Trump’s talk of a Syria pullout nothing new

President Donald Trump’s unscripted remark this week about pulling out of Syria “very soon,” while at odds with his own policy, was not a one-off: For weeks, top advisers have been fretting about an overly hasty withdrawal as the president has increasingly told them privately he wants out, U.S. officials said.

Only two months ago, Trump’s aides thought they’d persuaded him that the U.S. needed to keep its presence in Syria open-ended — not only because the Islamic State group has yet to be entirely defeated, but also because the resulting power vacuum could be filled by other extremist groups or by Iran. Trump signed off on major speech in January in which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid out the new strategy and declared “it is vital for the United States to remain engaged in Syria.”

But by mid-February, Trump was telling his top aides in meetings that as soon as victory can be declared against IS, he wanted American troops out of Syria, said the officials. Alarm bells went off at the State Department and the Pentagon, where officials have been planning for a gradual, methodical shift from a military-led operation to a diplomatic mission to start rebuilding basic infrastructure like roads and sewers in the war-wracked country.

In one sign that Trump is serious about reversing course and withdrawing from Syria, the White House this week put on hold some $200 million in US funding for stabilization projects in Syria, officials said. The money, to have been spent by the State Department for infrastructure projects like power, water and roads, had been announced by outgoing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at an aid conference last month in Kuwait.

The officials said the hold, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is not necessarily permanent and will be discussed at senior-level inter-agency meetings next week.

The officials weren’t authorized to comment publicly and demanded anonymity.

The State Department said it continually reviews appropriate assistance levels and how best they might be utilized. And the agency said it continues to work with the international community, members of the Coalition, and our partners on the ground to provide much needed stabilization support to vulnerable areas in Syria.

“The United States is working everyday on the ground and with the international community to help stabilize those areas liberated from ISIS and identify ways to move forward with reconstruction once there has been a peaceful political transition away from (Syrian President Bashar) Assad,” according to a statement from the State Department.

Trump’s first public suggestion he was itching to pull out came in a news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister Alastair Campbell on Feb. 23, when Trump said the U.S. was in Syria to “get rid of ISIS and go home.” On Thursday, in a domestic policy speech in Ohio, Trump went further.

“We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon — very soon, we’re coming out,” Trump said.

The public declaration caught U.S. national security agencies off-guard and unsure whether Trump was formally announcing a new, unexpected change in policy. Inundated by inquiries from journalists and foreign officials, the Pentagon and State Department reached out to the White House’s National Security Council for clarification.

The White House’s ambiguous response, officials said: Trump’s words speak for themselves.

“The mission of the Department of Defense to defeat ISIS has not changed,” said Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway, a Pentagon spokesman.

Still, without a clear directive from the president, planning has not started for a withdrawal from Syria, officials said, and Trump has not advocated a specific timetable.

For Trump, who campaigned on an “America First” mantra, Syria is just the latest foreign arena where his impulse has been to limit the U.S. role. Like with NATO and the United Nations, Trump has called for other governments to step up and share more of the burden so that Washington doesn’t foot the bill. His administration has been crisscrossing the globe seeking financial commitments from other countries to fund reconstruction in both Syria and Iraq, but with only limited success.

Yet it’s unclear how Trump’s impulse to pull out could be affected by recent staff shake-ups on his national security team. Tillerson and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both advocates for keeping a U.S. presence in Syria, were recently fired, creating questions about the longevity of the plan Tillerson announced in his Stanford University speech in January. But Trump also replaced McMaster with John Bolton, a vocal advocate for U.S. intervention and aggressive use of the military overseas.

The abrupt change in the president’s thinking has drawn concern both inside and outside the United States.

Other nations that make up the U.S.-led coalition fighting IS fear that Trump’s impulse to pull out hastily would allow the notoriously resourceful IS militants to regroup, several European diplomats said. That concern has been heightened by the fact that U.S.-backed ground operations against remaining IS militants in Syria were put on hold earlier this month.

The ground operations had to be paused because Kurdish fighters who had been spearheading the campaign against IS shifted to a separate fight with Turkish forces, who began combat operations in the town of Afrin against Kurds who are considered by Ankara to be terrorists that threaten Turkey’s security.

“This is a serious and growing concern,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said this month.

Beyond just defeating IS, there are other strategic U.S. objectives that could be jeopardized by a hasty withdrawal, officials said, chiefly those related to Russia and Iran.

Israel, America’s closest Mideast ally, and other regional nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are deeply concerned about the influence of Iran and its allies, including the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, inside Syria. The U.S. military presence in Syria has been seen as a buffer against unchecked Iranian activity, and especially against Tehran’s desire to establish a contiguous land route from Iran to the Mediterranean coast in Lebanon.

An American withdrawal would also likely cede Syria to Russia, which along with Iran has been propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces and would surely fill the void left behind by the U.S. That prospect has alarmed countries like France, which has historic ties to the Levant.

In calling for a withdrawal “very soon,” Trump may be overly optimistic in his assessment of how quickly the anti-IS campaign can be wrapped up, the officials said. Although the group has been driven from basically all of the territory it once controlled in Iraq and 95 percent of its former territory in Syria, the remaining five percent is becoming increasingly difficult to clear and could take many months, the officials said.

___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.


MARCH 17 ,2018BY JASON HIRTHLER
Colonialism by another Name
The globalists are colonial conquerors in disguise

221 SHARES

  •  IMF Colonialism 46b49

In a talk last summer to promote his book Washington’s Long War on Syria,

In a talk last summer to promote his book Washington’s Long War on Syria,

IMF Colonialism 46b49

In a talk last summer to promote his book Washington’s Long War on Syria, author Stephen Gowans quotes U.S. foreign policy veteran Graham Fuller, who says, “The U.S. is by its own reckoning the overwhelmingly dominant power in the globe…with the determination to impose its will by one means or another…the term ‘imperialism’ cannot be far off the mark even after the formal age of western imperialism, new forms of imperialism were introduced in the modern age, especially in the Middle East starting with the pliant rulers selected to rule the newly ‘independent’ governments of most states. Theses rulers are expected to be responsive to western needs and preferences…and the majority of Arab leaders and elsewhere pursue pro-western policies unpopular with their own populations.”

Gowans then lists countries with American military installations in them, a clue that those governments pursue pro-western policies. They include Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Djibouti, and the Philippines. What countries are left off the list? Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, Syria under Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and don’t forget Venezuela under Bolivarian rule which, although in South America, is a prominent member of OPEC. None of these countries permitted U.S. bases. None of these countries welcomed Chicago School economists into their midst or conducted neoliberal economic overhauls. Half have been overthrown and bases have since been installed and western business interests privileged. The rest are in the crosshairs of the imperial arsenal and are subject to a revolving door of illegal threats from the White House, regardless of its inhabitant. In short, all the nations alienated from the so-called ‘international community’ are those that refuse to submit themselves to what Gowans calls America’s “undeclared, informal empire.” In other words, colonialism.

Long story short: the West, led by Washington, recognized, particularly after Vietnam, that occupations and full-scale invasions were expensive, tiresome, and particularly bad for public relations. (Setting aside the butchery; never a seminal concern in D.C.) It was too easy for global opinion to be rallied against you by the image of the fearless rebel, cap in hand, rifle slung across his broad shoulders, uncombed locks and scraggly beard hiding the fearsome gaze of a revolutionary. Che. Toussaint L’Ouverture. Minh. Biko. Lumumba. Gandhi. (It seems courageous men are often lionized over equally courageous women like Emma Goldman, Claudia Jones, Arundhati Roy, and many others.) Sooner or later a tsunami of public opprobrium would cause you to decamp, beg forgiveness, and promise a new vision of mutual prosperity (even as you sought backchannels to keep the whole business alive, as occurred in South Africa as formal apartheid was ending).

But Washington understood that it didn’t have to quit colonizing countries, just that it needed to do it in a manner that afforded maximum plausible deniability. It soon realized that it could colonize and exploit nations by economic sabotage, unscrupulous mercenaries, and debilitating debt rather than napalming villages. Naturally, the bullet and the bomb were a tantalizing last resort, always being brandished as a backstop for less brutal overtures, but invasion wasn’t strictly necessary in most cases. Colonialism was fundamentally an economic action, after all. It was and is a form of looting. What was needed was an ideology of exploitation disguised as a philosophy of humanitarianism. Which is how we ended up with neoliberalism, an economic strategy that continues imperialism by other means.

Colonies of the Mind

Beginning with the Powell Memo in 1971, dozens of think tanks were established across the western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of so-called free-market economics, generating a counter-revolution to the liberal rebellion of the Sixties. The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, discredited by an unhinged Bush administration, and calmly restored under the Obama brand. The ideology that underlay the model saturated academia, notably at the University of Chicago, and the mainstream media, principally at The New York Times. Since then it has trickled down to the general populace, to whom it now feels second nature. Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the American mind. The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics, are relatively clear.

In the U.S., the concept of freedom is the taproot of the neoliberal ideology. Particularly, the right of the individual to live free from the overreach of monolithic institutions like the state. As the tale goes, government interventions are almost always ill-conceived and harmful. Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets. People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at the cash register. This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as “free-market democracy,” a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the economic freedom of capital to exploit labor.

So when it comes to foreign relations, American and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal structures required to fully realize a western market economy. These demands were supplemented with notions of the individual right to be free of oppression, some fine rhetoric about women and minorities, and somewhat more quietly, a judicial understanding that corporations were people, too. Together, an unshackled economy and an unfettered populace, newly equipped with individual rights, would produce the same flourishing and nourishing demos of mid-century America that had been the envy of humanity.

Fake News

This ‘Washington Consensus’ is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing, privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the state and they’ll be left defenseless. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take over its traditional responsibilities. Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.

Pillage and Plunder

The neoliberal ideology (theory) conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). The media tirelessly rehearses the tropes of ‘western values’ and ‘free-market democracy’ embraced by the ‘international community.’ Economists reproduce neoliberal ideologues in academia and exert ideological control of Bretton Woods institutions like the World Bank andIMF. Against this twofold backdrop of intellectual conditioning, the West moves against its target economies.

The most common pretexts for intervention depict the target nation as:

a) An Economic Basket Case — The country is failing economically and needs a major loan from the IMF, which will be more than happy to deliver one if only said nation will adhere to certain crushing structural adjustments (SAPs) that effectively privilege foreign investors and debilitate the country’s social safety net, but which are naturally aimed at bringing said economic basket case into the community of responsible nations (those that have never been colonized or ransacked); Greece and Argentina provide useful examples here. It is rarely admitted that the country’s economic woes are often caused by odious debt, illegal sanctions, or misguided austerity measures preached by the West. Thus, as often happens, the prescription for recovery is the very set of tactics that caused the crisis. And the western nations know this.

b) A Tyranny Oppressing its own People — The country is failing to embrace western democratic institutions and is therefore, by definition, oppressing its population. Often, accusations against socialist countries typically pivot on the vilification of leaders as ‘brutal tyrants’ who manage ‘authoritarian regimes,’ which include but are not limited to the use of vicious dungeons and gulags to torture nameless citizens, jailing political opponents and disappearing gadfly journalists, and extending a ‘brutal crackdown’ over a ‘popular’ uprising. Problem is, these so-called uprisings are usually funded, armed, and instructed by Washington and its unsavory band of ‘allies’ for the express purpose of finding a pretext for intervention; Libya, Syria, and Venezuela are instructive in this regard. Venezuela, in particular, since even the World Bank conceded the dramatic improvements the Bolivarian revolution made. In the mainstream press, however, these figures were hidden while sketches of authoritarianism titillated readership. Some accusations are usually true, as all governments tend to tyranny, but they tend to be wildly inflated and conflated with a host of unproven claims of the kind we witnessed watching the cumbersome empire move on Iraq.

c) A Security Threat to America and its Allies — The country is failing to abide by the protocols of the onerous and sovereignty-violating UNSC resolution taken against it. In the global security arena, the unspoken truth is that all independent socialist nations must be gradually disarmed, thus making regime change a fairly painless formality. The country will be pressured to accept some sort of military fettering, such as the WMD restrictions on Iraq, chemical weapons restrictions on Syria, or the civilian nuclear energy restrictions on Iran. Justifications for such restrictions are generally untenable, given that the U.S. traffics in WMDs, bioweapons, and nuclear energy itself, insisting others forsake all of these is perhaps little more than racially motivated despotry. But significant fear mongering in the international media will provide sufficient moral momentum to ram through sanctions, resolutions, and inspection regimes with little fanfare.

Once consensus is achieved among the ‘international community,’ consisting of Washington’s sickly European vassals and a couple small Malaysian islands, the intervention is staged. All of the above will be seized upon by western media as definitive proof that a) the government is illegitimate and must step aside at once; and b) that socialism has been (once again) comprehensively debunked and should never be attempted again by anyone under any circumstances. Heads of various illegitimate western governments will convene in the decorous council rooms of the discredited UN Security Council and sanction military confrontation. (If China or Russia object, the U.S. will attack anyway, claiming moral obligation.)

Cracking the Shell

These knife-edged arrows in the arsenal of the West have fairly predictable results: cultural and economic chaos, rapid impoverishment, resource extraction with its attendant ecological ruin, transfer of ownership from local hands to foreign entities, and death from a thousand causes. We are currently sanctioning around 30 nations in some fashion; dozens of countries have fallen into ‘protracted arrears’ with western creditors; and entire continents are witnessing huge outflows of capital–on the order of $100B annually–to the global north as debt service. The profiteering colonialists of the West make out like bandits. The usual suspects include Washington and its loyal lapdogs, the IMF, World Bank, EU, NATO, and other international institutions, and the energy and defense multinationals whose shareholders and executive class effectively run the show.

The numeric evidence of imperial aggression is everywhere. It is better grasped by people living outside the walls of doctrinal system. People living in the 57 countries we’ve attempted to overthrow since WWII, or in the 81 nations whose elections we’ve poisoned. People living in occupied territories, alongside the 800 military bases we’ve flung like a net across the planet. People living beneath the drone arsenals that float in the sky, or those in nations that suffered the 51,000 bombs President Obama let drop in the final two years of his presidency.

The problem is that few inside America seems to know about it. As Fuller acknowledges, the emerging nations are still under the thumb of a vast western executive, but their rule is now comfortably disguised as humanitarian aid and succor. The Eton-bred officers in khakis have been supplanted by Yale-schooled technocrats and grim-faced Security Council delegates. The White Man’s Burden and its crude assumptions of racial superiority have been rearticulated as a message of inclusivity, a policy of multicultural aid. And because of this sleight of hand, few of us really believe the West is still the savage colonizer it once was. We comfortably assume we are a more civilized people now, that we have progressed past the embarrassing chauvinism of our forbearers. But one has to wonder if that idea is just a useful narcotic swallowed by a drowsy electorate more interested in solace than gospel truth.

Colnialism

WRITER

JASON HIRTHLER
Jason Hirthler is a writer, strategist, and 15-year veteran of the communications industry. He has written for many political communities. He lives and works in New York City.



MARCH 12 ,2018BY PHILIP GIRALDI
FARA Registration for AIPAC and Congress Is Washington’s Interest
359 SHARES

chuck Schumer bf937

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee,

Charles Ellis Schumer (/ˈʃmər/; born November 23, 1950)  bf937

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has just completed its annual conference in Washington. There were reportedly 18,000 attendees speakers included the Vice President, United Nations Ambassador, as well as numerous senators and congressmen. The organization is better known by its acronym AIPAC, and it has been fixture on Capitol Hill for more than sixty years. Its website proclaims “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel” because “…it is in America’s best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state is safe, strong and secure.”

In reality, the security of the U.S. part is a bit of a sham as AIPAC in no way works to strengthen the United States or benefit the American people. Quite the contrary. The bilateral “special” relationship is a one-way street that has done considerable damage to the United States in terms of its international standing and national security. AIPAC is all about Israel and always has been. Its hundreds of staffers lobby Congress and the White House daily to support legislation and policies favorable to Israel and damaging to its enemies and critics. It works closely with the Israeli government to obtain maximum benefit from the U.S. Treasury and Pentagon, to the detriment of American citizens and genuine national interests.

So why isn’t AIPAC forced to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938? There has been only one serious attempt to register AIPAC, undertaken by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, shortly before he was assassinated. Since that time growing Jewish political and financial power in the United States has meant that no chief executive has dared to make any demands on Israel and its Lobby. On the contrary, Israel has significantly benefitted materially over that time period, commensurate with its ability to manipulate or coerce the media and Congress while also intimidating a series of presidents.

FARA registration of AIPAC, currently a tax exempt 501(c)4, would require the organization to open its books to make transparent its sources of revenue. It would also be unable to contribute to political campaigns, reducing its leverage over Congress. So it is Washington’s interest to have AIPAC register, if only to limit interference in government and elections by a foreign country.

FARA should rightly be understood as a tool to punish the activities of governments that Washington does not like. In 1938, it was originally directed against the German, Italian and Japanese governments, whose front organizations were forced to register. The British, who were in fact lobbying much more heavily, were ignored. In todays environment, Russian news outlets RT America and Sputnik were forced to register while the actions of the Israel lobby have been basically protected by its powerful advocates within the government.

MORE…
DEPLOYING US MARINES TO ISRAEL IS A BIG MISTAKE
NEW WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST? – WASHINGTON IS DANCING TO THE TUNE BEING PLAYED BY ISRAEL
ISRAELGATE: FLYNN’S COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA, WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ISRAEL
TRUMP AND NETANYAHU MADE COMPLETE FOOLS OF THEMSELVES IN FRONT OF WORLD LEADERS
So yes, AIPAC should be registered under FARA. I would even suggest that FARA be further extended to include public figures like congressmen and journalists, who basically lobby for Israel. That extension of FARA might seem overreach, but there is really no difference, legally speaking, between organizations like AIPAC that promote Israeli interests and individuals who do the same.

Some recent AIPAC conference included prominent Israel-firsters, who place Israel’s interests ahead of those of the United States. Let’s start with Christian Zionist Vice President Mike Pence, who said last year that “Every freedom loving American stands with Israel because her cause is our cause, her values are our values and her fight is our fight.” Wrong Mike. Israel is a foreign theocracy that has embraced deliberate policies inclusive of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is manifestly un-American.

And then there is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, whose speech at AIPAC this year was, uh, memorable. It is no surprise that she is being touted by neocon commander-in-chief Bill Kristol as the future GOP candidate for president. Haley, who received twelve standing ovations from the audience plus two shout-outs of “We love you Nikki!” seemingly forgot that she represents the U.S. at the U.N. She said that “There are lots of other things that we do, big and small, week after week, to fight back against the U.N.’s Israel bullying.”

Senators Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer also received standing ovations from the audience. Schumer, who has described himself as Israel’s “shomer” or defender in the Senate, was particularly bizarre, saying “”The fact of the matter is that too many Palestinians and too many Arabs do not want any Jewish state in the Middle East. Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace…that is why we, in America, must stand strong with Israel through thick and thin.”

So they are all promoting Israeli policies and should be compelled to register under FARA. And if you want to know what an Israeli recruited agent of influence sounds like you need go no farther than House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, who addressed the AIPAC Political Leadership Conference on December 15, 2003 and said:

“I had the privilege of leading the largest congressional delegation in history to Israel in August. This was my sixth trip to Israel, and my fifth as a member of Congress… Let me say very clearly: as a member of the Democratic leadership and a long-time supporter of Israel, it is absolutely imperative that Members of Congress…recognize the moral and strategic significance of the U.S.-Israel partnership… Israel’s safety and security is not a Jewish/non-Jewish issue. It is an American national security issue.”

Steny is flat out wrong about Israel aiding U.S. national security. It is a liability and always has been, but don’t expect him to be convinced otherwise. Maybe it’s somehow related to the $304,000 in pro-Israel PAC money he has received. One thing that is undoubtedly true is that American politics will be measurably less corrupt if AIPAC, Hoyer and the rest of the congress critters are forced to register under FARA and become responsible for the damage they continue to do to the United States and the American people.

Israel US Relations

WRITER

PHILIP GIRALDI
Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests.

—————————————————————–

Martin Luther´s Book: On the The Jews and their Lies

MARTIN LUTHER’S SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM

MARTIN LUTHER’S SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM

Church leaders, through the age, have been alert to Satan’s use of the Jewish people in thwarting the program of Christ in the world. Some Christians have been more outspoken than others, on the subject, but every generation has produced its watchmen who have known the truth and have dared to proclaim it. Among the more bold spokesmen on this question was Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Church, who prepared a treatise entitled, The Jews and Their Lies.

Image result for martin luther png

ON THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES, CHAPTER 15 –   MARTIN LUTHER’S FINAL SOLUTION OT THE JEWISH PROBLEM 

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, nowthat we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about,blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), itwould be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved.If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews’ doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also, for Moses’ sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might belodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in whichsuch idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you inaccord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, “You are Peter,” etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, theyhave no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they havestolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.

But when they boast that Moses allowed or commanded them to exact usury from strangers, citing Deuteronomy 23:20 apart from this they cannot adduce as much as a letter in their support we must tell them that there are two classes of Jews or Israelites. The first comprises those whom Moses, in compliance with God’s command, led from Egypt into the land of Canaan. To them he issued his law, which they were to keep in that country and not beyond it, and then only until the advent of the Messiah. The other Jews are those of the emperor and not of Moses. These date back to the time of Pilate, the procurator of the land of Judah. For when the latter asked them before the judgment seat, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” they all said, “Crucify him, crucify him!” He said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” They shouted in reply, “We have no king but Caesar!”[Matt. 27:22; John 19:15]. God had not commanded of them such submission to the emperor; they gave it voluntarily.

But when the emperor demanded the obedience due him, they resisted and rebelled against him. Now they no longer wanted to be his subjects. Then he came and visited his subjects, gathered them in Jerusalem, and then scattered them throughout his entire empire, so that they were forced to obey him. From these the present remnant of Jews descended, of whom Moses knows nothing, nor they of him; for they do not deserve a single passage or verse of Moses. If they wish to apply Moses’ law again, they must first return to the land of Canaan, become Moses’ Jews, and keep his laws. There they may practice usury as much as strangers will endure from them. But since they are dwelling in and disobeying Moses in foreign countries under the emperor, they are bound to keep the emperor’s laws and refrain from the practice of usury until they become obedient to Moses. For Moses’ law has never passed a single step beyond the land of Canaan or beyond the people of Israel. Moses was not sent to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or any other nation with his law, but only to the people whom he led from Egyptinto the land of Canaan, as he himself testifies frequently in Deuteronomy. They were expected to keep his commandments in the land which they would conquer beyond the Jordan.

Moreover, since priesthood, worship, government with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal have been at an endfor over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses’ law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., andon top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us — for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim — then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide,divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

I hear it said that the Jews donate large sums of money and thus prove beneficial to governments. Yes, but where does this money come from? Not from their own possessions but from that of the lords and subjects whom they plunder and rob by means of usury. Thus the lords are taking from their subjects what they receive from the Jews, i.e., the subjects are obliged to pay additional taxes and let themselves be ground into the dust for the Jews, so that they may remain in the country, lie boldly and freely, blaspheme, curse, and steal. Shouldn’t the impious Jews laugh up their sleeves because we let them make such fools of us and because we spend our money to enable them to remain in the country and to practice every malice? Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they suck the marrow from our bones. If it is right for a servant to give his master or for a guest to give his host ten florins annually and, in return, to steal one thousand florins from him, then the servant or the guest will very quickly and easily get rich and the master or the host will soon become a beggar.

And even if the Jews could give the government such sums of money from their own property, which is not possible, and thereby buy protection from us, and the privilege publicly and freely to slander, blaspheme, villify, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ so shamefully in their synagogues, and in addition to wish us every misfortune, namely, that we might all be stabbed to death and perish with our Haman, emperor, princes, lords, wife, and children — this would really be selling Christ our Lord, the whole of Christendom together with the whole empire, and ourselves, with wife and children, cheaply and shamefully. What a great saint the traitor Judas would be in comparison with us! Indeed, if each Jew, as many as there are of them, could give one hundred thousand florins annually, we should nevertheless not yield them for this the right so freely to malign, curse, defame, impoverish by usury a single Christian. That would still be far too cheap a price. How much more intolerable is it that we permit the Jews to purchase with our money such license to slander and curse the whole Christ and all of us and, furthermore, reward them for this with riches and make them our lords, while they ridicule us and gloat in their malice. Thatwould prove a delightful spectacle for the devil and his angels, over which they could secretly grin like a sow grins at her litter, but which would indeed merit God’s great wrath.

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule: if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews. Lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. Do not aid and abet them in acquiring your money or your subjects’ money and property by means of usury. We have enough sin of our own without this, dating back to the papacy, and we add to it daily with our ingratitude and our contempt of God’s word and all his grace; so it is not necessary to burden ourselves also with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews and over and above it all, to pay them for it with money and property. Let us consider that we are now daily struggling with the Turks, which surely calls for a lessening of our sins and a reformation of our life. With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.

And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do, namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not. Let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew.

When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to your self: Alas,that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perishmiserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods. Perhaps he has spat on the ground many times this very day over the name of Jesus, as is their custom, so that the spittle still clings to his mouth and beard, if he had a chance to spit. If I were to eat, drink or talk with such a devilish mouth, I would eat or drink myself full of devils by the dish or cupful just as I surely make myself a cohort of all the devils that dwell in the Jews and that deride the precious blood of Christ. May God preserve me from this!

We cannot help it that they do not share our belief. It is impossible to force anyone to believe. However. we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering. cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts, especially since they boast so proudly and despicably when we do help and serve them that God has ordained them as lords and us as servants. For instance, when a Christian kindles their fire for them on a Sabbath, or cooks for them in an inn whatever they want, they curse and defame and revile us for it, supposing this to be something praiseworthy, and yet they live on our wealth, which they have stolen from us. Such a desperate, thoroughly evil poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.

Especially you pastors who have Jews living in your midst, persist in reminding your lords and rulers to be mindful of their office and of their obligation before God to force the Jews to work, to forbid usury, and to check their blasphemy and cursing. For if they punish thievery, robbery, murder, blasphemy, and other vices among us Christians, why should the devilish Jews be scot-free to commit their crimes among us and against us? We suffer more from them than the Italians do from the Spaniards, who plunder the host’s kitchen, cellar, chest, and purse, and, in addition, curse him and threaten him with death. Thus the Jews, our guests, alsotreat us; for we are their hosts. They rob and fleece us and hang about our necks, these lazy weaklings and indolent bellies; they swill and feast, enjoy good times in our homes, and by way of reward they curse our Lord Christ, our churches, our princes, and all of us, threatening us and unceasingly wishing us death and every evil. Just ponder this: How does it happen that we poor Christians nourish and enrich such an idle and lazypeople, such a useless, evil pernicious people, such blasphemous enemies of God, receiving nothing in return but their curses and defamation and every misfortune they may inflict on us or wish us? Indeed, we are as blind and unfeeling clods in this respect as are the Jews in their unbelief, to suffer such great tyranny from these vicious weaklings, and not perceive and sense that they are our lords, yes, our mad tyrants, and that we are their captives and subjects. Meanwhile they wail that they are our captives, and at the same time mock us — as though we had to take this from them!

But if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews’ devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country and be told to return to their land and their possessions in Jerusalem, where they may lie, curse, blaspheme, defame, murder, steal, rob, practice usury, mock, and indulge in all those infamous abominations which they practice among us, and leave us our government, our country, our life, and our property, much more leave our Lord the Messiah, our faith,and our church undefined and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice. Any privileges that they may plead shall not help them; for no one can grant privileges for practicing such abominations. These cancel and abrogate all privileges.

If you pastors and preachers have followed my example and have faithfully issued such warnings, but neither prince nor subject will do anything about it, let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10:14) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, “We are innocent of your blood.” For I observe and have often experienced how indulgent the perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful. Such was the case with King Ahab, as we find recorded in I Kings 20. That is the way the prince of this world reigns. I suppose that the princes will now wish to show mercy to the Jews, the bloodthirsty foes of our Christian and human name, in order to earn heaven thereby. But that the Jews enmesh us, harass us, torment and distress us poor Christians in every way with the above mentioned devilish and detestable deeds, this they want us to tolerate, and this is a good Christian deed, especially if there is any money involved (which they have filched and stolen from us).

What are we poor preachers to do meanwhile? In the first place, we will believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful when he declares of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him, “You are a brood of vipers and children of the devil [cf. Matt. 12:34]. This is a judgment in which his forerunner John the Baptist concurred, although these people were his kin. Now our authorities and all such merciful saints as wish the Jews well will at least have to let us believe our Lord Jesus Christ, who, I am sure, has a more intimate knowledge of all hearts than do those compassionate saints. He knows that these Jews are a brood of vipers and children of the devil, that is, people who will accord us the same benefits as does their father, the devil, and by now we Christians should have learned from Scripture as well as experience just how much he wishes us well.

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, madeassassinations, kidnaped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnaping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as wealready heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason I should like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christiansendure from these venomous serpents and young devils. Nor do the Jews treatany others as they do us Christians. That is what I had in mind when I saidearlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands — these venomous serpents and devil’s children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!

That is speaking coarsely about the coarse cursing of the Jews. Others write much about this, and the Jews know very well that it is cursing, since they curse and blaspheme consciously. Let us also speak more subtlyand, as Christians, more spiritually about this. Thus our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 10:40, “He who receives me receives him who sent me.” And in Luke 10:16, “He who rejects you rejects me. And he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 15:23, “He who hates me hates myfather also.” In John 5:23, “That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him,” etc.

Related image

Rest in peace Martin…Rest in peace my brother in Christ

CONTINUE READING MARTIN LUTHER’S ON THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES HERE

SEE ALSO –

JEWISH LEADER: PROTESTANTS SHOULD CONDEMN MARTIN LUTHER’S ANTI-SEMITISM

 

NORWAY CHURCH CONDEMNS MARTIN LUTHER’S ANTI-SEMITISM (A BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED CUCKED JEW LOVERS, MARTIN IS ROLLING OVER IN HIS GRAVE NOW)

RELATED –

THE FATHERS OF CHRISTIANITY WERE ANTI-JEW !

http://smoloko.com/?p=18371&embed=true#?secret=7vgLZ5wK1I

MARTIN LUTHER ON THE JEWS – WHAT YOU WEREN’T TAUGHT IN SCHOOL

http://smoloko.com/?p=3595&embed=true#?secret=mvrZgZkl2s

A RELIGIOUS SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM

http://smoloko.com/?p=11008&embed=true#?secret=JdAULi3dbs

REMEMBERING THE GLORIOUS BYZANTINE EMPIRE

http://smoloko.com/?p=12782&embed=true#?secret=yfCKe7dgpW

WHAT IS THE MOST HOLY MISSION ON EARTH ?

http://smoloko.com/?p=16619&embed=true#?secret=RQrJihfd4h

THE JEWISH QUESTION REVISITED BY HILLAIRE BELLOC

http://smoloko.com/?p=11386&embed=true#?secret=sfyTAo36E3

JESUS CHRIST AND ADOLF HITLER ARE MY TWO HEROES

http://smoloko.com/?p=16222&embed=true#?secret=9NC9J1xose

MORE RELATED – 

DOSTOEVSKY & THE JEWS

EZRA POUND: JEW-WISE POET AND POLITICAL PRISONER

REMEMBERING THE GREAT CHESS LEGEND BOBBY FISCHER

.

US may require 5 years of social media data from visa applicants

US may require 5 years of social media data from visa applicants

Russian Ambassador Speaks Out After Russia Expels 60 Americans Amid Rising Tensions | TODAY

Russia ‘Novichok’ Hysteria Proves Politicians and Media Haven’t Learned The Lessons of Iraq

Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire

If there’s one thing to be gleaned from the current atmosphere of anti Russian hysteria in the West, it’s that the US-led sustained propaganda campaign is starting to pay dividends. It’s not only the hopeless political classes and media miscreants who believe that Russia is hacking, meddling and poisoning our progressive democratic utopia – with many pinning their political careers to this by now that’s it’s too late for them to turn back. As it was with Iraq in 2003, these dubious public figures require a degree of public support for their policies, and unfortunately many people do believe in the grand Russian conspiracy, having been sufficiently brow-beaten into submission by around-the-clock fear mongering and official fake news disseminated by government and the mainstream media.

What makes this latest carnival of warmongering more frightening is that it proves that the political and media classes never actually learned or internalized the basic lessons of Iraq, namely that the cessation of diplomacy and the declarations of sanctions (a prelude to war) against another sovereign state should not be based on half-baked intelligence and mainstream fake news. But that’s exactly what is happening with this latest Russian ‘Novichok’ plot.

Admittedly, the stakes are much higher this time around. The worst case scenario is unthinkable, whereby the bad graces of men like John Bolton and other military zealots, there may just be a thin enough mandate to short-sell another military conflagration or proxy war – this time against another nuclear power and UN Security Council member.

Enter stage right, where US President Donald Trump announced this week that the US is moving closer to war footing with Russia. It’s not the first time Trump has made such a hasty move in the absence any forensic evidence of a crime. Nowadays, hearsay, conjecture and social media postings are enough to declare war. Remember last April with the alleged “Sarin Attack” in Khan Sheikhoun, when the embattled President squeezed off 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles against Syria – a decision, which as far as anyone can tell, was based solely on a few YouTube videos uploaded by the illustrious White Helmets. Back then Trump learned how an act of war against an existential enemy could take the heat off at home and translate into a bounce in the polls. Even La Résistance at CNN were giddy with excitement and threw their support behind Trump, with some pundits describing his decision to act as “Presidential.”

As with past high-profile western-led WMD allegations against governments in Syria and Iraq (the US and UK are patently unconcerned with multiple allegations of ‘rebel’ terrorists in Syria caught using chemical weapons), an identical progression of events appears to be unfolding following the alleged ‘Novichok’ chemical weapon poisoning of retired British-Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, Wiltshire on March 4th.

Despite a lack of evidence presented to the public other than the surreptitious “highly likely” assessments of British Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, President Trump once again has caved into pressure from Official Washington’s anti-Russian party line and ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats – which he accused of being spies. Trump also ordered the closure of the Russian Consulate in Seattle, citing speculative fears that Russia might be spying on a nearby Boeing submarine development base. It was the second round of US expulsions of Russian officials, with the first one ordered by the outgoing President Obama in December 2016, kicking out 35 Russian diplomats and their families (including their head chef) and closing the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, with some calling it “a den of spies”.

Trump’s move followed an earlier UK action on March 14th, which expelled 23 Russian diplomats also accused of being spies. This was in retaliation for the alleged poisoning of a retired former Russian-British double agent in Salisbury, England.

This was my initial reaction back on March 14, 2018, during a live TV segment:

YouTube Video Preview

.
The ‘Collective’ Concern

It’s important to understand how this week’s brash move by Washington was coordinated in advance. The US and the UK are relying on their other NATO partners, including Germany, Poland, Italy, Canada, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Estonia and Lithuania – to create the image of a united front against perceived ‘Russian aggression’. As with multilateral military operations, multilateral diplomatic measures like this are not carried out on a whim.

Aside from this, there are two seriously worrying aspects of this latest US-led multilateral move against Russia. Firstly, this diplomatic offensive against Russia mirrors a NATO collective defense action, and by doing so, it tacitly signals towards an invocation of Article 5. According to AP, one German spokesperson called it a matter of ‘solidarity’ with the UK. Statements from the White House are no less encouraging:

“The United States takes this action in conjunction with our NATO allies, and partners around the world in response with Russia’s use of a military grade chemical weapon on the soil of the United Kingdom — the latest in its ongoing pattern of destabilizing activities around the world,” the White House said.

“Today’s actions make the United States safer by reducing Russia’s ability to spy on Americans, and to conduct covert operations that threaten America’s national security.” 

What this statement indicates is that any Russian foreign official or overseas worker in the West should be regarded as possible agents of espionage. In other words, the Cold War is now officially back on.

Then came this statement:

“With these steps, the United States and our allies and partners make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences.”

In an era of power politics, this language is anything but harmless. And while US and UK politicians and media pundits seem to be treating it all as a school yard game at times, we should all be reminded that his is how wars start.

The second issue with the Trump’s diplomatic move against Russia is that it extends beyond the territorial US – and into what should be regarded at the neutral zone of the United Nations. As part of the group of 60 expulsions, the US has expelled 12 Russian diplomats from the United Nations in New York City. While this may mean nothing to jumped-up political appointees like Nikki Haley who routinely threaten the UN when a UNGA vote doesn’t go her way, this is an extremely dangerous precedent because it means that the US has now created a diplomatic trap door where legitimate international relations duties are being carelessly rebranded as espionage – done on a whim and based on no actual evidence. By using this tactic, the US is casting aside decades of international resolutions, treaties and laws. Such a move directly threatens to undermine a fundamental principle of the United Nations which is its diplomatic mission and the right for every sovereign nation to have diplomatic representation. Without it, there is no UN forum and countries cannot talk through their differences and negotiate peaceful settlements. This is why the UN was founded in the first place. Someone might want to remind Nikki Haley of that.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER: Never in modern history has mediocrity in politics been celebrated as a virtue by so many.

On top of this, flippant US and UK officials are already crowing that Russia should be kicked off the UN Security Council. In effect, Washington is trying to cut the legs out from a fellow UN Security Council member and a nuclear power. This UNSC exclusion campaign been gradually building up since 2014, where US officials have been repeated blocked by Russia over incidents in Syria and the Ukraine. Hence, Washington and its partners are frustrated with the UN framework, and that’s probably why they are so actively undermining it.

Those boisterous calls, as irrational and ill-informed as they might be, should be taken seriously because as history shows, these signs are a prelude to war.

Also, consider the fact that both the US and Russian have military assets deployed in Syria. How much of the Skripal case and the subsequent fall-out has to do with the fact that US Coalition and Gulf state proxy terrorists have lost their hold over key areas in Syria? The truly dangerous part of this equation is that the illegal military occupation by the US and its NATO ally Turkey of northeastern Syria is in open violation of international law, and so Washington and its media arms would like nothing more than to be history’s actor and bury its past indiscretions under a new layer of US-Russia tension in the Middle East.

Another WMD Debacle?

Is it really possible to push East-West relations over the edge on the basis of anecdotal evidence?

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, highlighted the recent British High Court judgement which states in writing that the government’s own chemical weapons experts from the Porton Down research facility could not categorically confirm that a Russian ‘Novichok’ nerve agent was actually used in the Salisbury incident. Based on this, Murray believes that both British Prime Minster Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, and Britain’s deputy UN representative Jonathan Allen – have all lied to the public and the world when making their public statements that the Russians had in fact launched a deadly chemical weapons attack on UK soil. Murray states elaborates on this key point:

“This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a ‘Novichok’, as opposed to “a closely related agent”. Even if it were a ‘Novichok’ that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a ‘closely related agent’ could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.”

“This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying – to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people – about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased.”

Murray has been roundly admonished by the UK establishment for his views, but he is still correct to ask the question: how could UK government leaders have known ‘who did it’ in advance of any criminal forensic investigation or substantive testing by Porton Down or an independent forensic investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?

One would hope we could all agree that it’s this sort of question which should have been given more prominence in the run-up to the Iraq War. In matters of justice and jurisprudence, that’s a fundamental question and yet, once again – it has been completely bypassed.

Murray is not alone. A number of scientists and journalists have openly questioned the UK’s hyperbolic claims that Russia had ordered a ‘chemical attack’ on British soil. In her recent report  for the New Scientist, author Debora MacKenzie reiterates the fact that several countries could have manufactured a ‘Novichok’ class nerve agent and used it in the chemical attack on Russians Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury.

“British Prime Minister Theresa May says that because it was Russia that developed Novichok agents, it is ‘highly likely’ that Russia either attacked the Skripals itself, or lost control of its Novichok to someone else who did. But other countries legally created Novichok for testing purposes after its existence was revealed in 1992, and a production method has even been published.”

The New Scientist also quotes Ralf Trapp, a chemical weapons consultant formerly with the OPCW, who also reiterates a point worth reminding readers of – that inspectors are only able to tell where molecules sampled in Salisbury have come from if they have reference samples for the ingredients used.

“I doubt they have reference chemicals for forensic analysis related to Russian CW agents,” says Trapp. “But if Russia has nothing to hide they may let inspectors in.”

Even if they can identify it as Novichok, they cannot say that it came from Russia, or was ordered by the Russian government, not least of all because the deadly recipe is available on Amazon for only $28.45.

RELATED: REVEALED: Pentagon’s $70 Million Chemical & Biological Program at Porton Down in UK

It should be noted that a substantial amount of evidence points to only two countries who are the most active in producing and testing biological and chemical weapons WMD – the United States and Great Britain. Their programs also include massive ‘live testing’ on both humans and animalswith most of this work undertaken at the Porton Down research facility located only minutes away from the scene of this alleged ‘chemical attack’ in Salisbury, England.

Problems with the Official Story

If we put aside for the moment any official UK government theory, which is based on speculation backed-up by a series of hyperbolic statements and proclamations of Russian guilt, there are still many fundamental problems with the official story  – maybe too many to list here, but I will address what I believe are a few key items of interest.

The UK police have now released a statement claiming that the alleged ‘Novichok’ nerve agent was somehow administered at the front door of Sergie Skripal’s home in Wiltshire. This latest official claim effectively negates the previous official story because it means that the Skripals would have been exposed a home at the latest around 13:00 GMT on March 4th, and then drove into town, parking their car at Sainsbury’s car park, then having a leisurely walk to have drinks at The Mill Pub, before for ordering and eating lunch at Zizzis restaurant, and then finally leaving the Zizzis and walking before finally retiring on a park bench – where emergency services were apparently called at 16:15 GMT to report an incident. Soon after, local Police arrived on the scene to find the Skripals on the bench in an “extremely serious condition”. Based on this story, the Skripals would have been going about their business for 3 hours before finally falling prey to the deadly WMD ‘Novichok’. From this, one would safely conclude that whatever has poisoned the pair was neither lethal nor could it have been a military grade WMD. Even by subtracting the home doorway exposure leg of this story, the government’s claim hardly adds up – as even a minor amount of any real lethal military grade WMD would have effected many more people along this timeline of events. Based on what we know so far, it seems much more plausible that the pair would have been poisoned (or drugged) at Zizzis restaurant, and not with a military grade nerve agent.

When this story initially broke, we were also told that the attending police officer who first arrived on the scene of this incident, Wiltshire Police Detective Sgt. Nick Bailey – was “fighting for his life” after being exposed to the supposed ‘deadly Russian nerve agent’. As it turned out, officer Bailey was treated in hospital and then discharged on March 22, 2018. To our knowledge, no information or photos of Bailey’s time in care are available to the public so we cannot know the trajectory of his health, or if he was even exposed to the said “Novichok’ nerve agent as the government and media have repeatedly said.

In the immediate aftermath, the public were also told initially that approximately 4o people were taken into medical care because of “poison exposure”. This bogus claim was promulgated by some mainstream media outlets, like Rupert Murdoch’s Times newspaper. In reality, no one showed signed of “chemical weapons” exposure, meaning that this story was just another example of mainstream corporate media fake news designed to stoke tension and fear in the public. We exposed this at the time on the UK Column News here:

Patrick Henningsen

@21WIRE

@medialens @Ian56789 Look who’re the ACTUAL producers of on the story…

To further complicate matters, this week we were told that Yulia Skripal has now turned the corner and is in recovery, and is speaking to police from her hospital bed. If this is true, then it further proves that whatever the alleged poison agent was which the Skripals were exposed to – it was not a lethal, military grade nerve agent. If it had been, then most likely the Skripals and many others would not be alive right now.

Unfortunately, in this new age of state secrecy, we can expect that most of the key information relating to this case may be sealed indefinitely under a national security letter. In the case of Porton Down scientist David Kelly, the key information is sealed (hidden) for another 60+ years (if we’re lucky, we might get to see it in the year 2080). This means that we just have to take their word for it, or to borrow the words of the newly crowed UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson – any one asking questions, “should just go away and shut up.”  Such is the lack of decorum and transparency in this uncomfortably Orwellian atmosphere.

While Britain insists that it has ‘irrefutable proof’ that Russia launched a deadly nerve-gas attack to murder the Skripals, the facts simply do not match-up to the rhetoric.

The Litvinenko Conspiracy

It’s important to note that as far as public perceptions are concerned, the official Skripal narrative has been build directly on top of the Litvinenko case.

In order to try and reinforce the government’s speculative arguments, the UK establishment has resurrected the trial-by-media case of another Russian defector, former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who is said to have died after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 in his tea at a restaurant in London’s Mayfair district in late 2006.

Despite not having any actual evidence as to who committed the crime, the British authorities and the mainstream media have upheld an almost religious belief that the Russian FSB (formerly KGB), under the command of Vladimir Putin, had ordered the alleged radioactive poisoning of Litvinenko.

The media mythos was reinforced in 2016, when a British Public Inquiry headed by Sir Robert Owen accused senior Russian officials of ‘probably having motives to approve the murder’ of Litvinenko. Again, this level of guesswork and speculation would never meet the standard of an actual forensic investigation worthy of a real criminal court of law, but so far as apportioning blame to another nation or head of state is concerned – it seems fair enough for British authorities.

Following the completion of the inquiry, Sir Robert had this to say:

“Taking full account of all the evidence and analysis available to me, I find that the FSB operation to kill Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Contrary to consensus reality )popular belief), Owen’s inquiry was not at all definitive. Quite the opposite in fact, and in many ways it mirrors how the Skripal case has been presented to the public. Despite offering no evidence of any criminal guilt, Owen’s star chamber maintained that Vladimir Putin “probably” approved the operation to assassinate Litvinenko. Is “probably” really enough to assign guilt in a major international crime? When it comes to high crimes of state, the answer seems to be yes.

According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marina Zakharova, that UK inquiry was “neither transparent nor public” and was “conducted mostly behind doors, with classified documents and unnamed witnesses contributing to the result…”

Zakharova highlighted the fact that two key witnesses in the case – Litvinenko’s chief patron, a UK-based anti-Putin defector billionaire oligarch named Boris Berezovsky, and the owner of Itsu restaurant in London’s Mayfair where the incident is said to have taken place, had both suddenly died under dubious circumstances. The British authorities went on to accuse two Russian men in the Litvineko murder – businessman Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun. Both have denied the accusations. Despite the lack of any real evidence, the United States Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control blacklisted both Lugovoi and Kovtun, as well as Russian persons Stanislav Gordievsky, Gennady Plaksin and Aleksandr I. Bastrykin – under the Magnitsky Act, which freezes their assets held in American financial institutions, and bans them from conducting any transactions or traveling to the United States.

Notice the familiar pattern: even if the case is inconclusive, or collapses due to a lack of evidence, the policies remain in place.

Despite all the pomp and circumstance however, Owen’s official conspiracy theory failed to sway even Litvinenko’s own close family members. While Litvinenko’s widow Marina maintains that it was definitely the Russian government who killed her husband, Alexsander’s younger brother Maksim Litvinenko, based in Rimini, Italy, believes the British report “ridiculous” to blame the Kremlin for the murder of his brother, stating that he believes British security services had more of a motive to carry out the assassination.

“My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It’s all a set-up to put pressure on the Russian government,” said Maksim to the Mirror newspaper, and that such reasoning can explain why the UK waited almost 10 years to launch the inquiry his brother’s death.

Maxim also said that Britain had more reason to kill his brother than the Russians, and believes that blaming Putin for the murder was part of a wider effort to smear Russia.

Following the police investigation, Alexander’s father Walter Litvinenko, also said that he had regretted blaming Putin and the Russian government for his son’s death and did so under intense pressure at the time.

For anyone skeptical of the official proclamations of the British state and the mainstream media on the Litvinenko case, it’s worth reading the work of British journalist Will Dunkerly here.

With so many questions hanging over the actually validity of the British state’s accusations against Russia, it’s somewhat puzzling that British police would say they are still ‘looking for similarities’ between the Skripal and Litvinenko cases in order to pinpoint a modus operandi.

The admission by the British law enforcement that their investigation may take months before any conclusion can be drawn also begs the question: how could May have been so certain so quick? The answer should be clear by now: she could not have known it was a ‘Novichok’ agent, no more than she could know the ‘Russia did it.’

A Plastic Cold War

Historically speaking, in the absence of any real mandate or moral authority, governments suffering from an identity crisis, or a crisis of legitimacy will often try and define themselves not based on what they stand for, but rather what (or who) they are in opposition to. This profile suits both the US and UK perfectly at the moment. Both governments are limping along with barely a mandate, and have orchestrated two of the worst and most hypocritical debacles in history with their illegal wars in both Syria and Yemen. With their moral high-ground a thing of the past, these two countries require a common existential enemy in order to give their international order legitimacy.  The cheapest, easiest option is to reinvigorate a framework which was already there, which is the Cold War framework. Reds under the bed. The Russian are coming etc. It’s cheap and it’s easy because it has already been seeded with 70 years of Cold War propaganda and institutionalized racism in the West directed against Russians. If you don’t believe me, just go look at some of the posters, watch the TV propaganda in the US, or read about the horrific McCarthyist blacklists and political witch hunts. I remember growing up in America and being taught “never again” and “we’re past all of that now, those days of irrational paranoia are behind us, we’re better than that now.” But that madness of the past was not a fringe affair – it was a mainstreammadness, and one which was actively promoted by government and mainstream media.

You would have to be at the pinnacle of ignorance to deny that this is exactly what we are seeing today, albeit a more plastic version, but just as immoral and dangerous. Neocons love it, and now Liberals love it too.

Dutifully fanning the flaming of war, Theresa May has issued her approval of the NATO members diplomatic retaliation this week exclaiming, “We welcome today’s actions by our allies, which clearly demonstrate that we all stand shoulder to shoulder in sending the strongest signal to Russia that it cannot continue to flout international law.”

But from an international law perspective, can May’s ‘highly likely’ assurances really be enough to position the west on war footing with Russia? When Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked these same fundamental questions on March 14th, he was shouted down by the Tory bench, and also by the hawkish Blairites sitting behind him.

Afterwards, the British mainstream press launched yet another defamation campaign against Corbyn, this time with the UK’s Daily Mail calling the opposition leader a “Kremlin Stooge”, followed by British state broadcaster the BBC who went through the effort of creating a mock-up graphic of Corbyn in front of the Kremlin (pictured above) apparently wearing a Russian hat, as if to say he was a Russian agent. It was a new low point in UK politics and media.

Considering the mainstream media’s Corbyn smear alongside the recent insults hurled at Julian Assange by Tory MP Sir Alan Duncan who stood up in front of Parliament and called the Wikileaks founder a “miserable worm”, what this really says is that anyone who dares defy the official state narrative will be beaten down and publicly humiliated. In other words, dissent in the political ranks will not be tolerated. It’s almost as if we are approaching a one party state.

Would a UN Security Council member and nuclear power really be so brazen as to declare de facto war on another country without presenting any actual evidence or completing a genuine forensic investigation?

So why the apparent rush to war? Haven’t we been here before, in 2003? Will the people of the West allow it to happen again?

As with Tony Blair’s WMD’s in 2003, the British public are meant to take it on faith and never question the official government line. And just like in 2003, the UK has opened the first door on the garden path, with the US and its ‘coalition’ following safely behind, shoulder to shoulder. In this latest version of the story, Tony Blair is being played by Theresa May, and Jack Straw is being played by Boris Johnson. On the other side of the pond, a hapless Bush is hapless Trump. Both Blair and Straw, along with the court propagandist Alastair Campbell – are all proven to have been liars of the highest order, and if there were any real accountability or justice, these men and their collaborators in government should be in prison right now. The fact they aren’t is why the door has been left wide open for the exact same scam to be repeated again, and again.

Iraq should have taught us all to be skeptical about official claims of chemical weapons evidence, and to face the ugly truth about how most major wars throughout history have waged by the deception – and by western governments. What does it tell us about today’s society if people still cannot see this?

That’s why it was wrong to let Blair, Bush and others off the hook for war crimes. By doing so, both the British and Americans are inviting a dark phase of history to repeat itself again, and again.

It’s high time that we break the cycle.

***
Author Patrick Henningsen is a global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).

SEE ALSO: A Guide to Mainstream Media ‘Fake News’ War Propaganda

READ MORE SKRIPAL NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Skripal Files


Moscow confronts London with 14 questions on ‘fabricated’ Skripal case

__________
RT
Moscow confronts London with 14 questions on ‘fabricated’ Skripal case

Russia’s Embassy in London has sent a list of 14 questions to the UK Foreign Ministry, demanding that it reveals details of the investigation into the nerve-agent poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

The questions, provided in full below, include a demand to clarify whether samples of the nerve agent “Novichok” have ever been developed in the UK.

1. Why has Russia been denied the right of consular access to the two Russian citizens, who came to harm on British territory?

2. What specific antidotes and in what form were the victims injected with? How did such antidotes come into the possession of British doctors at the scene of the incident?

3. On what grounds was France involved in technical cooperation in the investigation of the incident, in which Russian citizens were injured?

4. Did the UK notify the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) of France’s involvement in the investigation of the Salisbury incident?

5. What does France have to do with the incident, involving two Russian citizens in the UK?

6. What rules of UK procedural legislation allow for the involvement of a foreign state in an internal investigation?

7. What evidence was handed over to France to be studied and for the investigation to be conducted?

8. Were the French experts present during the sampling of biomaterial from Sergei and Yulia Skripal?

9. Was the study of biomaterials from Sergei and Yulia Skripal conducted by the French experts and, if so, in which specific laboratories?

10. Does the UK have the materials involved in the investigation carried out by France?

11. Have the results of the French investigation been presented to the OPCW Technical Secretariat?

12. Based on what attributes was the alleged “Russian origin” of the substance used in Salisbury established?

13. Does the UK have control samples of the chemical warfare agent, which British representatives refer to as “Novichok”?

14. Have the samples of a chemical warfare agent of the same type as “Novichok” (in accordance to British terminology) or its analogues been developed in the UK?


—————————————————————

Furious China ramps up support for Russia on Skripal, calls West’s actions “outrageous”

Global Times says West disregards due process, bullies Russia, no longer leads world community, threatens other nations,

Global Times – unofficial English language organ of China’s ruling Communist Party – has published a scorching editorial savaging the West’s bullying of Russia over the Skripal case.

The editorial notes the West’s disregard of basic courtesies and of due process, and warns that other countries – including implicitly China – may one day find themselves in the same crosshairs for this sort of attack.

The editorial also reminds the Western powers that so far from representing “the world community” they represent only a small part of it.

The editorial is so trenchant and so strong – going so much further than any editorial I have seen in a Chinese newspaper supporting Russia in its conflict with the West, including two previous editorials which Global Times has itself published on the Skripal case – that I am going to set it out in full

On March 26, the US, Canada, and several European Union countries expelled Russian diplomats from their respective foreign embassies and consulates in retaliation against Russia’s alleged poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter.  As of this writing, 19 countries, including 15 EU member states, have shown their support to Great Britain by enforcing such measures.

On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were rushed to a hospital after they were found unconscious at a park in Salisbury. It was later reported the father and daughter had come into contact with an obscure nerve agent. UK government officials said the Skripals were attacked by “Novichok,” a powerful Soviet-era chemical nerve agent used by the military.

The British government did not provide evidence that linked Russia to the crime but was confident from the beginning there could be no other “reasonable explanation” for the attempted assassination. Great Britain was so convinced of their Russia theory, they wasted no time taking the lead in levying sanctions against the country by quickly expelling Russian diplomats from London.  Shortly afterwards, UK capital officials reached out to NATO and their European allies who provided immediate support.

The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression “perhaps it’s true” to seize upon the desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats almost simultaneously isa crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts.

The UK government should have an independent investigation conducted into the Skripal poisoning by representatives from the international community. An effort such as this would provide results strong enough for those following the case to make up their minds on who should or shouldn’t be accused of the crime. Now, the majority of those who support Britain’s one-sided conclusion happen to be members of NATO and the EU, while others stood behind the UK due to long-standing relations.

The fact that major Western powers can gang up and “sentence” a foreign country without following the same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice.

Over the past few years the international standard has been falsified and manipulated in ways never seen before. The fundamental reason behind reducing global standards is rooted in post-Cold War power disparities. The US, along with their allies, jammed their ambitions into the international standards so their actions, which were supposed to follow a set of standardized procedures and protocol, were really nothing more than profit-seizing opportunities designed only for themselves.  These same Western nations activated in full-force public opinion-shaping platforms and media agencies to defend and justify such privileges.

As of late, more foreign countries have been victimized by Western rhetoric and nonsensical diplomatic measures. In the end, the leaders of these nations are forced to wear a hat featuring slogans and words that read “oppressing their own people,” “authoritarian,” or “ethnic cleansing,” regardless of their innocence.

It is beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications, and come to value their own judgement abilities.

It’s already understood that to achieve such international collective efforts is easier said than done as they require foundational support before anything can happen. Until a new line of allies emerges, multi-national associations like BRICS, or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, need to provide value to those non-Western nations and actively create alliances with them.

What Russia is experiencing right could serve as a reflection of how other non-Western nations can expect to be treated in the not-to-distant future.  Expelling Russian diplomats simultaneously is hardly enough to deter Russia. Overall, it’s an intimidation tactic that has become emblematic of Western nations, and furthermore, such measures are not supported by international law and therefore unjustified. More importantly, the international community should have the tools and means to counterbalance such actions.

The West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was.  The silenced minorities within the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action. With the Skripal case, the general public does not know the truth, and the British government has yet to provide a shred of evidence justifying their allegations against Russia.

It is firmly believed that accusations levied by one country to another that are not the end results of a thorough and professional investigation should not be encouraged. Simultaneously expelling diplomats is a form of uncivilized behavior that needs to be abolished immediately.

In my experience China – even in editorials in Global Times, which are unofficial – invariably sets out its views in measured terms, preferring to avoid tough language though always making its views clear.

This editorial is different, showing the depth of Chinese anger about the way the Western powers have been conducting themselves over the last few weeks, which note that the editorial characterises as “uncivilised behaviour”.

Even a short visit to China – such as one which I did in August – suffices to show how much importance the Chinese attach to “civilised behaviour”, and how strong this criticism coming from them therefore is.

I suspect that when the dust over the Skripal case finally settles, it will become clear that its main effect has been to bring China and Russia even closer together they already were.

image: https://i2.wp.com/theduran.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DRN-Icon.png?w=662

The Duran
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

CrossTalk on Anti-Russia Hysteria: Crisis Point?

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

This is an alleged image of the daughter of former Russian Spy Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal taken from Yulia Skipal's Facebook account on Tuesday March 6, 2018

London Considering Requests for Consular Access to Ex-Spy Skripal’s Daughter

© AP Photo/ Yulia Skripal/Facebook

EUROPE

Get short URL
Alleged Poisoning Attack on Russian Ex-Spy Skripal in UK (163)
1150

The Russian Embassy in London has insisted it has to be granted consular access to Yulia Skripal as she has regained consciousness and the ability to talk weeks after being exposed to a nerve agent in the English city of Salisbury.

The UK Foreign Office said on Saturday that it is considering requests to grant consular access to Yulia Skripal, a 33-year-old Russian citizen who has been in hospital along with her father since early March.

“We are considering requests for consular access in line with our obligations under international and domestic law, including the rights and wishes of Yulia Skripal,” a spokeswoman for the UK foreign office said.

The Russian Embassy on Friday insisted that consular access to Yulia Skripal to be granted in the wake of the reports that her condition had improved.

​The Salisbury District Hospital medical staff said she had come out of a coma, began talking and was recovering rapidly, while her father, former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, was still in a critical but stable condition.

The Skripals have been treated for suspected exposure to a nerve agent after being found unconscious on a bench at a shopping mall. The UK authorities claimed both had been poisoned by a chemical developed in the Soviet Union.London has claimed it was “highly likely” that Moscow had staged the poisoning attack and responded by expelling 23 Russian diplomats from the country. Following London’s lead, over 20 countries, including the United States have expelled Russian diplomats.

Russia, which has consistently denied involvement in the incident, saying the accusations are baseless, expelled dozens of diplomats from the UK as well as from the states supporting the expulsion of Moscow’s diplomats in a tit-for-tat response.

 ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Cup of Shame’: Billboards call for boycott of FIFA 2018 in Russia

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

 

Israel loses recon drone in Lebanon, the fourth this year

Israel loses recon drone in Lebanon, the fourth this year
A small IDF surveillance drone was lost in southern Lebanon near the Israeli border on Saturday. It’s the fourth drone lost by the Israeli military this year, according to local reports.

The drone was identified by Lebanese media as a Skylark, a tactical surveillance UAV used by Israeli artillery troops. According to reports in Lebanon, it landed near the Lebanese village of Ayta ash-Shab and was destroyed by another Israeli drone.

علي شعيب 🇱🇧@ali_shoeib1

عاجل

سقوط طائرة تجسس إسرائيلية من دون طيار في منطقة خلة مريم بين بلدتي برعشيت وبيت ياحون دون معرفة اسباب سقوطها وطائرة تجسس ثانية تستهدفها بصاروخ موجه وتدمرها

The IDF confirmed the loss of the aircraft, but said that it had fallen from the sky rather than being destroyed on the ground. The military said they were investigating the incident and that it had been caused by a technical malfunction.

According to the Times of Israel, the IDF had lost three Skylark drones before the most recent incident on Saturday. One crashed in southern Lebanon in January, prompting the Israelis to launch a cross-border raid to recover it. Two other drones were lost in March – one in southern Syria and another one in the northern part of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military say the incidents were not the result of a common problem with the drone model.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


Published on

Alleging ‘Very Serious’ Violations, Groups File Complaint Against John Bolton Super PAC Over Ties to Cambridge Analytica

“What’s worse than the fact that it apparently happened in this case is that the people involved apparently knew they were breaking the law and continued to do so anyway.”

John Bolton speaks at the National Oversight and Government Reform Committee on moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on Capitol Hill on November 8, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

With John Bolton set to officially become President Donald Trump’s national security adviser in just over a week, two government watchdog groups filed a criminal complaint late Thursday demanding an investigation into whether Bolton’s super PAC wittingly conspired with the scandal-ridden British data firm Cambridge Analytica to commit “very serious” violations of U.S. election laws.

“If Bolton knew or should have known that his super PAC received illegal foreign support, that is highly relevant to the new position he will assume next month as national security adviser.”
Norm Eisen and Fred Wertheimer

The complaint (pdf)—which also calls for a Justice Department probe into Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon—was spearheaded by Democracy 21 and Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), and it argues that Bolton’s PAC violated federal laws prohibiting foreign nationals from “directly or indirectly” participating in the decision-making processes of American political campaigns.

“What’s worse than the fact that it apparently happened in this case is that the people involved apparently knew they were breaking the law and continued to do so anyway,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director at CREW, said in a statement on Thursday. 

News that Bolton’s PAC was an “early beneficiary” of Cambridge Analytica’s vast Facebook data-harvesting effort was first reported by the New York Times last week.

Based on the accounts of former Cambridge Analytica employees as well as a trove of company documents, the Times reported that between 2014 and 2016, Bolton’s super PAC “spent nearly $1.2 million primarily for ‘survey research'” and “behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging”—services that relied on the personal data of Facebook users. 

“These are very serious apparent violations of federal law. The Justice Department and the FBI should immediately commence an investigation into this matter and take appropriate action.”
—Noah Bookbinder, CREW

According to Cambridge whistleblower and former employee Christopher Wylie, the Bolton PAC’s messaging was aimed at “making people more militaristic in their worldview.”

The filing by CREW and Democracy 21 alleges that this coordination between Cambridge and Bolton’s super PAC violates federal laws barring foreign nationals assisting U.S. political campaigns with strategic decision-making.

“These are very serious apparent violations of federal law,” Bookbinder of CREW said. “The Justice Department and the FBI should immediately commence an investigation into this matter and take appropriate action.”

In a statement, Bolton spokesman Garrett Marquis denied that any Cambridge employees made strategic decisions in election-related matters and insisted that “the John Bolton Super PAC no longer uses any of the data provided by Cambridge Analytica.”

The complaint against Bolton’s super PAC and the Trump campaign comes as new reporting from Bloomberg shows that that internal documents from Cambridge Analytica, unsealed as part of a parliamentary inquiry in the U.K., indicate that the firm did in fact provide Bolton’s group with data obtained from Facebook users, confirming the Times report.

In an op-ed for CNN earlier this week, former White House ethics czar and CREW board chair Norm Eisen and Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer argued that both the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and special counsel Robert Mueller should immediately launch an investigation into the John Bolton Super PAC’s relationship with Cambridge Analytica.

“If Bolton knew or should have known that his super PAC received illegal foreign support, that is highly relevant to the new position he will assume next month as national security adviser,” Eisen and Wertheimer argued. “If an appointee has benefited from illegal foreign support, this creates the risk of more revelations that could worsen that person’s exposure.”

UK’s search of Russian plane violates international law – Aeroflot, lawmakers

UK's search of Russian plane violates international law – Aeroflot, lawmakers
The inspection of a Russian plane, which was carried out by UK authorities in the absence of the crew and without any justification, violates international legal norms, Aeroflot airline and top Russian lawmakers said.

Aeroflot confirmed to RT that UK police and customs services performed a search aboard its Airbus A321 aircraft after it landed in the British capital on Thursday. The carrier expressed “bewilderment” that there was no reason or justification provided for the search. Moreover, UK authorities forced the crew out of the plane and isolated the captain in the cabin.

“Such actions by the UK representatives contradict the international practice of performing such inspections,” Aeroflot pointed out, adding that it is ready to cooperate with Britain if it justifies and explains its actions.

The chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Transport Committee, Vitaly Yefimov, also called the actions of British authorities “illegal”and said they violated international regulations.

“The board of the airplane is the territory of Russia, just like its embassy,” Yefimov told Tass. “It is a precedent… It’s the first time on my memory when the authorities go in and inspected an aircraft with no justification. They have no right to do it.”

An inspection of a plane can only be carried out in agreement with the crew, the MP stressed, adding that he’s waiting for official explanations from the British.

The Russian aviation security center will send a request to the UK authorities regarding searches of the Aeroflot plane in London, the Russian Transport Ministry said in a statement. In the event that the British side fails to provide any explanations, Moscow “will regard these actions against our plane as illegal, and will consider similar measures against British aircraft,” it added.

Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov, who is the First Deputy Chairman of the Federal Council’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, told RIA-Novosti that the actions taken by British authorities were “another provocation.” Due to the current tensions between London and Moscow over the Skripal case, “it’s worth recommending our citizens to refrain from visiting the UK,”Dzhabarov said.

Deputy Chairman of the State Duma’s Committee for Security, Anatoly Vyborny, blasted the search of the Russian plane as “legal nihilism” and a “flagrant violation of the norms of international law” on the part of Britain.

READ MORE: Escalation in West-Russia tension is frightening & dangerous – former diplomats

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, earlier said that the search of the Aeroflot Airbus A321 was yet another anti-Russian provocation by the UK. The reckless act might have been an attempt by London to somehow save its reputation, which was heavily damaged by the Skripal case, Zakharova said.

In early March, former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned in Salisbury with what the UK called a Soviet-designed nerve agent. London accused Moscow of being behind the attack, despite carrying out no proper investigation and refusing to provide samples of the chemical to Russia.


143k civilians & rebels left E. Ghouta amid humanitarian ceasefire – Russian MoD

143k civilians & rebels left E. Ghouta amid humanitarian ceasefire – Russian MoD
Over 143,000 people, including tens of thousands of rebels and their families, have left Syria’s eastern Ghouta amid a ceasefire which also helped some 40,000 residents return to their homes, the Russian military said.

“143,194 people in total, including 105,857 civilians as well as 13,793 militants and 23,544 members of their families have left eastern Ghouta during humanitarian pauses,” Sergey Rudskoy, Deputy Chief of Russian General Staff, said at a news briefing on Friday.

The evacuation is being monitored by the UN and other aid agencies, and a live broadcast of escape routes is available on the Russian Defense Ministry’s website, it said. Russia’s Reconciliation Center is negotiating another evacuation from the town of Douma, one of the last remaining strongholds controlled by militants.

Meanwhile, life is returning to normal in villages and settlements in Ghouta province. Displaced persons are returning to “areas liberated from armed groups,” General Rudskoy said, adding that “some 40,000 people have returned to their homes.”

The returnees are receiving aid packages delivered by UN agencies and the Russian Reconciliation Center, he said, adding that the “arrival of three UN aid convoys, carrying 445 tons of food, medicine and basic necessities, was ensured since the first humanitarian pause took effect in the enclave.”

Daily humanitarian pauses in eastern Ghouta began on February 27 as part of the Syrian military’s and Russia’s efforts to help civilians leave the combat zone. The Russian military has repeatedly said that the militants are using civilians as human shields, targeting those who are trying to flee the terrorist enclave.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

UK – Jeremy Corbyn given his orders by Board of directors of British Jews (Full Text)

British Jews

Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Wednesday 28th March 2018
Dear Mr Corbyn,
Thank you for your letter of 26 March, setting out your detailed views on the problem of
antisemitism in the Labour Party.
We are sure you saw the strength of feeling in the mainstream Jewish community that was
expressed in our open letter and in Parliament Square on Monday. These were
unprecedented steps on our part and we hope you understand the seriousness of such a
communal action. It arose from more than two years of cumulative anger and despair in the
Jewish community at repeated, numerous cases of antisemitism in the Labour Party and
failures to deal with them in a decisive, swift and public manner. For whatever reasons, you
have not, until now, seemed to grasp how strongly British Jews feel about the situation.
Your letter was a welcome change in this regard, but only if it marks a new era of consistent
and strong action and leadership to tackle the problem.
Consequently, we appreciate your apology for the pain caused by antisemitism in the
Labour Party and for your prior comments regarding the antisemitic mural; and your
acknowledgement that this is not just “a matter of a few bad apples”, but represents a
particular way of thinking. For the situation to meaningfully improve, rather than keep
worsening, this understanding will require embedding across the Party.
Any meeting between us must produce concrete, practical outcomes to be implemented by
the Party; there is no point in meeting if the situation remains the same or continues to
worsen. In this spirit, and to enable a meeting to take place, we propose an agenda of
actions for discussion:
Leadership
The Party leadership, and you personally, must be seen and heard to lead this work. Only
your voice can persuade your followers that this a necessary and correct course of action. If
actions need to be passed by the NEC or other Party bodies, you need to take personal
responsibility for ensuring this happens.
Antisemitism disciplinary cases
Outstanding and future cases to be brought to a swift conclusion under a fixed timescale. An
independent, mutually agreed ombudsman should be appointed to oversee performance,
reporting to the Party and to the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council.
Relations with suspended members
MPs, councillors and other party members should not share platforms with people who
have been suspended or expelled for antisemitism and CLPs should not provide them with a
platform. Anybody doing so should themselves be suspended from membership; in the case
of MPs, they should lose the party whip.
Education
The Party should circulate the IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all its examples and
clauses, to all members and branches. The Party should work with mainstream Jewish
community organisations to develop and implement education about antisemitism. This
should include a clear list of unacceptable language, such as the use of ‘Zio’ and ‘Zionist’ as
terms of abuse, based on the full IHRA definition and on the examples included in your
letter of 26 March.
Engagement
Public confirmation that the Party will seek to understand and engage with the Jewish
community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations who
wish to obstruct the Party’s efforts to tackle antisemitism.
Process
These changes must be sustained and enduring. There needs to be an agreed process to
monitor the progress and implementation of these actions in the future.
To conclude, your personal pledge to be a “militant opponent” of antisemitism and to
always be our ally are vital statements: the situation demands it and we would expect
nothing less. In this light, there is an urgent matter that we need you to address. People
inside and outside the Jewish community are repeatedly subjected to abuse and insults for
raising the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party. This even affects those Labour MPs
who showed their solidarity with the Jewish community on Monday. This is a disgrace:
nobody should be vilified for opposing antisemitism. Those Labour Party members and
Labour-supporting blogs pushing the abuse are largely doing so in your name. They need to
hear you say, publicly and in your own voice, that we had every right to protest about
antisemitism, and that Labour MPs had every right to support us; that our concerns about
antisemitism are sincere and not a “smear” as has been widely alleged (including on your
own Facebook page); and that anyone directing abuse, intimidation or threats at those of us
who oppose antisemitism is damaging your efforts to eliminate it and to start rebuilding
trust. We firmly believe that this must happen urgently, and certainly before we meet.
We hope this can be the start of a process of constructive anti-racist work in the Labour
Party, one that will help to rebuild the relationship between the Party and the Jewish
community. The Party and the Jewish community deserve nothing less.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Goldstein Jonathan Arkush
Chair President
Jewish Leadership Council Board of Deputies of British Jews


UK – Jews Of Britain To Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn: Get On Your Knees!

ENGLAND BRITAN UK

REDRESS – In their response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ) claim to “propose an agenda of actions for discussion” between the Labour Party and those who claim to “represent” British Jews.

In practice, the two Zionist institutions have managed to produce one of the most disgusting documents in modern Jewish history. It is little more than an ode to the self-defamation of its own authors and to the community they claim to “represent”. It is rude, authoritarian and disrespectful to the democratically elected leader of Europe’s biggest party.


ISRAEL SHAHAK: ANTI-SEMITISM AND XENOPHOBIA

By Jason Palmer

jewish-history-jewish-religion

Anti-Semitism, as the late great Israel Shahak informed us, is a form of xenophobia, a fear of the alien or the outsider. That this xenophobia has oftentimes been a backlash against the self-segregation, chauvinism and sense of Jewish superiority permeating Jewish-Gentile social and economic relations is, needless to say, hardly remarked upon by court historians.

To note too that Jewish tribalism itself and the religious ideas attendant to it are both extreme examples of xenophobia, often of the preemptive variety, is not to invite discussion, but opprobrium upon one’s heretical head. Heat rather than light.

But the truth is simple. Jews are the most ancient and theocratic of all ethnic cleansers and the most violent xenophobes ever featured in religious lore. They are the only people in history to inscribe xenophobia into their very identity.

While masquerading as a monotheistic religion that most of the tribalists have no interest in taking literally, Jews behave instead like a recognizable genetic entity, which they most assuredly are.

Jews do not behave devoutly, piously or religiously, but tribally. Yet this tribalism, taken all alone, IS the embodied devoutness of their “faith”. The tribe IS the religion. As an obvious moral inversion, their pushiness for their own preservation IS their piety. Their survival IS their morality. In fact, at the end of the day, it is their ONLY morality. Few understand this reality.

But the big obvious secret is this: xenophobia, whether of the hard-line Jewish tribal strain or the softer European variety, is always required in order to protect group identity. Exclusion is actually not a wholesale vice. It is not evil. It is a survival mechanism. Nations form of exclusion. They form from isolation and from tribalism. A human family is simply the deliberate isolation and amalgamation of two gene pools. Variegated cultures spring from variegated peoples. Exclusion is often birthed by the handmaiden of xenophobia. And vice versa.

When Jews accuse others of anti-Semitism, they accuse others of xenophobia. By this accusation, they declare themselves to be above xenophobia, completely free of its taint, when in fact they are its prime progenitors amongst THEIR VERY OWN CHILDREN.

Many Jews teach their children to hate and distrust Gentiles axiomatically. They teach their self-consciously Jewish children that Gentiles are genetically predisposed to anti-Semitism and genocidal tendencies, independent of the behaviors and attitudes of Jews themselves. This is not just xenophobia. It is scientific racism. It is theological racial determinism.

Yet Jews declare themselves to be free of xenophobia, which is a laughable declaration of moral and historical faultlessness that history belies. When taken to its logical conclusion, this is a brazen declaration of genetic and moral superiority by Jewish tribalists over all other peoples on the planet.

Israel Shahak stated: “I believe that anti-Semitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.” [1] Shahak knew that anti-Semitism would never disappear until Jews decided to root out the radical xenophobia within themselves.

The Jewish hatred of non-Jews and the ancient religious, tribal and ethnic supremacism taught by Jewish tribalists to their own children must end, once and for all. The preemptive xenophobia and celebrated chauvinism of Jewish self-identity is in need of a radical refresh. Otherwise, the Jewish people will only repeat the mistakes of their tragic past.

Jewish tribalists must not misunderstand. Only after cleansing their own hearts and only after a genuine moral transformation occurs within the Jewish community will Jews be able to lecture their host populations on the historical inevitability of anti-Semitism. Without this Jewish moral transformation, which must take place, Jewish organizations should not expect their claims of anti-Semitic persecution to be met with anything other than quiet and seething hatred. One might even call it xenophobia.

[1] Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years: Pluto Press, London, 1994.

 Share this:

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

THE FATHERS OF CHRISTIANITY WERE ANTI JEW

THE FATHERS OF CHRISTIANITY WERE ANTI JEW

 BY ALICIA FRISCHMANN

It is interesting for people today, even those agnostics and atheists, to learn some facts about how the Jews were treated by the authentic Christianity which doesn’t exist today anymore.

Authentic Christianity was very hostile to Jews and Judaism, not only because the Jews are destroyers of Christians since 2000 years, but also for purely religious reasons. In fact the Holy book of Christianity the Bible calls the Jews “Synagogue of Satan” in Revelation 3:9 and Revelation 2:9, also they were called by Jesus himself on earth “the sons of the devil” in John 8:44. The early founders of the Christian church were very aware of the danger of the Jews and their destruction of Christianity and the lives of Christians; they also accused the Jews of murdering the Christ by manipulating the Romans to do their dirty work. Jews were expelled at least 109 times form European cities, some reports say they were expelled 250 times. When Islam appeared and started its conquests, the Jews of Spain brought the Muslims, helped them to conquer Spain. That was called the “Golden Age” for both Muslims and the Jews because they lived in harmony together and enjoyed the fruits of European civilization. It was Queen Isabella of Spain who kicked them both out of Spain. Later on during the reign of Queen Maria Theresa it was their great expulsion from many European cities of the empire. Till WW2 the great leader of German Adolf Hitler also facilitated their expulsion and imprisoned the Communist Jews in labor camps were they were obliged to work… too much History to know but we can start by the Quotes.

The following is a long list of quotes said by the leaders of Christianity from different sects about the Jews and their obvious wish to expel them, ban them, some even called to burn their Synagogues and homes, some called to put them in forced labor take their properties and punish them.

Most Christians today don’t know the real History of Christianity; the Jews almost destroyed Western Christianity since the French revolution against the Catholic Church, then the Bolshevik revolution against the Eastern Christianity the Orthodox Church. Since 1958 the Jews are in control of the Vatican so they try to control the minds of the 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world. Jews created the “Vatican II” reform that teaches Catholics that “Jews are Chosen people” and that Jews have the right to have “Homeland” in Palestine. Same happened to the Churches in the American continent where most of the Churches are Zionist, pro-Judaism and Jews or literally lead by Jews masquerading as “Christians”

I let you enjoy these amazing, shocking and deep quotes from the real leaders of Christianity about the Jews:

St. John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople (died 406 A.D.) says: “How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jews! They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits: pests of the universe! Their synagogue is a house of prostitution, the domicile of the devil, as is the soul of the Jew. As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil; their religion is a disease, their synagogue an abyss of perdition. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews was done by the wrath of God because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews. God HATES the Jews, and on Judgement Day will say with those who sympathize with them: “Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with my murderers!” Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and hold their synagogue in hatred and aversion.”

St.Jerome said: “If it is expediant to hate any men and to loathe any race I have a strange dislike for those of the circumcision. For up to the present day, they (Jews) persecute our Lord Jesus Christ in the synagogues of Satan.”

St. Ambrose said in 374 A.D.: “The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, greedy, rapacious. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them.”

St. Augustine says: “Our Lord Jesus Christ referred to Himself as ‘the Stone’ (St. Mt. 21:44). Lying on the ground, it shakes whoever falls over it; coming from on high, it crushes the proud. The Jews have already been shaken by their previous stumble. What awaits them is to be crushed by His Coming.”

St. Barnabas (the student of St. Paul) says: “Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes it is ours, but they lost it forever.”

St. Vincent Ferrer says: “Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered: “This is a harlot!” and gave her a bill of divorce.”

Pope Gregory IX says: “Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

Pope Innocent III says: “Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.”

St. Thomas Aquinas says: “It would be licit, according to custom, to hold Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime.”

Pope Leo VII says: “Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled.”

St. Augustine says: “The Jews wander over the entire earth, their backs bent over and their eyes cast downward, forever calling to our minds the curse they carry with them.”

Pope Innocent III says: “As wanderers, they (the Jews) must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Thou shalt eat bread and cover it with the dung that comes out of a man. Thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread all filthy among the nations wither I will cast them out, saith the Lord.” (Ezechiel 4:12-13)

“The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they have become adversaries to all men, to fill up their sin always; for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.” (I Thessalonians 2:14-16)

St. Vincent Ferrer says: “One who dies a Jew will be damned.”

St. Justin the Martyr says: “Those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses and who do not believe in Christ before death shall not be saved; especially they who curse this very Christ in the synagogues; who curse everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire.”

St. Agobard says: “Jews are cursed and covered with malediction. The curse has penetrated them like water in their bowels and oil in their bones. They are cursed in the city and cursed in the country, cursed in their coming in and cursed in their going out. Cursed are the fruits of their loins, of their lands, of their flocks; cursed are their cellars, their granaries, their shops, their food, the very crumbs off their tables!”

“If any man love not Our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

(I Corinthians 16:22)

St. Ambrose says: “O Jewish hearts, harder than rocks!”

“For all the House of Israel is a hard forehead and an obstinate heart.” (Ezechiel 3:7)

St. Bernard says: “O intelligence coarse, dense, and cow-like, which did not recognize God even in His own works! Perhaps the Jew will complain that I call his intelligence bovine, but his intelligence is LESS than bovine: ‘The ox knows his Owner, and the ass knows his Master’s crib, but Israel has not known Me, and My people have not understood.’ (Isaiah 1:3) You see, O Jew, I am easier on you than your own prophet!”

St. Bernardine of Feltre says: “Canon Law forbids all intercourse with Jews.”

The Council of Elvira declared: “Indeed, if any one of the clergy or faithful has taken a meal with Jews, he is to abstain from Communion so that he may be reformed.”

St. Augustine says: “Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas (Iscariot) is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ. The Jews held Him; the Jews insulted Him; the Jews bound Him; they crowned Him with thorns; they scourged Him; they hanged Him upon a tree.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa says: “Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness!”

“Woe to the sinful nation, a people loaded with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children. They have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they have gone away backwards. And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away My eyes from you, saith the Lord; and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear, for your hands are full of blood.” (Isaiah 1: 4,15)

St. Basil the Great says: “And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers, for they cried out: “His blood be on us AND ON OUR CHILDREN” (St. Mt. 27:25)”

St. Alphonsus Liguori says: “Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the End of Time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood!”

ST. JUSTIN, martyr stated in 116 A. D.: “The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith.”

Our Lord +Jesus Christ+ said to the Jews: “You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.” (St. John 8:44)

St. Luke 19:

[14] But his citizens [THE JEWS] hated Him [+JESUS+]: and they sent an embassage after Him, saying: We will not have this man to reign over us. [27] Jesus said to His followers: But as for those My enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and KILL THEM BEFORE ME.

St. Matthew 10: [34] Jesus said: Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

St. John 18:

[36] Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly battle that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is

not from hence.

St. Jerome said: “If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

St. John Chrysostom of Antioch who lived some 400 AD stated, “I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time… This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots … A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse. What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals … not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal … When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced. By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “as for my enemies, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them and slay them before me’ (St. Luke 19.27).”

——————

http://www.romancatholicism.org

THE POPES AGAINST THE JEWS

We have compiled quotes from Popes of the Roman Catholic Church wherein they taught:

That the Jews are cursed for murdering Jesus

That the Jews are cursed to be traitors like Judas

That the Jews are cursed to be unscrupulous moneygrubbers, like Judas

That the Jews are cursed to be outcasts like Cain, segregated from the rest of the society within which they live

That the Jews are cursed to be distinguished from everyone else by an identifying mark, like Cain

That the Jews are cursed to be outcasts, periodically ejected from the nations amongst whom they live, like Cain

That the Jews are cursed to be slaves like Esau

We also give a list of instances where Christians expelled the Jews in line with the teaching and exhortation of the Church.

The Jews are cursed for murdering Jesus

“And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. Then cried all the people, and said, May his blood be on us, and on our children.” (Saint Matthew 27:24)

Pope Saint Peter I: “And when they had brought the apostles, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that you should not teach in this name? And, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered, and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. […] And we are witnesses of these things.” (Acts 5:27-30)

Pope Clement VIII: “The Bible itself says that the Jews are an accursed people.”

That the Jews are cursed to be traitors like Judas

“Judas Iscariot, which was the traitor.” (Saint Luke 6)

St. Augstine said: “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jews can never understand the scriptures, and forever bear the guilt of the death of Christ.”

And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, the scribes and the whole sanhedrin. And they bound Jesus and led him away, and they betrayed [tradiderunt] him to Pilate.” (Saint Mark 15)

“The Jews who both killed the Lord JESUS, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are enemies to all men. […] To fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.” (I Thessalonians 2)

Pope Innocent III: “When Jews are admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts, according to the popular proverb, after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or of the burning brand in one’s lap.”

Pope Gregory IX: “Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

Pope Stephen III: “With great sorrow and mortal anxiety, We have heard that the Jews have in a Christian land the same rights as Christians, that Christian men and women live under the same roof with these traitors and defile their souls day and night with blasphemies.” (Epistle to the Bishop of Norbonne)

 

Pope Innocent IV: “The wicked perfidy of the Jews – from whose hearts Our Saviour did not remove the veil because of their enormous crimes but caused them justly to continue in their blindness, commit acts of shame which engender astonishment in those who hear, and terror in those who discover it.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great: “Furthermore, I must tell you that I have been led to praise God the more for your work by what I have learnt from the report of my most beloved son Probinus the presbyter; namely that, your Excellency having issued a certain ordinance against the perfidy of the Jews, those to whom it related attempted to bend the rectitude of your mind by offering a sum of money; which your Excellency scorned, and, seeking to satisfy the judgment of Almighty God, preferred innocence to gold.” (Epistle to Rechared, King of the Visigoths)

Pope Saint Gregory VII: “We exhort your Royal Majesty [King Alfonse VI of Castile], not to further tolerate, that the Jews rule Christians and have power over them. For to allow that Christians are subordinated to Jews and are delivered to their whims, means to oppress the Church of God, means to revile Christ himself.” (Regesta IX. 2)

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer.”

Pope Gregory IX: “We order all our brother bishops absolutely to suppress the blasphemy of Jews in your dioceses, churches, and communities, so that they do not dare raise their necks, bent under eternal slavery, to revile the Redeemer.”

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the Council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter: we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians.”

Pope Saint Gregory I: “It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.” (Epistles, Book XIII:1)

That the Jews are cursed to be unscrupulous moneygrubbers, like Judas

“Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and I will betray him unto you? And they appointed him thirty pieces of silver. And from thenceforth he sought opportunity to betray him.” (Saint Matthew 26)

Pope Saint Pius V: “Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

Pope Benedict XIV: “Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians.” (A Quo Primum)

Pope Clement VIII: “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. […] Their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

St Thomas Acquinas said: “The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.”

Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Ecumenical Lateran Council: “The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of the Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in the future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them. We enjoin upon princes, not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression.”

The Jews are cursed to be outcasts like Cain, segregated from the rest of the society within which they live

“And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. […] And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth. Now, therefore, cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth.” (Genesis 4)

Pope Innocent III: “The Lord made Cain a wanderer and a fugitive over the earth, but set a mark upon him, making his head to shake, lest anyone finding him should slay him. Thus the Jews, against whom the blood of Christ calls out, although they ought not to be wiped out, nevertheless, as wanderers they must remain upon the earth until their faces are filled with shame and they seek the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Epistle to the Count of Nevers)

Pope Saint Sylvester I at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea: “Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews. No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time, Christians shall not eat or drink with the Jews, nor admit them to feasts, nor cohabit with them, nor bathe with them. […] They cannot live among Christians, but in a certain street, separated and segregated from Christians, and outside which they cannot under any pretext have houses.”

Pope Alexander III: “Our ways of life and those of the Jews are utterly different, and Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief if such folk are living in continual and intimate intercourse with them.” (Ad Haec)

That the Jews are cursed to be distinguished from everyone else by an identifying mark, like Cain

“And the Lord set a mark upon Cain.” (Genesis 4)

Pope Martin V: “However, we received a short time ago through credible reports knowledge to our great alarm, that various Jews of both sexes in Cafas and other cities, lands and places overseas, which fall under the jurisdiction of Christians, are of obstinate mind and, in order to conceal swindling and wickedness, wear no special sign on their clothing, so that they are not recognisable as Jews. They are not ashamed to give themselves out as Christians before many Christians of both sexes of these cities, districts and places mentioned, who could not in fact identify them, and consequently commit shameful things and crimes.” (Sedes Apostolica)

Pope Eugene IV: “We decree and order that from now on, and for all time […] All and every single Jew, of whatever sex and age, must everywhere wear the distinctive dress and known marks by which they can be evidently distinguished from Christians.”

Pope Saint Pius V: “In order to make an end of all doubt concerning the colour of the cap and the sign of the women, we declare that the colour must be yellow.” (Romanus Pontifex)

That the Jews are cursed to be outcasts, periodically ejected from the nations amongst whom they live, like Cain

“A fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth.” (Genesis 4)

Pope Saint Pius V: “With full understanding and in exercising of the apostolic powers, we withdraw from the Jews and their rule (and recognize no right or claim) all properties, which the Jews have in their possession in this city Rome or other places of our domain of rule.” (Cum Nos Super)

Pope Paul IV: “It is too absurd and pointless that the Jews, whom their own guilt condemns to slavery, under the pretence that Christian piety suffers and tolerates their coexistence, pay back [with wickedness] the mercy received from Christians.” (Cum Nimis Absurdum)

Pope Leo VII: “Let the Gospel be preached unto them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled.”

Pope Adrian I at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea: “Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church; but let them be openly Hebrew according to their religion, and let them not bring their children to baptism, nor purchase or possess a slave.”

Pope Innocent IV: “We who long with all our hearts for the salvation of souls, grant you full authority by these present letters to banish the Jews, either in your own person or through the agency of others, especially since, as we have been informed, they do not abide by the regulations drawn up for them by this Holy See.” (To the King of France)

Pope Saint Pius V: “The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice – in all towns, districts, and places – must depart these regions. After this time limit shall all at the present or in the future, who dwell or wander into that city or other already mentioned, be affected, their property confiscated and handed over to the Siscus, and they shall becomes slaves of the Roman Church, live in perpetual servitude and the Roman Church shall have the same rights over them as the remaining [worldly] lords over slaves and property.” (Hebraeorum Gens)

Christians agreed with the Church and the Jews were expelled in the following instances.

1. 250: Carthage;

2. 415: Alexandria;

3. 554: Diocese of Clement (France);

4. 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France);

5. 612: Visigoth Spain;

6. 642: Visigoth Empire;

7. 855: Italy;

8. 876: Sens;

9. 1012: Mayence;

10. 1181: France;

11. 1290: England;

12. 1306: France;

13. 1348: Switzerland;

14. 1349: Hielbronn (Germany);

15. 1349: Hungary;

16. 1388: Strasbourg;

17. 1394: Germany;

18. 1394: France;

19. 1422: Austria;

20. 1424: Fribourg & Zurich;

21. 1426: Cologne;

22. 1432: Savory;

23. 1438: Mainz;

24. 1439: Augsburg;

25. 1446: Bavaria;

26. 1453: Franconis;

27. 1453: Breslau;

28. 1454: Wurzburg;

29. 1485: Vincenza (Italy);

30. 1492: Spain;

31. 1495: Lithuania;

32. 1497: Portugal;

33. 1499: Germany;

34. 1514: Strasbourg;

35. 1519: Regensburg;

36. 1540: Naples;

37. 1542: Bohemia;

38. 1550: Genoa;

39. 1551: Bavaria;

40. 1555: Pesaro;

41. 1559: Austria;

42. 1561: Prague;

43. 1567: Wurzburg;

44. 1569: Papal States;

45. 1571: Brandenburg;

46. 1582: Netherlands;

47. 1593: Brandenburg, Austria;

48. 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi;

49. 1614: Frankfort;

50. 1615: Worms;

51. 1619: Kiev;

52. 1649: Ukraine;

53. 1654: Little Russia;

54. 1656: Lithuania;

55. 1669: Oran (North Africa);

56. 1670: Vienna;

57. 1712: Sandomir;

58. 1727: Russia;

59. 1738: Wurtemburg;

60. 1740: Little Russia;

61. 1744: Bohemia;

62. 1744: Livonia;

63. 1745: Moravia;

64. 1753: Kovad (Lithuania);

65. 1761: Bordeaux;

66. 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia);

67. 1775: Warsaw;

68. 1789: Alace;

69. 1804: Villages in Russia;

70. 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia);

71. 1815: Lubeck & Bremen;

72. 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria;

73. 1820: Bremes;

74. 1843: Russian Border, Austria & Prussia;

75. 1862: Area in the U. S. under Grant’s Jurisdiction;

76. 1866: Galatz, Romania;

77. 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews);

78. 1938-45: Nazi Controlled Areas;

79. 1948: Arab Countries.

That the Jews are cursed to be slaves like Esau

“And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy womb; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder [Esau] shall serve the younger [Isaac].” (Genesis 25)

“But he [Ismael] who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he [Isaac] of the free woman, was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” (Galatians 4)

Pope Innocent III: “The Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord.” (To the Archbishops of Sens and Paris)

Pope Innocent IV: “And that you [King Saint Louis IX] order both the aforesaid abusive books [The Talmud] condemned by the same doctors and generally all the books with their glosses which were examined and condemned by them to be burned by fire wherever they can be found throughout your entire kingdom, strictly forbidding that Jews henceforth have Christian nurses or servants, that the sons of a free woman may not serve the sons of a bondwoman, but as slaves condemned by the Lord, whose death they wickedly plotted, they at least outwardly recognize themselves as slaves of those whom the death of Christ made free and themselves slaves. So we may commend the zeal of your sincerity in the Lord with due praises.” (The Wicked Perfidy of the Jews)

Pope Saint Martin I: “If anyone shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.”

Pope Benedict XIV: “It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” (Quoting Pope Innocent III, “Etsi Judaeos”)

Pope Gregory IX: “They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future become insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.” (Epistle to the Hierarchy of Germany)

Pope Alexander III at the Third Lateran Ecumenical Council: “We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians – and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians.” (Canon 26)

More quotes

“The Jews are the most worthless of all men. They are lecherous, rapacious, greedy. They are perfidious murderers of Christ. They worship the Devil. Their religion is a sickness. The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance, and the Jew must live in servitude forever. God always hated the Jews. It is essential that all Christians hate them’ (year 379). Furthermore: ‘The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan. They are worse than wild beasts. The Synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of Jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition… The Jews have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animal. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to a level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill, and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen. The Synagogue is a curse, obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear, she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished with herself the light of the Holy Spirit.’ He elaborated further on God’s punishment of the Jews: ‘But it was men, says the Jew, who brought these misfortunes upon us, not God. On the contrary, it was in fact God who brought them about. If you attribute them to men, reflect again that even supposing men had dared, they could not have had the power to accomplish them, unless it had been God’s will. Men would certainly not have made war unless God had permitted them. Is it not obvious that it was because God hated you [Jews] and rejected you once for all?” ~ St John Chrysostom, “Father of the Church” (AD 344 – 407)

“I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnaped children, as related before … However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly … That is what I had in mind when I said earlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers. These poisonous envenomed worms should be drafted into forced labor. The young and strong Jews and Jewesses should be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and the spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses.” As a last resort, they should simply be kicked out for all time.” ~ Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Church, in his book [On the Jews and Their Lies] in 1526

The Talmud

Eight popes condemned the Talmud. Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Church, ordered it burned. Pope Clement VIII declared, “The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetually observed.”

Like you, at one time I believed that the essential difference between Jews and Christians was that the Jews believed in the Old Testament and the Christians believed in the New Testament. The truth is that their “real bible” is The Talmud. The Jewish book “The Mitzbeach” states that “there is nothing superior to ‘Holy Talmud’.” While the Jews profess to be attached to the Old Testament to the outside world, the real essence of the Jewish creed is not the Old Testament as such, not the books of Moses, but The Talmud.

There are several branches of Jewry such as the Orthodox, Reform, Liberal, Conservative, Sephardim, Ashkanazim, Zionist, etc., but they all use The Talmud in their synagogues, just as all different branches of Christians use the same Bible. The Talmud is made up of 63 books in 524 chapters and is often printed in 18 large volumes. It was written by Rabbis between the years 200AD and 500AD. It basically contains all the Jewish laws in their relationships between each other, and also in relationship of the Jews towards the Gentiles.

Eight Catholic popes condemned the Talmud. Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Church, ordered it burned. Pope Clement VIII declared, “The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetually observed.” The Talmud holds that only Jews are true human beings and Gentiles are “goyim” (meaning cattle or beast). The following are shocking but exact quotes from the various books of “The Talmud.”

1. Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.”

2. Abodah Zara 26b: “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.”

3. Sanhedrin 59a: “A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death.”

4. Libbre David 37: “To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.”

5. Libbre David 37: “If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death.”

6. Yebhamoth 11b: “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age.”

7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: “Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.”

8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Do not save Goyim in danger of death.”

9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: “Show no mercy to the Goyim.”

10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: “If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth.”


11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: “A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people.”

12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: “A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them.”

13. Baba Necia 114, 6: “The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.”

14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: “When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”

15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”

16. Aboda Sarah 37a: “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.”

17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: “A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”

18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: “If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible.”

19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: “It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces.”

20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: “All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples.”

21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: “How to interpret the word ‘robbery.’ A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy.”

22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: “God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations.”

23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: “When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.”

24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: “A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean.”

25. Nedarim 23b: “He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, ‘Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null’. His vows are then invalid.”

Here is what the Talmud says about the Lord Jesus:

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in “hot excrement.”

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus was executed because he practiced sorcery: “It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry…He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.”

Kallah 51a.”The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard.

We could provide many more quotes from this offensive book, but I believe that the point is clear: The Jews are involved in what can be called, and indeed has been called, a conspiracy against all mankind and will take whatever steps they deem necessary for them to dominate the rest of the world. It is because of these beliefs, and the willingness of the Jews to act upon them, that “anti-semitism” exists and perhaps the reason why the Jews have been disliked and driven out of every nation in which they have inhabited at least once. In the pages that follow, I hope to make clear to you just how far the Jews have gotten with this Talmudic conspiracy.

SEE ALSO –
THE CHURCH AND ANTISEMITISM…AGAIN

KevinMacdonaldCatholicChurchMeme

THE EVANGELICAL HERESY OF “JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY”
TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM IS PRO-FASCISM, JEW-WISE, AND PERFECT FOR WHITE NATIONALISTS
WHAT IS THE MOST HOLY MISSION ON EARTH???
JEWS ARE SATAN’S CHOSEN ONES
REMEMBERING THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE
A RELIGIOUS SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH PROBLEM
RABBI CHEMOR LETTER TO SANHEDRIN