Most interesting video discussion about key historical facts

Source

October 08, 2019

Dear friends,

I am posting a video sent to me by a friend.  Sadly, I don’t know anything about the two gentlemen talking, but I can say that everything they say does fully match with my own understanding of these events.

I can’t endorse everything these two gentlemen say, and I sure disagree with their early 20th century views of Socialism (or, by implication what they apparently believe in the freedom-fostering Capitalism).  Likewise, their views about Trump are naive to the extreme at best, as is their use of categories as “Left” vs “Right” which in the USA are totally meaningless categories: there only a tiny real Right in the USA, and an even smaller real Left.  This is not about Left vs Right, but about sovereignty of the people or living under a class dictatorship.  But don’t let these frankly minor silly mistakes distract you from the interesting issues extremely well analyzed in that discussion (even if you don’t agree).  I am not posting this as an endorsement, but as a basis for a hopefully interesting discussion.

The one thing I know nothing about is the “Pilgrims” they mention on the US side.

I would be most grateful if you could share with me any knowledge you might have about these “Pilgrims”.

Kind regards

The Saker

PS: and they clearly don’t realize that Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor was not about some Leftists or Commies, but about the Papacy!

A Great Day for Zion

SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

 “In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act” – George Orwell

At the moment, the Jewish State is experiencing growing political instability while exploring its ability to defy Netanyahu’s alleged criminality and his racial incitements against Arabs, while at the same time, the UK has been reduced into a dutiful Israeli remote colony.

Two day ago, the Lobby scored three significant victories that are indicative of Britain’s descent into an Orwellian dystopia. It is now an unfit habitat for intellectuals, artists and humanists and their exodus has begun.

In a statement astonishing for its obsequiousness, ‘opposition’ leader Jeremy Corbyn praised the police for tearing down a poster depicting, in cartoon form, an uncanny portrayal of Corbyn himself under ‘attack’ by Benjamin Netanyahu shown piloting an Israeli air force plane named ‘The Lobby’  and dropping bombs of ‘defamation’ with the words ‘anti-Semite, anti-Semite, anti-Semite.’

By his response, Corbyn was kind enough to reveal to the Brits that he could be many things, but acting as a prime minister isn’t really among them. And not just because of his clumsy unprincipled action against a legitimate political cartoon but because the man publicly displayed that he can’t handle elementary freedoms. Somewhere, there exists a positive interpretation that would make Corbyn’s shameless groveling seem sophisticated, his response did make the cartoon into national news so that every Brit is now aware of the poster and its message.

Yesterday we also learned that Israel’s stooges managed to cancel a literature event in Brighton. Bad News for Labour- Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief is, according to its publisher, “a ground breaking study on the reality behind the headlines on antisemitism and the British Labour Party.”  I have not seen a ‘ground breaking’ text from Pluto for years, nonetheless, someone within the Hasbara army decided that the Brits are unfit to digest the book.  Waterstones Brighton ‘rapidly surrendered’ and canceled the event. One more piece of evidence that Britain doesn’t really need enemies, it became an authoritarian society voluntarily. I wonder how long it will be before Corbyn tweets that it was he and the Labour Party who begged Waterstones to cancel the event.

But Zionist tour de force did not end there. We learned yesterday that singer, songwriter and right wing enthusiast Alison Chabloz was once again sent to jail: this time for eight weeks. The Zionist Campaign Against Antisemitism’s web site reports that “District Judge Jonathan Taaffe found Ms Chabloz guilty of breaching the conditions of her suspended sentence after blog posts that she published since June 2018 were found to constitute a breach of a social media ban.”  Apparently the definition of ‘social media’* in Britain underwent a dramatic expansion this week in order to fit the Zionist call. The CAA was pleased to let us know their part in this fiasco, “the trial in Chesterfield today follows contact between Campaign Against Antisemitism’s lawyers and the National Probation Service.”

In 1917 Lord Balfour issued a declaration in the name of the British government announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a tiny Jewish population. In 1917 Britain was an empire although Palestine wasn’t then a British colony. Just over one hundred years later not much is left of the empire and even less remains of British dignity. Britain has allowed itself to be reduced to an Israeli colony, even to the point that Britain willingly  sacrifices any of its most sacred values when asked to do so by  a single right wing ethnic lobby that is largely committed to foreign interests.

From the Balfour Declaration to Trump’s Promise: Palestine is Steadfast

By Ali Haidar, Al-Akhbar Newspaper

Arab inaction towards the Nakba [the Catastrophe] in Palestine and all that has happened and continues to happen to its people is not diminished by other international factors.  In talking about these international factors one should not ignore the Zionist project. This conversation is an attempt to shed light on the political aspects of the Palestinian cause and to show that the origins of what Palestine has suffered and is suffering from date back to colonial policies that embraced and supported the Zionist movement and “Israel”. This also confirms that Palestine is the main arena of conflict between the Arab peoples and the forces of international colonialism with the “Israeli” entity being one of its most important tools in its hegemonic project over the region.

Taking a quick glance at events over the last century, it is noted that the most important stages in the Palestinian cause and the overall Arab-“Israeli” conflict were the product of international developments. These affected the land of Palestine and its surroundings, beginning with the First World War that produced the Balfour Declaration and leading all the way to Donald Trump’s promise that aims to persuade the Palestinian people to grant legitimacy to the occupation. From the very first moment that the Zionist movement crystallized, its founder, Theodor Herzl, realized that its project would not see the light of day without an international embrace. This embrace would not materialize without a functional role in the interests of global colonial politics. Against this backdrop, Herzl made his initial efforts to secure this embrace. He made international calls that included Britain, Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In the end, the Zionist project became reality only after it was formally adopted by Great Britain and the Balfour Declaration during the First World War.

The Zionist project in Palestine was based on three pillars: land control, immigration and building institutions. None of the three elements could have been achieved without the British and the international embrace. It provided the umbrella for Jewish immigration that flowed into Palestine. This led to a new demographic reality in the form of infrastructure for the implementation of the Zionist project. The occupation itself provided the conditions for control over the land that formed the space on which the settlements were built. Under this control, institutions were built in the Yishuv stage [settling prior to the establishment of the “state”] that formed the nucleus of “Israel’s” existence. At a later stage, the [United Nations] Partition Plan [Resolution 181] came in 1947 to provide an international cover to transform the Zionist colony in Palestine into a Jewish “state”. The international resolution gave the Zionists a “state” on 55% of Palestine. It soon expanded in the context of the 1948 war to include 78% of the country.

But despite these developments, the demographic composition of Palestine in 1948 did not allow for the success of the Zionist project, since the proportion of Jews after successive waves of immigration during the previous decades [650 thousand] was about one third of the population of Palestine. From here, the displacement was not an incidental result of the confrontation that took place, but rather a stand-alone goal, without which the “Israeli” entity would not have been established on the land of Palestine. Now, more than 70 years after the displacement, the Zionist project is still facing the challenge of having half of the Palestinian people remaining in their homeland. Meanwhile, the enemy is continuing with its settlement annexation, which precedes and paves the way for the legal annexation. In total, it appears that 82% of the historic land of Palestine is now owned by Jews, or rather territories controlled by “Israel”.

The new international plan targeting the Palestinian cause at this stage bears the title “Deal of the Century”. The deal again raises the issue of the Partition Plan in 1947. Some would argue that if the Palestinians had accepted the plan back then they would not be facing what they are facing now. It is an attempt to say that not being realistic 70 years ago lead to the Oslo Accords and the Deal of the Century. The latter puts them back to face the same challenges. But the truth, which is ignored or overlooked by some, is that the Zionist movement adopted the policy of stages to implement its project. This is confirmed by the historical course of the Zionist movement since its founding in 1897. It was explained by the founder of “Israel” and its first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, in a famous letter to his son Amos some 10 years before the Partition Plan [5/10/1937]. He said in the letter, “It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is established, even if it is small. Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. My assumption [which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition] is that a Jewish ‘state’ on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.”

Ben-Gurion explains the Zionist plan to transform the Jewish “state” on a part of Palestinian land into a launch pad for further expansion.

“We shall admit into the ‘state’ all the Jews we can. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means,” Ben-Gurion wrote.

As such, it is clear that the Palestinian and Arab approval for the partition resolution would have not been able to save the rest of Palestine or prevent the Nakba, which had no alternative because of the nature of the Zionist project and its objectives. On the contrary, it would have given Palestinian legitimacy to the “Israeli” entity. Historical experience has also proven that the issue of the Zionist entity’s legitimacy or the lack thereof is a very important issue in the conflict.

On the other hand, those who drafted the partition resolution were aware that it would not solve the problem and could not be implemented even if the Palestinians and the Arabs accepted it. The reason is clear. The Zionist entity cannot be established on 55% of Palestine’s landscape as stipulated in the resolution when the Palestinian population on that area is almost equal to the number of the Jewish settlers there. Also, the ownership of the lands held by Palestinians in that part may exceed 90%.  If we examine the Zionist position, it did not accept the partition decision, but accepted that it guarantees the establishment of the Jewish “state”. The Zionists also prepared their military plans to expand the “state”, which happened later and quickly.

One of the most important achievements of the Palestinian rejectionist position since then is keeping the Palestinian cause alive, despite the horrors and conspiracies that targeted it. If the Palestinians had accepted the partition resolution, they would have given legitimacy to a racist colonial entity over half their homeland. In addition, their acceptance would have facilitated Zionist aspirations to establish a homeland on all of Palestine more quickly and less costly then what happened later. Some, ignorantly or deliberately, confuse issues by saying that the refraction that followed is not because of the rejectionist position, but for other reasons related to the management of the conflict in its subsequent stages. However, what became clearer is that the failure of the resistance in a certain arena and at a certain time against the “Israeli” entity was not the result of a wrong choice made by the resistance. The evidence is that it has recorded historical and strategic achievements in other arenas and stages.

As in all stages of the conflict, the Palestinian people have been and still are at the center of the international schemes and Arab conspiracies because they were and still are the dam standing in front of the defeated and the traitors who are waiting for the appropriate historical moment to move to the stage of a public alliance with the Zionist entity. The Deal of the Century is seeking to achieve at this historic stage what has failed over the past decades. But at a time when “Israel” is confused and restricted in the face of 2% of Palestinian land – the Gaza Strip – the Palestinian people will not accept what they have refused during the Nakba.

من وعد بلفور إلى وعد ترامب: فلسطين عصيّة

كان الشعب الفلسطيني ولا يزال السدّ أمام المنهزمين والخونة الذين يترصدون الانتقال إلى التحالف العلني مع الكيان الصهيوني

لا يُقلِّل الحديث عن العامل الدولي في نكبة فلسطين وتهجير شعبها وقيام إسرائيل، من أهمية عامل التخاذل العربي في كلّ ما جرى، ولا يزال، على شعب فلسطين. كذلك فإنه لا يعني تجاهلاً للمشروع الصهيوني القائم بذاته، بقدر ما هو محاولة لتسليط الضوء على جانب أساسي من هذه القضية، وتظهير حقيقة أن منشأ كلّ ما عانته وتعانيه فلسطين يعود إلى السياسات الاستعمارية التي احتضنت ودعمت الحركة الصهيونية وإسرائيل، وهو ما يؤكد أن فلسطين هي أيضاً ساحة الاشتباك الرئيسة بين الشعوب العربية وقوى الاستعمار الدولي، التي يشكل الكيان الإسرائيلي إحدى أهم أدواتها في مشروع هيمنتها على المنطقة.

وبنظرة خاطفة إلى أحداث القرن الماضي، يُلحظ أن أهم المحطات التي مرت بها قضية فلسطين ومجمل الصراع العربي ـــ الإسرائيلي كانت بفعل تطورات دولية تركت مفاعيلها على أرض فلسطين ومحيطها، بدءاً من الحرب العالمية الأولى التي أفرزت وعد بلفور، وصولاً إلى وعد دونالد ترامب الذي يهدف إلى انتزاع شرعنة الاحتلال من الشعب الفلسطيني. فمنذ اللحظات الأولى التي تبلورت فيها الحركة الصهيونية، أدرك مؤسسها تيودور هرتزل أن مشروعها لن يرى النور من دون احتضان دولي، وأن هذا الاحتضان لن يتبلور من دون دور وظيفي يؤديه لمصلحة السياسة الدولية ـــ الاستعمارية. على هذه الخلفية، وجّه هرتزل جهوده الأولى لانتزاع هذا الاحتضان، فأجرى اتصالات دولية شملت بريطانيا وألمانيا والدولة العثمانية… وفي نهاية المطاف، لم يأخذ المشروع الصهيوني طريقه إلى التحقق في الواقع إلا بعد تبنّيه رسمياً من قِبَل بريطانيا، ووعد آرثر بلفور، في سياق الحرب العالمية الأولى.

استند المشروع الصهيوني في فلسطين إلى ثلاث ركائز: السيطرة على الأرض، والهجرة، وبناء المؤسسات. ولم يكن لكل من العناصر الثلاثة أن يتحقق من دون الاحتضان الدولي ـــ البريطاني. فهو وفّر المظلة للهجرة اليهودية التي تدفقت للاستيطان في فلسطين، وأدى ذلك إلى بلورة واقع ديموغرافي شكّل البنية التحتية لتنفيذ المشروع الصهيوني. أما الاحتلال نفسه، فوفّر شرط السيطرة على الأرض التي شكلت الحيّز الذي أقيمت عليه المستوطنات. وفي ظلّه، بُنيَت المؤسسات في مرحلة «اليشوف» (الاستيطان ما قبل إقامة الدولة) التي شكلت النواة لقيام إسرائيل. وفي مرحلة لاحقة، أتى قرار التقسيم (181) عام 1947 ليوفر غطاءً دولياً كي يحوّل المستعمرة الصهيونية في فلسطين إلى كيان يهودي دولتي. ومنح القرار الدولي الصهاينة دولة على مساحة 55% من فلسطين، سرعان ما توسعت في سياق حرب 1948 بعد أشهر لتسيطر على 78% من البلد.

مع ذلك، التركيبة الديموغرافية لفلسطين في 1948 لم تكن تسمح بنجاح المشروع الصهيوني، انطلاقاً من أن نسبة اليهود كانت بعد موجات الهجرة المتتالية خلال العقود السابقة (650 ألفاً) تقارب ثلث سكان فلسطين. من هنا، لم تكن عمليات التهجير نتيجة عَرَضية للمواجهة التي حصلت، بل كانت هدفاً قائماً بذاته، ومن دونها لم يكن للكيان الإسرائيلي أن يقوم على أرض فلسطين. والآن، بعد مضي أكثر من 70 عاماً على عمليات التهجير، لا يزال المشروع الصهيوني يواجه تحدي وجود نصف الشعب الفلسطيني على أرض وطنه. في المقابل، يواصل العدو الضمّ الاستيطاني الزاحف، الذي يسبق ويمهّد للضم القانوني. وفي النتيجة الكلية، يظهر أن 82% من أرض فلسطين التاريخية يملكها الآن يهود، أو هي أراضٍ تسيطر عليها إسرائيل.

ما لم ينجح طوال عقود تسعى «صفقة القرن» إلى تحقيقه في هذه المرحلة

المخطط الدولي الجديد الذي يستهدف القضية الفلسطينية يحمل في هذه المرحلة عنوان «صفقة القرن»، وهو ما يطرح مجدداً إشكالية يروج لها البعض بأن الفلسطينيين لو وافقوا على قرار التقسيم في 1947، لما واجهوا ما يواجهونه الآن، في محاولة للقول إن عدم الواقعية قبل أكثر من 70 عاماً أوصلت إلى «أوسلو» ثم إلى «صفقة القرن»، وهو ما يضعهم مجدداً أمام التحدي نفسه. لكن الحقيقة التي يتجاهلها أو يغفل عنها البعض، أنّ الحركة الصهيونية اعتمدت سياسة المراحل في سبيل تنفيذ مشروعها. أمرٌ يؤكده المسار التاريخي للحركة الصهيونية منذ تأسيسها عام 1897، وأوضحه مؤسس إسرائيل وأول رئيس وزراء لها ديفيد بن غوريون، وعبّر عن ذلك في رسالة مشهورة له إلى ابنه عاموس قبل نحو عشر سنوات من قرار التقسيم (5/10/1937)، يقول فيها: «لا أشعر إطلاقاً بالإهانة بإقامة دولة يهودية حتى لو كانت صغيرة، أنا بالتأكيد لا أرغب في تقسيم الأرض… أنا متحمس جداً لإقامة الدولة ــــ حتى إن كانت تلزمنا الآن الموافقة على التقسيم ــــ لأنني أرى أن الدولة اليهودية المنقوصة ليست النهاية، وبل هي البداية».

ويوضح بن غوريون الخطة الصهيونية في تحويل الدولة اليهودية على جزء من أرض فلسطين إلى منطلق للسيطرة على كاملها، بالقول: «سنحشد في الدولة أكبر عدد ممكن من اليهود… لا أشك في أن جيشنا سيكون واحداً من أكثر الجيوش تميزاً في العالم، وعندئذ أنا متأكد أنه ما من شيء سيمنعنا من الاستيطان في كل الأجزاء الباقية من الأرض، إما من طريق الاتفاق والتفاهم المتبادل مع جيراننا العرب، وإما بطرق أخرى». هكذا، يتضح على نحو ملموس أن الموافقة الفلسطينية والعربية على قرار التقسيم لم تكن لتنقذ ما بقي من فلسطين، أو تحول دون النكبة التي لم يكن هناك بديل منها بسبب طبيعة المشروع الصهيوني وأهدافه، بل كانت ستعطي شرعية فلسطينية للكيان الإسرائيلي. كذلك أثبتت التجربة التاريخية أن مسألة «شرعية» الكيان الصهيوني أو عدمها مسألة في غاية الأهمية في الصراع.

من زاوية أخرى، الذين صاغوا قرار التقسيم كانوا يدركون أنه لن يحلّ المشكلة، بل لم يكن قابلاً للتنفيذ حتى لو قبله الفلسطينيون والعرب. والسبب بكل وضوح أنه لا يمكن إقامة الكيان الصهيوني على 55% من مساحة فلسطين وفق ما نصّ عليه القرار، فيما عدد سكان تلك المساحة من الفلسطينيين يكاد يعادل عدد سكانها من اليهود، وملكية الأرض التي بحوزة الفلسطينيين في ذلك الجزء قد تزيد على 90%… وإذا ما دققنا في الموقف الصهيوني، فهو لم يقبل قرار التقسيم، وإنما قبل ما تضمنه من إقامة الدولة اليهودية. وبشكل موازٍ، أعدّ الصهاينة خططهم العسكرية لتوسيع نطاق الدولة، وهو ما حدث لاحقاً وسريعاً.

من أهم ما حققه موقف الرفض الفلسطيني منذ ذلك الحين إبقاء القضية الفلسطينية حيّة طوال هذا الوقت، على رغم الأهوال والمؤامرات التي استهدفتها. ولو وافق الفلسطينيون على قرار التقسيم، لكانوا منحوا الشرعية لكيان استعماري استيطاني عنصري على أكثر من نصف وطنهم، إضافة إلى أن قبولهم كان سيسهّل تحقيق الأطماع الصهيونية في إقامة وطنٍ على كل فلسطين بسرعة أكبر وثمن أقل مما حدث فيما بعد. والبعض يخلط جاهلاً أو متعمداً بالقول إن الانكسارات التي توالت ليست بسبب موقف الرفض، بل لأسباب أخرى ترتبط بإدارة الصراع في المراحل التي تلت. وهو ما بات أكثر وضوحاً في أن فشل المقاومة في ساحة من الساحات، وفي مرحلة زمنية معينة ضد كيان العدو، لم يكن نتيجة خطأ خيار المقاومة، والدليل أنها حققت إنجازات تاريخية واستراتيجية في ساحات ومراحل أخرى.
وكما الحال في كل مراحل الصراع، كان ولا يزال الشعب الفلسطيني محور المخططات الدولية والتآمر «العربي»، لأنه كان وما زال السدّ أمام المنهزمين والخونة الذين يترصدون اللحظة التاريخية الملائمة للانتقال إلى مرحلة التحالف العلني مع الكيان الصهيوني. وما لم ينجح طوال العقود السابقة، في هذا السياق، تسعى «صفقة القرن» إلى تحقيقه في هذه المرحلة التاريخية، لكن ما لم يقبله الشعب الفلسطيني في نكبته، لن يُسلّم به في الوقت الذي تقف فيه إسرائيل مربكة ومقيّدة أمام أقلّ من 2% من مساحة فلسطين: قطاع غزة.

من ملف : بين وعدَي بلفور وترامب: فلسطين عصيّة

 

Expose´: The Labour Party Treats Palestinian Supporters as Mental Cases

May 07, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

If you need further evidence that the Labour Party is a dark political force that doesn’t deserve the light of day, the following will supply the confirmation you need.

Mrs. Marianne Northam (74) joined the Labour Party so she could cast a vote in favour of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership as she believed him to be “a man with integrity and principles.”

As a true humanist of Left orientation, Mrs. Northam opposes bankers and is largely disgusted by Israel’s institutional racism and barbarism. It seems that such political inclinations are no longer welcome in Corbyn’s Labour Party.  Mrs. Northam was informed by the Party that she was suspended and subject to investigation. She was warned not to share “the information she received from the Party identifying the name of the person who has made the complaint against her, any witnesses, the allegations and the names of Party staff dealing with the matter.” Mrs. Northam was threatened that if she failed to follow their instructions, “the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Party’s rules.”

In the official letter that the Party sends to its hundreds of suspended members, it advises the member to contact their GP to seek help for their mental condition. “You can contact your GP who can help you access support for your mental health and wellbeing.” As if opposing Israel, Jewish politics or banking is a matter of mental illness.  And if you do not want to have the NHS involved, our ‘opposition’ party provides an alternative: “The Samaritans are available 24/7 – They offer a safe place for anyone to talk any time they like, in their own way – about whatever’s getting to them. Telephone 116 123.” 

For those who do not know, The Samaritans is a registered charity aimed at providing emotional support to anyone in emotional distress, struggling to cope, or at risk of suicide throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland, often through their telephone helpline.

 Let us examine what Mrs. Northam did that earned her both a suspension from the Labour Partly and the ‘need’ for the support of mental health specialists.

 The Labour Party questioned Mrs. Northam about some FB posts.

 I watched the video. It is critical of one banking family and its vast influence. The video doesn’t refer to the Rothschilds as Jews or Semites. It produces an argument that deserves attention, discussion and maybe refutation. But this is hardly the approach taken by our so-called ‘opposition.’  Corbyn’s Labour is against all bankers except  one specific family of oligarchs.  Here is what  the Labour inquisitor wrote to Mrs. Northam:

 “Do you agree with the sentiments expressed in this video?

Do you recognise that the Rothschilds/New World Order is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory?”

Labour is supposed to be against prejudice. Simply on the basis of the above question the NEC (Labour’s National Executive Committee) Board must be suspended from the Labour Party  for prejudice in favour of one Jewish banking family that is apparently beyond criticism.

 Video: Watch Lord Rothschild Discusses How His Family Created Israel orchestrating the Balfour Declaration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ZWU3ALYkY

 Mrs. Northam’s ultimate crime was being a FB friend of yours truly. It seems one wannabe musician named Steve Cooke was really upset by Mrs. Northam circulating my writing as the following screenshot provided by the Labour Party reveals:

Let’s examine what are my ‘antisemitic’ views:

Apparently Mrs. Northam posted to her FB page an article I wrote in 2013 titled, Holocaust Day Backfired.   Labour’s inquisitor interrogates Mrs Northam as follows: “Do you agree with the comment in this article, ‘In the context of the Holocaust Memorial Day, the verdict is clear – the Israelis learned something in Auschwitz, but apparently not the most obvious ethical lesson.’

 Do you agree with the comment in the article, ‘I guess that those British Jews who came to their senses probably realised by now that imposing a Holocaust Memorial Day on the British people was a grave mistake. However, I am delighted with this commemoration day. It is indeed a very special opportunity we should all cherish.  Every year we will use this commemoration to remind Israel and its Lobby what we think of the Jewish State, its politics and its repellent operators in our midst.’”

 In a recent paper I provided a detailed explanation why the contemporary Left is dead in the water and why the Labour Party has been reduced into an assortment of those with limited intellectual and mental abilities. A person with a working brain would see that my comment argues that Israelis and Jews should demand that their Jewish State implement the universal moral of the Holocaust. I do often raise the question of how it is possible that Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz.  I ask, how is it possible that The Jewish State put into place racist immigration laws just 5 years after the defeat of Nazi Germany?  I argue that the Jews should be amongst the first to apply the lesson of the Holocaust. Instead the Jewish state is, unfortunately, the most racist country in the world. And it enjoys the institutional support of Jews around the world as well as Corbyn’s Labour.

 The Labour inquisitor writes to Mrs. Northam

 “The Chakrabarti Report states:

1. ‘Excuse for, denial, approval or minimisation of the Holocaust and attempts to blur responsibility for it, have no place in the Labour Party’ Do you think your posts are against the spirit of this?

1. ‘Racial or religious tropes and stereotypes about any group of people should have no place in our modern Labour Party’ – Do you think your posts are against the spirit of this?”

 I would like a Labour representative or Mrs. Chakrabarti herself (the next time she pays a visit to one of my concerts) to point to where the denial, approval or minimization of the Holocaust appears in my article. In fact, my argument relies on the opposite conclusion. I demand that Jews and Israelis be subject to scrutiny based on the moral lesson of the Holocaust. I guess that someone in the Labour’s NEC must believe that Jews and Israel are beyond criticism. Maybe before they preach to us about discrimination, they should look in the mirror.

The Labour inquisitor continues: “ Rule 2.I.8 in the Party’s rulebook states:

‘No member of the Party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party.’”

This Kafkaesque statement alone provides ample reason for Mrs. Northam to show the Labour party the finger as by now every Brit should do. But I will address the Labour inquisitor’s question.

By rejecting the idea that the Jewish State apply the moral lesson of the Holocaust and by censuring such an ethical message as “detrimental to the party,” the Party is admitting that it is a discriminatory institution that is removed from universal ethical thinking. The Labour Party is now openly racist and should be dissolved immediately in accordance with its own anti prejudice rules!

 The Labour inquisitor: “The Party’s Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that “treat all people with dignity and respect. This applies…..offline and online’ – Do you think the posts in this pack are consistent with this policy?”

And I answer, how is it disrespectful to demand that the Jewish State be subject to the same rules as anyone else? In fact, it is Zionist to the core, as Early Zionism promised to make Jews people like all others.

The Labour Party is institutionally bigoted. It discriminates in favour of a racist criminal state. It terrorises and harasses anyone who questions the criminal and genocidal conduct of that state. The Labour Party has little or nothing to do with Labour values let alone Left principles. It is a disgusting occupied body.

The Labour inquisitor ends his letter to Mrs. Northam: “Looking back at the evidence supplied with this letter, do you regret posting or sharing any of this content? Do you intend to post content of this nature in the future?”

It seems that Mrs. Northam has made up her mind. She has closed the door on this repellent compromised party, and every thinking Brit should follow her. The Labour Party in its current form is an authoritarian Israeli Hasbara unit. It may be the most dangerous party in Europe as it is deliberately endangers our most elementary human rights: The right to speak and think freely, the right to explore ethical and universal thinking and the need to criticize that which needs criticism.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

DONATE

 

“The Holocaust” Is a Myth That Conceals Our Shame

KEVIN BARRETT • APRIL 15, 2019

“Most of the time ‘history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame.” —Gilad Atzmon

I love the words, music, and soul of my Israeli-born truth jihadi brother Gilad Atzmon. In fact, I enjoy his company so much that just about every year I take up the largely thankless task of organizing a public event for him here in Israeli-occupied Madison, Wisconsin. Last year the local Israeli Occupation forces got Gilad banned at the last minute from Wil-Mar Community Center. The director refunded our money and told us, in so many words, that Wil-Mar’s obligatory suppression of free speech was all about the Benjamins. So we directed people down the block to the Orton Park rotunda, the local equivalent of Hyde Park Speakers Corner.

One of Gilad’s most memorable lines was: “History exists to conceal our shame.” Citing Lyotard, who asserts that the real historian’s task is to unveil the shame, Gilad has analyzed such events as the Balfour Declaration. According to Gilad, the official history of the Balfour Declaration as a magnanimous gesture by the powerful British toward the oppressed Jews exists to conceal the shameful truth: It is the Britons (not to mention the Palestinians) who were and still are oppressed by the Zionist Jews, not the other way around.[1] This truth is shameful to both Britons and Jews. It is shameful to Britons that they have allowed themselves to be used in such degrading fashion. It is even more shameful that they have been unable to face the awful reality for 100 years and counting. Likewise, it is shameful to Zionist Jews that they have profited mightily by posing as the oppressed, when in truth they are the oppressor. And of course there is the shared British-Jewish shame at enabling and perpetrating the Palestinian Holocaust.

Now some might argue that Gilad’s analysis is correct insofar as it uncovers British shame. The Brits, after all, are the world’s leading experts in hyper-politeness and its shadow, shame, which emerges into the light when polite pretenses fail.

But the Jewish Zionists, the argument continues, are utterly shameless. Their intelligence agency’s motto is “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” How shameless is that? About as shameless as the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty massacre, and 9/11, that’s how shameless. The Zionists’ one-word slogan (and future epitaph) is chutzpah, a word whose definition is: “That quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.” Like the psychopath, the guy with chutzpah always plays the victim, especially when he is victimizing others.

French historian Laurent Guyénot analyzes Jewish-Zionist shamelessness rather brilliantly in his article “Israel, the Psychopathic Nation.” (For the full story, read his masterpiece From Yahweh to Zion.) Guyénot notes that this psychopathic shamelessness is orchestrated by a manipulative, profiteering tribal elite. Most ordinary Jews are not aware that their collective behavior is so shamelessly psychopathic. Guyénot’s insight helps us understand how Zionist Jews, like Britons, are being manipulated by the lying, shame-concealing historiographers.

The notion that “’history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame” obviously applies to the Holocaust. This fact is admitted, even highlighted, by official historiographers. But they look only at one side of the story.

The Official Story: “Holocaust Denial” Conceals Nazi Shame

Defenders of orthodox Holocaust history claim that holocaust revisionists conceal their shameful sympathy with Nazis who killed six million Jews. This is in fact the main argument against “holocaust denial” in such books as Shermer and Grobman’s Denying History and Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust. That this argument is an empty ad-hominem with no relevance to the empirical issues in question does not seem to have occurred to these authors.

The reductio ad absurdum of “Holocaust denial conceals the shame of the gas chambers” is Keith Kahn-Harris’s Denial: The Unspeakable Truth. The author claims that “Holocaust denial is not just eccentricity; it is an attempt to legitimate genocide through covert means. Denials of the harmfulness of tobacco, of the existence of global warming, and other denialisms, are, similarly, projects to legitimate the unspeakable.” This suggests a very useful all-purpose argument, suitable for any occasion or topic: “Anyone who disagrees with me does so to conceal their secret love of mass murder.” The next step: “Anyone who disagrees with me is a mass murderer and should be executed.” A fine excuse to kill your opponents en masse! This would be funny if they weren’t already locking people in maximum security prison, destroying YouTube livelihoods, and burning books because the individuals so targeted had the temerity to disagree with the likes of Keith Kahn-Harris. It may be only a matter of time before the executions commence. One hopes they will try to use Nazi-style hydrogen cyanide gas chambers, which would drastically limit their ability to actually kill significant numbers of dissidents.

But Kahn-Harris, Lipstadt, Shermer and Grobman, and other gatekeepers are not entirely wrong. There is a grain of truth somewhere in those vast, arid sand dunes of ad hominem bullshit. It is true that some people of German heritage like Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, and Monika Schaefer voice their own versions of history in part to dispel the guilt and shame that the sacred narrative of the Holocaust has laid on the heads of the German people. Monika Schaefer speaks eloquently about this legacy of shame in her masterful YouTube Sorry Mom I Was Wrong About the Holocaust, which should have have been awarded “best foreign short documentary” at the Oscars, but instead won her a year in maximum-security lockup.

If it is partly true that some Holocaust revisionists spin their histories to conceal or absolve shame—and I personally believe that National Socialist Germany’s treatment of Jews among others was in fact shameful, regardless of the extent to which the conventional history of the Holocaust may be false or exaggerated—it is obvious that the conventional story is “institutionally involved in concealing our shame.” By focusing so relentlessly on the metaphysical evil of the big-H Holocaust, our cultural custodians conceal the at least equally shameful behavior of World War II’s victors.

“The Holocaust” Conceals the Shame of World War II

The real Holocaust, of course, was the war itself. 70 million people were massacred, two thirds of them civilians. Those nearly 50 million civilians were singled out for extermination on the basis of their ethnicity, just as surely as a vastly smaller number of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs may have been by the Reich. When the Allies firebombed Dresden, which was not a military target, more than 100,000 innocent civilians were deliberately burned to death for the crime of being German. Centuries of German cultural achievement, too, went up in flames. Now that is a real holocaust: a gratuitous burnt offering.

And Dresden is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Anyone who honestly explores the history of the deliberate Allied firebombings of civilians, the respective treatment of prisoners by both sides, the atrocities against Germans during the invasion and occupation of their homeland, the firebombings and nuclear bombings of Japanese civilians, the brutal torture that elicited false confessions from “Nazi war criminals,” and so much more, will inevitably conclude that, as Pogo might say, “We have met the Nazis and they are us.”

Not convinced? Listen to my interviews with:

• MS King, author of The Bad War;
• Tom Goodrich, author of Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947;
• Gerard Menuhin, author of Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil;
• James Perloff on “myths and realities of World War II.”

For those who would rather read than listen, I recommend Ron Unz’s “American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany” and more generally the excellent collection of World War II articles at Unz.com. And concerning the shameful way the US was hoodwinked into joining the demonic bloodbath euphemistically known as World War II, Gore Vidal’s novel The Golden Age offers more truth, disguised as fiction, than most supposedly nonfictional histories.

We Americans, of course, are not the only ones who recount dubious histories of World War II to conceal our shame. Russia, too, demonizes Hitler and bans “holocaust denial” to hide its own shameful Stalinist history and its own war crimes against Germans. Japan minimizes both its own crimes and the crimes committed against it—the former for obvious reasons, the latter to save face in light of seven decades of shamefully abject submission to its criminal civilian-nuking occupiers. France pretends that most 1940s Frenchmen were partisans of the “heroic resistance” and that only a tiny minority supported the “evil Nazi collaborator Pétain,” when the reality was precisely the opposite.

What broader conclusions might we draw about the role of history as a shame-concealment mechanism? Our best guide along these dark and twisted paths is René Girard, the recently-deceased Stanford professor who taught that all culture is based on a murder and a lie. The primordial murder, according to Girard, is the lynching of a scapegoat. This act of human sacrifice forms the basis of every culture, the foundation of every myth. It occurs when the group’s mimetic-desire-driven rivalries get so out of hand that mass mayhem is in the offing. Suddenly the group turns in unison against a scapegoat—usually a marginalized or powerless figure—and murders them. Shared blood-thirst, murderous exaltation, and guilt solves the rivalry problem and re-unites the group. But the unifying blood-guilt cannot be admitted to. The reality is too tawdry and horrible. So a myth—a sacred lie—gradually takes shape around the memory of the victim. Surely the victim must have had some sort of miraculous sacred power, since (by being murdered) the victim has solved the rivalry problem and brought unity and cohesion to the group! Soon a monument is designated or erected in honor of the “sacred victim,” who eventually becomes a minor or even major deity, to be propitiated in annual sacrificial rites that commemorate and disguise the original act of primordial slaughter.

Every culture is held together by foundational myths based on this template. Pagan gods are just distorted memories of slaughtered scapegoats. The Abrahamic religions sublimate sacrifice by asking Abraham and his descendants to stop scapegoating and sacrificing their children (a ubiquitous practice in the ancient Mediterranean and elsewhere) and to kill and roast a sheep instead. Christianity goes one step further and makes Christ the scapegoat to end all scapegoats and the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. (That didn’t work out too well, did it?) In all of the above cases, foundational sacred stories, a.k.a. myths, arise to explain how the society in question began, and to justify its current ways.

Secular mythologies, too, are rooted in repressed memories of sacrifice and blood-guilt. The foundational myth of the Enlightenment, with its deities of reason, progress, and tolerance, grows out of the sacrificial bloodletting of the Wars of Religion and the accompanying witch-burnings and heretic-huntings. The foundational American myth of the Revolution and its Founding Fathers conceals the shame of equally horrific fratricidal bloodletting of a scale and ferocity that most Americans today have never heard about—because the “history” taught in our schools exists precisely to erase that shame. Likewise with the Civil Rights mythologies that emerged from the oceans of gore spilled in the Civil War.

Girard’s theory explains the otherwise inexplicable “sacred victim syndrome.” Why is Arlington Cemetery so sacred, especially on Memorial Day?[2] Why are people who ask questions about 9/11 silenced by screams of “You’re insulting the victims”?[3] And why is it sacrilege and blasphemy, punished by maximum-security-prison time in many leading Western countries, to question the sacred six-million-victim Holocaust?

Differences between political cultures are largely based on the degree of divergence of their foundational mythologies. For Zionists, Jews in general, and the sacred six million in particular, are eternally sanctified victims, in whose name the most appalling excesses are legitimate and necessary. For Palestinians, by contrast, the martyrs murdered by the Zionists, emblematic of all displaced and thus “sacrificed” Palestinians, are the sacred victims at the foundation of the political mythos of Resistance.

Similarly, for Americans, the nearly 3000 people murdered on 9/11/2001 are sacred victims who deserve honor and commemoration on each anniversary of “Black Tuesday.” (The 9/11 sacrificial rites, designed by Philip Zelikow and other specialists in “the creation and maintenance of public myths,” were engineered to bring about this convergence of Israeli and American mythology.) Non-Westerners, especially Muslims, are more likely to remember Madeleine Albright’s comment that America’s murder of half a million Iraqi children under the Clinton regime was “worth it.” Many are aware that the US has killed 27 million Muslims in the continuing holocaust set off by 9/11. For them, it is America’s victims, not its victimized, who are more notable as well as vastly more numerous.

If, as Girard said, all culture is based on murder and lies, can we ever stop killing and lying? Marxists think a materialist utopia would do the trick. But murderous and uncontrollable mimetic-desire-driven envy is ubiquitous, even (especially) among those whose material needs are fully satisfied.

Liberal-progressive types seem to think that exposing relatively harmless bits and pieces of their own culture’s shameful histories might help. Take Howard Zinn—please! When liberal progressives reveal the shame of slavery and oppression of women, they are really buttressing the modern secular-progressive myth that celebrates the “progress” that “we” have supposedly made—concealing our shameful slaughter of 27 million Muslims in the 9/11 wars on the grounds that “they” oppress women, adhere to traditional religion, and in other ways remind us of our own hated, barbarous ancestors. If people like Zinn really wanted to stop their own countries from murdering millions, they would attack and annihilate the myths of the Holocaust and 9/11. But that is the furthest thing from their minds. Why? Because they are complicit in the murder of millions, and they desperately desire to conceal that complicity.

Likewise all of the supposed “identification and sympathy with victims” displayed in today’s fashionable deification of sexual deviance serves to cover our ongoing mass murders of dozens of millions of real victims. By casting homosexuals, an economically privileged class, as sacred victims, we conceal our shameful massacres, displacements, and exploitations of the genuinely poor and downtrodden (most of whom don’t care much for homosexuality) including those in our own country. It seems that the scam of leveraging fabricated or exaggerated victimhood for tribal solidarity and profit, which should have been copyrighted by the Jews, has now been subjected to multiple copyright infringements—which would certainly make for an interesting and revealing series of lawsuits. But even the ADL doesn’t have quite that much chutzpah.

If Marxism and secular-progressive materialist liberalism can’t solve the murder-and-lies problem, whatever possibly could? Traditional religion seems to have a mixed record. Though Girard argued that Christianity exposes the scapegoating mechanism (“Oh shit! We just lynched God!!”) and is responsible for all of the alleged progress in humanitarianism since then, the historical record does not really bear this out. Still, it must be admitted that real Christians, like the Mennonite, Amish, and Quaker farmers here in western Wisconsin, excel at eschewing participation in America’s periodic orgies of sacrificial carnage. Likewise, real Muslims, unlike secularized Uncle Toms and obscurantist Wahhabis, are blessed with unusually peaceful souls and communities, as anyone who has lived among them knows.

Ultimately it is the mystical dimension of traditional religion that holds the most hope for overcoming the murderous lies at the heart of human nature and culture. The mystics have a novel interpretation of sacrifice: Instead of materially murdering the Other, we must learn to spiritually sacrifice the Self. The Sufis call this fana’, the annihilation of the ego (the Self that Commands Evil). This spiritual self-sacrifice liberates us from desire, the goal of Buddhist teaching as well. Those who have achieved such an overcoming-of-self enjoy the freedom to reject the desire-driven Girardian scapegoating mechanism, and step outside of its myth-based cultural constructs into the light of al-Haqq: an Islamic term that translates as Truth, God, Reality.

Notes

[1] One obvious example of Jewish power and British powerlessness is the ongoing witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn and the non-Zionist wing of the Labor Party. Another was related to me by Gilad Atzmon himself: When he fled Israel and arrived in London, Gilad, despite his anti-Zionism, was born Jewish, and therefore able to plug into the local Jewish network and make lots of easy money playing rigged games in London real estate. There was so much kosher money available, Gilad said, that he eventually had to quit in order to save his soul and his sanity. Obviously nobody of any other ethnicity could land in London nearly penniless and friendless and receive such a lavish sinecure on a silver platter. But well-connected Jewish nepotism networks exist everywhere where wealthy Jewish communities are established, offering Jews power and privileges that non-Jews do not enjoy.

[2] Answer: Because we still sacrifice our children—only now in wars instead of on bloody altars—and are lying about it, as we must if we are to live with ourselves.

[3] And why have the forces of repression been so successful at deplatforming alternative media using the “insulting the victims” ploy? Those figures in the alternative media who have come off as insensitive in the way they talk about alleged victims and survivors at Sandy Hook and elsewhere have provided their opponents with a perfect excuse to silence critical voices in general.

 

The Golan: A Disastrous Trump Declaration

ELIAS SAMO | 31.03.2019 | SECURITY / WAR AND CONFLICT | WORLD / MIDDLE EAST

For the indigenous people of the Levant, three major “Declarations” have brought them historic, catastrophic damage. The “First Declaration” was God giving the land of the “Indigenous People” to the “Chosen People”. The “Second Declaration”, widely referred to as “The Balfour Declaration”, was the 1917 decision by the British Government to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” in the “Indigenous People’s” Palestine. The “Third Declaration”, was Trump’s announcement this week, illegally, immorally and at the expense of the “Indigenous People”, granting the Israeli-Occupied Syrian Golan to the “Chosen People”, the Jews.

Two thirds of the Syrian Golan have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 War. After the War, Lord Caradon, the British ambassador to the UN, sponsored a resolution, supported by Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador, which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council as Resolution 242. In its preamble, Resolution 242 asserts the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. An operative paragraph calls upon Israel “to withdraw from territories occupied” in the War. Irrespective of the controversy as to whether “withdraw from territories” means all the territory or part of the territory, the Resolution asserts the principle of Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan. This resolution was subsequently followed by Security Council Resolution 338, adopted after the Arab-Israeli 1973 War, reaffirming the principles enunciated in resolution 242. Other resolutions were adopted affirming the principle of Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Following the Madrid Conference of 1991, peace negotiations commenced between Israel and Syria based on the “Land for Peace” formula. The basis for negotiations presumed Israeli withdrawal from the Golan and peace between the two states. In addition to the formal and public negotiations between the Syrian and Israeli delegations, there were many secret ‘Track Two Diplomacy’ negotiations in which I personally participated. Some of the Israelis I encountered were very close to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. All the Syrian-Israeli negotiations were based on the premise of Israeli withdrawal from the Golan for peace; which implied, very clearly, an Israeli admission that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. This admission by Israel lasted for 52 years.

Irrespective of the truth, morality, legality, American national interest and in violation of International Law, international consensus, and a multitude of UN resolutions, Netanyahu recently, and suddenly, decided that the Golan belongs to Israel. This was further ratified by the farcical tweet of US President Donald Trump. The tragic content of this declaration may only, arguably, be matched by its medium of delivery; Twitter. Trump’s con job of a tweet stated: “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!”

To add further insult, a resolution was submitted to the US Congress stating: “It is in the United States national security interest to ensure that Israel retains control of the Golan Heights […]” The fate of the resolution is not in doubt, particularly in view of the Jewish control of the Congress; it has been said that Congress is “Israeli occupied territory”

Netanyahu’s ludicrous claim that the Golan belongs to Israel and Trump’s ratification and complicit lunacy raises two very dangerous concerns. First, if the Golan belongs to Israel, and it liberated two thirds of it in the 1967 War, as Netanyahu claims, it stands to reason that the remaining one third of the Golan “occupied” by Syria also belongs to Israel and should be liberated. Second, since there is no international border within Syria and the Golan, a province, Netanyahu and Trump may equally – once again – unilaterally, illegally and immorally designate any Syrian contiguous territory as part of the Golan. The two have now formally set a dangerous global precedent, which de facto renders any global order, including International Law and the United Nations, irrelevant.

Since the Israeli occupation of the Golan, no Israeli government or American administration ever hinted that the Golan is sovereign Israeli territory. The Israeli governments, with American support, always expressed the willingness to withdraw from the Golan in exchange for peace; the contentious point was always the line of withdrawal. During the Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations, the Syrians were not willing to surrender even a small fraction of the Golan. Trump’s handing over of the Syrian Golan to Israel is the last nail hammered in the coffin of the peace process.

Reflecting on this dangerous and destabilizing regional development, I cannot help but wonder if Netanyahu claims sovereignty over the Syrian Golan, what is to stop him from claiming the historically and religiously more relevant Judea and Samaria. What is to stop Trump from ratifying and enforcing these claims. As according to Judaism, God’s promises of Judea and Samaria would mean an eventual Israeli annexation of the West Bank and the establishment of “Great Israel” from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

What the ‘under-investigation’ conmen, Netanyahu and Trump, have done, and the US Congress will follow soon, is not a panacea for regional stability; it is a road map for permanent upheaval: The paradox of an irresistible force colliding with an immovable object.

The Inequitable Spirit of Zionism Grips the Globe

Zara Ali

In spite of how contemporary intellectuals tend to perceive Zionism depending upon their personal affiliations and individual inclinations, irrespective of the various known versions of this rather modern creed, and regardless of the assortment of interpretations presented as an argument by proponents of each, the truth of the matter is mankind has not furnished and history has not witnessed another idea as inherently devious and inhumane in its essence as Zionism – no matter how you sugar-coat it.  And you do not have to be an historian, academic, activist, or carry any other fancy intellectual title to understand this – you just have to be a human being with the most basic common sense and the most elementary concept of common civility.

Formally introduced to the world in 1897, ostensibly as a response to the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, Zionism essentially intended to infuse the world Jewry with the passion of pan-Jewish nationalism in a bid to Return to Zion i.e. to establish a Jewish homeland in the Promised Holy Land – a Jewish state in historic Palestine wherein Jews will no longer face the discrimination extended to their minority existence elsewhere.  This was Theodore Herzl’s (the founding father of the Zionist movement)‘secular’ answer to over 2,000 years of Jewish Diaspora all the while drawing upon Jewish religious connection to Jerusalem and Eretz Yisrael.

Hence migration of European Jews to Palestine and the Jewish purchase of Palestinian land commenced with an aim to ‘create facts on the ground’ despite orthodox Jews’ initial opposition to Zionism.  As had been originally proposed by Zevi Hirsch Kalischeras, as far back as in 1836, the Rothschild embarked on a mission to grab Palestinian land by hook or by crook – employing deceptive tactics that are nowadays peddled as ‘cooperation from treacherous absentee Palestinian Arab landlords’.  The first Kibbutz was established in 1909 by European Jews and from 1922-35 the Jewish population, which had already risen from a meagre 3% in 1880 to 9% in 1922, soared as high as 27%.  During this period, the deep-seated Scriptural belief that Palestine was promised to them by God combined with the anti-Semitic effect of various ‘controlled conflicts’ instigated by Western Imperialism, remained critical in propelling Jews toward their ‘ancestral home’.

Well abetted by the clandestine Sykes-Picot Agreement that in 1916 proposed British and French ‘spheres of influence’ in a colonised South-western Asia in the aftermath of the yet to occur fall of Ottomans (1918-1922), the unstinting patronage extended by the infamous Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the cover of legitimacy provided by the League of Nations’ British Mandate of Palestine in 1923, not to forget Hitler’s rise to power in the run up to WW2, the migration of Jews on one hand and the rather strategic displacement of tens of thousands of Palestinians on the other, continued.  Arabs did raise their voice, and episodes of mob violence against the Jews also occurred, but by and large the Arab opposition to the British designs impelled by the Zionists, was ruthlessly suppressed.  The Arab revolt of 1936-39 was squashed by the British colonists not only by employing Zionist Militia but also by making effective use of the rather self-centred territorial interest of the disingenuous non-Palestinian Arab elite.  Despite the façade of the 1939 White Paper that limited Jewish migration and land purchase, in an alleged attempt to mark an end to the British-Zionist alliance, the clandestine affair between the two never came to an end at any point in time – not to this day.  By 1948 when the British Mandate of Palestine was about to end, the deliberate distribution of Jewish settlements which had progressively spread on the Palestinian lands, came to determine the map of partition proposed by United Nations  – later adopted by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 181.  The UN Plan of Partition awarded 55% of the land to Israel, encompassing many a cities with Palestinian Arab majority and the vital coastline from Haifa to Jaffa, thereby depriving the indigenous Palestinian population of key agricultural lands and seaports.  Arabs rejected the proposed partition, and argued it violated the principle of national self-determination outlined in United Nations’ charter however the Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted the same.  And soon after, the 1948 war broke out.  The British departed at the end of their Mandate (which interestingly coincided with the start of the war) but assisted by shipments of arms from the West, the Zionist paramilitary groups set out on the path of violent genocide – large scale attacks, massacres, destruction of entire villages – all aimed at expulsion of Palestinians from Eretz Yisrael.  The neighbouring Arab states i.e. Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan invaded what was now Israel – they claimed they sought to save Palestine from the Zionists – the armistice agreements signed in 1949 and what ensued however did tend to suggest somewhat otherwise – with around 78% of historic Palestine confiscated by Israel, East Jerusalem and the hill country i.e. the West Bank ended up under Jordan while Egypt assumed control of the coastal plain around the Gaza strip effectually putting an end to the likelihood of a Palestinian state as initially proposed in the UN Partition Plan.  Despite the fact the state of Israel had been recognised by the international community (with the exception of 31 nations) based on its 1948 borders, following the second Arab-Israel war in 1967, Israel came to occupy not only the rest of Palestine i.e. East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, but also the Syrian Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula.  And in spite of UN resolution 242 adopted in 1967, the Zionist state continues to occupy the aforementioned regions with the exception of Sinai.  Not only that, Israel in fact claims ‘innocence’ on the pretext that the status of these territories was ambiguous and that Israel took control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan while the Gaza strip was taken from Egypt’s dominion.  Essentially the pre-emptively dispersed expanse of less arable land, which was meant to constitute the Palestinian state as per the United Nations’ flawed Partition Plan in 1948, was first bestowed upon Jordan and Egypt in exchange of a truce in 1948 and then seized by the Zionist entity in 1967 when the passage of 19 years had efficaciously cooled down the heated uproar against the stealing of Palestine while the intensity of commotion caused by the merciless displacement of well over 700,000 Palestinians had been dampened partly because of the fast evolving Geo-political panorama and to a degree due to the increasingly selfish interests of the nations of the world.

With inordinate impunity furnished by a mute West and a meek East that have been held hostage to the absolute financial power of the Rothschild for at least a century, the Zionist entity has since brazenly persisted in its disdain for anything remotely humane, ethical, or rational.  The story of the colossal injustice perpetrated by it has unfolded progressively, and revealed the most ignoble facets of human existence.  It has not only exposed the unscrupulous spirit sitting at the core of Zionism itself, but also underlined the fact if permitted man’s weakness of flesh renders him rather predisposed to not only endorsing the most unlawful of acts but also glorifying them as the most virtuous.

Fernando Barral, the Spanish psychiatrist who in 1970 interviewed the deceased Zionist puppet, the decorated American War Veteran-Senator John McCain, thus articulated McCain’s psychological constitution:  “From the moral and ideological point of view he showed us he is an insensitive individual without human depth, who does not show the slightest concern, who does not appear to have thought about the criminal acts he committed against a population from the almost absolute impunity of his airplane…  I noted he was hardened, that he spoke of banal things as if he were at a cocktail party.”  Today the images of mockingly gleeful snipers of ‘the most moral army in the world’ defending a stolen territory with live ammunition, callously fired upon unarmed and effectively imprisoned rightful owners of the land, demanding their recognised right to return home (UN Resolution 194), categorically depict a similar psychological make-up – apparently quite naturally bred by Zionism.

Had there been no real time large-scale evidence falling in line with the aforementioned assessment, and had we observed only a few odd instances of behaviour characterised by an absolute lack of intellect and conscience at the individual level, we may not have been able to ascertain the nature of what actually sits at the core of Zionism and rules the Zionist mind-set.   And had not countless shameful tales emerged from the long history of brutality embodied by the actions of the Zionist entity subsequent to its unlawful inception, custodians of Zionism could have still had some weight to their argument.  But in the face of innumerable ignominious real time manifestations of pan-Jewish nationalism, not a hologram of occurrences in a different subset of time and space, and the unceasing exhibition of unscrupulousness on part of Israel and her lobbyists, allies and friends, it sounds ridiculously bizarre to continue contending the innocence and purity of Zionism’s nationalistic character.

In fact the attempt to debate the veracity of Zionism as a purely nationalist notion intended to unite world Jewry in the ‘Promised Holy Land’ and to ‘address threats toEretz Yisrael’ thereafter, only serves to highlight Zionism’s inherent inequity.  After all did not the initiators of the Zionist movement imagine to make ‘home’ for a marginalised people, adherents of Judaism, on a land that essentially belonged to someone else, because the self-proclaimed  ‘chosen race’ held the Scriptural belief this land had been promised to it by God? “Can you think of another historical moment when people ‘returned’ to an imaginary ‘homeland’ after 2,000 years and asked the indigenous population to move out to make room for the former ‘residents?”

The problem is truth is self-evident and it cannot be suppressed forever – you can just not kill the thing.  Unless one does not have qualms about living a deeply delusional existence, with a dysfunctional psyche, and a dead conscience, one may not find it possible to see Zionism as much more than an epitome of intellectual and moral depravity – a classic religio-political conglomerate, which remained in the making for eons before its deliberate conception in the 19^th century and has since effectively dominated the globe, in unison with Colonialism and Capitalism – infusing planet earth with a very unwholesome spirit – the spirit of Pre-eminence and Exceptionalism – with the sole objective of world-wide subjugation of the common man to the coldblooded, illogical and decadent core of the Zionist psyche.  In fact it will not be an exaggeration to state the Zionist philosophy has made it permissible for ‘Might is Right’ to emerge as a widely practiced modern day norm – not just at the macro but also at the micro level – and nothing could have been more tragic for mankind than returning to the Law of the Jungle in the 21^st century.

Thus today we literally have an ‘Axis of Evil’ that dominates the power centres of the modern world.  It comprises of the serpent-like 1% global elite in control of the treasure of an entire planet – it manipulates the common man only to rob him of his right to life – it wages wars indiscriminately at the drop of the hat wherever and whenever deemed profitable and under whichever pretext it fancies – it tramples upon the life and honour of entire nations leaving behind ardently created quagmires studded with five-star destruction and misery – it lies passionately and deceives unceasingly with outright contempt for human intellect – it infiltrates naïve minds with a plethora of unwholesome notions only to muddle the boundary between truth and falsehood and do away with the very notion of ‘right and wrong’.  And it does it all with the sole objective of transforming the mass population of this globe into a gathering of zombies, intellectually depraved and morally corrupt obedient slaves, who could be effortlessly employed to serve the will and the whim of the ‘chosen few’.

From Palestine to Kashmir injustice reigns – from Libya to Afghanistan discord rules – Iraq and Syria stand in absolute ruins – Yemen writhes under the burden of genocide – black lives in Africa never mattered and they still do not count – multitudes of migrants continue to pour into a Europe made affluent by the stealing of others’ wealth as they escape what now stands distraught by White man’s wars only to encounter hatred from other White men – and all the while the authors of this harrowing tale continue to dismiss ‘the whining yelpings of base-bred mongrel-multitudes’ with utmost arrogance thereby manifesting the rewritten Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the Iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them. Cursed are the Haters of Battle, subjugation is their portion”