EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn rabbi charged with teen sex assault gets 60 days in jail; DA ripped for offering light plea deal

EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn rabbi charged with teen sex assault gets 60 days in jail; DA ripped for offering light plea deal

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

Yoel Malik got a generous plea deal after the victims declined to move forward with the case, officials said.

(ANTHONY LANZILOTE/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

A Brooklyn rabbi charged with sexually abusing four teenage boys in a hotel was sentenced to just 60 days in jail and six years of probation.Yoel Malik, 33, a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, was given the generous plea deal after the victims were extremely reluctant to testify publicly, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the case.

In 2013, Malik was charged with 28 criminal counts and shamelessly blamed his underage victims for trying to seduce him, police sources said.

BROOKLYN RABBI CHARGED WITH HAVING SEX WITH TEENAGE BOY

The boys were all students at Ohr Hameir, a now-shuttered Satmar yeshiva in Borough Park. The alleged victims were between 13 and 16 when the incidents occurred.

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

In 2013, Yoel Malik was charged with 28 criminal counts and shamelessly blamed his underage victims for trying to seduce him, police sources said.

(ANTHONY LANZILOTE/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

The rabbi was accused of groping all four boys in motels, prosecutors said after his arrest.

The twisted teacher also allegedly forced two of the boys to perform oral sex on him.

One of the victims was also forced to perform oral sex on Malik inside his car parked near a cemetery on a separate occasion, according to prosecutors.

In 2014, he pleaded guilty to a felony, luring a child, and a misdemeanor count of sexual misconduct, records show.

Over the past two years, he completed a series of probation requirements, including a sex offender class and staying away from children, court records show.

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal that Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson (pictured) offered Malik. 

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal that Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson (pictured) offered Malik.

(JULIA XANTHOS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

As part of the deal, the felony was dismissed upon completion of probation supervision. On Tuesday, he was sent to Rikers Island for 60 days for the misdemeanor offense.

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal. “What DA (Kenneth) Thompson has done is inexplicable,” said Ben Hirsch, a spokesman for Survivors for Justice. “Through unexplained plea deals such as this, he has effectively quashed any willingness on the part of victims to come forward.”

Malik’s lawyer, Roger Adler, said sarcastically: “I will concede he wasn’t burnt at the stake. He wasn’t stoned running through the village.”

It’s a “significant” punishment when any first-time offender gets sentenced to jail, he added.

Tags:
RELIGION
SEX CRIMES
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
NEW YORK SEXUAL ASSAULTS
DAILY NEWS EXCLUSIVES

torah-satan

Are all human beings, jews and Gentiles, equal? 

“As will be further clarified, this outlook completely contradicts the Torah of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign Western “values.”


Rabbi Yosef: Treating gentiles violates Sabbath

5 Votes

Shas’ leader says religious physicians cannot violate Sabbath in order to save gentiles’ lives, but offers halachic solution to avoid legal repercussions

Ynet

What should religious doctors do if a gentile is injured in a car accident on Shabbat and is rushed to the hospital? According to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, this does not warrant violating the sanctity of the Sabbath.

During a class on Sabbath halacha relating to religious physicians, the spiritual leader of Shas said that while doctors are expected to do everything in their power – even if it requires violating the Sabbath – in order to save Jews whose lives are in danger, the same does not apply for gentiles.

“If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital – Israel must not treat him,” he said, explaining that “if the particular procedures come from rabbis (de-rabbanan), then they might be permitted, but if they stem from prohibitions in the Torah (de-‘oraita), then they are not allowed, as the Torah forbids to violate the Sabbath for gentiles.”

Rabbi Yosef expounded on the problem, saying that the Mishnah Berurah explicitly says that “all religious physicians who treat gentiles on the Sabbath or violating the Sabbath; however, in reality the patients are brought to the hospital and must be treated. The doctors’ license says they must treat all patients without distinction of faith or race, and if they don’t, the State could revoke their license and also punish them. So what should the poor doctors do?”

The rabbi offered a halachic solution that follows a rule by which if a single person is doing the act, he is violating the Sabbath, while if two people are doing it together, they are exempt.

“The doctor who needs to operate will call on another doctor, or nurse, to hold the scalpel together and make the incision,” said Rabbi Yosef, saying that “it is necessary in order for religious physicians to refrain from being put on trial for distinguishing between a Jew and a gentile on Sabbath.”

Under the Heel of the Rothschilds

By Arch Stanton

And one man, Donald Trump, is supposed to reverse all this?” — Arch Stanton

That America is on “life support” has been clear for a long time—in fact, ever since the Swinging Sixties and the end of the Vietnam war. America’s rapidly deteriorating condition of the late seventies is what led to my search for what happened to the promise of “the American dream”.

What I cannot comprehend is all this wringing of hands, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. It’s like that old scorpion story. Didn’t America know what was going on before Trump was elected to ride on its back? Apparently not.

Observe: the Rothschilds consolidated their European holdings of wealth and power by the late 1700s. By the turn of that century, they virtually owned, and most certainly controlled Britain, the sole superpower of the day, a global power on whose colonial holdings “the sun never set.”

The Rothschilds also exercised considerable influence over the outcome of the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) that served to strangle the rise of another potential superpower: France. The financial power of the Rothschilds had originally been based in France, but when Napoleon began to resist their economic plans for his country, the Rothschilds diverted money to Britain and stirred up conflict between Britain and its traditional enemy France. The result: the demise of Napoleonic power at the battle of Waterloo (1815).

From that point on, Rothschild power grew by leaps and bounds. They played a critical part in fomenting and influencing the American revolution (1765-1783), the war of 1812 between America and Britain, the Mexican-American war of the late 1840s, and the American “Civil War” of 1861-1865.

By this time, the Rothschilds had begun expanding their parasitical power base to the “New world.” These wars reflected their emerging interest in America and their gradual abandonment of Britain as their center of power. With the Jews it has always been about war, war, war and more war. Since the day Jews fabricated their Torah, it’s always been about bloody war.

By the end of the 19th century, the Rothschilds had begun consolidating their control over America. Around the same time, a small portion of their global plan was unveiled by the sensational publication  of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903), since conveniently dismissed as a “forgery”.

A scant twelve years after the new century began, the Rothschilds’ full economic control over America was finally accomplished with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (December 1913). Within seven months of that Act, the world was at war, dragging America (with its massive army of two million troops) into the bloodshed. This was in April, 1917.

The Federal Reserve act was the very same Br’er Rabbit scheme replayed with Trump’s election.

Jewish economic influence then fomented two of the most murderous wars in history, first one in 1914 and then a second in 1939, a scant quarter of a century after the first major killing campaign. From the very beginning of the century, brush wars raged throughout the century in places like the Philippines and South America.

In spite of this headline in a major newspaper in March 1933, you will still hear Jews hotly deny that they had anything to do with starting WWII. Regarded as an “anti-Semitic canard”, any public statement along the lines that Jews helped to kickstart the bloodbath of WWII can lead to loss of employment, social ostracism and other dreadful sanctions. The truth is no defense.

Just after the midpoint of the century’s global wars came the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. This was a thinly disguised, Jewish, cultural Marxist revolution that served to destroy American culture, reducing it to one of ignorant, stupid, rutting beasts that have now taken over the country, willingly marching in  lockstep behind the Jews’ unanimous cry for more warring bloodshed around the planet.

So there should not be the slightest surprise in finding the world in its present uproar, with war once again on the horizon. Thanks to the Jews’ destabilizing wars and revolutions, almost all the Near East has been destabilized and destroyed. The secondary effect of this destruction has been the unrestricted flooding of Europe with immigrants, thereby destabilizing and destroying most of Europe and its different cultures.

You are naturally not allowed to say that the Jews had anything to do with the “migrant crisis”—unless of course you happen to be an extraordinarily foolish Jew who lets the cat out of the bag by openly blabbing about Jewish responsibility for this major catastrophe:

36-SECOND VIDEO

Thanks to Jewish economic control that enabled them to eviscerate American manufacturing and industry—with a tidy profit to Jewish middle-men—America is now fully dependent on global trade for its survival. America can no longer survive without a constant infusion of foreign trade that is completely controlled by Jewish economic policy.

And one man, Donald Trump, is supposed to reverse all this?

How can anyone be so naive as to believe that any one person, or even a small group of people, could ever reverse this continuous parade of long-standing historical trends that began with the Rothschilds’ accumulation of a major portion of the world’s wealth?

This should be especially obvious considering Jews have all the wealth to fund their agenda with, while the goyim are left with little more than angry words.

LD comments: I revealed in a recent article that the Rothschild family is widely reported to own as much as the rest of the world’s 7.5 billion people put together, if not more:

Jews make up 11% of the world’s billionaires, so the Jews are doing exceptionally well given that they make up only 0.2% of the world’s population. (Source)

Jews make up only 2% of America’s population; but according to a recent Forbes Israel list, they make up a whopping 24% of American billionaires. Out of 442 US billionaires, 105 were Jews. (Source). With such enormous wealth concentrated in the hands of American Jews, is it any wonder they own the mass media and major corporations as well as have huge reserves left over for the bribery and corruption of American politicians?

The statement that the Rothschild family alone owns FIVE times as much as the combined wealth of the world’s EIGHT wealthiest billionaires in the world combined, is obviously calculated to create unbounded astonishment at the vast wealth of the Rothschilds. And yet to many astute observers the statement will be seen as a deliberate underestimate of Rothschild wealth.

It is widely known—or at any rate, suspected—that the Rothschilds own roughly $500 TRILLION. This amounts to exactly half of the $1000 trillion owned by the rest of the world’s 7.5 billion population. (See here) [LD]

ARCH  STANTON (continues) :  It must surely be obvious to all that the world is running straight, narrow and true on rails paid for by Rothschild money. What I see in all this brouhaha about Donald Trump is exactly what was to be expected, i.e., another Jewish dog-and-pony show intended to occupy the public while other, far more critical, events pass unnoticed.

This is exactly the way Jews have been playing the deception game since the days of the Old Testament when they marched around Jericho singing, shouting and blowing horns to disguise their sappers undermining Jericho’s fortifying walls.

Jews pride themselves on their magical acumen. Magicians base their act on deception. Hey, look at what this hand is doing! —so you don’t notice what the other hand is up to! This is the game being enacted now in the Trump charade, n’est-ce pas?

From the beginning of their rise to a global, economic power, the Rothschilds and their Jewish henchmen have been calling the shots like the global criminal mafia they have always been. Whether the world recognizes this and takes action to excise this virulent, diseased parasite or suffer the terminal consequences of watching the big game on television while the world goes up in flames, remains to be seen.

If past performance is an indication of future outcome, the world can expect a nuclear war any time soon. So far, Jews have a better performance record at creating war then a Warren Buffet fund has at creating wealth.

Why complicate this issue when it’s really simple?

The American dream, thanks to the machinations of the Rothschilds and their minions, has now morphed into a full-blown nightmare.

Lady Michele Renouf: British military policy of targeting civilians in the WWII air war against Germany. She concludes that it was the Germans who, by definition, were the true victims of an actual “holocaust”

The Real Holocaust Victims Were the Victims of British Firebombing in World War II

VIDEO: Excerpts from a presentation by Lady Michele Renouf, speaking in Vancouver, reporting on a recent “Identitarian” conference in Mexico during which the true events of World War II were discussed in relation to understanding current affairs in modern day Europe.  She spoke of “swindle-speak” and  the historical misappropriation of terms by the media and enemies of truth, providing the term “holocaust” (a burnt whole offering) as a major example. She cited historical facts concerning the British military policy of targeting civilians in the WWII air war against Germany, and she concludes that it was the Germans who, by definition,  were the true victims of an actual “holocaust”.  She referred to Churchill’s policy, to “baste” the Germans and burn them alive. Thus, she said, “the German people should rightfully reclaim this term for themselves”. She then quoted Dennis Richards, Official Historian of the R.A.F. who admitted that the British initiated the air war, targeting civilians, in order to goad Hitler into bombing England in retaliation.

Regarding effective activism in terms of “Identitarianism”, from her own expertise in the advertising industry, she says that in order to reach the general public with the message, it is important to not use the adversary’s terminology, to not act and dress as they wish, and of not adopt archaic or nostalgic symbolism which the enemies of truth have already demonized. She urges civility and creativity in order to appeal to the wider audience with one’s message and opposes the “Neo-Nazi” look and methods.

I attended this presentation and was involved in the Q&A segment, included in this video. One should not assume, however, that I necessarily subscribe to the “Identitarian” viewpoint. My issue is and remains “Justice for Germans” with the caveat, that humanity as whole will also benefit from understanding the truth about Hitler, National Socialism and World War II.  I was, however, much impressed with her presentation. My main reason for attending was my great respect for her, in light of all of her activism on behalf of the German people and for Our Fallen over many years, and indeed, for all of humanity against our common enemy or “our predator” as she calls them.Her contention that the “Holocaust” happened to the German people echoes my own sentiments. This is also evidenced in the documentary film “Hellstorm“.

It was delightful to re-acquaint myself with her since our last meeting nearly 4 years ago. We spent several hours chatting privately after the event had concluded, and I shared with her some of what I have done in that time, including the founding of The Truth and Justice for Germans Society. She read the mandate and constitution, and she endorses it, saying “it is long overdue” and she wondered “why has it not been done before?” Other TJGS members were also in attendance and greatly appreciated her presentation.

Related Info: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Identitarianism

Lady Michele’s main website: http://tellingfilms.co.uk/

Posted in Activism, Bombing, England, Germany, holocaust, Video, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Allied Use of Delay-Action Bombs (aka Long-Term Chemical Detonator Bombs) and their Effects

Contrary to the claims of the “Court Historians”, the Allied Terror-Bombing Campaign was not intended for the destruction military targets, as my previous post demonstrate, but rather, to “de-house” and to kill as many German civilians as possible.

“Court Historians” are the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the “official line” or interpretation on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, or other key historical events and public policies. As a result they enjoy high esteem and recognition in the mainstream media and academia. As defenders of the status quo they frequently attack and label their critics as “conspiracy theorists,” “revisionists,” “isolationists,” “appeasers,” “anti-intellectuals,” or other boogie men, rather than engage in civil discourse or discussion.
http://www.houseofpaine.org/court_historians.html

British documents as referred to by David Irving (and many other Non-Court Historians), and many quotes from the British military leadership confirm that the British and later also the Americans, deliberately targeted civilians, contrary to International Law.  (See Dehousing Paper) Further proof of this, however, is in the routine use of Delay-Action Bombs by the Allies.

Many of the bombs which were dropped upon German cities contained a perfidious mechanism which, rather than exploding immediately upon contact with the ground or with buildings, were designed to explode hours or days later, thereby causing harm to survivors when they had emerged from their bomb shelters and cellars. They also caused serious danger to the Fire Fighters and Rescue personnel, sometimes killing them or making their duties virtually impossible to carry out. Both the British and Americans had these types of ordinances in their arsenals and also and frequently deployed them. Yes, this is how the so-called “good guys” and “liberators” waged war.

The chemical-mechanical fuse devices contained in them were housed in the rear portion of a standard aerial bomb. However, added protection using artificial materials (celluloids) were built in to prevent an immediate explosion upon impact. A glass ampule, located in the rear section, which contained acetone would instead break open upon impact and then slowly begin to dissolve a series of the protective celluloid plates or barriers,  which barricaded the explosive materials, eventually triggering the firing pin and then finally detonating the bomb at a later point in time. The time of detonation was dependant upon how long it took for the acetone to dissolve the celluloid barriers. The speed of this chain of could also be varied according to the number or thickness of the barriers and / or the strength of the acetone contained in the glass ampule.  Thus, they could be designed to detonate in any time frame ranging from several hours to a week. These Delay-Action Bombs can only be regarded as murderous weapons of terror and mass destruction.  (Weitere Infos auf Deutsch, siehe:http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Alliierter_Bombenterror)

Many such bombs, however, did not explode at all and are still being dug up today on German soil by farmers or in the course of road construction, the building of railways or the digging of tunnels for underground public transportation lines, etc. These have also frequently been found in rivers and canals. These bombs are, however, no less deadly than the day they were dropped, over 70 years ago. As a result, and to this day, “bomb alarms” are still a common occurrence in German cities and towns, resulting in sections of towns to be evacuated, roads to be closed and rail transportation to be halted for hours while highly trained bomb-disposal experts attempt to diffuse them, move them, or to detonate them on the spot. They could, however,  under the right conditions, still explode spontaneously.

Finding unexploded German ordinance on British soil is, by comparison, a more rare occurrence.  Whenever one is found, it is usually in London. This speaks to the fact that the German side did not use Delay-Action Bombs, as claimed by Wikipedia (without citation) for example, and also to the fact that England was never bombed to anywhere near the same extent as Germany.  Nonetheless, when a single unexploded World War II German bomb is discovered in England, as was recently the case in London on March 22, 2015, it is an international “sensation” and news reports of this are carried world wide, apparently as proof of the barbarism of the “evil Nazis”. See my web search for news reports here: https://startpage.com/do/search?q=London+unexploded+German+bomb&lui=english

By contrast, it is rarely reported in the international media when unexploded British or American bombs are found on German soil. Why? Perhaps because it is such a common occurrence. Perhaps because they don’t want the world to know and to understand the full extent of the criminal Allied Terror Bombing Campaign and the types of bombs that were used. Or perhaps because, “it happened to evil Germans who deserved it, and so who cares”? One recent exception, however, appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

German City Evacuated After Unexploded World War II Bomb Is Found – Officials cleared 20,000 people from area surrounding Cologne’s Mülheim bridge (WSJ |May 27th, 2015)

Excerpts: “Seven decades since the end of World War II, unexploded bombs from are still found regularly throughout Germany, a legacy of the Allies’ sustained bombing campaign aimed at destroying German industry [a big lie, as exposed in the my previous posts] and breaking domestic morale. In Cologne alone, 25 bombs on average are discovered and deactivated each year, so far without causing any incident, city officials say. “

“Most large and midsize German cities were subject to bombing campaigns in the later phase of the war, leading to casualties estimated between 305,000 and 600,000 people, according to various historical records. [These are typical, deliberately downsized BRD stats]. In May 1942, Cologne became the first German urban area to face mass-scale bombing [refers to the Area Bombing Directive of Feb. 14th, 1942 and does not consider earlier bombings of German cities] when British Royal Air Force bombers dropped more than 1,400 tons of ordnance on the city. Allied forces bombarded the city 262 times during the war, city spokeswoman Sabine Wotzlaw said.”

(Be sure to also read the “who cares” type of comments posted by the WSJ readers)

Here is an exceptionally good and thorough article:

Nobody Knows How Many Unexploded Bombs Are Hidden Under Berlin – Vice.com – April 14, 2014, By Katie Engelhart

The Reichstag after the Allied bombing of Berlin (Photo via)

In the thick of WWII, Allied pilots dropped some 2 million tons (estimates vary) of bombs on German soil. Most of the bombs exploded, but up to 15 percent were duds and failed to detonate on impact. Today, these unexploded relics lie waiting. Experts figure that up to 250,000 live bombs remain scattered around Germany, and barely a week goes by without a bomb squad being summoned to one of them—unearthed, perhaps, by a hapless construction worker or a farmer tending to his fields.

Authorities take precautions, but there are still accidents. Bombs go off suddenly and sometimes people die. Though most of the Great War’s combatants are long dead, WWII’s casualty list keeps growing. Over the last few years, the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) has become a more pressing problem. As WWII bombs grow old, their stabilizing agents begin to decompose and they become sensitive to the tiniest of tremors. As this happens, the risk of spontaneous explosion increases.

This situation isn’t unique to rural backwaters, either. Berlin, which was bombed to shit between 1940 and 1945, hosts an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 unexploded bombs (in addition to loads of unexploded grenades, rockets, artillery shells, mortars, mines, etc.) with around ten to 15 live bombs found in the capital each year…

CONTINUE READING HERE: http://www.vice.com/read/unexploded-wwii-bombs-germany

Also note that the Inglorious Bastard ALL LIES bear no responsibility even today for the cost of the bomb disposal operations. Nor do these occupiers, who still have armies on German soil today, send any of their own teams to disarm and dispose of their World War II bombs which they dropped. Meanwhile, the Germans today pay, and pay, and pay to apparently anyone who makes a claim against them, absorbs countless refugees from other countries, sends money and arms to IsraHell, and continually props up other failing EU states, all the while being continually smacked in the face with World War II Lies and Propaganda. The outright theft of German territory is not even discussed, much less compensation for our lost lands, or to the millions of Germans who were ethnically cleansed. And to date, no member of the ALL LIES has ever been tried for a War Crime or Crime Against Humanity, in spite of all of the overwhelming body of evidence.

So, did the war really end in 1945? Were the Germans in fact “liberated”? And was this really “the good war”? Or was it just the model for future wars against all nations who defend themselves against the tyranny of the International Bankster Gangsters and their New World Order agenda?

Related previous post:  A MOST UNCIVILIZED MEANS OF WARFARE – Genocidal British Bombing Policy During World War II

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, USA, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Churchill’s Policy of Deliberately Bombing German Civilians – A British War Crime

Video: Excerpts from a presentation by historian David Irving from the late 1980s / early 90s in Germany in which he explains how it was the British who started the aerial bombing and the targeting of civilians, and how it was Churchill, from the beginning, who made it British policy, knowing full well that it was a war crime. The intent was to eventually force Hitler to retaliate in kind. Hitler, himself, had always opposed the targeting of civilian populations, even long before the war. Moreover, this was a deliberate policy of subverting Hitler’s attempts to make peace by instigating hatred of the Germans in England. Irving provides some details of Hitler’s peace initiatives and terms. It is well documented that Hitler and had always sought friendship with England. It was the British war mongers in Parliament, however, who long before 1939 had been instigating for war. Statistics are also provided here which demonstrate how little damage was actually done to German industry and military production as compared to the monstrous destruction of German cities and towns, resulting in heavy civilian casualties.

Still more to follow on this topic!

 

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, Policies, Video, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who Started the Bombing of Cities and Targeting of Civilians in World War II?

Cologne bombed outIt is widely believed to this day that the Germans instigated the aerial bombing campaign against European and British cities, and thus “got what they deserved” in kind. Often cited are the German bombings of  Warsaw and Rotterdam. These two instances of bombings are not in dispute, however, the context must be considered. The details are seldom discussed, and hence, little known. The rules of warfare must also be considered. The deliberate targeting of civilians was indeed a “war crime”. The Hague conventions tolerated the bombing of cities IF they were under military occupation (ie “defended”), which was the case with both Warsaw or Rotterdam.

The Hague Conventions for Land Warfare (which Germany was a signatory to) stated:

 Article 25
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26
The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp

In the cases of both Warsaw and Rotterdam, the bombing was not intentionally to target civilians. Indeed, Hitler had long campaigned against such actions in warfare and at the commencement of hostilities with Poland, he gave explicit orders to the Luftwaffe to not target civilians, and they adhered strictly to this order.  In Warsaw, however, the Polish army retreated into the city and turned it into fortress. In essence, they took the city and the population as a hostage. They were given several ultimatums to surrender, with reasonable time to do so, but they refused. Flyers were also dropped from the air to warn civilians of the imminent danger. All prudent measures were taken. While civilians indeed died, they were not intentionally targeted. The aim of the bombing was to force a surrender of the Polish forces which were holed up there. That was not, according to the international law, a “war crime”.  Here, one may also question why Hitler felt compelled to attack Poland in the first place. I have covered this in numerous past posts, however, to understand this fully, I recommend reading:

100 Documents on the Origin of the War (German White Book) pdf

The situation in Rotterdam was very similar. A group of Dutch resistance fighters that fought at the Grebbeberg took refuge in Rotterdam. This eventually resulted in a German ultimatum that if the Grebbeberg resistance did not cease, Rotterdam would be bombed. The resisters finally complied and the bombing raid was to called off at the last minute. However, there was a communications problem. Ground flares intended to call off the attack were not seen or by one of the inbound bomber formations and Rotterdam was thus inadvertently bombed. About 900 people died and 80,000 people became homeless as a result of ensuing fires which were NOT caused by incendiaries, but rather, by hazardous materials stored on the ground. Mainstream history confirms that:

“Student radioed to postpone the planned attack. When the message reached KG 54’s command post, the Kommodore, Oberst Walter Lackner, was already approaching Rotterdam and his aircraft had reeled in their long-range aerials. Haze and smoke obscured the target; to ensure that Dutch defences were hit Lackner brought his formation down to 2,300 ft (700 m).[27] German forces on the Noordereiland fired flares[28] to prevent friendly fire — after three aircraft of the southern formation had already unloaded, the remaining 24 from the southern bomber formation under Oberstleutnant Otto Höhne aborted their attack. The larger formation came from the north-east, out of position to spot red flares launched from the south side of the city, and proceeded with their attack. Fifty-four He 111s dropped low to release 97 tonnes (213,848 lb) of bombs, mostly in the heart of the city.[29]

Why the formation had not received the abort order sooner remains controversial. Oberst Lackner of the largest formation claimed that his crews were unable to spot red flares due to bad visibility caused by humidity and dense smoke of burning constructions and subsequently needed to decrease altitude to 2,000 feet.[30] But the red flare, which Lackner failed to see, might have also been used by the Germans to show their location in the city to avoid friendly fire. An official German form designated red as the colour for that purpose.[31]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz

While the details of what actually happened versus what was supposed to happen (or not happen) remain somewhat sketchy, it was clearly a military vs military attack, and not intended to deliberately target the civilian population of Rotterdam. This, however, will inevitably beg the question “why did the Germans invade peaceful, neutral Holland? Surely they had no right to do so!”  This question must be answered with another question. Why did the neutral Dutch permit the RAF to use its airspace to attack the German cities of the Ruhr Valley? Why did they not defend their stated neutrality?  The German White Book Nr.8 – The Sole Responsibility of England for the Bombing War (1943) indicates numerous instances of British bombers attacking German cities in the Ruhr from the direction of neutral Belgium and Holland. To my knowledge, this book is not available in an English translation.

Weissbuch_Nr.8_Alleinschuld_England

Indeed, the British Expeditionary Force planned to attack Germany through these countries, which were apparently not opposed, while still maintaining their declaration of neutrality. Germany was therefore not obliged to respect their proclaimed neutrality in defence of its own sovereign territory.

It must also be noted that Germany did not bomb the city of Paris (or other major French cities). Why not? Because the French declared them to be “free cities”.  In other words not occupied by the French military  or “not defended”. Thus they and their cultural artifacts, architecture etc were protected and would not be bombed by the Luftwaffe. That, however, did not dissuade the British and Americans from bombing Paris and other French cities later, thereby destroying cultural artifacts and killing many thousands of French civilians in the name of “liberation”.

The British bombing of German cities started well before Churchill even became Prime Minister, on Sept. 5th, 1939 at Wilhelmshaven. Then resumed again with ferocious intensity in the Spring of 1940 and increased with the advent of the unelected Churchill’s rise to power.

“On 3 September 1939 the French and British empires had declared war on Germany and England’s Royal Air Force began attacking German warships along the German coast with the North Sea. The attacks by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on German cities began with the attack on Wilhelmshaven on 5 September 1939. Eight months later, on the 9th of May 1940 began the German offensive in the West. On the 11th of May the British Cabinet decided to unleash the Bomber Command on the air war against the German hinterland. The following night British planes aimlessly dropped bombs for the first time on residential areas of Mönchengladbach-Rheydt. And from then on made such attacks on cities in the Ruhr area night after night. Up to the 13th of May 1940, i.e. two days later, the German side registered a total of 51 British air attacks on non-military targets plus 14 attacks on military targets such as bridges, railway tracks, defense and industrial plants.The first carpet bombing of a German city was in the night of the 15th to 16th of May 1940 in Duisburg. After that the RAF committed repeated air attacks on German cities. The night of the 24th of August 1940 – bombs meant to be dropped on the Thameshaven oil storage depot and on the Short’s factory at Rochester, by mistake or simply because they were randomly unloaded in order to escape fighters, fell on the City of London and nine other districts inside the Greater London area. Incendiaries lit fires in Bethnal Green, and St.Giles’ Church in Cripplegate was damaged. Oxford Street department stores were damaged. Nine people were killed and 58 injured. On the 25th of August 1940, British bombers attacked Berlin by night, and indeed not even to target important military targets, because the Royal Airforce (RAF) was not even capable, having not developed any bomb-targeting devices. On the 6th to the 7th of September 1940, a German air raid on London took place – but specifically on military targets such as ports, railway stations, war factories and power stations. Crews were expressly prohibited to drop their bombs on residential areas, because thereby, no ‘war deciding’ successes could be expected.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87187334/Churchill-the-Warmonger-Started-the-Bombing-on-Cities-First  (includes the German text, although I am still looking for the original source. I have contacted the person who posted this for his assistance and am awaiting a reply. I will update this post if and when I receive the requested info).

Regarding England, the fact is, that Germany endured a solid 5 months of bombing of its cities and civilians before responding in kind. The city of Coventry endured a mere 380 dead. While regrettable, that was absolutely minuscule in comparison to the bombing of hundreds of German cities and towns, and the casualties which the German side endured by this unprovoked, criminal British policy of targeting civilians.

For those who read German, I also recommend reading:

ERICH KERN. Verbrechen am deutschen Volk. Eine Dokumentation alliierter Grausamkeiten. 1964. VERLAG K. W. SCHÜTZ • GÖTTINGEN

Kern__Erich_-_Verbrechen_am_deutschen_Volk (pdf)

More to come on this topic.

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, Hitler, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

A MOST UNCIVILIZED MEANS OF WARFARE – Genocidal British Bombing Policy During World War II

Aachen-1945-Elisenbrunnen[J4G Exclusive, courtesy of Mike Walsh]  During World War Two more bombs by weight were dropped on the city of Berlin than were released on the whole of Great Britain during the entire war. All German towns and cities above 50,000 populations were from 50% to 80% destroyed. The great city of Dresden, dubbed the Florence of Northern Europe, was incinerated. Up to 300,000 civilians lost their lives.

Hamburg, one of Europe’s greatest and most beautiful cities, was torched. Genghis Khan would have exulted in the methodical razing of an entire city and the destruction of its population. The only surviving building was the city’s cathedral. This ecclesiastical wonder was saved not because of its spiritual symbolism. It survived only because it served the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Air Force (USAF) as a bombing run marker.

By no stretch of the imagination could such total destruction be written off as legitimate. Entire areas of Hamburg and other European cities, that offered no war value, were similarly destroyed. Furthermore, such total destruction of infrastructure and innocent lives cannot be dismissed by the ‘they started it first’ false argument. Nor can it be dismissed as a tit-for-tat bombing. In this one German city alone, over just a few nights in July 1943, the number of dead exceeded the entire military and civilian death toll of Britain during the war.

The Economist September 1941 conceded that just 2% of (British) real estate had been destroyed by German bombing. The article included a note that commented on ‘the furious pace at speculators who were buying the bombed sites for a song’. This situation remained largely unchanged until the end of the war. Germany never engaged in blanket or terror bombing, nor was it Germany that dropped atomic bombs on two of Japan’s most beautiful cities. Cities that incidentally were the only two Christian cities in Japan.

Hamburg. Operation Gomorrah. July 1943. Following the RAF raids the volcanic flames were hurled 5,000 feet into the sky, four times the height of New York’s Empire State Building. With the consequential gases, they rose as high again, and caused meteorological reaction high as the earth’s stratosphere.

Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 million souls were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the English government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. One of the campaign’s main aims was to reduce the German population (genocide) and furthermore reduce its capacity to become a trade rival to Britain. The bombing campaign led to Luftwaffe bombing of Britain in retaliation. This resulted in 60,000 British civilians’ deaths and 86,000 injured.

THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE

The eminent British war historian and strategist, Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart declared that through this strategy, victory had been achieved “through practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions.” – The Evolution of Warfare. Baber & Faber, 1946, p.75. “It was absolutely contrary to international law.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. “The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children for the purposes of mere terrorism.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain before he was ousted as Prime Minister.

Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for the deliberate destruction of civilian populations could be traced back to his comment: “The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy; to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched.” – Winston Churchill, The Great War. Vol. 3 P1602.

The German chancellor, on the other hand, was repelled by the mere thought of targeting civilians. “The construction of bombing airplanes would soon be abandoned as superfluous and ineffective if bombing as such were branded as an illegal barbarity. If, through the Red Cross Convention, it definitely turned out possible to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, then it ought to be equally possible, by analogous convention, and finally to stop the bombing of equally defenseless civil populations.” – German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

“Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.” – J. M Spaight. CB. CBE. Bombing Vindicated, p.47. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

The first breach of international law: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces. Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.” – F. J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172.

“The first ‘area’ air attack of the war was carried out by 134 British bombers on the German city of Mannheim on the 16 December 1940. The object of this attack, as Air Chief Marshall Peirse later explained, was, ‘to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the center of the town,” – The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. (H. M Stationery Office, London, 1961).

As early as 1953 H. M Stationery Office published the first volume of a work, The Royal Air Force, 1939 – 1945, The Fight at Odds. P.122 described as ‘officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch. Its author, Dennis Richards, reveals that: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably lead the clamor. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.”

“We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.
“Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11 1940, the publicity it deserves.” – Bombing Vindicated. J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

“Air Marshall Tedder made every effort to be a worthy pupil of his superior, Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Marshall told high British officers that Germany had lost the war because she had not followed the principle of total warfare.” – New York Times, January 10 1946.

“Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centers would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

“The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.” – Dennis Richards, the Royal Air Force 1939 – 1945. The Fight at Odds. H. M Stationery Office.

“It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sevastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would be less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

THE TRUTH HIDDEN FROM THE BRITISH PUBLIC

“It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940 – 1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders.”

“Too high praise cannot, therefore, be lavished on the British emotional engineers for the infinite skill with which the public mind was conditioned prior to and during a period of unparalleled strain.” – Advance to Barbarism, P. 168. Mitre Press, London. F. J. P Veale, British Jurist.

The bombing of the English city Coventry, a city with a manufacturing base is often claimed to be ‘our Dresden’. It is difficult to imagine a more ignorant riposte. “The inhabitants of Coventry, for example, continued to imagine that their sufferings were due to the innate villainy of Adolf Hitler without a suspicion that a decision, splendid or otherwise, of the British War Cabinet, was the decisive factor in the case.” – F. J. P Veale. Advance to Barbarism, P.169.

“One of the most unhealthy features of the bombing offensive was that the War Cabinet – and in particular the Secretary for Air, Archibald Sinclair (later Lord Thurso), felt it necessary to repudiate publicly the orders which they themselves had given to Bomber Command.” – R. H. S Crosman. Labor Minister of Housing. Sunday Telegraph, October 1 1961.

“Is terror bombing now part of our policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are supposed to be responsible for what is going on, are the only people who may not know what is being done in their name?”

“On the other hand, if terror bombing be part of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we shall live to rue the day we did this, and that it (he bombing of Dresden) will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon.” – Richard Stokes, MP.

This Member of Parliament was referring to the Associated Press Correspondent of Supreme Allied Headquarters in Paris. This had gloated. “This unprecedented assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from the Soviet Red Army tide in the East. The report had been widely broadcast in America, and by Paris Radio. It was suppressed in Britain for fear of public revulsion.”

“Thus, in a minute dated 28 February 1943, Sir Archibald Sinclair explained to Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, that it was necessary to stifle all public discussion on the subject because if the truth had been disclosed in response to the inquiries being made by influential political and religious leaders, their inevitable condemnation would impair the morale of the bomber crews and consequently their bombing efficiency.” – F. J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.29.

WORKING CLASS TARGETED FOR HIGH KILL RATIOS

“The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued with undiminished ferocity until the end of the war in May, 1945.

The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary. It was concentrated on working class houses because, as Professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.” – Advance to Barbarism, F. J. P Veale, British Author and Jurist.

SLAYING IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

“I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in ‘slaying in the name of the Lord!” – Sir. Archibald Sinclair, British RAF Secretary for Air.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN AS A PRIORITY

“They (the British Air Chiefs) argued that the desired result, of reducing German industrial production, would be more readily achieved if the homes of the workers in the factories were destroyed; if the workers were kept busy arranging for the burial of their wives and children, output might reasonably be expected to fall.” – Advance to Barbarism, F. J. P Veale; Distinguished British Jurist.

***

Mike Walsh, a journalist, author and researcher has studied and published his books on the political history of the 20th Century for over 40 years. In addition, he has contributed hundreds of articles to international media. An Irish citizen of considerable revolutionary pedigree, Michael Walsh has an international reputation also as a poet.

Currently he has published four titles covering the vexed questions of the Reich and World War Two. These best-selling books are available on Amazon Books and Kindle. “Heroes of the Reich”, “The All Lies Invasion”, “Heroes Hang When Traitors Triumph”, and “Thus Sprach der Fuhrer”. Further titles will follow in 2015 and 2016.

Heroes of the ReichThe Reich catapulted otherwise quite ordinary people into international acclaim. HEROES OF THE REICH is neither a military nor political history of the men and woman of many nations who gave their loyalty and in many cases their lives to the Führer’s Reich. HEROES OF THE REICH reveals the true accounts of political and military icons, fabulous artistes, great musicians, the ordinary people who withstood to their deaths the overwhelming onslaught of the combined forces of the British, Soviet and American Empires. HEROES OF THE REICH marks 82 years since the German leader, Adolf Hitler was elected, 70 years since the end of the Reich. Hitler’s triumph was that he alone laid claim to be the only true democrat in the War of the Dictators. Soviet leader Joe Stalin, a Georgian, was never elected. Nor was half-American British Premier Winston Churchill. Whilst U.S. President Roosevelt was narrowly elected, it was afterwards conceded that it was his empty promise not to involve the American people in another European war that achieved his ‘victory.’  Order at Amazon

My thanks to Mike for the article, his books, and his years of dedication to the truth! ~ J4G

Posted in Churchill, Germany, Great Britain, Policies, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Clinton system to discredit Donald Trump

Thierry Meyssan — Voltairenet.org Feb 28, 2017

This article is a warning – in November 2016, a vast system of agitation and propaganda was set up in order to destroy the reputation and the authority of President Donald Trump as soon as he arrived in the White House. It is the first time that such a campaign has been scientifically organised against a President of the United States, and with such resources. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-Truth age, but the distribution of rôles is not what you may think it is.

David Brock is considered to be one of the masters of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda) in the 21st century. A personality devoid of scruples, he is able to defend a cause as well as destroy it, according to the needs of his employer. He is at the head of an empire of mass manipulation.

The campaign waged against the new President of the United States by the sponsors of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the destruction of the Greater Middle East is on-going. After the Womens’ March on 22 January, a March for Science is scheduled to be held not only in the USA, but also throughout the Western world on 22 April. It’s goal is to show that Donald Trump is not only a misogynist, but also an obscurantist.

The fact that he is the ex-organiser of the Miss Universe pageant, and that his third wedding was to a model, is apparently enough to prove that he holds women in contempt. The fact that the President contests the rôle played by Barack Obama in the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (a long time before his Presidency) and rejects the idea that climatic disturbances are caused by the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere attest to the fact that he understands nothing about science.

In order to convince US public opinion of the President’s insanity – a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in universal economic prosperity – one of the greatest specialists of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda), David Brock, set up an impressive system even before Trump’s investiture.

At the time when he was working for the Republicans, Brock launched a campaign against President Bill Clinton which would eventually become Troopergate, the Whitewater affair, and the Lewinsky affair. Having changed his colours, he is today in the service of Hillary Clinton, for whom he has already organised not only the demolition of Mitt Romney’s candidacy but also her riposte in the affair of the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. During the first round of primaries, it was Brock who directed the attacks against Bernie Sanders. The National Review qualified Brock as «a right-wing assassin who has become a left-wing assassin».

It is important to remember that the two procedures of destitution of a serving President initiated since the Second World War were set in motion for the benefit of the deep state, and not at all for the benefit of democracy. So Watergate was entirely managed by a certgain «Deep Throat» who, 33 years later, was revealed to be Mark Felt, the assistant of J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. As for the Lewinsky affair, it was simply a way of forcing Bill Clinton to accept the war against Yugoslavia.

The current campaign is organised in secret by four associations:

- Media Matters is tasked with picking up on Donald Trump’s mistakes. You read his bulletin every day in your newspapers – the President can’t be trusted, he got this or that point wrong.

- American Bridge 21st Century has collected more than 2,000 hours of videos showing Donald Trump over the years, and more than 18,000 hours of other videos of the members of his cabinet. It has at its disposition sophisticated technological equipment designed for the Department of Defense – allegedly not in working order – which enables it to look for contradictions between their older declarations and their current positions. It should be extending its work to 1,200 of the new President’s collaborators.

- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — CREW is a firm of high level lawyers tasked with tracking anything that could create a scandal in the Trump administration. Most of the lawyers in this association work pro bono, for the cause. These are the people who prepared the case for Bob Ferguson, the Chief Prosecutor of the state of Washington, against the immigration decree (Executive Order 13769).

- Shareblue is an electronic army which has already connected with 162 million internauts in the USA. It’s job is to spread pre-ordained themes, for example:
• Trump is authoritarian and a thief.
• Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin.
• Trump is a weak and quick-tempered personality, he’s a manic-depressive.
• Trump was not elected by the majority of US citizens, and is therefore illegitimate.
• His Vice-President, Mike Pence, is a fascist.
• Trump is a billionaire who will constantly be faced with conflicts of interest between his personal affairs and those of state.
• Trump is a puppet of the Koch brothers, who are famous for sponsoring the extreme right.
• Trump is a white supremacist and a threat to minorities.
• Anti-Trump opposition just keeps growing outside Washington.
• To save democracy, let’s support the democrataic parliamentarians who are attacking Trump, and let’s demolish those who are co-operating with him.
• Overthrowing Trump will take time, so don’t let’s weaken in our resolve.

This association will produce the newsletters and 30-second videos. It will base itself on two other groups – a company which makes documentary videos, The American Independent, and a statistical unit, Benchmark Politics.

The whole of this system – which was set up during the transitional period, that is to say before Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House – already employed more than 300 specialists to which should be added numerous voluteer workers. Its annual budget, initially calculated at 35 million dollars, was increased to the level of about 100 million dollars.

Destroying the image – and thus the authority – of the President of the United States, before he has had the time to do anything at all, can have serious consequences. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and Mouamar Kadhafi, the CIA plunged their two countries into a long period of chaos, and the «land of Liberty» itself may suffer severe damage from such an operation. This type of mass manipulation technique has never before been levelled at a head of state in the Western world.

For the moment, the plan is working – no political leader in the world has dared to celebrate the election of Donald Trump, with the exception of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Al-Watan (Syria)

 

Source


Deep State War? Russian Officials Keep Dying Unexpectedly

Tyler Durden — Zero Hedge Feb 27, 2017

Six Russian diplomats have died in the last 60 days. As Axios notes, all but one died on foreign soil. Some were shot, while other causes of death are unknown. Note that a few deaths have been labeled “heart attacks” or “brief illnesses.”

'We die in Aleppo, you die here,' gunman reportedly shouts

  1. You probably remember Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.
  2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.
  3. Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia’s UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.
  4. Russia’s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a “brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.
  5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was “no evidence of a break-in.” But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.
  6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.

If we go back further than 60 days…

  1. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.
  2. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a “heart attack,” but the medical examiner said it was “blunt force injuries.”
  3. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity.

CCTV catches Putin's driver crash in Moscow last Sept. Click to enlarge

If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of nine Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years that WeAreChange.com’s Aaron Kesel knows of – he notes there could be more.

As Kesel explains, it’s worth noting that governments, specifically the CIA, have for long periods of time had chemical concoctions that can induce a full systematic shutdown of a person’s nervous system and in some cases cause someone’s’ heart to explode.

Former CIA employee Mary Embree discusses the infamous heart attack gun and how she was tasked with finding a chemical concoction that would cause a heart attack. The weapon was first made public during the Church Committee hearings in 1975 by former CIA director William Colby. It was said to be very lethal and untraceable, by using this weapon a murder is made to look natural while the poison dissolves in hours.

.

It seems highly unlikely and improbable to write off that six Russian officials would die in under 60 days in such an influx in various different mysterious ways without a catalyst. And let’s not forget RT founder and former Putin aide Mikhail Lesin was found dead in 2015 from a blunt weapon that was originally blamed on a heart attack so assassination can’t be taken off the table and ruled out in any of these cases. Turkey and Russia already accused NATO of a false flag attack killing Karlov the Russian-Turkish Ambassador. NATO also had a dead diplomat Yves Chandelon mysteriously die of a gunshot wound to the head in his car a week before the death of Karlov. Chandelon was the Chief Auditor in charge Of Counterterrorism funding.

“Turkey and Russia have the will not to be deceived by this false flag attack,” they said.

Don’t forget that on Christmas day, a Russian military jet went down over the Black Sea, killing 60 members of the Red Army choir and 33 others that just adds to the massive coincidence list.

On a final note, former acting director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Michael Morell openly conspired to “covertly” kill Russians and Iranians in Syria in an August 2016 interview with Charlie Rose. While Morell was talking about killing Russian and Iranian soldiers it is definitely a strange piece to add to this puzzle.

.

Are we witnessing a battle between the deep state and Russia in a spy versus spy plotline or is this all just a freak coincidence?

Source


PizzaGate: What is known so far

——————————————————————————————————-

 

Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain and the Fight Over American Imperialism

 

Photo

Adm. George Dewey and Marines in the Philippines shortly after the defeat of the Spanish, 1898.CreditBettmann/Getty Images

THE TRUE FLAG
Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire
By Stephen Kinzer
Illustrated. 306 pp. Henry Holt & Company. $28.

America’s turn from isolationism to foreign interventionism, often attributed to World War II, was the result of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent American conquest of the Philippines. That is the thesis of the journalist and historian Stephen Kinzer in “The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire.” All foreign policy debates since 1898 have echoed the themes of that era, Kinzer asserts. “Only once before — in the period when the United States was founded — have so many brilliant Americans so eloquently debated a question so fraught with meaning for all humanity.”

On May 1, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Adm. George Dewey’s warships crippled the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay in the Philippines, a Spanish colony soon to become an American protectorate until after World War II. On Sept. 30, 1899, in a triumphal parade in New York City, the admiral passed under the Dewey Arch, which stretched across Fifth Avenue at 24th Street. According to Kinzer, “It was modeled after the first-century Arch of Titus in Rome but was more ornate.” But as American forces in the Philippines turned from liberators into conquerors, using torture techniques like “the water cure” and engaging in massacres of insurgents fighting for independence, even some of the architects of the intervention had second thoughts. President McKinley, who had ordered the conquest of the Philippines, speculated: “If old Dewey had just sailed away when he smashed that Spanish fleet, what a lot of trouble he would have saved us.”

The Dewey Arch, initially built of plaster and wood, never became a permanent monument in New York City. Instead, Kinzer writes, “the City Council decided that demolition was the only option and, as The New York Times reported, ‘One morning the work lay on the ground in a hundred pieces.’ ”

Continue reading the main story

In the debate about the Spanish-American War and the conversion of the United States into a regional and global great power, the Anti-Imperialist League attracted most of America’s leading writers and reformers. Some, like the German-American senator from Missouri, Carl Schurz, were veterans of the campaign against slavery. Others, like Jane Addams, were leaders of the woman suffrage movement and other contemporary progressive reform causes. Many Southerners opposed American control of Cuba and the Philippines as well, for fear that granting their nonwhite populations rights would undermine white supremacy in the United States. And the anti-imperialists also included labor leaders like Samuel Gompers, who was concerned about the effect on American wages of immigration from the Philippines: “If these new islands are to become ours . . . can we hope to close the floodgates of immigration from the hordes of Chinese and the semisavage races coming from what will then be part of our own country?”

Supporters of the annexation of the Philippines similarly tossed out various arguments, like access to Asian markets and the uplifting of the Filipinos themselves. Theodore Roosevelt, whose participation in the war against Spain in Cuba made him a celebrity and put him on the path to the vice presidency and then the presidency, denied that the Spanish-American War and the war in the Philippines broke with American history. In 1899 in a speech titled “The Strenuous Life,” Roosevelt thundered at the anti-imperialists: “Their doctrines, if carried out, would make it incumbent upon us to leave the Apaches of Arizona to work out their own salvation, and to decline to interfere in a single Indian reservation. Their doctrines condemn your forefathers and mine for ever having settled in these United States.”

Roosevelt and the imperialists found their greatest nemesis in Mark Twain. Twain condemned all efforts by Western nations to carve up the non-Western world. Writing of the Boxer rebellion against Europeans and Americans in China, he declared: “My sympathies are with the Chinese. They have been villainously dealt with by the sceptered thieves of Europe, and I hope they will drive all of the foreigners out and keep them out for good.” Twain’s genius for satire showed in his widely publicized polemics for the anti-imperialist cause. In a 1901 essay for the North American Review, reprinted as a pamphlet by the Anti-Imperialist League, Twain said: “And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one — our states do it: We can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and crossbones.”

But Kinzer is not content to retell the story of the controversy over annexation of the Philippines. He tries to promote an overarching theory of United States foreign policy, and he cites the former Marine Gen. Smedley Butler, who in the 1930s bitterly described his military service in the Philippines, Cuba, China, Haiti, Mexico and Central America as that of a “gangster for capitalism” and “a high-class muscleman for big business.” Recycling the arguments of the venerable anti-interventionist tradition, Kinzer quotes figures like Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota, who blamed commercial interests for American participation in World War I, and post-1945 advocates of close Soviet-American ties like Henry Wallace and Paul Robeson. In this way, the rich detail of Kinzer’s account of the debate over American imperialism at the turn of the 20th century gives way to a hasty revisionist account of United States foreign policy as a series of imperial follies, in which the wars of presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama whiz past. All of American foreign policy for more than a century is attributed to some vague mix of business greed and arrogant folly.

Kinzer is free to make this case, but it should not have been tacked on to the conclusion of the book. His own account does not support the idea that business interests drove the United States to go to war with Spain and against the Filipino independence movement. Kinzer himself notes, “Businessmen as a class were at first reluctant to join the rush to war, but by midsummer many had been won over.” Andrew Carnegie was a passionate anti-imperialist, and Mark Hanna, identified with the interests of big business and banking, despised Theodore Roosevelt and thought him dangerous.

Kinzer points to the Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge who, along with his friend Roosevelt, was one of the champions of what was called a “large” foreign policy: “With our protective tariff wall around the Philippine Islands, its 10 million inhabitants, as they advance in civilization, would have to buy our goods, and we should have so much additional market for our home manufactures.” But this was an argument to be made for public consumption and hardly reflected Lodge’s worldview. He was part of a group of mostly patrician neo-Hamiltonians, including Roosevelt and the naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan, who sought to turn the United States into a great military power. They were not agents of American export lobbies.

Kinzer omits any discussion of the turn-of-the-century rivalries between the United States and other great powers, in the Caribbean, Central America and the Pacific. He does not even mention one of the most famous incidents of the war in the Philippines — the confrontation in Manila Bay between Admiral Dewey’s American fleet and the German fleet under Adm. Otto von Diederichs in Manila Bay in 1898. But as the Cambridge History of Latin America tells us, “German-American rivalry was an important factor underlying the expanded role of the United States in the Caribbean-Central American region. The German admiralty did not hide its desire for bases in the Caribbean to control an isthmian canal, and to American leaders it seemed that the German-American naval confrontations that had occurred in the Samoan Islands (1888) and Manila Bay (1898) might be repeated much closer to home.” Indeed, in 1903 the German admiralty devised Operations Plan III, which “envisaged the occupation of Puerto Rico . . . and the utilization of bases on the island to conduct a naval offensive against the United States.” “The True Flag” works better as a history of polemics than as a polemical history.

#OscarsSoJewish: 89th Oscars Ceremony Scores Second Worst Ratings Ever

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
February 28, 2017


Jimmy Kimmel, boring musicals about how fabulous famous people are and a night of Donald Trump bashing – nothing could save the Oscars.

For the 89th time in a row, Jews swept the Academy Awards, but this time, nobody cared.

This edition of the award ceremony had the second worst ratings since Nielsen started keeping track in 1974. As usual, the (((Fake News Media))) refuses to report why exactly millions of Americans didn’t bother tuning in, except as a “theory.”

It’s not that they can’t handle the truth, it’s that they have an agenda to protect, and under this umbrella is the dishonest notion that elite Beverly Hills Jews are the cultural vanguard and conscience of America.

New York Times:

The only Oscars broadcast to fare worse was the 2008 show, which had 32 million viewers and aired shortly after a writers’ strike had ended.

Last year, ABC secured broadcast rights for the show until 2028 — at a cost of roughly $75 million a year — and through the contract negotiations, the network was given a bit more creative input into the show. To wit, ABC got the host it long wanted: its late night star, Jimmy Kimmel.

There will most likely be a number of theories as to why viewership has dropped. Last year, the controversy surrounding #OscarsSoWhite, a movement on social media aimed at the lack of diversity among the nominees, led to speculation that viewers could be turned off by the prospect of an hourslong civics lecture. This year brought the prospect of political speeches aimed at the Trump administration from an entertainment industry that largely opposes the president.

Ratings are also often driven by the popularity of the movies in contention. “Moonlight,” which won the best picture award, was a favorite in big cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco but was ignored by much of the heartland.

I’m not prejudiced enough to dismiss every single movie or TV show about black people as bad. For example, “The Wire” and “Ghostdog” were pretty good. But judging from the vox populi reviews of “Moonlight,” a film about MoonCrickets that the New York Times claims went over “the Heartlands’” (read: white people’s) head. It’s obvious that this was an affirmative action victory in response to a phony media campaign.

But hey, there is something to the fact that Hollywood lacks diversity. Up on stage to receive the statuette for best picture (“Moonlight”) was Jeremy Kleiner, a Jewish producer who specializes in making politically anti-white movies aimed at inciting black violence (he won best picture in 2014 for “12 Years A Slave” and was nominated in 2015 for “Selma”).

With Gentiles being locked out of Hollywood, they are flocking to other parts of the country to continue cultivating the kind of well-written content (The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Westworld, etc.) Jews have killed with their transparent politicking.

It goes without saying that people like TWD writer Frank Darabont and Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan are hardline leftists, but even with their unrealistically diverse characters and gay/feminist propaganda, their shows lack the kind of gut-wrenching anti-white invective Jew-produced films like “Get Out” embody.

For this reason, Hollywood’s days are numbered.

It’s too bad Frank Davi’s idea wasn’t put into action:

Canada’s own immigration ban

OPINIONCANADAYESTERDAY

Canada is trying to be an example for the world by welcoming refugees, but its doors are still not open to Roma.

A Roma pilgrim lights a candle during the annual festival held in the Catholic chapel of Szentkut in Csatka, Hungary, September 2016 [Zoltan Balogh/EPA]
A Roma pilgrim lights a candle during the annual festival held in the Catholic chapel of Szentkut in Csatka, Hungary, September 2016 [Zoltan Balogh/EPA]

by

Dafina Savic is the founder of Romanipe, a not-for-profit organisation seeking to fight discrimination against Roma.

by

Debbie Folaron is associate professor in Translation Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

While the world is outraged, and rightly so, by recent policies south of its border, we are quick to forget that not too long ago the Canadian government imposed its own ban of sorts, one that aimed to restrict entry into the country of a specific group of people fleeing persecution.

It did so on the premise that these people were “bogus refugees” undeserving of Canada’s protection and explicitly targeted them as “criminals”.

Earlier this month, Anthony Housefather, Member of Parliament for Mount Royal delivered a poignant speech during the emergency debate on the executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump to ban refugees and immigrants of Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.

Housefather shed light on Canada’s own issues of xenophobia and the politics of fear. From the Chinese Exclusion Act, to the rejection of Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis, he cited example after example of the darker side of Canada’s past.

And although these historic examples rung strong and true, where was mention of the more recent instances of injustice and discrimination in Canadian immigration policy?

Canada’s dark secrets

In 2013, financed with Canadian taxpayer money, the government initiated a billboard campaign in the predominant countries of origin of Roma claimants.

It sought to deliberately deter Roma from seeking asylum in Canada, stating that “people who make a [refugee] claim without sound reasons will be processed faster and deported faster.”

The billboards were placed in countries such as Hungary, a country which is still listed as “safe” under the current government.

Until the federal court deemed it unconstitutional in 2015, refugee claimants from the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) list were denied their right to appeal in cases of rejection, so as to avoid “abuse” of the system.

The Conservative government’s policy and rhetoric targeting Roma asylum seekers as “bogus and fraudulent refugees “undeserving of Canada’s protection” were not only effective in blocking Roma from entering the country.

They also served to embed in Canadian media and political discourse the very stereotypes and hate Roma were seeking to flee in their countries of origin.

OPINION: Warning – Canada is not what you think it is

In this climate of animosity and hostile attitudes towards Roma, many Roma refugee claimants were being taken advantage of by their legal representatives and subjected to biased decision-making at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Despite increasing refugee acceptance numbers under the current administration, Canadian authorities continue to practise racial profiling against Roma. In 2015, dozens of Hungarian Roma with valid travel documents were prevented from boarding flights to Canada for allegedly lacking proper documentation to enter the country due to their Roma ethnicity.

Without a thorough review of the policy in Canada, Roma refugees fleeing persecution and racism in Europe will be left behind while our very own ban will be left unaddressed.

With little attention from the media, in May 2016 the Canadian government reinstated visas on Bulgaria and Romania to curb Roma immigration.

However, with European Union hesitation and the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the Canadian-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the move proved to be problematic, and the Trudeau administration was forced to lift the visa requirements on those countries.

Such disagreements regarding CETA ratification are reminiscent of the pressures that had stalled the agreement under the previous government and which eventually led to the imposition of discriminatory policy measures against Roma refugees.

However, the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Europe in mid-February to finalise the CETA agreement, all issues affecting Roma were left off the agenda and conveniently unaddressed.

A ‘two-tier’ refugee system

Despite recent court decisions and widespread criticism that the DCO creates a “two-tier” refugee system, the “Safe Country” Review Panel was recently dropped from the mandate of the current Minister of Immigration Ahmed Hussen.

This not only means that the DCO list will remain as is, but also that no panel of experts will be delegated to review and reassess the human rights situation of the countries listed.

While a designated “Safe Country” may be safe for most of its inhabitants, it is by no means safe for all. Without a thorough review of the policy in Canada, Roma refugees fleeing persecution and racism in Europe will be left behind while our very own ban will be left unaddressed.

As raised in a recent opinion article published by Al Jazeera, Roma are often made to be the culprits of anti-refugee sentiment in Europe, while they are fleeing those very issues. Even in situations of violent conflict certain populations are not granted equal attention, treatment and compassion.

Noteworthy is the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC)’s report that the Domari populations, who have been present in the Middle East for thousands of years, have been equally, if not doubly, affected by the ongoing crisis and violence in the region.

According to a 2014 ERRC report, out of the estimated one million registered and unregistered refugees from Turkey, some 30,000 were of Domari origin. Political polarisation and ethnic and religious divisions often make it impossible for Syrian Domari populations to stay in official refugee camps.

OPINION: Why are Roma blamed for Europe’s rejection of refugees?

After meeting with President Trump, Trudeau reiterated that we ought to be an example for the world by being the open country we are. Now is a crucial time for Trudeau to demonstrate his and the country’s true commitment to refugees.

A step in the right direction would be to end the two-tier Designated Countries of Origin system and suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US, and to implement authentic review and assessment of each refugee claimant’s case on the basis of merit.

Only then can the light of true justice prevail, and hope be given to Roma and others who have suffered the consequences of Canada’s failed legal system. It is, indeed, only by facing our darker moments that we can hope to learn from them.

Dafina Savic is the founder of Romanipe, a Montreal-based, not-for-profit organisation seeking to fight discrimination against Roma worldwide.

Debbie Folaron is associate professor in Translation Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

Cristina Ruscio holds a Master of Laws (LLM); Comparative Law, Economics and Finance. During her studies, she worked as a legal aid.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.


Canada Israel 1262e

In recent days I discovered that the Canadian branch of the Israeli-US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is reporting that I am “well known for using academic credentials to deny the Holocaust.” On August 29, Daniel Leons-Marder mirrored the Canadian B’nai Brith report under the title, Facebook Allows “Kill All Jews” Post on Wall of Canadian Professor. In an item Leons-Marder claims has been shared 11,000 times, he asserted “B’nai Brith Canada reported the image, which was ruled acceptable [by Facebook] within two hours, when it was alerted to it having been posted on the Facebook page of Canadian Academic Professor Anthony Hall, who is a holocaust denier.”

FB allows 66848

The B’nai Brith’s Aug. 29 announcement starts with a bald statement that “Police have launched an investigation into an antisemitic Facebook post that was exposed by B’nai Brith Canada last Friday.” The earlier August 26 statement emphasized the role of Facebook, introducing me in the controversy as being “well known for using [my] academic credentials to deny the Holocaust and promote 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

fb Hall 44cca

Under the headline, “Killing Jews Is Now an Acceptable Message, Facebook Says,” the B’nai Brith announced,

“Antisemitism in all forms is rampant on social media, but this is the clearest, most obvious kind of antisemitism one could possibly create,” said Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith CEO. “The classification of this as antisemitic cannot be challenged, and the fact that this promotes violence towards Jews is beyond dispute. Regardless, Facebook has deemed it acceptable despite its ‘community standards’ containing clear provisions against hate speech. The Jewish community deserves no less protection or respect than any other when it comes to hate speech and threats of violence.”

“Every year, upon publication of our Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, a contingent of detractors accuses us of saying the sky is falling, and that antisemitism does not exist in Canada,” said Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. “Content like this is proof positive that not only antisemitism of a genocidal nature exists in Canada, but the systems that are supposed to protect us from racist hate speech don’t consider hatred of Jews to be problematic.”

B’nai Brith has reported the post to Lethbridge Police Services.

fb BB 22ad8

The Canadian B’nai Brith’s post, together with those of others that have mirrored B’nai Brith’s announcement, constitute the first time I have seen myself described in print as a ‘holocaust denier.” What is the definition used by the thought police to decide who is or is not a “holocaust denier? Are there many holocausts or only one? Who owns the term, “holocaust?” If there are exclusive rights, how were they obtained?

In the eyes of the B’nai Brith, is a “holocaust denier” anyone who disagrees with any element, large or small, of its favored historical interpretation? Is the B’nai Brith naturally hostile to anyone that retains independent, evidence-based perspectives on some of the most fraught issues of historical interpretation in contemporary times?

What is behind the creation of the original post that set the controversy in motion? Who created it and why? Is this whole episode an engineered crisis? Is one of its purposes to fend off the criticisms of those that accuse the B’nai Brith and related Zionist agencies of claiming “the sky is falling” with their Orwellian system of Annual Audits of Antisemitic Incidents. Please see below the map published to present cartographic interpretations by the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.

Map BB 9fccd

As shall be explained below, the B’nai Brith has failed to perform due diligence in its handling of this matter. Its officers did not even attempt back up their provocative characterizations of me with even a shred of genuine evidence. The organization opted instead to exploit for its own political agenda the shock value inherent in the vile contents of an item allegedly posted, apparently very briefly, on my FB page. The item is said to have been posted by Glen Davidson. I did not ever see it on my FB page. I did not invite nor did I even have any knowledge of it until recently.

In its material the B’nai Brith describe the post as a “depiction of a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew accompanied by a lengthy, violent anti-Semitic screed beside the photograph.” Here is the post, which I first saw sometime early in September as part of a smear piece published about me at “Aussie Dave’s” Israellycool.

Hall BB 01a73

To reiterate and to be absolutely clear, I did not post this social media item myself. I did not create it or solicit it. I do not approve of its contents. In fact I of course strongly condemn the message conveyed in both the image and the text. Due diligence demands, however, that I look further into this matter.

The B’nai Brith in Action

My initial research into the item’s content is leading me to the opinion that the image probably emerges from some sort of staged situation, one that seems to include the application of photo shop techniques. The most basic questions that must now be pressed concern the source of the atrocious text. From whence does it originate? Certainly I did not write it. Glen Davidson did not write it. Who did write it and why? Not once yet have I seen this deeper question posed by those who are exploiting the vile item to dramatize a real or concocted dispute with Facebook.

Quite possibly by design, the miniscule, densely compressed text is very difficult to read especially on small digital devices. Could this attribute be because the text was conceived not as a means of winning adherents but rather as a justification for political actions like the B’nai Brith’s current hate speech campaign highlighting my academic position at the University of Lethbridge?

I first saw the item among a number of screen shots all dedicated to “Aussie Dave’s” nomination of me as “Anti-Zionist-Not-Anti-Semite of the Day.”

Hall Zionism bf767

I remember being particular interested in the part of the post that mentioned Ryan Bellerose, a Metis man and convert to Judaism who has recently been hired as the B’nai Brith’s new Western Canadian representative. Most of my attention zeroed in on Aussie Dave’s suggestion to his readers that they communications to the president of my University, Dr. Mike Mahon. I also took note of a screen shot of an item on U of L letterhead where Dr. Mahon responds to  “JP.” Who is “JP”?

I can trace one thread of this matter’s origins to a recorded telephone call I listened to a year ago. Its source was Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. In August of 2015 Ms. Hohmann telephoned the manager of a community venue in downtown Edmonton Alberta. Ms. Hohmann aim on behalf of her employer was to shut down a book promotion event. At the time Dr. Barrett along with his wife, two sons a dog and me were touring Alberta to call attention to an edited text entitled We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. Dr. Barrett edited the volume to which I had contributed an article.

The venue’s manager, Richard Awid, taped Ms. Hohmann’s intervention and subsequently played it back for me. Here is how I described this part of the episode in an article entitled “B’nai Brith Moves to Quash Free Speech in Canada,”

Mr. Awid was somewhat dumbfounded that a small event at his community hall, “one of 100 such venues in Edmonton,” would elicit such an intense response from a very powerful organization in Toronto. He played back to me on his answering machine a recorded message he received at about 9 am on August 12 from Amanda Hohmann. Ms. Hohmann explained that she had received “a few complaints” about “Mr.” Kevin Barrett on the B’nai Brith’s “anti-hate hotline.” (1-416-633-6224; 1-800-892-2624)

Ms. Hohmann asserted that

“Mr. Barrett is a known anti-semite conspiracy theorist, a Holocaust Denier, and 9/11 Denier and all sorts of other things.”

Ms. Hohmann made no effort whatsoever to give background proof of her allegations or to identify the sources of the supposed “complaints.” Nevertheless she proposed to Mr. Awid that he should “cancel the event and let Mr. Barrett know he is not welcome in Edmonton.”

Hohmann 4485a

In this telephone call the B’nai Brith’s “human rights” director tried to defame a colleague offering absolutely no proof whatsoever to provide evidentiary backing for her directive from Toronto that Dr. Barrett should not be welcome in Alberta’s capital. I believe the Western world currently supports many Amanda Hohmanns paid very well to target and slander regularly individuals like Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Are the protagonists in these ugly witch hunts ever held accountable for the excesses? Are there any constraints on the increasingly severe incursions of the Zionist thought police? What remedies are or are not available for the likes of Dr. Barrett who is a Muslim man. Along with the rest of the omma, Dr. Barrett and his family are regularly subjected to heavy does of “hate speech” and sometimes worse?

When Richard Awid, a Muslim himself, did not adhere to Ms. Hohmann’s instructions, the B’nai Brith was able to send in a representative of the “hate speech” unit of the Edmonton police. The officer monitored the first part of the event and then left after informing Dr. Barrett that our presentation deemed was not to be hate speech by the police force he represented. I recall wondering at the time, does that bizarre episode foreshadow an era when all university classes will be policed by officials answerable to agencies like the B’nai Brith? Is that where this is leading?

The B’nai Brith has been front and center in Canada’s increasingly notorious record of aggressively policing citizens for supposed thought crimes and speech crimes. The B’nai Brith’s assault on free speech in Canada includes among its objects for criminalization Doug Collins, Malcolm Ross, Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, Terry Tremaine, David Ahenakew and, most recently, Arthur Topham.

Topham 62b25

The case against Arthur Topham and his Radical Press is still ongoing. By following at a distance the tawdry prosecution of the self-employed reporter, publisher, editor and carpenter in Quesnel British Columbia, I was made aware of a very significant text published in 1941. Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish outlines an extremely ruthless strategy of genocidal destruction of a whole people. Has this classic description of genocidal intent and methodology been ever given prominence in a school curriculum in Canada?

My reading of an Internet copy of the text, one that became integral to the proceedings of the Topham trial, caused me to reflect on how one-sided the whole discourse on genocide is becoming. The suffering of one group is highlighted and elevated above all others while the suffering and assaults imposed on other groups is often downplayed, ignored or even denigrated. I had no idea before the B’nai Brith-instigated prosecution of Arthur Topham that there was such a detailed plan to annihilate the entire German people.

I only recently have become fully aware of the extent of the murder, rape and pillage of several millions of Germans after 1945 in American prisoner war camps and in orgies of Soviet-instigated ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. Where are the museums to promote public education about these crimes against humanity? Where is the museum to commemorate the horrendous intergenerational genocide of perhaps a hundred million Indigenous peoples in the Holocaust of the Americas since 1492? Will future You Tubers make videos to ask elderly members of today’s generation what they did or didn’t do about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians now underway in order to clear the way for Greater Israel?

Free speech 8de57

Thought Police Wreaking Havoc on Campus

The B’nai Brith is becoming especially aggressive in campaigns to have individuals fired from their work for expounding historical interpretations it does not like. The B’nai Brith boasted menacingly on September 15 of having destroyed the career of Nikolas Balakas, a long-serving lab technician at York University’s Department of Astronomy and Physics. The announcement that Canada’s most ruthless thought police agency had succeeded in its campaign to get York University to fire its employee was written by Aidan Fishman. Mr. Fishman is Campus Advocacy Coordinator of B’nai Brith Canada.

After counting coup on Mr. Balaras’s dismissal, Mr. Fishman concludes with the following plea that the University of Lethbridge should follow York University’s example. The B’nai Brith official wrote,

“Unfortunately not every administration is prepared to act with such decisiveness [as that of York University], as the ongoing saga surrounding Professor Anthony Hall at Lethbridge University shows. I hope that the administration in Lethbridge can use the excellent example set by York University on this matter, and take appropriate steps to ensure that their students are not similarly subjected to hatred and antisemitism on campus.”

Who is the real author of this “ongoing saga?” Where is the proof as of today that University of Lethbridge students are being subjected “to hatred and anti-Semitism on campus.” I have not once seen this kind of language appear in 26 years of teaching evaluations. Where is there any accountability for floating this kind of vicious agenda of smear? The intrusion into this matter of a B’nai Brith official described as Campus Advocacy Coordinator is, as far as I know, setting precedents at my school. What is the nature of the “advocacy” Mr. Fishman is “coordinating”?

The effort of B’nai Brith’s “campus coordinator” and possibly others of his group to inject themselves into the internal governance of the University of Lethbridge brings to mind a similar controversy brewing at Oberlin College. Oberlin College is a renowned Liberal Arts school in Ohio whose origins long predate the American Civil War. There Dr. Joy Karega has been suspended with pay from her teaching position as a result of a controversy also involving Facebook posts. I have written a lengthy open latter on the matter to Oberlin President, Dr. Marvin Krislov. The text, which has been mirrored on other web sites, was first published at American Herald Tribune.

Karega AHT 95018

In my effort to reach out to President Krislov, Dr. Karega and the other students and faculty involved in what has definitely become a fiasco for the Oberlin community, I proposed in my open letter that we all work together to mount a joint academic conference. I proposed that my own Liberal Education program at the University of Lethbridge ally itself with the embattled Liberal Arts College in Ohio to organize an event aimed at bringing thoughtful academic commentary to address a mounting crisis in higher education in North America.

I hereby invite Aiden Fishman to join this initiative and thereby embark on a constructive course rather than the trajectory of negativity implicit in his present preoccupation with hate talk and advocacy for division. Of course Mr. Fishman is far from alone in the type of “advocacy” in which he is engaged. There is a barrage of interventions currently underway from organizations like the AMCHA Initiative, the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Campus Outreach, Hillel, the American Jewish Congress, David Horowitz’s FrontPage and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch to mention only a few. As currently on full public display at Oberlin College, these well-funded and deeply staffed interventions invariably wreak havoc on the principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse on campus?

I suggested the following title for the event.

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories:

A Rational or Irrational Phrase in Academic Discourse?

In my research research into the Joy Karega/Oberlin debacle I became aware of the concerted campaign in 2014 to destroy the career of Prof. William I. Robinson. Dr. Robinson is Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Like Dr. Joy Karega, Dr. Steven Salaita, Dr. Hatem Bazian, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Dr. Richard Falk, me and many others, Dr. Robinson includes in the curriculum some focus on the plight of Palestinian people.

Caption: Prof. Richard Falk, Former UN Rapporteur and Princeton University Professor of International Law, Speaks on the Issue of Academic Freedom at the University of California at Santa Barbara

The sociologist refused to back down from incorporating in his teaching critical perspectives on the harsh treatment of Palestinians especially in Gaza and the so-called Occupied Territories. Amidst proliferating Jewish settlements and the constant repressions of the Israeli police state, many Palestinians continue to eke out marginal existences on the heavily militarized lands set aside for them by the United Nations in Resolution 181. Resolution 181, an international instrument calling for partition of Palestine and UN trusteeship over Jerusalem, constitutes the primary law at the roots of the Israeli entity in its present form.

Abdulhadi 1ed77

Robinson books 2ccbc

Prof. Robinson has written of his ordeal in August of 2014 on Truthout. In an article entitled “Repression Escalates on US Campuses,” the sociologist explains,

The persecution to which I was subjected involved a litany of harassment, slander, defamation of character and all kinds of threats against the university by outside forces if I was not dismissed, as well as hate mail and death threats from unknown sources. More insidiously, it involved a shameful collaboration between a number of university officials and outside forces from the Israel lobby as the university administration stood by silently, making a mockery of academic freedom.

The disciplinary procedure initiated against me by UCSB officials involved a host of irregularities, violations of the university’s own procedures, breaches of confidentiality, denial of due process, conflicts of interest, failure of disclosure, improper political surveillance, abuses of power and position, unwarranted interference in curriculum and teaching and so on. As I would discover during the course of the ordeal, individuals inside the university and in positions of authority had linked up with agents of the lobby outside the university in setting out to prosecute me.

Will the same toolbox of wrecking instruments deployed at the University of California be shipped in from the United States and unpacked at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada? Will the administration of my own school continue to uphold the University of Lethbridge’s good reputation as an institution of higher education where the vital principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse are expressed and defended?

On several occasions I have publicly lauded the U of L for creating an environment of academic freedom. I made this observation, for instance, at the University of Lethbridge’s book event when in 2011 my volume, Earth into Property, was launched. In this 900+ page peer-reviewed academic text published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, I incorporate analysis that the B’nai Brith flippantly trivializes as “9/11 conspiracy theories.”

Deeply corrupt agencies like the B’nai Brith have a lot to lose when the basic facts about what really happened on 9/11–who did what to whom—become the common knowledge of the general public. That day may be approaching far faster than those hiding behind the tired old memes about “conspiracy theories” anticipate.

How much longer can the evidence of 9/11 be concealed behind the ruthless kind of ad hominem attacks that have become the well known-specialty of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in all its many constituent parts? How much longer will the public tolerate the hate propaganda and professional assaults that are obliterating the fundamental integrity of so many of our most important institutions?

What other lies and deceptions are being fed to the public on a regular basis? What is the level of public confidence these days in the trustworthiness of society’s key institutions including government, media, police and agencies of higher education? Who can say public confidence in these entities is high?

What is the appropriate role for universities in addressing issues of officialdom’s fraud and malfeasance especially in situations that have large implications for public policy? If even tenured university faculty can be intimidated into shying away from the professional responsibility to distinguish truth from falsehood, but especially in situations that threaten power’s imperatives, who will perform this vital function? Politicians? Talking heads on TV? Who will speak truth to the unaccountable power that the B’nai Brith in its current reckless demeanor so abundantly epitomizes?

Ritual Defamation in the Social Media Circus

To return to the Facebook post that lies at the root of this controversy, I have already publicly condemned the contents of the offending item in the September 16 edition of False Flag Weekly News. I currently co-host this regular broadcast along with one of its founding partners, Dr. Kevin Barrett.

I noticed a reference to my public condemnation of the item in question in the comments section of the B’nai Brith’s own web post of August 29. A commenter going by the name of Andrew Blair observes,

It is important to realize that Professor Hall publicly condemns that image and text. Go to False Flag Weekly, at minute 36, to see and hear his denunciation.When I put on my “fairness” glasses and look at that image I see Tony Hall in the headlock, and the arms locking his head are the image and the text. Does anyone else see that, or are my “fairness” glasses defective?

“Andrew Blair’s” question certainly resonates with me. The B’nai Brith’s description of the image in its news announcements refers to “a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.” Is the Orthodox Jew not a White man too? What is there to say that the aggressor in this image is not Cherokee or Mohawk or Palestinian for that matter?

What are the politics of the B’nai Brith’s choice of words in its racialized approach to its public announcement highlighting this inflammatory image? What effect is being sought? Did the image emerge from a real or staged situation? If it was the former, what was the event? Where did it happen? Who took the photograph? Have the investigators in the B’nai Brith-police-hate-crime-complex explored such matters.

Is the B’nai Brith’s emphasis on “police investigations” itself a staged tactic of sorts? Is it meant to dramatize the main story line aimed ultimately at seizing control of strategic instruments of Internet comminication. The subplot, which is certainly intended to harm me personally and professionally, is that crazed and genocidal anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists– even “holocaust deniers”— are running around loose with full Internet access even in Lethbridge Alberta?

My own best best assessment is that the offending social media item seems likely to have been produced by photo shop juxtapositions of different images. The “White man’s” head and the “Orthodox Jew’s” crushed glasses both look like inserts. The white wing of the victim’s crushed and displaced glasses seems to have been drawn in. There are signs of graphic tinkering in the relationship between the huge muscular arm in the forefront and the squeezed face of the suffering victim.

The reversal of Talmudic-style contempt for the Other (the Goy) cries out the pictured message of Jewish victimhood. The provocative power of the image is reinforced by the B’nai Brith’s very racialized description. In my recent research I have discovered that this image and others images very much like—images that often feature the same racist “White man”— show up in on many Internet posts, even one I found translated into German.

Garisson 2191d

Ben Garisson fa323

Where the picture provides the main message, the text provides the “evidence” of the antisemitism that the B’nai Brith and its allied agencies are simultaneously engaged in inventing, cultivating, spotlighting and publicly combating. What justification would there be for the existence of the  Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith without the métier of antisemitism?  The primary essence of the B’nai B’rith entities is to advance the agendas of the Israeli entity in the Diaspora, in other words in Canada, USA, Britain, France. Australia, and many other countries.

The text in the offending item is perhaps the most appalling excerpt of gutter prose I have ever seen. Its contents are so reprehensible that they demand careful consideration. Like an illegal drug planted by corrupt police on a targeted individual, the reprehensible social media item has been metaphorically put on my digital front door step and then advertised by the B’nai Brith to advance its own political agenda. I am left with little alternative but to respond as decently and as conscientiously to a crime in progress.

The author, it is claimed by the item’s creator, is Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison. This Garrison person has many nicknames. He is made to exclaim,

“There was never a Holocaust, but there should have been and, rest assured, there WILL be, as you serpentine kikes richly deserve one. I will not rest until every single filthy. Parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered like the vermin they are. The White man has had more than enough of International Jewry and we are fully prepared to smite the parasite for the millionth time. The greedy, hook nosed kikes know that there days are numbered and, unlike in the past, they now have nowhere to run. This time, there will be no kikes left alive to spead around the planet like cockroaches. We will get them ALL into the oven and their putrid memory will finally be erased from the planet once and for all. Like all parasites the Jew will continue to reproduce until every last one has been wiped out. This is why it is crucial that all kikes are ruthlessly and mercilesslt butchered for the good of us all. KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE!” Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison

What kind of demented mind would come up with such a macabre celebration of envisaged mass murder? What would be the motivation to pen such a blatant incitement to hate and slaughter of a specific people?

My research into the offending item’s origins quickly led me to the many Internet profiles and posts of Ben Garrison. Ben Garrison is apparently a real person who lives in Montana. It turns out that this Ben Garrison, the sole named individual in the miniature text of the offending Facebook post, is also the aggressor in the photo shopped image. Adorned with dark glasses and a cowboy hat, Garrison is pictured as (in the words of B’nai Brith) as “the White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.”

Ben Garrison

The real life Ben Garrison is often described as a libertarian political satirist. He is a prolific cartoonist whose cartoon and personal images lie at the center of an increasingly contentious media circus. Significantly Facebook figures centrally in the many-faceted narrative of Ben Garrison. Perhaps his Facebook connection is a major reason why B’nai Brith and related agencies chose Garrison’s Internet personae as poster boy for its hate speech campaign of fund raising and ritual defamation.

Holocaust Studies experts at Tel-Aviv University are among the most outspoken proponents of the view that Ben Garrison is indeed the kind of bigoted psychopath who would in real life utter provocations to the genocide of Jews. These Israeli academicians would probably argue it is entirely in character for Ben Garrison to have actually have declared with sincerity, “Kill All Jews.” The hypothesis that Ben Garrison’s racist screed should be taken at face value is implicit in the wording and headlines of the posts by B’nai Brith, Daniel Leons-Marder’s Everyday Antisemitism and the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.

The smear campaign’s architects and engineers are attempting a controlled demolition of my reputation in their quest to harness Facebook more fully to their own agendas. These architects and engineers count among their allies the creators and authors at Encyclopedia dramatica, Of Ben Garrison the encyclopedia’s drama experts report, “Scholars from Tel-Aviv University’s Center for Holocaust Studies have ominously described him [Ben Garrison] as the most racist man in the universe, and the biggest existential threat to the Jews since Hitler.”

This characterization runs counter to the dominant view that Garrison is “the Internet’s most trolled cartoonist.” According to a Breitbart article entitled “Ben Garrison: How the Internet Made a Fake White Supremacist”,

Montana-based artist Ben Garrison isn’t a violent Neo-Nazi, or even a white nationalist. He’s a polite, accomplished cartoonist, with no history of overt or covert racism. His true political leanings are libertarian, anti-elitist, and anti-globalist. Garrison is, in fact, the victim of one the most extraordinary and longest-running smear campaigns on the internet.

For a mixture of amusement and spite, in a trolling spree that has lasted over six years, thousands of online pranksters and real neo-Nazis have been remixing his cartoons into racist caricatures. Most Ben Garrison cartoons attack the government, corporations, and political movements.

However, almost immediately after one is published, it is remixed into a new version that attacks Jews, African-Americans, or other minorities. These are rapidly disseminated in troll communities and sometimes become more widely-shared than the originals.

Garrison cartoons 53de5

Garrison cartoon 2db39

If Breitbart has it right and Tel-Aviv’s Center for Holocaust Studies has it wrong, then the real Ben Garrison could not have written the disgusting text that goes along with the offensive image of the cartoonist putting his victim in a headlock. If Ben Garrison is not to be understood as the kind of person who could have come up with the wording replicated and publicized by Amanda Hohmann, Daniel Leons-Marder,and B’nai Brith’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, then these individuals are involved in a telling case of false flag deception.

Given the nature of their dubious employment in what Norman Finkelstein has labeled the “Holocaust Industry,” I find it difficult to believe that these individuals as well as their bosses, underlings and associates were not aware of the controversy swirling around Ben Garrison. After all, I was able to discovered the basic outlines of the Garrison controversy in a few google searches after viewing the posts featuring Mostyn’s, Hohmann’s and Leons-Marder’s comments. Is this group merely incompetent? Are its members part of a concerted agenda to change the public policies of many agencies, including those of the Canadian government, Facebook and the University of Lethbridge, through calculated misrepresentations, frauds and incitements?

In an Internet post entitled “Ben Garrison on Trolls” the Montana cartoonist is said to speak for himself. Interestingly, Garrison’s observations begin with his reference to the very same Facebook reference to “community standards” that supposedly initiated the B’nai Brith’s slander of me.

“This page wasn’t removed. We reviewed the page you reported for harassment. Since it did not violate our community standards, we did not remove it. Thanks for your report.”

This is the message [writes Ben Garrison] I received after reporting a hate page on Facebook. Near the top of the hate page was a statement that encouraged the extermination of all Jews. Along with that statement was a photo of my face and the name Ben Garrison. Trolls had stolen my artwork and photos from my blog, my cartoon site as well as my fine art site and had concocted an entire page devoted to spewing libelous hate. The troll entity called the page ‘Ben Garrison Cartoons—the Official Site.’  The trolls had stamped the name ‘Ben Garrison’ onto as many hateful images as possible throughout the page. How does one stop such blatant libel? Where do these trolls come from? Is it even possible to track them down? Why do they do such terrible things? Why me?

As I found out, it’s not just me. Many others have suffered the same outrageous indignity. It appears that trolls are no longer content merely talk to each other on sordid sites such as ‘4chan’ or ‘Stormfront.’ They want to go mainstream.  Therefore, social media are a natural target for them. Do they really believe the vitriolic memes they are shoveling, or are they merely playing an elaborate prank? It doesn’t matter. Their memes of hate must not go mainstream. Facebook must wake up and block the hate before it gets established. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is blind, one-dimensional blackness. It is not reasoned debate.  It loudly shouts for the murder of human beings and Facebook is providing them a megaphone for that purpose.

In my view the largest weight of available evidence points to the conclusion that Ben Garrison did not write the “Kill All Jews” commentary. If Ben Garrison did not write the planted text, then who did?

Could the B’nai Brith’s highlighted social media item have been produced by a Zionist group, agency or individual? Why might partisans of Israel do such a thing? Could it be to provide the ammunition for smear campaigns directed against individuals and groups that criticize Israel? Could it be to create incidents to justify appeals for money such as those accompanying the B’nai Brith’s slanderous posts aimed at damaging the reputation of the University of Lethbridge and my tenured academic role in it as a 26-year member of the Arts and Science Faculty?

Worse, much worse, can be envisaged. Could it be that the production and planting of the of the Ben Garrison post as well as others like it might be deployed to provide “evidence” in thought crime and speech crime litigation, the ultimate specialty and raison d’etre of the B’nai Brith?  It is easy to imagine how such an outlandish and extravagant expression of hostility as that said to come from Garrison could be rendered useful to Crown prosecutors serving the Zionist masters.

Regardless of its source, there is no doubt that the Ben Garrison post could conceivably be exploited as a tailor made item to assist Crown prosecutors serving the agenda of B’nai Brith and related agencies. Such an item could definitely be deployed in a litigious assault on designated targets in order to establish webs of connection linking alleged hate speech with genocidal intent as well as the semantic nuke in the Zionist arsenal of weaponized words.

The conspiracy to advance the public perception that the engineered phrase, “holocaust denial,” has any internal and external coherence as an outlawed category of forbidden thought and speech runs absolutely contrary to the intellectual viability of the academy as well as the health of society more generally. The basic premise of the world’s most fraught term creates a false dichotomy that is coming to epitomize the decline of evidence-based rationality beneath the ascent of a new kind of orthodoxy combining both religious and secular elements.

Those that want to entrench and enforce an outlawed realm of forbidden thought and articulation brandish the weaponized term like an ideological sniper on steroids. They have no interest in providing definitions of where orthodoxy ends and where denial begins. As I am discovering by raising even a simple call for “open debate” on the main platform of Zionism’s unaccountable power, there are harsh new authoritarian forces that need to be called to account if we are even to slow down the police state incursions in our post-911 world.

The new configurations of authority are extending to important agencies like the Royal Canadian Legion, Jasper National Park, and the Alberta Society of Fiddlers. Those overseeing these important institutions are made to feel empowered to impose arbitrary sanctions and punishments against an individual who dared to question enshrined orthodoxy.

The message is made clear that the vibrance of art and culture, the wellbeing of veterans as well as the need to protect some of Alberta’s most majestic Alpine environments have become secondary commitments. The treatment in Jasper National Park of violinist Monika Schaefer signals the end of our free and democratic society. Our right and need to express independent thought, the starting point of collective self-determination, has has been sacrificed in order to enforce supine obedience to the sanctification of an historical interpretation that must not be held subjected to sceptical scrutiny and reconsideration.

How many are now being held, including some Canadians, in dark European dungeons for questioning any aspect of the unrelenting vilification of Germany as home of the most the most evil society of monsters ever to walk the face of the earth? Will we ever be able to liberate ourselves from the spell that is causing us to become so blind and unresponsive to the holocausts we ourselves are imposing on the natural world and also on the besieged worldwide community of our Muslim brothers and sisters?

What are the chances that the nuclear holocaust currently being promoted by our governors can be held back when those most intent on making war not peace are so firmly in charge? Is there a connection between the decline of the anti-war movement and the rise of the militarized police state currently deploying false flag-induced fears to constrain our ability to think, speak and act in conformity with the imperatives of survival? What we most require at this moment is simple affirmations of life’s beauty and integrity. Instead we are delivered coercive dictates demanding we deny what we our reason and research tells  us to be true.

How did we the academics, but especially we the historians, allow it to happen that a whole category of the European past has been declared off bounds to unfettered discussion and critical investigative scholarship? By allowing this development to proceed, a very sweeping and consequential precedent is being set.

How did we the citizens allow the principle to develop that government can declare that whole subject areas of research and publication to have been so perfectly interpreted, so correctly dealt with in every detail, that no revision and modification of existing conclusions can be allowed. What is the role of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith in enforcing the ruthless bulldozing aside of the most basic foundations of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and adherence to rigorous standards of scientific inquiry.

The B’nai Brith and Ben Garrison, the poster boy for the Zionist organization’s hate speech campaign, are exactly on the same page when it comes to Facebook. Both Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith seek to constrain free speech on the Internet more tightly. Is this convergence of agendas a coincidence or are more calculated deceptions at play here? To publicize his desire that Facebook be more proactive in censoring the Internet, Garrison produced the following cartoon.

Ben Garisson Cartoon 61739

Facebook and Israel; Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith

My FFWN co-host, Dr. Kevin Barrett, has evaluated the evidence surrounding the Garrison post and concluded it was “very likely produced by B’nai Brith itself, or other Zionist extremists of like mind, as a PR operation. No wonder they are “monitoring” the police to make sure they behave themselves.

Presenting his own version of the B’nai Brith’s highlighted image, Dr. Barrett continues

The absurd rant with its lurid references to “greedy hook-nosed kikes” and so on does not pass the smell test. Whoever created this image obviously did not do so with the intention of convincing the public to take action against Jews and/or Zionists. On the contrary, it appears to have been designed for the opposite purpose: To convince the public that crazed, foul-mouthed, murderous anti-Semites are a clear and present danger.

Virtually every time a swastika is spray painted on a synagogue, the culprit turns out to be a “self-hating” Jewish Zionist trying to conjure up the specter of an “anti-Semitic threat.” Would an investigation of the provenance of this image find something similar?

Dr. Barrett observes that“the manufactured incident smearing Tony Hall may be part of a coordinated program, orchestrated from Tel Aviv, to try to stop the rise of the ever-increasing virtual army of pro-Palestine social media users.”

As highlighted in Telesur, the government of Israel and Facebook have been represented at the highest level in a series of meetings aimed at conspiring to hold back the growing flood of social media posts subjecting Israel’s maltreatment of the Palestinians to sceptical public scrutiny.

fb telesur 7fd31

This recent development well demonstrates the specious nature of B’nai Brith’s characterization of Facebook as some kind of rogue agency unwilling to act immediately to pre-empt an existential threat emanating from Lethbridge. More likely the B’nai Brith’s alarmist posts in late August of 2016 were, in part at least, a ploy to divert attention from the reality that social media, but especially Facebook, is more and more being harnessed to Zionist goals and agendas.

Was the B’nai Brith’s deployment of the racist side of Ben Garrison’s dual public personae calculated to serve the double purpose of both smearing me and my school as well as leading interested parties to a surprising “libertarian” voice for the suppression of Internet freedom? What should be done about Internet trolls such as those at the B’nai Brith that have shown themselves to be unrelenting in planting lies and innuendo with the aim of silencing criticism of Israel?

WRITER