Third Reich: One of Hitler’s goals as Chancellor of Germany was to make Germany whole again.





Hitler Begins Reclamation of Germany 

One of Hitler’s goals as Chancellor of Germany was to make Germany whole again. He was determined to regain control of lands taken from Germany by the Versailles Treaty but also to bring ethnic Germans living outside the Reich back into Germany. If his plans were to have any chance of succeeding, however, it would first be necessary for Germany to re-arm. The Versailles Treaty had limited Germany to a total of 100,000 men at arms, a pitifully inadequate military force to support his ambitions. After mulling over what to do, Hitler convened a meeting with the Army’s General Staff and members of his Cabinet on March 15, 1935 and announced his decision that Germany would openly defy the military limitations set by the Versailles Treaty and re-arm. Not a single person present objected. All enthusiastically approved.


Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels held a press conference the very next day and announced to the world that the Fuhrer had decided that Germany would reintroduce military conscription and build a new Army consisting of 36 divisions, totalling 550,000 men. This was a brazen violation of the Versailles Treaty, and an open invitation for retaliation by France and Britain.


The German leaders then waited anxiously to see how Britain and France would react. Some of the more cautious generals were worried that France might attack Germany immediately. After all, France was well armed, with the largest army in Europe and Germany would have been powerless to defend itself. But nothing happened; absolutely nothing. Hitler had gambled and won!


Hitler knew that France was struggling with internal political problems and that Britain was still in the depths of the depression. Neither country, he wagered, had the stomach to take military action against him, and he turned out to be right. Hitler also had moral suasion on his side. Any sovereign country, including Germany, has an intrinsic right to the means of self defense and of defending its sovereignty. It was obvious that Germany could not do so with a military force limited to 100,000 men. In a positive light, Hitler’s decision to re-arm Germany could be seen as the “responsible” thing for a national leader to have done.




June 1935 – Hitler re-arms Germany. Here, new recruits line up for their enlistment physicals.

But Hitler was smart enough to understand that he needed to follow up his proclamation by being conciliatory. A couple of months after the conscription announcement, he spoke before the Reichstag and declared that, “Germany wants peace…None of us means to threaten anybody.” And surely, he meant it. He wanted to reclaim Germany’s lost lands, but he did not want war.


He announced before the Reichstag a thirteen-point peace program. He said that Germany would respect all other provisions of the Versailles Treaty, including the demilitarization of the Rhineland. Germany is ready, he said, to cooperate in a collective system for safeguarding European peace. He further stated that Germany was ready to conclude pacts of non-aggression with her neighbours.


This seemed to soothe the nerves of his gun-shy neighbouring countries. This method of diplomacy set a pattern which Hitler was to follow thereafter; a forceful announcement on a Saturday (Hitler’s Saturday surprises), followed by a conciliatory speech. After each such initiative, he permitted time to lapse so that everything could settle back down before making his next move. He knew what he wanted and knew what he was doing, and he played his hand very carefully.


He let a year pass before he took his next big gamble; the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Early Saturday morning on March 7, 1936, three German Army battalions crossed the bridges over the Rhine and entered the industrial heartland of Germany known as the Rhineland. This demilitarized area, the Rhineland, included all territory west of the Rhine River, stretching over to the French border, as well as a section east of the river. The Rhineland included the cities of Cologne, Dusseldorf and Bonn.


Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Constantin von Neurath, summoned the French, British and Italian ambassadors to his office at 10 A.M. the same morning and handed them a memorandum which stated that the German government had “restored the full and unrestricted sovereignty of the Reich in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland.” This, of course, was also a violation of the Versailles Treaty.


At noon on the same day, Hitler appeared before a hastily called Reichstag assembly and announced what had happened. The totally surprised Reichstag members jumped to their feet in jubilation and began cheering wildly, with shouts of “heil” to the Fuhrer.


When they calmed down and returned to their seats, Hitler continued speaking. He said:

First, we swear to yield to no force whatever in the restoration of the honor of our people, preferring to succumb with honor to the severest hardships rather than to capitulate. Secondly, we pledge that now, more than ever, especially for one with our Western neighbour nations…We have no territorial demands to make in Europe!…Germany will never break the peace.”



Saturday, March 7, 1935 – German troops cross a bridge over the Rhine River and enter the Rineland.


Hitler and his generals again waited nervously to see how France and Britain would react. The German troops even had orders to immediately abandon the Rhineland and cross back over the bridges if France were to attack. But, as before, nothing happened. The French and the British did nothing. The horrors of the First World War were too fresh in their memory, and the French in particular simply did not have the stomach for another war with Germany. The British did not act because most British leaders had already come around to the belief that the Versailles Treaty was unreasonable in many aspects and most of them sympathized with Hitler’s position.


This had been a tremendous gamble for Hitler because the French, with their one hundred division army could easily have overwhelmed the 30,000 lightly armed German troops now in the Rhineland, in which case Hitler could have lost everything. Hitler was later to admit:

The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve wracking in my life. If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tail between our legs…


Several of Hitler’s generals were extremely fearful of the bold move, but his Foreign Minister, von Neurath, had calmly assured him, “You can risk it. Nothing will happen.” Hitler learned to ignore the trepidations of his generals and use his own judgment in such matters.


The German people in the Rhineland welcomed the troops with jubilation. The soldiers were met by German priests who conferred blessings upon them. Women threw flowers in their path. The people in Cologne went wild with joy. Inside Cologne’s magnificent cathedral, Cardinal Schulte lavishly praised Hitler for what he had done.



[Add. image — Hitler, Goebbels and Wagner near the radio during the Saarland vote, 1935. Our picture from left to right: Gauleiter of Munich-Upper Bavaria, Adolf Wagner, Reich Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler and the Reich Press Chief Otto Dietrich in front of the radio in Hitler’s private apartment at Prinzregentenplatz in Munich during the announcement of interim results of the Saarland vote on 13 January 1935.]


A few weeks later, on March 29th, another plebiscite was held. 99% of the registered voters went to the polls, and 98.8% voted approval of Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland. Hitler had become the most popular man in Germany.


With this accomplishment securely in the bag, Hitler then went back to Berchtesgaden, his retreat in the Bavarian mountains, to relax while things calmed down, but also to ponder his next move, for he had many more moves to make in implementing his plan of irredentism for Germany.


Meanwhile, in Berlin and throughout Germany, preparations were underway to host the coming Summer Olympics. The Berlin Olympics would be a big opportunity for the Nazis to show off the new Germany they had created to people from all over the world.


The 1936 Olympics



Berlin won the bid in April 1931 to host the 1936 Olympic Games over Barcelona, its number one contender. The bid for the games had been won two years before the Nazis were elected into office in Germany. When the Nazis came to power, American Jewish organizations immediately demanded that some other venue be chosen for the games other than Berlin. The American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee staged rallies to oppose America’s participation in the games if the games were not moved out of Berlin.



[Add. image — A pedestrian pauses to read a notice announcing an upcoming public meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, December 3, to urge Americans to boycott the 1936 Berlin Olympics. New York, United States, 1935.]


Avery Brundage, President of the American Olympic Committee, to his very great credit, decided, despite this pressure, that America would participate in the Games in Berlin as scheduled. International Jewry already had a propaganda campaign under way against the Nazis long before they came into office, and Brundage took the view that the attempted boycott of the Olympic Games was just another “Jewish-Communist conspiracy” against Germany, which, of course, it was. He stated that Jewish athletes were not being treated unfairly in any way by anyone. The Jews were nevertheless relentless.



[Add. image — Avery Brundage (born Sep 28, 1887) competed in the decathlon at the 1912 Olympic Games. He became president of the U.S. Olympic Association and Committee in 1929, then served as president of the International Olympic Committee (1952–72).]


The story most repeated about Hitler and the Olympic Games in Berlin, is that Hitler refused to shake the hand of the American black athlete Jesse Owens after he had won a race. This myth is widespread, and appears as fact in many journals and publications today, including, for example, in Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia.


What actually happened is that Hitler personally attended the first day of the track and field competition on August 2, 1936, and personally congratulated the German athlete Hans Wollke, who was the first German to win a gold medal in the Olympics since 1896. Throughout the rest of the day, Hitler continued to receive Olympic champions, both German and non-German, in his VIP box.


The next day, August 3, the chairman of the International Olympic Committee, Comte Bailet-Latour, approached Hitler early in the morning and told him that he had violated Olympic protocol by personally congratulating each Olympic winner. Hitler duly apologized and said that he would hence forward refrain from shaking the hands of the winners.


Later in the same day, when Jesse Owens won his gold medals, Hitler did not shake his hand…or anybody else’s, during the remainder of the games.


It is, therefore, utterly false to claim that Hitler deliberately chose to snub Owens. In his autobiography, “The Jesse Owens Story,” 1970, Owens recounted how Hitler had stood up and waved to him:

When I passed the Chancellor,” he wrote, “he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany.”


During the afternoon of the first day, Hitler and his entourage left the stadium early because rain threatened. In fact, it had already begun to sprinkle. Coincidentally, the American black, Cornelius Johnson, had just barely beaten his American teammate in the high jump to win a gold medal shortly before Hitler left the stadium. The anti-German propagandists reported through the International Jewish press that Hitler had “stormed out” of the stadium in a tantrum because a black man had won an event. Hitler was much too sensitive to world opinion to have left himself open to negative publicity by any such inappropriate behavior.


But the facts would never stand in the way of a good anti-Nazi story. The Jewish owned New York Times carried on its front page, “Hitler greets all medalists except Americans,” the day after the first competitive events.


The headline on the next day’s paper read, “Hitler ignores Negro medalists.” Not by coincidence, the New York Times had earlier led the movement to boycott the Berlin games. Other newspapers picked up the story. “Hitler Snubs Jesse,” read the huge, bold headline of a black Cleveland paper, Call and Post. The Baltimore Afro-American carried the headline “‘Adolf’ Snubs U.S. Lads“. These were deliberate lies. Nothing of the kind had happened.



The Baltimore African-American newspaper, August 8, 1936.


Another story spread around about the 1936 Olympics by the anti-German press was that Owens’ victory “disproved the Nazi master race theory.” If anything, the Games supported that idea, if, in fact, such an idea even existed. Germany won 89 medals, while the United States, with two and a half times Germany’s population, won 56.


That Germany claimed to be the “master race” is another myth with no basis in fact; just more anti-German propaganda from the International Jewish press. The Nazis never made any such claim (though the Jews do claim to be God’s chosen people), and Hitler never used the term, “master race,” or anything close to it to describe the German people. Hitler used the term “Aryan” to represent all the Germanic peoples of Europe, including the British, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Fins, Swiss, and all the other peoples of Europe of Germanic origin. Hitler believed that the Aryan people were culturally superior to most of the rest of mankind as manifested in all their achievements. He wrote in Mein Kampf:

All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan…


This idea was generally accepted by all Europeans at the time, and could hardly be disputed given the fact that almost all civilizational advances were accomplished by these people. The British have always considered themselves to be a superior race. The anti-German international Jewish press deliberately misinterpreted these general concepts to mean that the Germans considered themselves alone to be the “Master Race.” In fact, no such claim was ever made.


In what was to become an act of extreme irony, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, then running for re-election and concerned about the reaction of the southern states, refused to see Jesse Owens at the White House. Owens was later to remark that it was Roosevelt, not Hitler, who snubbed him.


Jesse Owens was the citizen of a country whose racism would have made Hitler blush. In Hitler’s Germany, Jesse Owens could share a bus or tram ride with white people. Treated equally in all respects before the law, he could sit in a movie theater next to whites, use public toilets, dine in restaurants, and stay in hotels without any discrimination being shown towards him. There were many things he could do in Hitler’s Germany that were forbidden at home in the United States. In the United States black athletes were required to eat separately from their white fellow athletes. If they were allowed to share the same hotel at all, which was unlikely, it would be necessary for them to use the service entrance. There were no blacks on any major league baseball team and there were no black swimmers. This was in the enlightened north. In the southern states there was no possibility of a black being allowed to participate in any sport, except to compete with other blacks. For the Jewish press to have smeared Hitler and the German people in general as “racists” was hypocritical in the extreme.


Jesse Owens evidently enjoyed his time in Hitler’s Germany immensely. In Germany he received a lot of pre-Olympic media hype and the German people idolized him.

Once at the stadium, the mere appearance of Jesse Owens’ head from some pit below the stands would cause sections of the crowd to break out in chants of, ‘Yes-sa Ov-enss! Yes-sa Ov-enss!’ — Richard D. Mandell. “The Nazi Olympics.

“Some mornings at the Olympic village the athletic hero of the hour was awakened by amateur photographers who flocked outside his bedroom window to click at the athlete before he could gather poise for one of his many appearances before the mobs in Berlin.” — Richard D. Mandell. “The Nazi Olympics.

“Jesse Owens was cheered as loudly as any Aryan.” — Lawrence N. Snyder; Jesse’s coach. Saturday Evening Post, Nov. 7th, 1936.


When Jesse Owens first returned to the states, he denied that he had been snubbed by Hitler or that he had been mistreated in any way. But he learned soon enough that he could use the “snub myth” to his own advantage. In his postwar interviews, postwar public addresses, and in his “ghosted” articles and books, he began to claim that Hitler had, indeed, refused to shake his hand, and he also began to repeat the lie that Hitler “left the stadium in a tantrum” when a black athlete won a medal, because that is what people wanted to hear. As he discovered that anti-Hitler stories resonated well with American audiences, he began to exaggerate his “mistreatment” stories even further. Such exaggerations finally became the central feature of his talks as he described how emotionally torn apart he was by the “snubs” and other mistreatment by Hitler and the Nazis. The reality is that Jesse Owens was given the warmest ovation of his life by the German spectators, including Hitler.


Yet another myth still commonly believed as the result of the anti-German propaganda is that American blacks “ran away” with the gold medals during the Berlin games. It is true that Owens won four gold medals, but outside of track and field, the Germans dominated the Olympic Games of 1936 by winning more medals than all other participants combined.


These are only some of the flagrant distortions about Nazi Germany created by the International Jewish propaganda campaign. Since the victors write the historical accounts of events, Nazi Germany has been permanently smeared with these blatantly false stories.


Hitler’s “Film Expert to the National Socialist Party,” Leni Riefenstahl, made a documentary of the 1936 Olympic Games, called, “Olympia”, which nearly matched her earlier film, “Triumph of the Will”, in its propaganda value to the Third Reich. The film won many international awards.



Leni Riefenstahl shooting the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin


Germany scored a huge propaganda coup with the 1936 Olympic games, despite all efforts of the International Jewish press to denigrate it. The world was able to see firsthand “the new Germany” which had been created by Nazi rule. German hospitality won high praise from visitors from all over the world, and Adolf Hitler was seen as the man of the hour.


Despite efforts being made by international Jewry to discredit Nazi Germany in every way possible, most objective reports were favorable to Germany as a result of the Games. Frederick Birchall reported in the New York Times that the Games put Germany “back in the fold of nations,” and even made them “more human again.”



Hitler at the opening ceremony of the 1936 Olympic Games.




Berlin’s Olympic Stadium


But Jewish reporters consistently took only the most sinister interpretation of everything occurring in Germany. The Jewish journalist William Shirer, for example, regarded the:

Berlin glitter on display for the world to see as merely hiding a menacing, racist, militaristic regime, … I’m afraid the Nazis have succeeded with their propaganda,” he wrote. “First, the Nazis have run the Games on a lavish scale never before experienced, and this has appealed to the athletes. Second, the Nazis have put up a very good front for the general visitors, especially the big businessmen.”


The most well intentioned and even the most praiseworthy activities of the Germans were seen by Shirer and other Jewish reporters only as a “front.”


The Jewish propaganda of that time was designed to smear and discredit Germany and the Nazis, not to present an accurate picture of actual events. Every event was deliberately twisted in the Jewish press to mean something it didn’t. Every word and gesture of Hitler or any Nazi was deliberately misinterpreted to cast them in the worst possible light. Sinister motives were attributed to every act and deed. When Hitler behaved in a courteous, considerate, statesmanlike manner, it was reported in the Jewish press that he was “wearing a false face,” and that he was “cynically manipulating world opinion for his own sinister purposes.”


Despite all that is now known to be true about the circumstances surrounding the 1936 Olympic Games, especially the personal conduct of Hitler himself, Jewish writers and historians continue, even to this day, to trot out the same old propaganda lies of the 1930s and 40s.


Shirley Povich, (July 15, 1905 — June 4, 1998) Jewish sports writer for the Washington Post newspaper.


A good example of this is an article written by the Jewish sports writer Shirley Povich for the Washington Post on July 6, 1996, titled, “Berlin, 1936: At the Olympics, Achievements of the Brave in a Year of Cowardice.” The article was written to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. (It is worth mentioning that the Washington Post is a Jewish owned newspaper, and was an enthusiastic participant in the international Jewish smear campaign against Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The Washington Post also participated in the effort to boycott the Berlin Olympic Games.) He begins his article by writing:

It is about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin that Adolf Hitler turned into a sickening pageant of Nazi propaganda, supported by submissive U.S. Olympic officials and craven American track and field coaches who, like Nazi cousins, kicked their only two Jewish athletes off the 4 x 100-meter relay team. And it is about Hitler’s snub of America’s victorious black Olympians in their triumph.”


Povich’s description of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin is simply astonishing in view of what is known to be the real story about the Games today. The Nazis were defeated and destroyed in 1945, yet half a century later the preposterous Jewish anti-German propaganda campaign continues unabated.


In the article, he repeats the lie that our “own Jewish athletes were kicked off the team, in order to placate Hitler.” He also repeats the lie that Hitler snubbed Jesse Owens and the other black American athletes. He preposterously states that Hitler “already had the killing of six million Jews in mind.” He wrote that Germany did not permit German Jews to participate in the games. That was a lie. The Jewess Helene Mayer, for example, was a member of the German fencing team.


In the article, Povich accused Avery Brundage, head of U.S. Olympic Committee, of cowardice for refusing to participate in the attempted boycott of the Olympic Games. Povich claims that prominent Catholic, Protestant, as well as Jewish individuals and groups in the United States, were loudly clamoring for a boycott, as were, he says, trade unions and civic organizations. That was not true. The campaign to boycott the Olympics was a purely Jewish campaign. Catholics and Protestants had nothing to do with it, and did not support it. Trade unions did support it, but trade unions were totally dominated and controlled by Communist Jews.


Povich states in the article that Germany was humiliated by the American black athletes. In reality, Germany, at less than half of the population of the United States, won 89 medals to America’s 56.


Povich claims that two Jews were removed from the American team simply because they were Jews. Not so! The two Jews that were removed were replaced by two blacks who outperformed them.


Povich’s article was a reiteration of the blatant anti-Nazi propaganda spewed out of the Jewish controlled media during the Nazi era, without a word of truth in it. The article totally mischaracterized events as they actually occurred, yet, his version of events has become the official history of the 1936 Olympic Games, the history taught to children in school.

The History Place - The Triumph of Adolf Hitler

The Berlin Olympics

Adolf Hitler, who was not a sports fan, had been lukewarm toward the whole idea of hosting the 1936 Olympics. It had taken some effort by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels to convince him that the Olympic festivities could be exploited to advance the Nazi cause both inside and outside of Germany.

The Games had been awarded to Germany by the International Olympic Committee back in May 1931, before Hitler came to power. It was the second time the modern Olympics were scheduled to be held in Germany. The 1916 Olympics scheduled for Berlin were canceled due to World War I.



Under Goebbels’ direction, the Nazis intended to use the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin as a showcase for the “new Germany.” The Nazis also hoped to profit from the tens of thousands of souvenir-hungry tourists who would bring much needed foreign currency into the country.

The Nazi administration spent 42 million Reichmarks building an impressive 325-acre Olympics sports complex located about five miles west of Berlin. This was the same site that had been chosen for the canceled 1916 Games. The centerpiece of the new sports complex was the gigantic Olympic Stadium built of natural stone which could seat 110,000 spectators. Inside this stadium, the world’s largest, there was a special seating area built for Hitler and top Nazis.

While the ambitious Olympic construction project was underway in 1934-35, huge controversy erupted over the exclusion of Jewish athletes from Germany’s Olympic team.

The president of Germany’s Olympic Committee, Dr. Theodor Lewald, was himself ousted from this prestigious position after it was revealed his paternal grandmother was Jewish. He was replaced by a high ranking SA man named Hans von Tschammer und Osten.

Osten quickly established an Aryans-only policy in selecting Germany’s Olympic athletes. This was in keeping with numerous Nazi rules and regulations shutting out Jews from all facets of German society. Some of the Jews excluded from the Olympic team were actually world class athletes, such as tennis star Daniel Prenn and boxer Erich Seelig. They left Germany, along with other Jewish athletes, to resume their sports careers abroad. Prenn played tennis in England while Seelig moved to the United States. The Nazis also disqualified Gypsies, including Germany’s middleweight boxing champ, Johann Trollmann.

The Olympic Torch is carried along a German avenue toward the stadium in Berlin. Below: Aerial view of the massive Olympic Stadium.
Below: Hitler enters for the opening ceremony accompanied by Theodor Lewald (left) and Count Baillet-Latour.
Below: Germans inside the stadium salute their Führer.

The banning of non-Aryans from Germany’s Olympic team was condemned internationally as a violation of the Olympic code of equality and fair play. The Olympics were intended to be an exercise in goodwill among all nations emphasizing racial equality in the area of sports competition. The Nazis, however, had no interest in promoting racial equality and hoped instead to use the Olympics to show off Aryan athletes, whom they believed were naturally superior because of their race.

The Nazi attitude toward the coming Olympics brought international calls for a boycott of the Berlin Games along with requests to move the Games to another country. The biggest boycott controversy occurred in the United States, the country which had sent the most athletes to past Olympics and usually won the most medals.

For years now in the U.S., various Jewish and Christian leaders had been reading newspaper accounts of Nazi persecution of Jews, Christian churches, political dissidents, labor leaders and others. Throughout Germany by this time, Jewish athletes of all ages had been banned from city playgrounds and sports facilities, gymnastic organizations, physical education programs, public swimming pools, and even from horse racing. For many American critics of the Hitler regime, the banning of Jews from Germany’s Olympic team was the last straw.

The American Olympic Committee was headed by former U.S. Olympic athlete, Avery Brundage, who initially supported the idea of a boycott of the Berlin Olympics. He also sympathized with the hard-line position taken by leaders of America’s powerful Amateur Athletic Union calling for a boycott unless the Nazis allowed German Jews to fully participate.

The Nazis attempted to smooth things over by inviting Brundage to Germany and took him to see special training courses supposedly set up for use by Jews in Germany. Brundage was favorably impressed by what he saw and also by the extra-special VIP treatment he was given by the Nazis. As a result, Brundage returned to America and announced on September 26, 1934, that the American Olympic Committee officially accepted the invitation to participate in the Berlin Olympics.

The Amateur Athletic Union, however, was not so easily swayed. Its leader, Jeremiah Mahoney, declared that American participation in the Berlin Games meant nothing less than “giving American moral and financial support to the Nazi regime, which is opposed to all that Americans hold dearest.”

The outspoken Mahoney was supported in his position by various American Jewish and Christian leaders, along with liberal politicians such as New York Governor Al Smith. Forty-one college presidents also voiced their support for a boycott. In addition, America’s trade union leaders supported an Olympic boycott and also pushed for a complete economic boycott of Nazi Germany. They were strongly anti-Hitler as a result of the systematic dismemberment of Germany’s trade unions by the Nazis.

Responding to the mounting international pressure, the Nazis made a token gesture by allowing a part-Jewish athlete, Helene Mayer, back on their Olympic team. She had won a gold medal at the 1928 Games and was considered to be the world’s greatest female fencer. The Nazis also let the part-Jewish Theodor Lewald function as an “advisor” to Germany’s Olympic Organizing Committee.

Back in the U.S., Avery Brundage responded to his own critics by claiming the Olympics were meant for “athletes not politicians.” He succeeded in swaying a number of American athletes to his point of view. When the Amateur Athletic Union took its final vote on December 8, 1935, the boycott proposal was voted down by a razor-thin margin. The Americans would participate after all.

The U.S. Olympic team turned out to be its biggest ever with 312 athletes including nineteen African Americans and five Jews. The Nazis had given repeated assurances to the International Olympic Committee that black athletes would be treated well in Germany. The Nazis also reluctantly agreed to let foreign Jews participate.

However, some American Jewish athletes, including Harvard University track star Milton Green, chose to sit out the Olympics to protest Nazi anti-Semitism. Doing this meant passing up the opportunity of a lifetime in order to make a political statement. Jewish athletes from other countries also decided to sit out the Games as a protest, including star athletes from Austria, France and Canada.

In all, fifty-one countries decided to participate in the Berlin Games. This was the biggest number so far in the modern Olympic era. Germany had the largest Olympic team with 348 competitors. Soviet Russia had not participated in any of the Olympics thus far and was also absent from Berlin Games.

In mid-July 1936, the teams began arriving in Germany and were given the red-carpet treatment by their Nazi hosts with many lavish receptions held in their honor. Berliners had been repeatedly told by the Nazi administration to create a good impression by making international tourists feel welcome. The resulting over-friendliness of normally gruff Nazi Brownshirts and SS men seemed amusing to those who knew them better, such as foreign journalists stationed in Berlin.

Tourists entered a squeaky clean Berlin where all undesirable persons had been swept off the streets by police and sent to a special detention camp outside the city. Buildings everywhere were decorated with Olympic flags hung side-by-side with Nazi swastikas including all of the various facilities used for sporting competitions.

Berliners and tourists stroll about the Lustgarden at night amid a display of flags from participating nations. Below: An Olympic Flag is seen on the corner of Café Kranzler located upon the busy Unter den Linden.

The omnipresent ‘Jews Not Welcome’ signs normally seen throughout Germany were removed from hotels, restaurants and public places for the duration of the Olympics. Nazi storm troopers were also ordered to refrain from any actions against Jews. The virulent anti-Semitic newspaper published by Julius Streicher called Der Stürmer was even removed from newsstands. Interestingly, visitors wanting to talk to Jews in Berlin about their daily experiences or investigate Jewish life in Nazi Germany were required to contact the Gestapo first, after which they would be closely watched until they departed.

The opening ceremony of the XI Olympic Games was held on Saturday, August 1, 1936, inside the Olympic Stadium, which was jammed to capacity. Unfortunately, the Germans did not get the usual sunny ‘Führer weather’ which always seemed to accompany big Nazi events, but instead got a cloudy day with occasional rain showers. Hitler and his entourage, along with the Olympic officials, walked into the stadium amid a chorus of three thousand Germans singing the Deutschland Über Alles national anthem followed by the Horst Wessel Lied Nazi anthem.

Over 5,000 athletes from 51 nations then marched in according to alphabetical order, with Greece leading the whole parade and the host country, Germany, at the end. But even the opening ceremony was not without controversy – the question being whether athletes would give the Nazi salute to Hitler as they passed by his reviewing stand. There was some confusion over this issue, since the Olympic salute with right arm held out sideways from the shoulder could also be mistaken for the Hitler stiff-arm salute. Most countries gave either one or the other. Austrian athletes gave the Hitler salute. French athletes thrilled the German audience by giving the Hitler salute, although some French athletes later claimed it was the Olympic salute. The Bulgarians outdid everyone by goose-stepping past the Führer. The British and Americans chose a military style ‘eyes right’ with no arm salute.

The flag bearer of every nation was supposed to dip their country’s flag while passing by the Führer and the Olympic officials. The American flag bearer upset many Germans in the audience by ignoring this, adhering to the U.S. custom of only dipping to the President of the United States and no one else.

The magnificent Airship Hindenburg flew low over the stadium trailing the Olympic flag with its five rings representing the five participating continents. As a symbolic gesture, the Nazis allowed Olympics organizer Theodor Lewald to give the opening speech, which was followed by Hitler’s simple message: “I proclaim the Games of Berlin, celebrating the eleventh Olympiad of the modern era, to be open.” This was the only public utterance Hitler made during the Olympics.

Hitler’s opening proclamation was followed by the Olympic Hymn written by German composer Richard Strauss for the Games. The climax of the opening ceremony then occurred with arrival of the Olympic torch. It had been carried all the way from Olympia, Greece, by some three thousand separate relay runners over a twelve-day period. It was the first time in Olympic history this had been done.

Sporting competitions began the next day, Sunday, August 2nd, with the track and field events. During this week-long competition, the 100 and 200-meter sprints were won by Jesse Owens, an American track star from Ohio State University. He set new world records in both races. Owens went on to win four gold medals in all, setting a world record in the long jump and also helped set one in the 400-meter relay.

German broadcasters and journalists always referred to the African American Owens as “the Negro Owens.” The other eighteen African American athletes were referred to as “America’s Black Auxiliaries” as if they were not full-fledged team members.

Jesse Owens seen in the Long Jump. Below: Medal ceremony for the Long Jump – Owens with the Gold Medal for America; Japan the Silver and Germany the Bronze.
Below: Owens about to win the 100-meter race as seen in “Olympia.”

Owens became an instant superstar in Berlin. German fans chanted his name whenever he entered the Olympic Stadium and mobbed him for autographs in the street. Hitler, however, never met him. On the first day of the track and field competition, Hitler had left the Olympic Stadium as rain threatened and darkness fell and missed greeting the three American medal winners in the high jump, two of whom were black. This upset Olympic officials and they advised Hitler that either he should receive all of the medal winners or none of them. Hitler decided to receive none of them from that point onward, including Owens.

International journalists covering the Olympics took note of this and speculated it was because Owens and his fellow African American athletes won so many track and field medals, fourteen in all. Some journalists went so far as to say their victories debunked the Nazi myth of Aryan racial superiority.

Owens later said he didn’t feel snubbed by Hitler. According to Owens, at one point during the track and field competition he glanced up at Hitler in his box seat and the Führer stood up and waved to him, and he had waved back at Hitler.

Another big news controversy erupted in America when it was revealed that the only two Jews on the U.S. track team had been dumped at the last minute from the 400-meter relay race. On the morning of the race, Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller were informed by their head coach they would be replaced by Jesse Owens and Ralph Metcalfe. Glickman later speculated that Avery Brundage might have pressured the American coaches to drop the Jews to avoid upsetting Hitler. As a result, Glickman and Stoller wound up sitting in the stands watching the race which they might have easily won themselves since they were superb relay runners.

Throughout the fourteen days of athletic competition Hitler maintained a deliberately low-key presence at the Olympics. This was done to please Olympic officials who did not want him to upstage the festivities. It was also a good opportunity for the Führer to appear calm and dignified among the thousands of international observers who were watching his every move. To the surprise of his top aides Hitler became genuinely interested in the various sporting matches and took great delight in every German victory.

The XI Olympic Games concluded on Sunday, August 16, with Germany as the overall victor, capturing 89 medals. The Americans came in second with 56. The Games were preserved on film by Triumph of the Will director Leni Riefenstahl. Financed by the Nazis, she brought thirty-three camera operators to the Olympics and shot over a million feet of film. It took her eighteen months to edit Olympia into a four hour film which was released in two parts beginning in April 1938.

Remarkably, the Berlin Games saw the first-ever use of television at the Olympics, although the picture reception was not very good. At the Olympic Village, where all of the male athletes lived, a large recreation building known as Hindenburg Hall had a TV room where they could watch live competitions. Seventeen other sites around Berlin also featured TV rooms.

The Olympic Village itself received rave reviews from everyone who stayed there. The 130-acre village was constructed by the German Army under the direction of Captain Wolfgang Fuerstner. It was laid out in the shape of a map of Germany and contained 140 buildings including a post office and bank. Each of the athletes’ houses contained 13 bedrooms, with two athletes per room. There were two stewards always on duty in each house who spoke the athletes’ native language. Training facilities in the Village included a 400-meter oval track and a full-size indoor swimming pool.

Fuerstner’s Olympic Village was the finest housing ever provided to Olympic athletes up to that time. However, just before the Olympics began, Captain Fuerstner received a demotion because of his Jewish ancestry. He had to endure being second-in-command at the Village which he had brilliantly designed, while his non-Jewish successor, Lt. Col. Werner Gilsa, received the credit for his accomplishment. Two days after the Games ended, Fuerstner attended a lavish Nazi banquet held in honor of Gilsa. Afterwards, the despondent Fuerstner went back to his barracks and shot himself. The Nazis tried to cover up his suicide by giving him a full military burial, claiming he had been killed in an auto accident.

Overall, the Berlin Olympics was a big success for the Nazis. Hundreds of international journalists acknowledged that Germany had put on the most lavish and biggest Olympics ever. Many thousands of tourists also left Germany with happy memories of the courtesy extended to them by the Nazis and the German people, as well as the fantastic facilities and precise efficiency of the whole event. The Nazis had succeeded in getting what they most wanted from hosting the Olympics – respectability.

During the closing ceremonies the president of the International Olympic Committee had issued the traditional call for the next Games, requesting “the youth of every country to assemble in four years at Tokyo, there to celebrate with us the twelfth Olympic Games.”

But there would be no more Olympic Games for a dozen years. The 1940 Games scheduled for Tokyo and the 1944 Games were both canceled. Instead of competing with each other on athletic fields, the youth of many countries wound up killing each other on fields of battle in a new world war – a war Adolf Hitler was already planning.

Copyright © 2001 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved





Has Obama Abandoned Israel? What You’re Not Being Told

By Darius Shahtahmasebi of Anti Media

In 2011, linguist and foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky was asked whether he thought Obama was as bad as George W. Bush, to which Chomsky responded: “he’s worse.” Asked why, Chomsky cited Obama’s use of the U.N. veto at the Security Council level, which killed a resolution condemning settlement expansions that Israel was building in 2011.

After that, Obama was famously known for placing very few limits on Israel (with the exception of blocking an arms transfer during Operation Protective Edge, for example). There was also the supposed fallout between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama over the Iranian nuclear agreement last year, but that agreement had nothing to do with curbing Israel’s power in the region. Anyone paying attention to the Iranian nuclear issue knows the agreement was largely symbolic and meaningless as sanctions targeting Iran have continued quite dramatically.

Just recently, the Obama administration approved the largest military package to Israel to date. Per this agreement, the U.S. will provide Israel with $38 billion worth of military aid if Israel, in turn, promises to use that money to purchase equipment from American suppliers. If there was ever any need to prove that Washington is in bed with the military-industrial machine, this deal alone kills any debate on the issue.

Israel is the largest recipient of foreign aid in the world, with the exception of Afghanistan and Iraq, which receive military funding due to the U.S. military’s long history in the countries. This aid increased under Obama. According to Colin Powell’s leaked emails, Israel also has a stockpile of at least 200 nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is well aware of this fact.

Further, since Obama took office, the population in Israel’s settlements rose dramatically from 100,000 to 600,000.

In a recent speech, as transcribed by TIME, John Kerry affirmed that no administration in U.S. history has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s:

Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself by itself, including during actions Gaza that sparked great controversy.

Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel’s back. We have strongly apposed (ph) boycotts, investment campaigns, and sanctions targeting Israel in international for a (ph).

Whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the U.N. system.”

This support for Israel runs deeper than most Americans are aware — to their own economic detriment. As Kerry noted:

In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than 1/2 of our entire global foreign military financing goes to Israel. And this fall we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country at any time.” [emphasis added]

Last Friday, the Obama administration abstained from a U.N. Security Council resolution vote to condemn Israel’s settlement expansions. The resolution contains no enforcement provisions — it is not as if NATO is going to enforce it with a “no-fly zone.” Yet Israel warned New Zealand that its support for the resolution would be construed as an act of war and has recalled their ambassador from the country. President-elect Donald Trump has called the U.N. “sad” and has basically vowed to up the ante on U.S.-Israeli relations once he takes office.

Why? The world is almost unanimous in its verdict that Israel’s settlement expansions are illegal. The U.N. resolution merely affirms this. Sure, Obama could have vetoed it, but what difference would that make? Israel is already well under way in its complete disregard of the resolution. It is expanding the settlements, anyway. The Jewish state is still set to get its $38 billion worth of arms, they still have the Iron Dome defense system, and they still have nuclear weapons.

Further, Obama is well aware that in less than a month the United States is set to get a new president who is more than likely to provide unfaltering support for Israel. This resolution does nothing to stop that – if anything, it has only strengthened the reasoning behind Donald Trump’s approach to Israel.

If all of this amounts to the U.S.’ “abandonment” of Israel, perhaps the meaning of the word should be changed.

Let’s not forget that this is a country which is currently under investigation for war crimes, a fact that failed to give Obama pause when he pledged $38 billion in military aid.

There is only one group of people in that region who should feel abandoned.

This article (Has Obama Abandoned Israel? What You’re Not Being Told) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and

UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians

Israel is the target of at least 77 UN Resolutions
and the Palestinians are the target of 1.

Number of UN Resolutions Passed in CondemnationIsraelPalestinians0255075100

Category Israelis Palestinians
Israel 77
Palestinians 1

Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Donald Neff

Source: United Nations Security Council resolutions passed from 1955 through 1992 were detailed in Paul Findley’s book Deliberate Deceptions (1998, pages 192-4). Resolutions passed from 1993-2013 were accessed at

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-2013

  1. Resolution 106: “…‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”
  2. Resolution 111: “…‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”
  3. Resolution 127: “…‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”
  4. Resolution 162: “…‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”
  5. Resolution 171: “…determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”
  6. Resolution 228: “…‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”
  7. Resolution 237: “…‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”
  8. Resolution 248: “…‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”
  9. Resolution 250: “…‘calls on’ Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”
  10. Resolution 251: “…‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250”
  11. Resolution 252: “…‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”
  12. Resolution 256: “…‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”
  13. Resolution 259: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”
  14. Resolution 262: “…‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”
  15. Resolution 265: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”
  16. Resolution 267: “…‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”
  17. Resolution 270: “…‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”
  18. Resolution 271: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”
  19. Resolution 279: “…‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”
  20. Resolution 280: “….‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”
  21. Resolution 285: “…‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”
  22. Resolution 298: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”
  23. Resolution 313: “…‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”
  24. Resolution 316: “…‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”
  25. Resolution 317: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”
  26. Resolution 332: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”
  27. Resolution 337: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”
  28. Resolution 347: “…‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”
  29. Resolution 425: “…‘calls on’ Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
  30. Resolution 427: “…‘calls on’ Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
  31. Resolution 444: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”
  32. Resolution 446: “…‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
  33. Resolution 450: “…‘calls on’ Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”
  34. Resolution 452: “…‘calls on’ Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”
  35. Resolution 465: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”
  36. Resolution 467: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”
  37. Resolution 468: “…‘calls on’ Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”
  38. Resolution 469: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”
  39. Resolution 471: “…‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”
  40. Resolution 476: “…‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
  41. Resolution 478: “…‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
  42. Resolution 484: “…‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors”
  43. Resolution 487: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”
  44. Resolution 497: “…‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith”
  45. Resolution 498: “…‘calls on’ Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”
  46. Resolution 501: “…‘calls on’ Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”
  47. Resolution 509: “…‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”
  48. Resolution 515: “…‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”
  49. Resolution 517: “…‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”
  50. Resolution 518: “…‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”
  51. Resolution 520: “…‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”
  52. Resolution 573: “…‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
  53. Resolution 587: “…‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”
  54. Resolution 592: “…‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”
  55. Resolution 605: “…‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
  56. Resolution 607: “…‘calls on’ Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
  57. Resolution 608: “…‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”
  58. Resolution 636: “…‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
  59. Resolution 641: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
  60. Resolution 672: “…‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
  61. Resolution 673: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
  62. Resolution 681: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
  63. Resolution 694: “…‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
  64. Resolution 726: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
  65. Resolution 799: “…‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return
  66. Resolution 904: “…‘strongly condemns’ the massacre in Hebron and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others”
  67. Resolution 1073: “…‘calls for’ the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation, ‘calls for‘ the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured”
  68. Resolution 1322: “…‘condemns’ acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life”
  69. Resolution 1402: “…‘calls upon’ both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah”
  70. Resolution 1403: “…‘demands’ the implementation of its resolution 1402 (2002) without delay”
  71. Resolution 1405: “…‘emphasizes’ the urgency of access of medical and humanitarian organizations to the Palestinian civilian population”
  72. Resolution 1435: “…‘demands’ that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure”
  73. Resolution 1544: “…‘calls on’ Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law”
  74. Resolution 1860: “…‘calls for’ an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; ‘calls for‘ the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”
  75. Resolution 1937: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”
  76. Resolution 2004: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”
  77. Resolution 2064: “…‘urges’ the Government of Israel to expedite the withdrawal of its army from northern Ghajar without further delay”

UN Resolutions Against the Palestinians, 1955-2013

  1. Resolution 1435: “…‘calls on’ the Palestinian Authority to meet its expressed commitment to ensure that those responsible for terrorist acts are brought to justice by it”

The New York Times


Paula Greene, a retired nurse in Hollywood, Fla., said she believes a two-state solution is the best chance for a lasting peace in Israel. CreditScott McIntyre for The New York Times

For Rabbi Gerald Sussman of Temple Emanu-El on Staten Island, the Obama administration’s recent confrontation with Israel was a stunning turn for a president who had enjoyed support from many members of his congregation. “The word ‘betrayed’ would not be too strong a word,” he said.

But in Los Angeles, Rabbi John L. Rosove of Temple Israel of Hollywood, who is the chairman of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, felt differently. He applauded the speech delivered on Wednesday by Secretary of State John Kerry explaining the decision by the United States not to block a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemned the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Rabbi Rosove also suggested that many American Jews were broadly supportive of the Obama administration.

“I felt Kerry was exactly right,” he said. “The people who will criticize him will take a leap and say he’s anti-Israeli, just as some American Jews are saying Obama is an anti-Semite. This is ridiculous. They recognize and cherish the state of Israel.”

The relationship between Israel and the United States, historically the Jewish state’s closest ally, has seen periods of strain and tension almost from the day of Israel’s creation in 1948. But rarely has the situation between the two countries been this stressed, with President Obama under attack not only from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also from President-elect Donald J. Trump.

Continue reading the main story

The events of the past few days have renewed a longstanding debate over whether American Jews must always stand with the Israeli government, and under what circumstances should they criticize a friend.

“There’s a very clear values clash going on,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, a rabbinical human rights organization. “On the one hand, we have a small but vocal minority of American Jews who believe that supporting Israel means supporting the right-wing agenda, the current government. And on the other, there is a larger percentage of American Jews who are committed to Israel and committed to democracy and want to see it as a safe place that reflects our values.”

This is a community that is hardly monolithic. For one thing, younger Jews are seen as less likely to identify themselves as religious or supportive of Israel, and do not share memories of the Holocaust or the wars with Israel’s Arab neighbors. American Jews are also overwhelmingly Democratic; Jews voted for Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump, 71 percent to 24 percent, according to exit polls.

Yet the most influential and vocal organizations that represent Jews in Washington tend to be more conservative and supportive of Mr. Netanyahu, who has had a combative relationship with Mr. Obama, and has made little secret of his happiness over the changing of the guard that is about to take place in Washington.

Mr. Trump has signaled that his administration would upend the nation’s policies toward Israel, promoting rather than discouraging settlement construction and moving the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

“These days the right wing has a louder voice in Israel, and, in some ways, it also has a louder voice in America, because the people who are most actively and publicly Jewish, sectarian Jewish, share the right wing point of view, and are very pro-settlement,” said Samuel Heilman, a sociology professor of at Queens College specializing in Jewish life. “But it’s not the mainstream point of view.”


Members of a group called Jews United Against Zionism protested this week in New York in support of the Security Council resolution that condemned the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.CreditKena Betancur/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Steven M. Cohen, a research professor at Hebrew Union College and a consultant to a recent Pew study of American Jews, said that Mr. Kerry’s speech represents the viewpoints of most American Jews. “On survey after survey, American Jews are opposed to Jewish settlement expansion. They tend to favor a two-state solution and their political identities are liberal or moderate,” he said.

Some Jews said they thought Mr. Kerry’s speech, even if delivered in harsh terms, actually reaffirmed the best hope for a lasting peace in Israel: a two-state solution. “This administration has been pro-Israel,” said Paula Greene, 65, a retired nurse in Hollywood, Fla. “Like Kerry said, you can still be friends, still be allies and still have disagreements.”

But for others, even those who support a two-state solution and object to Israeli settlement policy, the decision by the United States not to shield Israel at the United Nations — which is widely viewed among many American Jews as hostile to Israel — was a mistake. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a Democrat with a large Jewish constituency, called the Security Council action unnecessary and inappropriate, adding: “I don’t think you can solve a problem with a friend by flogging them publicly.”

The Security Council’s 14-to-0 vote a week ago condemned Israel’s construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as a “flagrant violation under international law” and an obstacle to peace in the region. The United States chose to abstain rather than use its veto, as it has done in the past to quash resolutions it considered anti-Israel.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish movement in North America, said it was “a miscalculation in our minds. I think a majority of American Jews would agree, no matter how one feels about settlements, that the idea that the U.N. is an honest broker when it comes to Israel is laughable.”

For Shira Greenberg, a public school teacher in Florida, Mr. Obama’s rebuke of Mr. Netanyahu confirmed her worst assumptions about the president. “Throughout the whole Obama administration, people were trying to guess where he stood,” she said after morning services at her conservative synagogue on Thursday. “At this point, it’s pretty clear.”

And at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, a large and politically divided congregation, Rabbi David Wolpe said Mr. Obama had “pulled the rug out from under people who said the president’s intentions toward Israel was positive and strong.”

The public display of rancor is unsettling. “Nobody in the community can be happy when you have this public spat between the prime minister and the president, and the kind of language the prime minister has been using about the president,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, who has served as the United States ambassador to both Israel and Egypt.

David Zwiebel, the executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, which represents ultra-Orthodox Jews, said that there is a general sense among Orthodox Jews, who tend to be more conservative, “that the outgoing administration is outgoing and should be outgoing, and it’s time for an approach that is more openly supportive of Israel.”

For all the controversy created by the vote, few Jewish leaders think there is any chance that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama might, in the next three weeks, strike the deal that has eluded negotiators for years. That said, some supporters of a two-state solution applauded Mr. Kerry for trying.

“I think it’s a question of legacy,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, a liberal Jewish lobbying group. “And you have to have the long view on this issue. Donald Trump will be president for X years. And then there will be someone else and the chances are it will go back to where we are today. And Bibi will lose someday,” he said, referring to Mr. Netanyahu. “Someday down the line this is the way it’s got to go.”

The ‘Refugee’ Crisis and the Creation of Greater Israel

It has become increasingly obvious that the flood of refugees from the Middle East is serving the jewish agenda of creating Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). In case you are unfamiliar with the concept, Greater Israel is the vast tract of land supposedly promised to the Israelites by Yahweh, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.


Give the jews an inch and they will take a yard (or more).

Greater Israel is far larger than the current state of Israel, and since their current colonization efforts are being hotly contested, drastic events are needed to be able to roll over the indigenous Semites (Arabs) and install a new state.

ISIS, which previously stood for the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (aka the Mossad), has already conquered a decent chunk of Greater Israel.


ISIS is receiving funding, aid, weapons, training, and recruits from the United States, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Although there are some sensational stories coming out of the jewish press about an ISIS holocaust, the Islamic State has never had any intentions of attacking the jewish State. In fact, the military conflicts taking place in the Middle East, and in particular Syria, are all wrapped up in the plot to massively expand the boundaries of Israel. Saudi Arabia, which was founded by jews and is where Wahhabi ISIS originates, is already locked up, and Egypt has recently fallen into line, so only a few more loose ends need to be tied up.


It may not be too clear how the Islamic State fits together with the jewish State at first glance, but it is actually quite simple. I will break it down.

Here’s the plan:

  • COOMdnEUsAAnY18Get the native Muslim populations fleeing from Greater Israel by terrorizing them with US bombs, ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc.
  • Use jewish control over EU immigration policies to incentivize Arabs to move as far from Greater Israel as possible.
  • Create real and imagined scenarios in which jews living in Europe are persecuted by “anti-Semitic” Arabs (eg, Charlie Hebdo), and then encourage these scared jews to make “Aliyah” (move to Israel).
  • Show the atrocities of ISIS to the Western world through the jewish media and make it seem like foreign intervention in the region is an absolute necessity.
  • Encourage and fuel the clash of civilizations in all European countries, which inevitably results from the Arab deluge, and convince Europeans they should side with the progressive jews against the backward Muslims in a new crusade. Groups like the EDL were set up to do just this.
  • Use multiculturalism to weaken and inevitably destroy the European people through forced assimilation, taking out some of Israel’s biggest humanitarian critics and essentially the biggest threat to jewish hegemony.

So, as you can see, Israel benefits greatly from sending Arabs up to Northern Europe and scaring European jews into moving to Israel. It does not matter if all Arabs leave Greater Israel, as long as jews are in control.


Folks, this is how the Islamic State leads to a massive Israeli State.

For more information:

The West: Rewriting the Past


For Manlio Dinucci, the Western media’s coverage of the Berlin attack, as well as the wars in Libya and Syria, does not overly concern itself with established facts. What is happening is what the novelist George Orwell called “The Ministry of Truth”. Current affairs are broken up into small sequences, disconnected from each other so that they cannot be understood. This enables our governments to conceal their crimes.


JPEG - 35.7 kb

“The Berlin Massacre – why did the terrorist leave his documents behind?” The Corriere della Sera poses this question noting “peculiarities”. In order to answer this question, we need to peer into the recent past… but our memory of it has been completely wiped clean. [A new account] has been written by the “Ministry of Truth” which, thought up by George Orwell in his novel of political fiction, 1984, a critique of “Stalin totalitarianism” – has become a reality in “Western democracies”.

And so, the history reported in recent years is erased: the US/Nato war against Libya, decided, as the Clinton e-mails prove, to block Gaddafi’s plan to create an African currency as an alternative to the dollar and the Cfa Franc [1]; the war, launched by a covert operation authorized by President Obama, financing and arming groups of Islamists (including the nucleus of the future Isis) that previously were defined as terrorists. Then resupplied with arms through a CIA network (as the New York Times reported in March 2013) [2] when after contributing to bringing down Gaddafi, they passed into Syria in 2011 to topple Assad and then to attack Iraq (at the very moment that the al Maliki government was distancing itself from the West and drawing closer to Moscow and Peking) [3].

Deleted: the Pentagon’s Intelligence Agency document (dated 12 August 2012, destroyed on 18 May 2015) [4] affirming that “in Syria, the Western states, the Gulf States and Turkey support the forces that are trying to contain the Western areas” and, to this end, there is “the possibility of establishing a Saliph principality in Eastern Syria”.

Erased – the photographic documentation of the US Senator John Mc Cain, who when he was representing the White House on mission in Syria, meets Ibrahim al-Badri, the “caliph” at the head of Isis, in May 2013. [5]

At the same time, inspiring to Orwellian “newspeak”, the media-political language is adapted to the case at hand: terrorists are defined as such only when they serve to terrorize the Western public opinion so that it supports the US/Nato strategy. [Similarly], terrorists are defined as “opposition fighters” or “rebels” while they massacre civilians in Syria.

Using the “newspeak” of images, the tragic condition of Aleppo’s people is kept away from our eyes; Aleppo occupied by terrorist squads supported by the West, but when the Syrian forces supported by Russia begin to liberate the city, we are shown the “torture in Aleppo” everyday.

Yet out of our mind’s eye is kept the capture by the government forces, on December 16, of a command of the “Coalition for Syria”. [The latter] is formed by officials of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and Morocco – that from a bunker in East Aleppo used to coordinate terrorists in Al Nusra and elsewhere. [6]

It is against this backdrop that one may respond to the question raised in the Corriere della Sera: how, as has already happened in the Charlie Hebdo massacre and others, the terrorists forget or intentionally leave behind an identity document to be immediately identified and killed.

In Berlin, other “peculiarities” are observed: on searching the lorry immediately after the massacre, the police and secret services fail to notice that under the driver’s seat is the document of the Tunisian together with a stack of photos. Then they arrest a Pakistani, whom they release the following day for lack of evidence. At this point, one agent, with considerable expertise, is going to look under the driver’s seat where he discovers the identity document of the terrorist. Intercepted quite by chance in the middle of the night and killed by a patrol at the station of Sesto, a kilometre away from where he left the Polish lorry used for the massacre.

All documented by the “Truth Ministry”.

Anoosha Boralessa

Il Manifesto (Italy)

EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group’s plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia

(EI illustration)

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a “war” on Wikipedia.

A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a “Senior Research Analyst” at CAMERA, calls for “volunteers who can work as ‘editors’ to ensure” that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are “free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context.” However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel’s true history.

With over two million articles in English on every topic imaginable, Wikipedia has become a primary reference source for Internet users around the world and a model for collaboratively produced projects. Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia’s core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective. The CAMERA plan detailed in the e-mails obtained by EI appears intended to circumvent these controls.

In the past, CAMERA has gained notoriety for its tactic of accusing virtually anyone who does not toe a right-wing pro-Israel line of bias. The group has even accused editors and reporters of the Israeli daily Haaretz of being “extreme” and participating in “radical anti-Israel activity.” Jeffrey Dvorkin, the former ombudsman of National Public Radio (NPR), frequently criticized by CAMERA for an alleged pro-Palestinian bias, wrote on the web publication Salon in February 2008 that “as a consequence of its campaign against NPR, CAMERA acted as the enabler for some seriously disturbed people,” citing persistent telephone threats he received in the wake of CAMERA campaigns.

Need for stealth and secrecy

Download CAMERA’s emails [PDF – 2.7 MB]

Throughout the documents EI obtained, CAMERA operatives stress the need for stealth and secrecy. In his initial action alert, Ini requests that recipients “not forward it to members of the news media.” In a 17 March follow-up email sent to volunteers, Ini explains that he wants to make the orchestrated effort appear to be the work of unaffiliated individuals. Thus he advises that “There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions.”

Anticipating possible objections to CAMERA’s scheme, Ini conjectures that “Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a ‘Zionist’ cabal (the same one that controls the banks and Hollywood?) is trying to hijack Wikipedia.”

But stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success. Ini suggests that after volunteers sign up as editors for Wikipedia they should “avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time.” This strategy is intended to “avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors,” thus attracting unwanted attention.

Ini counsels that volunteers “might also want to avoid, for obvious reasons, picking a user name that marks you as pro-Israel, or that lets people know your real name.” To further conceal the identity of CAMERA-organized editors, Ini warns, “don’t forget to always log in before making [edits]. If you make changes while not logged in, Wikipedia will record your computer’s IP address” – a number that allows identification of the location of a computer connected to the Internet.

A veteran Wikipedia editor, known as “Zeq,” who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, “You don’t want to be precived [sic] as a ‘CAMERA’ defender’ on wikipedia [sic] that is for sure.” One strategy to avoid that is to “edit articles at random, make friends not enemies – we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint.”

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, “Jayjg,” whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing “it would place him in a bind” since “[h]e is very loyal to the wikipedia [sic] system” and might object to CAMERA’s underhanded tactics.

“Uninvolved administrators”

The emphasis on secrecy is apparently not only to aid the undetected editing of articles, but also to facilitate CAMERA’s takeover of key administrator positions in Wikipedia.

For Zeq a key goal is to have CAMERA operatives elected as administrators – senior editors who can override the decisions of others when controversies arise. When disputes arise about hotly contested topics, such as Israel and Palestine, often only an “uninvolved administrator” – one who is considered neutral because he or she has not edited or written articles on the topic – can arbitrate.

Hence, Zeq advises in a 21 March email that “One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator.”

Once these CAMERA operatives have successfully infiltrated as “neutral” editors, they could then exercise their privileges to assert their own political agenda.

In addition, Zeq suggests making deliberately provocative edits to Palestine-related articles. He hopes that editors he assumes are Palestinian will delete these changes, and then CAMERA operatives could report them to administrators so they could be sanctioned and have their editing privileges suspended.

Passing propaganda as fact

Gilead Ini’s 17 March email provides specific advice on how to pass off pro-Israel propaganda or opinion as fact meeting Wikipedia’s strict guidelines:

“So, for example, imagine that you get rid of or modify a problematic sentence in an article alleging that ‘Palestinian [sic] become suicide bombers to respond to Israel’s oppressive policies.’ You should, in parallel leave a comment on that article’s discussion page (either after or before making the change). Avoid defending the edit by arguing that ‘Israel’s policies aren’t ‘oppression,’ they are defensive. And anyway Palestinians obviously become suicide bombers for other reasons for example hate education!’ Instead, describe how this sentence violates Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. One of the core principles is that assertions should adhere to a Neutral Point of View, usually abbreviated NPOV. (The opposite of NPOV is POV, or Point of View, which is basically another way of saying subjective statement, or opinion.) So it would be best to note on the discussion page that ‘This sentence violates Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, since the description of Israel’s policies as ‘oppressive’ is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society …’”

In fact, there have been numerous studies debunking claims about Palestinian “hate education,” or “glorification of martyrdom” causing suicide bombings (such as Dying to Win by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape) though this claim remains a favorite canard of pro-Israel activists seeking to distract attention from the effects of Israel’s occupation and other well-documented and systematic human rights abuses in fueling violence.

Zeq specifically names articles targeted for this kind of treatment including those on the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Hamas, Hizballah, Arab citizens of Israel, anti-Zionism, al-Nakba, the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian right of return.

Interestingly the CAMERA editors also target the article on the early Islamic period concept of Dhimmi, a protected status for non-Muslims which historically allowed Jews to thrive in Muslim-ruled lands while other Jews were being persecuted in Christian Europe. Pro-Israel activists have often tried to portray the concept of Dhimmi as akin to the Nuremberg laws in order to denigrate Muslim culture and justify ahistorical Zionist claims that Jews could never live safely in majority Muslim countries.

Also among the emails is a discussion about how to alter the article on the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the village of Deir Yassin by Zionist militiamen on 9 April 1948. Unable to debunk the facts of the massacre outright, the CAMERA activists hunt for quotes from “reputable historians” who can cast doubt on it. Their strategy is not dissimilar from those who attempt to present evolution, or global climate change as “controversial” regardless of the weight of the scientific evidence, simply because the facts do not accord with their belief system.

Zeq has already made extensive edits to the Wikipedia article on Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist murdered by an Israeli soldier in the occupied Gaza Strip on 16 March 2003. As a result of these and other edits Zeq has himself been a controversial figure among Wikipedia editors, suggesting his own stealth tactics may not be working.

“We will go to war”

Zeq, however, counsels CAMERA operatives to be patient and lie low until they build up their strength. “We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it trained [sic],” he wrote on 9 April. “So please if you want to win this war help us build ou[r] army. let’s not just rush in and achieve nothing, or abit more than nothing [sic].”

Update 22 April 2008

Download additionalCAMERAemails [PDF – 1 MB]

A plan by the pro-Israel pressure group CAMERA to skew the online encyclopedia Wikipedia in a pro-Israel direction appears to have collapsed after it was exposed by EI.

On 21 April, EI published emails and action alerts posted by CAMERA staff and collaborators on a closed listserv instructing would-be editors how to game the Wikipedia system so they could impose their hard-line pro-Israel agenda undetected.

Following EI’s report, Gilead Ini a CAMERA staffer and Wikipedia editor informed members of the group that, “Because member of this group [sic] affiliated with the anti-Israel propaganda cite [sic] Electronic Intifada decided to share the content of our discussions, I will be temporarily or permanently closing access to the group, in hopes that members’ personal contact information will not be made public.”

Meanwhile, Wikipedia administrators issued a ban on Zeq, the editor who was helping CAMERA to groom new editors to subvert Wikipedia’s quality control process. Zeq has been prohibited from editing Israel-Palestine related articles and administrators were debating further action. Based on the evidence in the emails released by EI, Wikipedia administrators accused Zeq of violating fundamental Wikipedia principles and guidelines. In response, Zeq alleged that the accusations were merely the result of a “conspiracy” which he termed “The (e-mail) protocols of the elder of CAMERA [sic].” Zeq even alleged that The EI itself “may have created the story or created the group or spoofed e-mails.”

Today EI publishes additional emails that further expose the CAMERA plan. These emails also reveal that while Zeq is willing to accuse others of prejudice he may hold some himself. In one email he commends an editor whom he considers to be “anti-Islamic.” And, in an echo of the kind of anti-Semitic thinking that CAMERA sees everywhere, Zeq alleges that “the other side” – an apparent reference to Palestinians and Muslims – “is orgenized well, they control wkipedia [sic].”

Information obtained by EI indicates that while Gilead Ini claimed that more than 50 volunteers had come forward to participate in CAMERA’s plan, and the group had set its sights on creating dozens of new editors and administrators over a long period of time, fewer than a dozen were active at the time EI exposed the scheme. Because the effort was apparently in its early stages, only a handful had become active as Wikipedia editors.

Sayanim at work.

Copy of a page from, freely available on Internet, in the public domain. I’m sure they won’t mind my copy here; they claim to have come under Internet attack and to have been almost destroyed by hackers, so here’s a copy, I hope secure, of just one page. It is unaltered, apart from removing pleas for money, advertisements, simple pictures, and other junk. Dated 2013; gives a fascinating, but depressing, picture of how Jewish liars view themselves and view the goyim. Study the mutually-interlinked systems of lies, fake history, fake emotions, and simple deception systems.

I’ve left original links to the site unchanged; they may or may work: they may be removed, edited, or completely changed. Please bear in mind that vast atrocities, wars, cruelties, frauds and deception have been carried out by these simple-minded group-obsessed psychopaths and their ancestors.

Hasbara (I’m told) means something like ‘explanation’: imagine an entry in an Israeli encyclopedia, for example, or in Jewish media. Hasbarat seems to be the plural.
Sayanim (I’m told) means something like ‘helpers’ and is a collective noun for the people engaged in putting out their hasbarat lies.

Sceptics/ skeptics who find this hard to believe might like this View inside Jewish Wikipedia on English-language Metapedia, which has detailed accounts of Wikipedia’s funding origin (by porn), methods of editing, ‘rouge [rogue] admins’, and resulting quality of content.

–Rerevisionist.         [ ]

IDC comment war room (Photo: Oren Kochavi)
IDC comment war room (Photo: Oren Kochavi)

BUT before all that, here’s an overview of how a few thousand jews can ruin a country.
From Goran Lind, in facebook:
What Is A Sayanim ?
The Sayanim is any Jewish person, that can be called on to assist another Jew in any cause. Since birth, the Jewish people have been taught of their superiority… and need for cohesion. The Sephardic Jews are the upper level of the race, and the Ashkenazim, which constitute 95% of all Jews, are the worker parasites of the race. Since the Sephardics first converted the AshkeNAZI, they brainwashed them into the idea that the world is their enemy and their fellow Jew is a “Quiet Guardian”.Who Is A Sayanim?
Every Jewish person is expected to be a potential agent (spy/sayanim), in varying degrees.

What Will They Do?
If the Jewish people sense a potential threat, the Jewish Sayanim is authorized to commit anything from simple harassment to business ruin, and even multiple murders. The Columbine Massacre was a perfect example. The police knew there were seven people involved, but five students, two sets of parents, one employer and psychiatrists, provided alibis and corrupted evidence.

Your Jewish accountant will relay any private bookkeeping info to a Jewish competitor, your friendly Jewish pharmacist will assist your Jewish doctor to poison you, a clerk at VISA will supply your private credit information to anyone, the list is endless.

Sayanim Indoctrination Starts At Childhood:
Family Life:
Jewish children rarely are allowed to play with the gentiles. Around the house the child is constantly bombarded with the word Goy.

(goyim means cattle/animals), relates to menial occupations. The family maid, nannies, gardener, plumber, etc are referred to as “The Goy or goyim”.

Grammar School:
A public Jewish school will receive grants, and the best teachers are put in the district. 6th graders at these “Magnet schools” are the equivalent of an 8th grader at a normal school. Jewish kid’s will always be eligible for the “Gifted Programs”. Exceptional Jewish children are turned over to the Rabbi for future guidance.

High School:
In heavily Jewish communities the public schools will always have a “Gifted program”. For those with the resources, they will attend exclusive schools.

Colleges & Universities:
Here is the big payoff. Entrance into the finest schools is assured. All the larger Universities have Sayanims placed in key locations from the Dean to the Admission Officers, to the loans, and the scholarship personnel. Societies, such as Hillel, will shepherd a young Jew throughout his college career.

Jewish professors will always favor the Jewish student. Jewish students make up 30% of the Ivy League, which they credit to their extraordinary IQ’s, which is a myth. Law schools, such as Yale, can have an enrollment of 60% +.

Business World:
In any Jewish controlled company, a Jew is given first preference in job interviews. If a Jew is a businessman, he gets preferential treatment on contracts where another Jewish person is involved. Getting a bank loan is a cinch if he is a Jew.

Jews have lined all government’s offices around the planet with their people. (parasitic infestations) ! Student loans get erased if they are a Jew or Jewess. A non-Jew business competitor can have a regulatory agency put on him by these parasites. The Judicial is 40% Jewish and another 35% are minorities they control.

So What Is Expected Of A Sayanim?
The standard Sayanim routine is basically favoring other Jews in ordinary transactions, but the sayanim can be called on to protect any criminal enterprise. From the traffic court Judge to an Appellate Judge – fellow sayanims receive special treatment. The special Sayanim (200,000 of them worldwide but there are probably a lot more now) will be expected to cooperate in any Israeli Mossad (Israel’s Secret Service) enterprise including murder, sabotage and any form of Fifth Column activity (does 9/11 ring a bell?). A division of the Mossad ( Katsas) keeps records, and stays in active contact with this group, the Mossad.

The Sayanim (sleeping cells who spy/act for Mossad in the host nation they live in, sometimes pretending to be Christians, Moslems, Israelites, etc.)

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists”. J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The Elks Magazine (August 1956).

“All Jews are provocateurs in Peacetime, saboteurs in Wartime, and subversives all the time.” 24 December at 04:05

September 19, 2013
Online battle for Israel’s hasbara
Comment posted, damage done
By Eyal Lehmann, YNET

Internet pages are fighting ring where Israel supporters try to ward off millions of pro-Palestinian posters. In hectic, viral world of talkbacks, every photo is replied, every reply is commented on, every comment has minute-long shelf life before it is challenged by rivals

On July 11, the Middle East made headlines in Italy again. Not one missile fell in Israeli territory, nor was a terrorist killed in Gaza. Still, for 24 hours, one feature did not escape the headlines on the La Repubblica website, one of the two most popular news sources in the country: “Israeli soldiers,” the website reported with a video, “arrested a five-year-old Palestinian boy in the West Bank for throwing rocks.” The IDF maintained that the boy was merely detained and then released back to his parents, but many Italian surfers saw enough to unholster.

“They should be annihilated,” surfer Fabrizio posted on the La Repubblica Facebook page, which attracts over 1.2 million readers. “Hitler should come back and destroy you, dirty fascists,” surfer Salvino added. Surfer Fabio posted “Israelis are doing to the Palestinians what the Germans did to them,” while surfer Terry posted a response reading “these are the Nazis of the third millennium, but because they have money and American friends, the Palestinians are the ones seen as terrorists.” A particularly active poster named Viviana wrote: “Israel is a murderous country! It’s committing an unprecedented ethnic cleansing! Poor Palestinians.”

Some 600 comments pile on the website; bold, poisonous, at times succinct and often not. Suddenly, someone raises a challenge. “What are you talking about?” Ehud wards off Viviana in fluent Italian. “Ethnic cleansing? Daily injury of women and children? Do you have proof or are you just firing slander? Remember reality is not black and white, and that one must always study things before taking such a stark stand.” A Palestinian named Mussa replies: “Ehud, why doesn’t Israel restore the ’67 lines instead of building in settlements, considering Palestinians have acknowledged its existence? Under what right did Israel take away my country?”

“Mussa,” Ehud replies politely, “before we can talk about borders, one real development must occur—the realization of both nations that the country will have to be shared. I’m afraid that realization has not yet taken place. Hamas crying out against Israel’s existence and Israel building new settlements both testify to that.”

Ehud Assoulin is a 26-year-old from Ramat Hasharon who has been living and studying in Rome for the past four years. “I started posting comments in Italian for Israel during Operation Cast Lead,” he said, “when Italian media was turbulent, and I saw an array of media distortions and prejudice about Israel. It made me angry on the simplest and most moral level and I felt that I couldn’t stay indifferent.”

Since then, unusual news regarding Israel set him at the computer screen: “My goal is to make Italians think and go past the ordinary and simplistic patters they are mostly captive in, to make them realize that in reality things are much more complex.”

Assoulin is one of many Israelis, Jews and Zionists abroad who take part in the most informal and quiet hasbara war in recent years: The war of comment posters.

Dubbed “Talkbacks” in Hebrew, comments first appeared in the bottom of news websites, where they were carefully screened for swear words and racism, but recently they’ve wandered to the news Facbook pages, which attracts hundreds of thousands if not millions of followers. There, under a full name and without masks, anything goes.

Now, in the Israeli-Palestinian battle for world opinion, comments are an unusual battlefield: They are the only arena in virtual space that creates a direct, real-time and active conflict between Israel’s supporters and its opponents. Here, cleaver illustrations of missiles or a screen caption of a mother shielding her children from missiles will not do; in the neurotic world of talkbacks, every photo has a reply, every reply has a comment, and every comment has a minute-long shelf life before it too is debunked by rivals. Which truth will eventually win – the Israeli one or the Palestinian one? Much of it depends on comment posters’ perseverance and their devotion to the battle of the minds.

4% write, 30% read

Dr. Tzvi Reich from the Department of Communication in Ben-Gurion University took part in a thorough international study where Internet surfing and comment posting habits were studied on 24 leading news websites in the world, from the US to France, from Germany to Estonia. He said the comment posters’ ability to control discourse compared to their size in the population is simply enormous. Studies in the world and in Israel, he said, show that only 4%-7% of news website surfers post comments, and a much larger percent reads them: 30%-40% of surfers.

“A small group of comment posters who are skilled and devoted can monopolize an article, such as a political item in Israel, and appear as a majority, or at least larger than it is,” he said. It is clear to him that comments posted on news websites have psychological effects as well: “A surfer can read a comment on an article and understand they’re in the minority and feel bad about it, like they’re on the wrong side.”

That is the exact reason why some try to show surfers “the right side”. Avishai Bitton, a 24-year-old student from Rishon Lezion, is another Israeli web warrior. As a child, he came to Israel from New York, where he lived right across from the UN Headquarters. During his military service, a while after the operation in Gaza in 2009, he went to visit family in the US and passed by a pro-Palestinian rally in the Big Apple. The chasm between the signs reading “Israel is a murderer” and his experiences as a soldier in the most moral army in the world, as he continuously calls it, jolted him. Since then, he has been there: Morning, noon, night, whenever is needed. Coffee on the table, laptop in his hands, looking for virtual battles around the world.

“There isn’t a day when I don’t visit an international news website,” he says. “Some days the world is merciful and focuses on Syria and I can sleep. But you find yourself awake at night, and it’s not just due to empathizing with the State, it’s because of wanting justice. You write ten lines in a comment just so you can go to bed at night and say, ‘I did what I could, I showed the other side of the story as much as possible.’ There were days when I spent 12-14 hours in front of news site. I got up in the morning, I sat at the computer; and only went to sleep when I could no longer write.”

Comment posters, he knows well, are cruel. Next to legitimate criticism about Israel, in the bottom of the world’s news websites, he and his peers have seen the most blatant of lies. When surfers see a Palestinian’s body, they start chanting lies: That the Israelis drink Arabs’ blood and rape women at checkpoints.

They share experiences from their latest visit to the Gaza Strip and talk about Israeli soldiers who torture children for fun while drinking and laughing. It is unclear how many of them know that other than in special operations, there have been no Israeli soldiers in Gaza for eight years. It does not matter: Comment posted, damage done. Bitton tries to beat them with words and images: Strives to expose hasbara lies by the other side, prove commenters’ ignorance, and raise questions that could dent their absolute faith.

“When you’re fluent in a language and know local customs, it gives you another perspective,” he said. “Surfers think, here is a person who is from my country and is out there and telling us what he’s experienced. Knowing Americans, for example, I don’t comment on a news item the same on the Republican Fox News website as I do on the liberal CNN website. I can appeal to emotion on Fox News since its surfers are predisposed to support Israel, CNN’s liberal readers need more logic and data. They want to know how and why; you have to show them less familiar angles.”

‘Like teaching cows to read’

The comment war suggests that maybe we do not suffer from a persecution complex; that maybe Israel is covered not proportionally to its size. Dr. Reich said that editors of news websites around the globe who took part in his study all said one issue makes their comment system spin more than any other: “Editors all over the world, from the Washington Post, from the Guardian, from Die Welt, from La Figaro, all talk about an influx of comments on any item related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“In the comments for any item, the discourse deteriorates to hate speech. Website editors described the experiences saying,’you posted an item about the Mideast? You won’t get any sleep.’ They map out organized pro-Palestinian and Palestinian communities on one side, and pro-Jewish or Jewish communities on the other, that fight between them and ravage any new item published.”

But Israelis and Jewish communities in the Diaspora are not alone in the fight. “The majority of the people writing pro-Israel talkbacks are not Jewish,” said Philip Fabian, a 32-year-old German from Berlin. “I never started to write pro-Israeli talkbacks consciously. I am a classic news-junkie, and the internet contributed a lot in developing my political conscience, starting in the post 9/11 world and the Intifada of the last decade. It made me realize the obvious shortcomings of mainstream media news outlets, especially when it comes to Israel.”

The experience he describes sounds thoroughly Israeli: “With many people, after discussing and repeating the same things again and again, you realize that you are in a loop with no way out, and you know that trying to explain Israel or anti-Semitism to them is like trying to teach a cow how to read. But sometimes, you realize some people start to change bit by bit, because they admit to themselves that you are right in some points, or because they get a point of view on things that they haven’t encountered before.”

His comment activism came at a cost: “At times, the urge to argue about Israel was very strong, and it became an extremely time-consuming activity,” he said. “I wouldn’t let go of an online argument, even late at night or even during work time, and I lost a few friends who thought I was obsessed, but I don’t regret it. Advocating for Israel introduced me to new friends.”

The most skilled comment posters know to characterize other comment posters according to their land, and describe Latin America as one of the most problematic zones for Israel: “There’s a horrible knowledge base there,” a senior comment poster said, “Sometimes people write about Israel like they used to talk about the world being flat, showing false data and ‘facts’ that make us cry and laugh simultaneously.”

Trying to set the record straight is Nissim Tarrab, a 20-year-old fromVenezuela who is studying for his bachelor in communication in Israel. Every day he logs on to the biggest Spanish news sites: From papers of his own country, to the Argentinean Clarin and the Spanish El Pais.

“There have been a lot of changes in Latin America recently, and common financial interests with Arab countries cause South American countries to side with the Palestinians,” he said. “From there it sometimes looks like Israel is a dictatorship where Arabs have no rights. I read the news in Spanish every day, and when I find a story that sheds a negative and unjustified light on Israel, I’m moved to clarify the situation based on facts.

“It’s often frustrating, and some comment posters are not worth the debate. We got used to anti-Semitic remarks glorifying Hitler and denying the holocaust, but I’ll never forget seeing comment posters who justified the Fogel family massacre, who said that Palestinians experience that everyday. I was shocked, I couldn’t understand it.”

A lost cause in the comment war is the Arab arena, but even there, it turns out, there are those who maintain the wellbeing of Zionism. A few Arab Israelis who were part of hasbara efforts during various wars refused to be interviewed, but young Saudi Hussein, resident of Riyadh, is proud of his work. He started posting comments supporting Israel four years ago.

“I admit that I used to hate Israel because of the propaganda in the Arab and Muslim world,” he said, “And I even thought any dialogue with Israelis is treason. But as time passed, my opinions changed, and the Israelis I talk to helped me see the facts.” Hussein saves Israel’s face on Arab websites and on Facebook. More than once, he said, he has received hateful comments from extreme Islamists, as he calls them, who were enraged about his support of Israel’s existence and about negative comments he made regarding Hamas and Hezbollah.

“I write that I’m a good friend of Israel and Israelis and I’m proud of it,” Hussein said. His Saudi friends are aware of his odd hobby, and he said some support him and some do not care. He is not afraid of the Saudi regime, either: “I know the red lines in my country. If you attack religious symbols like Muhammad, you’re in trouble, but if you praise Israel – there’s nothing to worry about. Many Saudis support peace with Israel, and many famous Saudi individuals, like the manager of Al-Arabiya, said wonderful things about it without anything happening.”

Hussein’s work, naturally, is especially difficult: “Lies in the Arab media are many and big, and anything negative relates to Israel. The latest lie is of course by Assad supporters, who accuse Israel of aiding Jihadists in Syria. To those who call Israel a criminal I explain that Arabs in Israel live a much better life than Arabs in Egypt,Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, and that Israel is a democratic country that doesn’t discriminate. I emphasize that Israel must blockade Gaza to protect itself from terror organizations, and that food and medicine are always being sent to the Gaza Strip.”

But it works the other way, as well. The Israeli army of comment posters is made up of idealists driven by a sense of calling who want to prove the world wrong, but some of them say they themselves sometimes are faced with complex reality, and enemy comments seed doubts in them. Some incidents are hard to justify, some killing is avoidable, and sometimes they too are convinced that Israelis can do more for peace.

“I’m generally very convicted of the importance of Zionist work,” said Assoulin, “So there isn’t a comment poster who made me question the idea that Israel is based on, but such massive exposure to opposite opinions has made me see the reality in a more balanced way. I also don’t rush to justify everything Israel does. When soldiers in the West Bank detained the five-year-old, I clarified in my comments that I think the soldiers were wrong, and focused on explaining the context, the fact that what happened was a detainment and a slap on the wrist, not an arrest, and that it’s not a game of good vs. bad.” Many comment posters also say that the building in the settlements is an action they find difficult to explain.

Copy-paste hatred

The most successful attempt to raise an army of comment posters was during Operation Cast Lead, when the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya started a round-the-clock “war room”, where 1,600 multilingual students, mostly foreign students who were studying in Israel at the time, commented on major news websites. Three teams focused on posting comments to websites in 34 languages and 61 countries, and reached, they estimate, 20 million computer screens. Other than comments in English, Spanish and Russian, they made sure to leave pro-Israeli comments on websites in Georgia, Turkey, South Korea and other arenas not considered “classic”, all in the country’s native tongue.

Avishai Bitton at IDC online comments war room
Avishai Bitton at IDC online comments war room

“The idea we worked by was that we are not official representatives of the country, but simple people writing about our personal feelings living under fire, and that’s how we achieved what we did,” said Yarden Ben-Yosef, who started the war room. “I remember that on a news site in Denmark, comment posters promoted an anti-Israeli protest, and our posters developed a dialogue with them and showed them, in Danish, the Hamas Charter that calls to destroy Israel and links to Hamas summer camps that teach Palestinian children hate. Remarkably, a comment poster who was so active in promoting the protest suddenly admitted he never saw those things before.”

The problem is, comment posters say, that on regular, days Israel doesn’t hold an army of commenters. During a military operation, a force like that may be started ad hoc, but the comment war is a long-term war and it is daily events—from the killing of terrorists depicted as innocent citizens to releasing Palestinian murderers depicted as “political prisoners”—that keep it in motion. World opinion, therefore, continues to form in the war between the wars.

IDC comment war room (Photo: Oren Kochavi)
IDC comment war room (Photo: Oren Kochavi)
Firing online comments in 34 languages to 61 countries (Photo: Oren Kochavi)
Firing online comments in 34 languages to 61 countries (Photo: Oren Kochavi)

Four years ago, it was said that the Foreign Ministry was starting a division of paid comment posters to increase Israeli presence online, but the idea never took off. The Foreign Ministry explained that not only questions of cost went into the process, but questions of morals and reliability. A country that pays people, regardless of their opinion, to market it to the world, guised as independent surfers, is playing a very dangerous game.

“Even in the hasbara war, not all means are ‘kosher’, let alone if we consider ourselves to be the good side,” said Foreign Ministry’s Department of Digital Diplomacy Director Yoram Morad. “I’ve heard of programs that can flood pages with pro-Israeli messages, we could open fictitious profiles, but beyond the fact that such deceit is easily exposed these days—it’s just not the way.” Although comments are the only arena of direct conflict, the Foreign Ministry believes they are of less importance than viral posts on Facebook and Twitter or presence in the radio, television and printed press.

The keyboard fighters attest almost unanimously that in the visibility fight on comment pages, the Israeli defeat is absolute; according to numbers alone, we are David all over again, and the Arabs – Goliath. Israel is a melting pot with a huge potential of bilingual and multilingual comment posters, but in certain countries in the world, blue-and-white comments that question the news report itself or the comments on it, are mere isles in a sea of pro-Palestinian reproach.

Yarden Ben-Yosef said that in this war, numbers matter as much as words. “Even if the most intelligent writer writes a comment rich with data and historical facts, no one will read it because it’s too long. Ten pro-Palestinian comments that simply say “murderers” or another emotional word will win the battle for the readers hearts and on public opinion, and we should strive to balance the playing field, numbers-wise.”

Avishai Bitton disagrees with him. He calls those comments “copy-paste hatred” and in that game, if you ask him, we lost before the starting shot was even fired. A billion and a half Muslims sprinkled with anti-Israeli European sentiment leave no room for several dozens of millions of Israel-supporting Jews and Christians. “I don’t deny the fact that when the layman reader sees that about 90% of comments slander Israel they tend to adopt the position, but I think we shouldn’t focus on those readers, since it’s a lost cause. We should focus on intelligent readers who are genuinely interested in the conflict, who in 10 or 20 years will be leaders in their countries. It’s better to lose a thousand students on a campus in the US but gain the sympathy of one honors student of international relations, the one who will one day be a UN diplomat and have much more impact on our fate.”

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem believes that institutional focus on comments is unrealistic, and the strategy of “pressure on the whole field” (investing in relations with pro-Israeli organizations, universities and key communities abroad) is the right way to create meaningful hasbara leverage, which will vicariously move the wheels of pro-Israeli comment posts. Until then, they’re relying heavily on independent initiative.

“We won’t find four million state workers who will post comments,” said Morad, “and that’s why Israelis need to understand that in that area, things depend on them much more than on the government. We can each do something, even if it’s educating two surfers, and the ministry’s job is to make sure there are no Israelis who wish to join the effort and find they have no one to turn to for tools and information.”

Roi Kais contributed to this report

-| ]


Dr. Mads Gilbert documented Israel’s crimes in Gaza

Mads Gilbert
Short url


Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor specialized in anesthesiology and emergency medicine, has revealed a number of crimes committed by the Israeli occupation against the Gaza Strip during its four wars against the coastal enclave.

Gilbert, 69, said during an interview with Anadolu News Agency that he pledged to help the needy and weak, and therefore decided to travel from one country to another to support the Palestinians, asserting that he was with the Palestinians in Beirut during the Israeli invasion in 1982 and was with them in Gaza during the years of 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2014.

The Norwegian doctor gave his testimony to what he witnessed, noting that Israel “does not change. They besiege Gaza now as they did besiege Beirut 34 years ago and prevented basic life needs from entering the city, before they started the bombings and assassinations.”

Bombing of Hospitals and Ambulances
Gilbert still remembers some details that media outlets did not speak about during the Gaza wars. He stressed that he saw how the Israeli occupation forces targeted hospitals, ambulances, killing doctors and medics, in an attempt to spread fear among the people so that they would stop defending their rights.

These attacks were intentional, he asserted. The Norwegian doctor can’t find a justification for why Israel targeted 47 ambulances during the 2014 Gaza war, noting, “Israelis know that what they are doing violates international laws and conventions, but they enjoy impunity and they always escape punishment.” This pushed Israel to bar him from entering Gaza under “security claims,” he underlined.

He feels strange that Israel justifies the killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza because of weapons Hamas stores among civilians. According to him, this is “A stupid and a false claim. Weapons were not at schools targeted by Israel. Nor were they at hospitals and mosques, nor were they at thousands of houses destroyed on the head of their inhabitants.”

He believes that if the Israeli army wanted to kill fighters, it would have opened the borders and allowed civilians to leave, but the truth is that Israel and its US ally see in Gaza a fertile land to test new weapons to be sold to the world.

Harvesting Innocent Lives
Gilbert, who worked at Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war on Gaza, feels sorry for the situation at Gaza’s hospitals. According to him, “The situation in Gaza’s hospitals after 10 years of siege and starvation can’t be imagined. They do not have basic surgery tools nor basic medicines, it is a humanitarian disaster that should end soon.”

In addition to his media talk about Gaza, he published a book about the last Israeli war on Gaza in 2014, in which he says Israel is harvesting the lives that doctors in Gaza work to save. “That’s why I published a book titled A Night in Gaza, in which I document the Israeli crimes during the 2014 war minute by minute and by providing photo illustrations.”

Dr. Gilbert, who has been an ardent supporter of Palestine since the 70s of the last century, continues, “After Israel doubled the weight of bombs used against Gaza five times in 2014 compared to 2009, meaning 502 tons of explosives, I can’t forget Palestinians arriving to hospitals headless, torn into pieces, and suffering from burns in the head, face and all over their bodies.”

Documenting this war was not limited to this book, he says. “I also mentioned that in my report which I wrote for the United Nations, in which I documented the impact of the devastating siege and the lack of adequate living conditions, and what Gaza has turned into due to the successive Israeli wars.”

Story of Steadfastness
“Despite Israel’s destruction of infrastructure, such as the power plant, and water tanks and buildings, during its 51-day offensive,” He said, “What draws most of the attention is the resoluteness and solidarity of the Palestinians, where the entire people serves as one family to save the lives and to heal the wounds, therefore I am committed to answering the call of duty of Palestine at any time. This is a life commitment,” he underscored.

Gilbert is celebrated in many places for his efforts to save the Palestinians and for being next to them at crucial times. He, however, does not see himself a hero, stressing, “The real heroes are the steadfast people of Gaza, who make life from nothing.”

He continues with pride, “The most I wanted to tell the world about is the heroism of these people in the face of Israeli war machines and their persistence to continue living in a place that is diminishing due to siege and wars. The real heroes are the children, women, men, doctors, medics, nurses and even the wounded people of Gaza.”

The Norwegian doctor, who heads the surgery department at University Hospital of North Norway, asks: “Where are the international laws and conventions? Why doesn’t the world move to bring Israel to account for bombing and destroying 70 hospitals in Gaza, meaning half of Gaza’s hospitals?”

“What would the reaction of the world be if it were Palestinians who did what Israel did in 2014 in Gaza,” referring to Israel’s killing of 21 doctors, 556 children, and targeting 47 ambulances.

He condemned the double-standard policy of the international community, adding, “Israel killed 2,200 people, 556 of them were children, and 200 of them were women, and it still continues to enjoy the support of the United States and the international community.”

He added, “Israel gravely violates the international law…Did the big powers give Israel the right to occupy Palestinian land? Why do these countries deprive Palestinians of the right to defend their lands in the face of Israeli occupation? Washington supports the Israeli oppression against the Palestinians and covers the crimes of the Israeli army in Gaza and the West Bank, and totally ignores the right of 9 million Palestinian refugees to return to their home in Palestine.”

Gilbert called for a greater Arab support for Palestinians, “Arabs are watching the clear American double-standard policy, e.g, Washington supports the Ukraine, for political reasons since the conflict there is with Russia, while it supports Israel despite being oppressive. Washington puts its economic, political, military, and weaponry interests above human and legal interests, which is enough to trigger the Arab anger in my opinion.”

He also criticized what he called “The European and the past colonial powers’ silence toward the Israeli crimes. Those who believe the Europeans did anything to stop the crimes of the successive Israeli governments are deceived.”

He hopes that two million people in Gaza will be given the right to life, as well as innocents in Syria, Libya, and Iraq. “All people with good hearts should support those displaced and miserable. It is our responsibility that binds us to protect what remains of humanity in this world.”

“History will disown us if we abandon our principles and our support for just causes. It is a shame and inhumane that responsible countries abandon their responsibilities and humanity for the sake of their own interests.”

The Norwegian doctor concluded by saying “If the world would stop surfing Facebook and Twitter and instead wake up to serve justice, freedom and humanity as the Tunisians did at the beginning with other Arab states (referring to Arab revolutions), the face of the world would remarkably change (to the better).”


The Washington Post

British leader Theresa May breaks with John Kerry’s condemnation of Israel

December 30 at 3:19 PM
British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned a blunt speech this week by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an unusual move that boosted Britain’s relations with the incoming Trump administration at the expense of President Obama.The rare diplomatic spat between Britain and the United States, which was met with surprise by the State Department, highlighted the fast-collapsing influence of the lame-duck White House. It also pointed to a vast reordering of international affairs expected after Donald Trump takes office in three weeks, as U.S. allies position themselves to curry favor in the new order.

The transatlantic split was particularly unexpected given that May’s government acted as a key broker between U.S. and Palestinian interests ahead of a U.N. Security Council vote last week to declare Israeli settlement construction “illegal.” British diplomats worked as go-betweens in shaping the measure to ensure that the language was acceptable to the United States, Britain’s Guardian and Israel’s Haaretz newspapers reported this week.

Kerry on Wednesday offered a harsh assessment of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that “his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” He criticized persistent Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank as a threat to the “two-state solution” under which Israel and a new Palestinian state would coexist side by side.

Kerry: U.N. vote on Israeli settlements was about pressuring a two-state solution

Embed Share

Play Video1:33
In major speech, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defends the U.S. abstention of a U.N. resolution vote that demanded Israel end settlement building, saying the vote reflected U.S. values and was intended to defend the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.(Reuters)

May’s office retorted that “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.” It said in an emailed statement late Thursday that “we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”

The move was an olive branch both to Netanyahu and to ­President-elect Trump, who railed against the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from the vote on the Security Council resolution condemning the settlements and who has urged Israel to “stay strong” until he assumes office Jan. 20. Trump has expressed near-unconditional support for actions by the Israeli government, breaking with long-standing U.S. policy that has sought a middle ground between the two sides.

Kerry’s speech and the U.S. abstention in the Security Council vote were received warmly by Germany and France, among other European nations, which led to a stunned reaction in Washington to the message from May’s office.

“We are surprised by the U.K. Prime Minister’s office statement given that Secretary Kerry’s remarks — which covered the full range of threats to a two-state solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlements — were in line with the U.K.’s own longstanding policy and its vote at the United Nations last week,” the State Department said in a statement.

British leaders have publicly embraced Trump since his victory last month, despite his urging that Nigel Farage, a lead campaigner for Britain’s exit from the European Union and a thorn in the side of the British government, be named British ambassador to Washington. Britain, which is preparing to negotiate the terms of a messy exit from the E.U., is hoping that a strong economic relationship with the United States will help smooth out the disruptions.

During his presidential campaign, Trump praised Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and took to calling himself “Mr. Brexit.”

This week, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, Kim Darroch, expressed hope that Trump and May would build “on the legacy of previous leaders such as President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.”

U.N. Security Council passes resolution on Israeli settlements

Embed Share

Play Video3:36
For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel’s Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

Kerry’s hour-long speech Wednesday was unusual in its breadth and frankness, coming from a man who devoted
much of his energy as the top U.S. diplomat toward Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that were ultimately abandoned.

Kerry said Wednesday that Israeli settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years, was extending far into the West Bank, “in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian state.”

“No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace,” he said.

The speech came at a historic low in relations between Israel and the United States, the Jewish state’s staunchest international ally. The Obama administration intended the abstention on the U.N. resolution as a warning
sign to the Netanyahu government that international support would not be unconditional as Israeli settlement populations swell.

The Australian government also distanced itself Friday from the Obama administration’s stance on settlements and the U.N. resolution.

Australia supports negotiations leading to two independent states, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. But she said that Australia — which is not currently a member of the Security Council — did not support the U.N. resolution condemning settlements.

“In voting at the U.N., the coalition government has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel,” the statement said.

The impending realignment of U.S. foreign policy that apparently led to the rare break between Downing Street and the White House could also be seen Friday in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin opted not to retaliate publicly against fresh U.S. sanctions and the expulsion of 35 Russian officials from U.S. territory.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had recommended Friday the expulsion of 35 U.S. officials in retaliation. But Putin appears to be banking on markedly warmer relations with Trump.

The president-elect has praised the Kremlin and expressed disbelief at an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community that hackers backed by the Russian government were responsible for the leaks of sensitive emails from Democratic Party officials in a bid to help Trump win the White House.

Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.


Palestinian children in Israeli detention

Short url


Around 500-700 Palestinian children are arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system each year. The majority of Palestinian child detainees are charged with throwing stones, and three out of four experience physical violence during arrest, transfer or interrogation.


Israeli Mossad Assassinated Vittorio Arrigoni – Gaza Palestine West Bank +Multi Subs CC


Anti-Defamation League Lists Top 10 Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in 2016

“…a stark and sobering reminder that hatred of Jews is not history, it is a current event…”

New York, NY–(ENEWSPF)–December 30, 2016 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued its top 10 list of manifestations of anti-Semitism that have afflicted Jewish communities across the United States and around the world in 2016.

The past year saw the volume of anti-Semitic cyberhate elevated to unprecedented levels. The ADL list included Jewish social media users being targeted because of their faith, anti-Jewish internet memes going viral and consuming the web, the swastika remaining a hate symbol of choice, continuing Iranian and Palestinian incitement, and the threat to European Jewry.

“The various manifestations of anti-Semitism in 2016 served as a stark and sobering reminder that hatred of Jews is not history, it is a current event,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “The reality of the threat to Jewish communities around the world and to the State of Israel was reinforced time and again by rhetoric, incidents and violent assaults.”

The following is ADL’s list of the worst manifestations of anti-Semitism at home and abroad:

(1) Jewish Journalists Harassed and Threatened
(2) Anti-Semitic Incidents Rise Post-Election; Swastika Remains Symbol of Choice
(3) Echoes Symbol Targets Jews on Twitter
(4) The Rise of the “Alt-Right”
(5) European and Latin American Jewish Communities Confront Anti-Semitism
(6) Campus Anti-Semitism Remains a Concern
(7) Anti-Semitic Incitement from Palestinian Leadership
(8) Iran: World’s Leading State Sponsor of Anti-Semitism
(9) Terror Groups Continue to Promote Anti-Semitic Narratives
(10) Anti-Semitism Remains a Staple Across Arabic Media

Jewish Journalists Harassed and Threatened in Election-Year Onslaught

Journalists, especially Jewish journalists, received thousands of harassing messages and even death threats as they covered the presidential campaign. The abuse included anti-Semitic graphics, pictures of journalists with their photos superimposed on Holocaust victims, and other disturbing memes. After a four-month investigation, an ADL data analysis found that Twitter was awash with anti-Semitic rhetoric, with more than 2.6 million tweets containing language frequently found in anti-Semitic speech. ADL’s Task Force on the Harassment of Journalists identified 800 journalists who had been targeted with more than 19,000 anti-Semitic tweets on Twitter.

Anti-Semitic Incidents Rise Post-Election; Swastika Remains Hate Symbol of Choice

A disturbing trend of anti-Semitic and other bias attacks took place in communities across the country following the 2016 presidential race. From Philadelphia to Los Angeles, the use of the swastika, including racist and other anti-Semitic graffiti, vandalism and reports of assaults and harassment proliferated. The wave of swastika vandalism was particularly prevalent in New York State. College campuses, religious facilities and homes were particular targets nationwide.

Echoes Symbol Targets Jews on Twitter

The triple parentheses – or stylized (((echo))) symbol – was a new tactic used by white supremacists and anti-Semites to identify and target Jews on Twitter and other social media platforms. This was a serious manifestation of online hate that allowed extremists and haters to highlight names perceived as Jewish and single them out for harassment both online and off. Google subsequently removed an app that was enabling the echo campaign: an anti-Semitic “Coincidence Detector” browser extension. It was removed after ADL and others notified Google that the app was in violation of the company’s terms of service. In the intervening months, many Jewish and non-Jewish journalists and others around the world co-opted the symbol by using it around their own names on Twitter.

The Rise of the Anti-Semitic “alt-right”

The “alt right,” a loose network of white nationalists actively engaged themselves and moved from the fringes into mainstream consciousness. The term “alt right” came into more general use over the last year as white supremacists became more a focus of media during the 2016 presidential campaign. Extremists and their online supporters, including those associated with the alt right were emboldened by the notion that their anti-Semitic and racist views were becoming part of mainstream society. A number of white supremacists on the alt right publicly voiced support for major presidential candidates, with some endorsing Donald Trump.

European and Latin American Jewish Communities Confront Violent Anti-Semitism

Murderous anti-Semitic attacks continued around the world in 2016. In Uruguay, David Fremd, a 54 year-old Jewish businessman, was stabbed to death by a man shouting “Allah Akbar.” The assailant later told authorities that he “killed a Jew following Allah’s order.” Jews were also stabbed or threatened with knives or axes in France, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In Germany, a man was pushed onto a subway track, but escaped before the train arrived. His assailant said, “I did it because he is Jewish. Next time I’ll do it right.” Additionally, reports have indicated that over 100 Jews were physically assaulted around the world this year. A local Jewish club in Santa Fe, Argentina was threatened with a bomb. A bottle with cement inside and a message in Arabic that read “This is a warning, the next one explodes” was sent through the closed windows of the institution, which at the time was empty.

Campus Anti-Semitism Remains a Concern

The tenor on many university campuses remained an issue of concern for Jewish and pro-Israel students in 2016, particularly when anti-Israel bias crossed the line into anti-Semitism. At UNC Charlotte, a student displayed a Nazi Flag from his residence hall window, and the campus community’s reaction was swift and supportive of those affected. Several college campuses across the country suffered a wave of anti-Semitic fliers that began printing from their network-connected printers. In addition, dozens of white supremacist fliers were posted at colleges across the country after the presidential election. In New York, several swastikas were found over a few month period at a community college. A best-selling author canceled her talk following pressure from the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) campus group to reject the invitation due to Brown University Hillel’s involvement in the event. After the talk was canceled, anti-Semitic graffiti was found scrawled in a dorm hallway. These are just a few examples of how anti-Semitism surfaced in an academic setting this past year. While the majority of Jewish students feel comfortable and unthreatened across the country, the issue of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias on campus remained a very real concern in 2016.

Anti-Semitic Incitement from Palestinian Leadership

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made conspiratorial anti-Israel allegations in a speech before the European Parliament that were reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes.  Abbas propagated a false and malicious story of “certain rabbis in Israel have said very clearly to their government that our water should be poisoned in order to have Palestinians killed,” and further alleged that Israel is the cause of all global terrorism, claiming, “Once the occupation ends, terrorism will disappear, there will be no more terrorism in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world.”

Iran: World’s Leading State Sponsor of Anti-Semitism

July 2016 marked the first anniversary of the Iranian nuclear agreement with the international community. In the wake of the deal, however, the regime did not tamp down its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric. The regime remains a belligerent actor that continues to further its support for global terror and promote anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. In front of the world’s largest global stage at the United Nations, President Hassan Rouhani made a series of accusations including blaming “Zionist pressure groups” for “having” Congress recently pass legislation to the detriment of Iran. A gallery in Tehran held a Holocaust cartoon contest with support from government ministries. For years, Iranian leaders have lodged accusations of Jewish control over the U.S. government, financial institutions and media. This past year was no different.

Terror Groups Continue to Promote Anti-Semitic Narratives

Terrorist groups across the globe continued to push anti-Semitic narratives as part of their attempts to incite violence. ISIS videos from this past summer demonstrated how the terrorist group exploits anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments to encourage violent attacks in the West. For example, a propaganda video released by ISIS showed images of alleged brutality by Israeli soldiers, while a narrator criticizes other religious leaders who have argued against the killing of Jewish civilians, and contrasted those moderate views with ISIS’s assertion that all non-Muslims who are not subordinated by ISIS can be killed. As is often the case in Islamic extremist propaganda, most of the reactions of media groups associated with terrorist organizations to the results of the U.S. presidential election included anti-Semitic stereotypes, alleging Jewish control of U.S. politics, saying that the president is a “mule for the Jews” and referred to the American People as “slaves of the Jews.” Domestically, the arrest of an Arizona resident served as a reminder of the link between terror and anti-Semitism. Mahin Khan, who was arrested on July 1 for allegedly plotting to bomb a DMV on behalf of ISIS and the Pakistani Taliban, planned to attack a local Jewish Community Center.

Anti-Semitism Remains a Staple Across Arabic Media

Whether on traditional or social media, anti-Semitic expressions infecting the Arab public discourse around various issues were chillingly observed. A review of the Arabic language social media in 2016 revealed a continuing pattern of demonization of Jews and conspiratorial accusations about a Jewish responsibility behind the violence and carnage in many parts of the Arab world including in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya. Along with such anti-Semitic statements over social media, there was a torrent of offensive images of Jews and Judaism found in the print media with in caricatures depicting Jews in a highly offensive manner. Various opinion pieces also went as far as to claim that the Jews poisoned Islam’s prophet.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.


Search Here For Local Businesses!

Dr. William Pierce on the ADL

In late September, the ADL released a report stating the National Alliance is the “most dangerous organized hate group in America.” But it is the ADL which is the true hate group. It earns its living: selling hate. It makes its money by persuading Jews and wannabe Jews that they are in great danger — but if everyone will just send them a nice, fat check today, the ADL will protect them. The ADL deliberately makes the National Alliance sound scary. Their press releases tend to be deceptive and are written in a way calculated to lead to misinterpretation. Then, if the newspapers exaggerate things even more, why so much the better.

One of the ADL’s fondest projects is “combating hate speech.” “Hate speech,” of course, is whatever they find offensive or dangerous to their interests. The ADL is especially concerned about the propagation of what they consider dangerous ideas over the Internet and has been working with software developers to develop censorship programs which can be installed on any computer, so that computer users cannot find any Politically Incorrect material on the Internet. But lobbying to stamp out the Bill of Rights isn’t the ADL’s only activity. They’re also the largest and most effective private espionage organization in America — in which guise they have committed more criminal acts than the National Alliance has been “linked” to.

ADL and Jim Rizoli


Raping German Women and Children as a Form of Revenge After WWII

(Part I)

“There is not one German who has not murdered our fathers. Every German is a Nazi. Every German is a murderer.” Menachem Begin, former Prime Minister of Israel[1]

…by Jonas E. Alexis


Ho Chi Minh

We have seen in previous articles how the word “Holocaust” itself has progressively become a potent weapon in the ideological war.

But the Holocaust establishment has worked tirelessly over the past few years to ensure that this weapon is spread across the world, including Asian countries.

Last January, the New York Times had an article entitled, “Raising Asian Awareness of the Holocaust.”[2]

Throughout the entire article, nothing was said about Stalin’s extermination programs, which eventually were responsible for the death of millions upon millions of Russian peasants.[3]

Nothing was said about Mao’s slaughter houses and execution programs, which killed at least 45 million people;[4] nothing was even remotely mentioned about China’s eugenic program, which literally obliterated millions of innocent lives,[5] and about Vietnam’s communist regime, which brutally massacred millions of people.[6]

In the twentieth century alone, many Asian countries were infected by the communist virus, which ended up killing at least fifty million people just in Asia alone.

What the New York Times ended up saying indirectly was that Asia does not have enough “Holocaust” problem; Asia, which is where this writer currently resides, needs to consider the only Holocaust in recent memory: Nazi Germany. In short, the new doctrine is pretty straightforward: Thou shalt have no other gods before the Jewish “Holocaust”!

Birds of a feather flock together

If the New York Times wanted Asians to have a good history lesson, they certainly should have mentioned Stalin and others as well. That certainly betrays their prejudice.

Moving on to the Middle East, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has recently called the “Holocaust” “the most heinous crime” in modern history. It seemed that he was trying to appease the Israelis, who didn’t even acknowledge the apology.  In response, Benjamin Netanyahu declared,

“Instead of issuing statements designed to placate global public opinion, (Abbas) needs to choose between the alliance with Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel and denies the Holocaust, and a true peace with Israel.”

President Abbas perhaps didn’t know what happened to the Germans after World War II, our topic in this article.

Then we have Steven Spielberg recently saying that “Mass graves don’t have to open up before we act…It took me years of directing sharks, aliens, and dinosaurs before I felt ready to tackle the Holocaust.”[7]

After the release of Schindler’s List, Spielberg founded the Shoah Foundation Institute at the University of Southern California. If you think Spielberg is going to help found a similar institute for the innocent Russians, Chinese, and Germans who died after the war, think again.

 raping German womenAfter World War II, 12 to 14 million German people—including women and children under the age of sixteen—were brutally driven from their homes.[8] Some historians place the figure as high as fifteen million.[9]

During the expulsion, thousands lost their lives from starvation, disease, and ill-treatment. Some died in wagons without food, water, or heating during long trips; others collapsed by the roadside. The death estimate is between 500,000 and 1.5 million.[10] Other historians estimate that the figure amounts to 2 million.[11]

Moreover, thousands upon thousands of children were separated from their families.[12] Historian R. M. Douglas notes that many of these issues are not discussed among popular historians and even ignored in some scholarly circles.

“Today, outside Germany, they are almost completely unknown. In most English language histories of the period they are at best a footnote, and usually not even that.

“The most recent (2009) edition of Mary Fulbrook’s excellent History of Germany 1918-2008 disposes of the episode in a single uninformative paragraph…The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany is typical in not according the expulsions even a single mention.”[13]

Historian Pertti Ahonen likewise declares that “The political dimensions of the expellee problem in the Federal Republic form a particular of neglect” and the accurate history of the expellees remains

“poorly investigated, especially on the federal level, despite the obvious importance of the newcomers’ political integration for the Federal Republic’s stability.”[14]

orderlySome historians dismiss these accounts as “wild expulsions,” while others defend the position that the Allies were justified in brutally turning out the Germans.[15] Some historians, such as Keith Lowe, have even gone on record saying that the brutality and vengeance against German civilians “tended to be a small-scale affair.”[16]

This was not the case. While Lowe concedes the fact that German women were brutally raped and other shameful acts were committed on women in places like France, Italy, Denmark, Holland,[17] he prefaces these facts by saying that they were done on a minor scale, which seems to be contradictory. He writes,

“The sexual nature of the rituals themselves is also significant. In Denmark the women were frequently stripped naked during their head-shaving ceremonies, and their breasts and backsides painted with Nazi symbols.

“In many areas of France women also had their bare bottoms spanked, and their breasts daubed with swastikas.”[18]

But the “sexual nature” cannot be “significant” if it was done on a minor scale or that it was limited to a small area. Then Lowe knocks himself out by saying

“it is difficult to judge, at a distance of some seventy years, whether these women deserved to be punished in this way, in an alternative way, or not at all.”

He cites British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden saying that “those who had not been through the ‘horrors of occupation’ had no right to pronounce upon what a country does.’”[19] Lowe’s analysis here is so morally untenable as to hardly deserve a rebuttal—on what grounds, then, can he condemn Nazi Germany?

Keith Lowe

There is much to be learned from his book Savage Continent. He argues quite rightly that after the war German children faced enormous discrimination in the nation in which they were born. For example, the Norwegian daily newspaper, Lufotposten, wrote of the German children who were growing up in the country:

“All these German children are bound to grow up and develop into an extensive bastard minority in the Norwegian people. By their descent they are doomed in advance to take a combative stance.

“They have no nation, they have no father, they just have hate, and this is their only heritage. They are unable to become Norwegians. Their fathers were Germans, their mothers were Germans in thought and action. To allow them to stay in this country is tantamount to legalizing the raising of a fifth column.”[20]

The war brought unwanted baggage to the German civilians, and ethnic German children who grew up in places like Norway faced tremendous pressure, including rejection by their own family.[21] This has had a detrimental effects on generational children who, according to a 2001 study,

“suffer higher death rates, higher divorce rates and worse health than the rest of Norway’s population…They are also significantly more likely to commit suicide than their peers.”[22]

Norman Davies states,

“For every European who was involved in the fighting of the Second War, there were at least ten civilians who were not directly involved but who nonetheless were forced to suffer the painful consequences of international conflict.”[23]

Douglas argues that the expulsions, along with rape on a massive scale, were meticulously “carried out by troops, police, and militia, acting under orders and more often than not executing policies laid down at the highest levels.”[24]

For example, when a Czechoslovak soldier carelessly discharged his weapon, wounding himself, Germany civilians were to blame and at least nine of them were executed.[25]

Similarly, twenty local Germans were shot because “an SNB officer accidentally blew himself up in Bruntal while handling a grenade.”[26] Even before the war was over, ordinary Germans were destined to pay the price of World War II. In January 1945, the Soviets torpedoed German cruiser Wilhelm Gustloff, which was carrying about 9,000 refugees, “4000 of whom were children.”[27]

savage-continentAfter the war, the Allies re-established concentration camps for national and ethnic Germans.

“Many of the Sudeten German Social Democrats who were put in concentration camps by the Germans for being anti-Nazi when liberation came were transferred to Czech labor camps merely because they were of German origin.”[28]

For example, “Hrnecek personally took revenge on his former captain in the Ceske Budejo-vice police force by pole-hanging the man for four to five hours while having him ‘beaten with cow-hide horsewhips’ until he fainted, and resuscitating him by pouring water over him.”[29]

Similar torture in those camps happened almost every night, which resulted in an increase of suicides among the prisoners.[30]

“Many ex-Nazi concentration camps like Majdanek or Theresienstadt—and even the camp at Auschwitz—never went out of business, but were retained in operation as detention facilities for ethnic Germans for years after the war.”[31]


the former Konzentrationslager of Boleslawiec (Bunzlau), a subcamp of Gross-Rosen in Poland, held approximately twelve hundred boys aged between twelve and fifteen, who were used as forced labor on road-building projects.

“Of the ninety-five inmates of the children’s camp at Ceske Kridlovice in Czechoslovakia during the month of July 1947, a third were under six years of age.”[32]

Similar reports have surfaced—in other concentration camps such as Mirosov, many prisoners were “younger than fourteen years of age; forty-five of them were below the age of six.”[33]

Those camps represented “a system of organized and ferocious maltreatment of internees, with the stated intention of completing in five months what the Nazis had failed to accomplish at the camp in five years.”[34]

By June 1945, ordinary Germans were forced out of their homes and made to walk hundreds of miles with no food and water. One survivor wrote,

“Many weak and sick people, old folks and children had to be left on the road dead. It was a lamentable procession of utmost misery…Heaven only knows how often we were plundered by Poles or Russians and how many times the women were assaulted again and again.”[35]

Sexual torture happened on a large scale, so large in fact that Douglas called it “ritualized sexual humiliation and punishment suffered by female inmates.”[36] One particular woman, Johanna Janisch, was raped “some twenty times by Red Army soldiers,” and contracted gonorrhea as a result.[37]

Between May and August 1945, some places “functioned as a sexual supermarket,” whose detainees, ethnic Germans, were brutally raped.[38] At Potulice, one of the largest Polish camps for Germans,

“the sexual humiliation of female prisoners had become an institutional practice by the end of 1945.”[39]

German old women and children flee west-1945

In Czechoslovakia, torture by the Revolutionary Guards included “exposing women’s body parts and burning them with lighted cigarettes.”[40] The male detainees sometimes “were compelled to perform sexual acts upon each other.”[41] (Sounds like a precursor to Abu Ghraib.)

Reports given by the Belgrade embassy in 1946 concurred.[42] In contrast,

“Women survivors of German concentration camps have recalled that, notwithstanding the unrestrained brutality that pervaded most other aspects of daily life, rape or other forms of sexual maltreatment at the hands of their guards was an extremely rare occurrence, and severely punished by the authorities if detected.”[43]

Adrian Kanaar, a British military doctor, actually witnessed the brutal torture which the Allied forces inflicted on ordinary Germans. He later wrote that he was willing to face court martial for raising public awareness with regard to the Germans and declared that the Allied forces had established “a tyranny…which is as bad as the Nazis.”[44]

Ignacy Cedrowski, the camp physician at Potulice between 1945 and 1948, lost his family during the Nazi era and was a survivor of Auschwitz. He was appalled at how the Allied forces were treating the Germans.[45]

John Colville, a former private secretary of Winston Churchill, noted the same thing, adding that “concentration camps and all they stand for did not come to an end with the defeat of Germany.”[46]

Yet even after all these events, the vast majority of the ordinary Germans remained servile.[47] Catholic priest Josef Neubauer, who was in one of those camps until November 1945, wrote:

“On June 27, 1945, I was suddenly ordered to the guard-room. There I was made to strip completely naked and was beaten with sticks and fists. As a result, one of my ribs was broken and my teeth were knocked out.

“I then received at the hand of my two tormentors another 50 strokes with a length of steel cable, the thickness of my thumb, on my stomach, back, chest and buttocks. I was made to count the blows myself. At the end of this beating, my entire body was bleeding.

“I told my tormentors that I forgave them and that God should not count it as a sin against them. They were baffled by this statement of mine and from that moment onward left me in peace.”[48]

Victor Gollancz

Western responses to those atrocities have been appalling. The life of Johannes Kostka, a German prisoner of war in a British camp in Egypt, is a case in point.

By the end of 1947, Kostka wrote a letter to the U.S. Office of Military Government in Frankfurt about his wife Gertrud, a detainee in the Southwestern Polish town of Bielsko-Biala. Kostka was separated from his wife for four years and finally got a letter from her, which he passed on to the U.S. agencies.

His wife was pregnant as a result of rape and had contemplated suicide. The United States passed the letter to the British embassy in Warsaw, but in the end both countries decided to drop the issue. The British embassy finally declared that “we propose that [the case] should be dropped.”[49]

Moreover, in most of the camps, the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations were prevented from providing assistance. There was no organization working on the behalf of the detainees, despite the fact that their mistreatment was widely known (though only a few Americans knew about it).[50]

(This is similar to what we are seeing with respect to Israeli mistreatment of Palestinian children.[51]) When the war was over, the vast majority of polls in Britain, France, and the United States made no distinction between “ordinary Germans” and “Nazis.” Not only that,

“some carried [the] perception…that it was appropriate even that children pay the price for Nazi misdeeds.

“When the London-based National Peace Council issued a call in September 1945 for Britons to accept reduced food rations so that expellee women and children might be fed, a correspondent to the Daily Herald condemned those among his countrymen who still harbored ‘tender feelings towards this race of murderous white savages.’”[52]

Some Allied officers such as Goronwy Rees ascribed to similar views.[53] A few voices, such as Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz, made it clear that if ordinary Germans were going to be held accountable for what happened in Nazi Germany, then the United States and Britain must collectively be responsible for what was being done to the German civilians. Other voices within the Christian community, most particularly the Church of England, protested against the massive expulsions of the Germans.[54]

In August 1945, when the British arrived on German shores,

“A convoy of trucks pulled into the village, and the Tommies took over from an easygoing US infantry division. Within hours, the British had ordered everybody in the centre of the village to pack their belongings and leave.

“Bad Nenndorf was heaving with refugees from the bomb-ravaged ruins of Hanover, 18 miles to the east: hundreds of people were given 90 minutes to pack some food and valuables, and get out.

“‘We thought everyone would be allowed back in a few days,’ recalls Walter Münstermann, now a retired newspaperman, but then a 14-year-old.

“‘Then the soldiers started putting barbed wire fences around the centre of the village, and slowly we began to realize that this was going to be no ordinary camp.’”[55]

Bad Nenndorf, the place where the prisoners were kept and tortured, “became known as das verbotene dorf—the forbidden village.”[56]

berlinInstead of crying out only against Nazi concentration camps, popular history books should decry all concentration camps, Nazi as well as Soviet, where millions of non-Jews were sent during and after World War II.

The fact that the Holocaust establishment rarely discusses these issues tells us that they are only interested in propagating ideologies as opposed to real history.

The time to move to the next chapter of history and discuss what happened after the war is long overdue. Serious historians cannot live in fear anymore and cannot afford to follow an ideology as opposed to real history.

Noted British historian Giles Macdonogh writes that after the war,

“In most cases it was not the criminals who were raped, starved, tortured or bludgeoned to death but women, children and old men.”[57] It proved to be devastating, “particularly for civilians.”[58] The Red Army

“raped wherever they went. They even raped Russians and Ukrainians. The worst and most aggravated rapes were perpetrated against the women of the enemy—first the Hungarians, then the Germans.”[59]

MacDonogh notes that raping women was probably viewed as “a form of vengeance against these ‘superior women and the best way to humiliate them and their menfolk.”[60]

Historian Alfred Maurice de Zayas likewise notes that “one of the aberrations practiced by the soldiers was to take victims, mostly female, strip them naked and nail them to barn doors in cruciform fashion. This one particular atrocity features prominently in many eyewitness reports.”[61] Road signs read, “Soldier: you are in Germany, take revenge on the Hitlerites.”[62]

Historian Antony Beevor says that the Soviet propaganda of hatred towards the Germans started in 1942.

“Every opportunity had been taken to drum in the scale of German atrocities in the Soviet Union. According to a French informant, the Red Army authorities exhumed the bodies of some 65,000 Jews massacred near Nikolayev and Odessa, and ordered them to be placed alongside the road most used by troops. Every 200 metres a sign declared, ‘Look how the Germans treat Soviet citizens.’”[63]

The political department of the 1st Ukrainian Front declared, “We were constantly trying to step up hatred towards Germans and to stir up a passion for revenge.”[64]

General Ivan Danilovich Chernyakhovsky, who “used to recite poetry with humorous panache” to Ilya Ehrenburg, told his soldiers when they reached East Prussia in January, “Soldier, remember you are now entering the lair of the fascist beast!”[65]

Anthony Beever

This is not a surprise at all, for Ehrenburg was the author of the novel The Unusual Adventure of Julio Juarenito and his Pupils, in which we find the phrase, “Murders must be committed for the well-being of mankind.”[66]

When a person of some reputation in Great Britain declared that Ehrenburg needed to abandon his “lust for revenge,” Ehrenburg wrote back,

“My mother is religious too, and in the name of religion she asks, ‘kill the Germans with my blessings…One must not pity a wild beast…rather, one must destroy it.”[67]

When Ehrenburg actually saw what the Red Army was doing to the Germans, he “was deeply shaken on a visit, but it did not make him moderate his ferocity in print.”[68] A Soviet soldier remembered,

“There was a big slogan painted up in our canteen, ‘Have you killed a German yet? Then kill him!’ We were very strongly influenced by Ehrenburg’s appeals and we had a lot to take revenge for.”[69]

Historian Richard Bessel declares that the soldiers “unleashed an orgy of wanton destruction…There could be no motive for such destruction other than revenge against a now helpless German population.”[70]

Ilya Ehrenberg

In his last article of the war, Ehrenburg wrote,

“Germany is dying miserably, without pathos or dignity. Let us remember the pompous parades, the Sportpalast in Berlin, where Hitler used to roar that he was going to conquer the world.

“Where is he now? In what hole? He has led Germany to a precipice, and now he prefers not to show himself…Germany does not exist; there is only a colossal gang.”[71]

A talented propagandist, Ehrenburg delivered lectures at the Frunze military academy, condemning what the Red Army was doing and “blaming it on the troops’ ‘extremely low’ level of culture.”

When it came to rape, Ehrengurg’s only defense was that Soviet soldiers “were not refusing ‘the compliments’ of German women.”[72]

Certainly the Red Army took Chernyakhovsky’s and Ehrenburg’s message seriously, as they went out to put churches and civilian buildings to the torch and raped women in West Prussia and Pomerania; many of the victims committed suicide afterwards.[73] One testified that she had been raped thirteen times.[74]

Other crimes against civilians in Pomerania were widespread during the first week of occupation.

“Near the Puttkamers’ village, an elderly couple were chased into the icy waters of a village pond, where they died. A man was harnessed to a plough, which he was forced to drag until he collapsed.

His tormentors then finished him off with a burst of sub-machine-gun fire. Herr von Livonius, the owner of an estate at Grumbkow, was dismembered and his body thrown to the pigs. Even those landowners who had been part of the anti-Nazi resistance fared little better.

“Eberhard von Braunschweig and his family, assuming that they had little to fear, awaited the arrival of the Red Army in their manor house at Lubzow, near Karzin. But his reputation and numerous arrests by the Gestapo did him little good. The whole family was dragged outside and shot.”[75]

When Chernyakhovsky died, Marshal Vasilevsky took over, and was told about the looting and damage that the Red Army was doing. After a moment of silence, “Vasilevsky, perhaps the most intelligent and cultivated of all Soviet commanders,” said, “‘I don’t give a [expletive]. It is now time for our soldiers to issue their own justice.’”[76]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The German civilians, those “fascist beasts,” had to pay a terrible price for the Soviet’s perception of what the Nazis had done. One playwright of the time, Zakhar Agranenko, wrote:

“Red army soldiers don’t believe in ‘in-dividual liaisons.’ Nine, ten, twelve men at a time—they rape them on a collective basis.”[77]

“Burn their homes to the ground and enjoy the flames. These were the messages that permeated the last years of the war. Marshall Zhukov’s orders to the First Belorussian Front on the eve of the January 1945 offensive into Poland did little to dampen the Soviet soldier’s lust for revenge:

“‘Woe to the land of the murderers,’ the orders stated. ‘We will get our terrible revenge for everything.”[78]

One of the Red Army Field Postal Service letters stated:

“And now we take our revenge on the Germans for all their despicable acts committed against us. We’re being allowed to do what we please with the German scoundrels. German mothers shall rue the day they gave birth to a son. May German mothers now feel the horrors of war firsthand.

“What they wanted to do to other people they will now experience themselves! We spend the night in their houses and drive the Germans out into the cold, just like they did to us. There are only old people and children in Germany, very few girls. But we kill them all anyway.

“Now we’re meeting up with German civilians, and our soldiers are making good use of German women. There are plenty of women around, but they don’t understand a word of Russian. But that’s even better because you don’t have to talk them into it.

“Just aim the Nagan [pistol] and shout, “Lie down!”…take care of your business and be off…Our boys have already tried out all the German women.[79]]

Norman Naimark notes that although the reasons for raping and torturing German women were many, one of the primary reasons was that the Russians were directly motivated by vengeance.

Rape “was not fundamentally motivated by sexual needs,” Naimark argues, but “is a crime of violence.” To say that “war breeds rape” does not explain the fact that not only did the Soviets rape women on a massive scale, but that long before they came to Germany, they propagandized “more reason for revenge.”[80]

“Throughout the Soviet press, the idea was widespread that the Germans—women on the home front included—would have to ‘pay’ for their evil deeds.”[81]

The social history of rape was largely “unknown to the Western zones.”[82] “It was not untypical for Soviet troops to rape every female over the age of twelve or thirteen in a village, killing many in the process…The reports of women subjected to gang rapes and ghastly nightly rapes are far too numerous to be considered isolated incidents.”[83]

bobOn February 26, 1945, the Soviets captured one German village and “systematically plundered” it. “Virtually all of the women were raped. ‘The screams of help from the tortured could be heard day and night.’”[84]

When the Soviets finally overtook the city of Budapest, one observer, Julius Hay, noted,

“It was impossible to spend a day or even an hour in Budapest without hearing of brutalities committed by [Russian] soldiers.”[85]

At other occasions, “Hungarian girls were locked in Soviet quarters on the Buda side of the city, where they were repeatedly raped and sometimes killed.”[86] In the city of Rostock, “women and girls were raped in the presence of their children and parents.”[87]

During these circumstances, the German police could do little to stop the violence, since the Soviet soldiers would not hesitate to shoot any police who intervened. Naimark notes that

“the police archives are filled with complaints about the [German police’s] inability to protect German women from rapists ‘in the uniform of the Red Army.’”[88]

 On a few occasions, women would resist the rapists, but they ended up “brutally beaten or killed as a result.” On other occasions, when the attacker was alone, some Germans did not hesitate to show strong resistance:

“In one such instance, a group of young people who beat up a Russian soldier attempting to rape a German girl were arrested by the police for being alleged Werewolves—members of the underground Nazi youth.

“In another, a German policeman was shot and killed while trying to stop the rape of a woman. In the third, the Ministry of International Affairs operations group arrested a German policeman who had seized the Russian rapists.”[89]

There were a number of Russian officers who “were terribly ashamed of the behavior of their compatriots,”[90] and there were a few soldiers punished for their crimes,[91] but that happened only on rare occasions. Raping and plundering were commonplace.

And no one was spared. German women were even raped at transportation centers and railway crossroads, where railway officials could do little to stop the situation.[92] Farmers “who refused to turn over goods to the Soviets or who resisted rape attempts were shot and sometimes killed. Isolated farm houses were broken into and the women were raped.”[93]

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a young captain in the Red Army during that time, and he strongly opposed brutal abuse against women and the German people; for that he was sent to the Gulag. He wrote in 1945:

“Yes! For three weeks the war had been going on inside Germany and all of us knew very well that if the girls were Germans they could be raped and then shot. This was almost a combat distinction.”[94]

Rape, “from 1945 to the end of 1946 or the beginning of 1947…became a part of everyday life in the remote villages of Burgenland and Lower Austria.”[95]

Moreover, there seemed to be no age limit, for there were reports that “women as old as eighty” were also victims of the Red Army.[96] And women were raped numerous times; at least one woman by the name of Wanda was raped 128 times.[97]

One sixteen-year-old girl, who had been repeatedly raped, “drowned herself in the Stau Lake.”[98] Nuns were not spared either,[99] and some were reported to have been raped as many as fifty times.[100] Naimark notes that even when German women

“entered bunkers and cellars where Germans hid from fierce fighting, Soviet soldiers brandished weapons and raped women in the presence of children and men. In some cases, soldiers divided up women according to their tastes. In others, women were gang-raped.

Generally, the soldiers raped indiscriminately, not excluding old women in their seventies or young girls.”[101]

Antony Beevor recounts the same thing. After three days, “the women tried to kill the children and themselves by cutting all their wrists, but evidently they had not known how to do it properly.”[102]

When rape was the norm, consequences followed:

“Women committed suicide after the event; many contracted venereal diseases; others became pregnant and had to seek abortions.”[103]

Soldiers were punished for raping women “only if they caught venereal disease from victims, who had usually caught it from a previous rapist.”[104] Today, some Soviet historians, as Antony Beever puts it,

“still produce evasive circumlocutions. ‘Negative phenomena in the army of liberation,’ writes one on the subject of mass rape, ‘caused significant damage to the prestige of the Soviet Union and the armed forces and could have a negative influence in the future relations with the countries through which our troops were passing.”[105]

Abortions, which were illegal in Germany at the time, were done under extreme conditions.

In concentration camps, men and women were forced to perform sexual acts:

“Men and women were stripped naked and forced to perform sadistic acts on one another or eat excrement; girls had to press burning banknotes between their legs. There were many small children in the camp. Some of these were later taken away and given to Polish foster parents.”[106]

Like in our modern day, Jews who stood up against such immorality were severely punished. “When the Ukrainian Jewish intellectual Lev Kopelev tried to intervene to save a German woman from a group of rampaging soldiers, he was accused of ‘bourgeois humanism’ and imprisoned for nine years.”[107]

East Prussia was the first German territory that the Red Army visited. “In the course of a single night,” writes MacDonogh, “the Red Army killed seventy-two women and one man. Most of the women had been raped, of whom the oldest was eighty-four. Some of the victims had been crucified.”[108]

Russian soldiers broke into at least one hospital operated by surgeon Hans Lehndorff and robbed

“his patients of their watches, beating up anyone who stood in their way. One of the attackers, ‘a really young fellow, suddenly burst into tears because he had yet to find a watch. He struck three fingers in the air. He was going to shoot the people if he did not get one at once.’ They found him a watch.”[109]

Watches were so important to them because of their “inability to master anything technical,” and it was considered as “an inexhaustible chapter.”[110] They not only stole watches, but

“all the bicycles they could find. [One woman] saw them take them up to a street near the Hasenheide where they practiced riding them. They sat ‘stiff on the saddles like champanzees in the zoo.’ They frequently fell off before they mastered the use of the two-wheeled beast. Many bicycles were broken in the process and the wreckage strewn over the street.”[111]

The next day, “swarms of soldiers attacked the population as they ventured out of the warrens they had inhabited during the long siege. They were beaten, robbed, stripped and, if female, raped.”[112]

Given those horrible circumstances, “a very large number of [the populace] took their own lives to escape the indignity of Soviet revenge.”[113] The soldiers quickly contracted sexually transmitted diseases.

When that happened, they would burst into hospitals and “demanded treatment at gunpoint.”[114] But nothing dimmed their undying hatred towards the Germans:

“Those who lived in the villages of East Prussia fared no better than the townsfolk. A witness who made it to the west talked of a poor village girl who was raped by an entire tank squadron from eight in the evening to nine in the morning. One man was shot and fed to the pigs.

“Another woman tried to take the last train from Mohringen, but it was derailed and the passengers proceeded on foot, only to run into the Russians. She describes these soldiers breaking into a farmhouse and finding an Iron Cross, Second Class.

“The owner of the decoration and his wife were taken out and shot in the back of the head. The narrator herself was raped around twenty times the night she was captured, but there was worse in the store. She was carried off by two officers and seven men, whom she suspected were deserters, or temporarily estranged from their unit.

“They lodged her and eight other females, including a fourteen-year-old girl, in a house in the forest, where they raped them for a week. Their ordeal came to an end only when the GPU, the secret police, found the house. The woman was then taken to Insterburg and shipped beyond Stalingrad to the north-eastern Urals.

“She was in a carriage with fifty women for three weeks. During that time she had only two hot meals. The guards gave them salted herrings.

“They were so thirsty that they licked the condensation off the window panes. Five of the women had died by the time they reached their destination. They were suffering from typhus, dysentery and facial erysipelas.”[115]

german corpses after the war

 Once the Russians had done all they could to denigrate the Germans, they set the city on fire. “Once the fun was over the remaining citizens were assembled for forced marches to camps. Anyone who was too old or too ill was shot there and then, either in their beds or in the gutters.”[116]

The Russians moved on to other cities, committing the same horrible crimes. In Pomerania, the women knew about the Russian rapists. “To protect them- selves,” MacDonogh tells us,

“the women covered themselves with ashes to make themselves look old, hobbled around on crutches or painted on red spots to feign disease. In a village near Greifenberg, in the western part of East Pomerania, the squire’s wife Kathe von Normann took the precaution of removing her false front tooth to make herself look older, and dressed herself in peasant costume.

“The older women adopted the same attire. It rarely worked—the Russians were none too choosy anyhow, and the victims ranged in age from tiny children to great-grandmothers.”[117]

In Danzig,

“it was open season for the Russian soldiers once again. They raped, murdered, and pillaged. Women between the ages of twelve and seventy-five were raped; boys who sought to rescue their mothers were pitilessly shot.

“The Russians defiled the ancient Cathedral of Oliva and raped the Sisters of Mercy. Later they put the building to the torch. In the hospitals both nurses and female doctors were subjected to the same outrages after the soldiers drank surgical spirit.

“Nurses were raped over the bodies of unconscious patients in the operating theatres together with the women in the maternity ward. Doctors who tried to stop this were simply gunned down…

“Many Danzigers took their own lives. The men were rounded up, beaten and thrown into the concentration camp at Matzkau. From there 800 to 1,000 were despatched to Russia twice daily.”[118]

Similar things happened in other cities such as Silesia, where

“in one appalling incident thirty women were driven into a barn and raped. When one refused she was shot. The local Soviet commander heard about the atrocity and went to the barn and shot four of his own men.”[119]

One mother “went with her heavily pregnant sister to see a Russian doctor, believing that he would be a civilized man. They were both raped by the medic and a lieutenant, even though she herself was menstruating. The soldiers raped every female they found; one twelve-year-old girl complained of the terrible tearing they had caused her.”[120]

Can the Holocaust establishment really discuss Nazi Germany while ignoring all these facts? Unless those rabble rousers can come to terms with those historical events, we should not listen to their daily moaning, which begins to get on people’s nerves.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

[1]Quoted in Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (New York: Henry Hold, 2000), 216.

[2] Yenni Kwok, “Raising Asian Awareness of the Holocaust,” NY Times, January 26, 2014.

[3] See for example Jean-Louis Panne, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).

[4] Frank Dikotter, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1952 (New York: Walker & Company, 2010).

[5] Frank Dikotter, Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects and Eugenics in China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).

[6] Hyunh Kim Khanh, Vietnamese Communism, 1925-1945 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010).

[7] Quoted in “Spielberg: We Must Act on What Was Learned from the Holocaust,” Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2014.

[8] R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 1; also Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees, ed., The Expulsions of the ‘German’ Communities from Eastern Europe at the End of the Second World War (San Domenico, Italy: European University Institute, 2004), 8.

[9] Pertti Ahonen, After the Expulsion: West Germany and Eastern Europe, 1945-1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1.

[10] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 1.

[11] Prauser and Rees, Expulsions, 8.

[12] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 230.

[13] Ibid., 2.

[14] Ahonen, After the Expulsion, 4-5.

[15] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 364-365.

[16] Keith Lowe, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II (New York: Penguin, 2012), 163.

[17] Ibid., 170-171.

[18] Ibid., 171.

[19] Ibid., 172.

[20] Ibid., 173.

[21] Ibid., 176-177.

[22] Ibid., 177.

[23] Norman Davies, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe (New York: Penguin, 2006), 283.

[24] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 94.

[25] Ibid., 113.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Prauser and Rees, Expulsions, 5.

[28] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 151.

[29] Ibid., 133.

[30] Ibid., 133.

[31] Ibid., 134.

[32] Ibid., 139.

[33] Ibid., 140.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., 109.

[36] Ibid., 141.

[37] Ibid., 109.

[38] Ibid., 141.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 142.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid., 151.

[43] Ibid., 141.

[44] Ibid., 118.

[45] Ibid., 143.

[46] Ibid., 146.

[47] Ibid., 116.

[48] Ibid., 133.

[49] Ibid., 285.

[50] Ibid., 286.

[51] Harriet Sherwood, “Caught on Video: Israeli Policeman Kicking Palestinian Boy,” Guardian, July 3, 2012; “Israel Subjecting Palestinian Children to ‘Spiral of Injustice,’” Guardian, June 26, 2012; “UK Raises Concerns Over Israel’s Treatment of Palestinian Children,” Guardian, January 23, 2012; Terri Judd, “UK Ready to Take on Israel over Fate of Children Clapped in Irons,” Independent, June 27, 2012; Donald Macintyre, “Israeli Military Accused of Mistreating Children,” Independent, March 22, 2012.

[52] Douglas, Orderly and Humane, 287.

[53] Ibid., 287.

[54] Ibid., 289.

[55] Cobain, “The Interrogation Camp that Turned Prisoners into Living Skeletons,” Guardian, December 17, 2005.

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid., xiii.

[58] Ibid., 1.

[59] Ibid., 25.

[60] Ibid., 26.

[61] De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge, 47.

[62] Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 74.

[63] Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall, 169.

[64] Ibid., 169.

[65] Ibid., 24, 25.

[66] Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 157.

[67] Ibid., 159-160.

[68] Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall, 36.

[69] Ibid., 170.

[70] Bessel, Germany 1945, 155.

[71] Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall, 196.

[72] Ibid., 197.

[73] Ibid., 122.

[74] Ibid., 123.

[75] Ibid., 123-124.

[76] Ibid., 33.

[77] Ibid., 28.

[78] Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 72.

[79] De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge, 52.

[80] Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 107-108.

[81] Ibid., 108.

[82] Ibid., 106-107.

[83] Ibid., 72-73.

[84] Ibid., 74.

[85] Ibid., 70.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Ibid., 83.

[88] Ibid., 84.

[89] Ibid., 116.

[90] Ibid., 85.

[91] Ibid., 84, 92.

[92] Ibid., 89.

[93] Ibid., 86.

[94] De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge, 52.

[95] MacDonogh, After the Reich, 27.

[96] Ibid., 34.

[97] Ibid., 166.

[98] Ibid., 175.

[99] Ibid., 180.

[100] Ibid., 182.

[101] Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 80.

[102] Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall, 29.

[103] MacDonogh, After the Reich, 34-35; also Naimark, The Russians in Germany, 74.

[104] Beever, Berlin: The Downfall, 107.

[105] Ibid.

[106]MacDonogh, After the Reich, 183.

[107] Ibid., 26.

[108] Ibid., 46.

[109] Ibid., 47-48.

[110] Ibid., 97.

[111] Ibid.

[112] Ibid., 48.

[113] Ibid.

[114] Ibid., 48-49.

[115] Ibid., 50-51.

[116] Ibid., 49.

[117] Ibid., 52.

[118] Ibid., 55.

[119] Ibid., 56.

[120] Ibid., 57.

The Fall of the Holocaust Lie and the Rise of Truth and Reason

We are in a life and death battle to define reality. We have the knowledge. Replacing the toxic lies with the truth, that is a key to achieving lasting peace in the world.

monika2Monika Schaefer…by Jonas E. Alexis & Monika Schaefer


Alexis: It seems that many people are beginning to realize that they have been scammed and lied to by the Holocaust establishment for decades. As “Canada’s most notorious Holohoax heretic,” you have recently been playing a major role in waking some people up. What has been your experience over the years?

Schaefer: Beyond Jasper, I am receiving a lot of supportive messages. These are coming from all across Canada, the US, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. It is absolutely heart-warming, and gives me great hope. There are very many people who are truly and fully awake, and I do believe that this awakening is happening at an exponential rate right now. That is what my brother keeps saying, and I think he is right.

People have shared moving stories with me—stories which were triggered by the similarity of their experience to mine as a little German girl in Canada. For example, a story of an 8 year old daughter, who loses all her friends the day after the movie Holocaust was shown on TV, and who had swastikas and the word “Nazi” painted all over her desk in school. Those experiences are never forgotten. They are life altering.

One of the most common retorts to questioning the holocaust narrative, is “What about the survivors?” Or “I have met survivors – do you doubt them?”

That always seems to settle it. No further comment can be made. Period. They talked to survivors, and that proves the holocaust.

Okay, I have a holocaust survivor story to share with you too. We had a gentleman in Jasper for many years who had been in Auschwitz, therefore a direct holocaust survivor himself. Fred and his wife Gertrude – they were dear friends of mine, both deceased now. And I am not trampling on their memory, in case someone wants to accuse me of that – it’s another common tactic to shut us up.

I made a special point of inviting Fred and Gertrude to my home for dinner to give us “the talk”. I still fully believed in the holocaust, and I was being conscientious and doing the right thing, making sure my daughter learned all about it, and we also had visitors from Germany, a woman with her daughter. They were extremely interested in this. The children were around 11 and 12.

I wish now that I had recorded the talk. I didn’t, but here are my memories of it. After a lovely dinner, we cleared the dishes and prepared to listen. The talk was read. It was easier that way, they explained. It was quite general, but some specifics that were emphasized were that Fred never hated the Germans; in fact, he married one. He was polish and I don’t think he was Jewish – I am not sure. He stressed that there were many non-Jews in camp.

At the end I remember feeling a bit of a let-down, because there wasn’t anything in the talk which confirmed the holocaust horrors. There were no descriptions of gas chamber facilities in the camp, like “watched people being filed this way or turn left or right, or no talk of smoke, or anything like that.” No, the talk was very general about conditions of the war, and why he was incarcerated (I recall something about working with the underground, maybe a newspaper…I am not quite sure).

On another occasion, Fred sang a song which had been composed for him in Auschwitz by another camp inmate. I remember being so surprised. There had been music in the camp.[1]

I am not saying that Fred was confirming or denying anything about the official story. There was nothing there that could be interpreted one way or the other, and it would not have occurred to me to question what he believed or didn’t believe happened there. The holocaust was self-evident and we all knew it happened, right?

I would surmise that probably Fred came to believe the stories, just like my parents had come to believe the stories. But Fred did not describe specific horrors because he had evidently not seen them. He always spoke about how grateful he was to Canada for treating him so well and taking him in. He gave back to the community in spades. He volunteered a lot.

I want to reiterate, I have the utmost respect and love for Fred and Gertrude. After my video came out, friends in Jasper asked “What about Fred and Gertrude?” If anybody should think for one second that I am trampling on their memory, that would be just as absurd as the notion that I trampled on my parents’ memory by my apology to them.

Earlier, I brought up psychological warfare and weaponized language. I want to come back to that. And I want to add the legal dimension in this story.

There is this almost impenetrable barrier that has been engineered into people’s brains by a lifetime of indoctrination, lies, deceptions, weaponized control words, and our own good qualities used against us. By nature, most people have compassion, empathy, and trust. But our natural instincts to help our kinfolk have been suppressed by the welfare state, the “social safety net”.

Now these suppressed instincts are being exploited, especially in Europe, Germany in particular, so that in effect we and our cousins in Europe are contributing to our own demise. The massive flood of migrants into Europe, mostly into Germany, are being taken care of by countless volunteers in villages and towns all across the country. This is getting into a large topic that would take another few hours to discuss, but I did want to touch on that, because it is all related. It is about the final attempt to destroy Germany and Germans.

So what about the laws?

Now, even if there was NO evidence proving that we are being lied to, no physical, forensic, documentary, photographic, memory evidence whatsoever, the REACTION to dissent – that alone should be enough to cause any clear-thinking person to have grave concern about the story. To my way of thinking, the ferocious, character-assassinating assault on dissidents is evidence that there is something to hide.

In Germany it seems to be the worst. Political prisoners is something that we always thought only happened in evil dictatorships or communist countries far away. Not so. German citizens get extradited back into the country to be thrown in jail for peaceful expression of their views. No violence, no incitement to violence, just speaking about a historical event with their dissenting conclusions, and not only are those people going to jail, their lawyers go to jail! I am sure you all have heard about Sylvia Stoltz, the lawyer who defended Ernst Zundel. She went to jail. Then after she got out, she went to jail again after giving a speech about freedom of speech in Switzerland.

I have intelligent friends and family members who do not seem to comprehend this aspect of it. To me, the legal repression alone should be enough to cause alarm about this whole fishy business. What are they hiding and why are they hiding it?

About my brother, Alfred Schaefer, the producer of the video in which I make an apology to my mother. His home was raided on August 18, 2016. I will read you excerpts from a couple of his email messages. You will see, he is doing very well. He sees this as a “spectacular opportunity to deal the thought-crime division a real blow”. He mentioned that normally a raid on thought criminals is conducted with a heavily armed SWAT team of 8 or 9 officers with sirens blazing and much fanfare at 3 am. That is a psychological warfare trick to intimidate. They didn’t do that.

Quote from Alfred:

“Today has been a bit of an unusual day but it makes me very happy when I realize the potential that can be gained by the events as they have unfolded. While I was in the shower this morning the doorbell rang. My wife, Elfriede, opened the door and had to let in a man and a woman who were from the criminal police.

“After coming out of the bath room, I greeted the Gentleman and asked him what it is he desires in our house. I wanted to convey to him that I had nothing to hide and have no fear. He told me that he has an order to search our premises because I have been accused of incitement to hatred.

“I put on my clothes and then they showed me the paper which made me very happy. The evidence against me is a video with the title, ‘Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust’. It really will be interesting how they will define ‘incitement to hatred’ out of that, an apology to Mom. I think they just shot themselves in the foot.

“Then they told me I could get a witness if I wanted to and I told them, yes I do. I went to the neighbour who happened to be about ready to leave and he came over, extremely gentlemanly and polite. The incredible luck is the fact that his name is Haro GRAF von Luxburg, he comes from royalty. These people are truly nobility in every sense of the word. When he had to leave for the office his adult son Alexander took over and he was every bit as dignified and professional as was his father. The police proceeded to go through every thing you can imagine and then took all my computers and all kinds of papers and went off.

“Seldom have the ducks been better aligned than they are right now. We all wanted to take this to the next level, and they have done it for us. I am eternally grateful that one of the tribesmen followed Bnai Brith’s plea to take me down.

“I have never in my life seen a better opportunity to embarrass these thought police that this now offers us. The fact that the witness name on the ‘search’ papers was GRAF VON Luxburg will make the accuser uncomfortable. Plus, they took so much stuff from me, that they all will learn a lot when they go through it. I told them that it is all OK, they are only following orders and I am very happy that they will not shoot me, as would have been the case in the Soviet Union under the same tyranny, so I am, indeed, very lucky. I told them I have many other videos that they may also want to check out.

“So, now I will have to change my daily routine a little and see how this develops. The timing was absolutely perfect, just cleaned away the studio, and ding dong, they were there. A week earlier would have been bad. The fact that we just got up the “Dissident Speaks out” and ”Dissidenten Reden Klartext” is supremely fantastic.

“The German version has been sent to every single judge in Germany and so many more people. If I had to write a script for a raid that fits my liking, I could not have written a better script than the one that just played out. Let’s leverage every single bit of this as focused and positively as we possibly can.”

I personally have had a wonderful life, never having suffered the brutality of war, at least not directly. I grew up in a Utopian Ideal. It made us particularly vulnerable to the lies – having trusted and believed. We were taught that we have Government by the people of the people for the people…  We were taught we had total freedom of speech and that the wars were fought against the “bad guys” so as to protect our freedoms that we cherish so much. So when the teachers told us things, and when the media told us things, why would we not believe them?

It is natural for children to believe the grown-ups. Combine that natural trust with all those wonderful things we were taught about our country, which sure did feel like a Utopia – it was a wonderful time growing up in the 60s and 70s in Canada. That all made us a most vulnerable people to being “brain-washed” which we now like to call mind-contaminated. Brainwash sounds clean. That is not right. Our brains were contaminated by the toxic brew of lies.

I am new to this awakening and I was solidly entrenched in the mind-contaminated state, so, there is hope for others to come out of that state too. We just have to figure out the best way to reach people. And different approaches will work for different people.

Personally I think the legal implications of dissent, that aspect is what I think is the key to getting through the mental barriers that people have. Surely most people still have some part of their brains functioning with enough clarity that when we point out the absurdity of legislating thought, legislating what questions we can ask about our history, legislating away the evidence, will they not see through this?

This is unique about the Holocaust – this persecution of holocaust dissidents. That alone – should tell any clear-thinking person that there is something to hide. Even if you did no research about the actual event, this persecution should tell you there is something wrong with the story! In fact, there are just a very few people in Jasper who have stated that the treatment I have received has caused them to become curious, and it might just make them look, and do some research.

My life has changed, no question. Some of the things that have happened are indeed very hard, very negative. They say ignorance is bliss – if I had not gone through that door, then I would just be carrying on doing what I was doing before – which believe me – I was having a good life. Playing and teaching music, growing food, going hiking, generally having a grand time.  Some might wonder why I would be happy for this awakening when look what it has done to my life.

I have absolutely no regrets. I am so happy to have gone through that door and learned the truth, because formerly, nothing really made sense. The world did not make sense. Even running in elections, which was fun at first because of the stimulation – and it gave me a platform from which to speak – but even that became a frustrating experience, not because I didn’t win, but because it is a broken system.

I am so glad that I no longer suffer from the induced mental illness, the contaminated state of mind brought on by the toxic lies.

This is the “top game” in town and we are in it. And actually it is not a game. It is as serious as it gets. It is the most high stakes struggle of our times. We are in a life and death battle to define reality. We have the knowledge. Replacing the toxic lies with the truth, that is a key to achieving lasting peace in the world.

The learning curve is still steep – there is much to learn. Like the layers on an onion, the layers of deception just keep peeling off. Yes, the truth is horrifying in many ways, and yet it is much brighter on the side of truth. And the truth is a relief in many ways!

World War 2 had many victims, and many of them were Jewish. There is no doubt about that. But how and why they died, and of course the numbers, that is another question. There was no order given to exterminate the Jews.

Now, even the curators of the Auschwitz state museum revised their numbers downward by 2.9 million. What are we to make of that? There has been no reckoning with that revision. There has also been no reckoning with the admitted propaganda lies of shrunken heads, soap and lampshades made from the bodies of Jews. And finally, there has been no reckoning with the massive amount of evidence demonstrating that we have been lied to about who did 9/11.

Only with truth can we achieve peace. Only by confronting the lies can we bring down the monstrosity of deceptions which bring us endless wars and endless destruction and endless turmoil. There is light and hope for a decent future.

Alexis: Great conclusion. Our paths are not that different. I remember very well when I stumbled upon these issues back in the summer of 2009. I had just finished reading a 1200-page book written by a prolific scholar that I admire, and he basically destroyed everything I previously believed about the ideological forces behind all the major revolutionary movements and subversive activities in Europe and America.[2]

I was still skeptical after I read the book, so I bought most of the historical sources and scholarly documentations the writer cited in order to prove him wrong. I thought to myself, “Maybe he misquoted or misrepresented or mischaracterized the sources to advance his case.”

Well, he didn’t, and I couldn’t prove him wrong! The sources were irrefutable and his conclusions were based on logical deduction and inference to the best explanations. I pursued further research in order to see if he was at least wrong on some of his citations. I found out again that he was absolutely correct. During that whole process, I kept asking myself: “Should I continue to believe a categorical lie, or should I follow the evidence and embrace it?” Plato’s statement about the truth began to make some sense to me as I was completing my research:

“And don’t you think that being deceived about the truth is a bad thing, while having a grasp of the truth is good? And don’t you think that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are?”[3]

If truth is that which corresponds to the way things really are, then we can do nothing less than to earnestly search after it—no matter where it is and in which direction it may point us. One can say that this is why Solomon declares: “Buy the truth, and sell it not.” No matter how much it costs or what consequences it may bring to our lives, truth is not just better than falsehood: it is real freedom in the most radical sense, and people who love the truth will submit their will and appetite to it.

After over year of exhaustively studying the subject, I could not see how the Neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik/Zionist/Khazarian ideology corresponds to the way things really are. It eventually became increasingly difficult for me to reconcile Zionism, Neoconservatism—and other “isms” which the Dreadful Few have concocted over the centuries—with logic, reason, and history. It also became obvious to me that the metaphysical nature and byproducts of those “isms” always amount to death, chaos and suffering.

Those “isms” didn’t just have problems. They were ontologically problematic—not only for Europe, but for the entire planet as well.

Who would have thought that the Bolshevik Revolution would morph into Maoism, which itself ended up liquidating at least 40 million people in China?[4] Who would have thought that the Bolshevik ideology would again be transported to America via the Neoconservative movement?[5] Who would have thought that the same diabolical movement would end up destroying countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya?[6]

28-year veteran of the C.I.A. and academic Paul R. Pillar has recently argued that under the banner of “war on terror,” America is still “searching for monsters to destroy.” He says, “The notion that a ‘war on terror’ has a discernible end involves at least as many problems as the idea that it had a clear beginning.”[7]

As a result, Pillar continues, “Certain policies and practices were adopted that could make sense only if seen as temporary wartime expedients.”[8] One of the visible manifestations of this “war on terror” is the destruction of Iraq, which Pillar admits was fueled by the Neoconservative ideology,[9] which we all know by now is a Jewish ideological movement,[10] and which Paul Craig Roberts has recently said is a threat to the political order.[11]

The sad part is that while the Neoconservatives ideologically aspire to destroy one country after another in the Middle East, they also seek to silence people who want to honestly talk about these serious matters in a rational way. But the last three years alone have shown us that those people cannot attack historical truth and win. In fact, there has been an abundance of historical studies on how the Dreadful Few and their marionettes deliberately destroyed Germany after World War II.[12]

This seems to show that both Hegel and Solzhenitsyn were right all along: truth and reason will triumph in the end. Hegel called it “the cunning of reason.” This “cunning of reason” could not be seen directly by those who hate truth and reason. This “cunning of reason” will come out even through the actions of those who are fighting against it.

Moreover, this “cunning of reason” “fulfills its ulterior rational designs in an indirect and sly manner. It does so by calling into play the irrational element in human nature, the passions.”[13] This is not just a platonic or abstract idea which may not actualize in the real world; it is guided by “divine providence,” which is “wisdom, coupled with infinite power, which realizes its ends, i.e., the absolute and rational design of the world…”[14]

In short, the wicked passion of agents of the New World Order will ultimately bring about truth and reason in an indirect way, which will ultimately bring an end to the New World Order itself. So, the “cunning of reason” is guided by Logos. That is encouraging, and there is no need to be living in despair.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

[1] For further studies on this issue, see Sarah Ann Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

[2] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).

[3] Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.

[4] See for example Frank Dikötter, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010); for similar studies, see Zhou Xun, ed., The Great Famine in China, 1958-1962: A Documentary History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012); Alexander Pantsov, The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Revolution, 1919-1927 (New York and London: Routledge, 2000); Jean-Louis Panné, et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

[5] Numerous scholarly studies have been done on this very specific issue, but a brief summary, see Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.

[6] Hollywood has just released the movie Imperium, which portrays those who criticize the war in Iraq or even Zionism as “white supremacists”! So, what we need to worry about in 2016 is not Neoconservatism or subversive movements but some fringe and disbanded groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Alliance. Daniel Radcliffe, who plays an undercover FBI agent disguising as a white supremacist in the film, declared: “There’s something very exciting about doing a job you feel is potentially really important and is contributing to an important conversation.” Jason Chester, “’We were the most apologetic bunch of skinheads’: Daniel Radcliffe reveals discomfort at using racist language on set of neo-Nazi thriller Imperium,” Daily Mail, August 18, 2016.

[7] Paul R. Pillar, Why America Misunderstands the World: National Experience and Roots of Misperception (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 121.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 101-102.

[10] See Murray Friedman, Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); for similar or related studies, see Stephen Clarkson, Uncle Sam and Us: Globalization, Neoconservatism, and the Canadian State (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013); John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996); Marc Mulholland, Bourgeois Liberty and the Politics of Fear: From Absolutism to Neo-Conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014); Jesús Velasco, Neoconservatives in U.S. Foreign Policy under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: Voices behind the Throne (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010); John M. Schuessler, Deceit on the Road to War: Presidents, Politics, and American Democracy (New York: Cornell University Press, 2015); Michael MacDonald, Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015).

[11] Paul Craig Roberts, The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2015).

[12] See for example Norman A. Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007).

[13] Robert C. Tucker, “The Cunning of Reason in Hegel and Marx,” The Review of Politics, Vol. 18, NO 3, July 1956: 269-295.

[14] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975 and 1998), 35.


Those Outraged Over the UN Resolution Should be More Concerned with Israel’s Nukes Aimed at Us!

Dr. Patrick Slattery
Daily Stormer
December 31, 2016

The response to the recent vote in the United Nations Security Council over Israeli settlements has caused quite an uproar, which as usual completely misses the relevant points.

The political “right” in the United States has pretty much roundly condemned the Obama administration over not exercising its veto power to block what was otherwise a unanimous vote by the UNSC. Not just the Neocucks, mind you, but even paleo-conservative Pat Buchanan penned an article that, while not exactly condemning the UN resolution, used it as an example of why we should get out of the United Nations. This tacit support of Israel’s position by Buchanan was backed up by his calling war criminal Netanyahu “Bibi” and referring to Israel by the feminine pronoun “she,” which is something that we English speakers don’t do when referring to countries.

On the other hand, it is ridiculous to either praise or criticize Obama for “bitch-slapping” Netanyahu over this vote. Obama spent his entire eight years in office bending over backwards (forwards, more like it) for Israel. He completely shut his eyes to the murderous bombing of Gaza during the month of his inauguration, he signed on to the biggest-ever military give away package to Israel, did Israel’s bidding in fomenting civil war in Syria, and forced Iran into a very unfair nuclear deal that completely ignores Israel’s nuclear arsenal that poses an existential threat to the rest of the world.

See no evil monkey Obama not seeing Israeli missiles

The text of the resolution is extremely tame, merely stating that Israel should abide by international law. Try to find anything anti-Semitic or unfair in the text of Resolution 2334. But is contains no enforcement mechanism, just a request that the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months. So despite the outrage on the part of Jews and Zio-cucks, the passage of the resolution is hardly a victory worth celebrating, although the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement might hail the development. (Oh, I forgot, we are not allowed to use the world “hail” anymore. That would make us Nazis.)

The largely Jewish-led BDS movement gets people to measure victory or defeat by the number of Jewish housing units that are built in East Jerusalem or the West Bank. We are then encouraged to define our allies, who are the good guys and bad guys, by this measure. This turns many liberal Jews into “allies.”

But the real issue is that Israel has amassed hundreds of nuclear weapons and the missile, bomber, and submarine systems to deliver them to European capitals and even American cities. Yet thanks to the BDS movement, liberal Jews who support Israel’s capacity to genocide Europeans with these weapons are somehow our allies.

NOBODY is talking about Israel’s nuclear menace, even as we are putting our entire foreign policy behind protecting Israel from a non-existent Iranian nuclear menace. Israel has a Samson Option, whereby it would nuke European (and other) capitals should it be faced with regime change. Given that Jews effectively control the US and Europe, if Jewish power in these countries is “regime changed” would that trigger the Samson option?

This is the situation that President Trump will be faced with. Many of us, myself very much included, have been banking on an assumption that despite all his pro-Israel rhetoric, despite his two Jewish children-in-law, Trump understands the Jewish problem and the threat that Israel poses to the world. If for no other reason, my faith in Trump is due to the unprecedented level of Jewish hostility towards him.

But also remember that he has on numerous occasions indicated that he does not show his hand regarding military actions. He has said this while criticizing the Obama administration for allegedly announcing its plans for fighting ISIS in advance. One would hope that Trump has plans to deal with Jewish power that he is not revealing.

My hope, vain as it might be, is that Trump is throwing Israel a bone by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which is as meaningless a pro-Israel gesture as Resolution 2334 is a meaningless anti-Israel gesture. He will also allow Goldman Sachs Jews to continue running the Wall Street casino, at least for the time being. By doing so, he may not win the support of many Jews, but he will keep the support of evangelicals and military types on the right, whose deprogramming will take some time. He may also avoid a Fed/Wall Street sabotaging of the economy this way.

This would allow him to address the demographic threat posed by immigration. If he cannot make substantial progress on immigration, then we may never again be able to elect a president who supports the interests of white people.

If Trump can score some economic victories and deport the worst criminal aliens, he could acquire the political capital he needs to get Congress to revise the legal immigration system, which needs to do away with birthright citizenship for anchor babies and become much more restrictive on immigration in general. These legal changes have to be in place before he can even contemplate mass deportations for otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens. This is because mass deportations will deplete political capital and many of those deported will be able to come back legally if the legal system is not already changed.

But getting back to Israel. I have every sympathy for the Palestinians who are being ethnically cleansed by Israel, but we really need to be focused on the fact that traitors in the United States and Europe have for decades been equipping Israel with the weaponry needed for Israel to keep the planet hostage to Jewish overlords in the diaspora. At some point, Trump or a successor will have to put military contingency plans in place so we can find a way to neutralize this threat.

Lest We Forget–Israelis Watch Bombs Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats


The New York Times

Last Wednesday night, as he stood on a hilltop outside the Israeli town of Sderot and watched the bombardment of Gaza on the plain below, a Danish newspaper reporter snapped an iPhone photo of about a dozen locals who cheered on their military from plastic chairs while eating popcorn.

Allan Sorensen, a veteran Middle East correspondent for Denmark’s Kristeligt Dagblad, then uploaded the image to Twitter with a sardonic caption that described the macabre scene as “Sderot cinema.”

The image of the Israeli spectators was taken after 9 p.m. local time on Wednesday, the reporter said, about the same time that what was intended to be a “precision strike” from Israel’s military killed at least eight of their Palestinian neighbors, seated in similar plastic chairs at a beachside cafe in Gaza, waiting to watch the World Cup semifinal between Argentina and the Netherlands.

As his image reverberated around the social network, where it was shared more than 10,000 times, the reporter was surprised by the response. It was, he said in a telephone interview from Israel, “nothing new.” Similar scenes, of Israeli spectators gathered on the high ground above Gaza to view the destruction below, were documented in a Times of London article and a video report from Denmark’s TV2 during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.

Explaining that he has also previously witnessed Palestinians cheering news of bombings that killed Israelis, Mr. Sorensen said that in a war, “this is what happens.” Civilians and fighters on both sides, he said, “go through a process of dehumanizing the enemy.”

Despite the willingness of some residents to stand in the open watching the war unfold, Sderot is well within range of rockets launched by Islamist militants in Gaza and has been hit in recent days.

When he was a candidate for the American presidency in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama visited the town and saluted “the brave citizens” of Sderot while standing in front of a collection of spent rockets that had been fired at them from Gaza. He was also presented with an “I Love Sderot” T-shirt that channeled the dark humor of the residents, with the image of a heart on its front pierced by a rocket.

While some partisans of Israel on Twitter accused the Danish reporter of fabrication, the same scene, captured in photographs by several other journalists in recent days, was also witnessed by Mr. Sorensen’s colleague Nikolaj Krak, who wrote: “The hill has been transformed into something that most closely resembles the front row of a reality war theater. It offers a direct view of the densely populated Gaza Strip. People have dragged camping chairs and sofas to the top of the hill. Several sit with crackling bags of popcorn, while others smoke hookahs and talk cheerfully.”

When the bombs find their targets, Mr. Krak reported, “cheers break out on the hill, followed by solid applause.”

Mr. Sorensen, who stressed that he has “a complete understanding of what the people of Sderot have been going through for 14 years,” attributed the particularly vitriolic response to his Twitter report to the climate in Israel since three young religious students were kidnapped and murdered in the occupied West Bank last month. The journalist called the “extreme incitement to violence from very right-wing Israeli groups unprecedented” in the many years he has been reporting from the region.

An Israeli blogger, David Sheen, reported that a far-right rally in Jerusalem on Monday was marked by calls to kill Arabs and send Jews opposed to the bombardment to Gaza.