Syria hosted Jewish European refugees during World War II

No doubt the “Israeli” new generations are not taught about this because it’s necessary to make them believe that everyone hates Jews just because they Are Jews.

Image result for jews stab US in the back

Backstabbers

Jewish civilians from Europe and the Balkans sought refuge in Middle East to escape the Nazi.

It is a long-forgotten fact that some Middle East nations, including now war-torn Syria, hosted European refugees during the second World War. 

Civilians from Eastern Europe and the Balkans migrated to the Middle East crossing the Mediterranean Sea and Turkey to escape the Nazi during the harshest period of the war.

The Middle East Relief and Refugee Administration (MERRA), established by the British in 1942, placed around 40,000 Europeans Jews to the camps set up in Syria, Egypt and Palestine.

Jewish Europeans stayed at the camps until the war was over, and then they returned to their country or went to a third country they preferred to go.

The Washington Post narrated the forgotten story in a report it published in 2016.

The report shared information on the situation in camps by providing notes from a study conducted by the Public Radio International (PRI) in April 2016.

According to the PRI, once the newly-arrived Jewish refugees went through a medical inspection, they were sent to separate living quarters — for families, unaccompanied children, single men and single women — and were assigned to a section of the camp.

In 1944, civilians coming from Greek island to the Aleppo camp could go out to socialize and shop after their security was ensured.

Iran also hosted tens of thousands of Jewish Poles who escaped Nazi slaughter, with the number varying from 114,000 to 300,000 between 1939 and 1941.

“Israel” was planted on top of Palestine after ww2 after the Jews were victorious. This was for imperialist control of the Middle East. The Middle East has since been on fire.

 

Also, on Jan. 11, 1942, an Arabic newspaper titled “Here is Jerusalem” (Huna al-Quds) published a front-page photograph of Syrian women distributing clothes to Greek children.

“Meal and clothes distributed to refugees coming from Greece to Syria,” the newspaper read.

Syria has only just begun to emerge from a devastating conflict that began in 2011. Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the conflict and millions more displaced, according to the UN.

Turkey hosts more than 3.5 million Syrians, more than any other country in the world, while many European countries refuse to open its doors for the displaced civilians.

The Trump Impeachment Jew Coup Matters to Anti-Semites

Antisemitism: This term is used to refer to prejudice against European Jews, incorrectly implying they constitute a Semitic race as opposed to only a religion. Example: An Arab is a Semite. An Arab Jew is a Semite. The European Jew is not a Semite.

To point Jews out in any context is anti-semitic to non-Semitic Jews. Article by the Times of Israel 6 December 2019

WASHINGTON (JTA) – On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee launched impeachment hearings just hours after the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., concluded its own impeachment inquiry

All three witnesses are Jewish: Noah Feldman of Harvard, Pamela Karlan of Stanford and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina. So are Schiff and Nadler, and so was the Democrats’ counsel who directed the first 45 minutes of questioning, Norm Eisen.

Why does this matter?

Well, predictably, it mattered to anti-Semites.

Ann Coulter, the right-wing agitator, tweeted, “Too little ethnic diversity among the professors for me to take them seriously.” past flirtations with anti-Semitism, one could conclude that she wasn’t faulting the professors just for being white.

TruNews, the YouTube channel run by an anti-Semitic Florida pastor who has coined the term “Jew coup” to describe the impeachment process, took to Twitter to accuse  “Jewish socialist Jerry Nadler” and his “three Jewish witnesses” of “escalating the Jew coup.”

Rick Wiles: “the devil is the father of Zionist Jews.” Wiles warns the Christian Zionists to give up Israel worship and worship Jesus. He is anti-war, anti-evil and pro-USA Pastor in Florida.

TruNews also helpfully informed us that Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University scholar and witnesses called by the Republicans who testified that the evidence for impeachment simply does not add up, is a Roman Catholic.

Twitter removed the tweet. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt took a screenshot of it for posterity, calling on social media platforms to take action against blatantly anti-Semitic posts.

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt

Why not ignore the blatant anti-Semitism?

Because the fringes no longer have pariah status: TruNews has been accredited for White House news conferences. Trump has taken questions from them (about his plans for Israeli-Palestinian peace, of all things) and his son, Donald Jr., gave TruNews an impromptu interview earlier this year at a Michigan rally. (Trump Jr.’s spokeswoman told The Washington Post that he was not aware at the time of TruNews’ outlook.)

Those views have crept into the mainstream discourse.

“The trepidation is a shame because considerations of how being Jewish shapes one’s outlook should be free of anxieties about what anti-Semites will make of it.”

While the hearings were underway, Breitbart News, the Trump-boosting news site, posted a story, “Norm Eisen, Democrat Impeachment Counsel, Linked to George Soros.” that Soros’s Open Society Foundation had helped fund an ethics watchdog Eisen founded, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, to the tune of $1.35 million in 2017. (This is not a secret: It’s on the Open Society website.)

But the Breitbart story failed to explain the relevance. Eisen is not pretending to be nonpartisan or unaffiliated from a liberal outlook; there is no suggestion that Soros’s money is reaching the committee itself.

Soros, the liberal Jewish billionaire philanthropist, is incessantly attached to conspiracies. Fiona Hill, a former senior National Security Council staffer, noted last month how the baseless Soros conspiracy theories beset the Ukraine scandal and called them anti-Semitic.

Republicans on the panel attempted to depict the three scholars on the Democratic side as effete elitists, another classic trope.

“Democrats still don’t get it,” Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said on Twitter. “They are pushing ahead with impeachment based on opinions from liberal law professors from coastal universities.”

McCarthy, from California, attended a “coastal university” (Cal State, Bakersfield), and Turley, the GOP’s scholar, teaches at one, George Washington — but never mind.

This creates Jewish fear

I got texts from leading Jewish Democrats during Wednesday’s hearings wondering, with not inconsiderable trepidation, whether the scholars were indeed Jewish.

The trepidation is a shame because considerations of how being Jewish shapes one’s outlook should be free of anxieties about what anti-Semites will make of it. And there are meaningful Jewish stories behind the decisions of these witnesses to become constitutional scholars:

“I grew up in Alabama, and I grew up Jewish in Alabama in the 1960s,” Gerhardt told C-Span last year, “and that was a time of great turbulence, and the time the civil rights movement was sort of unfolding, and it was all unfolding in front of me, and I paid attention to it, and that  — those events that arose in the ’60s and early ’70s really shaped my interest in civil rights, but also my interest in law.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., gives final remarks during a hearing where former White House national security aide Fiona Hill, and David Holmes, a U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2019, (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Karlan, delivering closing remarks in 2006 at the annual meeting of the liberal American Constitution Society, called herself one of the “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women who want the freedom to say what we think, read what we want and love who we do,” calling on listeners to “seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country” from the rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful.”

Feldman, who in 2015 launched Harvard’s Julis-Rabinowitz Program in Jewish and Israeli Law, also helped draft the Iraqi constitution; he is gripped by how and whether religious and civil law can coexist.

“Jewish law and Israeli law (Zionist) are distinct and different,” Feldman was quoted as saying by Tablet at the time of the launch of the Harvard program, “yet they also interact and make claims on each other.”

 

Jews Impeach Trump

One side benefit for the Deep State in this impeachment theater is that Congress was able to renew the Patriot Act with no mention of it in the media before the fact.

People are exchanging bread, jam and other goods for circus tickets.

• November 21, 2019

The impeachment farce is basically a Jewish affair, noted the Israeli daily Haaretz. The soul and engine of the impeachment is Adam Schiff, ‘Shifty Schiff’ in Trump’s colourful expression.

His name brings to mind the Jewish banking house of Schiff, top Jewish aristocracy of money and media.

The second man is Greedy Goldman, or Daniel Sachs Goldman, the chief interrogator in the impeachment hearings. Sachs Goldman or Goldman Sachs, another top Jewish name and bank.

The third Jew in the heart of the impeachment is infamous George Soros. Haaretz could add that the top witnesses for prosecution are also Jewish, the bizarre Gordon “Zelensky loves your ass” Sondland, or Vindman the Spy.

Trump would never dare to notice this remarkable coincidence, concludes Haaretz. Only antisemites would.

Instead of pointing this open conspiracy out and calling the Americans to save the Republic, President Trump appealed to the Jewish sense of gratitude.

He bestowed now his third fabulous gift to the Jewish state, namely recognition of the settlements for-Jews-only on the stolen Palestinian land, after he recognized Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Or perhaps the fourth, if you’d count his withdrawal out of Iran agreement. He legalized the settlements by the unilateral decision of the superpower, something the Israeli governments never could or dared.

If the US were be as omnipotent as it was twenty years ago, that would be the end of Oslo and Geneva agreements, and practically the end of attempts to create a State of Palestine alongside with Israel, something Israeli nationalists wanted all along.

With the US engulfed in the cold civil war, it could lead to self-de-legitimisation of the US, or to collapse of Two States paradigm. It is apparently a huge gift to the Jewish state.

Trump thought that his generosity would melt Jewish hearts, and they would let him govern in peace. But no, the Jews accept every gift as their due; it is absence of a gift that is surprising and troublesome, probably to be explained by anti-Semitism. They said that his recognition will annoy the Democrats, and they will take it away when they regain the White House.

Probably this reaction is exactly what Trump counted on, for he does not care about Palestine or Israel. His target audience is the US Jewry.

Trump hopes that the Jews who care about Israel more than they care about the US would switch allegiance and support him, so the Democrats wouldn’t win the next elections and roll back the recognition. Judging by past experience, the Jews will gain by this competition for their favours, while the US will lose, and so will Trump.

Israel’s Netanyahu Indicted on Charges of Fraud, Bribery and Breach of Trust

It is worth our while to see who are the Jewish persons in the impeachment proceedings.

Adam Schiff, whether a remote relation to the banker Jacob Schiff or just a namesake, could be a reincarnation of the old man; for he inherited his love for mass immigration and hatred to Russia. Before Jacob Schiff’s time, the US Jewry was a small community.

Wealthy, yes, but very small. Jacob Schiff who arrived to the American shore in the mid-19th century, understood that he needed numbers, masses, demography on his side if he wanted Jews to become an important player.

He organized mass immigration of Russian and Polish Jews into the US. “He lobbied Congress and President Grover Cleveland to prevent the passage of legislation which would have prevented the massive wave of Russian Jewish immigrants from whom most current New York Jews descend”, says the Jewish source.

Millions of Jews arrived and eventually changed the US in their own image. Now Adam Schiff wants to import millions of Third Worlders to cement the change started by Jacob.

Jacob Schiff’s hatred of Russia had been quite extraordinary, even by the standards of that time. A prominent banker, he issued a war loan to Japan to build its fleet to fight Russia.

Accidentally, the fleet built with Schiff’s money had attacked Pearl Harbour some years later, so every victim of the Pacific War and his descendants may sue Schiffs for their contribution.

Long before Soros and NED, Jacob Schiff played the regime change game in Russia, bankrolling the revolutionaries.

(He contributed to February 1917 revolution, the liberal pro-Western coup, but the Russians screwed him by doing another coup in November 2017 and installing the Bolsheviks; his agents had to flee and Russia regained its independence, while Schiff had lost his investment.)

Adam Schiff is rabidly anti-Russian just like Jacob was. He dreams of a regime change in Moscow like Jacob did.

He claimed Russian conspiracy had brought Trump to the White House; he refused to accept Mueller’s enquiry results and still insists that the Russians interfered in the US elections.

His words of “damning evidence” of collusion with Russia, “more than circumstantial,” a scandal of a size “beyond Watergate” had poisoned Russo-American relations, and made Trump presidency a lame duck from the first moment.

Adam Schiff is so dishonest and unfair that even the WSJ noted his innovation in law. “Is it an impeachable offense for a president to resist impeachment? House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff told CNN last week that White House officials’ refusal to testify in his committee’s impeachment probe could lead to “obstruction of Congress” charges against President Trump.”

Perhaps, after all, Adam Schiff is a relative to another swindler, Irwin Schiff, who died in federal prison in 2015 while he was serving a 13 years sentence for tax evasion. (Probably it is anti-Semitic to mention the old canard that some Jews could be swindlers, but we’d dare anyway).

The chief interrogator Daniel Sachs Goldman has an excellent pedigree for a Jewish macher (wheeler dealer). He went to the school “President Barack Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia attended, as well as Chelsea Clinton, former Vice President Joe Biden’s grandchildren, Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia and Theodore Roosevelt’s son Archibald”.

His wife is a Vice President of Goldman Sachs Bank, the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”, in the famous words of Matt Taibbi. His family had established a special program called The Birthright-Taglit. The name implies that every Jew has a birthright for the land of Palestine, as opposed to its natives.

The program allows American Jewish youths to make a free (courtesy of US taxpayer) trip to Israel, to meet other Jewish young men and girls and to fight intermarriage by marrying within the tribe. That’s right, you are forbidden to approve of such racist measures, but Jews are allowed to run it as a tax-exempt charity.

Daniel Sachs Goldman’s family is also a founder of New Israel Fund, another tax-exempt, that directs money saved from the US tax authorities (where it could reach goyim) towards Jews-only purposes.

George Soros is another prominent Jewish participant in the impeachment proceedings. The old reptilian is so ugly that our soul (being naturally Wildean) feels he is immoral, too.

The facts on the ground confirm this premonition. If the Ukraine had been turned from a jolly rotund East European country into pale grim disaster area, he is partly responsible.

While the impeachment deals with Trump’s alleged interference in the Ukraine, the case of Trump enemies’ interference in the Ukraine is open and shut. They interfered so rudely in the dealings of the ostensibly sovereign state, that they had a joke among themselves: “The Vienna Convention is optional for our Kiev staff”.

The Vienna Convention is the international agreement forbidding the diplomats to meddle in the internal affairs of the state they are posted at.

Some of this meddling had been done by and for Joe Biden, who robbed the Ukrainian state of ample funds; George Soros had been another beneficiary of the State Department activity.

He has a few NGOs there, and the US Embassy under the Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (another accuser of Trump) actively shilled for them.

John Solomon discovered that one of the witnesses for the prosecution in the impeachment hearings, then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent (now he has risen to the lofty position of the Assistant Secretary of State) demanded from the Ukrainian authorities to drop investigation of Soros’ own NGO, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC).

Moreover, on March 5, 2019, Ambassador Yovanovitch had delivered a speech asking for “Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed.”

And this woman dares to speak of Trump’s interference!

George Soros had a regular access to the Ukrainian desk of the State Department, to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria (“F*ck EU”) Nuland.

It is difficult to separate between the twain, for the AntAC had been jointly funded by the State Department and George Soros.

But George Soros is untouchable, for the ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt already determined that “Invoking Soros … is trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes.”

A former Federal Attorney for the District of Columbia Joe DiGenova committed this grievous crime, when he said on the Fox News that George Soros had a daily opportunity to tell the State Department through Victoria Nuland what to do in Ukraine.

“Soros ran it. He corrupted FBI officials, he corrupted foreign service officers. George Soros wants to run Ukraine and he’s doing everything he can to use every lever of the United States government to make that happen.”

DiGenova didn’t mention Jewishness of Soros or of his friend Nuland; it was not necessary. An attack on George Soros is an attack on Jews the world over, concluded a knowledgeable observer.

Joe DiGenova indeed is guilty, but of understatement. George Soros wants to run Ukraine, he said.

The Ukraine is a small though profitable part of the world Soros and his companions-in-arms want to run. The US is the more important part, and by running it, they can get the Ukraine for a side dish.

The impeachment indeed became an important affair, not as a threat to President Trump, but because it revealed the modus operandi of the liberal Jews.

It would be better if instead of Donald Trump their opponent would be a shining knight on a white charger.

But we’ve got what we’ve got. These guys should be stopped, and if Trump will do it, bless him.

His tactics of bribing Jews with rich gifts of Palestinian patrimony are immoral, and I doubt they will be effective.

Probably if he were to call for justice and equality for Palestine he would not have a chance of snowball in hell.

By dividing his enemies between Zionists and Liberals, he improves his chances, or so he thinks.

For people who cherish and treasure Palestine like I do this is a hard choice. Liberal Jews sound nicer; they speak against Jewish settlements in the occupied territories; they condemn Israeli shelling of Gaza and Syria.

But we had a long experience of their ascendancy: they do preciously nothing for Palestine and they allow Israel to commit all possible crimes.

A condemnation is not good enough if the flow of weapons and finances is not affected.

The Jews are used to play for both teams, and win twice. By going into absolutely forbidden, no-go area of seeing the impeachment team as a Jewish team, this game may be changed. If and when Capitol Hill will be free from occupation, the time for freedom of Jerusalem will also come.

P.S. Lawyers Update

Keep lawyers out of politics, I wrote recently. We have to choose whether we want democracy, or the rule of law.

In a democracy, the people rule via their elected representatives; under the rule of law, the judges rule supreme. Statesmen should remain immune from prosecution for life.

Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu aren’t angels, but they were elected by their nations and should remain untouched. Let them be judged by history, not by lawyers.

Since I wrote that, there were developments confirming my distrust of legal profession:

In Israel, PM Netanyahu had been indicted, amid strong feelings that this is the Deep State revenge.

He could be indicted, tried and hanged for his war crimes in Gaza and Syria, and I would applaud; but he was indicted for very flimsy reasons (he allegedly said he will help a publisher after elections, just let him provide some good press).

Israeli Deep State is directly connected with the US Deep State; and they do not want to see strong independent men in power.

In the US, the judge-cum-prosecutor Schiff ruled that for Trump, to fight his impeachment is an impeachable offence, while every objection of the accused counts as witness intimidation. You can’t win with such guys!

In Hong Kong, the judges outlawed the governor’s decree banning masks, and released the detained rioters who burned the tube stations and robbed shops to do more robbery and arson.

And in the UK, the High Court banned 110,000 postal workers from going on strike, despite more than 97 per cent of postal union members voting for action on a 75.9 per cent turnout. They said… what the heck, they always find what to say!

Thus, the lawyers and judges from Israel to Hong Kong and from London to Washington seem to be wedded to one Deep State, not to their national states. They are against workers, and for rioters, and never for justice.

The Jewish hand: a century of mass transfer of populations

Military attacks and terrorist attacks on the surface of the Earth are caused by world Zionism, through NATO, GRU, CIA, Mossad, SAS, FSB-KGB, DST, MAD, Cesis and others, economic and political destabilization for Colonization Hebrew worldwide.

1932

The fact that population transfers are currently making a comeback on the scholarly and policy agenda also suggests that we should scrutinize with particular care the most extensive experiment made with them to date.

Latest example

Between 1945 and 1950, Europe witnessed the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history.

Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians—the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16—were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland.

As The New York Times noted in December 1945, the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months was about the same as the total number of all the immigrants admitted to the United States since the beginning of the 20th century.

They were deposited among the ruins of Allied-occupied Germany to fend for themselves as best they could.

The number who died as a result of starvation, disease, beatings, or outright execution is unknown, but conservative estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people lost their lives in the course of the operation.

Most disturbingly of all, tens of thousands perished as a result of ill treatment while being used as slave labor (or, in the Allies’ cynical formulation, “reparations in kind”) in a vast network of camps extending across central and southeastern Europe—many of which, like Auschwitz I and Theresienstadt, were former German concentration camps kept in operation for years after the war.

At the end of World War II, the U.S. opened camps of its own, where perhaps a million German prisoners died in secret.

As Sir John Colville, formerly Winston Churchill’s private secretary, told his colleagues in the British Foreign Office in 1946, it was clear that “concentration camps and all they stand for did not come to an end with the defeat of Germany.”

Ironically, no more than 100 or so miles away from the camps being put to this new use, the surviving Nazi leaders were being tried by the Allies in the courtroom at Nuremberg on a bill of indictment that listed “deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population” under the heading of “crimes against humanity.”

By any measure, the postwar expulsions were a manmade disaster and one of the most significant examples of the mass violation of human rights in recent history.

Yet although they occurred within living memory, in time of peace, and in the middle of the world’s most densely populated continent, they remain all but unknown outside Germany itself.

On the rare occasions that they rate more than a footnote in European-history textbooks, they are commonly depicted as justified retribution for Nazi Germany’s wartime atrocities or a painful but necessary expedient to ensure the future peace of Europe.

As the historian Richard J. Evans asserted in In Hitler’s Shadow (1989) the decision to purge the continent of its German-speaking minorities remains “defensible” in light of the Holocaust and has shown itself to be a successful experiment in “defusing ethnic antagonisms through the mass transfer of populations.”

Even at the time, not everyone agreed. George Orwell, an outspoken opponent of the expulsions, pointed out in his essay “Politics and the English Language” that the expression “transfer of population” was one of a number of euphemisms whose purpose was “largely the defense of the indefensible.”

The philosopher Bertrand Russell acidly inquired: “Are mass deportations crimes when committed by our enemies during war and justifiable measures of social adjustment when carried out by our allies in time of peace?”

A still more uncomfortable observation was made by the left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz, who reasoned that “if every German was indeed responsible for what happened at Belsen, then we, as members of a democratic country and not a fascist one with no free press or parliament, were responsible individually as well as collectively” for what was being done to noncombatants in the Allies’ name.

That the expulsions would inevitably cause death and hardship on a very large scale had been fully recognized by those who set them in motion. To a considerable extent, they were counting on it.

For the expelling countries—especially Czechoslovakia and Poland—the use of terror against their German-speaking populations was intended not simply as revenge for their wartime victimization, but also as a means of triggering a mass stampede across the borders and finally achieving their governments’ prewar ambition to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states. (Before 1939, less than two-thirds of Poland’s population, and only a slightly larger proportion of Czechoslovakia’s, consisted of gentile Poles, Czechs, or Slovaks.)

For the Soviets, who had “compensated” Poland for its territorial losses to the Soviet Union in 1939 by moving its western border more than 100 miles inside German territory, the clearance of the newly “Polish” western lands and the dumping of their millions of displaced inhabitants amid the ruins of the former Reich served Stalin’s twin goals of impeding Germany’s postwar recovery and eliminating any possibility of a future Polish-German rapprochement.

The British viewed the widespread suffering that would inevitably attend the expulsions as a salutary form of re-education of the German population.

“Everything that brings home to the Germans the completeness and irrevocability of their defeat,” Deputy Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee wrote in 1943, “is worthwhile in the end.”

The European Jews were terrorized out of Europe by the Zionists into America and Palestine.

The Native Palestinians were terrorized out of Palestine and became homeless refugees…the new arrival Jews moved into their homes and on their lands. To this day all the wars are for Israel which has usurped the US military.

The Holocaust played an important role in the founding and long term visibility of the State of Israel in three respects: The Holocaust motivated large numbers of immigrants to move to the new country, providing the necessary population; secondly, the Holocaust enabled Israel to pressure Germany into supplying the economic base necessary to build infrastructure and support those immigrants; and finally, the Holocaust swayed world opinion so that the United Nations approved the State of Israel in 1948.*

And the Americans, as Laurence Steinhardt, ambassador to Prague, recorded, hoped that by displaying an “understanding” and cooperative attitude toward the expelling countries’ desire to be rid of their German populations, the United States could demonstrate its sympathy for those countries’ national aspirations and prevent them from drifting into the Communist orbit.

The Allies, then, knowingly embarked on a course that, as the British government was warned in 1944 by its own panel of experts, was “bound to cause immense suffering and dislocation.”

That the expulsions did not lead to the worst consequences that could be expected from the chaotic cattle drive of millions of impoverished, embittered, and rootless deportees into a war-devastated country that had nowhere to put them was due to three main factors.

The first was the skill with which the postwar German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, drew the expellees into mainstream politics, defusing the threat of a potentially radical and disruptive bloc.

The second was the readiness of most expellees—the occasionally crass or undiplomatic statements of their leaders notwithstanding—to renounce the use or threat of force as a means of redressing their grievances.

The third, and by far the most important, was the 30-year-long “economic miracle” that made possible the housing, feeding, and employment of the largest homeless population with which any industrial country has ever had to contend.

(In East Germany, on the other hand, the fact that the standard of living for the indigenous population was already so low meant that the economic gap between it and the four million arriving expellees was more easily bridged.)

The downside of “economic miracles,” though, is that, as their name suggests, they can’t be relied upon to come along where and when they are most needed. By extraordinary good fortune, the Allies avoided reaping the harvest of their own recklessness.

Nonetheless, the expulsions have cast a long and baleful shadow over central and southeastern Europe, even to the present day. Their disruptive demographic, economic, and even—as Eagle Glassheim has pointed out—environmental consequences continue to be felt more than 60 years later.

The overnight transformation of some of the most heterogeneous regions of the European continent into virtual ethnic monoliths changed the trajectory of domestic politics in the expelling countries in significant and unpredicted ways.

Culturally, the effort to eradicate every trace of hundreds of years of German presence and to write it out of national and local histories produced among the new Polish and Czech settler communities in the cleared areas what Gregor Thum has described as a state of “amputated memory.”

As Thum shows in his groundbreaking study of postwar Wroclaw—until 1945 and the removal of its entire population, the German city of Breslau—the challenge of confronting their hometown’s difficult past is one that post-Communist Wroclawites have only recently taken up.

In most other parts of Central Europe, it has hardly even begun.

Contradicting Allied rhetoric that asserted that World War II had been fought above all to uphold the dignity and worth of all people, the Germans included, thousands of Western officials, servicemen, and technocrats took a full part in carrying out a program that, when perpetrated by their wartime enemies, they did not hesitate to denounce as contrary to all principles of humanity.

The degree of cognitive dissonance to which this led was exemplified by the career of Colonel John Fye, chief U.S. liaison officer for expulsion affairs to the Czechoslovak government.

The operation he had helped carry out, he acknowledged, drew in “innocent people who had never raised so much as a word of protest against the Czechoslovak people.”The Czech gov. is still friends of Israel to this day.

Thomas Masaryk became President of Czechoslovakia, and it was in that capacity that he warmly welcomed the first Zionist Congress convened after the Balfour Declaration, at Karlovy Vary in 1921—two more would follow in 1923 and 1933, under Chaim Weizmann’s leadership.

To accomplish it, women and children had been thrown into detention facilities, “many of which were little better than the ex-German concentration camps.”

Yet these stirrings of unease did not prevent Fye from accepting a decoration from the Prague government for what the official citation candidly described as his valuable services “in expelling Germans from Czechoslovakia.”

Today we have come not much further than Fye did in acknowledging the pivotal role played by the Allies in conceiving and executing an operation that exceeded in both scale and lethality the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

It is unnecessary to attribute this to any “taboo” or “conspiracy of silence.” Rather, what is denied is not the fact of the expulsions themselves, but their significance.

Many European commentators have maintained that to draw attention to them runs the risk of diminishing the horror that ought properly to be reserved for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities, or giving rise to a self-pitying “victim” mentality among today’s generation of Germans, for whom the war is an increasingly distant memory.

Czechs, Poles, and citizens of other expelling states fear the legal ramifications of a re-examination of the means by which millions of erstwhile citizens of those countries were deprived of their nationality, liberty, and property.

To this day, the postwar decrees expropriating and denationalizing Germans remain on the statute book of the Czech Republic, and their legality has recently been reaffirmed by the Czech constitutional court.

Some notable exceptions aside, like T. David Curp, Matthew Frank, and David Gerlach, English-speaking historians—out of either understandable sympathy for Germany’s victims or reluctance to complicate the narrative of what is still justifiably considered a “good war”—have also not been overeager to delve into the history of a messy, complex, morally ambiguous, and politically sensitive episode, in which few if any of those involved appear in a creditable light.

By no means are all of these concerns unworthy ones. But neither are they valid reasons for failing to engage seriously with an episode of such obvious importance, and to integrate it within the broader narrative of modern European history.

For historians to write—and, still worse, to teach—as though the expulsions had never taken place or, having occurred, are of no particular significance to the societies affected by them, is both intellectually and pedagogically unsustainable.

The fact that population transfers are currently making a comeback on the scholarly and policy agenda also suggests that we should scrutinize with particular care the most extensive experiment made with them to date.

Despite the gruesome history, enthusiasts continue to chase the mirage of “humane” mass deportations as a means of resolving intractable ethnic problems.

1897!

Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, in a much-cited study, has advocated population transfers as a valuable tool so long as they are “conducted in a humane, well-organized manner, like the transfer of Germans from Czechoslovakia by the Allies in 1945-47.” John Mearsheimer, Chaim Kaufmann, Michael Mann and others have done likewise.

And although the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court has attempted to restrain this tendency by prohibiting mass deportations, Elazar Barkan maintains that such proscriptions are far from absolute, and that “today there is no single code of international law that explicitly outlaws population transfers either in terms of group or individual rights protections.”

The expulsion of the ethnic Germans is thus of contemporary as well as historical relevance. At present, though, the study of many vital elements of this topic is still in its earliest stages.

Innumerable questions—about the archipelago of camps and detention centers, the precise number and location of which are still undetermined; the sexual victimization of female expellees, which was on a scale to rival the mass rapes perpetrated by Red Army soldiers in occupied Germany; the full part played by the Soviet and U.S. governments in planning and executing the expulsions—remain to be fully answered.

At a moment when the surviving expellees are passing away and many, though far from all, of the relevant archives have been opened, the time has come for this painful but pivotal chapter in Europe’s recent history to receive at last the scholarly attention it deserves.

R.M. Douglas is an associate professor of history at Colgate University. This essay is adapted from his new book, published by Yale University Press, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans After the Second World War.

Star of David spotted amidst migrant caravan…oh what a surprise! Not!

“Jews are responsible for every single thing wrong in this world until proven otherwise.”

<They have been responsible for mass migrations since ww2>


 

Honduras and Guatemalan presidents, where the migrants are coming from, are friends of Israel, they cooperate with whatever the (anti-semitic, Jewish cabal) wants.

Nixon: Well, listen, are they all Jews over there?

Colson: Every one of them. Well, a couple of exceptions.

Nixon: See my point?

Colson: You know goddamn well they’re out to kill us.

Nixon:Generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?

MEXICO

There’s disturbing new footage showing a Jewish Star of David coming out of the Zacapa, Guatemala “caravan” migration of illegal aliens attempting to forcefully violate the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the United States of America.

Original footage broadcast by Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC), October 2018. A Star of David is emblazoned on the door panel of a truck transporting a load of Honduras who are making their way through Guatemala towards the USA.

The Israeli truck has stirred controversy on social media, with allegations of forced-migrant assistance being given on behalf of “our greatest ally.”

These tactics are not new and have been used many times, including in Europe: to mobilize millions of people from the most poverty-stricken countries in the world and have them invade the country, using children as their shields, and then use these people in their own political games to protect their political interests in this country.

Assimilated and religious Jews who did not serve the bankers’ interests were the main victims of Nazi persecution. Zionists, on the other hand, were spared. These same Zionists put ordinary Jews on trains to Auschwitz telling them they were being “resettled.” Whoever changed their minds were spirited away to Palestine by ready-Zionists. The Jews were ’emptied’ from Europe.

Weaponized mass migration to Europe

There’s nothing surprising in this fact. What is surprising is that they broke their taboo in the mainstream media to reveal Israel’s role in this process, although they’ve been talking about in alternative media for a long time already.

Wars for Israel

 What sparked renewed attention on immigrant detention centers?

The Trump administration says the United States is currently facing a crisis as the number of people arriving at the southwest border increases month to month and outpaces apprehensions from last fiscal year.

At the southwest border, Border Patrol made around 593,500 apprehensions in the first eight months of fiscal year 2019. In all of fiscal year 2018, it made close to 396,600 apprehensions.

Based on recent unannounced visits to Border Patrol facilities, government investigators have flagged serious concerns about overcrowding and prolonged detentions at these locations, saying the conditions “represent an immediate risk to the health and safety” of immigration officials and detainees.

The findings in the investigative reports and photos have renewed criticism of the Trump administration’s detention practices.

Who oversees the detention of immigrants?

“We were stonewalled today by an administration and a private contractor that does not want us to see what is happening behind those walls,” said presidential candidate Julián Castro, outside the facility.

Once in federal custody, immigrants are held in a variety of facilities led by different agencies — from processing centers operated by Customs and Border Protection, to detention facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to shelters for children under the supervision of the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Health and Human Services Department.

People held by ICE are either awaiting deportation or a decision on their immigration case. They are held throughout the country, including in federally-owned centers, contracted county jails, and contracted facilities owned by private prison companies.

The average daily population in ICE detention fluctuates and was around 45,000 people as of March 2019. 

Immigration officials refer children apprehended at the border to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency that is part of HHS. Each year, the office oversees tens of thousands of migrant children, most of whom have come alone without a parent or guardian.

Children stay in shelters before being handed over to the care of a sponsor, often a parent in the United States, or another family member. Whether in federal care or with a sponsor, the children still go through immigration proceedings to determine whether they can remain in the United States.

Private companies, as well as nonprofits, can be contracted by the government to run facilities holding migrant children. For instance, Caliburn International, a private for-profit company, runs a center in Homestead, Fla.

A Texas nonprofit recently was announced to have received a $300 million contract to run a new temporary shelter for child migrants in Carrizo Springs, Texas, and provide 1,300 beds, according to a notice published July 2, 2019, in the Federal Register.

What have investigators said about conditions at ICE facilities?

The U.S. government is responsible for ensuring that facilities contracted by ICE adhere to federal standards guiding the care and treatment of migrants. Over the years, the Office of Inspector General within the Department of Homeland Security has highlighted poor conditions and violations of standards at some federally-run and contracted facilities. 

In 2017, investigators examined whether ICE immigration detention inspections ensured adequate oversight and compliance with detention standards. Contracted facilities were part of the scope, according to the inspector general report published June 2018.

The report concluded that ICE wasn’t adequately monitoring facilities and that its “difficulties with monitoring and enforcing compliance with detention standards stretch back many years and continue today.”

Other groups outside the government have also flagged issues at ICE facilities.

The Southern Poverty Law Center conducted a seven-month investigation of six immigrant detention facilities in the South. The group analyzed three private facilities and three run by county sheriffs.

“From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied — symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation’s immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said in a 2016 report.

What are the conditions in child migrant centers?

Migrant children spend an average of fewer than 45 days at children’s shelters, according to a frequently asked questions page on the Office of Refugee Resettlement website, last reviewed May 15, 2019.

The average number of children in care of HHS has ranged from 11,151 to 14,226 so far in fiscal year 2019, according to HHS.

Patrick Fisher, a public affairs and media specialist of the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, told PolitiFact that all care providers, including the Homestead Temporary Shelter in Florida for unaccompanied children, are required to “report incidents affecting a child’s health, well-being and safety,” and specifically “significant incidents.”

The latter include “verbal threats by one youth against another youth to physical altercations or allegations of sexual abuse.”

Several Democratic presidential candidates went to the Homestead center (although they were not allowed to enter) at the time of the presidential debates in Miami, amid demands for its closure.

“We were stonewalled today by an administration and a private contractor that does not want us to see what is happening behind those walls,” said presidential candidate Julián Castro, outside the facility.

The center in Homestead, which is holding 2,300 children of its 3,200 capacity, is a temporary influx shelter. Another is slated to open in Oklahoma at a facility that was the site of a World War II internment camp, according to CBS News.

What action has Congress taken to address private child migrant centers?

Trump signed a $4.5 billion humanitarian aid bill into law July 1, 2019. The bipartisan bill divvies up the appropriations by the agencies that will implement the law, which are those within the Justice Department, DHS, and HHS.

Some of that funding specifically goes to getting children out of large-scale shelters faster. 

Another bill currently before a committee in the House of Representatives seeks to close temporary emergency shelters for unaccompanied minors. U.S. Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., in February introduced the Shut Down Child Prison Camps Act, to prohibit HHS from operating unlicensed temporary emergency shelters for unaccompanied immigrant children.

The bill’s chances of getting through the Republican-controlled Senate, however, are low.

In addition to that bill, the House Oversight and Reform Committee will hold hearings on the separation and treatment of migrant children, according to a statement by the committee.

“The committee needs to hear directly from the heads of these agencies as soon as possible in light of the almost daily reports of abuse and defiance,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the committee. 

What are President Donald Trump’s plans for immigration detention?

Trump’s approach is at odds with that of House Democrats. As part of his hard-line approach to immigration, Trump seeks to increase detention space to keep more migrants in custody. Lack of detention space has consistently been one of the reasons why immigration authorities release immigrants. 

Trump’s fiscal year 2020 budget plan asks for $2.7 billion for 54,000 detention beds and requests the creation of a Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Fund.

The fund would be used to expand immigration detention capacity to 60,000 beds (including 10,000 family detention beds) and to hire more staff to enforce and litigate immigration laws.

Jews Behind the LGBTQ Movement

Evangelical mom fights Texas school district when told her transgender kindergartner will be barred from using the girls’ bathroom

“Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, atheists — they don’t agree with us on much of anything. But we talk with them.”

[They’re aim is to guilt dumb parents and are especially successful at inspiring warped Christian Zionists]

As Jewish leaders working for LGBTQ equality and racial justice in Jewish life, our emotions run deep this month: June marks two historical moments of liberation. Fifty years ago, LGBTQ people resisted a violent police raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, sparking the start of the modern LGBT rights movement and signaling to the world that trans women, drag queens, gay men, lesbians, and other queer people demanded dignity, equal rights, and freedom.

More than 100 years before that transformative night at a New York City bar, the course of history changed forever in the American South. On June 19, 1865, a Union Army general arrived in Texas and shared the news that the Civil War had ended, and that enslaved African Americans were now free.

Known by many as “Juneteenth”, this day is considered the most historic celebration of the end of slavery in the United States.


DRAG queens are to read fairytales to schoolchildren to raise LGBT awareness.
Normalizing it for YOUR kids. LGBT awareness is the law!

As we reflect on the power of these historical moments, we are troubled by how the struggles for LGBTQ rights and Black liberation are often viewed as separate, unrelated movements. And yet, these two histories — and our ongoing work for LGBTQ equality and racial justice today — are deeply intertwined and profoundly interdependent.

People of color are at the heart of Stonewall. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, both trans women of color, led the fight at the Stonewall Inn. And yet, they are often omitted from the story of Stonewall and excluded from the traditional canons of Black and Latinx American history.

As Jewish colleagues of different racial and cultural backgrounds, we understand the power of our own histories and the shared responsibility we have to work for justice, especially in challenging, painful, or violent times. The stories we tell of our past inform possibilities for a better present and future.

So, as leaders committed to LGBTQ equality and racial justice, we ask our Jewish communities: What would it look like to integrate these commitments and ensure that we value them equally? What would it take for synagogues, day schools, summer camps, and other Jewish institutions to invest wholeheartedly in both racial justice and LGBTQ equality?

Black leaders Proclaim Forbidden Truths about Israeli and Talmudic Lies

Farrakhan insisted that “Israel and AIPAC pays off senators and congressmen to do their bidding, so [Omar is] not lying. So if you’re not lying, stop laying down. You were sent there by the people to shake up that corrupt House. Shake it up!”

Farrakhan also claims that contemporary Jews are responsible for promoting child molestation, misogyny, police brutality and sexual assault, among other social ills. In addition, he asserted that contemporary Judaism is nothing but a “system of tricks and lies” which Jews study in order to learn how to “dominate” non-Jews.

He also said that “the false Jew will lead you to filth and indecency. That’s who runs show business. That’s who runs the record industry. That’s who runs television.” Farrakhan alleged that Jews often force aspiring actors to submit to anal sex.

Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams: “Though Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population, they dominate porn.”

Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams:“Though Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population, they dominate porn.

“Do you know that many of us who go to Hollywood seeking a chance have to submit to anal sex and all kind [sic] of debauchery [before] they give you a little part?” he asked. “It’s called the casting couch. See, that’s Jewish power.”

He used disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who is Jewish, as proof of his allegations.

Farrakhan also said that President Barack Obama was “under Jewish influence” when he advocated for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Marriage equality, Farrakhan informed his audience, is “Satanic.”

Now here’s Mr. Putman. In the 1960s, this movie was screened at YMCAs, Catholic groups, American Legions, and Elk Lodges, trying to spread the anti-pornography message to as many people as they could. 

A reporter named George Putnam narrates this half-hour-long educational film on pornography. He is blaming “the masters of deceit” and warns that it is satanic big business. Well, everyone knows who the “master of deceit.”

Perversion for Profit

“This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the masters of deceit.”

Who are the richest and most successful entrepreneurs of the $100 billion year porn industry?  The peddlers of pornography belong to all races, but one race above all stands out as preeminent in this field. 

Selling sex, like slave trafficking and money-lending, has always been a Jewish specialty.

Example: In the spring of 2002, the Israeli military had the Palestinian town of Ramallah under siege.  The IDF had captured three of the four Palestinian television stations. 

While in control of these media outlets, the Israeli military implemented a very disturbing plan: they began broadcasting pornographic movies to the Palestinian households. 

For those who are familiar with the tactics frequently used by Israel against the Palestinian people, such a thing will come as no surprise.

They also take over Palestinian sites routinely and replace it with pornography (I’m a witness). It’s their first tactic they think of to shock and disgust.  These Zionists use pornography as a weapon for non-Zionists, and for fun because they are sick, and they can.

Who has labeled this Video ‘hysterical? Who would do that? Someone who obviously profits from porn!

The “Judeo-Nazis” of Israel are another story

Israel is a Jewish Bolshevik creation, all the Israeli leaders are from Russian empire. Notice they are ALL white.  The “Jews” Are Not The Seed of Abraham and the Palestinian Jews, the REAL Jews rejected them.  Zionist fake Jews have courted and colluded with European white supremacists ever since the movement’s inception.

The very uncomfortable truth is that the harsh characterizations of Diaspora Jewry found in the pages of Mein Kampf were not all that different from what was voiced by Zionism’s founding fathers and its subsequent leaders, so the cooperation of those two ideological movements was not really so totally surprising.

It is true that only an extreme lunatic fringe of Zionism went so far as to offer to join the war on Germany’s side in 1941, in the hope of establishing “the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich.” Unfortunately this was the group which the present Prime Minister of Israel chose to join.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael ‘Oren’. Upon assuming Israeli citizenship, he changed his last name from “Bornstein” to “Oren.” If any of these fake Jews were Semitic they would look like the Arabs.

Extracts from article by Ron Unz, entire article good read!

In 1983, Amoz Oz, often described as Israel’s greatest novelist, had published In the Land of Israel to glowing reviews. This book was a collection of lengthy interviews with various representative figures in Israeli society, both moderate and extreme, as well as some coverage of the Palestinians who also lived among them.

Of these ideological profiles, one of the shortest but most widely discussed was that of an especially hard-line political figure, unnamed but almost universally believed to be Ariel Sharon, a conclusion certainly supported by the personal details and physical description provided.

Near the very beginning, that figure mentioned that people of his ideological ilk had recently been denounced as “Judeo-Nazis” by a prominent liberal Israeli academic, but rather than reject that label, he fully welcomed it. So the subject generally became known in public discussions as the “Judeo-Nazi.”

That he described himself in such terms was hardly an exaggeration, since he rather gleefully advocated the slaughter of millions of Israel’s enemies [everyone who hates evil] , and the vast expansion of Israeli territory by conquest of neighboring lands and expulsion of their populations, along with the free use of nuclear weapons if they or anyone else too strongly resisted such efforts.

In his bold opinion, the Israelis and Jews in general were just too soft and meek, and needed to regain their place in the world by once again becoming a conquering people, probably hated but definitely feared.

To him, the large recent massacre of Palestinian women and children at Sabra and Shatila was of no consequence whatsoever, and the most unfortunate aspect of the incident was that the killers had been Israel’s Christian Phalangist allies rather than Israeli soldiers themselves.

Now rhetorical excess is quite common among politicians and a shroud of pledged anonymity will obviously loosen many tongues. But can anyone imagine an American or other Western public figure talking in such terms, let alone someone who moves in higher political circles?

These days, Donald Trump sometimes Tweets out a crude misspelled insult at 2am, and the American media is aghast in horror. But given that his administration leaks like a sieve, if he routinely boasted to his confidants about possibly slaughtering millions, we surely would have heard about it.

For that matter, there seems not the slightest evidence that the original German Nazis ever spoke in such ways privately, let alone while a journalist was carefully taking notes. But the “Judeo-Nazis” of Israel are another story.

As near as I can recall, the last even slightly prominent figure in American public life who declared himself a “Nazi” was George Lincoln Rockwell during the 1960s, and he was much more of a political performance artist than an actual political leader. Even as marginalized a figure as David Duke has always hotly denied such an accusation. But apparently politics in Israel is played by different rules.

In any event, Sharon’s purported utterances seem to have had little negative impact upon his subsequent political career, and after spending some time in the political wilderness after the Lebanon disaster, he eventually served five years as Prime Minister during 2001-2006, although by that later date his views were regularly denounced as too soft and compromising due to the steady rightward drift of the Israeli political spectrum.

Once Hitler consolidated power in Germany, he quickly outlawed all other political organizations for the German people, with only the Nazi Party and Nazi political symbols being legally permitted. But a special exception was made for German Jews, and Germany’s local Zionist Party was accorded complete legal status, with Zionist marches, Zionist uniforms, and Zionist flags all fully permitted.

Under Hitler, there was strict censorship of all German publications, but the weekly Zionist newspaper was freely sold at all newsstands and street corners. The clear notion seemed to be that a German National Socialist Party was the proper political home for the country’s 99% German majority, while Zionist National Socialism would fill the same role for the tiny Jewish minority. continue reading….

“Anti-Semitic” Myths…Or Not?

“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to his time. They fit it now.”

(Henry Ford, in an interview quoted in the New York World, February 17, 1921)

Indeed, we should measure Jewish history accordingly. If the truth fits…

Jews as Devils

The association of the Jews with the devil can be detected in the Christian Bible, which describes the devil as the father of the Jews. In the Middle Ages, when superstition was rampant, the devil was a terrifying reality to the masses of Christians. Jews were portrayed in woodcuts as pigs (Judensau), depicted as swarthy and hook-nosed, and presumed to have a tail and horns.

Jews were seen as sorcerers and magicians, expert in the black arts of the occult. The Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer reproduced a number of such woodcuts, reinforcing this belief in modern times. Many eyewitnesses report that Germans regularly asked : “Are you Jews? You are human beings who work! Where are your horns?”

The Jewish Smell

Evil people can be sensed by people who are not evil.*

Since the Jews were associated so closely with the devil, they were believed to share his characteristics, notably his smell of sulfur. If Jews did not smell of it, Christians claimed they used Christians’ blood to rid themselves of it. Indeed, the belief about a unique Jewish odor was so powerful that it not only persisted throughout the ages, but also became the object of study by Nazi scientists.

Well Poisoning

Image result for jews poison palestinian livestock

During the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine 1947-8, this technique of poisoning the wells was used in different villages in Palestine- which was documented by both the International Red Cross and the British Mandate authorities- in a systematic way to cause panic and force the Palestinians out of their villages for the zionist settlers, making sure the Palestinians  couldn’t come back. Today they also poison crops and livestock.  Today the squatters spill their sewage onto Arab villages down the hill. Jews always take the top of the hills.*

In the mid-1300s, the Black Death swept throughout Europe, decimating perhaps 50% of the population. Jews, too, were greatly affected, although not to the same degree as the Christians, due to traditional Jewish emphasis on personal cleanliness and burial of their dead. Soon a rumor spread that Jews brought about the plague by poisoning wells. Although Pope Clement issued a papal bull contradicting the allegation, and numerous rulers stated likewise, the superstitious Christian masses believed that the plague was the work of the devil through his children, the Jews.

Jewish World Conspiracy

This belief, which is still quite prevalent today, originated in the Middle Ages. It was claimed that a council of rabbis from Spain met secretly every year to cast lots regarding which city should supply the Christian victim for the annual sacrifice required by the Jewish religion.

Later, this myth changed the Jewish goal from human sacrifice to world financial domination, as found in the 19th-century publication of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Currently, this lie is being spread by Arab regimes into countries that have had little or no previous encounters with Jews. [this is not originating from Arab regimes]

Jewish Stubbornness

Charlatans were hired by Rothschild to create conditions for holocaust, get the Jews into Palestine, establish a fake Jewish state.

A British resident of Damascus, also became a zealous propagator of the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. In 1841 he wrote a letter to the Jewish philanthropist Moses Montefiore in which he stated: “…I consider the object to be perfectly obtainable. But, two things are indispensably necessary. Firstly, that the Jews will themselves take up the matter unanimously. Secondly, that the European powers will aid them in their views…”*

Naturally, the Jews were seen as a stubborn people for absolutely refusing to convert and accept Yeshu as the Messiah. Such a refusal was particularly infuriating to the Christians, who believed that the Second Coming of Yeshu was contingent upon the Jews accepting Christianity. Thus, as the Jews were seen as blocking the Final Redemption, special effort has been expended through the ages to enable them to see the so-called light of Christianity, either by the Jews’ own volition or by force.

Jewish Laziness

Jewish invention myths are dishonest revisions to historical fact in which one or more individuals have skimmed the history of a given idea looking for any Jews to be found and then claiming that the whole of it would not exist without them. In each such instance, the goyim who first invented the concept and/or built the earliest versions are ignored, as are those who perfected it later and those along side of whom the Jew was working, all to foist a fallacious perspective on the reader that Jews make the world go around and goyim desperately need them.*

This accusation held that Jews did not engage in productive occupations, preferring instead to live off honest Christian labor by engaging in money lending and shady transactions. (For their part, Christians were invariably seen as productive farmers and craftsmen.) What was conveniently forgotten was that Jews were not permitted any form of manual labor. Of course, the myth that Jews become rich at the expense of hard-working, poor Christians has persisted to today, and is strongly held by many people.

Expulsions

The Jews are always crying about being persecuted. Now if just one or two countries had expelled them at one time or another; then we could conclude that that nation acted out of racism or prejudice. But when every nation in Europe; in deed, the whole ancient world has expelled them and some of them more than once. Then it is silly to say that all nations are racist or bigoted against the Jews. There must be something that is causing so many people to hate and detest them.

And that thing, for the most part, is their constant subversion of the host nation; selling their secrets and even their freedom to their enemies because the Jews have no loyalty to anyone, not even their own people. And some times the so-called upper Jews have caused the expulsion of the so-called lesser Jews so they would not have to divide the pie up so many ways.*

During the Middle Ages, the Jews were expelled at one time or another from virtually every country in Europe. Many times, they were driven out of a city and had to seek sanctuary in another town. Usually, these expulsions, even from entire countries, were not permanent, and the Jews were able to return after several years — sometimes even sooner than that.

However, when the Jews were expelled from England in 1290, they were not permitted to return until the late 1600s. (It is interesting to note that William Shakespeare, who caricatured Jews as rapacious in The Merchant of Venice, may have never seen a Jew.) Of course, the most famous of all expulsions is known as The Expulsion — the forced departure of the Spanish Jews in 1492.

Desecration of the Host

In 1215, the Church announced the dogma of transubstantiation, meaning that the consecrated wafers (host) and sacramental wine consumed by Christians represented the body and blood of Yeshu. Soon Jews were accused of stealing wafers from churches and torturing them by sticking pins in them, thus crucifying Yeshu again. According to some reports, blood gushed from such wafers as they moaned in agony. Other accounts had the hosts flutter in the air, producing butterflies, angels, and doves.

The entire matter would be laughable, except that more than 100 such accusations were made, resulting in the massacre of countless Jews. In 1298, a notorious Jew-hater named Rindfleisch spread the calumny throughout Germany and Austria. Within a short period of time, 150 Jewish communities were destroyed, causing the deaths of more than 100,000 Jews.

The British conquest of Jerusalem

 Jews, Muslim and Christians were allied against British and Zionist imperialism.

Image result for we are palestine jews

Ecerpt

On the 31st of October 1917 the British took Beer Sheva and started to make their way towards Jerusalem.

In the upcoming days the raids and the fighting in the area intensified, and the residents decided to leave their homes until the situation quietened down .They rented rooms in the nearby Arab village. This did not help Yellin, who took his kettle with him. At nights, the soldiers appeared in the village, and forced the woman whose home he was staying at to give them his biggest cow. The frightened woman woke the whole village.

The fear of the soldiers united the Arab villagers and their Jewish guests and they decided to send a delegation of two Arab women and two Jewish women (the men were mostly army deserters), to the military governor in Dir Yassin, and ask for the Army’s protection. But this did not end their plight. On 12th December, the Turkish army issued an evacuation order from Motza and its nearby Arab villages.

The area was defined as a military zone and all residents were to leave in twelve hours in order to make way for the great battle between the Turks and the British planned for the 3rd of December. “You can imagine”, Yellin addresses his readers, “the great confusion and commotion among the residents. Neither of us slept a wink all night”.

International Holocaust™ Remembrance Alliance : Working Definition of Antisemitism

Nations of the world accepted the clear lie when they recognized the Zionists, those heretics who established their state through conquest under the name of “Israel,” as any part of the Jewish People. The nations thereby enabled the Zionist heretics to conquer the Jewish People themselves. ~Rabbi AMRAM BLAU

The Zionists work relentlessly to undertake all actions to provoke the nations where these Jews live, and then turn around and advertise themselves as the saviors and benefactors of the Jews.

 These destroyers have already managed to destroy and burn Jewish souls in their concentration camp and gas chambers. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JEWS AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY WIPED OUT. MOST OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE FALLEN INTO THEIR HANDS, JEWISH COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD WERE DRAWN INTO THEIR STATE AS IS WELL KNOWN.~~ RABBI SHAUL BRACH

Image result for jews against zionism zionism is satanism

 

Basically what the European founders of “Israel” do is try and infuse themselves with the real Jews, who denounce them. The public at large don’t understand the difference. That’s The Game.

IHRA adopted the Working Definition of Antisemitism at a plenary session in 2016. On 1 June 2017, the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution calling on European Union member states and their institutions to adopt and apply the definition. The non-legally binding working definition includes illustrative examples of antisemitism to guide the IHRA in its work.

These examples include classical antisemitic tropes, Holocaust™ denial and attempts to apply a double standard to the State of Israel. Although internationally recognized by many groups, the working definition of antisemitism has been criticized by some as too broad, and conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

Here’s a list of the countries that have accepted in full the IHRA definition of AS: UK, Israel, Austria, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Macedonia.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
 
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges (European*) Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Image result for jews against zionism

 

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

  • Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
     
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
    Image result for jews control media and most other institutions
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
     
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
     
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
    Image result for holocaust revisionism

     

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
     
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
    Image result for jews against zionism zionism is satanism

     

  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
     
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
     
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
     
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
    Image result for Dual citizens in the white house

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
 
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
 
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Image result for holocaust hollywood

 
 

Was Vietnam a Holocaust for Zion?

Irving Kristol, reacted to Vietnam War critic Senator George McGovern. The presidential contender’s proposed cut in U.S. military expenditure would, according to the “godfather” of neoconservatism, “drive a knife in the heart of Israel.”

• April 2, 2018

 

The Watergate scandal passes today as evidence of the independence of the American media as a necessary counter-power against government abuses. But in reality, it simply illustrates the increasing involvement of the media in deep political warfare.

Likewise we must go beyond the public and Spielbergian narratives on the Pentagon Papers to understand what was really at stake.

In both scandals, I believe the leadership of both the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two biggest propaganda machines in the US, were acting not only in the service of truth, but also in service of a power deeper than the deep state they were exposing.

After all, there are so many truths to choose from to make the front pages. And in matters of foreign policy, many suspect that the final choice is often determined by the ultimate question: Is it good for Israel?

In this article, I am not going to demonstrate, but simply hypothesize, that the leaking and revelation of the Pentagon Papers, and more broadly the role of the media establishment in the anti-Vietnam movement, were in the interest of Israel. At that moment Israel was starting to face a unified international front against its illegal occupation.

There was a real threat that the US would force Israel to withdraw, as required by UN Resolution 242. But I will go further and suggest that the Vietnam War itself, not just the protest against it, served the interests of Israel, regardless of other factors that motivated it.

There is, of course, no contradiction between these two theses, since the anti-Vietnam-war movement presupposes the Vietnam war. Significantly, until around 1969, the Washington Post’s editorials were unequivocally pro-war.

Johnson and the Vietnam War

As I wrote in JFK-9/11 and again in From Yahweh to Zion, if John Kennedy had not been assassinated, the very expression “Vietnam War” would not exist in school textbooks. Under his presidency, US military deployment amounted officially to a mere 15,000 “military advisors.”

At the end of 1963, Kennedy had taken the decision to withdraw from Vietnam. On November 11, he signed directive NSAM-263 for the removal of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963,” in anticipation for withdrawing “by the end of 1965 […] the bulk of U.S. personnel.”[1]

On November 21, the day before his fatal visit to Texas, he expressed his resolution to his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, after reading a report on the latest casualties: “After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”[2]

But on November 26, the day after Kennedy’s funeral, Johnson buried NSAM-263 and replaced it with NSAM-273, which required the military to develop a plan “for the United States to begin carrying the war north,” including “different levels of possible increased activity,” and “military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos”—which violated the 1962 Geneva Accords on the neutrality of Laos.[3]

Johnson’s decision regarding Vietnam was a clear betrayal of Kennedy’s earlier policy, and the amazing expediency of his change of policy suggests premeditation. All ambiguities cleverly laid out in NSAM-273 would be lifted by another memo signed on January, 1964 by General Maxwell Taylor, which said: “National Security Action Memorandum n° 273 makes clear the resolve of the President to ensure victory over the externally directed and supported communist insurgency in South Vietnam […].

To do this, we must prepare for whatever level of activity may be required.” It is no longer a question of stopping the war, but rather winnings at any cost. Robert McNamara, continuing as Secretary of Defense, acceded to Johnson’s agenda, recommending the mobilization of 50,000 soldiers and a program of “graduated overt military pressure” against North Vietnam, a policy which Johnson rubberstamped in March 1964 by memorandum NSAM-288.[4]

A suitable pretext was still needed for aggression. It came in Gulf of Tonkin on the 2nd and 4th of August 1964, when torpedoes were allegedly launched by the North Vietnamese against American destroyers. It is now known that the second attack, if not the first, was imaginary, made up out of falsified NSA data.[5]

With that faked event, Johnson could announce on national television a “retaliatory” bombing of the North Vietnamese navy, and push through Congress on August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave him full powers to send up to 500,000 soldiers into North Vietnam. With that, Johnson plunged the Vietnamese people into a decade of unspeakable suffering, taking the lives of more than a million civilians.

From 1965 to 1968, as part of Operation Rolling Thunder, 643,000 tons of bombs were dropped—three times more than during the entire Second World War—on a mostly rural country, and about 500,000 American soldiers were sent to Vietnam, where 50,000 perished. 19 million gallons of toxic chemicals were sprayed from the air to destroy approximately 40 percent of the South’s forests, one-third of its valuable mangrove swamps, and large areas of prime cropland.

The chemicals are also suspected of causing widespread health problems, including cancer and birth defects. An estimated 3.5 million Vietnamese were killed directly in the war. One-third of the South’s population became “internal refugees”, their way of life destroyed, forced to live for years in the misery of refugee camps and overfull cities, with prostitution and other social problems as a result.

Since the war ended for the US in 1975, nearly 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed by residual explosives, including an estimated 3.5 million land mines. Many more have been crippled for life. A decade after the war, over 13 percent of Vietnam’s population were still suffering from some war-related injury.[6]

Johnson and the Six Day War

It was during that period that Israel chose to launch its operation to annex Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories, by creating the illusion that it was acting in self-defense. Johnson had given Israel a green light in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, dated June 3: “I want to protect the territorial integrity of Israel […] and will provide as effective American support as possible to preserve the peace and freedom of your nation and of the area.”[7] Johnson also asked the CIA to transmit to the Israeli army the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases to be destroyed.

Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its objectives. It was then that, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, an unarmed NSA spy ship, was bombed, strafed, and torpedoed for 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and torpedo boats.

The Israelis obviously intended to sink it without leaving any survivors (even the lifeboats were machine-gunned), while Johnson personally prohibited the nearby Sixth Fleet from coming to its rescue. Had the USS Liberty been successfully sunk, the attack would have been blamed on the Egyptians, and would have given Johnson the pretext to intervene militarily alongside Israel, probably forcing the USSR to go to war.[8]

But it failed. The affair was successfully smothered by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II (father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). The survivors received a medal in an unadvertised ceremony, accompanied by a formal order never to mention the incident. Only recently have some broken the silence.[9] Johnson accepted Israel’s spurious “targeting error” explanation, and rewarded the unprovoked attack by lifting the embargo on the sale of offensive military equipment to Israel.

The USS Liberty failed false flag attack is proof of Johnson’s secret complicity with Israel, and of his high treason against the country he had sworn to protect. But Johnson had in fact always been Israel’s man. As early as 1948, his campaign for a Senate seat had been financed by Abraham Feinberg, president of Americans for Haganah Incorporated and financial godfather of Israel’s atomic bomb.[10] In 2013, the Associated Press reported on newly released tapes from Johnson’s White House office showing LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.”

The tapes showed that during the Johnson presidency, “the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.” An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?” recalls Johnson’s continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: “President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction.”

The article also mentions that, “research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America.” And, in an additional note: “The facts indicate that both of Lyndon Johnson’s great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish. […] The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”[11]

LinkBookmarkIt is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger (A Thousand Days, 1965) that it was in fact Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post, both strong supporters of Israel, who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson on his ticket, in a closed door conversation.[12]

Schlesinger doesn’t reveal Graham and Alsop’s arguments, and states that Kennedy’s final decision “defies historical reconstruction”—a curious statement for a historian so well informed, which can only be explained by Schlesinger’s refusal throughout his 872 pages to come to grips with Kennedy’s Middle East policy and his battle with Zionism. Alan Hart has convincingly filled in the blanks: both Graham and Alsop were strongly pro-Israel as well as pro-Johnson, and both could exert a huge influence on public opinion. So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.”[13]

The Vietnam Holocaust

Is there a connection between those two wars, each waged or supported by Lyndon Johnson? In my book JFK-9/11, I suggested that Johnson escalated the Vietnam War as a substitute for the invasion of Cuba that the CIA and Pentagon hawks involved in the plot to assassinate JFK had been led to believe that they could start by blaming the assassination on a communist plot. “In lieu of invasion,” I wrote, “Johnson offered to the generals the Vietnam War.”

That was a grossly insufficient explanation. There is little evidence that Pentagon generals, let alone CIA officers, needed a war, any war, at all cost. But I could think of no other explanation, short of the unlimited greed of war profiteers, of whom Johnson was a highly representative specimen.

(In the weeks preceding the Kennedy assassination, he had invested in the Dallas aircraft manufacturer Ling-Temco-Vought, which was to become one of the Pentagon’s biggest arms suppliers for the Vietnam War.[14] Johnson also owned stocks in Bell Helicopter, to which he transferred illegally a contract for 220 helicopters that had been signed in 1963 with its rival Kaman Aircraft.[15])

Only recently did the idea come to me of a hidden link between the Vietnam War and the Six-Day War. I could not conceive it before because I had not yet taken the full measure of the perversity of the Israeli leadership, whose collective psychopathy resonated deeply with Johnson’s personal psychopathy.

Having now studied the deep thinking of those ultra-Machiavellian crypto-Likudniks whom we call neoconservatives, I have acquired the conviction that the tragedy of the world for the last hundred years is only comprehensible once we admit that Israel (before and after 1947) acts on the international scene in a biblical way, that is, with the same indifference and cruelty toward non-Jewish nations that Yahweh demanded of his people in the Bible.

In their eyes, these populations are no more worthy than livestock, and their suffering is irrelevant (unless, of course, it can be exploited). There is absolutely no moral limit to the determination of Israel to pave its way toward hegemony through the ruin of whole nations. Absolutely none. This is what I meant when calling Israel the “psychopathic nation”.

And so my hypothesis is that one of the purposes of the Vietnam War desired by Johnson and his masters was to create a diversion while Israel was engaging in the decisive stage of its expansion. Let us imagine for a moment that there had been no Vietnam War, in 1967 and thereafter, to mobilize Americans’ limited attention on world affairs, and to divert their indignation.

Could the Washington Post and the New York Times have managed to hide from the public the scandal of that war of aggression and illegal annexation? Even more importantly, Israel’s strategists surely understood that the legitimacy of the US state to condemn Israel’s crimes would be much diminished if the US could be blamed for even worse crimes.

French President Charles De Gaulle actually understood that the Vietnam War was preventing a peaceful solution in Palestine. In a press conference on November 27, 1967, after condemning Israel’s aggression and famously qualifying the Jews as “an elite people, self-confident and dominating,” he called for the four great powers to enforce an international settlement on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, and added:

“But one cannot see how such an agreement could be reached as long as one of the greatest among the four will not withdraw from the heinous war that they are waging elsewhere. Without the tragedy of Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs would not have become what it has become. And if South-East Asia could experience a renewal of peace, the Middle-East would also find its way to peace, in the climate of détente which would follow such an event.”[16]

Soon after that press conference, De Gaulle’s government became the target of a major student protest that culminated in May 1968, ultimately forcing De Gaulle to resign. These students, led by predominantly Jewish Trotskyist activists,[17] were not protesting against the US aggression against Vietnam, nor against Israel’s aggression against its Arab neighbors, but against bourgeois society.

It is not an exaggeration to qualify the Vietnam War as a “holocaust”, as did the 2008 documentary film Vietnam: American Holocaust.[18] In the Bible, a holocaust designates an animal offering completely consumed by fire, producing an “enjoyable smell” for Yahweh (Genesis 8:20-21; Exodus 29:25). According to the Book of Ezra, a gigantic holocaust was offered “to the God of Israel who resides in Jerusalem” by the Judeo-Babylonians who (re)colonized Palestine, in preparation for the (re)building of the Temple (7:12–15).

Strangely, it is during the Vietnam War that the term “Holocaust” became the common designation of the killing of Jews during World War II. Unless we consider that Hitler was working for the glory of Yahweh, that expression seems absurd. Surely, the anti-Zionist rabbi Moshe Shonfeld believes that “The Zionist leaders saw the spilt Jewish blood of the Holocaust as grease for the wheels of the Jewish national state.”[19]

But the term logically applies much better to the Vietnam War if we consider that by focusing the attention of the American public, then the protests of American youths and liberal intellectuals, it left the field wide open for Israel’s conquest of Palestinian, Egyptian, and Syrian territories. After all, the Vietnamese plight was greater than the Palestinians’.

This, I believe, provides a plausible answer to the question: Why did Johnson, who did not satisfy the CIA hawks on Cuba, draw the US into the Vietnam inferno? The strongest Johnson administration advocate for a deepening commitment in Vietnam was National Security Advisor Walt Rostow, whose brother Eugene was Under-Secretary of State. They happened to be sons of Jewish immigrants. The historian David Milne has called Rostow “America’s Rasputin.”

Two months after his election in 1968, Nixon secretly and illegally expanded the war into Cambodia, ordering a massive bombardment under the codename Breakfast, followed by Lunch, Dessert, Snack, Dinner and Supper—all of which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, an exceptionally bloody, tyrannical regime responsible for the extermination of one third of the Cambodian population. The man who pushed him in that direction was National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, also acting as Secretary of State. Like the Rostows, Kissinger happens to be Jewish.

Many of the leading figures of the anti-war movement were also Jewish. But soon after the leaking of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, with the help of Anthony Russo, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn (all Jewish by birth), other liberal Jewish intellectuals made a 180-degree turn and became leading advocate of the war: they called themselves “neoconservatives”.

We have here a fine example of dialectical engineering of history: as Jewish leftists like Noam Chomsky started to protest against the war, former Jewish leftists like Irving Kristol started to protest against the protesters. Meanwhile, Israel could be pushed out of the headlines.

Kristol wrote in the magazine of the American Jewish Congress in 1972 that it was necessary to fight against George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. […] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. […] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”[20]

Against McGovern’s demand for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kristol could have added: “American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to withdraw from Vietnam, it is important to pursue the genocide of the Vietnamese, so that America’s youthful idealists will protest against their own government rather than against Israel’s violation of international law.”

References

[1] On JFK Library, http://www.jfklibrary.org/

[2] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 638.

[3] LBJ Library: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/nsams/nsam273.asp.

[4] LBJ Library: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/nsams/nsam288.asp

[5] Scott Shane, “Vietnam Study, Casting Doubts, Remain Secret”, New York Times, October 31, 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/31/politics/31war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[6] Figures taken from “Vietnam Holocaust, 140 years of pillage, slaughter & persecution,” ã Föreningen Levande Framtid, Sweden, 2001: http://www.nnn.se/vietnam/holocaust.pdf

[7] State Department Archive: http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix /28057.htm.

[8] Robert Allen, Beyond Treason: Reflections on the Cover-up of the June 1967 Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, an American Spy Ship, CreateSpace, 2012.

[9] Watch the 2014 Al-Jazeera documentary The Day Israel Attacked America.

[10] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 250.

[11] Morris Smith, “Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!,” 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

[12] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56.

[13] Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2: op. cit., p. 257.

[14] Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007.

[15] Charles Kaman, “Politics had reared its ugly head in a very certain way,” on http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=633

[16] Video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03if1QnA5MI ; text on http://akadem.org/medias/documents/3-conference-degaulle.pdf

[17] On the Jewish-led student uprising in Paris in 1968, read Yair Auron, Les Juifs d’extrême gauche en Mai 68, Albin Michel, 1998.

[18] Watch on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNb1uUlG2QI .

[19] Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony of Jewish War Criminals, Bnei Yeshivos, 1977 (http://netureikartaru.com/Holocaust_Victims_Accuse.pdf), pp. 28, 24.

[20] Philip Weiss, “30 Years Ago, Neocons Were More Candid About Their Israel-Centered Views,” May 23, 2007: http://mondoweiss.net/2007/05/30_years_ago_ne/.