THE HOLOCAUST AND THE FOUR MILLION VARIANT

How will history remember the Holocaust, historic horror or historic hoax? It depends on whether or not World Zionism controls the history?

For decades, most people accepted the Holocaust as true. There were some doubters. Internet search engines like Google or Yahoo cited thousands of articles, affirming or doubting it. But that's over. Like the mass media the search engines are now entirely owned or controlled by zionists. (Where do they get the financing?) A tsunami has swept across the search engines, purging all but Zionist sites, universally claiming that 6 million Jews were butchered in "nazi death camps" between 1940 and 1945 and that all questioners are anti-semites. Why did Zionism feel it necessary to launder the search engines? Is the Holocaust vulnerable? What is the true history?

Today, Zionists claim there were 17 million Jews in 1940 and 11 million in 1945, a loss of 6 million. You see it everywhere, in the schools, movies, television, radio, newspaper, history, literature and on thousands of monuments and memorials throughout the Zionist world. And now on the internet. Note this number has remained constant for over a half century.

It must be understood that the word "Jews" as used in this article primarily refers to a race of Khazars from Asia, called "Asiatics" by Benjamin Franklin. Today in Europe and America, Khazars constitute the majority of "Jews" (cf. Benjamin Freedman). And a majority of Khazars are Zionists.

Modern Zionism is a highly organized political movement; it is not a religion. It is focused on its "ladder" to world domination and is extremely well financed. The Holocaust is its heart and soul. It originated in the 1800's backed by Rothschild and demanded its own nation in Palestine. In 1916 England promised this in the the Balfour Declaration, prepared by Rothschild and Brandeis, to bring US into World War I for England, but reneged. It took universal sympathy for the Holocaust after World War II to induce the nations to turn over part of Palestine to the Zionists in 1948. But there was a danger, the flag of Israel was hung on a Holocaust flagpole. The Holocaust also produced the Holocaust Industry in which hundreds of billions are collected for the "victims", their descendants and for Israel ad infinitum. Finally, the Holocaust is probably the greatest political cudgel in history. And World Zionism will stop at nothing to crush all investigations or questions about the Holocaust. What's their problem?

Wikipedia is a well known encyclopedia on the internet, sympathetic to the Holocaust. Yet comparing its "Holocaust" article with its "death camp" articles produces major problems. We've all heard of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka, etc., names that cause a shiver of dread and horror even today, thanks to constant Zionist media repetition and reinforcement. But there are also many other camps: Bergen-Belsen, Belzec, Chelmno, Jasenovak, Majdanek, Sobibor, Sachenhausen, Sangerhausen, Flossenburg, Grini, Klooga, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Oranienburg, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Natzweiler, Ravensbrück, Maly Trostinets and Theresienstadt. Much of the information is based on Zionist estimates, documents and testimony with little hard evidence.

According to Wikipedia, 3.8 million people died in the following "extermination camps...80 to 90% were Jews or half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust":

Auschwitz 1.4 million deaths X 85% or 1.2 million Jews

Treblinka 870,000 deaths X 85% or 740,000 Jews

Belzek 600,000 deaths X 85% or 510,000 Jews

Jasenovak 600,000 deaths X 85% or (Few Jews)

Chelmno 320,000 deaths X 85% or 272,000 Jews

Majdanek 360,000 deaths X 85% or 306,000 Jews

Sobibor 250,000 deaths X 85% or 212,000 Jews

But when you read the Wikipedia articles on the individual camps, significant discrepancies begin to emerge, as shown in the following abstracts:

In 1989 Auschwitz corrected its monuments and reduced the number of deaths from 4 million to 1.1 million yet the 6 million total never changed (the savings at Auschwitz were picked up in other camps). Also, the International Red Cross and detailed German death records indicate that only about 150,000 died at Auschwitz of whom 30,000 were Jews. Wikipedia ignores or dismisses such records. (Compare with 1.2 million above.)

In Treblinka, The Höfle Telegram listed 713,555 Jews killed up to the end of December 1942. With the addition of 1943 transports listed in Yitzhak Arad's book, one may arrive at the figure 800,000. (Compare with 740,000 above.)

At Belzek, at least 434,500 Jews were killed. (Compare with 510,000 above.)

The Jasenovac Memorial Area keeps a list of 69,842 names of Jasenovac victims: 39,580 Serbs, 14,599 Roma, 10,700 Jews, 3,462 Croats as well as people of some other ethnicities. ("The world's eminent authority on Holocaust victims, Yad Vashem Center, claims 600,000.")

In the Chelmno camp, at least 152,000 people were killed, mainly Jews from the Lódz Ghetto. (Compare with 272,000 above.)

According to the official Majdanek State Museum about 300,000 inmates passed through the camp, over 40% Jews. The most recent research by the Majdanek Museum indicates that there were 78,000 victims, 59,000 of whom were Jews. (Compare with 306,000 above.)

At least 250,000 people were killed in Sobibór. The victims were mostly Jews from Poland.

The deaths listed for the remaining sites do not come close to another 3.8 million, much less 80 to 90% Jews. Some samples are:

The total number of deaths at Buchenwald is estimated at 56,545 with little mention of Jews.

At Bergen-Belsen, an estimated 50,000 people died there, up to 35,000 of them dying of typhus in the first few months of 1945.

Of the roughly 30,000 wartime victims at Sachsenhausen, most were Russian prisoners of war.

At Maly Trostenets Yad Vashem currently estimates the number killed as 65,000 while German historian Christian Gerlach estimates the number to be in the range of 40,000-60,000, mostly Jews from Minsk.

At Ravensbruk, about 30,000 to 40,000 women and children perished there, mostly Polish, few Jews.

Various historians place the total death toll in the four main camps of Mauthausen, Gusen I, Gusen II and Gusen III at between 55,000 and 60,000.

Over 200,000 prisoners were housed in Dachau of which nearly one-third were Jews; 32,099 prisoners are believed to have died in the camp and almost another 10,000 in its subcamps, primarily from disease.

At Dachau signs now read that the facilities were never used as gas chambers to murder anyone. In fact, there's no evidence that any "death camps" used poison gas, gas chambers or gas ovens to kill. Yet Wikipedia lists millions of Jews murdered in every camp in poison gas chambers that could hold thousands of people at a time. This is necessary to account for the number of deaths, "75% of all European Jews".

Wikipedia also states that 11 million people died in the "death camps", almost the same number of non-Jews as Jews. How does this fit with the claim that 80 to 90% of the deaths in the principal "death camps" were Jews. Millions of non-Jews have just disappeared. Finally, Wikipedia states that the first credible news of the "death camps" arrived in the West around D-Day, June, 1944, yet the Holocaust Industry is still trying to collect reparations from America for its failure to intervene at an earlier date in the European War on behalf of the Jews.

An important objective study, which is suppressed, is the 1948 report by the International Red Cross, covering its activities during World War II (1942-1945) in the camps maintained by the German authorities. They were allowed to deliver over one million parcels of food, clothing and medicine to the inmates. It stated their efforts were hindered not by the Germans but by the Allied blockade of Germany and the dire situation in Germany during the final months of the war was due to "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (carpet bombing). It also states that large numbers of "the three million or so European Jews avoided internment altogether". Did they say 3 million? (It seems there was a massive migration of Jews out of Europe in the 1930's to America and in the 1940's to Israel.) There is no mention whatsoever of genocide, gas chambers, death showers, poison gas, etc.; quite the contrary.

In lengthy books about World War II written by Churchill and Eisenhower, there is not a single mention of Jews being genocided in Nazi "death camps".

Qualified engineers inspected the "death camps" and stated that the facilities were showers and could not be used as gas chambers and that the alleged deaths were "impossible". They were imprisoned.

There is ample testimony of eyewitness inmates which belie the existence of "death camps". They are suppressed or imprisoned.

The Nuremberg trials were hate theater orchestrated by the Zionists under the London Agreement. Testimony was obtained by torture. German generals were castrated by constant kicks to the groin.

In 1933 Samuel Untermeyer said there were 14 million Jews in the world. By 1940 this exploded to 17 million (an astonishing racial fecundity) and then imploded to 11 million in 1945 due to the Holocaust. But in an article in 1948, Hanson Baldwin, the war expert of the New York Times, said there were then 15 to 17 million Jews in the world, almost the same number as 1940.

Earlier demographers said that there were 14 to 15 million Jews during the period of the "Holocaust". Today there are less than 14 million, about the same number as in 1933. Almost half are now in the United States, twice the number of 1920.

Here's how Wikipedia explains the discrepancies:

"Deniers often use the 'Four Million Variant' as a stepping stone to leap...to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by a [Zionist] conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the 'Four Million Variant' is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories."

Then why are Zionists still using the 6 million number, knowing it is "specious"? Millions of non-Jews died, too. The numbers don't make sense. Do Zionists fear any inquiries will prove there was no Holocaust at all and thus "stone wall" all inquiries? It's like the Protocols. In the 1930's they had a Swiss judge (Meyer) declare the Protocols a forgery but this was reversed on appeal. Yet Zionism still claims the Protocols are a proven forgery. The "web of deceit" is clearly Zionist.

According to one article, "The carnage of World War II surpassed that of World War I. German war losses alone were estimated at 7 million, about half of whom died in battle. Ruined, defeated, and divided into zones of occupation, a much smaller Germany emerged in 1945 with a population about the same as in 1910." (Russian losses were immeasurable; it bore the brunt of the German Army.)

After the war, millions more Germans died by starvation and disease in a ruined society, and 1.5 million German soldiers died in Eisenhower's Andersonville-like death camps, under the infamous and barbarous Morganthau Baruch Plans. American soldiers were then, as in World War I and today, the unwitting rapiers of Zionist hatred and greed. Note the commanders of the Allied Army in Europe, Eisenhower and Clark, were Jews.

Apparently, Zionists will stop at nothing to crush all inquiries of the Holocaust by every possible means. Their reach and fanaticism is awesome. They have a "million eyes" watching everything and everybody (cf. the Protocols). What are they afraid of? Is the Holocaust a "house of cards"? If it falls, so does Zionism, Israel and the lucrative Holocaust Industry. And, despite the conditioning of the Zionist media monopoly, people everywhere are waking up to its deceptions.

Then will the Zionist Era and its Protocol Chaos together with its perpetual wars, panics, poverty, depressions, revolutions, aggressions, assassinations, false flags, monopolies, debt and demagoguery come to an end./? The slaughter of mankind, cease and Peace, rule./?

Spread the word on all the sites, forums and message boards. There should be an objective investigation of the Holocaust, free of the influence of France, Britain, and America. AIPAC now requires all US Congressional candidates to first pledge their loyalty to Zionism. Zionists rule Washington absolutely (London and Paris, too). Never have a people been swept by so many armies of secret police. Where is our loyal military? The world wonders!

Acknowledgment: This information was obtained from an uncensored internet.

Men can never be secure from tyranny, if there is no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it and therefore, they have not only a right to get out of it but to prevent it. John Locke

Memorial Day, 2007
D. Cassidy

Goodbye to the City on the Hill

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

"We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."
--John Winthrop

America is being destroyed. Many Americans are unaware, others are indifferent, and some intend it.

The destruction is across the board: the political and constitutional system, the economy, social institutions including the family itself, citizenship, and the character and morality of the American people.

Those who rely on the Internet for information are aware that the Bush regime has successfully assaulted the separation of powers and civil liberty. Both Bush and Cheney claim that they are not bound by laws that impinge on their freedom of action or that interfere with their ideas of the power of their offices. Bush has issued presidential directives that permit him to make himself a dictator by declaring a national emergency. Cheney asserts that his handling of secret documents is not subject to oversight or investigation or bound by a presidential order governing the protection of classified information.

The foundation of social organization--marriage, family, and parental control over children--is disintegrating.

Mass unassimilated and illegal immigration has destroyed the meaning of American citizenship and forced large numbers of Americans into unemployment. For example, Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies reported on June 20 that state employment data show that in the first six years of the 21st century 218,000 high school graduates in the state of Georgia have been employment-displaced by immigrants. Moreover, wages have stagnated, putting the lie to the claim that there is a shortage of workers. If there were a labor shortage, wages would be bid up and rising.

Many Americans are unconcerned that the US government in behalf of an undeclared agenda has invaded two countries, killed hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, produced 4 million Iraqi refugees, rejected the Geneva Conventions and reverted to medieval torture dungeons. It does not trouble them that their government blocked ceasefires and UN resolutions so that Israel could bomb and murder Lebanese civilians and destroy the country's infrastructure.

Americans, whose ethical behavior toward others was once reinforced by having to look oneself in the mirror, now have a different ethos.
Many cannot look themselves in the mirror unless they have pulled a fast one and advanced themselves at someone else's expense. It is not only crooked prosecutors, such as Michael Nifong, who get their jollies from destroying their fellow citizens.

A google search will call up enough information to make the case for these points many times over. However, the destruction of the US economy, though far advanced, is still largely unknown. It is to this subject that we turn.

For a number of years Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services and I have documented from BLS nonfarm payroll jobs data that the US economy in the 21st century no longer creates net new jobs in tradable goods and services. In the 21st century, job growth in "the world's only superpower" has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services.

These are not jobs that comprise ladders of upward mobility. Income inequality is worsening, and education is no longer the answer.

The problem is that middle class jobs, both in manufacturing and in professional occupations such as engineering, are being offshored as corporations replace their American workforces with foreigners. I have called jobs offshoring "virtual immigration."

The latest bombshell is that even those professional jobs that remain located in America are not safe. There is a vast industry of immigration law firms that enable American corporations to replace their American workers with foreigners brought in on work visas.

For years Americans have been told that work visas are only issued in cases where there are no Americans with the necessary skills to fill the jobs. Americans have been reassured that safeguards are in place to prevent US companies from using the work visas to replace their American employees with foreigners paid below the prevailing US wage. Now, thanks to a video placed on "YouTube" by a US law firm, Cohen & Grigsby, marketing its services, we now know that it is easy for US companies to legally evade the "safeguards" and to replace their American employees with lower paid foreigners.

The video shows Lawrence Lebowitz, Vice President for Marketing for the law firm of Cohen & Grigsby, together with a panel of the law firm's attorneys, explaining to an audience of employers how to use loopholes in the laws governing the work visas to hire foreign workers in place of Americans. Lebowitz says, "our goal is clearly, not to find a qualified and interested US worker."

Cohen & Grigsby's legal experts describe the strategy for ensuring that no American firm has to hire an American. The advertising requirements can be met by advertising the job in obscure or ethnic newspapers in locations where there are no likely job candidates. If a qualified American candidate turns up, "have the manager of that specific position step in and . . . go through the whole process to find a legal basis to disqualify them for this position--in most cases there doesn't seem to be a problem."

The "prevailing wage" requirement is evaded, for example, by making the offered salary and raises contingent on receipt of the green card, usually 3 or 4 years away, or by disguising the job by understating the job requirements. For example, a job requiring an advanced degree can be listed as requiring a bachelor's degree, but filled with a foreigner with a higher degree. As the higher degree is not listed as a job requirement, the employer is able to secure the foreign employee below the prevailing wage.

University of California computer science professor Norman Matloff has an excellent presentation available at his online site about the lack of impediments to the ability of US firms to replace their American employees with foreigners. Matloff says to keep in mind that Cohen & Grigsby "is NOT a rogue law firm." The advice provided by Cohen & Grigsby is the standard advice given by the hoards of immigration attorneys who are personally cleaning up by putting Americans out of work.

Except for Lou Dobbs on CNN, the US TV and print media have so far ignored the astounding story. Where are the headlines: "US Jobs: No American Need Apply"?

Chances are high that economists will ignore the story also.
Economists have made fools of themselves with their hyped claims that jobs offshoring is a great benefit to America and that any attempt to stop it would bring hardship, failed companies, and lost American jobs. When a profession gets egg all over its face, it closes ranks and goes into denial.

Unlike the post-depression generation of US economists, recent generations of economists have been indoctrinated with confidence in business. They believe that business knows best and that the free market will prevent or correct any mistakes. Many economists today are well paid shills for special interests. Others, simply careless, have assumed that statistical measures of high rates of US productivity and GDP growth were indications of the benefits that offshoring was bringing to Americans.

Only a few economists, such as myself and Charles McMillion, noticed the inconsistency between alleged high rates of productivity and GDP growth on one hand and stagnant real median incomes and rising income inequality on the other. Somehow the US economy was having GDP and productivity growth that was not showing up in growth in the incomes of Americans.

Thanks to economist Susan N. Houseman and the March 22 issue of Business Week, we now know, as I reported in the print edition of CounterPunch (June 1-15, 2007) and on online at vdare.com, that much of the growth in US productivity and GDP was an illusion created by statistics that mistakenly attributed productivity gains achieved abroad to the US economy.

With the ladders of upward mobility for Americans dismantled by offshoring and work visas, with the very real problems in mortgage and housing markets, with the very real stress put on the US dollar's reserve currency role by Bush's trillion dollar war that is financed by foreigners, with the downward revisions in US GDP and productivity growth that are now mandatory, and with a variety of other problems that I haven't the space to deal with, the fabled US economy is a thing of the past.

Just like America's prestige. Just like the world's goodwill toward America. Just like American liberty.

The eyes of all peoples are still upon us, only for different reasons. Whom will we attack next? When will we be bankrupt? What good is the American consumer market when the mass of the people are employed in third world jobs? How much longer will those trillions of dollars held by foreign governments be worth anything? How long before Americans will be knocking on European doors claiming political asylum.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"

Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. (Wampum has more; as does the American Street).

If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about?

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.

These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said-- like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.

Anyone who reads this column knows that I deeply disagree with Ahmadinejad's policies and am not interested in defending him on most things. I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Israel, which is a legitimate United Nations member state, and find his Holocaust denial monstrous. But this quite false charge that he is genocidal is being promoted by Right-Zionists in and out of Congress as a preparatory step to getting up a US war against Iran on false pretences. I don't want to see my country destroyed by being further embroiled in the Middle East for the wrong reasons. If the Israeli hardliners and their American amen corner want a war with Iran, let them fight it themselves and leave young 18 year old Americans alone.

So here are some things Ahmadinezhad has said that make clear his intentions, and which are translated by the United States government Open Source Center. He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide.

Note that Ahmadinejad below denies being an anti-Semite (why deny it if he supposedly glories in it?); points out that he supports Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament; and compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime?

(1) Iran's President Ahmadinezhad Holds New York News Conference 21 Sep
News conference by Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad at UN headquarters in New York -- correspondents' questions in English simultaneously translated into Persian -- live
Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN)
Friday, September 22, 2006

Regarding the issue of the invasion of Lebanon, you saw that everyone - of all religions, of all faiths - condemned it. Because the nations have awakened. The nations hate aggression. . . Some people think that if they level accusations at Ahmadinezhad - saying: He is a terrorist, he is a murderer, he is anti-Semitic - the issue would be resolved. No. I am not anti-Semitic. Like all other human beings, Jews are respected. And, by the way, there are Muslims and Christians and Jews among the Palestinian people. We say the people of Palestine should choose. We do not say that it should be the Palestinian Muslims. For they lived in peace and harmony in the past. But then Britain came over and, with colonialist goals, took control and then handed it over to the Zionists. And the problem started. Let the people choose and see what will happen.

(2) Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV
"Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 -- recorded
Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1
Sunday, March 25, 2007

(David Pujadas) The fact that Iran's position is disconcerting, one of the reasons is that Your Excellency's statements are to a large extent threatening. For instance, your assertion that Israel should be wiped from the map of the world, all these things have created some concern which has been reflected in the nuclear case too.

(Ahmadinezhad) . . . Let me ask you this question: where is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics now? Was it not wiped off (the map)? How was it wiped off? We have a totally humanitarian solution for Palestine. We have said that all the Palestinians should take part in a free referendum so as to end the 60 year old war. The outcome is clear from now. It is because of the same outcome that America and Britain are refusing to yield.

(David Pujadas) Let us clarify everything. Do you really wish to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Do you have a plan for this job or are you in fact making such a prediction?

(Ahmadinezhad) Look, I told you the solution. I think the people of Palestine also have the right to determine their own fate. Let them choose for themselves, the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims. That is, all the Palestinians who belong to that land can participate in the referendum. I think the outcome of such a referendum is already clear. We saw what happened in last year's elections (when they voted for HAMAS).

(David Pujadas) If the Palestinians themselves accept that two governments should enjoy peaceful coexistence next to each other, will you be ready to accept their decision?

(Ahmadinezhad) Incidentally this is what we are saying. That is, we are saying let the nation of Palestine decide for itself without any imposition. They should be allowed to do so in a free atmosphere. This is the right of the Palestinian people. Let them decide for themselves. Let them decide the shape of their own government.

(David Pujadas) Do you mean with Israel as their neighbor?

(Ahmadinezhad) Look, let the nation of Palestine decide about its own state. This is the right of the Palestinian people. . .

(David Pujadas) A lot is being said about the 60m people who have been killed during World War II, but why should we just discuss the 6m people who have been killed in the Nazi camps for being Jews?

(Ahmadinezhad) You well know that we respect everyone. The Jews, Christians, Muslims. They are all free in our country and they have their own representatives in our Majles [Parliament]. You know that according to the Law in Iran, every 150,000 people have one representative in the Majles. But the number of the Jews is not even 20,000 people and they have a representative. We say that the life and belongings of all people should be respected. We condemn all crimes.

(3) Iran: Presidential Website Reports Ahmadinezhad's Remarks at Holocaust Conference
Unattributed report: "The President: Truth-Seeking and Honest Groups Should Be Formed To Investigate the Holocaust"
Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran WWW-Text
Thursday, December 28, 2006

The president stated that due to God's wish and the vigilance of nations the days of the Zionist regime are numbered and added: We want prosperity for all humans and even like to guide our enemies, but some European and American politicians' one-sided and bigoted support for the Zionist regime no longer has a function in the world.

Dr Ahmadinezhad stated that, with each day that passes of the Zionist regime's life, the interests and reputation of its supporting powers become more endangered. He added: The sensible and fair solution is to remove this regime the same way it was set up and imposed on the region's countries through planning and imperialistic objectives. This will bring peace to the world, and the region's countries will also forgive the atrocities of the last 60 years.

The president also stated that God did not create human beings for war, hatred, and enmity. He said the key for establishment of peace and harmony is justice; justice is achievable through monotheism and believing in God. He emphasized: An international effort must be made to establish peace and to remove the roots of insecurity and injustice, as the international balance is changing rapidly and the future evolutions will certainly be for peace, brotherhood, justice, and worshiping God.

Tom Lantos, Warmonger

The pious old hypocrite wants to gin up a war with Iran

by Justin Raimondo

While the American people pine for peace, our leaders are intent on war: that's the anomaly of American "democracy," one that speaks ill of the effort to export our system at gunpoint. Adopt "democracy," and you, too, can be ruled by a warmongering oligarchy.

Americans oppose an attack on Iran 2-to-1. By almost every measure, they want negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Tehran. Yet the House of Representatives recently passedlegislation that, in effect, fires the first shot at the Iranians, imposing draconian sanctions similar to those enacted against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of that country. Similarly, this new sanctions regime sets the stage for the coming war with Iran.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act [.pdf], so-called, doesn't bother targeting goods and services that Iran might put to military use. Instead, it takes a broad-brush approach and openly seeks to strangle Iran economically. The legislation, written by champion warmonger Tom Lantos, would prohibit the import of any and all items from Iran, ban dealings with Iranian banks, stop the export of items having to do with civil aviation, and ratchet up the pressure on other countries to impose similar restrictions. Furthermore, Lantos wants a report from the White House every six months on the "progress" being made to tighten the chokehold on Iran.

Looking at this from the Iranian side, it is clearly an act of war, especially in the context of the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which provided millions to fund "regime change" in the land of the mullahs The Lantos bill is a naked provocation that stops just short of an all-out attack – and paves the way for military action, in spite of a proviso that reads "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran." Having already declared our intention to bring down the regime by funding opposition groups, this latest vow by the U.S. Congress to destroy the Iranian economy is the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West skywriting "Surrender Dorothy" in the skies above Tehran.

With Lantos and the anti-Iran Democrats leading the charge on the political front, the Bush administration is moving on the military front. Recent developments are ominous: namely, the addition of another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, to the two already looming off the Iranian coast. (Yes, I know that last link is to Debka.com, hardly a fountainhead of journalistic accuracy, but thisNewsweek report prefigured it.) What amounts to a Republican-Democratic pincer movement is evidence that a real consensus has developed in our nation's capital that war with Iran is inevitable.

True, there are some minor disagreements along the way, with the Democrats, led by the sickening hypocrite Lantos, demanding these draconian sanctions, and the White House opposing them on the grounds that new sanctions undermine our multilateral diplomatic effort to isolate Tehran. Lantos, that pious old fraud, inserted language in his bill that pays minimal lip service to the idea of resolving this dispute through diplomacy – while the rest of his bill is clearly designed to sink diplomatic initiatives that are bound to run aground on the rocks of sanctions.

Lantos really is a piece of work. Here he is insulting Jacques Chirac and calling former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder a "political prostitute" for having the foresight to oppose our disastrous Iraqi adventure. Of Schroeder, Lantos barked:

"I referred to him as a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected, so I will no longer use that phrase."

The respectful use of the term "sex workers" indicates Lantos really has no moral objections to prostitution, he merely objects to the nationality of Schroeder's customers. Yet Schroeder's employment in an oil-gas venture that is 51 percent owned by Gazprom no more makes Schroeder a Russian prostitute than big campaign contributions to Lantos from the Washington PAC make him a whore for Israel. Presumably, Schroeder believes trade with Russia is in Germany's (and Europe's) interests, just as Lantos thinks America's current policy of unconditional support for Israel is good for America.

As for Chirac, Lantos was at his most bombastic. The former French president, said Lantos,

"should go down to the Normandy beaches. He should see those endless rows of white marble crosses and stars of David representing young Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of France."

Lantos should go down to Walter Reed Army Hospital and see those endless rows of wounded soldiers maimed in an unwinnable, futile war that he voted to authorize and continues to support. He should go visit this guy and come back and tell us that he was right about Iraq, just as he is about Iran.

The coming war with Iran is brought to you by the Dick Cheney wing of the Democratic Party, in collaboration, of course, with the Dick Cheney wing of the GOP. With Lantos one of their chief spokesmen and Hillary Clinton their designated presidential candidate, the Demo-Cheneyites are determined to pull off what their Republican counterparts lack the political capital to accomplish. If the shooting starts under Bush's watch – as is very likely – then the Democrats can blame the Republicans even as they pave the way for war politically, diplomatically, and in every other way possible.

As the Democratic presidential candidates dither over Iraq, pretending to oppose the war while continuing the funding without conditions or meaningful oversight, they all agree that a U.S. attack on Iran is "on the table" as long as Tehran maintains its right to develop nuclear power for ostensibly peaceful purposes. Furthermore, the Iraq war and the looming possibility of a conflict with Iran are no longer separable. As I have said numerous times in this space, the Iraq war cannot be contained within Iraq's borders, and the "spillover effect" is bound to result in a border incident that could spark a wider conflict. As Rep. Ron Paul has warned, a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like incident in the Persian Gulf or on the Iran-Iraq border could easily be manufactured by an administration hell-bent on war – and perhaps we are seeing the first signs of it here.

The conflict, once initiated, will not be restricted to the Persian Gulf region and the long Iran-Iraq border but will break out all over the Middle East, erupting in Lebanon and rippling outward all the way to Pakistan in a seismic wave that could topple every regime in the region. In this way, the administration's goal of "regime change" throughout the Middle East will be accomplished and the neocons' "domino theory" confirmed – albeit not in a way they ever intended.

You'll note that the White House and its pet generals are nowadays referring to the Iraqi insurgency as "al-Qaeda," a neat rhetorical sleight-of-hand that prefigures what may happen once a regional war – the neocons' vaunted "World War IV" – gets started: the ultimate empowerment of America's deadliest enemies. With a pro-al-Qaeda regime ensconced in Islamabad, the prospect of nuclear-armed terrorists – the ultimate bogeyman conjured up by the War Party – will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In the end, we are confronted with the utter craziness of the War Party and its agenda in the Middle East. This pathological condition was recently reconfirmed by Johann Hari's account of a National Review-sponsored cruise to Puerto Vallarta featuring Norman Podhoretz and Bill Buckley, along with a boatload of neocons and well-heeled red-state-fascist types on board. The Pod Man and Buckley nearly came to blows over the war question, when Buckley asked Poddy if it didn't bother him that the famed "weapons of mass destruction" were nowhere to be found in Iraq. "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria," snapped the Pod Man.

Syria? Is he serious? I'm afraid he is…

Continuing his rant, the Pod Man avers: "This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better."

Better – for whom? Well, for Israeli hardliners, to start with, who now have 150,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to set against another of their mortal enemies. Better for the neocons, who still control the commanding heights of U.S. policymaking centers in Washington and who are now within reach of their goal of "regime change" throughout the region. As for the rest of us, including poor Buckley, who's had his own magazine (and movement) hijacked by the Pod Man and the neocon pod-people – "I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I'm going to have some ex-friends on the right, too" – if you're sick of war, you're no friend of the Pod Man's. If you're sick of the Pod Man – who is engaged in a friendly competition with Joshua Muravchik for the title of warmonger-in-chief of the bomb-Iran crowd – then get in line, because even the most hard-core conservatives, who once supported the president's relentless policy of aggression in the Middle East, are now having second thoughts.

Buckley's face-off with Podhoretz dramatizes, in concentrated form, the slow burn of Republican members of Congress who fear for their seats and the future of the GOP as the neocons drag them down to political oblivion. How long will Republicans, and conservatives in general, consent to carry the millstone of neoconservatism around their necks?

Make no mistake about it: we are headed straight for another war in the Middle East, and it is going to be a doozy. The Democrats will protest that they never wanted it, even as they facilitate the war plans of this administration to the nth degree. Don't dare imagine that a change of administrations will avert the coming war with Iran: a Democratic administration in power will just mean that we'll have Cheneyism without Cheney, at least when it comes to Iran.

The Iranians claim they aren't building weapons, only developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes because they want to export more of their oil. Yet who could blame them if they were building nukes – after being denounced as the main spoke on the "axis of evil" by the president of the United States and threatened with a heavy U.S. military buildup in Iraq and the Gulf? They once did offer to negotiate over not only their nuclear program but also their support for Hezbollah and radical Palestinian factions – but this offer was rudely rejected at the behest of Cheney and his cohorts. This offer should be reexamined and revived: it could and should provide the basis for a negotiated settlement of all outstanding issues between Washington and Tehran.

The United States lived with Soviet nukes aimed at American cities for 50-plus years: we can live with Iranian nukes aimed at Israeli cities (and Israeli nukes targeting Iranian cities). The alternative is war – and a regional conflagration that will have economic and geopolitical consequences that can only be catastrophic for America.

It's All About Israel

What's behind the calls for the U.S.
to bomb Iran?

by Justin Raimondo

I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski is stealing my ideas and not giving me credit, but, what the heck, I'm in a generous mood – and he puts his own gloss on it – so I don't mind (via Matthew Yglesias):

"Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the U.S. and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset."

What good is the Israeli "deterrent" if it doesn't deter? A good question, perhaps answered by challenging the assumption that the nukes in the IDF's arsenal are at all defensive in nature or intent. The Israelis clearly intend to crouch behind their nuclear shield as they expand their sphere of influence, and this has been especially true since the implementation of the "Clean Break" scenario espoused by the Likudniks and their American co-thinkers. Growing Israeli influence in Kurdistan, recent incursions into Lebanon, and the purported ability of Israeli agents to penetrate Iran's borders attest to the success of their strategy. While American soldiers in Iraq take bullets from Sunni insurgents – and, increasingly, radical Shi'ite militias – the Israelis have been quietly (and not so quietly) taking the spoils of our Pyrrhic"victory."

I'm kidding when I say that the former national security adviser and renowned foreign policy theoretician is "stealing" the idea that we ought not to support Israel's Near Eastern nuclear monopoly. It is a perfectly rational, logical argument, one that has long been advanced by the Syrians, the Arab League, and any number of commentators in the Arab-Muslim world(s). It is also radically heretical in the West, where discussion of Israel's unquestioned hegemony in the region – and in the politics of policy formulation in the U.S. and Western Europe – is prohibited. Which is why I've been practically alone, until recently, in challenging the prevailing orthodoxy.

The concept of parity between the Israelis and their Arab-Muslim antagonists may soon be legitimized, in spite of the Western taboo against straight talk on this issue, when the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf expires and gives way to an openly Islamist government that possesses as many as 55 nukes. Then, perhaps, the idea of negotiating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East won't seem so radical after all.

By then, however, it may be too late. In the meantime, however, Israel's apologists are doing everything in their power to make sure that such heretical views don't even get a fair hearing. Surely this impulse to censor was what energized my critics during the recent debate over at Jewcy.com pitting me against Michael Freund – who wants the U.S. to bomb Iran because of the alleged threat its nuclear program poses to Israel. One such critic, Noah Pollak, wrote:

"Far be it from me to take Mr. Raimondo seriously when he says such things – his contributions to last week's exchange were studded with so many hateful condemnations, bizarre declarations, and quarter-baked ideas that doing so would require me to empty my brain of everything I've learned about both the Middle East and foreign policy."

What were these "hateful condemnations"? Pollak never tells us. What "bizarre declarations" is he talking about? The only sentence of mine he cites says that Iran has no intention of nuking Israel and couldn't reach the U.S. even if it wanted to – is this really so bizarre? As for those "quarter-baked ideas" – I guess he's referring to the nuclear-free Middle East concept that such rank amateurs as Brzezinski are now pushing.

I have to say that Pollak's piece was published only after my "dialogue" with Freund was posted. Since I was clearly the winner of that initial facedown, I guess the editors of Jewcy.com thought they'd give the other side another shot – without informing me or soliciting my response. Aside from the issue of good manners, however, Pollak's polemic is typical of the War Party's style of argument in that it consists mostly of epithets.

Once we get past Pollak's rhetorical flourishes, however, and the almost ritualistic terms of abuse, what we find is a rather weak argument in favor of maintaining what the author refers to as an "American-enforced security architecture" that "shows so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it." Pollak avers:

"Iran is indeed a threat to both the United States and to Israel – but the threat does not come in the cartoonish form of Mr. Raimondo's fevered imagination, with Iranian bombers nuking Tel Aviv and Iranian ICBM's rocketing their way toward New York. Those scenarios are red herrings intended to make Raimondo's task of turning America and Israel into the world's leading belligerents much easier."

It's not very clever of Pollak to attribute to me arguments made by Freund: all the reader has to do is go back and look at the previous "dialogue" to see that it is Freund who makes the far-fetched claim that Iran is developing long-range missiles capable of striking American cities. I merely refuted him. Such "red herrings" are rampant these days, as the Bush administration recently made a similar argument, telling Vladimir Putin that missile-defense systems put in place in Poland and Czechoslovakia are meant to guard against the allegedly imminent threat of an Iranian attack. In any event, insofar as it is useful in this discussion to differentiate American from Israeli interests – and that, in essence, is the issue at hand – the idea that Iranian nukes would or could pose a threat to America cried out for a definitive debunking.

The problem for Pollak is to erase all distinctions between these two nations' separate interests, which are sometimes complementary and yet increasingly at odds. His solution is to simply ignore diverging strategic imperatives and argue in favor of maintaining the status quo, which amounts to anointing the Israelis as the local satraps of the Empire and giving them unconditional support right down the line. In doing so, he makes some pretty counterintuitive arguments, such as the following:

"The actual threat posed by a nuclear Iran involves the manner in which such a development would upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which no doubt for Mr. Raimondo is a boring subject as it does not provide ready opportunities for Israel Lobby hysteria and mushroom cloud fantasies. To understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran, we have to look to the recent history of Middle East power arrangements."

What follows, then, is an account of recent Middle Eastern history studded with such stunners as:

"American strategists decided to attempt to impose peace in the region by showing so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it. And this strategy has been a resounding success: Since 1973 there have been no more wars between Israel and Arab countries."

Hmm. I guess those two – count 'em, two – invasions of Lebanon don't count as wars, perhaps because Israel was twice beaten back, the second time decisively. In any case, Pollak's argument is that Iranian nukes will lead the Sunni nations to all want nukes, too, and this would "shatter the balance of power."

Pollak's idea of a proper "balance of power" is that Israel alone will have the capacity to wipe out its neighbors with the press of a single button, the barking of a single command. In short, the only acceptable "balance" is Israeli military dominance. He does his bit to dress up this domination in the garb of an "American-enforced security architecture," but that, in essence, is what we are really talking about here: maintaining Israel's nuclear monopoly at all costs. It is okay, in Pollak's worldview, for the Israelis to possess this terrible power: they, after all, can be trusted with it, because, after all, they're just like us – aren't they? They wouldn't use nuclear weapons against, say, the Iranians, by launching a first strike that would wipe out Tehran.

I wouldn't be so sure, and one can be certain that the Iranians – and the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and everyone else in the Middle East – aren't so sure, either. Which brings us to the question of why these folks didn't begin their arms race long ago – if only to deter a nuclear-armed Israel. If that didn't motivate them to develop The Bomb, then, I would argue, nothing will – including the nuclearization of Iran.

If Pollak is going to decry the prospect of an arms race in the Middle East, then perhaps he should place the blame on those who started it – the Israelis. They were first to build a nuclear arsenal, and, unlike Iran, they refuse to this day to allow inspectors in and have steadfastly declined to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The present "American-enforced security architecture" is unsustainable, and must collapse due to its inherent unfairness. The Arab-Muslim nations of the Middle East cannot be expected to cower indefinitely under threat of attack from a nuclear-armed Israel or its American patron, meekly accepting foreign domination of their own region. Our posture is the main recruiting tool of the worldwide terrorist insurgency symbolized by Osama bin Laden, and it can only be maintained by sacrificing American interests on the altar of our "special relationship" with Israel.

Our present policy is a gross distortion that desperately needs to be corrected before we can hope to eliminate the danger to our economic well-being and security posed by the rise of radical Islamism. The "clash of civilizations" is really a conflict generated by Western imperialism and colonialism; it is not at all inherent in the nature of either Islam or the West.

The United States should apply the same standards to Israel as it does to Iran. If the Iranians must disarm, then so must the Israelis. If nukes in the hands of the mullahs are threatening, then they are no less so when wielded by ultra-nationalistic Zionists of the Likudnik persuasion. The current crisis provoked by the Iranian nuclear power program only highlights how utterly archaic our present policy in the region has become – and demonstrates that nuclear disarmament must be made a regional issue rather than a bludgeon with which to beat the Iranians.

Anyone who could argue, as Pollak has, that an American attack on Iran would not produce regional chaos has got to be smoking some pretty strong stuff. Not once does he mention the probable fate of the 150,000 or so American soldiers in Iraq who would surely be the objects of Shi'ite rage in response to the killing of thousands of their Iranian co-religionists. Apparently the lives of so many Americans make no difference to him. So much for his pretense of upholding American interests in the region.

This isn't about America, however, as Pollak makes all too clear. The current propaganda campaign on behalf of striking Iran – a campaign given a big boost by the Republican candidates for president, who, except for Ron Paul, favor hitting Iran with nukes – is all about Israel. It's as simple as that.

The question before the house is this: should the United States exhaust itself militarily, economically, and psychologically in order to ensure indefinite Israeli domination of the Middle East? To the Israel Lobby, this is a no-brainer: of course it should. Anything less than unconditional support for Israel's strategic objectives would be anti-Semitic and "hateful."

To which an increasing number of policy wonks, such as Brzezinski, and ordinary Americans, such as myself, answer: we won't be intimidated any longer. It's high time the central premise of American policy in the Middle East is challenged and the specialness of the "special relationship" is held up to scrutiny. This latest demand – that the U.S. expend its resources, including the lives of its young people, in yet another war on Israel's behalf – has nothing to do with defending the Jewish state against what Pollak admits is the canard of nuclear incineration at Iranian hands, and everything to do with keeping the Israeli boot firmly on Arab and Muslim necks. And that cause is not worth a single American life.

Documentary: "The Israel Lobby"

Documentary 'The Israel lobby - The influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy'
An episode of the Dutch documentary program "Tegenlicht" about the Israel lobby in the USA.

Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

Why is US corporate media keeping al-Bashir and his government away from US viewers?

June 4, 2007

Most Americans are familiar with President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdallah II of Jordan, King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, President Assad of Syria, and a few other Arab leaders. They are frequently seen in print media and on TV. They have one thing in common. Their skin is white. As a matter of fact, the Syrian leader is blond with blue eyes.

Though the Sudan is the largest country on the African continent (2.5 million square kilometers), and its population exceeds forty million, have you ever seen its President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on TV? Though the news of the Sudan and its western region, Darfur, appear almost daily in the U.S. media, have you at any time seen his picture in a newspaper or a magazine?

I doubt you did! It is not your fault. The U.S. media hides him from your sight.

The question is: Why do our media keep him away from public view?

Mr. al-Bashir is known to be gentle, kind, and pleasant. His smile is genuine. One can easily connect with al-Bashir for his humility, warmth, and frankness. He doesn’t play dirty games. He doesn’t speak in double tongues. He is a man of high principles.

Near the end of last February, Mr. al-Bashir spoke live to thousands of African-Americans via satellite at the Nation of Islam’s Savior’s Day convention in Detroit for almost an hour and a half. Without any form of censorship, he was prepared to respond to questions from the American media regarding any subject of concern, particularly Darfur.

Although the event had been highly publicized and the media had been informed long in advance, only a couple of major media outfits showed any interest. Their questions were outright stupid. They didn’t take advantage of this golden opportunity to relay to their viewers the other side of the story coming directly from its source. The only thing that concerned them was whether or not the Sudanese President was going to allow the so-called U.N. peace-keeping forces into Darfur. A reporter, who had not been to the Sudan and had earlier written about the imaginary "crimes" the central government carries out in Darfur, was urged by Akbar Muhammad, the coordinator of the press conference, to talk directly to the Sudanese President. The man declined. The extent, history, or the roots of the Darfur tragedy, the forces that ignite it, and why, were not of any importance. Again, no pictures!

Children were not terrified when they saw al-Bashir, who is accused of being "an ugly terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal", addressing the convention. Men and women didn’t walk out to protest a speech delivered by a man described by the American media as "the world’s worse dictator" who is waging a war of "genocide and ethnic cleansing" against Blacks. On the contrary, the President of Sudan was met with warm applause. African-Americans of all faiths gave him a standing ovation.

Again! Why do the U.S. executives of the corporate media insist on keeping al-Bashir and members of his government away from American viewers? Not a single western newsperson has ever been hurt in the Sudan.

The reason is simple; a picture is worth a thousand words. The Sudanese President and his entire cabinet, though they are Arabs, are Blacks. All are Africans. Arabism is not a race or a blood relationship. It is a culture, a sense of belonging, history, geography, and a strong desire to unite to survive in a cruel and savage world. The lie that Arabs are carrying out massacres against Africans would immediately collapse. The propaganda machine greased by over one hundred and sixty Zionist organizations, in addition to constant falsehoods coming from the White House and Christian Right groups, to convince the world, particularly African-Americans that Arabs murder and discriminate against Blacks, will no longer function. The millions of dollars spent weekly by the vicious "Save Darfur" campaign on advertisements to vilify and dehumanize Arabs would become meaningless and a waste.

President al-Bashir is not popular here in the United States. Sudanese rebels, who are trained, financed and equipped, by the U.S. government, hope to soon enter into Sudan far behind U.S. tanks and marines, are occasionally invited to Washington to meet with the U.S. President and Congress. The legitimate leader of Sudan, who is determined to preserve the unity and sovereignty of his country, and protect its resources for the welfare of his people, is not entitled to receive this "honor".

However, Mr. al-Bashir is popular, not only at home, but across Africa, and the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Africans, Muslims, and Arabs strongly reject the falsehoods, lies, and smear tactics colonial governments manufacture to justify a regime change. His popularity stems from the fact that he refuses to recognize Israel, an illegitimate foreign identity established on stolen Palestinian land. He has showed the courage to stand firmly against the crimes committed daily by the U.S. and Israel in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and Somalia. He managed to establish excellent relations between the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and Iran, despite the eight year war fueled by the United States. He protected Sudan’s wealth and resources from U.S. corporate robbery.

To serve certain political agendas, Mr. al-Bashir is falsely labeled by the Zionist and US corporate media as "a monster, the world’s number one dictator and a war criminal". Washington lists Sudan as a terrorist and rogue nation that violates the basic principles of human and civil rights.

I met President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, years ago, twice, in his office in Khartoum. I was impressed. I felt most comfortable. He is one of the few leaders whom I respect and admire.

My late April 2007 visit to the Sudan, in a fact finding mission as a part of an African-American journalists’ delegation, is one of my most memorable experiences. I was moved by the president’s down-to-earth humility. It gave me the opportunity to meet and visit with him and his family at his private home in his village for several hours, and as a result has enabled me to learn more about him as a family man and as a leader. The visit also enabled me to closely observe the life style the Arab-African President chose for himself and his family. It has emphasized and strengthened the notions I had earlier of President al-Bashir and his administration. I was struck by his overwhelming temperate disposition and manners. Though he is obviously saddened and concerned about the wars imposed on the Sudan, I was captured by his smile that reflects the inner peace and tranquility he enjoys.

In the last eighteen years, I have visited more than eighty countries throughout the world, and met with many Arab, Muslim, and Third World leaders on three continents. I must confess, in terms of simplicity and disdain for materialistic lavish life, the leaders of the Sudan, Libya, Iran, and Cuba struck me the most.

Omar Hassan al-Bashir is so attached to his roots and place of his birth and upbringing. He frequently visits his village where he grew up. His old small one-storey house in which he stays in and meets some of his local and foreign guests is indistinguishable from any quarters occupied by ordinary citizens. The house and wall around it are made of mud. The tiny living room contains two old chairs and an old iron bed used as a sofa. The narrow passageway that leads to his entry door is nothing but sand. The food we shared with the President was a piece of chicken, a small roll of bread, an apple and a bottle of water. Our laps served as the dining room table. I don’t recall to ever eating something tastier.

I couldn’t believe my eyes.

President al-Bashir came out of his home to a nearby tent, addressed our delegation of 31 African-American journalists, and mingled freely with the men, women and children from the village who flocked to greet him. He also held his cane up high, and joined them in their traditional dance.

Surprisingly, no bulletproof! No electronic security check! No one among the delegates or the crowd was searched. No villager was pushed away or turned back.

There were no tanks, no armored cars, no Humvees, no Blackhawks, no Apache gunships, and not a single man with a military uniform.

BET (Black Entertainment TV) conducted a one hour exclusive interview with Mr. al-Bashir in his village. He was thorough, honest, open, and frank. The question remains: Will BET executives allow this rare interview to be aired in the United States? Will they let the truth be heard and their viewers see the facts? Another question: Will the TV crew who were able to produce a great piece of journalistic work have the courage and determination to stick to their guns, and convince BET to release the documentary they produced to the public? One would hope and pray that the crew will be true to high journalistic principles and not cave in to intimidation and pressure.

When the time of al-Asr (before sunset) prayer came, some raggedy rugs were laid on the floor. President al-Bashir stood shoulder to shoulder, in a straight line, with the other worshippers, irrespective of their position or rank, and solemnly prayed. He didn’t lead. A young man in his late twenties did.

The relationship between al-Bashir and God seems to be different from that of Bush and his Lord, who ordered the U.S. President to invade Iraq, and wage a "Crusade" of war against Muslims. Bush says, "May God Bless America." As we see from Bush’s actions, the rest of the world may go to hell.

When the prayer ended, President al-Bashir, with his eyes closed, raised his hands towards the sky, and with a gentle voice, asked God, the creator of the universe, to bless the earth that gives us life. He called upon the "Merciful and the Beneficent" to bring peace, and may prosperity prevail for the entire world, and to have that His blessings encompass all mankind.

Ali Baghdadi
(arabjournl@aol.com, arabjournl@hotmail.com, Chicago)

Mel Gibson Was Wrong

The consumers of Hollywood’s trash were shocked by the anti-semitic remarks made by Mel Gibson upon being arrested for drunk driving, and many of them are now debating whether his career can be salvaged. As you might expect, I’m not too concerned with Mel Gibson’s career, but anti-semitic remarks made by someone whose remarks are likely to be published across the country can definitely be problematic.

What Mel Gibson was alleged to have said is "the Jews started all of the wars in this world," when clearly what he should have said is "the Zionists started all the wars of the past century." The difference may seem minor, and can hopefully be attributed to his intoxication, but nonetheless, we need to be careful to expose the truth, without offending or accusing innocent people.

The Rothschild family is definitely Jewish, and madame Rothschild herself once said "if my sons didn’t want wars, there would be no wars," but obviously that doesn’t give us reason to blame the Jewish people.

Rather the problem is Zionism, and although many Zionists are Jews, and it was Jewish Zionists who founded the state of Israel, today we also have the added problem of forty million Christian Zionists who are now applauding Israel’s genocide of the Lebanese people.Was madame Rothschild exaggerating her sons’ stature in the world, or is there an element of truth in what she said?

Despite what you may have been taught in history class, the Rothschild family and their agents have indeed instigated all of the wars of the past century, and also added tremendously to their obscene wealth by funding at least one side in every war, and usually both sides.

At the turn of the century there was the Boer war in South Africa, in which Rothschild agent, and fellow Zionist Cecil Rhodes, for whom Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was named, helped to defeat the Dutch and secure the gold and diamonds which the Rothschilds used to finance World War One. Rothschild banks funded all parties involved in that conflict, which was sparked by assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. The question of who was behind this assassination of Ferdinand is still being debated, so I’m prevented for the time being from blaming this on the Zionists, but it would certainly fit their modus operandi.

When World War One was fizzling out, apparently from lack of interest or reason, England and Germany were on the brink of signing a truce that would have brought it to an official close when a coalition of Zionists led by Bernard Baruch offered England a path to victory. They promised England they would bring America into the war on England’s side, if England would promise them Palestine when the war was over. England agreed, although Palestine was not theirs to give to anybody, and America’s Zionist-owned press began to vilify the Germans just as they vilify the Muslims today. A false-flag operation sank the S.S. Lusitania, taking about three hundred innocent people to the bottom of the ocean, and this was immediately blamed on Germany. Chief Justice Brandise, who was also a Zionist, was blackmailing Woodrow Wilson for his adultery, and he had Wilson bring America into the war, despite the fact that he was elected because he promised to keep us out of it.

After Germany was defeated, the Zionists asked for their due compensation for securing America’s military assistance, and this is when the Germans realized they had been betrayed. Before this incident, Jews were comfortable in Germany, and many had become wealthy, just as in America today. The Jews were not harmed when the Zionist’s betrayal was exposed, but they were discriminated against, and deprived of all positions of governmental power.

The Zionists decided to retaliate against their loss of political positions by organizing a world-wide boycott of German products, and since the German economy was dependant on their exports, this boycott threatened to starve most of Germany’s population. And although there was resentment of German Jews because of this, they were not harmed until 1938, when a German official was shot at the German embassy in Paris by a Jew from Poland, who was arguably another Zionist agent.

Due to these machinations of Zionists working behind the scenes, anti-semitism grew amongst German people, and this was all part of the Zionists’ plan. Zionists needed widespread anti-semitism in Germany because now that they had acquired Palestine, they needed to populate it with Jews, who prior to Zionist meddling were very comfortable in Germany, and would have considered the thought of moving to the deserts of the middle east to be quite absurd.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party were in power, and oddly enough, they were only in power because they were funded by Jews, namely the Zionist bankers Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg, and of course, Prescott Bush. (Yes, Bush is Jewish) It was these Zionists that insisted on the persecution of the Jews, because as Nathan Goldman, founder of Israel said " without Auschwitz, there would be no Israel."

I skipped the Russian revolution because the two world wars are related, but after the Czar’s family was executed as per Rothschild’s orders, we find that the seventy percent of the Communist party is comprised of Jews from the lower east side of New York City. Zionists invented Communism and Naziism because wars require enemies, and the Zionists work behind the scenes in all governments to keep them all continually fighting, which fighting always results in their increased power and profit.

Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf wars were all profit making ventures for Zionist-owned corporations, and all of them funded by the Rothschild bank known as the Federal Reserve. Americans will be slaving away for generations to pay for them.

What’s most disturbing is that underlying motive for all of these wars is the Zionist’s quest for global domination, or their "New World Order." What we are seeing in the middle east today is the beginning of World War Three, which is the final act in the Zionist’s sick little plan, and would not be possible without the Zionist hoax that we know as 9-11.

It has been announced that the Jewish messiah has been anointed in Israel, which means it’s the beginning of their "end times." Jewish scripture dictates that the Jews will now rule the world from Israel, and destroy all the nations, and all the gentile races. The Jews have been working toward this for 2500 years, but the people behind the wars aren’t religious. They’re just a gang of rich, psychopathic megalomaniacs who are trying to rule the world, and are using religious scriptures to gain popular support. Don’t blame or persecute anyone for their race or religion, but religious leaders who deceive their followers into war need to be removed from our society.

If Mel Gibson were sober, he might have phrased his statement differently, and if so, he would have been right. – Jolly Roger

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be no wars."
– Madam Rothschild

How Can Bush Free Iraq When He Brings Tyranny To America?

By Paul Craig Roberts

5-25-7

The Washington, DC, think-tank, The American Enterprise Institute, camouflages its purpose with its name. There is nothing American about AEI, and the organization's enterprise is fomenting war in the Middle East against Israel's enemies. Its real name should be The Likud Center for Middle East War.

AEI has the largest collection of warmongers in America. AEI "scholars" have agitated for war in the Middle East for years. A moronic president and 9/11 gave them their opportunity. Now that the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed, the AEI warmongers are conspiring with Vice President Cheney to foment war with Iran.

Writing in the Washington Note, Steven C. Clemons reports that Cheney is working with the AEI warmongers to short-circuit the efforts of Bush's secretaries of defense and state to find a diplomatic solution. Clemons reports that one former high level national security official describes the Cheney-AEI conspiracy as possibly an act of "criminal insubordination" against President Bush.

Now that the Democrats have betrayed their mandate of last November to end Bush's war against Iraq and given Bush carte blanche to continue the gratuitous bloodshed, the neoconservative plan, spearheaded by Vice President Cheney, to initiate aggression against Iran, is back on the front burner.

Disinformation is being fed to the media that Iran is responsible for attacks on US troops in Iraq. This disinformation is routinely reported without skepticism by the American media in the face of challenges from experts. For example, a recent British report concludes: "few independent analysts believe Tehran is playing a decisive role in the sectarian warfare and insurgency."

While the Cheney/AEI conspirators strive to whip up American anger at Iran with lies and disinformation, they are doing everything possible to provoke Iran. The warmongers have planted the story in the media that the US is conducting covert operations against Iran. The US Navy is conducting "exercises" off Iran's coast. The US military in Iraq has violated diplomatic privilege and kidnapped Iranian officials in Iraq despite protests from the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The US government is stirring up more trouble in Lebanon by setting extremist Sunnis against Iran's Hezbollah ally. In short, the US government is doing everything possible to start a war with Iran. Bombing Iran, perhaps after a contrived "false flag" operation, is the next step.

Bush continues to tell his favorite lies that he is bringing "freedom and democracy to Iraq" and that Muslims hate us because of our "freedom and democracy." He continues to make these inane assertions even as he ignores the will of the American people and destroys habeas corpus, the foundation of civil liberty.

Bush ignores the will of the people as expressed in last November's congressional elections and as expressed in opinion polls. The New York Times/CBS News poll released May 24 shows another sharp drop in public support for Bush and his war. America is "seriously off on the wrong track" was the response of 72 percent of the public.

President Bush, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party have proved to the entire world that the American people have no voice. The American people have no more ability to affect their government's policy than inmates in a gulag would have.

What do people in other countries think when they hear Bush prattle on about "freedom and democracy" while he ignores opinion polls and election results and detains people without warrants, tortures them, and puts them before military tribunals in which they are denied even knowing the evidence against them? Bush has contrived a situation for defendants in which no defense is possible. In Bush's America, people can be executed on the basis of hearsay and secret evidence. If this is "freedom and democracy," what is tyranny?

Recent polls show that the majority of the American people are no longer fooled, no matter what politicians say and media report. The election last November demonstrated the electorate's lack of support for continuing the war.

The problem is in implementing the will of the people. Democrats in Congress are not only recipients of AIPAC, oil industry, and military-security complex payoffs just as the Republicans are, Democrats are also behaving very cynically. They believe that it is Bush's policy that gave them control of Congress in November and that by continuing to let Bush prevail, they will clean up on a larger scale in 2008. They believe that their antiwar base has nowhere else to go.

Their cynical logic is probably correct as far as it goes. Bush is being blamed for the war and its failure. The longer this goes on, the worse the situation for the Republicans. Prior to Bush's invasion of Iraq, I wrote in a column that the unintended consequences of an invasion would be the destruction of Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement. It has taken longer than I thought, largely because of Americans' blind desire for revenge for 9/11, but the prediction is on track.

The problem with the Democrats' cynical logic is that allowing Bush to prolong the war in Iraq increases the chances that Cheney, Israel, and the neoconservatives can contrive a war with Iran. Most experts, and many in our own military, think that a war with Iran would go very badly for us, endangering our troops in Iraq by exposing them to more intense attacks from the more numerous Shi'ites, who would be armed with Iranian weapons that can neutralize our tanks and helicopters, leaving our fragmented and divided troops isolated and cut off from supplies and retreat routes.

The pending disaster would play into Cheney's hands. With America faced with the loss of an army, Cheney and the neoconservatives would likely succeed in convincing Bush to nuke Iran. Cheney and Rumsfeld have already changed US war doctrine to permit preemptive nuclear attack against non-nuclear powers. Surprised by the inability of the US military to prevail in Iraq and by Israel's military failure against Hezbollah, the neocons concluded that the only way to establish US/Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East is to nuke Iran. The neocons believe that using nuclear weapons against Iran will demonstrate to the Muslim world that they have no alternative but to submit to US hegemony.

The Democrats are far from being alone in lacking the vision to see the abyss into which their cynicism is leading us. With the corporate media serving as propaganda ministry for the administration, Cheney will be able to whip up enough fear and anger to convince the American people that the use of nuclear weapons was imperative.

Bush's popularity will return as he prevails over the enemy and tells Americans how he saved them from Iran's nuclear weapons. The Democrats' cynicism will have destroyed them and opened new avenues to destruction and violence.

The Seeds of Global Tyranny

Written by Arthur Topham

Wednesday, 02 May 2007

With the onset of Spring imagery of renewal and the planting of new seed is present in the minds of gardeners everywhere. And, by extrapolation, a similar scenario exists for those of a philosophical nature who perpetually work the inner soils of their being, striving to reap new harvests of perspective and understanding. As one of those philosophers who enjoys the challenge of planting new ideas and hoeing inordinately long rows, my thoughts again shift to the perennial flow of unanswered queries surrounding “the Jewish question” and the unique part that this minor religious sect plays in the cosmic dance upon life’s stage.

Having spent another Winter pondering and debating this question with writers and thinkers, both Jewish and Gentile, there still remains a strong conviction in my mind that the greatest challenge to all the generations of people today, from individual citizens to sovereign nations, is the achievement of a clear consensus of mutual understanding regarding the paramount role that the Zionist Jews have historically played (and continue to play) in the ongoing drama of control and manipulation of the global economy, world politics and the socio-cultural, information paradigm now known euphemistically to seekers of truth as the Matrix.

There are few, if any, of us living today who were around when that fateful sprout we now know as Political Zionism formally burst through its Talmudic encased shell to poke its hydra head out from the fertile and fermenting soils of European society back in 1897. That was when Dr. Theodor Herzl, a Budapest-born Sephardic Jew and Viennese journalist, organized an international conference in Basel, Switzerland to discuss the age-old question of seeking a permanent “homeland” for the multitude of Jews who, ostensibly, had been wandering the earth since their banishment by Rome from Palestinian territory in 70 A.D. The conference took place one year after Herzl published his controversial book, The Jewish State, and it culminated in the formation of the World Zionist Organization, the first of many intentional “international” organizations designed to implement the Zionist’s plan for creating an instrument with which to overthrow and destroy every nation state upon the planet (with the exception of their own, i.e. Israel) and supplant them with a one world government.

The kernel of Political Zionism had lain dormant for centuries, confined, as the bulk of Jews themselves, within the hoary husk prison-cell of the Jewish Talmud – a massively ponderous tome of ongoing, manmade statutes and judgments first compiled by the Pharisees after their banishment from Jerusalem. The Talmud was, in essence, the indestructible, stainless steel canister within which the basic tenets of Abraham’s seed were contained and was recognized by the vast majority of Jews as the supreme “Law” over and above the Torah (the Pentateuch or Old Testament of the Christian Bible).

For thinkers of this present time to fathom the depth of relative importance that the Talmud has played in the formation of the Zionist mindset and grasp the overall intent of this chauvinist and racist mental outlook that developed over the past two thousand years is, I suggest, the greatest intellectual and spiritual challenge facing humankind today.

And what of this seed? What garden variety, bug resistant specimen of germ was inserted into the social, cultural and political ground that would, over time, take firm hold and produce such an abundance of mental and emotional foliage that even today – a century or more beyond the initial planting – the vast majority of thinkers are still blinded and confused by the conceptual camouflage that these premeditated, genetically modified plants have produced?

First, the Big Bucks

In order to deliberately set out to create a global mental monoculture composed of political, social and cultural paradigms the primary prerequisite, as every investor knows, is to have and to hold the generative “power of the purse”, a phrase coined and used by the Talmudic Zionist Jews. No endeavor of such proportions could possible have been contemplated on a serious level and then actually undertaken without first ensuring that the requisite financial resources were in place to cover all the potential contingencies that could, and would, arise in a venture of such magnitude. Analogous therefore to this creation of a world wide, intellectual landscape of mono-cultural thinking would be the notion of undertaking a similar project of an agricultural nature without the wherewithal to irrigate and fertilize such a massive scheme.

The capital therefore had to be securely in place beforehand for such a proposition to have any real chance of success and that fundamental factor of the Zionist formula for global dominance took formal root in the fields of Western society when the Jewish banking cartel headed by the Rothschild family of fine bankers finally, through wealth, wile and will, were able to establish their initial foundation for war, terror, strife and mind-control via the collusive devise known as the centralized banking system.

As an aside it ought to be born in mind that while many of today’s students of history are cognizant of the crucial role that the Jewish bankers have played in the unfolding of the Zionist agenda for creating a one world government the vast majority of people still remain ignorant of the fact that the Jews had been playing the money game with nation-states and their leaders for thousands of years, leaving a legacy to the world of nation after nation, destroyed and confounded, from Babylon to Egypt to Greece then Rome to Spain and eventually Russia in the beginnings of the 20th Century. From eastern Europe the Zionists then set their sights upon the New World, the USA in particular.

Using what is commonly known today to researchers on the subject as the fractional reserve banking system, a clandestine, alchemical process of creating gold, not out of lead but out of purely mental concepts, or as some say, “thin air”, was to prove, upon assay, to be the most fantastic, yet fruitfully usurious scheme ever devised by man to guarantee untold wealth and power for those whose hands held the strings of this literally bottomless purse.

Metaphorically speaking then this was the first Jewish Modified Organism (JMO) which the Talmudic Jewish Zionists created and from its renewable, revenue producing roots sprang forth a money tree within the boundaries of every sovereign nation of the Western world; a Trojan Horse of such magnanimity and subtleness that once firmly in place it then provided the wherewithal to begin the grand design of what I have referred to elsewhere as “the infrastructure of tyranny”* which became the foundation upon which the current era of terror now precariously rests.

The crowning glory of this conspiracy to conscript all mankind into an army of compliant, consumer slaves, after the Talmudic Jewish controlled “Russian” revolution of 1917, was the Rothschild scheme to create a private, central banking system in the United States of America. That feat was accomplished in 1913 when the so-called Federal Reserve banking system was established. With it the Zionist Jews now had a seed tree embedded in the richest soils of the world’s latest and greatest empire at the beginning of the 20th Century. That, as I have suggested, is when the project for the creation of a New World Order first took on a tangible form.

Then, the Mind Conditioning

As every gardener knows, after securing a plentiful water supply, the other essential ingredient necessary for producing an abundant crop is sunlight and to this end the Zionist Jews now turned their attention. With the money (water) in place to irrigate the fertile mental fields of America and the rest of the West the collaborators could now focus on new JMO seed varieties that would enhance their plans for world hegemony. The second of these JMOs was therefore a natural concomitant of the first and one meant to provide the means of communicating to the mass public a program of mind control designed to ensure feasibility of all that was planned for them.

It’s not by mere coincidence that many newspapers have the word “sun” included in their titles. As an example I use the newspaper most widely prominent here in British Columbia, Canada the province where I reside. It is called “The Vancouver Sun” named after B.C.’s largest city. It is a Jewish, pro-Zionist newspaper, one of many such Jewish newspapers across Canada owned and controlled by the Asper family, and for purposes of illustration, will do just nicely.

If we continue with the gardening metaphor it is easy to see the connection between sunlight (the mass media, or what I refer to as the M3, the Mainstream Mind-control Media), soil (the minds of the general public) and water (the Jewish-controlled money supply).

In order to cultivate crops (generations) of human seedlings which will bear the genetic (psychic) imprint of the specific variety of seed the fructifying influence of the light source must be established and controlled in order to obtain the highest yield possible within the shortest span of time. In order to accomplish this program the means of communication (the sunlight) must be concentrated in the hands of the gardener and like clockwork for these clandestine horrorculturalists the timers need to be set so that the maximum amount of light (mind-control propaganda) can be beamed down on the mental fields (tabula rasa) of young minds awaiting this negative, nurturing force.

If one is able, by inference, to visualize the process it quickly becomes apparent that the concentration and/or conglomeration of all the major sources of information contained within the media – television, newspapers, books, magazines, film, publishing houses – in Zionist Jew hands, is pivotal to their primary plan for the creation of a one world strategy of governance.

Just as the sun of nature nurtures her myriad number of offspring, so, from dawn until dusk, by analogy, the Zionist Jew “sun” of their communication networks does likewise and just as we witness the movement of nature’s sun across the sky and note the accompanying motion of the plant in the field that changes and bends its direction continuously so as to accommodate itself to the maximum degree of the given light source so is it possible to see this same phenomenon occurring within the minds of the general public as their collective consciousness is manipulated in one form or another by the degree of artificial light (in the form of “news”, “information”) which this sacrilegious source shines down upon the people daily (and, if we extend the notion of artificial lighting the process goes well beyond the daylight hours and is actually occurring on a 24-hour global growth cycle that never lets up!)

And finally, the crop

The end result of this conspiracy of conspiracies is what now lies before our eyes today. We see a world torn apart by war, domestic and international conflict, poverty, pollution, injustice and slavery to a capitalist/corporate/Jewish-run economic system that benefits only the obscenely rich Jews and their minority of elitist lackeys chosen from the horde of Gentile men and women who, due to the same spiritual malady of mammon-induced greed, have sold their souls to the highest bidder in a vain attempt to escape the inescapable.

Space forces me to confine this short essay to the highlights of such a metaphor of madness that has taken grip on the world. To document in detail the multitude of offshoots which have sprung forth from the initial seeds described above would take a full length book or more. Suffice it to say that the Jewish Modified Organism that we know today as Political Zionism has been altered and recreated, tested and modified and planted over and over for at least a hundred years or more within the laboratories of our social consciousness and political landscape and the varieties and their effects are so pervasive and powerfully inculcated into our daily lives and throughout our mental and material world that only a supreme effort on the part of researchers and thinkers everywhere will reveal the extent to which this phenomenon has developed.

To fall prey to the persuasive arguments which the pro-Zionist forces perpetuate on a routine basis is to be misled and self-deluded to one’s own and one’s neighbor’s detriment. To be consistently cognizant and steadfastly aware of the fact that our primary source of information, the mainstream media, upon which we vainly attempt to calculate and order our lives, is a duplicious mask of falsehood of such grotesque proportions that it boggles the mind upon initial contemplation, is to plant our foot upon a new threshold leading to a greater and more determined awareness of the magnitude of the problems that now beset us as a human race.

God grant that we all become gardeners of the soil of truth and that our collective efforts to extirpate this alien and destructive weed known as Political Zionism will eventually bear the fruit of victory thus allowing our beautiful planet to return to harmony and love, peace and brotherhood/sisterhood. These are the seeds of individual choice that we need to plant with each new Spring.

———–
Arthur Topham is the publisher/editor of The Radical Press http://www.radicalpress.com.

George W. Bush, Zionist Double Agent, American Traitor

Written by Texe Marrs

Wednesday, 09 May 2007

"A man is considered an anti-Semite if he calls a Jew a Jew. -- Hillaire Belloc, quoted in Culture Wars (Sept. 2000)"

"Then...when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." —John 20:19

It was in 1990 that I first met the remarkable and brilliant Boris Lunachev. Aged, bent over slightly by repeated attacks of osteoporosis, Lunachev had asked to see me privately. He had, I understood, once been a most distinguished professor of Marxist doctrine at the prestigious Lenin Institute. He was a rising star on the Soviet political and educational scene. But in the late 70s, Lunachev was abruptly and unceremoniously ousted from his post and exiled to the West.

Shaking the wisened old man's hand and seeking to inject a friendly tone into our conversation, I smiled and said, "So, you are a Russian, Dr. Lunachev?"

"Yes, I am a Russian," he answered.

"But please, my dear friend," he continued. "Always remember, there are Russians and then there are Russians. And some who are Russian are not Russian."

Confusing language, I thought, if intriguing. I made a mental note to later inquire further into the nature of Lunachev's puzzling words. However, I soon discovered that follow up was not at all necessary. The good Professor Lunachev more than answered my curiosity with what he had to say.

A Stellar Career Until...

Lunachev recounted his stellar career, beginning as a leader of the Communist Youth, his earning of high-level doctorate degrees, and his academic career, during which he was lauded and commended on a regular basis. Apparently, Lunachev was poised for further advancement; he was even being considered for a top political position in the Kremlin as a Marxist theoretician and was well rewarded economically by the elite intelligencia. Until...until he said something very, very vital—and very, very sensitive—to the wrong person.

It seems that a high-ranking Commissar had come from Moscow to the Institute to interview Lunachev for the Kremlin post.

The Commissar, who was very pleased with Lunachev's deportment and his responses to standard questions, finally stated: "Professor Lunachev, is there any area of research or study that you have conducted that is unique or unusual?"

"Yes," Lunachev replied. "I have recently been studying the field of race and biology. I have discovered that the great Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade Lenin." "Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and Comrade Khruschev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."

"I believe these facts of racial history need to be reported to the Soviet people and to the world," said Lunachev, "so everyone will recognize that the government of the USSR is not, as some have alleged, anti-Semitic."

"Thank you for your time." retorted the now sober-faced and ashen Commissar. "You are dismissed."

His Unpardonable Crime

That very evening, Boris Lunachev was accosted on his way home by Soviet secret police. He was taken promptly to a waiting aircraft and flown to Rome, Italy, where he was told by Soviet Embassy officials he would forever be persona non grata (unwelcome) in his native Russia. He had become an outcast.

What was Lunachev's horrible crime, his unacceptable transgression against his Communist overseers?

"My unpardonable crime," Lunachev said to me, "was to call a Jew a Jew."

Professor Lunachev, however, considered himself fortunate, indeed. "In 1917 in Soviet Russia," he explained, "one of the first laws passed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a law making anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death. In Rome, the KGB bluntly told me that to call a Jew a Jew, and especially to make public the name of a crypto-Jew, one who was hiding under an assumed Russian name, was clearly an act of anti-Semitism."

And so it was that Lunachev, by no means an anti-Semite in the real meaning of the term, a man who simply wanted to give Communism's founders and pioneers their due by recognizing their racial ancestry, became a feared and marked outlaw, a dangerous subversive to be banished and persecuted.

Understanding Lunachev's Predicament

I vaguely understand Lunachev's predicament. I was the first to publish the true facts regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton's Jewish ancestry. I also exposed "Irish" Senator John Kerry's true race—yep, he's a crypto-Jew. And for good measure, I threw in revelations that former Secretary of State, Comrade Madeleine Albright, and General Wesley Clark are also Jews. Reluctantly and angrily, Hillary, Kerry, Clark and Albright subsequently came out of the closet and owned up to their Jewish heritage, though they have all refused to explain why they had hidden it all these many years.

What a buzzsaw and furor I had ignited! The hounds out of Jerusalem's darkest cemeteries came at me with fangs bared, blood dripping from the corners of their gaping jaws. I discovered, as did Lunachev, that it is forbidden to call a Jew a Jew.

That was when I, too, realized, that I had unwittingly became a vile and evil "anti-Semite," targeted for destruction by the denizens of the emerging Jewish World State.

However, unlike in Soviet Russia, in America the midnight cowboys who reside in the cesspool of Soviet Washington, D.C. have so far been unable to banish Texe Marrs or to oust me from my independent perch as president of Power of Prophecy Ministries. Oh, how they have tried, but I am still here, toiling away, exercising my First Amendment rights, much to their chagrin and annoyance.

And Now, Yet Another Revelation

And now, dear friends, I have decided to reveal to you the name of yet another crypto-Jew. This time, the culprit is a man who is only the latest in a series of dynastic leaders, all of whom were and are Jews and all of whom have carefully and watchfully guarded this Great Secret. I hereby stamp myself—according to the reigning criteria or rules promulgated by the Illuminati elite—as a bonafide anti-Semite merely by once again calling a Jew a Jew. Fact: GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, is a Jew.

Absurd? Preposterous, you say? Well, I have carefully traced the history of the Bush Dynasty, including the Rothschild faction, and without hesitation I declare to you that, yes, indeed, George W. Bush is a Jew: A Jew by race, a Jew by religious choice. Hidden from public view.

What the media dare not tell you is that, as President, George W. Bush appointed as his first official White House spokesman, a Jew—in fact, a Jewish rabbi—Ari Fleischer. He retained a Jewish banker, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He made a Jewish Rabbi, Dov Zackheim, the Comptroller (money man!) of the Pentagon, and he placed a Jewish ideologue and Christian hater, Michael Chertoff, in the scary position of being head of FEMA and Homeland Security. Yes, Chertoff, an ADL fiend whose father is a Jewish rabbi, is now America's Gulag Commandant, our American version of Himmler.

My investigation of the Bush-Jewish connection has been in progress for six years now. One thing I discovered is that George W. Bush is a devoted student of the Jewish Talmud, just as were Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. He is also, I am persuaded, a dedicated agent of Zionist Israel, which makes him double agent and traitor to the United States of America.

Bush has adopted the same techniques of torture, political deceit, perpetual war, and pure hatred of perceived enemies, as has the notorious Israeli spy agency, Mossad. The Mossad's motto is "By Way of Deception Make War." This, not coincidentally, is also George W. Bush's motto. How very Talmudic. How very Satanic.

"Christians Who Are Not Christians"

But, isn't Bush supposed to be a Christian? How, then can he be a religious Jew? Ah, perhaps those who ask this question should read books like Colonel Donn de Grand Pré's insightful Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Three, the Rattler's Revenge. As my friend, the good Colonel de Grand Pré, notes so wisely in his excellently documented volume, we are confronted today by Leviathan, a two-headed monster, "one head comprised of Jews who are not Jews and the other, Christians who are not Christians."

Which leads me back to Professor Boris Lunachev and our informative and rewarding meeting. As we departed, I again took his hand in mine and I asked him. "Dr. Lunachev, is there anything you'd like to say to me, perhaps to capitalize or to emphasize the importance of what we have discussed?"

"Yes," Lunachev answered, his probing brown eyes peering deep into mine. "I beg you to never forget, there are Americans and then there are Americans. And some who are American are not American."

"We are one nation. We are neither American Jews nor Soviet Jews, but only Jews!" -- Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism