Friday, January 05, 2007

Breaking the Taboo: Carter's Truths

By GEORGE BISHARAT

Americans owe a debt to former President Jimmy Carter for speaking long hidden but vital truths. His book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid breaks the taboo barring criticism in the United States of Israel's discriminatory treatment of Palestinians. Our government's tacit acceptance of Israel's unfair policies causes global hostility against us. Israel's friends have attacked Carter, a Nobel laureate who has worked tirelessly for Middle East peace, even raising the specter of anti-Semitism.

Genuine anti-Semitism is abhorrent. But exploiting the term to quash legitimate criticism of another system of racial oppression, and to tarnish a principled man, is indefensible. Criticizing Israeli government policies - a staple in Israeli newspapers - is no more anti-Semitic than criticizing the Bush administration is anti-American.

The word apartheid typically evokes images of former South Africa, but it also refers to any institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. Carter applies the term only to Israel's rule of the occupied Palestinian territories, where it has established more than 200 Jewish-only settlements and a network of roads and other services to support them. These settlements violate international law and the rights of Palestinian property owners. Carter maintains that "greed for land," not racism, fuels Israel's settlement drive. He is only partially right. Israel is seizing land and water from Palestinians for Jews. Resources are being transferred, under the guns of Israel's military occupation, from one disempowered group - Palestinian Christians and Muslims - to another, preferred group - Jews. That is racism, pure and simple.

Moreover, there is abundant evidence that Israel discriminates against Palestinians elsewhere. The "Israeli Arabs" - about 1.4 million Palestinian Christian and Muslim citizens who live in Israel - vote in elections. But they are a subordinated and marginalized minority. The Star of David on Israel's flag symbolically tells Palestinian citizens: "You do not belong." Israel's Law of Return grants rights of automatic citizenship to Jews anywhere in the world, while those rights are denied to 750,000 Palestinian refugees who were forced or fled in fear from their homes in what became Israel in 1948. Israel's Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty establishes the state as a "Jewish democracy" although 24 percent of the population is non-Jewish.

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, counted 20 laws that explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews.

The government favors Jews over Palestinians in the allocation of resources. Palestinian children in Israel attend "separate and unequal" schools that receive a fraction of the funding awarded to Jewish schools, according to Human Rights Watch. Many Palestinian villages, some predating the establishment of Israel, are unrecognized by the government, do not appear on maps, and thus receive no running water, electricity, or access roads.

Since 1948, scores of new communities have been founded for Jews, but none for Palestinians, causing them severe residential overcrowding. Anti-Arab bigotry is rarely condemned in Israeli public discourse, in which Palestinians are routinely construed as a "demographic threat." Palestinians in Israel's soccer league have played to chants of "Death to Arabs!" Israeli academic Daniel Bar-Tal studied 124 Israeli school texts, finding that they commonly depicted Arabs as inferior, backward, violent, and immoral. A 2006 survey revealed that two-thirds of Israeli Jews would refuse to live in a building with an Arab, nearly half would not allow a Palestinian in their home, and 40 percent want the government to encourage emigration by Palestinian citizens. Last March, Israeli voters awarded 11 parliamentary seats to the Israel Beitenu Party, which advocates drawing Israel's borders to exclude 500,000 of its current Palestinian citizens.

Some say that Palestinian citizens in Israel enjoy better circumstances than those in surrounding Arab countries. Ironically, white South Africans made identical claims to defend their version of apartheid, as is made clear in books such as Antjie Krog's Country of My Skull. Americans are awakening to the costs of our unconditional support of Israel. We urgently need frank debate to chart policies that honor our values, advance our interests, and promote a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

It is telling that it took a former president, immune from electoral pressures, to show the way.

The debate should now be extended. Are Israel's founding ideals truly consistent with democracy? Can a state established in a multiethnic milieu be simultaneously "Jewish" and "democratic"? Isn't strife the predictable yield of preserving the dominance of Jews in Israel over a native Palestinian population? Does our unconditional aid merely enable Israel to continue abusing Palestinian rights with impunity, deepening regional hostilities and distancing peace? Isn't it time that Israel lived by rules observed in any democracy--including equal rights for all?

George Bisharat is a professor of law at University of California Hastings College of the Law. He writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East. He can be reached: bisharat@uchastings.edu


Source.

How to Brainwash a Nation

How did we get here?

How did we get to a place where a president can blatantly lie us into a war - and get away with it?

How did we get to a place where crooks can wrap themselves in the flag and rob the country blind - and no one challenges them?

How did we get to a place where a country once known for innovation and generosity can degenerate into a front of corruption and mindless viciousness - and life goes on as if normal?

We've been "worked on" for decades...

There has always been propaganda and persuasion, but nowhere has the art of skillful lying been developed to the art form it's become under the corporation-controlled United States.

“What my father understood about groups is that they are manipulable and malleable. And that you can tap into their deepest desires or their deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”

--Daughter of Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the architect of modern day PR.

Joseph Goebbels was his biggest fan.

In this seven-minute excerpt from "The Century of the Self" a four hour film series by Adam Curtis, you'll get a quick lesson about how sophisticated the mass brainwashing of the American people has been and how long it's been going on.

And it goes on because we let it go on.

Now, more than ever it's time to wake up America! We've been brainwashed! Throw your tv in the trash. Turn away from the billboards. Ignore the ads. You have a choice. Exercise it.

Don't work for a scumbag so you can buy things you don't need, or live in a house you never see, or let your children be raised by snake oil salesmen.

This is the most important struggle on earth - the struggle between truth and lies. Your mind is the prize. Whatever you do, don't let someone else control it.

The Money Masters - Part 1 of 2

The Money Masters - Part 1 of 2

The Money Masters the documentary discuss the topics of money (as it relates to central banking and fractional reserve banking), debt, taxes and their development throughout the modern world.


[edit] Private central banking and fractional reserve banking
The documentary criticises the control aspects of modern centralized banking systems and regulation. The film uses as evidence the history of money and banking, showing the viewer how central banks came to be what they are today, and how they operate. It supports its assertions by references and quotations from past Presidents and major players in the banking industry.


[edit] Media control
The film contends that by the end of World War I private central banks owned and controlled much of America's large media, paper and film outlets, and that they achieved this through the large consolidation of wealth generated by Fractional-reserve banking and later a fractional based finance system. The film contends this alleged near-monopoly of the financial system goes largely unnoticed or redacted from the human history because of the control of human information exchange through this mainstream media ownership.


[edit] Tax
The film touches briefly on the U.S. Federal income tax. See also Tax protester constitutional arguments.


[edit] Monetary Reform Act
By way of conclusion, the film presents an option for a different kind of monetary policy for the United States of America.

Holocaust Remembrance: Behind the Campaign

Institute for Historical Review director Mark Weber cites impressive evidence to show that the Holocaust remembrance campaign is an expression of Jewish-Zionist power, and is designed to further Zionist and Israeli interests.

The most Jewish Congress ever

"The most Jewish Congress ever"

First thought on most Jewish Congress ever: Wow. Second thought: Oy

[By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent]

Notes from the first day of the most Jewish Congress ever: It was an exhausting day of celebration for the party (you know which party), the Jewish activists, the new members. Forty-three Jewish legislators in Congress, but who's counting?

Obviously, you are - and so are we!

First thought: Wow, so many Jews in Congress. A record number: 43. That's huge. No wonder people are so excited about it.

That depends on who you are.

Second thought: Isn't it too much? Just 2 percent of the population and 13 senators out of 100? Two percent of the population and 30 congressmen? Aren't they going to draw the attention of all the anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists, Walt and Mersheimers of the world? Maybe a lower profile would have been preferable?

Third thought: Is worrying the Jewish way of celebrating or what? As they used to say - start worrying, details to follow.

SIX [go figure] - Six new Jewish lawmakers, all Democrats, were sworn in today on Capitol Hill. They come from different places and from different backgrounds. Some represent areas heavily populated by Jews, some areas with a negligible number of Jews. Will they thrive? Will they survive? Today they seem mostly happy to be there.

DEMOCRATS - Did we mention all the new members are Democrats? Twenty-nine out of 30 Jewish members of the House are Democrats, nine out of 13 Jewish senators are Democrats, two are independents caucusing with the Democrats and two are Republicans. Those who attended the National Jewish Democratic Council reception, House majority leader Steny Hoyer included, will not forget this. If you had any doubt, most Jews are also still Democrats (not that anyone had any doubts).

Jewish Nancy Pelosi [I thought she was Catholic?] became the first woman speaker of the House, but that's not the most remarkable thing about her (if you ask NJDC). She is the first speaker to have Jewish grandchildren. That's history.

Women And speaking of women, new congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is the "first Jewish woman from Arizona" to be elected to the House. She is also, well, how should I put it? It's always nice to be reminded again that not all Jewish legislators are older, balding, mustachioed men (did I just make an anti-Semitic remark?).

CAUCUS - Some people think being Jewish is fashionable now, and maybe that's why so many elected them as their representatives. There's a reason to believe that the colorful Giffords ("What is the most interesting or unique thing no one knows about you?: Either that I used to race motorcycles or that I lived in a Mexican Mennonite colony. Not at the same time, of course") can make it even more so. She is engaged to an astronaut (bald, mustachioed) and generally cool. Maybe she ought to join this new sub-caucus of cool Jewish women legislators. Current member: Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who also had a reception this week, attended by many Jewish activists).

Kosher NJDC offered kosher food for their guests, and that's not very surprising. But how about Hillary Clinton making it kosher? Nathan Diament of the Orthodox Union, celebrating his new blog, was thankful. It is a "clear mark of sensitivity," he wrote.

I wonder how is this going to work: Diament is the lobbyist for the OU, and now also a blogger. Good lack Nathan, that's a thin line to walk.

ISRAEL - Is it good for Israel to have so many Jewish legislators? The Israeli ambassador to Washington, attending the NJDC reception, got a warm introduction. The Jewish legislators are pro-Israel, they said. And the ambassador, Salai Meridor, said that these are people who are committed - pay attention to the order - to America, to the Jewish people and to Israel.

So what if they're lying?

That's more than enough.

Now, I know why they're worried -

Having reached the height of chutzpuh, the only way forward is down.

Source.

Foxman And The ADL must be stopped!

In 1906, a congressional inquiry into the criminal activities involving United States citizens in white slavery was stopped in its tracks. The news magazine that had investigated the white slave traffic of hapless young females was prepared to release a series of articles informing both the Congress and the American public of those criminal activities. The inquiry was attacked and silenced. Only the first article of the series made it out ­ the rest of the articles in the series, vital in terms of both informing the public and in ending these horrific crimes, were silenced. The behind-the-scenes power brokers who silenced the press and sabotaged the congressional inquiry were all Jewish.
The reason powerful Jews blocked the inquiry and sabotaged the conduct of due process of law was because powerful and wealthy Jews were directly involved and would have been exposed. As a direct result of this near domestic "holocaust," the powerful Jews involved formed a new organization: the American Jewish Committee.
It may be recalled that the American Jewish Committee was just recently in the news. This time, crucial information vital to the public interest alerting American citizens of the domination of their government by the Zionist American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, was silenced. Jewish professor Anthony Judt, of New York University, had two speaking engagements cancelled by two so-called "Jewish" organizations: the American Jewish Committee and Abraham Foxman's Anti-Defamation League. The AJC blocked the exposé of white slavery in 1906; and now, 100 years later, prevented a speaking engagement by a Jewish professor last October, to be given by a Jew who merely sought to amplify the findings of Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. He had intended to offer commentary on the Harvard School of Government paper, "The Israel Lobby." Over 100 academics from colleges and universities across the country wrote a letter of protest and signed it.
Consider the unbelievable damage that could result had Judt been allowed his right to speak and think freely. It would seriously bring into focus the continuing attacks upon these rights which would preclude exchanging ideas with other thinking human beings. And Foxman and his ADL just couldn't tolerate that, especially when the attacks are coming from "another" Jew. But Foxman is not just "another" Jew ­ he's a criminal and a traitor!
Intimidating Americans and stifling their constitutional rights is a crime, and not permitting an American to speak against the agents of a foreign government is a crime. Those agents of a foreign nation-state, a state which has committed acts of war against US, has committed numerous acts of espionage against US, and may even have been involved with the 9/11 terrorist act against US, should be exposed and investigated as well. Please recall the high-fiving five, surreptitiously detained and then released to return to Israel.
Foxman derives his power not from law, but by selecting those individuals he wishes to defame and smear. And of course those smeared have the right to sue; but Foxman can offer that he only acted in the self-interests of "American Jewry and Israel." And Foxman and his ADL command much wealth and legions of lawyers to bury litigants in legal fees and the courts for years. In fact, that was indeed the method deployed to silence Professor Judt. Who was smeared? Who was defamed? Yet the mere fact that Judt was silenced and targeted by these two "Jewish" groups can be shown to be, and sufficiently represented as, smears and defamation. Who really was the "aggressor"; was it the "anti-Semite" or the Semite? Clearly, the mission of Foxman and the ADL is to smear and defame in order to silence critics of Israel and its tax-exempt foreign agent lobby. Their power, "status" and wealth shield them legally.
But smearing, defaming, and silencing aren't Foxman and the ADL's only tactics. One may recall the last-minute pardoning frenzy of former President Bill Clinton. In a sermon given by Rabbi Barry H. Block on April 27, 2001, and posted on the Internet here, http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0427.htm Rabbi Block writes: "The leaders of this New Square community are unfortunately not as honest as their neighbors. Four of them had been 'convicted of robbing the government of $11,000,000, by setting up a fictitious yeshiva to receive federal student aid money.' The school did not even exist. The convicts and their attorneys justified their actions 'on the grounds that . . . the funds were channeled back into the community [, and not] for personal gain.' [Yoffie]"
Rabbi Block's sermon, entitled "Clinton Pardons ­Jewish Disgrace," then goes on to quote another rabbi, Rabbi Eric Yoffie. "Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of our Union of American Hebrew Congregations, has written that, 'for Jews, this is not simply another case of fraud and embezzlement. This is a case of religious people inventing an imaginary Torah institution to steal from the government, using the funds for other activities of their religious community, and then defending their actions on the ground that the money did not go into their own pockets. There is an implication that in some way, [their actions were] religiously acceptable. But of course [they were] not. Their actions are nothing short of a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's name. Jews who break the law in God's name and turn [the] Torah into an instrument of thievery are bringing Judaism into disrepute.'"
Rabbi Block continues: "Were these commutations explicitly bought with votes? Probably not. Did these thieves receive special treatment because of their town's overwhelming numbers of ballots for Senator Clinton? Perhaps. Did President Clinton think he was being a friend to the Jewish people when he commuted these sentences? Probably.
We can be certain, though, that the Torah does not permit thievery, even for the sake of a community. Our Rabbis teach us that committing a crime in the name of God shames the Jewish people, dishonors the Torah, and desecrates the Name of God. Though President Clinton surely intended no harm to the Jewish people, he did us no favors when he publicized the crime by granting pardon to the unrepentant sinners of New Square, New York."
Then Rabbi Block expounds on the pardon of Mark Rich. "The case of Marc Rich is much better known. In some ways, it may seem to be less of a Jewish problem, per se. Rich's alleged crimes, tax evasion and breaking an embargo against Iran, are shocking. Unlike the crimes of New Square, though, Rich's actions were not committed in the name of Judaism, God, or the Jewish people. Bill Clinton is the one most often charged with wrongdoing in the matter of the Rich pardon, not the Jewish people.
And yet, the pardon of Marc Rich had a very great deal to do with the Children of Israel.
Ehud Barak, then-Prime Minister of Israel, intervened on Rich's behalf by calling Clinton twice. Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Council, pled for the Presidential pardon in a letter written on the stationery of the sacred organization he heads. Calls went out to Clinton from Mayor Ehud Olmert of Jerusalem; from Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti Defamation League; and from dozens of other Jewish and Israeli leaders and philanthropists.
Why did all these Jewish leaders ask the President of the United States to pardon Marc Rich? In the words of Rabbi Yoffie, 'the answer is plain and simple: they were bought. Mr. Rich contributed generously to Jewish causes and charities around the world, and then, in a carefully orchestrated campaign, called in favors to put pressure on the President. . . . Beneficiaries of his largesse responded with calls and letters.'"
True to the combined character of Foxman and his ADL, and considering as well the diverse nature of the morality and religious honor of Judaism cited, religion itself is neither the issue nor the focus. It is morality and the lack thereof that are contrasted by Rabbi Block's sermon. Foxman is purely a political manipulator, whether it's to get a Jewish criminal off the hook with bought-and-paid-for political fixes and favors, or to silence a Jewish professor who merely wishes to speak the truth. When rabbis distance themselves from criminals, which include the likes of Abraham Foxman, the latter showing little or no devotion to Judaism as we can likewise conclude is the case with Clinton, it should be clear we are dealing with an evil individual and a dangerous political faction that threatens all our freedoms. Foxman and his evil ADL must be stopped.
The dangerous and un-American faction represented by Foxman and his ADL would surely cause President James Madison to rethink his Federalist Paper No. 10. Our large and diverse nation does not have the capability of cleansing itself by a myriad of conflicting interests. Lobbies and influence peddling, especially considering the astonishing and towering level of power of AIPAC and the ADL, are threatening and destroying the very foundations of freedom this nation was built upon.
Write to your representatives in Congress. Let them know that neither the ADL nor AIPAC are elected representatives for America or of the American people. Write right now! Don't put it off. These dangerous factions work quickly, secretly and behind closed doors, and are attempting to eliminate our society because it threatens their agenda of a New World Order. Considering the power they already wield, why is it that we should be the ones saddled with "hate crimes" legislation they're trying to ram through Congress?
© THEODORE E. LANG 1/4/07 All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Should Christians support Israel?

In the conversation with Nixon, Rev. Billy Graham, the Southern Baptist evangelist expressed disdain for what he saw as Jewish domination of the media.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain,” Graham said, agreeing with Nixon’s comments earlier in the conversation.
“You believe that?” Nixon says in response.
“Yes, sir,” says Graham.
Oh boy. So do I,” Nixon agrees, then says: “I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.” (From the Associated Press)

I am a Christian, but I must also state that I am tolerant of other religious beliefs, and I am committed to the right of people to have and practice whatever religious belief they so choose. Freedom of thought, conscience, belief and speech is fundamental to traditional European communities. I oppose religious intolerance, just as I oppose political tyranny and the suffocating encroachment of world government.

Although Europe has suffered from times of political and religious oppression, Western civilization from its classical roots in Greece and Rome to modern Europe has been the most ardent defender of freedom of thought and conscience. It is no accident that the most isolated pocket of ancient Europeans, Iceland, has the longest standing parliament in the world.

I seldom delve into religious matters, as I don’t have the honor of being a pastor or priest. However, policies of the Christian churches are critical to the well-being of European Americans as the overwhelming majority of Europeans are Christian as I am. Organized Christian churches have dramatic influence on our society, especially in America. On some matters, I feel I must speak out both as a Christian and as a European American.

Recently, I have been shocked and appalled by the unqualified support by some Christian televangelists for the most anti-Christian religion on the face of the earth, Judaism. They also support the corrupt, Jewish supremacist, anti-Christian Israeli state. I know that some of you reading this may respond by saying that Islam is really the most anti-Christian religion and that Judaism is a friendly faith. Many mistakenly think that Judaism is a sister religion to Christianity. The term “Judeo-Christian” has entered our modern lexicon to the point where no politician, George Bush on down, would dare even invoke the term “Christian heritage” without adding the prefix, “Judeo” to it. The term “Judeo-Christian” didn’t even come into existence until after the Second World War when Jews became supreme in their influence over major media.

The truth is that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. That would be like saying Satanic-Christianity. The religion now called Judaism did not even come formally into existence until six hundred years after Jesus Christ. It began with the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. In Judaism, the Talmud is the supreme scripture, not the Old Testament. Only Satanism can rival Judaism’s vicious hatred for Jesus Christ. The Talmud even claims that Jesus Christ is being punished in hell by “being boiled in hot semen!”1

When I first read this hateful Talmudic quote, I just couldn’t believe it. Maybe you don’t believe what I am saying right now, but read on and I will prove to you that this quotation is accurate and that Judaism is intrinsically and viciously anti-Christian. Judaism it the embodiment of the same Satanic tradition that Christ condemned when He referred to “the synagogue of Satan.” (Rev. 2-9) What I say here I can prove in the documented words of the most sacred texts of Judaism and in the clearly documented words of the highest authorities of Judaism itself, and even more importantly, in the scriptures of the New Testament.

Interestingly enough, Islam is much closer to Christianity than Judaism. For instance, Judaism condemns the Virgin Mary as a prostitute and viciously condemns Jesus an evil sorcerer and a bastard. The Talmud even claims Jesus was a sexual pervert who had intercourse relations with his donkey. In stark contrast, although Islam certainly does not share all the Christian views of Jesus Christ, it views Christ as a true prophet of God, virgin-born, and that God resurrected Jesus from the dead. Ironically, the chief religious book of Islam, the Qur’an, actually defends Jesus Christ from the obscene slanders made against Him in the Jewish Talmud.

I know that I am shocking many of you who are hearing this for the first time. I am sure some of you are thinking that this cannot be true! I don’t blame you for thinking so because many of you have never been told of these facts by the Jewish-dominated media or by the televangelists. So, I will document these things for you right now in the little space I have here. Also, remember that for a more complete and thorough documentation of this issue, you can go to my chapter on Judaism and Christianity in my autobiography, My Awakening. You can also find it in my new book, Jewish Supremacism. The chapter on Judaism found in My Awakening is at http://www.duke.org/awakening/chapter17_01.html. It is fully documented and footnoted.

The Talmud not the Torah (Bible) is the chief authority of Judaism

Most Christians are under the impression that Judaism is primarily based on the biblical Old Testament. Actually the ultimate authority for Judaism is not the Bible but on what they call the Babylonian Talmud, a series of writings set down in Babylon in the sixth century after Christ.

The American Heritage Dictionary describes the Talmud as “constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.”

The authoritative Universal Jewish Encyclopedia compiled by the leading Rabbinic organizations of the world, makes it very clear that the Talmud, not the Torah or Old Testament, is the supreme authority for Judaism.

“Thus the ultimate authority for Orthodoxy is the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible itself ranks second to it in reality, if not in theory. (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, “Authority” pg. 637) 2
What does the Talmud, the chief authority of Judaism, have to say about Jesus Christ?

Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105a-b)3

Jewish priests raised Balaam [Jesus] from the dead and punished him in boiling hot semen.(57a Gittin)4

She who was the descendant of princes and governors [The Virgin Mary] played the harlot with a carpenter. (Sanhedrin 106a)

[Jesus] was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. (Sanhedrin 52b) 5



Now obviously, I am not saying that all Jews share this hateful attitude toward Jesus Christ, but the official position of Judaism is defined by the quotations I just read. Obviously, it is important that Jewish groups don’t let Christians know the truth about the hateful Judaic attitude toward Jesus Christ. Some Jews seek to deflect Christian criticism by saying that Balaam was not the name that Jews used to denote Christ. Yet, no less a major authority than the Jewish Encyclopedia, an encyclopedia compiled by the leading rabbinic organizations in the world, says that Balaam is the name they use to denote Jesus Christ. Under the heading “Balaam,” it says, “…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”6 Such use of deceptive terms such as “Balaam” was a common practice in the middle ages as Jews tried to disguise their anti-Jesus and anti-Christian hatred from Gentiles who might dare to pry into the Talmud.

Now some Christians might think that these are simply old beliefs of the Jewish religion, and that Judaism might have softened its attitudes toward Jesus Christ and Christians. In actual fact, these are the formal policies of the Israeli state. In fact, In Jewish schools in Israel it is forbidden to even read from the New Testament gospels or even mention the name of Jesus Christ. It is even a criminal offense in Israel for a Christian to preach the salvation of Jesus Christ to a Jew. Israel so hates the Christian cross that they have specified that elementary schools use a “T” instead of a plus sign because it so resembles the hated Christian cross! The Israeli government has even supported public burnings of the New Testament!

One of the Jews I have most respected, the man to whom I dedicated my book, Jewish Supremacism, is the late Dr. Israel Shahak. He was a holocaust survivor and professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Professor Shahak reported that the Zionists publicly and ceremoniously burned hundreds of copies of the New Testament in Jerusalem on March 23, 1980. They were destroyed under the auspices of Yad Le’akhim, a Jewish religious organization subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions.7 Here are some direct quotations from this courageous Jew, Professor Israel Shahak:

to read the rest of the article, click here. 

Freedom of Speech and the Holocaust

Address by David Duke, PhD at the Holocaust Conference in Tehran, Iran
Former member of the House of Representatives
State of Louisiana, United States of America
www.davidduke.com email: dukeeuro@hotmail.com

Distinguished friends,

Thank you Dr. Mohammadi and all the distinguished scholars who are here at a conference that history shall one day deem as one of the most important of the 21st century


I and all the conference participants must be especially thankful to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has had the knowledge, the foresight and the courage to convene this conference to offer free speech for the world’s most repressed idea, Holocaust revisionism. We must remember that the main themes of this conference as stated by Iran’s President are the vital human right of freedom of speech and the condemnation of the shameful imprisonment of European scholars and academics who simply dare to state their opinions of historical events that occurred over 60 years ago.



This conference embraces the idea of free speech, thought, and conscience. The U.S. State Department, under thorough control of International Zionism, in a formal statement called this conference a quote, “disgrace.” The real disgrace is that free men are imprisoned and silenced in Europe and in other European-descended nations around the world. The disgrace is that no leaders of our own nations seem have the courage to defend free speech.



I also want to thank your President for inviting me, as controversial as I am, to be here. The Zionist-influenced media lies about me with the same enthusiasm as they lie about him.



He will be condemned for having me here, and I as a former American elected official will be condemned by the Zionist influenced press in America for coming here in peace and friendship to a nation that they hate: the nation of Iran.



But, we at this conference have decided that no longer will we let the Zionists dictate to us. They shall not dictate to us who will be our friends, who will be our enemies, nor will we permit them to dictate to us only their version of the past, and we will certainly not let them dictate our future!



Let me say from the outset that I am no disloyal American, I love my country and my people, but I know that the Zionist extremists lead my country to catastrophe in the Mideast and elsewhere around the world. I know that the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, even the American people have been sacrificed on the altar of the Holocaust. It is the chronic media and government playing of the Holocaust that has blinded our eyes to new holocausts and new outrages.



As a truly patriotic American I oppose Americans being killed or maimed by the thousands in Iraq in a war not for America, but for Israel. I am here because I love my country and oppose those who lead America and the world to ruin on behalf of Zionism. In Iraq too, Americans and countless Iraqis have been sacrificed on the ideological altar of the Holocaust, for the Holocaust and its chronic recital is used as the justification of any Israeli treachery or crime against humanity.



The Zionist-influenced media in America and Europe is trying to mislead the U.S. and Iran toward a war that would be catastrophic for your country, for my country and for the world. Here too images of a Holocaust against Jews are used to justify and promote a terrible war against Iran that would constitute a new Holocaust, one against the Iranian people and indeed for all of us in the world.



I believe the people of Iran want peace, and I can tell you that the average American also wants peace.



This conference is based on freedom of speech, true freedom, not the lip service brokered in the mass media. Freedom of speech will take on the Holocaust. But, freedom of speech also relies on a free press.



Perhaps how little we can trust the establishment press on the Holocaust is illustrated by the lies told about your esteemed president.



This morning, I read a story about this conference from a European newspaper that stated and I quote, that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for wiping Israel off the map. This assertion has been made in literally thousands of newspaper articles and radio and TV news reports.



But, all those here know that such a translation of his speech is nothing but a big lie. He never said anything of the kind. Any proper translation of his speech shows that he never called for Israel to be quote, “wiped from the map”! But millions of people in the West and around the world have heard this so many times they believe it. Whatever might be the ultimate truth of the Holocaust, how can we learn it from a press that repeats 5,000 times a lie about your President that anyone with an Iranian-English dictionary can disprove in 5 minutes? In short, their ability to sell this easily disproven lie shows that the media can get away with any lie, even of the largest proportions. The only way to learn the truth about any idea is free speech, free discussion, and free debate.



The conference will include academics who embrace the prevalent historical conception of the Holocaust and those who have a revisionist view. Revisionists question parts of the official Holocaust story. In some Western nations, to diverge even slightly from Holocaust orthodoxy will cause an historian to face not only a loss of academic career but also imprisonment.



Right now as I speak, three names come to mind immediately. David Irving, Ernst Zundel, and Gemar Rudolf. These three men, scholars, researchers, intellects who their opponents dare not debate, these nonviolent, kind and gentle men sit behind dark prison walls at this very moment for simply daring to speak their conscience, for expressing the world’s most forbidden opinion, the idea that the historical event trademarked as the Holocaust as it is popularly presented, is not an accurate historical portrayal, that it needs like all other events of history to be questioned, researched freely and constantly revised.



Perhaps the hypocrisy is illustrated by devotion of Europe to freedom for the vilest kinds of pornography. Every kind of the sickest pornography is allowed in the Western world today, including pornography that delves into the worst forms of sadism and masochism and the vilest degradation of women, many of whom have been drug addicted and truly enslaved in what the world calls White slavery. Yet, these sickest, evil forms of porn are not only legal in Europe, they are lucrative! Yet, if you dare to research and offer a dissenting opinion about any aspect of the event singularly called the Holocaust, it’s off to prison for you, its bankruptcy for you and your family.


In Europe you can freely question, ridicule, and deny Jesus Christ. The same is true for the prophet Muhammed, and nothing will happen to you, heck you might even get to star in your own weekly TV show, but offer a single question of the smallest part of the Holocaust and you face prison!



David Irving one of the world’s most famous and well-read historians, a writer who many mainstream historians have praised as brilliant and accurate, at this moment sits in a prison near Vienna, Austria for simply stating his historical opinion about Auschwitz in a lecture in Austria in 1989. German researcher/chemist Gemar Rudolf faces years of imprisonment for simply publishing a detailed forensic analysis that challenged the authenticity of alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. Ernst Zundel, a resident of Canada and the U.S was ripped from his wife and home because he had politically incorrect opinions about the events of the Second World War.



I have been honored to know personally all three of these men. They are kind, witty, humorous, men of family, of kindness and decency. None of these men were hateful or advocated hate, none were violent or advocated violence, none of these men were terrorists or supported terrorists, none of these men did anything other than express an intellectual opinion at variance with high priests of the Holocaust. All these men did was have the courage to express their opinions even though they knew that by doing so everything they held dear was endangered, their safety, their sustenance, their freedom, but they chose their conscience and their honor, even at the risk of life, that their own heart might be stilled forever. They still stood tall.



I am not here to argue the truth or untruth of their claims, that is for the other speakers here, but I am here to add my voice from America from free men and women everywhere that the fact that these men are imprisoned is a scandal and injustice. The whole world knows that imprisoning men for their opinions is tyranny; that such is the opposite of everything that we mean by the word freedom. As some nations of Europe jail men for their opinions, these same nations boast about their supposed freedom and hold themselves above many other nations they view as repressive and backward.



Some of the brave men here today at this conference have been jailed, even physically attacked, lost reputation, freedom, property, career, simply for speaking their conscience. I see a number of them as I look in the audience. And none of these men write or speak hatefully or intemperately, but how can the world even know that, when they and their beliefs are repressed by government and media.



I want to honor one of the men here for his sacrifices over the years in his obedience to conscience and to truth, a man who has laid in a hospital bed with his bones crushed, his pain-racked body burned by acid, all for doing what his intellect dictated and his conscious demanded. He is Dr. Robert Faurisson, and we here and the world owe him a debt that we can never adequately repay. Lesser men would have given up and lived the quiet life, but he gave his all and he still gives us his all even now. I would like to ask you to stand up for him ladies and gentlemen. Robert Faurrison, the best-known revisionist in the world today.



The main theme of the Holocaust Conference is that there must be freedom of speech on this subject as on all others. Free speech, inquiry and debate are the only way to learn the truth on any issue.



In prosecutions of Holocaust questioners, authorities have not allowed introduction of any evidence supporting the defendant’s claims. The courts have even announced in their guilty verdicts that “The truth is no defense,” i.e. that even if the defendant can be shown to be honest and accurate, and even if his claims can be substantiated by physical and documentary evidence, he has broken the law by simply questioning aspects of the official Holocaust Story.



I take no hard position on the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, I leave that to those whose whole lives are devoted to the study of the issue, but I take an unshakeable position on freedom. Obviously, Jews, as well as other nationalities suffered great losses during the Second World War.



Repression, dispossession or murder against any group is wrong.



Revisionists don’t deny that many Jews died and suffered greatly in the war, they condemn any and all injustices done to Jews in that period.



It must also be understood that throughout history, the historical treatment of atrocities or crimes against humanity have often been colored by political purposes. Throughout history some crimes against humanity have been exaggerated and emphasized to justify political agendas or even war. Other crimes against humanity have been completely ignored or downplayed.



An example is the contrast between the crimes of National Socialist Germany and that of Soviet Communism. Most researchers readily acknowledge that Bolshevism imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered many times more people in Russia and in Eastern Europe than even the high numbers alleged in the Holocaust. Yet, the Soviet Holocaust receives not one-hundredth of the attention of the Jewish Holocaust. Can anyone here name even a single movie you have seen about the Bolshevik slaughter?



Isn’t it sensible to think that this disparity is because of the strong Jewish influence in Western media from the entertainment establishment of Hollywood to the news media centered in New York and across the European world? Revisionists suggest that an exaggeration and saturation of the Holocaust has been essential to establishment and support of the Zionist state in Israel and that it offers a psychological excuse for the large scale ethnic cleansing, repression, torture and genocide against the Palestinian people.



Revisionists argue that this vested interest of much of the pro-Zionist media and pro-Zionist governments affords a danger that the Holocaust can be distorted and politicized just as many historical crimes against humanity have either been exaggerated or diminished in pursuit of political agendas.



Whether the revisionists scholars are right or wrong is for you to decide, not those who want to crush free thought and free speech.



I and every speaker at this conference believe in freedom of speech on all historical and contemporary issues.



We believe in freedom of speech, conscience, opinion, and expression.



It is the opponents of this conference who clearly don’t believe in freedom of speech and conscience. It is they who have thrown elderly men and women into prison for years for simply expressing their opinions.



Yet, instead of condemning these tyrants, the media even celebrates the imprisonment of human beings who dare to question.



Dr. Bruno Gollnisch, a professor of Literature at the University of Lyon, and a member of the European Parliament was convicted of Holocaust Denial.



Speaking in Lyon, France, in October 2004, Gollnisch said: “I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I’m not a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians debate it.” He did not contest the “hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths” during the Holocaust, but added: “As to the way those people died, a debate should take place.”



For simply advocating free speech, Gollnisch was convicted of Holocaust Denial. Has Europe gone crazy?



Freedom of speech is important for two reasons.



First, freedom of speech is a vital human right. It is the cornerstone of all other rights, because without freedom of speech no one has to the right to even freely know and learn of the abrogation of other rights affecting human freedom and survival. That is why the American founding fathers put freedom of speech, press and religion as the first and highest of the Bill of Rights.



Second, freedom of speech and debate are absolutely vital for the truth to prevail. If one side of any controversial issue can suppress the voice of opposition, we cannot arrive at the certainty of any truth. If academics and citizens can be blackmailed monetarily and in career; if they can be threatened with firings, loss of income, or imprisonment for simply sincerely pursuing an historical inquiry and publishing it, how can the truth be discovered?



How does one even know the real revisionist opinion, if that opinion is repressed?



A perfect example of the biased treatment of the Western press is the recent adoption of the term “Holocaust denier” to slander anyone who may question any part of the complex and expansive Holocaust story. The term “Holocaust denier” was created by Simon Wiesenthal to denote any one who dares to question any part of his version of the Holocaust. To “deny” is usually associated with an allegation of a personal crime. For example, “John Doe denies that he committed the robbery.” It has a very negative connotation. It is not commonly used to denote people holding a contrary historical opinion.



In truth, revisionists are not deniers, they are simply questioners who are being imprisoned and slandered for simply questioning with research and reason this tragic period of history during the Second World War.



The Holocaust Conference in Iran is truly about respect for intellectual freedom.



Iran has organized the first international conference dedicated to freedom of speech and inquiry on this important historical matter that has so many ramifications on the Mideast and many other present political realities.



I am here in Tehran as a speaker in this conference because I am dedicated to freedom of speech, conscience, and thought. I am honored, as are all of you, to be here at this historic conference.



I urge the fair-minded people of the world, before they condemn this conference, the Iranian President, all the speakers and me, to ask the question: who are the patrons of freedom and who are the real deniers, the deniers of our precious human right of freedom of speech!



–Dr. David Duke



Former member of the House of Representatives



State of Louisiana, United States of America

 Source.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Albert Einstein Quotations Opposing a Jewish State

John Spritzler
October 7, 2006

 Albert Einstein, on April 17, 1938, in a speech at the Commodore Hotel in New York City, said:

"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state." [1]

In January, 1946, in a reply to the question of whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,

"The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it." [2]


Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews, denouncing Menachem Begin, a future prime minister of Israel who is highly regarded by the current ruling Likud Party, as a fascist. After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of second president to Einstein. He declined the offer.

[Note: the bolding is not in the original]

New Palestine Party
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ""Freedom Party"" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants —— 240 men, women, and children —— and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a ""Leader State"" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe

New York, Dec. 2, 1948


Alfred M. Lilienthal, in What Price Israel? , recounts that on April 1, 1952, in a message to the Children of Palestine, Inc., Einstein "spoke of the necessity to curb 'a kind of nationalism' which has arisen in Israel 'if only to permit a friendly and fruitful co-existence with the Arabs.'" Lilienthal also relates a personal conversation with Einstein: "Dr Einstein told me that, strangely enough, he had never been a Zionist and had never favored the creation of the State of Israel. Also, he told me of a significant conversation with [Chaim] Weizmann [leader of the World Zionist Organization.] Einstein had asked him: 'What about the Arabs if Palestine were given to the Jews?' And Weizman said: 'What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence.'" [3]

Related article : Was Einstein right?

1. Albert Einstein, in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954, p. 190

2. Alfred M. Lilienthal, What Price Israel?, 50th Anniversary edition, 2003, pg. 130

3. Lilienthal, pg. 131
Source.



God, Christ and Jews

God doesn't get much attention in the mass media or anywhere else for that matter. It seems He doesn't exist or if He does, He has been "discredited."


Why is that? Could it be that Western culture is essentially illuminist i.e. one that wishes to substitute the rule of rich men for the rule of God? Who owns the mass media after all?


Everything has a creator, from a muffin to the universe. Mankind also has a maker. The operating manual is in each soul.


It's hard to comprehend but the world is literally run by Satan-worshipers. They want to take away our belief in God as a prerequisite to controlling us themselves.


How do we know that God exists?


How do we know that food exists? We have a hunger for Perfection. Deny our spiritual needs (i.e. Purpose, Truth, Beauty, Justice and Love), and we die inwardly. (Look around.)

To deny the Creator is to negate oneself. God is the principle of our personal and social development. God is Light. The alternative is Darkness.


Naturally Satanists want to divert us with false gods, material things they say will give us perfection but never do.

CHRIST

Christ is an embodiment of Divine Love. He bears witness to man's Divine Spirit.


Some argue that Christ never existed. I don't agree but the question is irrelevant. I know man has a Divine Spirit because we are in love with Perfection, God, our Divine Self.



Christ has a message of human perfectability. "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," (Mathew 5:48) We must love and obey God (our spiritual ideals) before all else.



"God is a spirit and we must worship Him in spirit and in truth," (John 4:24) Christ was crucified by worldly powers that DON'T want people to obey the Spirit. They want people to obey them.



Whenever we deny God, inevitably we create false Gods: Romance. Sex. Money. Power. Success. They become a cancer. There is never enough because they do not satisfy our spiritual hunger.



The Illuminati bankers, who suffer from this cancer, appeal to our thwarted idealism to gain control: Change the world! Perfect society! Liberty! Fraternity! Equality! A morsel is thrown to the masses. Thus, the wealthy satanists dupe the idealists to do their bidding. Feminism is a prime example.



Individual spiritual development is our natural path. We must be angels before we can create heaven on earth. The bankers replace this with their "humanist" collectivist utopia which, based on coercion and social engineering, is a front for their totalitarian control.





JEWS





Many Jews, like modern people in general, exhibit the misplaced idealism that results from losing God. They advance the New World Order, deceived by banker-sponsored Liberalism, Socialism, Zionism and Communism.



In the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, there was a brief period in England where the prominent role of the Jews in fomenting revolution surfaced. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published in The Morning Post and The London Times demanded a public inquiry into it.



Winston Churchill, always attuned to public opinion, wrote, (in "The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People" Feb 8, 1920): " It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined 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."



Oscar Levy, a Jewish philosopher and translator of Nietzsche , wrote in his Preface to George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution," 1920, "there is scarcely a event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews...You have noticed with alarm that Jewish elements provide the driving forces for both Communism and capitalism, for the material as well as the spiritual ruin of this world."



Levy blames the "intense Idealism of the Jew" for the revolutionary havoc. "These revolutionary Jews do not know what they are doing. They are more unconscious sinners than voluntary evil doers...but please do not think I wish to exonerate them on that account...."



The rejection of Christ is tantamount to a rejection of a higher (ie. Godlike) vision of man which requires some self-denial and self-discipline to succeed. Too often Jews have opposed anything they deem "inhibiting" and embraced a naturalistic view of man. Worldly success became the ultimate and only standard.



Levy writes: "We who have posed as the saviours of the world; we who have even boasted of giving it the 'Saviour,' we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners."



"We who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, we have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell...There has been no progress, least of all moral progress ... And it is just our Morality, which has prohibited all real progress, and---what is worse---which even stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours ... I look at this world, and I shudder at its ghastliness; I shudder all the more as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness..."

In my opinion, the bulk of organized Jewry is only one of the many instruments that the international bankers use to create their New World Order. As I have said elsewhere, this is an occult, political and economic rather than racial movement. The bankers regard their poor Jewish cousins as "schnorrers" (beggars) to be manipulated using anti- Semitism. The bankers intermarry with wealthy aristocratic families of Europe and America and let the "schnorrers" take the blame for their mischief.


Unfortunately, Jewish self-examination and criticism of the kind ofered by Oscar Levy is exceedingly rare.

CONCLUSION

As this beautiful summer comes to a close, we are troubled by presentiments of turmoil. Even the supermarket tabloids are predicting World War Three. Rumours on the Internet suggest a staged terrorist attack on an American city will be used as an excuse to declare martial law and launch a nuclear attack on Iran. The reports suggest this may take place between mid Sept and the end of October. For many this feels like the summer of 1939, 66 years ago.


Meanwhile, Israel is evacuating 10,000 settlers from Gaza, a puzzling gesture since it is not part of a peace agreement. I can't help but wonder if it is related to the anticipated war. These settlers are being moved around like pawns on a chessboard, a good image for the role of ordinary people in history.

We live in a world governed by megalomaniac criminals, traitors, imposters, perverts and Satanists who employ a corrupt media, political and cultural elite to hide and justify their misdeeds.

In the months to come, the veneer may wear thin, and we may see Satan's face peering through the media veil. The population of the West may suffer for its self-indulgence, cowardice and stupidity. We may need to turn to God and Christ for solace and inspiration. We may need to discover First Principles.

 Source.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

 An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .

By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann
Translation to English: Erik Appleby

04/19/06 "Kein Krieg!" -- -- - "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)" George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland (Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: www.whitehouse.gov) But why does Bush speak of Iran's objective to destroy Israel?

Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)

It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.

This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.

Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.

Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence.

As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:

"They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

(source: http://memri.org, based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets)

The term 'map' to which the media refer at length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American policy.

An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.

Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world".

It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp. 'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be equated and translated (like e.g tagesschau.de published it).

Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?

"The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'" (published by tagesschau.de 2005-12-14.

But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung, tagesschau.de, parts of the peace movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so, too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.

What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2 days - 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11.

"The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust. Instead of making Israel's attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion 'the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre against the Jews', Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar. That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel's disposal." - dispatch of the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14.

The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title 'Iran's President calls the Holocaust a myth': "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called the Holocaust a 'myth' used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish state in the center of the Islamic world . 'In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets' the Iranian head of state said."

The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.' [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'"

There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.

CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection."

The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation 'great crime' and misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: "Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions." This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to establish itself in Palestine - videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and disobeying all UN-resolutions.

In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of Iran's President we should nevertheless note down: the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews.

In another IRNA-dispatch (2005-12-14) the Arabian author Ghazi Abu Daqa writes about Ahmadinejad: "The Iranian president has nothing against the followers of Judaism [...] Ahmadinejad is against Zionism as well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the world civilized community."

It's no wonder that such opinions do not go down particularly well with the ideas of the centers of power in the Western world. But for this reason they are not wrong right away. Dealing out criticism against the aggressive policy of the Western world, to which Israel belongs as well, is not yet anti-Semitism. We should at least to give audience to this kind of criticism - even if it is a problematic field for us.

2006-02-11 Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA: "[...] the real holocaust should be sought in Palestine, where the blood of the oppressed nation is shed every day and Iraq, where the defenceless Muslim people are killed daily. [...] 'Some western governments, in particular the US, approve of the sacrilege on the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), while denial of the >Myth of Holocaust<, based on which the Zionists have been exerting pressure upon other countries for the past 60 years and kill the innocent Palestinians, is considered as a crime' [...]"

The assertion that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust thus is wrong in more than one aspect. He does not deny the Holocaust, but speaks of denial itself. And he does not speak of denial of the Holocaust, but of denial of the Myth of Holocaust. This is something totally different. All in all he speaks of the exploitation of the Holocaust. The Myth of Holocaust, like it is made a subject of discussion by Ahmadinejad, is a myth that has been built up in conjunction with the Holocaust to - as he says - put pressure onto somebody. We might follow this train of thoughts or we might not. But we cannot equalize his thoughts with denial of the Holocaust.

If Ahmadinejad according to this 2006-02-11 condemns the fact that it is forbidden and treated as a crime to do research into the Myth of Holocaust, as we find it quoted in the MEMRI translation, this acquires a meaning much different from the common and wide-spread one. If the myth related to the Holocaust is commuted to a 'Fairy Tale of the Massacre' - like the DPA did - this can only be understood as a malicious misinterpretation.

By the use of misrepresentation and adulteration it apparently succeeded to constitute the statements of the Iranian President to be part and parcel of the currently fought propaganda battle. It is our responsibility to counter this.

Concluding:

A dispatch by Reuters confirms 2006-02-21: "The Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has [...] repudiated that his state would want the Jewish state Israel 'wiped off the map'. [...] Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. 'Nobody can erase a country from the map.' Ahmadinejad was not thinking of the state of Israel but of their regime [...]. 'We do not accredit this regime to be legitimate.' [...] Mottaki also accepted that the Holocaust really took place in a way that six million Jews were murdered during the era of National Socialism."

The next step is to connect the Iranian President with Hitler. 2006-02-20 the Chairman of the Counsil of Jews in France (Crif) says in Paris: "The Iranian President's assertions do not rank behind Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'". Paul Spiegel, President of the Central Counsil of Jews in Germany, 2005-12-10 in the 'Welt' qualifies the statements of Ahmadinejad to be "the worst comment on this subject that he has ever heard of a statesman since A. Hitler". At the White House the Iranian President is even named Hitler. And the German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel as well moves over Iran's President towards Hitler and National Socialism by saying 2006-02-04 in Munich: "Already in the early 1930's many people said that it is only rhetoric. One could have prevented a lot in time if one had acted... Germany is in the debt to resist the incipiencies and to do anything to make clear where the limit of tolerance is. Iran remains in control of the situation, it is still in their hands."

All this indicates war. Slobodan Milosevic became Hitler. The result was the war of the Nato against Yugoslavia. Saddam Hussein became Hitler. What followed was the war the USA and their coalition of compliant partners waged against Iraq. Now the Iranian President becomes Hitler.

And someone who is Hitler-like can assure a hundred times that he only wants to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him. Somebody like Hitler can act within the scope of all contracts. Acting contrary to contract will nevertheless be imputed to him. "Virtually none of the Western states recognize that uranium enrichment is absolutely legal. There is no restriction by contract or by the law of nations. Quite the contrary: Actually the Western countries would have the duty to assist Iran with these activities, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as a state renounces the bomb it is eligible for technical support by the nuclear powers." (Jörg Pfuhl, ARD radio studio Istanbul 2006-01-11) But - all this does not count if the Head of a state is stigmatized as Hitler.
 
Source.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Borat: Hollywood’s nasty Talmud fable


Borat, featuring British actor Sacha Baron Cohen, is both a powerful piece of ethno-political propaganda and one of the stupidest films I’ve ever seen. Cohen in the cable TV series Ali G Show gained fame for his portrayal of a jive-talking, semi-literate British black, and he specializes in a brazen politically incorrect variety of humor based on some traditional Jewish prejudices. Whether playing Ali G or the pitiful Kazakh country bumpkin Borat, Cohen suggests that the non-Jewish nations of the world are, as the Talmud teaches, little more than animals. Cohen himself gleefully demonstrates that the lives of the goyim focus on sexual excess and aberration, violence, bodily functions, and ignorance.
Kazakhstan would never allow to film Borat in the country

In real life, Kazakhstan is both a former republic of the Soviet Union and today an independent nation. The Kazakhs are a non-Indo-European Turkic people, though many of Borat’s references, as well as the language he speaks, actually relate to Europe’s Indo-Europeans. Borat’s “Kazakh” language in the film is mostly Slavic. Borat is something of a “Polish joke” directed against the Christian populations of Eastern Europe, though Cohen knows well he could never get away with this kind of “humor” if it were aimed directly at Europeans. The movie was filmed in Romania and its dark-skinned “Kazakhs” are actually Romanian gypsies. Understandably, Cohen was refused permission to make this kind of movie in Kazakhstan.

Jews represent a key ideological theme of Borat. The goyish world’s irrationality is illustrated in Borat’s fear and misunderstanding of Jews. One of the major holidays of Borat’s mythical Kazakhstan involves an annual chase through the streets of grotesque, hook-nosed caricatures of Jews. At one point in the parade a monster paper mache Jewess lays a giant styrofoam egg, which is then attacked and pulled to pieces by happy local children. During their visit to America, Borat and his colleague-producer, who are filming a documentary about their journey, have a chance encounter with an elderly Jewish couple who run a bed-and-breakfast. As you might expect, the only “decent” characters in the film (except for some African-Americans) are this kindly Jewish couple. Borat and his colleague humiliate themselves in various scenes inspired by fear of Jews. Convinced that the couple has transformed itself into cockroaches which are invading their rented room from beneath the bedroom door, the two simpletons escape the Jewish home in the middle of the night. There is also a reference to belief in Jewish compliance in 9-11.

Borat promotes some traditional Jewish stereotypes of non-Jews, while also it suggests that Jews (and perhaps also American blacks?) are the only really moral Americans. Part of the problem with this film is that it addresses some legitimate problems of American society. A genuine documentary comparing America with the former republics of the Soviet Union would reveal some traits that are comparatively “primitive” in American culture. Some of the more humorous scenes take place in the American South, and director Larry Charles demonstrates that the “crudity” of Kazakh culture is often matched by the shallow sophistication of Americans. One scene involves Borat’s visit to a fundamentalist Christian megachurch, where Borat is “slain in the spirit” while the congregation in stiff pompadours and overalls hoots, hollers, tap dances and babbles in tongues.

The pornographic scenes in this film are meant to suggest the bestiality of the goyim, for example, as the naked Borat and his obese manager-colleague chase and abuse each other down the halls and the lobby of their hotel. Borat proudly shows his new American friends photographs featuring his son’s penis. The movie ends with scenes of the triumphant Borat back in his native village, surrounded by local admirers and with his new wife, a black prostitute from America picked up through a newspaper advertisement, proudly sitting by Borat’s side.

I was particularly disturbed by the fact that part of the soundtrack of Borat is taken from a great film, Time of the Gypsies (by director Emir Kusturica) and one of the great film soundtracks, by Goran Bregovic. For several weeks I debated whether or not to see Borat. I regret that I’ve made a financial contribution to its success (or failure), yet the film does have a certain unpleasant educational value. While there’s not much stable in human history, one of the few things we can always count on is the Jews’ conviction of their own moral and cultural superiority. Despite the subterfuge of the film’s mythical Kazakhstan, Borat is really a story for and about Jews. Anyone who knows the Jews’ traditional stereotypes recognizes the moral here: whether we talk about Kazakhs or goyish hillybilly Americans, they’re all really the same dirty, depraved bunch. The world knows one decent, sober, righteous, “chosen” minority, and what’s left over is the irrational, immoral, hardly human remainder.
Source.