ShareThis

Saturday, 31 May 2014

Metzitzah B'Peh

Metzitzah b'peh is a homosexual-paedophile practice carried out in Talmudic Judaism, within which a mohel; that is to say a rabbi who carries out genital-mutilation; puts the freshly circumcised penis of the infant boy into his mouth and sucks it until the blood stops flowing from the wound on the child's penis.[1] 

This "oral tradition" is different to the circumcision practiced in the Old Testament, rather the fellatio bris milah of the Talmudists is based on the halacha and custom (minhag).[2] It is the only major religion which demands fellatio with children. 

Generally they manage to keep knowledge of the act out of the media spotlight, but modern cases in New York City, where diseases such as herpes have been passed onto the babies, causing the death of an infant in one cases, put the practice under scrutiny.[1][3] 

While Jewish journalists energetically wax-lyrical about a minority of deviant liberal-homosexuals who have infiltrated Christianity, carrying out perversions contrary to their religion, their silence is deafening when it comes to the rabbis sucking boy's penises as a matter of basic practice

The mohel brings the baby’s organ into his mouth immediately after the excision of the foreskin and sucks blood from it vigorously. This action lowers the internal pressure in the tissues of the organ, in the blood vessels of the head of the organ and in the exposed ends of the arterioles that have just been cut. Thus, the difference between the pressure in the blood vessels in the base of the organ and the pressure in the blood vessels at its tip is increased. This requirement has deep religious significance as well as medical benefits.
Mordechai Halperin, Metzitzah B’peh Controversy: The View from Israel, Jewish Action.[4]

According to the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, "this procedure is widely accepted, and 60% to 90% of newborn boys of the Jewish population in the United States undergo this procedure", going on to state that it has an "important cultural and historical role".[5] The exact number of children who fall victim to the practice is unknown; some "Reform Judaism" proponents reject the fellatio method, though still have their babies genitals mutilated. The statistics for the babies in the Zionist State itself is unknown to the outside world. Rabbi Moshe Meiselman claims that it is heresy not to perform metzitzah b'peh on the child's penis.[6]

 

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Israel, the state that got away with murder.


In 1939, the European continent erupted in war because of what they called 'German aggression' towards Poland. It escalated into a world war in which 50 million people died. Nobody mentions the fact that world Jewry had already declared war on Germany years before 1939 and that war with Germany was being planned long before any German boot set foot into Poland.

In 1948, the state of Israel was created after a campaign of terrorism against the British culminating in the bombing of the King David hotel. The British, who had occupied Palestine after WW1 as requested by world Jewry. This was the promise of one country, Britain, to take control of another country, Palestine, to facilitate the emigration of another group of people, Jews. Or as Arthur Koestler wrote about the letter: "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

The Balfour Declaration stated:

Dear Lord Rothschild,

"I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

"I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation."

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour.

The Balfour Declaration was written in 1917 during WW1 when Britain was on the verge of defeat. Again, this is stating the facts and is not 'anti-British'. The British were told that they did not have to lose the war if America came into the war on their side. First of all however, the British had to make a promise to world Jewry.

Benjamin Freedman who had been on the inside of the Zionist agenda to obtain Palestine, gave the following speech exposing the real reasons for the prolonging of WW1 and who had been behind it and why.





Ever since 1948, the state of Israel has ethnically cleansed the Palestinian people from their homes of hundreds of years. Those who refused to move out of their homes were forced out as Jewish bulldozers moved in and destroyed whole areas in which Palestinians had lived. And then built Jewish settlements in their place,  displacing thousands of Palestinians in the process. Those Palestinians who resisted were called terrorists and bombs were dropped on them including white phosphorus. Men women and Children were killed as the land grabs continued. If you look at a map of what was Palestine today, compared to what it was in 1948, you can see just how much land has been stolen. What did the world do? It stood by and did nothing. It stated in the Balfour declaration that: 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.' What has happened since has clearly gone against this agreement.

Here is an account of one of the Jewish atrocities carried out against the Palestinian people by the Zionists that not many will have heard about.

DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE

9-10 April 1948:

The massacre that became the symbol of Zionist aggression against the Palestinians as well as Zionist treachery. The Mukhtar of the village had agreed with the Zionists to provide information on the movement of strangers in the area as well as other intelligence provided their village is spared. The Zionists were not to keep their side of the promise. In an operation which was called Operation Unity, the Haganah co-operated with the Irgun and the Stern Gang in this operation. At 4:30 am on Friday 9th April 1948 surrounded the village which was overlooked by two Jewish settlements, Givat Shaul and Montefiore. For two days Zionist terrorists killed men women and children, raped women and stole their jewellery. A chilling account of the massacre is given by a Red Cross doctor who arrived at the village on the second day and saw himself - the mopping up - as one of the terrorists put it to him. He says that the "mopping up" had been done with machine guns, then grenades and finished of with knives. Women's bellies were cut open and babies were butchered inthe hands of their helpless mothers. Around 250 people were murdered in cold blood. Of them 25 pregnant women were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. 52 children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and they were slain and their heads cut off. The Jewish Agency and the commander of the British ground troops knew of the massacre while it was going on, however, no one intervened to stop it.

The above account could have been describing the terror of the Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 Russia. The harrowing account of what happened to Palestinian men, women and children at Deir Yassin is difficult to believe for most people, but the Jewish claim to Palestine is a religious claim seized upon by Jewish supremacists, many of whom are actually atheistic communists at heart who follow the Talmud, the supreme book of Jewish law which is even clearer of Jewish hatred for non-Jews ie Gentiles. If you want to understand why this crime was committed then look no further than the Torah.

Quotes from the Jewish Bible, the Torah:

"Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it" Numbers 33:52,53

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."Joshua 6:21


If a world war is fought because of what they called 'German aggression' in 1939, then surely what has happened in Palestine is worthy of some sort of response. What response the 'Jewish state' did get, was to recieve huge foreign aid payments from America (80% of the American foreign aid budget) and military equipment, nuclear submarines from Germany, aswel as huge 'Holocaust reperations'. It received support from the West who said that they fully supported Israel as a 'Jewish homeland' whilst mass murder took place. If the White South African government was 'guilty' of the oppression of blacks, then what is Israel guilty of?

The whole Middle East region has been unstable ever since 1948 as Israel claims it is surrounded by hostile Muslim nations. Before the state of Israel was created, and the ethnic cleansing began, Jews had actually lived in peace in Palestine although few in number. In fact some Jews in Israel are opposed to the state Zionist state of Israel.

Quotes from the self styled chosen about the Palestinians.



Israel has huge influence in American politics, groups such as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) determines American foreign policy in the Middle East, and Zionist control of much of Western media and control of the Federal reserve further strengthens their grip over America and the Whitehouse. The same applies in Britain with the CFI, (Conservative friends of Israel) and the Labour friends of Israel.



Some people will consider this blog as being pro-Islam, and that is the problem with the so called 'nationalist' movements that consider themselves 'counter jihadists'. Nobody is supporting Islam in the West by simply stating the facts of what has led to Muslim terrorism on our shores. The people to blame for the terrorist attacks and the Islamic hatred of the West, are the people who have used our nations and our troops to fight in wars for Israel, who are the sole reason for the hellish situation in that region of the world.

Israel has created the clash of civilisations between East and West, invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, military action in Libya and civil war in Syria manipulated by Jewish controlled Western governments has led to worldwide tensions between Westerners and the Islamic world.

During WW1, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was the springboard for American entry into the war. During WW2, Pearl Harbor was the springboard for entry into war, and 9/11 many believe, was the springboard to launch America and the West against Islam and Muslim world. The only people who have benefited from it are the Jews and Israel. One failed attempt to drag America into war with Egypt for Israel occurred with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 resulting in 34 killed and 171 wounded American sailors. Israel has a track record of manipulating events to drag their powerful military 'allies' into war.

We all know Islam is incompatible with the West, history shows us that. Islam was set to conquer Europe until at the gates of Vienna it was pushed back and Europe was saved. We know Islam is a religion that seeks to dominate all others, we know that they see non-Muslims as infidels and as inferior. We know Sharia law should never be allowed to be implemented in the West and we know what the future holds for Europe with the threat of Islam, but knowing all this does not mean we should be ignorant of the facts as to why Islam is in the West in the first place, and why Muslims are enraged and plotting revenge against our people.

The people of the West are being manipulated to view Islam as the only problem. There is always a reason for an action, and Israel is the reason for Islamic terrorist actions. It is our government who are to blame for 7/7, Islamic terrorists may have carried out the attacks, and are murdering scum for doing so, but successive British governments have just as much blood on their hands as any of the bombers.

The Iraq war for example, was based on lies, Tony Blair lied to the British people time and again about weapons of mass destruction that were never found, and which was based on false Israeli intelligence. We were told that these weapons could hit mainland Britain in 45 minutes, the Hegelian dialectic was used to coerce the British public into supporting a war in which our own troops were to die, and many thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Problem reaction solution, the problem we were told, was Saddam Hussein who had WMD that could hit Britain in under an hour, the reaction was panic and fear from the British public who agreed he had to be removed, the solution which had already been decided, was to remove Saddam Hussein because it was in the best interests of Israel as was stated by the Jewish led neoconservative movement in a strategy paper called 'A clean break'  A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'. It advocated a war against Iraq to protect Israel, the strategy was used almost to the letter by the neocons in generating war against Saddam Hussein.

Our soldiers have been used to fight in wars for another country, and our people have been put in danger from terrorist attacks because of traitors in government who have done the bidding of a supremacist state called Israel.


Monday, 26 May 2014

The Myth of the Russian 'Great Patriotic War'


World War II and the Rise of Russian Nationalism: Excerpt from Chapter 22, Secret Behind Communism.

The outbreak of the Second World War, and the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany in 1941 irreparably altered the make-up of Soviet society. Jewish involvement in the horrors of Communism was an important factor in Hitler's desire to destroy the USSR and in the anti-Jewish actions of the German National Socialist government. Jews and Jewish organisations were also important forces in inducing the Western democracies to side with Stalin rather than Hitler in World War II.

By late 1941, many observers around thr world fully expected the Soviet Union to collapse in the face of the massive German military victories on the Eastern Front. The USSR's ruling elite, always, ideologically speaking, disdained: Russian nationalism. In exhorting the Russian people to fight the Germans, Soviet propaganda switched from being purely an ideological struggle between National Socialism and Communism, into one pitting Russian nationalism and independence against German 'aggression and imperialism'.

****

9th May is V-Day in Russia, it marks their 'victory' over National Socialist Germany. It is referred to as 'the great patriotic war', leading people to believe, that the Communists under Stalin were fighting a righteous war against the 'evil Nazi invader'. There was nothing patriotic about Communism, in the face of defeat it had to rely on and use to its advantage, the national feeling of the Russian people, something it wanted to destroy previously in favour of Communist worldwide revolution. They wanted a world without borders ruled by International Communism. What it should have been called was 'the great deceptive war'. Those people who had opposed Communism in Russia post 1917 were slaughtered. Communism hated the Russian nation and the Russian people.

The truth is that before one German soldier had set foot on Russian soil in 1941, the Communist murder machine had already killed tens of millions of its own people and sought to export its brutal ideology far beyond the Russian border. It is now widely acknowledged that Jews played a leading role in Communism and its many atrocities, and in Germany under National Socialism, the people were well aware of the dangers of Jewish Communism and the attempt to foment Communist revolution outside of Russia. They had already carried this out in Hungary in 1919. Bela Kun (Cohen), who had also been involved in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, was the main instigator. It was no secret in Germany that Jewish Communism was a menace that threatened not only Germany, but all of Europe, and indeed the world.

In 1918, at the end of WW1, Germany had been betrayed from within by revolutionary fifth columnists who sought to bring about a Communist revolution in Germany, these Communists had strong links to Communist leaders in Russia, and one of the leaders of the attempted revolution in Germany, Rosa Luxemburg, was instrumental in the founding of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

This betrayal of the Germans led to the demobilisation of its armies as the Social Democratic Party, led by Communist Jews, had assumed power in Germany proclaiming a Socialist Republic, and agreeing to an armistice with the allies. These were known as the November criminals. In a matter of days, Germany had gone from being a military force pretty much in tact and agreeing to withdraw to pre-war boundries, to having nothing and being destroyed by the Treaty of Versailles, having land seized, its military reduced to 100,000 men and being financially crippled by impossible and unjust reperations.

The attempted Communist revolution that came soon after failed as returning German soldiers from the frontlines of WW1, formed what came to be known as Freikorps who suppressed the Communist uprising. The Germans could not be blamed for doing everything possible to stop the German nation and its people from the being in the permanent crosshairs of Jewish Communism. The strike against Russia in 1941 was because of this menace that would have eventually launched its own assault on Germany and Europe.

New evidence has come to light which justifies the German assault on Communist Russia. The Communists were poised to strike against Europe as soon the nations engaged in fighting each other had become battle weary. The only reason Russia called on 'Russian patriotism' was because it had no other option in the face of the German Blitzkrieg that had almost reached Moscow. The Communists had been caught unaware and put on the back foot.

The 'official' narrative of WW2 and Operation Barbarossa, is that Germany led by a 'crazed madman' intent on world domination had invaded Russia not as part of a preemptive defensive strategy, but in a quest to take over Russia and subjugate its people. Truth is that the Russian people had already been subjugated by Communism, which aswel as murdering tens of millions of Russians, also sought to expand its revolution into other European nations. Going against the 'official' narrative is considered to be the worst kind of thought crime, but the truth surrounding WW2 is not as it would seem. Hitler himself even said that the 'Victor would never be asked if he told the truth'. The official narrative of WW2 is solidified by constant propaganda pushed in media, film and in academia, but research with an open mind discovers something very different from the official story.

New Evidence on the 1941 'Barbarossa' Attack:
Why Hitler Attacked Soviet Russia When He Did:

www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p40_Michaels.html


So i for one, will not fall for the deception of the Russian 'great patriotic war'. Russia at that time was a Communist juggernaut intent on enslaving as much of Europe as it could under the Communist boot. It wasn't National Socialist Germany that wanted to conquer the world, it was the menace of Jewish Communism and its Jewish finaciers who had that intention.  Germany under National Socialism fought against both the Capitalist world and Communism, and both were dominated by Jewish figures whose financial and political interests required the defeat of National Socialism. Tens of millions had already died because of Communism, it was the worlds foremost killing machine and im ashamed, that the British government of the time considered them allies. Communist Russia was poised to strike against Germany hence the preemptive strike known as Operation Barbarossa.

Regardless of your own personal opinion of Germany and National Socialism, the preemptive invasion of Russia almost destroyed the scourge of Communism on the European continent and if achieved would have liberated Russia from its Communist shackles. It took over 40 years for Communism to collapse in Europe after WW2, and during those 40 years much of Eastern Europe suffered under Communist tyranny. These facts are in no way an attack on the Russian people, Russians suffered more than most under Communism. However Russia didn't win WW2 just as the rest of the allies didn't win it. In Russia after WW2, Communism consolidated its grip on the Russian nation and people and enslaved most of Eastern Europe. This whilst the 'allies' of Communist Russia, knew very well of the death sentence and oppression that would await those Eastern European nations swallowed up by the Communist beast. Do Russians today who celebrate the 'victory' of Communist Russia endorse Communism? Or do they see it as a national victory?

You have to ask the question, as uncomfortable as it may be for some, why did Western nations side the brutal mass murdering machine known as Communism? Winston Churchill had already written of the Jewish mass murdering nature of Communism prior to WW2, then joined with them in war in Europe, doesn't make sense does it. What was it that could have made the West side with Communism? You only have to look at who financed the Bolshevik Revolution and who prolonged WW1 by bringing America into the war for the promise of Palestine from the British, to understand why the allied nations sided with Communist Russia. The same financial controllers of Communism were the same financial controllers of the West.Although Jewish power in Communist Russia had waned under Stalin, they still played a significant role and Communism certainly was a vital tool for Germany to be defeated. The Communists also invaded Poland in 1939, yet those nations who promised to safeguard Polands borders failed to declare war on Communist Russia who actually occupied more Polish territory than the Germans, why?

The allies, consisting of America, Canada, the UK, France and the rest of Europe certainly didn't win WW2. They fought the war because of the belief that their national freedom was in severe danger from National Socialist Germany, when Communism for decades, had already stated its intention to take over nations using violent uprisings left in its wake a death count unimaginable to the human mind. International Communism was their aim, by whatever means.

People believe that Hitler and his National Socialist Germany wanted 'to take over the world'. This of course wasn't true, any 'invasion' of nations in Europe were, for the most part, preemptive strikes into supposedly neutral countries who were going to be used as routes into Germany by allied troops resulting in German operations to prevent it. Any nation in a state of war would do the same. Their neutrality was non-existent just as America's so called neutrality prior to their entry into the war was a myth as they financed Communist Russia, and provided assistance to Germanys enemies. Look around your country and you will see the results of our so called victory. If Europe in 2014 is a symbol of our victory then I wouldn't call it a victory at all.

It is estimated that 50 million people died in WW2, men women and children on all sides, atrocities aplenty were carried out by all and not as we are led to believe all by Germany alone.

After WW2's end, the Internationalist Jewish nature of Communism ceased to be as influential as it had been. The forming of the state of Israel in 1948 led to many Jewish Communists to leave for pastures new. Most then became ardent Zionists and anti-Russian because of perceived the perceived 'anti-semitism' of Stalins regime, although some of Stalins closest and most trusted Commissars were Jewish.

Jews had also formed large communities in America, eventually going on to form the nucleus of the Neoconservative movement, and taking the control of Hollywood and the media aswel as the financial institutions. America now supplies Israel with massive foreign aid and military equipment and fights in wars exclusively for the interests of Israel. See our blog about the Origins of the Neoconservative movement.

So to clarify, the 'Great Patriotic War' was the use by the anti-patriotic Communists, of patriotism, to defeat Germany. They called on the one thing they despised, and killed millions of people for, to save them. In doing so they tightened their grip over Russia, and subsequently most of Eastern Europe. Communism was, and is, a form of Jewish global control. Today in the West it manifests itself as Cultural Marxism, but whatever form it takes, there is nothing patriotic about it unless of course it needs to call on Patriotism to save its skin. True patriotism would have helped to defeat Communism and liberate the Russian people and the rest of Europe. The Germans didn't hate Russia, they hated Communism and knew what a threat it was to the freedom of not only Germany but the whole of Europe.


An excellent radio show on the subject can be found in the link provided here:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/american-nationalist-network/2013/06/21/world-view-conversations-special-broadcast

Show topics:

“A COMEMORATION OF OPERATION BARBAROSSA”

Mark Weber from the Institute of Historic Review will join Rodney Martin in this very special broadcast of World View Conversations Rodney Martin will commemorate the preemptive German invasion of the Stalin’s Soviet Union, Code named, and “Operation Barbarossa” on June 22, 1941.

Despite years of repeated falsehoods, the German invasion was a preemptive action. Stalin was indeed planning a massive invasion into the heart of Europe.

German Combat ethics vs. Soviet atrocities. Was Stalingrad really the turning point?

The German Wehrmacht as the true guardians of Western Christian Civilization.

What the world would have been like had the Germans overthrown Stalin evil regime.




Saturday, 24 May 2014

American Intelligence on the Russian Revolution.


The American Army Intelligence Service had its agents in Russia at the time of the Communist revolution, and the Jewish nature of that revolution is accurately reflected in those reports. An American Senate subcommittee investigation into the Russian Revolution heard evidence, put on congressional record, that "In December 1919, under the presidency of a man named Apfelbaum (Zinovieff), out of the 388 members of the Bolshevik central government, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest (with exception of a Negro from the US) were Jews" (S. Doc. NO. 62, 1919)

However, none of these authorities quoted above dared to use the language of a US Military Intelligence Officer, Captain Montgomery Schuyler, who sent two reports to Washington in March and June 1919. These reports described in graphic detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution, and were only declassified in September 1957. The originals are still in the US National Archives in Washington and are open for public inspection.

The first report, sent from Omsk on March 1, 1919, contains the following paragraph: "it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type."

The second report, dated June 9, 1919, sent from Vladivostok, said that of the "384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial government.

The Jewish domination of the commissar elite of the early Soviet Union ensured that any forms of anti-semitism were regarded as "counterrevolutionary," and anti-Jewish agitation was entered into the Soviet law books as a capital penalty crime.


Source - Secret Behind Communism by Dr David Duke.


Monday, 19 May 2014

Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the Jews


By Friedrich Braun

I just finished reading the French translation of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together (2003) on Russian-Jewish relations since 1772 in two volumes (still no English translation available…”are we powerful or what?”).

It’s both a quick and fascinating read; among other things, we learn that not only the October 1917 Revolution (really a just a well-organized, well-carried out Jewish coup) was dominated by Jewish agitators (a documented fact) but so was the 1905 Revolution (something I didn’t know). We also learn from the grand old man the awe-inspiring extent of the Jewish domination of the Soviet Union during its first two decades of existence, including its ruthless and murderous internal security system: Tcheka, OGPU, NKGB, and NKVD.

A Russian in the hands of the Tcheka, etc. was almost certain to be in the hands of Jewish torturers and executioners. The litany of Jewish crimes committed against the long-suffering Russians (and other Slavic peoples: Ukrainians and Belarussians) and coldly listed by the author is simply nauseating and one should approach both volumes on an empty stomach. To this day there has been no acknowledgment on the part of international Jewry of their overwhelming support of the Bolshevik dictatorship during its first two decades.

No asking for forgiveness. No reparations paid out to Russians. No chest-beating. No nothing…how un-Jewish that would be! Those few, rare Jewish voices who dared to speak about the Jewish role in the establishment of the communist terror machine in Russia were inevitably greeted with hostiliy and enmity by other Jews and told to shut their “self-hating” mouths.

Another interesting aspect brought up by the author concerns the so-called era of “National Bolshevism” (a real misnomer) allegedly inaugurated by Stalin. Solzhenitsyn points out that Stalinism was as much hostile to Russian interests as Lenin and Trotsky. How many millions of Russian peasants and Russian Orthodox clergy perished under Stalin?

To speak of a Russian nationalism on the part of Stalin is simply laughable when one considers the the slaughter accompanying collectivisation and religious persecutions. Additionally, Jews continued to be overrepresented at all levels of the Soviet bureaucracy (including their overwhelming participation in the administration of the Gulag system) during Stalin’s years at the helm.

Furthermore, Solzhenitsyn speaks of his personal contacts with Soviet Jews and their typical detached relativism on all issues, including communist crimes with their tens of millions of victims. However, all that cool, intellectual relativism and reluctance to see the world in black and white terms would disappear in the blink of an eye as soon as Hitlerism was mentioned.

Another example of Jewish hypocrisy highlighted by the author concerns the Jews admonishing of Russians (namely Solzhenitsyn) to reject global generalisations regarding Jews and aspect of the Jewish character at the same time that they would form and propagate the most negative opinions on the Russian character and how it was the Russians’ fault that the fundamentally noble communist experiment failed.

Expressing generalisations about Russians while demandind from them that they abstain from seeing in Jews some distinct personality traits is very Jewish and pure chuzpah. Nothing is ever the Jews’ fault. It’s always someone else’s fault. One standard for the Jews, another standard for the goyim.

--> Source

* * * * * * * *

Related reading >> "Stalin's Jews"

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Islam is the sand Zionists kick in our face.


Islam is incompatible with Western civilisation in every way, Islam is the sand kicked in our faces to create a clash of civilisations in the West which leads to hatred being directed at Muslims, whilst the people who hold the door open for them, remain in the background shouting 'anti-semitism' as soon as anybody names them. We are well aware of the growing problems of Islam, but ignoring the real reason for Islam being here in the first place will solve absolutely nothing in the long term, things WILL just get worse. Concentrating solely on the Islamic issue is what they want you to do, Islam didn't just turn up at the door and asked to be let in, they were allowed in for more than one reason and its purpose isn't to enrich and diversify.

Mass Islamic immigration changes society, it changes the cultural and ethnic make up of our cities and towns, Islam may not be a race, but the majority of Muslims are not white European and therefore Islam in Europe has an impact racially. It is a religion that seeks to consolidate then dominate, and with a birthrate much higher than the indigenous population, soon starts to takeover whole areas. This aligned with other non-European mass immigration will lead to whites becoming minorities in their own nations, this is a fact that cannot be denied. Therefore the destruction of a predominantly white and Christian West is being achieved.

Another reason for mass Islamic immigration, is the clash of civilisations, the divide and conquer scenario. Those who rule over us at present, have been busy invading Muslim country after Muslim country, and still have more in their sights. This enrages the Muslims who have been allowed into the West, which in turn enrages the indigenous population against the Muslims. The rise of patriotic feeling grows and is centred around opposing Islam, the hatred of Islam becomes so great that wars being waged by corrupt governments are supported, and the people pulling the strings remain in the background as their plan succeeds. I support my nations troops fully, and I hope they all return safely, but I do not support our governments sending them into wars for reasons many fail to understand.

The counter jihad movements across the West rightly oppose Islam, but the fact of the matter is, many of these groups have a Zionist influence at their core and a strong pro Israeli stance not understanding that it is Israel and Zionist extremism which is orchestrating these wars in the interests of Israel. The Neocon movement in America is heavily Zionist, and has led the campaigns for military action in the Islamic world. In 1996 these Jewish neocons produced a strategy named the 'clean break' and presented it to the Israeli prime minister at the time, which stated that it was in the best interests of Israel, to have Saddam Hussein removed. They also spoke about Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea. And of course, whatever America does for Israel, the prominent nations in the EU or lapdogs if you prefer, usually support.

Strangely enough, the Wests desire to get involved militarily in Syria was thwarted by none other than Putin and Russia. What is happening in Russia now? Through the Ukraine and playing on historical animosity between both Russians and Ukrainians, they have managed to take control of the Ukraine and alienate Russia via their control of the Western media. Another case of divide and conquer.

Remember that the Jewish neocons in America are part of a group that make up 2% of the American population, yet wield unbelievable power politically, financially, and in the media. Some people use this extreme minority status of Jews to argue that it would be impossible for them to wield such power. A small and committed minority can outwit and control a majority quite easily through what is known as Group Evolutionary Strategy.

Getting back to the main point, Islam is no friend of Europe or the West, it doesn't take much intelligence to understand that. However, Islam in the West is part of a much bigger picture, they are pawns in the game of divide and conquer. They serve many purposes for the string pullers. How often do you hear that 'Israel is surrounded by Muslims who want to destroy them'? Truth is, Jews wanted to have a homeland there, they demanded it. They have, whether people want to admit it or not, ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their homes of hundreds of years. If any other nation did this, then you could almost guarantee military intervention, but not in Palestine.

Palestine was handed over to the Jews in 1948 and the state of Israel was created, but if you go back to WW1 and the Balfour declaration, you will see that WW1 was prolonged and many more European lives lost, because influential Jews in America and Britain said they would bring America into the war on the side of Britain, if the British took over Palestine after the war was won. Palestine at the time was part of the Ottoman Empire. So as you can see, the Jews knew exactly what they were doing when they decided they wanted Palestine. Then take into consideration the constant oppression of Palestinians, and the Israeli control of the American war machine, which they use to fight their wars, and you can see how and why the whole Islamic world is destablised. Every war that has been, or is being waged at present, is in the strategic and geographical interests of Israel.

People need to ask themselves a very important question in relation to this. How has anything done over the last decade or more, helped your nation? Thousands of Western soldiers have died, hundreds of thousands have been physically and mentally disabled. Vast amounts of money have been spent, the threat  of so called 'homegrown terrorism' has risen exponentially. Western civilians have died, a British soldier butchered to death on the street in his own supposed capital city. Colonised towns and cities, impending minority status, the list goes on and on.

So who benefits? Nobody in the West benefits, just as we didn't benefit from fighting each other in two disastrous world wars, we don't benefit from the so called 'war on terror', a war which by the very meaning of terrorism, we can never win. It is a war that can be carried on for as long as necessary for the string pullers to achieve their aims. A war on terror, is a never ending war, a war on terror can be used as justification for almost anything. Terrorism is not a standing army, it can never be defeated. Using terrorism as a justification for invasion or regime change is, when you think about it, the perfect way for those in control to create war wherever and whenever they need to. If anything, our 'leaders' have put us in danger, compromised our borders and created an enemy within that threatens us with revenge, and which will eventually make up the majority of the population in Europe.

The only people who benefit, are the ones who have us fight their wars for them. The wars in the Islamic world are in the strategic interests of one state and one group of people alone.

Here is a quote il finish with, it is an excellent quote that shows how patriotism can be manipulated to serve a purpose not in the interests of the patriot. Basically, in relation to this post, it highlights why patriots should be careful about who they allow to lead them and what road they lead them down.


“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

– Julius Caesar.

I don't perceive this quote as being anti-patriotism, i see it as more of a warning. Patriotism can be its own worst enemy, for example, focusing on Islam alone, whilst ignoring the string pullers behind Islam in the patriots nation. 'Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war', well who is your leader? Who leads you? What are their real motives?

'Blinded by patriotism', to a large extent this is happening across Europe in relation to Islam. Yes Islam is a problem, a symptom, but what causes the problems in the first place? What creates the symptoms? It is not that patriotism is bad, but sometimes it can let the heart control the mind, emotion to  dominate thought, and this is easily played upon to use and direct patriotic feeling in way which ultimately damages the patriot and benefits his true enemy.

No doubt some will disagree with this post, for the very reasons mentioned above. That is fine of course, but failure to grasp the reality of the situation will result in us losing our nations for good. In 10, 20, 30, years time, the Islamic problem will be even worse than it is today, and that will be because the focus wasn't in the right direction. When the symptoms of a disease are running wild, then it is because the disease causing the symptoms has not been diagnosed correctly.

Wednesday, 14 May 2014

Sample Chapter from The Illustrated Protocols of Zion: by Dr David Duke


Introduction

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was first published in the early 1890s. It is one of the most widely-read and debated and best-selling books of the last 120 years.

The Zionist, and Israeli advocacy group, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith has this to say about the Protocols:

“The booklet’s twenty-four sections spell out the alleged secret plans of Jewish leaders seeking to attain world domination. They represent the most notorious political forgery of modern times.”

In fact, the book is not a forgery but it obviously is not actually the minutes of a secret meeting. It is a literary creation.

Asserting it to be a forgery does not provide answers or refutation of the issues exposed in the book and why this book is so popular.
Indeed, what made the Protocols of Zion so compelling for over 120 years?

Thousands of intellectuals, historians, writers, scientists, social workers and humanitarians have found the Protocols of value in understanding the modern world. The attraction to these intellectuals is obviously not that they believe the protocols are the actual minutes of a candlelight meeting of ear-locked “Elders of Zion.”

The source of their fascination is rooted in the dystopian literary essence of the Protocols as one of the most prescient written works in history. Readers of Orwell’s 1984 don’t actually believe that there is an empire called Oceania or an entity called Big Brother.

Orwell’s other dystopian novel, Animal Farm, is of course a fantasy of a barnyard takeover by a group of corrupt pigs. It seeks to expose underlying errors and horrors of Marxist-based egalitarian totalitarianism.

Millions of readers accurately see the Protocols not as a literal secret meeting of Jewish elders, but literature as prophetic on the rising Zionist threat to humanity, just as Orwell’s 1984 presaged the rising threat of totalitarian mind control. In fact, most intellects studying the Protocols instantly recognize the contrived meeting of the elders of Zion as a literary device used to explore the deeper implications of Jewish messianic extremism. They argue that the Protocols of Zion are a prescient account of the modern world.

In fact, there is no doubt that the context of the Protocols is as fictional as Orwell’s Animal Farm, but the underlying truths of Animal Farm as well as the Protocols are vitally important.

This volume analyzes the protocols and offers an historical documentary and factual illustration of the Protocols showing that many of its essential elements are rooted in Jewish religious texts such as the Talmud and Torah, as well as embodied in the sentiments and actions of major Jewish leaders as well as in the Zionist State of Israel.
The famous American industrialist Henry Ford put this assessment succinctly:

“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.”

The American auto manufacturer whose genius and production methods ushered in the industrial might of America and the world, published an edition of the Protocols in the 1920s for the reason that it indeed fit the realities he saw of the world.

In short, Ford’s words sum up the true value, the true power of the Protocols, which derives from the obviously weakly-contrived scenario of a secret meeting exposed, but from the underlying realities it exposed. The amazing thing about the Protocols is that almost a hundred years after Ford made his endorsement, many intellectuals and opened-eyed thinkers all over the world, even into the first decades of the 21st Century view the Protocols as Ford did: “They fit.”

Abe Foxman and the ADL dismiss out of hand the idea that important Jewish leaders seek to “attain Jewish world domination.”

Is this simply some fantastical assumption of the Protocols woven from whole cloth by the mind of a twisted anti-Semite? Or, does a messianic vision exist in the discourse of the Jewish community and Jewish elite.

One could go into a lengthy discussion of the supremacist writings of the Talmud and Torah which will be touched upon in the Illustrated Protocols ahead, but as a preview, you can read the written words authored by the very founder of the Israeli state: David Ben-Gurion.

Did David Ben-Gurion see Israel as simply a state for the Jews of the world so they could have a home or even a refuge, or was his vision actually one of a supremacist nature? One does not have to speculate because Ben-Gurion wrote down in clear prose his true feelings. David Ben-Gurion boldly predicted the creation of a truly United Nations under Jewish hegemony, and would have its headquarters in Jerusalem.

There it would build a shrine of the Jewish prophets at which the world would presumably worship.
He writes that Israel would become the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, ruling over the world with an international police force and the abolition of all armies.

The idea that the primary founder of the Jewish State openly wrote that Israel would become the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind and that its world government there would build a shrine to the Jewish prophets might sound to you like it could only be made up by deranged anti-Semites. But, as impossible as it might be for many people to imagine it, Ben Gurion’s words were not casual flight of fancy, but seriously written carefully by his own hand. Every word has been completely documented by Jewish sources as authentic and unimpeachable.

If the Protocols then are, quote, anti-Semitic, are the pronouncements of Israel’s honored founder any less so? For his stated cherished vision of Jewish world domination is absolutely consistent with the theme of the Protocols. Ben Gurion’s stated vision is actually an example of the prescience of the Protocols. For if one read the Protocols and believed its essence, he could easily predict that the founder of Israel would hold such racist, megalomaniacal visions.Furthermore, upon reading and analyzing the Protocols, the astute thinker of modern times will immediately realize that much of Ben Gurion’s wish for Zionist world dominance has already become reality, particularly so now in the first decades of the 21st Century, even if not as overtly expressed as Ben Gurion’s fantasies.

Ironically much of the Protocols’ assertions are an indisputable reality in the modern world. One of the protocols repeated assertions is that Jewish extremists are striving to take over the major nations on Earth. The most powerful nation is the United States. No one can doubt the overwhelming dominance of the United States over world affairs. Even those who oppose the United States cannot help but be economically and in other ways affected by the policies of the American government, media and financial elite. One cannot forget the huge military budget of America that is greater than all other nations on earth combined. America has a spy network and active infiltration in more nations than any other on Earth and has immense capabilities to influence those nations.
It has bases in 68 nations. Its economic decisions affect the entire planet, its military excursions have huge impact. It can damage or buoy the economy or the political fortunes of any individual or political figure of any nation it wishes.

So if America is controlled by a tiny, tightly-knit minority, the ramifications obviously go far beyond even the freedom and welfare of the people of the United States itself. So, if the protocols are right in arguing that Jewish extremists are trying to take over the most important nations on Earth, is there any evidence of a Jewish takeover of the American elite in government, media and finance?
In fact, mainstream Jewish-owned publications and writers actually boast of their takeover. The New York Times is arguably the most important and influential newspaper on Earth and is read by and has a degree of influence on the elite in every nation on earth.

The most celebrated columnist of the Jewish-owned NY Times is the admittedly Jewish partisan, David Brooks. Brooks and the NY Times are so certain of their untouchable power, that they have the chutzpah to actually boast of it, to themselves and their readers. Just after the release of a book called The Chosen, by James Karabel, Brooks wrote a column about it titled, The Chosen: Getting In. The Jewish Karabel’s book is essentially celebration of the Jewish vanquishing of their old nemesis, the European American and the takeover of leading American academia, the Ivy League and the American elite by Jewish tribalists.

In the first paragraph Brooks writes these words: “…A woman came up to me after one of my book talks and said, “You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America. “My eyes bugged out, but then I realized that she was Jewish and she knew I was, too, and between us we could acknowledge there’s a lot of truth in that statement. For the Jews were the vanguard of a social movement that over the course of the 20th century transformed the American university system and the nature of the American elite.”

A non-Jewish academic or media columnist who would dare to speak about a “Jewish takeover of America” would do so with trepidation. The media lays down the usages and nuances of our words. Yet, when the word “Jew” or “Jewish” is uttered in an unusual context by a member of “The Chosen,” perhaps hard truth becomes more tenable. In quoting a Jewish woman with whom he agreed, Brooks wrote that Jews, a population barely two percent of the United States, have “taken over” America.

Concomitantly, Brooks implied that non-Jewish European Americans, about 70 percent of the American population, and the overwhelming founders of the most important American universities, had been overthrown and replaced by a Jewish elite. In fact, they have been. They are 70 percent of the highest performing students but now allowed only 20 percent of Harvard and Ivy League admissions, while Jews (2%) are 25 percent of admissions. That is 1,400 percent higher than their ability would merit.

Brooks asserts in support of Karabel that the Jewish takeover includes America’s premier Universities including Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League. Brooks asserts a Jewish takeover of these most important universities and also the heart of the American establishment itself. Brooks’ staggering assertion of the Jewish takeover of America in America’s leading newspaper came without controversy or dissension, and that fact itself suggests its underlying truth.

Written well before the advent of the 20th Century “Jewish takeover of America,” reading the Protocols in 1895, one could have predicted the takeover coming in America and in many other nations. Another theme of the Protocols is the Jewish takeover of media. The Protocols written decades earlier than modern broadcast radio and TV still was amazingly prescient in proposing that the Jewish supremacists would seek to completely dominate the mass media.

The Protocols said that they intend to dominate media reflecting every opinion always being in position to steer the holders of that political persuasion to supporting policies in line with the Jewish agenda. America and Europe have seen the Jewish domination of media from both the Liberal and Conservative (neoconservative) points of view, of labor and management, and the consistent bending of them to a perceived Jewish advantage.
In fact, the Jewish takeover of the NY Times is presaged by Protocols numbered 1 and 12 which point out Jewish efforts to control the media. The Jewish takeover of the NY Times by the Sulzberger family came just a few short years after the Protocols were written.

The Hollywood film and TV media also reflects Jewish media control. Another Jewish columnist, Joel Stein, this one of the The Los Angeles Times, similarly boasts of the suffocating Jewish grip on Hollywood and on Wall Street, politics and media.

There are, of course, enormous ramifications to a well-organized minority with major organizations openly espousing their collective ethnic interests and agenda. If this ethnic supremacy is real, questions naturally arise. For instance, a legitimate question can be, “How does it affect American foreign and domestic policy, as to Israel as well as other important Jewish issues or agendas.

This volume, The Illustrated Protocols of Zion will document the underlying ideological foundations of the sentiments expressed in a fictional meeting of the Elders of Zion, it will illustrate the prophetic fulfillment of the Protocols in the modern world. For once the blinders are taken off, you will see the principles expressed in the Protocols evidenced in your morning news, in your movies, TV and media entertainment, in many of the wars and conflicts of the world, and even in the conflicts going on inside your nation, even inside your community.
Once you connect the dots, you will be able to make sense of the predatory theft of Goldman Sachs and the fact that it steals trillions without prosecution and punishment. You will understand who gets appointed head of the Harvard Law School, and who in turn makes 50 percent of her professorial appointments to fellow tribe members and who herself (woefully unqualified) is appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
You will understand why “media” takes certain positions on variety issues important to Jews.

You will begin to understand why Israel can ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, continue to steal Palestinian land to the present day, can torture tens of thousands in their dungeons, can bomb and kill tens of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims and Christians, can develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons without any demand for inspections, and do all these things without sanctions. All while the nation of Iran can sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, allow inspections and face devastating sanctions that harm tens of millions of innocent civilians.

You will begin to have an idea as to why your “taken over” nation fights or supports bloody, insane wars, that not only are deadly to other nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but also horrifically harmful to your own nation’s interests, and damaging to the overwhelming majority of the people of your nation. You will learn of the domination of a tiny minority in the media, academic, political, and financial elite of the United States, the EU and most Western nations.

You will learn that the sentiments of the Protocols are not simply some obscure council of Elders of Zion, but reflect the real anti-Gentilism expressed in men who hold positions of authority in the Israeli Government and in leading Jewish organizations all over the world. You will realize that often the naked racism in the Protocols is far less radical and hateful toward Gentiles than the pronouncements of mainstream Jewish leaders the world over.

The issues of Jewish extremism, tribalism and racism underlying the protocols are not even debated or contested by the ADL, for they are desperate to avoid any debate about easily provable Jewish domination of American and Western Media, political financing and lobbies, and International Banking, such as the FED and world’s biggest predator robber bank: Goldman Sachs. Instead the ADL screams “forgery” “fake” and “anti-semitic” at the top of its lungs and makes sure that the charge is echoed endlessly in the halls of media, academia and government.

The real problem is not the literary license used in the Protocols to illustrate underlying issues. Jewish extremists hate it not because it is a “forgery” but because of the underlying truth that is in it, truth that becomes obvious once one looks at the world with truly unbiased eyes.

Some more examples of the Protocols are shown here in the leading Jewish role in pornography and in International Banking.

Protocol 14.5 discusses the role in pornography and obscenity and states:

“In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence.”

Jewish professors such as Nathan Abrams boast about the preeminent Jewish role in pornography and quotes Jewish porn kings telling of their atavistic hatred toward Gentiles.


Protocol 21 discusses the massive looting of the goyim by the International Banks, exemplified by the Federal Reserve, the World Bank and huge predator banks like Goldman Sachs.

The Illustrated Protocols of Zion bring to life the 120 year old Protocols and show, as Henry Ford said, that that “they fit.” They fit in 2014 and beyond just as they fit in 1895, and just as they fit in Henry Ford’s time.

This book is a powerful to expose and break the international barriers to knowledge erected by the Ziomedia. This book and the videos and discussion of it will circle the world, and the Zio Tyranny over all of us—can and will be broken!


Source:
http://www.theprotocolsofthelearnedeldersofzion.com/sample-chapter-from-the-illustrated-protocols-of-zion/

Friday, 9 May 2014

The Origins of Jewish Neo-Conservatism


We have posted once or twice lately about the Jewish supremacist nature of the Neoconservative movement in America. And it is important for people to understand who they are, where they came from and how they ended up controlling US and to a large extent Western foreign policy which has resulted in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and the destabilising of Syria and more recently the Ukraine.

The Neoconservative movement present themselves as the pursuers of 'freedom and democracy' but are nothing more than warmongers and puppeteers. They are heavily pro Israel and Zionist, and rather than pursuing the supposed foreign policy of the US, they are pursuing the foreign policy of Israel, Jewish international finance and Jewish globalism. The accusation of dual loyalty between America and Israel has been used against them, which they deny, saying that first and foremost they are American. This is I believe is not true, if anything, i would say that their only loyalty is to Israel and world Jewry, and through their control of the Federal Reserve, media, Hollywood and politics in America, they are using the American people, military and financial resources to do what is in the best interests of Israel and the Jews and not America and its people.

America in the 21st century has come to be a nation despised around the world for their perceived Imperialism and constant drumbeat of the threat of war. Nations are dragged through the media and presented as evil and dictatorial and pressure is put on them. It began with the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then Libya and Gaddafi were targeted, then Syria and Iran. The claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was false, and the so called intelligence came from Israel. A war was fought and many many thousands of men women and children died as a result. In the Neoconservative minds it was a job 'well done' and on to the next one. In Syria, the claim was that the Assad government used chemical weapons against his own people, this was shown to be a false claim but nevertheless the Neocons pursued military action only to be thwarted by Russia. Again it was Israeli intelligence that suggested the use of chemical weapons. The media which is over 90% Jewish owned which they themselves admit, works hand in hand with the Jews who work behind the scenes dictating American and Western foreign policy.

So who are the Neoconservatives?

I want to share with you an excerpt from Dr David Dukes book 'Secret Behind Communism'.

The Communist Origins of Neoconservatism: Chapter 31.

The "neo-conservative" movement, the lobby group directly responsible for the illegal, immoral and disastrous war in Iraq of 2003, is entirely misnamed. They are not "conservatives" in any sense of the word, and the entire ideology is essentially an extension of Jewish Trotskyism, as evidenced in their own words.

An article by the Neoconservative "godfather" Irving Kristol in the Weekly Standard in 2003 summed up the situation:

"The historical task and political purpose of neo-conservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."

- Irving Kristol (Jewish) 'godfather of  American neo-conservatism.'

Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

"Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

Ideological Origins: Israel First

Neoconservatism's key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the "New York Intellectuals, " a group that originated as followers of Trotskite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is published by the American Jewish Committee).

Key figures in leading the neocons away from calling themselves "leftists" and becoming "conservatives" were philosopher Sidney Hook and Elliott Cohen, editor of Commentary. The ideological kingpin of neoconservatism was Leo Strauss, a dedicated open Marxist devotee of Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), the head of the Red Army who began the Red Terror in Russia.

Many of the leading neocons worked closely with Jewish activist organisations and it was only when the left began to be hostile towards the racist state of Israel, that these radical activists "abandoned" their Communist positions. By the 1970s, the Jewish neocons had adopted an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, whose anti-Zionist policy they interpreted as "anti-semitism".

Jewish neocon Richard Perle, for example, later to become infamous as one of the major players in engineering the 2003 war against Iraq, was the primer organiser of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment. This legislation linked bilateral trade with the Soviet Union to special dispensation for Jews to emigrate from the USSR, primarily to America and Israel.

As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewd his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:

"I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the 'Jewish Question."

(The chapter continues by saying that the Iraq war was to date the neocons greatest coup and goes on to list many of the prominent Jewish members involved in bringing about that war).

In 1996, 7 years before any war in Iraq a strategy paper called 'A clean break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' was prepared for the Israeli government which advocated a war against Iraq to protect Israel, the strategy was used almost to the letter by the neocons in generating war against Saddam Hussein.

The effects which these Trotskyite-origin "neocons" have had on America, and indeed the world, through their criminal wars in the Middle East on behalf of the Zionist state, was summed up by famous Jewish journalist Carl Bernstein, in 2013.

Bernstein is perhaps the most respected and honoured journalist in the United States. He was one of two reporters responsible for unearthing the Nixon Watergate scandal in 1973. Speaking on NBC televison's "Morning-Jo" program, Bernstein stated explicitly that Jewish neocons were behind the Iraq war.

Bernstein's exact words were:

"This was an insane war that brought us low economically, morally. We went to war against a guy who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It was a total pretext! It's inexplicable and there you go to Cheney, there you go to bush, there you go to the Jewish neocons who wanted to remake the world. Maybe I can say that because I'm Jewish...."


So after reading the above it should now be pretty clear who the neoconservatives are and what their ideological origins are. Many of the Communists in Russia and who fully supported and participated in the Bolshevik revolution, actually moved to America and Israel as Communist Russia started to turn against them, they morphed from Jewish Communists into today's Zionists in America and Israel who then turned on Communist Russia for its perceived anti-semitism. The Communist regime was, in the early 20th century, the Jewish form of global control, in the early days, Communism was heavily led, financed and made up of Jews. It afforded them the freedom to be Jews and to do what Jews wanted to do. Ultimately it failed, because it didn't really spread outside of Russia and collapsed completely as a governmental and economic model in the latter part of the 20th century. It was internationalist in its aims, in the sense that it wanted to export Communist revolution across the West, but when it failed and the Jewish elements had left to go to America and Israel, they soon sunk their claws into the American administration and as we see today, America is almost completely controlled by Zionist influence in media, banking and foreign policy.

If you merely swap Communism for Zionism and understand that they are birds of a feather just with a different face nowadays, then you will see that Zionism, like Communism, is a form of Jewish financial, political, media and national control. Zionism is the new face of Jewish Communism. The difference being that now the Jews have a nation to operate out of ie Israel, a nation they control ie America, whereas in Russia they used Communism to gain control of a nation that wasn't Jewish, and was, like so many before them, aware of Jewish subversion. The amount of Jews residing in Russia at that time meant that in Communism, which they created and funded, they found a vehicle to impose themselves onto that nation.

Just as they took control of Russia with violence and mass murder, they have taken control of America through subversion and the power of money.


A documentary on the Neoconservative movement:

Neoconservatives, who they are and their power in government.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRbgKrLzAag&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Dr Kevin MacDonald on Neoconservatism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ophiEoGDY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Understanding Jewish Influence III:
Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement by Kevin MacDonald.
www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

Who Got us Into the Iraq War?
http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm


A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of "weapons of mass destruction".

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm



The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women.

Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals.

Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate.

One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. 

Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. 

The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. 

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. 

When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. 

But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...