Browsing: News

esponse to Smarba Letter by Radical Press publisher Arthur Topham

[Editor’s Note: Below you will find my response to the letter which Harvey Smarba (of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada) had published in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer in the Jan. 27, 2008 edition. As well I have appended the letter from Smarba below mine for reference.
Please note the following urls to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and do not hesitate to send them your opinion on this matter.
Website: http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver
Editor Quesnel Cariboo Observer: [email protected]
Thank you.]
P.S. I have received a number of cc’d letters which the Quesnel newspaper has not published to date and will be sending out a separate post containing them. I apologize to the writers who took the time to write and didn’t get their work published but who gets in is totally out of my hands. You can rest assured though that Radical Press.com will run your contributions. Thanks again for your support! Arthur
—————
http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/opinion/letters/15114516.html
Free speech, CHRC’s credibility at stake
February 03, 2008
Editor:
Re: Remove the articles on web, that’s it, Feedback, the Observer, Jan. 27
Considering the serious allegations contained in the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada that I and my website are promoting ‘hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel,’ I believe a response to Smarba is in order.
While Smarba and the B’nai Brith would have the ‘gullible’ public believe that ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ are nothing more than a ‘vicious, anti-Semitic ‘screed’ long debunked by all reputable sources the facts and subsequent events of the 20th Century belie such a simplistic, erroneous statement.
Most people around Quesnel and across Canada have likely never heard of this document let alone read it so it begs the question as to why Smarba would suddenly highlight it in his letter and over emphasize it to the point that he does. His reason and the reason all Zionists do not want the public to be aware of its contents is, I would suggest, to prevent people from even contemplating reading it.
As for its value to people today interested in global events it will suffice here in this short letter to quote Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn who wrote that the document exhibits ‘the mind of genius.’ This is pretty unusual for a fraud, especially coming from a Nobel Laureate. He further states it exhibits ‘great strength of thought and insight. Its design is well above the abilities of an ordinary mind…It is more complicated than a nuclear bomb.’
When Smarba writes that these Protocols are nothing more than ‘violent, vicious fantasies’ he is doing his best to divert the public’s attention away from the actual’violent, vicious’ realities that now exist in Palestine and the state of Israel where blatant racism and ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinian people has been ongoing for the past 60 years of Israel’s existence.
In my own estimation I would have to say the Protocols are the Zionist road map of the 20th Century and deserve serious scrutiny by any conscientious student of contemporary history.
The basic guiding principle of political Zionism is contained in the motto of the Mossad, the Israeli equivalent of CSIS or the CIA. which states ‘By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Make War.’ Smarba and the B’nai Brith, being zealous advocates of Israel, obviously embrace such an ideology and are determined to destroy my democratic right to state the truth on such matters by using their usual tactics of fear and intimidation in order to do so.
That, I suggest, is the rationale behind his and the B’nai Brith’s attempt to have me remove this article and 17 others, including some of my personal works on the subject of Zionism, from my website.
But there is also much more that Smarba is not telling readers when it comes to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
For example the latest revelations coming out of the recent federal court case involving Marc Lemire and a former lawyer for the CHRC Ricardo Warmouse who, as Maclean’s Magazine writer Mark Steyn recently stated, has been carrying on his own personal ‘inquisition’ of Internet sites and making obscene profits from it as well.
It is now evident that Warmouse, funded by this same B’nai Brith organization, was caught posting disgusting, hate-filled, racist comments to the website of Lemire and then afterwards charging Lemire with the same type of complaint that I received. Go figure.
And if that isn’t shocking enough, not only Warmouse, but even the head ‘hate-crime’ investigator for the CHRC Dean Steacy, has been found guilty of posting similar ‘racist’ comments on sites that he wished to censor.
CHRC is rapidly losing whatever semblance of credibility it may once have had and these present realities, plus the recent allegations of financial fraud within the B’nai Brith organization itself, are why I adamantly refuse to remove from my website the articles that Smarba, in his imperious manner, is demanding that I do. I will fight this issue to the bitter end.
When the basic human right of freedom of speech is challenged we all must be partisans in the struggle to maintain it and I thank God the Cariboo Observer, unlike the Zionist-controlled Vancouver daily newspapers, is displaying the courage and respect due this fundamental freedom by covering and highlighting such an extremely important democratic issue.
Arthur Topham
Cottonwood, B.C.
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
—————

http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/quesnelobserver/opinion/letters/14379867.html
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=666
Remove the articles on web, that’s it
January 27, 2008
Editor:
Re: Freedoms are threatened, Feedback, the Observer, Jan. 23.
I am Harvey Smarba, one of the complainants in the Arthur Topham Canadian Human Rights matter. My comments are brief and in respect of the fact that this matter is still in an early stage procedure.
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code is misunderstood by many people. But its intention is clear. It is to encourage Canadians from all backgrounds to live civilly and peaceably together without incitement of hatred, which is socially caustic and divisive and often softens the ground for future violence.
I have alleged Topham maintains a website that contains substantive expression likely to incite hatred and contempt against Jews. One very specific item complained of is the re-publication of aspects of the notorious Czarist-era forgery: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
This vicious screed, debunked both as fraudulent and hateful many times, was a substantial propaganda component in Hitler’s Nazi-era propaganda, and sadly, remains in circulation, mainly in Arab countries today.
The ‘blood libels’ of the Protocols accuse the Jews of many terrible things.
It is a classic in paranoid, racist literature. Taken by the gullible as the confidential minutes of a Jewish conclave convened in the last years of the 19th century, it has been heralded by anti-Semites as proof Jews are plotting to take over the world.
Topham is fully entitled to his private opinions, whatever they are. But when violent, vicious fantasies are made public, then those affected should have a right of reasonable recourse. And this legislation and this process are reasonable.
If Topham wishes to remove the articles complained of, then the process ends. If not, then there may be a hearing at which both sides present their positions. If upon a balance of probabilities it is determined that Topham deliberately offended Section 13, he may be fined and/or ordered to cease and desist.
If anyone wishes to understand more about what kinds of cases come before the Tribunal, please visit http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/tribunal/index_e.asp?filter=ground and look up decisions based on racial or religious grounds.
Harvey Smarba
Victoria

{ Add a Comment }

AMERICA IS RUN BY JEWS

[Editor’s Note: Brother Nathanael is a former Jew who became a Christian and now labours to teach people of the evils of Zionism.]

AMERICA IS RUN BY JEWS

By Brother Nathanael Kapner
Copyright© 2008
Brother Nathanael [email protected]
AMERICA IS NOW A JEW-RUN NATION. Here is a list of the prominent Jews who run America:
1. Ben S. Bernanke: Chairman of the private Jew-owned Federal Reserve Bank. Term ends 2020.
2. Lloyd Blankfein: CEO of Goldman Sachs Bank of NY. Goldman Sachs is one of the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank consortium, made up of 8 banks, the House of Rothschild being the principal owner.
3. Harvey Krueger: Chairman of Lehman Brothers Bank of NY. Lehman Brothers is one of the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank consortium, made up of 8 banks, the House of Rothschild being the principal owner.
4. Michael Chertoff: Secretary of US Homeland Security. Chertoff is the son of an Orthodox rabbi. A dual-citizen of both Israel & America. Guess which nation the Jew Chertoff first loyalty is to? Chertoff is chief architect of the North American Union Plan and the Orwellian Real ID Card.
5. Howard Kohr: Executive Director of the most powerful lobby group in the world, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is made up of both Republican and Democratic Jews who have one single purpose -to secure Jewish-control of the world.
6. Malcolm Hoenlein: Executive Chairman of the second most powerful lobby group in the world, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Has 50 (!) Jewish member organizatons under him.
7. Abraham Foxman: Executive Director of the third most powerful lobby group in the world, Bnai Brith Anti Defamation League (ADL).
8. Norman Podhoretz: Key member of The Project for the New American Century, a Jewish think tank (jew-lobby), dedicated to promoting America dominance globally. (Translate: Promoting Jewish dominance).

See:: Project For The New American Century
HILARY CLINTON & JOHN McCAIN HAVE BOTH BEEN BOUGHT BY THE JEWS
HILARY CLINTON FUND RAISERS are the multi-millionaire Jews, Mark Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson. Penn, known around the world as King of the Polls, is CEO of Burson-Marsteller and President of Penn, Schoen and Berland Polling Company.
~ As CEO of Burson-Marsteller, Penn oversees a global network of 94 offices that brings public relations to politicians and companies around the world. As President of PSB, Penn provides polling strategies to political figures both in America and abroad. Tony Blair was re-elected as prime minister of England in 2005 due to Penn world-wide Jew-connections .
JOHN McCAIN FUND RAISER is Mark Broxmeyer and Wayne L. Berman. Broxmeyer is former director of the powerful Israel lobby, Jewish Institute Of National Security Affairs (JINSA).
~ Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew who subscribes to the racist Jewish Talmud is now accompanying McCain on the campaign trail. This is a sure sign of Jewish control of McCain. The pay-off will be McCain having Lieberman as his running mate or appointing Lieberman to a key cabinet position.
In other words — both Hilary Clinton & John McCain have been BOUGHT by the Jew$!
HOW DO WE STOP THE JEWISH CONTROL OF AMERICA?
Here are 3 options:
* Convert to Judaism and be part of the Single-Party political system in America.
* Convert to Judaism and be part of the Jewish-Takeover of former Christian America.
* Dont convert to Judaism. Instead call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to grow a revival of Christianity in America.
~Only when America is a Christian nation once again will the Jews lose their power to lead us all by our noses as sheep to the slaughter!
+++++++

{ Add a Comment }

WHAT IS THIS CARNAGE REALLY ALL ABOUT … ?

[Editor’s Note: I actually stole this article from David Icke because I can’t afford to subscribe to his weekly newsletter but if you are able to financially support David then please go to the following site to sign up. http://www.davidicke.com/amember/signup.php]
———————————
David Icke Newsletter, July 23rd 2006
WHAT IS THIS CARNAGE REALLY ALL ABOUT … ?
THE STORY THAT SO VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE THE RESEARCH OR THE GUTS TO TELL
Hello all …
I want to continue where I left off last week because after seven more days of constant propaganda over what is now a full blown war in the Middle East some balance and background is desperately required here.
We keep being told that the conflict was started by Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip when a total of three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. Bullshit. What is happening is the latest outbreak of hostilities that began when the Rothschild dynasty targeted what was then Arab Palestine to be what it called a ‘Homeland for the Jews’.
The Rothschild cabal could not care less about Jews. To them they are a means to an end of global control. The first leader of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, summed up this mind set when he said:
‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.’ (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion)
The ‘Jewish homeland’ was from the start a Rothschild fiefdom orchestrated through a global secret society network of interbreeding families known as the Illuminati. The goal of these families is domination of the planet through a world government dictatorship, a world army and a micro-chipped population, as I have been detailing in my books all these years.
This week the Israeli writer, Barry Chamish, told of a meeting with Evelyn Rothschild’s grandson, who abandoned the family to be a Mormon. Chamish said he learned that just seven families are enjoying the ‘fruits of the war’. The grandson had said of the Rothschilds: ‘They created Israel as their personal toy. It makes them richer and gives them more control. It’s not going to be destroyed.’
The Rothschilds funded the early European settlers in Israel, manipulated events in Germany that led to the horrific treatment of Jewish people and others, and then used that as the excuse to reach their long-term goal – a Rothschild-Illuminati stronghold in Palestine using the Jewish population as fodder to be used and abused as necessary. They called their plan ‘Zionism’. This term is often used as a synonym for Jewish people when it is actually a political movement devised and promoted through the House of Rothschild and opposed by many Jews.
The most visible Zionist front in the United States today are the so-called ‘neo-conservatives’ or ‘neo-cons’, that I highlighted last week in the first part of this expose.
The Rothschilds exploited as their ‘justification’ to seize Palestine the claim in the Old Testament that the Jews were God’s Chosen People and that ‘He’ had gifted them the land of what was once called Israel. That’s it, no more debate required. ‘God’ has spoken, it’s in the Old Testament, and so we’re moving in.
As Golda Meir, another Israeli Prime Minister, said in Le Monde in 1971: ‘This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.’
The invasion and subversion of an entire nation was based on texts in the Bible written by who knows who thousands of years ago after the Jewish captivity in the ancient Illuminati centre of Babylon in what is now Iraq. Pinch me, it can’t be true. ‘Ouch’, yes it is.
In fact, this nonsense is an historical fraud because the vast majority of Jewish people, those who call themselves ‘Ashkenazi’ Jews, have no connection to the land of Palestine/Israel at all, as courageous Jewish writers like Arthur Koestler have detailed. See his book The Thirteenth Tribe. The Ashkenazi come from a country once known as Khazaria in southern Russia and the Caucasus, not the land they have used the Biblical texts to lay claim to.
Those later called Ashkenazi Jews moved north over the centuries into Russia and then Western Europe and these were the people targeted by Hitler and the Nazis and exploited by the Rothschilds to populate Palestine. Koestler wrote that the official story of Jewish origins ‘begins to look like the most cruel hoax history has ever perpetrated’.
Jewish writer Arthur Koestler detailed the Khazar origins of most Jewish people in his book, The Thirteeenth Tribe. Here is a brief summary of what he revealed …The Story of the non-Semitic Jews – http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/khazars1.htm
Jews fall into two main groups, the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, who were once located in Spain and Portugal. Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote that at the end of the 11th Century, 97% of Jews were Sephardic, but the ratio changed dramatically over the centuries and by 1931 Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92 per cent of world Jewry.
Today the Ashkenazim utterly dominate Israel society both in numbers and control. Jewish organizations like the Anti Defamation League (ADL) constantly target others for ‘racism’ when Israel is a strictly and fiercely hierarchical society based on race, even among the Jews. The Ashkenazi are at the top, of course, followed by the Sephardic, and, irony of irony, then come the Mizrahi Jews, who descend from the Jewish communities of the Middle East. At the bottom of the pile are the black Ethiopian Jews who have long complained of blatant racism. Underneath all of them come the Palestinian Arabs.
(See Racism Inside Israel – http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN108A.html; Racism By Any Other Name – http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/666/666p21.htm; and The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel – http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm)
This Internet article described one expression of this racist Israeli structure – income distribution:
‘Israeli society is further fragmented by ethnic class and religious inequality. In general terms, Arab citizens are the lowest paid, and have seen a decline in their position over the period 1990 to 2001. Mizrahi Jews (Jews of African or Asian descent) have seen a small improvement, whilst Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of European or North American descent) are the highest paid, and have seen a 10 percent rise in their pay. In 2001, Ashkenazi Jews received on average one and a half times the income of Mizrahi Jews and twice that of Arabs.’
It is time that Zionist racism and apartheid was exposed to balance the endless claims of racism and ‘anti-Semitism’ that come the other way through Illuminati fronts like the ADL and many others that have been set up to brand as racist anyone who challenges the Zionist agenda.
In truth, Ashkenazi Jews are not even a Semitic people – it is the Arabs and minority Jewish people who are the Semites. Not that it should matter what they are, the human body is just a potential vehicle for the Infinite Consciousness that we all are. But such labels are used by these people to suppress debate so we need to balance the propaganda.
The lands of the Semitic peoples. Why aren’t we told that being ‘anti-Semitic’ overwhelmingly means ‘anti-Arab’??
So imagine if all this happened in your country. There you are peacefully getting on with your life and getting along well enough with the small numbers of Jewish people who live in your communities – just as the Palestinian people were. Then, American and European governments decree that your land, where your ancestors have lived for thousands of years, belongs to someone else and millions of Jewish people from all over the world descend upon your country.
Even worse, they don’t want to just live among you – they want to take complete control of everything and turn you into serfs and slaves. How would you react? How would anyone react in the face of this?
The Palestinians were supposed to just lie down and accept this staggering injustice and if they didn’t they were ‘terrorists’. What the world seems to have forgotten, and they will certainly not be reminded by the mainstream media or even most of the ‘alternative’ media, is that it was through terrorism that Israel was imposed upon the incumbent Arab population.
This is the story.
The idea that a Jewish homeland in Israel was the result of what happened in Nazi Germany is ridiculous. That was the justification used at the time by the Rothschilds amid the wave of – understandable – public sympathy. But the planning and manipulation began long before in the 19th and early 20th centuries through the Rothschilds and their gofers like Chaim Weizmann. British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Viscount Palmerston, was a close Rothschild family associate and patriarch of European Freemasonry. He mixed with all the major Illuminati names of his era. As early as 1840, he wrote:
‘There exists at the present time among the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine. It would be of manifest importance to the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return and settle in Palestine because the wealth that they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan’s dominions, and the Jewish people if returning under the sanction and protection at the invitation of the Sultan would be a check upon any future evil designs of Egypt or its neighbours. I wish to instruct your Excellency strongly to recommend to the Turkish government to hold out every just encouragement to the Jews of Europe to return to Palestine.’
More bullshit. Palmerston was pushing the Rothschild-Illuminati agenda and he knew it.
The Rothschild/Illuminati-manipulated First World War led to the ‘Balfour Declaration’ in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, declared his government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Israel. This announcement was connected to a deal to bring the United States into the war, a scam orchestrated through President Woodrow Wilson’s minders, Edward Mandel House and Bernard Baruch. Both were Rothschild agents in America.
It was Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, who formulated with others this British government ‘declaration’ in support of a Jewish homeland. What became known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’ was actually a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild. What official history does not tell you is that a major Illuminati grouping is called the Round Table and this spawned organisations like the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission in the United States. Lord Balfour was an inner-circle member of the Round Table, Lord Rothschild was its funder, and the ‘Balfour Declaration’ was a letter between the two!
The Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to both the Jews and Arabs, in fact. They wanted to keep the Arabs on their side for a while because they needed them to revolt against the Turks as part of their First World War strategy. They used the man known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ to lead this campaign. However, they, and Lawrence, knew it was all a lie.
The Balfour Declaration said that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’. But Rothchild sidekick Chaim Weizmann would say: ‘With regard to the Arab question – the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence’. Nor have they been ever since.
After Europe had been devastated by the Rothschild-Illuminati First World War there came the Versailles ‘Peace’ Conference near Paris in 1919 in which reparations were imposed on the post war German government, the Weimar Republic, that were so crippling and unsustainable that they prepared the ground for Hitler and the Nazis to come to power on a platform of restoring German pride and the nation’s economy.
Every one of the major ‘advisors’ at Versailles from Britain, France and the United States was either a Rothschild bloodline or controlled by them. These included Bernard Baruch. And guess what? They announced their official support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
The Hitler regime was funded by Illuminati-Rothschild agents like the Rockefellers, Harrimans and Prescott Bush, grandfather of the idiot president. This allowed the German war machine to emerge in just a few years from the ashes of economic collapse. What followed was the Second World War, the concentration camps, and the Illuminati-Rothschild use of these horrors to secure their long-held goal – a foothold in the Middle East to advance their plans far into the future.
The lands that the Rothschilds and their agents wished to occupy were populated at the time by the Arabs or Palestinians, but there was always going to be but one fate for them. Former Israel Prime Minster, Yitzhak Rabin, said in an uncensored version of his memoirs, published in the New York Times on 23 October 23rd, 1979:
‘We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question – What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’‘
And that’s what they did.
The Arabs were driven out of power or consequence in their own land by Zionist terrorist groups like Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang (also known as Lehi) who bombed and assassinated Arabs, fellow Jews and the British administrators who had control over Palestine under a mandate from the League of Nations and the Versailles Peace Conference. ‘Palestine’ was then the region we now call Israel, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire.
This Zionist terrorism led to the imposition of the Jewish state in 1948 when 750,000 or more Arabic people were expelled from their own land. Among the major players in these and other terrorist operations were Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon, butchers who became Israeli Prime Ministers and had the nerve to condemn Arab terrorism.
The Stern Gang was named by the British after its first commander, Avraham Stern, who later formed his own group, Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael (National Military Organization in Israel). An Internet article describes the motivation:
‘… Stern believed that the Jewish population should focus its efforts on fighting the British rather than supporting them in World War II; and that forceful methods were an effective means to achieve those goals. He differentiated between ‘enemies of the Jewish people’ (e.g., the British) and ‘Jew haters’, (e.g., the Nazis), believing that the former needed to be defeated, and the latter neutralized. To this end, he initiated contact with Nazi authorities offering an alliance with Germany in return for transferring Europe’s Jews to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state therein.’
This has always been the true motivation of these manipulators and they have treated Jewish people as a whole as cattle to be exploited at will to this end.
Irgun, led by later Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, was responsible for the bombing of the British headquarters at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. It killed 91 Britons, Arabs and Jews, injuring many more, and this was only one of a stream of terrorist outrages and assassinations that ended in the creation of Israel. An article on the World Socialist Website, points out:
‘It is not simply that Ariel Sharon and company are a bunch of hypocrites or political amnesiacs about the past. More importantly, the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, the Stern Group and Lehi, its successor, went on to form the Herut party, forerunner of the Likud party, and the ultra right-wing Moledet party, which form the main coalition partners of Sharon’s government.
The gang of former generals, ultra-nationalists and religious bigots that run Israel today are the political heirs of terrorists who furthermore had close connections with the fascists. In this, they mirrored some of the Arab nationalists in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq who allied themselves with Germany in order to rid themselves of British imperialism. These alliances led to a virtual civil war between the various wings of the Zionist movement during World War II.’
This is what people need urgently to realise. To challenge Israel is not to condemn Jewish people as a whole. It is to expose the fact that they are fodder in a game most do not begin to understand – a game controlled from the start by a leadership made up of terrorists. When we understand this, past and present events start to make far more sense.
Henry Kissinger, a war criminal of astonishing proportions, was United States National Security Advisor and Secretary of State from 1969 to1977 and responsible for the death and suffering of extraordinary numbers of people around the world. But his prime role was to represent the interests of Israel and the Illuminati plan for the Middle East that I will describe shortly. Especially after the emergence of Kissinger, the Illuminati-Israel grip on American foreign and domestic policy began to tighten ever more obviously.
The Illuminati/Israel nexus has spent decades taking over the government structure of the United States to ensure that (a) Israel has become the recipient of ONE THIRD of all US aid; (b) that it is funded to the tune of billions a year by the US to finance its military spending and build up; and (c) that the United States government pursues a foreign policy of unbelievable bias towards Israel and against the surrounding Arab states.
The pathetic statements about Lebanon by Bush that blamed Hezbollah for everything, supported the mass murder of civilians, sorry ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’, and showing no desire to secure a ceasefire, are typical of how Israel controls the US government through the Illuminati network. So is the mantra of ‘Iran and Syria are to blame’. These are both on the Illuminati hit list and they need an excuse to target them.
As I pointed out in detail last week, the Bush administration is dominated by supporters of Israel through the Project for the New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the top lobby groups in Washington. Joel Beinin, a contributing editor of Middle East Report and a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University, says that the AIPAC …:
‘… became a significant force in shaping public opinion and US Middle East policy after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Its power was simultaneously enabled and enhanced by Israel’s emergence as a regional surrogate for US military power in the Middle East in the terms outlined by the 1969 Nixon Doctrine’. (In other words, the Kissinger Doctrine).
An AIPAC foreign policy associate in Jerusalem told CNSNews.com that in one month alone some 10% of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives had visited Israel on tours it had arranged. CBS News also reported in 2004 that an FBI investigation had found evidence that a senior Pentagon analyst with close ties to neo-con Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and neo-con Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith had provided a draft presidential directive on Iran to the AIPAC that was then passed to the Israeli government.
Add to all this the Zionist control through ownership and personnel of much of the mainstream media and you have a network that gives the Arabic peoples no chance whatsoever of justice and understanding and the public no chance of being told the truth.
So to current events and their true significance.
It is claimed that everything started with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, but we need to go back at least to June 9th when Israel shelled a beach in Gaza killing eight Palestinians and injuring 32 civilians, including 13 children. The dead included seven members of one family. The Israeli government offered its ‘deep regret’, but this outrage was no accident. It was part of the process of instigating a reaction so that what has happened since could unfold.
On June 13th ,an Israeli plane fired at a vehicle on a busy Gaza road and when civilians hurried to help the injured another missile was fired into the crowd. Eleven Palestinians died, including two medical staff and two children.
Come on, the Israeli government was saying – retaliate. We have the gun cocked, we’re ready to go, and we just need you to give us the excuse to pull the trigger.
If Arab people had done the same they would have been called terrorists, the pimps of the ‘world community’ would have been red-faced in their condemnation, and Israel’s American-funded military would have done what have these past ten days.
The outrageous double-standards are just sickening. I saw some former Israel military commander this week saying how terrible it was that Israeli children had to be sitting in bomb shelters in Haifa when, as she spoke those words, children were being killed by Israeli bombs in Lebanon.
But then Israeli Prime Minister and terrorist, Menachem Begin, told the Israeli parliament that Palestinians ‘are beasts walking on two legs’ and another Prime Minister and terrorist, Yitzhak Shamir, said in a speech to Jewish settlers that the Palestinians ‘would would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls’. (’Begin and the ‘Beasts’, New Statesman, June 25, 1982, and Yitzhak Shamir quoted in the New York Times April 1st, 1988). That is what they really think.
Have no illusions here, Arabs and the rest of the world’s peoples, are seen as inferior beings – little more than vermin – to the extremist fanatics who buy the nonsensical baloney of a ‘God’s Chosen People’. It was the neo-con Israel fanatic John Bolton, the ‘US’ (Illuminati/Israel) Ambassador to the UN, who said this week that there was a ‘moral’ difference between the deaths of Israeli civilians and those of Lebanese people in the conflict.
‘I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts,’ he said, and those caused by Israel’s ’self-defense’. Behind that statement is the racism that has long been at the heart of American and Israeli policy. But then why shouldn’t Israel and its supporters be racist to others when their very state is based on apartheid and racism on a mega scale?
Bolton, like Bush and Secretary of State Rice, sing for their supper at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
‘What should we do next, oh masters?’
‘We must say Syria and Iran are to blame, and it is too early to have a ceasefire so Israel can go on killing the innocent for as long as it wants?’
‘Alright, anything you say.’
The creation of Israel was never an end in itself. It has always been a means to an end. All along, the plan has been to target the Islamic world to trigger a global war that would set the world ablaze and lead to the ’solution’ of centralised control of the planet and all its peoples. To do that they needed to create a point of conflict, a power keg, among the Arab countries that could be exploded to start another global conflict. This is the real reason for the creation of Israel and the real reason why the United States has spent its billions building up Israel’s might and military.
Albert Pike, a Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and Illuminati to the core, is alleged to have written a letter in 1871 to an infamous Illuminati operative, Guissepe Mazzini, in which he outlined the three world wars that would lead to global domination.
The first war, he is supposed to have written, would overthrow the Czars in Russia through a conflict between the British and Germanic Empires; and the second would lead to political Zionism being strong enough to install a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. Now there are many who say the letter never existed, but what is interesting, in the light of current events, is what he is supposed to have said about World War Three:
‘The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the ‘agentur’ of the ‘Illuminati’ between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile, the other nations, once more divided on this issue, will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion …We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil.
Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.’
Source: Cmdr.William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy, quoted in Satan: Prince of This World.
If Pike did not write that, then the faker was some prophet. The Illuminati agenda all along has been to create so much war, conflict and upheaval of every kind that the people agree to be ruled by a centralised global dictatorship to ’solve the problems’ these perceived ’saviours’ have actually created. It is the technique I have dubbed Problem-Reaction-Solution. You covertly create the problem and then overtly offer the solution … the change you want to impose on the world.
The plan has always been to use Israel as the spark to explode the Middle East into war, which would then drag in more and more countries and lead to a conflict with China. North Korea is part of this, also. One of the reasons the rest of the Arab world has been so restrained over events in Lebanon is that they know the game plan and are terrified of the consequences for them.
It seems that the terrorist-turn-Prime Minister-terrorist, Ariel Sharon, was pursuing policies that did not suit the needs of the agenda. So he took his leave – stage far right -after his massive induced stroke to be replaced by his ‘friend’ Ehud Olmert and the truly appalling Shimon Peres who now front up the devastation and mass murder in Lebanon and Gaza.
Sharon: You were just a sad pawn, mate. Peres: no words would suffice.
This is the historical background, the falling dominoes, that have led to what is happening today with hundreds of Lebanese killed, more than half a million made refugees, and missiles killing and maiming Israelis who are manipulated and programmed by their own sick government to believe the Big Lie.
Of course, Arab terrorism is equally wrong. Violence just begets violence, only peace begets peace. Every kidnapping, death and injury is a personal and family tragedy and none is more or less important than any other. The sight of the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, calling two Arab children in Israel killed by Hezbollah rockets ‘martyrs for Palestine’ was gut-wrenching. There are idiots and terrorist fanatics on both sides and I have no illusions about the suppression of freedom in Syria or Iran either. It is a case of seeing the big picture in which the monstrous game is being played out and putting the Arab response into its historical context.
It is time for all of us to come together, Arab, Jew, Gentile, whatever name you give yourself. The labels don’t matter; they are but diversions, illusions. We are ALL one infinite consciousness caught in a crazy computer game believing it to be real.
What do most Israelis, Arabs, Jews, Gentiles, Chinese, whoever, really want? They want peace and love and harmony in their lives. So let us grasp that together. It is what unites us, this desire for peace, love and freedom. It crosses the delusions of the religious and racial divide. Why should we go on allowing the crazies to deny it to us?
How do we change the world from hatred and war to peace and love?
We must be peaceful and loving and cease to cooperate with the forces of hatred and war.
They can only control us and dictate to us with our cooperation because they are the few and we are the many. We are the power on this planet if only we realised that and expressed it with a passion. The dark eyes and dark suits can only have power through divide and rule. They want us to fight among ourselves, only then can these pathetic people have their wicked way.
As Gandhi said: ‘We must be the change we want to see in the world.’
Truer words never spoken.
‘I’m ready, what about you?

{ Add a Comment }

The End of the Legends: a Review of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s new book ‘200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916″

[Editor’s Note: Solzhenitsyn’s book has not been published in English and will likely remain hidden from the west unless someone in Russia translates it and publishes it there and makes it available to western readers. This extensive review with excerpts based upon the German translation is of inestimable value in understanding the real history of the Russian (Bolshevik) Revolution. Please forward the url for this article to all you can.]
———
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s new book ‘200 Years Together: The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916″ is unlikely to be translated into English …
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html
The End of the Legends
By Wolfgang Strauss
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, ‘200 Jahre zusammen.’ Die russisch-jüdische Geschichte 1795-1916 (200 Years Together. The Russian-Jewish History 1795-1916), Herbig, Munich 2002, 560 pp., €34.90; ‘Zweihundert Jahre zusammen,’ Die Juden in der Sowjetunion (200 Years Together. The Jews in the Soviet Union), ibidem, 2003, 608 pp., €39.90.
It may be said without hesitation that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together: The Jews in the Soviet Union is one of the most important books on the Russian Revolution and the early Bolshevik period ever to appear. After publication of this work with its many revelations about the role of the Jews during the Leninist period, the history of the Bolshevik October putsch will have to be rewritten, if not completely, then with substantial additions.
The book title might have been even more appropriately called ‘The End of the Legends.’ For example, the legend that there ever existed an independent ‘Russian’ Social Democracy Party is questioned. Founded in Minsk in 1898, the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party (RSDWP) derived, with respect to personnel and organization, from the Allgemeine jüdische Arbeiterbund in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia. It might be said that the Jewish Arbeiterbund midwife service officiated at the birth of the Russian Social Democracy Party. Legends without number are examined.
Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, ‘Many more Jewish voices than Russian are heard in this book’. Jewish voices, not Russian, speak of Jewish dominance in the anti-monarchial movements in the period before the war. In an article entitled ‘The Jewish Revolution’ in the 10 December 1919 issue of the Neue Jüdischen Monatsheften, published in Berlin, was the sentence:
‘Regardless of how extremely the anti-Semites exaggerate it, and how so nervously the Jewish bourgeoisie deny it, the large Jewish contingent in today’s revolutionary movement stands fast.’
The writer, whom the publicist Sonia Margolina calls a ‘patriarch’ in the tradition of Dostoyevsky, the last Russian prophet, rejects decisively, almost passionately, all theses of collective guilt. The chronicler of the Gulag holds that neither the Russians nor the Jews can be held separately responsible for the emergence of the reign of terror. He characterizes the relationship between Russian and Jews as a ‘burning wedge.’ In his book he tries to see the wedge from both sides. In so doing, the legends dissolve.
Perhaps the most persistent legend, now dissolved, used to go like this: Long before the last Tsar left the throne, the old Russian Empire was in decline, the revolution was coming, the apocalypses of February and October 1917 could not have been prevented. They were determined as if by a world court. Only a legend, Solzhenitsyn says, and this chapter in his book, a noir-thriller, illuminates 18 September 1911 a day that heralded the approach of the Great Terror in that it dimmed the last opportunity to prevent it.
They had tried to assassinate Petr Stolypin eight times. Various terrorist groups had attempted to murder Stolypin and his family, but they had never succeeded in killing the man who had set governmental direction in the decade before the war nor in tarnishing his reputation and charisma. The ‘Russian Bismarck,’ as he was called, had, as an unassuming Christian and self-confident first servant of the Russian Empire, led his country into the modern age by introducing agrarian reforms and representative self-government that made individual enterprising farmers out of the backward villagers. The eighth attempt, however, on 18 September 1911 in the Kiev Opera, succeeded in ending the life of the great reformer who had served his country as minister president and minister of the internal affairs. Ninety years later Solzhenitsyn was to write:
‘The first Russian premier minister, who had honorably set the task of establishing equal rights for Jews and had even opposed the Tsar in attempting to realize it, was killed at the hands of a Jew. Was it an irony of history?’ (p. 431)
The assassin was Mordko Hershovich Bogrov, a university student, grandson of a liquor concessionaire and son of a millionaire. When he fired his Browning at Stolypin, Bogrov was 23 years old. Those shots brought the process of Russian reformation, including Stolypin’s measures to lift anti-Jewish restrictions, to a fateful end by their own hands. Among the grave consequences of 18 September was a radical change in world politics. Stolypin had opposed Russian foreign policy that had been hostile to Germany and friendly with France and Britain. Solzhenitsyn asserts that under Stolypin Russia would have never entered World War I. The ultimate beneficial consequence for the Russian people would have been that they would have been spared the February revolution, which was triggered by the defeats in the First World War. Whether Bogrov acted alone or as a member of the Bolshevik, Menshevik, or anarchist underground remains unknown. Solzhenitsyn provides no answer. But the Nobel Laureate does not doubt that Mordo Hershevich was an agent of the Okhrana, a spy in the pay of the Tsarist secret police. In August Nineteen-Fourteen, the first volume of The Red Wheel cycle, 233 pages are given over to the ‘Jewish Question’ by a partially documentary and partially literary presentation of Stolypin’s person and his reforms. There, too, is a characterization of the assassin and a psychogram of Bogrov’s motive:
‘Stolypin had done nothing directly against the Jews, he had even made their lives easier in some ways, but it did not come from the heart. To decide whether or not a man is an enemy of the Jews, you must look beneath the surface. Stolypin boosted Russian national interests too blatantly and too insistently, even provocatively about Russian international interests. […] the Russianness of the Duma as a representative body, the Russianness of the State. He was trying to build, not a country in which all were free, but a nationalist monarchy. So that the future of the Jews was not affected by his goodwill toward them. The development of the country along Stolypin’s lines promised no golden age for the Jews. Bogrov might or might not take part in revolutionary activity, might associate with the Maximalists, Anarcho-Communists, or with no one, might change his Party allegiance and change his character a hundred time over, but one thing was beyond all doubt: his exceptionally talented people must gain the fullest opportunity to develop unimpeded in Russia.’ (p. 592 in August-Fourteen)
Because of this passage, fifteen printed lines in all, Solzhenitsyn has been accused of anti-Semitism not by the Russians but in the American press. The unusually gifted people referred to in the passage are the Jewish people.

After the deadly shots of Kiev, the shots fired in Sarajevo three years later destroyed the peace of Europe. Kiev and Sarajevo belong together as turning points in the history of mankind. The depiction of Stolypin’s assassin belongs among the highpoints in Solzhenitsyn’s career, who to this point had evoked no positive echo in the (West) German media which regrettably was to be expected. In any case, the Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin reviews have become like a hotbed of hedonism that is the most inappropriate reception imaginable for ethical and aesthetic ascetics like Solzhenitsyn.
Gerd Koenen of the Welt newspaper (12 October 2002), who calls this great Russian a ‘moral overlord,’ believes it would be ‘an unreasonable intellectual demand’ to be forced to read his work. Nonetheless, Koenen attributes a ‘patriarchal sternness’ to the Russian in a tone that is not accusatory or virulent, but rather ‘deliberately conciliatory.’ That Sonia Margolina of all people, the daughter of a Jewish Trotskyite, of whom she remains proud today, that of all people, this nostalgic Red can accuse Solzhenitsyn’s enlightened spirit of ‘always looking backwards’ should be laughed at as a joke in a feuilleton world. Every truth lives within a time nucleus. The truth about the October Revolution in which the Bogrovs, Bronsteins, Mandelstams, Auerbachs, Rosenfelds, Brilliants, and Apfelbaums played an essential role, is being vomited up ten years after the end of the failed experiment of Communism.
The Dirty Revolution I
If it is true that it was neither the planned economy nor the absence of democracy that landed bolshevism in the dustbin of history, then the question of just when the downfall set in and what caused it must be answered. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, deemed the greatest conservative writer of our times by many, cites 1918 as the date Red Terror was born.
A terrorist named Apfelbaum proclaimed the mass death sentence:
‘The bourgeoisie can kill some individuals, but we can murder whole classes of people.’
In that year the non-communist intelligentsia saw Medusa’s head. Apfelbaum, who entered the history books as Zinovev, wanted to send ten million Russians (ten out of each one hundred) to the smoldering ovens of the class war. German historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte states that this pronouncement of 17 September 1918 sounds almost unbelievable in its monstrosity; Apfelbaum formulated this holocaust sentence:
‘From the population of a hundred million in Soviet Russia, we must win over ninety million to our side. We have nothing to say to the others. They have to be exterminated.’
In this, his latest book, Solzhenitsyn writes of the ‘dushiteli Rossii’ (stranglers of Russia,) the ‘palachi grasnoy revolyutsii’ (hangmen of the dirty revolution.) Who does he mean exactly? On page 89 he writes, ‘Bol’sheviki yevrey’ the ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’ In another place he uses the term ‘Bol’shevististkiye Juden’ (Bolshevistic Jews). Superordinate to these is the key expression ‘Yevreyskiy vopros’ (the Jewish Question). After 1918 the Communist censors in no way forbade this expression, even with regard to Jew Bolsheviks the Jewish question was not a taboo. On the contrary, the Jewish question became the central theme of the Party ideology, which had become a secular religion. Lenin himself set the example in 1924 with his famous instructive paper ‘On the Jewish Question in Russia,’ published in the Moscow Proletariat Publishing House (cited by Solzhenitsyn on page 79).
Given the factual revelations in this book, the history of the 20th Century ought to be revised, especially that of the Soviet Union with particular reference to the collapse of the great ideological fronts in the pre-revisionist period. What is new in this work is Solzhenitsyn’s graphic depiction of a phenomenon about which the (West) German historians’ establishment has kept absolutely mute about, namely, that the historically unprecedented cruelty exercised in the seizure of power, the Russian Civil War, and wartime (WWII) had a clearly defined ideological and anthropological source. As mentioned above, the codeword Solzhenitsyn uses is ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’
‘Before the October Revolution, Bolshevism was not the numerically strongest movement among the Jews.’ (p. 73)
Solzhenitsyn recalls that immediately before the Revolution, the Bolshevistic Jews Trotsky and Kamenev concluded a military alliance with three Jewish social revolutionaries Natanson, Steinberg, and Kamkov. What Solzhenitsyn is saying is that Lenin’s military putsch, from the purely military point of view, relied on a Jewish network. The collaboration between Trotsky and his coreligionists in the Left Social Revolutionary parties assured Lenin’s success in the Palace revolt of October 1917. As crown witness, Solzhenitsyn cites the Israeli historian Aron Abramovitch who in 1982 in Tel Aviv wrote:
‘In October 1917 the Jewish contingent of soldiers played a decisive role in the preparation and execution of the armed Bolshevik uprising in Petrograd and other cities as well as in the following battles in the course of suppressing rebellions against the new Soviet power.’
The famed Latvian Rifle Regiment of the 12th Army, Lenin’s praetorian guard, had a Jewish commissar, Nachimson, in charge.
There are crimes that the descendents of the victims cannot bear. Those are crimes that break through the last protective wall, crimes like the psychocide of a civilized people. Most educated Russians sensed in October the emergence of a destructive reordering principle. ‘October’ became synonymous with a deadly threat to their existence. In 1924 the Jewish historian, Pasmanik, wrote:
‘The emergence of Bolshevism was the result of special aspects of Russian history. However, Soviet Russia can thank the work of the Jewish commissars for the organization of Bolshevism.’
Solzhenitsyn cites this key passage on page 80 in which the word ‘organization’ is in quotes in the book text.
The large number of eyewitness reports from the early period of Soviet rule is astounding. In the Council of People’s Commissars, the writer Nashivin simply notes: ‘Jews, Jews, Jews.’ Nashivin avers that he was never an anti-Semite, but ‘the mass of Jews in the Kremlin literally knocks your eyes out.’ In 1919 the famous writer Vladimir Korolenko, who was close to the Social Democrats and who had protested against the pogroms in Tsarist Russia, made the following entry in his diary:
‘There are many Jews and Jewesses among the Bolsheviks. Their main characteristics self-righteousness, aggressive tactlessness and presumptive arrogance are painfully evident. Bolshevism is found contemptible in the Ukraine. The preponderance of Jewish physiognomies, especially in the Cheka, evokes an extremely virulent hatred of Jews among the people.’
Chapter 15 of Solzhenitsyn’s book opens with the words:
‘Jews among the Bolsheviks is nothing new. Much has already been written about it.’
This for Solzhenitsyn is further support for his cardinal thesis, namely, that Bolshevik Jews were the indispensable power brokers in the victory of Bolshevism, in the Russian Civil War, and in the early Soviet Regime.
Alexander Solzhenitzyn:
‘Whoever holds the opinion that the revolution was not a Russian, but an alien-led revolution points to the Yiddish family names or pseudonyms to exonerate the Russian people for the revolution. On the other hand, those who try to minimize the over-proportional representation of Jews in the Bolshevik seizure of power may sometimes claim that they were not religious Jews, but rather, apostates, renegades, and atheists.’
According to rabbinical law, whoever was born of a Jewish mother is a Jew. Orthodox Judaism requires more, i.e., recognition of the Hebraic Halacha scriptural laws and the observance of the religious laws of the Mishna, which form the basis of the Talmud. Solzhenitsyn then asks:
‘How strong were the influence, power, fascination, and adherence of secular Jews among the religious Jews and how many atheists were active among the Bolsheviks? Can a people really just renounce its renegades? Does such a renunciation make any sense?’
Solzhenitsyns’s attempt to answer these questions on the basis of historical facts concentrates on several factors, namely, the behavior of Orthodox Jews after October, the relative numbers of Bolshevik Jews before and after October, the ascendence of Bolshevistic Jews in the cadres of the Red Army and the Cheka, Lenin’s Jewish strategy, and finally, Lenin’s own heritage.
‘The Bolsheviks appealed to the Jews immediately after the seizure of power. And they came; they came in masses. Some served in the executive branch, others in the various governmental organs. They came primarily from among secular young Jews who in no way could be classified as atheists or even as enemies of God. This phenomenon bore a mass character.’ (p. 79)
By the end of 1917 Lenin had not yet left Smolny, when a Jewish Commissariat for Nationality Questions was already at work in Petrograd. In March 1919 the VIII Party Congress of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) undertook to establish a ‘Jewish Soviet Russian Communist Bund.’
In this matter Solzhenitsyn again relies on Jewish historians. Leonard Schapiro, living in London in 1961, wrote:
‘Thousands of Jews streamed to the Bolsheviks whom they saw as the protectors of the international revolution.’
M. Chaifetz also commented on the Jewish support of Bolshevism:
‘For a Jew, who came neither from among the aristocrats nor the clergy, Bolshevism represented a successful and promising new prospect to belong to a new clan.’
The Chaifetz article appeared in 1980 in an Israeli journal for the Jewish intelligentsia arriving from the USSR.
The influx of Jewish youths into the Bolshevik Party at first was a consequence of the pogroms in the territory held by the White Army in 1919, argues a certain Schub. Solzhenitsyn rejects Schub’s argument as a myth:
‘Schub’s argument is not valid because the massive entry of Jews into the Soviet apparatus occurred as early as 1917 and throughout all of 1918. Unquestionably, the Civil War situation in 1919 did hasten the amalgamation of Jewish cadres with the Bolsheviks.’ (p. 80)
Solzhenitsyn traces the rise in Judeophobia, among other things, back to the brutal Bolshevistic suppression of peasant and citizen uprisings, the slaughter of priests and bishops, especially the village clergy, and finally, the extermination of the nobility, culminating in the murder of the Tsar and his family.
During the decisive years of the Civil War (1918-1920) the secret police (Cheka) was controlled by Bolshevistic Jews. The commandants of the various prisons were usually from Poland or Latvia.
Exclusively Jews occupied the Party, Army, and Cheka command positions in Odessa. Jews constituted the majority in the Presidium of the Petrograd City Soviet. Lazar Kaganovich directed the Civil War terror in Nizhny Novgorod, while Rosalia Salkind-Semlyachka commanded the mass executions by firing squads in the Kremlin. In 1920 the farming areas of West Siberia were turned into a Vendée when grain-commissar Indenbaum through his confiscation campaigns caused mass starvation. During the winter in the steppes, rebellious farmers were forced to dig their own graves. The Chekists doused the naked bodies with water; those that tried to flee were machine-gunned. The peasant uprising in Tyumen entered the history books as the ‘Iskhimski Rebellion’.
By virtue of the sheer numbers liquidated and the radicalism and motivation of the perpetrators, the mass executions of Russian Orthodox priests assumed a genocidal character. The intellectual elite of Eastern Christendom in Russia was literally slaughtered. Lenin provided the impetus. On 27 July 1918, shortly after the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Soviet government ordered the liquidation of all pogromists; every priest was by law considered to be a pogromist. As Lunacharsky recalls, Lenin composed the text of the law by his own hand, and Lenin ordered that the clergy could be executed (vne zakona) outside the law and the courts. That meant, Solzhenitsyn comments, they could simply be shot out of hand.
It was Lenin, not Stalin, who on 17 July 1918 let loose the demons (p. 15). It was the Party, Army, and Cheka apparatus under Lenin’s command during the early Bolshevik period that characterized the ideology of crimes against humanity. (Ernst Nolte writes about ‘an ideological extermination postulate.’) ‘The key to the decision was in Lenin’s hands,’ Solzhenitsyn asserts in his chapter on Bartholomew’s Night in Yekaterinburg. Lenin exhibited neither doubt nor compromise in this matter. ‘He had no reservations about exterminations.’ To destroy and exterminate was his intent.
For this destruction and extermination, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinski, and Trotsky were his most powerful allies. None of them was Russian. Lenin’s executioners in Yekaterinburg and the Ural governments were not Russians. The bloody careers of Goloshekin and Beloborodov, the Party terrorists and Ural mafia killers, are described on pp. 90-91. Yankel Yurovsky, who boasted ‘it was my revolver that knocked off Nicholas on the spot,’ certainly was not a Russian. In 1936 Stalin’s Chekists executed Beloborodov in Lubyanka, whether as a Jew, a cosmopolitan, or as an enemy of Stalin’s Russification policies. Goloshekin met death in the Fall of 1941 as German tanks approached Moscow.
Is Russia a land of criminal perpetrators? Solzhenitsyn denies it as strongly as he rejects the concept of collective guilt in general, and the rejection pertains to both the Large People (the Russians) as well as the Small People (the Jews). And who were the victims? The overwhelming majority were Russians. Those shot in cellars, those burnt to death in the cloisters, those drowned in river boats, those hanged in the forest; officers, peasants, aristocrats, proletariats, the anti-anti-Semitic bourgeois intellectuals Russians mostly, but others as well. The ‘hangmen of the Revolution,’ the crimes they try to justify with internationalism, transformed their ‘dirty revolution’ into what Solzhenitsyn calls an ‘antislav’ revolution. No, the Nobel Laureate Solzhenitsyn emphasizes, the Cheka-Lubyanka-Gulag holocaustic perpetrators could not possibly be a Slavic people (p. 93)
On page 233 of Nolte’s Der Kausale Nexus is an early confirmation of Solzhenitsyn’s theses. The German historian is convinced that the term ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ is not simply an invention made for crude political purposes, but that it is historically well-founded and not to be expunged from history ‘regardless of how terrible the National Socialist consequences were’. Nolte draws a parallel to the other contrary, ideological postulate:
‘Only when it has not been excluded and made a taboo beforehand can ‘Auschwitz’ escape the danger that now threatens it, namely, that by being isolated from ‘Gulag’ and the conflict between the two ideologically driven States (Germany and the Soviet Union) it becomes not a lie, but a myth that contradicts history.’
Is Solzhenitsyn the first historian to examine the dark year of 1918 scientifically? About a decade ago, the Russian Jewess Sonya Margolina, daughter of a Bolshevik of the Lenin-Stalin era, wrote about the crimes committed by the Bolsheviks and the part the Jews played in them. The horrors of the Revolution and the Civil War are ‘closely bound to the image of the Jewish commissar,’ she writes in Das Ende der Lügen (The End of the Lies), published in 1992 by Siedler Publishers in Berlin. Her book bore the shocking subtitle The Russian Jews Perpetrators and Victims at the Same Time. Sentences appear in the chapter ‘Jews and Soviet Power’ whose validity Solzhenitsyn now confirms. ‘In the first years after the revolution the Bolsheviks and the Jews at their side ruled Russia with the cold sweat of fear on their brows,’ Margolina writes. One thing remained very clear in the minds of the actors: if the red hangman’s rope around the neck of the people were ever to be loosened, ‘the Jewish Bolsheviks would be the first candidates for the scaffold.’
Where was God in Lubyanka? In Kolyma? On the White Sea Canal project? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in the sense of one of Dostoyevsky’s God-seekers a homo religious, does not even ask that question. He wants to know, as does Margolina, why Russia’s Jews were both the perpetrators and victims alike during the Bolshevik century? At the onset of the third millennium this 84-year old the public conscience of Russian culture understands the first precept of historical revisionism in a Russia unsullied with political correctness, namely, he who breaks through the fire wall surrounding the ‘Jewish question’ is sovereign.
The Dirty Revolution II
‘Everyone was listening intently to determine if the Germans were already on the way.’
In June and July of 1941 those living in the regions of eastern Poland occupied by the Red Army Polish farmers, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, ex-soldiers, and intellectuals all awaited the invasion of German troops. This quote is from the Polish Jewish historian J. Gross, author of the book Neighbors: The Murder of the Jews of Jedwabne. Solzhenitsyn explains why Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Belorussians, Bukowina-, and Moldava-Romanians could hardly wait for the Germans to invade.
Pursuant to his central thesis, Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin’s newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921. Solzhenitsyn examines specific decisive questions, as for example: Why, in the period 1939-41, did such a large percentage of Jewry in eastern Poland, Galicia, and in the Baltic States collaborate with the Red Army, Stalin’s secret police, and Bolshevism in general? And why did the pogroms in these regions take place under the slogan ‘Revenge for the Soviet Occupation’? Solzhenitsyn:
‘In eastern Poland, which had been incorporated in the Soviet Union in September 1939, the Jews, especially the younger generation, welcomed the invading Red Army with frenetic jubilation. Whether in Poland, Bessarabia, Lithuania, or Bukowina, the Jews were the main support of Soviet power. The newspapers report that the Jews are enthusiastically supporting the establishment of Communist rule.’ (p. 329)
In that fateful year a Polish Jew who had emigrated to France prophesized that the non-Jews who had been subjugated to Bolshevism would one day exact a fearful war of vengeance. In 1939 Stanislav Ivanowich, a left socialist sympathetic to the Soviet Union, warned:
‘Should the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks end one day, the collapse will be accompanied by the atavistic, barbaric passions of Jew hate and violence. The collapse of Soviet power would be a terrible catastrophe for Jewry; today Soviet rule equates to Judeophilia.’ (p. 310)
Shoot Anti-Semites on the Spot
And as for the next aspect examined, why was it that in 1918 the victorious Russian worker class supported, not just an underground, but also an openly aggressive even Party-based broad anti-Semitism taking the form of Jew-hatred?
Although on 27 July 1918 Lenin had issued an ukase ordering that any active anti-Semite could be shot without going through any court procedures, a new, extremely militant form of anti-Semitism, which had even gained influence in governmental layers of the monopoly Party, was rife in the mid-twenties.
‘This wave of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ included the cultural cadres and educational inspectors of the Russian worker class and reached into the Komsomol and the Party’. (p. 200f.)
To explain the reasons for this, Solzhenitsyn cites extensively and without commentary from the newspapers of the day. According to the newspapers, the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ had captured and occupied the Soviet State; they were in the top ranks of the Red Army. Soviet power had been converted into Jewish power, and the Jews pursued Jewish, not Russian goals. (p. 201)
In 1922 exiled Social Revolutionaries E. Kuskova and S. Maslov, both Jews, reported:
‘Judeophobia has spread throughout present-day Russia. It has even spread to areas in which previously no Jews had even lived and where there was never a Jewish Question. […] Bolshevism today is without any doubt identified with Jewish rule.’
Or colloquially expressed:
‘Aron Moiseyevich Tankelwich today walks in the place of Ivan Ivanov.’
Kuskova and Maslov reported further:
‘New slogans have appeared on the walls of the high schools ‘Smash the Jews, Save the Soviets’; ‘Beat the Jews Up, Save the Councils’’.
In other words, the revolutionary jargon of that day wanted to keep the Soviets and the Soviet rule, but without Jews.
‘‘Smash the Jews’ was not the slogan of the Black Hundreds from the pogroms of Tsarist times, but the battle cry of young Russian communards five years after the Great October.’ (p. 229)
On the eve of the XII Party Day 1923, the Politburo consisted of three Jews and three non-Jews. The ratio in the Komsomol Presidium was three to four. In the XI Party Day, ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ constituted 26% of the Central Committee membership. Because of this foreign invasion and anti-Slavic trends, prominent Russian Leninists decided upon an ‘anti-Jewish rebellion.’
May 1924
Shortly before the opening of the XIII Party Day, veteran Russian revolutionaries Frunze, Nogin, and Troyanovsky called for the expulsion of the ‘Jewish leaders’ from the Politburo. The opponents of the purge reacted quickly. In no time, Nogin died after an operation on his esophagus, after which Frunze went under the knife. (p. 207)
In Solzhenitsyn’s opinion, the main reason for this outbreak of new anti-Semitism is to be found in the hostility towards Russians inherent in the extreme Jewish internationalism. Unlike the Jewish intelligentsia who greeted the revolution of 1918 with great passion, the Russian proletariat was not fascinated by the idea of a Russian-led internationalism. After 1918 the Jews spoke consistently of ‘their country.’ (p. 218)
To support his thesis Solzhenitsyn cites Party ideologue Nikolai Bukharin, who was executed after the last Moscow show trial. At the Leningrad Party Conference in early 1927 Bukharin had criticized the ‘capitalistic’ nature of the Jewish mid-level bourgeoisie who had come to power and had taken the place of the Russian bourgeoisie in the main cities of the USSR (p. 209), and ‘whom we, comrades, must sharply condemn.’ Former chief Bolshevik theorist Bukharin concluded by saying that the Jews themselves were responsible for the new anti-Semitism.
It was part of Stalin’s tactical game not just to tolerate Jews in his own entourage, but also deliberately to place them in leading positions so that later he would have plausible grounds for turning them over to the executioner on grievous charges. Such was the case in the murderous collectivization program in 1928-1933 to which the names of prominent ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ were attached. Stalin was well aware of the hate city Jews had for everything related to the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry. They spread terror, killing the peasants and destroying the villages, eventually causing the famine that took the lives of at least six million Ukrainians. The Jewish commissars in charge of the anti-kulak program, which was tantamount to genocide, were literally the masters over life and death.
In 1936, after the slaughter of the peasantry ‘at the hands of the Bolshevik Jews,’ the death bell began to toll for those who had been responsible for the carnage. For the first time in a Russian historical work, their names are listed: Ya. Yakovlev-Epstein, M. Kolmanovich, G. Roschal, V. Feygin. (p. 285) The books covering the crimes in the first twenty years after Lenin seized power fill many meters of shelf space. With this one Solzhenitsyn volume, the subsequent reckoning with the Slavic peasant holocaust has only begun.
Bread and Knowledge, Stomach and Brain
There were also reasons for the outburst of proletariat anti-Semitism in two other sensitive areas. The Russian working class young people were getting nowhere in their quest for advancement on the educational front. In 1926, 26% of university students were Jews who had enjoyed a bourgeois background. (p. 202). Mostly Jews, between 30 and 50%, occupied the main positions in the domestic and foreign trade commissariats. Their empire included rural and urban store chains, restaurants, business canteens, prison and barracks galleys, cooperatives, and consumer goods production. Management of the Gosplan (State Plan) and the five-year plans was exercised by Rosenholz, Rukhimovich, Epstein, Frumkin, and Selemki; they controlled the nation’s food supply. In 1936 they themselves became fodder for the execution chambers in Lubyanka.
Despite the enormous bloodletting in 1936-37, millions of Jews still served the Stalinist regime with cadaver-like loyalty; they remained enthusiastic, unshakable, almost blind defenders of the cause of Socialism. Solzhenitsyn writes:
‘Cadaver-like obedience in the GPU, the Red Army, the diplomatic service, and on the ideological front. The passionate participation of young Jews in these branches was in no way dampened by the bloody events of 1936-38.’ (p. 281)
The world spirit, Hegel says, assists the lowest creatures to realize its impenetrable intentions. In the realization of the socialist experiment the world spirit did not just serve the lower creatures. Nikolai Ostrovsky, crippled and blind, wrote his autobiographical novel How the Steel Was Hardened as an idealist. Others belonged among the lowest creatures, and Solzhenitsyn enumerates them in the chapters concerning the secret police. (In the book reviews published in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel and the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, these bloody chapters were ignored.)
Gassing Trucks and Poison Chairs
From the very beginning the secret police was under the control of the ‘Bolshevik Jews.’ Solzhenitsyn revealed their names in the most interesting chapter of his book called The Nineteen Twenties. They are the biographies of the mass murderers at their desks in the Cheka, the OGPU, and the GPU. But they were not just sitting at their desks. Uritzki, Unschlicht, Katznelson, Bermann, Agranov, Spiegelglas, Schwarz, Asbel, Chaifetz, Pauker, Maier, Yagoda, personally participated in the tortures, hangings, crucifixions, and incinerations. Dzerzhinski, the founder of the Cheka, had three deputies from this guard of iron Bolsheviks Gerson, Luszki, and Yagoda. An elite of Bolshevik Jews! Years later, when the Gulag Archipelago was being expanded, they were again to be found in the front line of executioners. Israel Pliner was the slave master of the Moscow-Volga-Canal; Lazar Kogan, Zinovey Katznelson, and Boris Bermann directed the forced labor genocide at the White Sea Canal project. The Great Purge became their graveyard.
Solzhenitsyn comments: (p. 293)
‘One cannot deny that history elected very many Jews to be the executors of Russia’s fate.’
Commissioned by the NKVD, the Jewish designer of execution systems, Grigori Mayranovsky, invented the gas chair. When, in 1951, Mayranovsky, as the former head of the NKVD Laboratory Institute, was himself incarcerated, he wrote to Beria:
‘Please do not forget that by my hand hundreds of enemy-pigs of the Soviet State found their deserved end.’
The mobile gassing truck was invented and tested by Isay Davidovich Berg, head of the NKVD Economics Division in the Moscow region. In 1937, a second highpoint in the Great Purge, prisoners were sentenced to death in conveyor-belt fashion, packed into trucks, taken to the places of execution, shot in the back of the neck, and buried. In the economic sense, Isay Berg found this method of liquidation inefficient, time-consuming and cost-intensive. He, therefore, in 1937 designed the mobile asphyxiation chamber, the gassing truck (Russian: dushegubka, p. 297). The doomed were loaded into a tightly sealed, completely airtight Russian Ford; during the drive the deadly exhaust from a gasoline engine was directed into the section containing those sentenced to death. Upon reaching the mass gravesite, the truck dumped the corpses into the burial ditch.
The Dirty Revolution III
History sheds blood. The history of Bolshevism shed the blood of at least sixty-six million, according to the calculations of statistician Prof. I. A. Kurganov, cited by Solzhenitsyn in his Novy Mir essay ‘The Russian Question at the End of the Century,’ Moscow 1994. The crimes against humanity of the Bolshevik genocide up to 1937, i.e., in the first twenty years of the permanent terror, amounted to twenty million victims. In his scientific probing, Solzhenitsyn does not ignore the morally imperfect; he does not fail to connect the uniqueness of the Bolshevik holocaust with the exorcistic destructive hate of a particular ethnic-religious group in old Russia. This may well be the reason why this second volume of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together has been given the silent treatment or has been distorted, not in Putin’s Russia, but rather in Germany’s establishment media. (An honest translation of this work by Solzhenitsyn would constitute a major contribution to historiography.)
Schirrmacher and Holm: Refuted
The motives and obsessions of the left-oriented intellectual class recall the Cambridge Spy case (Philby, Maclean, Blunt, Burgess). Specifically, in the BBC sentimentalized story, in which one of the decadents proclaims:
‘To fight Fascism, you have to be a Communist.’
German reviews concerning the crimes of the Soviet secret police state sympathetically that in the final analysis at least the Jews in the GPU, NKVD, and KGB were fighting against Hitler. ‘Russians and Jews fought together against Hitler,’ Ms. Holm writes in the Schirrmacher review. (Many reviews read like news reports from the Soviet Union!) In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 29 January 2003, she writes:
‘After the October Revolution, the author explains, the high Jewish presence in the young Soviet state was found acting with great innovative agitation and drive in fields of State service, among the people’s commissars, and in the top ranks of the Army.’
That, however, is not Solzhenitsyn’s interpretation! On the basis of document analysis, Solzhenitsyn states that Lenin had three reasons for elevating young secular, revolutionary-minded Jews to the State’s elite, in effect replacing the Tsarist bureaucracy. First, because of the deadly hate the young Jews had for Russian traditions, religious rites, historical models, hate for everything Russian and Russia itself. Second, their willingness to cross the last taboo borders in morality. And third, their readiness to physically liquidate the enemy.
‘Mixed Blood Mestizo’
Lenin, the internationalist, was no friend of Jews who were Zionists. In 1903 he expressed the opinion that there was no such thing as a Jewish nationality; the concept was a monstrous invention of a moribund capitalism. Stalin, along the same lines, considered Jewry a ‘paper nation’ that would over time ‘disappear in an inevitable assimilation.’
For Solzhenitsyn, Lenin himself was ‘a mixed blood mestizo.’ (p. 76) A grandfather on his father’s side was an Asian Kalmuck; the other grandfather, Israel Blank, was a Jew from Volhynia, who after converting to the Russian Orthodox Church took the first name of Alexander. His grandmother on his father’s side, Anna Johanna, had German and Swedish blood; her maiden name was Grossschopf. Solzhenitsyn:
‘Initially Russians did not consider Lenin to be an enemy of the Russian people, although at certain times his behavior became anti-Russian. Many Russians considered him a product of another race. Despite that, we as Russians cannot completely renounce Lenin.’ (p. 76)
A Bestseller in Russia
In a Russia free of literature-policing Solzhenitsyn’s book of historical revelations has achieved the status of bestseller. The first hundred thousand edition of the second volume was sold out shortly after it appeared. Solzhenitsyn’s expression ‘a century of crimes’ has become widely used among writers. Crimes with consequences to the 22nd century, because ‘never before had Russia stood so close to the historical abyss, separating her from the void,’ the poetess Natalia Ayrapetrova writes in Literaturnaya gazeta (22 January 2002). Solzhenitsyn has set an avalanche loose. A new book, The Enemy Within. Genealogy of Evil (576 pp., Feri Publishers, Moscow), by the historian Nikolai Ostrovski has just appeared. Ostrovski became famous for his Holy Slaves and Temple of the Chimeras, discourses critical of Judaism that do not permit the author to be banished to the dead end of conspiracy theories.
In contrast to the general Russian acceptance of Solzhenitsyn’s second volume, the German-language edition has been met with silence and misrepresentation, and in most cases with a touch of Russophobia. Der Spiegel (7/2003) provided an interpretation that contradicted the facts. For example, Der Spiegel’s reviewer wrote that under Stalin many Jews were alienated from Soviet power and that there was a reduction in the number of Jewish ‘collaborators’ in the Party and the secret police.
An interpretation of a critical chapter in Solzhenitsyn’s book vacillates between trivialization and obfuscation. Spiegel uses the word ‘collaborators’ instead of accomplices in the various phases of Stalin’s rise. In the mid nineteen twenties until the mid thirties the Jewish component in the leadership functions of the Party and State apparatus in the Ukraine amounted to 22.6% (in the capital Kharkov it was 30%), in Belorussia it was 30.6% (in the capital Minsk it was almost 40%) and in Moscow city it was about 12%. Six and a half times more Jews occupied cadre positions in the Soviet ruling class than existed in the total Jewish population, which was 1.82% in 1926.
‘The greatest influx of Jews to Soviet government offices took place in the cities and metropolitan areas of the Soviet Republics,’
Solzhenitsyn observes (p. 199), and it is characteristic of Der Spiegel’s and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’s lack of objectivity and philosemitism that they deny their German readers the most important data and numerical comparisons given in Chapter 18.
Even in the purge year of 1936 one still sees a disproportionately high representation in the ‘People’s Commissariat of Jews:’ Litvinov-Finkelstein, Yagoda, Rosenholz, Weizer, Kalmanovich, Kaganovich. In the same government Sozhenitsyn observes whole groups of people’s commissars (ministers) with the names Solz, Gamarnik, Gurevich, and Ginzburg. These are only a few of the hundreds. A predominance of ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ is noted in the cultural fields, the brainwashing section, and the news-speak department. In the nineteen twenties the Jewish internationalists purged the history books. Radical ideological reeducation by race haters like Goykhbarg, Larin, Radek, and Rotstein began by deleting and forbidding such concepts as ‘Russian history’ and ‘Great Russian,’ putting them on the black list of counter-revolutionary terminology. In the Moscow Party press Jewish writers advocated blowing-up the Minin-Posharsky Monument on Red Square (p. 275).
But to come back to the left-oriented German media: The spirited derussification program conducted by the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ during the nineteen twenties is not mentioned at all, neither by Uwe Klussmann nor by Kerstin Holm. Nor do the terms Cheka and GPU appear in the German reviews.
The Cheka the bulldozer locomotive of State terror, the bulldozer for sixty-six million corpses, and the gas turbine for the Bolshevik holocaust does not exist in Schirrmacher’s daily newspaper and Augstein’s successor Holm, chief editor of Der Spiegel, as a shorthand symbol for death. Is it simply the rejection of the truth, or shame, or fear of exposure because many liberal humanists have so long stood beside Stalinist humanism? In any case, ethical and physical degenerates do use the word when it is buried in history as a unique chapter on the Cheka/GPU under the laurels of the anti-Hitler war.
Name Lists Betray Everything
Solzhenitsyn lists the names of about fifty mass murderers, desk criminals, and murderers of prisoners. (p. 300f.) Their first names betray the ethnic origin of these monsters. Moise Framing, Mordichai Chorus, Josef Khodorovsky, Isaak Solz, Naum Zorkin, Moise Kalmanovich, Samuel Agurski, Lazar Aronstam, Israel Weizer, Aron Weinstein, Isaak Grindberg, Sholom Dvoylazki, Max Daitsh, Yesif Dreiser, Samuel Saks, Jona Jakir, Moise Kharitonov, Frid Markus, Solomon Kruglikov, Israel Razgon, Benjamin Sverdlov, Leo Kritzman…
‘Here and now we are making an end to synagogues forever,’ the new foreign minister Molotov is reported to have said in the Spring of 1939 as he undertook to purge his own ministry. (Litvinov-Finkelstein took revenge in 1943 when he gave Roosevelt a personal secret list of Stalin’s pogroms.) In comparison with the foreign ministry, the official pogrom in the ministry of internal affairs was much more dramatic. Between 1 January 1935 and 1 January 1938, Jewish dominance in the ministry of internal affairs fell from about 50% of ministry members to about 6%. Solzhenitsyn writes:
‘The rulers over the fate of the Russian people believed that they were irreplaceable and invulnerable. All the more terrible for them when the blow fell. They had to face the collapse of their world and their view of the world.’
Also in this section Solzhenitsyn reveals the names of the butchers who once bossed the secret police. They once headed the Lubyanka, now they themselves ended in the corridors of Lubyanka: pistol-flaunting Matvey Berman, Josef Blatt, Abraham Belenki, Isaak Shapiro, Serge Shpigelglas, Israel Leblevski, Pinkus Simanovski, Abraham Slutski, Benjamin Gerson, Zinovi Katsnelson, Natan Margolin an almost endless list of ‘Jew Bolsheviks.’ These names are not mentioned in Germany, the ‘land of the perpetrators.’ Salpeter, Seligmann, Kagan, Rappoport, Fridland, Rayski-Lakhman, Yoselevich, Faylovich… prominent names in Stalin’s list for execution after 1936. The Jewish Menshevik, S. Shvarts, who emigrated to the United States, noted in 1966 in a documentation of the American Jewish Worker Committee:
‘The purges resulted in the physical disappearance of almost all Jewish Communists who had played an important role in the USSR.’. (p. 327)
Hebrew or Yiddish
The early Stalin believed in the eventual assimilation of the Jews under the dogmas of the ‘proletarian revolution.’ Innately opposed to this, most of the Jewish Bolsheviks fiercely rejected assimilation, i.e., their disappearance as a special ethnic group in Socialism (by assimilation they understood a mortally feared Russification). From the beginning these Jews fought in the Jewish Commissariat (Yevkom) and the Jewish Section within the Russian Communist Party (Yevsek) for the ‘preservation of the Jewish people’ in the Socialist state, and even for the creation of a ‘Jewish Soviet Nation in the USSR.’ The historical recreation of these events is a service of Solzhenitsyn. Naturally it found no mention in the German book reviews.
The promotion of Yiddish as a State language was a way of establishing the Jewish Soviet Nation; it was recognized by law for the first time in Belorus in 1920.That recognition meant not only a ‘no’ to Zionism, but also to the expansion of New Hebrew (Ivrit). In the early 1920s Ivrit was officially forbidden, while Yiddish was recognized as a ‘Language of Soviet Proletariat Culture.’ (p. 255). Marc Chagall and Ed Lisizki were considered in the vanguard of a Yiddish-Communist culture the New Man from Vitebsk.
A political setback came at the end of the twenties when Yevkom and Yevsek were abolished. The younger generation of Soviet Jews accepted this without protest, Solzhenitsyn reports. Without protest, without rebellion, and without a ‘Kronstadt.’ The abandonment of Yiddish occurred with the triumph of an international atheism, and internationalism without nationalities, without national identities, but with one single exception: ‘The Soviet People!’ An artificial construct, sacrificed to the hecatombs of proletariat blood, the blood of Slavs, Balts, Moslems, and Caucasians; the Soviet people, a drawing-board product, a Frankenstein monster, was created in Gulagism, whose existence without the enforcers from the ranks of the ‘Jew Bolsheviks’ would not be conceivable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn documents this on almost 600 pages of text. When near the end of the war Stalin ordered the liquidation of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and proceeded to murder their intellectual leaders, as well as programming the end of Yiddish as a separate culture, the Bolshevik solution of the old Russian ‘Jewish Question’ came to a bizarre conclusion, i.e., on the ramps to the Gulag.
Final Comments
‘Our history is one of tragedies and catastrophes,’ writes Svetlana Alekseyevicha thirteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago appeared in the West thirty years ago. The Main Directorate of Camps (Glawnoje Uprawlenije Lagerei = GULag), which lasted for half a century, was one of the saddest catastrophes in the two thousand year history of Russia. Looking back today, one can say with good reason that Solzhenitsyn’s reportage on the bloodiest crimes against humanity in modern times belongs among the spiritual turning points that represented the beginning of the end of the Red Imperium.
Solzhenitsyn’s chronicle from hell prompts the question of why today the historical reality of the Gulag is much less widely and passionately remembered than is the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism. There can be no rational answer to this. The reproach is that a work like the Gulag Archipelago exceeds the powers of imagination and that based on the laws of classical aesthetics it ought not to be produced at all because it inundates the reader with unrelieved pictures of disgust and revulsion. But then, by the same logic, a play like Macbeth might also be considered too off-putting. In his third volume Solzhenitsyn depicts the slaughter of five thousand women and children in the Kingir slave labor camp in June 1954 (only thirteen years after Babi Yar).
The opinion that the Gulag, unlike the killing of the Jews, has yet to find a Hollywood director of the caliber of Steven Spielberg to film it, is negated by the fact that Russia, herself, has highly talented, even brilliant film producers, dramaturges, and screenplay writers whose work can easily stand comparison with that in the West. The showing of the play I Will Repay by Serge Kuznetsov in the Maly Theater in Moscow, for example, always plays to a full house standing room only for months on end! The play recreates the last tragic moments of the Tsar’s family. For Russia’s Orthodox, but also for Russian revisionist historians, 16 July 1918 was the ultimate ejaculation of Gulag thinking. The role of the Bolshevik Jews is handled directly in this stage play as when Botkin, the Tsar’s physician, says to one of his guards:
‘The time will come when everyone will believe that the Jews were responsible for this and you will be the victims of the revenge.’
For the lyricist Stanislav Kunyayev, chief editor of the literary magazine Nash Sovremennik, the murder of the Romanovs was the product of ‘depraved intellects and a satanic will.’ Kunyayev is one of a group of seventy leading Russian intellectuals who have signed their names to a letter, in which they hold Communist Jews responsible for the murder of the Tsar, the Bolshevik putsch, and the mass murders that followed it. In the case of Kunyayev it is clear why the filming of the Gulag era would be unthinkable in a Western country for the time being. Or, to put it differently: Why the Jew Steven Spielberg shies away like Belshazzar from the handwriting on the wall. It is not just the sheer magnitude of the crimes that block Spielberg’s undertaking a film of the Gulag, it is much more the taboo question of the unspoken complicity of secularized Jews in a unique breach of civilized behavior that resulted in the execution chambers in Lefortovo, the stone quarries of the White Sea Canal project, and the gold mines of Kolyma.
In Germany, the land of the Adornos and Friedmans, the dreadful accusation of anti-Semitism is held in the ready for anyone who wants to use it at anytime; it is omnipresent and inexpensive, and packs a deadly explosive force socially and professionally. The left-liberal review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 26 June 2003 published an allegedly lost story of the Bolshevik writer, Isaak Babel, who was shot in January 1941 in a Bolshevik forced labor camp. The previously unknown story, Esfir’s Ring, aesthetically and morally without any reference to Russian literature, eulogizes the death of the Jewish secret policeman, Esfir Rubenblum, ‘Commissar of the Special Department of the Kiev Cheka,’ who died ‘a hero’s death in the struggle against enemies of the revolution.’ Original quotations of Isaak Babel were written a few years before the ‘hero’s death’ of the Civil War Chekist Babel.
This world-famous Bolshevik (the evaluation of Frank Schirrmacher, chief editor of the Frankfurter) confirms in one of his last contributions the Jewish leadership in the execution squads of the secret police in the Lenin period. Dr. Schirrmacher found no reason to go into Babel’s Chekist past. In Germany the deadly threat of the anti-Semitism shibboleth prevents an objective discussion of the anthropological roots of the theme Solzhenitsyn has illuminated.
On the occasion of his receiving the left-wing German Ludwig-Börne-Prize for outstanding performances in literature, the American-Jewish scholar George Steiner said in his thank-you speech:
‘In my opinion there can be no higher honor, no higher nobility, than to belong to a people who has never engaged in persecution. Since my childhood I have been proud not to have that arrogance. I belong to the highest race because it does not persecute others. We are the only ones; we never had the power to do so. Alleluia!’ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 May 2003)
Never persecuted others? Never held power?
‘The Jewish commissar with the leather jacket and Mauser pistol, often speaking broken Russian, is the typical image of revolutionary power.’
This statement comes from Sonya Margolina, who is proud to be ‘the daughter of a Jewish Bolshevik.’ Margolina today lives in Berlin. Her book Das Ende der Lügen: Rußland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert (Siedler, Berlin 1992), from which the above passage is cited, follows it with these words:
‘The tragedy of Jewry is that there was no political option to escape the vengeance for the historical sin of the Jews, namely, their enthusiastic cooperation with the Communist regime. The victory of the Soviet regime saved them for a while, but vengeance still lurked ahead.’
© Oct. 31/Nov. 7, 2002 / Jan. 30./31 2003/Sept. 17./30, 2003
————————————————————————
First published in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 7(3&4) (2003), pp. 451-460. Translated by Dan Michaels.
————————————————————————
Source: The Revisionist 2(3) (2004), pp. 342-351.

{ Add a Comment }

Comments on Ezra Levant’s article ‘What can be done?’ by Radical Publisher Arthur Topham

What can be done?
By Ezra Levant on January 16, 2008 7:29 PM
Comments on Ezra Levant’s article by
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
January 18, 2008
Re: these comments were posted on Ezra Levant’s site at: http://www.ezralevant.com
Dear Ezra,
Greetings from another Canadian publisher who is also battling against the Beast that you refer to in your article, ‘What can be done?’. As a fellow recipient of a complaint registered against both myself and my website http://www.radicalpress.com with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and received on November 20th, 2007 I would have to submit that my case is probably the latest in a rather long list of individuals and organizations and publications who have come under attack by these quasi-judicial body.
As you have asked for advice regarding this matter I thought it appropriate to proffer some from what I have gleaned over the past years of study and research that relates to this issue. There are some basic differences between your case Ezra and many of the others who have been either harassed, intimidated, fined, silenced or jailed due to the decisions of this politically-motivated body of censors. These will become obvious as run through your article but for the moment let us look at your recommendations for dismantling this quasi-infrastructure that tends toward tyranny rather than openness and trust.
You are absolutely correct in saying that there is an urgent need to alert the general public to the misconceptions that the vast majority of Canadians are suffering under when they think of Human Rights Commissions. They have, as you so poignantly state, become a sword rather than a shield to protect those within our society who are treated unjustly. Where you and I might disagree is in recognizing who is wielding that sword and why they are thus motivated to do so.
You state, truthfully, that these commissions aren’t ‘normal’; that it is ‘not normal to haul publishers before the government to ask them about their political thoughts. It’s not normal for a secular state to enforce a radical Muslim fatwa against cartoons.’ I could not concur more fully with this perception. They are, in fact, abnormal and, like abnormal cells within a body, inherently a danger to the organism as a whole, in this case Canadian society in general. The business of government is to ensure that the free flow of ideas continues uninterrupted, for it is within such a process that governments evolve into greater and greater egalitarian entities thus both preserving our sacred, democratic ideals and rights and ensuring greater justice for all Canadian citizens.
I also find myself agreeing with your assessment of these HRCs as being counterfeit and casting false shadows of genuine authority and legitimacy that ultimately will end up maligning Canada’s judicial integrity; one I might add, that is already in a precarious position for many Canadians.
What you refer to as ‘denormalizing’ I would prefer to term ‘debriefing’ because it is my contention that these commissions were set up specifically for partisan purposes; ones which the Canadian public needs to understand in much greater detail in order to fully realize why they were created. All the details regarding this position are outlined in detail in my own ‘‘Response’ to the CHRC which I submitted to them on January 3, 2008. The complete text of this Response can be viewed on my website at http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=629
Again, you rightly state that most Canadians have never heard of these ‘human rights commissions’ but I would suggest that there are specific reasons why this is so and why these undemocratic, draconian, ‘Star Chamber’ entities perform their ‘show trials’ in secret and beyond the pale of the press. You use the example of the ‘German Democratic Republic’ which you say, ‘was neither Democratic nor a Republic’. I, in turn, would choose another country and say the Democratic State of Israel, which is not a democracy but in reality an apartheid, racist, totalitarian state. Like you say, it sounds good to state that it is a democracy like Canada and the USA and elsewhere but when the mask of media propaganda is removed the real face presents a rather stark and differing countenance than what our mainstream media intentionally portray.
With respect to the blogosphere or the Internet again you are bang on the money in terms of the immediacy of information transferal. This is what makes the net an anarchistic medium free of any centralized control and what ensures that each and every person’s perspective is guaranteed a hearing if they are capable of procuring a computer and a ISP. The www is the ultimate form of democracy in terms of freedom of speech. But it also presents a clear and present danger to the vested interests who now own and control the older forms of communication i.e. the printing presses, radio and television and it is these institutions that are now clearly feeling challenged by the free access of opinion and information.
You mention that your YouTube videos have been viewed by 320,000 people thus far. In my own case I did not have video material to assist me but nonetheless I still had my keyboard and access to some of the largest alternative news outlets on the web today. Prior to sending my Response to the CHRC I made the decision to not go the route that Neville Chamberlain did with Hitler and try to appease the censors but instead chose to send my thoughts and defense to the millions of readers who inhabit the Cyberian landscape known as the Internet. In this way I knew that my position with respect to these clandestine and dangerous entities would be exposed beforehand. When Rense.com and WhatReallyHappened.com and Ziopedia.com ran my article, KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress, http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628 within hours millions of readers had access to the contents of my Response to the CHRC. That, I suggest, is a form of immediate redress and justice which one will not find in any similar quarter within the bureaucracy of Ottawa or the offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their illegal and unjust Tribunal system. Obviously it doesn’t guarantee a fair hearing in the matter (considering the parameters within which these commissions operate) but it does alert the public to the manner in which the commissions function and that is a first step in the debriefing process that is necessary in order to implement the requisite changes.
You go on to highlight two central qualities of these commissions. First off they erode values such as ‘freedom of speech, freedom of religion and diversity of opinion’ which you contend is their mission. You further state that this is ‘unCanadian’. I would go one step beyond that and say that such a purpose is undemocratic, unconstitutional, totalitarian and fascist and inimical to everything that Canadians both fought and died for and value as supreme in their lives.
Your second point about ‘fairness’ is concomitant with your first and needs no further explanation.
You then go on to discuss how you have posted some of the more egregious examples of decisions these commissions have come to, especially in Alberta, and also make mention of the many complaints under the ‘hate’ section contained in Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That is the section under which my complainant Harvey Smarba, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada has submitted his spurious contention that I am spreading ‘hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel’ via my website.
Your mention of Ricardo Warmouse is most appropriate under these circumstances and I am surprised that in this regard you haven’t made mention of the very recent decision in the Warmouse v. Lemire case which occurred on January 15th of this year. The most dramatic disclosure and the one most damning to the CHRC itself was, as Marc Lemire states in his Press Release, ‘the admission by Dean Steacy, the chief internet investigator for the CHRC [that he] tried to entrap me in 2006 on Stormfront using the alias ‘Jadewarr’. This means that EVERY single party against me (on the Merits of the case) at one point tried to entrap me. Ricardo Warmouse using the alias ‘Pogue Mahone’ tried to get me to say stuff about him and attempted to engage in me conversations on Stormfront. I smelled a rat immediately, and I wrote ‘who is this, Terry Wilson or Ricardo Warmouse?’ Boy did I have foresight! It was indeed Ricardo Warmouse. With the retaliation provisions of the CHRA, getting me to say stuff could have meant huge fines.’ The details of this federal case can be found at http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan18-08_FreeDominion_and_CHRC.html
All things considered Ezra your goal to rid the nation of these Soviet-style ‘commissions’ is most laudable indeed. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper did refer to these HRCs as totalitarian he did so prior to becoming the Prime Minister and it is still uncertain as to whether or not his thoughts on this matter are the same as before. There are serious backers and lobbying agencies within the federal government who have strong, vested interests in maintaining these commissions as they tend to act as watchdogs for government policies, especially foreign policy.
As for your ‘to-do’ list for legislators, while you may think it is possible (and I kind of doubt that you do) to people these commissariats with unbiased individuals who wouldn’t be tempted to exploit them for political purposes I don’t think it would work. The nature of the Beast itself precludes it functioning in any non-political fashion.
Your point 3 ‘Introduce an amendment to the human rights acts to protect freedom of speech and thought’ is worthy of consideration but I’m not convinced that all the media would favour such a proposition. Much of Canada’s mainstream media is already riddled with major bias due to the monopoly situation under which our media currently operates and were such freedoms protected it would mean that the general public would now feel much more assured in openly advocating for greater accountability in this area and that is something the mainstream monopoly does not want to deal with. I fully agree that the public would want it and they do expect it regardless of what now exists.
Point 4 regarding the Tribunals again calls for greater debate. We can’t afford, in these times of rapid changes and imminent danger from every quarter, to take intermediate steps when it comes to freedom of speech. We either must claim it and stand by it or else continue to be victimized by unaccountable partisans. Respecting this I thought it rather amusing that you said it wasn’t just ‘pruning’ but ‘digging it out by its roots’. The motto of my former newspaper and my current online website is, ‘Digging to the root of the issues’. Seems our convictions intersect at this point.
Point 5 (Abolish both the commission and the tribunal) is of course the only sensible and realistic solution to the unsavory problems that these censors pose. Whether it’s Christians expressing their views on homosexuals and same-sex marriage, or Jewish publishers publishing cartoons that Muslims find offensive, or, as in my case, non-Jewish news networks and writers criticizing the ideological underpinnings of Jewish-created Political Zionism and its effects upon the Israeli state and the Palestinian people, all of these issues are part and parcel of living in an open society which values the ideas and opinions of all of its members. As the infamous American writer and social critic Edward Abbey put it, ‘The best cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy’.
I would end my free advice to you on this issue by saying that in my own experience, receiving the amazing support which I have since publishing my Response on the net, not only from Canadians but from people around the world, by far the vast majority of people do not want or need these guardians of political correctness and prefer freedom over repression.
Good luck in your continuing adventures Ezra.
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
[email protected]
http://www.radicalpress.com
‘Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
————————————————————
THE PLUG:
I would also like to add a plug here with respect to my financial situation. I’m still unable to work steady due to the amount of time and energy required to deal with this matter. Donations have been coming to me and I’m feeling rather awed and humbled by people’s generosity. Unfortunately I’m still very much under the gun in this respect so if it is possibly please send either a M.O. or a Cheque or Cash to:
The Radical Press
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
If you include your email address I will contact you to let you know I received your mail and also be able to thank you personally.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Radical Press

{ Add a Comment }

OCLA Petition: Congratulations and Thank You to all who have signed it

PLEASE CLICK ON THE URL BELOW TO SIGN THE PETITION AND KEEP IT GROWING
http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
PLEASE SUPPORT THE ARTHUR TOPHAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. CLICK ON THE URL BELOW

R v TOPHAM LEGAL DEFENCE FUND


Please do your best to share this email and petition with friends and family and associates. We need to build the support for the OCLA initiative by increasing the signatures into the thousands. See additional information on the OCLA petition below:
Dear Supporters of Freedom of Expression,
Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a ‘Hate Propaganda’ section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created
OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.
Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.
OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf
Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf
Yours truly,
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
[email protected]
‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’ Voltaire

{ Add a Comment }

The Book of Gareth: Why Persians Should Never Sleep With Jewish Whores by Trevor LaBonte

Whatsupic — ‘A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.’
Marcus Tullius Cicero Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist.
Iran New Horizon Conference 2014
A few curious events regarding the New Horizons conspiracy conference in Tehran in early October 2014 provide us with a crucial case study in what ails the anti-Zionist truth movement and how the situation needs to be improved.
For those in need of debriefing, here is the article based on emails that journalist Gareth Porter leaked to the Zionist-infested internet news media company ‘Buzz Feed.’
(Here is my original op-ed about it, published on Oct 9, 2014)
Jewish ‘Anti-war’ leftist journalist Gareth Porter managed to pull off a major double-cross against the government of Iran, which happens to be fighting to continue to exist amid a sea of Zionist-manufactured regional turmoil. Porter received a valuable assist from the inside by conference organizer Reza Montazami, who refrained from commenting in the aftermath of Porter leaking his personal emails to Buzz Feed in the interests of libeling and smearing the conference organizer and falsely implicating the government of Iran into the phony scandal.
The episode is a textbook example of why it is crucial to pay strict attention to a number of simple key factors in determining who should be allowed inside the Islamic Republic, and who should be considered an enemy to be barred at the door.
The leaked emails reveal that, beginning on Aug 15, 2014, Porter first demanded, as a prerequisite to his participation, as a prerequisite to his participation that respected author and political commentator, Mark Glenn of Press TV and The Ugly Truth, be dis-invited from the conference, a conference which was important to Iran’s safety and national interests.
Parenthetically, Mark Glenn and USS Liberty survivor Philip F. Tourney happened to have co-authored a revealing book together, which reveals all the details of Israel’s treacherous June 8, 1967 false flag attack against America, which was designed to frame Egypt, presumably so the Israeli government could trick America into entering the ‘Six Day War’ for Israel’s slated expansion, the establishment of ‘Greater Israel,’ and a Jewish one-world government. The book clearly illustrates how Zionist interests have an astonishing amount of control over America, with subversive Zionist elements in America conspiring with Israel and even trying to sink the USS Liberty together, and collaborating on the sloppy cover-up when the mission had to be aborted prior to completion. Even though Israel was caught red-handed perpetrating the unspeakably treacherous attack against its supposed ally, the story has yet to break to the public at large, thanks to the power of historical concealment. It is starkly reminiscent of 9/11 on multiple levels, but that is another story.

Porter also, over several emails in the exchange, nosily prodded Montazami for a list of all the other names of the would-be conference participants, and what all of their topics of address would be. When Montazami neglected to answer the questions sufficiently, Porter asked again.
Montazami quickly and inexplicably capitulated to Porter’s demands, offering as his rationale, ‘We don’t invite him whether you come or not. It means that is vrery [sic] critical point for us. if not, what is the different between us and Takfirist. You know what means takfir. May you look at dicionary [sic], and you will find that it makes no differnt[sic] whether you are an American scholar or Libian [sic] primitive, While you hate other, you are takfirist just like Daesh.’
It’s an interesting comparison, given that Glenn is not part of a known force of Zionist-backed foreign mercenaries posing as rebels in a fake civil war, nor has he played soccer with any decapitated heads or cooked up any human livers on his Webber grill. I do occasionally hear that his wife makes good spaghetti sauce, though.
For the record, Glenn’s ‘problematic’ observations about Judaism’s core being an ideology of chosen-ness rather than providing a moral and ethical code which is universal and fair to all people and not just Jews, are simple statements of basic fact and are not based in hatred, bigotry, or prejudice.
Contemporary essentialist philosopher and former Israeli/ former Jew Gilad Atzmon has written on the subject of Jewish identity politics extensively, revealing the same facts which in turn prove Porter’s tit-for-tat equation between Judaism and Islam (reprinted further down) to be a classic example of a logical fallacy.
Yet, it was successful as an appeal to Montazami’s apparently faulty understanding of his own religious faith. Porter said to Montazami, ‘I’m sorry to delay my acceptance of the invitation in this way, but I hope you will understand the difficulty that Mr. Glenn’s participation presents. I would have the same reaction, of course, to the participation in a conference by someone who espoused the view that Islam is a faith that ‘bring [sic] nothing but sickness and death’. I’m sure you have the same reaction.’
Porter failed to produce one example of anything Glenn has said which is not empirically correct, instead making the plea, ‘I have only one problem at this point. One of the people who has been invited to speak at the conference, Mark Glenn, is someone about whom IPIS should be extremely wary. He is notorious for his hatred of Judaism and Jews, which needless to say, IPIS would certainly not want to be associated with.’
Charging someone with being ‘anti-Semitic’ is unfair. It vaguely alleges that there is hatred of Jews based on racial reasons, and makes no reference to the tribalist ideology around which Jewish culture revolves. Opposing a racist/supremacist ideology does not make one a racist.
This passage from the Old Testament summarizes Judaism:
‘When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are to possess and casts out the many peoples living there, you shall then slaughter them all and utterly destroy them…You shall make no agreements with them nor show them any mercy. You shall destroy their altars, break down their images, cut down their groves and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people unto the LORD thy God and He has chosen you to be a special people above all others upon the face of the earth…’
Book of Deuteronomy, 7:1-8

Porter is a hypocrite for lashing out Glenn but taking no issue with the concept that the Earth and all its life forms are the property of the Jews.
When Porter got back to the US, he turned around and attacked Iran itself, the country he purports to be defending against Israel’s ‘nuclear threat’ lies. In an act of sheer deceit and betrayal to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Porter leaked the private emails, which dated back months, to the heavily Jewish-staffed Zionist media outlet ‘Buzz Feed’ to falsely implicate the government of Iran in participating in and helping to organize what was then insultingly reported as an official conference of ‘9/11 truthers, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Semites,’ with Porter saying he ‘regretted attending.’ Porter’s report conflicts with Montazami’s clear and unambiguous statement that IPIS, Iran’s Foreign Ministry think-tank, was not involved with organizing the conference, and therefore the government of Iran had nothing to do with the conference. He managed to paint a non-governmental conference of responsible adults discussing real Zionist crimes and deception…as a scandalous ‘anti-Semitic’ conference done with the government of Iran’s blessings and active participation. Yet, Porter seems to know a lot about ‘Manufactured Crisis,’ which, ironically, is the title of his book about the Israeli MOSSAD’s plot to trick the US into attacking Iran based on Israel’s phony stories about Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
Porter mentioned in the interview that a nonprofit organization called ‘Catalytic Diplomacy’ paid for his travel to Iran. This statement regarding the conference episode to Buzz Feed by the Catalytic Diplomacy’s founder, Jeremy Stone, reveals Stone’s contempt for the truth movement, as well as his Zionistic bigotry against Middle Easterners and his sympathies with the Jewish Israeli imperialist project: ‘It is sad, but definitely true, that the Middle East is full of crazies, of which the Holocaust deniers and the 9/11 truthers are, certainly, among the sickest…But in our half-century of efforts to prevent war, terrorism and genocide, and forestall the collapse of civilization, it is not feasible to avoid attending Middle East conferences that might, in the end, be attended by various nuts in varying proportions. In particular, anti-semitism [sic] is endemic in the Middle East and rising.’

Jeremy Stone is a former head of the Federation of American Scientists and now leads Catalytic Diplomacy
So the Sayan returned the favor of being invited to the conference by making numerous censorious demands, trying to do as much damage as possible to Mark Glenn’s good reputation, lying about the government of Iran, and trying to tar as many people as possible as ‘anti-Semites,’ ‘conspiracy theorists,’ ‘crazies,’ and ‘Holocaust deniers,’ reaching potentially into the highest eschelons of the Iranian government. Only two things appear to have been forgotten, which was to call some of the conference participants ‘Nazis’ and maybe call Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘a new Hitler’ or something like that. But maybe that is coming in the next libelous article featuring Porter, Benjamin, Weir, Escobar, and Co. in Buzz Feed.

{ Add a Comment }

‘Anti-war’ journalist Gareth Porter derails discussion at Tehran truth conference, unwittingly exposes gatekeeper agenda by Trevor LaBonte

Editor’s Note (Trevor): Hot off the presses! It never ceases to amaze me how unsophisticated is the approach of these people who try to enforce political correctness against the truth movement. EVERY TIME, it backfires, and they are left just standing there with their pants down, sucking their thumbs. By now I am sure the many savvy readers of TUT have deduced that, while Judaism and its Rosemary’s baby, Zionism, are the problem, that it is actually the left that protects the operation. The ‘political correctness’ enforcers of the Jewish left are the very equivalent of the force field protecting the Death Star. This piece is a tribute to our beloved, fearless capitan, none other than Mr. Mark Glenn, the man who taught each of us to be our own Luke Skywalkers… And one day, one of us will be the one who, as if in the scene in the original Star Wars movie, will switch off our Gentile X-Wing Fighter’s instrumentation, and using the force of truth as our only guide, get inside our enemy’s best defenses and deliver the shots which will finally connect with the core and detonate the Judaic Death Star once and for all. Inshallah, TUTers!!
Trevor LaBonte
By Trevor LaBonte
October 8, 2014

It is becoming clear that the ‘anti-war’ left is one of the most major hindrances in the truth community. They are the premiere enforcers of ‘political correctness,’ a cultural Marxist invention to remove all pragmatic solutions and effective discourse from the parameters of socially acceptable discourse.
Gareth Porter has made a rather stunning display of this phenomenon with his recent statements and curious behavior regarding the ‘New Horizons’ conspiracy conference in Tehran. Porter hurled epithets at author and political commentator Mark Glenn for disbelieving in the insulting and physically impossible official 9/11 story and for pointing out a very uncomfortable fact that Judaism has no benefits for the gentile world, but is a religion of unchecked self-worship and moral relativism. Others gentiles who have investigated Judaism have determined that it’s core is composed of pure anti-gentile narcissism, which is extremely relevant due to the fact that the nuclear rogue, ethnic cleanser known as ‘Israel’ just so happens to define itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ Why would ‘anti-war’ activists endeavor to make this CRUCIAL discussion of Israeli politics within the context of Jewish culture into such a taboo?
Screen Shot 2014-10-08 at 11.43.45 PM
Porter’s tactics are typical tactics for the Anti-Defamation League, the unofficial Public Relations firm for the Zionist ethnic-cleansing project in Palestine. But for a supposed ‘anti-war’ journalist, it exposes a very interesting and crucial facet of why the truth movement has difficulty gaining traction.
Anytime anybody gets the right answer, they are immediately called ‘anti-semites,’ ‘holocaust deniers,’ and ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Interestingly, the Zionists and their gatekeepers, possibly plagued by guilt and suffering badly from intellectual fatigue, often jumble up their own terminology, calling people ‘holocaust deniers’ simply for making independent inquiries about 9/11 or the JFK assassination, two events which happen to be damningly COVERED in Israel’s and the American jewish mob’s fingerprints. How is that ‘holocaust denial?’ On top of that, how can someone ‘deny’ the holocaust if it is presented as a foregone conclusion that this event unfolded as presented in textbooks which happen to be published by the Rothschild jewish mob itself, and people are not even allowed to make up their own minds in the first place, before they can even be in a position to confirm or deny anything?
Looking at just the facts of 9/11, the entire internet is covered with hard evidence that Israel was the perpetrator. So why is the left making it impossible to discuss this? Why would Porter want to prevent Mark Glenn from speaking at the conference? Why was Porter so offended that speakers at the conference were discussing how to make knowledge of Israel’s well-known attack on 9/11 go mainstream? Who does he think he is? Vladimir Lenin??? What would he do if someone wanted to expose Israel’s and elements within the US Government’s collaboration on the infamous attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which was yet another false-flag attack, with the exact same motive as 9/11, to deceptively draw America into a war for Israel’s bloody expansionist plans in the Middle East?
Mark Glenn
I find it odd that an American is trying to kill free speech in Iran of all places. Zio-Brainwashed Americans (sorry to be so redundant) will certainly have great cognitive dissonance trying to figure that one out, since they rather stupidly believe America to be a free country, and Iran, that country about which our ‘friend’ Bibi Netanyahu is observably and frantically spreading the fattest whoppers imaginable regarding its alleged but totally non-existent ‘nuclear weapons program,’ is supposed to be filled to the brim with Moooooooooslamic extremists and other Zionist-conjured scarecrows and apparitions.
But we really need to thank clumsy gatekeeper shills like Porter for providing us with this important opportunity to determine exactly what the shill agenda is. Look at this statement that Porter selected out of the 15,000 posts at The Ugly Truth/Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement website, written by Mark Glenn, and ask yourself if these statements are based on ‘anti-Semitism’ or are just statements of pure fact:
‘Judaism is nobody’s friend, short of those few who profit from it, and they are certainly small in number, as we have already discussed. Whether these people are one of ‘God’s chosen’ who do the bidding of their overlord Rabbis or whether they are one of those lowly Gentile types who were created for the purpose of serving ‘God’s chosen’, it is the sameJudaism is not their friend. It works to no one’s real benefit, short of those at the top who are giving the marching orders. It does not belong in the same class with other faiths dedicated to improving the individual and making him or her more pleasing to the one responsible for all creation. It does not make people better, it makes them worse. It is like a highly radioactive element that can bring nothing but sickness and eventual death. It does not bring liberation but rather enslavement.’
If this statement caused so much woe and ire for Porter, why did he fail to point out what is troublesome or incorrect about it? All Porter did was throw a hissy fit and hurl epithets, perhaps even more pathetically as Barack Obama trying to throw a baseball… but provided no facts upon which to base a real argument. This is the last bastion of lefty gatekeeper tactics, and signals to the truth community that the left have just burned their last chance of keep the truth concealed. To this author, there is nothing more satisfying that watching Zionists panic and sweat ice-cold bullets when their horrid crimes are discovered.
Surely by now, Porter should have been able to deduce that when worn-out epithets like the ones he used so viciously are used where they don’t apply, such as in cases of legitimate criticism of Judaism or against people bringing 9/11 facts to the table, what it means is that these epithets can no longer function effectively at silencing anything. Did Mark Glenn threaten to boycott the conference because someone he didn’t like was slated to speak there? There’s not a snowball’s chance on Bibi’s fevered, sweltering forehead that anyone other that a treacherous gatekeeper shill would stoop so low. It makes even me just feel embarrassed for Porter that he would be so thoughtless as to screw up his own operation like this. I’m in shock, quite frankly.
Jewish power has been so thoroughly exposed for the corrupting agent that it is, that the standard cries of ‘anti-Semitism’ no longer work, as the public is quickly waking up to the fact that the many malfeasances and treacherous false flag attacks by the ‘Jewish state’ have been defended in this very suspicious ad hominem manner. It has gotten to the point that the ‘anti-Semite’ label has become nothing short of a badge of honor for courageous and true journalism. Now that the term is dead and devoid of all meaning, what the hell are they going to call us now?
The website ‘Buzz Feed’ ran the story about Porter today in a sad attempt to disgrace the Tehran conference which hosted massive heros like Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ken O’Keefe, but ended up unwittingly further exposing the cowardly, tactless, fact-less shill tactics of the left. Gareth Porter shot himself and his globalist friends in the foot, but only after sticking that foot right in his mouth. The entire truth movement KNOWS that Israel did 9/11, so why is it necessary to call someone an ‘anti-Semite’ for pointing out what is bloody obvious to everyone who has taken ten minutes to investigate the event, starting with the facts and evidence, which all lead straight to Israel??
The gatekeeper establishment is finding it impossible to stem the flood of comments on their websites from people who aren’t having any more ‘official’ lies. The truth is going mainstream. It is going absolutely viral, due to a huge number of fed-up people being able to interact directly with news outlets in real time. The lies are being shot down just as soon as they take off, and it just so happens that the alleged ‘conspiracy theorists’ are the ONLY people there providing facts and evidence.
Beneath the fluff article, I found these comments already obliterating the obligatory paid-Israeli hasbara:
Nikademus Lawman · FollowFollowing · Top Commenter
The truth is anti-Semitic. So what is pro-Semitism? Anyhow, Porter is persona non-grata to the professional geopolitical experts and has been since he associated with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s trojan horse of NIAC, who is equally in bed with the MEK who they had a faux litigation bout with and siphoned donors’ monies to pay for an extravagant $180,000 sanction as a result of their loss against Hassan Dai. Porter’s book is no revelation, but a series of stolen commentaries a la another Zionist gatekeeper, Noam Chomsky. The tactics of the fake left anti-war establishment are burned.
Nikademus Lawman · FollowFollowing · Top Commenter
Laughing. So Carl Bernstein, Watergate Breaking journalist, a Jewish-American, the super-majority of US INTCOM, the former director of the US Army War College, Dr. Alan Sobrosky (also Jewish), countless academics, Larry Silverstein’s insurance sorcery, the third building falling from which he could not ‘mysteriously’ recoup, the 5 Israelis on record as being arrested for taping the event as it occurred and then being outed as Mossad agents, the Carl Cameron/Brit Hume expose only 3 months after 9/11 on pre-Murdoch purchased Fox News on Israeli spying in America and setting up the very NSA apparatus Snowden blew the whistle on years later, CIA documents showing Israeli Mossad posing as CIA agents to hire Jundullah, a known foreign terrorist organization to commit atrocities against Iran and its civilian to start a fake war (see Foreign Policy Magazine), Jeff Stein’s exposes in Newsweek on how Israel is a top spy threat to the US, and the countless mountains of evidence pointing to real Israeli guilt, along with inside assets and Saudi intelligence, are anti-Semitic conspiracy ‘theories’? What is pro-Semitic? Take meds, get help — stop defending the crimes of your elite with fake ‘race cards’.
John Edward Kendrick· Top Commenter
Shame on Mr. Porter for being part of the cover-up with such dismissive treatment of those activists who have investigated and who know that these names are key suspects in 9/11: Silverstein, Hellerstein, Hauer, Zelikow, Zakheim, Kristol, Goff, Lowy. Even Bibi said 9/11 benefitted Israel. Muslims have been slaughtered, cultures destroyed, countries overtaken based upon the big lies of 9/11. We must open the Pandora’s box that connects psychopathic zionists and Israel to 9/11.
Medea Benjamin left the 9/11 movement and operates to conceal the Israeli connections to 9/11. She is Jewish. It was not muslims who planned, executed and continue the cover-up. One of the biggest clues is Jewish-dominated mass media complicity in the cover-up.
http://ReDiscover911.com/
Nikademus Lawman · FollowFollowing · Top Commenter
They simply just exposed themselves. I suppose 9/11 truth is the litmus test and has always been. Ask Noam Chomsky about that.
It appears the inept left can only succeed in exposing itself as the last line of defense to fall before the dam breaks and the truth about 9/11 and other jewish terrorist attacks bursts forth and covers the entire landscape. This is a most positive development. The real truth and real anti-war movement is about to overtake the phonies who have dominated for decades up to this point. We are going to give birth to a truth baby; the time is here, and no one, not even the do-gooder Jewish left, can do a thing to prevent it from being born, wailing loudly, and changing everything about the way things used to be.
Hopefully, next year, Iran will catch on to the lefties and their transparent game to silence real, accurate, hard-hitting criticism of the type which is so important and so sorely lacking in the kosherized discourse. Iran should apologize profusely to Mark Glenn for its terrible blunder, and invite him to come back and deliver his address at the next conference, which will undoubtedly be even bigger than this most recent one.
All that being said, now that Porter has pantsed himself and the shill agenda to silence the entirely sane, fact-based arguments of good people like Mark Glenn has been exposed like a skinny, white butt, it follows logically that one should read entries on Glenn’s blog to see what the Zionists and their gatekeeper stooges like Porter are so desperate to conceal. Also, here can be Mark Glenn’s many, many articles which should be required reading for anyone who is serious about obtaining truth and trying to prevent the massive war the Jewish banksters are doing everything in their power to plunge us all into.

{ Add a Comment }

Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities Rehmat’s World

In 1998, a young medical researcher, Professor Nancy Olivieri (University of Toronto), became a target of Jewish lobby groups and pharmaceutical industry when she claimed that her research indicates serious problems with an experimental drug manufactured by Canada’s largest drug company, Apotex. Apotex, which is owned by Jewish billionaire Bernard C. Sherman (born 1942), retaliated by cancelling her research and slamming her reputation. In 2005, Miriam Shuchman published her book ‘ The Drug Trial: Nancy Olivieri and the scandal that rocked the Hospital for Sick Children’.
Later, Nancy became a whistleblower and is widely recognized as one of the pre-eminent crusaders for academic freedom in Canada and United States.
In 2004, Daniel Freeman-Maloy, an anti-Zionist student activist at York University was expelled from the Campus by York’s Jewish president Lorna Marsden. He was allegedly punished for his encounter with notorious Islamophobe, Daniel Pipes who runs the Campus Watch website which he uses to smear individuals who challenge Israeli policies in the Muslim East. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered York to pay $850,000 to Daniel as compensation.
In 2005, Jewish professor at York University (Toronto), Dr. David Noble sued York and several Jewish groups lobbying for Israel including CIJA, CJC, CIC, Hillel and B’nai Brith for $10 million for violation of his academic freedom and defamation.
In 2010 University of Toronto was slammed by Jewish groups for awarding a Master’s degree to a Jew female student Jennifer Peto for her thesis which claims that the Jews practice racism against non-Jews.
Last year, University of Toronto, Jewish professor Rupaleem Bhuyan was hunted down by Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) for refusing to shut-up her students who claimed that ‘Jews have too much power’ in Canada and America. Earlier she had called Israel; ‘a satellite of the United States, unworthy of distinction as a separate country’.
Last year, Jon Thompson published his book, ‘No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities‘. Jason Kunin, a Toronto teacher and writer wrote the book review in Socialist Solidarity website on January 20, 2012.
‘Institutionally, universities serve and always have served the interests of power, but they nevertheless contain spaces that are among the few places left in North America where informed discussion about Palestine can take place outside the well-funded apparatus of Israeli sponsored hasbara (propaganda),’ says Jason.
‘What emerges from Thompson’s summary of events is that when it comes to outside groups like B’nai Brith, the JDL, and the Canadian Israel Jewish Affairs Committee (CIJA), while they contributed to creating a climate of intimidation and put pressure on some members of the York University administration, particularly as the controversy threatened to alienate donors, their sphere of influence was and remains primarily outside (but above) the university, in the media and in the halls of government power,’ says Jason.
The major pro-Israel campaigner is Gerald Steinberg, an Israeli academic and founder of the justly maligned NGO Monitor, which is often compared to Daniel Pipes’s notorious snitch site Campus Watch. Steinberg’s editorials were published widely by several major newspapers that never questioned his academic credibility.
Jason concludes his review by saying: ‘Universities have never been the bastions of academic freedom that some have liked to think they were, but I do agree with Thompson’s conclusion that current trends suggest the ‘existing frameworks that protect the public interest will continue to be eroded’ both by the global entrenching of neo-liberal economic policies and by the aggressive acceleration of those policies under our current, highly ideological (Stephen Harper’s pro-Israel) government. The worst, I fear, is still to come.’

{ Add a Comment }

Gilad Atzmon The Primacy of the Ear

[Thanks to Gilad for sending along this wonderful article. Ed.]
——
Gilad Atzmon The Primacy of the Ear
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/01/gilad-atzmon-primacy-of-ear.html
The Road from Music to Ethics
An alternative take on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and peace activism
(Postscript by Manuel Talens)
Rather often I face the same question when interviewed by Arab media outlets: â€őGilad, how is it that you observe that which so many Israelis fail to see?” Indeed, not many Israelis interpret the Israeli ethical failure as an inherent symptom. For many years I didn’t have any answer to offer. However, recently I realised that it must have something to do with my Saxophone. It is music that has shaped my views of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and formed my criticism of Jewish identity.
Today I will talk about the road from music to ethics.
It is known that life looks like a meaningful event when reviewed retrospectively from its end to its very beginning. Accordingly, I will try to scrutinise my own battle with Zionism through my late evolvment as a musician. I will explore my struggle with Arabic music. I will try to elaborate retrospectively on the role of music on my understanding of the world that surrounds me. To a certain extent, this is the story of my life to date (at least one of them).
I grew up in Israel in a rather Zionist secular family. My Grandfather was a charismatic poetic veteran terrorist, an ex prominent commander in the right wing Irgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun terror organisation. I may admit that he had a tremendous influence on me in my early days. His hatred towards anything that failed to be Jewish was a major inspiration. He hated Germans; consequently he didn’t allow my dad to buy a German car. He also despised the Brits for colonising his ‘promised land’. I assume that he didn’t detest the Brits as much as he hated the Germans because he allowed my father to drive an old Vauxhall Viva. He was also pretty cross with the Palestinians for dwelling on the land he was sure belonged to him and his people. Rather often he used to wonder about the Palestinians: â€őthese Arabs have so many countries, why do they have to live exactly in the land we want to live in?” But more than anything, my grandfather hated Jewish Leftists. However, it is important to mention that since Jewish leftists have never produced any cars, this specific loathing didn’t mature into a conflict of interests between himself and my dad. Being a follower of Zeev Jabotinsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze , my Grandfather obviously realised that Leftist philosophy and the Jewish value system is a contradiction in terms. Being a veteran right wing terrorist as well a proud tribal Jew, he knew very well that tribalism can never live in peace with humanism and universalism. Following his mentor Jabotinsky, he believed in the â€őIron Wall” philosophy. He supposed that Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular should be confronted fearlessly and fiercely. Quoting Betar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betar_(youth_movement) ’s anthem he repeatedly said, â€őin blood and sweat, we would erect our race”.
My Grandfather believed in the Jewish race, and so did I in my very early days. Like my peers, I didn’t see the Palestinians around me. They were no doubt there, they fixed my father’s car for half the price, they built our houses, they cleaned the mess we left behind, they where schlepping boxes in the local food store, but they always disappeared just before sunset and appeared again around dawn. They had never socialised with us. We didn’t really understand who they were and what they stood for. Supremacy was no doubt brewed in our being, we gazed at the world via a racist, chauvinist binocular.

When I was seventeen, I was preparing myself for my compulsory IDF service. Being a well-built teenager fueled with Zionist spirit and soaked in self-righteousness, I was due to join an air force special rescuing unit. But then the unexpected happened. On an especially late night Jazz program, I heard Bird (Charlie Parker) with Strings http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Parker-Strings-Master-Takes/dp/B0000046WK .
I was knocked down. It was by far more organic, poetic, sentimental and yet wilder than anything I had ever heard before. My father used to listen to Bennie Goodman and Artie Shaw, these two were entertaining, they could play the clarinet, but Bird was a different story altogether. He was a fierce libidinal extravaganza of wit and energy. The morning after, I decided to skip school, I rushed to ‘Piccadilly Record’, Jerusalem’s No 1 music shop. I found the jazz section and bought every bebop album they had on the shelves (probably two albums). On the bus, on the way home, I realised that Bird was actually a Black man. It didn’t take me by complete surprise, but it was kind of a revelation, in my world, it was only Jews who were associated with anything good. Bird was a beginning of a journey.
***
At the time, like my peers, I was pretty convinced that Jews were indeed the chosen people. My generation was raised on the Six Day War magical victory, we were totally sure of ourselves. Since we were secular, we associated every success with our omnipotent qualities. We didn’t believe in divine intervention, we believed in ourselves. We believed that our might is brewed in our resurrected Hebraic soul and flesh. The Palestinians, on their part, were serving us obediently and it didn’t seem at the time as if this was ever going to change. They didn’t show any real signs of collective resistance. The sporadic so-called ‘terror’ attacks made us feel righteous, it filled us with some eagerness to get revenge. But somehow within this extravaganza of omnipotence, to my great surprise, I learned to realize that the people who exited me the most were actually a bunch of Black Americans. People who have nothing to do with the Zionist miracle. People that had nothing to do with my own chauvinist exclusive tribe.
It didn’t take more than two days before I hired my first saxophone. The saxophone is a very easy instrument to start with, and if you don’t believe me you better ask Bill Clinton. However, as much as the saxophone was an easy instrument to pick up, playing like Bird or Cannonball looked like an impossible mission. I started to practice day and night, and the more I practiced, the more I was overwhelmed with the tremendous achievement of that great family of Black American musicians, a family I was then starting to know closely. Within a month I learned about Sonny Rollins http://www.sonnyrollins.com/ , Joe Henderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Henderson , Hank Mobley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Mobley , Monk, Oscar Peterson and Duke, and the more I listened the more I realised that my initial Judeo-centric upbringing was totally wrong. After one month with a saxophone shoved up my mouth, my Zionist enthusiasm disappeared completely. Instead, of flying choppers behind enemy lines, I started to fantasize about living in NYC, London or Paris. All I wanted was a chance to listen to the great names of Jazz and in the late 1970’s, many of them were still around.
Nowadays, youngsters who want to play Jazz tend to enroll in a music college, in my days it was very different. Those who wanted to play classical music would enroll in a college or a music academy, however, those who wanted to play for the sake of music would stay at home and swing around the clock. Nonetheless, in the late 1970’s there was no Jazz education in Israel and in my hometown Jerusalem there was just a single Jazz club. It was called Pargod and it was set in an old converted pictorial Turkish Bath. Every Friday afternoon they ran a jam session and for my first two years in jazz, these jams were the essence of my life. Literally speaking, I stopped everything else, I just practiced day and night preparing myself for the next ‘Friday Jam’. I listened to music, I transcribed some great solos, I even practiced while sleeping. I decided to dedicate my life to Jazz accepting the fact that as a white Israeli, my chances to make it to the top were rather slim. Without realising it at the time, my emerging devotion to jazz had overwhelmed my Zionist exclusive tendencies. Without being aware, I left the chosenness behind. I had become an ordinary human being. Years later, I realised that Jazz was my escape route. Within months I felt less and less connected to my surrounding reality, I saw myself as part of a far broader and greater family. A family of music lovers, a bunch of adorable people who were concerned with beauty and spirit rather than land and occupation.
However, I still had to join the IDF. Though later generations of Israeli young Jazz musicians just escaped the army and ran away to the Jazz Mecca NYC, for me, a young lad of Zionist origin in Jerusalem, such an option wasn’t available, a possibility as such didn’t even occur to me.
In July 1981 I joined the Israeli Army but, I may suggest proudly, that from my first day in the army I was doing my very best to avoid any call of duty. Not because I was a pacifist, not because I cared that much about the Palestinians or subject to a latent peace enthusiasm, I just loved to be alone with my saxophone.
When the 1st Lebanon war broke, I was a soldier for one year. It didn’t take a genius to know the truth, I knew that our leaders were lying. Every Israeli soldier realised that this war was an Israeli aggression. Personally I couldn’t feel anymore any attachment to the Zionist cause. I didn’t feel part of it. Yet, it still wasn’t the politics or ethics that moved alienated me, but rather my craving to be alone with my horn. Playing scales at the speed of light seemed to me far more important for than killing Arabs in the name of Jewish redemption. Thus, instead of becoming a qualified killer I spent every possible effort trying to join one of the military bands. It took a few months, but I eventually landed safely at the Israeli Air Force Orchestra (IAFO).
The IAFO was made of a unique social setting, you could join in either for being an excellent promising Jazz talent or just for being a son of a dead pilot. The fact that I was accepted, knowing that my Dad was amongst the living reassured me for the first time that I may be a musical talent. To my great surprise, none of the orchestra members took the army seriously. We were all concerned about one thing, our very personal musical development. We hated the army and it didn’t take time before I started to hate the state that had such a big army with such a big air force that needed a band that stopped me from practicing 24/7. When we were called to play in a military event, we always tried to play as bad as we could just to make sure that we would never get invited again. In the IAFO orchestra I learned for the first time how to be subversive. How to destroy the system in order to achieve immaculate personal perfection.
In the summer of 1984, just 3 weeks before I took off my military uniform, we were sent to Lebanon for a tour of concerts. At the time, Lebanon was a very dangerous place to be in and the Israeli army was dug deep in bunkers and trenches avoiding any confrontation with the local population. On the 2nd day we arrived at Aszar, a notorious Israeli concentration camp on Lebanese soil. This event changed my life.
It was a boiling day in early July. On a dusty dirt track we arrived at hell on earth. A huge detention centre surrounded by barbed wire. On the way to the camp headquarters we drove through the view of thousands of inmates being scorched under the sun. It is hard to believe, but military bands are always treated as VIPs. Once we landed at the officer command barracks we were taken for a guided tour in the camp. We were walking along the endless barbed wire and the post guard towers. I couldn’t believe my eyes. â€őWho are these people?” I asked the officer. â€őThey are Palestinians” he said, here are the PLO on the left and here on the right are the Ahmed Jibril’s ones, they are far more dangerous (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine_-_General_Command PFLP-GC) so we keep them isolated.
I looked at the detainees and they looked very different to the Palestinians I saw in Jerusalem. The ones I saw in Ansar were angry. They were not defeated and they were many. As we moved along the barbed wire and I was gazing at the inmates, I realised that unbearable truth, I was walking there in Israeli military uniform. While I was still contemplating about my uniform, trying to deal with some severe sense of emerging shame, we arrived at a large flat ground in the middle of the camp. We stood there around the guide officer and learned from more him, some more lies about the current war to defend our Jewish haven. While he was boring us to death with some irrelevant lies I noticed that we were surrounded by two dozen concrete blocks the size of one square meter and around 1.30 cm high. They had a small metal door and I was horrified by the fact that my army may have decided to lock the guard dogs in these constructions for the night. Putting my Israeli Chutzpah into action, I asked the guide officer what these horrible concrete cubes were. He was fast to answer. â€őThese are our solitary confinement blocks, after two days in one of these you become a devoted Zionist”.
This was enough for me. I realised already then in 1984 that my affair with the Israeli state and Zionism was over. Yet, I knew very little about Palestine, about the Nakba or even about Judaism and Jewishness. I just realized that as far as I was concerned, Israel was bad news and I didn’t want to have anything to do with it. Two weeks later, I gave my uniform back, I grabbed my alto sax, took the bus to Ben Gurion airport and left for Europe for a few months. I was basking in the street. At the age of 21, I was free for the first time. In December it was too cold and I went back home with a clear intention to make it back to Europe.
***
It took me another 10 years before I could leave Israel for good. In these years I started to learn closely about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, about oppression. I started to accept that I was actually living on someone else’s land. I started to take in that devastating fact that in 1948 the Palestinians didn’t really leave willingly but were rather brutally ethnically cleansed by my Grandfather and his ilk. I started to realize that ethnic cleansing has never stopped in Israel, it just took different shapes and forms. I started to acknowledge the fact that the Israeli legal system was totally racially orientated. A good example was obviously the ‘Law of Return’, a law that welcomes Jews to come ‘home’ after 2000 years but stops Palestinians from returning to their land and villages after 2 years abroad. All that time I had been developing as a musician, I had become a major session player and a musical producer. Yet, I wasn’t really involved in any political activity. I scrutinised the Israeli left discourse and realized that it was very much a social club rather than an ideological setting motivated by ethical awareness.
At the time of Oslo agreement (1994), I just couldn’t take it anymore. I realized that Israeli ‘peace making’ equals ‘piss taking’. It wasn’t there to reconcile with the Palestinians or to confront the Zionist original sin. Instead it was there to reassure the secure existence of the Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Right of Return wasn’t an option at all. I decided to leave my home, to leave my career. I left everything behind including my wife Tali, who joined me later. All I took with me was my Tenor Saxophone, my true eternal friend.
I moved to London and attended postgraduate studies in Philosophy at Essex University. Within a week in London I managed to get a residency at the Black Lion, a legendary Irish pub in Kilburn High Road. At the time I didn’t understand how lucky I was. I didn’t know how difficult it is to get a gig in London. In fact this was the beginning of my international career as a Jazz musician. Within a year I had become very popular in the UK playing bebop and post bop. Within three years I was playing with my band all over Europe.
However, it didn’t take long before I started to feel some homesickness. To my great surprise, it wasn’t Israel that I missed. It wasn’t Tel Aviv, Haifa or Jerusalem. It was actually Palestine. It wasn’t the rude taxi driver in Ben Gurion airport, or a shopping center in Ramat Gan, it was the little Humus place in Yafo at Yesfet/Salasa streets. It was the Palestinian villages that are stretched on the hills between the olive trees and the Sabbar cactuses. I realized that whenever I felt like visiting home, I would end up in Edgware Road, I would spend the evening in a Lebanese restaurant. However, once I started to explore my thoughts about Israel in public, it soon became clear to me that Edgware Road was probably as close as I could ever get to my homeland.
***
http://bp0.blogger.com/_NLZU_EPqaHw/R4XrK0dOZII/AAAAAAAAAb4/jZhHkFWWJQs/s1600-h/exile.jpg
I may admit that In Israel, I wasn’t at all interested in Arabic music. Supremacist colonials are never interested in the culture of the indigenous. I always loved folk music. I was already established in Europe as a leading Klezmer player. Throughout the years I started to play Turkish and Greek music. However, I completely skipped Arabic music and Palestinian music in particular. Once in London, in these Lebanese restaurants, I started to realise that I have never really explored the music of my neighbors. More concerning, I just ignored it, though I heard it all the time. It was all around me, I never really listened. It was there in every corner of my life, the call for prayers from the Mosques over the hills. Um Kalthoum’ http://almashriq.hiof.no/egypt/700/780/umKoulthoum/ , Farid El Atrash http://www.farid-el-atrache.com/ , Abdel Halim Hafez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Halim_Hafez , were there in every corner of my life, in the street, on the TV, in the small cafes in old city Jerusalem, in the restaurants. They were all around me but I dismissed them disrespectfully.
In my mid thirties, away from my homeland, I was drawn into the indeginous music of my homeland. It wasn’t easy. It was on the verge of unfeasible. As much as Jazz was easy for me to take in, Arabic music was almost impossible. I would put the music on, I would grab my saxophone or clarinet, I would try to integrate and I would sound foreign. I soon realized that Arabic music was a completely different language altogether. I didn’t know where to start and how to approach it.
Jazz music is a western product. It evolved in the 20th century and developed in the margins of the cultural industry. Bebop, the music I grew up on is made of relatively short fragments of music. The tunes are short because they had to fit into the 1940’s record format (3 min). Western music can be easily transcribed into some visual content within standard notation and chord symbols.
Jazz, like every other Western art form, is partially digital. Arabic music, on the other hand, is analogue, it cannot be transcribed. Once transcribed, its authenticity evaporates. By the time I achieved enough humane maturity to face the music of my homeland, my musical knowledge stood in the way.
I couldn’t understand what was it that stopped me from encompassing Arabic music. I couldn’t understand why it didn’t sound right. I spent enough time listening and practicing. But it just didn’t sound right. As time went by, music journalists in Europe started to appreciate my new sound, they started to regard me as a new Jazz hero who crossed the divide as well as an expert of Arabic music. I knew that they were wrong, as much as I tried to cross the so-called ‘divide’, I could easily notice that my sound and interpretation was foreign to the Arabic true colour.
But then, I found an easy trick. In my gigs, when trying to emulate the oriental sound, I would first sing a line that reminded me the sound I ignored in my childhood, I would try to recall echoes of the Muezzin sneaking into our streets from the valleys around. I would try to recall the astonishing haunting sound of my friends Dhafer Youssef http://www.dhaferyoussef.com/ and Nizar Al Issa http://www.red-desertproductions.com/favicon.ico . I would hear myself the low lasting voice of Abel Halim Hafez. Initially I would just close my eyes and listen to my internal ear, but without realizing I started gradually to open my mouth and sing loudly. I then realised that if I sing while having the saxophone in my mouth I would achieve a sound that was very close to the mosques’ metal horns. Originally I tried to get closer to the Arabic sound but at a certain stage, I just forgot what I was trying to achieve; I started to enjoy myself.
Last year, while recording an album in Switzerland, I realized suddenly that my Arabic sound wasn’t embarrassing anymore. Once listening to some takes in the control room I suddenly noticed that the echos of Jenin, Al Quds and Ramallah popped naturally out of the speakers. I tried to ask myself what happened, why did it suddenly started to sound genuine. I realized that I have given up on the primacy of the eye and reverted to the primacy of the ear. I didn’t look for an inspiration in the manuscript, in the music notes or the chord symbol. Instead, I was listening to my internal voice. Struggling with Arabic music reminded me why I did start to play music in the first place. At the end of the day, I heard Bird in the radio rather seeing him on MTV.
I would like to end this talk by saying that it is about time we learn to listen to the people we care for. It is about time we listen to the Palestinians rather than following some decaying textbooks. It is about time. Only recently I grasped that ethics comes into play when the eyes shut and the echoes of conscience are forming a tune within one’s soul. To empathise is to accept the primacy of the ear.
AN AUDIO VERSION OF THIS PRESENTATION CAN BE HEARD BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=26151&nav=& ! (or this one http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388930.html?c=on )
Postscript by Manuel Talens:
Gilad Atzmon or Exile’s redemption
Ever since I met Gilad Atzmon a few years back for a lengthy interview I’ve been convinced that this man listens to the world with the ears of an artist. It wasn’t by chance that I entitled it Beauty as a political weapon http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2005/12/gilad-atzmon-interviewed-by-manuel.html , as both his music and his writings always exude a profound and beautiful poetry, even if they deal – as they usually do – with the unrelenting Palestinian tragedy caused by Israel. This paper, which is the core of a talk he delivered recently at Brighton, UK, is no exception to this rule. Yet, instead of treating the subject from the outside – a literary technique that establishes a distance and ‘cools it down’ – here the former Israeli Atzmon adopts the painful role of a subject who places himself at the thick of things and tells us his own itinerary from the racist hell of the Zionist state, where he was born, to the only ethical escape he had in front of him once he heard the light through the miracle of music: voluntary exile. Exile, as well-informed readers of this great jazzman already know, is one of his finest albums. To me, it is also the main argument of this current piece. It is not by chance if other Israelis as honest as Ilan Pappe have also chosen exile – like Atzmon – as the only way to redeem themselves from the shame of belonging to a state where indigenous population are treated as if they were despicable beasts. But Atzmon’s recapitulation has a wonderful plus in itself – at least for music lovers – and it is the sharp narration of his awakening from the sinful Israeli nightmare he was immersed in to the liberation of ceasing to belong, all this thanks to Charlie Parker’s art. Art is the communicating vessel uniting Parker and Atzmon. But there is more: the fact that Parker was Black – a race as looked down by all-time colonialists as Palestinians by today’s Zionists – serves symbolically to the purpose of Atzmon’s redemption: embracing the cause of Black music meant for him to kill two birds with one stone, as he simultaneously embraced the cause of liberating Palestinians through political activism. Texts like this one, written by people like Atzmon who have decided to join mankind without tribal discriminations and who define themselves as ex-Zionists help us to maintain the hope that one day the land of Palestine will be free of this racist post-modern plague and all its inhabitants will live in peace regardless of religion or ethnicity.

{ Add a Comment }