establishments would lead to the development of a more progressive and integrative Russian Jewry. Unfortunately for Nicholas, what his system produced was a cadre of Jewish intellectuals profoundly hostile to the state.



Emperor Alexander II continued the efforts of Mother Russia to gather in her Jews. He abolished serfdom in 1861. He relaxed efforts to change the economic profile of Russian Jewry, extending the rights of educated Jews and large-scale merchants. His was a program aimed at reconciliation, an abandonment of the stick in favour of the carrot. Education was made fully open to Jews, and Jews could sit on the juries of Russian courts. Conditions on settlement and mobility in the Pale were relaxed further. Klier states that “Jews even became the subject of sympathetic concern for the leaders of public opinion. Proposals for the complete emancipation of the Jews were widely mooted in the press.”[26]



These measures, however, were also accompanied by a growing uneasiness with the way the Jews of Russia took advantage of them. There was little in the way of gratitude, and the measures did not bring about the great changes that had been hoped for. The nationalist revolt of the Poles in 1863, and the fact that a large number of wealthy Jews were found to have funded some of the rebels cast new doubts on Jewish loyalty. Having emancipated the peasantry and adopted a paternalistic concern for the former serfs, the government also viewed with alarm the rapidity with which the “Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish serfdom.”[27] It also quickly became apparent that despite new military legislation, Jews were noticeable in their overwhelming avoidance of military service. In retaliation, the government clamped down on rural tavern ownership, and introduced more stringent recruitment procedures specifically for Jews. It has been claimed that Jews were also banned from land ownership at this time, but Klier provides evidence that Jews were still able to buy any peasant properties sold at auction for tax arrears, as well as any property within the Pale not owned by Russian gentry.[28]



By the end of Alexander II’s reign, disillusionment with the government’s policy at handling the Jewish Question was widespread. The vast majority of Jews had stubbornly persisted in the unproductive trades, continued in their antipathy to Russian culture, and refused to make any meaningful contribution to Russian society. An air of resignation swept the country. Some newspapers even advocated abolishing the Pale, if only to alleviate that region from bearing the burden of the Jews alone. Other papers opposed this “fearing for the welfare of the peasantry at a time when the cultural level of the peasantry made them an easy target for exploitation.”[29] Meanwhile Jews were beginning to swamp higher education establishments. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were “driving Christians from the school benches,” and “filling up the schools.”[30]



On the eve of the assassination of Alexander II, Russia’s Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of legislation had done little to change the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically, and culturally homogenous. The new Jewish intelligentsia had turned on the hand that fed it, failing to encourage the adaptation of their fellow Jews, moving instead to defend them and advocate for their interests. In terms of educational and social opportunities, Jews had been given an inch and taken a mile. They had swamped the schools, and added to a group of emergent Jewish capitalists. In 1879 Russian authorities were being lobbied by a Rabbinic Commission for full emancipation, an ominous prospect for those concerned about the well-being of Russian peasantry.



The breaking point, when it came, did not emerge from the ether, but from this historical background. In part two we will examine the more immediate origins of the anti-Jewish riots and how the riots proceeded. We will do away with petty distractions, dispelling myths with facts; and as we venture into the Pale, we now do so with a more complete view of the Jew we find there.







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



[1] John Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p.xiii.



[2] Jack Glazier, Dispersing the Ghetto: The Relocation of Jewish Immigrants Across America (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998) p.9.



[3] Donald Dutton, The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres and Extreme Violence (New York: Prager, 2007 ) p.40



[4] Michael Mann, The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.142.



[5] I.M. Aronson, ‘Geographical and Socioeconomic factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,’ Russian Review, Vol.39, No.1 (Jan. 1980) p.18.



[6] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.xiv.



[7] Israel Bartal, The Jews of Eastern Europe: 1772-1881, (Tel Aviv, Ministry of Defence, 2005) p.23.



[8] Ibid, p.24.



[9] Israel Friedlander, The Jews of Russia and Poland, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.



[10] Ibid.



[11] Ibid, p.85.



[12] Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173



[13] Ibid.



[14] Ibid, p.87.



[15] Simon Dubnow, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173



[16] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.4.



[17]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardianobituaries.obituaries



[18]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardianobituaries.obituaries



[19] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.3.



[20] Ibid.



[21] Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.



[22] Ibid.



[23] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.4



[24] Ibid.



[25] Ibid.



[26] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5



[27] Klier, Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2, p.5



[28] Ibid.



[29] Ibid, p.6



[30] Ibid.



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













30 - Myth and the Russian Pogroms, Part 2 : Inventing Atrocities





May 11, 2012

Andrew Joyce





Having grounded ourselves in the history of Russia’s Jewish Question, it is now time for us to turn our attention to the anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s. The following essay will first provide the reader with the standard narrative of these events advanced by Jewish contemporaries and the majority of Jewish historians — a narrative which has overwhelmingly prevailed in the public consciousness. The latter half of the essay will be devoted to dissecting one aspect of the Jewish narrative, and explaining how events really transpired. Other aspects of the Jewish narrative will be examined in later entries in this series. While a work like this can come in for heavy criticism from certain sections of the population who may denounce it as ‘revisionist,’ I can only say that ‘revisionism’ should be at the heart of every historical work. If we blindly accept the stories that are passed down to us, we are liable to fall victim to what amounts to little more than a glorified game of Chinese whispers. And, if we taboo the right of the historian to reinterpret history in light of new research and new discoveries, then we have become far removed from anything resembling true scholarship.



The Jewish Narrative.



In 1881 the ‘Russo-Jewish Committee,’ (RJC) an arm of Britain’s Jewish elite, mass-produced a pamphlet entitled “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia,” and began disseminating it through the press, the churches, and numerous other channels. By 1899, it was embellished and published as a short book, and today digitized copies are freely available online.[1] By the early 20th century, the pamphlet had even spawned a four-page journal called Darkest Russia – A Weekly Record of the Struggle for Freedom, ensuring that the average British citizen did not go long without being reminded of the ‘horrors’ facing Russian Jews.[2] The fact that these publications were mass produced should provide an indication as to their purpose: It is clear that these publications represented one of the most ambitious propaganda campaign in Jewish history, and combined with similar efforts in the United States, they were aimed at gaining the attention of, and ‘educating,’ the Western nations and ensuring the primacy of the ‘Jewish side of the story.’ Implicit in this was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts of sympathy for the victimized Jews — sympathy necessary to ensure that mass Jewish chain migration to the West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn’t the bigoted nativist just a step removed from the rampaging Cossack?



The first element of the narrative advanced by the RJC is essentially a manipulation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations. It holds that the Jews of Eastern Europe have been oppressed for centuries, their whole lives “hampered, from cradle to grave, by restrictive laws.”[3] It was claimed that the Russians had an unwritten law: “That no Russian Jew shall earn a living.”[4] Russian Jews, according to the Russo-Jewish Committee, have wanted nothing more than to participate in Russian society, but have been rebuffed time and again as “heretics and aliens.” The Pale is an impenetrable fortress, where every Jew “must live and die.” Implicit in this interpretation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations in the belief that “the fount and origin of all the ills that assail Russian Jewry” has nothing to do with the Jews themselves, but everything to do with the Church, the State, and the Pale. In essence, the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. They are also presented as the only victims of Russian violence. There is no acknowledgement of failed Russian efforts to break down the Jewish walls of exclusivity and claim the Jews as brothers. In fact, there is no reference at all to the walls of exclusivity. The pogroms themselves, according to the Jewish narrative, broke out following the assassination of Alexander II, when shock, anger and a desire for revenge brought this irrational, rootless hatred to the surface.



The second element of the Jewish narrative is that the government and petty officialdom had some role to play in organizing and directing the pogroms. Much disdain is heaped on the government, and petty officialdom, which was said to have been afflicted with “a chronic anti-Semitic outlook.” It was claimed that when the riots began, the government was “not altogether sorry to let the excitement of the people vent itself on the Jews.”[5] In reference to the restrictive May Laws, the authors were forced to concede they had never really been enforced, but maintained that “whether moderately or rigorously applied, the May Laws still remained on the Russian Statute Book.”[6]



The third element of the Jewish narrative is that the pogroms were genocidal, and that they had been organized and perpetrated by groups seeking the extermination of the Jews. The 1899 edition of “The Persecution of the Jews in Russia” included a copy of a lengthy letter written to the London Times by Nathan Joseph, Secretary of the RJC, dated November 5th, 1890. In the letter, Joseph claimed that in the present circumstances “hundreds of thousands could be exterminated,”[7] and that Russian legislation in relation to Jews represented “an instrument of torture and persecution.” In sum, the Jews of Russia were claimed to be living under “a sentence of death,” and it was further claimed that “the executions are proceeding.” The letter ends with an appeal to “Civilized Europe” to intervene, chastise Russia, and aid the victimized Jews.[8]



The fourth key element of the Jewish narrative is that the pogroms were extremely violent in nature. Contemporary media reports especially were the source of most of the atrocity stories, reportedly gleaned from newly-arrived ‘refugees’ who had given statements to the Russo-Jewish Committee about the pogroms they had fled. In these reports, which were carried very regularly by both the New York Times and the London Times, Russians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Every Jew in the Russian Empire was under threat. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes. During a British parliamentary consultation on the pogroms in 1905, a Rabbi Michelson claimed that “the atrocities had been so fiendish that they could find no parallel even in the most barbarous annals of the most barbarous peoples.”[9] The New York Times reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom “babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob.”[10]



A common theme in most contemporary atrocity stories was the brutal rape of Jewish women, with most reports including mention of breasts being hacked off. There are literally thousands of carbon-copy reports in which it is claimed that mothers were raped alongside their daughters. There is simply not enough space to cite extensively from these articles, but they number in their thousands and are available to anyone with access to the digitized archives of any major newspaper, or the microfilm facilities at major libraries. In addition, these articles claim that whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically fired.



The ‘atrocity’ aspect of the narrative has continued to be advanced by Jewish historians. For example Anita Shapira, in her Stanford-published, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948, claims that “each series of new riots was worse than the one preceding, as if every bloodbath provided a permit for an even worse massacre.”[11] Shapira further hints that the murder of Jewish babies was common during the pogroms, stating that a common worry of Russian Jews was “Will they take pity on the small babies, who do not even know yet that they are Jews?”[12] She concludes one particular section on pogrom violence by stating, without referencing any evidence, that there were “numerous acts of rape,” and that “many were massacred — men, women, and children. The cruelty that marked these killings added a special dimension to the feeling of terror and shock that spread in their wake.”[13] Joseph Brandes, in his 2009Immigrants to Freedom alleges, without citing evidence, that mobs “threw women and children out of the windows” of their homes, and that “heads were battered with hammers, nails were driven into bodies, eyes were gouged out … and petroleum was poured over the sick found hiding in cellars and they were burned to death.”[14]



Another crucial element to the Jewish narrative is that Russia is barbaric, ignorant, and uncivilized compared to the Jewish citizens of the country. Russia is said to be lingering in the “medieval stage of development,”[15] and in comparison to the “ignorant and superstitious peasantry,”[16] Russia’s Jews are presented as an outpost of Western civilization — they are urban, and “intellectual.” The RJC publication argued that university quotas allowing 5% of the student body to be made up of Jews were insufficient for “an intellectual race.” Astonishingly, it is claimed that “the root of the whole matter is racial arrogance,”[17] though this arrogance of course is said to emanate from the Russians.



The RJC charged the government with criminal sympathy, the local authorities generally with criminal inaction, and some of the troops with active participation. The situation, they argued, was simply so hopeless and the possibility of extermination was so great, that the only way out was for the civilized nations of the West to throw open their doors and let in these poor ‘Hebrews’.



And to a great extent this is exactly what the churches, the politicians, and the media agreed to. This capitulation to manipulated conscience ushered in the greatest migration in Jewish history, with profound consequences for us all. But there was just one small problem — the vast majority of this narrative was a calculated, designed, and expertly promoted fraud, furthered by the willing participation of Russian-Jewish emigrants who wished to ease their own access to the West and obtain “relief money from Western Europe and America.”[18]



The ‘Atrocities’



Let us first turn our attention to the atrocity stories. Prior to any major reports of violence, the British public was already being primed to hate the Russian government and accept the Jewish narrative. John Doyle Klier points out that theDaily Telegraph was at that time Jewish-owned, and was particularly “severe” in its reports on Russian treatment of Jews prior to 1881.[19] In the pages of this publication, it was stated that “these Russian atrocities are only the beginning. … [T]he Russian officials themselves countenance these barbarities.”[20] Around this time in Continental Europe, Prussian Rabbi Yizhak Rülf established himself as an “intermediary” between Eastern Jewry and the West, and, according to Klier, one of his specialities was the spreading of “sensationalized accounts of mass rape.”[21]



Other major sources of pogrom atrocity stories were the New York Times, the London Times, and the Jewish World. It would be the Jewish World which furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter “to visit areas that had suffered pogroms.”[22] Most of the other papers simply reprinted what theJewish World reporter sent them. The atrocity stories carried by these newspapers provoked global outrage. There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris, Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, “it was in the United States that public indignation reached its height.” Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred on by reports of “brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses, senseless slaughter, painful suffering and unbearable grief.”[23]



However, as John Klier states, the reports of the Jewish World’s “Special Correspondent,” “raise intriguing problems for the historian.”[24] While his itinerary of travel is described as “plausible,” most of his accounts are “flatly contradicted by the archival record.”[25] His claim that twenty rioters were killed during a pogrom in Kishinev in 1881 has been proven to be a fabrication by records which show that in that city, at that time, “there were no significant pogroms and no fatalities.”[26] Other claims that he witnessed shootings of peasants on his travels have been entirely discredited due to the vast number of minor inaccuracies in those accounts.



Furthermore, Klier states that the atrocity stories compiled by the Jewish Worldcorrespondent, which went on to be so influential in manipulating Western perceptions of the events, must be treated with “extreme caution.”[27] The reporter “portrayed the pogroms dramatically, as great in scale and inhuman in their brutality. He reported numerous accounts where Jews were burned alive in their homes while the authorities looked on.”[28] There are hundreds of instances where he references the murder of children, the mutilation of women, and the biting off of fingers.



Klier states that “the author’s most influential accounts, given their effect on world opinion, were his accounts of the rape and torture of girls as young as ten or twelve.”[29] In 1881 he reported 25 rapes in Kiev, of which five were said to have resulted in fatalities, in Odessa he claimed 11, and in Elizavetgrad he claimed 30.[30] Rape featured prominently in the reports, not because rapes were common, but because rape “even more than murder and looting” was known to “generate particular outrage abroad.” Klier states that “Jewish intermediaries who were channelling pogrom reports abroad were well aware of the impact of reports of rape, and it featured prominently in their accounts.”[31]The two most dramatic and gruesome accounts came from Berezovka and Borispol. In fact, as the year neared its end, the reports became more and more gruesome and brutal in the details they conveyed.



There is, of course, a reason for this. As the non-Jewish public began to tire of the reports and switched their minds to the coming Christmas festivities, Klier states that records show the RJC made a conscious and calculated decision to “keep Russian Jewry before the eyes of the public.”[32] A key component of this strategy was to take the accounts of the Special Correspondent and publish them in a more widely circulated and respected newspaper. They settled on the London Times, which was already predisposed to “critical editorial faulting of the Russian government.” Klier further states that these evidently false reports “garnished with the prestige of The Times and devoid of any attribution, subsequently published as a separate pamphlet, and translated into a variety of European languages … became the definitive Western version of the pogroms.”[33]



As increasingly lurid atrocity tales again captured the attention of the Gentile public, the British Government found itself under pressure to intervene. The British Government, however, adopted a more cautious approach and undertook its own independent investigations into events in the Russian Empire. Its findings, published as a “Blue Book,” “presented an account of events at great variance with that offered by The Times.”[34] The most notable aspect of the independent inquiry is the outright denial of mass rape. In January 1882, Consul-General Stanley objected to all of the details contained within reports published by The Times, mentioning in particular the unfounded “accounts of the violation of women.”[35] He further stated that his own investigations revealed that there had been no incidences of rape during the Berezovka pogrom, that violence was rare, and that much of the disturbance was restricted to property damage. In relation to property damage in Odessa, Stanley estimated it to be around 20,000 rubles, and rejected outright the Jewish claim that damage amounted to over one million rubles.



Vice-Consul Law, another independent investigator, reported that he had visited Kiev and Odessa, and could only conclude that “I should be disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged in those towns.”[36]Another investigator, Colonel Francis Maude, visited Warsaw and said that he could “not attach any importance” to atrocity reports emanating from that city.[37] At Elizavetgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, it was discovered that a small hut had lost its roof. It was further discovered that very few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. These were mainly the result of conflicts between groups of Jews who defended their taverns and rioters seeking alcohol. The small number of Jews who had been intentionally killed had fallen victim to unstable individuals who had been drunk on Jewish liquor — accusations of murderous intent among the masses were simply unfounded and unsubstantiated by the evidence.



When these reports were made public, states Klier, they represented “a serious setback for the protest and aid activities of the RJC.”[38] The Times was forced to backtrack, but responded spitefully (and bizarrely) by stating that the indignation of the country was still justified even if the atrocities were “the creations of popular fancy.”[39] (Reminiscent of the JewishGen response to Ukrainian discoveries mentioned in Part 1 of this series?!)



The revelations came at a bad time for the RJC, which was at that time attempting to move the British Government to “act in some way on behalf of persecuted Russian Jewry.”[40] It resorted to republishing (in the Times) its pamphlet on persecution in Russia twice in one month, presumably in the belief that blunt repetition would suffice to overcome tangible evidence. Klier states that the pieces were examples of “masterful” propaganda, as they attempted to undermine the credibility of the Government consuls, while sycophantically appealing to “the wise and noble people of England,” who “will know what weight should be attached to such denials and refutations.”[41] The RJC offered its own “corroborative evidence of the most undeniable kind,” though of course the exact source of this evidence was not specified beyond “persons occupying high official positions in the Jewish community” and “Jewish refugees.”



In essence, the people of western nations were being asked to trust an anonymous Rabbi on the other side of the world rather than identifiable representatives of their own government. The pieces, states Klier, “painted the familiar picture of murder and rape,” and despite the debunking statements of the consuls, “a number of mother/daughter rapes, which had already done so much to outrage British public opinion, were again repeated.”[42] Although the move for British government intervention failed, in the battle for public opinion “the RJC clearly won the day,” and the Times and the RJC remained good bedfellows.



The Consuls were outraged. Stanley reiterated the fact that his intensive investigations, which he carried out at great personal cost with a serious leg injury, illustrated that “The Times’ accounts of what took place at each of those places contains the greatest exaggerations, and that the account of what took place at some of those places is absolutely untrue.”[43] He related the fact that a Rabbi in Odessa had “not heard of any outrages on women there,” and that the object of almost every pogrom he had investigated was simple “plunder.”[44]Enraged by the lies circulating in Britain and America, Stanley “went right to the top,” interviewing state rabbis and asking for evidence and touring pogrom sites. In Odessa, where a wealth of atrocity stories had originated, he was able to confirm “one death, but no looting of synagogues or victims set alight.” There was no evidence that a single rape had taken place. One state Rabbi admitted that he had not heard of any outrages of women in Berezovka and further assured Stanley that he “could with a clear conscience positively deny that any deaths or any violations had occurred there during the disturbances of last year.”[45] He again sent this report to his superior in London, with a note saying “This is in accordance with all the information I have received and forwarded to your Lordship, and which I think more credible than anonymous letters in The Times.”[46]



Despite Stanley’s best efforts the Jewish narrative advanced by the RJC, imbued with atrocity tales, has remained unalterably attached in Western perceptions of the pogroms. The Blue Book was smothered by the more visible, and oft-repeated, tales of the RJC and organisations like it around the globe. Only with the decade-long research of John Klier has some revision of this narrative, grounded in scholarship and archival evidence, been possible. In light of this evidence, one can only conclude that stories of rape, murder and mutilation were “more legendary than factual.”[47] However, the task remains to further dismantle and analyse other aspects of the Jewish narrative, and to seek the true motives behind its creation.





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



[1] http://archive.org/stream/persecutionofjew00russ



[2] Max Beloff, The Intellectual in Politics: And other essays, (London: Taylor and Francis, 1970) p.135



[3] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.



[4] Ibid, p.4



[5] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5



[6] Ibid, p.8



[7] Ibid, p.36



[8] Ibid, p.38.



[9] Anthony Heywood, The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives(New York: Routledge, 2005) p.266.



[10] “Jewish Massacre Denounced,” New York Times, April 28, 1903, p.6



[11] Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), p.35



[12] Ibid, p.34.



[13] Ibid.



[14] Joseph Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom, (New York: Xlibris, 2009) p.171



[15] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.4



[16] The Persecution of the Jews in Russia, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.30



[17] Ibid.



[18] Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.291.



[19] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.399



[20] Ibid.



[21] Ibid.



[22] Ibid, p.400



[23] Edward Judge, Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom (New York: New York University Press, 1993) p.89.



[24] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.400



[25] Ibid, p.401



[26] Ibid



[27] Ibid.



[28] Ibid.



[29] Ibid.



[30] Ibid.



[31] Ibid, p.12



[32] Ibid, p.404



[33] Ibid.



[34] Ibid, p.405. (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883)



[35] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.405



[36] Ibid.



[37] Ibid.



[38] Ibid, p.405.



[39] Ibid.



[40] Ibid.



[41] Ibid, p.406.



[42] Ibid.



[43] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.407.



[44] John Doyle Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82, p.408.



[45] Ibid.



[46] Ibid.



[47] Ibid, p.13.



some comments



This is one of the critical facilities of this sight . : The following essay will first provide the reader with the standard narrative of these events advanced by Jewish contemporaries and the majority of Jewish historians — a narrative which has overwhelmingly prevailed in the PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS.

It would seem that our ‘leaders’ don’t care whether there children have to look at the ground in shame whenever Jews wheel out the Holyhoax and then make another demand .Whipping themselves into a righteous ,aggressive, vindictive lather over so many phoney claims of victimhood .Not only do we know on TOO that their claims are mostly phoney but that on closer examination we find that they are infact the inverse of the truth ! Brainwashing Duplicity .

Thanks again for this article , may the gods protect you !





Jews are masters of total inversion of the truth. After reading this Part-2 there are real doubts whether 6 million really died.

The Jews murdered 120 million White European Christians from 1914 to 1945. The greatest mass murder in Human history.

Denying the genocide of 120 million and manufacturing the stories of 6 million sounds like the real inversion of the truth.











This article struck a resonant chord with me – gilding the lily seems irresistible for Jewish historians, not to mention the overt propagandists.

Those unfamiliar with the signature hyperbole could do worse than reading Heddesheimer’s The First Holocaust>http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/As the commenter “Bear” noted, much Jewish power is drawn from the pool of sympathy for their putative suffering at the hands of Gentiles; nothing could be more explosive than the erstwhile sympathizer realizing his emotional manipulation. To be an honest historian is one of the riskiest professions imaginable, Dariusz Ratajczak a case in point. I thank Andrew Joyce for his contribution.











“The New York Times reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom “babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob.”

Probably it is about “babies”.

Kishinev was virtually flooded with jews by the Tsarist Empire, using the jews against the local Romanian population. At 1900 it was 43% jewish. During some revolts of the Romanian peasants (1903 and 1905) against the shameless exploitation of the jews, the tsarist police opened fire. The British envoys considered that some more Romanian blood not that important to be mentioned. So much of a pogrom as a state sponsored rebellion.

In my opinion, after 1800 the Tars used the jewish population against the original populations of its newly acquired western territories. No matter the historical period or the part of the world the jews formed alliances with the elites national (the Polish case – no pun intended) or imperial (the Tsarist case but also the Polish case against the Ukrainian peasants) against some occupied peoples. The alliance is broken when considered fit, usually by the jews (when somebody starts talking about backstabbing). The real victims are depicted as criminals and the real criminals as saints (jews or gentiles).

Interesting is that the same account – killed babies – is given the other way around after 17 July 1941 (the day when the Romanian and Germans troops liberated Kishinev from the soviet occupation).

A German-Romanian commission described the killings of a number of babies, smashed by the walls or thrown through the windows of the Children’s Hospital of Kishinev by the local jews and NKVD officers during the soviet occupation of Besserabia between June 26, 1940 and July 26, 1941. This kind of imagines “smash the head of the children against the stone” are coming from OT. Really old but permeates the jewish imagination.

In fact the number of anti-Romanian atrocities committed by soviets (jews or not is almost unbearable to count).

Katyn but also Finatana Alba, Tiganca, Kishinev etc.

In fact the jews were conditioning themselves against the autochtonous populations inventing horror stories only to make them real at the opportune moment. After more than 100 years we are still debating how real those “pogroms” were. Not what the heck were the jews doing at Kishinev or how many Romanian peasants died under the Russian bullets during the Kishinev pogroms).

As a matter of fact I have nothing with the Russians for that – frankly the same has happened in Romania in 1907 during another peasant revolt directed to the same jewish exploiters.

How much it had to do with British Empire diplomatic pressure is another good subject.



A fascinating and revealing article Mr Joyce. What you have provided have here is the missing first chapter in conventional accounts of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Jewish supremacist attitudes you have identified as being mainstream among the leading Jews of the time (including an utter contempt for the Russian people) was ultimately THE prime motivation for the Judeo-Bolshevik mass-murder of millions of Russians and other eastern Europeans after 1917. I very much look forward to Part 3.









When Jews control our communications system, mass media, they are our Masters. If we could get back the control our own communications system, particularly the television networks, we are our own Masters.

The purpose of a communications system is to provide information, knowledge and guidance. Being our own masters is the ultimate in power and freedom. With media under the guidance of intelligent white men every individual would be his own master and free to become all that he was meant to be. The world would be a very different place.











Stories of oppression against Jews in Eastern Europe in the interwar period (1910s, 20s) were met with great skepticism by the U.S. State Department and were seen as propaganda. It amazes to read the following history relating that issue, which history includes accounts of behind-the-scenes machinations by two Jewish U.S. Supreme Court Justices to lobby for Zionism:



“Probably no tactic employed by the Zionists caused greater resentment than their efforts directly to intimidate the State Department and its staff. One such effort serves to demonstrate the Zionist technique. It was a highly effective tactic, and continues to be, and it goes far in explaining why the professionals at the State Department and successive secretaries of state harbored various degrees of animosity towards the Zionists.



“The case involved an urbane and highly successful diplomat, Hugh Gibson. At the age of 36 in 1919 he was the newly installed ambassador to Poland, or to use the grandiose title of the day, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Post-war Poland was home to one of the largest and least assimilated Jewish communities in Europe and their troubles were trumpeted by the Zionists as an example of ruthless anti-Semitism. In fact, anti-Semitic incidents were common, but not as common in Gibson’s view as claimed by American Zionists. To his mother he wrote: “These yarns are exclusively of foreign manufacture for anti-Polish purposes.”



“Gibson’s skeptical reports to the State Department about the troubles of Polish Jews came to the attention of Brandeis. On 24 June 1919, Gibson was called by Colonel House to a meeting with the fabled justice and his protégé, Felix Frankfurter. Gibson not only was at a disadvantage because of Brandeis exalted status but also because his appointment as ambassador to Poland had yet to be confirmed by the Senate.



“In Gibson’s words, the two Zionists opened what the young diplomat later called the “prosecution” by saying that



“I had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century. They said…that my reports on the Jewish question had gone around the world and had undone their work….They finally said that I had stated that the stories of excesses against the Jews were exaggerated, to which I replied that they certainly were and I should think any Jew would be glad to know it.



“Frankfurter claimed that Gibson “had no right to make reports to the department in regard to Jewish matters and should have ‘refused’ on the ground that I could not possibly learn enough about them to make even general observations.” Frankfurter then hinted that if Gibson continued his reports that Zionists would block his confirmation as ambassador to Poland by the Senate.



“Gibson was so furious by the confrontation that he wrote a twenty-one page letter about it to his friends in the State Department, including Frankfurter’s claim that Gibson should not report on Jews. Nothing is more disconcerting or insulting to a diplomat than to have his reporting questioned, much less to be advised that he had no “right” to report on certain matters. Reporting is the secret heart of the diplomat’s art, a talent especially valued in Washington where officials in those pre-television days depended on it as their window to the world beyond.



Frankfurter could hardly have raised a more sensitive question or one more certain to raise the hackles of diplomats. Gibson went further in his letter than just describe his encounter. He also shared his suspicions of what the Zionists were trying to accomplish-a conscienceless and cold-blooded plan to make the condition of the Jews in Poland so bad that they must turn to Zionism for relief.” The State Department in those days was a far more closed and clubby establishment of upper class scions than after 1945. This attack on one of its own was highly resented. A rising star of the foreign service had been humiliated and threatened by a justice of the Supreme Court acting as a spokesperson for a narrow Jewish group not even accepted by most Jews. Rancor was particularly strong in the Warsaw embassy, where it lingered for years. In 1923, Vice Consul Monroe H. Kline reported: “It is common knowledge that this race of people [Jews] are continually and constantly spreading propaganda, through their agencies over the entire world, of political and religious persecution.” He added: “The Jew in business oppresses the Pole to a far greater extent than does the Pole oppress the Jew in a political way.” ”



Source:



Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945

By Donald Neff



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fallenpillars.htm











This essay vindicates an observation made by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: “… the Jews are the great masters in lying….”











Jews are a disease. When in 1943 the German Army reached Vinitzia in Western Ukraine, locals urged them to dig up the prison courtyard. There they found and counted about 9 to 10 THOUSAND corpses with at least as many uncounted. The NKVD would gun diesel truck engines to drown out the gunshots. The IHR has an account of this event by a young Ukrainian who was in Berlin and under surveillance by the Gestapo. He was taken to Vinnitzia by mild coercion as an interpreter for the old Gestapo hacks. He describes how the ‘meticulous’ Germans identified each corpse and how every few moments a woman would commence wailing as she recognized her husband, father-brother. he also notes young females were naked while older Women were clothed. All were dispatched by a .22 Bullet to the back of the head. Two twelve year old boys were also killed because they climbed a tree and saw what was going on.



The Germans observed that without exception these people met their deaths in 1938 long BEFORE war with Germany. The relatives all claimed that their departed husband-brother etc had been arrested by the NKVD and sent to Siberia ‘without postal rights’ so as to account for the non appearance of any mail.



The murderous scheming Jews of course ran the NKVD and what the lying bastards did was liquidate potential future enemies. That what these misbegotten murderous shysters do when they get control. Its what they do to children in Israel. I have no doubt whatsoever if they can they will do exactly the same in the US and other countries which they infest.













@Floda:



The murderous scheming Jews of course ran the NKVD and what the lying bastards did was liquidate potential future enemies.



The idea of “preventive genocide” isn’t strange to Jewish culture at all.

Think of the festival of Purim in which the preventive slaughter of 75,000 Persians is “celebrated”. The remembering of this massacre is a source of the greatest pleasure for Jewish children taking part in pageants, dressed up in all kinds of funny costumes etc.



Some time ago an Israeli rabbi of a settlement on the West Bank published a book called The King’s Torah in which he wrote :



There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.



If fantasies of “preventive genocide” are such an integral part of Jewish culture, it comes as no surprise that the Jews will practise them in real life when they have the power to do so, as the Russians experienced and as we will have to avoid happening to us.



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





Andrew Joyce : Just a note to say that on re-reading this piece, I noticed a few things I would change if I could have gotten hold of it just prior to publication – not least a couple of examples of my own use of the lexicon of the Jewish victim paradigm! In the main though, this essay conveys much of what I wanted to say on this particular topic. In order to deal with other committments, to make way for other writers, and perfect further entries in the series, I would like to propose an interlude of perhaps two weeks before we resume. Regards, Andrew Joyce









31 - Myth and the Russian Pogroms Part 3 – The Jewish Role



May 13, 2012



Andrew Joyce





We continue our series of essays examining the Russian Pogroms with this essay on the part played by Jews in provoking the disturbances. As stated in Part Two, one of the key problems with existing historiography on the pogroms (and ‘anti-Semitism’ generally) is that these narratives invariably argue that the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. There is no sense of Jewish agency, and one is left with the impression that Jews historically have lacked the capacity to act in the world. In almost every single academic and popular history of the pogroms, the author blindly accepts, or willfully perpetuates, the basic premise that Jews had been hated in the Russian Empire for centuries, that this hatred was irrational and rootless, and that the outbreak of anti-Jewish riots late in the 19thcentury was a ‘knee-jerk’ emotional response to the assassination of the Tsar and some blood libel accusations.



This is of course far from the truth, but the prevalence of this ‘victim paradigm’ plays two significant roles. Firstly, Jewish historiography is saturated with allusions to the “unique” status of Jews, who have suffered a “unique” hatred at the hands of successive generations of Europeans. In essence, it is the notion that Jews stand alone in the world as the quintessential “blameless victim.” To allow for any sense of Jewish agency — any argument that Jews may have in some way contributed to anti-Jewish sentiment — is to harm the perpetuation of this paradigm. In this sense, the ‘victim paradigm’ also contributes heavily to the claim for Jewish uniqueness and, as Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, one can clearly see in many examples of Jewish historiography the tendency to focus not so much on the “suffering of Jews” but rather on the simple fact that “Jews suffered.”[1] As a result, the paradigm offers no place to non-Jewish suffering. Simply put, the ‘victim paradigm’ is a form of secular “chosenness.” This aspect of the narrative is seen, quite rightly, as a useful tool in the here and now. There is perhaps no race on earth which uses its history to justify its actions in the present quite like the Jewish people. From seeking reparations to establishing nation states, Jewish history is one of the foundation stones propping up Jewish international politics in the present. As such, Jewish history is carefully constructed and fiercely defended. The interplay between Jewish history and contemporary Jewish politics is plain to see — I need only make reference to the terms “revisionist” and “denier” to conjure up images of puppet trials and prison cells.



Secondly, the omission of the Jewish contribution to the development of anti-Semitism (be it in a village setting or a national setting), leaves the spotlight burning all the more ferociously on the ‘aggressor.’ Within this context, the blameless victim is free to make the most ghastly accusations, basking in the assurance that his own role, and by extension his own character, is unimpeachable. The word of this untainted, unique, blameless victim is taken as fact — to doubt his account is to be in league with the ‘aggressor.’ In Part Two we explored the manner in which the RJC took full advantage of this construct to purvey appalling, and unfounded, atrocity stories. More generally, exaggerated tales of brutality by non-Jews are commonplace in Jewish literature and historiography, and go hand in hand with images of dove-like Jews. For example, Finkelstein has pointed to Jerzy Kosinski’s The Painted Bird, a work now widely acknowledged as “the first major Holocaust hoax,” as an example of this “pornography of violence.”[2] The twin concepts of Jewish blamelessness and extreme Gentile brutality are inextricably bound up together, and supporters of one strand of the ‘victim paradigm’ are invariably supporters of the other. Take for example that high priest of Jewish chosenness, Elie Wiesel, who praised Kosinki’s pastiche of sadomasochistic fantasies as “written with deep sincerity and sensitivity.”[3]



Having clarified this theoretical framework, we now turn our attention to deconstructing the second strand of the pogrom ‘victim paradigm.’ To deal most effectively with the question of Jewish culpability in the souring of relations between Jews and non-Jews, we will need to probe deeper, and with more focus, than we endeavored to do in Part One. This essay will focus on specific examples of anti-Jewish disturbance in the Russian Empire prior to 1880, with a particular focus on Jewish economic practices preceding these events.



Anti-Jewish Riots in the Russian Empire Before 1880



For the reasons discussed above, the majority of Jewish historians have long displayed an aversion to the idea that Jewish economic practices have played a significant role historically in provoking anti-Semitism. For example, Leon Poliakov in The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner, argues that the idea of economic anti-Semitism is “devoid of real explanatory value.”[4] Similarly, Jonathan Freedman has stated that, in explaining anti-Jewish attitudes, economic anti-Semitism should play only a very “small explanatory role.”[5] Both of these historians posit that theology, and by extension Christianity (and therefore Western culture) is the fount and origin of anti-Semitism. Robert Weinberg, in his 1998 article on Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History, explains anti-Semitic outbreaks of violence in Eastern Europe by stating that they were the product of “the frustrations of Russian and Ukrainian peasants, workers and town dwellers who, for the most part, spontaneously took out their frustrations on a time-honored scapegoat, the Jews.”[6] Weinberg refrains from stating where precisely these ‘frustrations’ emerge from, but note again the extremely passive Jewish role in his analysis.



Conversely, those historians who have accepted that economic issues have played a role in provoking anti-Semitism fail to engage in actual case studies of economically provoked anti-Jewish actions, preferring instead to probe “images” or stereotypes which allegedly infuse the consciousness of non-Jews. For example Professor of Israel Studies at Oxford University, Derek J. Penslar, has stated that economic anti-Semitism is nothing more than “a double helix of intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination.”[7] By choosing to discuss “images” and concepts rather than say, an actual incident such as the Limerick Anti-Jewish Riots, Penslar engages in a practice equally duplicitous to that engaged in by Poliakov and Freedman. Penslar’s thesis only superficially acknowledges the economic role, while really lending more weight to the argument that European society has suffered some kind of neurosis in relation to its Jews. Penslar deftly offers us an argument in which Jews and economics play a role in the development of an anti-Semitic “image,” without placing the Jew in anything but a passive role. Penslar’s “images” are also devoid of gradation — Europeans, if they hold to economically motivated anti-Semitism, either view Jews as pauper savages or global financiers. This despite the case that most European peasants simply didn’t need to have these extreme conceptions of Jews, and probably didn’t. Exploitative economic practices by local Jewish capitalists, the existence of local Jewish monopolies on such items as alcohol, and the Jewish practice of in-group/out-group ethics would be more than sufficient to provoke anti-Jewish resentment.



But references to this motivation for anti-Jewish action is entirely absent from Jewish historiography on the causes of anti-Semitism, most likely because it comes extremely close to demolishing the ‘victim paradigm.’ This essay, which focuses on actual case studies (in particular the city of Odessa), will argue that the anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s, like many riots before them, were motivated by economic anti-Semitism, and that this economic anti-Semitism had its origins not in the European psyche, but in the day to day economic interactions of Jews had with the non-Jews of Odessa. It attempts to rediscover the Jewish role, and to place it front and centre.



The first disturbance involving Jews to occur in the Russian Empire, and which left sufficient documentation, was the 1821 Odessa pogrom. Weinberg has painted a picture of Odessa as being some kind of multicultural heaven at this time. He states that the city “benefited from the presence of German, Italian, French, Greek, and English residents whose cultural and intellectual tastes influenced local life.”[8] By the 1820s street signs were written in Russian and Italian, the city’s first newspaper appeared in French. Odessa, according to Weinberg, had a thriving art scene, particularly in relation to theatre, music, and opera.



However, Klier paints a radically different picture of the city, stressing in particular the ethnic tension created by increasing Jewish settlement in the city. Klier states that by 1821, Odessa was “a hotbed of ethnic, religious, and economic rivalries” and was, quite significantly, “a distinctly non-Russian city.”[9] Weinberg explains that “the number of Jews arriving from other parts of the Russian Empire and Galicia in the Austrian Empire skyrocketed.” In Odessa, Jews were entirely free from “legal burdens and residency restrictions.”[10]



Violence erupted in 1821 when, during the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews murdered and then mutilated Gregory V, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. In the aftermath, many Greeks fled with Gregory’s remains from Istanbul to Odessa, where his funeral procession was held. Surviving documents suggest that violence broke out when a large contingent of Odessa’s Jewish population showed open disrespect for the procession.[11]



In describing this and subsequent outbreaks of violence in Odessa, I must urge readers to divest themselves of the preconception that the Jewish contingent of the city was a tiny minority. Jewish historians are often quick to allude to minority status without providing definitive numbers. John Doyle Klier, however, informs us that by the middle of the nineteenth century Jews constituted “almost one-third of the total population” in Odessa.[12] Given the huge population of Greeks and other nationalities, it was the Russians who composed the “tiny minority.” Economic supremacy in the city until the middle of the nineteenth century was the preserve of the Greek population, which had fended off the attempts of numerous other ethnic groups to “secure or maintain a favored economic position.”[13]



When a huge influx of Jews occurred in the 1850s, the struggle for economic supremacy between Jew and Greek, added to historical religiopolitical grievances, contributed to increased inter-ethnic tension in the city. Greek historian Evridiki Sifneos informs us that earlier co-existence had “not been based on mutual toleration. On the contrary, economic recession in the second half of the nineteenth century accelerated ethnic distinctions, and resentment was provoked by the ascension of social or ethnic groups [primarily Jewish], which led to the redistribution of resources.”[14] Until the mid-1850s, the Greeks had control of grain exports, but with the disruption of trade routes as a result of the Crimean War, some local Greek business owners were forced into bankruptcy. The city’s Jews, who had earlier occupied mainly middleman roles, pooled resources and eagerly bought up these businesses at extremely low prices. A letter from one Greek contemporary reads: “When I first came to Odessa in 1864, I became a purchaser of grain on behalf of our house, 14 at Moldovanka. The majority were Greeks, with a few Russian middlemen. Now there are no Russians, and as for the Greeks they are counted on the fingers of one hand. Jews are the ones who have taken over the market.”[15] According to Sifneos, Jews took advantage of the placement of their taverns in the villages to establish themselves as middlemen in the collection of grain from the surrounding countryside, and in addition “they worked more tightly within their ethnic network.”[16]



Weinberg further states that when “Jewish employers followed the practice of only hiring their own, many Greek dockworkers now found themselves in the ranks of the unemployed.”[17] When it became apparent that Jews had wrested economic supremacy from the Greeks in 1858, incidences of inter-ethnic violence began to escalate in frequency. In 1858 there were attacks on Greek and Jewish property, and numerous “Greek-Jewish brawls” in the city, and in 1859 a quarrel between Greek and Jewish children again escalated into full-scale inter-ethnic conflict. Violence was ended thanks only to the intervention of Russian police and Cossacks.[18] A major bout of Greek-Jewish violence occurred again in 1869.



How do we describe such events? In light of the context of these disturbances, does the term “pogrom” or “anti-Jewish riot” withstand scrutiny? Certainly not. Note my use of the terms “inter-ethnic violence” and “disturbance involving Jews.” These terms do not feature in Jewish historiography on these events. “Anti-Jewish riot” or “pogrom” is merely part of the lexicon of the ‘victim paradigm,’ bequeathing passive status even through word use. To express it flippantly, when Tom and Bill have a fight in the street, one does not describe it as “anti-Tom violence.” This automatically imparts passive, victim status to Tom, despite the fact that he may have started the fight, and certainly threw as many punches. Weinberg, for example, describes the 1859 disturbance as “anti-Jewish activity,” but states that both “Jewish and gentile youths engaged in bloody brawls.”[19] This is an obvious contradiction in terms.



It is only in 1871, during a particularly severe bout of disturbances, that we see the first Russian involvement in Odessa’s inter-ethnic violence. The late John Doyle Klier, formerly Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Oxford University, informs us categorically that Russian involvement in the 1871 Odessa ethnic conflict had its roots in real, tangible economic grievances. Klier states that Russian participation was the result of “bitterness born of the exploitation of their work by Jews and the ability of the latter to enrich themselves and manipulate all manner of trade and commercial activity.”[20] Similarly, Weinberg concedes that by 1871, there were “many others besides Greeks who perceived Jews as an economic threat.”[21]



The roots of the 1871 disturbance are quite tangible, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting it was the result of real socio-economic grievances, rather than “images,” “stereotypes,” or any of the other usual suspects wheeled out in Jewish historiography. Brian Horowitz, Chair of Jewish Studies at Tulane University argues that by 1870 Jewish economic and social cohesiveness had been further enhanced in Odessa by founding of a branch of the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment, an organization dedicated to in-group philanthropy as well as “alternative politics” whereby members “did not contact the government as an intercessor.”[22] In this respect, it was the kahal-lite, and it had a significant positive impact on the wealth of Odessa Jewry. Klier states that under this organisation, the Jewish grip on the economic life of the city grew stronger, and that Russian government reports from 1871 attribute the disturbance above all to the fact that “the economic domination of the Jews in the area produced abnormal relations between Christians and Jews.”[23] By 1871, Jewish economic domination had moved beyond grain exports. A US consular report from that year reveals the extent of Jewish control over Odessa’s economic life. It reports that Jews in the city “occupy themselves with trade and favoring their own class or sect, that is that their combinations, in a great many instances, amount almost to monopolies. The common remark, therefore, is that ‘everything is in the hands of the Jews.’ To sell or buy a house, a horse, a carriage, to rent a lodging or contract for a loan, to engage a governess, and sometimes even to marry a wife the Jew gets his percent as a “go between.” The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact every producer and every consumer is obliged in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew.”[24]



Impoverished Greeks, Russians and Ukrainians looked on at increasingly ostentatious displays of Jewish wealth. In fact, Sifneos states that contemporary correspondence reveals that during the disturbances, many of Odessa’s Jews attributed the trouble “to the widespread resentment against the growing prosperity of their community.”[25] Sifneos also informs us that demographic shifts in the city were of extreme importance in creating unease among non-Jewish populations. In line with increasing wealth, the 1897 census revealed that during the preceding two decades Odessa Jewry was undergoing an extremely rapid demographic explosion, and that Odessa was “rapidly becoming a predominantly Jewish city.”[26] To put this into some kind of perspective, the 1897 Odessa census reveals that by that date there were 5,086 Greek speakers, 10,248 German speakers, 1,137 French speakers, and 124,520 Yiddish speakers. The census further revealed that while almost all of the Greek and French speakers were predominantly residing in the inner city slum areas, a huge 54% of Odessa’s Jews were living in the middle-class suburbs of Petropavlovsky, Mikhailovsky, and Peresipsky.[27]



To conclude, when inter-ethnic violence broke out in 1871, it was not rooted in irrationality, but was quite obviously, as Sifneos argues, a desperate attempt to “weaken the economic power of the Jews.”[28] In this context, we see the Jews of Odessa emerge from their passive role in the shadows of Jewish historiography, and how they truly appear in the cold light of day.











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



[1] Norman Finkelstein, ‘The Holocaust Industry,’ Index on Censorship, 29:2, 120-130, p.124



[2] Ibid.



[3] Ibid, p.125.



[4] Leon Poliakov The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner(Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003) p.viii



[5] Jonathan Freedman, The Temple of Culture: Assimilation and Anti-Semitism in Literary Anglo-America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p.60.



[6] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.72



[7] Derek J. Penslar, Shylock’s Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001) p.13.



[8] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73



[9] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.15



[10] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73



[11] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.16.



[12] Ibid.



[13] Ibid, p.15



[14] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.191



[15] Ibid, p.195



[16] Ibid, p.196



[17] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.



[18] Ibid, p.18



[19] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.74



[20] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.21



[21] Robert Weinberg, ‘Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,’ Jewish History, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.



[22] Brian Horowitz, How Jewish was Odessa? : http://www.wilsoncenter.net/sites/default/files/OP301.pdf#page=17



[23] John Klier, Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.22



[24] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.198



[25] Evridiki Sifneos, ‘The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,’ The Historical Review, Vol.3 (2006), p.193



[26] Ibid.



[27] Ibid.



[28] Ibid.



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













32 - The Murder of Little Mary Phagan





Mary Phagan Kean, a Southern Historian and self-professed military brat is one of those very rare and insightful history scholars not only knowledgeable on the subject of the early 20th century Murder of Little Mary Phagan and lynching of Leo Frank, but one willing to emotionally distance herself from the subject and consider both sides of the Leo Frank case equally. What makes Kean so special and unusual in these regards is that as a dispassionate researcher, she is also willing to put all the facts, evidence and testimony on the table — in a cogent and impartial manner — in front of open minded readers to let them make their own independent decisions on what makes sense and what does not. Kean has devoted her entire life to the study and research of this tragic and horrifying “double strangulation” murder, one rocking the nation at the time and still capturing the imagination of the masses today.





When independent scholars look back on the Leo Frank case in the same way an eagle flying above in the heavens sees the whole of the forest and not just the individual trees, it revealed a very ugly, malicious and hidden side of the Jewish community most people were not fully aware existed as something deeply ingrained in their culture. During and after the trial the Jewish community bared the full extent of its uncompromising treachery and what lengths Jews were willing to go on behalf of one of their own irregardless if they knew he was guilty.



Two Side of One Case



On one side, the Leo Frank case evolved into an anti-Gentile Blood Libel and anti-Southern cause celeb for the Jewish community (nationally and internationally), and on the other side, Southerners became incensed with the relentless Jewish media defamation war waged against them and the unrelenting efforts to emotionally exonerate and rehabilitate Leo Frank despite vindication of the Georgia Courts by the Federal District and United States Supreme Court. Passions and emotions over the case were running deep and high on all sides back then, even if some Jews were quietly nursing their wounds over it. Now, because the double centennials are coming into fruition, and the Jewish propaganda on the Leo Frank case is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, we should expect a firestorm of Jewish manufactured controversy erupting between 2013 and 2015. Sadly, more Frankite media, books and articles have come out in the first 10 years of the 21st century than in the last 100 years of the case.



One Woman Against the powerful Jewish community and Jewsmedia Juggernaut



What makes Kean a stone lighthouse tower of light and truth surrounded by a sea of Jewish darkness and lies is she has written the most neutral account to date on the 1913 beating, rape and strangulation of Mary Phagan and 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, including the aftermath, which is not something you would naturally expect from someone so close to the case.



Kean writes a refreshing book contrary to the constant onslaught of re-engineered and re-written Jewish regurgitations published and produced over the last 100 years by well funded and aggressive members of the growing Cult of Leo Frank (the Frankites). The Leo Frank Anti-Semitism Hoax propaganda movement after 100 years of aggressive proselytizing has finally made the Leo Frank mythology become a popular cultural mainstream orthodoxy and has thus become another victory for the Jewish political correctness culture war wage against Western Civilization. As a result, Frankites who write and publish works on the subject that tow the Jewish party line are rewarded handsomely and get rave reviews, irregardless of how unabashedly dishonest the works deviate from the truth, the Jews call the rewriting of history “creative license”.



This popular culture myth of the Leo Frank pogrom has evolved into a kind of dogmatic religious orthodoxy that is dramatized into a broken record mantras about anti-Jewish bigotry, because most people who produce works on this subject of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan are almost unanimously fanatical diehard Leo Frank partisans or born again Frankites who have utilized the case for a most disgusting purpose, to perpetuate the myth that Jews are innocent bystanders eternally persecuted as victims of unwarranted hate. The main political tenets of the Leo Frank case are successfully force fed on the public through various media machinations by skillful Frankites who carefully spin the case with the highest level of dishonesty, achieved by consciously and intentionally leaving out all the overwhelming majority of facts, testimony and evidence which convicts Leo Frank beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result the Leo Frank case has made it impossible for Jews to hide the grotesque reflection of truth about their collectively unreasonable, treacherous and perfidious minds.





The Jewish Smear



Moreover this odd Jewish cult of personality formed around Leo Freak has become such an aggressive cultural phenomena that anyone who might suggest Leo Frank was guilty will get smeared and ruined as an anti-Semite by the racist and terrorist Jewish community.



Why you should buy and read this book



Read this ground breaking and definitive book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ to learn what really happened, it also provides insight from the loving and loyal Family that had to endure the tragic loss and the ugly criminal politics that ensued by the Leo Frank defense team and Frankites. This book is required reading for anyone that wants the most definitive account of the most sensational cold case of 20th century America, available on: www.Amazon.com





21st Century Jewish Lies



Today the strangulation murder of Mary Phagan has been reduced to nothing more than a plot catalyst for the glorification of Jewish suffering and persecution at the hands of Southern Gentiles as the popular dramatization and “Broadway” musical ‘Parade’ is being played out across the country in theater halls since 1998. The fictionalized docudrama film People v Leo Frank (2009) by Ben Loeterman was featured on PBS and is being played in schools and universities across the country to deracinate and alienate students, proselytizing them into Frankites. In 2010 Elaine Marie Alphin published ‘An Unspeakable Crime, The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank’ for high school and college students. The book is easy to read, but so terribly weak on the facts that reviewers on Amazon.com pointed out dozens of major errors made within its pages, it represents another misleading indoctrination attempt by the Jewish community and Frankite Elaine Marie Alphin.











Historic Directory Listing for Mary Phagan 1913









Mary Anne Phagan (June 1, 1899 to April 26, 1913)







Review from Archive.org:



Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format, download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan from www.Archive.org. Originally published in 1989, by Mary Phagan-Kean, the Great Niece of Mary Phagan. One of the most even-handed books written on the Leo Frank case in the last 100 years and is suggested reading for any student of the Mary Phagan murder cold case. This book is required reading for anyone that wants the most definitive account of the most sensational cold case of 20th century America, available on: www.Amazon.com



Alas, most of the books written on the subject of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank by Leo Frank partisans attempt to spin the case as a vast malicious Anti-Jewish conspiracy against the Northern Jew Leo Frank, this re-writing of history is delivered through a complicated cacophony of politically correct and biased racial propaganda, claims of regional and anti-Semitic bigotry, Jewish persecution and victimhood, and Jewish smears directed at those who do not take the pro-Leo Frank position like the State’s Prosecution Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey. All of this is done with excellent Hollywood style production to drown out and confuse the real immense amount of ineluctable evidence supporting the confessed guilt of Leo Frank.



The Truth is Stronger than the Belligerent Jewish Cacophony



Mary Phagan-Kean, is the first person in the last 100 years to present both sides of the Leo Frank Case neutrally, it is a radical change from the predominantly one-sided Jewish Leo Frank cult which has turned the Leo Frank case into an anti-Gentile ugly blood libel, known as the century long Leo Frank anti-Semitic ScapeGoat Hoax. What was nothing more than a cold case murder investigation into the violent beating, pedophile rape and strangulation of a little White Christian girl, has been twisted into a century of Jewish pro-Frank cultural “propaganda” by the Jewish community that has spared no expense in directing all its energy on behalf of rehabilitating Leo Frank, transmogrifying him from a psychotic child molester, violent pedophile rapist, sexual predator, prodigious prostitution panderer and convicted child-murderer into a stoic, innocent and heroic martyr of anti-Jewish prejudice.



Tired of endlessly being endlessly drowned in Jewish Propaganda? Read the Murder of little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean.download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan from www.Archive.org.



Before we provide you with a long winded review of the book: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan (1989), start with an interesting and brief interview of Mary Phagan Kean published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in January 1999 by Clint Williams. The author of the article, Clint Williams makes a number of mistakes as most journalists do on the case, but he gets some of the gist of the saga across.



January 6, 1999



Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan, says grand-niece

By Clint Williams, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution



The 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, convicted of murdering 13-year-old Mary Phagan, is the stuff of books, movies and now a Broadway play.



None of them, says Mary Kean, get it right.



“The inaccuracies bother me,” says Kean, who has been a student of the infamous case since she herself was a 13-year-old girl named Mary Phagan after her great-aunt.



The first Mary Phagan was found strangled to death at the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta on April 27, 1913.



Leo Frank, the factory’s manager, was convicted on the testimony of janitor Jim Conley, who said Frank ordered him to hide Mary’s body in the factory basement and plant a note on the body blaming the crime on “a light-skinned [dark-skinned] Negro.”



In August [June 21] 1915, days after his death sentence was commuted to life in prison, a group of about two dozen men from Marietta snatched Frank from the Georgia Work Farm Prison in Milledgeville. Frank was lynched from an oak tree on Frey Gin Road in Marietta.



The musical “Parade,” which opened in New York in December [1998] and is expected to run through April, takes the [false] position of many other retellings of the crime: that Frank was wrongly accused and the victim of virulent anti-Semitism. In most dramatic accounts, the death of Mary Phagan is little more than a plot device that triggers the chain of events leading to the lynching, the focus of “Parade.”



“Mary Phagan was the victim,” says Kean. “He was the murderer.”



That is not any sort of emotional, knee-jerk conclusion, says Kean, who answers her telephone at work, “Mary Phagan Kean.”



“I’m not just the victim’s namesake, I’m a student of the case.”



Over the years, Kean has spent thousands of hours studying original court records and scrolling through microfilm copies of newspapers of the era. Much of her research is found in Kean’s book, “The Murder of Little Mary Phagan,” published in 1988.



The family history that has consumed Kean as an adult was unknown to her as a child. Kean, a self-described “military brat,” grew up knowing nothing about the lynching of Leo Frank and the murder of her great-aunt.



It wasn’t until an eighth-grade history teacher asked her if she was related to the famous Mary Phagan that she learned from her father the story of the girl whose name she carries.



“My father sat me down, we had a glass of milk, and explained it to me,” Kean recalls.



Her father gave a brief account of the murder and lynching and tried to explain the historical significance. The case was famous, Kean’s father said, because it was the first time in the South that a black man’s testimony convicted a white man. The case was cited as the cause for the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and the creation of the Anti-Defamation League.



When the family moved to the Atlanta area, Kean says, more people asked about her name. So she began reading all she could about the incident.



“I’d go to rummage sales and look for books about the case,” Kean says.



Her reading sparked her research.



“I wanted to know, I needed to know: Is what they are printing true?”



Much of what has been printed–or put on stage–isn’t true, Kean insists.



The suggestion that Frank was railroaded because he was Jewish is off the mark, she says. There were no bloodthirsty crowds shouting, “Hang the Jew” outside the courthouse, she says.



“I think the way this was covered so heavily in the papers, if that sort of thing had happened it would have been written about,” Kean says.



Pulling out a photocopy of a 1913 Atlanta Constitution story about the trial, Kean reads the headline: ” ‘Good order kept in court by vigilance of deputies.’ Does that sound like what they’re saying today?”



Modern tellings also suggest that class conflict had a role in the lynching of Leo Frank. Poor Southerners working in factories resented their rich Northern bosses. The implication, Kean says, is that Mary Phagan was poor white trash.



The Phagan family was middle-class, Kean says. Mary’s stepfather was a cabinetmaker and her grandfather a wealthy Marietta businessman.



When the family moved from Marietta to East Point, Mary Phagan couldn’t get a desk at her new school, Kean explains, so Mary was working at the pencil factory until the start of the next school year.



Kean again reads from a 1913 newspaper article.



“From her looks,” a story about the testimony of Mary Phagan’s mother states, “the Phagan family is above the station in life from which come children who toil in factories.”



Perhaps most galling to Kean is the contention that Frank was wrongly convicted.



There is ample evidence in the court records to prove Frank was the killer, she says. Frank was caught in contradictions during the coroner’s inquest, Kean notes, and he refused to be cross-examined by the defense.



Kean also offers what could be called linguistic evidence. The note left with the body must have been dictated by Frank, she says. The use of the word “Negro” indicates a Northerner is the author, she says. A Southerner would use the word “colored.”



The 1986 pardon of Frank cited by his modern-day defenders, Kean says, was granted without attempting to address guilt or innocence.



“I think that the truth isn’t really told about Leo Frank,” says Kean. “He is not a martyr, he is a murderer.”



But that doesn’t mean the lynching was justified, Kean says.



“I think it’s a very horrible thing that happened to Leo Frank,” she says.



Convinced Frank is the killer, the only mystery for Kean in the Mary Phagan case is who is putting a red silk rose on the dead girl’s grave.



Over the last several months, every week or so, a single red rose appears on the grave. About a dozen are now planted there.



“That is so sweet,” Kean says. “It means so much to my family.”









Some of the members of the Phagan family at the funeral of Mary Phagan one Tuesday, April 29, 1913.

Left to Right: Ollie Mae Phagan, Frances Phagan Coleman, J. W. Coleman, Ben Phagan, Lizzie Marietta Durham











The Tomb Stone of Mary Phagan (left)







The Tombstone of Mary Phagan’s Mother (right)







2011 Book Review of ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean



The book, ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean (the great grand niece of Mary Phagan) is probably the most even-handed book written about the 1913 subject and its aftermath. ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ by Mary Phagan Kean, details the most infamously contentious and nationally covered early 20th century rape and strangulation cold case investigation, including the trial which led to the August 25, 1913, murder conviction of Leo Max Frank. The book also covers Leo Frank’s subsequent post-conviction appeals 1913 to 1915, the disqualification of Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton from commuting Leo Frank’s sentence in June 21, 1915, leading to the crescendo of the whole ordeal with the August 17, 1915, lynching, followed by Frank’s highly Jewish racist and Jewish political posthumous pardon without exoneration in 1986 (forgiveness, but the Guilt was not overturned, preserving the verdict of the Jury).



Ironically and not obvious, the 1915 commutation and 1986 pardon, affirmed the guilt of Leo Frank as part of a very long series of legal review and rulings that all preserved the guilty verdict of the Jury.



Who is Leo Frank?



Leo Frank was born in Cuero, Texas April 17, 1884. His family moved 3 months after his birth to Brooklyn, NY, where Frank was raised and educated before going to college upstate in Ithaca. Frank matriculated into Ivy League Cornell University as an Engineering student in 1902, and after graduating in 1906 he worked for about a years time. A career opportunity was presented to him during a trip to Atlanta and for it he traveled to Germany in late 1907 with the intention of diligently studying pencil manufacturing during a 9 month apprenticeship. On completion of a pencil manufacturing training, Leo Frank moved to Georgia in August, 1908, starting a new life in the South. From the start of his new career working for the National Pencil Company in Atlanta, Frank evolved upward briskly, becoming superintendent, accountant, manager and some would say later in his career part owner. The factory was located right in the heart of Atlanta, GA, at 37 to 41 South Forsyth Street and Leo Frank was the highest paid employee working on the ground at $150 a month.



During Leo Frank’s 5 years of tenure (1908 to 1913) at the National Pencil company, in 1910, Leo Frank married into a wealthy, prominent and established Jewish Selig-Cohen family who it has been said enabled the creation of the first synagogue in Atlanta.



Who is Mary Phagan?



Thirteen year old Mary Phagan (1899 to 1913), an employee of Leo Frank had begun working at the pencil factory sometime in Spring of 1912, about 50+ weeks. She worked just down the hall from Leo Frank on the 2nd floor. Phagan worked in the metal room, in a section called the tipping department, her job was inserting erasers into the empty brass metal band tips that were attached to the pencils in final manufacturing production stages. Mary Phagan worked 55 hours a week for a salary of $4.05 (Koenigsberg, 2011) or little more than 7 cents an hour.



On Confederate Memorial Day, Saturday, April 26, 1913 at noon, Mary Phagan walked into the factory to collect her pay, she had been laid off because the supplies of metal had been depleted, she was never again seen alive after Leo Frank claimed he gave her a pay envelope.



Failed Clean-up Job:



The metal department, where Mary Phagan worked contained the only bathroom on the second floor, near where her blood and hair would be found by early bird employees on Monday morning at 7AM on April 28, 1913. By Then the word that Mary Phagan had been killed spread like wild fire.



A white powder haskolene was discovered suspiciously smeared and rubbed into fresh blood stains on he floor in the metal room in front of the girls dresing room. The 5 inch bloody stain had turned into a dusty pinkish-red as it bled through the white powder haskolene. Thus, it was immediately determined the “clean-up job” appeared to be a failed attempt to cover up the blood stains near where the murder victim it would be determined was accidentally dropped as she was being moved from the metal room to the factory basement two floors below by Jim Conley, the “step-and-fetch-it” and roustabout of Leo Frank.



Little Mary Phagan’s Life:



The labor Mary Phagan did at the pencil factory Spring of 1912 to April 26, 1913 was her small way of helping support her five siblings, and previously widowed mother, who remarried to a man named John Coleman in 1912. Mary’s step father knew Mary for 4 years and identified the hair found on the lathe machine in the metal room as Mary’s (see: Affidavits in the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Archive).



The week before Mary Phagan’s murder, a shortage of metal supplies at the factory had led to a reduction in her work hours and she was temporarily laid off. Her wages which were normally about $4.05 for the shortened work week came to $1.20 for the hours she had worked prior to her being laid off.



On April 26, 1913, celebrated locally as Memorial Day (Confederate Memorial Day), Mary stopped off at the factory before meeting up at the parade with her friends, along with neighbor and co-worker George W. Epps at the designated location of Elkins Watson at 2pm. Later in the evening Epps ran over to Mary Phagan’s home, which was right around the corner from him, to find out why Phagan never showed up at their designated time. Mary Phagan’s family was already in a state of distress over the fact of her being unaccounted for, but they also thought she might have gone to stay with relatives. Mr. Coleman, Mary Phagan’s step father had looked for her at the Bijou theater that evening and found their th handsome Mr. Darley, foreman at the factory, who was married, he was not with his wife, but with one of the girls that worked at the factory. Why he was squiring around a girl at the factory there, tended to reveal a lot about the culture at the factory.



Noon, April 26 1913



When Mary arrived at the factory at 12:02 to 12:03, Marys pay was allegedly issued to her by Leo Frank according to his pre-trial investigation statements. Leo Frank admitted to being the last person to see Mary Phagan alive in a virtually empty factory, as there were 4 people in the factory at the time Mary Phagan arrived on the State Holiday, when the normal number during the business week was more than one hundred. Immediately after receiving her pay, Mary asked Leo Frank whether or not the metal had arrived in the metal room or not.



There was conflicting testimony about what Leo Frank said concerning a question Mary Phagan asked him, “Has the metal come in?”. A Pinkerton detective and defense witness hired by the National Pencil Company contradicted Leo Frank about the answer Leo Frank had said to Mary after she had given the question. According to the Pinkerton Superintendent, Leo Frank allegedly responded, “I Don’t Know?”. Which possibly created a scenario with a “let’s find out”. It was very incriminating because murder evidence including a fresh blood stain and hair were found in the metal room.



April 27th 1913



In the early hours of Sunday, April 27th 1913 at around 3:17 AM in the morning, the night watch (“night witch”) Newt Lee made a phone call to the police. Newt Lee found Mary Phagans mangled body on a dirt mound near a furnace in the rear of the basement, with part of her bloody pettycoat wrapped around her head. Police reported there was evidence she had been dragged from the elevator face down by the arms, before being dumped next to the furnace, Phagan’s face was scratched up and completely covered with filth as if someone was trying to make it seem like she had been killed in the basement. The autopsy would reveal she had been hit on the face around the eye with a fist, there was also a damage to the back of her head that was likely caused when the occipital region of her skull hit the handle of the lathe (where her hair was found), her underwear had been torn open and was bloody, she had apparently been raped, beaten and eventually strangled with a 7 foot packing cord. One doctor testified under oath to several types of specific rape-violence, vaginal inflammation and torn flesh damage, suggesting some kind of penetration either penile, finger or other.



The police after viewing the body of Mary Phagan in the factory cellar made several phone calls to Leo Frank, but unable to get in contact with him. The police were successful when they tried to get in touch with other people that worked at the factory. In the early morning they finally got Leo Frank on the phone and went directly to his home at around 7AM in the morning. The detectives arrived at his home asking Mrs. Frank to speak with Mr. Frank, asking him to accompany them to the factory. Like typical seasoned detectives, without telling Leo Frank what it was about, they observed him, suspicion fell on Frank because he appeared to be extremely nervous, trembling, rubbing his hands, pale, and appeared to be hung over, bumbling and agitated, Leo Frank also gave overly detailed and meticulous answers on very minor points, his voice was hoarse and he fumbled and struggled with minor tasks like fixing his shirt and collar.



Delay Going to the Factory



Moreover, Leo kept saying he hadn’t had breakfast and kept asking for a cup of coffee, trying to delay going to the factory even though it was an unknown emergency. Once in the model T Ford police car, the Police asked Leo Frank if he had known who Mary Phagan was and he denied knowing a Mary Phagan saying he would need to check the accounting books he managed to be sure. This would become an important point at the trial, because Mary Phagan had worked for a year on the same floor as Leo Frank, her work station was only a few feet away to the door where Frank would go to use the bathroom each day. Leo Frank had to pass directly by her to get to the bathroom. Other employees testified Frank knew Mary on a first name basis and got a little to close for comfort at times and he had been seen putting his hand on her shoulder. Phagan had also collected more than 50 pay envelopes from Leo Frank during her 1 year of employment and logged more than 2,500 hours of work on the Time clock inside Leo Frank’s office in front of where he worked.



Leo Frank flat out got caught in a lie about his not knowing Mary Phagan which tended to damage his credibility and left people wondering why he was trying to pretend not to know her when he often flirted with Mary.



James Conley



After arresting and questioning the black sweeper Jim Conley, who was present at work for 2/3 of the day on the infamous Saturday, April 26, 1913, the police eventually after weeks of the third degree and 3 half-truth affidavits, got Jim Conley to agree to sign a sworn affidavit finally admitting he was an accomplice after the fact in regards to the murder of Mary Phagan. Conley admitted he was asked by Leo Frank to move the body of Mary Phagan to the basement and that he wrote four dictated “death notes” at the behest of Leo Frank, only 2 were discovered and they were scattered next to the head of Mary Phagan in the cellar when they found her next to the furnace.



The Murder Notes



The murder notes were very contrived and attempted to make it appear as if Mary Phagan had written the notes after she went to the bathroom and was assaulted there by the Nightwatchman. The notes where clear in their attempt to pin the crime and point guilt to the “long tall slim negro” night watchman Newt Lee (“night witch”) because they described him accurately. The notes left many people asking themselves when in history of the universe has a black man committed a murder and stuck around to write murder notes as if they came from the victim addressed to her mother describing the alleged predator-perpetrator.



The trial would make history, because it would be the first time in the United States of America, where the testimony of two black men Jim Conley and Newt Lee, along with affidavit by Leo Frank (State’s Exhibit B, 1913), an affidavit by a black mammy cook named Minola McKnight (State’s Exhibit J) would be a part of a case leading to the conviction and death sentence of a white man (Leo Frank) by an all White jury in the racially segregated South (where Negroes were second class citizens).



George Epps, The Newsie, April 26, 1913



Mary Phagan was a No-Show at 2 PM on April 26, 1913, for her meeting with George Epps, a friend and neighbor. George Epps provided troubling testimony to the police early in the investigation on Monday, April 28, 1913, stating that Mary had told him in confidence, that Leo Frank scared her and often made lascivious, inappropriate sexual innuendos and subtle sexual insinuations toward her. George Epps would later after the trial get kidnapped by Leo Frank defense team cronies and take to Alabama, there Epps was threatened with trickery and violence, he was forced against his will to recant his testimony against Leo Frank by signing a false affidavit under duress. Epps later confessed he was abducted by thugs working for the Leo Frank defense fund and forced under threat of physical harm to sign an affidavit specifically renouncing the testimony he gave to the police about Leo Frank intimidating Mary Phagan.



Who was the REAL Star Witness?



The Star witness was neither Newt Lee or Jim Conley, but a 14 year old White girl named Monteen Stover who cracked wide open Leo Frank’s alibi. Monteen Stover had come to the factory at 12:05 waiting till 12:10 to collect her pay envelope (minutes after Mary Phagan had arrived), but Frank was not in either his inner or outer office and he was not aware that Monteen Stover had arrived and waited for him five minutes in the place he swore he never left (his second floor office). Leo Frank swore to police he was in his office every minute from Noon to 12:35 PM (when Mrs. White arrived at 12:35 and startled Leo Frank). Leo Frank also told the Coroners Inquest Jury that he did not use the bathroom at all that day on April 26, 1913, but at his murder trial he would confess he went to the bathroom more than once. The importance of this contradictory statement was because the only bathroom on the 2nd floor was in the metal room, where Mary Phagan had been killed.



Leo Frank Murder Confession, August 18, 1913



On August 18, 1913, Leo Frank would counter the testimony of Monteen Stover (that Leo Frank was not in his office from 12:05 to 12:10), by stating, she might not have seen him either because the safe door was open and blocked her vision of him or he might have “unconsciously” gone to the bathroom during that time (12:05 to 12:10) in the metal room. Leo Frank had entrapped himself beyond escape, because the only bathroom on the second floor (State’s Exhibit A) was located inside the metal room, where the prosecution had successfully built a case that Leo Frank had murdered Mary Phagan. It was a shocking revelation and admission by Leo Frank.



Frivolous Appeals



Numerous frivolous appeal attempts by the Leo Frank Legal Defense Team to the Georgia Supreme Court, District Court and United States Supreme Court, were denied after careful review, with lengthy judgments written and rendered. The departing Governor of Georgia, John M. Slaton (who also happened to be a senior legal partner and owner in the same law firm which represented Leo Frank), decided to commute the hanging death sentence of his client, Leo Frank, to life in prison on June 21, 1915, this happened just days before the end of his last term as Governor. The conflict of interest infuriated the public.



The Fire Storm



The “Antisemite” Tom Watson through his popular Jeffersonian publishing company, called Leo Frank a sodomite and wrote five separate scathing reviews of the Leo Frank Case in January, March, August, September and October of 1915 issues of Watson’s Magazine (see Archive.org to read them all).



July 17th 1915



One month after the commutation of Leo Frank, he got shanked. Leo Frank had his neck slashed in prison by an inmate named Greene, who used a 7 inch butcher knife to sever his jugular vein. Leo Frank barely survived the wound thanks to two inmate doctors and the slashing was slow to heal in the hot humid Milledgeville summer of 1915 Georgia.



August 16 and 17, 1915



Almost 2 months later, after Leo Frank received clemency, a reduction of his death sentence to life in prison, a well organized group of about 25 to 35 men, many of which were from Georgia’s highest strata of politics, law and wealth, organized themselves into the ‘Knights of Mary Phagan’. This newly formed group of Georgia’s elite, sought to fulfill the death sentence verdict of the Jury and deliver righteous retribution in the form of “Southern Style Vigilante Justice”.



After much careful planning, Leo Frank was kidnapped from the minimum security prison he was housed, driven all through the night and then lynched in the early hours of August 17th 1915 from an oak tree near the town where Mary Phagan had formerly lived.



Leo Franks dangling body became a morbid public spectacle, photographs were taken and the pictures of Franks suspended body, gently twirling in the breeze became popular Justice post cards and victory memorabilia in the South, selling out almost instantly.



‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’



The book ‘The Murder of Little Mary Phagan’ is written by the namesake of the murder victim, Mary Phagan’s great grand niece named Mary Phagan Kean. When Mary Phagan Kean was a teenager, she discovered her given name was no mere coincidence. When people heard Mary Phagan Keans name they started asking her questions about whether she was related to the famous Mary Phagan who had been murdered long ago by Leo Frank in 1913. Mary Phagan Kean would learn a startling secret when she asked her family if she was a blood relative connected to the Mary Phagan who was murdered in 1913. When her family revealed the truth about her blood relation, Mary Phagan (Kean) immediately became insatiably curious about the investigation, trial and aftermath. Instantly becoming a life long student of the case, Mary Phagan-Kean devoted the rest her life and still to this day pours over the painstakingly vast archives of the case, reviewing every surviving documents surrounding the case, concerning the torture, rape and strangulation of her great grand aunt, 13 year old Mary Anne Phagan.



The ADL of B’nai B’rith



Leo Frank was the President of the 500-member B’nai B’rith chapter in Atlanta, Georgia. As a result of the conviction and aftermath in this national scandal and sensational trial, it would become the critical mass of “Antisemitism” catalyzing the formation of two American groups: the treacherous and Jewish espionage agency known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in October 1913 or ADL of B’nai B’rith (www.adl.org) for short, and spark the revival of the immune system of Western civilization, the defunct nativist and white ethnic nationalist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) on Thanksgiving, 1915.



The Loud Mouths Slander



Jewish Scholars which overwhelmingly wrote the lion share of all the written books, articles, web sites, scripts and texts about the subject almost unanimously allege the investigation, trial, and conviction where part of a widespread bigoted Antisemitic conspiracy, a text book case of railroading and framing an innocent Jewish Man because of anti-Jewish racism and religious hatred. These books often leave out thousands of pages of the relevant facts to the case and trial showing Leo Franks guilt, and then instead spin the facts convenient to creating doubt about Leo Franks guilt.



Pardon without Exoneration



Pressure from the Jewish community and Jewish espionage spy agency ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) with an affidavit from a lonely and senile octogenarian who had died, the former office boy of Leo Frank for 3 weeks in 1913, a man named Alonzo Mann, resulted in the highly political 1986 Georgian pardon of Leo Frank (without exoneration). They forgave Leo Frank of the crime, but kept his guilt intact and did not disturb the verdict of the Jury.



On March 11, 1986, a pardon without exoneration was issued by the board:



Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State’s failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State’s failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon.



Jewish Dramatizations



A number of fictionalized media dramatizations have been made about the trial in the form of plays, musicals, miniseries, docudramas and Broadway plays all created by Jews making a mockery of the life of Mary Phagan, idealizing and rehabilitating Leo Frank as an innocent victim of evil Antisemitism. The blood libel against the Leo Frank prosecution and European-Americans continues to this day by the Jewish community, though it is often couched and not always so open and loud as the unscrupulous smears and accusations coming from Frankite authors like Leonard Dinnerstein and Elaine Marie Alphin.



Let’s Not Forget the Confession Made By Leo Frank



The Jewish community won’t dare ever mention the “unconscious” bathroom murder confession Leo Frank made on the witness stand when he was giving his statement at the trial on August 18, 1913, to counter Monteen Stover’s testimony that he wasn’t in his office.



About the Book



The 4.7MB adobe PDF version of the book is available on archive.org for download. Please download this book and read it.



The book was published in English on September 25, 1989



References and Further Reading:



Available in Adobe PDF format, download: The Murder of Little Mary Phagan Published in 1987, by Mary Phagan-Kean, the Great Grand Niece of Mary Phagan. The only book on the Leo Frank case which is fair and balanced.



Available for review and download, please visit: Official George State Supreme Court Legal Files on the Leo Frank Case.



Internet Archive copy of Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913



The Ballad of Little Mary Phagan









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













33 - BOLSHEVISM IS JEWISH





By A. S. Leese





THE object of this pamphlet is to prove that Bolshevism is Jewish. Bolshevism represents one of the final stages in the deliberate Jewish programme for World Domination. It is not in the scope of this pamphlet to describe the earlier stages of the programme, in which Liberalism, Masonry and Marxism prepared the ground for Bolshevism; that part of the subject is dealt with in our pamphlet, “The Era of Democracy: the Era of World Ruin,” price 2½d, post free.





BOLSHEVISM IS NOT COMMUNISM.





Communism is not Bolshevism. In Bolshevik Russia, there is no common ownership of land, goods and money; nor is there equal pay for all. These two utterly impracticable ideals have, under the name Communism, been the means through which the Russian people have been duped into accepting something quite different, i.e., Bolshevism.





Then what is Bolshevism?





It is State Capitalism, run by Jews in the Jewish interests. The Jews being a non?creative and unproductive nation have failed utterly in the grand farce of the Five?Year?Plan, because it was never in them to create but only to exploit what has been created by the work of others; in this case, they tried to create, and of course, failed.





The seemingly strange predilection for Bolshevism which is notice­able in unexpected places in Britain to?day, is explained at once when it is realised that Bolshevism is a Jewish weapon; for the idea of Com­munism which prepares the “underdog” for Bolshevism, is backed by the Jewish Money Power itself, the existence of which as a political power is now becoming known even to the most unsuspecting Briton.





THE ALLIANCE OF JEWISH FINANCE



AND BOLSHEVISM.





In exposing this alliance, we will quote the Jew Disraeli, in his work of history, “The Life of Lord George Bentinck,” written in 1852, at a time when revolutionary upheavals were convulsing Europe. “The influence of the Jews,” he writes, “may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruc­tion of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co?operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.”





Surely, no higher authority is possible; what was true in 1852 is true to?day.





WHY RUSSIA WAS CHOSEN.





The first victim was Russia. The reason she was chosen was that she was the only country which defended herself by laws framed to prevent the Jew from contaminating and controlling her. Bolshevism is revenge on the part of the Jewish nation on Russia, actuated by Asiatic hate and tyranny.





The Jews, chose their ground well. The Slav is by nature not individualistic; he is patient, inured to hardship and fatalistic. He accepted the idea of Communism; and he got the fact of Bolshevism. He accepted the idea of equal wages for all and property held in common; and he got a toll of 20 million lives, double the blood?bill of the Great War, as the price of his own starvation and slavery under Jews.





The first direct blow was organised by the Jew Parvus, alias Helphand, in conjunction with the German General Staff; the “Sisson Report,” published by the American Committee on Public Information, 1918, conclusively establishes the connection between the Jew Bankers of Germany and the financing of Lenin and Trotsky for the Revolution. Among other items printed in documents published by the U.S.A. Government, is the following letter:—





Stockholm, 21st Sept., 1917.





Mr. Raphael Scholan. Haparanda.





Dear Comrade,





The office of the Banking House M. Warburg has opened in accord­ance with telegram from president of Rheinish?Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotsky. The attorney (agent) purchased arms and has organised their transportation and delivery up to Luleo & Varde. Name to the office of Essen & Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorised to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotsky.





J. Furstenberg.





(Furstenberg was a Jew and later, under the name Ganetsky became a prominent member of the Soviet Government.)





This proves the Bolshevik connections of the Jew Banker, Max Warburg, brother of Paul Warburg, of Kuhn Loeb & Co., New York, who was the brother?in?law of Jacob Schiff, the head of that all?Jewish firm, who hated Russia so virulently that he would not render the Allies any help in raising loans, until Russia was out of the war.





If any further proof of the interworking of Jewish finance with the Bolsheviks is needed, the case of the Bolshevik non?Jew Krassin (married to a Jewess), can be cited. Krassin had been involved in a revolutionary plot in 1907; he was then employed by Siemens Schuckert which is affiliated to the A.E.G., the big electrical combine, of which the Jew Rathenau was President. In 1909, Krassin became director of the St. Petersburg Branch. In 1917, he was in Stockholm with the Jew Furstenberg (signatory of the letter quoted above) and travelled with him to Berlin, and when the Bolshevik Revolution broke out, he took up his old job with Siemens Schuckert, whilst at the same time, Lenin placed him at the head of five Soviet Government Departments, including transport and food supply. The intermingling of this Soviet official with Jewish financiers outside Russia is thus proved up to the hilt.





So highly did the Soviet Government prize the assistance of Kuhn Loeb & Co., the Jewish Bankers of New York, that they gave royal welcomes to the super?capitalist representatives of that firm when Felix Warburg visited Russia in 1927, and Mrs. Otto Kahn in 1931. The alliance of Jewish Finance with Bolshevism was as complete as it was when Disraeli wrote in 1852, as above quoted.





A significant statement was made by Lord Apsley in the House of Commons on 23rd March, 1938; after pointing out that Russia was now the second greatest gold?exporting country in the world, he went on:—





“The shortage of gold of a few years ago had been overtaken and with the dismissal from office and power of M. Trotsky, who always kept in close co?operation with those who were interested in the production of gold, Russia reversed her policy of keeping her gold?mines out of employment, and became a great producer of gold.”





Who are “those interested in the production of gold”? The answer must be RICH JEW BANKERS. (Trotsky is a Jew, of course.)





Not only was this Bolshevik Jew, then, “in close co?operation” with rich Jews, but he had acted as a brake upon Russian production of gold to maintain the virtual monopoly of production of that metal under their control.





BOLSHEVISM HAS THE SYMPATHY OF JEWRY.





On 4th April, 1919, this was admitted in “The Jewish Chronicle,” which stated, “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”





Israel Zangwill, in an address praised “the race which has produced a Beaconsfield, a Reading, a Montagu, a Klotz, a Kurt Eisner, a Trotsky.”





THE TREATMENT OF JEWS IN BOLSHEVIK RUSSIA.





In Russia, “anti?semitism” is a crime punishable by death.





On 9th August, 1918, Lenin signed an order of the Council of People's Commissars instructing “all Soviet Deputies to take uncom­promising measures to tear the anti?Semitic movement out by the roots. Pogromists and pogrom?agitators are to be placed outside the law.”





All that is because Bolshevism is Jewish.





The Jews, trying to prevent the recognition of this elementary fact, have from time to time published false stories about the hardships endured by the Jews at the hands of the Soviet. Chief Rabbi Gluskin and five other Rabbis, however, denied these tales in an appeal to Jews throughout the world not to support foreign agitation against the Soviet Government of Russia; this appeal was published at Moscow, on 27th February, 1930, and contained the following statements:—“The Soviet Government is the only one conducting an open fight against anti?semitism”; “it abolished the shameful laws which limited Jewish rights.” The reader is reminded of the Christian persecutions in Russia under the Soviet.





Huge areas in the Crimea and Biro Bidjan have been allotted for exclusive settlement by Jews; these new “Homes for the Jews” have been failures, because the Jew cannot work; but, nevertheless, the intention of the Soviet is clear. The Jews have been specially favoured.





1n February, 1932, the Jew I. Montagu spoke in Manchester on “Russia” under the auspices of the “Friends of Soviet Russia.” He stated that the alleged oppression of the Jews there by the Soviet was an offensive lie. The Soviet had liberated all Jews from the disabilities imposed under the Tsar. Again, speaking before the Jewish Literary Society, 14th October, 1934, he said that Jews were given priority in employment on new works in the Soviet Union.





THE MARK OF THE BEAST.





Every Russian soldier under the Soviet, bears upon his cap the Jewish symbol of control, the five?pointed star. The same emblem has now replaced the double?headed eagles on the pinnacles of the towers of the Kremlin at Moscow.





THE JEWS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.





The Secret Council of War of the Bolsheviks, October 1917, con­sisted of seven Jews and five others, and the Jew Sverdlov presided over it. The “others” included Lenin, whose origin is doubtful although Russian authorities consider him to be a Jew.





“The power of the Government lies in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party and its composition in 1918 was nine Jews and three Russians.” (R. Wilton, Times correspondent, in Les derniers jours des Romanof, Paris 1921, p. 136.)











By 1920, the Government of the Soviet Russia was made up as follows :



Council of Commissaries of the people 22 of which 17 were Jews

Commissariat of War 43 „ „ 33 „ „

Foreign Affairs 16„„13„

Finance 30 „ „ 24 „ „

Justice 21 „ „ 20 „ „

Public Instruction 53 „ „ 42 „ „

Social Assistance 6„„all„„

Commissariat of Work 8„„7„„

Commissaries of the Provinces 23„„21„„

Journalists 41„„all„„









Among the best known Jews of the Soviet Government were Sverdlov, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikoff, Uritsky, Litvinoff, Zinoviev, Radek and Kaganovitch. Stalin's wife is a Jewess.











In no Department of Government was the proportion of Jews less than 76 per cent., and generally it was much more. This state of things has continued until 1938; Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Traffic Control, Food (i.e., the absence of it), and Finance, were entirely under Jewish mis?management. At the time of writing (Feb. 1939) it is evident that a gradual change is taking place; a large number of Jewish officials have been “liquidated” (executed) and the situation is obscure; the Jew Litvinoff remains at the Foreign Office and the Jew Kaganovitch (Stalin's father?in?law) at Stalin's right?hand. Meanwhile it is obvious that the Red Army has deteriorate to the extent that it can no longer be regarded seriously as a fighting?force. However, there are plenty of Jewish officials working up front below.





The representatives of the Soviet Government abroad are always Jews; we in Britain have been treated to a succession of these Jews, and at the time of writing the Soviet Ambassador is the Jew Maiski. (1939).





As the Daily Telegraph remarked on 9th April, 1937:—“Since M. Litvinoff ousted Chicherin, no Russian has ever held a high post in the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.” The newspaper seems to he unaware that, according to the late Russian General Netchvolodow, Chicherin's mother was a Jewess!





When the Soviet Government ceases to be Jewish, it will cease to be Bolshevik!





THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE.





How is it then, that this plain fact has not been generally known to the British public? Because the Jews have the money to suppress the truth, as they are doing today (1939) about Hitler in Germany.





Judge the extent of this power, and the evil of it, froth the following authoritative statements which have passed the Jewish censorship:—





(1) A British Government White Paper, entitled “Russia. No. 1. A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia,” was published in April, 1919. This contained a Report from M. Oudendyk, the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd during the Bolshevik revolution. This report was dated 6th September, 1918, and was sent by M. Oudendyk to our Minister in Norway, Sir M. Findlay, who passed it on to Mr. Balfour. The report contained these words:—“I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the War, which is still raging, and unless as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” (Our Italics).





So the Foreign Office knew in 1918 that Bolshevism is Jewish; M. Oudendyk at the time of writing his report was acting officially for the protection of British interests, as our own man had been murdered by the Bolsheviks.





But that is not the whole story. There is more.











This White Paper speedily became unobtainable; and an abridged edition wits issued in which the passage above quoted, but very little else, was eliminated from the Netherlands Minister's Report. Photo­stats of the page in question can be supplied to order from the I.F.L. at 2s. 6d. post free.





(2) The Jew M. Cohen, writing in “The Communist,” Kharkoff, 12th April, 1919:—“Without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews——It is true that there are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as Privates are concerned, but in the committees and in the Soviet organisations, as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory—the symbol of Jewry has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the Red five?pointed star, which in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry.”





(3) W. Ramsbotham, writing in “The Morning Post,” 24th Sept., 1919, from Odessa, states:—“Some two hundred Bolshevist Commissaries were tried by Court?martial (by the White Russians, A.S.L.). All of them were Jews.”





(4) Mr. R. Wilton, Russian correspondent of “The Times,” for 17 years, and living in Russia through the revolutionary period, wrote “The Jewish domination is supported by certain Russians. They are all mere screens and dummies behind which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovdepia continue their work of destruction.” (The Last Days of the Romanovs, p. 148.)





(5) Quisling, in “Russia and Ourselves,” p. 56, 1931, states “ordinary people in Russia, look upon Jews and Bolshevists as practically synonymous.”





(6) “One of the facts we marked very soon in our adventurous career was the large number of Jews who occupy positions of trust and influence in the Revolutionary Administration.” (Mrs. Philip Snowden inThrough Bolshevik Russia, p. 27.)





(7) The “Jewish Chronicle,” 6th January, 1933, p. 19, says:­—“Over one?third of the Jews (in Russia) have become officials.”





(8) The following are extracts from an address by Major M. Schuyler on 11th January, 1920 at the Church of St. John the Evangelist, New York City, he having just returned from service in the U.S.A. Army in Siberia, where it was supposed to be assisting the White Russian Admiral Kolchak against the Red Army of Revolution:—“The Govern­ment of Russia is almost entirely Jewish, and our U.S.A. Army in Siberia was full of Bolshevist Jews straight from Moscow. They lead entered the U.S. and enlisted in the U.S. Army going to Siberia. General Graves the Commander, had a staff that was almost entirely Jewish.” “Owing to the Bolshevist Jews in our army, all information that should have reached Kolchak went straight to Moscow.” (Major Schuyler was three times Consul?General for the U.S. during the old regime.)





(9) John Pollock says in his The Bolshevik Adventure (Constable, 1919), p. 27: “The Bolsheviks are for the most part not Russians at all, but Jews who had suffered persecution at the hands of the Russian Government.”





p. 104: “By such means (Bolshevism), the Russian nation has been reduced to a condition of complete subservience to the rule of a com­paratively small number of men of almost exclusively Jewish extraction; aliens, that is, in blood, in education, in ideals, and supported by alien force. The extent to which this is generally recognised is shown by the common gibe in Petrograd: ‘Are you a Commissar, or do you belong to the orthodox religion?’”





(10) “No less than 82 per cent. of the Bolshevik Commissars were known to be Jews.” (Daily Express correspondent, J. E. Hodgson, in With Denikin's Armies, p. 55.)





(11) “When one lives in contact with the officials who are employed by the Bolshevik Government, a remarkable fact strikes one: they are all, or nearly all, Jews. I am far from being an anti?semite, but I must state what I notice everywhere in Petrograd, in Moscow, in the Provinces, in all the commissariats, in the district offices, at Smolny, in the former ministries, in the soviets, I have met Jews and yet again Jews. The more one studies this second revolution, the more one is convinced that Bolshevism is a Jewish movement . . . “ (L'Enfer Bolchevik à Petrograd, 1919, Paris, by R. Vaucher, correspondent ofL'Illustration.)





BOLSHEVISM WAS JEWISH IN GERMANY.





In the German Marxist Revolutions of 1918, the Jews were the directors and strategists; the Soviet Republic of Munich was led by the Jews Liebknecht, Luxembourg and Eisner; the German Cabinet was dominated by the Jews Haase and Landsberg, assisted by the Jews Kautski, Alzech, Kohn and Hertzfeld, with the Jews Schiffer and Bernstein in charge of Finance, and the Jews Preuss and Freund occupying the Secretariat of the Interior. In Prussia, the Ministry of Justice was all Jewish, headed by Rosenfeld; the Interior and Finance Ministries were held respectively by the Jews Hirsch and Simm. In Saxony, the leading lights of the Government were the Jews Lipinski and Schwartz; in Wurttemberg, the Jews Talheimer and Heimann; in Hesse, the Jew Fulda. The Jew Kurt Eisner boasted that he and ten other Jews had made the revolution; Lowenberg, Rosenfeld, Wollheim, Rothschild, Arnold, Kranold, Rosenhek, Birenbaum, Reis and Kaiser. The chiefs of Police of Berlin, Frankfort, Munich and Essen, and the heads of most of the Soldiers' and Workmen's Councils were Jews.





That is why Hitler cleanses Germany of Jews; but you cannot learn that from our Jew?controlled Press.





BOLSHEVISM WAS JEWISH IN HUNGARY.





The Hungarian Bolshevik Revolution, too, was Jewish. There were only 1½ million Jews in the population of 22 millions, but 18 out of the 26 Commissaries of the Soviet Government in Hungary were Jews. Bela Kun (Cohen) was the Jewish beast who led them.





BOLSHEVISM WAS JEWISH IN CHINA.





The Chinaman is not built for “Communism.” The brigandage which masqueraded under the name of Communism in China, was run from Moscow and the principal agents were the Jews Borodin and Abraham Cohen. Japan will stamp it out; that is why the Jew?run Press of the world does all it can to discredit Japan in the minds of its readers.





BOLSHEVISM IS JEWISH IN SPAIN.





The Spaniard, too, is not built for “Communism.” But the ground for it was prepared under the Republic by the Jews Zamora, Maura and De los Rios, who controlled the Government just as Kerensky, another Jew, prepared the way, financed by Jacob Schiff, head of the Jew banking firm of Kuhn Loeb & Co. of New York, for the Lenin Government in Russia. It was the Jew Bela Kun, already mentioned above in connection with Hungary, that directed the beheading of priests and the raping of young girls in the streets of Madrid; he and other Jews sent from Russia instigated the outrages that made the great patriot General Franco take up arms to save his country's civilisation. The full story will come out when Franco has won all Spain. Hitler, in his speech on 14th September, 1937, said:—“The great Russian Empire fell a victim to a handful of Jews who in Spain are directing the civil war through the Valencia Government usurpers.” Red Spain has been armed by inter­national Jewry, and even the International Brigade Command has been Jewish, General Kleber's real name being Lazar Fekete?Schwartz. A very large proportion of the Brigade itself is Jewish, and the American Hebrew, 7th January, 1938, admits that there were 3,000Jews in it and that one?third of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade on the Madrid front consists of Jews. The Red Government is nicknamed in Spain the “Committee of Wandering Jews.” Finally, the reason why the British reader is hardly ever able to hear a good word about Franco, and why he hears nothing of the Bolshevik bestiality of the Jewish Reds, is itself Jewish; the Jews govern the Press, the ships that Franco bombs are chiefly Jewish, not British, and even our Consuls in Franco's Spain are Jewish as the names connected with the Consular Bag affair indicate. (See our pam­phlet, Jewish Press Control, 2½d. post free.)











ALWAYS, JEWISH MASONRY HAS PREPARED THE DEBACLE

That is why Hungary, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Poland and other countries have stamped out Masonry. See our pamphlets,Freemasonry(3½d. post free) and The Growing Menace of Freemasonry(4½d. post free).





SUMMARY



Bolshevism is Jewish. Its object is to gain world control for Jews, through the combined and allied forces of Jewish Finance and Jewish Marxism. In Russia, revenge has been the moving factor.





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

















34 - From the Archive : A.K. Chesterton’s ‘Learned Elders and the B.B.C.’

Arthur Keith Chesterton; a cousin of the better-known popular Catholic writer Gilbert Keith (G.K.) Chesterton, was one of the greatest intellectuals of his generation: in many respects his abilities as a thinker and a writer outshine even his celebrated cousin’s. Chesterton was a member and leader of the British Union of Fascists from its inception till after the Second World War: when he founded the League of Empire Loyalists to fight against the abandonment of the British Empire by the then government. Among other interests Chesterton kept up was the publication of a nationalist literature through the Candour Publishing Company, which also produced a periodical of the same name: ‘Candour’.



Candour often contained Chesterton and others’ commentary on the jewish question and while Chesterton publicly repudiated anti-Semitism after the Second World War he never stopped seeing the jew as a threat to European civilisation; and specifically the British Empire, that needed to recognised and dealt with. It may surprise some to know that Chesterton was not a believer in the factual nature of the Protocols of Zion. The article that I reproduce below was written and published by Chesterton in ‘Candour’ on the 9th of June 1961. The copy of it that I have obtained is from a reprint of the article in pamphlet form by the Britons Publishing Society in the same year it was published with the addition of a reply to Chesterton and his rejoinder to that criticism. I reproduce the full pamphlet below to bring an excellent piece of anti-jewish writing back from obscurity and to the forefront of anti-Semitism.









The Learned Elders and the B.B.C.



As the B.B.C. in its wisdom or lack of it has devoted an entire peak listening hour to the subject of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an opportunity would seem be offered to Candour to add a few comments to the discussion, and perhaps furnish a corrective for some of the more flagrant excesses of Broadcasting House propaganda, which such an event naturally incubates. Its Director-General, Hugh Carleton Greene, having declared that the B.B.C. would never be neutral where Jewish interests were involved, nobody should have been surprised to discover that the aim of the programme was not merely to present the Protocols of Zion as a forgery but to have them uttered as the melodramatic ravings of a maniac. Whatever may be their origin, the thought behind the Protocols is cool and clear, so that, in attempting to discredit them as “The Great Lie”, Broadcasting House itself is seen to be by no means unversed in the dishonourable arts of suggestion falsi.





Outright Lying



Indeed, the programme contained some outright lying. For instance, this concerning the Berne trial of some young men who had been charged with distributing the Protocols as indecent literature (which in the pornographic sense they certainly are not): “The fact that the Protocols were indeed a complete forgery was pronounced fully proved by the court in Berne and later by the court of appeal in Geneva.” The court of appeal made no such pronouncement. Nor was it, to the best of my knowledge a Geneva court, but the Berne Cantonal Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the magistrate’s finding (about the fact of indecent literature) and ruled that the question of the authenticity of the Protocols was entirely irrelevant. It added that on this subject it rejected the conclusions of both sides. That, as it happens, is my own position and the position of most other students of the Jewish problem.



When first I read the explanation of Nilus made in 1905, as to how he came by the documents, the thought occurred to me that the evidence was pretty thin and unsatisfactory, not to be accepted without confirmation which in fact has never been forthcoming, and that is still my view. Never for one moment did I suppose that the teachings which they contain were delivered to a Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897, or any other year, by Theodore Herzl. Dr. Herzl, as the Jews rightly affirm, was not that kind of man, although there is evidence that he did not have an uncanny sense of the shape of things to come. But when I later read Jewish attempts to disprove the authenticity of the Protocols my critical faculty was even less satisfied than it had been by the evidence of Nilus, and as for last week’s B.B.C. “exposure” – it stank to Heaven of mendacity.



The truth is that nobody now living knows for certain when and where the Protocols originated, and sensible people don’t care a damn. Broadcasting House, indubitably at the instance of Jewry, made a great mistake when it decided to arrange a programme on the subject, and it may have been a recognition of this fact that led it, in the event, to turn the whole thing into a boisterous melodrama overstepping the bounds of farce. This in turn was also a mistake, for if the Protocols were nothing more than the ravings of a maniac, why should the Jews make repudiation of them so desperately serious a task and why should the B.B.C. devote a whole peak listening hour to the subject?



Because the voice entrusted with speaking the text of the Protocols frequently rose from comically hissing, sibilant whispers to frantic shrieks, thoughtful people with attentive minds must surely soon have surmised that a deliberate attempt was being made to guy or obscure the meaning and therefore would have listened all the more determinedly to the actual words. The event, indeed, was yet another instance of an almost insane overplaying of the Jewish hand. Whatever the effect intended, the effect contrived was one of sustained special pleading and deadly venom.



It is, with submission, impossible for any intelligent person, aware of what is happening in the world, to read or listen to the reading of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion without being astounded by their prophetic insight, their knowledge of the weaknesses in Gentile society, their proposed techniques for exploiting those weaknesses, and their adumbration of the methods of securing policy objectives which have either been achieved or are on the eve of achievement. I write “adumbration”, because although the spirit animating the Protocols survives intact, the actual mechanisms at the disposal of the policy-makers have progressed far beyond the imagination of the “Elders of Zion”, whoever they may have been. For example, the B.B.C. itself! The B.B.C. as a weapon is better than hunger. Subtle though the authors of the Protocols were, their successors have in radio and television the means of much greater subtlety. For that reason, perhaps, we should be grateful to Broadcasting House for unconsciously offsetting some of its perpetual poisoning of the public ear by a programme which broke all the rules and of which the “Learned Elders”would scarcely have approved. This kind of action, like the Eichmann trial, is the recurring madness of the Jew.



Let me quote some passages from the Protocols, passages the meaning and significance of which cannot be altogether destroyed even by a voice imported by the B.B.C. to suggest gibbering insanity. Here is one which describes a policy end and some part of the means of securing it:



"What form of administrative rule can be given to communities in which corruption has penetrated everywhere, communities where riches are attained only by the clever surprise tactics of semi-swindling tricks; where looseness reigns: where morality is maintained by penal measures and harsh laws but not by voluntarily accepted principles: where the feeling toward faith and country are obliterated by cosmopolitan convictions?





What form of rule is to be given to these communities if not that despotism which I shall describe to you later? We shall create an intensified centralisation of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one al the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the goyim, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any goyim who oppose by deed or word…





Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life-in-common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the goyim understand nothing, belong likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain…”



What is this if not the definition long before 1917 of an objective attained by the Bolshevist regime? Mr. Sydney Salomon, of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, once attacked me with vehemence in the Journal of the Institute of Journalists because I had drawn attention to the Judaic inspiration of, and participation in, that regime.





Authoritative Voice



Yet we have the evidence of a voice more authoritative than my own. “It would seem almost as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were destined to originate among the same people, and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations of the divine and diabolical… From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.” The author of that passage was none other than Winston Spencer Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920. Churchill has no doubt the best of reasons for long ago banishing such truths from his mind.



“Envious malevolence and impossible equality”? The “Learned Elders” also speak of these matters.



“The weapons in our hands are limitless ambitions, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatred and malice”.



But they understand well enough, and state with frankness that the concept of “equality” is also among their weapons.



“In all corners of the earth the words ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity, and destroying all the foundations of the goya states. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master-card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence, of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the goyim we have set up the aristocracy of our educated classes, headed by the aristocracy of money”.



If that, to the mind of Hugh Carleton Greene, is the raving of a lunatic I can only remark that there is method in it, and little truth!





Economic Warfare



The part played by economic warfare and the manipulation of money is stressed repeatedly in the Protocols:



“We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches, upon which even large fortunes of the goyim will dependent to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of the States on the day after the political smash… The aristocracy of the goyim, as a political force, is dead… but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential, therefore, for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land. This object will be best attained by increasing the burdens upon landed property – in loading lands with debts. These measures will check land-holding and keep it in a state of humble and unconditional submissions…





What we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by speculation transfer into our hands all the money in the world, and thereby throw all the goyim into the ranks of the proletariat… To complete the ruin of the industry of the goyim we shall bring to the assistance of speculation and luxury which we have developed among the goyim, that greedy demand for luxury which is wallowing up everything. We shall raise the rate of wages, which, however will not bring any advantage to the workers for, at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessities of life… We shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy and to drunkenness, and side by side therewith taking all measures to extirpate from the face of the earth all the educated forces of the goyim. In order that the true meaning of things may not strike the goyim before the proper time, we shall mask it under an alleged ardent desire to serve the working classes and the great principles of political economy about which our economic theorists are carrying on an energetic propaganda”.



Quite a number of current trends and developing policies are taken care of in that passage – take-over bids, the rationalization schemes of P.E.P. and Harold Macmillan launched in the ‘thirties, the latter’s election-boast of more and more T.V. sets, washing-machines and refrigerators, galloping inflation, reckless wage claims, the attack on the land, the Socialist masquerade as class-warriors, the recent formation of people’s trusts, the destruction of traditional leadership.



Nor are the Protocols silent about the need to bedevil the public mind by confusionist tactics.



“In order to put public opinion in our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the goyim lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret”.



Nobody who has endeavour to persuade people of the dangers confronting them in this disastrous age can fail to pay tribute to the thoroughness with which the job of disorientating public opinion has been performed. Then there is the second secret:



“The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: To multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another. This measure will also service us in another way, namely, to sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder in our affair.





There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative: if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord. We must so direct the education of the goyim communities that whenever they come upon a matter requiring initiative they may drop their hands in despairing impotence”.



Yes, we can also confirm that success in applying the second secret is apparent in every department of contemporary life, even to the extent of so confounding and mentally caponizing the people that in the United Kingdom they allow tens of thousands of coloured immigrants, many of them evil, to pour into their country every year, in the Rhodesias they prepare the way for Black domination and in Kenya they get ready to flee before the onrush of enfranchised savagery. They have all been mentally bludgeoned out of the use of their wits.





Corrupting Youth



The “Learned Elders” believe in starting the corrupting process early:



“We have fooled, bemused and corrupted the youth of the goyim by rearing them in principles and theories which are known to us to be false although it is by us that they have been inculcated…





In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours, we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism – the universities, by re-educating them in a new direction. Their official and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not for a moment with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government…





The ill-guided acquaintance of a large number of persons with questions of policy creates utopian dreamers and bad subjects, as you can see for yourselves from the example of the universal education in this direction of the goyim. We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order. But when we are in power we shall remove every kind of disturbing subject from the course of education and shall make out of the youth obedient children of authority, loving him who rules as the support and hope of peace and quiet”.



How many universities in the world escape this reconditioning? Pretoria, perhaps. And Stellenbosch. But neither, I would say, for very long.



Then the “Elders” turn their minds to the intelligentsia:



“The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service. Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the goyim with progress, till there is not among the goyim one mind able to perceive that under this word lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us…





When we come into our kingdom our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it at the end under our beneficent rule. Who will ever suspect then that all these peoples were stage-managed by us according to a political plan which no one has so much as guessed at in the course of many centuries?”



Well, certainly the optimists who run the New Statesman, the Spectator and other such papers have no suspicion whatever that the haze of unreality which surrounds them and their readers had its predetermined end.





The Objective



What, to use a colloquialism, are all these plottings of the “Elders” in aid of? They themselves supply the answer:



“By all these means we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that will enable us without violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organisation will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world.”



There it is – World Government. What are the Common Market, Euratom, the Coal and Steel Community, NATO, SEATO, the Soviet empires, the United Nations, if they are not either steps or alternative lines of approach to One World – a Jew-dominated world?



In truth, however, we do not need the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to tell us of these things, which form part of what is now declared policy, further by pressures no longer altogether concealed. I have never based any part of Candour’s case on the Protocols, for the simple reason that I know nothing of their origin and care less. What interests me, and what calls forth my own fighting spirit, is what I have discerned of the organised use of evil to subvert Western civilisation and bring our traditional values crashing to the ground so that a totally different, a blood-chilling and hateful, influence may henceforward dominate the world. The Protocols may be fake, a fabrication, call them what you will. But they are not, as the B.B.C. presented them, mad, in the sense of being divorced from the realities of subversion and revolution. Lacking though thye may be in authority, they yet march in step with the unfolding modern conspiracy of which they are a prophetic utterance.



Statesmen like Churchill and Lloyd George, writers like Belloc and Wickham Steed, and editors like H. A. Gwynne; Jews themselves of the calibre of Disraeli and Oscar Levy, have all contributed their testimony to the fact of Jewish power, of which there is now a vast accumulation of evidence.



What we have to watch is that the facts f this power are not derided or rejected as a result of devices such as that the B.B.C. gives a fall hour to knocking down what is for all intents and purposes a skittle, but accords never a split second to those of us who would be competent to trace in actual policy the essential teachings, and many of the mechanisms embodied in the Protocols. If the desire to achieve objectivity animated Broadcasting House, would it not have taken care to ensure that the programme made provision for a dispassionate assessment of this curious relationship? But then, of course, Hugh Carleton Greene on behalf of the B.B.C. has disavowed the intention of an objective appraisal of Jewish matters. Another test is that not one national newspaper in the land dares to comment on the Carleton Greene dictum or to publish a single line critical of Jewry. Here, surely, is an established fact of power.





Zionism’s Supreme End



Two other points are worth answering. The promoters of the B.B.C. programme were no doubt sincere, if ignorant, in putting forward the view that “the Protocols contradict all that Zionism stands for, above all a national home of modest geographical pretensions for the Jewish people. Zionism was and still is hostile to international Jewry, which was vital to the non-existent Elders.” This, I submit, is nonsense. There is proof that the entire international machinery of Jewry was used to defeat the British Government’s attempt to hold some kind of a ring for the Palestinian Arabs, and the United States Government, with virtually every European Government, including that of the Soviet Union, was suborned to this end. General Sir Frederick Morgan disclosed the misuse of UNRRA in the Zionist cause, and later – which may be considered significant – he revealed the Communist espionage network which muscled-in on UNRRA’s organisational facilities. No doubt there are some Zionists for whom the State of Israel is the supreme end, but they are not among the more instructed. The informed bear in mind the messianic predictions of their race, and the unique international dispositions of World Jewry enable them the more effectively to press for the establishment of international agencies which they dominate, leading to World Government, which they also intend to dominate. It would be quite unbelievable for a people as astute as the Jews to possess and then leave it to rust for want of exercise. Here again we do not require the Protocols of instruct us.



The second point is this. Those who compiled the B.B.C. programme made the following unwarranted assertion:



“Accusations in ordinary politics are aimed at groups and peoples able to reply because they are real people. When a McCarthy refers to lists of highly-placed traitors who don’t exist; when a Fascist demagogue refers to octopus-like conspiracies of un-named because imagined enemies; when weekly journalists try to make their readers’ flesh creep with awful stories of conspiring bogey-men called The Establishment, and when forgers report fictitious meetings at which bloodthirsty and annihilating decisions are taken by mysterious and powerful beings, and when the evil of mass suspicion of one race by another is introduced by such means then we are going far beyond the tussle of politics. Since the accused are non-existent, the defence is silent, and suspicion multiplies. We are opening dark places in the mind. We are exciting superstitions and instincts that lie deep in the human nature and which it is the purpose of civilisation to render harmless.”



Did McCarthy in fact refer to lists of highly-placed traitors who did not exist? What Congressional records should we consult for the evidence? I do not know in what category Candour is placed, but is can scarcely be said that we fail to name those whose policies we attack. The motive behind the passage is clear enough. It is to suggest cowardice and delinquency in Gentile patriots who feel obliged to take a stand against Jewish power. The innuendo of cowardice we can laugh at, but the notion that it is the purpose of civilisation to “render harmless” our criticism should be considered in a more serious light. Jews have long cherished the ambition of making comments hostile to their influence illegal and in some countries they have already succeeded. As might be expect, the Protocols, which provided for so much, provide also for this situation:



“In order to destroy the prestige of heroism for political crime, we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every kind of abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt.”



The Soviet Union has gone much further, making “political crime” (opposition to tyranny?) the worst of all the offences and placing political prisoners at the mercy of the most brutal criminals. Again we see that in more senses than one do events tend to catch up with, and overtake, the pronouncements of the “Learned Elders”. On those ground alone, to attempt to argue a case for the authenticity of the Protocols is a foolish endeavour. What cannot be dismissed as faked are the international policies which relentlessly push mankind into One World, and it is these policies, not the Protocols, upon which we should rely in our fight against the World Government to be.





All to be Controlled



Will Hugh Carleton Greene not allow us just twenty minutes on the air to explain the basis of that fight? Good heavens no! The truth would serve to make us free – and freedom forms no part of the design for the future governance of mankind. All is to be controlled, and the control will perhaps not be so very different from that foreseen by the mysterious “Learned Elders of Zion”, quite irrespective of whether they were the Sanhedrin or some gang of Gentile forgers inspired by prophecy.





Broadcasting House Replies



Our leading article in the issue of June 9 was a commentary on the recent B.B.C. programme which set out to prove that the document known as the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was a forgery. I expressed our lack of interest in the origins of this strange work, and sought to focus attention instead on the extent to which its precepts have been, and are being, incorporated in internationalist policies, such as the drive towards World Government. And intermediate steps to destroy national sovereignty through merging national will in various functional bodies, which make possible the exercise of military control. I also pointed to the remarkable similarity between the teaching of the Protocols and the ordering of affairs in the Soviet Union, which came into being some years after their publication.





Both Sides



Last week the B.B.C. sent me a letter replying to some of the points made in my article, and for the sake of fairness, not wishing our readers to be made aware of only our own side of the argument, this reply is published in full, together with my further comments. Signed by Mr. Christopher Sykes, it reads:



“The British Broadcasting Corporation,





Broadcasting House, London W.1.





June 13, 1961,





Dear Mr. Chesterton,





I have read “Learned Elders and the B.B.C.” in Candour of June 9. I am the author of the broadcast script to which you take exception. Allow me to make a few observations on your article:





1. First I should point out that the programme was part of a series on fakes and forgeries. The choice of subject indicated an interest in forgeries in general, not any special preoccupation with “The Protocols”. There was no Jewish pressure behind the choice of subject. I am not a Jew, nor is the producer or general editor of the series, nor is the head of the B.B.C. department in which I work.





2. As regards the assertion of forgery by two Swiss courts, I own that I have not looked up official records but have been guided by reports by independent authorities (not Jewish ones by the bye). I have understood that as regarding forgery the finding of the first court was upheld by the Court of Appeal while not allowing that “The Protocols” may be classed as obscene literature. If they did reject the conclusions of both sides, I take it that they did so as a matter of legal form, but not in consideration of the weight of evidence.





3. You say that most students of the Jewish question reject the conclusions of both sides. I do not think they would so if they studied the matter for any length of time.





4. It is distressing to find that Sir Winston Churchill was once deceived by the notion that the Bolshevik Revolution was primarily a Jewish affair, but not wholly surprising. Other eminent statesmen, besides that great man, were under this impression at the time. Appearances were deceptive. Later events have shown the absurdity of confounding Communism and Jewry. The Jews seem to have had little influence under Stalin who died, if the accounts of his last illness are authentic, in a somewhat anti-Semitic mood.





5. Those who find “The Protocols of the Elders” credible are, I believe, suffering from a state pf mind describable as “muddle through simplicity”. There are many shrewd political comments in “The Protocols”, and yet more in the original Joly, from which they were copied. Many Government, many parties, many groups of men have been guilty of many of the abominations in which the “Elders” exulted, and I suppose that, to date, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party have been more guilty of more of these crimes in one regime than any other of the thousands of agents of evil of whom we have record. The childish thing about “The Protocols”, as about Joly’s satire on Napoleon III, is to ascribe all these crimes to one agency. One sees the same “muddle through simplicity” in some Marxist propaganda: all history as a banker’s plot. I believe that the first person to play this game was the Abbe Barruel who furnished “proof” that the French Revolution was exclusively the result of a Free Mason plot!





6. When I said in the “closing speech for the prosecution” that it was the duty of civilisation to tame certain dark impulses of the mind, I was not implying that all criticism should be silenced, but that it was iniquitous to obtain a following by arousing irrational hatreds, to which most men can be prone.





If you choose to publish this letter you may, but if so I would ask you to publish it in full.





Yours Sincerely,





(Signed) Christopher Sykes,”



Mr, Sykes’s letter is courteous and sincere but not at all well informed. I will reply to his points as he numbers them.



(1) Noted and accepted without comment, except as to enquire whether Mr. Sykes’s services were utilized as those of an expert on “forgeries in general” or as those of an expert on Jewish problems.



(2) Why does Mr. Sykes not name his “independent authorities”? As they have fed him with wrong information, how much trust does he still repose in them? I cannot compete in thought-reading about what was in the mind of the Appeal Court, but prefer to believe that it meant what it said.



(3) The desideratum, as Point 2 would suggest, would seem to be not length of study but exactness of scholarship!



(4) How does it come about that Winston Churchill was deceived about the Bolshevik Revolution, that M. Oudendyk, Netherlands Ambassador at Petrograd (now Leningrad) during the Bolshevik Revolution, was deceived, that the late Wickham Steed, former editor of The Times, was deceived, that Sisson, the American diplomat in Moscow during the Revolution, was deceived, and that the world had had to await the unsupported statement of Mr. Christopher Sykes to learn about this deception?



It would be illuminating to discover whether Mr. Sykes has ever read the report of M. Oudendyk, dated Sept. 6, 1918, and published as a White Paper by the British Government. I quote from it: “I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the War, which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” In what way does Mr. Sykes claim to be a better informed person about the Bolshevik Revolution than was M. Oudendyk?





Continued Support



I agree with Mr. Sykes that most of the Jews originally associated with Lenin and Trotsky later lost out to Stalin and went down in his successive purges. Curiously, however, this fact did not lead to the disenchantment of many Jews elsewhere, who continued to support Communist causes from almost impregnable positions in the United States, notably during the Second World War, and who were active in the leadership of the Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain after the war. I also agree with Mr. Sykes about the absurdity of confounding Communism and Jewry. They should never be confounded, which is not to deny the prodigious role played by Jews in the inspiration and promotion of Communism. If Mr. Sykes is still sceptical, he should ask himself what the Jewish Chronicle meant when it wrote on April 4, 1919: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in that fact the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”.



(5) I understand, and sympathise with, Mr. Sykes’s statement of his belief that those who find the Protocols credible suffer from a state of mind describable as “muddle through simplicity”. To suppose that any single document furnishes the key to immensely complicated political patterns is, to say the least, naïve. But that does not necessarily invalidate whatever there is in the document which is germane to the present world situation. We have to admit that the tendency of the human mind is to oversimplify the problems that confront it, although I confess that few people irritate me more than the person who says: “Once you have read the Protocols you understand everything”. The man capable of making that remark is incapable, I venture to think, of understanding much about anything. Nevertheless, although a candle cannot illuminate the entire empire of the night, it is sometimes a useful thing to have in the house.



The reference to Joly’s “satire on Napoleon III” is misleading, because there is nothing satirical in the Protocols. Napoleon the Third’s scope and powers were circumscribed, whereas the potency of World Jewry lies in its position of power in many lands and the fearful dimensions of this power when it is internationally organized. It is childish, as Mr. Sykes says, to ascribe all the world’s evil to “one agency”: the affairs of mankind are far too involved and complicated to permit of so facile a diagnosis. But if one kind of policy is pursued through the year it is logical to look for the existence of an activating agency dedicated to that purpose. I set no store by the fact that the shadowy “Learned Elders” are regarded by some as constituting just such a cabal, but I do set store by statements such as those of Churchill, Oudendyk, Wickham Steed, and the Jewish Chronicle concerning the fact of Bolshveism, as I set store by the passage about Jewish power in general: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe [1848 – A.K.C.]. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists, the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christianity which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.” The author of that passage was Benjamin Disraeli and it occurs in The Life of Lord George Bentinck. Mr. Sykes would scarcely argue that Disraeli was also “deceived”. I believe that Mr. Sykes as an honest man will admit the Protocol savour of the quotation, as of many more that could be taken from the works of Disraeli. My chief complaint about his B.B.C. programme is that it never even hinted at the undoubted spiritual relationship of such facts with the pretensions attributed to the “Learned Elders”.





Ancient Propaganda!



Mr. Sykes tells us that he sees the same “muddle through simplicity” in Marxist propaganda which interprets all history as a banker’s plot. The propaganda must be incredibly ancient, as I have never encountered it during the thirty years I have been giving my attention to these questions. As international bankers of New York, with their Hamburg and Paris affiliates, financed the Bolshevik Revolution, I would have been astonished had I ever read a Marxist attack on finance-capitalism, as distinct from industrial-capitalism. Sisson is only one of several witnesses about the finding by bankers of the money for the Bolsheviks. I quote from his official report to the U.S. government, a letter written in September, 1917, by J. Furstenberg (later under another name a member of the Soviet government) to one Raphael Scholan:



“Dear Comrade,





The office of the Banking House M. Warburg has opened in accordance with telegram from president of Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotsky. The attorney purchased arms and has organised their transportation and delivery up to Luleo and Vardi. Name to the office in Essen and Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorised to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotsky.





J. Furstenberg.”



Max Warburg was a Hamburg banker, the brother of Paul and Felix Warburg, of the Wall Street firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in which they were partners of Jacob Schiff, who later admitted having financed the overthrow of the Czar. Does nothing of all this suggest to the B.B.C. at least something of the claims of the “Learned Elders”?



(6) I agree with all my heart that it is “iniquitous to obtain a following by arousing irrational hatreds”, although I would dispute Mr. Syke’s contention that most men can be prone to them. There are people who deplore the proved machinations of Financial Jewry, just as there are people who deplore the invasion of our land by coloured migrants. But to deplore is not the same thing as to hate. I am convinced that for the most part hatred, whether irrational or otherwise, is a matter of propinquity. Hatred of and by Jews (or of and by coloured people) is greatest in those areas where they are most closely packed together: in areas where they seldom if ever come into contact very few take any interest in the others’ existence. As for those of us who actively oppose the international influence of Jews, as we oppose the coloured influx, I perhaps speak with some authority when I say that the hate-merchant when encountered is the biggest of our liabilities and (if we know our job) the one whose going from our midst we lose time in expediting. Mr. Sykes will perhaps accept my assurance that a reading of the “Learned Elders” does not normally incite hatred and that in any event we are the first to dub as lunatics those who attempt to argue our case on the basis of the authenticity of the Protocols, strange, disturbing and well worth reading though they be.



Candour has here given the B.B.C. the hospitality of its space to set forth its views in full. How long will it be before Mr. Hugh Carleton Greene, Director-General of the B.B.C., returns the compliment by giving me the opportunity of presenting my own views, as here outlined, at a peak (or any other) listening period?



Postscript



That, so far as the British Broadcasting Corporation was concerned, was the end of the matter. No invitation to the writer of this pamphlet to broadcast was seriously expected and none has been received, while Mr. Sykes was unable to reply further or has been restrained by Broadcasting House.





The refusal of this vast Corporation to allow the other side to be heard was also shown in the letter sent by its Solicitor to Mr. A. W. Gittens, of the Britons Publishing Company (which had been mentioned as the original publishers of the Protocols in the United Kingdom) wherein the B.B.C. declined to make the script available on the grounds – not established by experience – that it is not the Corporation’s practice to provide scripts. Fortunately a private recording had been made and served the same purpose.

Posted 1st December 2011 by Karl Radl

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

















35 - Is there a "Metaphysical" component between Dark Matter/Plasma and the Human body ?





http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-there-metaphysical-component-between.html



Vatic Note: OMG, THIS IS A MUST READ. The implications of this information are incredible and explains a lot. Is this below, why the "occult" grids are laid out in Washington DC the way they are? Is this why accupuncture works in healing? Is this why. we have our junk DNA? Does it "speak" or "hear" the dark matter or dark matter beings? Is dark Plasma or matter in our cells? Is our consciousness part of the plasma energy traversing the galaxy? Is this one of the secrets the occult illuminati shares in their secret societies? Is there a different set of laws of physics for those other-worldly existances? Is this what ancient writers were talking about when they said, dark and light must co-exist and be in balance?



The next question is, how did the Ancient Chinese know about these filaments, channels and grids so very long ago, sufficiently to create healing through directed plasma in the body? The practice of Acupuncture is as valid today and effective as it was in ancient times. Does this explain the power of Belief in faith, religions etc to healing others or ones self? Can we, as a separate unit, direct our bodies energies with our mind to affect or change our reality, and if so, how?



This article is amazing. It explains so much with respect to acupuncture, why secret societies would have the meridians of various locations laid out they way they have. It was to capture the energies they needed to accomplish their dark arts tasks and objectives. There is even a whole section in here just about the metaphysical features affected and possibly even created by these energies. Little did I know this is the kind of energy everyone was talking about. I doubt even they knew.

.

What an amazing and glorious universe we live in and no wonder the evil ones want us diminished. We are clearly a threat to their agenda. No question about it and now we know why. Who would have thought...... we were so full of such potential in the power game. All we have to figure out is how to tap into and use it. If we watch holy men and women, we could figure it out since studies on religious healing proves the power to do so is there through a deep belief in something outside ourselves and remember, DARK MATTER IS INTELLIGENT..



(Again, Gregg Braden wrote another book called "The healing power of Belief" and its all right there telling us "how" and he even provides work sheets to practice and move toward the level of belief we must have to succeed. What a blessing it was to find his book on this, so it all now looks so familiar and explains so much).



Could this be why the Khazars killed 63 million Christians after taking over Russia and is that what they have planned for us? They did not kill them because they hated them, they killed them because they "feared" them and their power in belief and communication with a greater force, that responds to their calls for change and agendas.



What this article makes clear is the universal nature of our existance. We basically are so much more as well as "part" of so much more, than we could have imagined.. Now we understand the powers that be know all this as we are now learning and its clear now their fear and actions are based on changing that fact. Thats why the DNA collection and nanotech to splice our DNA in our bodies. So much that we have posted on our blogs is now clear through understanding this below. Its a crime how long we have been kept in the dark and away from access to this knowledge. Imagine what we could have done by now to change the world for the good of all. ENJOY THE READ! I DID!





Dark Plasma Theory



http://www.dapla.org/meridian.htm

by Jay Alfred, Dapla.org

The Web in Physics

...Plasma naturally forms filaments in response to electric and magnetic fields.



The charged particles are guided by the magnetic fields and accelerated by the electric fields. The filaments may ‘pinch’ (or converge) magnetically to form stars.



Stuart Clark reported in the New Scientist journal that astronomers have now detected a‘universal web’. Vast filaments of hot gas tracing the web of dark matter that underpins the large-scale structure of the Universe have been seen.



Astronomers using NASA’s X-ray satellite observatory, Chandra, viewed the filaments stretching for millions of light years through space, with one passing through our own galaxy. They calculate that the filaments contain five times more mass than all the stars in the Universe.



According to Robert Britt, studies show that both ordinary and dark matter work in concert to build delicate filaments in space, with dense junctions where galaxies cluster. The resulting structures, he says, look something like spider webs. Klaus Dolag and colleagues report that, based on computer simulations of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters, galaxy clusters are embedded in large-scale spider-web-like structure of filaments...



Astronomers say that the filamentary structures are so hot that it would generally beinvisible to optical, infrared, and radio telescopes. In other words, they are by definition, dark matter.



The filaments are detected only because higher density matter tends to accumulate and condense in these filaments. Radiation from this high density matter around the nearly invisible cosmic filaments has been measured by scientists to confirm the existence of these filaments in intergalactic space.























The Web in Metaphysics

It is a well accepted fact in metaphysics that there are filaments within our subtle magma bodies, which have been referred to as meridians, nadis and channels – in the Chinese, Indian and Tibetan literature, respectively.



In Taoist and Qigong literature, they are also referred to as circuits and orbits. For example, Qigong practitioners may speak of microcosmic and macrocosmic ‘orbits’. The microcosmic orbit is really the main meridian through which particles are accelerated in the relevant practices to bring energy to the rest of the super magma body.





These meridians are magnetic lines of force, frozen into super magma bodies. The currents flowing through them are Birkeland currents, as described in plasma cosmology. The large scale structure of the universe, with a web of filaments punctuated with rotating galaxies is similar to the web of acupuncture meridians or nadis punctuated with rotating chakras and acupoints which is found in the etheric component of the physical body.

















I envisioned hundreds of little DC [direct current] generators

like dark stars sending their electricity along the meridians,

an interior galaxy that the Chinese had somehow found and

explored by trial and error over two thouand years ago. It was

obvious that the acupuncture charts had an objective basis

in reality. Our readings indicated that these meridians were

conducting current. *Robert Becker, The Body Electric*







Chinese Acupunture

The meridian system, chartered by Chinese acupuncture, can be considered the arterial system of the (lower energy) etheric double These pathways are ordinarily invisible to the biological eyes – just like the invisible cosmic filaments described in plasma cosmology. The filaments are detected mainly because they attract higher density matter which generates detectable radiation.



Radiation has also been measured from meridians in the human etheric double. French researcher Pierre de Vernejoul injected a radioactive substance into the acupoints of patients and measured the radiation using a special camera.



He found that the substance migrated along classical Chinese acupuncture meridian pathways. Injections were also made by Vernejoul into random points of the body and into veins and lymphatic channels.



These, however, were unable to demonstrate similar results, suggesting that the meridian system is a unique and separate network of pathways in the body. Further experiments showed that terminating a meridian that related to the liver resulted in a rapid degeneration of liver tissue. Without energy supply from the etheric double via the meridians; tissues, organs and cells of the biomolecular physical body do not appear to function properly.





















Acupuncture Meridians and the Cosmic Spider Web

In 1999 computer simulations of magnetic fields in galaxy clusters by Klaus Dolag revealed that galaxy clusters are embedded in a large-scale spider-web-like structure of filaments.



Extensive galaxy surveys also show that structures resembling sheets and filaments characterize the distribution of galaxies. Consistent with the simulations, this distribution resembles a complicated spider’s web several hundred mega parsecs in diameter.



According to Nobel laureate, Hans Alfvén, space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large distances. Hot plasma streams along such filamentary currents. Now, astronomers have actually detected a "universal web".



Vast filaments of hot gas tracing the web have been "seen". Astronomers using NASA's X-ray satellite observatory, Chandra, "viewed" the filaments stretching for millions of light years through space, with one passing through our own galaxy. They calculate that the filaments contain five times more mass than all the stars in the universe!



Invisible Filaments in Space



Astronomers say that the filamentary structures are so hot that it would generally be invisible to optical, infrared, and radio telescopes. These invisible filaments are detected only because higher density ordinary matter tends to accumulate and condense in them - generating radiation which can be measured by scientists to confirm their existence in intergalactic space.



Being invisible, they are by definition components of "dark matter and energy". Dark matter and energy are invisible matter and energy that make up more than 99% of our universe – according to scientists. Studies show that both ordinary and invisible dark matter work in concert to build filaments in space, with dense junctions where galaxies cluster.



The resulting structure looks something like a spider web, dappled with water droplets. The filaments betray the presence of invisible dark matter because gas at millions of degrees centigrade found within these filaments has a natural tendency to spread. To find it confined into filaments means that a very strong gravitational field must be pulling it into place and only dark matter can do this – according to the scientists.





Invisible Filaments in the Subtle Body



In 1904 metaphysicist Annie Besant reported that "During human antenatal life a single thread weaves a network, a shimmering web of inconceivable fineness and delicate beauty, with minute meshes. Within the meshes of this web the coarser particles of the bodies are built together.



During physical life, prana [which is a plasma of charged super particles according to plasma metaphysics] courses along the branches and meshes." This web interpenetrating the human fetus certainly has features which resemble the cosmic spider web – with currents of charged prana (or qi particles) coursing through its ‘threads’ and denser material accumulating (i.e. "coarser particles") on it.





It is a well accepted fact in metaphysics that there are filaments within our subtle magma bodies, which have been referred to as "meridians", "nadis" and "channels" – in the Chinese, Indian and Tibetan literature, respectively. In Taoist and Qigong literature, they are also referred to as "circuits" and "orbits". For example, Qigong practitioners may speak of microcosmic and macrocosmic orbits. The microcosmic orbit is really the main meridian through which particles are accelerated in the relevant practices to bring energy to the rest of the subtle body.



According to plasma metaphysics, these meridians are magnetic lines of force within the subtle magnetic plasma (or magma) bodies. The currents flowing through them are "Birkeland currents", i.e. currents in which charged particles flow through magnetic field lines. The large scale structure of the universe, with a web of filaments punctuated with rotating galaxies, undoubtedly bears a strong resemblance to the web of acupuncture meridians or nadis punctuated with rotating chakras (or vortexes) and acupoints that is found in the etheric component of the physical body.



"I envisioned hundreds of little DC [direct current] generators like dark stars sending their electricity along the meridians, an interior galaxy that the Chinese had somehow found and explored by trial and error over two thousand years ago. It was obvious that the acupuncture charts had an objective basis in reality. Our readings indicated that these meridians were conducting current." - Robert Becker, The Body Electric



The meridian system, chartered by Chinese acupuncture, can be considered the arterial system of what metaphysicists would describe as the "lower physical-etheric body" (which is not separable from the physical-biomolecular body). These meridian pathways are ordinarily invisible to the biological eyes – just like the invisible cosmic filaments. Just like cosmic filaments, these invisible meridians can be detected when they generate radiation.



French researcher Pierre de Vernejoul injected a radioactive substance into the acupoints of patients and measured the radiation using a special camera. He found that the substance migrated along classical Chinese acupuncture meridian pathways. Other injections made by Vernejoul into random points of the body and into veins and lymphatic channels were unable to demonstrate similar results, suggesting that the meridian system is a unique and separate network of pathways in the body.



Further experiments showed that terminating a meridian that related to the liver resulted in a rapid degeneration of liver tissue. Without energy supply from the lower physical-etheric body via the meridians; tissues, organs and cells of the physical-biomolecular body do not appear to function properly.



The Universal and Human Physical-Etheric Bodies



The invisible cosmic web of filaments together with the dark matter that shapes them is in fact embedded in the lowest energy physical-etheric body of our universe. When we look out from Earth what we are seeing is the physical-dense universe, shaped by the lower physical-etheric body of the universe. Astronomers say that the invisible filaments in space are detected only because higher density matter tends to accumulate and condense in these filaments.



Similarly, the invisible meridians in the subtle body can only be detected because of radiation from other substances that are channeled through them. Plasma naturally forms filaments in response to electric and magnetic fields within the subtle body (which according to plasma metaphysics is composed of dark matter).



Charged particles are guided within these filaments by the magnetic fields and accelerated by the electric fields – generating currents – as observed by Robert Becker. Just as the lower physical-etheric body of the universe generates a web of filamentary currents (or filaments) that plays an important part in the large scale structure of the universe, the lower physical-etheric body of the human body generates a web of filamentary currents (or meridians) that is instrumental in developing the physical-biomolecular body of a human being. Of course, the Chinese already knew this – they have been exploring these filaments for more than three thousand years!



© Copyright Jay Alfred 2007





Acupuncture Meridians and the Terrestrial Spider Web

Invisible Filaments and Vortexes in Space



In the author's article Acupuncture Meridians and the Cosmic Spider Web it was noted that astronomers have actually detected a "universal web". Vast filaments of hot gas tracing the web have been "seen". Astronomers using NASA's X-ray satellite observatory, Chandra, "viewed" the filaments stretching for millions of light years through space, with one passing through our own galaxy.



Astronomers say that the filamentary structures are so hot that it would generally be invisible to optical, infrared, and radio telescopes. These filaments connect rotating galaxies and form circuits with currents flowing through them. Being invisible, they are by definition components of "dark matter and energy". They can only be detected indirectly by radiation from matter that condenses around them.



Invisible Filaments and Vortexes within Subtle Bodies



Just as the universe generates a web of filamentary currents (or filaments) that plays an important part in the large scale structure of the universe, the subtle body of a human being generates a web of filamentary currents – which has been identified as a web of (acupuncture) "meridians" by the Chinese and "nadis" by the Indians.



These currents are more formally identified in plasma metaphysics as "Birkeland currents" i.e. currents that form when charged particles course through magnetic field lines. These meridians are invisible and form circuits with currents flowing through them. Nevertheless, they have been detected indirectly by radiation from matter that was injected into them. The large scale structure of the universe, with a web of filaments punctuated with rotating galaxies, undoubtedly bears a strong resemblance to the web of acupuncture meridians or nadis punctuated with rotating chakras (or vortexes) and acupoints that is found in the etheric components of the physical body.



Earth's Unexplained Electromagnetic Field



Blake Levitt, in his book, Electromagnetic Fields, notes that the natural background voltage increases with altitude. Between the lowest layers of the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface, there are about 360,000 volts; from the top of the Empire State Building to the sidewalks at its base, there are approximately 40,000 volts; and between the head of a six-foot man and the sidewalk, approximately 200 volts. At the Earth’s surface, the voltage is approximately 100.



This sounds alarming, but in fact hardly any shock potential exists because there is (apparently) no current; it appears to be just background voltage and static DC fields. Scientists know very little about this huge reservoir of natural power — how it functions or what governs it. Just like the pattern of voltage gradients over the biomolecular body studied by Robert Becker, Harold Burr and others, the pattern of voltage gradients over our planet is difficult to explain — based on current scientific theories.



Perhaps, just like us, the Earth has a subtle electromagnetic body – often referred to by metaphysicists as the "physical-etheric" body. It can also be identified with Earth's dark matter halo – as described in the author's article Earth's Dark Matter Halo. According to plasma metaphysics, both subtle bodies and Earth's dark matter halo is composed of a magnetic plasma of super (i.e. supersymmetric) particles.





Earth's 3d-Double



There are two physical-etheric planes and bodies. The lower (energy) physical-etheric plane is an extension of our home universe – it is not actually a separate universe. The higher (energy) physical-etheric universe is a separate universe – although it has the same spacetime signature as our home universe. As the name implies, it is a physical universe — and has 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension just like its physical-dense counterpart.



However, it has a higher energy level, reversed charge and reversed parity (i.e. it is spatially reversed – being a "right-handed" universe as opposed to our "left-handed" universe). Matter and force particles in our universe are reflected as (more massive) force and matter particles, respectively, in the higher energy 3d-Double universe.



In other words, Earth's 3d-Double is like a mirror-image of the physical-dense Earth that is ordinarily visible to us. The spatial relationship between the two 'Earths' can be explained through an analogy: Imagine a figure on the left page of a book and its mirror image on the right page; then fold the two pages so that they come close to each other. Under M Theory, the 3d-Double universe could be classified as a "3-brane" universe which is "less than a millimeter away from our home brane." In this case, the analogy would be of two flat branes folded over each other and less than a millimeter apart.



The Earth’s 3d-Double, probably has a "tear-drop" shape (like the physical-dense Earth’s magnetosphere) due to the solar wind from the physical-etheric Sun. It can be considered a planet (in its own right) in a physical 3-brane, which shares the same gravitational field as the physical-dense Earth. Although co-rotating with the physical-dense Earth, being larger, it possesses a rotational speed which is somewhat slower. Hence, a day in Earth's 3d-Double would be slightly longer than a day in the physical-dense Earth (assuming it is measured at the same geometrical point on the two near-spheres).





Invisible Filaments and Vortexes on Earth



Shells, electrified sheaths and filamentary currents are signature structures of magnetic plasma. Filamentary currents are present not only in space but in our subtle bodies and also within and enveloping both the lower and higher physical-etheric components of the Earth.



These filaments are what have been called "ley lines", "dragon lines" or simply "energy lines" which are alluded to in Chinese Feng-Shui studies and elsewhere (for example in the practice called "Earth acupuncture"). The terrestrial Birkeland currents (in the lower physical-etheric plane) that circle the Earth are invisible from its surface, with the exception of auroral discharges.



These currents originate far from Earth and they flow into the upper polar atmosphere and out of it along magnetic field lines of the Earth. The currents from space that flow through the polar regions via the auroras continue into the Earth's magnetic field lines to cover the Earth with weak Birkeland currents. These Birkeland currents are the ley lines of the lower physical etheric plane in the metaphysical literature. There are also ley lines associated with the higher physical-etheric body or Earth's 3d-Double.



As explained in the author's book Our Invisible Bodies, 2006, subtle bodies, including orbs (which evidence the nuclei associated with subtle bodies), travel along Birkeland currents by redistributing charges on their bodies. Ley lines interpenetrate the Earth (like Earth's magnetic field lines) – they do not necessarily follow the contour of the surface of the Earth. The structure of filaments and vortexes has been characterized very often as a spider's web.



Native American peoples have referred to the network of currents on Earth as the "Spider Woman's Web". Francis Hitching described ley lines as "the radial threads on a spider's web." According to Tom Graves, the lines form the "focal points in a vast multilayered cobweb somewhat reminiscent of a micrograph of nerve cells and their ganglia" and are "the circulation and nervous system of the body of Earth."



Some consider Earth as a living being; and like human beings the Earth has meridians (filaments) and chakras (vortexes). When the ley lines (or filaments) cross they "pinch", collapsing to form nodes with intense magnetic fields, which give rise to vortexes (or chakras) within our planet as charged super particles (such as qi, prana and kundalini) rush in using helical or spiral paths. Depending on the direction of spin, vortexes can either absorb or emit energy.



Vortexes which emit energy are probably the ones that have been identified as "holy" or "sacred" sites by various spiritual traditions. These sites are also sometimes identified as "warps" in the paranormal literature.



This is not surprising – just as practically every galaxy has a black hole (which warps spacetime) lurking behind it, every Earth chakra has an intense magnetic node which may have similar effects. Ley lines, or leys, connect ancient holy sites — just as cosmic filaments connect galaxies in space and meridians connect chakras in our subtle bodies. Ley lines are in fact Birkeland currents.



Birkeland currents imply electric circuits that comply with Kirchhoff’s circuit laws. Chinese acupuncture often describes the various meridians in subtle bodies as ‘microcosmic orbits’ or circuits. In the same way that a person can be healed by Chinese acupuncture, sites on Earth can be healed by "Earth acupuncture" – making the site more conducive to receive incoming energy by multiplying and enlarging pathways.



Conclusion

There are networks of Birkeland currents (or webs of filamentary currents) in the subtle bodies of the universe, the Earth and even our own bodies. These various networks are interconnected – like the circulatory system in our biomolecular bodies – with large arteries connecting to smaller arteries and capillaries. And just like the circulatory system the network distributes and transfers energy from one point to another.



This forms a complex energy system connecting us to the universe. The currents that give rise to the auroras on Earth originate far from the Earth and connect to the Earth as a whole though the global magnetic field. Individual human energy systems are therefore integral components of the universal energy system. "The human energy system is like an electric power plant that runs in patterned circuits…This energy system forms a microcosm of the universal energy patterns that run like templates throughout nature and the cosmos, from the galactic and solar systems down to the cellular, molecular, and atomic levels of existence." - Daniel Reid



© Copyright Jay Alfred 2007





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













36 - DNA-Destroying Chip Being Embedded Into Mobile Phones













Friday, 11 May 2012









According to Dr. Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, terahertz (THz) waves destroy human DNA. The waves literally unzip the helix strand. Now a team of technologists at UT Dallas are planning to take chips broadcasting THz waves and embed them into mobile phones for use as an imaging system for consumers, law enforcement and medical personnel... a potentially deadly technology that could eventually kill or sicken millions of people.



The controversial THz scanner technology used by the TSA at many of the nation's airports is being adapted for cell phone use. Studies of terahertz radiation have caused experts to raise alarms over the significant health risks to humans.



Recently major media touted a new chip that permits the adaption of a THz generating device to be embedded into cellular phones.









Is the price for seeing through walls, a grisly death?



The excited press painted grand pictures of such technology being used by consumers to see through walls and objects, while health professionals like physcians might incorporate the technology to seek out small tumors inside patients without the need for invasive surgery.



The THz wave—located between microwaves and infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum—was chosen for security devices because it penetrates matter such as clothing, wood, paper and other porous material that's non-conducting. At the time experts [are said to have] believed this type of radiation was harmless.



They were wrong.









THz radiation unzips the DNA molecule.



In a breakthrough study conducted by Dr. Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a team of physicists, they discovered terrifying evidence that exposure to THz radiation builds cumulatively and affects human and animal tissue DNA. In essence, it tends to unzip the DNA molecule. [See: Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA]



The Los Alamos scientists paper, DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field reveals very disturbing—even shocking—evidence that THz radiation significantly damages the DNA of the people being directed through airport scanners and all TSA workers in close proximity to the machines.











From this... To this...?



Their synopsis: "We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."



What all that means is the resonant effects of the THz waves bombarding humans unzips the double-stranded DNA molecule. This ripping apart of the twisted chain of DNA creates bubbles between the genes that can interfere with the processes of life itself: normal DNA replication and critical gene expression.



Likely to cause cancer



David J. Brenner, a Columbia University doctor and expert on the effects of radiation stated that it's quite likely the TSA scanners will cause cancer in some individuals.



Brenner, whose Columbia's Center for Radiological Research work focuses on radiation's effects on biological processes, low exposure risk evaluation and radio-isotopic therapy, is concerened that people with compromised immune systems such as AIDS patients, those suffering from lupus or other immune-deficient ailments are especially at risk. Infants, children up to age 5 or 6, women who are pregnant or lactating, cancer patients and many more should steer far clear of the machines.











DNA strand bombarded by THz radiation unzips



Those exposed to THz radiation—whether from security scanners or future cell phone technology—who are taking certain prescription medications or have significantly low levels of certain vitamins have increased risk of radiation induced carcinomas.



Repeated exposure to low level radiation scans can also lead to cataracts and bring on skin cancer—including deadly melanoma.











A CMOS chip used in many different products



THz to utilize existing CMOS chips



According to the Daily Mail , the chips—created using Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor—or CMOS use the same technology already incorporated into devices like HD TVs, smart phones and personal computers.









Dr. Kenneth O, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas at Dallas and leader of the project explained to the Daily Mail that "We've created approaches that open a previously untapped portion of the electromagnetic spectrum for consumer use and life-saving medical applications.



"CMOS is affordable and can be used to make lots of chips," Dr. O said. "The combination of CMOS and terahertz means you could put this chip and receiver on the back of a cellphone, turning it into a device carried in your pocket that can see through objects."



The team's findings were presented to an enthusiastic audience at the 2012 International Solid-State Circuits Conference held in San Francisco, California. Next the team plans to create the CMOS terahertz imaging system.



Before moving ahead with the project, the good doctor and his team might consider contacting Dr. Boian Alexandrov and his team at Los Alamos to compare notes.



It would be a shame if a deadly technology that could eventually kill or sicken millions of people were unknowingly sold across the world.



Source: Before Its News





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