Pat Condell – Our Battle Of Britain

Our Battle Of Britain

The UK’s parliament needs to be hosed clean. Our freedom and democracy are being destroyed by corrupt politicians. We are custodians of this democracy, not its owners. We have no right to weaken it for future generations, any more than we have the right to leave them poisoned water or air. The European Union is a model for an anti-democratic global government. The purpose of the EU is to destroy the nation state and to transform Europe from a rich and diverse continent of sovereign nations into a single homogenous political bloc governed by a committee of unelected bureaucrats who think they know best. And they think we’re so docile and thick that we’ll just roll over and accept it if they keep telling us how sensible it is. Nobody’s feelings were consulted during the making of this video. Anyone who has a problem with that can drop dead. Everyone is free to download this video and post it to their own account if they wish, as long as it is not edited in any way (including the title) and not monetised.

Don’t Panic! Lighten Up!

Quenelle - Golden

Jonathan Pie: Brexit means Brexit!

Brexit ship cartoon

The latest political developments on ‘Brexit’ from intrepid UK News reporter Jonathan Pie.

Brexit means Brexit! Why? Because democracy means democracy.

Warning: contains strong language

For more hilariously, tragically, true news reports,


Leader of the British opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn (C), smiles as he poses with members of the shadow cabinet including Deputy leader Tom Watson (CL) and Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander (CR), Labour Party and TUC members during a photocall for the 'Labour In for Britain' campaign in London, on June 14, 2016 calling for a remain vote in the EU referendum

Labour’s Tom Watson Storms Out Of Meeting, PM May Sets Deadline on Brexit Talks



Get short URL – Sputnik

Shadow cabinet members were only given a presentation of the manifesto on a large screen instead of being offered hard copies of the document, a government source close to the Independent said on Tuesday.

Labour deputy leader Tom Watson has reportedly stormed out of a shadow cabinet meeting after UK Labour and opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn kept a copy of his draft policy on holding a second Brexit referendum a secret.

“The shadow cabinet were not going to see the draft, so what’s the point in being there,” a second source close to Mr. Watson told the Independent. “It was very disrespectful to the shadow cabinet.”

The news comes just hours after Labour was expected to select an election manifesto on the European parliamentary elections set to take place on 23 May. Mr. Corbyn and his top aides met on Tuesday, just before the party’s National Executive Committee, where the Labour leader is expected to resist demands from Mr. Watson on holding a second referendum under all scenarios.

Mr. Corbyn has instead kept a policy of holding a referendum against a “Tory Brexit”, or no-deal Brexit, aimed at appealing to Labour Leave voters.

But Mr. Watson denied “storming out” of the meeting, which was raised by Pippa Crerar, Daily Mail Political Editor, with the deputy leader stating that she had received an “inaccurate briefing” and that he had “politely asked” if the shadow cabinet was going to see the draft and was told “no”.

“So I left to walk to the NEC where the document will be available and the decision will be made,” Mr. Watson said.

Hours after the walkout, UK prime minister Theresa May said that she would abandon talks with Labour should cross-party talks fail to reach an agreement in a week’s time. The UK prime minister bowed to pressure to set a deadline for ending talks with the Labour leader in seven days, according to a government source cited by the Independent.

Should Labour officials allow PM May’s withdrawal agreement to proceed, it will be tested again in Commons, but the government will “move in another direction” without a guarantee, according to the source.

Government ministers have accused Mrs. May of stalling updates on how long talks with Labour would last, with nascent Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage receiving a major surge in public support due to the Conservative leader’s lack of progress. Both sides in negotiations remain divided over Labour’s demands for a customs union with the European Union, as well as guarantees that future Conservative prime ministers would not cancel the deal.

READ MORE: UKIP on Johnson’s PM Ambitions: ‘He Would Cause Conservative Party to Collapse’

Mr. Corbyn, who currently has support of 22 of the 39 NEC members, has been resisting efforts to shift Labour’s stance to supporting a “People’s Vote” in all circumstances, affording him the support of Unite the Union, the UK’s largest trade union. Mr. Corbyn and shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer inked a major agreement in February stating that Labour would agree that UK prime minister Theresa May’s embattled Brexit deal “should be subject to the lock of a public vote”.

But Momentum director Laura Parker wrote in a London Guardian column that Mr. Corbyn should “take a side” in order to avoid driving a wedge between the leader and his supporters “Labour’s members already know which side they are on. The party should commit to bringing whatever Brexit deal is done back to the people,” Ms. Parker said a day after a list of 118 MEPs and MPs signed a letter backing a public vote on all proposed Brexit deals.

UK COLUMN: Ukraine Election Circus, Brexit & EU Army, Joe Biden’s Demise

Despite all the talk of Brexit, EU Military Unification continues to roll ahead. Also the Ukraine elections have produced a front-runner straight off of the TV screen, literally – with comedian and actor Volodymyr Zelensky leading incumbent Petro Poroshenko going into the second round of voting. Also, hundreds of millions in public funds are being spent on new EU propaganda and censorship agencies – all in the name of protecting the people against ‘Russian influence.’ Lastly, former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden has been outed in a sexual harassment case which may upend his 2020 Presidential aspirations. All this and more. 

UKC News hosts Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen with the early week news round-up. Watch:

YouTube Video Preview

UKC Extra Time: Off-Air Discussion with Patrick & Mike


Clouds Gather Above the Middle East: War or No War?

In recent years, Israel has proved capable of reading between the lines to assess accurately the politico-military situation in the Middle East, exploiting timely opportunities to hit targets of its enemies in Syria and Iraq. Domestic, regional and unlimited US support for far-right Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu permitted his military machine to close in on his nearby opponents in the region, i.e. Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, and Iranian targets in Syria, at moments of weakness without triggering much of a response from their side.

Today more than ever, the possibilities of war are increasing, a war that may be triggered by Israel and the US due to the consequences of the harsh sanctions on Iran and its partner the Lebanese Hezbollah that will be certainly end up weakening the local Lebanese and Iranian economies. Moreover, and most importantly, any sign of weakness on the part of Israel’s opponents, if analysed inadequately, could push Israel to provoke Hezbollah in Lebanon and its allies to a war.

The history of Israeli aggression towards Lebanon is long. Lebanese domestic reaction to the report of last week’s meeting of the Hezbollah leadership and the analysis of the situation may yet again give wrong signals to Israel, signalling that it can attack neighbouring countries in what it perceives as a moment of weakness. However, if these signs and signals do indeed lead to war, that will certainly be devastating to Lebanon, more than the 2006 war, and most likely also destructive to Israel at a level it has not experienced since 1973.

Lebanese reaction to the prospect of a war this summer – despite the personal evaluation of Hezbollah leader who said otherwise, opposing his military commander’s assessments according to what he said during his speech – could be significant. The Lebanese people are no longer ready to pay the price of another war (after the 2006 war and the eight-years of war attempting to impose regime change on Syria).

Indeed, the popular reaction revealed many other crucial, underlying issues: the number of casualties Hezbollah has suffered and is not enthusiastic to go through the same losses; the current poor relationship between Hezbollah and the oil-rich countries which will reduce tourism and prevent any investment in reconstructing the country if it is devastated by a war initiated by Israel (as in 2006); the harsh sanctions on Iran imposing a tight budget now mostly allocated domestically, thereby limiting support to its partners overseas to cover the costs of Israeli-caused damage in case of war; the impossibility of resupplying Hezbollah with weapons at the same speed Iran was capable of between 2006 and 2018; the superiority of the Israeli war machine in inflicting  great damage on Lebanon, considered by the US and Israel as responsible as a whole for embracing Hezbollah; and the ability of Israel’s friends and allies to resupply Tel Aviv with weapons and financial support to reconstruct any heavy damage Hezbollah could inflict in the “unlikely” event of a future war. All these factors do not decrease the likelihood of a future war in the Middle East; they are portents of danger and potential escalation.

The Hezbollah leadership’s personal assessment of the “unlikelihood” of a war this summer may be correct regarding the timing because the initiative has always been in the hands of Israel. Nevertheless, every military and political leader takes into consideration the worst-case scenario. Saying otherwise or spreading optimism may serve to promote an inaccurate feeling of well-being. On the other hand, it might indeed help avoiding domestic bickering, but would also represent an evasion of tangible concerns and the prospect of an even bleaker reality. Part of Lebanese are already labouring under heavy sanctions and the US is taking every possible opportunity to increase these sanctions on Hezbollah and on its rich and generous donors and businessmen.

The report of the outline of Hezbollah’s commanders gathering with their chief was not well-received by local society. This reaction illustrates how sharply the country is divided between supporters and opponents of Hezbollah. It also indicates how powerful is the effect of local and regional media on decision makers when they attack Hezbollah and its view of current politico-military affairs- and how fragile is the alignment behind Hezbollah’s readiness to respond to any future war. And lastly, it gives a clear warning that Hezbollah supporters are not ready to accept the loss of their leader in case of war, a destiny no-on have a say in it.

These messages are read by friends of Hezbollah, its members and commanders, but also by the enemies of Hezbollah. Israel – the country responsible for initiating every single war inflicted on Lebanon – is also reading the flow of information provided unwittingly by the reaction of the population and that of Hezbollah leadership. Nevertheless, the Israeli leadership needs to consider that, if cornered, Hezbollah can empty every silo and rain down on Israel and every single missile and rocket in its possession- abandoning the “Rules of Engagement” tacitly agreed between the two parties in case of war.

Because Hezbollah will have nothing to lose in case of war, it can empty its arsenal against Israel and play its cards right to the end. The question is: even if Israel enjoys the support of the world media, financial and many militarily powerful friends, is it ready to go through a long and horrific war just to empty Hezbollah’s missiles and rocket stock? If that is the Israeli objective, its chances of success are slim. Hezbollah is part of the society and cannot be removed unless several hundred thousand people are eliminated from Lebanon, the number that represents the society protecting and part of Hezbollah. Why would the US and or Israel declare a general war when financial sanctions are much more effective at little or no cost?

Iran, Hezbollah’s main partner and ally, is headed towards the unknown. The US has announced its intention to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero, ending Iran oil waivers to US partners. Although it is virtually impossible to reach this desired and strict level of sanctions because many countries – mainly China, Iraq and Turkey – will not abide by the US’s will at this first stage, it is certain that Iran will not be capable of exporting all of its two million barrels of oil daily (Iran produces 3.45 million b/d). The US is not imposing an explicit embargo on Iran, otherwise, it would be considered an act of war and would spark an immediate warlike retaliation by Iran and its allies. The US is seeking to impose economic sanctions on the countries who buy Iranian oil, thus cornering Hezbollah’s main financier.

It is a war of strangulation that in the short and medium term is showing itself effective. Although this kind of efficient war was run in Syria on a micro level, will it work on a wider level- and what will be the reaction of Iran and its allies if cornered? A difficult question to answer today as the clouds gather above the Middle East.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author


Schumer, Pelosi, & Israeli billionaire Haim Saban at 2018 IAC conference

Are Americans Now Required To Sign A Loyalty Oath TO ISRAEL!?


Iran Is No One’s Colony: US Aggression Escalating to a Level that Threatens World War

The American aggression against Iran is escalating to a level that threatens world war. On Monday April 22, the USA declared that it has withdrawn “waivers” given to China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy and Greece, under the illegal US economic warfare campaign being conducted against Iran under the name of “sanctions.” The stated objective is to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero, crippling the Iranian economy, damaging the economies of countries that purchase Iranian oil and raising the price of oil for the rest of the world suppliers, including of course the US and Saudis, that have pledged to fill the gap, at a higher price of course.

The American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo declared, with all the arrogance of Herr Garbage in Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator,

The Trump Administration has taken Iran’s oil exports to historic lows, and we are dramatically accelerating our pressure campaign in a calibrated way that meets our national security objectives while maintaining well supplied global oil markets.”

In other words, “we are going to bring Iran to its knees while we make a pile of dough doing it.”

Iran responded by stating that it will continue to ship oil and both Turkey and China quickly stated that they do not accept the US actions and will continue to buy Iranian oil. Italy and Greece have said nothing, but they kowtowed months ago and have not purchased Iranian oil despite being given the waivers by the US. It has to be assumed that they knew what was coming and so sought oil supplies elsewhere.

The Iranians have threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz if the waivers are suspended and the Americans use force to block Iranian oil shipments which would mean the blocking of oil shipments from the Arabian peninsular, thereby threatening oil supplies to many nations in the world that depend on those supplies, including Europe and North America. An attempt to block the Straight of Hormuz would result in the Americans trying to eliminate the Iranian naval vessels closing the passage, major naval engagements and outright war. It may be that the US is hoping to provoke such a clash to give it the pretext for war against Iran. Everything points to that conclusion.

Armed action to block Iranian exports of oil is the logical step the US will have to take if the illegal “sanctions” are ignored and the US maintains its threat to bring Iranian oil exports to zero. Any such action would not only be aggression against Iran, it would also be an act of aggression against China and the other nations relying on that oil. But armed conflict and the risk of a major war is a risk the US seems willing to take. Whether they are reckless or that is the American objective is difficult to say but if it comes to that it won’t much matter for the consequences will be terrible and world wide. But, looking at US actions, real war, not just economic, appears to be their objective.

The US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal a few months ago and immediately reimposed its panoply of “sanctions” against Iran affecting Iranian trade, banking, shipping, transportation and communications. It has since declared a formation of the Iranian armed forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to be a “terrorist organisation” a bizarre action since the armed forces of any nation cannot be considered “terrorists” in any sense. Iran quickly retaliated by declaring American armed forces as “terrorists,” and so it goes.

On April 3 the Pentagon repeated Wikileaks’ claims from 2010, which were also based on US Army sources, that Iran was responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq when, in fact, it was the Iraqi Resistance forces, that fought the Americans so valiantly, who inflicted the casualties on the US forces in Iraq.

On October 22, 2010, The Columbia Journalism Review commented on the Wikileaks release of documents and their use in the media on that date regarding Iraq that,

Just as it focused on Pakistan’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan in its reporting on WikiLeaks’s July dump, The New York Times focuses heavily on the involvement of Iran in the Iraq War logs released today.”


The Times’s current online lead WikiLeaks story is “Leaked Reports Detail Iran’s Aid for Iraqi Militias” which details the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ backing of Iraqi militias.

The piece draws on specific incidents from the logs to demonstrate that Iran’s Quds Forces mostly maintained a low-profile, arranging for Hezbollah to train Iraqi militias in Iran, and financing and providing weaponry to insurgents. Other times the Iranian forces sponsored assassinations; at others, they sought to influence politics, and otherwise coordinated attacks on US forces in Iraq.”

All these claims, based on US Army sources, were accepted without question by Wikileaks and the major newspapers that published them such as the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and are now resurrected by the Pentagon and the media to fan the flames of hostility towards Iran in a more visceral way. Syria stated the claims were suspicious. Russia Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharaova stated that Russia was surprised by the allegations, that Washington had some explaining to do and that the US better not use the claims as a pretext for conflict.

The objective of declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists and resurrecting the dubious US Army-Wikileaks claims that Iran is responsible for American deaths in Iraq is of course to criminalise the Iranian government in the eyes of the western, particularly American public. Criminalisation of the enemy is always a sign that an attack is coming. They painted Manuel Noriegaas a criminal. They did the same with Slobodan Milosevic, with Saddam Hussein, with Muammar Ghaddafi. Negotiations, diplomacy are not possible with “criminals” is the US refrain and their targets end up dead or in an American prison.

The same logic applies to Iran. They are portraying the Iranian government as criminals and no matter how much Iran bends its principles in order to avoid war it will never be enough so long as Iran tries to act as an independent country. The economic warfare will continue for as long as the Americans have the power to wage it.

The excuse will vary with the time and circumstance but the strategy will remain. This is war, illegal and immoral, against an entire people, for the private gains of the elites in the west whose only concern is to make profit at the expense of everyone else.

I have said this before but it needs repeating that I have used the word “sanction” in parentheses because the word, “sanction,” means the provision of rewards for obedience, along with punishment for disobedience, to a law. There are other meanings for the word but they all define the same condition; obedience to a master by his vassal, to a monarch by his subject, to a warden by his prisoner. The condition necessarily implies that the person applying the sanction is legally in a superior position to the person being sanctioned, that he has the right to apply the sanction and that there exists a system of laws in which the use of sanctions is permitted and agreed upon.

This is the definition yet every day we hear of the “sanctions” imposed on Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea for reasons that everyone knows are false, based on authority that does not exist, based on laws that have never been created, and by national governments that have only arrogance to support their grand presumption; that their nations are superior to others, that there is no equality or sovereignty of peoples, that their diktats are orders that must be obeyed by those who inferior to them.

Since the economic restrictions on banking, finance and trade set up against Iran by the United States and its subject states in the NATO alliance do not comply with the definition of sanctions, we have to use the correct term in describing these restrictions. There is only one word, and that word is, war and, since this form of warfare is not permitted by international law as found in the United Nations Charter they are economic war crimes, economic aggression for which a reckoning will one day have to be paid, one way or another.

It is in Chapter VII, Article 41 of the Charter that the power to completely or partially interrupt economic relations exists and only the Security Council can use that power. Nowhere else does this power exist.

Once again the issue comes back to the word war. It is clear that the attempted economic strangulation of Iran is an attempt to “punish” Iran for defending its strategic position, independence and sovereignty. Once a war has started it can only proceed to its logical end. Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself against the economic warfare and threat of war presented by the United States for Iran is no one’s colony, and never will be.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from NEO


Alison Weir discusses the $38 billion military aid package to Israel and Rand Paul’s courageous action to block the legislation.

Alison Weir on The Critical Hour Nov. 30th, 2018

If Americans Knew – Intro

If Americans Knew about the numerous human rights violations and other treacherous behavior carried out by the state of Israel, they might feel differently about the overwhelming financial and military support given to them by our government.

Destroyed mosque da440

As the 300-foot spire of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris tragically came tumbling down on live television, my thoughts ventured to Nuseirat Refugee Camp, my childhood home in the Gaza Strip.

Then, also on television, I watched as a small bulldozer hopelessly clawed through the rubble of my neighborhood mosque. I grew up around that mosque. I spent many hours there with my grandfather, Mohammed, a refugee from historic Palestine. Before grandpa became a refugee, he was a young Imam in a small mosque in his long-destroyed village of Beit Daras.

Mohammed and many in his generation took solace in erecting their own mosque in the refugee camp as soon as they arrived to the Gaza Strip in late 1948. The new mosque was first made of hardened mud, but was eventually remade with bricks, and later concrete. He spent much of his time there, and when he died, his old, frail body was taken to the same mosque for a final prayer, before being buried in the adjacent Martyrs Graveyard. When I was still a child, he used to hold my hand as we walked together to the mosque during prayer times. When he aged, and could barely walk, I, in turn, held his hand.

But Al-Masjid al-Kabir – the Great Mosque, later renamed Al-Qassam Mosque – was completely pulverized by Israeli missiles during the summer war on Gaza, starting July 8, 2014.

Hundreds of Palestinian houses of worship were targeted by the Israeli military in previous wars, most notably in 2008-9 and 2012. But the 2014 war was the most brutal and most destructive yet. Thousands were killed and more injured. Nothing was immune to Israeli bombs. According to Palestine Liberation Organization records, 63 mosques were completely destroyed and 150 damaged in that war alone, oftentimes with people seeking shelter inside. In the case of my mosque, two bodies were recovered after a long, agonizing search. They had no chance of being rescued. If they survived the deadly explosives, they were crushed by the massive slabs of concrete.

In truth, concrete, cements, bricks and physical structures don’t carry much meaning on their own. We give them meaning. Our collective experiences, our pains, joys, hopes and faith make a house of worship what it is.

Many generations of French Catholics have assigned the Notre Dame Cathedral with its layered meanings and symbolism since the 12th century.

While the fire consumed the oak roof and much of the structure, French citizens and many around the world watched in awe. It is as if the memories, prayers and hopes of a nation that is rooted in time were suddenly revealed, rising, all at once, with the pillars of smoke and fire.

But the very media that covered the news of the Notre Dame fire seemed oblivious to the obliteration of everything we hold sacred in Palestine as, day after day, Israeli war machinery continues to blow up, bulldoze and desecrate.

It is as if our religions are not worthy of respect, despite the fact that Christianity was born in Palestine. It was there that Jesus roamed the hills and valleys of our historic homeland teaching people about peace, love and justice. Palestine is also central to Islam. Haram al-Sharif, where al-Aqsa Mosque and The Dome of the Rock are kept, is the third holiest site for Muslims everywhere. Yet Christian and Muslim holy sites are besieged, often raided and shut down per military diktats. Moreover, the Israeli army-protected messianic Jewish extremists want to demolish Al-Aqsa and the Israeli government has been digging underneath its foundation for many years.

Although none of this is done in secret; international outrage remains muted. In fact, many find Israel’s actions justified. Some have bought into the ridiculous explanation offered by the Israeli military that bombing mosques is a necessary security measure. Others are motivated by dark religious prophecies of their own.

Palestine, though, is only a microcosm of the whole region. Many of us are familiar with the horrific destruction carried out by fringe militant groups against world cultural heritage in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Most memorable among these are the destruction of Palmyra in Syria, Buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan and the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul.

Nothing however can possibly be compared to what the invading US army has done to Iraq. Not only did the invaders desecrate a sovereign country and brutalize her people, they also devastated her culture that goes back to the start of human civilization. Just the immediate aftermath of the invasion alone resulted in the looting of over 15,000 Iraqi antiquities, including the Lady of Warka, also known as the Mona Lisa of Mesopotamia, a Sumerian artifact whose history goes back to 3100 BC.

I had the privilege of seeing many of these artifacts in a visit to the Iraq Museum only a few years before it was looted by US soldiers. At the time, Iraqi curators had all precious pieces hidden in a fortified basement in anticipation of a US bombing campaign. But nothing could prepare the museum for the savagery unleashed by the ground invasion. Since then, Iraqi culture has largely been reduced to items on the black market of the very western invaders that have torn that country apart. The valiant work of Iraqi cultural warriors and their colleagues around the world has managed to restore some of that stolen dignity, but it will take many years for the cradle of human civilization to redeem its vanquished honor.

Every mosque, every church, every graveyard, every piece of art and every artifact is significant because it is laden with meaning, the meaning bestowed on them by those who have built or sought in them an escape, a moment of solace, hope, faith and peace.

On August 2, 2014 the Israeli army bombed the historic Al-Omari Mosque in northern Gaza. The ancient mosque dates back to the 7th century and has since served as a symbol of resilience and faith for the people of Gaza.

As Notre Dame burned, I thought of Al-Omari too. While the fire at the French cathedral was likely accidental, destroyed Palestinian houses of worship were intentionally targeted. The Israeli culprits are yet to be held accountable.

I also thought of my grandfather, Mohammed, the kindly Imam with the handsome, small white beard. His mosque served as his only escape from a difficult existence, an exile that only ended with his own death.

*(Top image: A destroyed mosque in Rafah, Gaza, 12th January 2009. Credit: ISM Palestine/ flickr)



MUST WATCH: Max Igan Banned From Youtube For Exposing Christchurch Massacre Reality

Max Igan Banned From Youtube For Exposing Christchurch Massacre

How They Do It–New Zealand Jews and Muslims Unite Over Christchurch Massacre, Fight against White Supremacy

Jewish community members say they have been warmly welcomed by Muslim counterparts — making Auckland imam’s recent speech blaming Mossad for the mass shooting all the more shocking

ed note–again, not wanting to make this a ‘we told ya so’ morning but nevertheless, we told ya so.

Years ago when various individuals and groups within the ‘white nationalist’ neighborhood took up the ‘we hate Islam’ torch that had been HANDED to them by organized Jewish interests, it was warned in CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE that this was a trap which Jewish interests had laid in ensnaring the white nationalism ‘movement’ and in creating both a scapegoat and a backdoor so that later, once the more unhinged elements within that WN neighborhood had done the kind of dirty work as we saw taking place in New Zealand, the Jews would slip out the back door, begin cozying up to the Muslim community and utilize the new narrative for their own political purposes.

Predictably, given the lower than average IQ on the part of the average White Nationalist type, this warning was ignored and those giving this warning–including the late, great, and greatly-missed Mike Piper–were accused of being ‘anti-white’ and of being co-conspirators in ‘white genocide’.


Amid the thousands of flowers piled high outside a Christchurch mosque attacked by a white supremacist on March 15, a rabbi knelt down recently to lay a stone of remembrance on behalf of New Zealand’s Jewish community. It featured the words “Salaam,” “Shalom” and “Kia Kaha” — a phrase by the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand that means “Stay strong.”

The rabbi was Mendy Goldstein, co-director of Chabad of New Zealand. “We cannot overestimate the value of every hug, every gesture, every hand extended in support,” he told News after the ceremony.

Goldstein was part of a delegation of local Jewish community members who traveled to Christchurch, on New Zealand’s South Island, last week to help console and support a bereaved Muslim community still reeling from the massacre of 50 worshippers at the Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre during Friday prayers.

Juliet Moses, spokesperson for the New Zealand Jewish Council, was also part of the delegation. “It was hard and emotional — at that time, they were still waiting to bury their loved ones, which was causing much anguish,” she told Haaretz via email this week. However, she noted that the visit was “strangely uplifting as well, because we were welcomed with warmth, grace and gratitude.”

Although there had been interfaith ties between the Jewish and Muslim communities, including visits to each other’s synagogues and mosques, before the massacre — which New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called one of her country’s darkest days — overall the communities tended to live mainly separate lives.

But the attacks have galvanized a new level of connection — and a shared sense of vulnerability: Following police advice, New Zealand’s synagogues were closed for the first time ever on the Shabbat of the attack.

“If there’s anything good that can come of this atrocity, it’s that it will bring our two communities closer together and that, importantly, we work together to defeat the terrible scourge of white supremacy,” Moses wrote.

Umar Abdul Kuddus, a lawyer from Auckland and Muslim youth leader, was among those who met with Moses and others in Christchurch. “It was heartwarming to see Jewish community leaders and rabbis coming and embracing us, praying with us and sharing words of love and support,” he told Haaretz, also via email. “While I was in Christchurch, I personally met a few people from the Jewish community and I was thankful for their love and support in this tragic time.”

Kuddus continued: “Regardless of race or religion, it is our Islamic belief that we are all brothers and sisters. The fact is that white supremacists would [win] in their evil ideology if we do not come together and unite as a community. I believe both our communities’ representatives need to have a serious dialogue as to how to put differences of religion aside in order to focus on humanity.”

New Zealand’s Jewish community has been fundraising to offer financial support to victims of the mosque attack and the local Muslim community. It has also partnered with the Jewish community of Pittsburgh — where a white supremacist attacked the Tree of Life synagogue last October, killing 11 worshippers — and the American Jewish Committee.

New Zealand has seen an outpouring of unity and condemnation of hatred following the March 15 massacre, which made a speech at an anti-racism rally in Auckland last Saturday especially jarring.

Ahmed Bhamji, a leader of the Masjid e Umar mosque in Auckland, said he suspected that Mossad might have funded the attack. “I stand here and I say I have a very, very strong suspicion that there’s some group behind [the shooter], and I am not afraid to say I feel Mossad is behind this,” Bhamji was recorded saying.

There were about 1,000 people at the rally, yet no one, including at least one New Zealand lawmaker in attendance, called out Bhamji’s remarks.

Bhamji later doubled down on his accusation, telling the Newshub website: “Mossad is up to all these things. When I talk about Mossad, why should the Jews be upset about it? Give me an answer?”

Moses described Bhamji’s comments as “very disappointing and distressing, and irresponsible.

“It endangers our community at a time of increased vulnerability and nervousness,” she told Haaretz. Moses also noted that while Bhamji’s speech had been condemned by the Human Rights Commission, the organizers of the rally and the leading Muslim body had not criticized it. However, she noted, “There has been criticism in the media in New Zealand and globally, and we have had some beautiful messages from Muslim individuals, apologizing, denouncing it, and offering their thanks for the support we have shown them.”

Kuddus also condemned Bhamji’s speech. “The statement by Ahmed Bhamji is absolutely absurd and unacceptable in such times where we are [trying] to come together as one community!” he told Haaretz. “I was horrified and offended that Bhamji made these ridiculous and hurtful comments toward the Jewish community. … I feel embarrassed and ashamed that Bhamji is seen as a representative of my community when in fact he represents [not] one person within the Muslim community.”

Both New Zealand’s Jewish and Muslim communities have common roots as refugees and immigrants. The South Pacific nation of some 4.5 million people is home to about 46,000 Muslims (based on 2013 census figures), mostly from South Asia and Iran, with others coming in the last 20 years from war-torn countries such as Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. There are nearly 7,000 Jews in the country (the majority in Auckland and Wellington), some whose families came as refugees from Nazi Europe; more recent arrivals include Jews from South Africa.

Paul Wilton, a member of the Jewish community in Auckland who has been involved in interfaith work, told Haaretz via email that there have been several such initiatives in recent years. “These include participation in activities arranged or promoted by interfaith organizations; visiting of each other’s sacred places; joint educational programs; attendance at iftar dinners over Ramadan, and so on. My experience is that the Muslim community here tends to appreciate all overtures of friendship. Over recent days, especially, they have expressed their gratitude for the caring response of all New Zealanders, including the Jewish community.”

Moses said that before the mosque attack, her synagogue in Auckland (New Zealand’s largest city, situated on the North Island) was working on an interfaith initiative to get Muslim and Jewish women together over food and cooking. The plan is to pursue that project again, she wrote, “once things calm down.”

MAX IGAN ~ “Archons & Puppet Masters Of The Empire Of The Three Cities”

Age Of Truth TV presents a fascinating speaker from Australia! MAX IGAN – one of Australia´s leading authorities in the field of conspiracy research and truth seeking. Originally a musician and artist, Max Igan´s destiny changed drastically after his so-called “awakening” to what “really is going on the world that we have never been told”. He became a succesful full-time lecturer in many countries around the world, as well as an author, radiohost and filmmaker. Max Igan is connecting countless dots and pieces in a very complex puzzle, trying to uncover the truth of what is going on behind the scenes of the ruling elites of the world, the called Illuminati banking cartel and manipulative political system. Age Of Truth TV presenter Lucas Alexander sat down to talk to Max Igan about his extraordinary, eye-opening and highly controversial claims of how the world is run, and his alternative world view, during the Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in September 2014.

An intense conversation relevant at any point in time, during these turbulent changing times. TOPICS DISCUSSED: – The Puppet Masters behind the Empire of the 3 Cities! What are the 3 most important cities in the world, that in fact are little independant powerful states, which the general public is unaware of? – The Illuminati bloodline families “who run the world”. – The Archons, the parasitic force, The Reptilians and the Nag Hammadi scriptures. – Evil is NEEDED is to keep us growing? Truth? – Debt slaves to the system. Is real freedom an illusion? – Reincarnation and the afterlife. Past live vs. future lives. – The New World Order Vatican State. – GMO / Chemtrails / Flouride. – The massive war on the human body computer. – Atoms and no solidity. “Nothing has ever been touched”! – David Icke and other truth personalities. – The New Age movement and spiritual narcissism. – Religious mind and spirit control. – Discovering the perfection of yourself. All this and much more in this compelling 55 mins. Age Of Truth TV episode featuring a dynamic and knowledgable Max Igan. Filmed at the Open Mind Conference Kedelhallen, Copenhagen, Denmark 20 September 2014

Germany – Political Prisoner Horst Mahler, Prisoner of Conviction, Europe’s Most Persecuted Patriot

Horst Mahler: Prisoner of Faith, Europe’s Most Persecuted Patriot


Anton-Saefkow-Allee 22 in 14772 Brandenburg Prison

Open letter to the sons of the covenant B’nai Brith

You blasphemers, do you hear the rumbling of the mischief to come? The foundation of your world domination shows cracks. I am not referring to the crisis of the BANK. Your Holiness, the Holocaust Church, is wavering. Soon it will collapse. The BVerfG of the FRG, your servant, gives him the deadly blows, probably not deliberately, but out of stupidity.

It was the meritorious work of the publicist Ursula Haverbeck (90) that put the Karlsruhe “judges” in a position where they could only make mistakes. In doing so, they have chosen the worst imaginable. After all, they managed to justify the prosecution of the so-called Holocaust deniers with the sentence:

“The denial that a crime has been committed is an endorsement of that crime.”

With this verdict of the highest court the FRG is marked as an injustice state, if it were a state. It is, however, a foreign rule, as the father of the Basic Law, Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid, a specialist in constitutional and international law, expertly and competently classified it as an “organisational form of a modality of foreign rule”.

There are many things you can do with us Germans. Our “naivety” is proverbial. Because we basically see the good in people, we can achieve a lot with lies. But you have overlooked something important: We have – in contrast to you – decency and a sense of honour. So it hurts us if we are expected to believe that obvious nonsense is the truth, but that’s exactly what you tried to do with your judge puppets.

Karlsruhe has spanned the arch.

Ursula Haverbeck became known because she – a contemporary witness – did not want to accept the accusation you made against the German people that they had slaughtered European Jewry in the years 1941-1945 in a factory.

We Germans do not believe in your God Yahweh and his countless threats of genocide against the peoples, including his “people of property.

Ursula Haverbeck thinks that the German people – her people – are not capable of committing the genocide you claim to have committed. Genocide is such a terrible and reprehensible crime for her that she fights for an acquittal for the German people with all her soul powers – now even in old age. For this she is now 90 years old and in prison.

And you? What are you doing? You have your ventriloquists announce that she “approved” the alleged genocide of the Jews of Europe.

You will atone for that. You will atone for it with the loss of the world domination which was promised to you by your God as compensation for the fact that you are hated by all nations because of the work of destruction commanded to you by Yahweh (Isaiah 60:12-16).

We will put you out of power by revealing to the nations that whatever may have happened to you in world history has happened to you by the will of Yahweh. That you therefore blaspheme your property god by pretending to have fallen into the hands of an “idol” – the German people (the “edomite Germania”) – and Yahweh could not help you.

It was you, after all, who forced atheism on the Christian Occident as a new religion (Enlightenment), so that no one would think any more of interpreting your fate (to be the No to the Life of the Peoples / Martin Buber) as the worldly existence of Yahweh, Satan.

You have always known that the “shaking off of the yoke of Jacob” threatens you from us (Genesis 27:40). And for centuries you have been addressing to Yahweh the prayer of thrust to avert this destiny from you (Talmud, Megilla Fol. 6b). So your world politics were shaped in such a way that they proved their worth in your pleas. And the nations did not notice it, but regarded Germany as the warmonger.

The invention of the Holocaust Church is your undertaking to transform your prayers into reality under your own direction. Thus you have turned away from Yahweh. There is now nothing left that will keep you as a people. Israel is no longer an issue.

The secret of the circumcision of your male descendants is revealed on the 8th day after birth. It is the traumatization that turns Hebrews into Jews, who thereby become an unnamed fear of life, which they fight against Yahweh with unconditional obedience. You have left this path forever with the Holocaust narrative. Now the free-floating fear will drive you mad. In this state, you will do things that the armies of nations will turn against you and devour you.

But the salvation for Israel also comes from him by putting an end – if necessary by force – to the desecration of boys. This act of salvation makes Satan’s people a people of men – within 40 years. The descendants of Israel who are no longer traumatized by circumcision will no longer be able to be talked into the genocidal Yahweh as their God. They will walk the path of Gilad Atzmon and free themselves from Yahweh. He has recognized Yahweh as an evil deity and reacts as people generally react to evil.

The Talmud (Megilla 6b) documents that you believe the German people to be the wrong-doers who will disempower you. Hence the hatred against our people! It is “holy hatred” which has no earthly (finite) cause – especially not the persecution of the Jews in the 20th century. A “saint” of our day, the archangel and two-time Nobel Prize winner (for literature and peace) Elie Wiesel, is my witness. He writes:

“Every Jew should preserve somewhere in his heart a zone of hatred, of healthy male hatred against that which the German embodies and which lies in the essence of the German.” (Elie Wiesel, “Appointment with Hate”, Legends of Our Time, New York 1968, p. 177 f.)

Half a century before him and without the experience of German Jewish politics between 1933 and 1945, the much-read Jew Cheskel Zwi Klötzel wrote:

“I believe one could prove that there is a movement in Judaism that is the faithful reflection of anti-Semitism, and I believe that this image would become more perfect than any other. And that’s what I call the ‘great Jewish hatred’ …

They call us a danger to Germanism. Certainly we are, as certain as Germanity is a danger to Judaism. But do they want us to commit suicide? No one can shake the fact that a strong Judaism is a danger to everything gentile. All attempts by certain Jewish circles to prove the contrary can thus be described as cowardly and comical. And as twice as lying as cowardly and funny. Whether we have power or not is the only question that interests us, and that is why we must strive to be and remain a power.” (Cheskel Zwi-Klötzel, Das große Hassen, Janus No. 2/1912; quoted from Theodor Fritsch, Handbuch der Judenfrage, Hammer Verlag, Leipzig 1944, p. 307)

The times in which we Germans no longer dared to let such thoughts approach us are finally over. You will never again be able to dictate how we should think. German idealistic philosophy – especially the thinking that Hegel showed mankind – has risen again. After that, God and man can no longer be thought of as separate. Atheism has thus become unthinkable. God is. Not in the afterlife. It appears as a world to recognize itself. World history is the development of his self-confidence. So in it it is reasonable. What is real is reasonable; what is reasonable is real (Hegel).

History is not a fact that can be grasped as such in the facts of a law. The “Holocaust” is not a fact – especially not obvious.

The criminal prohibition to deny the “Holocaust” is the prohibition to deny your God Yahweh and his power in the world. The “Holocaust religion” is the foreign rule of Judaism hostile to ALL peoples.

Already Jesus, the Christ, marked you Jews as descending from the devil (John 8:44) and condemned the work of the rabbinate (scribes and Pharisees) as “making the Jews children of hell” (Matthew 23:15).

The religious argument again has a basis – in reason. And reason recognizes you as Satanists on the basis of your holy books. In the Revelation of John (Apocalypse) you are identified as the “synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 3:9).

You betray the world. This knowledge takes away all power from you – even the power of money. This loss of power is hope for you.

The interpretation of your existence in the terminology of reason is the only reliable guarantee for your survival in the peoples – no longer as an exclusive cult cooperative, but as individuals and tolerated strangers. This grace is bestowed upon you by the word of the apostle Paul, the founder of Christian theology, that you are enemies for our sake (Romans 11:20). So it is our duty not to kill this enemy.

German idealistic philosophy begins with the cobbler from Görlitz, Jakob Böhme (1575 – 1624). He gave the key to the knowledge of the truth of the German-Jewish enmity, which Paul still pronounced as a secret:

“I will not conceal this mystery from you, brethren, lest you rely on your own wisdom: Blindness has partly happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has entered, and then all the people of Israel will be saved, as it is written (Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 31:33): “The Redeemer shall come from Zion, who averts the ungodly nature of Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I will take away their sins.

According to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but according to God’s gracious choice they are beloved for the fathers’ sake.

For God’s gifts and calling cannot repent him.”

(Romans 11:25-29)

You are the “repulsiveness” without which we would not know what we are (according to Jakob Böhme). And perhaps we are the chastisement of Yahweh, through which he drives you to be this unpleasantness. We are not united by friendship among nations, but by holy enmity.

Do you realize how ridiculous and at the same time dangerous it is to want to hide this event of salvation in the “Holocaust Church”? If you do not voluntarily leave it, your people will be buried under its ruins.

Can’t you see the storm clouds on the horizon?

Holocaust justice is crumbling. The uprising is inspired by Thomas Fischer, the author of the most influential commentary on the penal code. He drives the Federal Constitutional Court before him. The Federal Constitutional Court reacted with the “Wunsiedel Decision” of 4 November 2009. Fischer had shown in a monograph how his fellow judges misused the expression “in a way that is likely to disturb public peace” in the determination of the legal property “protected” by §130 StGB. With the Wunsiedel decision the BVerfG seemed to want to eliminate the worst excesses. But that was again only a Talmudic deception.

But Thomas Fischer does not rest. In paragraph 25 of the explanation of §130 StGB (Volksverhetzung in der Begehungsform der Holocaust-Lenugnung) he reveals that the “jurisprudence” assumes a reversal of the burden of proof. The accused is burdened with the proof that his “denial” of the “overall historical events” of the Holocaust is not an approval of the same. This is called a “probatio diabolica”. This is a ticking time bomb. And it looks like it’s about to go off.

That the state must prove the guilt of the accused in order to trigger the state’s claim to punishment is the foundation of the rule of law. To describe the Federal Republic of Germany as a “constitutional state” is an obvious lie. Although it was never a constitutional state at any time, the BVerfG has now, with the Haverbeck Resolution, provided the evidence that is immediately obvious to everyone by means of a concrete example that “gets under the skin” of every honestly-minded citizen. And this decision goes far beyond Fischer’s statement. What is special about it is the fact that the BVerfG, by equating denial and approval, is deeply immersed in Talmudic rabble-rousing. This linguistic work is so exceptional for a Christian-influenced person that it deserves to be reproduced in its wording with the decisive statement. Otherwise you would again deny that something like this exists in the world. The Christian’s reaction to this is profound contempt for the authors of the resolution.

“According to the aforementioned principles, it is to be assumed that the constituent elements of approval and denial indicate an aptitude for disturbing public peace.


Nothing else shall apply to the variant of denial. The transgression of peacefulness here lies in the fact that denial can only be understood as denying the generally known genocide committed under National Socialism against the background of German history in such a way that these crimes are legitimized and approved by mantle. Denial thus has a similar effect to the approval of criminal acts, which is otherwise punishable under §140 StGB…

and in turn equals the glorification of the National Socialist dictatorship of violence and arbitrariness according to §130 (4) StGB”. (BVerfG of

22.06.2018, 1 BvR 673/18)

That’s the purest form of legal perversion. The criminal energy with which she has been staged is breathtaking.

The “red robes”, like a surprise stroke, presume a derogative power under supra-constitutional law to “recognize” “exceptions” to fundamental rights.

The master of the GG are the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. Only they can decide changes of the Basic Law with 2/3 majority. Karlsruhe should therefore have allowed Ursula Haverbeck’s constitutional complaint after the “judges” had finally admitted that the ban on Holocaust denial is a special law against a certain opinion and thus falls under the ban contained in Article 5 (2) of the Basic Law.

The claim of a “competence of recognition” for exceptions to fundamental rights violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers (Article 20 (2) GG).

Karlsruhe should have declared §130 para. 3 StGB null and void. At best, it should have signalled to the legislature that it would allow a prohibition law to pass as a law restricting fundamental rights within the meaning of Article 19.1 sentence 1 of the Basic Law if it were passed in compliance with the citation requirement of Article 19.1 sentence 2.

Do the “judges” want to defend themselves with the statement that they were not aware of this legal situation? Certainly not!

The “guardians of the constitution” were of course aware that in 2009, when the problem was openly recognized, the Bundestag would not pass the prohibition law again. The former Federal Constitutional Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem had already publicly expressed their concerns. It would also have been remembered that in 1994 the CDU parliamentary group of the Bundestag had unanimously spoken out against the prohibition law. The chairman of the Central Council at the time, Bubis, had only just succeeded in persuading the members of parliament to change their minds.

The “Central Council of Jews in Germany” will probably have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of denial is not defeated. The only way to prevent this was to remove the BVerfG from the division of powers in the Basic Law so that it could save the ban on denial despite Articles 19 and 79 of the Basic Law.

This is how it happened.

What happened in the case of Haverbeck is the transition from hidden to open foreign domination. For what will can now still be thought of as decisive for the “BVerfG”?

As an organ of Jewish foreign rule over the German people, Karlsruhe has also callously ignored the Basic Law’s prohibition of retroactivity for criminal norms (Article 103 GG). At the time of the “commission of the offence” Ursula Haverbeck was allowed to assume that Article 5 of the Basic Law applied without restriction.

It is a stairway joke of world history that of all things the Haverbeck decision aimed at a conviction of all lawyers who acted as public prosecutors or judges in “Holocaust cases”, will now bring the blush of shame to the face. They must be ashamed because they have failed to assert the nullity of the ban on denial by submission to the BVerfG. They were too cowardly.

What the BVerfG has now said – that the ban on denial contravenes Article 5 of the Basic Law – was obvious to every legal layman, including every lawyer. Thus, in every case of denial, the requirements for a referral under Article 100 of the Basic Law, which is mandatory there, were met.

But that was not all: the accusation of cowardice applies to all judges, public prosecutors, lawyers and notaries, i.e. the “guardians of the law” in our country. They looked away and remained silent – even when their colleagues were thrown into prison because they defended the accused in cases of denial, arguing that their clients did not tell the truth and could prove the accuracy of their allegations.

Holocaustism does not only concern an insignificant niche of the life of our people, but also the core of our spiritual existence, in which our experience of identity is created by the self-determined imprinting of the people’s consciousness, through which we are only a people with the capacity for will (state).

It is your war goal to stop this educational process for all the future. It is the Talmudic modality of genocide.

You can only achieve this goal if you succeed in suppressing the contradiction against the Holocaust narrative through a system of social sanctions. The keystone of it is the Holocaust Inquisition, which does not deserve the name “Justice”.

The highly developed legal system on German soil in the past has been replaced by a New Barbarism. The Haverbeck resolution of the BVerfG now makes this “visible”. First signs indicate that judges and public prosecutors are now aware of this and are refusing their further participation in this system. The Regional Court of Hanover, for example, acquitted the convicted in the appeal proceedings of a “Holocaust denier” convicted at first instance at the request of the public prosecutor’s office. It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeal expressly refers to the aforementioned extract from the Haverbeck decision of the BVerfG and clearly and unambiguously based the acquittal on this extract against the intention of the Karlsruhe “judges”.

Consequently, the same public prosecutor’s office that had applied for the acquittal challenged it with the appeal.

Thus, an internal official conflict in the public prosecutor’s office in Hanover has become public. A one-off event!

We will closely observe how the careers of the presiding judge Goldmann and the public prosecutor Müller-Sommerfeldt, who are responsible for the acquittal, will proceed (Ns – 40 Js 81/13 – 42/18).

The first public prosecutor Wortmann, who justified the appeal with the hostile legal arguments of the BVerfG (NZS 1101 Js 15658/18 of 26.02.2019), will probably no longer be used as a lawyer in a free Germany. She has made herself dishonorable.

She deprives the Germans identified as “Holocaust deniers” of the right to express their opinion publicly on the grounds that this is appropriate,

“to induce the audience inclined to the utterer to aggression and to take action against those who are considered to be the authors or responsible persons of the distortion of the alleged historical truth implicitly claimed by denial”.

Apart from the fact that the alleged cause-and-effect relationship (nexus) is a pure invention (where is the empirical evidence?), this argument negates the principle of civil liberty: because others break the law, when they take note of my thoughts, these thoughts are forbidden. Whoever comes up with something like this is an enemy of the law. If this “federal constitutional judge,” then he is a highly dangerous enemy of the law.

That is the situation in the OMF FRG. The “punishability” of Holocaust denial is only the tip of the iceberg. The BVerfG thus protects the cornerstone on which an all-pervading system of thought police is built. The steam chatterer Peter Sloterdijk accurately described his appearance in the magazine “Cicero”:

“What would certainly stand out most to the observers of our circumstances coming from outside, although it has become almost invisible to us through its everyday nature, is that we have established ourselves under the guise of freedom of speech and unhindered expression of opinion in a system of subservience, or rather of organized linguistic and intellectual cowardice, which paralyzes practically the entire social field from top to bottom.

You – Sons of the Covenant – are the masters who created this system. They would like to congratulate you on this achievement. Under no circumstances should you be scolded for it. An enemy is an enemy because he acts like an enemy. That is all right. What is wrong is that some of our own think that Jews should be treated like friends. You have friends as individuals in dealing with individuals. As a people in relation to the people, the reasonable form of communication is the unity of war and peace. In the relationship with Jewry the moment of war is decisive, because Yahweh wants it so. It is therefore a holy war. In this war every one is a winner and a loser. At present you are winners and we are losers. For us this is the more favourable starting position; for the loser learns and is the winner of tomorrow. But you rot in the sun of victory. Amen! So be it!

Horst Mahler


BVerfG                      Federal Constitutional Court

Karlsruhe Town, in which the BVerfG resides

GG           Grundgesetz – not really a Constitution, but that’s what we have

Thought and Speech Crimes: The Disturbing Case of Imprisoned Revisionist Ursula Haverbeck, still imprisoned at the age of 90

By Thomas Müller

Forty percent of American millennials (ages 20-36) believe the government should intervene when citizens say something that might be considered offensive to minorities, a new Pew Research study reveals. It is not entirely clear what is meant by “intervene” and “minorities,” and the term “offensive” is broadly defined. Intuitively, the question likely pertains to the sort of nonsense we are seeing involving censorship and public persecution of those who espouse views that are deemed “politically incorrect.”

Despite the threat of political correctness (PC) from millennials, Americans overall still put a high value on free speech, with only 28% in favor of government regulation of speech. Among respondents, 27 percent of Gen Xers (37-52), 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 53-71) and 12 percent of the Silent Generation (age 72 and older) believe government should control and limit offensive speech. The dwindling Greatest Generation universally defends free speech, but they are now over age 90.

In Germany, a troubling 70% are in favor of limiting free speech. That country will jail those who engage even in revisionist history involving WWII, and even debate on the Holocaust is considered taboo. In fact, it is illegalin Germany to deny or even downplay the Holocaust. The term deny is curious given that no leading revisionist on the topic actually denies atrocities or actions against Jews and others.

Understanding of the Case of Ursula Haverbeck

I emphasized the word “downplay” because recently the German government imprisoned 88-year-old Ursula Haverbeck for “downplaying the Holocaust”. The court sentenced her to a two-year term for violating section 220a [see below]. For a woman of her advanced age, this is the equivalent of a death sentence.

The following video is the interview that got her into hot water. Watch it before it’s removed from the Internet.

Apparently, “downplay” is double-speak for revisionism. Watch the interview closely, as if you were on the jury. Nowhere does Haverbeck deny that crimes or atrocities were committed against Jews (and others), nor does she refuse to accept that they were rounded up or persecuted. Rather, she speaks mostly about the nature, methods and the numbers, which is deemed “revisionism.”

The following is an excerpt from the German law, and what a broad and sweeping law it is. In essence, it demands no one disturb the public peace, ruffle feathers or challenge a history that has been deemed set in stone or static.

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

Please, watch Haverbeck for yourself. See if you can identify her so-called offensive words that “might disturb the public peace.” In fact, Haverbeck was remarkably well composed and was relatively careful in her word choice. Despite the news coverage on her imprisonment, I certainly didn’t hear her “approve of” atrocities or claim they didn’t happen. Do you hear her “rendering harmless” acts committed under the rule of National Socialism?

She did go into the rarely discussed — but I think much-needed — topic of the mass murder (Hellstorm) of German civilians and POWs as the war wound down and after the defeat of Germany. Basically, she is “guilty” of processing things outside of the box or standard narrative. Her “revisionism” only involves researching and questioning the size and degree of atrocities against Jews and the aspects of the Hellstorm.

She did suggest that truth or history on these topic has been “distorted.” She uses the term “Das Groste Problem” to define this distortion. This is problematic in her eyes because this historical distortion has been used as an agenda to kowtow Germany and promote Zionist power.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see “The Great Problem” train of thought as a jailable crime. I don’t see being an aggressive revisionist as being a jailable crime either. Nor is hurting someone’s feelings a jailable offense. Any sensible observer would say that ALL history has been distorted to one degree or another and should be subjected to frequent revision, review and question. Nothing should be set in stone. […]

We do find the notion of a court approved version of events that one could lose their liberty over beyond Orwellian. It is fundamental that there should be open discussion, even of controversial views, without threat of prosecution. But if the authorities are willing to make an example out of an 88-year-old woman, well, what more is there to say.

We do find it deeply disturbing that Haverbeck was imprisoned at all. And what of those who simply defend free speech and the right of Haverbeck to conduct this interview without prosecution and jail time? Are they, too, going to be subjected via some contorted circular logic leading to derision, ridicule or even prosecution?

Support for Ursula Haverbeck can be provided here.

This article originally appeared on The New Nationalist and was shortened for publication here.

ISIS – Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliot now surfaced in video since 2014

ISIS leader Baghdadi surfaces in video for first time since 2014

ISIS leader Baghdadi surfaces in video for first time since 2014
For the first time in years, the leader of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) has appeared in video footage, disproving long-running rumors of his death.

Published by the terror group’s media arm on Monday, the video depicts a greying Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi calmly seated next to a rifle, discussing jihad with his cohorts.

“The video shows Baghdadi in a casual conversational setting with others (their faces blurred),” said Rita Katz, executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group, a company that tracks the activities of terror groups. “He talks about war against ‘Crusaders’ and about battles in Baghouz, Syria being over, indicating that this interview was filmed somewhat recently.”

Rita Katz


1) BREAKING: ’ Furqan issues new video showing leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, marking the first time he is shown in a video since his July 2014 sermon at the Great Mosque in

View image on Twitter

Rita Katz


2) The video shows Baghdadi in a casual conversational setting with others (their faces blurred). He talks about war against “Crusaders” and about battles in being over, indicating that this interview was filmed somewhat recently.

The militant, known by his nom de guerre, has not been spotted in video footage since his infamous 2014 sermon at the al-Nuri mosque in Mosul, Iraq, where he announced the creation of his group’s ‘Caliphate’. Rumors of his death or arrest have percolated in that time, but the video is the latest proof the jihadi commander lives on.

Baghdadi praised the recent Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, claiming the attacks as “revenge” for battles lost in Syria, and commended militants in Mali and Burkina Faso.

Rita Katz


3) In the vid, titled “In the Hospitality of the Emir of the Believers,” Baghdadi praises attackers over images of the attackers/attack (though not in the visual interview section; the audio may have thus been added via a later recording)–calling it revenge for Baghouz

Islamic State itself apparently saw the appearance as a big deal as well, as IS-linked accounts across social media hyped up the video. Katz said the group’s thriving social media presence was “troubling.”

“In anticipation for the video, announced a day prior, ISIS support network hyping it [with] nonstop creation of social media accounts and channels on Telegram,” said Katz. “Scale of the activity definitely exceeds that of recent releases, showing troubling resiliency of the group’s online network.”

Islamic State once had big ambitions. After its 2014 debut in Mosul, the group captured large swathes of territory across Syria and Iraq, at one point controlling a land area the size of Britain. For years the group survived on the proceeds from stolen oil, but was finally crushed after an arduous multinational effort led by Syria, Russia, Iran and a smattering of militias, as well as a coalition led by the United States.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

By West Mick

  1. NotQualifiedMember

    I took a quick look through the forums and hadn’t seen this anywhere. First thread, hope I’m not treading old ground with this.

    The claim and pictures were found on a blog claiming to be the “real free Syrian press”. I don’t know which side of the conflict this puts the blogger one (both sides like to accuse the other of working with, for, or being Jews) it’s enough to put the claim itself in serious doubt. However, what caught my attention and kept me from immediately dismissing the claim were 3 pictures that accompanied it:






    Now, as it stands, I do not have enough information on who Simon Elliot is to say that the person in these pictures is him or anyone else. What I can say is that the person in the upper left corner of the first picture IS Baghdadi and that the unidentified person on the right side of that picture does look strikingly similar to Baghdadi (those eyebrows), and that this unidentified person looks like the man in the other two pictures. However, just because the unidentified person looks like him (Baghdadi) doesn’t mean it is him, and just because the unidentified man in the first picture looks like the man in the other two pictures doesn’t mean that they are the same person.

    Because this hinges on people accepting the similarities between these people as them being the same person, I was hoping someone could either prove that the unidentified man is not a Mossad agent named Simon Elliot, or that someone has a strong enough background in facial recognition to say that unidentified man is not Baghdadi sans a beard and turban.

    In my opinion this is a weak claim without even going into who Simon Elliot is and whether or not he is a Mossad agent. It relies entirely on people accepting those pictures and the narrative that came with them at face value. Thank you for your effort and time, please let me know if the way I posed this is confusing. It certainly sounds confusing in my head


    The traces of Israeli intelligence woman in Tehran attacks;
    Who is Rita Katz and how is she related to ISIS?
    Political analysts believe that ISIS is being used as a front brand by other terrorist cartels and western countries to implement their aggressive plans in Iran and other parts of the world.

    When it comes to terrorist attacks by ISIS, a name strikes the minds of reporters and newsmen whose twitter account can be a good source to provide them with novel news; Rita Katz. Wednesday attack by ISIS forces in two spots to capital of Iran proved another time that the intelligence and briefs reach Katz sooner and first-handed than other sources.

    The founder of Search International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Intelligence Group has had a controversial past in personal life and work sphere. Rita Katz was born into a Jewish family in Basra, Iraq in 1963. Her father was accused and executed in Iraq for spying for Israel when Rita was only a child. Her mother, along with the three children, fled to Israel afterwards.

    Katz worked for Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and studied multiple subjects in Tel Aviv University. She did not had any plan to move then as she believed the main land of Jews is Israel. However, she was made to move to the United States by the husband for what is said to be continuing studies.

    Soon there, she started investigating the Islamist organizations. She worked as a spy, wearing Burqa and makeup to remain unknown, conveying information to intelligence organizations in the United States. In July 2002, Katz founded SITE Institute which was claimed to be aiming at analyzing corporate records, tax forms, credit reports, video tapes, internet news group postings and owned websites, among other resources, for indicators of illicit activity.” The institute, however, turned out to be an intelligence base gathering information by hacking, using spies and other unknown methods.

    Rita Katz and her organization are considered cover for latent movements and plans by Israel and extremist countries. The question about the origin of the information the SITE institute publishes once in a while has remained unanswered during the years. The website has published the famous video of beheading by ISIS forces for the first time. In fact, all the videos created by ISIS have been published by Katz’ institute for the first time. Yesterday’s video in Iranian parliament official building in the midst of the attack was not an exception.

    Besides, SITE sometimes publishes the announcement of ISIS group before they are put in their own news agency. Analysts believe there is a high probability that there is no Afaq News agency owned by ISIS and Katz and her allies in Israel and US publish what they want to be in the name of ISIS in Amaq.

    There is a big difference between who claims a terrorist act and who performs it. Wednesday attack in Tehran was accompanied by evidences that questioned ISIS being the real plotter behind the act. Katz and her grand intelligence apparatus truly find it desirable to implement US, Israel, and Saudi plans in the region and Iran using ISIS and a mask to control the worldwide reactions.

Holy Land – Palestinian doesn’t scrap career after losing leg in Israel attack

Using a wheelchair, crutches and a prosthetic limb, Amir continues to travel across the Strip to buy scrap metal

Twenty-four-year-old Amir Abu Jameh collects and recycles scrap metal in the Gaza Strip, a job he inherited from his father. Amir continues the trade in spite of losing a leg in an Israeli attack on the besieged enclave in 2014.

Using a wheelchair, crutches and a prosthetic limb, Amir continues to travel across the Strip to buy scrap metal, bringing it back to his makeshift workshop in a relative’s yard and working on the items readying them for resale.

A number of Amir’s relatives were killed in the Israeli attack which forced doctors to amputate his leg. The family’s house and shop were also destroyed forcing; leaving them faced with rebuilding their lives from scratch.

Operating in Bani Suhail, in the south of the Strip, Amir says: “I clean, sort, and dismantle the pieces I collect, and supply them to dealers who buy them to be sold and used in and out Gaza.”

Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ is a hoax: Experts

“I have not had another job, especially after I got married in 2015, and now I have a family of three – two children and my wife – and this requires me to provide daily expenses,” he adds.

In addition to scrap metal, Amir regularly visits the local dump to collect plastic which he sells to recycling factories.

Working in this industry, he explains, has become more difficult as a result of his injury.

“I want to help myself and my family, and I do not need anyone, so I bought a rickshaw and I work on it,” he says.

“I lost my leg, but I did not lose the hope and the desire to live,” Amir concludes.

Arab League warns of erasure of Palestinian history in school curriculum

General view of Arab League foreign ministers emergency meeting in the Egyptian capital Cairo on 9 December, 2017 [Stringer/Anadolu Agency]

General view of Arab League foreign ministers in the Egyptian capital Cairo on 9 December 2017 [Stringer/Anadolu Agency]

Palestinian history is being wiped out in school text books through the Judaisation of the Arab curriculum, the Arab League warned in a meeting this weekend.

During the Palestinian Children Educational Affairs Council meeting, Assistant Secretary-General for Palestine and Arab Territories, Ambassador Said Abu-Ali, said education is the most important type of resistance so Israeli occupation authorities are working to undermine it.

Israel is working to impose its syllabus on Palestinian students in Jerusalem in order to erase the Palestinian identity, it also bans new schools from being set up in Arab areas and existing schools from being renovated.

The Arab League official said that this plan aims to liquidate the Palestinian cause and put pressure on the Palestinians to accept a peace plan which offers them far less  than the two-state solution.

The 80th meeting of the Palestinian Children Educational Affairs Council launched yesterday in the Arab League headquarters in Cairo, Egypt, to discuss ways to support and develop the educational process in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as the educational institutions run by UNRWA in the Arab host countries, and the agency’s role in developing and providing financial support to the curricula and training to suit the fast tech changes.

Nakba History 7f65c

May 14 is coming up, ‘independence day’ for Zionists and the Nakba for the Palestinians.  This was indeed a catastrophe for them, no ‘war of independence’ but a war of colonial conquest, as it was the only way the bulk of Palestine’s indigenous population could be ethnically cleansed.

‘Israel’ remains what it was in 1948, a state built on stolen land. It was never founded with the intention of living alongside the native people of Palestine but living instead of them.  This was clear in Theodor Herzl’s diaries, where he refers to the ‘penniless population’ somehow being spirited out of the country. Getting rid of the Palestinians was always the conundrum that had to be solved.

The British used the Zionist movement because it was useful to them, a colony that could be planted in the heart of the Middle East. The mandate for Palestine was based on the denial of the right of the Palestinians to choose their own future.  This right was eventually granted to the Iraqis and the Syrians but Palestine – southern Syria but severed from it by agreement between Britain and France – was to be held in limbo until European settlers could constitute the majority.

This was never to happen but with British support Zionist colonization had by the 1940s reduced the Palestinian majority from 90 percent of the population to 70 percent. Bear in mind that even the 10 percent Jewish population in 1918 was the result of intensive Zionist settlement since the 1880s.  At that time the Jewish population of Palestine, pious and largely anti-Zionist, and living peaceably alongside Muslims and Christians, was no more than a few thousand.

Support for Zionism settlement violated inherent Palestinian rights as well as Woodrow Wilson’s 14-point declaration in 1918 aimed at ensuring world peace through the acknowledgment of the right of national self-determination.  We have seen where the denial of this right has led in the case of Palestine, endless wars and a standing threat to world peace.

In 1947 the UN General Assembly recommended partition.  That is all it was, a recommendation which would never have passed but for the intimidation of vulnerable delegations by the White House.  The recommendation violated article 1 of the UN Charter, passed in 1945, which states that ‘all peoples have the right to self-determination.’ Such a right clearly applies only to people living on their own land.  There can be no such ‘right’ for colonists to retain stolen land any more than there can be a ‘right’ to possess any other kind of stolen property.

On December 10, 1948, at a time Palestine was still being ethnically cleansed, the UN General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  There is practically no one of its 30 articles that the Zionist colonists and their regime did not break then or have not broken since.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s ‘independence.’ The later historical parallel would be the ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ by the colonial white settler minority government in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)in 1965.   Both declarations violated the inherent rights of the indigenous people to choose their own future other but whereas European settler ‘independence’ in Rhodesia was rejected by the UN Security Council, colonial settler ‘independence’ in Palestine was accepted.

The other paradox in the case of Israel was that its colonial-settler declaration was made as colonized people in Africa and Asia were moving towards self-determination, with the support of the UN.  As was the case in the 1920s, only Palestine was to be deprived of this right.

Within minutes of Ben-Gurion’s declaration, the US recognized Israel.  This was not a decision taken by the Congress in conformity with the wishes of the American people.  It was not a decision taken on the advice of diplomats and senior State Department advisers, many of whom, in fact, were strongly against it.

It was a decision taken by President Truman, in violation of his administration’s official policy, which was to seek a UN trusteeship over Palestine, as it clearly could not be partitioned without extreme violence.  This was an enormous danger which the Zionists strove strenuously to head off.

Truman Ben Gurion e5536

*(Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, and then-Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Abba Eban, center, presents a Hanukkah menorah to then-U.S. President Harry Truman. May 1, 1951.)

Members of the US delegation at the UN General Assembly had no idea Truman’s recognition of Israel was coming.  He ambushed them and the head of the delegation, Warren Austin, walked out of the chamber in disgust.

Truman was not guided by high principles but the need to secure the Jewish vote in the 1948 presidential elections. Other issues were involved besides Truman’s support for Israel but the tactic worked.  In his November triumph over the Republican candidate, Thomas Dewey, Truman won 75 percent of the Jewish vote.

The attempt by the UN to hold Israel to its principles was rejected from the start.  The Palestinians were not the accidental victims of war.  The Zionists had taken 24 percent more of Palestine than they were allocated in the partition plan.  They had no intention of handing any of it back or allowing the Palestinians to return.  Ethnic cleansing was the key to the success of their project.

Had Palestine been placed under UN trusteeship there could have been no democratic Jewish state, as even in the area set aside for one, native Palestinians were as numerous as Jewish colonists.  The ‘independence’ war was a war of necessity as it was the only way Palestine could be cleared of its population.

The UN General Assembly made a lame attempt to hold the Zionists to account by passing resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, the day after the passage of the universal declaration of human rights.

Resolution 194 calls for the return of the Palestinians to their homes.  As their expulsion was fundamental to the establishment of a colonial settler Jewish state on their land there was, of course, no way any Zionist government would comply with it.

Such is the state of Israel’s ‘democracy.’  Get rid of the people you don’t want first – in this case, the overwhelming majority – and then declare not just your democracy but ‘the only democracy in the Middle East.’ Not even the apartheid regime of South Africa sought to expel the African majority.

The passage of time does not change the nature of theft whatever the stolen article. Palestine was stolen from its owners in 1948.  The Palestinians lived on the land, worked the land, owned the land in every sense of the word, legal, historical and cultural.  The Zionists were interlopers who took it from them using the most savage methods.  Having stolen most of the land in 1948 they stole the rest in 1967 and have since then continued their quest to wipe out the Palestinian presence in history.

Now, against international law, Donald Trump has ‘recognized’ the Zionist occupation of Jerusalem and its occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights.   Flushed with success, Benjamin Netanyahu is going to name a Golan colony after Trump. This only adds insult to injury and in no way will change the course of history.

Israel thinks it can remake the Middle East. It has either gone to war or persuaded its American benefactor to go to war against all the central lands of the Middle East, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.

Its pressure is undoubtedly a key reason the US is maintaining a presence in Syria, where Israel has supported takfiri fanatics with arms, money and the treatment of their wounded. It wants the US to go to war against Iran.

Iran presents no danger to the US. On the contrary, ever since the presidency of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-1997), it has made many attempts to establish better relations with the US. All have been rebuffed, not because of US interests but because of Israel’s as Iran has never budged from its principled support of the Palestinians.

Short of the outright military attack it wants, but so far has been unable to get, Israel has been killing Iranian revolutionary guards in Syria – there with the permission of the Syrian government to help defend Syria against one of the most pernicious attempts ever made to destroy an Arab state –  and assassinating Iranian scientists in Iran as well as sabotaging Iran’s computer infrastructure.

Israel Independence day 4aa30

*(U.S. 242nd Independence day 2018. Credit: U.S. Embassy Jerusalem/ flickr)

As long as the world’s policeman protects the criminal, Israel sees no reason to stop what it is doing.  Two rogue states are working together to create mayhem in the Middle East and much further afield but this is not the 1890s and ‘the Arabs’ as described contemptuously by Netanyahu and the racist politicians, settlers and rabbis around him are not Kipling’s ‘lesser breeds without the law.’

Neither are the Iranians or anyone else against whom Israel has directed its sociopathic fury.  They have the same mixture of strengths and weaknesses as anyone else on this planet.  More importantly, they have law and morality on their side. This is the backbone of their resistance.

The US and Israel seem to think that they can kick people of the Middle East around endlessly but history sends out a different message.  As the Egyptians demonstrated in 1973, as Hezbollah showed in 2006 and Syrians have shown since 2011, ‘the Arabs’ are perfectly capable of working out ways of striking back at their enemies.

Now Jared Kushner is going to come up with the ‘deal of the century.’  Peace in the Middle East has been reduced to real estate haggling in which the mentality of money is expected to prevail. Deals and money are all Trump understands but having resisted Zionism for more than seven decades, it is not likely that the Palestinians are going to sell their rights now for Kushner’s 30 pieces of silver.

Israel is sitting on the lip of a volcano in the Middle East.  It is indeed having a party there, too drunk with success to see the fire burning below.  These are years that are going to be stamped on Jewish history forever.

*(Top image: History of the Nakba, painting. Credit: exlow/ flickr)



Ukraine – Comedian Becomes Ukraine President In Landslide!

Comedian Becomes Ukraine President In Landslide!

The Autralien Jewish News

Ukraine’s next president is a Jewish comedian

Volodymyr Zelensky, second from right, waves to supporters at his campaign headquarters in Kiev, Ukraine, April 21, 2019. He won the country’s presidential election with over 70 percent of the vote. (Xinhua/Sergey/Getty Images)

If official exit polls from Ukraine’s presidential elections are to be believed, that country is set to become the only one in the world besides Israel whose president and prime minister are both Jewish.

Comedian Volodymyr Zelensky’s dramatic lead in exit polls Sunday — in many of them he received more than 73 percent of the vote — was so overwhelming that it prompted a concession of defeat by incumbent Petro Poroshenko even before the official results were in, Radio Liberty reported.

If Zelensky is sworn in as president, his prime minister — at least for a while and possibly until the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place sometime later this year — will be Volodymyr Groysman, a Jewish politician who was the mayor of the city of Vinnytsia.

To some of Poroshenko’s critics, the landslide success of the vague campaign by the politically inexperienced Zelensky was not surprising in light of widespread resentment over the persistence of corruption under Poroshenko, who was elected in 2014 on a platform that vowed remedial action on exactly that front.

More unusual to some, however, was how Zelensky appears to have won the elections so decisively in spite of how his Jewish ancestry – his mother, Rima, is Jewish, and he has jokingly referred to this during the campaign — is well known in Ukraine.

After all, Russia and other critics claim Ukrainian society has a serious anti-Semitism problem and legacy.

“Imagine, a pure-blooded Jew with the appearance of a Sholom Aleichem protagonist wins by a landslide in a country where the glorification of Nazi criminals is enacted into law,” Avigdor Eskin, a Russian-Israeli columnist, wrote in an analysis published earlier this month by the Regnum news agency.

Eskin in the column on Zelensky downplayed allegations of widespread anti-Semitism in Ukraine, attributing much of the attention to the problem in the media and beyond to propaganda by Russia, which is involved in an armed conflict over territory with Ukraine.

But Eskin’s statement about Ukrainian laws glorifying Nazi criminals is not inaccurate, and Russia is not alone in criticising Ukraine over this and other issues connected to anti-Semitism.

Last year, Israel’s government in its annual report on anti-Semitism singled out Ukraine as a regional trouble spot.

“A striking exception in the trend of decrease in anti-Semitic incidents in Eastern Europe was Ukraine, where the number of recorded anti-Semitic attacks was doubled from last year and surpassed the tally for all the incidents reported throughout the entire region combined,” the report said. The authors of the report said they counted more than 130 reported anti-Semitic incidents in Ukraine in 2017.

Also last year, more than 50 U.S. Congress members condemned Ukrainian legislation that they said “glorifies Nazi collaborators” and therefore goes even further than Poland’s controversial laws limiting what can be said about local complicity during the Holocaust.

“It’s particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported,” a letter signed by the U.S. lawmakers said.

The letter noted ceremonies, gestures and legislation venerating leaders of the UPA and OUN militias, who fought alongside Nazi Germany during World War II and whose troops participated in atrocities against Jews and other victims.

Poroshenko’s government greatly encouraged glorification of those troops and leaders as fighters for Ukrainian freedom who it insisted sided with Germany only in order to fight against the Russian-controlled Soviet Union.

Several cities across Ukraine named streets for the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who prior to Poroshenko’s time in office was openly glorified only in the country’s west.

Meanwhile, in the western city of Lviv, nationalists became emboldened enough to celebrate — with the permission of city authorities — the anniversary of the 14th Galician division of the Waffen SS. The anniversary events featured men parading in Nazi SS uniforms on the street.

Such sights would have been unthinkable under Viktor Yanukovych, the corrupt president who was deposed in a 2013 revolution that ended with Poroshenko’s election. Careful to alienate neither ethnic Russians in Ukraine nor its powerful neighbour to the east, Yanukovych was less tolerant of this nationalist phenomenon.

On this subject, Zelensky has said only that he personally does not favour the veneration of people like Bandera, whom he described as “a hero to some Ukrainians.” It was a markedly reserved formulation compared to the endorsement of figures like Bandera by officials under Poroshenko.

The presidential campaign itself has featured some anti-Semitism.

In some far-right circles, Zelensky’s work for a television station owned by the Jewish billionaire Igor Kolomoisky was proof of his belonging to a “Jewish cabal.” But it made Zelensky popular with other nationalists who appreciated Kolomoisky’s reputation as a fiery patriot.

Alexander Paliy, an influential political analyst supporting Poroshenko, stirred controversy last month when he wrote on Facebook that, despite his “respect” for Jews and some Russians, “The president of Ukraine should be Ukrainian and Christian, like the absolute majority of Ukrainians.”

Such rhetoric is shocking to many of Ukraine’s some 300,000 Jews, whose ancestors suffered murderous anti-Semitism in Ukraine for centuries before, during and decades after the Holocaust.

The French-Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy also referenced Ukrainian Jews’ bloody history in an interview with Zelensky, the 41-year-old son of scientists who lived near major Soviet army bases in Ukraine.

“His Judaism. It’s extraordinary that the possible future president of the country of the Shoah by Bullets and Babi Yar is a self-affirmed Jew from a family of survivors from Kryvy Rih near Dnipro – the land of pogrom if ever there was one,” Levy wrote in an article published earlier this month in Le Point. “This postmodern kid, is he new proof that the virus of anti-Semitism has been contained” after the revolution, Levy added.

Not denying his Jewish ancestry, Zelensky declined to explore it at length in the interview, Levy wrote. On this subject, he replied with typical self-deprecating humour, telling Levy, “The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults.”

Zelensky has ingratiated himself with the Ukrainian public with such jokes as the star of “Servant of the People” – a primetime television show where he portrays a teacher thrust by an unlikely chain of events to become Ukraine’s president. He announced his candidacy in January, becoming an instant favourite.

This popularity has allowed Zelensky to win on an unusually vague platform and distinguish himself from his professional politician rivals, with their proclivity to hyperbole and nationalist slogans.

For example, when a reporter asked him how he would deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Zelensky reverted to his comic roots, saying “I would speak to him at eye level.” It was a reference to him and Putin being at least three inches shorter than Poroshenko, a 6-footer.

Zelensky’s opaqueness means a high level of uncertainty, according to Eduard Dolinsky, the director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee.

“We will need to wait and see what kind of president Zelensky turns out to be,” said Dolinsky, who was an outspoken critic of some policies of the Poroshenko administration. “What is clear is that Poroshenko’s attempt to appeal to nationalism has failed. Ukrainians said they wanted change. And I am feeling optimistic.”


Is this man the puppet master of Ukraine’s new president or an overhyped bogeyman?


It doesn’t actually matter if Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Igor Kolomoisky is the real power behind Volodymyr Zelensky – the president elect has to get rid of the oligarch if he is to make a break with the country’s corrupt past.

The plots, deceits and conflicts of interest in Ukrainian politics are so transparent and hyperbolic, that to say that novice politician Zelensky was a protégé of his long-time employer was not something that required months of local investigative journalism – it was just out there.

Zelensky’s comedy troupe has been on Kolomoisky’s top-rated channel for the past eight years, and his media asset spent every possible resource promoting the contender against incumbent Petro Poroshenko, a personal enemy of the tycoon, who hasn’t even risked entering Ukraine in the past months.

Similarly, the millions and the nous needed to run a presidential campaign in a country of nearly 50 million people had to come from somewhere, and Kolomoisky’s lieutenants were said to be in all key posts. The two issued half-hearted denials that one was a frontman for the other, insisting that they were business partners with a cordial working relationship, but voters had to take their word for it.

Now that the supposed scheme has paid off with Zelensky’s spectacular victory in Sunday’s run-off, Ukrainian voters are asking: what does Kolomoisky want now, and will he be allowed to run the show?

‘One-of-a-kind chancer’

Born in 1963, in a family of two Jewish engineers, Kolomoisky is the type of businessman that was once the staple of the post-Soviet public sphere, but represents a dying breed.

That is, he is not an entrepreneur in the established Western sense at all – he did not go from a Soviet bloc apartment to Lake Geneva villas by inventing a new product, or even setting up an efficient business structure in an existing field.

Rather he is an opportunist who got wealthy by skilfully reading trends as the Soviet economy opened up – selling Western-made computers in the late 1980s – and later when independent Ukraine transitioned to a market economy and Kolomoisky managed to get his hands on a large amount of privatisation vouchers that put many of the juiciest local metals and energy concerns into his hands, which he then modernised.

What he possesses is a chutzpah and unscrupulousness that is rare even among his peers. Vladimir Putin once called him a “one-of-a-kind chancer” who managed to “swindle [Chelsea owner] Roman Abramovich himself.” In the perma-chaos of Ukrainian law and politics, where all moves are always on the table, his tactical acumen has got him ahead.

Kolomoisky’s lifeblood is connections and power rather than any pure profit on the balance sheet, though no one actually knows how that would read, as the Privat Group he part-owns is reported to own over 100 businesses in dozens of Ukrainian spheres through a complex network of offshore companies and obscure intermediaries (“There is no Privat Group, it is a media confection,” the oligarch himself says, straight-faced.)

Unsurprisingly, he has been dabbling in politics for decades, particularly following the first Orange Revolution in 2004. Though the vehicles for his support have not been noted for a particular ideological consistency – in reportedly backing Viktor Yushchenko, then Yulia Tymoshenko, he was merely putting his millions on what he thought would be a winning horse.

Grasp exceeds reach

But at some point in the post-Maidan euphoria, Kolomoisky’s narcissism got the better of him, and he accepted a post as the governor of his home region of Dnepropetrovsk, in 2014.

The qualities that might have made him a tolerable rogue on TV, began to grate in a more official role. From his penchant for using the political arena to settle his business disputes, to creating his own paramilitary force by sponsoring anti-Russian battalions out of his own pocket, to his somewhat charmless habit of grilling and threatening to put in prison those less powerful than him in fits of pique (“You wait for me out here like a wife for a cheating husband,” begins a viral expletive-strewn rant against an overwhelmed Radio Free Europe reporter).

There is a temptation here for a comparison with a Donald Trump given a developing country to play with, but for all of the shenanigans, his ideological views have always been relatively straightforward. Despite his Russia-loathing patriotism, not even his fans know what Kolomoisky stands for.

The oligarch fell out with fellow billionaire Poroshenko in early 2015, following a battle over the control of a large oil transport company between the state and the governor. The following year, his Privat Bank, which at one point handled one in four financial transactions in the country was nationalized, though the government said that Kolomoisky had turned it into a mere shell by giving $5 billion of its savings to Privat Group companies.

Other significant assets were seized, the government took to London to launch a case against his international companies, and though never banished, Kolomoisky himself decided it would be safer if he spent as long as necessary jetting between his adopted homes in Switzerland and Tel Aviv, with the occasional trip to London for the foreseeable future.

But the adventurer falls – and rises again. The London case has been dropped due to lack of jurisdiction, and only last week a ruling came shockingly overturning the three-year-old nationalization of Privat Bank.

Smiling to himself, Kolomoisky would be within his rights to think that he has never had it so good.

Own man

Zelensky must disabuse him of that notion.

It doesn’t matter that they are friends. Or what handshake agreements they made beforehand. Or that he travelled to Geneva and Tel-Aviv 13 times in the past two years. Or what kompromat Kolomoisky may or may not have on him. It doesn’t matter that his head of security is the man who, for years, guarded the oligarch, and that he may quite genuinely fear for his own safety (it’s not like nothing bad has ever happened to Ukrainian presidents).

Volodymyr Zelensky is now the leader of a large country, with the backing of 13.5 million voters. It is to them that he promised a break with past bribery, graft and cronyism. Even by tolerating one man – and one who makes Poroshenko look wholesome – next to him, he discredits all of that. He will have the support of the people if he pits himself against the puppet master – no one would have elected Kolomoisky in his stead.

Whether the oligarch is told to stay away, whether Ukraine enables the financial fraud investigation into him that has been opened by the FBI, or if he is just treated to the letter of the law, all will be good enough. This is the first and main test, and millions who were prepared to accept the legal fiction of the independent candidate two months ago, will now want to see reality to match. Zelensky’s TV president protagonist in Servant of the People – also broadcast by Kolomoisky’s channel, obviously, would never have compromised like that.

What hinges on this is not just the fate of Zelensky’s presidency, but the chance for Ukraine to restore battered faith in its democracy shaken by a succession of compromised failures at the helm.

Igor Ogorodnev

Holy Land – Israel Converts Historic Mosque into Bar – Israel demolished hundreds of Palestinian mosques, cemeteries and other religious sites since the so-called “state’s creation” in 1948.

 April 29, 2019 3:10 PM  IMEMC News & Agencies IsraelNews Report 0

29 APR
3:10 PM

The Israeli municipality in Safed has turned Al-Ahmar Mosque into a bar and events hall, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported.

As one of the most historical mosques in the Arab city, which was occupied by the Jewish gangs in 1948, the building was first turned into a Jewish school, then into a centre for Likud’s elections campaigns and, then, into a clothes warehouse before finally being converted into a nightclub.

The London-based newspaper reported that the mosque was turned to a bar and wedding hall by an firm affiliated to the Israeli municipality. Its name was changed from Al-Ahmar Mosque to Khan Al-Ahmar.

Khair Tabari, secretary of Safed and Tiberias Islamic endowment, said that he had been waiting for the Nazareth court to take a decision regarding a complaint he filed requesting the evacuation of the mosque and returning it to the endowment.

He said he attached documents to prove Islamic ownership of the mosque. He called for the different political and popular bodies to increase their cooperation with him in order to save the mosque from violations.

Safed was once home to 12,000 Palestinians who were forced out of their homes in 1948.

Tabari said that the mosque is now open for use for everything except prayers by Muslims.

The Clash of Civilizations for Dummies: Judea’s War Between Christianity and Islam.

clash of cvilization

By Sabba, 16NOV17

INTRODUCTION – In this day and age where the Jews DO control the media and thus maintain 110% control of the discourse, most people have heard the phrase of “clash of civilizations”, a paradigm whereby the world of Islam has always been on the offensive against the Christian world, and many have endorsed it as the only key to understanding history.

It is widely accepted that this concept was born in the mind of the Israeli ‘historian’ Bernard Lewis and then popularized by Samuel Huntington. Given that all discourse these days where ‘Islamic’ issues are discussed, only do so accompanied by extended and completely erroneous statements about Islam, we are forced by those same rules therefore to highlight the jewishness of Bernard Lewis from the start because as a Jew, he sees everything with/through his own Torah lenses which teach one thing and one thing only: how to “utterly destroy everything that breathes” as a fulfillment of the messianic dream described many times within Jewish ‘sacred’ texts.

But contrary to the widely accepted view, this concept did not originate with Bernard Lewis and Samuel Hutington.

The idea featuring a Christian West fighting the Islamic East is all over rabbinical eschatological texts. It is not called ‘clash of civilizations’ per se but is described as the inevitable and apocalyptic fight that will take place in the end times between Edom (Christendom) and Ishmael (Islamic world) whereby each will annihilate the other, leaving Jacob-Israel as the sole survivor. As such, Lewis and Huntington have merely ‘secularized’ a very old Jewish and Torah-based view of the world and gave the Western Gentiles tailor-made Judaic lenses through which to understand our history and actively and willingly take part in what Judaism hopes will be the annihilation of both religions and cultures.

There are many main angles to approach this topic but in this part, we shall argue that in order to understand the Jewish engineered clash of civilizations, one needs to understand Judaism, what it really is, how it works and how it relates to Christianity and Islam from a geopolitical point of view.


judaism jews synagogue satan

Civilization is defined as the process by which a society reaches an advanced stage of social development, cooperation, and organization. In this manner, one cannot understand civilization without first factoring into it the issue of religion. All civilizations that have emerged on Earth from the beginning of human history have had a spiritual foundation, regardless of what that religion is or was. And all the world’s greatest religions, whether pagan or monotheistic, have led to a civilizing process and to progress.

All of them except for Judaism.

Unlike any other religion, Judaism has been at war against Mankind since it first emerged on the historical scene because, unlike any other religion, Judaism defines itself only in opposition to ‘the other’, whether other people and/or other systems of belief. It can not exist in a vacuum without a nemesis ‘to utterly destroy’.

Unlike any other religion, Judaism does NOT require belief in God and does not believe in Life after Death. It only requires obeisance to ‘the Law’ as laid out within the pages of both the Torah, and its exegesis, the Talmud, as well as allegiance to the Tribe. And although there is no immortality after death for the individual Jew however, the manner by which this is reconciled is by making the Jewish people itself immortal through tradition, the law, and allegiance to Jews as a group.

For the individual Jews, this life is all there is. There is no Judgement Day, no retribution for one’s evil deeds. This is perhaps the Jews’ greatest strength because they are free from the same moral constraints and guilt found within Christianity and Islam which allows them to empty an automatic rifle into the body of a Palestinian infant and go to bed afterwards and sleep like a baby.

But it is also their greatest weakness because their love of this world has carved into their individual and collective psyche an irrational and hyper-intensified fear of death, and it is this fear of death that has made them the world’s greatest cowards and deceivers.

Their disbelief in life after death is quite unique among the ancient religions in the midst of which Judaism emerged.

Ancient pagan religions all believed in an after life, though this was not granted to everyone but only to the most worthy, those who strove for it and deserved it. Rejoining the Gods, to be reunited with them was considered as the greatest reward of all. For the ancient pagan religions, life after death meant achieving immortality, earning Eternity and this is what is meant when we read that some historical characters became ‘gods’. For example, when Julius Caesar was deified, it never meant to the Romans that he became the equal to Jupiter. It only meant he had now become immortal, he was now floating in Eternity, in close vicinity of the ‘real Gods’.

But the Jews never reached any intellectual, spiritual and transcendental sophistication to understand what all other pagan religions understood instinctively and so the Jews rejected the idea of life after death and made the belief in God optional. Their goal is not to be reunited with their ‘God’ after death, their goal is to ‘utterly destroy everything that breathes’ in order to become the masters of this world and its riches.

It is also unique among monotheistic religions to have a ‘religion’ which does not require belief in God. While it is an oxymoron to be an atheist Christian or an atheist Muslim, it is 666% kosher in Judaism. This explains why it is so common to hear about ‘atheist’ or ‘secular’ Jews. For them, these are not contradictory terms at all. This explains why most of the materialist theoreticians were Jews, this is how a Moses Hesse could be a rabbi and a communist, this explains a Karl Marx-Mordechai Levy etc. An atheist Jew is still a Jew whose allegiance is to the Tribe, whether he follows the Law or not and the tribe will always consider him as part of them. And this explains why so many of us are fooled by Judaism because we apply to it our Christian/Islamic understanding of Religion.

Lastly, unlike any other religion, Judaism is always a religion in the making. The verses of the Torah are constantly re-examined, re-interpreted in the light of current events, for one purpose and one purpose only: identify who they must “utterly destroy” to achieve their messianic dreams of world domination.



One event or rather one man forced Judaism to come out of its closet: Jesus, the Son of Man, the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary (PBUT both). Jesus forced Judaism to reveal itself for what it is: not a religion but a materialistic and satanic ‘philosophy’ which made God completely irrelevant and which was built only on the concepts of choseness and blind obeisance to the Law, in exchange of which they would be rewarded with all the world and its riches.

With the advent of Christianity, Judaism has taken a new shape and has since developed itself exclusively against the Son of Man (Adam?), his name, his legacy and anyone who accepts him as the Christ. With the advent of Christianity, the Torah had to be re-interpreted and a new strategy to achieve their messianic goals was formulated.

Esau is Edom is Christianity is Rome is Europe is the ‘West’ and Christendom has been upgraded to number one enemy to ‘utterly destroy’..

The gloomy fate of Edom which is described in the Book of Obadiah must now be applied to the Christian world in general and the ROMAN Catholic world in particular: “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken it.”

The Book of Daniel has also been re-examined under the Christian Light and the Fourth Beast of Daniel has now become Rome and her daughter, ROMAN Catholic Europe.



But in the VIIth century AD, the rabbis had to revise their plans once again because a new comer emerged in Arabia – Islam. This new comer violently rejects the concept of Choseness, confirms Jesus as the Messiah and has elevated the Blessed Virgin Mary into the most exalted place and hailed her as the greatest of all women for all Eternity.

For this reason, Islam has been labelled as yet another enemy ‘to utterly destroy’. The Torah has been re-interpreted to include and adjust to the new geopolitical context and this is how Islam has now become Ishmael.

But Islam, like her older sister Christianity, has given rise to a strong and extremely rich civilization which can not be easily destroyed. The rabbis understood very early on that they would never be able to take on these 2 powerful civilizing religions and, Judaism being a work in constant ‘progress’, the rabbis concocted a new strategy that would ensure the simultaneous destruction of both – welcome to the clash of Civilizations as detailed in the Zohar:

“And in the future, the children of Ishmael are destined to rule over the Holy Land for a long time when it is empty from anything, like their circumcision which is empty and imperfect (…) The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Muslims] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom] will rule over them[the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom.[The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]. At that time, a nation from the end of the earth will be aroused against evil Rome and wage war against it for three months. Nations will gather there, and [Rome] will fall into their hands (…) There will not remain any power of any people on earth, except the power of Israel alone. This is the meaning of “G-d is your shade upon your right hand”. (Psalms 121:5)”



Until the XIIIth century, the accepted judaic belief was that one day their Moshiach (our anti-Christ) would emerge in Rome, go to the Vatican, subdue the Pope, abolish Christianity, bring back all the Jews to Palestine and establish the Fifth Kingdom.

The XIIIth century saw a drastic change of plan on the part of the Jewish rabbinate. The very influential kabbalistic rabbi Nahmanides understood that they will never be able to achieve that goal alone, Moshiach or not; he understood that the Jews had to change their strategy and decided to involve Christian Europe: 

Edom/Rome/Christian Europe expelled them from the Holy Land. 

Edom/Rome/Christian Europe had to bring them back.

But medieval Europe was ROMAN Catholic, it was 666% anti-Jewish. How to change the European elites’ mindset and get them to become jew-friendly, and willing beast of burden for the Jews? Unable to do so ‘in the open’, they did by way of deception. As always.

The target back then as it is still now, according to Martin van Creveld, was Italy-Rome because this is where their Moshiach will appear. It started with the Jewish Kabbalah: they spread its teachings to Italy under the pretext that it proved the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus. The first Gentile to incorporate Jewish Kabbalah into his writings was Pico Della Mirandola. But the Kabbalah failed to take root in Italy or in any Latin country for that matter.

It then moved to the Germanic states and took them by storm. The Reformation came afterwards as the natural consequence of Kabbalah poisoning, with tragic and devastating effects for Christian Europe, the consequences which are only now in full view.

Half of Christian Europe having now succumbed to the siren’s songs of Judaism through the deception of the Reformation, the ‘clash of civilizations’ could now be officially launched and the idea popularized.

It is in the XVIth century that it was ‘secularized’ for the first time and made available to the wider Jewish audience by Joseph Ben Joshua Cohen.

According to Heinrich Grätz, Joseph Cohen “began to search for chronicles in order to write a sort of universal history in the form of annals. He began with the period of the decline of the Roman empire and the formation of the modern states, and represented the course of the world’s history as a struggle between Asia and Europe, between the Crescent and the Cross; the former represented by the then powerful dominion of Turkey; the latter, by France, which had set up Charlemagne, the first emperor of a Christian realm. He connected the whole of European history with these two groups of nations. He included all the events and wars of Christendom, and of the Mahometan countries in ” The Annals of the Kings of France and of the House of Othman,” the title of his historical work.”

Cohen has popularized what was until then known only to the Jewish rabbinical circles and the Jewish elites. Lewis and Hutington have done nothing more than update what Joseph Cohen had written in the XVIth century and adapt it to our modern world

[NOTE – We must pause here and reflect and ask: why, out of all European nations, has Jewish Kabbalah taken the Germanic states by storm? What have they seen in it which all Latin countries failed to see? Or what is it that prevented them to see it and the Reformation for what it was-Jewish onslaught on Christianity – and made them fall into this Jewish trap? Why have the Germanic nations been seduced by the Jewish concept of ‘Choseness – Election’? What have they found in the Torah which ensnared them to the point that they have made it their most important holy book and made them turn their backs on the teachings of Christ? I will leave the reader to answer these questions.]



The fallacy of the theory of the clash of civilizations is that it reads the history of the Muslim world under the light of the Quran, thus inferring that all that comes from there is religion based. It tells us that the world of Islam, by its very religion, is in a state of permanent war against Christendom.

Not only is it fallacious but it is an extremely dishonest historical approach because it would be like analyzing the bloody wars of Charlemagne or the countless wars of the Byzantine Empire before Islam under the light of the New Testament.

But the New Testament is never used to explain the wars of the Christian world, the Torah is never used to explain the 5000 years old Wars of the Jews against Mankind and yet, we are supposed to only understand the wars of the Islamic world through the Quran.

It is all the more baffling that the Old Testament is filled with orders to genocide while there is not one single Quranic verse which calls for an offensive war, let alone a pre-emptive war. Not a single one.

Dying for God is a common trait to all 3 monotheistic religions. However killing for God is entirely Jewish and was passed on to the Christian world through the Old Testament. 

It might come as a surprise to many but the idea of a holy war of aggression for God is Christian, borrowed from Judaism and was developed as early as the IVth century by St Augustine. Until the Crusades, we do not find any Islamic literature advocating a religious war of aggression. The concept of Jihad is something else entirely. With the Crusades and as reaction to them, the very Christian theory of Holy War of aggression for God had been conceptualized and the Muslims incorporated it and mixed it up with the pre-existent concept of Jihad.

It might also come as a surprise to most if not all Western readers, but the term ‘Infidels’ is a Christian terminology found all over European Medieval literature for the Muslims. The Muslims have never ever called the Christians ‘Infidels’, never. It was always the other way round.

The Arabic word Kafir which is always translated as ‘Infidels’ has quite a different meaning. Its primary signification is ‘ungrateful’, ungratefulness to God and not disbelief in God. Satan for example is called a ‘Kafir’, not because he disbelieved in God, but because he disobeyed his Creator. The Children of Adam (mankind) are sometimes called ‘Kafir’ whenever they show their ungratefulness to their Creator. The one thing it does not mean is Christians or Jews. On the other hand, when the Christians used and abused it, it was always in reference to the Muslims, never to those whom Christ himself identified as the Synagogue of Satan.

Lastly, it might also come as a surprise to many but until the world of academia had been taken over by the Jews, no Western Christian Historian ever explained the Islamic expansion or the wars the Muslims waged in the light of the Quran. More often than not, it was Genesis 17:20 which was used to explain the Islamic expansion, never the Quran.

The methodology to analyse the world of Islam by using and misquoting the Quran is entirely new, it is 666% kosher certified and has a 666% Jewish messianic agenda behind it and the West is falling for it, again despite Medieval History being littered with examples proving the exact opposite.


Image result for the iv crusade

We shall give here only a few examples to argue our point:

1) The Ashtiname of Muhammad, whereby Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) promises excommunication and eternal damnation to any Muslim who who attacks any Christian and their property.

2) The alliance between Charlemagne and Harun al Rashid. Charlemagne needed an ally in the Levant against the Roman Empire – Byzantium. Harun al Rashid needed an ally in Europe against the newly formed state of Al Andalus in Spain.

3) Pope Gregory VII, one of the most influential pope we ever had, sent a letter to Al Nasir ibn Alennas where he states: “We and you in a special way, more than all pagans among them, we owe this reciprocal charity to one another because we believe and recognize, although in different modes, the only God and praise and venerate Him every day, as Creator of the centuries and Governor of this world”

4) There are countless examples in the history of the Crusader States (not to be confused with the Crusades themselves) where we have one crusader state in alliance with a Muslim principality against another crusader state which had allied itself with another Muslim principality.

The history of the Crusader States provides many examples of the Christlamic mutual and virile respect for one another when they are in close vicinity of each other. All witness accounts of the Second and Third Crusades describe the horror felt by the new Crusaders freshly coming from Europe at the friendly relations the Crusader States had with their Muslim neighbours. And William of Tyre explains to us that it was the new comers who always spoilt it for the Latins of the Levant and who destroyed the equilibrium that had been built.

5) Before, during and after the Crusades, the Byzantine emperors saw the European Christians as their greatest enemies, not the Muslims. And indeed, what the Crusaders did to Constantinople during the IVth Crusade (1204), their level of barbarity against their Christian Brethren had never been seen before and remained unmatched, not even the Ottomans could to surpass it when they took Constantinople in 1453.

It is the European Christian Crusaders who are the real destroyers of Byzantium, not the Ottomans. They weakened it to the point that it could never recover and regain its past glory. In the XIIth century, Constantinople was the greatest city of Christendom with at least 1 million inhabitant. By the end of of the IVth Crusade, its population fell to 400 000 people and by 1453, it did not have more than 50000 inhabitants.

All historians agree that it was the IVth Crusaders who paved the way for the Ottomans: 1453 could have never happened had 1204 not taken place and one might even argue that by 1453, when the Byzantines were triangulated, they deliberately chose to surrender to the Muslims rather than the Europeans whom they saw, and rightly so, as betrayers.

NOTE – Until the XIITh century, the Byzantines consistently refused to lower themselves into marrying European princes and princesses, deemed to low and beneath their Roman dignity. On the other hands, there has been many examples of a Byzantine Princess marrying a Muslim Prince.


Image result for joseph nasi and suleiman

Following the Alhambra Decree of 1492, the Jews started wandering again. Their main destinations were the United Provinces (modern day Netherlands), Morocco, Venice, Rome and the Ottoman Empire. Most of the Jews who had fled to Venice and Rome were soon expelled, yet again, and these then found a safe heaven in Ottoman Empire.

During the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Jews reached an unprecedented level of power, power which they never relinquished and which lead to a man named Atatürk.

According to Heinrich Grätz and Cecil Roth, it was under his rule that the Jews took over and dictated ALL of the Ottoman foreign policy to the point that a man like Joseph Nasi was considered the real ruler of the Ottoman empire.

The Jews ‘foreign policy’ can be summed up with one word: REVENGE against Christian Europe. The conquest of Cyprus, Rhodes, the siege of Vienna, the battle of Lepanto, all the wars against Venice, all the wars against the Habsburgs, were ALL decided by the Jewish advisers to the Ottoman sultans, who used the Ottomans as their attack dog the same the Jews are now using the USA as their attack dog.

Joseph Nasi is credited by Jewish historians as the man responsible for the ‘independence’ of the United Provinces from Catholic Habsburg Spain and for making Amsterdam, the ‘Jerusalem of the North’.

In fact, the power and influence Joseph Nasi had over Suleiman and his son Selim II were so great that Suleiman agreed to allow the very first Jewish immigration back to Palestine (Safed). For the first time since 135AD, the Jews were allowed to return to the Holy Land and settle there. But they did not. Why haven’t they seized the opportunity and repopulated Palestine en masse and even created the embryo of a Jewish State?

The reason is that it did not fit the agenda which must see Christendom ‘utterly destroyed’. Indeed, the only thing that kept the Jews alive as a group for the past 2000 years was not merely a vague dream of returning to the Holy Land some day but rather an insatiable hatred and an unquenchable desire of vengeance against Christ and his followers.

It was not Ishmael/the Muslims who kicked them and destroyed their temple: it was Edom-Rome-the Christians and only they had to undo what Titus and Hadrian had done. They expelled them and banned them form ever returning, only they had to bring them back and establish Eretz Israel for them, paying with their money and the blood of their children.

NOTE – It is interesting to note here that Suleiman is called the Magnificent in the West whereas he is known in the East as ‘Kanuni’, ‘the Law Giver’. We might wonder why the West who has suffered so much under his reign calls him ‘Magnificent’ when his own people do not see anything magnificent about him…


jesus money lender banker

The Middle East, where Islam and Christianity have been living side by side for over 1400 years, never witnessed such clash of civilizations, as defined by the Rabbis and popularized by Lewis and Hutington. Indeed, the Middle East is Christlamic at its core: its branches might be Islamic but its roots are entirely Christian.

We saw earlier that during the short time where the Latins had established Crusader States in the Levant, a cordial and respectful entente was soon established between Christians and Muslims. The colonial period never saw the rise of ‘radical’ Islam against the colonial powers and the subsequent independence movements of the XXth were all nationalists in nature, not Religion-based. Why then would the world of Islam all of a sudden decide to destroy Christendom?

Islam, as a religion, has never been on the offensive against Christ, his Blessed Mother, his followers, his legacy. Judaism has. In terms of values, ethos and way of life, Islam has never clashed with Christianity. Judaism does. However Islam does clash with Western values. And so does Christianity.

The ‘West’ is a geopolitical construct while Christian Europe is a historical reality and, in terms of values, ethos and way of life, the West and Christianity are antithetical.

The ‘West’, as a civilization, emerged on the ashes of ROMAN Catholic Europe and it was not Islam which destroyed it: it was the Reformation. Western civilization was born when the Judeo-Protestant nations became the leading nations in Europe and, with Britain at the fore-front, the leading nations in the world.

Western/Judeo-Protestant civilization is built on Torah ‘values’, the most important ones being Choseness/Election and usury and as such, Western civilization has in fact declared war against Christ, his message, his legacy. Protestantism is the new declaration of war against Christ and here lies the real goal of the clash of civilization: Jesus himself.


jews judaism anti semitism

Judaism is a declaration of war against Mankind in general and the followers of Christ in particular. Judaism is the most corrosive and destructive force in the world, something all Jews know and boast about:

“The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state.
We don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people. These are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that.
In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real. And that’s very upsetting to people.” Dr. Douglas Rushkoff

Just as Judaism exist only in opposition to other systems of beliefs, likewise the Jews exist only in opposition to the Civilized Man.

The Jews have never built anything, have never contributed anything into the civilizing process of Humanity. They count for nothing and would have never made it into any History book had it not been for their systematic efforts of destruction of everything that is holy, wholesome and pure. They only exist in opposition to Civilization, their raison d’être is to destroy and corrupt everything God has created and destroy every Civilizations the Children of Adam have built.

“We Jews, we the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. NOTHING that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy, because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.” –“You Gentiles” Maurice Samuel

Civilizations do not clash, they cooperate, they engage in trade, they borrow from each other, the develop and flourish alongside each other, they live in mutual and virile respect of one another, as we witnessed within the Crusader States (again, not to be confused with the Crusades).

It is only the nomadic, parasitic elements who, unable to reach the same level of sophistication as the Civilized Man and who thus suffer from an incurable complex of inferiority, aim at the destruction of Civilizations to bring everyone else to their level. Wandering roots always create weeds within civilized lands.

Judaism and Judaism alone – not Islam – has made it very clear that it is at war against Christ and, by extension, anyone who believes in him and, while it should be clear to all true Christians and Muslims that their only salvation is to unite under the banner of Christ against their common enemy, it baffles the mind to see the Christian West almost looking forward to go to battle against the only other group of people who believes in the Messiahship of Jesus.

Judaism and anyone who accepts it, regardless of their DNA, has declared the Christians and the Muslims enemy because of Christ. It is time we reciprocate and declare Judaism, the Old Testament and anyone who follows it, as our enemy, in the name of Christ.



With the advent of Christianity, Judaism had redefined itself and its goals in opposition to Christ. Not only must they now achieve world domination, but that world domination can not be attained unless and until Christianity/Europe/Rome is destroyed, erased from the face of the earth which they hope will happen by pitting the only civilizing religions which recognize Jesus as the Messiah against one another.

Can it be averted? And if so, how?

The Christians must finally realize that the Jews are not their ‘friends’, never were and never will be. The Christians must finally realize that their only friends and allies are the Muslims. The Christians must finally realize that, while the Jews believe that Christ is a bastard, the Muslims not only believe that he is a Prophet of God but a unique type of Prophet: he is the Messiah, the only Messiah, who came and who will come back at the end of History to rule the world. The Christians must finally realize that what is discussed is a geopolitical alliance and not any kind of syncretism.

Russia and China are strong allies and that does not mean that the Chinese must now adopt Orthodox Christianity. Russia and Iran are allies and that does not mean that the Iranians must now all convert to Orthodox Christianity. Likewise, when a Crescent and Cross or a Christlamic geopolitical alliance is suggested, that does not mean anyone giving up his/her religion. The Muslims understand it; the Orthodox Christians understand it but for some strange reason, the Christian West can not.

The first step to avoid this diabolical Jewish trap is to get the Muslims and the Christians to unite under the Banner of Christ and to finally reject the Jewish Old Testament.

The Christians and the Muslims must give up their arrogance and pedantic claims that they understand the Torah better than the Jews themselves. How we understand it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how they understand it and live by it. And for anyone who still fails to understand what it means to live by the Torah, let them look at the Bolshevik Revolution and Palestine. This is the Torah put into practice. This is what Judaism is about.

The Jews commit all the evil which their Torah, not Herzl’s Judenstaat, orders them to do and it is the useful idiots from the Chritlamic world who always come to the rescue and defend their satanic scriptures. 

While we can somehow understand the Christian stance on this (because they made the monstrous mistake to include the Old Testament into their own Holy Scriptures), it is a mystery for me to see the Muslims do the same, despite what the Quran says about them.

All Muslims know that the Jews have re-written their Torah and have thus stop being the Children of Israel and became the Synagogue of Satan. And yet, they still fail to recognize that the Judaism followed by the Jews is NOT the Judaism talked about in the Quran.

Christians and Muslims must understand and accept that the Jews do not want ‘your’ Judaism: they only want the Judaism that was written by the lying pens of scribes in the tongue of their father the devil; they want the Judaism that teaches that it is perfectly kosher to defile, insult, blaspheme and kill the Prophets of God (PBUT all), they want the Judaism that says it is perfectly halal to rape children and kill all non-Jews.

The Muslims claim they love all the Prophets of God, that they believe in all of them and make no difference between any of them. We have seen their outburst of indignation and anger when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is being blasphemed against. Where is their indignation and anger against Judaism itself which has made all the Prophets whom they claim they love, into the vilest and most disgusting creatures that have walked the earth?

Judaism is THE problem and it has to go and it will go. The Holy Quran tells us so in the most unequivocal manner: when Jesus come back, all the Jews will have to believe in him as the Messiah. In other words, when Jesus comes back, Judaism will be vanquished, Judaism will no longer be, Judaism will disappear from the face of the earth.

The Messiahship of Christ and the sinfulness of the Prophets should be more than enough reason for the Muslims and Christians to unite and jointly de-legitimize the Jewish Torah and thus prevent this Jewish engineered clash of mutual assured destruction between Edom and Ishmael. When John and Jesus departed this world, they had left the ax at the root of the tree. It is now for us to cut off the tree at its roots and it starts with cutting off all ties with the Old Testament.

christian muslim

Share this:

Martin Luther (Author) “On The Jews and Their Lies”

Israeli forces injure 110 civilians in Gaza, including 37 children

Israeli forces injure 110 civilians in Gaza, including 37 children

Reposted from IMEMC & PCHR, April 26

On Friday, 26 April 2019, in excessive use of force against peaceful protesters on the 56thFriday of the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege, Israeli forces wounded 110 civilians, including 37 children, 3 women, 4 paramedics, and a journalist, in the eastern Gaza Strip.  Two of those wounded sustained serious wounds.

According to observations by PCHR’s fieldworkers, the Israeli forces who stationed in prone positions and in military jeeps along the fence with Israel continued to use excessive force against the protesters by firing bullets and tear gas canisters at them.  As a result, dozens of the protesters were hit with bullets and teargas canisters without posing any imminent threat or danger to the life of soldiers.

During this week, Israeli forces have escalated their attacks against the medical personnel in the field, wounding 4 members of them. This indicates that there is an Israeli systematic policy to target the medical personnel and obstruct their humanitarian work that is guaranteed under the rules of the international humanitarian law.

On Friday, 26 April 2019, the incidents were as follows:

At approximately 16:00, thousands of civilians, including women, children and entire families, started swarming to the five encampments established by the Supreme National Authority of Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege adjacent to the border fence with Israel in eastern Gaza Strip cities.

Hundreds of protesters, including children and women,  gathered adjacent to the border fence with Israel in front of each encampment and its vicinity tens  and hundreds of meters away from the fence. The protesters chanted slogans, raised flags, and in very limited incidents attempted to approach the border fence and throw stones at the Israeli forces.

Although the protesters gathered in areas open to the Israeli snipers stationed on the top of the sand berms and military watchtowers and inside and behind the military jeeps, the Israeli forces fired live and rubber bullets in addition to a barrage of tear gas canisters. The Israeli shooting, which continued at around 19:00, resulted in the injury of 110 civilians, including 37 children, 3 women, 4 paramedics, and a journalist.

Ninty-five of those wounded were hit with live bullets and shrapnel, 43 were directly hit with tear gas canisters and 8 were hit with rubber bullets. In addition, dozens of civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and seizures due to tear gas canisters that were fired by the Israeli forces from the military jeeps and riffles in the eastern Gaza Strip.

Previous marches

Among those wounded since the marches began, 545 are in serious condition and 137 had their lower or upper limbs amputated; 123 lower-limb amputations, 14 upper-limb amputations, and 25 children had their limbs amputated according to the Ministry of Health.  The number of those wounded only include those wounded with live bullets and directly hit with tear gas canisters, as there have been thousand others who suffered tear gas inhalation and sustained bruises.

Gaza ِِAmputees Form First Ever Football Team in Hope to Join World Championships. Read more


Yousef Kronz, amputee, in hospital
Yousef Kronz was sitting on the ground well within Israel’s designated “safe zone,” wearing a Press vest, taking photos. When he stood up, he was shot in both legs by two different Israeli snipers. Another young man ran to help him, only to be shot in the leg as well. April 27, 2018.  Read more

PCHR reiterates Palestinians’ right to peaceful assembly to confront Israel and its forces’ denial of the legitimate and inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination, right to return and right to end the occupation of the Palestinian territory.

PCHR stresses that the Israeli forces should stop using excessive force and respond to the legitimate demands of the demonstrators, particularly lifting the closure which is the real solution to end the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

PCHR reiterates the reported published in February by the UN Commission of Inquiry which emphasizes what came by PCHR and other Palestinian and international human rights organizations.  The report at the time concluded that the Israeli violations may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

PCHR emphasizes that continuously targeting civilians, who exercise their right to peaceful assembly or while carrying out their humanitarian duty, is a serious violation of the rules of international law, international humanitarian law, the ICC Rome Statute and Fourth Geneva Convention.

Thus, PCHR reiterates its call upon the ICC Prosecutor to open an official investigation in these crimes and to prosecute and hold accountable all those applying or involved in issuing orders within the Israeli Forces at the security and political echelons.

PCHR also emphasizes that the High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention should fulfill their obligation under Article 1; i.e., to respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances and their obligations under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

PCHR calls upon Switzerland, in its capacity as the Depository State for the Convention, to demand the High Contracting Parties to convene a meeting and ensure Israel’s respect for this Convention, noting that these grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions regarding the guarantee of Palestinian civilians’ right to protection in the occupied territories.

Below is a video taken part way through the demonstration


Facts & latest news on Gaza Great March of Return (periodically updated)

American Jewish Council misrepresents facts about Gaza

Israeli Soldiers Kill 4 Palestinians, Injure 316, In Gaza  – March 31, 2019

Video screened at UN Human Rights Council, Feb. 28, 2019:

Video news report on Gaza return march, published May 14, 2018


The Onion Not F*ing Around Anymore With Israel


Facts & latest news on Gaza Great March of Return (periodically updated)

Facts & latest news on Gaza Great March of Return (periodically updated)

Since March 30, Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip — including families, women, and children — have gathered along the Israeli border to highlight their dispossession in 1948 and protest the growing humanitarian catastrophe.

Israeli forces have killed at least 250 and injured over 29,000 protesters, including women, children, disabled individuals, medics, and journalists, since the beginning of the Great Return March on Palestinian Land. Many have been shot in the back, nearly all were unarmed and posed no risk to the heavily armed Israeli soldiers. Go here to learn the details of each death.

Gaza Factsheet on why Palestinians are marching

Take action here to stop Israel’s killing of unarmed demonstrators

We will post updates below as we learn of them. Please check back often.

You can also check IMEMCMa’anWAFA and Al Jazeera for their latest reports. Ha’aretz also often has valuable reports (though they’re sometimes slanted, are censored by the Israeli military, and often take their information from the IDF.)  You may also wish to share our Facebook graphic (at end of post) to inform others of what’s going on in Gaza, since U.S. media reports are sparse and often slanted and incomplete (see our report on AP below).

February 8: A PCHR press release reports that Israeli forces killed 2 Palestinian children and wounded 90 civilians, including 32 children, 3 women and a paramedic. PNN reports: “The spokesman for the Gaza Ministry of Health, Ashraf al-Qidra, said in a statement that 14-year-old Hassan Iyad Shalabi was fatally shot in the chest during a “Great March of Return” protest east of the city of Khan Yunis, located about 25 kilometers (15 miles) south of Gaza City, on Friday.

“Qidra added that Hamza Mohammed Roshdi Ashtiwi, 17, died east of the Gaza Strip after he was hit in the neck with a live bullet.

“He noted that 17 demonstrators suffered gunshot wounds, while dozens of Palestinians suffered excessive tear gas inhalation after Israeli forces sought to suppress the anti-occupation rallies…”

February 132 Palestinians were injured, including a paramedic who was hit with a tear-gas bomb directly in her face, 15 children, 4 women (2 of them paramedics), 1 journalist

January 25: 1 Palestinian killed in 44th Friday of Great March of Return

January 18: 30 Palestinians were injured, including 2 journalists and 3 paramedics.

January 11: Israeli forces kill Palestinian woman

January 4: Israeli Soldiers Injure Fifteen Palestinians, Including Medics And A Journalist

December 28: Israeli Forces Kill Palestinian Civilian With Disability and Wound 18 Other Civilians, including 4 Children and 2 Paramedics

December 21: Israeli forces shot dead 3 unarmed demonstrators, including a teenager and a disabled man, and injured 148 other protesters, including 20 children, three women, two journalists, and one paramedic.

December deaths include a 4-year-old boy who was shot twice with expanding bullets.

November deaths – at least 6 Palestinians were killed during Friday demonstrations in November; 7 more were killed in airstrikes in mid-November; and 7 were killed on November 11th when Israeli soldiers in disguises infiltrated Gaza on an assassination mission.

October 28 – 29 – Palestinian medics say three boys aged 12 to 14 were killed in an Israeli airstrike as the boys were allegedly “apparently involved in placing” an explosive device near the border fence; a 27-year old man was also killed.

October 26 – Israeli forces killed four more protesters in Gaza, and one in the West Bank.

October 19 – The Palestinian Health Ministry  in Gaza gas confirmed that Israeli soldiers injured 130 Palestinians live bullets and caused many others to suffer the effects of teargas inhalation; among the wounded are 30 children and four medics.

October 12 – On Friday afternoon, 12 October 2018, using excessive force against the peaceful protesters in the eastern Gaza Strip for the 29th Friday in a row, Israeli forces Killed 7 Palestinian civilians, including a child, and and wounded 224 others, including 42 children, 3 women, 3 journalists, and a paramedic with live bullets and direct tear gas canisters. Ten of those wounded sustained serious wounds. Sixteen of those wounded sustained serious wounds.

October 5 – Israeli forces killed 3 Palestinians, including a 12-year-old, and injured 376 others injured by live bullets, rubber-coated steel bullets, concussion grenades and tear gas canisters fired by Israeli forces at the latest ‘Great March of Return’ protests at the Gaza-Israel border on Friday.

September 28 – Israeli forces killed a 12 year-old, 2 teens, and 4 others taking part in an unarmed protest at the Gaza border. Israeli soldiers also injured at least 508 others, including 4 paramedics, 4 media journalists and 90 children, many shot with live ammunition.

September 21 – Israeli forces killed a 25-year-old and injured 312 – among the wounded are twenty children and two women.

Friday, Sept 7th – The Palestinian Health Ministry reported that Israeli soldiers killed a teenage boy, and injured at least 210 others…

August 31 – Israeli forces wounded 75 civilians, including 16 children, a journalist and 2 paramedics.

August 16-29  – Israeli forces continued to use excessive force against Palestinian protestors in the Gaza Strip. Two Palestinian civilians were killed, 239 civilians, including 52 children, 6 women, and 5 paramedics, were wounded; 10 of those wounded sustained serious injuries. 14 Palestinian civilians, including 4 children, were wounded and in the West Bank in addition to a foreign activist, who was wounded twice.

August 10 – Israeli forces shot dead two Palestinians, including one paramedic, as protesters gathered for the 20th week.

August 9 – At least three Palestinians, including a pregnant woman and her 18-month-old child, were killed by Israeli air attacks and artillery shelling.

August 5 – A young man who was injured during the first day of demonstrations, March 30th, died of his wounds. He was 17.

August 4 – A 15-year-old boy died of injuries he sustained the previous day in the Great March of Return.

August 3 – With an estimated 10,000 protesters, a 25-year-old man was killed, 220 were hurt (90 by live fire).

July 28 – A 17-year-old boy died from a live round he had received to the chest the previous day.

July 27 – A 12- year-old boy was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper, and a 45-year-old man – who had already been injured in the line of duty a month ago – was killed by live fire to the head.

July 25 – A 26-year-old Gazan man, who was wounded during the May 14 demonstration, died.

July 20 – Israeli forces bombarded targets in Gaza for over 4 hours overnight, hitting “over 60 Hamas targets,” according to Israeli army sources. This was in retaliation for the killing of an Israeli soldier by a Palestinian gunman (the first Israeli military death since the 2014 incursion, Operation Protective Edge). 4 Palestinians were also killed. At this time, a ceasefire is in place, but Israeli leaders are preparing for a possible “broad, painful military operation…more painful than Operation Protective Edge.”

July 13 – Israeli forces have shot dead a 15-year-old Palestinian during protests near the fence with Israel in the Gaza Strip, as demonstrations marked on Friday more than 100 days since the start of the Great March of Return mass rallies. Health officials in Gaza identified the victim as Othman Rami Hillis.

In advance of Friday’s protest, the organising committee called on residents to take part in the demonstration in a show of solidarity with Khan al-Ahmar, a Bedouin village in the occupied West Bank slated for total demolition by Israeli authorities. “From the unity of blood and unity of purpose, we declare Friday the day of solidarity with our people in the Khan al-Ahmar,” the committee said in a statement.

July 6 – The Palestinian Health Ministry has confirmed, Friday, that Israeli soldiers killed one Palestinian, and injured 396 others, after the army attacked the “Great Return March” processions, in the eastern parts of the besieged Gaza Strip. Mohammad Kamal Abu Halima, 22, died after he was shot by and Israeli soldier with a live round in the chest. 57 of the injured were hit by live fire. 119 (including 13 children and 3 women) were rushed to hospitals.

July 3 – Three women were shot and injured on Tuesday by live bullets fired by Israeli soldiers stationed at the border with Gaza and over 130 others received various kinds of injuries, as thousands of women participated in the “Palestinian Women for the Return and Breaking the Siege” protest.

July 2 – IDF troops opened fire on four Palestinians who allegedly infiltrated into Israel from the southern Gaza Strip on Monday and tried to set fire to an abandoned army position. An IDF force pursued the group and opened fire, killing one Palestinian, injuring two, and arresting another.

July 1 – A group of Palestinians breached the border fence in southern Gaza and set afire IDF equipment at an empty sniper outpost before escaping back into the Hamas-run coastal enclave.

June 30 – Israeli forces kill a 14-year-old and a 24-year-old, injure 415.

June 24 – Fifty-four amputations were carried out; seven of them in the upper extremities, 47 in the lower extremities, Al Ray reports.

June 23 – “I just want him to be a normal boy again’: Gaza Family Appeal for Urgent Help to Support Treatment of 11-year-old Mahmoud Who Was Shot in the Face by an Israeli Sniper

video at

May 29 – WATCH: Israel blocks Gaza boats taking patients and students abroad

May 14 – Canadian doctor: Israeli soldiers shot me in both legs as I was treating injured protesters in Gaza

Reporters Without Borders has asked the International Criminal Court to investigate Israeli sniper fire on journalists… 2 journalists have been killed and at least 90 injured since the start of the Great March of Return on March 30.

May 2 – Medics report new “butterfly bullet” and toxic gas. At least 45 Palestinians have been killed, about 7,000 wounded according to Al Jazeera. The wounded include at least 24 who have had limbs amputated.

Butterfly bullet

Medics report a new type of bullet – the “butterfly bullet,” which explodes on impact, causing severe injuries. Gaza’s health ministry spokesman, Ashraf al Qedra, explained that the size of the wounds indicates that “an explosion happened inside the body,” and that victims’ “internal organs [are] totally destroyed, pulverized.”

Each of the 24 amputees and the majority of those killed were victims of butterfly bullets, the deadliest Israel has ever used, according to al Qedra.

The severity of these wounds has been a challenge to Gaza’s local medics and staff from Doctors Without Borders. They report that there will be a need for “complex surgical operations.”

Explosive rounds have been banned internationally since the Hague Convention of 1899.

Palestinians also report an unknown toxic, yellow-green gas being shot at the demonstrators. The gas has caused severe convulsions in many protesters.

April 26 – 40 Dead, 5,511 Wounded: UN Releases Figures on Palestinian Casualties in Gaza’s Mass Protests on Israel Border…

April 25 – Second Gazan Journalist Shot by Israel During Border Protest Dies of Wounds. Ahmed Abu Hussein was shot in the stomach while documenting the protest on Israel-Gaza border… (See Timeline of deaths of all Palestinians and Israelis killed since 2000)

April 20 – Mass demonstrations along Israel’s perimeter fence with Gaza took place today, for the fourth consecutive Friday, as part of the ‘Great March of Return’ expected to continue up to 15 May. As of 19:00, four Palestinians, including one child, have been killed by Israeli forces during the events, and 729, including 45 children, have been injured, according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza. The MoH also indicated that 42 per cent of the injuries (305 people) have been hospitalized, including 156 people hit by live ammunition. With limited resources, health providers are struggling to deal with the massive influx of casualties and are in urgent need of additional support and funding.

Paramedics who evacuated the child killed today indicated that he was shot with live ammunition to the head, at around 50 meters from the fence, east of Jabalia, with no evidence that the posed any threat to Israeli forces.

April 20 – Israeli forces kill 2 more and injure 83 – The Gaza Health Ministry said Israeli soldiers shot five Palestinians, including a medic who was shot with a live round in the head, and a journalist who was wearing a clearly marked press vest and helmet… It added that the soldiers killed Ahmad Nabil Abu ‘Aqel, 25, who is physically challenged, after shooting them with an expanding bullet in the head….

Five House Democrats issue statement against Israeli military shooting unarmed Gaza protesters, April 12 – Statement calls on Israeli soldiers to refrain from shooting live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian protesters… calls on Palestinians to exercise their rights nonviolently, says the vast majority are doing so… By Mark Pocan (WI-02), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Barbara Lee (CA-13), and Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. (GA-04)

CNN – Israeli forces have injured over 500 Gazans on Friday, April 13th

OCHA report April 13 

US Churches & Agencies issue statement on Gaza: “As US churches and Christian agencies, we support the Palestinian people as they courageously stand up for their rights.” Statement supports refugees rights, calls for end of blockade of Gaza, calls for U.S. to censure Israeli violence…

Elizabeth Warren finally mentions Gaza – Warren, after obeying the Israel lobby for years, has finally said something: “I am deeply concerned about the deaths and injuries in Gaza, As additional protests are planned for the coming days, the Israel Defense Forces should exercise restraint and respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest.” This follows statements by Betty McCollum Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee (see below).

“other high-profile Democratic senators were also asked about Gaza: New Jersey’s Cory Booker and New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand did not respond.California’s Kamala Harris’s “office said it would send a statement, but did not do so or respond to a follow-up inquiry.”

Watch: Israeli soldiers cheer as they shoot Palestinian 

Watch: Geraldo Rivera tells Fox News he regrets not speaking out against Israel’s “constant occupation and oppression” of Palestinians

CPJ calls on Israel to hold killers of Yaser Murtaja to account … Pictures posted on social media by local journalists and witness testimony from local journalists show that Murtaja was wearing a bulletproof vest and helmet that were both clearly marked with the words “PRESS” when he was hit…

Daily Sabah: Israelis gather by Gaza border to watch and cheer as military uses live fire against Palestinians – “A disturbing image of young Israelis sitting by the Gaza border, cheering and watching as bombs fall on Palestinians just a few miles away has evoked widespread condemnation as it circulated on social media. (link)

“In the photo, shared by Nir Dvori a reporter at Israeli Channel 2 television news on Friday, seven young Israeli adults are seen smiling and waving at the cameras as they sit on an observation tower in Nahal Oz, outside the fenced-off Gaza strip.

“Many likened the scene to an “outdoor cinema,” calling it disgusting and barbaric to watch as the Israeli military uses live fire and excessive force against Palestinian protesters…. read more

Headlines from Gaza: Massacre in Gaza continues: 

Journalist shot by Israeli forces dies from his wounds… Journalist Yaser Murtaja was shot while wearing a vest marking him as a member of the press… Six journalists shot by Israel during Gaza protests

The UK Independent: Video shows moment Israeli sniper shoots Palestinian footballer in the knee, ending his career:  Mohammed Khalil needs knee replacement surgery if he is to walk again. A Palestinian football player filmed the moment he appears to get shot in the knee, destroying the joint and his career…

Ha’aretz, Amira Haas: In Gaza, Israel Surpasses Its Usual Evil: Israelis have become inured to historical associations; it’s no wonder they can justify lethal fire against unarmed demonstrators…… The two massacres carried out by Israeli soldiers against Gazans during the 1956 Sinai war have fled our awareness as if they never happened, despite the documentation….  According to a report by the head of UNRWA submitted to the United Nations in January 1957, on November 3, Israeli soldiers killed 275 Palestinians — 140 refugees and 135 local residents. On November 12 (after the fighting had ended), Israeli soldiers in Rafah killed 103 refugees, seven local residents and one Egyptian…. In 1991, Israel began a process of effectively imprisoning all Gaza residents. In September 2007, Ehud Olmert’s government decided on a total siege, including limiting imports of food products and raw materials and banning exports….  In assaults on Gaza since 2008, the Israeli criteria for permissible, proportionate killing according to Jewish ethics have become clearer. An Islamic Jihad fighter who is sleeping is a suitable target. Hamas operatives’ families, including children, also deserve to be killed. So do their neighbors. So does anyone who boils water for tea on an open fire. So does anyone who plays in the police orchestra…

B’Tselem: Tomorrow (Thursday) B’Tselem will launch a campaign entitled “Sorry Commander, I cannot shoot”. The campaign will include newspaper advertisements clarifying to soldiers that they must refuse to open fire on unarmed demonstrators….. The responsibility for issuing these unlawful orders and for their lethal consequences rests with the policy makers and – above all – with Israel’s prime minister, defense minister, and the chief of staff….., it is also a criminal offense to obey patently illegal orders. Therefore, as long as soldiers in the field continue to receive orders to use live fire against unarmed civilians, they are duty-bound to refuse to comply.

B’Tselem:  Why Israeli soldiers must refuse to fire at unarmed Palestinian protesters:  The use of live ammunition against unarmed persons who pose no danger to anyone is unlawful…. Responses by Israeli officials clearly show that Friday’s grave outcomes were the expected, and indeed looked-for, implementation of a policy formulated beforehand. The military therefore enjoyed full backing for its conduct….. The preparations for the demonstrations planned for this Friday are very similar. At first, it was reported that the military had stated that it did not intend to change its open-fire regulations…. it is also a criminal offense to obey patently illegal orders. Therefore, as long as soldiers in the field continue to receive orders to use live fire against unarmed civilians, they are duty-bound to refuse to comply.

IMEMCPalestinian medical sources have reported, Thursday, that Israeli soldiers killed one Palestinian with a missile fired from an armed drone, late on Wednesday at night, while another Palestinian died from wounds he suffered last Friday, in the Gaza Strip… an armed Israeli military drone fired a missile at Palestinian protesters, killing one of them, and wounding several others. Palestinian medics were unable to enter the area due to Israeli army fire…. identified as Mojahed Nabil al-Khodary, 23, from Gaza city… Red Crescent Medics located the mutilated remains of the slain Palestinian, east of the Zeitoun neighborhood, southeast of Gaza city… the soldiers also shot five Palestinians five live fire and caused dozens to suffer the effects of teargas inhalation in the same area… reportedly had special needs… injured more than a thousand, including at least 200 children,  have been injured, many seriously…. In related news, Israeli navy ships opened fire on several Palestinian fishing boats, in Gaza territorial waters, in the western part of the coastal region, moderately wounding three Palestinians… Washington Post: …”Of the 21 dead so far, 15 were killed during border protests, and videos and witness accounts indicate that most were not armed or carrying out attacks at the moment they were killed.”

Ha’aretz: This Is Zionism as Racism. This Is Israel at 70…  “Eli Hazan, a spokesman for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud, referred to the men, women, children and elderly protesters camped hundreds of meters from the border fence, and told i24 News Monday without flinching: ‘All 30,000 are legitimate targets.’”…

Washington Post/Common Dreams: For Israel, There’s Little Political Cost to Killing Palestinians ….“’I took my grandchildren. We went to a peaceful demonstration,’ Fayik Sabbagh told The Washington Post. “We went there to tell them this is our land, but what we found was different.”

“Israeli authorities claimed they opened fire in response to some protesters who had encroached near the fence, burning tires and hurling stones or molotov cocktails. Footage that emerged from the chaotic scene suggested Israeli soldiers targeted unarmed protesters, including some who were running away and were shot from a distance by snipers.

“One victim was 20-year-old Badr Sabbagh, Fayik’s son, who was killed just minutes after arriving to watch the protests. “He asked for a cigarette, I gave it to him, he had two puffs, and then he was shot in the head,” his brother Mohammed told The Post….

Israeli forces shoot dead a 25 year old in Gaza. (April 3)

Human Rights Watch: Israel: Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated. Officials Green-Light Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators. “The Israeli government presented no evidence that rock-throwing and other violence by some demonstrators seriously threatened Israeli soldiers across the border fence. The high number of deaths and injuries was the foreseeable consequence of granting soldiers leeway to use lethal force outside of life-threatening situations in violation of international norms, coupled with the longstanding culture of impunity within the Israeli army for serious abuses…

Al Jazeera… Gaza hospitals: ‘Israel was shooting to kill or cause disability’

Titter: Congresswoman Barbara Lee tweets that she’s “deeply concerned about the killing of peaceful Palestinian protestors”

CNN… Senator Bernie Sanders said he doesn’t believe the official response from Israeli authorities… “From what my understanding is, you have tens and tens of thousands of people who are engaged in a nonviolent protest. I believe now 15 or 20 people, Palestinians, have been killed and many, many others have been wounded. So I think it’s a difficult situation, but my assessment is that Israel overreacted on that,” the Vermont Independent told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday…. @SenSanders – The killing of Palestinian demonstrators by Israeli forces in Gaza is tragic. It is the right of all people to protest for a better future without a violent response….

Betty McCollum tweets against the shooting of peaceful Palestinian protestors

Ha’aretz: Gideon Levy: The Israel Massacre Forces

Israeli military snipers fired at hundreds of civilians, hitting over 750 and killing 15, but two Palestinians who dared return fire at the soldiers who were massacring them are “terrorists,” their actions labeled “terror attacks” and their sentence – death. The shooting on the Gaza border shows once again that the killing of Palestinians is accepted in Israel more lightly than the killing of mosquitoes  Read the rest of this entry

PLO (March 31, 2018) –  ….The Israeli army used unbridled violence, unleashing more than 100 snipers and firing live ammunition, tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets against the protestors before the very eyes of the entire international community. Yet, the UN Security Council failed to agree on a statement condemning the egregious violations that occurred at the hands of Israel.

…the United States and the United Kingdom blocked the statement. Such a counterproductive stance can render them complicit in Israel’s military occupation and in its persistent violations and violence. Neither one has displayed the moral or political courage to hold Israel to account and to curb its illegal behavior. Read more

OCHA… As of 22:00 today, 30 March, 15 Palestinians were killed and 1,416 were injured by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza. Of all injuries, approximately 750 were hit by live ammunition, including twenty, who are reported to be in a critical condition.

 Medical facilities in Gaza, which have already been overstrained by the longstanding shortages of medical supplies, electricity and fuel, are struggling to cope with the overwhelming number of casualties. The MoH has requested support from the international community, including humanitarian organizations through the Health Cluster. The MoH has also reported shortages of essential medical supplies, including emergency and anesthesia drugs and disposables, in addition to essential laboratory materials. The Health cluster is monitoring the situation and providing support, in coordination with all health partners. The Israeli-controlled Gaza crossings are closed until Sunday, 8 April, due to the Passover holiday, except for urgent humanitarian cases.

The casualties occurred in the context of mass demonstrations by Palestinians on the Gaza side of the perimeter fence with Israel, where the Israeli army imposes a ‘No Go Zone’. Today’s event, which marked the Palestinian ‘Land Day’, was the first in the ‘March of Return’, a series of mass peaceful protests leading up to the 70th anniversary of what Palestinians refer to as the 1948 ‘Nakba’, on 15 May. The events include the establishment of tent camps in all five Gaza governorates, some 700 metres from the fence. Read more

PCHR (Palestine Center for Human Rights)… PCHR emphasizes that before occurrence of demonstrations – previously declared by the organizers as peaceful demonstrations only calling for implementation of United Nation (UN) Resolution 194 and raising only Palestinian and UN flags – the Israeli forces sent threatening letters to intimidate the organizers and Gaza Strip residents in addition to deploying snipers and dog sniffer units along the borders with Gaza as declared by Spokesperson of the Israeli Army on his Facebook page.  The spokesperson also threatened that “ if needed, we will respond in the center of the Gaza Strip against those behind these violent protests,” Hinting about committing crimes of extra-judicial killings (assassinations)…

…PCHR also reiterates its call upon the High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances and their obligations under Article 146 to prosecute persons alleged to commit grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These grave breaches constitute war crimes under Article 147 of the same Convention and Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions regarding the guarantee of Palestinian civilians’ right to protection in the occupied territories. Read more

Haaretz: 12 Palestinians Killed… IDF fires live ammunition as 30,000 Palestinians demonstrate throughout Gaza for ‘March of Return’ ■ IDF expects demonstrations to continue for weeks ■ 27 Palestinians wounded in parallel West Bank demonstrations Updated this to 14 killed

CNN report…  The dead included one 16-year-old, the ministry said.
In northern Gaza, CNN witnessed at least two dozen people being taken away by ambulances in the span of half an hour. Injuries varied from rubber bullets, tear gas and live rounds fired by the Israeli military. The majority were young men — one woman was among the injured. Palestinian Red Crescent spokesman in Gaza told CNN that 355 injuries were from live bullets and included serious wounds to the head, abdomen and back… Tens of thousands of Palestinian protesters marched in Gaza, with smaller groups taking to the streets in the West Bank and Israel Friday…

The Independent, UK … Palestinian factions in Gaza, including the ruling Hamas, had ordered that the demonstration be peaceful, insisting marchers to keep well back from Israel’s barrier wall.

With 100 snipers positioned on the barrier, however, Israel’s preparations were a show of brute force and soon after dawn an Israeli tank shell had killed Omar Samour, a Palestinian farmer with land near the buffer zone – the first Return March martyr but certainly not the last.

Israel’s ruthless response to the Gaza’s peaceful Return March should come as no surprise. The Israeli military justified the show of force on the grounds that Hamas might exploit the event in some way with acts of violence. But Israel’s real fear of the “return marchers” runs far deeper. Nothing has ever frightened Israel more than the demands of Palestinian refugees for a right to return to their pre-1948 homes. And no group of refugees has a stronger case than those of Gaza who live within a few miles of their former villages… see video


We’ve created a fact sheet about Gaza that you can print and distribute. There is field where you can add your organization’s information as well.


Previous and related articles:

Updated: Israeli Soldiers Kill Eight Palestinians, Injure 1100 In Gaza

Israel deploys 100 sharpshooters against planned mass Gandhian demonstration by Gaza families

AP’s slanted report on Gaza Return March, corrected and annotated

Gaza ‘Return March’ organizer: ‘We’ll ensure it doesn’t escalate to violence — on our end’ 

IDF Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad: “We don’t do Gandhi very well”

Calling Bono: Your Palestinian Gandhis Exist … In Graves And Prisons 

The Nakba did not start or end in 1948: Key facts and figures on the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.


HAIFA – ‘Miss Holocaust Survivor’ crowned in Israel

Mania Herman, a Holocaust survivor participates in a "Miss Holocaust Survivor" beauty pageant, in the northern Israeli city of Haifa.
Mania Herman, a Holocaust survivor participates in a “Miss Holocaust Survivor” beauty pageant, in the northern Israeli city of Haifa.
By Sebastian Scheiner, AP

‘Miss Holocaust Survivor’ crowned in Israel

HAIFA, Israel (AP) — Grinning and waving, 14 women who survived the horrors of World War II paraded Thursday in an unusual pageant, vying for the honor of being crowned Israel’s first “Miss Holocaust Survivor.”

Billed by organizers as a celebration of life, the event also stirred controversy. In a country where millions have been touched by the Holocaust, many argued that judging aging women who had suffered so much on physical appearance was inappropriate, and even offensive.

“It sounds totally macabre to me,” said Colette Avital, chairwoman of Israel’s leading Holocaust survivors’ umbrella group. “I am in favor of enriching lives, but a one-time pageant masquerading (survivors) with beautiful clothes is not what is going to make their lives more meaningful.”

Pageant organizer Shimon Sabag rejected the criticism, saying the winners were chosen based on their personal stories of survival and rebuilding their lives after the war, and physical beauty was only a tiny part of the competition.

“They feel good together. They are having a good time and laughing in the rehearsals,” said Sabag, director of Yad Ezer L’Haver, or Helping Hand, which assists needy Holocaust survivors and organized the pageant.

“The fact that so many wanted to participate proves that it’s a good idea.”

Nearly 300 women from across Israel registered for the competition and contestants were whittled down to the 14 finalists who appeared Thursday.

The contest, part of Helping Hand’s annual “cultural” night, included a lavish dinner and music at a Haifa reception hall. Some 600 people attended, including two Cabinet ministers, Moshe Kahlon and Yossi Peled, himself a Holocaust survivor.

The women, ranging in age from 74 to 97, clearly enjoyed themselves. Wearing black dresses, earrings and necklaces, and sporting blue-and-white numbered sashes, they grinned and waved as they were introduced to the adoring audience. Music played as the contestants walked along a red carpet, introduced themselves and described their memories of World War II.

“I have the privilege to show the world that Hitler wanted to exterminate us and we are alive. We are also enjoying life. Thank God it’s that way,” said Esther Libber, a 74-year-old runner-up who fled her home in Poland as a child, hid in a forest and was rescued by a Polish woman. She said she lost her entire immediate family.

A four-judge panel consisting of three former beauty queens and a geriatric psychiatrist who specializes in treating Holocaust survivors chose the winner. Hava Hershkovitz, a soon-to-be 79-year-old, was banished from her home in Romania in 1941 and sent to a detention camp in the Soviet Union for three years. Today, she lives in an assisted living home run by Helping Hand.

“This place is full of survivors. It puts us at the center of attention so people will care. It’s not easy at this age to be in a beauty contest, but we’re all doing it to show that we’re still here,” the silver-haired Hershkovitz said.

Wearing a glittering tiara, she was joined by her granddaughter, Keren Hazan. “I’m very proud of her because she’s the most beautiful woman in the room tonight,” Hazan said.

In addition to the contestants’ accounts of surviving Nazi ghettos and concentration camps, their later contributions to their communities were also considered, Sabag said. Physical appearance was maybe “10 percent” of the criteria, he said, though a cosmetics company was recruited to help the women dress up for the occasion.

“We always tell them to dress well and look good. To think positive and to take care of themselves,” Sabag said. “Always look at life with a smile and continue to live.”

The thought that physical appearance could even remotely be a factor rubbed some the wrong way. Avital, of the Holocaust survivors’ umbrella group, criticized the cosmetics company, saying it was using Holocaust survivors in a cheap marketing stunt to promote their products.

“Why use a beauty contest to show that these people survived and that they’re brave?” wondered Lili Haber, a daughter of Holocaust survivors who heads an Israeli organization that assists survivors from Poland. “I think it’s awful. I think it’s something a decent person shouldn’t even think about.”

The Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany oversaw the systematic slaughter of 6 million European Jews, plays a unique role in Israeli society. The country gained independence in the wake of the Holocaust, serving as a refuge for hundreds of thousands of people who survived the genocide.

Nearly 200,000 aging survivors live in Israel today, and the country’s annual Holocaust Day is one of the most solemn occasions on the calendar. Restaurants and cinemas close, and the country comes to a standstill as sirens wail for two minutes. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, frequently make references to the Holocaust when discussing the threat they believe a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the Jewish state.

Thursday’s contest was among the many unconventional beauty pageants that have sprouted up over the years. The war-torn countries of Angola and Cambodia have held “Miss Landmine” contests for survivors of land mine explosions, Star Trek fans enjoy the “Miss Klingon Empire” contest in Atlanta, and plus-sized women in Thailand compete for the honor of “Miss Jumbo Queen.” There are also a senior citizens’ pageants in the U.S.

Gal Mor, editor of the popular Israeli blog “Holes in the Net,” said Thursday’s pageant was well-intentioned but misguided.

“Why should a decayed, competitive institution that emphasizes women’s appearance be used as inspiration, instead of allowing them to tell their story without gimmicks?” he wrote. “This is one step short of ‘Survivor-Holocaust’ or ‘Big Brother Auschwitz.’ It leaves a bad taste. Holocaust survivors should be above all this.”



Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

“…the minimum estimate of 9.3 million Germans who died needlessly after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported…”


I have been asked the questions: “Why was the Holocaust story invented? Who benefits from this falsification of history?” This article will answer these questions.

Justification for War with Germany

World War II was by far the bloodiest and most destructive war in human history. Many people wondered whether all of the death and destruction caused by the war had been necessary.

The so-called Holocaust was used by the Allies to demonize Germany and prove that their war effort was necessary to defeat such an evil nation.

With the liberation of Ohrdruf, Buchenwald and Dachau by the American army and the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops, large groups of Western observers confronted the horrors of the German camps for the first time. The gruesome scenes of huge piles of dead bodies and emaciated and diseased surviving inmates were filmed and photographed for posterity by the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to Germany to see the harrowing evidence at the camps for themselves. The horrific scenes in the German camps were used by the Allies to justify their participation in the war.[1]

Jewish historian Robert Jan van Pelt writes:

To the Allies, the discovery of the camps proved a final justification of their war effort. In 1940, Churchill had proclaimed that a Nazi victory would bring “a new Dark Age made more sinister by perverted science.” The liberation of the camps proved that Churchill had not exaggerated the danger. And even though Auschwitz had been liberated by the Russians, the English and Americans heard many stories about that camp.[2]


Establishment of Israel

       The Holocaust story has also been used to justify the creation of the State of Israel. Simon Wiesenthal writes:

“The creation of Israel was the only possible and the only correct reaction to Auschwitz. There had to be a country in the world where the Jews were the landlords instead of tolerated guests, a place of refuge in the truest meaning of the word, even for Jews who live in other countries.”[3]

David Ben-Gurion stated at the beginning of World War II that the war should end by giving the Zionists their own state. After the war, Ben-Gurion and other Israeli leaders said that the Holocaust had proven once again that the only solution to the Jewish problem was an independent state in Israel. David Ben-Gurion again mentioned during Adolf Eichmann’s trial that the Holocaust happened because Jews did not live in their own country.[4]

Israeli historian Tom Segev explains why the Holocaust story is so important to Israel:

      Israel differs from other countries in its need to justify—to the rest of the world, and to itself—its very right to exist. Most countries need no such ideological justifications. But Israel does—because most of its Arab neighbors have not recognized it and because most of the Jews of the world prefer to live in other countries. So long as these factors remain true, Zionism will be on the defensive. As a justification for the State of Israel, the Holocaust is comparable only to the divine promise contained in the Bible: It seems to be definitive proof of the Zionist argument that Jews can live in security and with full equal rights only in their own country and that they therefore must have an autonomous and sovereign state, strong enough to defend its existence.[5]

Tom Segev further writes:

“The demonization of Nazism and its mythologizing, in general, were also necessary since the Holocaust served as the main justification for the creation and existence of the State of Israel.”[6]


Justification of Israeli Violence

       There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages during Israel’s “War of Independence.” Zionist forces were larger and better equipped than their opponents, and by the end of the war over 750,000 Palestinians were ruthlessly expelled from their homes.[7] As Tom Segev writes, “Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and of cruelty.”[8]

Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Jewish immigrants numbered 100,000 in April 1949, most of them survivors of the so-called Holocaust. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants to Israel stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed.[9]

 The Holocaust story has been repeatedly used to justify Israel’s aggression against its neighbors. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin justified the demolition of an alleged Iraqi nuclear facility in June 1981 with the words, “We must protect our nation, a million and a half of whose children were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers.”[10]

Before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, Begin told his cabinet:

“You know what I have done and what we have all done to prevent war and loss of life. But such is our fate in Israel. There is no way other than to fight selflessly. Believe me, the alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will be no more Treblinkas.”[11]

A few weeks after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Begin stated that after the Holocaust the international community had lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions. Begin declared in the Knesset,

“No one, anywhere in the world, can preach morality to our people.”

A similar statement was included in the resolution adopted by Begin’s cabinet after the massacres in Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut.[12]

By the late 1980s there was hardly a day when the Holocaust story was not mentioned in one of the Israeli newspapers. Such constant exposure encouraged many Israeli soldiers to plan ways to exterminate the Arabs. According to Israeli education-corps officer Ehud Praver,

“too many soldiers were deducing that the Holocaust justifies every kind of disgraceful action.”[13]


German Guilt

The so-called Holocaust has also been effectively used to induce guilt in the German people. As British historian Ian Kershaw writes: “Decades would not fully erase the simple but compelling sentiment…‘I am ashamed to be German.’”[14]

Friedrich Grimm, a renowned German authority on international law, was shown samples of new leaflets printed soon after the war in German to be distributed by the Allies throughout Germany. Describing German war crimes, the leaflets were the first step in the reeducation program designed for Germany. Grimm suggested to an Allied officer that since the war was over, it was time to stop the libel. The Allied officer replied:

“Why no, we’re just getting started. We’ll continue this atrocity campaign, we’ll increase it till no one will want to hear a good word about the Germans anymore, till whatever sympathy there is for you in other countries is completely destroyed, and until the Germans themselves become so mixed up they won’t know what they’re doing!”[15]

The Allied campaign to make Germans feel guilty concerning the so-called Holocaust has been highly successful. German guilt is so powerful that it has caused the German government to make enormous reparations and offer humble apologies to the Allies. Millions of German expellees have paid reparations to survivors of the German concentration camps even though these German expellees had their land and personal possessions stolen from them.

James Bacque writes in regard to German feelings of guilt:

      Guilt pervades Germany like a religion. It is the “Canossa Republic,” penitent in pain before its judges. Guilt is so powerful that it has caused the Canossa Republic repeatedly to deny any intention of reclaiming sovereignty over the eastern lands, although it is a well-established UN principle that no government has the right to waive the claims of individuals to their property. Nor may it impede their right of return to their former homeland.[16]


Cover Up of Allied War Crimes

The Holocaust story has also been used to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans after World War II. German deaths after the war can be divided into three groups of people. The first group is the German prisoners of war (POW) in both Europe and the Soviet Union. The second group is the German expellees, and the third group is the Germans already residing in Germany. While no one will ever know how many Germans died from 1945 to 1950, it is certain that the deaths far exceed most traditional estimates. The great majority of these deaths were caused by the lethal policies imposed by the Allies against Germany after the war.              

A conservative estimate of German deaths in the Allied POW camps is 1.5 million. This includes over 517,000 POW deaths in the Soviet Union, 100,000 POW deaths in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries, with the remaining POW deaths in U.S. and French camps. The Germans who died in these Allied POW camps suffered miserably from exposure, disease, and slow starvation. This well-documented Allied atrocity is still denied by most historians today.

Probably a minimum of 2.1 million German expellees died in what was supposed to be an “orderly and humane” transfer. The estimate of 2.1 million German expellee deaths is acknowledged to be valid by most traditional historians. Notable authorities have estimated a much higher number of German expellee deaths.[17]

An estimated 5.7 million Germans already residing in Germany died from the starvation policies implemented by the Allies after the war. James Bacque details how this 5.7 million death total is calculated:

The population of all occupied Germany in October 1946 was 65,000,000, according to the census prepared under the ACC. The returning prisoners who were added to the population in the period October 1946-September 1950 numbered 2,600,000 (rounded), according to records in the archives of the four principal Allies. Births according to the official German statistical agency, Statistisches Bundesamt, added another 4,176,430 newcomers to Germany. The expellees arriving totaled 6,000,000. Thus the total population in 1950 before losses would have been 77,776,430, according to the Allies themselves. Deaths officially recorded in the period 1946-50 were 3,235,539, according to the UN Yearbook and the German government. Emigration was about 600,000, according to the German government. Thus the population found should have been 73,940,891. But the census of 1950 done by the German government under Allied supervision found only 68,230,796. There was a shortage of 5,710,095 people, according to the official Allied figures (rounded to 5,700,000).[18]

The sum of 1.5 million German POWs, 2.1 million German expellees, and 5.7 million German residents equals the minimum estimate of 9.3 million Germans who died needlessly after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported by the Allies, the German government or most historians. Instead, all we ever hear about is the alleged genocide of European Jewry.   


Allied Guilt and Apathy

The Allies have also been declared guilty of not doing more to prevent the alleged genocide of European Jewry. Jewish historian Deborah Lipstadt writes:

      A real antipathy toward Jews certainly affected the Allied response. While no one among the Allies or in the press wanted to see Jews killed, virtually no one was willing to advocate that steps be taken to try to stop the carnage. Many Allied officials in positions of power in London and Washington were tired of hearing about Jews and even more tired of being asked to do something about them even though there were steps that could have been taken.[19]

Elie Wiesel writes in regard to the Allies’ failure to rescue European Jewry, “It almost seems as if both diplomats and statesmen spent more time inventing reasons not to save the Jews than trying to find a way to save them.”[20]

U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have all made statements that the United States will never again fail to act to stop something as evil as the genocide of European Jewry. At the dedication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, President Bill Clinton spoke in a similar vein: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”[21]

Michael Goldberg says in regard to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

“The museum stands as a grim reminder that for all its purported ideals, America nevertheless turned its back on Jews fleeing Hitler…Hence, the museum’s recalling what happened to Jews in the past may move Americans and their national policymakers in Washington to support Israel in the present, lest in the future, the same fate lie in store for Jews again—and the same moral failure await Americans once more.”[22]

President Barack Obama affirmed on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau: “…we fervently vow that such atrocities will never happen again” and “History will not repeat itself.”[23] Of course, President Obama forgot to tell his audience that most of the inmates at Dachau died of natural causes. Obama also conveniently failed to mention that the single biggest atrocity that occurred at Dachau was the mass murder by American troops of 520 German guards on the day Dachau was liberated.[24]


Reparations to Jews

German guilt for the so-called Holocaust has resulted in massive reparations being paid to Holocaust survivors and the State of Israel. German reparations to Jews were discussed from the beginning of World War II.  Tom Segev writes:

      The idea [of reparations] seems to have been in the air from the time the war started, apparently sparked by the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. Ben-Guiron received a memorandum on the subject as early as 1940. Berl Katznelson spoke of it publicly toward the end of that year. By December 1942, there was already a private organization in Tel Aviv called Justicia that offered to help Nazi victims draft compensation demands.[25]

Hatred of Germans in Israel was intense after the war. Many advocated a special law barring Israelis from all social contacts with German citizens. However, since most Israelis felt that the Germans owed them massive reparations for the so-called Holocaust, Germany and Israel began negotiating reparations on March 20, 1952. The Luxembourg Agreement was reached six months later and committed the German government to paying massive reparations to Holocaust survivors.[26]

Nahum Goldmann said in a 1976 interview that the Luxembourg Agreement “constituted an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights.” Goldmann also boasted that he had obtained 10 to 14 times more from the Bonn government than he had originally expected.[27]

Millions of Jews eventually received personal compensation for their pain and suffering in the so-called Holocaust. The German federal government as of 1998 had paid reparations to Israel and Third Reich victims of about $61.8 billion. In addition, Germans had paid many additional billions in private and other public funds to wartime forced laborers.[28] German reparations to Israel and Jews continue to this day.[29]


Jewish Solidarity

The Holocaust story is described by many Jewish leaders as a uniquely evil event. An example of this view was expressed by Abraham H. Foxman when he was the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith:

      …The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.[30]

Michael Goldberg confirms that the Holocaust story has become a religion to many Jews: “As the Holocaust has become many contemporary Jews’ master story, so, too, its perpetual observance has become their paramount Jewish practice, its veneration their religion. And as with any organized church, this Holocaust cult has its own tenets of faith, rites, and shrines.[31]

Israelis are obsessed with the history and heritage of the Holocaust. A 1992 study of Israeli college students found that close to 80% of those asked identified with the statement, “We are all Holocaust survivors.” The so-called Holocaust has become a way for secular Jews to feel connected to their Jewish heritage.[32]

The Holocaust, which is remembered ritually through the observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day, is a major means of creating solidarity among Jews. While some Jewish communities experience conflicts among Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, they set aside their differences and join together to remember the so-called Holocaust. Any truth in Judaism’s slogan of “Jews Are One” manifests itself ritually on Holocaust Remembrance Day.[33]



The alleged genocide of European Jewry has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the State of Israel, to justify Israeli violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the Holocaust story in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that this falsification of history will continue in the future.



Layout 1
About Germany’s War


[1] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 165.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Wiesenthal, Simon, Justice Not Vengeance: New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989, p. 224.

[4] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 82, 185, 330.

[5] Ibid., p. 514.

[6] Ibid., p. 480.

[7] Weir, Alison, Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the U.S. was Used to Create Israel, 2014, p. 58.

[8] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 63.

[9] Ibid., pp. 161-162.

[10] Ibid., p. 399.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., pp. 407, 412.

[14] Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-45: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 840.

[15] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 263.

[16] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 175-176.

[17] Ibid., p. 124.

[18] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 115-116.

[19] Lipstatdt, Deborah E., Beyond Belief: The American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, New York: The Free Press, 1986, p. 277.

[20] Wyman, David S., The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, New York: The New Press, 2007, p. x.

[21] Ibid., pp. 342-343.

[22] Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 55.


[24] Buechner, Howard A., Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger, Metairie, LA: Thunderbird Press, Inc., 1986, pp. 5, 29, 96-97.

[25] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 104.

[26] Ibid., pp. 190-191, 227, 233.

[27] “West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1988, p. 245.

[28] “Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 6, November/December 1998, p. 19.

[29] See and

[30] ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2.

[31] Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 41.

[32] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 513, 515-516.

[33] Goldberg, Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 50.

Share this:

WW II – Many Allied Soldiers Despised The Deliberate Extermination of German POWs. Few Knew German Women & Children Were Also Being Tortured & Starved In Allied-Run Concentration Camps


He showed me photographs of human skeletons and letters from French camp commanders who have asked to be relieved because they can get no help from the French government and cannot stand to see the [German] prisoners dying from lack of food.


People were talking a horrifying death rate [of German POWs], not from sickness but starvation, and of men who weighed an average 35-45 kilos [80-100 pounds]. At first we doubted the truth of all this, but appeals came to us from many sources…

This is one of a series of published and planned articles detailing aspects of the Western Allies deliberate intention to murder possibly well over 1 million disarmed German POWs by means of unnecessary starvation, exposure, and illness.

On July 27, 1929, the Allies extended the Protective Regulations of the Geneva Convention for Wounded Soldiers to include prisoners of war (POWs). These regulations state:

“All accommodations should be equal to the standard of their troops. The Red Cross supervises. After the end of the hostilities the POWs should be released immediately.”

On March 10, 1945, Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, disregarded these regulations by classifying German prisoners captured on German territory as “Disarmed Enemy Forces” (DEFs). The German prisoners were therefore at the mercy of the Allies and were not protected by international law.

germany guilty 1932
Why? In 1932 Hitler had not even been elected and Jews lived without restriction in Germany.

Introduction: Comparison to German Camps

      The failure of the Red Cross and other relief agencies to supply the German POWs with food stands in stark contrast to the success of the Red Cross in Western Europe during the war. As the French, American, British and Canadian prisoners left German captivity at the end of World War II, the Red Cross was there to welcome them with food parcels drawn from the millions in storage in their warehouses in Switzerland. The returning prisoners had received about 1,500 calories per day from the Germans. Another life-saving 2,000 calories per day had arrived by mail, mainly from France, Canada and the United States. The effectiveness of the Red Cross care was demonstrated by the fact that, according to a news release of the American Red Cross in May 1945, over 98% of the Allied prisoners were coming home safe.  The released prisoners were in good health not only because of the food, but also because of clothing and medicine which had arrived safely by mail.[i]

The horrific scenes encountered by U.S. and British troops when they entered German concentration camps at the end of World War II have been used to prove a German policy of extermination of the Jews. As gruesome as these scenes were, it was soon discovered that most of the deaths in the German camps were caused by disease and other natural causes. None of the autopsy reports show that anyone died of poison gas. Also, contrary to publicized claims, no researcher has been able to document a German policy of extermination through starvation in the German camps. The virtual collapse of Germany’s food, transport, and public health systems and the extreme overcrowding in the German camps at the end of the war led to the catastrophe the Allied troops encountered when they entered the camps.[ii]



germany destroyed by bombing
The sustained saturation bombing of Germany created horrific conditions across the nation. One of the best known Jewish ‘Holocaust-Survivors’ Eli Wiesel decided to evacuate Birkenau and travel to Buchenwald with the Germans rather than be liberated by the Russian army. Why did he and many others, including his father, voluntarily flee under the promised protection of his ‘Nazi’ captors vs wait for the Allied-Soviet liberators? Why did his Nazi captors share their extremely meager resources, including food, with him? The concentration camp autopsy reports were by credible experts including: Dr. Charles P. Larson, an American forensic pathologist, reputed as one of the world’s foremost medical detectives. Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health.




Germany also approached the ICRC immediately after war broke out with the Soviet Union to attempt to regulate the conditions of prisoners on both sides. The ICRC contacted Soviet ambassadors in London and Sweden, but the Soviet leaders in Moscow refused to cooperate. Germany also sent lists of their Russian prisoners to the Soviet government until September 1941. The German government eventually stopped sending these lists in response to the Soviet Union’s refusal to reciprocate.[iii]

Over the winter Germany made further efforts to establish relations with the Soviets in an attempt to introduce the provisions of The Hague and Geneva Conventions concerning POWs. Germany was rebuffed again. Hitler himself made an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services and urged Red Cross inspection of the camps. Stalin responded: “There are no Russian prisoners of war. The Russian soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans.”[iv]

Though ill-prepared Germany launched a preemptive strike against the USSR to defend Europe. The Soviet Union had amassed the largest, most powerful, and best equipped offensive [not defensive] army in history. Stalin was preparing to invade central and western Europe.

The death of millions of Russian POWs in German captivity constitutes one of the major tragedies of the Second World War. However, much of the blame for the terrible fate of these Soviet soldiers was due to the inflexibly cruel policies of Joseph Stalin. A major portion of the Soviet POWs who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them traitors and denied them the right to live. By preventing the ICRC from distributing food to the Soviet POWs in German captivity, Stalin needlessly caused the death of a large percentage of these Soviet POWs.

Thus, Germany did not intentionally mass murder its POWs and camp inmates during World War II. The Allies can not legitimately use revenge as a reason for their intentional starvation of German POWs after the end of the war.   



Additional Witnesses to the American and French POW Camps

german pows eisenhower death camps
German POWs were frequently afforded no shelter, with available supplies, under orders, deliberately withheld from them in stockpiles close by. Even access to the nearby Rhine River for water and hygienic bathing was denied.  They tried to create toilet trenches, many weak and frail men fell into them and died. Other men were simply buried alive by the Allies who drove bulldozers over them under the cover of night. Why at night? Didn’t the Allies want this glorious vengeance filmed for posterity?


In addition to American soldiers and German survivors, many other witnesses and government officials knew about the lethal conditions in the Allied prisoner of war (POW) camps. In an interview conducted in June 1945 with the U.S. Army, Dr. Konrad Adenauer deplored the U.S. death camps along the Rhine in very strong terms. Adenauer said:


      Some of the German PWs are being held in camps in a manner contrary to all humanitarian principles and flagrantly contrary to the Hague [and Geneva] Convention. All along the Rhine from Remagen-Sinzig to Ludwigshafen the German prisoners have been penned up for weeks without any protection from the weather, without drinking water, without medical care and with only a few slices of bread to eat. They could not even lie down on the floor [ground]. These were many hundreds of thousands. It is said that the same is true in the interior of Germany. These people died by the thousands. They stood day and night in wet mud up to their ankles! Conditions have improved during the past few weeks. Of course the enormous number of prisoners is one of the causes of these conditions but it is noteworthy that to the best of my knowledge, it took a great many weeks to improve at least the worst conditions. The impression made on the Germans by the publication of facts about the concentration camps was greatly weakened by this fact…I know that in the winter of 1941-1942 the Russian prisoners were very badly treated by the Germans and we ought to be ashamed of the fact, but I feel that you ought not to do the same thing. German prisoners too in camps ate grass and picked leaves from the trees because they were hungry exactly as the Russians unfortunately did….[1]


Dr. Adenauer’s description of the German men who “stood day and night in wet mud up to their ankles” as they died by the thousands is similar to the description of the prisoners in American camps along the Rhine made in April 1945 by U.S. Cols. Charles Beasley and James Mason, who said that the prisoners were “standing ankle-deep in mud.”


german pow pen
In March 1945, the Polish military command declared that the entire German people shared the blame for starting World War II. Over 105,000 Germans were sent to labor camps in Poland before their expulsion from Poland… it is estimated that as many as 50% of the inmates, mostly women and children, had died from torture, ill-treatment, malnutrition and diseases.
torture germans rhine meadows
The Rhine meadows also became systematic death fields. Americans did not get these images. German POWs on American soil were portrayed as pampered.


Dr. Joseph Kirsch, a French volunteer doctor who worked in an evacuation hospital for moribund prisoners of war, writes:


      I volunteered to the Military Government of the 21st [French] Military region [near Metz]…I was assigned to the French Military hospital at the little seminary of Montigny…In May 1945, the Americans who occupied the hospital at Legouest brought us every night by ambulance, stretchers loaded with moribund prisoners in German uniforms…These ambulances arrived by the back door…We lined up the stretchers in central hall. For treatment, we had nothing at our disposal. We could only perform elementary superficial examinations (auscultation), only to find out the anticipated cause of death in the night…for in the morning, more ambulances arrived with coffins and quicklime…These prisoners were in such extremely bad condition that my role was reduced to comforting the dying. This drama has obsessed me since the war; I consider it a horror.[2]


Similar to the experience of U.S. Cpl. Daniel McConnell, Dr. Kirsch discovered that these “hospitals” were merely places to take moribund prisoners rather than places to help the prisoners get well.

Prisoners transferred from the American camps to the French camps kept on starving. Journalist Jacques Fauvet wrote in Le Monde: “As one speaks today of Dachau, in 10 years people throughout the world will speak about camps like Saint Paul d’Eyjeaux,” where 17,000 prisoners taken over from the Americans in late July were dying so fast that within a few weeks two cemeteries of 200 graves each had been filled. The death rate by the end of September was 10 per day, or over 21% per year.

Germany spent almost $1Billion to prevent typhus type diseases spreading. Saturation bombing of Germany while the Allies unnecessarily prolonged WWII had a severe impact on all infrastructure.  Above: A few of the thousands of healthy babies born in Auschwitz. Below: Healthy Buchenwald inmates celebrating liberation.

buchenwald 1945


Fauvet challenged the question of revenge:

“People will object that the Germans weren’t very particular on the matter of feeding our men, but even if they did violate the Geneva Convention, that hardly seems to justify our following their example…People have often said that the best service that we could do the Germans would be to imitate them, so they would one day find us before the judgment of history, but it is to an ideal higher than mere dignity that France should remain faithful; it is to be regretted that the foreign press had to remind us of that…We didn’t suffer and fight to perpetuate the crimes of other times and places.”[3]

Jean-Pierre Pradervand, head of the delegations of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in France, went to inspect the French camp at Thorée les Pins in the late summer of 1945. This camp was already known in the village nearby as “Buchenwald” after the notorious German camp. Two thousand of the men at the camp were already so far gone that nothing could save them. Twenty of the prisoners died the day Pradervand was there. Approximately 6,000 of the prisoners would soon be dead unless they were immediately given food, clothing, shelter and medical care. All of the remaining prisoners were undernourished.

Pradervand first appealed directly to de Gaulle, who repeatedly ignored him. So Pradervand got in touch with the ICRC in Geneva, asking for action. On September 14, 1945, the ICRC in Geneva sent a devastating document to the State Department in Washington, D.C. based on Pradervand’s report of the conditions in the camp. The document requested that the U.S. government take emergency measures to supply the prisoners with food, medications, clothing, boots, blankets, and soap. The ICRC recommended that the United States increase rations in American camps in Europe to obviate the prolonged undernourishment of the German prisoners.[4]

Henry W. Dunning, who was in the prisoner of war department of the American Red Cross, also wrote on September 5, 1945, to the American Red Cross headquarters in Washington, D.C. Dunning stated:

      [T]he situation of the German prisoners of war in France has become desperate and shortly will become an open scandal. During the past week several Frenchmen, who were formerly prisoners of the Germans, have called on me to protest the treatment being given German prisoners of war by the French Government. Gen. Thrasher, commanding the Oise Intermediary sector, asked one of our field workers to come to Paris to see me about the same matter. Mrs. Dunning, returning from Bourges, reports that dozens of German prisoners are dying there weekly. I saw Pradervand who told me that the situation of German prisoners in France in many instances is worse than in the former German concentration camps. He showed me photographs of human skeletons and letters from French camp commanders who have asked to be relieved because they can get no help from the French government and cannot stand to see the prisoners dying from lack of food. Pradervand has appealed to everyone in the French government but to no avail.[5]


The French newspaper Le Figaro reported the horrific conditions of the prisoner camps in September 1945. The newspaper had been convinced by the testimony of impeccable witnesses, such as a priest, Father Le Meur, who had actually seen the prisoners starving in the camps. Le Figaro’s reporter, Serge Bromberger, wrote:

“The most serious source confirmed that the physical state of the prisoners was worse than deplorable. People were talking a horrifying death rate, not from sickness but starvation, and of men who weighed an average 35-45 kilos [80-100 pounds]. At first we doubted the truth of all this, but appeals came to us from many sources and we could not disregard the testimony of Father Le Meur, Assistant General Chaplain to the prisoners.”

Le Figaro interviewed French Gen. Louis Buisson, the head of the Prisoner of War Service, who admitted that the prisoners got only 900 to 1,000 calories per day. Buisson said,

“The doctors told us this was just enough for a man lying in bed never moving not to die too quickly.”[6]

Louis Clair wrote in The Progressive of the horrible conditions in the French camps of German POWs. He reported:


In a camp in the Sarthe district for 20,000 prisoners, inmates receive 900 calories a day; thus 12 die every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are unable to work at all anymore. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived in the camp: several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came.

In an Orleans camp, the commander received 16 francs a day per head or prisoner to buy food, but he spent only nine francs, so that the prisoners were starving. In the Charentes district, 2,500 of the 12,000 camp inmates are sick. A young French soldier writes to a friend just returned from a Nazi camp: “I watch those who made you suffer so much, dying of hunger, sleeping on cold cement floors, in no way protected from rain and wind. I see kids of 19, who beg me to give them certificates that they are healthy enough to join the French Foreign Legion…Yes, I who hated them so much, today can only feel pity for them.”

A witness reports on the camp in Langres: “I have seen them beaten with rifle butts and kicked with feet in the streets of the town because they broke down of overwork. Two or three of them die of exhaustion every week.”

In another camp near Langres, 700 prisoners slowly die of hunger; they have hardly any blankets and not enough straw to sleep on; there is a typhoid epidemic in the camp which has already spread to the neighboring village. In another camp prisoners receive only one meal a day but are expected to continue working. Elsewhere so many have died recently that the cemetery space was exhausted and another cemetery had to be built.

In a camp where prisoners work on the removal of mines, regular food supplies arrive only every second day so that “prisoners make themselves a soup of grass and some stolen vegetables.” All prisoners of this camp have contracted tuberculosis. Here and elsewhere treatment differs in no respect from the Nazi SS brutality. Many cases have been reported where men have been so horribly beaten that their limbs were broken. In one camp, men were awakened during the night, crawled out of their barracks and then shot “because of attempted escape.”

There are written affidavits proving that in certain camps commanding officers sold on the black market all the supplies that had been provided by American Army authorities; there are other affidavits stating that the prisoners were forced to take off their shoes and run the gauntlet. And so on, and so on…These are the facts.[7]


The ICRC inspecting the French camps in 1945 and 1946 reported time after time that conditions were “unsatisfactory,” “disturbing,” “alarming,” but very seldom that they were satisfactory. At the end of October 1946, the ICRC stated that “the situation at present is more than alarming. More than half the German POWs working are insufficiently clad and will not be able to stand up to the rigors of winter without running the gravest risks of disease. In such conditions a high number of deaths in the course of winter must be expected.” The same dire warnings were repeated in a report by the ICRC in 1947.[8]

Random shootings of prisoners were common in the French camps. Lt. Col. Barnes reported that drunken French army officers at Andernach one night drove their Jeep through the camp laughing and shouting as they blasted the prisoners with their Sten guns. The result was 47 prisoners dead and 55 wounded. French guards pretending to notice an escape attempt at another camp shot down 10 prisoners in their cages. The violence reached such heights in the 108th Infantry Regiment that Gen. Billotte, the commanding officer of the Region, recommended that the Regiment be dissolved. Billotte’s recommendation was based on the advice of Lt. Col. de Champvallier, the Regiment’s CO, who had given up attempting to discipline his men.[9]

French Capt. Julien thought as he walked in the former American camp of 32,000 prisoners at Dietersheim in July 1945, “This is just like Buchenwald and Dachau.” The muddy ground was “peopled with living skeletons,” some of whom died as he watched, others huddled under bits of cardboard. Women lying in holes in the ground stared at him with bulging bellies from hunger edema, old men with long grey hair watched him feebly, and starving children of six or seven looked at him with lifeless eyes. Julien could find no food at all in this camp. The two German doctors in the “hospital” were attempting to take care of the many dying patients stretched out on dirty blankets on the ground, between the marks of the tents the Americans had taken with them.

Every German was deemed a ‘Nazi’ and millions died due to LEGALLY ENFORCED starvation government policies. Meanwhile food and medical relief was available. Read here and also “British Will Not Feed Little Hitlerites: Our Initiative Crowned With Success.”


The 103,500 prisoners in five camps near Dietersheim were supposed to be part of the labor force given by the Americans to the French for reparations. However, of these prisoners the French counted 32,640 who could not work because they were old men, women, children less than eight years old, boys age eight to 14, terminally sick or cripples. All of these prisoners were immediately released. The prisoners found at another former U.S. camp at Hechtsheim were also in lamentable condition. The skeletal prisoners at Hechtsheim dressed in rags again reminded Capt. Julien of the victims in German concentration camps. In his report, Julien called the camps “bagnes de mort lents” or slow death camps.

Capt. Julien took immediate steps to improve conditions in the camps. The official army ration had been only 800 calories per person per day. This starvation level, which was the same as the German concentration camp at Belsen when it was liberated, was all that the French army allocated to POWs from its own supplies. Capt. Julien rounded up the women from the village, who immediately brought food to the camp. Julien received additional help in his efforts to improve conditions in the camps from “German authorities” and the ICRC. By August 1, 1945, over 90% of the prisoners were housed in tents, food rations were greatly increased, and the death rate had been cut by more than half. Capt. Julien’s system of improving the camps worked. The U.S. Army could have adopted Julien’s humanitarian methods, but chose instead to let the German POWs die of exposure and slow starvation.[10]

On a visit to one prison camp, Robert Murphy, who was the civilian political advisor to Eisenhower while he served for a few months as Military Governor, “was startled to see that our prisoners were almost as weak and emaciated as those I had observed in Nazi prison camps.” The commandant of the camp told Murphy that he had deliberately kept the inmates on a starvation diet. The commandant explained, “These Nazis are getting a dose of their own medicine.” Murphy was later able to get the commandant transferred to another post. It is uncertain how much conditions at the camp improved after the commandant’s transfer.[11]

Germany Must Perish
Calls to exterminate Germans seems to be a persistent obsession of certain Jews who were not even in Germany prior, during or after WWII. Meanwhile, Günther Wollny, who had been an inmate in both Auschwitz and Zgoda, stated after visiting an Allied-run prison camp that held German men, women and children after WWII: “I’d rather be 10 years in a German camp than one day in a Polish one.”


Purchase Germany’s War


[i] Bacque, James, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, 3rd edition, Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2011, pp. 67-68.


[ii] Wear, John, Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II, Upper Marlboro, MD: American Free Press, 2014, p. 383.


[iii] Tolstoy, Nikolai, Victims of Yalta: The Secret Betrayal of The Allies 1944-1947, New York and London: Pegasus Books, 1977, pp. 33-34.

[iv] Ibid., p. 34.


[1] Bacque, James, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, 3rd edition, Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2011, pp. 186-187.

[2] Ibid., p. xxxix.

[3] Ibid., pp. 97-98.

[4] Ibid., pp. 87-88.

[5] Ibid., p. 89.

[6] Ibid., p. 91.

[7] Clair, Louis, The Progressive, Jan. 14, 1946, p. 4. Quoted in Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 22-23.

[8] Bacque, James, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, 3rd edition, Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2011, p. 107.

[9] Ibid., pp. 85-86.

[10] Ibid., pp. 81-83.

[11] Ibid., pp. 144-145.

Alleged Poway synagogue shooter charged with murder

The Australian Jewish News

John Earnest (Screenshot from KGTV San Diego)

The alleged gunman in the attack on the Chabad of Poway synagogue near San Diego was charged with murder.

John Earnest, 19, was charged on Sunday afternoon with one count of murder in the first degree and three counts of attempted murder in the first degree, according to records posted on the website of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.

Lori Gilbert-Kaye, 60, was killed in the Saturday morning attack and three people, including an 8-year-old girl, were injured.

Earnest is not eligible for bail, according to the Sheriff’s Department. He is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday afternoon.

Local officials have accused Earnest of a hate crime. Authorities are working to determine whether state hate crimes laws can be applied and if he violated federal civil rights laws, the Daily Beast reported.

Earnest called in the shooting to police after fleeing the scene. He was taken into police custody several blocks from the synagogue, reportedly emerging from his car with his hands in the air. An assault rifle was found in the front seat of the vehicle, as was an action camera, indicating that he had planned to film the synagogue shooting.

Earnest also claims that he set fire to a mosque in Escondido, California, in the weeks after the shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The claim is under investigation.

A nursing student, Earnest is on the dean’s list at California State University, San Marcos.

In a manifesto he is believed to have posted on 8Chan, a conspiracy theory message board, the writer says that he was inspired by the Tree of Life synagogue gunman in Pittsburgh along with the New Zealand mosque shooter. He also calls President Donald Trump “Zionist, Jew-loving, anti-white.”


How Chabad rabbi saved his congregation from a slaughter

judaism jews synagogue satan

[The rabbi] “stopped further shootings in his shul. He happened to be there at that moment. He said it was a miracles upon miracles, because kids were running all over.”

ED-NOTE – How very interesting. Note how the good rambo.. sorry, rabbi was suspiciously standing at the entrance at the precise moment the alleged gun man showed up, acting as if he was expecting him. It was indeed a ‘miracle’.

Also note how much courage and strength the old rambo… sorry the old rabbi showed when it is of universal notoriety that Jews are cowards. The soldiers of the IDF literally wet their pants when facing a Palestinian child armed with stones; the Mossad can not do anything except by way of deception and we are to believe that this old man wrestled with an armed 19 year old. The only Being the Jews openly, proudly and consistently wrestled is… God Himself (Israel, the one who fights with God. And this applies to Jacob as depicted in the Torah as well as the state which bears his name).

Finally, notice that, just like the fashion among the so called “Muslim terrorists” is to always leave their ID on the crime scene, the new fashion among the so called ‘white nationalist’ terrorists is to write a manifesto a couple of hours before their attack which they upload to social media literally on their way to the shooting.

And all that right at the time when the skeptical world was starting to wonder if the fire at Notre Dame De Paris and the Mossad terror attack in Sri Lanka were perhaps linked, right when the world was finally starting to realise that Christianity/Catholicism is under attack and has been for… just over 2000 years. It is likely that the less skeptical among the Christian world will fall back asleep, being convinced that either it was all just a coincidence or that it is not only Christianity but also Judaism and our ‘Judeo-Christian’ heritage and values which are targeted. And the Muslims will fall back asleep being convinced that it is not only Islam but also Judaism which are under attacked by the same enemy – the new Crusader/’white nationalist’ – and we should combine forces with the Jews before a new Crusade/Holocaust kills us all.

Meanwhile, Jewish Groups which, up to now were getting ONLY  94% of Homeland Security Grants, are asking for even more money; the human tragedy which occurred at Notre Dame de Paris is belittled as something of less importance than a Jewish fingernail and is slowly being forgotten the same way the fire at Al Aqsa, (which, let us never forget, started at the exact same time as Notre Dame), had been forgotten less than an hour after it took place.

ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS – The rabbi of the San Diego-area synagogue targeted by a gunman over the weekend managed to save his congregation and prevent a massacre, relatives say.

On Saturday, 19-year-old San Diego man John T. Earnest burst into the Chabad of Poway synagogue north of San Diego and opened fire on congregants.

Four people were wounded in the attack, one of them – 60-year-old Lori Gilbert Kaye – fatally.

Among the wounded was 57-year-old Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, the spiritual leader of the congregation.

In newly revealed details of the shooting attack, it appears that Rabbi Goldstein was instrumental in preventing Earnest from carrying out a massacre at the synagogue.

According to his sister, Rabbi Goldstein managed to hold the gunman’s semiautomatic rifle at the entrance to the synagogue, preventing him from shooting directly at the congregation.

“Yisroel was coming out of the bathroom, washing his hands, getting ready for Yizkor. As he’s coming out to wash his hands, he sees this maniac in the foyer. He wasn’t even in the shul [synagogue] yet. He had just walked in the hall – the shooter – and Yisroel sees suddenly that this maniac just shot – he just saw this lady fall down, the one that he killed.”

“Yisroel looks at him and grabs with his two hands the gun to stop him from continuing to shoot, because he was about to continue shooting in the shul [synagogue]. So Yisroel is actually a hero. He protected his shul. He grabbed the gun, holding onto it tight. The guy shot the gun, and it actually ripped off his two middle fingers. So he was in surgery for about eight hours today, and they’re no longer able to do anything for his fingers – he’s missing those fingers. He gave that up to protect his shul.

“When he grabbed the gun as the shooter was ready to shoot at Yisroel, the gun jammed after it shot his fingers. In that moment of the jam, whoever was standing nearby was an off-duty police officer who came to say Yizkor. He grabbed his gun and immediately started chasing the shooter out of the shul, until the shooter got into his car.”

“Yisroel stopped further shootings in his shul. He happened to be there at that moment. He said it was a miracles upon miracles, because kids were running all over.”

In addition to Lori Gilbert Kaye, who was fatally wounded in the attack, and Rabbi Goldstein, who lost two of his fingers, two Israeli immigrants to the US were also wounded. Neither suffered life-threatening wounds.

An online manifesto attributed to the gunman, John Earnest, praised the perpetrator of the shooting attack at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh attack took place exactly six months to the day before Saturday’s shooting.

In the manifesto attributed to Earnest, the suspect also claimed responsibility for a recent arson at a local mosque.

Is it Really the Germans’ Fault? A Response to Colin Liddell’s Anglo Arrogance

Below I am posting an expanded version of a comment I left over at Affirmative Right in response to Colin Liddell’s tiresome and now all-too-familiar rant against Hitler, Germany, and so-called “1488ers”.

Hitler as an Expression of German “Bad Form”
by Colin Liddell

Today we enter “The Twelve Days of Hitler,” the period between the anniversary of the birth of the Adolf Hitler (20th April) and the anniversary of the announcement of his death (1st May). It’s a bit like Black History Month for 1488ers, but many other people also take an interest. . .

Hitler’s extremism, his lack of proportion, and his inability to find balance are sometimes explained – or justified – by referring to the “brutal” peace of Versailles that involved heavy financial reparations and the loss of colonies and much territory. The English economist John Maynard Keynes famously described this as a “Carthaginian Peace,” comparing it to the extremely harsh terms the Romans imposed on their defeated Punic rivals:

“Two rival schemes for the future polity of the world took the field,—the Fourteen Points of the President, and the Carthaginian Peace of M. Clemenceau. Yet only one of these was entitled to take the field; for the enemy had not surrendered unconditionally, but on agreed terms as to the general character of the Peace.”

In this view, Hitler’s reckless and doomed career of revenge, geopolitical over-ambition, and military overstretch were all forced on him by this supposedly unjustified national humiliation. But, actually, Germany had been defeated militarily – relatively fairly and squarely – and was hardly the first beaten country to be subjected to onerous peace terms, which, in effect, were imposed rather laxly, as proved by Hitler’s subsequent career.

My response: The biggest scandal of the First World War was the successful Jewish lobbying of America to enter the war on Britain’s behalf as quid pro quo for the Balfour Declaration in which Britain illegally signed over Palestinian land to the Jews. This source of Germany’s defeat was anything but the result of “fair and square” dealing.

More interestingly, Germany’s path to war in WWI has similar characteristics to its path to war in WWII, and even to post-war German history – the same sweaty mania and tendency to overdo things – suggesting that something inherent in the nature of Germans was the cause of WWII, rather than merely the petty vindictiveness of Monsieur Clemenceau at Versailles. Just as Hitler was pushing too fast and too far in the 1930s, so too was Kaiser Wilhelm in the years leading up to 1914. There too we see the same indelicate haste, arrogance, and insensitivity, something that is also mirrored in the present age with Angela Merkel and her über-signalling on migrants. . .

Just as Kaiser Wilhelm’s shrill, overwrought Germanism was the driving force behind the horrors of WWI, so Hitler’s unhinged revanchism was the factor leading to WWII.

Many 1488ers like to share the meme about the “Jewish declaration of war on Germany” in 1933. This is a story from the Daily Express newspaper reporting on a Jewish campaign to boycott Germany. Obviously that didn’t work out, as the German economy was doing better than ever several years later. . .

My response: This is correct, but it glosses over the fact that the Jewish campaign to boycott Germany was merely the first shot in their campaign to bring Germany to its knees, as Germany’s subsequent rape and dismemberment shows.

Also, the Jews were in a poor position to persuade other “Goys” to fight Germany. In the wake of WWI, pacifism was strong, with powerful supporters across the West. It was only Hitler’s excessive exploitation of this anti-war feeling that finally rekindled the will of Europeans to resist further German expansion, and an all-out invasion of Poland in conjunction with the Soviet Union that forced the reluctant hand of the Western allies. In short, Hitler had plenty of options and was making great progress, when his “inner German” got the better of him and madness ensued.

My response: The Western Allies had nothing to gain and everything to lose by going to war with Germany a second time. Hitler had no designs on the West and simply demanded a free hand in the east. If England and France genuinely cared about the violation of Poland’s sovereignty, why did they declare war on Germany but not the Soviet Union? Oh, and by the way, how did that Anglo-French “war guarantee” to Poland actually turn out for the Polish people?

The Second World War was the greatest catastrophe in Western history (as the subsequent events up to this day show all too clearly). The Western Allies should never have interfered with Germany’s freedom of action in the east. We would be immeasurably better off today had the West never declared war upon Germany a second time — or, given that it did — had the Germans won the war.

See the following William Pierce classics:

What Really Started World War Two (https://nationalvanguard.or…

Media Myths (http://williamlutherpierce….


Below is the debate between me and Liddell that continued in the comments section of Liddell’s article “Hitler as an Expression of German Bad Form”. My replies are in bold.

Liddell: As a typical Jew obsessive, all you see are Jews as factors. The fact is that Germany’s vacillating submarine warfare policy had more to do with America’s entry into the war than anything else.

In 1917 the Germans, in a desperate bid to break the British, who were pushing them hard in the West and pushing them into starvation by blockading their ports, resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, a red line that they were pretty sure would trigger the Americans into war. They decided that the chance of breaking Britain was worth the risk. Bad decision, Germans!

Also, let’s assume that the Jews were as powerful and influential as you claim, why then did the Germans not use them as a weapon of war, like you claim the British did? After all they, through their Turkish ally, actually controlled Palestine and could dangle it as a tasty carrot to “International Jewry.” The Brits didn’t get their hands on that valuable piece of real estate until 8 months after the Yanks entered the war. Are you literally trying to say the Germans were as big an idiot as you?

Then there’s this: apart from those Jews with specific business interests in a British victory, Jews in America would largely side with the Kaiser and the Austrian Emperor whose empires had ten times as many of their fellow Jews as the relatively Jew-free British Empire, which was also allied with the one major Empire that was still actively discriminating against Jews, namely the Russian Empire.

Now, calmly put down the Jew and step away from it before you harm your ability to think any more.

My responseAccusing someone of being a “Jew-obsessive” is just facile name-calling. While the Jews certainly deserve blame for the part they played in the Second World War, the bigger and more important question is who is to blame amongst the non-Jewishparticipants in the conflict, and on this front, your analysis is sorely lacking.

Liddell: It’s not facile calling you a “Jew obsessive.” You’re from National Vanguard, one of the most Jew-obsessed websites ever. Jew obsession influences your every waking moment.

This is the precise reason your analysis of WWI and WWII is so shitty. Because you have to thread everything through your Jew-obsession lace hole.

As for the non-Jewish participants in the conflict, yes, it is shocking how Poland forced itself under the feet of the German army in September 1939. I hope those poor German soldiers were not too traumatised by the experience.

My response: Re-read my last comment about who is to blame amongst the non-Jewish participants in the war and then tell me who’s obsessing about Jews. My contention is that blame for the Second World War and the subsequent implosion of the West lies squarely with England, France, and the United States, not with Germany.

Now re-read my comment before that referring to the disastrous Anglo-French “war guarantee” to Poland. I don’t blame the Poles for getting run over by the Germans before being handed over to the Soviets; I blame England and France for that nightmare, and I’m dumbfounded as to why this needed to be explained a second time.

Liddell: The war guarantee to Poland came out of Hitler fucking with the map of Europe for the previous few years. The problem was not British and French assertiveness as you wrongly think, but the lack of it.

A zero tolerance response to Germany breaking its first treaty obligation would have made Hitler back down and have avoided WWII and the mess we are in now.

Merkel’s madness reminds us that the final solution to the German problem is something like the Morgenthau Plan. It is good to see that a separate East German consciousness still survives. Maybe that, along with Bavaria’s strong regional character, could be the basis of a final solution to the German Problem.

My response: Endorsing a Morgenthau Plan as a “final solution to the German Problem” is perhaps the most unhinged and self-discrediting statement a putative White advocate has ever made. It does lend credence to the notion, however, that the blame for the Second World War and the subsequent implosion of the West does not lie solely or perhaps even principally with the Jews.

Liddell: What’s wrong with Germany being divided into a few smaller states? You just sound hysterical.

My Response: I can only assume you’re merely pretending to be dense at this point. Regardless, I believe that about concludes this exchange and I appreciate you showing your hand.

* * *

Source: Affirmative Right

Ruined People Ruined Culture – Roger Scruton & Post Black Pill Living

I talk about what has happened to Roger Scruton and show how: They ruined art, architecture, culture, science, love, dating, music, relationships, families, children, sex, comedy, education, government, democracy, religion, resilience, beauty, food…. and more. They now take pleasure in ruining individual people one by one like the debauched Roman Emperors did when they threw people to the lions. But realize this: you are now free to turn your backs on them. Their rules do not apply to you.

The Australian Jewish News

Why I campaigned to ban David Icke

David Icke.

IT’S no easy feat to defeat antisemitism, but as always, it is a fight worth having.

When I discovered that David Icke, a serial hate-monger and conspiracy theorist who says that Jews played a starring role in spreading evil around the world, was visiting our shores to deliver sold-out shows, I knew that we had to sound the alarm bells.

We could not run from this issue, because denial has never been our strategy. We had to stand up and call it like it is, because combating the normalisation of antisemitism has to begin with the Jewish community.

We were going to delegitimise David Icke, name the blood libels and ancient pathological prejudices that he mouths, and say that he has no business being here. We were determined to disrupt his dangerous speech, and to ensure that he does not misuse our freedoms to travel around with a bullhorn, spouting his putrid lies.

The easy thing would have been to sweep this under the rug and to turn a blind eye. After all, he had been here before.

But complacency is never in order when dealing with a man who has made mendacious, demonising, dehumanising allegations about Jews.
Especially not in these supercharged times when all forms of assaults against Jews have skyrocketed, when once taboo trip-wires are being crossed, and when boundaries of mainstream expression are transgressed.

As history has taught us, polite silence is acquiescence, and acquiescence is complicity. As Bonhoeffer said, before being murdered by the Nazis, “Not to speak is to speak. Not to act, is to act.”

Avoiding a conflict and the kind of abuse I know would rain on me, could not come at the expense of our community’s wellbeing and sense of security. We had to fight the darkness that Icke spews with light, and the lies he delivers with truth. Ignoring this individual with his poisonous rhetoric, would have signalled to everyone that we find it acceptable, okay and normal to defame Jews.

As always, I thought of the victims and the Holocaust survivors, who would wake up in the morning knowing that a man who claims that the Jews funded Hitler is free to roam here and to spread his harmful and contemptuous canards. And so, we launched a public media campaign, calling on the government to revoke Icke’s visa.

Icke’s antisemitism is often cloaked by trading sound bites about his ‘lizard theories’. I knew that we had to provide the government with a smoking gun, with irrefutable evidence. Though it made my skin crawl, I delved into the cesspool of his speeches and writings, and analysing, page by page, his book And The Truth Shall Set you Free.

Looking through this dark text, it provided me with a truckload of quotes that demonstrated, beyond doubt, Icke’s antisemitism.
For the first time ever, I can reveal parts of the information that we provided to the government in making our ironclad case.

Here is some of what Icke claims: The Jews are responsible for WWI, WWII, the Russian Revolution and, “financed Hitler to power in 1933 and made the funds available for his rearmament”; the Jews wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; violent neo-Nazi organisations like the “‘far-right’ group, Combat 18, is a front for the sinister Anti-Defamation League, the United States arm of the Israeli/Rothschild secret service, Mossad”; Jews are responsible for the slave trade and control the Ku Klux Klan; Jews are behind antisemitic attacks such as desecration of graves, assaults and terrorists attacks; Jews bankrolled Hitler and the Holocaust; the Global Elite (the Jews) along with the Mossad were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing; Holocaust denial should be taught at schools, and those who deny the Holocaust are not Nazis or apologists for Hitler.

This decision was a victory for decency and for our core values of equality and respect for all, and I applaud the Minister for Immigration, David Coleman, for the admirable act of unflinching moral courage. It reaffirmed that freedom of speech has to be balanced with the need to limit hate, and that being safe from racial and religious vilification is a core guarantor of any democracy.

I am also heartened that the Liberal and Labor candidates for Macnamara, Kate Ashmor and Josh Burns, locked arms with me in joining the chorus of voices advocating for a ban.

It’s been a tough week for the three of us as the sewer lids have been taken off. We have been rocked by a flood of blood-chilling messages and threats, most too horrifying to reprint. These unvarnished displays of venom tell us that we are not home yet, that there is a long road ahead in ensuring that antisemitism never becomes deeply embedded in the inner core of Australia’s culture.

I’m also gratified by the scores of phone calls and messages, from people across the social, ethnic and political spectrum, and from around the world, who have saluted our stance.

Let’s face it, no one stomped on Icke’s freedom to express his noxious views. He can do so from England and on his social media. But not here.

Words of hate and incitement matter, and often escalate into thuggish intolerance and real-life violence.
When people are told that Jews are bad and malevolent, members of a shadowy cabal responsible for the world’s ills, they feel empowered to harass, demean, degrade and carry out attacks against them.

This cancer invalidates our dignity, it says that we are not Australians, that we are not worthy of respect, that we should go back where we came from. It makes our kids, in particular those who proudly wear their Judaism on their hearts and sleeves, feel less safe and less comfortable walking the streets or in school.

And to those who still wishfully think that we are somehow immune from the lows of Europe, I say, “We should not wait until Australia becomes another Malmo, Brussels, Toulouse, Copenhagen.”

At the end of the day, this righteous decision communicates the message that Australia stands for better, that it will continue to be a safe haven for us all, and that the likes of David Icke are not welcome here. And may it always be so.

DVIR ABRAMOVICH is chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission.

Churchill Lied About Hitler

"When innocent Germans say 'peace,' sudden destruction shall fall upon them."
“When innocent Germans say ‘peace,’ sudden destruction shall fall upon them.”

…by Jonas E. Alexis


One of the most interesting things about Zionist ideology and history is that there is so much nonsense and claptrap that it will take a historian or serious scholar the rest of his natural life to expose them all.

Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent declared back in 2012 that “Everything people believed about Hitler’s intentions toward Britain was a myth created by Churchill.” For example, Churchill perpetuated that Hitler desired to invade Britain in 1940, but it was a total fabrication.

On the contrary, Myers declared, Hitler “admired the British Empire,” and that he “offered terms that did not involve German control of Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the cabinet, and they remain prudently concealed under the 100-year rule.”[1]

Myers wrote,

“Instead, Churchill’s determination to keep Britain at war turned what had been merely a continental defeat of its army into the enduring myth that in 1940, Britain faced a war for national survival.

“But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again.”

“The ‘invasion fleet’ that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.”

Myers concluded,

“Just about everything that people believed about Hitler’s intentions towards Britain in 1940 — and still believe today — was a myth created by Churchill, which he probably came to believe himself. Consider all the facts above, and then consider how that myth has endured, despite them. Makes you wonder, no?”[2]

Yeah, it should make us all wonder. What is so pathetic is that Myers got paid to say things like that, but Holocaust revisionists have been saying the same thing for the past thirty years or so and have been persecuted all across the globe! David Irving has been writing about these things since the past thirty years or so, but he always gets into trouble because he does say some uncomfortable but true things about Churchill and Hitler.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that Churchill concocted lies about Hitler because he was working for the Dreadful Few. In fact, right after his father’s death, Churchill became Ernest “Cassel’s creature,” one of the most “influential Jewish moneylenders” then.[3] Once that happened, Churchill began to hate the Germans. In the process, he starved the German civilians to death and bragged about. This is Churchill at his best:

“Starve the whole population—men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission.”[4]

Churchill got his wish:

“In December 1918 the German Board of Public Health claimed that 763,000 Germans had died because of the blockade. In April 1919 Dr. Marx Rubner claimed that another 100,000 Germans who died between April and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in July, so the number of Germans who died from Winston Churchill’s starvation blockade most probably approximates the number of Irish who died during the Great Famine.”[5]

Churchill was obviously used by the Zionists to starve the Germans. But by 1920, he seemed to have realized there was something mendacious and pernicious about the ideology known as Zionism. He said:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.

“With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews.

“In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.”[6]

Yet Churchill’s real actions defeated all this great insight. In fact, he ended up joining the greatest mass murderer (Stalin) in the twentieth century in order to defeat Hitler.

In 2013, popular historian Max Hastings wrote in the Daily Mail that Churchill did summon bold lies, but those lies were good because “Churchill did it to save Britain…”[7]

You be the judge: did this man really save Britain? Britain was still paying its World War II loans in 2006—and keep in mind that the war was over in 1945.[8]

Now, what if the debt is six trillion dollars (the Iraq War)? How long will it take to pay that?

You do the math and see how generational children will have a huge burden on their shoulders. What is equally worse is that the mad man in Tel Aviv is telling us all to wage a frontal war against a decent country such as Iran.

Perhaps the Obama administration should upgrade the “chickenshit” thing.

[1] Kevin Myers, “Everything people believed about Hitler’s intentions toward Britain was a myth created by Churchill,” Irish Independent, June 19, 2012.

[2] Ibid.

[3] E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1201-1202.

[4] Ibid., 1211.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Winston Churchill, “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Sunday Illustrated Herald, February 1920.

[7] Max Hastings “Yes, they both used lies to wage war. But Churchill did it to save Britain – Blair did it to save himself,” Daily Mail, July 2, 2013.

[8] “What’s a little debt between friends?,” BBC, May 10, 2006; see also “Britain to repay £2bn First World War debt,” The Independent, October 31, 2014.


Stalin, Churchill & FDR Were Guilty Of The Mass Murder Of Millions Of Allied POWs & Denied Them Asylum: A Wears War Review Of ‘Victims Of Yalta’ By Nikolai Tolstoy.

…over 3 million Russians stranded in Allied-controlled territory at the end of World War II… for most Soviet POWs, being shot… was far preferable to being tortured and executed on their return to the Soviet Union… So strong was the [prior] European tradition of granting political asylum that no nation before 1939 appears even to have contemplated compelling the return home of citizens whose lives or liberty might be endangered.



Victims of Yalta Book Review

Victims of Yalta by Nikolai Tolstoy tells the story of over 3 million Russians stranded in Allied-controlled territory at the end of World War II. Some of these Russians were prisoners of war (POWs), while others were anti-Communist fighters who had fought on the side of Germany. In a secret agreement later confirmed by Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at Yalta, these Russian soldiers were condemned to be sent back without choice to the Soviet Union. Knowing that torture and death lay ahead of them, many of these Russians chose to end their own lives before returning to the Soviet Union.


Allied Guilt

Soviet prisoners at German camps who were to be repatriated to the Soviet Union after the war often begged to be shot on the spot rather than be delivered into the hands of the Soviet NKVD. A shock force of 500 American and Polish guards was required at Dachau to forcibly repatriate the first group of Soviet prisoners to the Soviet Union. What followed is described in a report submitted to U.S. diplomat Robert Murphy:

      Conforming to agreements with the Soviets, an attempt was made to entrain 399 former Russian soldiers who had been captured in German uniform, from the assembly center at Dachau on Saturday, January 19 [1946].

All of these men refused to entrain. They begged to be shot. They resisted entrainment by taking off their clothing and refusing to leave their quarters. It was necessary to use tear-gas and some force to drive them out. Tear-gas forced them out of the building into the snow where those who had cut and stabbed themselves fell exhausted and bleeding in the snow. Nine men hanged themselves and one had stabbed himself to death and one other who had stabbed himself subsequently died; while 20 others are still in the hospital from self-inflicted wounds. The entrainment was finally effected of 368 men who were set off accompanied by a Russian liaison officer on a train carrying American guards. Six men escaped en route.[1]

The report ended: “The incident was shocking. There is considerable dissatisfaction on the part of the American officers and men that they are being required by the American Government to repatriate these Russians…”[2]

Thus, for most Soviet POWs, being shot in a German concentration camp was far preferable to being tortured and executed on their return to the Soviet Union.


Tolstoy in Victims of Yalta produces strong arguments that the repatriation of Soviet POWs was not necessary. Tolstoy writes,

“So strong was the European tradition of granting political asylum that no nation before 1939 appears even to have contemplated compelling the return home of citizens whose lives or liberty might be endangered.”[3]


fake refugees
The strong European tradition of offering asylum appears to have been revived. As long as they’re not native to Europe.



Tragically, however, British and American leaders forced repatriation of Soviet POWs in order to maintain good relations with Stalin and the Soviet Union. The repatriation of the Soviet POWs can be seen as a policy of appeasement that at the time was thought to be in the best interests of the United States and Great Britain.

“Betrayal of the Cossacks at Lienz” by S.G. Korolkoff. Korolkoff was a survivor of the forced repatriations and the people depicted in the painting were all real people who were there. Korolkoff recreated the faces from photographs. Source link. It mattered little whether Russian POWs fought for or against the Allies. Their fate was often the same. An astute person might wonder why the Holodomors prior to WWII are also conveniently downplayed. These orchestrated horrors point strongly to the dangerous climate of Europe in that era. Germany’s efforts to halt the onward march of Bolshevik Communism across Europe becomes far more reasonable when considered in its correct historical context. The scale of the Bolshevik slaughter of millions of civilians was a terrifying threat encroaching on eastern, then central Europe. Why did Churchill and FDR permit and hasten it? They were both fully aware as documented here and Churchill had even previously witnessed the hell of a scorched earth Holocaust policy by his nation. Read here.


Victims of Yalta also states that Stalin abandoned all Soviet POWs during the war. The Soviet Union was not a party to The Hague Conventions. Nor was the Soviet Union a signatory of the Geneva Convention of 1929, which defined more precisely the conditions to be accorded POWs. Germany nevertheless approached the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) immediately after war broke out with the Soviet Union to attempt to regulate the conditions of prisoners on both sides. The ICRC contacted Soviet ambassadors in London and Sweden, but the Soviet leaders in Moscow refused to cooperate. Germany also sent lists of their Russian prisoners to the Soviet government until September 1941. The German government eventually stopped sending these lists in response to the Soviet Union’s refusal to reciprocate.[4]

Over the winter Germany made further efforts to establish relations with the Soviets in an attempt to introduce the provisions of The Hague and Geneva Conventions concerning POWs. Germany was rebuffed again. Hitler himself made an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services and urged Red Cross inspection of the camps. Stalin responded:

“There are no Russian prisoners of war. The Russian soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans.”[5]


In February 1942, the ICRC told Molotov that Great Britain had given permission for the Soviet Union to buy food for captured Soviet prisoners in her African colonies. Also, the Canadian Red Cross was offering a gift of 500 vials of vitamins, and Germany had agreed to collective consignments of food for POWs. The Red Cross reported: “All these offers and communications from the ICRC to the Soviet authorities remained unanswered, either directly or indirectly.” All other appeals by the ICRC and parallel negotiations undertaken by neutral or friendly nations met with no better response.[6]

The death of millions of Russian POWs in German captivity constitutes one of the major tragedies of the Second World War. However, much of the blame for the terrible fate of these Soviet soldiers was due to the inflexibly cruel policies of Joseph Stalin. A major portion of the Soviet POWs who died from hunger could have been saved had Stalin not called them traitors and denied them the right to live. By preventing the ICRC from distributing food to the Soviet POWs in German captivity, Stalin needlessly caused the death of a large percentage of these Soviet POWs.

A Red Army sergeant who was captured by the Germans when his unconscious body was dug out from the ruins of Odessa later joined General Andrei Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army. The sergeant bitterly complained of the Soviet Union’s betrayal of its POWs:

      Tell me, why did the Soviet Government forsake us? Why did it forsake millions of prisoners? We saw prisoners of all nationalities, and they were taken care of. Through the Red Cross they received parcels and letters from home; only the Russians received nothing. In Kassel I saw American Negro prisoners, and they shared their cakes and chocolates with us. Then why didn’t the Soviet Government, which we considered our own, send us at least some plain hard tack?….Hadn’t we fought? Hadn’t we defended the Government? Hadn’t we fought for our country? If Stalin refused to have anything to do with us, we didn’t want to have anything to do with Stalin![7]

german pows eisenhower death camps
It should be no surprise that millions of Axis POWs were starved, murdered and enslaved. Read here. After all millions of Allied POWs were afforded the same treatment at the hands of the Allies.


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn also complained of the shameful betrayal of Soviet soldiers by the Stalin and the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn wrote:

      The first time she betrayed them was on the battlefield, through ineptitude…The second time they were heartlessly betrayed by the Motherland was when she abandoned them to die in captivity. And the third time they were unscrupulously betrayed was when, with motherly love, she coaxed them to return home, with such phrases as “The Motherland has forgiven you! The Motherland calls you!” and snared them the moment they reached the frontiers. It would appear that during the one thousand one hundred years of Russia’s existence as a state there have been, ah, how many foul and terrible deeds! But among them was there ever so multimillioned foul a deed as this: to betray one’s own soldiers and proclaim them traitors?[8]


I recommend Victims of Yalta to anyone interested in the history of World War II and its aftermath. The story is tragic and disturbing, but historically important and frequently unreported by historians.


Unlike Hollywood history, Germany’s War acknowledges the calculated betrayal and slaughter of  millions of Allied and Axis POWs with equal respect.


churchill boer
Read: The British Empire’s Holocaust Hypocrisy: The Shocking Reality Of The Second Anglo-Boer War Scorched Earth Policy. Churchill appears on the right. By the end of the war 72% of the Boer population were either dead or incarcerated in a prisoner of war camp or a concentration camp. Churchill was captured but never harmed. The Boer commandoes, unable to contain and provide for the Empire’s POWs in detention, would disarm and release them despite realizing they would always rejoin the war against them. “The Boers behaved like men, never shooting when they could take prisoners, and even apologized because they had to take our rifles and ammunition.”
The Boer children suffered a holocaust, many were scorned, even mocked, as they died. God Bless little Lizzie. That Churchill knew of this suffering, was treated kindly and later, even wrote publicly about the the threat of Jewish-Bolshevism, yet went on to further its expansion across Europe points to the criminality of WWII.



[1] Tolstoy, Nikolai, Victims of Yalta: The Secret Betrayal of The Allies 1944-1947, New York and London: Pegasus Books, 1977, p. 355.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 410.

[4] Ibid., pp. 33-35.

[5] Ibid., p. 34.

[6] Ibid., p. 55.

[7] Ibid., p. 41.

[8] Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I., The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Vol. 1) New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1974, p. 240.

Delivery of U.S. Weapons and Ammunition to ISIS: Iraqi Commander Wiretaps ISIS Communications with U.S. Military

Rosemary Pennington   


A commander of Iraq’s popular forces disclosed that wiretapping of ISIL’s communications has confirmed the reports that the US planes have been airdropping food and arms supplies for the Takfiri terrorists.

“THE WIRETAPPED ISIL communications by Iraqi popular forces have revealed that the US planes have been dropping weapons and foodstuff for the Takfiri terrorist group,” Commander of Iraq’s Ali Akbar Battalion told FNA on Wednesday. (ILLUSTRATION: ISIS militants control a de facto Islamic sharia-law state between Iraq and Syria. Dark red indicates areas controlled by the Islamic State; light red indicates areas the organization claims but does not control.)

He noted that tapping on ISIL disclosed the terrorist group’s regular contacts with the US army, and said,

“They exchanged sentences like if they would have a share of the ammunition dropped near (Spiker Military Base) or responses such as ‘you will also receive your share’.”

“The US forces by dropping weapons and ammunition for ISIL, specially in Yassreb, Al-Ramadi and near Spiker Base in Hay al-Qadessiya have provided a lot of help to the ISIL,” he added.

Many similar reports by Iraqi officials and forces have surfaced in the last few months.

In February, an Iraqi provincial official lashed out at the western countries and their regional allies for supporting Takfiri terrorists in Iraq, revealing that the US airplanes still continue to airdrop weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL terrorists.

“The US planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Coordinator of Iraqi popular forces Jafar al-Jaberi told FNA.

He noted that eyewitnesses in Al-Havijeh of Kirkuk province had witnessed the US airplanes dropping several suspicious parcels for ISIL terrorists in the province.

“Two coalition planes were also seen above the town of Al-Khas in Diyala and they carried the Takfiri terrorists to the region that has recently been liberated from the ISIL control,” Al-Jaberi said.

Meantime, Head of Iraqi Parliament’s National Security and Defense Committee Hakem al-Zameli also disclosed that the anti-ISIL coalition’s planes have dropped weapons and foodstuff for the ISIL in Salahuddin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces.

In January, al-Zameli underlined that  the coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.

“There are proofs and evidence for the US-led coalition’s military aid to ISIL terrorists through air (dropped cargoes),” he told FNA at the time.

He noted that the members of his committee have already proved that the US planes have dropped advanced weaponry, including anti-aircraft weapons, for the ISIL, and that it has set up an investigation committee to probe into the matter.

“The US drops weapons for the ISIL on the excuse of not knowing about the whereabouts of the ISIL positions and it is trying to distort the reality with its allegations.

He noted that the committee had collected the data and the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, including Iraqi army officers and the popular forces, and said, “These documents are given to the investigation committee … and the necessary measures will be taken to protect the Iraqi airspace.”

Also in January, another senior Iraqi legislator reiterated that the US-led coalition is the main cause of ISIL’s survival in Iraq.

“The international coalition is only an excuse for protecting the ISIL and helping the terrorist group with equipment and weapons,” Jome Divan, who is member of the al-Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament, said.

He said the coalition’s support for the ISIL is now evident to everyone, and continued, “The coalition has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq.”

In Late December, Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission MP disclosed that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province.

MP Majid al-Gharawi stated that the available information pointed out that US planes are supplying ISIL organization, not only in Salahuddin province, but also other provinces, Iraq TradeLink reported.

He added that the US and the international coalition are “not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month”.

Gharawi added that “the US is trying to expand the time of the war against the ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces.”

Salahuddin security commission also disclosed that “unknown planes threw arms and ammunition to the ISIL gunmen Southeast of Tikrit city”.

Also in Late December, a senior Iraqi lawmaker raised doubts about the seriousness of the anti-ISIL coalition led by the US, and said that the terrorist group still received aids dropped by unidentified aircraft.

“The international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular (voluntary) forces from the battlefield against the Takfiris so that the problem with ISIL remains unsolved in the near future,” Nahlah al-Hababi told FNA.

“The ISIL terrorists are still receiving aids from unidentified fighter jets in Iraq and Syria,” she added.

Hababi said that the coalition’s precise airstrikes are launched only in those areas where the Kurdish Pishmarga forces are present, while military strikes in other regions are not so much precise.

In late December, the US-led coalition dropped aids to the Takfiri militants in an area North of Baghdad.

Field sources in Iraq told al-Manar that the international coalition airplanes dropped aids to the terrorist militants in Balad, an area which lies in Salahuddin province North of Baghdad.

In October, a high-ranking Iranian commander also slammed the US for providing aid supplies to ISIL, adding that the US claims that the weapons were mistakenly airdropped to ISIL were untrue.

“The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim that they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group — while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region (a town in Diyala Governorate, Iraq). This explicitly displays the falsity of the coalition’s and the US’ claims,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said.

The US claimed that it had airdropped weapons and medical aid to Kurdish fighters confronting the ISIL in Kobani, near the Turkish border in Northern Syria.

The US Defense Department said that it had airdropped 28 bundles of weapons and supplies, but one of them did not make it into the hands of the Kurdish fighters.

Video footage later showed that some of the weapons that the US airdropped were taken by ISIL militants.

The Iranian commander insisted that the US had the necessary intelligence about ISIL’s deployment in the region and that their claims to have mistakenly airdropped weapons to them are as unlikely as they are untrue.

* * *

Source: Global Research


ISIS Leader ‘Al-Baghdadi’ is ‘Jewish Mossad Agent’ Named Simon Elliot – VIDEO, PHOTOS

    04 November 2016    Read: 45337
ISIS Leader ‘Al-Baghdadi’ is ‘Jewish Mossad Agent’ Named Simon Elliot - VIDEO, PHOTOS

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, so-called ”Caliph,” the head of ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is, according to sources reputed to originate from Edward Snowden, an actor named Elliot Shimon, a Mossad trained operative.

Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi was born of two Jewish parents and is a Mossad agent.

We offer below three translations that want to assert that the Caliph Al-Baghdadi is a full Mossad agent and that he was born Jewish father and mother:

The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.”

The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies.

This information was attributed to Edward Snowden and published by newspapers and other Web sites: the head of the “Islamic State” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has cooperated with the U.S. Secret Service, British and Israel to create an organization capable of attracting terrorist extremists from around the world.

Source: Radio

Another source corroborates this statement, the site Egy-press:

With photo support, a Iranian media discovers the true identity of the Emir Daash, a trained Zionist agent.

Iranian intelligence discovered the true and full identity of the Emir Daash, which is known under the name Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi; his real name is Elliot Shimon. Its role in Mossad secret agent in the Zionist espionage. His false name: Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim Al Al Badri Arradoui Hoseini.

The plan: get into the military and civilian heart of the countries that are declared as a threat to Israel in order to destroy to facilitate thereafter, the takeover by the Zionist state on the entire area of the Middle East in order to establish Greater Israel.

Here are the borders of the Zionist project, the “Greater Israel” or “Eretz Israel” for short.

These facts confirm the first that came out a few days ago, confirming that the Caliph Rolex is sent to Israel to sow chaos in neighboring countries the Zionist entity.



Provocation and Response

The late Charles Krauthammer

by Dr. William L. Pierce

THE SITUATION in Palestine is interesting, both in terms of what is happening over there and in terms of the reflection over here. It’s not just the occasional good lick the Palestinians manage to get in against the Jews over there; that’s always good to see, of course, but more interesting are the reactions of the media and the government in the United States.

For example, the media Jews and their Gentile step’n’fetchits here —Time magazine writer Charles Krauthammer is an example of the former, and columnist George Will is an example of the latter — have been coming out openly in favor of government-sponsored terrorism and assassination, as long as it’s Israel doing the sponsoring. And they’ve been doing that since well before this week’s attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

It is a time-honored Western tradition that the leaders of nations at war treat one another with chivalry. In the past, when leaders actually rode into battle at the head of their men, that meant that it was all right to kill the enemy king or general in a fair fight, but it wasn’t all right to send someone sneaking around his castle or his house at night to poison his well or to leap from the bushes and cut his throat. Perhaps it wasn’t all chivalry. Perhaps it was in part the understanding that if you engaged in that sort of ungentlemanly behavior, your enemy might retaliate in kind.

In any event, assassination of enemy leaders, even in time of war, remained taboo until fairly recently: that is, until Western tradition gave way to Semitic tradition, which is a quite different sort of tradition. That’s what happened in the Second World War. After the war the U.S. government and its allies rounded up the leaders of conquered Germany and, after a farcical show trial, hanged them. It wasn’t just the generals who were hanged: it also was Germans whom the Jews hated simply because of things that they had said or written. Julius Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg are just two examples of this: neither man had any leadership role in the war, but before the war each had made unflattering remarks about the Jews and their activities and so was hanged for it.

Even with their tight grip on the media, the Jews weren’t able to keep a few Westerners from expressing their dissatisfaction with this Semitic way of doing things. It did not sit well with many independent-minded Americans that German leaders and writers were hanged, while Soviet and American leaders and writers who had been far more egregious in their behavior were held up as heroes. The Jews responded with outrage to any criticism of the travesty of justice they had sponsored at Nuremberg after the war. The Germans had dared to raise their hands — or their voices — against God’s Chosen People, and so they had to be punished, and Western tradition to the contrary be damned.

It’s pretty much the same today with the few Westerners who are bold enough to criticize the Israeli government’s policies of torturing Palestinian prisoners or sending disguised death squads into Palestinian territory to assassinate Palestinian leaders in their homes. To the Jews this behavior is merely “self-defense.” It’s the sort of thing they’ve always done. The Palestinians are trying to take back the land the Jews stole from them, and the Jews are merely defending themselves. How dare anyone criticize them for that!

Charles Krauthammer has a column in the August 27 issue of Time magazine titled “In Defense of ‘Assassination,’” with the word “assassination” in quotes, meaning that when Jews do it it isn’t really assassination. He concludes his column with a whining complaint about the Gentile criticism of this Jewish behavior:

The abuse Israel has suffered for this scrupulous exercise of self-defense — in a war it did not start — is yet another example of the outrageous double standard applied to it by a cynical, complicit world.

Did you get that?: a “scrupulous exercise of self-defense” in a war the Jews didn’t start. If not the Jews, then who? And a “cynical, complicit world” is ganging up on the poor, inoffensive Jews again. Oy, veh, vasn’t six million enough, already? The Jews really have a corner on the market in brass.

Nearly always, this sort of whining self-righteousness works for the Jews. The bought politicians and the Christian preachers and the George Will types certainly go for it every time. And George Bush isn’t about to buck the Jews on anything. He’s as obedient a lackey as his predecessor was. But there are signs that, as was the case with the postwar lynchings at Nuremberg, a few Western observers have had about all of this Jewishness they can stomach. And not just Westerners.

Watching the bickering at the big United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, has been amusing. The Jews nearly always are able to manipulate such conferences to their advantage by threats and bribery: threats of U.S. retaliation against anyone who refuses to toe the Jewish party line, and bribes from the U.S. Treasury for those who go along. This time, however, so many delegates at the conference were incensed at the recent Jewish treatment of Palestinians that things didn’t go so smoothly for the Jews and their U.S. bully boy.

There are even a few signs of unrest among the Jews’ front-line troops in the Western media. Do you remember the 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Durrah, who was shot to death deliberately by Jewish gunmen in Jerusalem nearly a year ago as he huddled against a wall with his father and begged for his life? The Jews pumped four rifle bullets into him. They also shot the boy’s father, and then they killed a Palestinian ambulance driver who arrived to give aid. It all would have been just a bit of amusing target practice for the Jewish gunmen, except that a French cameraman caught it all on film. Before the Jews could squelch it, shocked television viewers around the world had seen it.

A British journalist, Sam Kiley, who worked for The Times of London, recently decided to follow up that story. His editors at the newspaper were not enthusiastic about the project, to say the least. In Kiley’s own words:

When I pulled off a little scoop by tracking, interviewing, and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece “without mentioning the dead kid.”

Well, Kiley is a thoroughly “wet” liberal who normally dotes on Jews and thinks they’re just wonderful. But when told that he would have to write his story about the Israeli gunmen who murdered the 12-year-old Palestinian boy last September “without mentioning the dead kid,” lest it offend the Jews, Kiley resigned from the staff of The Times and began speaking out about the way journalists are constrained to report news of the conflict in Palestine only in a way that is favorable to the Jews.

We shouldn’t jump to any conclusions from Kiley’s rebellion or the refusal of the delegates at the U.N. anti-racism conference to knuckle under, but it is something. It is a number of similar happenings recently that has Krauthammer whining in Time magazine that the world is ganging up on the poor Jews again. I wish it were so, but there hardly can be much complicity between the people who take an uncompromising stand against the Jews as Jews, on the one hand, and on the other hand the miscellaneous anti-racists, such as Kiley and the delegates in Durban, who at the moment are miffed by the Jews’ atrocious treatment of the Palestinians.

It is the Jews, of course, who have built the anti-racism movement and have pumped all of the Gentile journalistic lackeys who work for them full of anti-racist sentiment. The Jews used this anti-racist sentiment to destroy Rhodesia and White South Africa, just as they’re using it to destroy America, and it would be ironic if it is turning even slightly against them now as a consequence of their atrocious behavior in Palestine. I welcome that, but I don’t hold out much hope for it in the near future: the Jews’ grip on the mass media remains too strong, and it is that grip which controls the behavior of politicians and of governments. Remember, we saw the same sort of disgust with Jewish bloodlust and self-righteousness after the Second World War, but the Jewish media kept it under cover, and it never affected the lemmings or governmental policies.

What’s necessary for combating the Jews effectively is a recognition of what they are — not just what they happen to be doing at the moment. It’s good when their hypocrisy and their self-righteousness work against them, as when their innate racism shows through their mask of anti-racism and disillusions a few of those whom they have duped. But the Jews’ racism is not something we can count on using against them in a decisive way. After all, every healthy individual and every healthy nation is racist. It is in the Jews’ nature to deny that fact and to attempt to weaken the racial feelings of others while secretly nurturing their own. That is the way they fight against the non-Jewish world. The motto of Mossad, Israel’s principal agency for state-sponsored terror and assassination, is, “By way of deception shalt thou do war,” but in fact that is the principle which governs the relations of Jews as a whole with the non-Jewish world. That is a consequence of what they are.

There are times when we too find it expedient to be deceptive. We do whatever we must to survive. But we do not make deception the cornerstone of our existence. And we must never think in terms of alliances with people like Sam Kiley or the delegates at the U.N. anti-racism conference. Cheer them on whenever they are refusing to take orders from the Jews. Even provide them with ammunition when we can. But never count on them. They are people who despite their occasional flashes of independence have been terribly flawed by their acceptance of an ideology manufactured by the Jews to serve Jewish purposes.

Among ourselves, at least, we must be honest. We must see things as they really are. We must try to understand the fundamentals and then govern ourselves accordingly. One fundamental is that people do not change their nature, any more than the leopard changes his spots. The Jews will not reform themselves. They will not voluntarily stop meddling in the affairs of non-Jews or attempting to use non-Jews for their own purposes. Until they are stopped by a superior opposing force they will behave as they always have behaved. They always will be hostile to non-Jews, and as long as we permit them, they will attempt to deceive non-Jews, just as the great bulk of our people always will be gullible and will be susceptible to Jewish deception if they are not provided with proper guidance.

Another fundamental is that we cannot counter the Jewish deception of the great bulk of our people as long as the Jews retain their control of the mass media of news and entertainment and we have no equivalent media. At this time we can only influence the thinking and behavior of the hardheaded, independent-minded minority of our people, but we always must have as our ultimate goal the guidance of all of our people, the shielding of all of our people from deception.

A third fundamental is that we must not foolishly imagine that we can achieve some quick and easy victory by building alliances with people whose goals or interests are essentially different from ours — Middle Easterners or other non-Whites, for example — or even with people who believe that their goals and interests are different from ours, as is the case with any of our people who still are under the influence of Jewish ideology: Sam Kiley, for example. We must count only on ourselves: on those whose most essential interests are the same as ours and who understand and accept that fact.

Our task is difficult, and at this time our progress is slow — but there is progress. The number of people listening to these American Dissident Voices broadcasts increases week by week. The number of people who seek out one of our Web sites on the Internet increases day by day. At they are averaging 19,000 a day now, which is up 50 percent from a year ago. Every Saturday, when a new broadcast goes on the net, the number of visitors to jumps to nearly 30,000. That’s not much compared to the number of viewers of any of the popular Jewish television propaganda programs: a fraction of one percent. We don’t have television yet — but we will within the next month. We’ve just finished making our first music video with a message in both the music and the images, and you’ll be able to see it in a couple of weeks. Look for it at By the end of this year we’ll be producing video documentaries with a message, and some of those will be on cable TV.

Of course we know that we won’t have anywhere near as large an audience as Mike Wallace or Oprah. But our viewers will not be the slack-jawed, beer-bellied couch potatoes and multi-culti-trendies who make up most of Mike Wallace’s and Oprah’s audiences. They still can outvote us by a wide margin, but the time is approaching when numbers will not be all that counts. Nor will money be the only thing that counts in determining how large an audience one can reach or how much influence one can have on the people one reaches.

The whole world is entering a new era now, where all their money and the hundreds of millions of mindless lemmings in their television audiences and being able to manipulate the political system and the government of what is still the world’s most powerful country — at least, in a material sense — no longer are enough to guarantee the Jews’ continued hegemony. What happened in New York and in Washington this week is just one small manifestation of this new era. George Bush and the other politicians under the Jews’ control can order the bombing of every pharmaceutical factory in the Middle East in response to recent events here, but that will only take us further into this new era.

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again now. Not everyone in the world is willing to be dominated by the Jews. What happened this week is a direct consequence of the American people permitting the Jews to control their government and to use American strength to advance the Jews’ interests at the expense of everyone else’s interests. When people are driven into a corner — as the non-Jewish people of the Middle East have been — sometimes they will fight back. That is happening now, and it will happen even more in the future. The Jews will scream for the blood of their enemies, as Diane Feinstein and other Jews are now. Their lackeys in Washington will strike at their enemies for them, just as Bill Clinton and others before him did. And the consequence will be that the number of the Jews’ enemies will grow without limit — and not just in the Middle East.

Even here in the United States there are many people — including many people who never have listened to one of my broadcasts and who probably would disagree with me on many fundamental issues — who understand exactly why the United States was attacked this week. Not everyone in this country is a soccer mom or a baseball fan or an Oprah viewer. Some people can still think for themselves — actually millions of them can. And at least some of these millions know that it was no gratuitous attack out of the blue by Middle Eastern terrorists that is responsible for all of those deaths in New York and Washington. They understand that when a nation no longer has leaders whose primary concern is the security and welfare of the nation, then bad things are likely to begin happening.

They understand that the people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did it because they had been pushed into a corner by the U.S. government acting on behalf of the Jews instead of on behalf of the American people. Certainly the soccer moms and the baseball fans will have their anger directed toward Arabs and Muslims, but there will be plenty of people who will understand that as long as we continue to let the Jews control our country one calamity after another will be inflicted on us. I certainly intend to do everything I can to help even more people understand that.

Four million subscribers to Time magazine had a chance to read Charles Krauthammer’s explanation that terrorism and assassination are all right when it’s the Jews assassinating their enemies. And those four million Timesubscribers will read in the weeks ahead why terrorism and assassination are reprehensible and must be punished severely when it’s the Jews’ enemies striking back in desperation. But you know, not everyone will swallow that line.

After the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, which clearly was a reprisal against the government for the government’s mass murder of innocent civilians in Waco two years earlier, the mass media largely ignored this linkage and tried to place the blame for the bombing on “right-wing extremists.” Some of them still refer to me as the architect of that bombing. Now they will try to keep the public from tracing the blame for the attacks this week back to the long-standing subservience of the U.S. government to Israel. Every media spokesman and every politician is referring to this week’s attacks as “cowardly” and “unprovoked.” You read that right. The Jewish party line, and therefore the party line of every media spokesman and every politician, is that the attacks were “unprovoked.” I’ve been listening to them all week, and not one of them will even hint at the possibility that maybe there was a reason for these attacks, that they were provoked by our own behavior. It’s a “no, no” even to consider that.

But that sort of deception is not going to work as well as it has in the past. A lot of people are going to figure it out. And I’m going to help them — and you should too, because the reprisals against America are just beginning. Many, many more innocent people will be killed because of what the U.S. government has done at the behest of the Jews. We already have killed close to a million people in Iraq alone because the Jews demanded it. The Jews, from Madeleine Albright on down demanded that we maintain the blockade that is starving Iraqi children. That is a provocation, and it is only one among many. More and more people need to think about that when looking for those ultimately responsible for this week’s attacks.

And as I said, this week’s attacks are just the beginning of what’s in store for America. Of course, I don’t know exactly what will be next, but certainly biological terrorism is coming. When it does come the death toll will dwarf anything we’ve seen so far. And again most of the television viewers will believe whatever the Jews tell them to believe, and Mr. Bush will declare the biological attack “unprovoked,” and he will order the bombing of still more aspirin factories in Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and Sudan in order to show the lemmings that he’s a strong leader and is doing something. But among the people who can think for themselves, the number who will understand where to place the blame will continue to grow. And the demand for a real solution, a final solution, will grow too. In this new era I won’t be the only one pointing the finger of blame in the right direction and talking about final solutions to our problem.

* * *

Source: Free Speech magazine, October 2001

UnitedNations “A Shameful Week for the U.S.” – Trump Admin Guts U.N. Resolution to End Rape as Weapon of War


“A Shameful Week for the U.S.”: Trump Admin Guts U.N. Resolution to End Rape as Weapon of War

Planned Parenthood president says fetal heartbeat bills are “essentially a ban on all abortions”

Dr. Leana Wen says the fight for women’s reproductive health is a fight for safe, legal abortions. “We know what happens when that is taken away, because we have the examples around the world. And we know what happened in the U.S. pre-Roe, which is that thousands of women died. We cannot go back to that time.”

Health Freedom Is Being Destroyed All Over The Western World

In every country in the western world, there is layer after layer of rules and regulations that strictly govern just about every area of our lives.

But until just recently, there were certain lines that still had not been crossed. One of those lines has to do with bodily integrity.

We have a fundamental right to say what goes into our bodies and what doesn’t go into our bodies. When any government violates that fundamental right, no matter how good the intentions are, they have entered the realm of tyranny.

And let there be no doubt – what is taking place in New York City right now is tyranny. On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio used the pretense of “a public health emergency” to order mandatory vaccinations for all of the Orthodox Jews living in Williamsburg:

Mayor Bill de Blasio declared a public health emergency on Tuesday and has ordered mandatory vaccinations for people who may have been exposed to the virus in parts of Williamsburg amid a growing measles outbreak.”

Perhaps the mayor actually believes that he is saving lives by doing this.

But it is still tyranny.

In a free society, we would have the right to choose whether we want to put vaccines into our bodies or not.  But in certain parts of New York City at the moment, a state of medical martial law now exists.

According to one local news report, members of the Health Department are actually going to be hunting down the unvaccinated by going through their medical records:

“Under the order, unvaccinated people, including children over 6 months old, who live or work within zip codes 11205, 11206, 11221 and 11249 will be required to get an MMR vaccine.

“Members of the city’s Health Department will check the vaccination records of any individual who may have been in contact with infected patients.

“Those who have not received the vaccine or do not have evidence of immunity may be given a violation and could be fined $1,000.”

Is this still America?

I am having a hard time believing that this is actually happening. There is no way that people would have ever put up with such nonsense 40 or 50 years ago.

Even New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, is admitting that this effort to force mandatory vaccinations on city residents may be unconstitutional:

“Look it’s a serious public health concern, but it’s also a serious First Amendment issue and it is going to be a constitutional, legal question,” Cuomo said.

But if the control freaks that run New York City can get away with this, they will set a very important national precedent.

You may think that you live in an area where your health freedoms are more protected, but what starts in New York or California always seems to start filtering through the rest of the country eventually.

And other nations in the western world have already gone much farther down the path toward medical tyranny than we have. For example, check out what just happened in Australia:

“Freedom of speech has taken another major hit Down Under, as government authorities in Australia recently decreed that any medical professional who dares to express skepticism about the safety or effectiveness of vaccines will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years.”

What in the world is happening to Australia?

When we can’t even openly debate certain topics anymore, then you know that we are well on the way to utter tyranny.

Look, everyone agrees that many children have either died or have become seriously disabled immediately after taking vaccines. Those in the pro-vaccine community argue that such sacrifices must be made “for the greater good”, while those in the anti-vaccine community believe that parents should have the right to determine if their children should be exposed to such dangers.

But what everybody should be able to agree on is that we should be able to debate these issues.

Instead, the government of Australia has determined that any member of the medical community that holds an anti-vaccine position should be put in prison, and they have even established a “snitch program” for reporting offenders:

“The Australian government has also set up a snitch program for medical “offenders” to be reported by their “friends,” colleagues, or others who suspect that they might be in violation of this new speech code – like some kind of deep state spying and surveillance scheme contrived from the dystopian novel 1984.

Without freedom of speech, a free society cannot exist, and Australia is completely destroying freedom of speech.

This is yet another example which demonstrates that we desperately need to take our governments back. If freedom-loving people don’t get involved, then control freaks inevitably take over, and at this point Australia is completely overrun by them. In particular, Victoria Health Minister Jill Hennessy is a real piece of work:

“Victoria Health Minister Jill Hennessy, a full-fledged vaccine worshiper, of course supports the new rules, which she hopes will deliver harsh punishment to all vaccine skeptics in Australia, which she describes as “brain dead sheep.”

“They are an organized movement, largely stemming from the United States of America, that are hell bent on misleading parents that vaccinations are unsafe,” Hennessy is quoted as saying.

If we are ever going to be free, we have got to be able to freely debate every issue in our society.

There is a reason why our founders sought to protect freedom of speech so strongly. Without it, it is just a matter of time before all of our other freedoms are gone too.

If you are deeply alarmed by what you just read in this article, that is good.

It shows that you are still alive.

Now is the time to stand up and fight for our freedoms, because once they are gone they will be almost impossible to get back.

By Michael Snyder, author of The Beginning Of The End


The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two

By Mark Weber

World War II was not only the greatest military conflict in history, it was also America’s most important twentieth-century war. It brought profound and permanent social, governmental and cultural changes in the United States, and has had a great impact on how Americans regard themselves and their country’s place in the world.

This global clash — with the United States and the other “Allies” on one side, and Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and the other “Axis” countries on the other — is routinely portrayed in the US as the “good war,” a morally clear-cut conflict between Good and Evil. / 1

In the view of British author and historian Paul Addison, “the war served a generation of Britons and Americans as a myth which enshrined their essential purity, a parable of good and evil.” / 2   Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme wartime Commander of American forces in Europe, and later US president for eight years, called the fight against Nazi Germany “the Great Crusade.” /  3  And President Bill Clinton said that in World War II the United States “saved the world from tyranny.” / 4  Americans are also told that this was an unavoidable and necessary war, one that the US had to wage to keep from being enslaved by cruel and ruthless dictators.

Whatever doubts or misgivings Americans may have had about their country’s role in Iraq, Vietnam, or other overseas conflicts, most accept that the sacrifices made by the US in World War II, especially in defeating Hitler’s Germany, were entirely justified and worthwhile.

For more than 60 years, this view has been reinforced in countless motion pictures, on television, by teachers, in textbooks, and by political leaders. The reverential way that the US role in the war has been portrayed moved Bruce Russett, professor of political science at Yale University, to write: / 5

“Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct, nearly in the realm of theology … Whatever criticisms of twentieth-century American policy are put forth, United States participation in World War II remains almost entirely immune. According to our national mythology, that was a ‘good war,’ one of the few for which the benefits clearly outweighed the costs. Except for a few books published shortly after the war and quickly forgotten, this orthodoxy has been essentially unchallenged.”

How accurate is this hallowed portrayal of America’s role in World War II? As we shall see, it does not hold up under close examination.

First, a look at the outbreak of war in Europe.

When the leaders of Britain and France declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939, they announced that they were doing so because German military forces had attacked Poland, thereby threatening Polish independence. In going to war against Germany, the British and French leaders transformed what was then a geographically limited, two-day-old clash between Germany and Poland into a continental, European-wide conflict.

It soon became obvious that the British-French justification for going to war was not sincere. When Soviet Russian forces attacked Poland from the East two weeks later, ultimately taking even more Polish territory than did Germany, the leaders of Britain and France did not declare war against the Soviet Union. And although Britain and France went to war supposedly to protect Polish independence, at the end of the fighting in 1945 – after five and a half years of horrific struggle, death and suffering – Poland was still not free, but instead was entirely under the brutal rule of Soviet Russia.

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, an outstanding twentieth-century British military historian, put it this way: / 6

“The Western Allies entered the war with a two-fold object. The immediate purpose was to fulfill their promise to preserve the independence of Poland. The ultimate purpose was to remove a potential menace to themselves, and thus ensure their own security. In the outcome, they failed in both purposes. Not only did they fail to prevent Poland from being overcome in the first place, and partitioned between Germany and Russia, but after six years of war which ended in apparent victory they were forced to acquiesce in Russia’s domination of Poland – abandoning their pledges to the Poles who had fought on their side.”

In 1940, shortly after he was named prime minister, Winston Churchill spelled out, in two often quoted speeches, his reasons for continuing Britain’s war against Germany. In his famous “Blood, Sweat and Tears” speech, the great British wartime leader said that unless Germany was defeated, there would be “no survival for the British empire, no survival for all that the British empire has stood for…” A few weeks later, in his “Finest Hour” address, Churchill said: “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.” / 7

How strange those words sound today. Even though Britain supposedly “won,” or at least was on the winning side in the war, the once-mighty British empire has vanished into history. No British leader today would dare defend the often brutal record of British imperialism, including killing and bombing in order to maintain exploitative colonial rule over millions in Asia and Africa. Nor would any British leader today dare to justify killing people in order to uphold “Christian civilization,” not least for fear of offending Britain’s large and rapidly growing non-Christian population.

Americans like to believe that “good guys” win, and “bad guys” lose, and, in international affairs, that “good” countries win wars, and “bad” countries lose them. In keeping with this view, Americans are encouraged to believe that the US role in defeating Germany and Japan demonstrated the righteousness of the “American Way,” and the superiority of our country’s form of government and society.

But if there is any validity to this view, it would be more accurate to say that the war’s outcome showed the righteousness of the “Soviet Way,” and the superiority of the Soviet Communist form of society and government. Indeed, for decades that was a proud claim of Moscow’s leaders. As one official Soviet history book, published in the 1970s, put it:

“The war demonstrated the superiority of the Soviet socialist social and state system … The war further demonstrated the social and political unity of the Soviet people … Once again it underscored the significance of the guiding and organizing role of the Communist Party in socialist society. The Communist Party consolidated millions of people in their fight against the fascist aggressors … The selfless dedication demonstrated by the Communist Party during the war years further solidified the trust, respect and love it enjoys among the Soviet people.” / 8

In fact, Hitler’s Germany was defeated, first and foremost, by the Soviet Union. Some 70-80 percent of German combat forces were destroyed by the Soviet military on the Eastern front. The D-Day landing in France by American and British forces, which is often portrayed in the United States as a critically important military blow against Nazi Germany, was launched in June 1944 — that is, less than a year before the end of the war in Europe, and months after the great Soviet military victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, which were decisive in Germany’s defeat. / 9

What were the American goals in World War II, and how successful was the US in achieving them?

In 1941 President Franklin Roosevelt, together with British prime minister Winston Churchill, issued a formal declaration of Allied war aims, the much-publicized “Atlantic Charter.” In it, the United States and Britain declared that they sought “no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,” that they would “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of governments under which they will live,” and that they would strive “to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

It soon became apparent, though, that this solemn pledge of freedom and self-government for “all peoples” was little more than empty propaganda. / 10  This is hardly surprising, given that America’s two most important military allies in the war were Great Britain and the Soviet Union – that is, the world’s foremost imperialist power, and the world’s cruelest tyranny.

At the outbreak of war in 1939, Britain ruled over the largest colonial empire in history, holding more millions of people against their will than any regime before or since. This vast empire included what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and South Africa.

America’s other great wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was, by any objective measure, the most tyrannical or oppressive regime of its time, and a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler’s Germany. As historians acknowledge, the victims of Soviet dictator Stalin greatly outnumber those who perished as a result of Hitler’s policies. Robert Conquest, a prominent scholar of twentieth century Russian history, estimates the number of those who lost their lives as a consequence of Stalin’s policies as “no fewer than 20 million.” / 11

During the war the United States helped substantially to maintain Stalin’s tyranny, and to aid the Soviet Union in oppressing additional millions of Europeans, while also helping Britain to maintain or re-establish its imperial rule over many millions in Asia and Africa. / 12

Paul Fussell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who served in World War II as a US Army lieutenant, wrote in his acclaimed book Wartime that “the Allied war has been sanitized and romanticized almost beyond recognition by the sentimental, the loony patriotic, the ignorant and the bloodthirsty.” / 13

An important feature of this “sanitized” view is the belief that whereas the Nazi German regime was responsible for many terrible war crimes and atrocities, the Allies, and especially the United States, waged war humanely. In fact, the record of Allied misdeeds is a long one, and includes the British-American bombing of German cities, a terroristic campaign that took the lives of more than half a million civilians, the genocidal “ethnic cleansing” of millions of civilians in eastern and central Europe, and the large-scale postwar mistreatment of German prisoners. / 14

After “forty months of war duty and five major battles” in which Edgar L. Jones served as “an ambulance driver, a merchant seaman, an Army historian, and a war correspondent,” he wrote an article dispelling some myths about the Americans’ role in the war. “What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway?,” he told readers of The Atlantic monthly. “We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers.” / 15

Shortly after the end of the war, the victorious powers put Germany’s wartime leaders on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In doing so, the US and its allies held German leaders to a standard that they did not respect themselves.

US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was not the only high-ranking American official to acknowledge, at least in private, that the claim of unique Allied righteousness was mere pretense. In a letter to the President, written while he was serving as the chief US prosecutor at the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, Jackson acknowledged that the Allies “have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.” / 16

At the conclusion of the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, the respected British weekly The Economist cited Soviet crimes, and then added, “Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies’ own justice.” The Economist editorial went on:

“… Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.” / 17

Another popular American assumption is that this country’s enemies in World War II were all non-democratic dictatorships. In fact, on each side there were regimes that were repressive or dictatorial, as well as governments that had broad public support. Many of the countries allied with the US were headed by governments that were oppressive, dictatorial, or otherwise non-democratic. / 18  Finland, a democratic republic, was an important wartime partner of Hitler’s Germany.

In crass violation of their own solemnly proclaimed principles, the US, British and Soviet statesmen disposed of tens of millions of people with no regard for their wishes. The deceit and cynicism of the Allied leaders was perhaps most blatant in the infamous British-Soviet “percentages agreement” to divide up South Eastern Europe. At a meeting with Stalin in 1944, Churchill proposed that in Romania the Soviets should have 90 percent influence or authority, and 75 percent in Bulgaria, and that Britain should have 90 percent influence or control in Greece. In Hungary and Yugoslavia, the British leader suggested, each should have 50 percent. Churchill wrote all this out on a piece of paper, which he pushed across to Stalin, who made a check mark on it and passed it back. Churchill then said, “Might it not be thought rather cynical if it seemed we had disposed of these issues, so fateful to millions of people, in such an off-hand manner? Let us burn the paper.” “No, you keep it,” replied Stalin. / 19

To solidify the Allied wartime coalition – which was formally known as the “United Nations” — President Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, and Soviet premier Stalin met together on two occasions: in November 1943 at Tehran, in occupied Iran, and in February 1945 in Yalta, in Soviet Crimea. The three Allied leaders accomplished what they accused the Axis leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan of conspiring to achieve: world domination.

During a 1942 meeting in Washington, President Roosevelt candidly told the Soviet foreign minister that “the United States, England and Russia, and perhaps China, should police the world and enforce disarmament [of all others] by inspection.” / 20

To secure the global rule of the victorious powers after the war, the “Big Three” Allied leaders established the United Nations organization to serve as a permanent world police force. Once Germany and Japan were defeated, though, the US and the Soviet Union squared off against each other, which made it impossible for the UN to function as President Roosevelt had intended. While the US and Soviet Union each sought for decades to secure hegemony in its own sphere of influence, the two “super powers” were also rivals in a decades-long struggle for global supremacy.

In his book, A People’s History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn wrote:  / 21

“The victors were the Soviet Union and the United States (also England, France and Nationalist China, but they were weak). Both these countries now went to work – without swastikas, goose-stepping, or officially declared racism, but under the cover of ‘socialism’ on the one side, and ‘democracy’ on the other, to carve out their own empires of influence. They proceeded to share and contest with one another the domination of the world, to build military machines far greater than the Fascist countries had built, to control the destinies of more countries than Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan had been able to. They also acted to control their own populations, each country with its own techniques – crude in the Soviet Union, sophisticated in the United States – to make their rule secure.”

The United States officially entered World War II after the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Until then, the US was officially a neutral country, and most Americans wanted to keep out of the war that was then raging in Europe and Asia. In spite of the country’s neutral status, President Roosevelt and his administration, together with much of the US media, prodded the American people into supporting war against Germany. A large-scale propaganda campaign was mounted to persuade Americans that Hitler and his Nazi “henchmen” or “hordes” were doing everything in their power to take over and “enslave” the entire world, and that war with Hitler’s Germany was inevitable.

As part of this effort, the President and other high-ranking American officials broadcast fantastic lies about supposed plans by Hitler and his government to attack the United States and impose a global dictatorship. / 22

President Roosevelt’s record of lies is acknowledged even by his admirers. Among those who have sought to justify his policy is the eminent American historian Thomas A. Bailey, who wrote:  / 23

“Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor … He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good … The country was overwhelmingly noninterventionist to the very day of Pearl Harbor, and an overt attempt to lead the people into war would have resulted in certain failure and an almost certain ousting of Roosevelt in 1940, with a complete defeat of his ultimate aims.”

Professor Bailey went on to offer a cynical view of American democracy:

“A president who cannot entrust the people with the truth betrays a certain lack of faith in the basic tenets of democracy. But because the masses are notoriously shortsighted and generally cannot see danger until it is at their throats, our statesmen are forced to deceive them into an awareness of their own long-run interests. This is clearly what Roosevelt had to do, and who shall say that posterity will not thank him for it?”

As part of the US government’s campaign to incite war, President Roosevelt in 1941 ordered the US Navy to help British forces in attacking German vessels in the Atlantic.  This was reinforced by a presidential “shoot on sight” order to the US Navy against German and Italian ships. Roosevelt’s goal was to provoke an “incident” that would provide a pretext for open war. Hitler, for his part, was anxious to avoid conflict with the United States. The German leader responded to the US government’s blatantly illegal provocations by ordering his navy commanders to avoid clashes with US ships. / 24

Also in crass violation of international law, the officially neutral US government provided massive “Lend Lease” aid to Germany’s enemies, especially Britain and its empire, as well as to Soviet Russia.

Two prominent American historians, Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, noted that:

“This [1941 “Lend Lease”] measure was clearly unneutral, but the United States, committed now to the defeat of Germany, was not to be stayed by the niceties of international law. Other equally unneutral acts followed – the seizure of Axis shipping, the freezing of Axis funds, the transfer of tankers to Britain, the occupation of Greenland and, later, of Iceland, the extension of lend-lease to the new ally, Russia, and … the presidential order to ‘shoot on sight’ any enemy submarines.” / 25

In the view of British historian J.F.C. Fuller, President Roosevelt “left no stone unturned to provoke Hitler to declare war on the very people to whom he so ardently promised peace. He provided Great Britain with American destroyers, he landed American troops in Iceland, and he set out to patrol the Atlantic seaways in order to safeguard British convoys; all of which were acts of war … In spite of his manifold enunciations to keep the United States out of the war, he was bent on provoking some incident which would bring them into it.” / 26

So belligerent and unlawful were the Roosevelt administration’s policies that Admiral Harold R. Stark, chief of US naval operations, acknowledged in a confidential September 1941 memorandum for the President: “He [Hitler] has every excuse in the world to declare war on us now, if he were of a mind to.” / 27

Across Europe and Asia, the Second World War brought mass destruction, death to tens of millions of men, women and children, and great suffering to many more. Americans, though, were spared the horrors of large-scale bombing, combat fighting on their home soil, or occupation by foreign armies.

At the end of the war the United States was the only major nation not shattered in the global conflict. It emerged as the world’s preeminent economic, military, and financial power. For the US, the half-century from 1945 to the mid-1990s was an era of spectacular economic growth and unmatched global stature.

Lewis H. Lapham, author and for years editor of Harper’s magazine, put it this way:

“In 1945, the United States inherited the earth … At the end of World War II, what was left of Western civilization passed into the American account. The war had also prompted the country to invent a miraculous economic machine that seemed to grant as many wishes as were asked of it. The continental United States had escaped the plague of war, and so it was easy enough for the heirs to believe that they had been anointed by God.” / 28

But were Americans really better off than if they had stayed out of World War II? Among those who has not thought so is Prof. Bruce Russett, who wrote: / 29

“American participation in World War II had very little effect on the essential structure of international politics thereafter, and probably did little either to advance the material welfare of most Americans or to make the nation secure from foreign military threats … In fact, most Americans probably would have been no worse off, and possibly a little better, if the United States had never become a belligerent…

“I personally find it hard to develop a very emphatic preference for Stalinist Russia over Hitlerite Germany … In cold-blooded realist terms, Nazism as an ideology was almost certainly less dangerous to the United States than is Communism.”

Although Third Reich Germany and imperial Japan were destroyed, the United States and Britain failed to achieve the political goals proclaimed by their leaders. In August 1945, the prestigious British weekly, The Economist, noted: “At the end of a mighty war fought to defeat Hitlerism, the Allies are making a Hitlerian peace. This is the real measure of their failure.” / 30

Among those who were not happy about the war’s outcome was British historian Basil Liddell Hart, who wrote:

“… All the effort that was put into the destruction of Hitlerite Germany resulted in a Europe so devastated and weakened in the process that its power of resistance was much reduced in the face of a fresh and greater menace – and Britain, in common with her European neighbours, had become a poor dependent of the United States. These are the hard facts underlying the victory that was so hopefully pursued and so painfully achieved – after the colossal weight of both Russia and America had been drawn into the scales against Germany. The outcome dispelled the persistent popular illusion that ‘victory’ spelt peace. It confirmed the warning of past experience that victory is a ‘mirage in the desert’ – the desert that a long war creates, when waged with modern weapons and unlimited methods.” / 31

Even Winston Churchill had misgivings about the war’s outcome. Three years after the end of the fighting, he wrote:

“The human tragedy [of the war] reaches its climax in the fact that after all the exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people and of the victories of the Righteous Cause, we have still not found Peace or Security, and that we lie in the grip of even worse perils than those we have surmounted.” / 32

At the end of the war, Europe for the first time in its history was no longer master of its own destiny, but was instead under the domination of two great outer European powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which for political and ideological reasons had no special interest in, or concern for, European culture or Western civilization. /  33

In the view of Charles A. Lindbergh, the world-famous author and aviator, the war was a great setback for the West. Twenty-five years after the end of the conflict, he wrote: / 34

“We won the war in a military sense; but in a broader sense it seems to me we lost it, for our Western civilization is less respected and secure than it was before. In order to defeat Germany and Japan we supported the still greater menaces of Russia and China – which now confront us in a nuclear-weapon era. Poland was not saved … Much of our Western culture was destroyed. We lost the genetic heredity formed through aeons in many million lives … It is alarmingly possible that World War II marks the beginning of our Western civilization’s breakdown, as it already marks the breakdown of the greatest empire ever built by man.”

The outcome of the US and British role in the war moved British historian J.F.C. Fuller to write: / 35

“What persuaded them [Roosevelt and Churchill] to adopt so fatal a policy? We hazard to reply – blind hatred! Their hearts ran away with their heads and their emotions befogged their reason. For them the war was not a political conflict in the normal meaning of the words, it was a Manichean contest between Good and Evil, and to carry their people along with them they unleashed a vitriolic propaganda against the devil they had invoked.”

Even after the passage of so many years, this hatred has endured. American schools, the US mass media, government agencies and political leaders have for decades carried on a campaign of emotion-laden, one-sided propaganda to uphold the national mythology of World War II.

How a nation views the past is not a trivial or merely academic exercise. Our perspective on history profoundly shapes our actions in the present, often with grave consequences for the future. Drawing conclusions from our understanding of the past, we make or support policies that greatly impact many lives.

The familiar American portrayal of World War II, and the “good war” mythology of the US role in it, is not merely bad history. It has helped greatly to support and justify a series of arrogant US foreign policy adventures, with harmful consequences for both America and the world.

“World War II has warped our view of how we look at things today,” said US Navy rear admiral Gene R. LaRoque, who served in 13 major battles during the war. “We see things in terms of that war, which in a sense was a good war. But the twisted memory of it encourages the men of my generation to be willing, almost eager, to use military force anywhere in the world.”  / 36

Since 1945, American presidents have repeatedly sought to justify US military actions in foreign countries by recalling the “good war” and, in particular, the US role in defeating Germany. During the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson sought to win support for his Vietnam war policy with historically false portrayals of World War II and Hitler’s Germany. / 37

This moved historian Murray Rothbard to write in 1968: / 38

” …World War II is the last war myth left, the myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown into our faces by the war-making establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II.”

In recent years, American political leaders have tried to gain support for war against Iraq and Iran by drawing historical parallels between Hitler and the leaders of those two Middle East countries.

Many Americans are understandably outraged by the deceit and falsehoods of President George W. Bush and his administration in seeking public support for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. But as we have seen, presidential deception to justify war did not start with him. Americans who express admiration for the US role in World War II, and for Franklin Roosevelt’s presidential leadership, have little moral right to complain when presidents follow his example and lead the country into war by breaking the law, subverting the Constitution, and lying to the people.

If the history of war and conflict teaches us anything, it is the danger of arrogance and hubris – that is, the danger of going to war because a nation’s leaders are convinced of their own righteousness, or have persuaded themselves and the public that a foreign country should be attacked because its government or society is not merely alien, hostile or threatening, but “evil.”

This is perhaps the most harmful legacy of America ‘s national mythology about World War II — the notion that worthwhile or justifiable wars are fought against countries headed by supposedly “evil” regimes. And it is this very outlook that moved President George W. Bush to refer to his “war on terrorism” as a “crusade,” and, in a major speech, to proclaim a US foreign policy dedicated to “ending tyranny in the world.” / 39

A nation should go to war only after prudent consideration, after carefully weighing the possible consequences, and only for the most compelling of reasons, after all other alternatives have been exhausted, and as a last resort. This is especially true given the awesome destructive power of modern weaponry, and because – as World War II , the “Good War,” so tragically attests — wars rarely turn out the way anyone expects.

About the Author

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University and Indiana University (M.A., 1977). This article was presented as a lecture at an IHR meeting in Costa Mesa, California, on May 24, 2008.

End Notes

 1. Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (New York: Pantheon, 1984), p. vi.

2. P. Fussell, Wartime (1989), pp. 164-165.Also quoted there by Fussell is Eric Severeid, an influential American journalist and commentator, who wrote that the war “absolutely” was a “contest between good and evil.”

3. Eisenhower declaration of June 6, 1944, issued in connection with the D-Day invasion.

4. Clinton’s second inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1997. See: M. Weber, “The Danger of Historical Lies: President Clinton’s Distortion of History,” The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997. )

5.  B. M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger (1972), pp. 12, 17.

6. Basil H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1971), p. 3.

7. Churchill speeches of May 13, 1940, and June 18, 1940.

8. K. Gusev, V. Naumov, The USSR: A Short History (Moscow: Progress, 1976), p. 239.

9. N. Davies, No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 24, 25, 276, 484-485; John Erickson, The Road to Berlin (Yale Univ. Press, 1999), p. ix (preface); Soviet losses in the three-week Berlin offensive of April 16 to May 8, 1945, it’s been estimated, were greater than the total of American dead in the Second World War, and greater than the losses of the Western allies in the whole of 1945. H. P. Willmott, The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War (New York: 1990), p. 452; In the view of historian John Lukacs: “Their [the Soviet Russians’] resistance and victory over the Germans was their greatest – no, their only great – achievement during the seventy-four years of Soviet Communism.” J. Lukacs, The End of the Twentieth Century and the End of the Modern Age (New York: 1993), p. 55.

10.  British historian J. F. C. Fuller called the Atlantic Charter “first class propaganda, and probably the biggest hoax in history.” J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 453.

11. R. Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), p. 48. See also: N. Davies, No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 64-67

12.  A few years after the end of the war, former US President Herbert Hoover recalled his critical view of Roosevelt’s policy of aiding the Soviet Union: “In June 1941, when Britain was safe from German invasion due to Hitler’s diversion to attack Stalin, I urged that the gargantuan jest of all history would be our giving aid to the Soviet government. I urged that we should allow those two dictators to exhaust each other. I stated that the result of our assistance would be to spread Communism over the whole world. … The consequences have proved that I was right.” Cited by: Scott Horton, “Saving England Wasn’t Worth It,” June 2007. ( )

13. P. Fussell, Wartime (New York: 1989), p. ix (preface)

14. See, for example: Max Hastings, Bomber Command (New York: 1979); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich(2007); N. Davies, No Simple Victory (2007), pp. 67-72; Alfred M. de Zayas, The German Expellees: Victims in War and Peace (New York: 1993); Frederick J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (IHR, 1993); Jörg Friedrich, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940-1945 (Columbia University Press, 2006); Ralph F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest (Chicago: 1947)

15. Edgar L. Jones, “One War is Enough,” The Atlantic, Feb. 1946. ( ). Also quoted in P. Fussell, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (New York: 1988), pp. 50-51.

16. Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. Quoted in: Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York: 1983), p. 68. See also: James McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (London: 1985), pp. 67, 173-174, 244-245, 380, 414-415.

17. “The Nuremberg Judgment,” editorial, The Economist (London), Oct. 5, 1946. Quoted in: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, p. 176. (

18.  In addition to the Soviet Union and the puppet states under British colonial rule, those countries included China, Brazil, Cuba, and Egypt.

19. Martin Gilbert, Road to Victory, Winston Churchill 1941-45, Vol. VII  (Houghton Mifflin, 1986), pp. 992-994. Source cited: W. Churchill, The Second World War. Vol. 6, Triumph and Tragedy (London, 1954), p. 198.

20. Warren F. Kimball, The Juggler: Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman (Princeton Univ. Press, 1991), p. 85 and p. 235 (n. 6). Source cited: Foreign Relations of the United States, 1942, vol. III, pp. 573 f.

21. H. Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: HarperCollins/ Perennial, 2001), pp. 424-425.

22. In his nationally broadcast address of Dec. 29, 1940, President Roosevelt told Americans that “the Nazi masters of Germany” were seeking “to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.” In his address of May 27, 1941, Roosevelt said that “the Nazis” sought “world domination.” On Oct. 25, 1941, US Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle told Americans that Hitler and the Nazis “planned to conquer the entire world.” Two days later, the President issued perhaps his most extravagant claim of supposed Nazi plans to take over the world. See: M. Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985. See also: Thomas A. Bailey and P. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt (1979), esp. pp. 199-203; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (New York: 1985), pp. 602-603;

“From the captured German archives, there is no evidence to support the President’s claims that Hitler contemplated any offensive against the western hemisphere, and until America entered the war there is abundant evidence that this was the one thing he wished to avert.” J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 629.

23. T. A. Bailey, The Man in the Street (1948), pp. 11-13. Quoted in: W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade, p. 123. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941 (New York: 1976), pp. 9, 10, 420, 421.

24.  C. Tansill, Back Door to War (1952), pp. 606-615; Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill, 1939-1941(New York: 1976), pp. 298, 323, 340, 344, 392, 418, 419, 421; T. A. Bailey and P. B. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt (1979), pp. 166,  265, 268; Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography (1985), pp. 589, 601; Frederic R. Sanborn, “Roosevelt is Frustrated in Europe,” in H. E. Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1993), pp. 219-221; James McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (London: 1985), pp. 173-174; W. H. Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (1950), pp. 124-147.

25. Allan Nevins, Henry Steele Commager, A Pocket History of the United States (New York: Washington Square Press, 1986), p. 433.

26. J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 416

27. Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948), p. 380.

28. Lewis H. Lapham, “America’s Foreign Policy: A Rake’s Progress,” Harper’s, March 1979. Quoted in: Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (New York: 1984), p. 8.

29. B. M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger (1972), pp. 19, 20, 42.

30. The Economist (London), August 11, 1945. Quoted in: J.F.C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World , Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 631.

31. Basil H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1971), p. 3.

32. W. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Boston: 1948), pp. iv-v (preface).

33. H. P. Willmott, The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War (New York: The Free Press, 1990), pp. 102-103, 474 , 476; See also: F. P. Yockey, Imperium (Noontide Press, 2000).

34. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh  (New York: 1970), pp. xiv-xv;

Donald Day, for years a correspondent in central Europe for the Chicago Tribune, was even more emphatic in viewing an Allied victory as catastrophic for Europe and the West. “Speaking as an American and as a newspaperman of 15 years experience who knows something about both the United States and Europe,” he wrote in early 1943, “I think an American control and administration of Europe would be just as destructive and ruinous as Soviet control. Both would be really Jewish control.” Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers(Noontide Press, 2002), p. 168.

35.  J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World, Vol. 3 (New York: DaCapo, 1987), p. 631.

36. Studs Terkel, “The Good War” (1984), p. 193.

37. President Johnson repeatedly compared the North Vietnamese leadership to Hitler to justify the use of American military power in Southeast Asia. At a news conference on July 28, 1965, for example, he said that “the lessons of history” showed that “surrender” in Vietnam would not bring peace. “We learned from Hitler at Munich,” he said, “that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle will be renewed in one country and then another country…”

38. Murray N. Rothbard, “Harry Elmer Barnes, RIP,” Left and Right, 1968. ( )

39. George W. Bush, Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 2005. “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world.”

For Further Reading

Michael C. C. Adams, The Best War Ever: America and World War II (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1994).

Thomas A. Bailey, Paul B. Ryan, Hitler vs. Roosevelt: The Undeclared Naval War (New York: The Free Press, 1979).

Nicholson Baker, Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008)

Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Institute for Historical Review, 1993)

Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (New York: Crown, 2008).

William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: 1950)

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (Arlington House, 1975)

George N. Crocker, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia (Regnery, 1961)

Norman Davies, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945 (New York: Viking, 2007)

Paul Fussell, Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War (New York: 1989).

Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941. (Declaration of war against the USA.) )

Max Hastings, Bomber Command (New York: 1979)

Robert Higgs, “Truncating the Antecedents: How Americans Have Been Misled about World War II.” March 18, 2008 ( )

David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.

Herbert C. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath (George H. Nash, ed.). Stanford Univ., 2011.

David Irving, Hitler’s War. Focal Point, 2002.

Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of Allied Occupation (Basic Books, 2007)

Robert Nisbet, Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship (London: 1989)

Amos Perlmutter, FDR & Stalin: A Not So Grand Alliance, 1943-1945 (University of Missouri Press, 1993)

Bruce M. Russett, No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)

Friedrich Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933- 1939. )

R. H. S. Stolfi, Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. Prometheus Books, 2011.

Michel Sturdza, The Suicide of Europe (Boston: 1968)

Viktor Suvorov (pseud.), The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008

Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (Chicago: 1952)

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.

Studs Terkel, “The Good War”: An Oral History of World War Two (New York: Pantheon, 1984)

John Toland, Adolf Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.

Nikolai Tolstoy, Stalin’s Secret War (New York: 1981)

F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Institute for Historical Review, 1993)

Mark Weber, “President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pp. 135-172.

Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985. )

Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (University of Nebraska, 1989)

UK Israel Lobby Adds Muscle as US Lobby Weakens


British politics are being plunged into a stifling silence on the longest example of mass human rights abuses sanctioned by the West in modern history, writes Jonathan Cook.

By JonathanCook

For decades it was all but taboo to suggest that pro-Israel lobbies in the United States such as AIPAC used their money and influence to keep lawmakers firmly in check on Israel-related issues — even if one had to be blind not to notice that that was exactly what they were up to.

When back in February U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar pointed out the obvious – that U.S. lawmakers were routinely expected to submit to the lobby’s dictates on Israel, a foreign country – her colleagues clamored to distance themselves from her, just as one might have expected were the pro-Israel lobby to wield the very power Omar claimed.

But surprisingly Omar did not – at least immediately – suffer the crushing fate of those who previously tried to raise this issue. Although she was pressured into apologizing, she was not battered into complete submission for her honesty.

She received support on social media, as well as a wavering, muted defense from Democratic grandee Nancy Pelosi, and even a relatively sympathetic hearing from a few prominent figures in the U.S. Jewish community.

The Benjamins Do Matter

Omar’s comments have confronted – and started to expose – one of the most enduring absurdities in debates about U.S. politics. Traditionally it has been treated as anti-Semitic to argue that the pro-Israel lobby actually lobbies for its chosen cause – exactly as other major lobbies do, from the financial services industries to the health and gun lobbies – and that, as with other lobbies enjoying significant financial clout, it usually gets its way.

Omar found herself in the firing line in February when she noted that what mattered in U.S. politics was “It’s all about the Benjamins” – an apparent reference to the 1997 Puff Daddy song of the same name in which Benjamins refer to $100 bills. She later clarified that AIPAC leverages funds over congressional and presidential candidates.

The claim that the pro-Israel lobby isn’t really in the persuasion business can only be sustained on the preposterous basis that Israeli and U.S. interests are so in tune that AIPAC and other organizations serve as little more than cheerleaders for the two countries’ “unbreakable bond.” Presumably on this view, the enormous sums of money raised are needed only to fund the celebrations.

Making the irrefutable observation that the pro-Israel lobby does actually lobby on Israel’s behalf, and very successfully, is typically denounced as anti-Semitism. Omar’s comments were perceived as anti-Semitic on the grounds that she pointed to the canard that Jews wield outsized influence using money to sway policymaking.

Allegations of anti-Semitism against her deepened days later when she gave a talk in Washington, D.C., and questioned why it was that she could talk about the influence of the National Rifle Association and Big Pharma but not the pro-Israel lobby – or “the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

That pro-Israel lobbyists – as opposed to Jews generally – do have dual loyalty seems a peculiar thing to deny, given that the purpose of groups like AIPAC is to rally support for Israel in Congress.

Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a key backer of Republican candidates for the presidency, has never hidden his passion not only for Israel but specifically for the ultra-nationalist governments of Benjamin Netanyahu.

In fact, he is so committed to Netanyahu’s survival that he spent nearly $200 million propping up an Israeli newspaper over its first seven years – all so he could assist the prime minister of a foreign country.

Similarly, Haim Saban, one of the main donors to Democratic presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, has made no secret of his commitment to Israel. He has said: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”

Saban presents U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with an award at Brooking Institution's 2016 Saban Forum. (State Department via Wikimedia Commons)

Saban honors U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at Brooking Institution’s 2016 Saban Forum. (State Department via Wikimedia Commons)

Might Saban and Adelson’s “Benjamins” have influenced the very pro-Israel – and very anti-Palestinian – positions of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates? You would have to be supremely naïve or dishonest to claim not.

‘No Bernie-Like Approach’

This point really should be beyond doubt by now. This month The New York Times published an unprecedented essay in which author Nathan Thrall quoted political insiders and lobbyists making plain that, as one would expect, the pro-Israel lobby uses its money to pressure congressional candidates to toe the lobby’s line on Israel.

Some of the lobby’s power operates at the level of assumption about what Jewish donors expect in return for their money. According to the Times, some three-quarters of all donations over $500,000 to the major political action committee supporting Democratic nominees for the U.S. Senate race in 2018 were made by Jews.

Though many of those donors may not rate Israel as their main cause, a former Clinton campaign aide noted that the recipients of this largesse necessarily tailor their foreign policy positions so as not to antagonize such donors. As a result, candidates avoid even the mild criticism of Israel adopted by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Democratic party’s challenger to Clinton in the 2016 presidential race and a primary contender for 2020.

“There’s no major donor that I can think of who is looking for someone to take a Bernie-like approach,” said the aide. Sanders raised his campaign funds from small donations rather these major funders, leaving him freer to speak openly about Israel.

Other insiders are more explicit still. Ben Rhodes, a former confidant of Barack Obama, says the lobby effectively tied Obama’s hand’s domestically on efforts to promote peace. “The Washington view of Israel-Palestine is still shaped by the donor class,” he told Thrall, adding: “The donor class is profoundly to the right of where the activists are, and frankly, where the majority of the Jewish community is.”

Obama: Hands tied by AIPAC. (White House via Flickr)

Obama: Hands tied by AIPAC. (White House via Flickr)

Joel Rubin, a former political director at lobby group J Street and a founding board member of the centrist Jewish Democratic Council of America, concurred: “The fight over Israel used to be about voters. It’s more about donors now.”

All of these insiders are stating that the expectations of major donors align candidates’ U.S. foreign policy positions with Israel’s interests, not necessarily those of the U.S. It is hard not to interpret that as reformulation of “dual loyalty.”

What’s so significant about the Times article is that it signals, as did the muted furor over Omar’s comments, that the pro-Israel lobby is weakening. No powerful lobby, including the Israel one, wants to be forced out of the shadows. It wants to remain in the darkness, where it can most comfortably exercise its influence without scrutiny or criticism.

The pro-Israel lobby’s loyalty to Israel is no longer unmentionable. But it is also not unique.

As Mondoweiss recently noted, Hannah Arendt, the Jewish scholar and fugitive from Nazi Germany, pointed to the inevitability of the “double loyalty conflict” in her 1944 essay “Zionism Reconsidered,” where she foreshadowed the rise of a pro-Israel lobby and its potential negative impacts on American Jews. It was, she wrote, “an unavoidable problem of every national movement of a people living within the boundaries of other states and unwilling to resign their civil and political rights therein.”

For that reason, the U.S.-Cuban lobby has an obvious dual loyalty problem too. It’s just that, given the Cuban lobby’s priority is overthrowing the Cuban government – a desire shared in Washington – the issue is largely moot.

In Israel’s case, however, there is a big and growing gap between image and reality. On the one hand, Washington professes a commitment to peace-making and a promise to act as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. And on the other, the reality is it has offered full-throated support for a series of ultra-nationalist Israeli governments determined to destroy any hope of peace and swallow up the last vestiges of a potential Palestinian state.

The Lord’s Work

It’s important to point out that advocates for Israel are not only Jews. While the pro-Israel lobby represents the views of a proportion of Jewish Americans, it is also significantly comprised of Christians, evangelicals in particular.

Millions of these Christians – including Vice-President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – can be accused of dual loyalty too. They regard Israel’s role in Biblical prophecy as far more important than the future of the U.S., or mankind for that matter.

For many of these evangelicals, bringing about the end of the world by ensuring Jews return to their Biblical homeland – triggering a final reckoning at the Battle of Armageddon – is the fulfillment of God’s will. And if it’s a choice between support for Washington’s largely secular elites and support for God, they know very definitely where they stand.

Again, the Times has started to shine a light on the strange role of Israel in the U.S. political constellation. Another recent article reminded readers that in 2015 Pompeo spoke of the end-times struggle phrophesied to take place in Israel, or what is often termed by evangelicals as “The Rapture.” He said: “We will continue to fight these battles.”

During his visit last month to Israel, he announced that the Trump administration’s work was “to make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state, remains. I am confident that the Lord is at work here.”

Pompeo tours U.S. embassy in Jerusalem with U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, March 21, 2019. (State Department/Ron Przysucha via Flickr)

Pompeo tours U.S. embassy in Jerusalem with U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, March 21, 2019. (State Department/Ron Przysucha via Flickr)

Divorced from Reality

If the debate about the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. is for the first time making a nod to truth, the conversation about the pro-Israel lobby in the U.K. is becoming more and more divorced from reality.

Part of the reason is the way the Israel lobby has recently emerged in the U.K. – hurriedly, and in a mix of panic and damage-limitation mode.

Given that for decades European countries largely followed Washington’s lead on Israel, pro-Israel lobbies outside the U.S. were much less organized and muscular. European leaders’ unquestioning compliance was assured as long as Washington appeared to act as a disinterested broker overseeing a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. As a result, Europe was in little need of vigorous pro-Israel lobbies.

But that illusion has now been shattered, first by the explicit Greater Israel ideology espoused by a series of Netanyahu governments, and latterly by Donald Trump’s occupancy of the White House and his vehement backing of Israeli demands, however much they violate international law.

That has left European policy towards Israel – and its enabling by default of Netanyahu and Trump’s efforts to crush Palestinian rights – dangerously exposed.

Popular backlashes have taken the form of a rapid growth in support for BDS, a grassroots, nonviolent movement promoting a boycott of Israel. But more specifically in Britain’s case, it has resulted in the surprise election of Jeremy Corbyn, a well-known champion of Palestinian rights and anti-racism struggles generally, to lead the opposition Labour Party.

For that reason, Jewish leadership groups in the U.K. have had to reinvent themselves quickly, from organizations to promote the community’s interests into vehicles to defend Israel. And to do that they have had to adopt a position that was once closely identified with anti-Semitism: conflating Jews with Israel.

This, we should remember, was the view taken 100 years ago by arch anti-Semites in the British government. They regarded Jews as inherently “un-British,” as incapable of assimilation and therefore as naturally suspect.

Lord Balfour, before he made his abiding legacy the 1917 Declaration of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, helped pass the Aliens Act to block entry to the U.K. of Jews fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe. Balfour believed Jewish immigration had resulted in “undoubted evils.”

Lobby Cobbled Together

Also significantly, unlike the U.S., where the pro-Israel lobby has maintained fervent support for Israel as a bipartisan matter over decades, the need for an equivalent pro-Israel lobby in the U.K. has emerged chiefly in relation to Corbyn’s unexpected ascent to power in the Labour Party.

Rather than emerging slowly and organically, as was the case in the U.S., the British pro-Israel has had to be cobbled together hastily. Israel’s role in directing this immature lobby has been harder to hide.

Most of the U.K.’s Jewish leadership organizations have been poorly equipped for the task of tackling the new sympathy for Palestinian rights unleashed in the Labour Party by Corbyn’s rise. The Board of Deputies, for example, has enjoyed visible ties to the ruling Conservative Party. Any criticisms they make of the Labour leader are likely to be seen as having an air of partisanship and point-scoring.

So unusually in Britain’s case, the chief pro-Israel lobby group against Corbyn has emerged from within his own party – in the form of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM).

The JLM is trumpeted in the British media both as a venerable Jewish group, more than a century old, and as one that is widely representative of Jewish opinion. Neither claim is true.

JLM London demonstration in March. (@JewishLabour via Twitter)

JLM London demonstration in March. (@JewishLabour via Twitter)

The JLM likes to date its origins to the Poale Zion organization, which was founded in 1903. A socialist society, Poale Zion affiliated itself not only with the British Labour Party but also with a wide range of anti-Palestinian Zionist organizations such as the World Zionist Organisation and the Israeli Labour Party. The latter carried out the ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of Palestinians in 1948 and the party’s leaders to this today publicly support the illegal settlement “blocs” that are displacing Palestinians and stealing their land.

But as the investigative journalist Asa Winstanley has shown, before the unexpected ascent of Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015, the JLM had largely fallen into dormancy.

It was briefly revived in 2004, when Israel was facing widespread criticism in Britain over its brutal efforts to crush a Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories. But the JLM only really became active again in 2015.

According to a covert recording of a private JLM event in late 2016, its then chair Jeremy Newmark said he and other activists had agreed to reform the group in September 2015 in response to “the rise of Jeremy Corbyn” and “Bernie Sanders in the States.” Corbyn has been elected Labour leader only days previously. According to the transcript, Newmark told the other activists that it would be the “start of a struggle and a battle we will all be engaged in for months and probably years ahead of us.” He added that the JLM would be a suitable vehicle for their work because of the “rights and privileges” it enjoyed as a Labour Party affiliate organization.

Front for Israeli Embassy

The motive behind the JLM’s resuscitation was also revealed by an undercover documentary made byAl-Jazeeraaired in early 2017. It showed that the JLM was acting as little more than a front for the Israeli embassy, and that the mission it set itself was to weaken Corbyn in the hope of removing him from the leadership.

Early on, the JLM and other pro-Israel lobbyists within the party realized the most effective way to damage Corbyn, and silence solidarity with the Palestinian cause, was to weaponize the charge of anti-Semitism.

Support for Palestinian rights necessarily requires severe criticism of Israel, whose popular, rightwing governments have shown no interest in making concessions to the Palestinians on self-determination. In fact, while Westerners have debated the need for urgent peacemaking, Israel has simply got on with grabbing vast tracts of Palestinian land as a way to destroy any hope of statehood.

But pro-Israel lobbyists in the U.K. have found that they can very effectively turn this issue into a zero-sum game – one that, in the context of a British public conversation oblivious to Palestinian rights, inevitably favors Israel.

The thrust of the lobby’s argument is that almost all Jews identify with Israel, which means that attacks on Israel are also attacks on Jewish identity. That, they claim, is a modern form of anti-Semitism.

This argument, if it were true, has an obvious retort: if Jews really do identify with Israel to the extent that they are prepared to ignore its systematic abuse of Palestinians, then that would make most British Jews anti-Arab racists.

Further, if Jewish identity really is deeply enmeshed in the state of Israel, that would place a moral obligation on Jews to denounce any behavior by Israel towards Palestinians that violates human rights and international law.

And yet the very Jewish leaders claiming that Israel is at the core of their identity are also the ones who demand that Jews not be expected to take responsibility for Israel’s actions – and that to demand as much is anti-Semitic.

Could there be a clearer example of having your cake and eating it?

Nonetheless, the JLM has very successfully hijacked the debate within Labour of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to silence criticism. It has worked hard to impose a highly controversial new definition of anti-Semitism that conflates it with criticism of Israel. Seven of the 11 examples of anti-Semitism used to illustrate the new definition relate to Israel.

Arguing, for example, that Israel is a “racist endeavor,” the view of many in the growing BDS movement and among Corbyn supporters, is now being treated as evidence of anti-Semitism.

For this reason, the JLM has been able to file a complaint against Labour with the Equality and Human Rights Commission arguing that the party is “institutionally anti-Semitic.”

Labour is only the second political party after the neo-Nazi British National Party to have been subjected to an investigation by the equality watchdog.

1970s march by National Front, from which the British National Party emerged. (White Flight, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

1970s march by National Front, from which the British National Party emerged.
(White Flight, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

Despite its claims, the JLM does not represent Jewish opinion in the Labour Party. The JLM says it has 2,000 members, though that figure – if accurate – includes non-Jews. Attendance at its annual general meeting this month could be measured in the dozens.

As one Jewish critic observed: “There are some 300,000 Jews in Britain. The Jewish Labour Movement claims to represent us all. So why were there fewer people at their AGM [annual general meeting] than at my Labour Party branch AGM?”

Many Jews in the Labour Party have chosen not to join the JLM, preferring instead to act as a counterweight by creating a new Jewish pressure group that backs Corbyn called Jewish Voice for Labour.

Even a new JLM membership drive publicized by former Labour leader Gordon Brown reportedly brought only a small influx of new members, suggesting that support for the JLM’s anti-Corbyn, pro-Israel agenda is very limited inside Labour.

Speaking for ‘the Jews’

The re-establishment of the JLM has one very transparent aim in mind: to push out Corbyn, using any means at its disposal. At its annual general meeting, the JLM unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in Corbyn, describing him as “unfit to be Prime Minister.” The resolution declared that “a Labour Government led by (Corbyn) would not be in the interests of British Jews.”

One Jewish commentator derisively noted the JLM’s arrogance in speaking for all British Jews at a time of Conservative government-imposed austerity: “I would not presume to proclaim what is in the interests of ‘the Jews’, but I really cannot imagine that the person who drafted this resolution had any real experience of meeting unemployed Jews, Jewish pensioners and single mothers just scraping by, or Jews who are struggling as they use under-resourced mental health services.”

In other circumstances, a group of people operating inside a major political party using underhand methods to disrupt its democratic processes would be described as entryists. Some 2,000 pro-Israel fanatics within Labour are trying to overturn the overwhelming wishes, twice expressed at the ballot box, of the Labour membership, now numbering more than 500,000.

Nonetheless, last week the JLM started to show its hand more publicly. It has been noisily threatening to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. In the circumstances that would at least be an honorable – if very unlikely – thing for it to do.

Instead it announced that it would begin scoring local and national Labour politicians based on their record on anti-Semitism. After the JLM’s frantic lobbying for the adoption of the new anti-Semitism definition, it seems clear that such scores will relate to the vehemence of a candidate’s criticism of Israel, or possibly their ideological sympathy with Corbyn, more than overt bigotry towards Jews.

That was underscored this week when a senior Labour politician, Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, came under fire from the JLM and Board of Deputies for comments he made in 2014, during Israel’s attack on Gaza, that only recently came to light. He was recorded saying: “The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists.” He had previously denied making any such comment.

Mike Katz, the JLM’s new chair, responded: “Insulting a core part of their [Jewish people’s] identity and then dissembling about it is shameful behaviour from a senior frontbencher in our party, let alone someone who aspires to administer our justice system.”

According to the Labour Party’s own figures, actual anti-Jewish prejudice – as opposed to criticism of Israel – is extremely marginal in its ranks, amounting to some 0.08 percent of members. It is presumably even less common among those selected to run as candidates in local and national elections.

The JLM has nonetheless prioritized this issue, threatening that the scores may be used to decide whether activists will campaign for a candidate. One might surmise that the scores could also be serve as the basis for seeking to deselect candidates and replace them with politicians more to the JLM’s liking.

“We have got elections coming up but we are not going to put that effort in unless we know people are standing shoulder to shoulder with us,” said Katz.

Need for Vigorous Debate

Paradoxically, the JLM appears to be preparing to do openly what pro-Israel lobbyists in the U.S. deny they do covertly: use their money and influence to harm candidates who are not seen as sympathetic enough to Israel.

Despite claims from both U.S. and U.K. pro-Israel lobby groups that they speak for their own domestic Jewish populations, they clearly don’t. Individuals within Jewish communities are divided over whether they identify with Israel or not. And certainly, their identification with Israel should not be a reason to curtail vigorous debates about U.S. and U.K. foreign policy and Israeli influence domestically.

Even if the vast majority of Jews in the U.S. and U.K. do support Israel – not just in a symbolic or abstract way, but the actual far-right governments that now permanently rule Israel – that does not make them right about Israel or make it anti-Semitic for others to be highly critical of Israel.

The overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews support a narrow spectrum of politicians, from the militaristic right to religious fundamentalists and fascists. They view Palestinians as less deserving, less human even, than Jews and as an obstacle to the realization of Jewish rights in the whole of the “Land of Israel,” including the Palestinian territories. Does that make them right? Does their numerical dominance excuse their ugly bigotry towards Palestinians? Of course not.

And so it would be the same even were it true that most Jewish members of the Labour Party supported a state that proudly upholds Jewish supremacism as its national ideology. Their sensitivities should count for nothing if they simply mask ugly racist attitudes towards Palestinians.

Lobbies of all kinds thrive in the dark, growing more powerful and less accountable when they are out of view and immune from scrutiny.

By refusing to talk frankly about the role of pro-Israel lobbies in the U.K. and the U.S., or by submitting to their intimidation, we simply invite Israel’s supporters and anti-Palestinian racists to flex their muscles more aggressively and chip away at the democratic fabric of our societies.

There are signs that insurgency politicians in the U.S. are ready for the first time to shine a light into the recesses of a political system deeply corrupted by money. That will inevitably make life much harder for the pro-Israel lobby.

But paradoxically, it is happening just as the U.K.’s Israel lobby is pushing in exactly the opposite direction. British politics is being plunged into a stifling, unhealthy silence on the longest example of mass human rights abuses, sanctioned by the west, in modern history.

Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist based in Nazareth. He blogs at Jonathan



Jewish Chronicle

Ukip candidate Carl Benjamin accused Jewish people of ‘identity politics’ over the Holocaust

Controversial alt-right YouTuber revealed to have said ‘I don’t give a s***’ about the Shoah

Carl Benjamin at Ukip's launch event for the European elections
Carl Benjamin at Ukip’s launch event for the European elections (Photo: Getty Images)

A controversial Ukip candidate for the European elections previously said Jewish people had to “drop the identity politics” because he did not “give a s****” about the Holocaust, it has been revealed.

Carl Benjamin, a self-styled provocateur and alt-right YouTuber who uses the pseuodnym “Sargon of Akkad”, was among the candidates the party unveiled last week and made headlines by refusing to apologise for saying he “wouldn’t even rape” Labour MP Jess Phillips.

On Thursday, Buzzfeed News revealed his YouTube videos, now deleted by the website, included a series of derogatory statements, including accusing people of “acting like white n*****s” and defending the use of the word “fag”.

In one video of Mr Benjamin on a panel in New York in 2018, he said: “Jewish people work very hard. They’re very smart. Of course they’re successful.

“If we want to have any idea that we’re living in a meritocracy, if Jews weren’t succeeding in our societies, they must be being held back.

“But they’re not. They’re doing great… Because they’re not being held back because they do work because they are smart.

“Jewish people, unfortunately for them, have got to drop the identity politics. I’m sorry about the Holocaust but I don’t give a s***. I’m sorry.”

On the recording published by Buzzfeed, audience applause can be heard as he says this.

Embedded video

Mark Di Stefano 🤙🏻


Here’s the BuzzFeed News video showing UKIP’s star candidate Carl Benjamin – known as Sargon of Akkad – repeatedly using racial slurs in YouTube videos:

In another clip, Mr Benjamin mocked an anti-discrimination video in which people from different minorities describe how it was unacceptable to call them pejorative terms.

When the video features a Jewish man, Mr Benjamin imposes antisemitic, hooknosed caricatures on the screen.

Mr Benjamin, who at one time was earning more than $12,000 a month through the Patreon online crowdfunder, was banned from the platform last December.

In a statement to Buzzfeed, Mr Benjamin said: “BREAKING NEWS: Anti-political correctness entertainer has used naughty words for fun. Subscribe to Buzzfeed for more hard-hitting and worthwhile political activism.

“I expect my statement to be printed in full, have a great day.”

Mr Benjamin was unveiled as a candidate alongside Mark Meechan, the comedian who goes by the moniker “Count Dankula”, who was prosecuted over teaching his dog to perform a Nazi salute.

Corbyn as Target Practice 364c4

It is time to stop believing these infantile narratives the British political and media establishments have crafted for us. Like the one in which they tell us they care deeply about the state of political life, and that they lie awake at night worrying about the threat posed by populism to our democratic institutions.

How do they persuade us of the depth of their concern? They express their horror at at the murder of an MP, Jo Cox, and their outrage at the abuse of another, Anna Soubry – both victims of the frenzied passions unleashed by Brexit.

But they don’t really care whether politicians are assaulted, vilified or threatened – at least, not if it is the kind of politician who threatens their power. These political and media elites don’t seriously care about attacks on democracy, or about political violence, or about the rottenness at the core of state institutions. Their outrage is selective. It is rooted not in principle, but in self-interest.

Is that too cynical? Ponder this.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn hasn’t faced just shouted insults from afar, like Soubry. He was recently physically assaulted, hit on the head by a man holding an egg in his fist. But unlike Soubry, our media expressed no real concern. In fact, they could barely hide their sniggers at his “egging”, an attack they presented as little more than a prank. They even hinted that Corbyn deserved it.

Shown as Kremlin stooge

The media have been only happy too to vilify Corbyn as a Kremlin stooge and a former Soviet spy. Senior Tory Iain Duncan Smith today called Corbyn “a Marxist whose sole purpose in life is to do real damage to the country” – a remark that, as ever went, entirely unchallenged by the BBC interviewer giving him a platform. Just imagine a Labour MP being allowed to accuse Theresa May of being a fascist whose only goal is to destroy the country.

But the BBC has never bothered to conceal its intense dislike of Corbyn. Its news shows have even photoshopped the Labour leader to make him look “Russian” – or “more Russian”, as the BBC and the rest of the media mischievously phrased it. Those who protested were told they were reading too much into it. They needed to lighten up and not take themselves so seriously.

Senior Conservatives, including the former defence secretary Michael Fallon, have regularly portrayed Corbyn as a threat to national security, especially over concerns about the Trident nuclear missile system. Many senior members of Corbyn’s own party have echoed such smears – all amplified, of course, by the media.

Those who suggested that the government and media needed to engage with Corbyn’s well-grounded doubts about the safety of nuclear weapons, or the economics and practicalities of the Trident programme, were derided – like Corbyn – as “pacifists” and “traitors”.

And the mood music to these political clashes was the quite literal demonisation of Corbyn by the red-top dailies. Most famously, the Daily Mail photoshopped the Labour leader as Dracula, above the headline: “Labour must KILL vampire Jezza.”

jezza bcedf

Then Corbyn became the target of another sustained smear campaign. It was claimed that this lifelong, very public anti-racism activist – who over decades had forged strong ties to sections of the British Jewish community, despite being a steadfast critic of Israel – was a secret anti-semite or, at best, providing succour to anti-semites as they overran the Labour party.

Was there any factual basis or evidence for these claims? No. But the British public was assured by rightwing Jews like the Board of Deputies and by “leftwing” Jewish supporters of Israel like Jonathan Freedland that evidence wasn’t necessary, that they had a sixth sense for these things.

Corbyn’s supporters were told that they should not question the wildly inflammatory and evidence-free denunciations of Corbyn and the wider Labour membership for a supposed “institutional anti-semitism” – and, with a satisfyingly circular logic, that to do so was itself proof of anti-semitism.

Too toxic to lead Labour

The weaponisation of anti-semitism through spin by Corbyn’s political enemies, including the Blairite faction of the parliamentary Labour party, was and is a dangerous assault on public life, one that has very obviously degraded Britain’s political culture.

The smear was meant to override the membership’s wishes and make Corbyn too toxic to lead Labour.

It has also politicised the anti-semitism allegation, weakening it for a section of the population, and irresponsibly inflaming fears among other sections. It has deflected attention from the very real threat of a rising tide of rightwing racism, both Islamophobia and the kind of anti-semitism that relates to Jews, not Israel.

Then, there was the serving British general who was given a platform by the Sunday Times – anonymously, of course – to accuse Corbyn of being a threat to British national security. The general warned that the army’s senior command would never allow Corbyn near Number 10. They would launch a coup first.

But no one in the corporate media or the political establishment thought the interview worthy of much attention, or demanded an investigation to find out which general had threatened to overturn the democratic will of the people. The story was quickly dropped down the memory hole. Those who sought to draw attention to it were told to move on, that there was nothing to see.

And now, this week, footage has emerged showing British soldiers – apparently taking their commanders’ expressed wishes more seriously than the media – using a poster of Corbyn as target practice out in Afghanistan.

Questioning ‘security credentials’

Do the media and politicians really care about any of this? Are they concerned, let alone as outraged as they were at Soubry’s earlier discomfort at the verbal abuse she faced? Do they understand the seriousness of this threat to British political life, to the safety of the leader of the opposition, they themselves have stoked?

The signs are still far from reassuring. Theresa May did not think it worth using prime minister’s questions to condemn the video, to send an unequivocal message that Britain’s political choices would never be decided by violence. No one else in the chamber apparently thought to raise the matter either.

Sky News even used the footage to question yet again Corbyn’s “security credentials”, as though the soldiers might thereby have grounds for treating him as a legitimate target.

The clues as to where all this is leading are not hard to fathom. The white nationalist who drove into a crowd outside Finsbury Park mosque in London in 2017, killing a worshipper, admitted at his trial that the real target had been Corbyn. An unexpected roadblock foiled his plans.

The fact is that no one in the political or media class cares much whether their constant trivialising of Corbyn’s political programme degrades British political life, or whether their smears could lead to political violence, or whether four years of their incitement might encourage someone to use more than an egg and a fist against Corbyn.

So let’s stop indulging the media and politicians as they cite Jo Cox’s murder and Anna Soubry’s intimidation as evidence of their democratic sensibilities and their commitment to political principle.

The truth is they are charlatans. They will use anything – from the murder of an MP to confections of anti-semitism and smears about treason – to incite against a democratic politician who threatens their domination of the political system.

It is their refusal to engage with a political argument they know they will lose, and to allow a democratic process to take place that they fear will produce the wrong result, that is setting the scene for greater polarisation and frustration. And ultimately for more violence.

*(Top image: A composite image of Jeremy Corbyn’s image with bullet holes on the right, soldiers pointing at his image.)

*This article was originally published on Jonathan Cook blog.



‘Worst’ anti-Semitic attack on Kosher cafe revealed to be scam by owners

…from Russia Today, Moscow

[ Editor’s Note: A brother got caught doing this one, obviously not aware that a major tagging night downtown with all its surveillance cameras was not a smart thing to do.

I would bet he did not do too well in school. This was not a kid, but a big strapping 24 year old. The B’nai Brith did their usual thing, getting all the hate crime publicity coverage it could out of it anyway.

This is routinely done despite Jews being among the most crime free victims in the country compared to other groups. Mass media covers this little factoid up like a rug.

In the former heyday of “hate crimes”, the real experts estimated about 25% were fake. Jewish cases were handled with kid gloves. I remember one where a holocaust event ticket sales at one synagogue got a Jewish teen angry.

He bought some spray paint locally and tagged his on synagogue. The cops check out spraypaint sales at the local hardware store (remember those?) and that led them to  the kid’s garage.

How did the media spin that one, with the local B’nai Brith? The double down by featuring the kid, a teen, as a victim, advising the community that the family “needed some space” to deal with this “troubled” young man.

Later, during my days in Atlanta, a freshman black girl at prestigious Emory University was on her way to flunking out and decided she needed some cover to create some “trauma” for her exit. Some nasty things written on her dorm room door did that trick and made Atlanta news.

But the cops were suspicious as liberal Emory had never had such an event, so they put a hidden camera in the wall across from her door, and yes, caught her tagging here own door again. And yes, the media spun that as a young girl “needing some space”.

That was part of my early education that not all victims are created equal. Some are at the head of the pack and are determined to stay there… Jim W. Dean ]


Not all hate hoaxers are treated equally – This guy got the slap on the hand treatment, other than his being handed a $100K+ bill for the police investigation, where he quickly told them where they could shove that.

– First published … April 27, 2019 –

An anti-Semitic attack on a kosher cafe in Canada that police described as one of the “worst” they had seen has been revealed as a ruse by the owners. A vigil and a fundraising campaign had been set up to support the family.

The fake attack saw the BerMax Caffe and Bistro in Winnipeg spray painted with anti-Semitic graffiti and “severely vandalized.” A woman was assaulted and taken to the hospital for treatment, CBC reported at the time.

Police charged the owners with public mischief after an investigation involving 25 police officers and 1,000 hours of work revealed it to be nothing more than a scam. “In the end, we found evidence of a crime. It just wasn’t a hate crime,” Police Chief Danny Smyth said, Global News reports.

Alexander Berent, Oxana Berent, and Maxim Berent are to appear in court next month. Oxana was the woman allegedly assaulted. She denied the attack was fake on CBC Radio, saying“We don’t joke about swastikas on our walls.”

The attack was alleged to have taken place on April 18, and it was the fourth reported attack on the cafe in five months. Police are also investigating these incidents, but haven’t commented on them yet.

“If the allegations of Winnipeg police are true, we condemn this fabrication of a hate crime in the strongest possible terms,” Jewish organization B’nai Brith Canada said in a statement.

“Making false allegations of antisemitism does nothing to quell the rise of racism and discrimination in Winnipeg and across Canada and will embolden the conspiracy theorists and purveyors of anti-Jewish hatred who blame the entirety of society’s ills on the Jewish community.”

A crowdfunding page campaign had been set up to support the family and it was closed after news emerged about the fake attack. A vigil organized for Thursday night was also canceled.

Canada: Jews Caught Staging Yet Another Fake Hate Crime

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
April 26, 2019

Another fake hate crime, this time by Jews in Canada who appear to be from Russia or some other Slavic country and ran a high-end cafe that was conveniently attacked by Nazis.

This hoax of course won’t get the coverage of Jussie Smollett.

None of them get the coverage of Jussie Smollett, even though they happen literally every single day.

I am not going to say “every single hate crime is fake.” But I will say, that just from reading the news, you can see that at least 95% of them are fake. If I had to guess, I would say that significantly less than 1% are real.


An anti-Semitic attack originally called “the most brazen” the city had seen was staged by the owners of the restaurant that reported it, Winnipeg police say.

All three members of the family that owns BerMax Caffé and Bistro on Corydon Avenue have been arrested and charged with public mischief since the incident was initially reported last week. The family, however, insists they didn’t fake anything.

“We didn’t, because we don’t joke about swastikas on our walls,” Oxana Berent said in an interview with Ismaila Alfa, host of CBC Manitoba’s afternoon radio show, Up to Speed.

On Thursday evening, police responded to a report of an assault at the restaurant. A woman said she’d been assaulted, and the restaurant was spray-painted with hateful graffiti, police said.

Winnipeg police Chief Danny Smyth said Wednesday the attack was staged.

“The anti-Semitic graffiti and vandalism were also falsely reported as being done by outside suspects,” Smyth said.

“We found evidence of a crime. It just wasn’t a hate crime,” said Smyth, adding the police expended considerable resources investigating and took the report seriously.

Smyth said he is disappointed by the alleged staging and fears it will promote cynicism. The incident took place the night before the start of Passover, a significant Jewish holiday.

Cynicism about Jewish behavior.

Who could even imagine such a thing?

Alexander Berent, 56, OxanaBerent, 48, and Maxim Berent, 29, have all been charged with public mischief and were released after being arrested, police say. They are slated to appear in court in May.

Oxana Berent said she would never invent a story about an anti-Semitic crime, given her family’s experiences.

“My grandmother’s family, they died in the Holocaust. Just her and her little brother survived, the whole family. We don’t joke about that,” she said, through tears.

And it is probably still real in her mind, just like the Holocaust.

The psychology of Jews is so pathological, that I believe that they are capable of believing their own hoaxes.

After the reports of the vandalism and attack surfaced last week, the chief executive officer of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg said the group was “horrified and saddened.”

“I just can’t fathom how or why people would want to do such a terrible act,” said Elaine Goldstine.

Federation spokesperson Adam Levy called it “the most brazen act of anti-Semitism that we’ve seen in our community, and perhaps ever.” 

In a written statement Wednesday afternoon, the federation said:

“We are shocked and deeply disturbed by today’s news. It is deplorable that anyone would make false allegations of anti-Semitism, especially claims of such a serious nature, for any kind of gain.

“False complaints of criminal acts of anti-Semitism are not only illegal, they undermine the important work necessary to counter anti-Semitism and hate in all forms.

“We reiterate our appreciation of the work of the Winnipeg Police Service and their continued support for the Jewish community.”

Smyth wouldn’t speculate on a motive for staging the incident, nor would he comment on a previous report of a hate-motivated incident at the same restaurant.

Ran Ukashi of B’Nai Brith Canada said he’s never heard of an alleged fabrication of a racist incident on this scale in Canada.

Oh fuck you.

It happens every. single. day.

He noted all of Winnipeg rallied behind the Jewish community.

“I can see this as a betrayal of the community and a betrayal of also the police,” Ukashi said at Winnipeg City Hall. “It’s a waste of time, and of course people might roll their eyes at incidents in the future and think ‘Oh is it true or is it not?’ when in reality we know that the preponderance of incidents that are reported are in fact true.”

Which one is true, kike?

Which fucking one?

Name one goddamn motherfucking anti-Semitic hate incident where a non-Jew was arrested and convicted, you lying fucking desert animal, or shut your lying kike mouth.

I am so fucking sick of this shit!

It never fucking ends with these lying JEWS!

Winnipeg Mayor Brian Bowman called the alleged fabrication disgusting and said if the mischief charges are proven in court, the actions of the accused would represent a “breach of trust” in the community.

Westworth United Church minister Loraine Mackenzie Shepherd had planned an interfaith prayer vigil for Thursday to respond to the incident at Bermax. After consulting with members of the Jewish community, the church decided to cancel the event, she said.

“We decided we are all too raw right now to hold anything,” she said.

The church sanctuary will be open Thursday in case anyone who hasn’t heard about the cancellation shows up and needs space to process the news.

Just hold the vigil anyway, for the suffering the Jews suffered when this happened in their minds.

Whether something terrible actually happened to Jews or whether they just made it up has never mattered to Christians before, has it?

Just comfort them for feeling such feelings of oppression that they had to hoax their own selves in order to prove just how deeply they felt their oppression.

That’s what you’ve always done.

No reason to stop now, just because the kikes who staged this particular hoax were arrested for it.



A look different at the Jewish Question……..

A Holocaust of Christians By Jews: 614 A.D. – An Untold Chapter of History



UPROOTED PALESTINIANS – The Jewish chosen-ness led to genocide time and again. Outside of Jerusalem’s Jaffa gate (Bab al-Halil), there was once a small neighbourhood called Mamilla, destroyed by real-estate developers just a few years ago. In its place they created a kitschy ‘village’ for the super-rich, abutting the plush Hilton Hotel. A bit further away there is the old Mamilla cemetery of the Arab nobles and the Mamilla Pool, a water reservoir dug by Pontius Pilate.

During the development works, the workers came upon a burial cave holding hundreds of sculls and bones. It was adorned by a cross and the legend: ‘God alone knows their names’ (…) 

The dead were laid to their eternal rest in AD 614, the most dreadful year in the history of Palestine until the Twentieth Century. The Scottish scholar Adam Smith, wrote in his Historical Geography of Palestine: “until now, the terrible devastation of 614 is visible in the land, it could not be healed”.


BY ISRAEL SHAMIR – Things move really fast nowadays. Just yesterday we hardly dared to call the Israeli policy of official discrimination against Palestinians by the harsh word ‘apartheid’. Today, as Sharon’s tanks and missiles pound defenceless cities and villages, the word barely suffices. It has become an unjustified insult to the white supremacists of South Africa. They, after all, did not use gun-ships and tanks against the natives, they did not lay siege to Soweto. They did not deny the humanity of their kaffirs. The Jewish supremacists made it one better. They have returned us, as if by magic wand, to the world of Joshua and Saul.

As the search for the right word continues, the courageous Robert Fisk proposes calling the events in Palestine a ‘civil war’. If this is civil war, a lamb slaughter is a bullfight. The disparity of forces is just too large. No, Virginia, it is not ‘civil war’, it is creeping genocide.

This is the point in our saga, where the good Jewish guy is supposed to take out his hanky and exclaim: “How could we, eternal victims of persecutions, commit such crimes!” Well, do not hold your breath waiting for this line. It happened before and it can happen again, for the mad idea of being the only Chosen ones, the idea of supremacy, whether of race or religion, is the moving force behind genocides. If you believe God chose your people to dominate the world, if you think others but subhuman, you will be punished by the same God whose name you took in vain. Instead of a gentle frog, he would turn you into a murderous maniac.

When the Japanese got a whiff of this malady in the 1930s, they raped Nanking and ate the liver of their prisoners. Germans, obsessed by the Aryan superiority complex, filled Baby Yar with corpses. As thoughtful readers of Joshua and Judges, the father pilgrim-founders of the United States tried on the ‘Chosen’ crown and succeeded in nearly exterminating the Native American peoples.

The Jewish chosen-ness led to genocide time and again. Outside of Jerusalem’s Jaffa gate (Bab al-Halil), there was once a small neighbourhood called Mamilla, destroyed by real-estate developers just a few years ago. In its place they created a kitschy ‘village’ for the super-rich, abutting the plush Hilton Hotel. A bit further away there is the old Mamilla cemetery of the Arab nobles and the Mamilla Pool, a water reservoir dug by Pontius Pilate. During the development works, the workers came upon a burial cave holding hundreds of sculls and bones. It was adorned by a cross and the legend: ‘God alone knows their names’. The Biblical Archaeology Review, published by the Jewish American Herschel Shanks, printed a long feature[i] by the Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich on this discovery.

The dead were laid to their eternal rest in AD 614, the most dreadful year in the history of Palestine until the Twentieth Century. The Scottish scholar Adam Smith, wrote in his Historical Geography of Palestine: “until now, the terrible devastation of 614 is visible in the land, it could not be healed”.

By 614 Palestine was a part of the Roman successor state, the Byzantine Empire. It was a prosperous, predominantly Christian land of well-developed agriculture, of harnessed water systems and carefully laid terraces. Pilgrims came in flocks to the Holy places. The Constantine-built edifices of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives and of the Holy Sepulchre were among the man-made wonders of the world. The Judean wilderness was enlivened by eighty monasteries, where precious manuscripts were collected and prayers offered. The Fathers of the church, St Jerome of Bethlehem and Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, were still a living memory. One of the best Palestinian writers, on a par with the Minor Prophets, blessed John Moschos, just completed his Spiritual Meadow.

There was also a small, wealthy Jewish community living in their midst, mainly in Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Their scholars had just completed their version of the Talmud, the codification of their faith, Rabbinic Judaism; but for instruction they deferred to the prevailing Jewish community in Persian Babylonia.

In 614 local Palestinian Jews allied with their Babylonian co-religionists and assisted the Persians in their conquest of the Holy Land. 26,000 Jews participated in the onslaught. In the aftermath of the Persian victory, the Jews perpetrated a massive holocaust of the Gentiles of Palestine. They burned the churches and the monasteries, killed monks and priests, burned books. The beautiful basilica of Fishes and Loaves in Tabgha, the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, St Stephen opposite Damascus Gate and the Hagia Sion on Mt Zion are just at the top of the list of perished edifices. Indeed, very few churches survived the onslaught. The Great Laura of St Sabas, tucked away in the bottomless Ravine of Fire (Wadi an-Nar) was saved by its remote location and steep crags. The Church of the Nativity miraculously survived: when Jews commanded its destruction, the Persians balked. They perceived the Magi mosaic above the lintel as the portrait of Persian kings.

This devastation was not the worst crime. When Jerusalem surrendered to the Persians, thousands of local Christians became prisoners of war and were herded to the Mamilla Pool area. The Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich writes:

They were probably sold to the highest bidder. According to some sources, the Christian captives at Mamilla Pond were bought by Jews and were then slain on the spot.

The Oxford Professor Henry Hart Milman’s History of the Jews describes it in stronger terms:

It had come at length, the long-expected hour of triumph and vengeance; and the Jews did not neglect the opportunity. They washed away the profanation of the holy city in Christian blood. The Persians are said to have sold the miserable captives for money. The vengeance of the Jews was stronger than their avarice; not only did they not scruple to sacrifice their treasures in the purchase of these devoted bondsmen, they put to death all they had purchased at a lavish price. It was a rumour of the time that 90,000 perished.

An eyewitness to the massacre, Strategius of St Sabas, was more vivid:

Thereupon the vile Jews… rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians, and they conceived an evil plan. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir… How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamilla! How many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their children! How many of the people were brought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem!’

Strategius estimated the victims of the holocaust at 66,000.

In plain prose, the Jews ransomed the Christians from the hands of the Persian soldiers for good money to slaughter them at Mamilla Pool, ‘and it ran with blood’. Jews massacred between 60,000 and 90,000 Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem alone, almost 1.5 million in today’s values (the total earth’s population was according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica about 300 million, twenty times smaller than today). A few days later, the Persian military understood the magnitude of the massacre and stopped the Jews.

To his credit, the Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich does not try to shift the blame for the massacres onto the Persians, as it is usually done nowadays. He admits that ‘the Persian Empire was not based on religious principles and was indeed inclined to religious tolerance’. This good man is clearly unsuitable to write for the Washington Post. That paper’s correspondent in Israel would have had no trouble describing the massacre as ‘retaliatory strike by the Jews who suffered under Christian rule’.

The holocaust of the Christian Palestinians in year 614 is well documented and you will find it described in older books. It has been censored out of modern guides and history books. Elliott Horowitz described, in his brilliant expose of the Jewish apologia[ii] how almost all Jewish historians suppressed the facts and re-wrote history. The cover-up continues even now. Recent Israeli publications attach the blame to the Persians, as they push the responsibility for Sabra and Shatila massacre onto the Lebanese Maronites. Horowitz writes:

Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the European Jews, asserted that “preventive attack, armed resistance, and revenge are almost completely absent in two thousand years of Jewish ghetto history”. Avi Yona, a leading Israeli historian, Leon Polyakov, author of History of Anti-Semitism (published at the expense of Marc Rich, the thief – ISH) and many others glossed over the holocaust of 614, kept silent or denied it completely. Benzion Dinur, a former director of the Holocaust Museum Yad va-Shem, told his readers euphemistically, in language that might have offended him if used with regard to Jews, that “recalcitrant Christians were firmly held in check’.

As a rule, Jewish historical and ideological writing is notoriously unreliable and apologetic, Horowitz shows. Granted, ‘not all Jews’, vide Horowitz, Finkelstein and other wonderful men, but they would be the first to agree with the truth of the above. The feeling of self-righteousness and perpetual victim-hood reinforced by a tendentious, distorted historical narrative is a source of mental disease, an obsession common to many modern Jews. This obsession intoxicates Jews and gives them unusual strength in promoting their own distorted narrative. In a way, this massive distortion of reality turns Jews into victorious berserks of ideological struggle. Still, while being a successful strategy, it is a mental disease, a danger to the souls of Jews and to the lives of others.

The Jews are not unique. Germans were intoxicated by the injustice of Versailles, and Adolf Hitler voiced it. Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun[iii] wrote about Armenians inflamed by the story of their holocaust. They massacred thousands of their peaceful Azeri neighbours in the 1990s, and uprooted 800,000 native non-Armenians. ‘It’s time to recognize all the world’s horrors’, Margolis concludes. It is time to recognise the danger of inflammatory and one-sided narrative, I would add. The same system of tendentious reality-distorting narrative was deployed by the activists of militant feminism, communism, psychoanalysis, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism, Zionism and a plethora of smaller movements as the means to enrage and intoxicate supporters for the ideological struggle.

As a result, we live in a psychotic, sick world. Our only system of communication, the media, is the enforcer of the malady and leads us to our perdition. It is necessary to promote balanced, alternative discourse in order to return to the common sense. Since the Jews have become so prominent in the modern world, the lopsided Jewish discourse has to be deconstructed and the crown of martyrdom carefully removed.

The tragic events of 614 should be returned into historical narrative, for it will help the Jews to heal their paranoid delusion. Without this knowledge one cannot understand the provisions of the treaty between the Jerusalemites and Caliph Omar ibn Khattab, concluded in year 638. In the Sulh al Quds, as this treaty of capitulation is called, Patriarch Sofronius demanded, and the powerful Arab ruler concurred to protect the people of Jerusalem from the ferocity of the Jews.

The genocide of the AD 614 was the most horrible, but not the only, genocide wreaked by Jews in those troubled years. Though the biblical story of the Canaan conquest by Joshua is just a story, it influenced Jewish souls. The Sixth Century was a century of strong Jewish influence, and it had more than its fair share of genocide.

Just a few years before 614, in 610, the Jews of Antioch massacred Christians. The Jewish historian Graetz wrote:

[The Jews] fell upon their Christian neighbours and retaliated for the injuries which they had suffered; they killed all that fell into their hands, and threw their bodies into the fire, as the Christians had done to them a century before. The Patriarch Anastasius, an object of special hate, was shamefully abused by them, and his body dragged through the streets before he was put to death.

For Graetz, as for IDF spokesmen, Jews always kill ‘in retaliation’. This dogma was not invented by CNN and Sharon: it is deeply rooted in the Jewish psyche as the ultimate defence. This historian (like other Jewish historians) did not care to mention that:

The Jews of Antioch disembowelled the great Patriarch Anastasius, forced him to eat his own intestines; they hurled his genitals into his face.[iv]

After the Arab conquest, a majority of Palestinian Jews accepted the message of the Messenger, as did the majority of Palestinian Christians, albeit for somewhat different reasons. For local Christians, Islam was a sort of Nestorian Christianity without icons, without Constantinople’s interference and without Greeks. (The Greek domination of the Palestinian church remains a problem for the local Christians to this very day.)

For ordinary local Jews, Islam was the return to the faith of Abraham and Moses. They had not been able to follow the intricacies of the new Babylonian faith anyway. The majority of them became Muslims and blended into the Palestinian population.

Modern Jews do not have to feel guilty for the misdeeds of Jews long gone. No son is responsible for the sins of his father. Israel could have turned this mass grave with its Byzantine chapel and mosaics into a small and poignant memorial reminding its citizens of a horrible page in the history of the land and of the dangers of genocidal supremacy. Instead, the Israeli authorities preferred to demolish the tomb and create an underground parking-lot in its place. That did not cause a murmur.

The guardians of the Jewish conscience, Amos Oz and others, have objected to the destruction of ancient remains. No, not of the tomb at Mamilla. They ran a petition against the keepers of the Haram a-Sharif mosque complex for digging a ten-inch trench to lay a new pipe. It did not matter to them that in an op-ed in Haaretz, the leading Israeli archaeologist denied any relevance of the mosque-works to science. They still described it as ‘a barbaric act of Muslims aimed at the obliteration of the Jewish heritage of Jerusalem’. Among the signatories I found, to my amazement and sorrow, the name of Ronny Reich. One thought he might tell them who obliterated the vestiges of the Jewish heritage at Mamilla Pool.

Censored history creates a distorted picture of reality. Recognition of the past is a necessary step on the way to sanity. The Germans and the Japanese have recognized the crimes of their fathers, have came to grips with their moral failings and have emerged as humbler, less boastful folks, akin to the rest of human race. We Jews have so far failed to exorcise the haughty spirit of the Chosen-ness, and find ourselves in a dire predicament.

That is why the idea of supremacy is still with us, still calling for genocide. In 1982, Amos Oz[v] met an Israeli who shared with the writer his dream of becoming a Jewish Hitler to the Palestinians. Persistent rumours identify the potential Hitler as Ariel Sharon. Whether it is true or not, slowly this dream is becoming a reality.

The Haaretz published an ad on its front page[vi], a fatwa, signed by a group of Rabbis. The Rabbis proclaimed the theological identification of Ishmael (the Arabs) with the Amalek. ‘Amalek’ is mentioned in the Bible as the name of a tribe that caused trouble for the Children of Israel. In this story the God of Israel commands His people to exterminate the Amalek tribe completely, including its livestock. King Saul botched the job: he exterminated them all right, but failed to kill nubile, unwed maidens. This ‘failure’ cost him his crown. The obligation to exterminate the people of Amalek is still counted among the tenets of the Jewish faith.

At the end of WWII, some Jews, including the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin, identified the Germans with Amalek, and a Jewish religious socialist and a fighter against Nazis, Abba Kovner, hatched a plot in 1945 to poison the water-supply system of German cities and to kill ‘six million Germans’. He obtained poison from a brother of the future President of Israel, Efraim Katzir. Katzir supposedly thought Kovner intended to poison ‘only’ a few thousands German POWs. The plan mercifully flopped when Kovner was stopped by British officials in a European port. This story was published last year in Israel in a biography of Kovner written by Prof Dina Porat, head of the Anti-Semitism Research Centre at Tel Aviv University[vii].

In plain English, the Rabbis’ fatwa means: our religious duty is to kill all Arabs, including women and babies and their livestock to the last cat. The liberal Haaretz, whose editor and owner are sufficiently versed to understand the fatwa, did not hesitate to place the ad. Some Palestinian activists recently criticized me for associating with the Russian weekly Zavtra and for quoting the American weekly Spotlight. I wonder why they have not condemned me for writing in HaaretzZavtra and Spotlight have never published a call to genocide, after all.

It would be unfair to single out Haaretz. Another prominent Jewish newspaper, The Washington Post, published an equally passionate call to genocide by Charles Krauthammer[viii]. This adept of King Saul cannot rely upon his audience’s knowledge of the Bible, so he refers to General Powell’s slaughter of routed Iraqi troops at the end of the Gulf war. He quotes Colin Powell saying of the Iraqi army: “First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it”. For Krauthammer with his carefully chosen quotes, multitudes of slain Arabs do not qualify for the human pronoun ‘them’. They are an ‘it’. In the last stage of the war in the Gulf, immense numbers of retreating and disarmed Iraqis were slaughtered in cold blood by the US Air Force, their bodies buried by bulldozers in the desert sand in huge and nameless mass graves. The number of victims of this hecatomb is estimated from one hundred thousand to half a million. God alone knows their names.

Krauthammer wants to repeat this feat in Palestine. ‘It’ is already cut off, divided by the Israeli army into seventy pieces. Now it is ready for the great kill. ‘Kill it!’ he calls with great passion. He must be worried that the Persians will again stop the bloodbath before the Mamilla Pool fills up. His worries are our hopes.


[i] BAR, 1996, v 22 No 2

[ii] “The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice”: Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 (published in Jewish Social Studies Volume 4, Number 2, Indiana University)

[iii] 22.04.2001

[iv] Horowitz, ibid.

[v] Here and there in the Land of Israel, Amos Oz

[vi] 21 November, 2000

[vii] Haaretz, 28 April 2001

[viii] Washington Post, 20 Apr 2001

Share this:

A.D. 70 Titus Destroys Jerusalem

When the Roman general sacked the temple, the Jews were forced into a new era—and so were the Christians.

A.D. 70 Titus Destroys Jerusalem

Image: Matt Ragen/Shutterstock

Gessius Florus loved money and hated Jews. As Roman procurator, he ruled Judea, caring little for their religious sensibilities. When tax revenues were low, he seized silver from the temple. As the uproar against him grew, in A.D. 66, he sent troops into Jerusalem who massacred 3,600 citizens. Florus’s action touched off an explosive rebellion—the First Jewish Revolt—that had been sizzling for some time.

Launching the Revolt

The Jewish Revolt began—and met its bitter end—at Masada, a hunk of rock overlooking the Dead Sea. The Romans had built a virtually impregnable fortress there. Yet the atrocities of Florus inspired some crazy Zealots to attack Masada. Amazingly, they won, slaughtering the Roman army there.

In Jerusalem, the temple captain signified solidarity with the revolt by stopping the daily sacrifices to Caesar. Soon all Jerusalem was in an uproar, expelling or killing the Roman troops. Then all Judea was in revolt; then Galilee.

Cestius Callus, the Roman governor of the region, marched from Syria with twenty thousand soldiers. He besieged Jerusalem for six months, yet failed. He left six thousand dead Roman soldiers, not to mention weaponry that the Jewish defenders picked up and used.

Emperor Nero then sent Vespasian, a decorated general, to quell the Judean rebellion. Vespasian put down the opposition in Galilee, then in Transjordan, then in Idumea. He circled in on Jerusalem. But before the coup de grace, Nero died. Vespasian became embroiled in a leadership struggle that concluded with the eastern armies calling for him to be emperor. One of his first imperial acts was to appoint his son Titus to conduct the Jewish War.

Crushing the Revolt

By now, Jerusalem was isolated from the rest …


(Hebrew for fortress) is a place of gaunt and majestic beauty that has become one of the Jewish people’s greatestsymbols as the place where the last Jewish stronghold against Roman invasion stood. Next to Jerusalem, it is the most popular destination of tourists visiting Israel.

More than two thousand years have passed since the fall of the Masada fortress yet the regional climate and its remoteness have helped to preserve the remains of its extraordinary story.

Masada was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2001.


Masada is located atop an isolated rock cliff at the western end of the Judean Desert overlooking the Dead Sea.

On the east side, the rock falls in a sheer drop of about 450 meters to the Dead Sea and on the western edge it stands about 100 meters above the surrounding terrain. The natural approaches to the cliff top are very difficult.


The only written source about Masada is Josephus Flavius’ The Jewish War. Born Joseph ben Matityahu into a priestly family, Flavius was a young leader at the outbreak of the Great Jewish Rebellion against Rome (66 CE) when he was appointed governor of Galilee. Calling himself Josephus Flavius, he became a Roman citizen and a successful historian.

According to Flavius, Herod the Great built the fortress of Masada between 37 and 31 BCE. Herod, an Idumean, had been made King of Judea by his Roman overlords and “furnished this fortress as a refuge for himself.” It included a casemate wall around the plateau, storehouses, large cisterns ingeniously filled with rainwater, barracks, palaces and an armory.

Some 75 years after Herod’s death, at the beginning of the Revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66 CE, a group of Jewish rebels overcame the Roman garrison of Masada. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) they were joined by zealots and their families who had fled from Jerusalem. There, they held out for three years, raiding and harassing the Romans.

Then, in 73 CE, Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against Masada with the Tenth Legion, auxiliary units and thousands of Jewish prisoners-of-war. The Romans established camps at the base of Masada, laid siege to it and built a circumvallation wall. They then constructed a rampart of thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth against the western approaches of the fortress and, in the spring of 74 CE, moved a battering ram up the ramp and breached the wall of the fortress.

Once it became apparent that the Tenth Legion’s battering rams and catapults would succeed in breaching Masada’s walls, Elazar ben Yair – the Zealots’ leader – decided that all the Jewish defenders should commit suicide; the alternative facing the fortress’s defenders were hardly more attractive than death.

Flavius dramatically recounts the story told him by two surviving women. The defenders – almost one thousand men, women and children – led by ben Yair, burnt down the fortress and killed each other. The Zealots cast lots to choose 10 men to kill the remainder. They then chose among themselves the one man who would kill the survivors. That last Jew then killed himself.

Elazar’s final speech clearly was a masterful oration:

“Since we long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God Himself, Who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice …We were the very first that revolted, and we are the last to fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God has granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom.”

The story of Masada survived in the writings of Josephus but not many Jews read his works and for well over fifteen hundred years it was a more or less forgotten episode in Jewish history. Then, in the 1920’s, Hebrew writer Isaac Lamdan wrote “Masada,” a poetic history of the anguished Jewish fight against a world full of enemies. According to Professor David Roskies, Lamdan’s poem, “later inspired the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.”

The heroic story of Masada and its dramatic end attracted many explorers to the Judean desert in attempts to locate the remains of the fortress. The site was identified in 1842, but intensive excavations took place only in the mid-1960’s with the help of hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers from Israel and from many foreign countries.

To many, Masada symbolizes the determination of the Jewish people to be free in its own land.

Herodian Fortress

The rhomboid, flat plateau of Masada measures 600 x 300 m. The casemate wall (two parallel walls with partitions dividing the space between them into rooms), is 1400 m. long and 4 m. wide. It was built along the edge of the plateau, above the steep cliffs, and it had many towers. Three narrow, winding paths led from below to fortified gates. The water supply was guaranteed by a network of large, rock-hewn cisterns on the northwestern side of the hill. They filled during the winter with rainwater flowing in streams from the mountain on this side. Cisterns on the summit supplied the immediate needs of the residents of Masada and could be relied upon in time of siege.

To maintain interior coolness in the hot and dry climate of Masada, the many buildings of various sizes and functions had thick walls constructed of layers of hard dolomite stone, covered with plaster. The higher northern side of Masada was densely built up with structures serving as the administrative center of the fortress and included storehouses, a large bathhouse and comfortable living quarters for officials and their families.

King Herod’s Residential Palace

On the northern edge of the steep cliff, with a splendid view, stood the elegant, intimate, private palace-villa of the king. It was separated from the fortress by a wall, affording total privacy and security. This northern palace consists of three terraces, luxuriously built, with a narrow, rock-cut staircase connecting them. On the upper terrace, several rooms served as living quarters; in front of them is a semi-circular balcony with two concentric rows of columns. The rooms were paved with black and white mosaics in geometric patterns.

Remains of the Masada bathhouse

The two lower terraces were intended for entertainment and relaxation. The middle terrace had two concentric walls with columns, covered by a roof; this created a portico around a central courtyard. The lowest, square terrace has an open central courtyard, surrounded by porticos. Its columns were covered with fluted plaster and supported Corinthian capitals. The lower parts of the walls were covered in frescos of multicolored geometrical patterns or painted in imitation of cut marble. On this terrace was also a small private bathhouse. Here, under a thick layer of debris, were found the remains of three skeletons, of a man, a woman and a child. The beautifully braided hair of the woman was preserved, and her sandals were found intact next to her; also hundreds of small, bronze scales of the man’s armor, probably booty taken from the Romans.

The Storehouse ComplexThis consisted of two rows of long halls opening onto a central corridor. The floor of the storerooms was covered with thick plaster and the roofing consisted of wooden beams covered with hard plaster. Here, large numbers of broken storage jars which once contained large quantities of oil, wine, grains and other foodstuffs were found.

The Large Bathhouse

Elaborately built, it probably served the guests and senior officials of Masada. It consisted of a large courtyard surrounded by porticos and several rooms, all with mosaic or tiled floors and some with frescoed walls. The largest of the rooms was the hot room (caldarium). Its suspended floor was supported by rows of low pillars, making it possible to blow hot air from the furnace outside, under the floor and through clay pipes along the walls, to heat the room to the desired temperature.

The Western Palace

This is the largest building on Masada, covering over 4,000 square meters (one acre). Located along the center of the western casemate wall, near the main gate towards Judea and Jerusalem, it served as the main administration center of the fortress, as well as the king’s ceremonial palace. It consists of four wings: an elaborate royal apartment, a service and workshop section, storerooms and an administrative unit. In the royal apartment, many rooms were built around a central courtyard. On its southern side was a large room with two Ionic columns supporting the roof over the wide opening into the courtyard. Its walls were decorated with molded panels of white stucco. On the eastern side were several rooms with splendid colored mosaic floors. One of these, the largest room, has a particularly decorative mosaic floor with floral and geometric patterns within several concentric square bands. This room may have been King Herod’s throne room, the seat of authority when he was in residence at Masada.

Stronghold of the Zealots

Remains of the Masada Synagogue

The synagogue, part of the Herodian construction, was a hall measuring 12.5 x 10.5 m., incorporated into the northwestern section of the casemate wall and oriented towards Jerusalem. This synagogue also served the Jews who lived in Masada during the Revolt. They built four tiers of plastered benches along the walls, as well as columns to support its ceiling. This synagogue is considered to be the best example of the early synagogues, those predating the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

An ostracon bearing the inscription me’aser kohen (tithe for the priest) was found in the synagogue. Also, fragments of two scrolls, parts of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 37 (including the vision of the “dry bones”), were found hidden in pits dug under the floor of a small room built inside the synagogue.

Among the many small finds of artifacts – most from the occupation period of the zealots – were pottery and stone vessels, weapons (mainly arrowheads), remnants of textiles and of foodstuffs preserved in the dry climate of this area; also hundreds of pottery sherds, some with Hebrew lettering, coins and shekels.

Of special interest among the postherds of amphora used for the importation of wine from Rome (inscribed with the name C. Sentius Saturninus, consul for the year 19 BCE), is one bearing the inscription: To Herod King of the Jews Several hoards of bronze coins and dozens of silver shekels and half-shekels had been hidden by the zealots; the shekalim were found in superb condition and represent all the years of the Revolt, from year one to the very rare year 5 (70 CE), when the Temple was destroyed.

In the area in front of the northern palace, eleven small ostraca were uncovered, each bearing a single name. One reads “ben Yai’r” and could be short for Eleazar ben Ya’ir, the commander of the fortress. It has been suggested that the other ten names are those of the men chosen by lot to kill the others and then themselves, as recounted by Josephus. Evidence of a great conflagration were found everywhere. The fire was pobably set by the last of the zealots before they committed suicide. Josephus Flavius writes that everything was burnt except the stores – to let the Romans know that it was not hunger that led the defenders to suicide.

UNESCO World Heritage Designation

Criterion (iii): Masada is a symbol of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel, of its violent destruction in the later 1st century CE, and of the subsequent Diaspora.

Criterion (iv): The Palace of Herod the Great at Masada is an outstanding example of a luxurious villa of the Early Roman Empire, whilst the camps and other fortifications that encircle the monument constitute the finest and most complete Roman siege works to have survived to the present day.

Criterion (vi): The tragic events during the last days of the Jewish refugees who occupied the fortress and palace of Masada make it a symbol both of Jewish cultural identity and, more universally, of the continuing human struggle between oppression and liberty.


Due to its remoteness, and the harsh climate of the southern end of the Judean Desert, following the dissolution of the Byzantine monastic settlement in the 6th century the Masada site remained untouched for more than thirteen centuries until its rediscovery in1828. The property encompasses the remains of the site on its natural fortress and the surrounding siegeworks.

Of equal importance is the fact that the setting of Masada, the magnificent wild scenery of this region, has not changed over many millennia. The only intrusions are the lower visitor and cable car facilities, which in their new form have been designed and relocated sympathetically, to minimize visual impact, though the siting of the summit station, is still controversial.


This is a site that remained untouched for more than thirteen centuries. The buildings and other evidence of human settlement gradually collapsed and were covered over until they were revealed in the 1960s. There have been no additions or reconstruction, beyond an acceptable level of anastylosis, and inappropriate materials used in early conservation projects are being replaced. Limited restoration works have been carried out to aid visitor interpretation with original archaeological levels being clearly defined by a prominent black line set in the new mortar joints. Certain significant archaeological elements, such as the Roman camps and siegeworks, remain virtually untouched. The authenticity is therefore of a very high level.

Protection and management requirements

The Judean desert remains a sparsely settled area, with the harshness of the environment serving as a natural barrier against modern urban and rural development pressures.

The property and buffer zone are owned by the State of Israel, and the archaeological sites are protected by the 1978 Antiquities Law. Since 1966 the entire Masada site, and its surroundings, have been designated a National Park, updated by the 1998 National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and Memorial Sites Law. The National Park is further protected through being entirely surrounded by the Judean Desert Nature Reserve, also established under the 1998 Act.

The property is managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, in cooperation with the Israel Antiquities Authority. An important aspect of the current management plan is the decision to carry out no further research excavation on the main site “in the present generation”, although limited excavation will be permitted when required by conservation, maintenance or restoration projects.

Almost entirely invisible from the summit, a new visitor centre was opened on the plain beneath the eastern side of Masada in 2000. Providing all the anticipated facilities, the centre was designed to accommodate the 1.25 million visitors per annum. The cable car, originally installed in the 1970’s, was replaced by a new, less intrusive, and heavily used system to connect the visitor centre with the summit. It is also still possible to undertake the arduous climb to the summit by the two historic pedestrian access routes.

The policy of prohibiting commercial activities of any kind, and picnicking on the summit, is rigorously maintained.

Sources: Israeli Foreign Ministry;
Joseph Telushkin Jewish Literacy, NY:
William Morrow and Co., 1991. Reprinted by permission of the author;

Masada photo courtesy of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism. All rights reserved to Itamar Greenberg and to the Ministry of Tourism.

Original Sin: The Roots of Christian Zionism

It is common knowledge that many so-called Christians throw unconditional, unyielding support behind the Jewish state. Known as Christian Zionists, or more recently “Israel-firsters”—indicating their degree of loyalty over and above the interests of their own country—it is estimated they are over 50 million strong in the United States alone. By stripping biblical passages out of their proper context and ignoring historical perspective, Christian Zionist leaders have convinced the masses that Jesus Christ will return when all Jews are gathered in Palestine, even if it means the systemic destruction of the Palestinian people.

Questions remain how such a blatantly un-biblical doctrine hijacked an entire segment of the Christian community; moreover, how the doctrine came to be so widely accepted not only in churches but in the halls of political power.

It has been argued that Christian Zionism originated as a spin-off of secular Zionism; that Christians were co-opted by political Zionists in order to gain support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Ironically, Palestine was sixth on the list for such a homeland at Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind locales including Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. It was in fact the Christian Zionists who were orchestrating the takeover of Palestine from the beginning.

The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891-1948 by Paul C. Merkley provides startling evidence that the poisoned theology of Christian Zionism predates Herzl, long considered the father of Zionism. In fact, Herzl received a tremendous amount of support from William Hechler, the son of Anglican missionaries and author of an 1893 pamphlet entitled “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy.” It was Hechler who arranged meetings between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II, promoting the Zionist ambition to usurp Palestine among world leaders.

Early support for Zionism among United States policymakers was manifested through a handful of misguided religious nuts who manipulated leaders by flattering their sordid egotistical fantasies. According to Merkley, President Harry S. Truman compared himself to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed Jews to return to Palestine in ancient times after the Babylonian captivity, although Zionist sympathies have run deep in America since its foundation.

The Puritans drew a parallel between themselves and the Children of Israel, escaping religious persecution in Europe just as the ancient Hebrews were led out of Egypt. America was their “Promised Land,” making way for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (that it was God’s divine will for the new country to stretch from sea to sea) that justified the abhorrent treatment of Native Americans. By the same token, Christian Zionism justifies the killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to this day. Plymouth Brethren minister John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) popularized the doctrine under the name “dispensationalism,” which was further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909.

That edition contained copious footnotes instructing readers how to interpret Bible verses and prophecy centered around the re-establishment of Israel as a modern nation-state.

Thus the Zionist heresy was mass marketed to a largely ignorant populace who are convinced they do not have enough sense to read the Bible for themselves. Today, support for Israel has gained momentum through apocalyptic preaching by televangelists who make large profits for supporting Israel. They have co-opted Christian laypeople into thinking they can bring about Christ’s return, ending suffering on earth.

It would be scary enough if such ideas were confined to churches, but Zionist Christians have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Arguably, they have considerable influence over US foreign policy, particularly effective with neo-conservatives as witnessed during the George W. Bush administration. Numerous Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to what is now called Israel through financial contributions while assisting ultra-orthodox Jewish groups to promote settlement expansion on Palestinian land.

Not only do Zionists distort biblical history, they spread lies about more modern events as well. Proponents of Israel will often pander the tired Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini obfuscation in an attempt to connect all Palestinians to Adolph Hitler. Husseini was imposed upon the Palestinians in 1921 by the British Mandate’s first high commissioner, a British Jew named Herbert Samuel. Husseini was selected over the rival Nashashibi candidate and favored by the Zionist Commission. Husseini allied with Hitler to oppose the British, falling into the trap as so many others who have believed “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

In this manner Christian Zionists have the ability to reach outside their own cult and snag more secular (although nonetheless misguided) individuals by linking Arabs—particularly exploiting the blood connection between Husseini and late President Yasser Arafat—with the epitome of “anti-Semitic” evil.

These same “Christians” are poised to use the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy to accuse Muslims of celebrating the attacks. In reality, the end of Ramadan, Eid Al-Fitr, coincides with that date this year.

Meanwhile, Florida pastor Terry Jones, leader of the innocuous-sounding Dove Outreach Center, is encouraging Christians to burn a Qur’an on September 11.

Although emboldened by all the media attention, proponents of these views are fortunately far from mainstream Christianity. The problem is that Christians who do take seriously Christ’s message of love are reluctant to gently—or not so gently—correct those hate-mongers masquerading as Christians. We must be willing to take back our faith by outspokenly refuting the heresy of Christian Zionism and its hateful manifestations both at home and abroad.

Tammy Obeidallah