Truth, History and Integrity

by Gilad Atzmon

Here is an incredibly brave and insightful article by the well known (formerly Israeli) musician who is becoming admired all over the world in a sphere destined to eclipse his musical fame. — David Duke

Back in 2007 the notorious American Jewish right-wing organization, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) announced that it recognised the events in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were massacred as “genocide.” The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, insisted that he made the decision after discussing the matter with ‘historians’. For some reason he failed to mention who the historians were, nor did he refer to their credibility or field of scholarship. However, Foxman also consulted with one holocaust survivor who supported the decision.  It was Elie Wiesel, not known for being a leading world expert on the Armenian ordeal.

The idea of a Zionist organization being genuinely concerned, or even slightly moved, by other people’s suffering could truly be a monumental transforming moment in Jewish history. However, this week we learned that the ADL is once again engaged in the dilemma of Armenian suffering. It is not convinced anymore that the Armenians suffered that much. It is now lobbying the American congress not to recognize the killings of Armenians as ‘genocide. This week saw the ADL “speaking out against Congressional acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide, and is, instead, advocating Turkey’s call for a historical commission to study the events.”

How is it that an event that took place a century ago is causing such a furor? One day it is generally classified as ‘genocide’, the next, it is demoted to an ordinary instance of one man killing another. Was it an ‘historical document’ that, out of nowhere, popped out on Abe Foxman’s desk? Are there some new factual revelations that led to such a dramatic historical shift? l don’t think so.

The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past.  For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account. It is foreign to any scientific or academic method.  Jewish history transcends itself beyond factuality,  truthfulness or  correspondence rules with any given vision of reality.  It also repels integrity or ethics. It by far prefers total submission, instead of creative and critical thinking. Jewish history is a phantasmic tale that is there to make the Jews happy and the Goyim behave themselves. It is there to serve the interests of one tribe and that tribe only. In practice, from a Jewish perspective,  the decision whether there was an Armenian genocide or not is subject to Jewish interests: is it good for the Jews or is it good for Israel.

Interestingly enough, history is not a particularly ‘Jewish thing’. It is an established fact that not a single Jewish historical text has been written between the 1st century (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th century (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2 thousand years Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it. As a matter of convenience, an adequate scrutiny of the past was never a primary concern within the Rabbinical tradition. One of the reasons is probably that there was no need for such a methodical effort. For the Jew who lived during ancient times and the Middle Ages, there was enough in the Bible to answer the most relevant questions to do with day-to-day life, Jewish meaning and fate. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand puts it, “a secular chronological time was foreign to the ‘Diaspora time’ that was shaped by the anticipation for the coming of the Messiah.”

However, in the mid 19th century, in the light of secularisation, urbanisation, emancipation and due to the decreasing authority of the Rabbinical leaders, an emerging need of an alternative cause rose amongst the awakening European Jews. All of a sudden, the emancipated Jew had to decide who he was and where he came from. He also started to speculate what his role might be within the rapidly opening Western society.

This is where Jewish history in its modern form was invented. This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. As we know, Shlomo Sand’s account of the ‘Jewish Nation’ as a fictional invention is yet to be challenged academically. However, the dismissal of factuality or commitment to truthfulness is actually symptomatic of any form of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politics. The ADL’s treatment of the Armenian topic is just one example. The Zionist’s dismissal of a Palestinian past and heritage is just another example. But in fact any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and  oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.

When I was Young

When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future.  I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, “when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)”.

When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favorite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian.

When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million.

As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all.

It Doesn’t make sense

It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:

If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book

“One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all  I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate ” (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz – Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).

I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people  stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity.

As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust  became the new Western religion.  Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.

*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations.

I urge all readers of DavidDuke.com to go to Mr. Atzmon’s website and carefully read all of his fantastic articles. As I read them, it seems I could have written them for they are exactly along the lines that I have written about in Jewish Supremacism. –David Duke

Pre-commentary by David Duke – In another brilliant article by Gilad Atzmon, he exposes the underlying currents of Jewish extremism. The fact that he would expose the Jewish world declaration of war against Germany, even before any German actions against Jews, is something that hardly any Gentile public figure would dare do. Just that one headline explains so much as to why we had the horrible war that killed over 60 million Europeans and left our civilization in the hands of the Jewish supremacists.

As  for Obama, there is definitely a lot of Jewish anger right now against Obama for simply having the Vice-President and the Secretary of State voice disapproval of the massive Israeli betrayal of American interests by authorizing a huge Jewish land grab in East Jerusalem. Of course, Jews have destroyed other Presidents as well for even the slightest criticism of Israel. The speeches at AIPAC by Democratic leaders show clearly though, that Obama and Clinton are fully prostrate at the feet of the Jewish extremists. For if they were really free and independent, they would announce to Israel that since Israel is harming America’s interests and policies, that if Israel does not cease all new land grabs of Palestinian land, America will cut off the billions of taxpayer’s dollars that Israel gets. But, don’t hold your breath! That won’t happen just as Obama wouldn’t even say a word as Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza. True tyrants don’t tolerate one iota of criticism. The truth is that Obama has been their boy for a long time. Jewish extremists Axelrod and Emanuel are at his left ear and right ear. Now that Obama has made this gaff, you can be sure he will work overtime to support Israel in a thousand ways behind the scenes in order to placate the wrath of the Zionists. This article is such a good exposition of true Jewish extremism, read it a learn a lot from this incredibly honest and courageous Jew–Gilad Atzmon.  --dd

Last week we read about AIPAC’s assault against President Obama. It was reported that the Jewish Lobby in America took its gloves off. In the open, AIPAC decided to mount pressure on the American leadership and President Obama in particular.

“The Obama administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel is a matter of serious concern,” AIPAC said in its statement. AIPAC’s reaction came after a weekend of U.S. recriminations and demands, following Israel’s provocative announcement that it had given preliminary approval for the construction of 1,600 more apartments for Jewish settlers in a Palestinian neighborhood of eastern occupied Jerusalem. Unlike President Obama, who seems to be prioritizing issues like the health care reform bill and United States economic recovery, AIPAC claims to know what America’s ‘real’ interests are and how to achieve them. “The administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests”. AIPAC also suggested that the American leadership should concentrate on a confrontation with Iran. “The escalated rhetoric of recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran’s rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons”.

Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even super powers. AIPAC’s behavior last week reminded me of the Jewish declaration of war against Nazi Germany in 1933.

Not many people are aware that in March 1933, long before Hitler became the undisputed leader of Germany and began restricting the rights of German Jews, the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens and called for an American boycott of German goods.

I obviously do not think that Obama has anything in common with Hitler. There is not much the two leaders share in terms of their philosophy, their attitude to humanism or their view of world peace.(1) However, it is hard to turn a blind eye to the similarity between AIPAC’s behaviour last week and the Jewish American Congress’ conduct in 1933.

On March 24, 1933, The Daily Express (London) published an article announcing that the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and threatened a forthcoming “holy war”. The Express urged Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and demonstrate actively against German economic interests.

The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry….in London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”

Jewish texts tend to glaze over the fact that Hitler’s March 28 1933, ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods, was an escalation in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership. In fact the only Jewish enclave that is willing to admit the historical order of events that led to the destruction of European Jewry, is the anti Zionist Jewish Orthodox sect known as the Torah Jews. I assume that, similarly, once things turn sour between America and its Jewish lobbies, Jewish tribal ideologists will be the first to forget that it was the Jewish American establishment that worked so hard to nourish the inevitable animosity.

If you wonder why Jewish politicians repeat exactly the same mistakes time after time, the answer is easy. Jews do not know their Jewish history for there is no Jewish history.

As it happens, Jewish history is a set of fables tied clumsily together to portray a false image of a victorious narrative. Jewish history is a set of blind spots bundled together by myth, fantasies and lies, in order to present the illusion of a coherent past narrative and a vague semblance of chronology. Israeli professor Shlomo Sand taught us that the Zionists, and to a certain extent their Bundist rivals, were far from being shy of “inventing” the history of their Jewish nationhood. But it goes further, even the holocaust, which could be a major illuminating corner in Jewish reflection, was transformed into a rigid chapter that perpetuated blindness. As a vision of the past, it is there to hide and to disguise, rather than to reveal and inform. In a Jewish history book, you won’t read about ‘Judea’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany’. In Jewish history texts chronology always launches when Jewish suffering begins. Jewish history transcends itself beyond the notion of causality. It persuades us that persecution of Jews occurs out of nowhere. The Jewish historical text avoids the necessary questions as to why hostility evolves time after time, why do Jews buy so many enemies and so easily?

AIPAC leaders are clearly repeating the grave mistakes of their forebearers: the American Jewish Congress. They do not learn from their history, for there is not a single Jewish history text to learn from. Instead of a history text, Jews have the Holocaust, an event that matured into a religion.

The holocaust religion is obviously Judeo-centric to the bone. It defines the Jewish Raison d’être. For the Jews it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, it regards the Goy as a potential ‘irrational’ murderer. The new Jewish religion preaches revenge. It even establishes a new Jewish God. Instead of old Yehova, the new Jewish God is ‘the Jew’ himself: the brave and witty being, the one who survived the ultimate and most sinister genocide, the one who came out of the ashes and stepped forward into a new beginning.

To a certain extent the Holocaust religion signals the Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God ‘innocence’, Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of ‘good economy’, Lord Goldsmith is the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AIPAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel.

The holocaust religion is the conclusive stage in the Jewish dialectic; it is the end of Jewish history for it is the deepest and most sincere form of ‘self love’. Rather than inventing an abstract God who prefers the Jews to be the chosen people, in the holocaust religion the Jews cut out the divine middle substance. The Jew just chooses oneself. This is why Jewish identity politics transcends itself beyond the notion of history. God is the master of ceremony. And the new Jewish God cannot be subject to humanly contingent occurrences. The new Jewish God, i.e. ‘the Jew’, just re-writes fables that serve the tribe at any given time. This may explain why the Holocaust religion is protected by laws, while every other historical chapter and narrative is debated openly by historians, intellectuals and ordinary people

As one may guess, with such a self-centered intensive world-view, not much room is left for humanity, grace or universalism. It is far from being clear whether Jews can collectively recover from their new religion. However, it is crucial that every humanist stands up against the holocaust religion that can only spread misery, death and carnage.

(1)      Unlike President Obama who postponed his Far East trip just to meet Israeli PM and sent his Secretary of State to appease his Jewish opponents promising more confrontation with Iran, Hitler actually reacted furiously to Jewish pressure.

If you thought the amount of Zionist mind control directed at Gentiles was over the top, you might check out the amount of programming directed at Jews, by Zionist Jews, as documented in this video by Yoav Shamir. A film which goes a long way toward helping one better understand this crazy upsidedown Zionist world that we find ourselves living in today — admin:

‘Defamation’ – Astonishing New Film On Anti-Semitism Reviewed

By Gilad Atzmon

I urge every person on this planet to watch Yoav Shamir’s ‘Defamation’ documentary about anti Semitism.

The film is an astonishing exposure of the morbid conditions that entangle contemporary Jewish secular identity. It explores and ridicules the current notion of anti Semitism and the lobbies that are engaged in disseminating such a fear. It also exposes those Jewish ethnic campaigners who, for some reason, insist on shaping their identity around the phantasmic idea of being ‘racially’ chased, defamed or hated.

Being an Israeli, Yoav Shamir, the man behind the film, has managed to infiltrate into Abe Foxman’s ADL. He even managed to join
Foxman’s ‘international mission’. Shamir also followed an Israeli high school expedition to Auschwitz. He provides us with some intimate footage of Israeli youth being indoctrinated into collective anxiety and total neurosis just before they join the IDF.

The general image we are left with is no less than grotesque. The film elaborates on the aggressive vulgar orchestrated amplification of fear amongst Israelis and Zionist Jews. “We are raised to believe that we are hated” says an Israeli high school girl on her way to a concentration camp. “ADL provide us with a platform to be Jewish”, says an American elder Jewish woman.

Shamir provides us with an opportunity to see how badly young Israelis behave once in Poland. You watch their contempt to the local population and disrespect to Polish people and institutes. You can also watch Israelis project their hatred onto others. For some reason they are convinced that everyone out there is as merciless as they happen to be. The Israeli youngsters are saturated with fear, yet, they are having a good time, you can watch them having a party dancing in a bus all the way to a Auschwitz. You can see them munching crisps while watching a Musleman* prisoner drinking his watered-down soup.

Dancing all the way to Auschwitz

Shamir provides us with some unusual pictures of Abe Foxman mixing with world leaders. Proudly the ADL leader is insisting on selling his favourite product. Shamir presents the ADL’s deal in some very plain words. “We (the ADL) will be your allies in the American Congress, all we need in return is you fighting anti Semitism along with us”. Shamir realises that if Foxman and the ADL can guarantee a free pass to the American corridors of power, then the ‘anti Semitic’ message explored by the ‘Protocols of the Elders Of Zion’ is rather relevant and should be discussed in the open.

We can see Foxman and his international mission talking to the Ukrainian President assuring him that the ADL could easily help him in America as long as he doesn’t “link the Holocaust and theHolodomor (the Ukrainian Holocaust)”. “It will be counter effective” if you make such a link” Foxman tells the Ukrainian leader.

One may wonder how come Foxman who makes a living out of Jewish disasters is so reluctant to allow the Ukrainians to reflect on their past or to share it with others?

Good question indeed, I believe that primarily it is Jewishchoseness that is coming into play here. Foxman doesn’t like hisraison d’être i.e. the Holocaust, to be in competition, eclipsed or even being challenged by any other genocide. But it goes further, as Harvard Professor Yuri Slezkine’s confirms in his master piece The Jewish Century, Jews were actually “Stalin’s willing executioners”. Bolshevik Jews were largely involved in the genocidal crime against the Ukranian people and others. In case one wants to read about ‘Stalin’s Jews’ in an Israeli Zionist paper. Ynet’s Sever Plocker is a good place to start. “We mustn’t forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish” says Zionist Plocker. Abe Foxman must know it all. He insists that the Ukrainians should not link their horrifying past to the Shoabecause he knows that too many of his people are directly involved in the crimes against the Ukrainian people.

Interestingly enough, in the film, it is the orthodox Jews who defy the cry for anti Semitism. It is a Rabbi who argues that Abe Foxman creates anti Semitism “because he needs a job”. Another Rabbi argues that unlike orthodox Jews who intrinsically associate their Jewishness with Judaism, the cry for anti Semitism is a Jewish secular phenomenon that satisfies the secular Jew’s craving for identity. This indeed makes a lot of sense, once you take Judaism from the Jew all you are left with is ‘chicken soup’ and ‘anti Semitism’. Foxman had to choose whether to open a kosher delicatessen or chasing anti Semites. He clearly has chosen the latter. He and his crypto Zionists within the left and the media are making a career amplifying the fear of being chased.

Unlike Uri Avneri and Norman Finkelstein who appear in the film and argue that anti Semitism is exaggerated, I actually believe that resentment towards Jewish politics is rising rapidly and constantly. However, I do differentiate between the Judeo centric notion of anti Semitism and political resentment towards Jewish ideology. I do not regard anti Jewish activity as a form of anti-Semitism or racial hatred for Jews are neither Semites nor do they form a racial continuum whatsoever.

The rise of hatred towards any form of Jewish politics and Jewish lobbies is a reaction towards a tribal, chauvinist and supremacist ideology. If political Jews whether Zionist or ‘Jewish anti Zionists’ are concerned with themselves losing popularity, all they need to do, is to learn to look in the mirror. Self-reflection is liberation as long as one is courageous enough to face the truth.

To watch the entire film: http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=7208

 
* A physically exhausted prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.

 
Article Source: Gilad Atzmon

Britain Must De-Zionise Itself Immediately

By Gilad Atzmon

David Duke’s preface commentary — Here is another powerful article by the articulate, anti-Zionist Jew, Gilad Atzmon. He introduces us to a powerful news documentary showing the incredible Zionist influence in the politics of Great Britain. I urge all readers of www.Davidduke.com to watch it carefully and thoughtfully. I have thoroughly exposed a similar Jewish lobby of even greater power that exists in the United States of America. When will the people in the US and Britain understand the shocking danger of having their most powerful political lobby being that for a foreign nation? Of course, the Iraq War and the continued prosecution of the Afghanistan War is directly against the best interests of both America and Britain. They are wars killing, maiming or mentally harming tens of thousands of our patriotic young men and women, whose long deployments are breaking up hundreds of thousands of marriages. They are wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and ultimately trillions. They are wars that only increase hatred against America and make our nations more prone to terrorist attacks in the future. And now this Jewish lobby, and Jewish-impacted media seeks a bloody, catastrophic war with Iran.

I also hope that those who watch the documentary also realize that direct political bribery and influence is only part of the Jewish extremist problem. It dovetails with the fact that enormous sectors of the American and British media are owned or otherwise controlled or influenced by Jewish extremists. Not all Jews are loyal to Israel, but a great percentage of leading Jews are devoted to the Jewish State, so when they occupy positions of power, whether it be in government, media or finance, they have the ability to support and manipulate the process for the Jewish agenda rather than that of either Britain or America. This is not anti-Semitic, but simply reality. It is not anti-Semitic for Britons and Americans to want their nations devoted to the interests of their own people rather than the terrorist and murderous state of Israel. –DD

On Monday the British TV broadcaster, Channel 4 screened Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, a devastating expose of the Jewish lobby in the UK*. ‘We couldn’t find a conspiracy’ affirmed Peter Oborne the Daily Mail’s political commentator behind the film. He was right. After running the show for so many years, the Jewish lobby’s purchasing of British politicians and media presence is in the open.

The Guardian reported today that two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy “but Britain’s pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far too less scrutiny.” This is indeed the case, and as Oborne disclosed, both British politicians and Zionist pressure groups enjoy it to the max.

In the film Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: “I don’t believe, and I don’t think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached.” I would suggest that ‘strings attached’ is a very gentle way of putting it. ‘Chained to submission’ would be far closer to the truth.

Seemingly a British consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up.

The Jewish community is not happy at all. After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they are used to being untouchable.

Labor MP Denis MacShane, who operates as the House of Common’s UK equivalent of the ‘anti defamation league’ told the Jerusalem Post “if there is a Jewish /Israel lobby here, it is not very effective, as Israel is almost treated as a pariah state in the media and has few friends in politics.”

MacShane may be right; one cannot buy friendship with money. But according to Monday’s broadcast one can certainly buy British politician’s subservience for just a few shekels. According to the Guardian 50% of the Shadow Cabinet are now ‘friends of Israel’. In that context one common saying comes to mind. “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”

I would assume that if there was any public respect left for the British Parliament, British political parties and the BBC, it should be gone by now. Just a few months ago Brits were devastated to find out about their MPs’ personal expenses bills. Yesterday they learned about their leading politician’s affiliation with the darkest possible regime and ideology around. They also learned that their national broadcast corporation is influenced by Zionists pressure groups run from Jerusalem.

Mark Gardner from the Zionist ‘Community Security Trust’ is not happy either. He complained that Dispatches producers behaved as if they were investigating a “criminal gang rather than various Jewish community-linked organizations,”

Gardner is also correct. It is indeed tragic to admit that the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang. It is there to serve a murderous state with a devastating record of crimes against humanity. Thanks to the Jewish lobby, we are all complicit in the Zionist crime. Not only are those lobbyists heavily corrupted and removed from any ethical value system, they also corrupt everything they touch. They obviously contaminate every politician who is happy to take their shekels. Consequently they incriminate us all as a society.

Watching Channel 4’s Dispatches yesterday I wondered to myself whether this is the ‘democracy’ some British politicians, such as David Miliband insist on spreading around. I also wonder whether this is the governing model that Jewish Chronicle writer Nick Cohen and the Israeli Hasbara committee author David Aaronovitch were trying to promote when they were supporting the invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

Political commentator Peter Oborne indeed fulfilled his promise. He told us almost everything we want to know about the lobby, “who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.”

However, there is a single observation that must be added. People out there must never forget that Britain was taken into a war that cost more than a million Iraqi lives and at the time Lord Levy was the Number 1 Labour fund-raiser. Putting the two together: an illegal war that only serves Israeli interests and Sir Richard Dalton’s observation that Zionist ‘contribution’ comes with ‘strings attached’, leaves a very bitter taste. Due to its heavily corrupted politicians, Britain is now willingly serving the darkest possible racist national ideology and supporting a criminal terrorist state.

British politicians and media are caught in bed with too many Zionist wolfs. In order to reclaim sovereignty and dignity, Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately.

 
* Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, can be viewed at the attached video above or here.

 
Article Source: Gilad.co.uk

Listen with this link!

Dr. David Duke — My words to the Czech People:

The actual text of my Lecture to Charles University in Praha

As everyone in the Czech Republic is now aware, I was invited to the Charles University by two professors in May of 2009.  Charles University is one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Europe. After word went out of my invitation, Zionists put enormous pressure on the university to cancel the lecture. It was argued that there might be violence because of my speech. Of course, the only violence was that threatened by the Zionists. If the university honored the very principles of freedom it was founded upon the extremist Jews promised bloodshed!  I arrived in Prague only to be informed that the Israeli extremists had succeeded in getting my lecture stopped.

It was not just my own human rights that were violated. The right of the Czech people, the faculty and students were denied their right to hear another point of view. Here is the actual text of my scheduled lecture. You may be the judge of whether I should have had the legal right to deliver it and whether the university students and faculty should have had the right to hear it. As I explain in the lecture, when you suppress the human rights of freedom of speech and conscience, you cannot even personally know for sure what the person is actually advocating. In the old communist-occupied Eastern and Central Europe, the establishment either jailed the dissident or simply told the people what the dissident supposedly believed. The idea was to not let him speak for himself. It is sad to see the Czech Republic slipping back to the lack of freedom of speech that the Czech people suffered under communist occupation and repression. It is not worthy of a free people. Certainly not worthy of the Czech people.

I feel very honored to be in the Czech Republic at one of the greatest universities of the world, Charles University, a university founded on the courageous example of Jan Huss, who gave up his liberty and his very life for the right to speak his conscience to the Czech people.

Thank you for permitting me to speak my conscience and ideas to you, and I think you will find out quickly that my actual beliefs are not what you have been told.

In fact, you may be surprised to find that the chief motivation of my life is the protection and advancement of the most fundamental of human rights for all peoples. And yes, I am not ashamed to say it, I also dare to defend the human rights of the Czech people, of the European and American people.

I believe that every person must have the right of freedom of conscience and speech no matter if I or others agree or disagree with him. Once freedom is curtailed for one human soul it is murdered in the hearts of all men.

When it was announced that I was to give this lecture at Charles University, a vicious campaign of hatred and lies was launched against me in the press. The campaign of lies was meant to prevent me from having the right to speak to you, and you from having the right to hear me. The efforts to prevent my academic speech here at Charles University happened even though I am a PhD and a former elected member of the House of Representatives in Louisiana, who has lectured without problem in over 300 universities all over Europe, the United States and the world. Ironic – isn’t it ironic that I and you have faced such troubles at this ancient University formed around the idea of freedom of thought, speech and inquiry.

I know that some members of your government have called me a racist and hater and holocaust denier, and I will address those issues directly, but first I want you to clearly understand why I think that any kind of restriction of political speech is a violation of human rights, which opens the door to violating everyone’s human rights.

Almost everyone believes in the rights of freedom of speech. However, if you only believe in the rights of freedom of speech for people and ideas that you agree with, then you don’t really believe in this human right.

Popular opinions have never needed protection, only unpopular ones do. So when you propose jailing or banning someone who you disagree with, you are a violator of human rights no different from the tyrants of the inquisition who suppressed and jailed Jan Hus because they thought he was dangerous and evil. As some viewed Jan Hus as the epitome of evil others viewed him as the epitome of goodness.

As an American young man I grew up in awe of the Czech people in their courageous fight for freedom from communist tyranny. Perhaps the most important right of all that the Czech people fought for under communism was the right of freedom of conscience and free speech. In fact, many courageous Czechs went to the gulags, to torture and even death because they dared to exercise their God-given right of free speech and free conscience. In my country our founding fathers,  just as the anti-Communist Czech freedom fighters, put freedom of speech and press at the very pinnacle of human rights.

I think they were right, for no other freedom is safe without freedom of speech.

Freedom from government sponsored imprisonment, freedom from state repression and torture, or freedom from state sponsored murder, can be secured only with freedom of speech. Any limitation at all on political or religious freedom of speech gives the state the power to restrict whatever speech it wishes. Mass repression and murder can only thrive where those evils are kept from the eyes, minds and hearts of the people.

Once government deems one idea reprehensible or unacceptable and is given the right to imprison the person who speaks it, then no idea is safe. As a PhD in History, I can tell you that all academics learn that if you disagree with an idea then you have an obligation to debate the idea with logic and reason.

An academic can’t get away with opposing an idea by putting some sort of label on it or calling the advocate bad names.

In fact a basic principle in academic debate is that you debate the ideas, not the person presenting them. There is an old adage of lawyers, however, that ’if you can’t argue your opponents facts or logic, then attack the man’.

I was amazed that the press headlined that I was once in the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, I was as a young man over 30 years ago in a non-violent Klan group, and neither I nor members of my group were ever charged with any sort of violence against anyone! Long since that time I have been elected to public office three times, have written books, that are read all over the world, and have become an academic.

Contrast that with your new Prime Minister, a former Communist, the political ideology that has murdered more human beings than any other in world history and an entity that terribly oppressed the Czech people and murdered great numbers of your forebears. When there is an article about him in your press do the headlines read, “Former Communist?” Someone must really fear my ideas to sink to such low attacks on me as this.

In academia we are obliged to hear and read dissenting views and then respond to them with reason and argument. Without that process there is no real academia, only dogma.

When Jan Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, the authorities at the time did not disprove or even debate his arguments with facts or logic, they simply labeled him a heretic, a hater of God. He wasn’t a hater, he wasn’t a heretic. Jan Hus simply dared to expose the corruption in the religious establishment that he morally opposed. And he was right, of course, for even the Church establishment itself, has eventually come to see that he was right, for the idea of the rich buying their way into heaven must go against all true Christian doctrine.

In truth, those who were calling Jan Hus a heretic and a hater, and then took away his freedom and ultimately his life, were themselves the true heretics of human rights, and were criminals against human rights. In fact, I would go even further and call them the true enemies of God.

I beg you to notice how the terms heretic, or hater of God had really nothing to do with the ideas of Jan Hus, but because the religious people oppose heresy and hatred of God as terrible sins, those words had the power to justify and jail and later to even murder Jan Hus at the stake.

If the state had a law against alleged heresy today, it would simply jail or ban the heretic so that he would have no right to speak to the people. Notice that when freedom of speech is curtailed on the basis that someone is said to be a heretic, that you really can’t know if he is really a heretic, a hater of God, or actually a lover of God and true to scripture. That is because he is not allowed to speak or explain himself. Since he is not allowed to express himself you cannot know his true opinions.

The same thing is true when one is called a racist or a hater or “holocaust denier” today. If you can’t hear the man or read what he has to say, if he cannot speak and debate, how do you know what he really stands for? I dare say, I believe most of you students and faculty could not have expected this lecture, yet here you are pleasantly surprised, I hope.

If Jan Hus could have spoken freely and not have been imprisoned and murdered, everyone would have found out that he was not a heretic or hater of God, and the corruption would have ended in his own lifetime rather than these abuses going on as they did for another hundred years. We had to wait for Luther to shock the church into change.

Today you have the chance to find out about me, what I really believe. I must tell you that I am so glad that being burned at the stake is no longer an option. After reading the hateful and vicious things said about me, I am sure that some would love to smell my burning flesh.

And thanks to the professors and students of Charles university for hearing me today.

I have already been heard by over 300 universities around Europe, the United States and the world, all without problem.

You will learn that I am not a heretic against human rights, but I am an ardent defender of human rights, that I am not a man who seeks to suppress races and their rights but defends the rights of all people to preserve their heritage and freedom.

I oppose any other nation being controlled by any other. By the way, you should know that even though I am an American, I support the Czech people in their efforts not to be controlled by America. The Czech people should not submit to America’s political leaders, its financial bullying or to the degenerate Hollywood establishment that so poisons the healthy morals and values of the world.

I say this as a true patriotic American who understands that America was originally founded by the principle of Independence. We got our start with the Declaration of Independence, the idea that every nation, every people have the right to control their own affairs and have a government that serves the interest of its own people and not any foreign power. It is my sad duty to inform you that America itself is no longer controlled by the American people, but by Zionist extremists who are popularly called ‘Neocons’.

Even though you know little about me, I was one of the few leaders on the right side of the political spectrum who opposed the Iraq War and George Bush.

Those who might think the Iraq War was some kind of American Imperialism on behalf of the American people, please consider this: It was not a war for oil, as America got no oil out of that war and we could have bought it cheaply from Saddam Hussein. The war was completely based on lies and you can hear and read my pre-war words that declared the weapons of mass destruction tales pure lies from a Zionist-controlled government and media.

In short it was a war for Israel, period. America has lost over 40,000 Americans who have either been killed or maimed in this immoral war. Over 1 million Iraqis have been killed in the war. It has cost and will cost us in the years ahead trillions of dollars. It has made much of the world hate my country. It is making millions want to do my country harm. In every sense, the war was not a war for America but a war against every true interest of the American people.

Even the pro-Zionist New York Times admits that the two main architects of the war were Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, two Jewish extremists who have repeatedly shown that their greatest loyalty is to Israel, and not America. America attacked Iraq because the Zionist extremists in Government and media lied to the American people that Iraq posed a danger to the United States. After all, they couldn’t get us to war by saying we should spend trillions of dollars, kill or ruin the lives of tens of thousands of our military personnel, and make the world hate us simply because Israel wanted it. But it was a war for Israel, just as they  are now working on war against Iran for Israel. You can find plenty of documentation on my website on this issue at Davidduke.com.

For those who believe that America is now on a different path with Barack Obama. Think again.

The two most powerful men associated with Obama are David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff. Before leading Obama’s campaign for President, Axelrod’s claim to fame was as a Zionist extremist, a political hit man who orchestrated the defeat of Illinois Sen. Charles Percy who dared to be only 99.9 percent for Israel rather than the obligatory 100 percent.

Obama’s Chief of Staff, described by the NY Times as the second most powerful man in America, is Rahm Emmanuel, a Zionist extremist named after a famous Irgun Terrorist, and who actually went and fought in the Israeli Army in the first Gulf War rather than for America.

There are many additional facts that I could point out to show you the Zionist influence over the American government,  I could go on for 5 or 6 hours reciting them, but with our limited time here, I will give you some of the most important facts.

Obama’s biggest supporters, the financial forces that literally launched his campaign for President were Jewish extremist, Zionist supporters of Israel. In the very early days his campaign, the most politically powerful international banking firm in the world, Goldman Sachs raised huge sums of money for Obama. Another source was Jewish-activist, Hollywood Moguls such as Spielberg, Katzenberg and Geffen who raised over one million dollars at just one Hollywood party for Obama.

Goldman Sachs ultimately became his biggest corporate contributor and Obama’s top twenty contributor list is overwhelmingly weighted by Jewish-controlled, international banking firms.

How can the man most politically and financially supported by the most powerful establishment financial firms really be considered a man who offers, “Change you can believe in.”

In a December 12 article in The Chicago Tribune titled, “Barack Obama, The First Jewish President?”  the paper points out that Jews have been more influential in the career and success of Barack Obama than any other President, so much so that Jews have come to call him the first Jewish president because of his absolute subservience to Israel.

And now what difference do you see with the policies of Obama as compared to Bush? He ran as an anti-war candidate who would pull all our troops out of Iraq, and now he says he will leave 50,000 American troops there. That’s still an occupation. He also says he will increase troops in Afghanistan by tens of thousands. And he is rattling the saber for war with Iran.

A change from George Bush. Obama is really nothing more than George Bush on steroids.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very fearful that the Jewish extremists will lead Obama into a war with Iran which will be catastrophic for America, Iran, Europe, Czech Republic and the whole world.

It is time for me to speak about a vital subject and I think the subject that forms the very core of the reason why such powerful forces want to quiet my voice.

I have dared to tell the real truth, the whole truth about Israel, and if you do that in a world that represents enormous power of Jewish extremists in world finance, in media and in government, you will be gang attacked like a lamb in a lake of piranhas.

I will speak to you with the same kind of abandon of Jan Hus, come what may: Israel is a racial-supremacist, terrorist state by any objective standard.

It is important I make clear that I am not talking about all Jews here, I am talking about Jewish, Zionist extremists. I agree there is a danger from Islamic extremism, there is perhaps even danger from Christian extremism, but we must not close our eyes to the dangers of Jewish extremism. It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Jewish extremists and the Zionist State of Israel. In fact, many Jews are far more vocal than I on the subject. Take for instance, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, and Dr. Norman Finklestein, or Noam Chomsky. I really believe that Jewish extremists pose a threat for Gentiles and Jews alike.

While government leaders were denouncing my visit, at the same time, they were planning a supportive visit to Israel. Ironically, I am condemned as a racist, but they have state dinners and give complements to the mass murderers who just a few short months ago murdered or wounded thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza.

They had your own Czech representatives walk out of a speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the anti-racist conference for simply telling the truth about Israel.

Is Israel a Racist State? What are the facts?

1.  Israel is an apartheid state. Israel has separate schools for Jews and non-Jews, separate apartment buildings, even whole towns and settlements reserved only for Jews. Many Jewish settlements are built on the very land stolen from Palestinians, and those same settlements will not allow Palestinians to live and often, not even allow them to walk on its streets.

2.  In Israel, a Jew and a non-Jew cannot legally marry. A marriage in Israel between a Jew and non-Jew is not legally recognized. Even more telling is the Israeli government policy on the Kohanim, the historical Jewish elite who constitute Cohens, Kohns, and other similarly named descendants of the Jewish priest class. In Israel this Jewish elite is not allowed to marry a practicing orthodox Jew who has even a drop of non-Jewish blood, even to 1000 generations back. Hitler’s elite, the SS, required six generations of purity, the Jewish State is even more stringent.

Now my friends, could you imagine if the Czech state legally forbade the marriage of Christians to Jews? Could you imagine the outrage all over the world? Yet, Israel has these policies and no one dares to expose them. They would want to haul your Prime Minister to The Hague for a Human Rights trial. But, European leaders routinely ignore these things because they know who really has influence in their media and financial matters.

Not only do I not promote what is defined as racism, I do what the modern day Church of Politics is so afraid to do, I expose the most racist, supremacist state on earth. Not only does it have racist policies, this Mideast, terrorist state has tortured and murdered, tens of thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and other Mideast people, stolen their lands and oppressed their people.

You may or may not agree with what I just said. The church leaders may not have agreed with Jan Hus, but at least you are willing to hear my reasons, to treat me as a human being.

The press and some government officials have branded me a Holocaust denier, but in fact I don’t deny that terrible historical crimes against Jews have occurred and I forcefully condemn all violence and repression against Jews or any other people.

I also recognize that there have been many holocausts that are ignored such as the biggest holocaust of all time, the murder of more than 50 million people under the doctrine of communism. Many of your brethren here in the Czech Republic were victims of those terrible communist murders and repressions.

Look at the popular media today. Your fathers and grandfathers and tens of millions of others who suffered under brutal communism don’t seem to deserve even one heartfelt major film by a Zionist-dominated Hollywood, whereas this year (as every year) there are a multitude of films about the Jewish Holocaust, an event that has gone far beyond simply history and into the realm of theology. It has assumed the position of practically a State Religion. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, even in many religious countries one is free to deny the existence of God, but he must not disturb even one hair of the Holocaust.

For the record, I am not a “Holocaust Denier.”  I do not, I repeat, I do not say that there was no Holocaust, for we all know that there were terrible atrocities during against Jews in the Second World War, we are surely reminded of such almost every day of our lives. But, I do say that any historical event should and must be allowed to be examined without fear, for the complete truth and details of any historical event can only come from free inquiry, the right to question, and the right to debate every issue.

What I have pointed out concerning the Holocaust is that a number of academics, learned and intelligent men have differing opinions on a wide range of issues within it. There are men who are not haters, who condemn any sort of violence against the innocent, and who condemn the evils done against Jews (and all other people) during the Second World War.

The fact that some of these freethinkers are right now sitting for years in dank prisons is an outrage against the most basic of human rights, freedom of speech, thought and conscience. How in the world can Europeans condemn some tin pot dictator for locking people up for their speech in Zimbabwe,  or protest the repressions of political dissents in China and dozens of other countries while we have men and women in Europe in jail for thought crimes, simply for having what most people think are wrong opinions!

Freedom is freedom. Once you deny the right to hold any opinion, you are no longer free.

I also believe in the right of all people to preserve their heritage, their rights, their independence and their freedom, and I believe that the increasing power of the EU, The International matrix of Financial, Government and Media Power, and Globalism is a threat to your heritage here in the Czech republic and to my people as well in the United States. You have been told that I am a racist and anti-Semite. In a real sense, I am the opposite of those things.

I think every people, race, and nationality has the right to preserve itself, it’s unique identity and culture, its values and faiths. This is true for the native tribes of the Amazon, the Tibetans, the Bushmen of South Africa, and for the Palestinian people and of course for the Jewish people. I defend the continued existence and heritage of my group and all groups, and their human rights.  My problem is that I don’t stop at defending the heritage and freedom of Tibetans, Bushmen or Jews, I also include the Czech people and the European and American peoples, the heritage and freedoms of my own people.

We have a right to live,  too.

Tibet today is a popular cause. Read your newspapers. Tibetans face an existential crisis for their heritage, faith and freedom because of massive Chinese immigration and control. Of course, this is also true for the people of Europe who will find themselves a racial minority in our own homelands by the end of the century unless Europe stops the massive immigration, non-European immigration, that will completely remake our nations into lands unrecognizable to our ancestors and far different than we would want for our children.

Imagine that our children become a minority in Europe and as a minority we are ruled over by a non-European majority, with a view of life and culture and values that would dramatically affect our own freedoms and destroy the quality of our children’s lives.

It is not racism to want for our own people here in the Czech Republic or anywhere in Europe to want what every anti-racist wants for Tibet or for the nations of the Third World who morally resist colonization.

How can it be wrong for me to say that we in the Czech Republic don’t want to be colonized by the Globalists of a New World Order who will trample our rights as surely as a bulldozer would a flower?

It is important that I also tell you that I admire the fact that the Czech people have resisted the hegemony of the EU by opposing the new constitution. Bravo. Economic and social cooperation and friendship between European nations yes, but loss of your freedom to a huge, soulless bureaucracy, no!

Counter to the way I am characterized by the lies that have been broadcast against me, I am the farthest thing from a totalitarian you could imagine. My record as a member of the House of Representatives in the State of Louisiana, USA shows that I repeatedly voted for more human rights, civil rights, individual and local rights and less government power.

The truth is that some bureaucrat in Brussels cannot truly know your needs in the neighborhood where you live and really has no right to dictate to you how you must live. The greatness of the Greek democracy was that it was close to the people, it was small enough to listen to the people and for the people to be heard. Big government and, God Forbid, a Globalist World Government, can only be equated with tyranny.

Finally, I want to make clear my position on European resistance to Globalism, massive immigration, the EU and the destruction of European heritage and freedom.

In addition to my lecture here at the university, I have been invited to address a couple of meetings of Czech patriots. Here is what I tell them and what I tell you as well.

I defend human rights and I condemn any kind of human violence, intimidation, repression, or hatred.

The answer to these questions is political action and non-violent resistance. Those of you who agree with many of the words of this speech, please don’t misunderstand me. I condemn any sort of violence as immoral.

Furthermore, to those of you who agree with the principles I have expressed here, let me be clear that any sort of hateful speech, rhetoric, or violence is completely counterproductive to legitimate efforts to preserve our Czech and European heritage, rights and freedoms. If you do foolish or hateful or violent things you will only serve the enemies of our heritage. If you have any respect for me and my principles I beg you to be decent, law-abiding, people. Anyone who acts violently and illegally I consider them an enemy of the Czech and European people.

I hope that my words will lessen tensions and problems in your wonderful country. We want our rights to be preserved. We want change, but we also want peace.

The way to act is with decent and kind rhetoric and the formation of political parties and political figures who will stand up honestly for your principles in government and in society. In two major elections in I received over 60 percent of the European American vote in the State of Louisiana, an area which is similar in size to the Czech Republic and has about the same population. If I received that kind of vote so can your patriotic parties. In fact many European states have large nationalist parties standing up for our heritage.

As you can see by my words today, they are quite different than how I have been painted by the media.

That’s why there was so much effort to prevent my words from being said. Like Jan Hus said, only enemies of truth would try to prevent discussion and consideration of different points of view.

As Jan Hus said at last before his death, and as I firmly believe,

“The truth will prevail.”

God bless all of you, long live the Czech people and Republic, long live the European and American people and our precious heritage and freedom!

Postscript: I was prevented from giving this speech that you have read or heard, and it is important that you know that there have been recent public statements by the prosecutor that they plan to pursue these charges against me. Hard to believe it, but in Orwellian newspeak of the Western World, I have been charged with the violation of human rights. Of course, not only did I not deny anyone of their human rights, neither have I advocated it in any way. Do you get the irony. I am being charged with “human rights violations simply for non-violent and peaceful speech!” It would seem to me the violators of human rights are those who are conspiring to lock a free person in prison simply because he expressed his ideas and conscience in non-violent speech! Hopefully we will have success in the courts. But if the charges are pursued against me, I will return to the Czech Republic to defend myself from these ridiculous and repressive charges. If that happens I will obviously take the opportunity of the tremendous attention that would be created to expose this repression to the entire Czech nation and the world. Our lawyers are working hard, but we need your financial gifts to be able to mount an adequate defense and get through these trying times. I don’t want to have to do that. I want to go on with my life and work around the world and in my home in America, but I will do whatever necessary!”

A prominent Jew reveals how the Holocaust has become a new religion, one that justifies new genocides and threatens Jew and Gentile alike

By Gilad Atzmon with preface commentary by Dr. David Duke

“Interestingly enough, the Holocaust religion extends far beyond the internal Jewish discourse. In fact the new religion operates as a mission. It sets shrines in far lands. As we can see, the emerging religion is already becoming a new world order. It is the Holocaust that is now used as an alibi to nuke Iran… To a certain extent we are all subject to this religion, some of us are worshipers, others are just subject to its power. Interestingly enough, those who deny the Holocaust are themselves subject to abuse by the high priests of this religion. Holocaust religion constitutes the Western ‘Real’. We are not allowed to touch it or to look into it. Very much like the Israelites who are entitled to obey their God but never to question him. ” –- Gilad Atzmon

Preface Commentary by David Duke

Gilad Atzmon is an accomplished writer and one of the most famous Jewish musicians in the world. His recent CD called Exile was named the year’s best jazz CD by the BBC. Atzmon served in the Israeli military but later came to be one of the most eloquent opponents of Zionism in the world. Atzmon helps us understand the Holocaust mentality of Jewish extremists. It is a mentality that long predates what is referred to as “The Holocaust” with a capital “H”, for as Atzmon denotes in the title of his article, this Holocaust mentality has been going on “From Esther to AIPAC.”

Atzmon points out that what is called “The Holocaust” has literally been made into a new religion, a religion where Jewish people have become literally the New Gods for themselves and for we, the goyim, who are all now burdened with the guilt of the ultimate sin and responsibility for it. Those who dare to oppose this new power on earth or who dare to question a single assertion of the new Holocaust orthodoxy have become the new heretics called “anti-Semites” and “Holocaust deniers.” Perhaps the high place of the new God the world worships can be shown by the fact that the alleged Jewish losses of six million during the Second World War command 90 percent of historical attention, 90 percent of the passionate books, plays, dramas, articles, broadcasts, interviews, sermons, commemorations and documentaries, while the sixty million non-Jewish lives lost in the war, the hundreds of millions of non-Jewish persons injured, hurt, dispossessed and who suffered terribly in the war – receive barely a pittance of remembrance.

Of course, if you read the mainstream Holocaust literature, why should the sixty million Gentile dead be honored, for they, like all Gentiles, are accomplices of the Holocaust. Read the Holocaust literature, it tells us how the Britons, the French, the Poles, the Hungarians, the Americans, Catholics and Protestants, The Red Cross, all — just stood by and let it happen.

Here are some fascinating excerpts from Gilad Atzmon’s article:

The Holocaust Religion

Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the German born Hebrew University professor, was probably the first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion. ‘The Holocaust’ is far more than historical narrative, it indeed contains most of the essential religious elements: it has its priests (Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, etc.) and prophets (Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and those who warn about the Iranian Judeocide to come). It has its commandments and dogmas (‘never again’, ‘six million’, etc.). It has its rituals (memorial days, Pilgrimage to Auschwitz etc.). It establishes an esoteric symbolic order (kapo, gas chambers, chimneys, dust, Musselmann, etc.). It has its shrines and temples (Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum and now the UN). If this is not enough, the Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive economic network and global financial infrastructures (Holocaust industry a la Norman Finkelstein). Most interestingly, the Holocaust religion is coherent enough to define the new ‘antichrists’ (the Deniers) and it is powerful enough to persecute them (Holocaust denial laws).

Critical scholars who dispute the notion of ‘Holocaust religion’ suggest that though the new emerging religion retains many characteristics of an organised religion, it doesn’t establish an external God figure to point at, to worship or to love. I myself cannot agree less. I insist that the Holocaust religion embodies the essence of the liberal democratic worldview. It is there to offer a new form of worshiping. It made self loving into a dogmatic belief in which the observant follower worships himself. In the new religion it is ‘the Jew’ whom the Jews worship. It is all about ‘me’, the subject of endless suffering who makes it into redemption…

…Though Holocaust religion didn’t replace Judaism, it gave Jewishness a new meaning. It sets a modern Jewish narrative allocating the Jewish subject within a Jewish project. It allocates the Jew a central role within his own self-centered universe. The ‘sufferer’ and the ‘innocent’ are marching towards ‘redemption’ and ‘empowerment’. God is obviously out of the game, he is fired, he has failed in his historic mission, he wasn’t there to save the Jews. Within the new religion the Jew becomes ‘the Jews’ new God’, it is all about the Jew who redeems himself…

… Interestingly enough, the Holocaust religion extends far beyond the internal Jewish discourse. In fact the new religion operates as a mission. It sets shrines in far lands. As we can see, the emerging religion is already becoming a new world order. It is the Holocaust that is now used as an alibi to nuke Iran. Clearly, Holocaust religion serves the Jewish political discourse both on the right and left but it appeals to the Goyim as well, especially those who are engaged in merciless killing ‘in the name of freedom’. To a certain extent we are all subject to this religion, some of us are worshipers, others are just subject to its power. Interestingly enough, those who deny the Holocaust are themselves subject to abuse by the high priests of this religion. Holocaust religion constitutes the Western ‘Real’. We are not allowed to touch it or to look into it. Very much like the Israelites who are entitled to obey their God but never to question him.

I urge all readers of www.Davidduke.com to use the following link and read the article in its entirety.

Atzmon’s incredibly insightful article shows us that extremist Jews seek to use the Holocaust as a narcissistic death and redemption theme that essentially denies an external God (he failed to rescue them) and replaces Him with the Jewish people themselves. The one thing I would add is that the Holocaust religion not only makes Jews a God to themselves, it also seeks to make themselves the new God of the Gentiles. It is an all-powerful God that Gentiles are obliged to worship at the altar of the Holocaust. Gentiles must pronounce their belief in his holy writ (The Holocaust). No one may question or challenge this new God, for whom we must kill, torture and oppress other peoples, and ultimately — even sacrifice ourselves.

I urge all readers of www.Davidduke.com to use the following link and read the article in its entirety.

 
From Esther to AIPAC by Gilad Atzmon

Pictured above: a visual explanation of Jewish Self-Determination.

The Right to Self-Determination – A Fake Exercise in Universalism

By Gilad Atzmon

If the reader can overlook some of Atzmon’s socialist assumptions, many of his critiques of the phony “self-determination” arguments found amongst certain segments of the Jewish community can still be seen as valuable, if only in pointing out the hypocrisy and deceptive nature of the Zionist project. -Staff

The right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power reserved for the rich, strong and privileged. Since Zionists hold the reigns on international political power through their influence in important positions as well as the military might to maintain their right to self-determination, any current political debate on the legitimacy of this concept would lead inevitably to a dismissal of what we have come to accept as the Palestinian right of self-determination. Yet, instead of demanding this right, which is currently impractical, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis for what it is. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.

A Citizen of the World, A Cosmopolitan and an Atheist

Last year in a little community church in Aspen, Colorado, at the question time following my talk, a middle-aged person at the back of the room stood up, presenting himself as follows:

I am a citizen of the world, I am a cosmopolitan and an atheist. I would like to ask you something Mr Atzmon

Hang on, I stopped him, please do not be offended by me asking, but are you by any chance a Jew?

The person froze for a second, he couldnt stop his face from blushing, everyone in the room turned around. Maybe they were curious enough to want to see what a 21st century self-loving cosmopolitan looks like. I, on my part, felt a bit guilty about it all, I didnt have any intention to embarrass the man. However, it took him a few good seconds before he could get his act together.

Yes Gilad, I am a Jew, but how did you know?

I obviously didnt know, I said, I was actually guessing. You see, whenever I come across people who call themselves cosmopolitans, atheists and a citizens of the world, they somehow always happen to be Jews of the so-called progressive assimilated type. I can only assume that non-Jews tend to live in peace with whoever they happen to be. If they are born Catholic and decide to move on at a certain stage, they just dump the church behind. If they do not love their country as much as others do, they probably pack a few things and pick another country to live in. Somehow non-Jews, and this is far from being a scientific law, do not need to hide behind some vague universal banners and some artificial righteous value system. However, what was your question?

No question followed. The cosmopolitan, atheist and citizen of the world, couldnt remember what his question was. I assume that following the tradition of post-emancipated Jews he was there to celebrate his right to self-determination in public. The man was using question time to tell his Aspen neighbours and friends what a great human being he was. Unlike them, local patriotic believers and proud Americans, he was an advanced humanist, a man beyond nationhood, a godless non-patriotic subject. He was the ultimate self determined rational product of enlightenment. He was the son of Voltaire and the French revolution.

Self-determination is a modern Jewish political and social epidemic. The disappearance of the Ghetto and its maternal qualities led towards an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society. Seemingly, all post-emancipated Jewish political, spiritual and social schools of thought, left, right and centre were inherently concerned with issues to do with the right to self-determination. The Zionists would demand the right to national self-determination in the land of Zion. The Bund would demand national and cultural self-determination within the East European proletarian discourse. Matzpen and the ultra Israeli leftists would demand the right to self-determination for the Israeli Jewish nation in the liberated Arab East, Anti Zionist Jews would insist upon the right to engage in an esoteric Jewish discourse within the Palestinian solidarity movement. But what does that very right to self-determination stand for? Why is it that every modern Jewish political thought is grounded on that right? Why is it that some progressive assimilated Jews feel the need to become citizens of the world rather than just ordinary citizens of Britain or France or Russia?

The Pretence of Authenticity

It should be said that though identity search and self-determination are there to convey the pretence of a final march towards an authentic redemption, the direct result of Identity politics and self-determinative affairs is the complete opposite. Those who have to self-determine who they are, are those who are far removed from any authentic realisation to start with. Those who are determined to be seen as cosmopolitans and secular humanists are those who fail to see that human brotherhood needs neither an introduction nor a declaration. All it really takes is a genuine love for one another. Those who initiate and sign humanist manifestos are those who insist upon being seen as humanists while at the same time spreading some Zionist tribal evil around. Clearly, real genuine cosmopolitans do not have the need to declare their abstract commitment to humanism. Real citizens of the world, similarly, just live in an open world with no boundaries and borders.

I am surrounded, for instance, by jazz musicians of all colours and ethnic origins. People who live on the road, people who sleep every night in a different continent, people who make a living out of their love of beauty. Yet, I have never seen a Jazz artist who calls himself or herself either a citizen of the world or a cosmopolitan or even a beauty merchant. I have never met a Jazz artist who adopts an air of egalitarian importance. I have never met a Jazz musician who celebrates his or her right to self-determination. The reason is simple, authentic beings do not need to self determine who they are, they just let themselves and others be.

The right to self-determination

The right to self-determination is often cited as the acknowledgment that “all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. This very principle is often seen as a moral and legal right. It is also well embedded in the philosophy of the United Nations. The term self-determination was used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations and covenants.

Though we all tend to believe that every human is entitled to celebrate his or her symptoms, the right to self-determination is in fact significantly meaningful only within the Western liberal discourse which accepts such a right and premises it on the notion of enlightened individualism. Moreover, the right to self-determination can be celebrated only by the privileged who can mobilize enough political power or military might to make this right into a practical reality.

However, it must be mentioned that even within the Western liberal discourse, it is only Jews who premise their political power on the right to be like others. The reason is simple, though liberated Jews insist upon being like others, it is rather clear that others prefer actually to be like themselves. This obviously means that the Jewish demand to be like others is futile and doomed to failure.

It must be mentioned also that within oppressed societies, the right to self-determination is often replaced with the right to rebel. For a Palestinian in the occupied territories, the right for self-determination means very little. He doesnt need to self-determine himself as a Palestinian for the obvious reason that he knows who he is. And just in case he happens to forget, an Israeli soldier in the next roadblock would remind him. For the Palestinian, self-determination is a product of negation. It is actually the daily confrontation with the Zionist denial of the Palestinian right of self-determination. For the Palestinian, it is the right to fight against oppression, against those who starve him and expel him from his land in the name of the Jewish rather-too-concrete demand to be people like other people.

As much, as the right to self-determination presents itself as a universal liberating political value, in many cases it is utilised as a divisive mechanism that leads towards direct abuse of others. As we happen to learn, modern Jewish demand for the right to self-determination is rather too often celebrated at the expense of others whether these are Palestinians, Arab leaders, Russian proletariats or British and American soldiers who fight the last pocket of Israeli enemies in the Middle East. As much as the right to self-determination is occasionally presented has a universal value, scrutinising the pragmatic sinister utilization of the very right within the Jewish political discourse reveals that in practical terms, it is there to serve the Jewish tribal interests while denying and even dismissing other peoples elementary rights.

The Bund and Lenin’s Criticism

It would be right to say that the Bund and the Zionists were the first to eloquently insist upon the Jewish right to self-determination. The Bund was the General Jewish Workers’ Union of East Europe. Like the Zionist movement, it was formally founded in 1897. It maintained that Jews in Russia deserved the right to cultural and national self-determination within the Soviet future revolution.

Probably, the first to elaborate on the absurdity in Jewish demand for self-determination was Lenin in his famous attack on the Bund at the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1903). March with us was Lenins reply to the Bund, rejecting their demand for a special autonomous ethnic status amongst the Russian workers. Lenin obviously spotted the tribally divisive agenda within the Bund philosophy. We reject, said Lenin, all obligatory partitions that serve to divide us. As much as Lenin supported the right of nations to self-determination, he was clearly dismissive of such a Jewish right which he correctly identified as divisive and reactionary. Lenin supported the right of oppressed nations to build their national entities, however he resisted any bigoted, narrow nationalist spirit.

Lenin raised three main reasons against the Bund and its demand of cultural self-determination:

First. Raising the slogan of cultural-national autonomy leads to splitting the nations apart, and therefore destroying the unity of the proletariat within them.

Second. Lenin saw that the intermingling of nations and their amalgamation was a progressive step, while turning away from that is a step backwards. He criticized those who “cry out to heaven against assimilation.”

Third. Lenin did not regard the non-territorial cultural independence advocated by the Bund and the other Jewish parties as advantageous, practical, or practicable.

Lenin’s approach to the Bund is rather significant and should be reflected upon. Using his sharp political common sense, Lenin doubted the ethical and political grounds of the right of Jews to self-determination, as much as the Bund demanded that Jews should be treated as a national identity like all other nationals. Lenin’s answer was strictly simple: Sorry guys, but you arent. You are not a national minority just for the reason that you are not attached to a piece of geography.

Matzpen and Wolfowitz

The solution of the national and social problems of this region can come about only through a socialist revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region, ruled by the toilers. In this united and liberated Arab East, recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination (including the right to a separate state) of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation (Matzpen Principles http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=principles)

Seemingly, Lenin’s criticism has never been properly internalised by Jewish so-called progressive ideologists. Abuse of others and dismissal of elementary rights has become inherent to Jewish progressive political thinking. Reading the principle document of Matzpen, the legendary ultra leftist Israeli group may leave one perplexed.

Already in 1962 Jewish Matzpenists had a plan to liberate the Arab world. According to Matzpens principles, all you have to do is overthrow all (Arab) existing regimes so recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including (of course) the Israeli-Jewish nation.

It doesnt take a genius to grasp that at least categorically, Matzpens principles are no different from Wolfowitz’s Neocon mantra. Matzpen had a plan to overthrow all Arabs regimes in the name of socialism so Jews can self-determine who they are. Wolfowitz would do exactly the same in the name of democracy. If you take Matzpens Judeo-centric progressive text and replace the word Socialist with Democratic you end up with a devastating Neocon text and it reads as follows:

The solution of the national and social problems of this region, can come about only through a democratic revolution in this region, which will overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a political union of the region Recognition will be granted to the right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation.

Seemingly, both the legendary progressive Matzpen and the reactionary despised Neocons use a similar abstract concept with some pretence of universality to rationally justify the Jewish right to self-determination and the destruction of Arab-grown regional power. Seemingly, both Neocons and Matzpen know what liberation may mean for Arabs. For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs is to turn them into Bolsheviks. The Neocon is actually slightly more modest, all he wants is for Arabs to drink Coca Cola in a westernised democratic society. Both Judeo-centric philosophies are doomed to failure because the notion of self-determination is overwhelmingly Euro-centric. Both philosophies are premised on an enlightened notion of rationality. Both philosophies have very little to offer to the oppressed, instead they are there to rationalise and provide the colonialist with some fake universal legitimacy.

Clearly, Matzpen has never had any political power, it never had any political significance since it has never been in any proximity to Arab people, not to say Arab masses. Consequently, Matzpen could never affect Arab peoples lives nor could it destroy their regimes. However, Matzpen is seen by Jewish Leftists around the world as a significant chapter in the Israeli left. It is seen as a singular moment of Israeli ethical awakening. Thus, it is actually embarrassing or even devastating to find out that the most enlightening and refined moment of Israeli-left moral awakening produced a political insight that is no different categorically to George Bushs infamous attempt at Liberating the Iraqi people. It should be clear beyond doubt that Jewish ultra leftists (a la Matzpen) and Zionised Anglo-American interventionism (a la Neocons) are in fact two sides of the same coin or may I allow myself to say two sides of the very same Shekel. They are very close theoretically, ideologically and pragmatically. Both political thoughts are Judeo-centric to the bone yet, they both pretend to premise themselves on universalism and aim towards liberation and freedom. But at the end of the day they aim toward Jewish self-determination at the expense of others.

The Right to be Like Others -The Zionist Logic

The following is a collection of extracts taken from a document submitted to the United Nations COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS in 2005.

It was composed by the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations (CBJO) and B’nai B’rith. It helps to grasp how Jewish organisations implement political power around the claim for self-determination.

As a point of historical departure of its statement, the CBJO chooses the end of the Holocaust and the creation of the UN. The link is rather clear and intentional. The role of the UN is set as one that will save the Jews from any further genocidal attempts.

As the world marks the 60th anniversaries of the end of the Holocaust and the creation of the United Nations this year, we in the human rights community have the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles contained in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other foundation documents of the international human rights regime. One of the most fundamental of these rights is that of self-determination. This right guarantees other human rights, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, preservation of honor, equality under the law.

It can be seen that at this stage the right to self-determination is conveyed in universal terms. But do not let yourself be misled just yet. It wont take long before the Zio-centric twist will reveal itself.

The events revealed sixty years ago when Allied forces entered and liberated the Nazi concentration camps could have been prevented if only the Jewish people’s right to self-determination had been protected and fostered. As the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century demonstrates, without a State of their own the fulfillment of the right to self-determination the Jewish people were at risk of discrimination, isolation, and ultimately, extermination.

Slowly but surely, we can now see the shift from the universal ethical approach to a Judeo-centric self-centred argumentation. However, it is crucial to mention that prior to the big war western and American Jews were emancipated and enjoyed rights to self-determination, yet not many Jews thought that such a right should be celebrated in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people. Moreover, thinking in retrospective terms makes it rather clear that the Jewish right to self-determination has brought Holocaust on the Palestinian people. In other words, the Jewish right to self-determination has very limited positive impact on humanity and human reality. Something the UN Human Rights Commission better take into account.

As we reflect on this history, we must note the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and its new manifestation anti-Zionism. In various intellectual circles, on university campuses and in the media, the Jewish peoples basic human right to self-determination is being eroded on a daily basis through misrepresentations and false equations. These anti-Zionists portray the Jewish peoples self-determination as excluding Palestinian self-determination. Some wish to turn back the clock of history by advancing a “one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a proposal that was rejected by the General Assembly in 1947 precisely because it would have denied the Jewish people their right of self-determination. Anti-Zionism is a dangerous path, for it hinges on the destruction of the Jewish State. As such it runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Interestingly enough, the gifted people at the CBJO do realise that sooner or later someone is about to question the ethical validity of the Jewish right to self-determination. In fact this is exactly what I myself plan to do within a page or two. Zionists are clever enough to grasp the possibility that their carte blanche to ruin millions of lives in the Middle East in the name of fake universal concept may expire one day.

However, the CBJO are aiming towards an optimistic resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is at least what they want us to believe:

Today, we see remarkable progress in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian people have elected a government one that has pledged to reject terrorism as a political weapon in favor of democracy and peace. This path of promoting peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people marks an important turning point from the Palestinian policy of violence. All resolutions passed by this body under this agenda item should seek to affirm the right to self-determination for the Jewish people alongside that of other peoples. Only then will the Commission on Human Rights be true to its founding principles. Only then will the CHR be part of the solution, instead of exacerbating the problem. Only then will this body demonstrate that it has retained the lessons that should have been learned 60 years ago, upholding and defending the basic right of the Jewish people to self-determination alongside a democratic Palestinian State.

As we can see, the CBJO is there to tell the Palestinians who they are and what they should be. i.e., democratic and secular. Wrongly enough, the right-wing CBJO is no different to the legendary progressive Matzpen and the implications must be clear from now on. There is no left and right within modern secular Jewish politics but rather self-centric tribal orientation which produces fake images of political diversity for obvious reasons.

One State, Two States or Just a State Of All Its Citizens

Not many Palestinians and Arab intellectuals take part in the One State/Two State debate. The reason is pretty obvious, Palestinians and Arabs do realise very well that issues to do with the future of the region are not to be determined by academic institutes or Palestinian solidarity conferences but rather on the ground. The impact of a single Qassam rocket hitting in the Western Negev is far greater than any form of intellectual conclusive discussion to do with conflict resolution. As it seems, the demand for one State, be it secular, democratic or Islamic is theoretical and rhetorical and has no implication whatsoever on the Israelis who still possess the political power and military might to maintain the Jews-only State.

As much as the notion of self-determination has zero significance on Palestinian people, the same is so for the verbal demand for one State. At a time of starvation in Gaza and genocidal plans announced by the Israeli Government, debates regarding the future of the region seem to be a luxurious endeavour explored by the privileged.

If anything, the debate over the one State solution is there to maintain the Israeli and Jewish hegemony within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. The reason is pretty simple, every discussion that aims at political resolution naturally takes into account the Jewish right to self-determination. This would be the case forever unless we allow ourselves to introduce a radical political and intellectual shift into the discourse. Like Lenin in 1903, we must call into question the true validity of the notion of the right to self-determination. Following Lenin, we should allow ourselves to admit the possibility that the Jewish right to self-determination is actually divisive or may even be a false call. It is there to be celebrated by the rich and colonial and the privileged at the expense of the weak and the oppressed.

We should stand up and ask openly why exactly Jews or anyone else deserves a right to self-determination. Isnt it true that the right to self-determination always comes at the expense of someone else? We should stand up and ask, what moral right entitles a Brooklyn Jew to self-determine oneself as a Zionist and a future occupier of Palestine? We should openly ask what exactly entitles an Israeli born Jew the right to dwell on Palestinian land at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian? Am I entitled to demand the right to self-determine myself as a NASA Astronaut, or alternatively as a heart surgeon? Would you let me fix your heart based on my false self-inflicted recognition as a heart surgeon?

These questions are far from being easy to answer. Yet, we shouldnt stop ourselves from raising them. Like Lenin, I tend to dismiss the Jewish legitimacy of the right to self-determination as a false divisive call. Instead, I would suggest an alternative ethical approach, which I borrowed from Ex MK Azmi Bishara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi Bishara), the Palestinian intellectual who had to run for his life from Israel in spite of being a Parliament member. Bishara moved beyond the one State/ two State debate or the Judeo-centric right to self-determination. He coined a brilliant political notion, namely a State of all its Citizens. Rather than a State of the Jews, Bishara suggested to make it into a State of the people who dwell in it.

Azmi Bishara is a vigorous intellectual and a well-known critic of the Israeli State. In numerous writings and public appearances, he has maintained that the Israeli State’s self-definition as Jewish and democratic is discriminatory. Bishara calls for an Israel that would be a State of all its citizens. Bishara has openly pointed to a direct conflict between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority over the definition of nationality in Israel. He articulates a trend among the Arab-Palestinian minority that poses a demand for socio-economic and political equality not only in formal law, but in civic citizenship and nationality. It would be right to say that Bisharas approach is a political exercise in the Palestinian right to self-determination. Consequently, however, it didnt take long before Bishara had to run for his life and search for a shelter out of Israel.

As we have seen, the right to self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power. It is not going to be celebrated by any group but those who are already rich, strong and privileged. Zionists can boast all these qualities, as well as possessing the necessary power and military might to maintain their right to self-determination. However, given the reality on the ground, instead of demanding some rhetorical rights, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies and academic exchange, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and praxis. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we see.

-###-

March 21, 2008 Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of two novels: A Guide to the Perplexed and My One and Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. His CD, Exile, was named the year’s best jazz CD by the BBC. Please visit his web site: http://www.gilad.co.uk/ He now lives in London and can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk The Right to Self-Determination – A Fake Exercise in Universalism – http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/03/gilad-atzmon-right-to-self.html

From Press TV

A German court has sentenced the former lawyer of Ernst Zundel to three and a half years in prison for denying the Holocaust herself.

In addition to 3 1/2 years in prison, Sylvia Stolz has also been banned by the court from practicing law for five years.

During the trial of the Holocaust revisionist scholar, Ernst Zundel, Stolz called the Holocaust “the biggest lie in world history”.

Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum.

In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a “complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists”.

Stolz represented 67-year-old Zundel in his first trial in Germany and was banned from the court for allegedly trying to sabotage the proceedings. (…Full Article)

 
More headlines from occupied Europe:

Dr. Robert Faurisson faces trial for attending Iranian Free Speech conference

Austrian Wolfgang Frohlich earns 6.5 years for questioning Holocaust Industry

By Bob Finch

Since the second world war, Jewish elites in America and other western, over- industrialized, countries have mushroomed in economic and political power until today they compose either a significant part of these countries’ ruling elite or, as is the case in America, its dominant part. These elites promote Jewish supremacism. This ideology consists of the following components:

* Uncritical support for the Jews-only state in Palestine;

* Uncritical support for Jewish expansionism both inside, and outside, Palestine;

* The continual extension of the definition of antisemitism;

* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of the Jewish apartheid state as antisemites;

* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of Jewish interests as antisemites;

* The hyping of islamophobia, the racial hatred of all Moslems; and,

* The manipulation of America and other western countries into fighting more wars in the middle east in order to boost the military dominance of the Jews-only state in the region i.e. Jewish race wars boosting Jewish supremacism.

Jewish elites around the world, but especially in America, are promoting what they call ‘world war four’ against islamo-fascists. Jewish racists lump all Moslems together as if they form one cohesive enemy called islamo-fascists not merely Baathists but al Qaeda, and Shiite Iran and Hezbollah.[1] They believe Moslems pose “a threat equal to or greater than World War II and the Cold War.” (Jim Lobe ‘Et Tu, Cal’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=43 July 06, 2007).

It is remarkable that Jewish supremacists are pressuring and manipulating western countries into fighting racist wars on behalf of the Jews-only state. Even more remarkable is that it is not in the west’s interests to fight such wars as the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate all too clearly. What is even more remarkable is that western political leaders seem willing to fight such wars for the benefit of the Jews-only state no matter what it costs western countries in lives, treasure, and reputation. But what is most remarkable of all is that these political leaders have become blatant quislings to the Jewish cause who are willing to fight such racist wars no matter what public opposition there is to these wars. The west’s invasion of Iraq has been a huge benefit to the Jews-only state but a catastrophe for America and the west. An attack/invasion of Iran is likely to make this contrast even more stark. Never have so many dupes been willing to lay down their lives, their livelihoods, and their countries, for so few and for such dishonourable objectives.

The mouthpieces of America’s ruling Jewish elite extolling Jewish supremacism are not merely the neo-cons but neo-liberals, neo-libertarians, neo-christians (so-called Christian Zionists), neo-lefties (such as Chomsky and Zunes), neo-greenies, and neo-pacifists. They are willing to drive the whole world into what many of them triumphally proclaim as the fourth world war because this would provide an enormous boost for Jewish supremacism in the middle east even though it would also throw the rest of the world into a political, military, and economic, catastrophe. They put their loyalty to the Jews-only state above their political or religious principles. They traitorously regard their loyalties to the warmongering Jews-only state as being more important than their loyalties to the countries in which they were born and raised despite publicly professing their loyalty to the latter.

Since September 11, 2001 only a handful of commentators have been willing to warn of the dangers posed by America’s ruling Jewish elite on America’s political system. But, as the drumbeats for a proxy Zionist war against Iran become faster and louder, more seem willing to challenge Jewish supremacism. The choice is either challenge Jewish racism or allow Jewish supremacists to drive the world into the ‘fourth world war’ with all the death and destruction and mayhem this will cause.

The taboos against criticizing Jewish interests are beginning to weaken:

* Jewish economic power;

* the rise of Jewish elites;

* the existence of America’s Jewish lobby;

* the political power of America’s Jewish lobby;

* the New York money men who finance the Jews-only lobby and hard-line, likudnik fundamentalist, think tanks;

* the zionist domination of the American media;

* the Jews-only lobby’s almost total domination of the American congress;

* the huge proportion of likudniks in the Bush regime;

* the Jewish elite’s major influence over the American president;

* the Jewish elite’s almost total dominance over candidates contesting what are becoming America’s fake presidential election in 2008 in which the American people are faced by a choice between various shades of likudnik extremism;

* the likudniks’ dominant influence (but not total control) over America’s foreign policies;

* the common policies, strategies, and tactics, pursued by all Jewish lobbies throughout the western world;

* Jewish elites in western countries manipulating the west into fighting Jewish race wars against middle eastern countries; and,

* the traitorousness of those willing to sacrifice their own countries’ interests for the sake of boosting the regional supremacism of the Jews-only state in Palestine.

This article lists, in a roughly chronological order, some of the most prominent opponents of the likudniks’ politically kosher paradigm. [2]

Senator William Fulbright – 1962.
“Senator William Fulbright, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conducted hearings on foreign influence-buying in Congress in the 1960s. He later said: “I hadn’t realized before the hearings that the Jewish lobby was so powerful. … I didn’t know they were subverting the Congress.” He also said: “The lobby can just about tell the President what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly harmful…to us and ultimately to Israel itself.” These comments came from one of the most influential U.S. senators of the twentieth century. Senator Fulbright was known for his courage – for example, in 1954 he challenged Senator Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his powers. Senator Fulbright also raised strong objections to President Kennedy about the impending Bay of Pigs Cuban invasion. In 1966, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power in which he attacked the justification for the Vietnam War and Congress’ failure to set limits on it.” (Ron Forthofer ‘Lobbying for a foreign country’ http://imeu.net/news/article006305.shtml August 27, 2007).

Tom Hayden
Hayden turned into a Quisling for the Likudniks – 1982.
In 1981 Tom Hayden, whose wife at the time was Jane Fonda, was seeking election to California’s state assembly. He chose to contest a district only to find it controlled by two brothers: Howard Berman and his chief operative Michael Berman. “I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them. “I represent the Israeli defense forces,” Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of power. He (Michael Berman) and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition, so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend of Israel.”” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

If Hayden was to win the crucial Jewish vote in the district he was contesting he needed to show his support for the Jews-only state in Palestine and win approval from Jewish opinion formers. “However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over and over again. The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a “friend of Israel.” In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared “kosher” by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel.” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

The price Hayden had to pay to win approval from the Jewish community increased dramatically in the summer of 1982 when the Jews-only state launched an illegal and pre-emptive invasion of Lebanon to drive the Palestine liberation organization out of the country. “Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we (he and Fonda) should go to the Middle East, but only as long as the Israeli “incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon, with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else. For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right” to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America. Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do this. You have to stop.” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006). Hayden stopped legitimizing the invasion but did not criticize or condemn it and, as a consequence, “I easily won the general election in November.”

Hayden now describes his involvement in these events as “a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today.” Alexander Cockburn was much more trenchant about Hayden’s quisling behaviour. “Twenty four years ago Ariel Sharon’s artillerymen bombarded Beirut, causing huge terrible civilian casualties, just as Israel’s bombs are doing today. The destruction was so savage that NYT’s Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman complained bitterly in an indiscreet in-house memo when his editors axed the word “indiscriminate” which Friedman had used to describe the bombing. I published that internal memo in the Village Voice and Friedman thought he was going to lose his job. Standing next to those Israeli gunners and cheering them on were Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, eager to promote Hayden’s political career in California. It was one of the most disgusting political spectacles of the 1980s and I wrote angrily that “in the halls of the National Gallery in Washington DC there are 54 portraits of Benedict Arnold. None look alike. All resemble Tom Hayden.”” (Quoted in Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

Fears the Likudniks are going to throw Mid East into Crisis – July 2006.
“An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.” This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.” (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

Paul Findley – 1985.
“In my 1985 book, “They Dare to Speak Out,” I detailed the tactics used to silence criticism of Israeli policies. One of the groups employing these tactics is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On its Web site, AIPAC calls itself “America’s pro-Israel lobby” and boasts a New York Times description of it as “the most important organization affecting America’s relationship with Israel.” All citizens have the right to band together and push for policies they believe are right. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups do not plead the case for Israel on the stage of public opinion. Instead, they often resort to smear campaigns and intimidation to clear the floor so that only their side is heard.” (Paul Findley ‘Carter enters lions’ den’ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702070020feb07,0,5388645.story February 7, 2007).

Marlon Brando – 1994.
On a prime time television show, Marlon Brando criticized the Jewish domination of Hollywood and his comments were published around the world. But everyone knows Hollywood is dominated by Jews so what was unique about his outburst was that he was willing to discuss the issue in public. What is also interesting is what happened to Brando after he broke this Jewish taboo. “Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that “Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews.” Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while they slander every other racial group, “but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never any negative image of the Kike.” Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he “would never work again.” No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so intimidated that he had to arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and Brando has said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since.” (David Duke ‘Who Runs the Media?’ http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_06.html ).

William Cash – October 1994.
In the early 1990s Britain’s right wing political magazine, the Spectator, was edited by Dominic Lawson and was owned by Conrad Black, a Canadian Jew, who also owned the Jerusalem Post. Nevertheless, Lawson published an article by William Cash about the rise of Jewish power in America. Cash, the son of the right-wing Tory mp Bill Cash, commented on an article in the October 1994 issue of America’s Vanity Fair magazine, ‘Redefining Power in America: The New Establishment’, listing America’s 100 richest and most powerful people. He drew a conclusion from the article that Vanity Fair had carefully evaded: that many of those listed were Jews. Just in case he might be thought a tad antisemitic he shored up his contention by quoting from a book about Jews in Hollywood written by a Jewish author. “It should first be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald’s model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east.” (William Cash ‘Kings of the Deal’ The Spectator October 29th 1994).

Cash contrasted the Vanity Fair article with an article about America’s ruling elite written by Henry Fairlie for the Spectator in 1955. He proposed three interesting generalizations about the shifts in economic and political power in America that he believed had taken place between the publication of these two articles. Geographically, a shift from America’s east coast to the west coast. California is often referred to as the world’s fourth biggest economy. Economically, from the military-industrial complex to the media, entertainment, and information industries. (This was quite an insight given that Silicon valley had only recently started to grow). And ethnically, from the old wasp establishment to a new Jewish establishment.

Cash was worried that the old (wasp) establishment’s clannishness might also be adopted by the new (Jewish) establishment but concluded the evidence was ambiguous. “The extent to which this adds up to any sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of the 21st-Century Entertainment Superhighway is difficult to assess.” (William Cash ‘Kings of the Deal’ The Spectator October 29th 1994). He astutely noted that although many wealthy Jewish parvenus in Hollywood’s early days had imitated the social habits of the former wasp elite, this was not so noticeable with the new Jewish elite. “The movie Jews joined the Hollywood Polo and Riding Club in droves; they paid their expensive dues at the West Hills Hunt Club with its own pack of Irish foxhounds, whose (mostly Jewish) members still gallop every Saturday in season around the hills around Los Angeles in sunglasses and full British hunting gear. The idea of ‘New Establishment’ players like David Geffen (who refuses to wear a suit), Mike Ovitz or Steven Spielberg dressing up in a tail-coat to go fox-hunting is ludicrous. Now that they are the Power Elite, they view the creaky East Coast Wasp institutions and such reserves as the LA Country Club (which still proudly excludes Jews and showbiz types’) as anachronistic jokes. Whilst Louis Mayer would have been trying everything to get a photograph of himself shaking hands with Prince Charles during his three-day visit (or escape) to LA, today’s breed of super-mogul couldn’t care less.” (William Cash ‘Kings of the Deal’ The Spectator October 29th 1994).

Cash’s article raised a few eyebrows in Britain but, after being circulated through Hollywood’s Jewish elite, it unleashed a political storm in America. “As I say, the article caused little comment in Britain when it was published. However, Mr. Michael Williams-Jones, the chief executive of United International Pictures in London, which distributes films abroad for MGM, Paramount and Universal, took the trouble to send faxes of the article to his contacts in Hollywood. Mr. Williams-Jones wrote in an accompanying note, ‘The article is odious in its innuendo and inaccurate in its facts.’ At the other end the moguls got in touch with Mr. Bernard Weinraub, the highly experienced Los Angeles correspondent of the New York Times. While none of them wished to be quoted personally, Mr. Weinraub reported that they were collectively of the view that the Cash article was ‘disgusting’ ‘despicable’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘odious’.” (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ The Spectator, Nov. 19, 1994).

The following week the Spectator published a selection of protest letters about Cash’s article. The following letter provides a flavour of their content, “SIR: William Cash worries about inevitable shrieks of antisemitism as a consequence of his antisemitism. Not to worry. People as powerful as us have no need to shriek. We will bide our time and silently see justice done. Maybe before Passover. You run a filthy magazine. Leon Wieseltier Literary Editor, The New Republic, Washington, DC.” (The Spectator November 5th 1994).

Cash’s response to this paranoid hysteria was written in the same jaunty style he’d adopted in his original article – clearly indicating he still wasn’t aware of the toxic sludge into which he was about to be pushed. He seemed to believe he was on safe ground by pointing out he’d only been regurgitating the views of a Jewish commentator. “The attacks on me in the American media have been led by Neal Gabler, author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. What is so galling is that all the historical data I present in my article about how Jews have always worked together in the movie business, along with the very words that have been objected to, came straight from his book, including the red-flag phrase ‘Jewish cabal’, which he employs almost with relish on page 263.” (William Cash Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). But such a seemingly solid defence proved to be incapable of stemming the flood of abuse being hurled in his direction because he’d failed to appreciate that he’d inadvertently broken a cardinal Jewish taboo: anyone can praise Jewish power but no-one is allowed to criticize it.

Dominic Lawson came to Cash’s aid. He pointed out that Cash had drawn only an obvious conclusion from the list of America’s most powerful people which Vanity Fair had inexplicably omitted. “What struck William Cash, was that, while strenuously pointing out that the New Establishment was not Wasp, Vanity Fair had at no point in a survey the size of a small book mentioned that most of the members of the soi-disant ‘New Establishment’, particularly in Hollywood, are Jewish.” (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994). He explained how Jewish leaders organized their retaliation against the Spectator for publishing Cash’s article. “Following Mr. Weinraub’s article, the Anti-Defamation League swung into action from its New York office as a result of this one of our valued advertisers cancelled its contract with us and the Los Angeles Times ran a leader page article to denounce young William Cash.” (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994). Lawson even exposed Leon Wieseltier’s hidden agenda. “..the journalist Leon Wieseltier… the literary editor of New Republic, is the nearest thing the political correctness mob have to a cultural Gauleiter. In an interview with New York magazine earlier this year Mr. Wieseltier referred grandly to ‘part of my job of policing the culture’.” (Dominic Lawson ‘Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question’ Spectator November 19th 1994).

What comes out of this dispute is not a debate but mutual incomprehension since this was like a tectonic shift between two different political paradigms. Lawson tried dismissing criticisms of Cash as being examples of political correctness gone mad without realizing that he too, like Cash, was in the process undermining the politically kosher paradigm. Their adversaries on the other hand simply ignored their infringements of the politically correct paradigm since they could tolerate no infractions of their politically kosher paradigm. Clearly Lawson rather naively believed that the politically correct paradigm trumped his adversaries’ objections without realizing that the politically kosher paradigm had already become the dominant paradigm. It is highly unlikely that Lawson would repeat his infractions of what is now the clearly understood dominance of the politically kosher paradigm. Cash himself ultimately justified his stance by falling back upon what seemed to him to be the bedrock of the great tradition of British journalism, “What Hollywood may have misunderstood is the colorfully subversive and coruscating tradition of British journalism ..” (William Cash Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). This too was quickly crushed under the Jewish heels of the politically kosher paradigm and there has been no further evidence of it since then.

In many ways the Cash affair was a foretaste of what happened twelve years later when Mearsheimer and Walt published their essay on the Jewish lobby. Firstly, just as Cash had drawn his conclusions from evidence provided by a Jewish author, so Mearsheimer and Walt went out of their way to back up their conjectures by citing copious Jewish sources. In both cases, such a tactic proved to be no defence because whilst it is possible to praise Jewish interests it is not possible to criticize them. Jews can boast about their achievements, non-Jews can proclaim such achievements, but no-one, neither Jew nor non-Jew, can criticize such achievements. In other words, Jewish taboos are not on topics or ethnic groups but on criticisms. As far as the Jewish elite is concerned criticisms are the first steps towards the re-establishment of extermination camps and cannot be tolerated. Secondly, Cash’s focus had been on the Jewish elite whilst the focus of Mearsheimer and Walt had been on the Jewish lobby, and yet they were all were condemned for being antisemitic because the Jewish lobby insisted their focus was on the Jewish people

There is some amusing speculation about Cash seeking forgiveness from those he’d offended. And, even more hilariously, doing so in a way that upstaged the great Marlon Brando who even at that time was often regarded as a legend.

George W. Ball.
“Words spoken years ago by George W. Ball, a distinguished diplomat, author and champion of human rights, have vivid, new currency: “When Israel’s interests are being considered, members of Congress act like trained poodles. They jump dutifully through hoops held by Israel’s lobby.” In the same interview, Ball said, “The lobby’s most powerful instrument of intimidation is the reckless charge of antisemitism.” Sadly, his words ring true today, verified by my own experiences and those of many of my colleagues in the U.S. legislature.” (Paul Findley ‘Study shows undue Israeli influence on U.S. policy’ http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/83937.asp April 19, 2006).

Robert Novak – December 2002.
“In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has insisted that Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, is the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda’s global record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel’s standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. Thus, Rice’s comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to Arik Sharon. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond creates tension throughout Islam. On balance, war with Iraq may not be inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon’s war disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but worry about the background of an attack against him.” (Robert Novak, Washington Post, December 26, 2002. Quoted in Bill and Kathleen Christinson ‘Israel, American Jews, And Bush’s War On Iraq. Too Many Smoking Guns To Ignore’ Rense.com January 2003).

Tony Judt – October 2003.
Bush as the Jews’ Ventriloquist’s Dummy.
“The Middle East peace process is finished. Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the “road map.” The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: “It’s all Arafat’s fault.”” (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).

The Jews-only State dragging America’s Reputation through the Mire.
“This is where the US enters the picture. Israel’s behavior has been a disaster for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to withdraw from land seized and occupied in war. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent states. Washington’s unconditional support for Israel even in spite of (silent) misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith.” (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).

Gilad Atzmon – December 20, 2003.
Gilad Atzmon could be described as the foremost philosophical critic of Jewishness and the Jews-only state in Palestine. He has launched a full scale, full frontal, assault on virtually all aspects of Jewish supremacism. It is impossible to do justice to the depth and breadth of his analyzes in a work such as this and so the following quote will have to serve as being representative of his work. In this quote he’s tackling head-on one of the most forbidden of Jewish topics, the ‘Elders of Zion’ syndrome. “Zionists complain that Jews continue to be associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political lobbies, media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty accusation? The following list is presented with pride in several Jewish American websites.

Jews in Bush’s Administration:

Ari Fleischer: White House Press Secretary

Josh Bolten: Deputy Chief of Staff

Ken Melman: White House Political Director

David Frum: Speechwriter

Brad Blakeman: White House Director of Scheduling

Dov Zakheim: Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)

Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense

I. Lewis Libby: Chief of Staff to the Vice President

Adam Goldman: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

Chris Gersten: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS

Elliott Abrams: Director of the National Security Council’s Office for Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations

Mark D. Weinberg: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs

Douglas Feith: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Michael Chertoff: Head of the Justice Department’s criminal division

Daniel Kurtzer: Ambassador to Israel

Cliff Sobel: Ambassador to the Netherlands

Stuart Bernstein: Ambassador to Denmark

Nancy Brinker: Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin: Ambassador to Singapore

Ron Weiser: Ambassador to Slovakia

Mel Sembler: Ambassador to Italy

Martin Silverstein: Ambassador to Uruguay

Jay Lefkowitz: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

Let me assure you, in Clinton’s administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country’s population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton’s appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don’t think so. We have to ask ourselves what motivates American Jews to gain such political power. Is it a genuine care for American interests? Soon, following the growing number of American casualties in Iraq, American people will start to ask themselves this very question. Since America currently enjoys the status of the world’s only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world’s number one super power is there to support the Jewish state’s wealth and security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American veto against every ‘anti-Israeli’ UN resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the ‘Protocols of the elder of Zion’ are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionist) do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state’s affairs will no doubt be revealed soon.” (Gilad Atzmon ‘On Antisemitism’ http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html December 20, 2003).

The Jewish neocons, of course, are allowed to joke about such a conspiracy firstly to demonstrate that they have the authority to talk about such issues without any fear of chastisement but also to tempt critics to criticize Jewish power so they can be denounced as antisemitic peddlers of Jewish conspiracy theories. “Neoconservatives said they were generally supportive of Giuliani’s positions and saw them as being in line with those taken by the other leading Republican presidential candidates. “I would say, as a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy, that I think Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice – and Romney,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. Kristol said that none of the leading Republican candidates “buys any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy.”” (Michael Cooper and Marc Santora ‘Hawkish handlers guide Giuliani on foreign policy’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/24/America/camp.php October 24, 2007). It ought to be mentioned that although they’d been around as a cohesive political force since the early 1970s, at the turn of the century the Jewish neocons were still successfully denying there was any connection between them and that there was any such thing as neoconservatism. They were able to denounce those using the label as antisemites but, after the America’s proxy zionist invasion of Iraq, the term has become so popular they’ve had to give up the pretence that there’s no substance behind the concept. This is one of the few battles the Jewish neocons have lost over the last thirty five years.

Thomas Friedman – February 2004.
“Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It’s not surprising that this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest. That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he’s had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who’s ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year, all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing.” (Thomas L. Friedman ‘A Rude Awakening’ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E2D6123BF936A35751C0A9629C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Hezbollah February 5, 2004).

Ralph Nader – June 2004.
On June 21, 2004, Ralph Nader, the well known consumer rights’ activist and prospective presidential candidate, took the dramatic, and radical, step of accusing George Bush Jnr and the American Congress of being zionist puppets. “The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer (Ariel Sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets prance.” (Ralph Nader ‘Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking’ The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html June 21, 2004).

Nader reiterated the same point a week later, “What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show.”" (Nader’s speech to the conference of the Council for the National Interest entitled, “The Muslim Vote in Election 2004″ quoted in ‘Ralph Nader Calls Israel a “Puppeteer”’ IsraelNN.com http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64895 June 30, 2004).

The national director of the Anti-Discrimination League, Abraham H Foxman, complained that Nader was an antisemite. “He said Nader was continuing to spread a “canard” about the Jews. “He fuels the conspiracy theory that the Jews control the White House and the Congress. And it’s a lot more sinister after Iraq.”” (‘Nader stands by claim that White House, Congress are Israeli “puppets”’ August 14, 2004).

On august 5, 2004 Nader responded to these accusations by mentioning a zionist joke, “The Israelis have a joke for the obvious, that the United States is the second state of Israel.” (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). He also endorsed Thomas Friedman’s statement quoted above.

On August 13, Abraham Foxman replied on the ADL’s website to Nader’s letter. “I was disappointed to read your letter of August 5 because it merely confirmed my concerns about your original comments, in which you characterized the Jewish State and American Jews as being “puppeteers” who control foreign policy in Congress and the Administration. Rather than allay our concerns, your letter only furthers conspiracy theories about Jews and borders on bigotry.”

On august 12, a Washington Post editorial compared Nader’s comments with the views of neo-nazi white supremacist groups. “This is poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn’t understand what such words actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly know how to read such code.” The same comparison was made a few days later in the same paper, “After all, both play on the age-old antisemitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr. Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such metaphors, he sure isn’t showing it.” (‘Mr. Nader’s Baiting’ Washington Post August 14, 2004 Page A20). Nader denounced this editorial as “shameful and unsavory”.

In October, Nader condemned the ADL for its usual trick of putting antisemitic words in the mouths of its opponents in order to denounce them for being … antisemitic! “My comments related to the Israeli government, with the fifth most powerful and second most modern military machine in the world, through its prime minister possessing the role of puppeteer to puppets in the White House and Congress. You distorted the comment into “Jews controlling the U.S. government.” Shame on you. You know better. If you do not see the difference between those two designations, you yourself are treading on racist grounds.” (Ralph Nader ‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Antisemitism’ http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=276 October 12, 2004). And this was the last time Nader spoke about this issue which has become the most fundamental political issue in America and the rest of the western world.

Naomi Klein – September 2004.
Naomi Klein has rightly pointed out that Sharon succeeded in foisting his policies on the Bush regime after the bombings of September 11, 2001. Sharon with the aid of America’s Jewish elite turned Bush’s so-called ‘war against terrorism’ into America’s war against terrorists threatening the Jews-only state in Palestine. “Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11.” (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).

Juan Cole – September 2004.
Cole is correct in his assessment of the relationship between the leader of the world’s hyperpower and the leader of a tiny, and supposedly much less powerful, country in the middle east. “Bush has just lain down on the ground and pleaded with Sharon to walk all over him with hobnail boots, and then smiled for the privilege. Arab satellite television shows Israelis repressing Palestinians every day. The Bush administration has actually endorsed the forcible Israeli annexation of Palestinian land, which violates the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Accords!” (Juan Cole ‘Arguing with Bush yet Again’ http://www.juancole.com/ July 14, 2004); “It is September 11. It is obvious to me that what September 11 really represented was a dragooning of the United States into internal Middle East political conflicts.” (Juan Cole ‘Dual Loyalties’ http://www.juancole.com/ September 9, 2004).

Brent Scowcroft – October 2004.
“Quite aside from partisan attacks coming from the Kerry camp, the most biting critique has come from Brent Scowcroft, who mused to Britain’s Financial Times the other day that while the transatlantic relationship is “in general bad,” George W. Bush’s attention is elsewhere: “[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized. When there is a suicide attack [followed by a reprisal] Sharon calls the president and says, ‘I’m on the front line of terrorism’, and the president says, ‘Yes, you are. . . ‘ He [Mr. Sharon] has been nothing but trouble.” (Justin Raimondo ‘Bizarro Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/ October 22, 2004).

Scowcroft was duly punished for his sin of exposing Bush’s subservience to the Jews-only state in Palestine. “Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London’s Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush “mesmerized” and “wrapped around his little finger.” As chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know, and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non grata at the White House.” (Ray McGovern ‘Helping Israel Die’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=10500 February 10, 2007).

Roberts, Paul Craig – January 2005.
Roberts was a member of the Reagan administration so was doubtlessly privy to the battles within that administration between neoconservatives and the traditional conservatives or paleo-conservatives as they became known when the term neoconservative became popular. He has become one of the most vehement and outspoken critics of neoconservatism and the following quotes are representative of his views.

Bush is Ariel Sharon’s Poodle.
“If Bush were aware that his army has failed to “secure Iraq,” he might wonder at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might even stop being Richard Perle’s puppet. Or Ariel Sharon’s poodle.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Not One Bad News Bearer in Bush’s Inner Circle’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01202005.html January 20, 2005).

America is a Colony of the Jews-only State in Palestine.
“Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel’s theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the “war on terror” is about.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Bush Must Go: Only Impeachment Can Stop Him’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01152007.html January 15, 2007).

The Likudniks are Nazis.
“Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Is the Military the Last Hope? Cracks in the Pentagon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02142007.html February 14, 2007).

Bush’s attack on Iran would be a greater Evil than that committed by the Nazis’.
“Such an attack justified in the name of “American security” and “American hegemony” would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dump the Dollar! How the World Can Stop Bush’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02122007.html February 12, 2007).

Likudniks’ Islamophobic Hysteria.
“In America today blind ignorant hate against Muslims has been brought to a boiling point. The fear and loathing is so great that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress offer scant opposition to the Bush administration’s plan to make Iran the third Middle East victim of American aggression in the 21st century. Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Politics of Blind Hatred: Who Are the Fanatics?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09052007.html September 5, 2007).

Mearsheimer and Walt – March 2006.
Mearsheimer and Walt published their tract, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” in march 2006 and an edited version of the paper appeared in the London Review of Books on March 23, 2006. In this essay the authors accused the Jews-only lobby of seriously distorting America’s foreign policies and blamed it for pushing the Bush regime into an invasion of Iraq which was not in America’s interests. The essay received little attention from America’s mainstream, i.e. zionist dominated, media.

General Wesley Clark – January 2007
Arianna Huffington was lucky enough to be around when Wes Clark sounded off about the corruption of American politics. “At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi’s formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he’d read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal. “How can you talk about bombing a country when you won’t even talk to them?” said Clark. “It’s outrageous. We’re the United States of America; we don’t do that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the military option is off the table, but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It’s not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It’s sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships.” When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.” At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: ‘Yes, I know.” For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. “I’m worried about the surge,” he said. “But I’m worried about this even more.”” (Arianna Huffington ‘D.C. Notes: Wes Clark is Steamed’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html January 4, 2007).

Clark’s statement was inevitably lambasted by the Jews-only lobby in America and its allies in the zionist dominated media and, like so many before him, he was forced to retract by his likudnik masters. “Within days, the general was in caught in a familiar crossfire, smeared as an instigator of antisemitism by some Republican Jewish organizations, his remarks headlined as “Protocols of the New York Money People” by a Wall Street Journal columnist. Soon he was engaged in a humiliating apology and repentance ritual with Abe Foxman of the ADL.” (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007). This retraction is why it’s possible Clark might still become Hilary Clinton’s new secretary of state for defence if she’s elected president.

However, what was unusual about the reaction to Clark’s outburst was that there were a small number of voices, Jewish ones, willing to insist he’d said nothing wrong. “For within a day or two, one could read in the blogs some surprising assertions that amounted to a truth defense of Wes Clark. It seemed to come primarily from young, or comparatively young, Jewish bloggers. Significantly, these were not voices from an older and more alienated Chomskyian Left but from an American Prospect-like liberal mainstream.” (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007).

Matthew Yglesias – January 2007.
Yglesias was one of those who leapt to Clark’s defense. “Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it’s a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he’d be accused of trafficking in antisemitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in antisemitism.” (Matthew Yglesias ‘Smears for Fears’ http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394 January 23, 2007).

So here we have an open secret: a truth known to all but which nobody is allowed to talk about. This is very much like the Jews’ nuclear weapons: everyone knows they’ve got them but nobody is allowed to mention them. And if they do mention them then they’re denounced as antisemites.

Yglesias goes on to mention another commonplace of Jewish dominance: it is permissible for people to make approving remarks about Jewish political and economic influence but it is not permissible to make critical remarks about such influence. Anyone who is critical is condemned as antisemitic. “And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America’s Israel policy. If you’re offering commentary that’s supportive of America’s soi-disant “pro-Israel” forces, as Barone was, it’s considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of “pro-Israel” forces, you’re denounced as an antisemite.” (Matthew Yglesias ‘Smears for Fears’ http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394 January 23, 2007). This phenomena has been noted above. It is permissible for the Jews-only lobby to boast of its power over American politicians but if anyone criticizes the lobby for having such power they are vilified and persecuted as antisemites promoting the dangerous nonsense of a Jewish conspiracy over national politics.

Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald was another Jewish commentator who came to Clark’s defence. “In early February, Glenn Greenwald, a New York attorney who recently published a book on the Patriot Act, wrote a blog entry that focused on the New York AIPAC gathering attended by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Greenwald quoted an article from the New York Sun, there is no more unimpeachably right-wing Zionist source, that featured Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf’s claim that “New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community. If … you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them.” The issue that matters most, the article went on to say, is Israel, and what this group most wants to hear with regard to Israel is commitment to bellicosity toward Iran. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton did their best to comply, though according to a report in the equally Likud-friendly New York Post, Clinton apparently disappointed some in attendance by suggesting that diplomacy might be attempted before war. “This is the wrong crowd to do that with,” commented one attendee. Greenwald went on to point out that these articles made exactly the same point that Clark made, adding, “It is simply true that there are large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests and they perceive it to be in Israel’s interests for the U.S. to militarily confront Iran.”” (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/ article.html March 12, 2007).

James Petras – May 2007.
Petras is the foremost political and economic critic of Jewish power in America. It is impossible here to do justice to his work so the following quote is, once again, taken to be representative of his analysis. He argues that if Bush’s foreign policies were dominated by America’s national interests, as represented by the country’s gigantic multinational energy companies, they would overwhelmingly favour Arab states which export 40% of the world’s oil rather than the Jews-only state which has no resources of its own. It would have sought peace between Jews and Palestinians. Perhaps even more strikingly, it would have committed itself to a strategic alliance with Iran at the expense of the Jews-only state. The fact that the Bush regime pursues foreign policies that benefit the Jews-only state rather than those which benefit America, America’s multinational energy companies, Arab oil states, and Iran, clearly reveals the dominance of the Jews-only state and its Jewish allies in America. “The Council of Gulf Cooperation composed of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are the world’s biggest oil suppliers (over 40%), made up of conservative, pro-US regimes, housing US military bases, linked to the largest US oil and financial houses and the biggest purchasers of military hardware from the US military-industrial complex. They met in late March 2007 and called for the US to engage Iran diplomatically and not militarily or with economic sanctions. Israel took a diametrically opposing view pushing for tighter sanctions and a military confrontation. Automatically the ZPC echoed the Israeli Party line (Daily Alert, March 26-30, 2007). Congress and Bush ignored Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, its Arab clients and followed the Zionist line: they escalated sanctions, increased commando operations, added to the war-ships off the coast of Iran and offered to send fighter-planes into Iran after British sailors, engaged in espionage, were captured (Blair, for once, rejected the war provocation). Once again the ZPC out-muscled Big Oil and the military-industrial complex in dictating US Middle-East policy.” (James Petras ‘The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for 2007’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/the-pro-israel-lobby-and-us-middle-east-policy/ May 14, 2007).

Charley Reese
Americans dying for the Jews.
“But let’s lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful lobby in America. So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the case of Iraq. In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual loyalty.” (Charley Reese ‘Israel’s Bad Influence’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276 January 6, 2007).

Opposition to America’s Likudnik policy of Pre-emptive War.
The Jews-only state in Palestine has long promoted a policy of pre-emptive war against its defenceless neighbours. The Jews-only lobby, the zionist dominated media and the neocons wanted the Bush regime to adopt the same policy to enable it to attack enemies of the apartheid state. “The concept of a pre-emptive war should be an abomination to every American. Pre-emptive war is a war of aggression. It was the policy of Hitler’s Germany and of the Japanese imperial government. To our national shame, apparently many Americans support the concept. They should never again criticize the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, the Third Reich for the invasion of Poland, or the Soviet Union for the invasion of Afghanistan. Click your heels and salute. You are no different from the people who cheered for Hitler.” (Charley Reese ‘Who Cares?’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11430 August 13, 2007).

Chris Hedges – July 2007.
“U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.” (Chris Hedges ‘A Declaration of Independence From Israel’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070702_a_declaration_of_independence_from_israel/ July 02, 2007).

Seymour Hersh – October 2007.
Wes Clark’s proclamation about New York money men triggered support from Seymour Hersh, America’s premier commentator whose articles sometimes necessitates responses from the president of the united states. During an interview with Amy Goodman, he stated that the reason so many democratic presidential candidates were supportive of the Jews-only state was that their campaigns were being financed by wealthy Jews. Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hilary Clinton for voting in favor of a senate resolution calling on the state department to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard corps a terrorist organization. When asked to respond to Gravel’s criticism Clinton just laughed.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of, right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I, you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007.” (Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran’ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1438251 October 2nd, 2007).

Hersh’s statement seems to have elicited none of the usual hysterical, paranoid denunciations from the Jews-only lobby in America. It has once again been warmly greeted by a small number of (Jewish) commentators.

Philip Weiss – October 2007.
Weiss offered his support for Hersh. “This is a significant moment. Hersh is a wild man, wild and brilliant. Yet in all his anti-Bush and -Cheney interviews about Iraq over the last few years, I’ve heard him talk code on this issue. He’s attacked the neoconservatives as a crazy band of thinkers; but he’s never put the blame fully where it belongs, on a broader segment of the Jewish community that has immunized the neocons from blame for the war, on the Israel lobby, which includes many Democrats too. Now he’s done so (though apparently not in the New Yorker, which regards Walt and Mearsheimer as fueling hysteria). This is a beautiful moment, too. Hersh is a progressive Jew. Now he is turning on other Jews. “New York Jewish money,” he says. The soul searching that I have called for within the Jewish community has begun!!!!” (Philip Weiss ‘Walt & Mearsheimer Perestroika Alert: Sy Hersh Says ‘Jewish Money’ Is Pushing Iran War’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/walt-mearsheime.html October 02, 2007).

Richard Dawkins – October 2007.
“In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told, religious Jews anyway, than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”” (Richard Dawkins quoted in Ewen MacAskill ‘Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America’s unbelievers’ http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2180660,00.html October 1, 2007).

Daniel Finkelstein, editor of the London Times comments’ section, criticized Dawkins comments. “So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened.” (Daniel Finkelstein ‘Dawkins on the power of the Jews’ http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/dawkins-on-the-.html October 05, 2007).

Three points ought to be made about Finkelstein’s retort. Firstly, and most obviously, Dawkins claimed the Jews-only lobby controls America’s foreign policies not that Jews control the world.[3] Finkelstein condemns Dawkins in the same way that Abe Foxman, a hardline likudnik fundamentalist, had condemned Ralph Nader i.e. by putting racist words into his mouth. It is far from clear whether Finkelstein regards himself as an English Jew or just Jewish.

Secondly, did Finkelstein really believe the role of Britain’s Jewish elite could go on increasing without being noticed, commented on, or criticized? Did he think suspicions weren’t being raised when their fundraising efforts for the Labour party seemed to be going hand in hand with the Blair government’s increasing support for the Jews-only state in Palestine? Blair’s increasingly racist foreign policy reached such a stage of barbarism, no matter how well covered up by his alleged commitment to humanitarian interventionism, that he believed the best way to bring peace to Palestine was by starving Palestinians into submission.

Thirdly, given that Jewish racists and their allies around the world are currently trying to starve Palestinians into submission perhaps more concern ought to be given to innocent Palestinian civilians than Finkelstein’s hyper-sensitive nervous system.

Vanity Fair’s Latest version of the New Establishment – October 2007.
William Cash suffered considerable abuse, and eventual political oblivion, at the hands of the Jews-only lobby in America when he dared to point out that many of those in Vanity Fair’s list of the top 100 most powerful people in America were Jews. The controversy surrounding Cash’s article did not deter Vanity Fair from making the list an annual publishing event. Indeed, the list has become even more grandiose since it now consists of the most wealthy and powerful individuals around the world. However, in October 2007 the magazine wasn’t reticent about mentioning the disproportionate number of Jews on the list. “It’s a list of “the world’s most powerful people,” 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It’s an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power. More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish. It’s a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list – not a pack of fringe antisemites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands. Published between ads for Chanel and Prada, Dior and Yves Saint Laurent, it’s the 2007 version of “The Vanity Fair 100,” the glossy American magazine’s annual October ranking of the planet’s most important people. Populated by a Cohen and a Rothschild, a Bloomberg and a Perelman, the list would seem to conform to all the traditional stereotypes about areas of Jewish overrepresentation. Printed over 15 pages before an interview with Nicole Kidman, the rankings, described on the magazine’s cover as the membership of “The New Establishment”, are less than scientific, accompanied by a paragraph-long introduction that neither defines power nor describes the methodology behind the list.” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&ci d=1191257286817 October 12, 2007).

Indeed, Burstein quoted one Jewish commentator who believed such a list was something about which Jews ought to be proud. “Yet the list doesn’t appear to have generated concern so far, instead drawing expressions of satisfaction and pride from the lone Jewish commentator who’s responded in writing. Joseph Aaron, the editor of The Chicago Jewish News, thinks it’s a list his readers should “feel very, very good about.” “Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having power in this society,” Aaron wrote this week, in apparent reference to Jewish life in the United States. “Talk about antisemitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and influential.”” (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&ci d=1191257286817 October 12, 2007). This is sound advice which Finkelstein ought to heed.

Justin Raimondo provides a couple of interesting insights firstly, into the likudnik fundamentalists publishing the magazine and secondly, about how the Jews on the list like to boast of their membership of the global ruling Jewish elite. “Some, like CBS’s Leslie Stahl, have owned up to the temporary collapse of their critical faculties (by failing to expose the lies used to boost support for the invasion of Iraq); others, like Vanity Fair’s David Rose, are silent. It was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread in the glossy, perfumed pages of the magazine the elites love to display on their coffee tables made the most extreme claims about the imminent danger posed by Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly working on a long-range missile project, which was perilously close to becoming operational. Not only that, but, according to Rose and his INC sources, the Iraqis had a “dirty bomb” in the works, as well as blueprints and the means to build chemical and biological warheads. The relentlessly visual Vanity Fair editors even included a map that purported to show where these various sites were located in Iraq, including a nuclear weapons development laboratory. When none of this turned up in the aftermath of the invasion, did the editors of Vanity Fair cry “mea culpa”? Certainly not. Instead, they ran a piece, “The Path to War,” that blamed “the media” for all that INC-generated misinformation, but failed to mention their own role in promoting it. The piece was written by Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, and, hold on to your seat, David Rose.” (Justin Raimondo ‘How Did We Get Here? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11803 October 24, 2007).

With Vanity Fair’s publication of the list of what is in effect America’s ruling Jewish elite, the Jewish oppression of Americans is reaching new levels of sophistication. Most dictatorships, like most democratic governments, do their best to cover up bad news which would reflect badly on the regime. The greater their dictatorial power the greater their chances of burying news that might undermine their regimes. But clearly with Vanity Fair’s list, America’s ruling Jewish elite is now so confident about its grip over American society that it no longer feels there’s a need to cover up news that could be exploited to undermine its control. America’s most powerful Jews can enjoy boasting about their achievements knowing that the natives are unlikely to start questioning the benefits of these achievements.

Israel Shamir – October 2007.
If Gilad Atzmon is the foremost philosophical critic of Jewish supremacism, and James Petras the foremost critic of Jewish political, and economic, power in America, then Israel Shamir is the foremost intellectual critic of Jewish power. Atzmon is probably in a better position than most to make the following judgment. “An ex-Jew, Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology.” (Gilad Atzmon ‘The Protocols of the Elders of London’ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3220 c.2004). It is not possible here to summarize Shamir’s many books so the following quotes, taken from his latest article, serve as a sample of his work.

Shamir argues the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is not just an issue affecting Palestine but has global ramifications because of the power of Jewish elites around the western world, especially America, to win support for whatever the Jews do in Palestine. The starting point of pre-apocalyptic politics is clear. “Thus the distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great divide between war and peace, life and death.” (Israel Shamir ‘Right Ho, Lobby’ http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng23.htm October 10, 2007). Given the torrent of propaganda lies and fabrications against Iran since the turn of the millennia the following is also true. “The real formidable power of the Jewish Lobby lies in its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block others’ attempts to unite.”.

Conclusions.

It’s time for profound political choices to be made. Either succumb to Jewish supremacism, support an attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on Iran, and promote the ridiculous ‘fourth world war’ which could last for generations. Or, limit the power of the west’s Jewish elites, curb likudnik warmongering, abolish the Jews-only state in Palestine, and seek alliances with the Moslem world to secure global peace. The ‘fourth world war’ would involve over half a billion people from turkey to Pakistan. It would be a huge benefit for the Jews-only state but would be devastating for the greater Middle East and a catastrophe for the rest of the world. Why should the western world continue to fight Jewish racist wars against virtually unarmed Moslems? Why should it go on sacrificing its own lives, treasure, and reputation, for the sake of Jewish supremacism?

Only once the world is free from Jewish oppression will it then be able to tackle the most profound issue of our time: protecting the Earth’s life support system. The ‘fourth world war’ to boost Jewish supremacism by breaking up Middle Eastern states into mini-states would provide a huge boost to global burning. Jewish racists believe they can eventually carry out the Nazi policy of lebensraum against the Palestinians but by the time they’ve created a racially pure Jews-only state, the Earth’s life support system will be on the verge of collapse and global burning will be accelerating out of control. The land they are proud to have turned green with the blood of Palestinians will turn to sand. Jewish supremacists believe they can create an island of racial purity in a world of potential enemies. They do not want to rely on any other countries for their own survival. They believe they are so special they do not need other people. But the planetary reality is that they are totally dependent on people around the world to protect the Earth’s life support system. No country can be an island when the planet is heating up. The Jews are no more special than any other people and no less dependent on people around the world than everyone else.

 
Article Source: IsraelShamir.net

Abrahams, Lord Levy and Mendelsohn: some people never learn the lesson

By Gilad Atzmon

On the afternoon of 29 November 2007, Gordon Brown learned that he was to become only the second sitting British prime minister to be subjected to a police investigation.

This is happening less than six months after Tony Blair had left Downing Street under the heavy cloud of a police probe into the “cash for honours” affair.

For Blair it was the No. 1 Labour fundraiser, the Zionist Lord Levy, who got him into serious trouble; for Brown it is .. David Abrahams (pictured), just another “Friend of Israel” and a provincial chairman of Jewish Labour, who may be the one to finish off his political career.

Once again, the Labour Party had to admit that it erred by accepting donations from dubious sources. ”The money was not lawfully declared, so it will be returned,” the prime minister said, after the disclosure that Labour had benefited to the tune of more than 600,000 pounds sterling from a bizarre funding scheme arranged by David Abrahams, an eccentric property tycoon who decided to donate his money by proxy.

Apparently, Lord Levy and David Abrahams were not alone in dragging Labour towards yet another political disaster. The third corner in this disastrous triangle is Jon Mendelsohn, a man who grasps the power of money and politics. Mendelsohn, a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, is the current chief fundraiser of the Labour Party.

Seemingly and shamefully, the Labour Party did not learn its lesson following the Lord Levy “cash for honours” scandal. Once again, it let the supporters of Israel take care of its material needs.

I find myself wondering how come Labour is so heavily entangled with those “Friends of Israel”? However, the most crucial issue here is actually the fact that not a single British media outlet dares to ask the most important questions: what is this cabal of self-declared “Friends of Israel” trying to achieve by pouring money into political parties? What is it that it is trying to buy? Where is the money coming from? Is it their own money or is it delivered by their “friends” in the Israeli embassy or another Zionist apparatus? (…Full Article)
Reference:

 
Google News Updates On This Scandal

A brilliant Response to Gilad Atzmon

The following letter was written by a Davidduke.com reader to Gilad Atzmon in response to his recent article. It is such an excellent letter I want to share it with all our readers. — David duke

Dear Mr. Gilad Atzmon,

I just read your essay “The Open Society and its Enemies — The Story of Auschwitz” ….I must say, it was rather brilliant. Politics serves as the ulterior motive for a new socio-psychology called “Political Correctness” that drives, among other things, the religion of the Holocaust. This leftist political strategy has been and continues to be the destruction (deconstruction) of Western identity (especially Christian and white racial identity). This strategy serves to facilitate the overall goal of a controllable society and the socialist Utopian dream.

“Political Correctness” serves as the overriding context for the religion of the Holocaust…not the other way around (as you seem to argue). I agree with you for the most part, but here is where we disagree. First, I am not a Jew, and you are. Most Jews, reform, orthodox, atheist or otherwise, have a very strong ethnic identity. You don’t seem to be a very ethnocentric Jew, but even still, your arguments steer clear of the affect of Jewish ethnocentrism on the development of Leftist ideology, political correctness, and the propaganda which has systematically destroyed Western identity, traditions, values, mores, and norms.

While, I agree with you that “European leftist parliamentary” politics benefits greatly from the religion of the Holocaust, I think the more salient point is that the Jewish political lobby benefits far more. In fact, it is the heavily Jewish-influenced media which has produced the religion of the Holocaust. Gentiles did not produce all those Holocaust movies and news stories….Jewish producers, writers, actors, and others did.
Kevin McDonald of the University of California has written brilliant works on the history of Jewish ethnocentric politics and its affect on the West. For instance, in the US, it was Jewish political lobbies that pushed for the 1965 Immigration Act that has resulted in the racial “balkanization” of America (in 1965, the US was over 90% white…now its 70% or less…thanks to, in large part, the 1965 IA). McDonald details the role of Jewish ethnocentric politics in psychology, anthropology, communism, leftist political activist movements in America (and Europe to some extent), and other social movements. It is without a doubt, the most fascinating read with respect to Jewish influence. McDonald could be the Right’s Marx and Freud combined.

Agreeing with me on the destructive role of Jewish ethnocentrism would require you to relinquish your Jewish identity…at least, to some extent. I don’t expect you to do this. I just wanted to illustrate to you, that your Jewish identity still drives your worldview to a large extent. Nationalism and ethnocentrism is NOT anathema to the Left. On the contrary!! The irony is that it is the Left that is pushing the purest forms of racial identity politics….however, its NON-WHITE identity politics. And furthermore, it’s not the religion of the Holocaust which promotes the “open society”…it’s the destruction of white identity. In fact, the “Open Society” seems to connote the annihilation of identity (to me it does). I’m sure these European countries feel they are “open societies” even as they imprison men for making politically incorrect comments about minor aspects of the Holocaust (aka David Irving). I guess the point I’m trying to make is that you divorce the Jewish Lobby from the Parliamentary Left …they are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, I think they are almost one in the same!

Political Correctness is so backwards, that it allows its subscribers to rationalize the most zealous forms of non-white racial identity politics (including Jewish identity politics) while simultaneously OUTLAWING white identity politics. If you go on to Google, and type (using the double quotes), “National Association of Black” …or Hispanic, or Jewish, or Asian etc…you will get TENS OF THOUSANDS of hits. However, searching on “National Association of White” produces almost no hits!. THIS is the most Orwellian double-standard and aspect of Political Correctness. And Jewish ethnocentric politics played no small role in achieving this incredible feat!

In fact, I believe that in the US and Europe, massive non-white immigration is being used as a strategy to control white Gentile populations, and prevent them from reaching a critical mass of racial consciousness. I also believe that Jews play a central or at least a critical role in this strategy to serve their own ethnocentric interests. I think Jews play a key and critical role on the Left in general.

I am not opposed to identity politics. However, to be honest, as a hyper-rational person, identity politics are not natural for me. I do think it’s healthy for people to possess a racial, cultural, and/or religion identity. And societies which are homogeneous in terms of racial, cultural, and religious identity are generally and historically content societies (relatively speaking). Multiculturalism is only a recipe for short-term totalitarian control and eventual bloody and violent civil war. Israel certainly does not practice “multiculturalism” (a major, major tenet of political correctness).

…I could say so much more, but I have digressed enough.

Gene, Nashville, TN USA

(left) The cover of Gilad Atzmon’s album Exile, symbolizing his exile from Zionist Israel

The Open Society and its Enemies – The Story of Auschwitz
by Gilad Atzmon
Preface, commentary by David Duke — Gilad Atzmon is a world-famous musician, an Israeli Jew who has defected from Jewish extremism and the Zionist State. The more I read his material, the more I believe his greatest talent is his ability to think clearly and then to express it in writing. Also, with such critical acclaim for his music, Atzmon shows a lot of courage by the fact that he speaks out even though he has much to lose. It would be impossible to agree with all his opinions and certainly not with his political affiliations, but on a number of subjects he speaks far more honestly than any mainstream politician, Jew or Gentile. I would disagree with his use of “right wing” to describe American policy in the Mideast and elsewhere. Don’t the Jewish Neocon leaders themselves have a Communist heritage, enough that they actually used to refer to themselves openly as “Trotskyites?” Right and Left, Communist and Capitalist has really lost its meaning in the modern world. It has probably been that way since one of the world’s richest capitalists, a radical Jewish Zionist named Jacob Schiff, financed the Judeo-Bolshevik revolution in Russia. But he is so right about how Auschwitz and the entire Holocaust narrative is the primary weapon used against not only the survival of the Palestinian people, but the European people as well. To quote him:

–

As long as Auschwitz is there, deeply entrenched within the daily discourse, the right wing can never raise its head. The European mainstream left is totally dependent on the Holocaust narrative and the Auschwitz tale. As it seems, Auschwitz is the last barricade of the left against the possibility of right wing revival. In Europe, any sense of national aspiration, or even just a demographic concern that may sound like xenophobia is immediately addressed as an awakening of Nazism. Within this oppressive world view, people are not allowed to express any affection towards their land. Furthermore, being politically dependent on the image of the Jewish innocent victim, the European mainstream left can never fully support the Palestinian cause.

Read this article by Gilad Atzmon and learn why the Holocaust, 60 years after, is part of our daily bread!

The Open Society and its Enemies – The Story of Auschwitz

Sixty years after its liberation, Auschwitz has become an international political event. It is not a matter of coincidence, and I feel that we should spare a moment asking ourselves: why now, why Auschwitz?

Living in a scientific technological environment, it is natural for most commentators to judge any given narrative reflecting on its positive contents, i.e. the story it tells, the facts it picks up on and the message it conveys. When it comes to Auschwitz, it is always the terrifying numbers, Mengele and the selection, the clinical mass murder, the Gas Chambers, the trains, the famous Arbeit Macht Frei above the front gate, the death march just before liberation, etc. And yet, I would argue that it is at least as enlightening to expose that which the Auschwitz narrative is there to conceal. Every historical tale can operate as a smoke screen; narratives are very effective in encouraging collective blindness. Auschwitz and the Holocaust narrative, in this sense, are no different.

As it seems, without engaging ourselves with the many questions concerning the validity of the widely accepted Holocaust narrative, we can safely ask what the Auschwitz Narrative is there to serve. Who benefits from the Auschwitz account? We are entitled to ask why the official Holocaust narrative is so widely promoted by different and opposing political institutions. Is it a result of highly sophisticated and orchestrated Jewish propaganda? I am not so sure anymore.

On the surface, the answer to these questions seems simple, the devastating image of the Auschwitz and the Nazi Judeocide is a self-sufficient argument against nationalism, racism and totalitarianism. Within the state of acceptance of the Holocaust tale, any of these three is regarded as an enemy of humanity. But then, one must admit that it is neither nationalism, racism nor totalitarianism that killed so many innocent human beings in Auschwitz. Ideologies do not kill, it is always people who kill, regardless of their ideologies.

But it goes a bit further, with the image of Auschwitz in the back of our minds, our Western liberal thinkers and politicians are enthusiastically depicting a naive vision of our social reality, presenting us with a simplistic binary division. On the one hand, we find the open society, on the other, we find its many enemies. Following this world view, there is only one open society, but many different enemies; and yet, it is important to mention that the open society is an empty signifier, in practice it means very little, if not to say nothing. As it seems, in order to become a member of the exclusive open club, one simply must join the right wars. President Bush, a man who is far from being eloquent when verbal capabilities are concerned, was unexpectedly articulate in presenting that very post-Auschwitz Western axiom: you are either with us or you are against us.

Being with us, namely being amongst the open, means that one believes that it was us who liberated Europe, it was us who liberated Auschwitz, it was us who saved the Jews, and it is us who still are bringing the notion of democracy to the most remote corners of this boiling planet. Being with us means that you accept the fact that we are the voice of the free world. It means as well that you know that you are unconditionally free. It is basically a new form of tautology: you are free even if you aren’t. Being with us means that you believe that the world is rapidly progressing towards a greater divide, namely a cultural clash, in which you are a good, innocent Judeo-Christian enlightened being, and the rest are dark fundamental evils or at least potentially evil. Being with us means that you are not supposed to ask too many questions about our own immoral conduct. For instance, you don’t ask why Bomber Harris & Co. murdered 850,000 German civilians, targeting German cities rather than Nazi industrial
infrastructures.

Being a free being in an open society means that you should never raise questions about Hiroshima. In case you are stupid enough to raise that issue, you had better be clever enough to accept the official lie: it was the best way to bring such a horrible war to an end. Being a free being you won’t raise questions regarding the morality behind leaving 2,000,000 fatalities in Vietnam. Being with us means that you don’t have to ask all those silly annoying questions because Auschwitz is the ultimate in evil. Auschwitz is the bedrock of human wickedness and don’t you ever forget that it was us who put it to an end.

Let us put the truth in place, Auschwitz was beyond any doubt a horrible place, but unfortunately it isn’t the ultimate evil, for the reason that evil has neither limit nor scale. But, to be historically accurate, it wasn’t even us who liberated Auschwitz. As it appears, it was Stalin, the other evil. It was Stalin who gave so many Jewish, POWs, political prisoners, gypsies and inmates the chance to see daylight. But again, being a free being in an open society you really aren’t required to pay attention to minor historical details.

It would seem that Auschwitz is essential within our righteous Western self image. When Iraqi oil is in demand, the American president will equate Saddam with Hitler. Next we will learn that the Iraqi people should be liberated from their ‘Auschwitz’. We already know the inevitable consequences.

Since Auschwitz is so crucial for the American policy makers, it isn’t surprising that not too far from the residency of the American president, there is a big Holocaust museum dedicated to the memory of the Jewish people and their heroic liberators. This museum is not about people or even about crimes against humanity, it is about the maintenance of the illusion of the open society. It is about the maintenance of a very specific narrative. It is all about how we are right, and they, whoever they are, are categorically wrong.

This museum is not really about Jewish suffering. I assume that there will be some basic facts that the museum won’t share with its visitors: for instance, it will not tell the passing crowd that the American government adopted a highly restrictive immigration policy that was never modified between 1933-1944, in order to block Jewish immigration. It will avoid the fact that the American government refused or obstructed German offers of negotiation to remove Jews from Nazi controlled territories. Mostly importantly, it will hide the clear fact that the US Air Force was not instructed to interrupt the Nazi killing machine. Neither railways to Auschwitz nor Auschwitz itself was ever bombed by the RAF or by the American Air Force. It seems as if a real murderous negligence was involved in American decision-making on the issue alongside the war. For instance, on 20 August 1944, one hundred twenty-seven Flying Fortresses escorted by one hundred Mustang fighters successfully dropped their bombs on a factory less than five miles from Auschwitz. Not a single plane was diverted to attack the death camp.

These stories won’t appear in the American Holocaust museum. They simply don’t fit into the heroic and righteous American self image. The history of Auschwitz is in fact a story of brutal Anglo American negligence. The acceptable Auschwitz narrative is basically a myth that is in place to support the American expansionist practice. Auschwitz is the moral pillar of the American ideology.

The Holocaust museum is there to tell Americans what may happen when everything goes wrong. As sad as it may sound, in contemporary America everything is going wrong, despite the museum. The reason is simple, when the image of evil is brewed within your cultural heritage as the discourse of the other, you may as well become blind to the fact that you yourself are already evil. Like their Israeli brothers, the Americans forgot how to look at themselves.

In the case of America, the Holocaust narrative serves the right wing expansionist philosophy. In order to prevent another Auschwitz, the Americans will send their armies to Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. They are always the liberators. Until the end of the Cold War, there were Communists to fight with, a real concrete evil; but now the evil is becoming more and more abstract. In fact, the only way to materialise the vague enemy is to equate it with Hitler.

Europe’s case is slightly different. As strange as it may sound, in Europe it is the parliamentary left that is capitalising on Auschwitz. As long as Auschwitz is there, deeply entrenched within the daily discourse, the right wing can never raise its head. The European mainstream left is totally dependent on the Holocaust narrative and the Auschwitz tale. As it seems, Auschwitz is the last barricade of the left against the possibility of right wing revival. In Europe, any sense of national aspiration, or even just a demographic concern that may sound like xenophobia is immediately addressed as an awakening of Nazism. Within this oppressive world view, people are not allowed to express any affection towards their land. Furthermore, being politically dependent on the image of the Jewish innocent victim, the European mainstream left can never fully support the Palestinian cause.

As it may seem, Auschwitz stands as a symbol of partnership between the European parliamentary left and the American expansionist right. For both, Auschwitz stands as an icon of threat against the image of open society. Within the prospect of this fatal bond, any genuine European left is destined to be pushed to the margin. Any form of genuine left inspired by red aspirations is doomed to be presented as a subversive and radical outlook. In March 1998, Robin Cook, the then British Foreign Secretary, paid a diplomatic visit to Israel. While there, Cook rightly refused to visit Yad Vashem, claiming that he was more concerned about the future rather than about the past. It wasn’t long before Cook lost his job. The refusal to bow to the Auschwitz tale cost Cook his job. It wasn’t the Jews who ousted him out of the Foreign Ministry. It was the Labour party that kicked him out, a parliamentary European left institute.

So, Auschwitz is there to maintain the myth of open society; it is there to present an illusion of liberated Western identity. As long as Auschwitz is there, in the core of our discourse, we are everything but liberated. There is life after Auschwitz and this life belongs to us. We had better do something with it. If there is something we should never do, then that is taking other people’s lives in the name of Auschwitz. And apparently, this is exactly what we are doing.

The Depth of Jewish Racism
Israel Shamir

The following article by a very brave Israeli writer, the intrepid Israel Shamir, is a look into the depth of anti-gentile feeling in the Jewish faith and in the nation of Israel in particular. As Shamir shows, Israel sent teams into East Asia not to help rescue the vicitms but to try to make sure that Jews are not contaminated by the “unclean” gentiles even in death! After years of study of Jewish supremacism I am still sometimes taken aback by the depth of Jewish racism. –David Duke

While the whole world had sent aid to the tsunami-hit South East Asia, Israel forwarded a team entrusted with a unique task. Not many Israeli tourists were swept away by the giant waves – the official death toll stands at three, with some twenty missing; not many when compared with a hundred thousand Indonesians or even with three thousand Swedes. Still the Israeli teams were very active on the ground. The highly trained experts led by Rabbi Meshi Zahav did not go to save trapped survivors or alleviate suffering of millions; their job was to save dead Jews from a fate worse than death – that is to be buried with the goyim in the same grave.

The Ha’aretz daily reported: “The Israeli rescue teams in Thailand split up Thursday: one team worked on identifying bodies in Krabi, while another worked on the same task in Phuket. The Israeli crews – from the police and Zaka (a non-profit group that specializes in identifying victims of disasters) – are trying to locate dead Israelis before they are buried”.

They pressed upon the Thai government to postpone the mass entombment, though it was necessary to prevent spread of epidemics; and Bangkok gave in. Every dead Jewish body should be taken to Israel, or at least buried separately from impure non-Jews. Witty Gilad Atzmon remarked: “the ‘altruistic’ Jews are in a state of panic, as we all know, dead Jews are precious, and they deserve a special burial. The fact that 5-10 Jews might be lost forever among some other 125.000 gentiles is pretty horrifying, I am sure you can see it.”

This is a part and parcel of Jewish faith, the pinnacle of “The Nation Shall Dwell Alone” commandment – Jews are not supposed to live or to die with non-Jews. Their separate burial is necessary to guarantee their bodily resurrection when Messiah comes. A Jewish body defiled by gentile proximity won’t be resurrected, according to the Jews. Even irreligious Jews follow this separation rule without giving it a second thought.

This squeamish attitude is particularly unpleasant: whenever the Jews discover that a person of doubtful Jewishness is buried among their lot they remove the body and dump it elsewhere. It happened to an Israeli citizen Teresa Angelowitz. She was buried in the Jewish cemetery; later on the religious authorities discovered that she was a wife of a Jew, but not a Jew. They exhumed her body at the dark of the night and re-buried on the dumping ground. It happened to many Russian soldiers who died defending the Jewish character of Israel and were refused the burial. Now, in face of the huge tragedy in South East Asia, this insistence of ‘not being counted among the goyim” is especially offensive, bordering on denial of our common humanity. What is so bad about Thais, French, Chinese and other people who found their death in the catastrophe that you can’t leave your dead lying next to them?

This nasty exclusiveness has to be taken into account while trying to comprehend the long-running show of Israeli redeployment in Gaza. Sharon’s government wants to withdraw its troops from within the strip to its perimeter. Fine and good: this is a reasonable (from his point of view) decision: it is cheaper to keep Gaza under lock and key, surrounded by Israeli troops. The redeployment is not good nor bad for the Palestinians – the Jews will be able to kill whoever they wish from their bases outside the narrow strip, but this act is presented as an important step on the way to creation of a Palestinian state.

Now, instead of redeployment, Israelis discuss the fate of some (probably two thousand) Jewish settlers in Gaza strip. Sharon wants to evacuate them and pay them hefty compensation; they object to evacuation. The whole Israeli society discusses whether they can be removed; how much force should be applied; whether ‘Jews may remove Jews’; whether the ruling of the Rabbis forbidding the evacuation takes precedence over the government decision.

Nobody, but absolutely nobody is ready to consider an obvious (for a non-Jew) solution: remove the army and leave the settlers where they are. If they want to stay in Gaza, let them. Do not pay a penny for their removal: they are free men and women; they knew what they did when they accepted the lands and houses in Gaza. There are hundreds of American Jews who want to buy their houses, there are Palestinians who will be willing to buy – so there is no problem, whoever wants stays, whoever wants to leave sells his house and leaves. If they will be nasty to their neighbours, they will flee; if they will be good neighbours, they will flourish.

Indeed, when the British Empire left Palestine, or India, or Africa, they did not evacuate their citizens by force. Whoever felt that he caused too much grief to the natives, left for England; whoever preferred to stay – stayed.

Only people who can’t bear the thought of being buried in one grave with a goy, can’t imagine the possibility of staying as equals without the army and colonial administration to enforce their superiority. Azmi Bishara, our MP from Nazareth, was right when he refused to support Sharon’s initiative; while the Labour party of Peres and Barak added another shameful deed to its long roll of shame when they joined Sharon’s government to carry on the ‘disengagement’. The case of the Gaza settlers may be used to undermine and destroy the “Jewish character of the state”. There is no reason to play into the game of Jewish exclusivity, whether in Thailand or in Gaza.