Archive | October, 2011

From Atzmon to Dreyfus: a reply to communalists and Stalinists


Tony Greenstein’s extended commentcriticising my review of Gilad Atzmon’s new book The Wandering Who is indicative of a political method that can only lead to a ‘dialogue of the deaf’.  It is a characteristic flaw of the fragmented far left that in political disputes someone is quoted out of context in such a way as to distort the meaning of their views, and a whole extended narrative is concocted to attack the falsified or caricatured version. This is not a good method, it not only actually leaves one’s interlocutor’s real views untouched, but it also makes the exchange impossible to follow to the uninitiated layperson.

Such practices make the left a laughing stock. In this case, however, there is an additional element of communalism in that Atzmon is being ‘punished’ by left-wing members of his own Jewish community not merely for being right or wrong about something, but also for speaking ‘against’ his own people.  The peculiar ferocity of the attack not only on Atzmon, but also on anyone who disagrees with these people’s most extreme characterisations, is shown by the contribution of another Jewish leftist, Evildoer, who baldly admits he does not seek a rational discussion at all with leftists who disagree with him about Atzmon.

Be that as it may, this odd method is shown by Greenstein’s own initial comment that Atzmon’s alleged anti-semitism is ‘largely ignored’ in my review.  He must have been reading a completely different piece of writing, since the main subject of the review from beginning to end is the controversy about Atzmon’s alleged anti-semitism. But Tony Greenstein is not illiterate, this is rather communal-speak for ‘he does not think that Atzmon is a racist’. In other words, ‘largely ignored’ is a dishonest code for ‘I don’t agree with the way this has been addressed’. But instead of saying, as a normal discourse would, “ you have drawn this conclusion, but you are wrong  – here is why…” and proceeding to give some reasons,  he pretends that the question has been ignored and proceeds to give a long spiel on that basis. Which is simply like firing blanks.

Greenstein pretends that I did not address Atzmon’s putative holocaust denial, but of course I did and proceeded to the conclusion that while he undoubtedly has doubts about the truth of the holocaust or aspects of it, he has not taken a definitive position. I also gave reasons, taken from the Israeli context, why someone reacting against the racist crimes of their own state, not decades before their birth but right in front of their eyes, might mistakenly but comprehensibly develop such doubts or even disbelief when a narrative about historical crimes is used to justify racist crimes in the here and now.

Greenstein rattles off a list of Jews who have made this very error and pretends that I did not address this question (when actually I called it a ‘monumental blunder’).  Again what he really objects to is the conclusions I drew about those who have made this kind of error. That they are generally misguided opponents of Israel racism.  This is not the same as not addressing it.

And on one point of detail, outside the subject of my review, Greenstein accuses the Russian/Swedish/Israeli Jewish journalist Israel Shamir of being a fully paid-up fascist. In fact his views are an odious form of Stalinism; he certainly does favour alliances with racists and nationalists, with the Machiavellian and grossly unprincipled aim of manipulating the supporters of one form of far right politics to supposedly neutralise another form – the Western-backed free-market  form.  This is the Red-Brown block that many Stalinist nostalgics are involved in in Russia at the moment.

This is a reactionary fantasy;  the most degenerate form of popular frontism, quite in tune with previous examples of such alliances with one reactionary force against a ‘greater evil’ in the history of Stalinism like Stalin’s ‘rehabilitation’ of the anti-semitic Russian Orthodox Church during the ‘Great Patriotic War’ against Hitler. For ‘Hitler’ Shamir, embracing both Stalin and the church, substitutes the Zionists and West.  Stalin’s rehabilitation of the church led to such events as the post-war anti-semitic ‘Doctors Plot’ and anti-Jewish purges in Eastern Europe, so it is hardly surprising that someone who embraces a similar idea today would end up sounding pretty rancid.

On the other hand, he might well strike a chord with some Jews repelled by Israel’s repeated massacres of Palestinians,  justified repeatedly by reference to the need for Israeli ‘security’ against the threat of another holocaust.  Shamir is just one of many voices in the Middle East region who speak out against Israeli crimes using a discourse tinged with hostility to Jews – amalgamating Zionism, being Jewish and Judaism as a religion.  The only thing that makes him a bit different is that he is himself Jewish.

Shamir is undoubtedly a deeply alienated character who, however has a common origin with other Jewish/Israeli ‘self-haters’ and some authority because of his long-standing support for the Palestinians. Objectionable many of his views may be, but as a Stalinist, he still has one foot in the workers movement and his influence over some dissident Jewish circles arguably derives from that. He, and those influenced by him, still have to be dealt with by means of debate according to the norms of the labour movement.


Greenstein produces no evidence for his claim that Atzmon’s view of Jews is ‘an essentialist view based on a racist outlook’. None whatsoever – all he can do is misquote Atzmon in a particularly silly way.  On his own blog, Greenstein’s co-thinker Brian Robinson admitted misquoting Atzmon in this way, his clear statements that he did not consider Jews to be an ethnic group or ‘race’ at all being twisted to say the exact opposite. In Robinson’s case, he at least acknowledged that he had made a mistake, but Greenstein would hear nothing of it, saying “I have no doubt he [sees Jews as a race – RS] – however he defines it”. No evidence of this, but much to the contrary.

In one of the most amazing passages in his comment, Greenstein writes:

“ The description of himself as a ‘proud, self-hating Jew’ is in itself an inverted form of racism. Why? Because the term ‘self-hater’ which the Nazis used against German anti-fascists presupposes that all Jews (except for this psychologically crippled anti-national minority) is itself racist, a concept that Atzmon adopts, he doesn’t fight against it.”

This is tortured. Spokespeople for Israel, a virulently racist state, routinely abuse their Jewish critics as ‘self-haters’ in the manner that racists and neo-Nazis in the West abuse white anti-racists as ‘race-traitors’. When abused in this way, it is perfectly natural for a spirited anti-racist to give them the big up-yours and say, “yes, I am a race-traitor and proud of it”.  Do you take that literally, and start screaming about ‘inverted racism’?  That would be an incredibly foolish, sectarian response, as is this piece of nonsense from Tony Greenstein.

And then there is this strange and incoherent point:

“ You say that ‘If he were a racist/essentialist, he would not believe in the possibility of renouncing Jewishness.’ Not so. Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Black woman who has become one of the foremost racists in the Netherlands…”

It is complete nonsense to call Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist or an essentialist. Greenstein does not even attempt to show what Hirsi Ali regards as the ‘essence’ of being black.  Incidentally, she now lives in the US, not the Netherlands, and works for the American Enterprise Institute – a reactionary neocon think tank. If she holds ‘essentialist’ views about blacks, I wonder what she thinks of such black American capitalist politicians such as Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, etc? Come to think of it, what does she think of herself, her skin is black after all?

Messianic Person Today

Ayyan Hirsi Ali

Ayyan Hirsi Ali is a reactionary figure, but not because she holds ‘essentialist’ views about blacks. She does not, and there is no need to resort to such absurdities to condemn people like her. It is because she is an Islamophobe, who has  thrown her lot in with a neo-con programme to ‘liberate’ the Muslim world, including particularly her own people, from Islam, that she is dangerous.

Her misguided views mean that she can be used by racists as a tool – as indeed she was by Theo Van Gogh –  but it is absurd to say that she holds ‘essentialist’ views about blacks or even Somalis. She wants the West to ‘liberate’ all her people so they can become ‘liberated’ like her.  That is a dangerous enough position, but there is no need to caricature her as “essentialist’ to condemn her for this.

While in the West, many white racists use Islamophobia as a cover for their racism, and their Islamophobia can therefore be regarded as a manifestation of racism, to brand a black female victim of reactionary practices who has been driven to a reactionary response as a racist or essentialist is just silly and undermines the real case against her by reducing it to absurdity.

One could make some limited parallel between Atzmon’s position and Hirsi Ali’s if Israeli Jews were an oppressed people and Atzmon were calling on some major anti-semitic world power to ‘liberate’ Jews from their Jewishness.  Who knows, if that were true, he might even have some humanly understandable reason for taking such a position (though in the real world it is the Palestinians who need to be liberated – fat chance of that!)

Hirsi Ali certainly does have such a reason, having been subjected to genital mutilation and other very unpleasant experiences in Somalia.  But unfortunately, her undoubted oppression has led her to act as an agency for very powerful forces that are far worse than the people who did that to her, and threaten the whole of humanity. Whereas Atzmon has done nothing of the sort.  The comparison between them is fatuous – Hirsi Ali is tragically an agent of imperialism, whereas Atzmon is an opponent of imperialism.

Greenstein’s points about ‘honourary whites’ in South Africa, or how a few part-Jewish functionaries were exempt from Nazi laws, merely prove that since race is a fiction, systems based on race distinctions do not work and therefore hypocrisy becomes necessary in practice. They show nothing about whether someone holding ‘essentialist’ views about ‘race’ can at the same time believe that people can change their ‘race’. To hold both views is not possible, they are opposites. This is another non-argument.

As indeed it is when he writes:

“You also don’t mention the very focus on identity because if you did you’d find it isn’t fixed, unchanging. This is an essentialist viewpoint consequence on a racist outlook. Jewish identity changed with Zionism and is changing again as increasing layers break from its stranglehold”

I’ve not read anything from Atzmon that implies that Jewish identity is fixed and unchanging. His focus seems to be, not on identity per se, but on the use of identity for political purposes, i.e. identity politics. He does not seem to have any problem with Jews whose identity is a religious one, only with those who claim a secular identity and still emphasise their Jewishness as a political category.

I don’t see how his theory about third category Jews (as opposed to the first and second category, i.e. religious Jews, and those Jews who generally regard their identity as Jewish but do not politicise that) is essentialist. It applies as I see it to those who make their communal identity a political issue. He may be wrong to say that Zionism and Tony Greenstein’s kind of political Jewishness are fundamentally the same thing, but how is that essentialist? It is a theory about the politicisation of identity, not identity itself.


Greenstein’s point about the Jewish socialist-atheist couple who had their young son circumcised despite their atheism and publicised it in the Jewish press, in linked to this logic. Apparently to criticise this behaviour is ‘essentialist’, i.e. racist. Nonsense!  It is an example of how this kind of identity politics makes a mockery of professed socialism and secularism, not to mention atheism.

I guess I just don’t understand Greenstein’s reasoning here about how this was a “this was a brave attempt to raise a taboo amongst the organised Jewish community”.  Logic says that it would have been brave – but not wise – if they had done the opposite and publicised that. Wise would be to refrain from the practice and respect the privacy of their child.  But how is it ‘brave’ to publicly go along with such an established practice to prove your ‘legitimacy’ to the ‘community’? It’s a rank anomaly and indefensible.

Going back to the Hirsi Ali case for a moment.  If some atheist, socialist Somalis had done a similar but much more unpleasant procedure to their female child, and publicised the fact to show that they wanted to be seen as a ‘legitimate’ part of the ‘community’, would  Greenstein not have been very loud in his condemnation of them for  ‘communalism’? I suspect he would, and rightly so.  And not just because of the far more unpleasant and utterly harmful nature of the procedure involved (which would also attract police attention). But also because of the hypocrisy and communalist element of the point they were making by this action.

There is another strange aspect of Greenstein’s posting. His theoretical critique of Atzmon appears to imply that the only analysis of Israel and Zionism that is not essentialist and not anti-semitic is – his own particular take on a Marxist analysis.  The colonial-settler analysis and all the wide spectrum of disagreements with it on the Western left, let alone the spread of possible alternative analyses that might be formulated in the Middle East, represent only one strand. Good material for a debate, not so good for an excommunication.

On the US Zionist lobby, Tony Greenstein writes:

“I don’t doubt that Jews are over represented in the US Senate and British houses of parliament but only if one takes Jews as some form of collective, this mysterious ‘Jewish power’ that Atzmon is wedded to.”

This is so blasé, and effectively seems to dismiss the concerns of many decent people – not about the representation of Jews per se, but of rabid supporters of Israel with no regard for the democratic rights of Palestinians or anyone who sympathises with them. Dismissing the existence of the lobby as a question to raise and make a fuss about, denouncing anyone who raises concerns about it as anti-semitic, can only fuel conspiracy theories. Greenstein is vaguely on the right track in saying.  “There are quite rational explanations such as the use of Jews as an ideological cover for western imperialism “

But this is not an either-or situation. Either the lobby exists, or it is some kind of mysterious ideological mirage that acts as a cover for imperialism. The truth is that it is a like a guard dog in domestic politics, just as Israel acts somewhat like a guard dog for imperialism in the Middle East. It is composed of willing, highly committed political Zionists – mainly Jewish – with a loyalty ultimately to Israel, but it is allowed to operate with great latitude. Even to intimidate parts of the US bourgeoisie who are out of step with the mainstream – but ultimately under the control of the dominant wing of the US ruling class who support the US strategic alliance with Israel for their own interests, not that of Israel.

This attempt to twist obvious and elementary political reality continues when Greenstein writes:

“So now Atzmon is not a Jewish heretic, battling against an establishment as per Spinoza. He is a Jewish reactionary. Hence his embarrassingly laudatory comments re Obama and his illusions in Amir Peretz, the Israeli Labour Leader prior to his role in launching the invasion of Lebanon in 2006!”

I’m shocked! What a terrible reactionary-fascistic swine that Atzmon fellow must be. He had illusions that the first black President of the US might bring some improvement! And that Israeli Labour’s first leader from a Sephardic background might do something also! It is just crazy sectarianism to try to prove Atzmon’s ‘reactionary’ credentials on this basis. In reality, these kinds of illusions put him quite clearly on the liberal left.  As of course, Greenstein would be well aware if he were talking about the same illusions in anyone other than Atzmon.

He is really upset because of Atzmon’s flawed, but quite cutting criticism of his own bundist views from an assimilationist standpoint:

“ A Jewish secular identity is quite possible as the Bund demonstrated and which Atzmon hates. For many, opposition to Zionism also constitutes a major part of their Jewish identity, but we too are Zionists! I happen to think that a non-Zionist Jewish identity is quite possible, for a long period of time and would possibly flourish in the absence of a Zionist state but that is for the future. Atzmon’s conception though is totally racist and essentialist.”

Lots of things are ‘quite possible’, but that does make them rational or right? Atzmon’s remarks about the Bund planning to ‘rob’ the ruling class reflect his deep suspicion of Jewish ‘tribalism’ and his own liberal, anti-Marxist prejudices.

But here Greenstein is not acting as a disinterested forecaster of what ‘may’ happen. His political strategy centrally involves using Jewish identity as a weapon against Zionism: as in ‘Jews Against Zionism’, ‘Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, etc. He is not just defending the element of the Bund that is socialist, i.e. hostile to the ruling class, but he is also defending its separateness and hostility to voluntary assimilation.

The correct position for socialists to take in this a debate around these issues should be obvious: yes to ‘robbing the ruling class’ (i.e. expropriation of the expropriators) and yes to voluntary assimilation (while of course opposing all forced assimilation and oppression). Why on earth should socialists spend time trying to defend the separatist project of a defunct, failed movement of a century ago? Whether or not a Jewish identity should continue to exist is up to … history.

It is outside the parameters of what socialists should be doing to attack someone – however mistaken in their way of expressing them – who holds that the best thing that such an identity could do is to self-dissolve into the wider human community. Atzmon could just as easily come back and say … “Hitler was hostile to Jewish assimilation; Greenstein is also hostile to Jewish assimilation, therefore ….”

The point is obvious. This kind of branding of assimilationism as akin to exterminationism is actually a form of communalist politics in itself. Atzmon is mistaken in labelling this as Zionism, since Greenstein is obviously a committed opponent of Zionism and the whole project of a Jewish territorial state in the Levant.  But it is an understandable error, mistaking one form of communalism for another is not difficult, especially for someone who is being targeted by both at the same time!

Guilty liberalism

Greenstein flagrantly contradicts himself when he writes:

“I don’t accept the equivalence between Palestinians who deny the holocaust (and who are on the right of Palestinian/Arab politics) and this alleged ‘minority of alienated, radicalised Israeli Jews’. In fact its major proponents aren’t Israeli – Dan McGowan, Paul Eisen, Jeff Blankfort, Israel Shamir etc. If anything it is a section of diaspora Jews who have become so ashamed of being Jewish that they have given a free pass to Nazism.”

Actually, the two most prominent of whom Greenstein speaks, Atzmon and Shamir, are certainly Israeli to the extent that both have served In the Israeli armed forces. Given the whole ethos of aliyah, the prestige of Israel among diaspora Jews, the large number particularly in the US with family connections in Israel and who have spent time there, and the political expression of that in terms of the Israeli lobby etc., the division between diaspora Jews and Israelis is often quite thin.

Greenstein knows not what he says, in saying that they are ‘ashamed of being Jewish’, he is actually conceding the core of my case.  Although his phraseology is derogatory – he evidently disapproves very strongly of those who are ‘ashamed’ of their Jewishness, he does not even ask why this might be. Why should relatively young Jews, those too young to have any life experience of the earlier historical period when Jews actually suffered real oppression, feel so ‘ashamed’ to be Jewish that they would, in his words, give a ‘free pass’ to the Nazis (actually this is an exaggeration in most of these cases, apart from Eisen).  How on earth can this happen in the first place?

It’s perfectly obvious why. Those who are brought up with the idea that they are a superior people, chosen, born to rule over the Arabs, once they see through the racism and inhumanity that sustains that idea, are highly likely to dismiss the historical accounts of past oppression that are cynically and systematically used today to justify today’s crimes against Arabs. Greenstein, who has the good fortune to have been politicised at an early age in a left-wing environment and have assimilated elements of socialist Jewish and non-Jewish culture, shows an incredible lack of understanding for people with an entirely different experience.

If even a small minority of Jews feel so guilty about Israeli crimes that they are prepared to consider that maybe the history of Nazi atrocities is a pack of lies, that is a tragedy.  And it is 100% the fault of those who carry out those Israeli crimes and create the conditions for that.

Guilt about racist crimes is very familiar among anti-racist youth in imperialist countries. As in the UB40 lyric:

“There are murders that we must account for
Bloody deeds have been done in my name
Criminal acts I must pay for
And our children will shoulder the blame

`“I’m a British subject, not proud of it, and I carry the burden of shame”.

The difference is that this problem is very unlikely to arise because there is no significant history of oppression of, for instance, English people or white Americans to so deny.  Perhaps a white Afrikaner taking the position that his ancestors deserved what they got in the Boer War is nearest to this.

Someone motivated in this way is misguided but well-meaning. Socialists should be debating with such people to try to break them from guilty liberalism to something more profound and useful.  Not treating them as a Nazi-like threat.  The idea that a small number of Jewish ‘self-haters’ and holocaust sceptics constitute some incipient anti-semitic threat is totally hallucinatory.

Indeed, Greenstein comes close to conceding this when he claims that while these people are no danger to Jews, they are a danger to Palestinians because they supposedly discredit the Palestinian cause by associating it with anti-semitism. But this seems paternalistic, why cannot Palestinians decide these things without a bunch of Jewish political vigilantes deciding it for them? And again, there is this curious double standard since many Palestinians hold similar views. The only realistic conclusion that can be drawn about this is that again, this is communalism. Greenstein and co think they have the right to discipline ‘their’ community. But there is nothing socialist about this view.

The reason why socialists are unremittingly hostile to holocaust deniers is simply because in the post-war Western context such views have not been the result of misunderstanding of historical events.  This is stating the blindingly obvious.  Those like David Irving, Richard Verrall, etc. were worthy of hatred not because they were holocaust deniers per se, but because they were Hitlerites, who wanted another holocaust, hence the lies.

But what if some Jewish anti-racists come to mistakenly deny the holocaust, as part of an intense guilt reaction to contemporary Israeli-Jewish racism? Is that the same thing? Obviously not – and the paradoxical thing about reading even the most deluded of these writers – Paul Eisen, the author of the Holocaust Wars, is that his motive for saying the bizarre things he does is hostility to the racism of his own people, as he perceives it. This is very visible in his document.

There is no socialist principle that prevents fraternal debate with people who are honestly mistaken to the point of denying the holocaust, as Noam Chomsky once pointed out. Even though Chomsky was mistaken in applying this to the hypocritical racist conman Robert Faurisson, he was right in principle.

To say otherwise is endorse the Zionist view that the Nazi Judeocide was totally unique, and can never be spoken of alongside any other event. When in fact it stands alongside the Armenian genocide, which has been the subject of denial and obfuscation in Israel when Turkey was an Israeli ally, to give one of several events it can be legitimately compared with. It also stands alongside the estimated 10 million Congolese butchered by the Belgian king Leopold II’s ‘Congo Free State’ fiefdom at the beginning of the 20th Century.


And as for the assertion that Palestinians who deny the holocaust are ‘on the right of Palestinian politics’, I wonder how Greenstein measures that left-right spectrum. Does being subservient to Israel and making soothing noises about the past sufferings of the Jewish people, as for instance does the Palestinian Authority, put someone to the right of Hamas (a considerable number of whose militants might well be inclined towards denying the holocaust), or to the left?

How important does Tony Greenstein think the question of the holocaust is in locating Palestinians on a left-right axis? Is it paramount, does it override all other questions, such as one state/two states, whether one supports or opposes Oslo or the Road Map, secular or Islamist, or any other contentious issue of the Palestinian struggle?  Is it more important than any other consideration?

If so, is he not just as guilty as the Zionists in seeking to impose another agenda on the Palestinians, putting someone’s likely ignorant and jaundiced view of something that happened more than half a century ago on another continent above their view of the Palestine question in the here and now?

Or is it a secondary issue, overshadowed in importance by a Palestinian militant’s attitude to questions directly concerned with the struggle today? If this is TG’s view, is he therefore minimising the holocaust in importance and reducing it to a level approaching that of other historical events and political questions?

And if he does take this view, why is it wrong to privilege the views of Palestinians on the Palestinian struggle over their views on the holocaust, and not do the same for Jews? Particularly given the fact that Israel Jews, as a people, oppress the Palestinians in the here and now. Surely the attitude of a Jew, particularly an Israeli Jew, on the question of the Palestinians and their right to wage their struggle and expect solidarity now is of considerably more importance than the opinion of a Jew on the historical question of the holocaust? If not, why not? How can these rather important questions be answered?

One thing that these questions underline is this: that if you attempt to privilege a European view on what was essentially a European conflict in analysing questions concerning the Middle East, you will end up in a terrible muddle. It is a commonplace in the Palestinian solidarity movement to say that Arabs do not have the slightest reason to feel guilty about what happened in the Second World War. This was a conflict between imperialist powers whose main acts took place on another continent and whose common objective was to dominate and oppress the colonial world, of which the Arabs were victims, not oppressors.

But there is another group of people in the Middle East who also have no reason to feel guilty about the Second World War –  Jews, either Israeli or Israeli-connected!  That would seem like an odd thing to say, except that now there is a generation of Jews who have no experience or memory of being oppressed, but live every day with the racism of Israel and its supporters in Europe and America against the Arabs – whose main ideological justification is an evocation of the past sufferings of the Jews.

It is just as natural for liberal Jews to feel like this as it is for the liberal young generation of any other oppressor people. But put these two elements together, and you begin to get some rather unusual results. At least among a particularly alienated and radicalised minority of radical-liberals. This is not a right-wing trend, let alone incipient fascism or Nazism, but a very confused left-liberal development., that needs to be engaged with fraternally, not subjected to pointless and vindictive communalist attacks.

These people are hyper-sensitive towards what they see as ‘Jewish supremacism’ at large in the world. Thus Atzmon sees Zionists as responsible for the credit crunch, basically as far as I can see because the US bourgeoisie and its Israeli allies took major economic risks to prevent a normal, cyclical capitalist recession taking place in the early 2000s.

They used every lever they could find to create a boom and the illusion of prosperity to bolster popular support or acquiescence in the aims of the ‘Project for the New American Century’ –  the post 9/11 attack on Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and hoped for attacks on Iran and Syria. This ‘Project’ was also stuffed with rabid Zionists and supported to the hilt by Israel. And then a few years later it all came crashing down with the worst financial crisis since 1929.

This is factually accurate of course, but also non-materialistic in assigning the primary role to Jewish neocons. In reality, these people’s power derives from being employed as guard dogs for the US ruling class domestically, just as Israel plays a similar role internationally.  Their wealth and power is dwarfed by that of the non-Jewish, mainly European-derived US ruling class, who are much more numerous. Wealth and social weight trumps ideology any time in determining who is really in charge. The guard-dog is not in charge of its owner, including in this case.

Atzmon’s reading back of Jewish supremacism into history is of the same ilk. Here he really does come close to echoing some unsavoury stuff with his points about the activities of a Jewish capitalist named Jacob Shiff in giving aid to the Bolsheviks. There may be some truth in this, this man hated the Tsarist regime for its anti-semitism and donated money to the Japanese war effort against the Tsar in 1904-05, apparently. Any enemy of the Tsar was his friend, seemingly.

Atzmon does not characterise the Bolsheviks as Jewish tribalists therefore, indeed he appears to counterpose the ‘tribalist’ Bund to the universalism of the Marxist left (including the Bolsheviks), but in making mischievous points like this against leftists who are persecuting him he is flirting with disaster. But yet again, the motivation for this intellectual endeavour of reading back into very different historical circumstances the undoubted racism and even supremacism (over Arabs anyway) of Israel and its supporters today, is again obvious: liberal guilt.

Guilt at being born into a people dealing out really quite monstrous oppression is a pretty complex matter in political-psychological terms, but it can also be the ante-chamber to a more profound radicalisation. The possibility exists that these people could break from this liberalism in a revolutionary direction. This should not be seen in a crude sense as looking for recruits to some Trotskyist sect or other – that sort of trite perspective will no doubt be greeted with much laughter. Rather, what we are talking about is the opportunity for an organicpolitical development that might play an important role in revolutionary events in the Middle East.

A Jewish current

There are echoes of this also in the otherwise very puzzling development of the leftist magazine Counterpunchin the US, which regularly features material on the Israeli lobby and related questions that is perceived and denounced as anti-semitic by others on the left. Yet again, the authors of this material are almost invariably Jewish. This magazine, and these Jewish ‘anti-semitic’ writers, are certainly a trend on the left fringe of American politics. There is no way that they can be portrayed as on the racist or chauvinist right. This is another odd paradox, connected with the Atzmon issue.

Apart from Zionists, who regularly and mendaciously attack any serious criticism of Israel as ‘anti-semitic’, these phenomena have led to furious denunciations of so-called ‘left’ anti-semitism from others who are generally opposed to Zionism.

The Socialist Workers Party in Britain originally took a different position: in 2005 and since Gilad Atzmon has been featured at their events as a musician and sometimes as a speaker, generating much controversy. Recently, however, with a change of leadership, the SWP have capitulated to the outcry against Atzmon and denounced him in a fairly stupid manner.

The SWP, however, is merely following a rightward trajectory and being dragged along by vociferous critics who are to say the least not exactly honest or non-sectarian in their motivation. Apart from Tony Greenstein, whose views are extensively dealt with above, another vocal critic of the SWP is the ex-SWP and now soft-Stalinist blogger, Andy Newman of ‘Socialist Unity’.

Upon the publication of Gilad Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who?, Andy Newman had a rather poorly argued and bland article published in the Guardian denouncing ‘left anti-semitism’ and in particular Zero Books for allowing Atzmon’s book to be published.  Later, on his own blog, he was challenged to give some concrete examples of this ‘left anti-semitism’, when the revolutionary socialist left have generally been the most fervent opponents of racism, including anti-semitism.  All Newman could come up with is this:

“Perhaps [Newman’s critic] can explain how the ‘Doctors’ plot’ purge, the campaign in East Germany against ‘Cosmopolitanism’, or the Slansky Affair are examples of ‘taking a lead against anti-Semitism’ ???”

It is peculiar, to say the least, that Newman as someone who spent quite a few years in the SWP, should now believe that quoting the actions of Stalin and his various East European henchman can be used as typifying the attitude of the revolutionary socialist left. The relationship of Stalinism to the genuine left can be best summed up as being on the other end of the ice-pick.

Newman’s embrace of Stalinism and the Chinese Communist Party, and all that goes with these things, seems to have led him effortlessly to believe that his new heroes are suddenly sterling examples of ‘the left’, and where they go wrong, such as with Stalin’s anti-semitic purges, they should be given a jolly good ticking off.  Utter nonsense of course, and as trite an example of political and logical degeneration as you are likely to see.

But Newman’s examples do throw some small amount of light on this question.  For all the fulminating against ‘left’ anti-semitism that the likes of Newman indulge in, the only concrete examples of it they can find are examples from the history of Stalinism. But no genuine leftist regards Stalinism as a genuine left current. Stalinism is the mortal enemy of the revolutionary socialist left.

And the only other ‘left’ anti-semitism that Newman can find to attack is the work of – a bunch of Jewish ultra-liberals (and one Jewish Stalinist – Israel Shamir)! In other words, this particular form of ‘anti-semitism’ is a purely Jewish phenomenon. Indeed, the case that clarifies this is the case of Shamir, whose ‘anti-semitic’ evolution has led him to embrace – precisely the kind of Stalinist politics and nostalgia that Newman has also embraced.  Here is a nice example of this that should make Newman very uncomfortable – much of it could almost have been written by Andy Newman himself! There are many others.

Shamir is both a representative of this very Jewish, ultra-liberal current and a Stalinist. Which is why he paradoxically keeps cropping up on the left, despite his often fiery, Hizbullah-like anti-Jewish pronouncements, which understandably cause alarm to many.

Newman now retrospectively approves the Stalin-Hitler pact of 1939-41 as a necessary manoeuvre to defend the Soviet Union in those days. Shamir, however, applies this approach to the present day and wants ‘the left’ – his conception of this is roughly the same as Newman’s –  to engage in a similar ‘red-brown’ popular front with old fashioned white supremacists and Nazi remnants to oppose what he sees as the potent far right of today – the US, the Zionists and the Israel lobby.

It appears that these political contradictions have blown Newman’s mind somewhat, as he has started a cowardly, unannounced policy of excluding commenters that point out these facts from his blog, which he still claims is a public space for ‘Socialist Unity’!

Newman’s polemics are an example of manufacturing an allegation out of thin air. ‘Left anti-semitism’ is a myth. If you promote real anti-semitism, essentialist racial hatred of Jews simply for being of Jewish origin, you are an enemy of the left just as if you promote any other kind of racism.

In reality Newman’s nonsense about ‘left’ anti-semitism is a Stalinist-style smear against the far left, and a campaign so unprincipled it is prepared wilfully to give ammunition to supporters of the oppression of the Palestinians, and to witch-hunt those on the left who are entirely correctly prepared to engage fraternally in debate with a confused, persecuted, but in its thrust anti-racist current among Jews that solidarise with the Palestinians.

It would not be the first time that Stalinists have done things like that either, look at Stalin’s arming of the Zionist militias in 1948 through his Czech proxies, that played a major role in the tragedy of the Nakba in the first place. As an aside, it would also be quite interesting to know what Shamir thinks of that, Newman is not the only one with contradictions here.

“Not the same river twice”

Much is disturbing about this campaign about so-called ‘left’ anti-semitism.  A century or so, Jews in Europe were regarded as subversives and a revolutionary threat to ‘Christian civilisation’, supposedly being the sponsors of communism, democratic extremism, anarchist terrorism and other forms of subversion. Even Jewish bourgeois were under suspicion of being really opponents of the established order. And indeed, many of the best representatives of Jewish intellectuals were indeed opponents of the established order, and evidenced a genuinely internationalist, cosmopolitan outlook.

Today, that situation has been reversed. It was basically Hitler and Stalin who reversed it. Hitler played the major role in wiping out millions of Jews, preferentially the most radical, since they were targeted also for being communists and socialists as well as Jews.  Stalin played a complementary role, as his wiping out of an entire generation of genuine communists in Russia also coincidentally involved wiping out another crucially important layer of Jewish radicals. Between them they committed a genocide – of most of the Jewish revolutionary tradition. Leaving behind a surviving Jewish population that was pretty traumatised, deradicalised and susceptible to a reactionary nationalist outlook.

The decline of anti-semitism today is the product of the decline of a counterrevolutionary paranoia about Jews.  The reason for that is simple, the revolutionary movement in which Jews played an important role has ceased to exist, and Jews have ceased to play the revolutionary role they once did. Now Jews, as a result of the Zionist project, are an oppressor, colonial-type people in the Middle East and a key, if subordinate, part of the establishment of the most powerful imperialist nation, the United States, and to a lesser degree in other Western nations.

Thus the material and political basis for anti-semitism has completely disappeared. Now the dominant reactionary discourse is not about defending Christendom from the Jews and Bolsheviks, but of defending ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’ from the Muslim hordes.

The only place of any significance where anti-semitism has any potency is the Middle East, and perhaps among the odd Muslim politician elsewhere in the world who may be influenced by events in the Middle East. It is a regrettable reaction to the Zionist colonisation and an expression of impotent rage at the unremitting nature of Zionist humiliation and oppression of Arabs. And a few deeply alienated Jewish radicals have come to echo some of that ‘anti-semitism’, which though it may appear unsavoury and echo the rhetoric of another age, is in fact an ideology of the oppressed.

Neo-Nazis today in the west are a dead-end fringe of cranks, doomed to disappear when the old ones die. Nazism may be on its last legs, but fascism is not. The two are not synonymous, not by a long chalk. Now there are fascist groups in Europe who carry the Israeli flag, who actively seek to recruit Jews, and who unremittingly incite hatred of immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, in Europe. In America, the Zionist lobby itself plays a key role in inciting hatred of Arabs and Muslims, along with Christian ultra-rightists. This is obviously a very changed situation from the interwar period when anti-semitism was the major reactionary discourse.

The ancient Greek Philosopher Heraclitus once said that “it is not possible to step into the same river twice”.  Meaning, of course, that if you do it again the actual water you will be wading through will be completely different.  This is of course a metaphor for life itself.

One of the reasons why neo-Nazism failed as a movement in the decades after World War II was that political conditions were changing. And of course, the Jewish question was a key component of that. It was more and more difficult to promote a counterrevolutionary paranoia of Jewish Bolshevism when mainstream Jewish politics, paralleling developments in Israel of course, was moving away from socialism through liberalism to a pretty conservative, right-wing position. In effect, by sticking to the cult of Hitler and denying the Nazi genocide, neo-Nazis were “trying to step into the same river twice”.

But conversely, one reason why new-style ultra-right and fascist movements – the likes of the EDL, Geert Wilders, etc., that do not look to Hitler, and who target Muslims instead of Jews, are so dangerous, is precisely because they are not trying to “step into the same river twice”. With the fear of immigrant radicalisation, particularly that of Muslims, and the impact of the ‘war on terror’, the ‘river’ that they are trying to step into is virgin territory. That does not mean they cannot be fought and defeated, but it does mean that they are a more potent threat than neo-Nazis ever were in the post war period.

It is difficult to imagine a replay of the Dreyfus case of more than a century ago, where a Jewish military officer of the French General Staff was framed up for treason on the basis of a racist hate campaign that polarised French – and indeed wider European, society into two camps. With the completely changed climate that exists today, such an event, an anti-semitic witchhunt against a prominent figure of major political significance, is very unlikely.

But there is one group of Jews who could easily fall victim of something similar in the modern context. That is, a group of Jews who might conceivably be branded as traitors to ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’, and become the target of some kind of reactionary victimisation. And if that happens, watch those on the left who have not clarified this issue find all kinds of excuses to either support the victimisation, or to duck for cover. Such an event, if it were to take place, might appear very different to the Dreyfus case in form, but in content it would be very similar.

We have already seen elements of this kind of capitulation on the left with the refusal of many, most notably the SWP, to defend Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Part of this is as a result of the pressure of reactionary feminists in joining the outcry over the concocted sexual allegations against him. But another important element of this is the outcry over his association with the ‘Jewish traitor and anti-semite’, Israel Shamir.  There are certainly echoes of the Dreyfus case in the frameup of Assange, who like Dreyfus is no angel or proletarian militant, but nevertheless whose defence is a question of class principle.

This is an important issue. As the moral authority of Zionism breaks down, given the lack of authority of the genuine internationalist left, there are likely to be more Jews radicalised along these flawed channels. It is very likely such people will play an important role in the future.  Clarity on this now will help arm the genuine left for future political battles in which such people may well feature in some form.  As opposed to being misled by pathetic born-again Stalinists and Jewish bundist/communalists many of whom still seem to think they are fighting in a completely different, pre-WWII context.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on From Atzmon to Dreyfus: a reply to communalists and Stalinists




Harry and Esther are flying to Australia for a 3 week holiday to celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Suddenly, over the public address system, the Captain announces, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I am afraid I have some very bad news. Our engines have ceased functioning and we will attempt an emergency

landing. Luckily, I see an uncharted island below us and we should be able to land on the beach. However, the odds are that we may never be rescued and will have to live on the island for the rest of our


Thanks to the skill of the flight crew, the plane lands safely on the island. An hour later Harry turns to his wife and asks, “Esther, did we pay our Kol Nidre charity pledge to the Synagogue yet?”

“No, sweetheart,” she responds. Harry, still shaken from the crash landing then asks, “Esther, did we

pay our United Jewish Israel Appeal pledge?”

Oh, no! I’m sorry. I forgot to send the cheque, she says.

“One last thing, Esther. Did you remember to send a cheque for the Jewish Care appeal this month?,” he asks. “Forgive me, Harry,” begged Esther. “I was so excited about our holiday that I didn’t send that one, either.” Harry grabs her and gives her the biggest hug and kiss in 40 years.

Esther pulls away and asks him, ” So, why did you kiss me?”  Harry answers, “They’ll find us.”

Posted in Campaigns1 Comment



Recently, my article, this blog and myself have come under attack -not by Zionists, but by two members of the our local Friends of Palestine group (FoP), as well as by a local anti-Zionist Jewish group.

A letter, signed by Messrs G.D and T.B, which was explicitly supported by this anti-Zionist Jewish group was sent to the chair and secretary of the FoP. In this letter they accuse me of writing a “racist[sic]” article “against the Jews [sic]”. Using this false accusations as a pretext, they demanded the “urgent” and “nonnegotiable [sic]” removal of my article and of the link to my blog from FoP’s website. They also demanded the removal of articles by Stewart Littlewood and Gilad Atzmon who both hav e also been victims of such accusation.

In the monthly meeting of FoP that followed, this local anti-Zionist Jewish groupexpressed that they were “concerned that credence should not be given to contributors who are holocaust deniers or racist”.

Interestingly, this group who demanded the removal of an article by a Palestinian author and the link to a Palestinian website, simultaneously demanded that links toJewish-Israeli campaigning groups should be added on FoP Website; “… links toJewish campaigning groups like ICAHD, New Profile, Combatants for Peaceand Jewish for Peace.”

Obviously, defamation, libel, smear and character assassination are used with the aim to filter information and to silence the debate. Such methods are terribly detrimental to the analysis and evaluation of the situation, hence it has the potential to limit and to dilute the efficiency of the Palestinian Solidarity movement. The outcome of such activities would primarily and effectively function as nothing less than Controlled Opposition.

What is worse, is the departure from even the most elementary rules of Justice and Human Rights. Indeed the methods used are reminding of either Banana Republics or Totalitarian Regimes. The accusation is based on lies, the accused has no right to defend him/herself (I was not present in the meeting due to illness, recording was refused, and the meeting was not adjourned) and sentence is pronounced on dubious basis (no reasonable quorum membership voting) and executed (website was effectively “epurated” of the article and links by the only Palestinian member of FoP) and this by virtue of the libellous say-so accusations.

It is almost inconceivable to me to imagine that in our time we would still -or again witness such methods, and this by people who claim to be “human rights activists”

Forbidden words , taboo topics, witch hunt, smear campaigns, excommunications, thought-policing and Book banning are no longer the trademark of fascists and right wing extremists, the profession has been shared now by “Jewish Anti-Zionist”, alleged “friends of Palestine”.

Did the age of enlightenment never occur?

Are we been thrust back to Medieval times, Inquisition period or stone age?

What is happening to our freedom of expression and freedom of thought?

And to whose benefit independent thinking has become a heresy?

What is shocking in this whole fiasco is the striking similarity of the method, the timing, and the type of accusation between the anti-Zionist Jewish “supporters” and hyper-Zionists. It is a carbon copy of the Anti Defamation League and the Board of Deputies of British Jews style that aims to “silence by slander” those who dare to speak the truth or go deeper in their analysis by looking at motivation and methods of operation of the criminal entity and it’s global supporters.

We are left watching in astonishment and disbelief some “anti-Zionists” doing the work for hyper-Zionists, the likes of ADL and BoDoBJ

It is worth mentioning that this sort of method is not new; some years ago, I witnessed the ostracising and excommunication of two activists, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, by my local group affiliated to Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The fiasco was triggered by a paper written by Paul Eisen, which apparently hit some nerves; Paul Eisen and his paper were defended by Atzmon.

With my usual frankness I attempted to defend Atzmon and Eisen, explaining that in the writing of either men, I did not find any evidence supporting the allegations thrown against them i.e anti-Semitism or denial of the Holocaust. I defended their right to have their opinion expressed and heard. I also suggested that if the group nevertheless still has issues with the writing of the two men, they should simply invite them to an open debate and listen and allow others to hear from them directly. It was made obvious to me then that my views are naïve and reflect political inexperience. The “Thought Police” at the time decided that Nahida is in dire need of some “education”

A special meeting was organized to “educate” me – the Palestinian, about the Holocaust (since every other member in the group was already saturated with knowledge of it)

Consequently, the group voted to have nothing to do with (excommunicate) Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon and “Deir Yassin Remembered” organization, of which Paul Eisen was a co-founder.

It was an incredible experience to have witnessed mature, intelligent and dedicated human beings, been dictated to what to read and what not to read, and whom to have contact with and whom not. The audacity of such gagging and filtering of information should have raised suspicion.

Desiring to keep the unity of the group, I respected their decision and refrained from circulating articles by Atzmon for some years, even though I remained unconvinced and very discontent with their medieval method, attitude and of their decision. It clashed with my understanding of fundamental concepts of freedom and respect of the intellect of my fellow humans as well as my own. On a personal level, I continued reading and kept in touch with both Atzmon and Eisen.

In 2009, soon after the most recent Gaza massacres, by sheer coincidence I came across the word “Neshama” in one of the comments on ICH. Curious, as anyone would be, I googled the word, and lo and behold Pandora’s Box opened before my eyes; a new learning curve began; I learned about a group called Chabad Lubavitch. I was horrified to discover the supremacist ideology at the core of this group and the level of influence accomplished by the Rebbe and his followers.

Horror-struck, I started investigating, studying then writing about two main issues; the supremacist ideology and the high influence of this prominent organization, attempting to alert our Jewish allies to the danger of such ideology and influence… only to be faced with utter silence.

Two years later, the deafening silence was abruptly and dishonourably brokenwith the libellous letter of T.B and G.D in which they attempted to silence me once and for all by throwing the archetypal Zionist charge of “racism” and “anti-Semitism”

In their letter T. B and G. D have committed two main offences:

Posted in Campaigns2 Comments

Republicans and Their Big Business Allies Duped Tens of Millions of Evangelicals

 How Republicans and Their Big Business Allies Duped Tens of Millions of Evangelicals into Voting for a Corporate Agenda

The bible-thumping white underclass have given a big boost to the corporate bottom line.

Tens of millions of American voters got duped badly in the 2010 election. The bible-thumping white underclass thought they hit back at what they regarded as the nefarious forces trying to “take our country away.”

They were bought, paid for, sold, traded and manipulated by the most powerful in the US election: a Billionaire Lynch Mob led by Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and hundreds of millions in organize corporate cash. They peddled a fear agenda: fear of immigrants, fear of government control of our lives, fear that their country would become irrevocably changed.

Here’s how it happened:

Where the fear and loathing began

A bedrock article of faith among many of the anti-Obama white voters is that America had “Christian origins,” and that today America must be “restored” to “our religious heritage.” The “Puritan heritage” of America is constantly cited as evidence for our need to return to our “biblical roots.” The Constitution is also waved around as if it too is some sort of Bible to be religiously believed in. Of course the Billionaire Lynch Mob doesn’t care about such quaint ideas as individual liberties, let alone “biblical absolutes,” but many of the people who believed the anti-Obama lies did care.

The earnest, mostly Evangelical dupes have a point: by calling for a “return to our roots” (be they biblical and/or constitutional) they are actually maintaining a grand old American tradition: religious delusion as the basis for conquest. The Puritans believed that they were importing “authentic Christianity” to America, especially as written in the Old Testament. They said that they were on a divine mission, even calling themselves “The New Israel” and a “city set upon a hill.” John Winthrop (governor of Massachusetts Bay) transferred the idea of “nationhood” in biblical Israel to the Massachusetts Bay Company. And the Puritans claimed they were God’s “Chosen People.” They said that they had the right to grab land from the “heathen.” These were the American Indians whom the Puritans thought of as the “new Canaanites,” to be slaughtered with God’s blessing and in the case of the Pequot Indians burned alive.

There are many threads in the anti-Obama tapestry but three are ignored at our peril: 1) The End Times fantasies of the Evangelicals; 2) The rise of so-called Reconstructionist theology and 3) the culture war launched over the legalization of abortion.

These “threads,” not the economy alone, are also the source of the vote where white lower class and white middle class Americans voted in droves against their own self-interest. Let’s unpick these fraying threads one at a time.

1. “End Times” Fantasies

The evangelical/fundamentalists/Republican far right is in the grip of an apocalyptic “Rapture” cult centered on revenge and vindication. This “End Times” death wish is built on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation. This fantasy has many followers. For instance to take one of many examples, Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series of sixteen novels represents both a “reason” and a symptom of the hysteria that grips so many voters.

The “Left Behind” novels have sold tens of millions of copies while spawning an “End Times” cult, or rather egging it on. Such products as Left Behind video games have become part of the ubiquitous American background noise. Less innocuous symptoms of End Times paranoia include people stocking up on assault rifles and ammunition, freeze dried food (pitched to them, by the way, by Billionaire Lynch Mob-handmaid Glenn Beck), gold (also sold to them by Glenn Beck), adopting “Christ-centered” home school curricula, fear of higher education (“we’ll lose our children to secularism”), embracing rumor as fact (“Obama isn’t an American”) and fighting against Middle East peace iniatives, lest they delay the “return of Jesus,” for instance through Houston mega church pastor John Hagee’s Christian Zionist-centered “ministry.”

John Hagee, mega church pastor and founder of Christians United for Israel said: “For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the Evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have Christians over a barrel you might say.” The assumption Hagee makes — that “Bible-believing Christians” will be pro-Israel — is the dominant view among American Evangelical Christians. These are the people who goad us to make perpetual war worldwide. And these are the people who supposedly follow a teacher who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Few within the Evangelical community have dared to publically question such Haggee’s approach. The Christian Zionists led by Hagee et al even went after their very own George W Bush for backing peace talks between Palestinians and the Israeli government. So can you imagine the hatred the Christian Zionists have for President Obama, who also wants peace in the Middle East?

The momentum for building a subculture that’s seceding from mainstream society (in order to await “The End Times” has irrevocably pried loose a chunk of the American population from both sanity and from their fellow citizens. The Christian Zionist franchise holds out hope for the self-disenfranchised that — at last — everyone will know “We born-again Christians” were right and “They” were wrong. But here’s the political significance of the Christian Zionist dominance: the evangelical/fundamentalists’ imagined victimhood.

I say imagined victimhood, because the born-agains are hardly outsiders let alone victims. They’re very own George W Bush was in the White House for eight long, ruinous years and Evangelicals also dominated American politics for the better part of thirty years before that by enforcing a series of “moral” litmus tests that transformed the Republican Party into their very own culture wars lickspittle.

Nevertheless, the white evangelical/conservative Roman Catholic sense of being a victimized minority only grew with their successes. “You are not alone!” said Glenn Beck, playing to these “disenfranchised” “victims,” who – as the midterm results once again proved — turn out to look more like a majority of white voters who had the power to turn Sarah Palin into a multimillionaire overnight and send the likes of Rand Paul to the Senate.

2. The Rise of Reconstructionist Theology

Where did the “victims” on the Far Right get their “theology” of perpetual damn-the-facts victimhood from? The history of theology (Christian or otherwise) is the history of people desperately trying to fit the way things actually are into the way their “holy” books say they should be. And since the facts don’t fit and never will, religious believers can either change their minds, embrace paradox, or find someone else to blame for their never-ending loss of face and self-esteem.

Most Americans have never heard of the Reconstructionists. But they have felt their impact through the Reconstructionists’ (often indirect) influence over the wider Evangelical community. In turn, the Evangelicals shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the Religious Right let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its rage. If you feel victimized by modernity (let alone humiliated by reality) then the Reconstructionists have The Answer to your angst: apply the full scope of the Biblical Law to modern America and to the larger world! Coerce “non-believers” to live in your imaginary universe! In other words Reconstructionists wanted to

replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible.

Most Evangelicals are positively moderate by comparison to the Reconstructionist “thinkers.” Most libertarians, who formed the backbone of the Tea Party (at least until the Far Right Evangelicals began to take the Tea Party over) would hate them. But the Reconstructionist movement is a distilled version of the more mainstream evangelical version of exclusionary theology that nonetheless divides America into the “Real America” (as the Far Right claim only they are) and the rest of us “sinners.”

The Reconstructionist worldview is ultra Calvinist, but like all Calvinism has its origins in ancient Israel/Palestine, when vengeful and ignorant tribal lore was written down by frightened men (the nastier authors of the Bible) trying to defend their prerogatives to bully women, murder rival tribes and steal land. These justifications probably reflect later thinking: origin myths used as propaganda to justify political and military actions after the fact—i.e., to justify their brutality the Hebrews said that God made them inflict on others and/or that they were “chosen.”

In its modern American incarnation, which hardened into a twentieth century movement in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1970s, Reconstructionism was propagated by people I knew personally and worked with closely when I too was a Religious Right activist claiming God’s special favor. The leaders of the Reconstructionist movement included the late Rousas Rushdoony (Calvinist theologian, father of modern-era Christian Reconstructionism, patron saint to gold-hoarding Federal Reserve-haters, and creator of the modern Evangelical home-school movement), his son-in-law Gary North (an economist, gold-buff, publisher and leading conspiracy theorist), and David Chilton (ultra-Calvinist pastor and author.)

Reconstructionism, also called Theonomism, seeks to reconstruct “our fallen society.” Its worldview is best represented by the publications of the Chalcedon Foundation, which has been classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. According to the Chalcedon Foundation website, the mission of the movement is to apply “the whole Word of God” to all aspects of human life: “It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own.

It’s no coincidence that the rise of the Islamic Brotherhoods in Egypt and Syria and the rise of Reconstructionism took place in more or less the same twentieth-century time frame—as modernism, science and “permissiveness” collided with a frightened conservatism rooted in religion. The writings of people such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and those of Rushdoony are virtually interchangeable when it comes to their goals of “restoring God” to his “rightful place” as he presides over law and morals. Or as the late Reconstructionist/Calvinist theologian David Chilton, writing in PARADISE RESTORED–A Biblical Theology of Dominion (and sounding startlingly al-Banna-like) explained:

Our goal is a Christian world, made up of explicitly Christian nations. How could a Christian desire anything else? Our Lord Himself taught us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10)… The Lord’s Prayer is a

prayer for the worldwide dominion of God’s Kingdom… a world of decentralized theocratic republics…. That is the only choice: pagan law or Christian law. God specifically forbids “pluralism.” God is not the least bit interested in sharing world dominion with Satan.

The message of Rushdoony’s work is best summed up in one of his innumerable Chalcedon Foundation position papers, “The Increase of His Government and Peace.” He writes: “[T]he ultimate and absolute government of all things shall belong to Christ.” In his book Thy Kingdom Come — using words that are similar to those the leaders of al Qaida would use decades later in reference to “true Islam” — Rushdoony argues that democracy and Christianity are incompatible: “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life,” he writes. “One [biblical] faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state… Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.”

3. The Culture Wars Launched over the Abortion Debate

The significance and rise of the Reconstructionists and their (often indirect) impact on the wider evangelical subculture can only be understood in the context of the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Roe energized the culture war like nothing else before or since. This war has even fed the passion that burned within the so-called Tea Party movement’s reaction to Obama’s moderate legislative health care reform predicting “Death Panels.” Roe also indirectly energized even those members of the Far Right – for instance the Tea Party’s pro-choice libertarians — who didn’t care about abortion per se. Roe had such far-reaching effects because reactions to Roe defined the scorched-earth, winner-take-all and rabidly anti-government tone of the culture war fights since 1973.

Fast forward thirty years to the first decade of the twenty-first century: The messengers and day-to-day “issues” changed but the volume of the anti-government “debate” and anger originated with the anti-abortion movement. “Death Panels!”, “Government Takeover!”, “Obama is Hitler!” and all such “comments” were simply updated versions of “pro-life” rhetoric. And ironically, at the very same time as the Evangelicals who began the anti-abortion crusade (along with conservative Roman Catholics) had thrust themselves into bare knuckle politics over Roe, they also (I should say we also) retreated to what amounted to virtual walled compounds.

Evangelicals created a parallel “Christian America,” our very own private world, as it were, posted with “No Trespassing” signs. Our new “world” was about creating a Puritan/Reconstructionist-style holy-nation-within-our-fallen-nation.

This went far beyond mere alternative schools and home schools. Thousands of new Christian bookstores opened, countless Evangelical radio programs flourished in the 1970s and 80s, and new TV stations went on the air. Even a “Christian Yellow Pages” (a guide to Evangelical tradesmen) was published advertising “Christ-centered plumbers,” accountants and the like who “honor Jesus.” New Evangelical universities and even new law schools appeared, seemingly overnight with a clearly defined mission to “take back” each and every profession – including law and politics – “for Christ.” For instance, Liberty University’s Law School was the creation of the late Jerry Falwell, who told me in 1983 of his vision for Liberty’s programs: “Frank, we’re going train a new generation of judges and world leaders in the law from a Christian worldview to change America.” This was the same Jerry Falwell who wrote in America Can Be Saved: “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools.”To the old-fashioned Goldwater-type conservative mantra of “big government doesn’t work,” in the 1970s the newly-radicalized Evangelicals added “the US Government is Evil!” Our swap of spiritual faith for the illusion of political power – I say “illusion” since even in the 70s and 80s the real power was in the hands of

the Billionaire Lynch Mob — meant that we would tell people how to vote, but that we didn’t want our kids going to school with theirs. We’d wind up defending not just private schools and home schooling to “protect” our children from the world, but also private oil companies and private gas-guzzling polluting cars, private insurance conglomerates and so forth.

The price for the Religious Right’s wholesale idolatry of private everything was that Christ’s reputation was tied to a cynical political party owned by billionaires from the fast-food industry, raping the earth (not to mention our health), to the oil companies destroying our climate. It only remained for a Far Right Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to rule in 2010 (Citizens United V. The Federal Election Commission), that unlimited corporate money could pour into political campaigns – anonymously — in a way that clearly favored corporate America and the super wealthy who long since were the only entities served by the Republican Party’s defense of the individual against the government. The “individuals” turned out to be Exxon, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, McDonald’s and Goldman Sachs et al.


It’s a question of legitimacy and illegitimacy. What the Religious Right, including the Religious Right’s Roman Catholic and Protestant “intellectuals” (like my father) did, was contribute to a climate where the very legitimacy of our government, even any government, is up for grabs. Then the internet came along and Fox News came along and Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann et all came along and no fiction was too fantastical to be believed as fact. We passed into a high tech stone age, myth superstition and outright lies gained a new currency.

Following the election of our first black President, the “politics” of the Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Mormon Far Right was not the politics of a loyal opposition, but the instigation of race-tinged revolution first and best expressed by Rush Limbaugh when he said, “I hope Obama fails.” All that happened in the midterm election of 2010 was that the corporate interests (unleashed by the Supreme Court), the Republican Party leadership and the Tea Party built on and/or cashed in on, the “biblically-based” antigovernment passion.

This was the politics that won in the Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections. This was the logical conclusion of the process of delegitimizing the Federal Government that was launched by the Reconstructionists, the anti-abortion movement and of course is fed by the “Left Behind”/Christian Zionist apocalyptic revenge fantasy.

The Billionaire Lynch Mob’s only sacrament is fear. Their reward for cashing in on white religiously-believing middle class American’s addiction to Bronze Age biblical mythology is to walk away with our country. And fear-filled white Americans don’t get anything in return, unless you count their fleeting visceral pleasure of putting “that uppity black man” in the White House in his place.

AlterNet / By Frank Schaeffer With the length of political involvement, they shall now pay taxes. NO EXEMPTIONS.

Posted in USAComments Off on Republicans and Their Big Business Allies Duped Tens of Millions of Evangelicals

Did the Age of Enlightenment never occur?

By: Nahida Izzat

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a must read expose by Nahida Izzat. Nahida is one of the strongest, most eloquent and profound writers in our movement. And yet, in spite of being an exiled Palestinian, she is terrorised, intimidated and harassed by no others than the Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists.

In the following piece Nahida brings the shocking details of the campaign against her and freedom of speech that was led by Liverpool Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist  Greg Dropkin and his clan.

I better say it clearly and loudly; we are not going to tolerate AZZ’s  (anti Zionist Zionists) repellent behaviour forever.

We are tired of Talmudic commissars. We believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Did the Age of Enlightenment never occur?

Book Burning Jewish Settlers Style

Book Burning Nazi Style

Book Burning Christian Extremists Style

Book Burning Muslim Extremists Style

Book Banning “Israeli” Government Style

Book Banning Jewish-Anti-Zionist Style

by Nahida Izzat

Recently, my article, this blog and myself have come under attack -not by Zionists, but by two members of the our local Friends of Palestine group (FoP), as well as by a local anti-Zionist Jewish group.

A letter, signed by Messrs G.D and T.B, which was explicitly supported by this anti-Zionist Jewish group was sent to the chair and secretary of the FoP. In this letter they accuse me of writing a “racist [sic]” article “against the Jews [sic]“. Using this false accusations as a pretext, they demanded the “urgent” and “nonnegotiable [sic]” removal of my article and of the link to my blog from FoP’s website. They also demanded the removal of articles by Stewart Littlewood and Gilad Atzmon who both have also been victims of such accusation.

In the monthly meeting of FoP that followed, this local anti-Zionist Jewish group expressed that they were “concerned that credence should not be given to contributors who are holocaust deniers or racist”.

Interestingly, this group who demanded the removal of an article by a Palestinian author and the link to a Palestinian website, simultaneously demanded that links to Jewish-Israeli campaigning groups should be added on FoP Website; “… links to Jewish campaigning groups like ICAHD, New Profile, Combatants for Peace and Jewish for Peace.”

Obviously, defamation, libel, smear and character assassination are used with the aim to filter information and to silence the debate. Such methods are terribly detrimental to the analysis and evaluation of the situation, hence it has the potential to limit and to dilute the efficiency of the Palestinian Solidarity movement. The outcome of such activities would primarily and effectively function as nothing less than Controlled Opposition.

What is worse, is the departure from even the most elementary rules of Justice and Human Rights. Indeed the methods used are reminding of either Banana Republics or Totalitarian Regimes. The accusation is based on lies, the accused has no right to defend him/herself (I was not present in the meeting due to illness, recording was refused, and the meeting was not adjourned) and sentence is pronounced on dubious basis (no reasonable quorum membership voting) and executed (website was effectively “epurated” of the article and links by the only Palestinian member of FoP) and this by virtue of the libellous say-so accusations.

It is almost inconceivable to me to imagine that in our time we would still -or again witness such methods, and this by people who claim to be “human rights activists”

Forbidden words , taboo topics, witch hunt, smear campaigns, excommunications, thought-policing and Book banning are no longer the trademark of fascists and right wing extremists, the profession has been shared now by “Jewish Anti-Zionist”, alleged “friends of Palestine”.

Did the age of enlightenment never occur?

Are we been thrust back to Medieval times, Inquisition period or stone age?

What is happening to our freedom of expression and freedom of thought?

And to whose benefit independent thinking has become a heresy?

What is shocking in this whole fiasco is the striking similarity of the method, the timing, and the type of accusation between the anti-Zionist Jewish “supporters” and hyper-Zionists. It is a carbon copy of the Anti Defamation League and the Board of Deputies of British Jews style that aims to “silence by slander” those who dare to speak the truth or go deeper in their analysis by looking at motivation and methods of operation of the criminal entity and it’s global supporters.

We are left watching in astonishment and disbelief some “anti-Zionists” doing the work for hyper-Zionists, the likes of ADL and BoDoBJ

It is worth mentioning that this sort of method is not new; some years ago, I witnessed the ostracising and excommunication of two activists, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, by my local group affiliated to Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The fiasco was triggered by a paper written by Paul Eisen, which apparently hit some nerves; Paul Eisen and his paper were defended by Atzmon.

With my usual frankness I attempted to defend Atzmon and Eisen, explaining that in the writing of either men, I did not find any evidence supporting the allegations thrown against them i.e anti-Semitism or denial of the Holocaust. I defended their right to have their opinion expressed and heard. I also suggested that if the group nevertheless still has issues with the writing of the two men, they should simply invite them to an open debate and listen and allow others to hear from them directly. It was made obvious to me then that my views are naïve and reflect political inexperience. The “Thought Police” at the time decided that Nahida is in dire need of some “education”

A special meeting was organized to “educate” me – the Palestinian, about the Holocaust (since every other member in the group was already saturated with knowledge of it)

Consequently, the group voted to have nothing to do with (excommunicate) Paul Eisen, Gilad Atzmon and “Deir Yassin Remembered” organization, of which Paul Eisen was a co-founder.

It was an incredible experience to have witnessed mature, intelligent and dedicated human beings, been dictated to what to read and what not to read, and whom to have contact with and whom not. The audacity of such gagging and filtering of information should have raised suspicion.

Desiring to keep the unity of the group, I respected their decision and refrained from circulating articles by Atzmon for some years, even though I remained unconvinced and very discontent with their medieval method, attitude and of their decision. It clashed with my understanding of fundamental concepts of freedom and respect of the intellect of my fellow humans as well as my own. On a personal level, I continued reading and kept in touch with both Atzmon and Eisen.

In 2009, soon after the most recent Gaza massacres, by sheer coincidence I came across the word “Neshama” in one of the comments on ICH. Curious, as anyone would be, I googled the word, and lo and behold Pandora’s Box opened before my eyes; a new learning curve began; I learned about a group called Chabad Lubavitch. I was horrified to discover the supremacist ideology at the core of this group and the level of influence accomplished by the Rebbe and his followers.

Horror-struck, I started investigating, studying then writing about two main issues; the supremacist ideology and the high influence of this prominent organization, attempting to alert our Jewish allies to the danger of such ideology and influence… only to be faced with utter silence.

Two years later, the deafening silence was abruptly and dishonourably broken with the libellous letter of T.B and G.D in which they attempted to silence me once and for all by throwing the archetypal Zionist charge of “racism” and “anti-Semitism”

In their letter T. B and G. D have committed two main offences:

1) The first offence is personal, using the very same Zionist method of character assassination by sticking the “racist”, “anti-Semitic” label as a method of muffling truth. They attacked the messenger/ whistle blower who after two years of research and scrutiny of Jewish-Zionist materials, came to discover then to expose a supremacist ideology that animates many Jewish-Zionists in Palestine, and their collaborators.

T. B and G. D put words in my mouth, words NEVER spoken or written by myself. They proclaimed unfounded lies to suite and justify their accusation, they completely falsified and misrepresented my views:

“Nahida … identifies the source of the problem as Jews and Judaism”…..

This to me is either total intellectual incompetence with severe incapacity to comprehend simple written English, which I doubt to be the case of T. B and G. D, OR it is nothing but blatant, calculated and malicious lie, and that sickens me to the bone, coming from alleged “friends” of Palestine.

Because I sensed that some Jewish members of the group had issues with my articles, I invited them at numerous occasions to openly discuss that troubling matter of Jewish Supremacist ideology and the high influence of its adherents. Apart from one person, NO ONE accepted the invitation. In fact G.D stated explicitly in the meeting that he was not interested in discussion, he pointed out that “his priority” was to deal with the allegedly racist material and “not to open up a discussion with Nahida”

Furthermore, during the monthly meeting T.B allegedly a “friend of Palestine” instead of expressing his support for the choice and will of the Palestinian people, he essentially expressed his support to the final materialization and the fulfillment of the main aims of Zionism; i.e the permanent presence of FOREIGN OCCUPIERS, in a land they occupied by military conquest. He exclaimed: “Nahida’s version of ‘one state’   would result in the expulsion of the vast majority of Jews which we should not support”

Quotes from T.B and G.D’s letter:

“But our key objections are that Nahida

a) misrepresents the situation in the US, where Zionism is far more powerful, and conflates it with the situation in Britain;

and b) identifies the source of the problem as Jews and Judaism” [Lie #1]

“Nahida then slides from the US to Britain, as if Zionists here had the kind of hold over MPs which AIPAC has exercised in US politics. It’s not true.”

“For Nahida, Zionism and Jews are always intertwined” [Lie #2]

“We do not think that “all Jews” fit into any simple category. To claim they do is, in our opinion, racist” [ Lie #3]

“The bulk of Nahida’s article is an attack against Jews, who are mentioned 44 times with copious links” [Lie #4]

End quote

In one single letter, T.B and G.D have managed to come up with FOUR LIES and clear falsifications of my views to justify their smear label.

One must ask, where is the intellectual integrity when critics resort to such heinous methods of falsification and utter misrepresentation as means of convincing their audience?

Moreover, I wonder how many times one is allowed to mention the words “Jews/ Jewish/ Jewish-Zionist” in an article. Is there a limit after which one can be classified as “anti-Semite”?
Is it 3, 17, 21… or what?

For the sake of argument, if say the limit was defined as 21, and if an article mentions it 21 times exactly, would the author qualify as a borderline anti-Semite?

Furthermore, does anyone wonder how many times the word “Jew” appears in T.B and G.D’s letter?

For the sake of verification, here are the real numbers compared to T.B and G.D’s letter:

…………………….Jew ………… Jews ………… Jewish ……….. Jewry ……….. Jewish-Zionist

T.B & G.D …………2 ……………..25 ……………… 33…………………3…………………….0

Nahida ……………0 …………… 17 ………………. 24 ……………….. 2 ………………….. 7

And what if (as seen above) the forbidden word and its derivatives are mentioned 63 times as it is the case of T.B and G.D’s libellous letter?

Can we claim that T.B and G.D’s are staunch anti-Semites for exceeding the permissible limit by far?

How fair, academic and rational is their conclusion using such bizarre logic?

I invite people to READ the article in question and verify for themselves if such an expose that explores the methods in which the Jewish-Zionist Networks organize themselves to form effective lobbies and pressure groups, should be banned.

The accusation of being “racist” or writing “racist”, “anti-Jewish” and “anti-Semitic” stuff is NOT a mere political disagreement, as T. B and G.D try to present it. Such accusation is unlawful, it is an illicit offence of defamation and slander that has the potential to ruin people’s most valuable, their honour and reputation and even their entire lives. It is designed to shun, excommunicate and ostracize people. These are precisely the infamous methods used by ADL to silence opposition. That’s why I am alarmed by such activity of unfounded libelous accusations, as they raise troublesome questions about their motives.

Those who resort to such accusations know fair well the dire implications and ramifications of such labelling. They know because they have done it before, the aim is to isolate, excommunicate and destroy the life of the accused; I witnessed how they shunned and almost destroyed Paul Eisen, and how they continue to campaign (though it’s not working) to destroy Gilad Atzmon.

If there is a need to verify through external evidence, for example, that their accusations against Gilad Atzmon are unfounded, it would suffice to enumerate the long list of international intellectuals who are gradually coming out in support of Gilad’s work (despite the ugly campaign of attempted gagging and slander led by UK campaigners). Amongst those intellectuals are many Jews for whom I have only high praise and have expressed much admiration. So much for my alleged “anti-Semitism”.

2) The second offence that I see in T. B and G. D’s letter is far more serious and its repercussions are far more reaching and far more harmful:

Their letter is a sinister attempt to block intellectual discussion, suppress Academic Freedom, obstruct rational and scholarly debate, filter vital information and smother serious research that examines three main identifiable problems:


Firstly; if we accept that Zionism is defined by the crime of genocide and ethnic cleansing of a nation and has caused the wiping out of a country, then investigating the motivation behind such crime is essential to fight it and hopefully to defeat it. Without unfiltered scrutiny, we would never know who are we dealing with and how to stop them.

Secondly; supremacism in Jewish ideology is not above criticism; like every other ideology, it should be transparent, accessible and not kept secretive. Without unfiltered scrutiny we would never know what animates Zionists to act with such aggravating cruelty and sadism.

Thirdly; to accuse of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” those who expose Jewish-Supremacism, is the equivalent of covering up the ideology behind the crime and dissuading people from learning about it, hence challenging and fighting this form of racism.

Dismissing such supremacist beliefs as irrelevant and obsolete would be a huge mistake because these views are the very motor that charges, motivates and energizes the Jewish settlers in Palestine, and gives them the sense of entitlement to do what they do without feeling any guilt or remorse.

For us Palestinians and for our supporters in the solidarity movement, it is a matter of extreme importance to inspect and scrutinize the ideology that motivates and animates the Jewish settlers in our occupied Palestine in order to better understand it, hence combat it. Restricting our understanding of the occupiers, their ideology and mindset cripples our ability to fight them back effectively and intelligently. Furthermore, in our day and age, racism has become outlawed, when people learn about the extent of the ideological racism in the Zionist entity, it will enable us to fight them in their weakest point, thus, bring the day of our Liberation closer.

Three Jewish-Zionist highly “non-influential” individuals “accidentally” bump into a Libyan “rebel”


Firstly; when we look at Zionism as a crime, again, then logically we must identify and investigate the modus operandi. Failure to do so would leave us unable to understand how our oppressors operate and succeed.

Secondly; with regards to the Jewish-Zionist lobby: investigative work that examines information, no matter how well concealed, and attempts to identify at least some of the culprits and the real criminals behind the fearmongering, the endless wars and the catastrophic conditions that our world suffers is neither racist nor anti Semitic.

Thirdly; devoid of proof or evidence for their false accusations, TB and GD’s insidiously filter information through intimidation and labeling anyone who dares to divulge vital facts. They disable FoP members from understanding the animus and the methods used to install and to perpetuate the criminal Zionist project, in particular the global network of collaborators who organize and effectively manipulate world policies by coercing world governments into continuous support of the Zionist project in spite of its growing inhumanity.

Expecting to become myself sooner or later a victim of such smear and filtering activity, I always make extensive scholarly links (T. B and G. D snarlingly call it “copious links”) to the primary sources I quote, mostly Jewish organizations. The network formed by these organizations involves large sections of Jewish communities worldwide, and its ultimate role is generally to support and vindicate the Zionist entity, by inserting themselves in influential positions.

Whether willingly or accidentally, GD and TB’s activity participates in a dynamic protection system (by peripheral concealment) of the global Zionist network.

Board of Deputies of British Jews celebrates the 60. anniversary of the Zionist entity

Usurping an authority they do NOT have over other members , T. B and G. D attempt to impose on FoP their restrictive dogma, i.e. that a majority of Jews worldwide, whether Zionist “diaspora” or “Israelis”, are not the manipulators of international policy with regards to “Israel”, but the complacent, docile instrument of American imperialism.

The logical implication of such nonsense, would be that Jewish Israelis, all of them serving at least 2 full years in the Israeli army (“the most moral army”) hence individually participating in Crimes against Humanity, were just naïve and innocent victims. Thereby, this nonsensical dogma exculpates the notoriously perverted cruelty and psychopathy of IDF’s crimes, up and down the command ladder. To persist, such dogma imperatively needs -again, to filter out glaring facts such as the over-representation of Jewish-Zionist dual citizens in vital areas of UK-US policy making, or the cross-pollination of racist and supremacist ideology between many Talmudic Rabbis and many Secular Jewish-Zionist Organizations supporting the Zionist project.

The persistence of this dogma requires also a strict and repressive censorship and gagging of whomever tries to scrutinize, analyze and discuss the facts, let alone expose them to an audience concerned by matters of equality and humanism, such as FoP and the Palestine Solidarity Movement in general was supposed to be. That is how and why smear campaigns with killer words such as “anti-Semitism” or “racism” are launched, in this instance it is against me.

At best, such activity on part of two alleged “friends of Palestine” is irresponsible. For my part I find reason to suspect worse.


Firstly; with regards to those who oppose the call for freedom to examine and re-examine history: “Facts” do NOT need laws to enforce or defend them, what they require is research to examine their narrative and correct it for better accuracy and understanding. The denial of these principles will invariably lead to the eradication of the Science of History, and thus cause the blind repetition of more genocides, as we already see in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan… Much like what we see with the cover up and suppression of information about The Truth about 9/11who benefited and how the event was used to create a climate of hatred and fear which enables the power elite to continue waging wars of aggression and extermination.

Secondly; without understanding of how the Holocaust has been used by Zionists, from its onset til this very day, we would continue to succumb to intimidation and give allowances that legitimizes and justify the existence of a criminal entity. They insist in keeping an aura of holiness, uniqueness and exceptionality around the Holocaust which would continue to put it above any historical event, preventing researchers from examining how this event has been used, and how it enables our occupier to continue to use it as justification for what they do in Palestine.

The Holocaust ought to be studied as a historical event with a historical narrative that has NO sacred or exceptional dimension. The emotional, dogmatic and sacred luggage that has been attached to it has been systematically used and is still used by Zionists to justify and minimize their ongoing heinous Crimes in Palestine, as well as the claim of special status with special benefits in their respective countries.

Thirdly; there is absolutely no link -strictly none, between the so-called Holocaust and Palestinians. Nowhere can Palestinians be incriminated in the abhorrent oppression committed by central Europeans against Jews during World War 2.

I, as a Palestinian, am not prepared to live in guilt, nor to pay for crimes my people haven’t committed. We refuse to accept and will reject forcibly if necessary, pathologically violent and racist Jewish occupiers. Military conquest, terrorism, robbery, torture, ethnic cleansing and slow genocide ongoing since the arrival of the first Zionists in Palestine almost one Century ago (i.e. before the Holocaust) does NOT make someone the rightful “owners” or “co-owners” of my Homeland, it makes them abject and violent occupiers.

I and with me my People are not accepting any more to keep having to listen to this narrative shoved down our throat with the repetition of tragedies about legendary love storieshuman-fat soap or human-skin lamp shades in order that the Zionists continue to trade with and reap the profit by deception and theft of a historical crime that has already been dealt with, and while they continue to use it to justify the ongoing theft of Palestine and extermination of Palestinians.

When someone claims to be in the solidarity movement with Palestine, but then at crucial time when the Palestinian struggle for Liberation gains momentum, to engage in such blatant cover up and concealment of vital information and analysis that would enable people to better understand the core problematic issues and how to effectively deal with them, I and with me every member of the FoP and the Palestine Solidarity movement, have the right to question the dubious intention and motivations of such acts, and to evaluate the damage such people are causing to the movement, hence to Palestinians.

I would like to add a few thoughts about the accusation of RACISM and ANTI-SEMITISM used as a method to muffle debate.

Anti-Semitism is nothing else but one form of RACISM. Jewish Supremacism is yet another form of racism. All forms of racism are vile and ought to be rejected.

Intimidating words such as “urgency” and “non-negotiability” were used to coerce the website manager to remove my articles and the link to my blog from the FoP group’s website. So here we are, a Muslim woman -herself victim of racism in the first place, and the only Palestinian in this local FoP group, finds herself Ethnically Cleansed by some self-claimed “Friends of Palestine” but whose actions hint to dubious motives.

An aggravating factor makes their motives appear to be even more dubious. Indeed the vocal lies and false accusations of me purportedly writing racist articles, is incompatible with their deafening silence about the mountain of evidence of the wide-spread existence of the ominously racist “Jewish supremacist ideologies”. In contrast to their attack on “my article’s racism”, this utter silence is a glaring attempt to deflect from the REAL racism about which I happen to have done extensive research during 2 years.

Also, I perceive their attack as an attempt to block intellectual debate about the problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying, which to me is very dubious, -to say the least, when coming from self-claimed “Friends of Palestine”.

What I find really mind-boggling and hard to fathom in all this is the inconsistency with regards to RACISM.

On the one hand they do not hesitate to throw such felonious label against me and against many honourable activists, scholars and intellectuals. In fact they label as “racist” and “fools” anyone who exposes the revolting yet well concealed Jewish supremacism, anyone who notices the effect of Jewish-Zionists networking or objects to their disproportionate over-representation in key positions with all what it entails of conflict of interest and promotion of the interest of a foreign entity at the detriment of the interest of their national constituency.

Yet, on the other hand, mystifyingly the same people, who without hesitation accuse us of racism, stay utterly mute about the massive, revolting and offensive racism that fills thousands of pages in the Talmud, and in major Jewish religious books! And I am not talking about some fringe lunatic fundamentalists who use these always mutating texts as tools, what I am talking about is the inter-connective network of people deeply entrenched in the main centers of government, power and capital, and who are verifiably driving policies, war-mongering and hate-mongering!

This sharp contrast between the fervent reaction of those disloyal activists to my alleged “racism” on one hand, and on the other, their apathetic deflated reaction or lack thereof, to the sickening anti-human racism emanating from Jewish sources with its correlation with Zionists’ activities, leaves me speechless, beyond words.

Since I started exposing this racism, and over the past two years, I heard NOT ONE WORD about their outrage, opposition or willingness to expose or fight Jewish supremacist ideology, such as seen in the writing of one of the most respected, most reputable Jewish philosophers Moses Ben Maimon. also known as Maimonides.

“Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics”. source
Moses Ben Maimon sees no problem with subjugating and enslaving gentiles

“They shall be your subjects and serve you

“The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower levelscorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever

He also talks about the right of the Jewish king to  wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation“.

This “chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics” does not see any ethical predicament with “Jewish wars” of extermination and annihilation either.

Since this notorious ideology is the unequivocal underlying animus and root cause of the Zionist aggression and occupation, and since the “Facts on the Ground” prove the cross-pollination between this degradation and the secular Zionist aims, including the irrefutably slow-genocidal zionist military policies, scrutiny and criticism of this racist supremacist filth is not a matter of fringe theology, but a vital matter of totalitarian politics.

Now, where is their outrage against such blatant JEWISH RACISM And SUPREMACISM and terrifying nihilistic ideology?

Don’t they claim to be against racism wherever it comes from?

Why don’t they have the guts to condemn and campaign against such racism?

Is it not ludicrous to hear them condemn instead, those who expose and vehemently oppose racism???

Without using any commonsense they jump into the ADL bandwagon and rub shoulders with Zionists!

If someone obstinately objects to the massive control and unwelcome influence and the robbing of others rights and property, under the pretext of divine entitlement, does that person become the unreasonable “bigot” !

What kind of skewed logic is that?

This inconsistency in the views of my critics about racism is incomprehensible to me, especially in the light of long lasting years of friendship in which they have come to know Nahida closely, personally and intimately.

If they believe that I have suddenly morphed into a “racist” for whatever imagined reason in their heads, be it as they claim my experience as a Palestinian, or that I have been misguided, why didn’t they have the dignity to get in touch with me, as good caring friends do, be open and honest, have the integrity to stand up for what they claim to believe and discuss their views and objections against my writing with me directly?

Why choose instead to to stab in the back, using methods of defamation and slander?

Why feeling entitled to classify people and to dictate to people what should they read and what they should avoid?

Why this condescending attitude that appears to be claiming to know what is best for people and selecting their intellectual diet for them?

Why deprive people from the right to read a wide range of opinions including my own writing, and allow them to make up their analysis, and conclusions without manipulation, repression or restraint?

YES, in my writing I vehemently criticise RACIST JEWISH IDEOLOGY, but contrary to T. B and G. D’s claim I NEVER accuse ALL Jews of being racist, never put them -or anyone else for that matter, in one basket, EVER. To pretend the contrary is absurd.

In my writing I point out to verifiable international networks; but contrary to T. B and G. D’s accusation, I have never claimed that ALL Jews are part of these networks, and I never claimed to know the numbers in these networks, I merely point to the fact that the size, power and influence of these malevolent networks are enormously larger than those of our microscopic Jewish anti-Zionist groups. Just consider their lavish conferences, budgets and the astronomical amount of funds they raise and compare it with the national anti-Zionist groups, like for example our local group with stunted-growth with its mighty handful of seven members and a budget that one feels embarrassed to even mention.

In my writing I quoted the poll that 95% of USA Jewry support Israel as a Jewish state and 90% of British Jewry believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people , and concluded that MOST world Jewry are supportive of the theft of Palestine.

Would anyone in their right mind conclude from the above polls that only a minority of Jews in UK and USA are supportive of a Jewish state/ or a state for the Jews on STOLEN Palestinian land???
Never mind T. B and G. D’s pathetic claim that many Jews accept the 2 state solution or don’t support the expansion of existing settlements … It is of NO IMPORTANCE or consequence whatever percentage of them are “kind enough” to “share” the land with the Palestinians, what matters is that Palestine is NOT theirs to start with, yet the majority of them see no problem in claiming it for their people!

Truth is that the majority of world Jewry insist that Jews have a right and claim to the land!! including some of our Jewish anti-Zionist friends under whatever pretext. Their claims are NOT ACCEPTABLE and UNJUSTIFIABLE!

In my writing I point out to the influence of these organized networks, such information are available for any serious researcher, it can be easily verified, yes it is troublesome to find such a tiny group extremely overrepresented in so many vital areas of public affairs, such as finance, media, security and policy making, more so when the interests of such group are in conspicuous conflict with the interest of the larger group, and when this minority supports a genocidal entity that has not evolved in six decades.

Over-representation is as unfair as under-representation, and if anti-racists take it upon themselves to defend the rights of the under-represented minorities, it is of equal importance to do the same with over-representation.

Perhaps such question of over-representation might have not surfaced had the behaviour of those in question been shrouded with morality and humanity. Had they been working to establish social justice, building homes, schools and hospitals instead of destroying and polluting the planet for generations to come, and instead of law of the jungle where the super-rich eats the poor to the last bone, had they chosen   cooperation instead never-ending conflicts, and promoted Peace and Justice instead of fomenting perpetual wars.

No one should be slandered for observing and objecting to such blatant mockery of morality, equality and justice.

In my writing I do not spend much time on referring to the Christian Zionists because their ideology is almost entirely sourced from the Old-Testament which is none other than the Jewish Torah! Most authentic Christians consider the Christian Zionists as worshipers of “Israel” and of the “Jewish people” rather than God, and in that sense they share the same ideology as Jewish-Zionists supremacists, in terms of their reverence and idolization of the Jewish people as the “Chosen”, they are one and the same. Furthermore, those who occupy my land, those who drove me out of my homeland, and those who are still depriving me from going home are exclusively Jewish Zionists.

In my writing I criticise the deafening silence of anti-Zionist Jews with regards to the racism that thrives amidst many Jewish communities. A silence which I believe will backfire one day, as they would be seen as  not only complaisant but also complacent by deflecting away and concealing horrendous truths.

My criticism is motivated purely by my concern and genuine care for the good Jewish individuals that I have known and those whom I don’t know, because of what I perceive of the danger that would befall upon   all of them if they continue to ignore the supremacist ideology, the growing influence of the adherents of this ideology and if they continue to ignore all the warning signs that points to accumulating bottled rage against such villainy, which no doubt would one day manifest itself violently as an inevitable backlash to much unsaid, yet felt, oppression and unspoken, but lived, subjugation.

I find it rather pathetic that the only defence mechanism that the accusers come up with is the smear, slander and the accusation of being a “racist” against anyone who pokes the boil exposing the pus infesting inside one of the most vile racist and supremacist ideologies thriving at the heart of some Jewish teachings as per Mishna Torah, Zohar, Tanya, and Talmud.

My critics plough though my writing, childishly counting how many times I used the word “Jewish”, ignoring the irrefutable evidence provided, and instead of challenging and refuting my arguments intellectually, they chose to “deal with me”, “privately”, behind my back with condescending sleaze and dishonesty by sticking a dirty label that they know fair well in their hearts that it does not belong to me, and they hope it would stick, hence they hope to scare people away from reading or being associated with me, using a method, yet again used by Zionists they pretend to condemn.

If indeed truth is what they are after, why don’t they come up in public and challenge my opinions with their “facts” and let people judge for themselves?

Whereby by refusing to do so, and by insisting in dismissing Jewish supremacy and Jewish-Zionist networks, they only promote the most cruel and degenerative racism to be found on the planet by means of concealment and shifting attention away from the real racism that I vehemently fight and deplore.

The persons who resort to accusation, suppression, character assassination and smear campaign very cunningly and dishonestly omit to mention that those who expose and condemn the racist concepts of “chosen-ness”, “exceptionality”, “superior morality”, “superior intelligence”, and “Jewish entitlement of world leadership” do not invent these concepts. It is not racist to expose or quote such abomination, it is not a crime to bring such Jewish-claims to the public awareness. Any honest criticism should be directed against those who believe such filth and make such revolting claims.

To those individuals who take part in such ADL style smear campaign of racism accusation, I say:

I accuse YOU of acting as a smoke screen to cover up REAL RACISM as manifested by JEWISH SUPREMACISTS.

I accuse YOU of acting as protectors and gatekeepers of the global Jewish Zionist Networks and Lobby groups by denying its existence and effectiveness.

I accuse YOU of complicity by insisting to conceal planned crimes against humanity as manifested in the supremacist nihilistic Chabad ideology.

Any Solidarity Movement with Palestine should take the opinions, the interests, and the future well being of PALESTINIANS at heart, otherwise, it speaks only for itself, NOT for Palestinians.

Palestinians have the right to fight for the FULL LIBERATION of their country, those who are willing to march with us ALL the way are welcome, those who are not, may look for another more convenient and less controversial campaigns to support.

I denounce any person or group who pretends to speak in my name as a Palestinian, yet behind closed doors, they plot and whisper on how to mute Palestinian voices and curtail the spread and impact of daring Palestinian opinions.

I denounce any person or group who claims to work for Palestine, yet their actions are contrary to the legitimate interest and aspirations of Palestinian people. Allowing themselves to be used as a vehicle to secure the future of the Jewish-Zionist invaders by facilitating the permanent takeover of Palestine with the pretext of “two peoples, one future” blather or “equal rights to both sides” nonsense.

I denounce any person or group who turns a blind eye and reacts with a deafening silence to the unimaginable repulsive racism that oozes out from some Jewish supremacists groups, yet instead, hysterically and shamelessly react to someone who accidentally came to discover such horrors.

Finally, I fully trust the Palestine Solidarity movement to have the intellectual integrity and capacity to see through the fog of manipulation, and to have the assertiveness, the respect to their own intellect and enough open-mindedness to look at many sources of information, and that they have the courage to READ for themselves and EVALUATE what they read INDEPENDENTLY, without having some gurus spoon-feeding them with filtered, processed, misrepresented or manipulated information.

Source: Uprooted Palestinian

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Did the Age of Enlightenment never occur?

Teacher Student Sex Puts American Culture On Trial


Grand Jury of Public Opinion Indicts American Priorities and Moral Values

Violent War Murder Vs. Sex: Which Needs To Be Ostracized From Society?

by Johnny Punish

Today, we expect a verdict in the trial of former Ohio teacher Stacy Schuler. She’s accused of having sex with 5 male students from the high school where she taught Physical Education.

While the specifics of this case are available online for those who seek the minutiae to pass judgment on her individual culpability, the real moral and ethical questions of female teacher sex with male students are putting America’s culture on trial.

Here’s why!

We applaud war and fear sex when it should be the opposite.

War is extreme and violent. Sex is a very normal human activity and should be acknowledged and accepted for what it is, not criminalized.

Visit for breaking newsworld news, and news about the economy

In my view, a teacher has a leadership responsibility to uphold the integrity of the classroom for all students.  By getting personal with some, it puts that integrity in jeopardy and that’s just plain unacceptable. I think most will agree with this position.

However, as most polls show, the majority of Americans will NOT agree with me when I say that there is a difference between a female teacher having sex with a male student as opposed to a male teacher having sex with a female.

Hear me out first and then post your hate mail…..

First, this lady is facing 25 years in jail for what amounts to guys on the football team walking over to her house for some “banging” fun.  This is excessive.

You may not want to hear this, but speaking as a former teen football player with raging hormones, all we could think about is sex and football. Shocking!  I know!

Convicted Teacher Debra LaFave Endured Public Flogging While George W. Bush, who sent Americans to die for his cause gets $ 40,000 a speech speaking fees. What’s wrong this picture?

This is normal for a most young high school men. It’s just the way it is and to hear that they are willingly going to her house to get some says a lot. That does NOT excuse her leadership responsibly whatsoever but it is statement that they were NOT raped and were willing participants in the “fun”.  And believe me, it was fun.

There are NO victims in this alleged crime. So let’s stop treating boys as if they are violated. Come on, it’s non-cents!  Kick them in the ass and tell them to respect the ladies but not to make them feel like victims for doing what comes natural.

In an age where most Americans think going to war is cool, where guns and violence are “American” values while sex is a depraved and horrible act, I categorically declare that America has a serious crisis in values, priorities, and its’ hurting the society in super bad ways.

Its’ so bad that my children have grown up hearing that sex is bad and violence good. I have been at “war” with this backward culture so that my children would NOT have hang ups about sex and violence. I do a simple thing….I tell them the truth.

“Kids, violence is bad, sex is good! Remember that!  Sex is normal and you should always be proud and respectful with it. Violence is super bad and failure of negotiation and diplomacy”

Frankly, violence speaks poorly of the tribe that pro-actively engages in such and America, being the number one supplier and delivery of war toys to the world, has been on the wrong side of this humane dilemma for a long while now.  We need to make a cultural paradigm shift and get us back to humanity.

In short, I want to make sure that my children are functioning and will have joy in their lives not this dysfunction and a psychosis for just being human.  And, we as a society, should do the same.

This is NOT funny! What are we teaching our children?

Now, back to the point of being a guy.

Believe me ladies, we are not raped by you. That’s non-sense. It’s super hard to find a willing young high school girl to exercise our sexual humanity. It’s brutal. They are not ready and we are and it’s unbalanced.

Young men are predatory. It’s our nature. Criminalizing it or telling us that we are victims when we are the penetrators is mind blowing brainwashing.

Come on man, seriously, you think any young man who bangs a teacher is going to be a victim? Really?  Try he’s going to tell all of his friends about his sexual conquest and prowess….it’s tribal, it’s in our nature. Stop trivializing the truth. It’s non-cents.

Now on the opposite side, when a male teacher has sex with a female, it’s the opposite.

Sorry equality peoples, there is a natural difference between men and women and denying it only takes away from the intellectual discussion.

A man penetrates. He needs to be “willing participant”.  In other words, he needs be up for the game so to speak and that only happens when he’s ready. You can’t fake it unless you’re Kosmo Kramer! A women? Well, she does NOT have to be a willing a participant and that’s a major real difference. Period!

American Tax Dollars at Work Killing Innocent Children in Gaza. What’s wrong with our priorities?

Now, ask yourself…what appalls you more; the killing and murder of 500,000 Iraqi civilians launched by that notable self-proclaimed Christian crusader moralist George Bush and his assigns or 5 teenagers banging their teacher at her house?

Who deserves to go straight to jail and who deserves to just lose their leadership position at the tribal leadership table?

For most of Americans, they want to crucify and jail the teacher while they pay George Bush $ 40,000 to speak at their high school.  Very strange indeed.

In my view, we got this violence vs. sex thing backwards!

As a infamous poet from the depths of protesting yesterday at Occupy Oakland said as they handcuffed him and led him away to join his tribesman of over 2,000,000 fellow American prisoners “If you have not been indicted you have not been invited” and America, you’re on trial.

Where do you stand?

Posted in EducationComments Off on Teacher Student Sex Puts American Culture On Trial

America Back To The Future


How America Lost Its Moral And Ethical Compass

by Sami Jadallah

The Occupy Wall Street movement should not have come as a surprise to official America and to Main Street. To be effective the movement has to move and seek the support and active involvement of Main Street. More than ever there is a need for Main Street America to take the helm and take charge of both Wall Street and Congress. The Tea Party and its sponsors could never be the answer to America of the future.

I am sure millions of Americans are mindful of and understand reasons behind the collapse of Wall Street and the entire financial sector, the collapse of the American auto industry and soon the collapse of the credit cards industry, and the credit rating industry.

The failures are not a result of economic and market conditions as we are led to believe our political, business and financial leaders. They are the direct result of business, financial and political leaders losing their ethical and moral compass.

The collapse of the mortgage industry has nothing to do with market conditions and economics. It has every thing to do with the greed, incompetence and absence of moral values and business ethics.

Wall Street and executives of both Fannie and Freddie and the entire mortgage industry sought to maximize short term profits for themselves and their shareholders while pushing for and promoting predatory lending and sub-prime and marketing “products”. Products that Allen Greenspan called “creative financial instruments” that were nothing but trash.

It was a Ponzi scheme at the highest level of government and financial industry that was bound to collapse. A slick, financial fraud that was indeed innovative in the way to rob the nation and people of their wealth.

Wall Street in its greed was coming up with more and more risky financial instruments and products that with the blessing of the Federal Reserve and Congressional leadership contributed directly to the collapse of this Ponzi scheme leaving the taxpayers holding the bags. Wall Street and its financial officers and lawyers were not following sound business practice, certainly not following well-established economic principles.

No one can convince me and the American public that executives of US automotive industry simply failed to learn from the energy crises of the 70s and did not know the basic principles of good business practice and the consequences of building poor quality cars that rattles and breakdown often.

The did not learn nor understand the consequences of having too many dealerships of selling the same brand within certain territories and did not understand the consequences of having too many brand names and too many divisions, and failed to understand real customer service.

You do not need to be a graduate of Harvard or Stanford business school to know that one could never sustain business with poor quality product and poor service. Any idiot or a fool knows that one could never sustain a business with poor quality product and poor service.

Yet these executives were earning tens of millions of dollars in annual compensation and bonuses. The collapse of the automotive industry was not because of hardworking committed American workers but because of poor quality executives who were in collusion with Wall Street.

It is too bad that America’s business leaders are trying to justify their ethical and moral lapses by putting the blame on market and market conditions.

They were and are getting paid tens of millions to think of market conditions and changing economies and to plan for it, yet their greed and lack of business scruples blinded the reality of what is out there and their lack of any business ethics contributed to the collapse of companies they manage and ran.

A $50 Billions simply did not disappear because Bernard Madoff was doing the right job for his clients. This has noting to do with market conditions, but it has every thing to do with being a crook and the absence of honest and good cops in Washington.

As we look beyond Wall Street and the auto industry, and look at our own government and how it operates, and look at our Congress and how it operates, we see the absence of moral and ethical practices and values every where we turn around.

It is no accident that over $10 Billions of “unfinished “contracts are out there within the Department of Home Land Security. It is no accident that over $10 Billions simply disappeared or wasted in the aftermath of Katrina. It is no wonder that over $100 Billion, yes over $100 Billions wasted, lost or disappeared on the reconstruction of Iraq.

Tens of billions of dollars were fleeced from the Pentagon budget. These things do not happen because of bad market conditions. They happen because someone responsible out there did not do their job right.
It happened because contractors were simply dishonest and in collusion with those who supervise them and audit their work. Was

It happens because our government under George Bush not only nurtured incompetence but nurtured corruptions and lies as well. Bush and his now discredit NeoCons lied all the way to Baghdad.
It is not an accident that we went to war in Iraq for the wrong reasons and because of the lies that were planted and nurtured within the media supported by a media that was simply hyped for war knowing that others will die.

It is no wonder that those who occupied the White House, and leaders at Justice Department and Defense Department thought and believed harsh interrogation measures, torture, subcontract tortures to Middle East countries, indefinite detention, denial of rights to counsel are Ok and try to convince us that it was morally and legally right and part of our American values.

It is was no accident that our presidents with the consent and approval of Congress think it is Ok to spy on people and invade their privacy without strict control and supervisions of an independent judiciary.
It is not an accident that our government and our congressional leaders think it is OK to pass legislation that targets certain ethnic and religious group and actively engage in racial profiling and call it of all things the “Patriot Act”.

These things happened because our political leaders from the Oval Office to the lone soldier in Abu-Greib thought it was Ok to do all of these things under our new and revised standard of morality and ethics of the “Right Nation”. Donald Rumsfeld thought there was nothing wrong with allowing the looting of the Iraqi museums and ministries immediately with the arrival of our troops in Baghdad even made fun of it.

It is not no accident that we not only murder hundreds of thousands if not millions in our wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and yes murder over 5,000 of our finest men and women, while wasting over a trillion of our hard earned tax dollars and simply say’ mistakes were made” and the “the war was not managed right”.

These things happened and do happens because those who are in charge lied and continue to lie and have no scruples and no sense of honesty and decency and have lost their moral and ethical compass.

And worse no one is held accountable for these moral and ethical lapses let alone for their incompetence and stupidity. Some even earned the highest honors by our nation.

Every where we go in every town and every city, there is a contractor, a business executives, a lobbyist who are cheating and engaging in bribes, breach of trust.

Elected officials and government officials are looking the other way, too busy raising money for the next election or lining up a future jog with industry they are dealing. The few made this nation a nation of thieves and crooks.

However putting the country back on the right economic track is easy compared to putting the country, our business executives, and our political leaders back on the right track of moral and ethical standards is not that easy.

This will require more than just simply throwing money, and more money on the debt problem. It requires that each of us, those who believe in this nation and its values, the people of Main Street to take back the country from professional politicians, incompetent greedy and crooked business and financial leaders and put limitations on the powers of the lawyers they have over this nation.

Every one in America must be re-educated and re-introduced to the basic American values and ethics that made this country a great nation. The damage done by George Bush and the “Right Nation” will take a long a time to repair and heal. Our indifference to what is happening in Washington and Wall Street contributed to this loss of moral and ethical compass. Time to come out after 40 years in the Wilderness of the Right Nation.

Posted in USAComments Off on America Back To The Future

Jesus in the Talmud, What is this?


by Tom Valentine

It is more than a ‘scholarly’ book, published in 2007 by Princeton University press; It is notable for finding factual references to the life of Jesus in caustic Rabbinic texts, and for being a counterbalance to the infamous Talmudic tradition that it’s okay to lie and deceive us ‘goy.’ I review this book as best I can from the position of an aroused and thinking Christian goy.

The cruel canard‘anti-Semitic’ does not apply for many reasons, not the least of which is the simple fact that the slanderous word itself is derived from language games for purposes of propaganda and in real world context has no validity.

Since the‘Semites’ referred to are no such thing and the powerful Talmudists have earned enmity and disrespect through word and deed for 2000 years, as this’scholarly’ book ascertains, I utterly reject the label anti-Semitic, however I proudly wear the tag that I am profoundly anti the‘Conspiracy of Zion.’

With that out of the way, let’s consider this book that is available from where customer reviews are posted. I will not review the reviews. You can check them in a jiffy.

Essentially we learn that there were two original Talmud sources the first in Palestine (The Jerusalem Talmud Schafer says; but typically it was not in Jerusalem where the Pharisees and scribes wrote this stuff in Aramaic, but about 60 miles away in another town probably because the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem a few years before these writings were written.
The‘Babylonian Talmud’ was scribed over a few hundred years duration in Babylonian cities, commencing about a hundred years after the Rabbi sect moved away from emerging Christianity into the‘cradle of civilization’, where they felt more free to attack Jesus.

Schafer accepts many details from the earlier writings over the later because they reflect the culture and times when Jesus Lived and performed his‘magic.’ The scribes adhering to the G-d tradition never wrote the name of the person they ridiculed, So Schafer can only infer they are writing about the Jesus of the New Testament.

In a classic irony, the writings of those who wish to claim Jesus never existed, literally confirm not only his existence but the early dates for writers of the Gospels. Essentially the‘synagogue of Satan’ published validation of their worst enemy his existence and his miracles as they denigrate both.

You cannot read this book quickly, you must invest considerable concentration, after all, it is‘scholarly.’

I have also read‘Judaism Discovered’ by Michael Hoffman, a book I heartily recommend for anyone wanting to try understanding the basis for controversy, wars, and bitter hatreds during the past 2000+ years.

This issue is most important in these times when the 2000-year war is coming to a head.

Posted in LiteratureComments Off on Jesus in the Talmud, What is this?

Shalit: IsraHell Soldier With Atypical Autism


“The real tragedy actually was letting a psychologically unfit teenager like Gilad Shalit wear the military uniform in the first place.”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat


Gilad Shalit

Israel freed 1,027 Palestinian and Israeli Arab prisoners to get Shalit back.

Beyond the debate over the rationale of Israel’s deal to release 1000 prisoners for one kidnapped soldier lies a simple fact: this Shalit deal is not only unbalanced but also mysterious in so many ways.

The mystery in this swap deal lies not in the acquiescence of the Israeli side- albeit unusual- to Hamas’ unbending  demands for releasing the kidnapped soldier.

It lies not in the success of the Egyptians brokering the deal where Mubarak and the Germans’ diplomacy had failed before, nor in the timing of the deal that coincided with the highest peak of Israeli perceived intransigence toward recognizing a Palestinian estate.

It lies not in the Hamas attempt to steal some of the thunder the Palestinian authority generated by forwarding its bid for UN statehood …, rather the mystery of this swap deal lies in Gilad Shalit, the Israeli kidnapped soldier himself.

As the story goes, Shalit, an Israeli army corporal, was abducted in June 2006 by militants while he was patrolling along the Israeli-Gaza border. The Hamas militants surprised his tank crew, killed two of his comrades and whisked him back into Gaza where he was held virtually incommunicado until his release.

We all grew familiar with photos of Shalit that advocates for his release began to post on the internet since his capture by Hamas. They were snap shots of a young and smart Israeli man in military uniform. \

While you can’t tell much about a person from his photo, it’s not before you have at least watched him talk that you can get a little bit closer to knowing what kind of person he is.

Shalit’s kidnapping and his 2009 video

On watching Shalit in his 2009 video in which he showed the whole world that he was safe and treated well in his captivity and also urged Netanyahu to concede to Hamas’ demands, something about that footage struck me as odd.

Though shalit had been in captivity for well over three years during which the Zionist controlled mainstream media turned him into a national hero, his first appearance in 2009 video revealed to me another aspect- devoid of any heroism- of Shalit’s personality that we couldn’t discern from the previous photos campaigners for his release flooded us with.

First video of Shalit in October 2009

From the first moment shalit started to talk in the video as he was reading from some dummy card he somehow sounded, throughout the 2-minute and 40-second video, dummier than the card he was looking at.

I’m aware that I’m talking about a man who has been long in captivity and maybe subjected to unimaginable hardships and that he must have been told to act according to a preplanned scenario so as to make everybody get the feeling that he was ok and taken care of.

But with all that in mind I still couldn’t explain Shalit’s monotonous tone, his inability to change facial expression and to convey his hidden feelings through any body language or gesture – signs that stray away from the hyperarousal features of anger and irritability of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

But what primarily triggered my discomfort, or suspicions actually, was Shalit kicking off his video with a totally unexpected idiotic smile hardly befitting of a man languishing in solitude, as if he had just listened to a joke, that later turned into a recurring smirk characteristic of some pathological stereotype.

Those signs somehow began to summon up the physician inside me, and as I was trying to connect some of the dots I realized that the Israeli captive I had just watched talking in the video was not unfamiliar to me, I’ve seen this smirky face so many times before, not in Israel, but as I was examining cases with autism.

Now and before some of you with their jaws dropping start to wonder what kind of point I’m trying to prove here.

Well, and before anybody jump to any conclusions, all I’m saying is that upon watching Gilad Shalit’s 2009 video I started to have my doubts as a physician if the man Hamas captured and kept in some secret hiding place for years was suffering from some kind of pervasive development disorders(PDDs) long before he was kidnapped.

What is “pervasive development disorders?”

PDDs, refers to a group of conditions that involve delays in the development of many basic personality skills, most notably the ability to socialize with others, to communicate, and to use imagination. Children with these conditions often are confused in their thinking and generally have problems understanding the world around them.

There are five types of pervasive development disorders: AutismAsperger’s syndrome, Childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett’s syndrome and Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDDNOS)

While most of these conditions typically are identified in children around 3 years of age — a critical period in a child’s development – they are called development disorders- one condition amongst them might linger with the child into his teens undiagnosed, namely Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDDNOS) which refers to children who have significant problems with communication and play, and some difficulty interacting with others, but are too social to be considered autistic and often to referred to as “atypical autistic”.

There are no laboratory tests to diagnose a PDD and that is why the doctor often seeks input from the child’s parents, teachers, and other adults who are familiar with the child’s symptoms.

General symptoms that may be present to some degree in a child with a PDD include:

– lack of social awareness.

– lack of interest in socializing/making friends.

– inability to infer the thoughts, feelings, or emotions of others.

– either gazing too intently or avoiding eye contact.

– lack of changing facial expression, or use of exaggerated facial expressions.

– lack of use or comprehension of gestures.

– unusually sensitive to noises, touch, odors, tastes, or visual stimuli.

– Inflexibility and over-adherence to or dependence on routines; stereotypes and repetitive motor patterns.

 Egyptian interview and Shalit’s near collapse

Can’t tell much from a man’s photo.

Shalit slightly showed some of the PDD symptoms in his 2009 video like the lack of changing facial expression and use of gestures and he certainly bewildered us with his stereotyped smirk. But it was not before his release did we get a chance to scrutinize at his case more closely.

The Egyptian TV was keen on having the first interview with shalit shortly after his release. But what the Nile TV channel host did not know was that she was going to interview a psychologically disturbed man with personality disorders.

The interview was not part of Shalit’s release deal, Gilad shalit could have refused- or strongly avoided any thing that reminded him of the painful interrogating sessions during his captivity was he a PTSD case- but since he didn’t seem to object, the Egyptian TV grabbed the chance and promptly put him in front of the camera and lights. … Not knowing that for a PDD case this TV interview was the ultimate situation where his pathological vulnerability could be exposed for all to see.

On hearing of Shalit being interviewed on the Egyptian TV, that was simultaneously aired live around the globe, the Israeli government went crazy and slammed this exclusive interview as outrageous and exploitative.

There was no logical explanation for the fury of the Israelis over this interview by Egyptians- who mediated the swap deal- except maybe they have lately been aware that Gilad Shalit is suffering from autism-like condition and that they feared he could not handle the interview, probably make a fool of himself and consequently embarrass the Israeli defense forces (IDF) … and that he surely did.

 -Shalit’s embarrassing Interview on Egyptian TV

Pale and dazed and shifted in his seat, Gilad Shalit struggled to breathe and seemed to mumble –signs of poor communication skills & uneven language development- as he arduously answered the questions of Shahira Amin, the Nile TV anchor.

This time there was no preplanned scenario, no rehearsals, and no dummy card. This time shalit had to face his most dreaded fears, namely communication and sociability, alone, without the help of his parents who I think lied about their son’s psychological condition for years before finally coming clean on the hidden matter.

As the Egyptian host threw her questions Shalit’s psychological condition, which the Israeli medical records only referred to as low medical profile, was violently been triggered allowing his symptoms to be exhibited more clearly especially for the professional eye.

What we couldn’t elicit from the 2009 video was explicitly out there in front of our eyes in the Egyptian interview. Suddenly all the main symptoms of a case with PDDNOS were exhibited in this interview as shalit’s lack of interest in socializing, avoiding eye contact, lack of changing facial expression and repetitive motor patterns were clearly evident in the video.

As the interview progressed Shalit’s psychological stress was getting so unbearable he looked as if he was going to pass out. Shahira Amin was so alarmed from his near-to-collapse condition she had to stop the shooting to offer him some biscuits and a glass of water, and she could be heard in Arabic as she said “Guys, Let’s get this over with as quickly as possible, he is very sick, I can sense it

Mrs. Amin was not mistaken in her judgment, Gilad Shalit was a very sick man alright, but he was not suffering from any organic diseases- as later confirmed by his medical examination in Israel, rather his ailment was purely psychological.

Shalit back in Israel and in unifrom again, but who was responsible for putting him in uniform in the first place despite his inappropriate medical profile.

After the spectacle this interview with Shalit made, the Israeli government swiftly snatched Shalit by a helicopter back to some Israeli air base where the swift official ceremony for his release proceeded without Shalit himself whom they said was not to be interviewed soon.

Shalit’s medical check-up in Israel proved normal; In addition to a slight injury to one of his hands caused by shrapnel, Shalit was found to be suffering from a vitamin deficiency caused by lack of sunlight.

This story of Gilad Shalit that has dragged out for over five years is about much more than a released Israeli prisoner suffering from some kind of vitamin deficiency; it has more to do with the culture of a military state where its 18-years old boys must be enrolled in a mandatory draft for the ambitions of the Israeli defense forces even if some of them had “low medical profile” or what later appeared as personality disorders.

Kidnapping Shalit was definitely a sad story for his family and an embarrassment for the Israeli government but the real tragedy actually was letting a psychologically unfit teenager like Gilad Shalit wear the military uniform in the first place.

Shalit story is more about the psychology of a nation that existed, and still does according to a code of

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Shalit: IsraHell Soldier With Atypical Autism

Breaking: Iran and IsraHell Caught – Partnering in Nuclear Attack Ploy


Tel Aviv and Tehran Clergy in Oil Price – War Scare Fraud

…Iran Nuke Arsenal Exposed

by  Editors Gordon Duff and Jim W. Dean,  with Mike Harris

Whose Fortunes Will Be Sunk in the Persian Gulf ?

The news has been filled with stories of plans by Israel or the US to bomb Iran.  There was recently a series of accusations made against Iran involving the assassination of Saudi and other diplomatic officials. 

These accusations were quickly discarded by most press organizations as “far fetched” but, for some reason drew responses from the US, France and others, responses that were “non linear” at best. 

Why would President Obama threaten Iran over accusations that all the networks said were nonsense?

Now, sources in Iran, at the highest levels, along with sources in the US and Britain, fearful of a “scam gone awry” tell of an extraordinary plot that is ready to unfold.

Secret contacts between Prime Minister Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khameni and counterparts in Israel, Russia and Turkey have been uncovered outlining a plan to stage an attack on Iran by Israel with full permission of the key groups within the leadership of the Iranian government and the clerics who oversee them. Members of opposition groups who have learned of this plan are livid.

The Sopranos Move to the Persian Gulf

The attack, scheduled for any day now, has one primary purpose.

It is meant to stabilize both the Iranian and Israeli governments, both of which have strong opposition at home and face charges of corruption and to correct major regional financial disaster each confront.

The “deal” between Israel and Iran is much closer to something out of the Sopranos than normal international relations.

This is pure “mob rule.”


Americans note that gasoline prices, recently at $4.50 per gallon, now approach $2.99 despite the continuation of artificial price supports due to illegal market speculation.

Gas price manipulation bankrupted the auto companies and has bled trillions of dollars out of the American economy that, not only destroyed our balance of trade but has lowered our standard of living.

This manipulation has been to prevent downward pressure on oil prices from three major market forces.

Will We Get the Old Gas Prices Back at This Critical EconomicTime – Or Will We Get Raped Instead?

1)  There has been an 8% decrease in demand for oil and other petrochemical products worldwide, causing massive downward pressure on oil prices.

Price platforms that had been over $150 per barrel (2008) with current futures trading up to $120 per barrel while actual sale prices according to Platts Marketscan are at $86.00 per barrel less discounts of up to $8.00.

Corrected prices based on actual supply and demand would have oil at or below $60 per barrel and gasoline on the American market at $1.79 per gallon and on most European markets at E .79 per litre including all applicable taxes and fees.

The truth about supply issues has been suppressed.  Not only is demand down but supply is skyrocketing.

2)  Recent discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean and West Africa/Cameroon place available reserves at nearly 40% higher than estimated 3 years ago.

Accurate reporting of these reserves would make oil futures virtually worthless, something that in a normal world would be of interest to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Now its “big oil’s” time for its own “pump and dump” in the futures market.  With this comes more powerful political backing for this crazed and apocalyptic scheme.

3)  New gas pipelines have broken Russia’s stranglehold on the market for natural gas and will push costs and profitability in that commodity through the floor.

Thousands of Highly Mobile Silkworms Line the Persian Gulf


There is only one way to stabilize gasoline prices that are in “free fall,” closing the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow waterway serving Iraq, Kuwait and other Gulf States that is controlled militarily by Iran through its vast network of Silkworm missiles will do exactly that.

Such an act would hit just like a worldwide oil embargo and could be triggered in hours by any Israeli attack on Iran.

What had been seen, in the past, as a potential world disaster, is now just another way to make a quick buck, despite the fact that those involved are, at least according to stories in our press, “blood enemies.”


To Save Themselves Financially – Would They Do Something Crazy?

Iran’s government is unstable, unpopular, considered extremely corrupt and is subject to pressure both internally and externally and we note from the continual talk of “sanctions.”

Post revolutionary Iran has a theocratic government, whose elected officials are subject to oversight by a religious authority.

However, it is the religious authority itself that is currently the subject of most accusations of corruption and reported to be behind this new deal with Israel.

Additionally, Iran had chosen to invest around the imagined stability of the Euro, both out of poor financial judgement and a belief it was a way of opposing the influence of the United States in the region.

However, as the Euro is currently in total collapse and the banks looked to for providing support for the Euro, banks Iran is heavily invested in, are insolvent due to hundreds of trillions of Euros of “toxic assets,” worthless securities they have used to underwrite their most profitable lending activities.

Thus, Iran’s financial picture isn’t very hopeful and much less so if oil markets are under threat.

A collapse of oil prices would lower Iran’s GNP (Gross National Product) significantly, causing additional social discord and the inability on behalf of the government to subsidize key constituencies.  Currently, veterans of the Iraq/Iran war are one of the key political constituencies in Iran and are very mobilized for political action.

They stand ready to act against the current government if financial policies threaten their interests, as does the military and the Revolutionary Guard.


Just look at Nigeria.  With a population of nearly 200 million, any cut in revenue due to falling oil prices would threaten their already beleaguered situation, a nation facing, not only terrorism but revolution.

Venezuela faces the same as does Ghana, Sudan, Chad, Angola, Tunisia, Indonesia and a dozen other nations without the financial wherewithal to remain stable with significant changes in the oil market.

Though “flush with cash,” the big loser is Russia, not just a potential big loser but also a “big player” in the region.


On June 18th, 2010, I wrote the following in Veterans Today:

Israel’s Iran Strike Logistics Basing Area

A week ago, Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. The Saudi’s quickly denied this.

The effort on Israel’s part was a ruse to cover their real plans, to attack from the Republic of Georgia, close to Iran’s northern border.

However, the breakdown in relations with Turkey after miscalculating the response to their Flotilla raid on a Turkish ship in international waters may have ended this operation.

Israel, whose arms agreements with Turkey mounted to nearly $5 billion dollars over a period of years, had been training pilots in Turkey for bombing attacks on Iran. During these training missions, Israel was smuggling aircraft through Turkish airspace.

Turkey had allowed Israel to use their air space for training because their terrain closely resembled areas of Iran that Israel planned to attack. However, Turkey was unaware that planes involved in this effort were being relocated to forward staging areas in the Republic of Georgia, making Turkey, technically, fully complicit in this planned illegal attack.

Helping coordinate the attack are intelligence units forward stationed in Azerbaijan, under the guise of technicians, trainers and advisors under the broad armaments agreements with that small nation.

Supply operations, moving necessary ordnance, much of it supplied by the United States under ammunition storage agreements, is being moved through the Black Sea to the Georgian Port of Poti, a major site for exporting coal and manganese ore….

USS Graple

Cover for the supply operations is being performed by the Georgian Coast Guard, set up by Israel and manned with Israeli observers.

Their job is to keep Russian surveillance craft away from supply operations under the guise of a “Gaza type” naval blockade of Abkhazia, a separatist province supported by Russia….

US Naval forces began operating in the Black Sea in late May, with the USS Graple (T-ars 53), a service and salvage ship, visiting the Georgian port of Poti for joint military exercises which ended June 8th.

Prior to that, the last US Navy ship in the region was the USS John L. Hall (FFG-32), a Perry class guided missile frigate. A Russian spokesman said, “The US is trying to turn the Black Sea into an American lake.”

The US is also maintaining a training and observation command in Tiblisi, a unit from Ramstein AFB in Germany, that is coordinating air traffic and radar functions.

With regular visits by the US Navy scheduled and ramping up at the same convenient time Israel is building up its arms cache in Georgia for the upcoming attack on Iran, the current debacle with Turkey may have set things back or ended this gambit completely.

Turkish air controllers had to know something was afoot when the attack bombers failed to return to the agreed upon flight plans and return to Israel.

Russian made S-300 Air Defense Missiles

A critical issue, of course, is the S300 air defense system that Russia has agreed to withhold from Iran as part of the program of sanctions. The current Tor 1 system, though robust, can be defeated by a well planned low level attack.

As the use of Georgia may be seen as a provocation by Russia, even if the attacks never manifest as anything other than more “firing blanks” like Israel’s tussle with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Russia may reconsider the delivery of this vital defense technology.

Without the ability to use forward bases in either Georgia, Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, Israel would be unable to attack Iran at all except by flying a circuitous 4500 mile “each way” route or using the limited capabilities of its nuclear armed submarine off the coast of Iran. It is uncertain how Turkey will deal with the illegal use of their airspace by Israel as relations are already at a low ebb.

With a number of former Soviet airfields spread across Georgia and 4 of 5 fields in Azerbaijan available for operations and support, the region makes a perfect area for broad operations, not only against Iran but for movement of contraband of every variety.


Yes – America Has Been Talking to the Iranians

What we didn’t know but suspected, is that Iran and Israel had been doing more than talking in Dubai where both do more than occasional banking.

Back channel communications between the Iranian government and the US had been done through Indonesia with Robert Gates as initial intermediary.

Since that time, such talks have gone through many hands.  What we didn’t know is that “talks” included “plots.”

The current issue has an unusual flavor to it with money flowing freely into the hands of all involved.

Participation in such a plan, with the risk of nuclear war very real despite the careful mechanizations of the conspirators, could very well have ramifications leading to global war.

Wars have been started over less, as an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 taught all of us.


Is Netanyahu Betting It All on a Grand Slam?

Israel gets to focus its internal problems on an external enemy and, in the process, get another “big win” like the one the US got when it killed the long dead Osama bin Laden.

Netanyahu’s belief is that his domestic opposition, more powerful than ever, will be silenced and his strained relations with the US will be repaired.

Added to “the deal” are provisions for generous financial windfalls for all involved.

Similarly, we have traced payments to Hamas made by Israel, stretching back many years.

We have also traced Israel’s control in a number of publications supposedly dedicated to the Palestinian cause, all carefully used by Israel to orchestrate tensions and derail any potential trust or cooperation.

The supposed “anti-zionist” Palestinian publications and select Islamic organizations, particularly in Lebanon, have been among Israel’s most valuable assets.

Now with the discovery of the covert relationship between Israel and Iran, this has become much more understandable, particularly in light of the new-found fear of political destabilization as Israel primary “assets” in the region, Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya have both fallen to what we hope will be democratic regimes.


Thermonuclear Warhead

We had been receiving information about nuclear weapons in Iran for several months.  Sources were given that had not checked out, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and even Israel.

However, one source did check out, the Ukraine.  We don’t have the exact date or number but we are told that the Ukraine sold Iran 6 thermonuclear warheads, probably in or around 2003.

Iran was fearful of US forces on both borders and nuclear weapons would have only been usable as a “last resort,” not against Israel but against American armies moving into Iran.

That the warheads are from an American ally, one being courted for NATO membership at the time, made this issue one of great sensitivity.

It was easier to continue talking about nuclear programs that didn’t exist than weapons that did.

For Iran, these weapons, back in 2003 at least, were going to be a great surprise to the neocons at PNAC (Project for a New American Century) that had planned their demise.  Things never got that far.

Now Iran is stuck with weapons they can never use, not against Israel, certainly not against American forces in Iraq who are currently in full scale withdrawal.  Each weapon has taken on the effect of being an albatross around Iran’s neck, far more of a security risk than asset.


Discussions within the Iranian clergy, unknown to their new Israeli friends, indicate that these nuclear devices, each deliverable by ballistic missile, will be made operational as a “safety measure.”  What can they be thinking?

One must realize that this is the same religious organization that regularly has government officials charged with witchcraft.

This highly classified information is being published at great risk by many in America, Great Britain and Iran in hopes that that the “clear light of day” will bring about a period of reflection and a restoration of sanity.

Major Offshore Oil and Gas Fields in Good Water

Posted in Iran1 Comment

Shoah’s pages


October 2011
« Sep   Nov »