Archive | October 15th, 2014

US uses Palestinians as field tests

The recent announcement by the Obama regime in stopping the Weapons Shipments to Israel has taken a sudden 'turn...'

An American anti-war activist says one of the reasons why the United States is always supporting Israel militarily is because Washington uses Palestinians as “field tests.”

“Clearly the United States always wants to help Israel expand its military capability and one of the primary reasons is because the US uses the Palestinian people as field tests to check out new weapons technologies in the urban battlefield environment,” said Bruce Gagnon with the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

“So clearly they’re field tests there,” Gagnon told Press TV in a phone interview on Thursday.

In a recent report, The Wall Street Journal said the administration of US President Barack Obama has tightened control on arms transfer to Israel after US officials learned that the Israeli military had been quietly securing lethal munitions from the Pentagon without their approval.

According to the report, the White House has instructed the Pentagon to put on hold a transfer of Hellfire missiles to Israel.

However, Gagnon says the move is just “a political tack” on the part of the Obama administration following the Tel Aviv regime’s atrocities against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip which sparked outrage across the globe.

“Because of the recent slaughter and massacre of people in Gaza by Israel, suddenly there’s a new sensitivity on the part of the Obama administration. This is I believe purely a political tack,” he said.

“It’s like sailing, you know, you’re just changing directions with the wind a little bit but soon you’ll tack back to the complete and utter subordination of US and Israeli policy together, you know, it’s one military machine run for the interest of the corporate oligarchy that runs both this country and Israel,” Gagnon concluded.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on US uses Palestinians as field tests

Saudi Arabia: Zio-Wahhabi governs the killing of Sheikh Nimr Tazira


Zio-Wahhabi Specialized Criminal Court issued in Riyadh, today, the first instance verdict on the death of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr discretionary and refused to end banditry, according to political activist Mohammed Tiger “Tiger’s brother Sheikh.”

Zio-WahhabI ”criminal court” in Riyadh decided during its last meeting, the closure of the pleadings in the case of Sheikh Nimr, who faced serious charges, the most prominent “out on the Guardian” and “the use of arms” in the face of the security forces. ???

The case of Sheikh Tiger, which began classes since his arrest on July 8, 2012, had been waiting for the day the verdict after 12 sessions presented by the prosecutor claim against the Sheikh accused him where b «out on a guardian» and «ignite sectarian strife» and «to bear arms in the face of the security men »and« bring external intervention »and” support a state of rebellion in Bahrain. ”

The political activist Mohammed Tiger «brother Sheikh» that Sheikh Nimr was «joy jubilantly declared a coherent» when sentencing discretionary death and refused to end banditry by the Specialized Criminal Court in Riyadh today.

He was speaking through his account in the site «Twitter» and noted that the issuance of a statement in the near time of Tiger’s family.

For her part, said the teacher left «Muhammad’s wife Panther» that the expectations of the majority of observers were centered on the expected postponement of judgment because any judgment «risky» does not bring solution to political problems, but «dialogue» and respond to popular demands.

She stressed the calculated they «believers that the crisis is an opportunity for change and the gate of victory».

It is worth mentioning that he had been considered in the trial of Sheikh Nimr 13 during a court hearing in the most recently closed the door of the pleadings in the case, who faced the serious charges, most notably the «exit the guardian» and «the use of arms» in the face of the security forces.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Arabia: Zio-Wahhabi governs the killing of Sheikh Nimr Tazira

Slaughter of German Cities After World War II (Part I)


by Jonas E. Alexis

Historian Keith Lowe declares at the beginning of his 2007 bookInferno: The Fiery Destruction of Hamburg that “I am aware that this book might have made uncomfortable reading for some.”[1]

Why? Did Lowe fear that Inferno would upset the Holocaust establishment? Who are those people who would feel uncomfortable reading the book?

If Lowe is presenting facts, why would some people be uncomfortable with them in the first place? And what is it that Lowe is actually saying in the book that would make people so upset?

We all know that serious historical scholarship can be an uncomfortable territory, particularly for those who do not have enough guts to tell the truth and follow it wherever it leads. In fact, historical truth and artifacts can bring emotional pain and wounds. As intellectual historian Mark Lilla rightly put it,

“Whoever takes it upon himself to write an honest intellectual history of twentieth-century Europe will need a strong stomach. But he will need something more. He will need to overcome his disgust long enough to ponder the roots of this strange and puzzling phenomenon.”[2]

Lowe seems to have a strong stomach when it comes to examining the destruction of German cities, but he does not seem to possess the intellectual courage “to ponder the roots of this strange and puzzling phenomenon.”

Furthermore, Lowe lacks the moral courage to tell us quite frankly who the culprits really are. And we shall see why in a moment. Lowe writes,

“There is still a great deal of bitterness toward Germany, despite the decades that have passed, and many people simply do not care if the Germans suffered or not.

“During the course of my research, I have spoken to scores of people—Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Danes, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, the list goes on—who have listened to my descriptions of the Hamburg firestorm and merely shrugged their shoulders. ‘It was their own fault,’ is the standard reply. ‘They started it.’

“I would be surprised if even the most intransigent of these people could remain unmoved by some of the eyewitness accounts of the firestorm and its horrific effects.

“In Germany it remains virtually impossible to mention the bombs without the immediate acknowledgement that it was they who opened Pandora’s box in the first place.”[3]


Lowe, like noted historian R. M. Douglass and Hans Erich Nossack,[4]indicates that popular historians have been doing a terrible job documenting what happened to German cities after World War II. Lowe declares,

“I have been consistently surprised by the general ignorance of these facts among my own countrymen.

“In the course of the two years of writing [Inferno] I have come across very few people outside the world of military historians who knew that Hamburg was ever bombed at all, let alone the sheer scale of the destruction that took place.

“Hamburg is a byword for horror, and yet in Britain few people know it even happened.

“In North America, too, there is widespread ignorance of the basic facts, although to some extent America’s geographical and emotional distance from Hamburg excuses this.

“Even those who have heard of the Hamburg firestorm are generally unaware of its ghastly human consequences.”[5]

Lowe’s frustration is understandable. I too have been flabbergasted by some of the most ridiculous statements ever uttered by one of my historian friends with respect to Nazi Germany.

After a long conversation, during which I challenged some of his sources, he then turned around and questioned archival documents, saying things like, “How do I know that I should trust them? How do you know they are not fabrications?”

I specifically bought him a copy of R. M. Douglass’ Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War. I told him to read it and we generally agreed to discuss it.

After a few weeks, he came back with his conclusions. I simply could not believe what I was hearing from him. His main objection was that he could not trust Douglass’ citations and conclusions because they are hard to verify, since most of them are from historical archives.

Now here is a man who frequently cited secondary sources, but all of a sudden he cannot trust archival documents! Why?

Obviously the documents did not line up with his preconceived notion. Yet he did not know that he was making my job easy. I agreed with his thesis only to destroy it later. I responded,

Germany after the War

Germany after the War

“Well, well, well. That begs the question, doesn’t it? If you want to go to great length to challenge archival documents, which are some of the finest historical artifacts we have, shouldn’t you do the same thing with secondary sources?

“Don’t you laboriously cite secondary sources to me as your authority? Don’t you repeatedly say that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, a historically preposterous and mathematically implausible idea?

“Are you seriously saying that secondary sources are more reliable than archival and primary documents? Is that an intellectually sound position?”

He slowly got a little quiet. He is a military man, and I am not. He went to the Gulf War and knows much more about warfare than I do. He got shot at twice and at one point he almost got killed by a hand grenade.We have been friends for more than two years and he has shown to be a gentleman. Yet his ideological worldview does not allow him to see the obvious.

What I have learned last year and what I am still trying to understand is that some beliefs are so dear to some people that they are willing to die for them—even if those beliefs could be demonstrably shown to be false.

I simply am appalled when I read some of the stuff that is out there and some of the statements that people try to put out in order to make a point. I sometimes simply have to ignore them precisely because many of those statements are simply silly and sophomoric.

And then you’ve got other people who believe that when you refute an argument or declare that an argument is silly or sophomoric or preposterous or irrational, you somehow are attacking the person who posited the argument in the first place![6]

That really was news to me precisely because I thought this was a non-issue among serious academics and scholars.

It is really discouraging when people who ought to know better would even remotely suggest that by attacking an argument, you somehow dislike the person positing the argument.

For example, after arguing against one of Plato’s arguments, eminent philosopher Julia Annas of the University of Arizona declares that

“This gives Plato a very silly argument, and we should try to do better if possible.”[7]

Was she personally attacking Plato? Did Annas somehow have some animosity toward the ancient Greek thinker? Did she really despise him as a human being?

Or did Annas have to make a list of things that she likes about Plato so that readers would know that she really does not have some animosity toward him?

When mathematician John Allen Paulos for example talks about “an intentionally silly argument”[8] and compares the trinity to an “obviously silly” statement,[9] or that the argument for miracle is “beyond silly,”[10]was he personally attacking the people who produced the argument? Can we seriously deduce that Paulos somehow hates those people just on that premise alone?

Moreover, have people even read popularizers such as Richard Dawkins, who make it very clear that some arguments are really silly?[11]

When David Hume declared that “I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause,”[12] was he personally attacking those who maintain this view?

What is even more disheartening is that if you evidentially point out that some statements are demonstrably false, the same people who produce those statements continue to uphold and defend them as if facts and evidence simply do not matter!

Sometimes it is just disappointing to know that some of those people graduated from many of the top universities in the country, where they should have been trained in logic and rigorous and solid argumentation.[13]




Richard J. Evans

Richard J. Evans

Going back to Lowe, he is far from alone. Richard J. Evans of Cambridge, in reviewing Douglass’ Orderly and Humane, noted quite rightly,

“At the end of World War II, between twelve and fourteen million people, ethnic Germans, were forcibly expelled from Eastern Europe, or, if they had already fled, were prevented from going back to their homes.

“Others were detained in appalling conditions in concentration camps for weeks, suffering from disease, starvation, and maltreatment, before they were brutally pushed out to the west.

“Long lines trudged towards Germany, with the weak succumbing to hypothermia and malnutrition. Altogether probably half a million and perhaps as many as a million perished in what was the largest action of what later came to be known as ‘ethnic cleansing’ in history.

“This massive act of expulsion and forced migration is still largely unknown outside the countries most closely affected by it. The story appears in standard histories of Germany and Europe in the twentieth century as little more than a footnote.”[14]

So far, so good.

But the question that Evans should ask himself is simply this: whose fault is that? Is Evans really telling us that he is not an accomplice in all this? Didn’t he defend Jewish thought police Deborah Lipstadt in court?

And didn’t Evans get thousands of dollars in return? Didn’t he get to write books for major New York publishing houses while those same publishers did not want to reprint David Irving’s books because Irving said some uncomfortable but true things about what he called the traditional enemy of the truth”?

Does Evans mean to tell us that he doesn’t know that Lipstadt calls just about anyone she does not like an anti-Semite? Doesn’t Evans know that Lipstadt even called Jimmy Carter—of all people!—a soft-core denier for writing Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?

Doesn’t Evans know that Lipstadt tried to get people fired from their academic positions just because they expose lies as perpetuated by hoaxers like Elie Wiesel?[15] Here’s what Lipstadt said about the noted German historian Ernst Nolte:

“Historians such as the German Ernst Nolte are, in some ways, even more dangerous than the deniers.

“Nolte is an anti-Semite of the first order, who attempts to rehabilitate Hitler by saying that he was no worse than Stalin; but he is careful not to deny the Holocaust.

Norman Davies

Norman Davies

“Holocaust-deniers make Nolte’s life more comfortable. They have, with their radical argumentation, pulled the center a little more to their side.

“Consequently, a less radical extremist, such as Nolte, finds himself closer to the middle ground, which makes him more dangerous.”

Lipstadt is simply a double-minded person. For example, in 2011, she declared that

“If anti-Semitism becomes the reason through which your Jewish view of the world is refracted, if it becomes your prism, then it is very unhealthy. Jewish tradition never wanted that.”

She even added that

“The ‘hysteria’ and ‘neuroses’ of many Jews and Israelis who compare the current situation in Europe and in the Middle East to the Holocaust era. ‘People go nuts here, they go nuts.

“There’s no nuance, there’s no middle ground, it’s taking any shade of grey and stomping on it. There are no voices of calm, there are no voices of reason, not in this country, not in Israel.’”

Yet when the Israeli regime was getting a huge backlash for slaughtering innocent civilians in Gaza just a few months ago, Lipstadt took the center stage and declared in the New York Times that Anti-Semitism “was rooted in longstanding Christian views that demonized the Jews.” She then concluded:

“The telegram has arrived. Jews are worrying. It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural and enlightened society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.”[16]

Going back to Evans, has he already forgotten that he is the author of the new book Altered Past: Counterfactuals in History, in which he takes it as a brute fact that six million Jews died in Nazi Germany.[17]

Evans indeed is part of the Holocaust establishment,[18] but somehow he is trying to distance himself from the very circle which, at this present moment, holds the West captive when it comes to probing historical enquiry and research.

In the same vein, Keith Lowe certainly should know that there is a Jewish establishment in the West that seeks to usurp serious historical knowledge.

Lowe, like Evans and others, should know that there is a book out there by a Jewish ideologue entitled Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, in which its author argues that ordinary Germans play a crucial role in bringing about Nazi Germany.

The author of the book, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, tells us in an afterthought that those ordinary Germans were certainly “anti-Semites who believed that exterminating Jews was right and necessary.”

If you happen to challenge that premise on a rational and historical ground, Goldhagen will try to sue you.[19]

Lowe does not even analyze Goldhagen’s book in his Inferno. Nor does he discuss the ideological forces behind those who try to cover up historical events with respect to what happened during and after World War II.


Well, if Lowe even mentions the names of those people, he probably would not be able to publish books for major New York publishing houses. He almost certainly would be sent to academic Siberia. He probably knows what happened to historians and academics such as Norman Davies and Norman Finkelstein.

We all know what happened to Norman Finkelstein. But when Norman Davies challenged the accepted views of both the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland and the Stalinist regime in Soviet Union, he was ultimately denied tenure at Stanford University.

tim cole

His accusers were none other than the Dreadful Few, most notably Jewish historians Lucy S. Dawidowicz and Abraham Brumberg. A Stanford University article reads:

“Davies’s works have been criticized at Stanford and elsewhere, by such experts as Lucy S. Dawidowicz (author of The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945) who said they felt Davies minimized historic anti-Semitism in Poland and tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust.

“Davies’ supporters contend that Poles suffered as much as Jews did in the war and could have done very little to save any of the 3 million Jews living in Poland at the time of the Nazi invasion in 1939.

“Davies had sought $3 million in damages from the university for what he called fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, discrimination and defamation.”[20]

Davies suddenly realized that the Dreadful Few were a lot more powerful than he ever imagined. He eventually moved to England, where he taught history at the University of London and later became a fellow at Oxford.

Davies is not an obscure historian. His scholarly works include God’s Playground: A History of Poland (in two volumes); Europe: A HistoryNo Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945; and Heart of Europe: The Past in Poland’s Present.

Yet in 2005, Davies dropped a historical bomb that implicitly devastated the Holocaust establishment, writing a sharp critique of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, which was published by the Sunday Times.

After demolishing many of the arguments as articulated by the Holocaust establishment, Davies declared,

“On the ideological front, westerners are accustomed to thinking of the second world war as a two-sided conflict, of good fighting evil.

“The Soviets had a similar dialectical view. They were the authors of the concept of antifascism, which caught on in the West, encouraging the illusion that all opponents of fascism were inspired by similar values.

“In reality, Soviet communism was as hostile to western democracy as it was to fascism. Stalinist practices, however, undermine the entire moral framework within which the allied cause is perceived.

“It is not possible to maintain that the allies were fighting for untrammeled good if the largest of their members was habitually given to mass murder.

“Before 1941, enough was known about Stalin’s concentration camps, purges, show trials and state terror that western leaders had no excuse for ignorance. Yet such was the desperate need for Soviet military assistance that all western suspicions were suspended.

“During the war, there were thousands in London and Washington who had witnessed Stalin’s camps and murders. But they were effectively silenced by war censorship, and sometimes by military discipline. Officers caught discussing what they had heard about Stalin’s crimes were threatened with courts martial.

“Even Churchill, who had been a strident anti-Bolshevik and who admitted to ‘supping with the devil,’ warmed to the blandishments of success.

“When victory finally came, very few were willing to count the political and moral cost. At the Nuremberg trials, three categories of criminal conduct were established: crimes against peace (i.e., wars of aggression); war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“By any reckoning, Stalin’s regime deserved to stand trial on all counts. It had been expelled from the League of Nations for crimes against peace. While defeating the Wehrmacht, its forces had perpetrated numberless atrocities.

“And in pursuing policies of mass murder, mass deportation, repressions and ethnic cleansing the Soviet state had manifestly entered the realm of crimes against humanity.

“Yet in the victory euphoria, they need not have feared a public reprimand, let alone a formal accusation. When German defence lawyers at Nuremberg protested on this score, they were cut short by the chairman, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence.

“‘We are here to judge major war criminals,’ he reminded the court, ‘not to try the prosecuting powers.’ Meanwhile, the notion of a general ‘liberation’ of Europe was false.


“The liberation was genuine enough when the allies entered Rome, Paris or Brussels; and it was dramatically evident when allied soldiers rescued the survivors of Belsen, Buchenwald or Auschwitz.

“But in eastern Europe, Soviet forces imposed a new tyranny as soon as the Nazi tyranny was crushed. Buchenwald was emptied of one set of inmates, then used for another.

“At the very time that Auschwitz was being liberated in January 1945, other camps like Majdanek were filling up with members of the resistance movement (our allies) whom the NKVD regarded as enemies.

“Wartime heroes, flown into continental Europe by SOE and the RAF, were cast into Soviet dungeons. Democrats were arrested, shot or put on trial.

“Vast tides of innocents, including all Soviet prisoners of war who had survived German imprisonment, all so-called ‘repatriants’ handed over by western forces, and most of the slave workers returning home from Germany were shot or shipped off to the Gulag. Puppet dictatorships were introduced by force into country after country.”[21]

Davies also indirectly cut the Goldhagen thesis to pieces when he said,

“For every European who was involved in the fighting of the Second War, there were at least ten civilians who were not directly involved but who nonetheless were forced to suffer the painful consequences of international conflict.”[22]

There was no way for Davies to survive the Zionist regime’s machination of historical events. But he certainly was not the only individual to challenge the powers that be. Listen to Norman Finkelstein in his 2000 book The Holocaust Industry:

“Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler’s Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud. Especially revealing is the cultural miliew that nurtures this Holocaust literature.”[23]

Finkelstein of course had people like Daniel Jonah Goldhagen,  Eli Wiesel, and Deborah Lipstadt in mind. Those people can meticulously craft a palpable lie in such a way that the average person who knows little about World War II will accept it as brute facts. Why do you think that Elie Wiesel received so many accolades and media attention over the past few decades?

Lowe does not want to be another Zionist casualty or victim. He also should know that there is a book out there called Genocide Denial and the Law, in which it is stated in a perverse way that “Holocaust deniers” should face harsher punishments—such as imprisonment if necessary.[24]

The premise of that particular book is absolutely worthless precisely because it can only be applied to “Nazi Holocaust.” If we extrapolate the same thesis to other historical events, then Jewish historians such as Bernard Lewis and others would be in jail for denying the Armenian genocide, an issue we will address in the future.

This is why Lowe can never be a good cop because he never got the intellectual and moral courage to tell us the real culprits who are playing fast and loose with historical artifacts.


 Furthermore, Lowe does not tell us that major media publications such as the New York Times play a huge role in brainwashing the masses.

It just gets to a point now that the New York Times doesn’t surprise thinking people anymore with countless stories of “Nazi Holocaust” and with little or no historical depth and honesty and fair balance.[25]

It seems that editors and writers for the Times make sure that at least one story with respect to “the Holocaust” be published every month.

In fact, if you have been living on a steady diet of mass media and Hollywood manipulation in movies such asInglorious Basterds—and to a lesser degree in HellboyCaptain America, etc.—then you now know that Nazi Germany was the darkest era in recent memory.

Yet none of those editors and writers would be willing to publish the awful tragedies that literally fell upon the German civilians after the war precisely because that would ruin their daily wining and moaning.

That also means that some of those editors will have to find a serious and honest job other than producing hoaxes about Nazi Germany.

Writers and editors at the New York Times are certainly not oblivious to what has been happening in the historical world. They know pretty well that serious scholarly studies have been done over the past ten years unequivocally showing that German civilians indeed suffered tremendously after the war and the vast majority of those people had nothing to do with Nazi Germany.

Yet those New York Times writers continue to moan because the powers that be tell them what to think and what to write about. The powers that be tell us ad absurdum that no crime in history can be compared to what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. As Abraham Foxman himself declared a few years ago:

“The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a nearly successful attempt on the life of Gods’ chosen children and, thus, on God himself.”[26]

If the “Holocaust” is actually “a single event” and unique, then there is no way to compare it with other historical events. But the Dreadful Few always violate that rule whenever they want to destroy a new country or leader.

"Are you Goyim ready to get smashed through 'art'? Keep in mind that my work is going to 'fuck an entire generation.'"

“Are you Goyim ready to get smashed through ‘entertainment’? Keep in mind that my work is going to ‘fuck an entire generation.’”

Didn’t they compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler?[27] Didn’t they produce fabrications saying that Ahmadinejad was another Hitler?[28] Didn’t they place Vladimir Putin on the front page of the Times with a Hitler mustache?

Didn’t Paul Johnson help the Dreadful Few by marshalling the ridiculous argument that Putin was following Hitler’s ideology?[29] Didn’t the Dreadful Few and their puppets preposterously declare that Assad joined Hitler in ideology?

As a corollary, if the Dreadful Few really believe that Hitler was that bad, why don’t they go after Hollywood which, as some Jewish scholars have argued, aided Nazi Germany?[30]

Nazi Germany was the greatest evil in the twentieth century, but Jewish towns such as Hollywood that actually helped Nazi Germany get a free pass? Does that make any sense at all? What the Dreadful Few end up saying is that if Hitler didn’t exist, they would invent him.

Furthermore, why is it that we have hundreds upon hundreds of “Holocaust” movies and nothing about the Russian Holocaust, the Chinese Holocaust, the Vietnamese Holocaust, etc.?

Chinese scholar Mao Yushi, who actually was in his early 30s when Mao took over the country and who suffered tremendously as a result, recently declared that the Great Famine took the lives of 36 million people.[31]This is very close to what historian Frank Dikotter has said.

In a similar vein, Jo Lusby, head of China operations for Penguins, declared that “The Chinese people were cheated. They need real history.”[32]

Indeed. They are still being cheated because the Holocaust establishment does not want to examine all historical events by the same standard. Everyone has to know about “Jewish Holocaust” and other historical events are just an afterthought.

For example, Inglorious Basterds, which is about Jewish vengeance, received numerous accolades in the Jewish establishment when it came out. In fact, Abraham Foxman declared that Inglorious Basterds “should be recognized with an Academy Award.”[33]

It does not seem to bother Foxman that the movie contains graphically violent scenes and flashes of pornography; the end—Jewish vengeance—justifies the means.

Foxman concluded, “Hopefully the millions who see it will understand the horrors of the Holocaust and echo my view of ‘if only it were true!’”[34]

Jewish producer Lawrence Bender ended up saying that Inglorious Basterds was actually “a Jewish wet dream.”[35] Bender continued to say that “we’re getting to live out a fantasy of revenge, getting to do what every Jew probably dreamed of.”[36]

Jewish thought police Jeffrey Goldberg reported that

“Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the film’s executive producers, also reportedly enjoyed the film’s theme of Jewish revenge…

“Neal Gabler told me that Jewish revenge fantasies aren’t entirely alien to the movie industry, but they’ve always been exercises in sublimation, Superman being only the most obvious.”[37]

French Jewish actress Melanie Laurant, who played Shosanna Dreyfus in Inglourious Basterds, declared in an interview,

“When I read the script, I was like, wow, it’s been my dream to kill Hitler since I was like four so I was kind of like Shosanna already. I’m Jewish.

“I read the script together with my grandfather and he told me, ‘You have to make that movie, please.’ So it was not just for me, it was for my family…I’m the face of Jewish vengeance.”[38]

In another interview, she said, “I think everyone has that sort of dream, to kill that sort of man [Adolf Hitler]. I think it’s kind of universal.”[39]

Even rabbis extolled the movie as a perfect example of Jewish revenge. Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, Virginia, after attending an early screening of the film, declared to his congregation,

“To my surprise, my complete and utter surprise, there was something cathartic and deeply satisfying watching this revenge fantasy play out.

“It was as if something I did not dare admit—my secret blood lust to do unto them what they did unto us—was being acknowledged, permitted and validated. I was liberated from victimhood.”[40]

In short, Inglourious Basterds is the modern poster-child for the theme that vengeance is a Jewish virtue. Rabbi Meir Kahane—who founded “the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in the 1960s, a movement intended to counter acts of anti-Semitism”—declared in 1980,

“Vengeance is a fundamental Jewish concept that is a precept, injunction, commandment for the Jew.”

Eli Roth, “The Bear Jew,” admitted,

“I grew up with this psychotic hatred of the Nazis and just these fantasies of killing them… It was very cathartic, it was extremely personal to do the role…

“So there is probably a lot more of me in Donny Donowitz and Donny Donowitz in me than I would care to admit.”

 Since the 1940s until the present, Hollywood has made sure that at least one or two “Holocaust” movies are released. Is there an agenda?

Let us ask Jewish Holocaust historian Tim Cole of the University of Bristol. He writes in the first page of his stunning book Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler: How History is Bought, Packaged, and Sold,

“‘Shoah [Hebrew for Holocaust] business’ is big business…[In] the twentieth century, the ‘Holocaust’ is being bought and sold. $168 million was donated to pay for the building of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on a plot of Federal Land in Washington, DC.

“Millions of dollars have financed memorial projects throughout the United States, ranging from the installation of Holocaust memorials to the establishing of University chairs in Holocaust studies. Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List netted over $221 million in foreign box offices and even Academy Awards.”[41]

Cole titled the prologue of his book “The Rise (and Fall?) of the Myth of the ‘Holocaust.’”

It is high time that people of all stripes wake up against the Zionist/Neo-Bolshevik/Neoconservative machination of the West and much of the world because everyone will end up paying the price.

And this is where historian Thomas Goodrich’s meticulous study comes in. We will address his admirable book,Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, in the next article.


[1] Keith Lowe, Inferno: The Fiery Destruction of Hamburg, 1943 (New York: Scribner, 2007), xiii.

[2] Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review of Books, 2001), 198.

[3] Lowe, Inferno, 303.

[4] Hans Erich Nossack, The End: Hamburg, 1943 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

[5] Lowe, Inferno, xii.

[6] For a long treatise on this issue, see for example Jonathan Barnes, The Pre-Socratic Philosophers  (New York: Routledge, 1982); Stewart Duncan and Antonio Lolordo, Debates in Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings and Contemporary Responses (New York: Routledge, 2013), xxi; Francisco J. Ayala and Robert Arp, ed., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010), 77; Raymond M. Smullyan, A Beginner’s Guide to Mathematical Logic (New York: Dover Publications, 2014), 257.

[7] Julia Annas, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981), 197.

[8] John Allen Paulos, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up(New York: Hill and Wang, 2008), 35.

[9] Ibid., 48.

[10] Ibid., 85.

[11] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Mariner Book, 2008), 109.

[12] J. Y. T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), 187.

[13] Even if those people had used the knowledge they had gained from a basic geometry course, they would have learned that there are some arguments that are just plain inept. I keep updating my response policy precisely because some people will not or refuse to listen.

[14] Richard J. Evans, “The Other Horror,” New Republic, June 25, 2012.

[15] See for example E. Michael Jones, “Holocaust Denial and Thought Control: Deborah Lipstadt at Notre Dame University,” Culture Wars, May 2009.

[16] Deborah Lipstadt, “Why Jews Are Worried,” NY Times, August 20, 2014.

[17] Richard J. Evans, Altered Pasts: Counterfactuals in History (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2013), 1.

[18] I particularly contacted Evans back in 2012 while researching Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. II. I also contacted Lipstadt and Shermer. I frankly was appalled by some of their contradictory remarks. Moreover, upon observation, it became obvious to me that although Evans theoretically believes in primary sources (In Defense of History), practically his attachment to the Holocaust Industry does not allow him to follow what he subscribes to, especially when it comes to examining important issues about Nazi Germany. I believe it is that establishment that keeps many historians, including Evans and to a lesser degree Lowe, from reaching their full potential as serious historical writers.

[19] Yes, Goldhagen actually did threaten to sue one historian by the name of Ruth Bettina Birn. You can view Birn’s critique of Hitler’s Willing Executioners here.

[20] Standford News Service, September 5, 1995

[21] Norman Davies, “Russia: The Missing Link in Britain’s VE Day Mythology,” Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.

[22] Norman Davies, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe (New York: Penguin, 2006), 283.

[23] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2000), 55.

[24] Ludovic Hennebel and Thomas Hochmann, Genocide Denials and the Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 317-318.

[25] For story after story, see for example Alexis Soloski, “Recounting a Tragic Past Through the Eyes of Survivors,” NY Times, August 3, 2014; “‘The Banality of Evil,’ and the Nazis’ Early Victims,” NY Times, September 8, 2014; Jodi Rudoren, “Holocaust Told in One Word, 6 Million Times,” NY Times, January 25, 2014; Timothy W. Ryback, “The Unquiet Ghosts of Nazi Germany,” NY Times, February 4, 2014; Joseph Berger, “Split Up by Holocaust, Top Collection of Yiddish Works Will Reunite Digitally,” NY Times, October 2, 2014.

[26] Abraham Foxman, ADL on the Frontline, January 1994. Foxman never bothered to define what he meant by “God’s chosen children.” Did he mean to say that Trotsky and Lenin were also “God’s chosen children”? How about Freud? Were the Dreadful Few chosen by God to spread pornography in Weimar Republic?

[27]Anne Kornblutt and Charles Sennott, “Saddam the New Hitler, Bush Tells Europeans,” The Sydney Morning Herald, November 22, 2002.

[28] “Wikileaks: US Referred to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as ‘Hitler,’” The Telegraph, November 28, 2010.

[29] Paul Johnson, “Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?,” Forbes, May 5, 2014.

[30] Ben Urwand, The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013); Thomas Doherty, Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1929 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).

[31] Mao Yushi, “I’m Trying to Solve a Decades Old Mystery: How Many People Were Killed by China’s Great Famine?,” Washington Post, September 1, 2014.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Abraham Foxman, “Inglorious Basterds Should Be Recognized with an Academy Award,” Huffington Post, April 19, 2010.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Andrew O’Hehir, “Is Tarantino Good for the Jews?”, August 13, 2009.

[36] Ami Eden, “‘Inglourious Basterds’ at JTS,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Dec. 18, 2009.

[37] Ibid.

[38] “Laurent is Happy to be the ‘Face of Jewish Veangeance,’”, Aug. 14, 2009.

[39] Linda Gorov, “Glorious Women,” Boston Globe, August 16, 2009.

[40] Ami Eden, “‘Inglorious Basterds’ at JTS,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 18, 2009.

[41] Tim Cole, Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold(New York: Routledge, 2000), 1.

Posted in Education, GermanyComments Off on Slaughter of German Cities After World War II (Part I)

The United Nations has become an Instrument of NATO

Global Research
Image result for NATO LOGO

What happens in the international community is not by chance, and what happened In Libya is not by chance, what is happening in Syria and Iran is not by chance. And what is happening in Syria and Iran?

Who is behind the acts of terrorism? What is behind the assassinations and murder of intellectuals and high-ranking officials in both countries? We are building up to what, exactly? And where is the truth in the international press?

As usual, the obedient press, along with the U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has managed to come up with the same goods time and time again and so long as a gullible public, obediently swayed to where it is supposed to be by swallowing the tidy controlled media package daily, it is going to work: public opinion will acquiesce to the schemes of the arms and energy and banking lobbies which control Washington, and by proxy, NATO and the USA’s allies.

What you also do not know is that the squeaky-clean media package placed before you daily in your nice crisp newspaper or your TV News is the result of a process of sinister manipulation — brainwashing. How many people were informed of Colonel Gaddafi’s positive humanitarian record – for which he was to receive an award from the UN in March 2011?

Interview with Ramsey Clark

How many people knew he was spending his time trying to reduce casualties among the terrorists attacking his country to the minimum, negotiating with them before an attack took place? Who informed the readers that NATO broke the rules, broke international law, supported terrorists on their own proscribed lists and committed acts of murder and war crimes? Now let us move on to Syria and Iran.

Where are the stories about the mass acts of murder inside both countries, taking out Generals, strategists and high-ranking politicians and scientists? Who is perpetrating these evil deeds, who are these terrorists? Why are these acts being committed? The answer is perfectly simple. Syria is the last frontier between sanity and a balanced international community, a world ruled by the forces of right and reason and good, and the Satanic desires of the evil and invisible lobbies which are currently in power in Washington, and which in turn control the foreign policy of its allies.

We are speaking here of those responsible for torture, for maintaining concentration camps such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, those who urinate on dead, commit acts of sodomy on prisoners, those responsible for torture, for maintaining concentration camps such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, who detain persons without due process, without the right to a lawyer, to an accusation or a trial, who commit rape and murder, who break international law, who breach the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions and commit war crimes. And this same evil clique is now swinging into action in the Middle East.

First objective: Lebanon and Syria; second objective: The Islamic republic of Iran; third objective: the resources of Central Asia, leading to direct confrontation with Russia and the People’s Republic of China, which passes by installing Washington-friendly regimes in all these countries so that guess who can siphon off the resources? This is why Syria is the final frontier, this is why Syria must resist the intrusion of enslaved by NATO Arab League and this is why Syria must destroy the demonic elements running amok inside the country committing acts of arson, butchery, terrorism, vandalism, murder and torture.

It is not difficult to stir up trouble, take advantage of internal divisions, divide and rule and reap the consequences from the chaos that is sown. That is exactly what the West has been doing for hundreds of years and continues to do today. It has to do not with freedom and democracy – why did NATO not allow the Libyan Jamahiriya government to hold an election? It has to do with control of resources and guaranteeing that the US dollar is used as the international currency in major deals, and that includes oil. Why is it that when a country threatens to swap the USD for another currency in its dealings, it is invaded?

As for what we can do, the bottom line is keep informed and hold the politicians responsible for their actions. Democracy does have a fatal fault for those who try to manipulate it, and that is the fact that the power lies ultimately in the hands of the people. Bring international policy onto the political agenda and don’t let them lie to you and fool you about what is really going on. If you really feel your vote makes a difference, then create the conditions for this to be the case. Let us use citizen power to avoid World War Three. After all those who push for it, will their sons be on the front line? Would anyone survive?

Posted in USA, WorldComments Off on The United Nations has become an Instrument of NATO

BBC Asks ‘What Really Happened in Rwanda? History of the Genocide. Role of the US


A new BBC documentary challenges the world’s most basic beliefs about the Rwandan Genocide.

Global Research
rwanda carte

Listen to the radio show here


KPFA Weekend News Anchor Sharon Sobotta: Last week, a new BBC documentary titled “Rwanda: The Untold Story” upended the world’s basic beliefs about what really happened during the Rwandan war and genocide of the 1990s..

The history that the documentary challenges is not legally enforced in the United States, as it is in Rwanda, but it is ideologically central to U.S. foreign policy. The bombing of both Libya and Syria were prefaced by U.S. officials’ urgent warnings that we must – quote unquote – “stop the next Rwanda.” KPFA’s Ann Garrison filed this report.

KPFA/Ann Garrison: With “Rwanda: The Untold Story,” the BBC became the first media outlet of its size and influence to radically challenge the received history of the Rwandan Genocide, which has become such a centerpiece of US and NATO interventionist policies.

The documentary opens with the question it attempts to answer.

Image: Most of the world knows the Rwandan Genocide as the story told in the Hollywood film Hotel Rwanda. The new BBC documentary tells a radically different story.

BBC Host Jane Corbin: Rwanda, a country dominated by its dark history. The senseless barbarity of the genocide still shocks us. We think we know the story., but do we?

Alan Stam: What the world believes and what actually happened are quite different.

BBC: Rwanda’s ruled by President Kagame, regarded by many as the savior of his country. But what kind of man is Paul Kagame?

Kayumba Nyamwasa: We have a dictator. We have a man who is a serial killer, who enjoys killing his citizens.  

BBC: He’s a man with powerful friends.  

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair: The President of Rwanda is someone I’ve got a lot of respect for, a lot of time for, and I think he has got a vision for the country.

Filip Reyntjens: Their closeness is a closeness with what I call the most important war criminal in office today.

BBC:: Twenty years on from the genocide, what is the truth about Rwanda?  

KPFA: University of Michigan Professor Alan Stam, who did ten years of research in Rwanda with Notre Dame Professor Christian Davenport, contradicts the most basic statistics recounted in the Wikipedia

and parroted by journalists for the past 20 years.

Image: University of Michigan Professor Allan Stam on the BBC

Alan Stam: If a million people died in Rwanda, in 1994, and that’s certainly possible, there’s no way that the majority of them could be Tutsi.

BBC: How do you know that?  

Stam: Because there weren’t enough Tutsi in the country.

BBC: The academics calculated there had been 500,000 Tutsis before the conflict in Rwanda. Three hundred thousand survived. This led them to their final, controversial conclusion.

Stam: If a million Rwandans died, and 200,000 of them were Tutsi, that means 800,000 of them were Hutu.

BBC: That’s completely the opposite of what the world believes happened in the Rwandan Genocide.

Stam: What the world believes and what actually happened are quite different.

BBC: Estimates of the number of Tutsis and Hutus killed during the genocide vary greatly. The Rwandan government asserts there were far more Tutsi in the country to begin with, and that nearly all of those who died were Tutsis. When Stam and Davenport presented their findings, they were told to leave Rwanda, accused of being genocide deniers.

Stam: We have never denied that a genocide happened.. We don’t deny a genocide happened. But that’s only part of the story.

KPFA: The BBC documentary only hints at US and UK complicity in what happened, and in the cover-up, by reporting that Rwandan President Paul Kagame has very powerful friends, including Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. And by noting that the US military trained General Paul Kagame, just before he led the 1990 invasion of Rwanda from Uganda, because they noted, quote unquote “his military potential.”

For PacificaKPFA and AfrobeatRadio, I’m Ann Garrison.

The BBC video is available at


Posted in AfricaComments Off on BBC Asks ‘What Really Happened in Rwanda? History of the Genocide. Role of the US

On October 15, the United Nations Will Fail Haiti Once Again

Global Research
HAITI UNDER MILITARY OCCUPATION. Haitians Want MINUSTAH to Leave and Compensate Victims of Cholera

On October 15, the United Nations Security Council will meet to “debate” the extension of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) which has acted as an occupying force in the country since the summer of 2004. MINUSTAH was created to put an end to the Multinational Interim Force (primarily made up of U.S., French, Canadian and Chilean troops) which occupied Haiti after an internationally backed coup d’état ousted the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas party from power on February 29, 2004.

During these ten years, MINUSTAH has compiled a horrific record of human rights abuses, including but not limited to extrajudicial murder, an epidemic of sexual assault against Haitian men, women and children, the repression of peaceful political protests, in addition to unleashing cholera through criminal negligence which has caused the death of over 9,000 people and infecting nearly a million more. Despite these well documented abuses, the historical record has shown that the Security Council will mostly likely renew MINUSTAH for another year without any thought to damage being done to Haiti. As evidence of how little resistance there is to the renewal of MINUSTAH’s mandate in the United Nations, on August 21, MINUSTAH’s budget was extended to June 2015 – clearly signalling that the occupation is certain to continue.

When one examines the level of instability in Haiti which is used as the justification for MINUSTAH’s continued presence in the country, the United Nations’ argument of protecting the Haitian people from themselves falls flat. Despite the mainstream media portrayal of Haiti as a lawless and dangerous country, in 2012, it had a homicide rate of 10.2 per 100,000 people, ranking it as one of the least violent countries in Latin America and the Caribbean – in contrast to Washington DC which sat at 13.71 per 100,000. Furthermore, to argue that it is the presence MINUSTAH which has acted as a stabilizing force which has kept violence down, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that between 2007 and 2012, Haiti’s homicide rate doubled from 5.1 to 10.2 per 100,000.

For the fiscal year running from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, $609.18 million was allocated to MINUSTAH. In the ten years in which MINUSTAH has been operational, their total budget is over $5.5 billion. If this same amount had been applied towards human development in the form of investments in clean water, sanitation, healthcare and education – Haiti would have the potential reclaim its sovereignty and self-determination.

We must be clear, the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti is not based on any principles of humanitarianism, but rather those of an imperialist occupation which seeks to make sure that the island’s government can implement and maintain repressive policies favourable to international investors. Thus the reasons for MINUSTAH’s continued presence in Haiti were confirmed thanks to revelations by WikiLeaks. In one of the most up-front classified cables, from US Ambassador Janet Sanderson on October 1, 2008, stated that, “A premature departure of MINUSTAH would leave the [Haitian] government…vulnerable to…resurgent populist and anti-market economy political forces—reversing gains of the last two years.”

The corrupt and repressive regime of President Michel Martelly has proudly boasted that “Haiti is open for business”. Indeed, this is true – however it is the people and the land that are being sold. Canadian mining companies like St. Genevive and Eurasian Minerals have taken advantage of weak laws to prospect new sites covering enormous swaths of territory (an estimated 1/3 of Northern Haiti has been granted to companies via permit), setting up the potential for substantial displacement through forced evictions and environmental destruction. Montreal based Gildan Activewear (the world’s largest manufacturer of blank T-shirts) has routinely pressured the Haitian government to block an increase in Haiti’s abysmally low daily minimum wage and have undermined unionization efforts in their plants.

MINUSTAH has carried out a series of human rights violations resulting in a loss of Haitian sovereignty, stability, dignity and life. Its record of engaging in acts of extrajudicial murder, sexual assault, suppressing peaceful political protests, undermining democracy and introducing cholera into Haiti are more than enough grounds to revoke its mandate. Yet for geopolitical and economic reasons, this does not happen.

As people of good conscience and principled internationalists, we collectively have the capacity and the resources to force an end to the military occupation of Haiti. However, we will not be able to fulfill this potential and stand in solidarity with the laboring classes in Haiti, if we don’t organize campaigns in Canada and across the world that pressure contributing states to end their provision of military and police personnel to MINUSTAH’s occupation force.

Our opposition to the military occupation of Haiti ought to take the form of grassroots-oriented campaigns that educate, mobilize, and organize membership-based organizations to add the end to the occupation to their organizational programme. It is critically necessary to reach out to the people in the spaces in which they are present, and offer specific actions that they may carry out to force the withdrawal of the occupation troops.

We have a moral and political obligation to support the struggle for self-determination by the popular classes in Haiti. The successful Haitian Revolution eliminated the enslavement of Afrikans in Haiti, and lit the fire of freedom in slaveholding states in the Americas.

The people of Haiti demonstrated their solidarity with the colonized peoples in South America by providing a place of refuge, guns, ammunition, personnel, and a printing press to Simon Bolivar’s campaign to liberate the region from Spanish colonialism. The French Revolution and the American Revolution cannot lay claim to being beacons and agents of emancipation in the Americas.

As we work to rid Haiti of MINUSTAH’s occupation forces, we ought to be motivated by the fact that we are continuing a long and proud tradition of people-to-people solidarity in support of emancipation in the Americas. Haiti is the architect and pioneer of this principled political tradition. We should remember this legacy as we call for the Security Council to pull out the occupation troops from Haiti.

Posted in WorldComments Off on On October 15, the United Nations Will Fail Haiti Once Again

12 Charts That Show The Permanent Damage That Has Been Done To The U.S. Economy

Global Research

Most people that discuss the “economic collapse” focus on what is coming in the future.  And without a doubt, we are on the verge of some incredibly hard times.  But what often gets neglected is the immense permanent damage that has been done to the U.S. economy by the long-term economic collapse that we are already experiencing.  In this article I am going to share with you 12 economic charts that show that we are in much, much worse shape than we were five or ten years ago.  The long-term problems that are eating away at the foundations of our economy like cancer have not been fixed.  In fact, many of them continue to get even worse year after year.  But because unprecedented levels of government debt and reckless money printing by the Federal Reserve have bought us a very short window of relative stability, most Americans don’t seem too concerned about our long-term problems.  They seem to have faith that our “leaders” will be able to find a way to muddle through whatever challenges are ahead.  Hopefully this article will be a wake up call.  The last major wave of the economic collapse did a colossal amount of damage to our economic foundations, and now the next major wave of the economic collapse is rapidly approaching.

#1 Employment

The mainstream media is constantly telling us about the “employment recovery” that is happening in the United States, but the truth is that it is just an illusion.  As the chart below demonstrates, just prior to the last recession about 63 percent of all working age Americans had a job.  During the last wave of the economic collapse, that number dropped to below 59 percent and stayed there for a very long time.  In the past few months we have finally seen the employment-population ratio tick back up to 59 percent, but we are still far, far below where we used to be.  To call the tiny little bump at the end of this chart a “recovery” is really an insult to our intelligence…

Employment Population Ratio 2014

#2 The Labor Force Participation Rate

The percentage of Americans that are either employed or currently looking for a job started to fall during the last recession and it has not stopped falling since then.  The labor force participation rate has now fallen to a 36 year low, and this is a sign of a very, very sick economy…

Labor Force Participation Rate 2014

#3 The Inactivity Rate For Men In Their Prime Years

Some blame the decline in the labor force participation rate on the aging of our population.  But it isn’t just elderly people that are dropping out of the labor force.  In fact, the inactivity rate for men in their prime working years (25 to 54) continues to rise and is now at the highest level that has ever been recorded…

Inactivity Rate Men 2014

#4 Manufacturing Employees

Once upon a time in America, anyone that was reliable and willing to work hard could easily find a manufacturing job somewhere.  But we have stood by and allowed millions upon millions of good paying manufacturing jobs to be shipped out of the country, and now many of our formerly great manufacturing cities have been transformed into ghost towns.  Over the past few years, there has been a slight “recovery”, but we are still well below where we were at just previous to the last recession…

Manufacturing Employees 2014

#5 Our Current Account Balance

As a nation, we buy far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us.  In other words, we perpetually consume far more wealth than we produce.  This is a recipe for national economic suicide.  Our current account balance soared to obscene levels just prior to the last recession, and now we have almost gotten back to those levels…

Current Account Balance 2014

#6 Existing Home Sales

Our economy has never fully recovered from the housing crash of 2007-2008.  As you can see from the chart below, the number of existing home sales is still far below the level that we hit back in 2006.  At this point we are just getting back to the level we were at in 2000, but our population today is far larger than it was back then…

Existing Home Sales 2014

#7 New Home Sales

Things are even more dramatic when you look at new home sales.  This is an industry that have been absolutely emasculated.  The number of new home sales in the United States is just a little more than half of what it was back in 2000, and it isn’t even worth comparing to what we experienced during the peak of 2006.

New Home Sales 2014

#8 The Monetary Base

In a desperate attempt to get the economy going again, the Federal Reserve has been wildly printing money.  It has been so reckless that it is hard to put it into words.  When I look at this chart, the phrase “Weimar Republic” comes to mind…

Monetary Base 2014

#9 Food Inflation

Thankfully, much of the money that the Federal Reserve has been injecting into the system has not made it into the real economy.  But enough of it has gotten into the system to force food prices significantly higher.  For example, my wife went to the store today and paid just a shade under 10 bucks for just four pieces of chicken.  And as you can see from the chart below, food prices have been steadily going up in America for a very long time…

Food Inflation 2014

#10 The Velocity Of Money

One of the reasons why we have not seen even more inflation is because the velocity of money is extraordinarily low.  In general, when an economy is healthy money tends to flow through the system rapidly.  People are buying and selling and money changes hands frequently.  But when an economy is sick, money tends to stagnate.  And that is exactly what is happening in the United States right now.  In fact, at this point the velocity of the M2 money stock has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded…

Velocity Of Money 2014

#11 The National Debt

As our economic fundamentals have deteriorated, our politicians have attempted to prop up our standard of living by borrowing from the future.  The U.S. national debt is on pace to approximately double during the Obama years, and it increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014 alone.  Despite assurances that “the deficit is under control”, the federal government borrows about a trillion dollars a year to fund new spending in addition to borrowing about 7 trillion dollars to pay off old debt that is coming due.  What we are doing to future generations of Americans is absolutely criminal, and it is just a matter of time before this Ponzi scheme totally collapses…

National Debt 2014

#12 Total Debt

Of course it is not just the federal government that is gorging on debt.  When you add up all forms of debt in our society (government, business, consumer, etc.) it comes to a grand total of more than 57 trillion dollars.  This total has more than doubled since the year 2000…

Total Debt 2014

If you know anyone that believes that we are in good economic shape, just show them these charts.

The numbers do not lie.  Our economy is sick and it is getting sicker by the day.

And of course the next major financial crisis could strike at any time.  U.S. stocks just experienced their worst week in three years, and if cases of Ebola start popping up around the country the fear that would cause could collapse our economy all by itself.

The debt-fueled prosperity that we are enjoying today is not real.  We are living on the fumes of our past, and every single day our long-term problems get even worse.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to see what is coming.

Sadly, most Americans will continue to deny the truth until it is far too late.

Posted in USAComments Off on 12 Charts That Show The Permanent Damage That Has Been Done To The U.S. Economy

The Army Operating Concept (AOC): US Army Drafts Blueprint for World War III

Global Research

With US politicians and the American media engaged in an increasingly acrimonious debate over the strategy guiding the latest US war in the Middle East, the United States Army has unveiled a new document entitled the Army Operating Concept (AOC), which provides a “vision of future armed conflict” that has the most ominous implications. It is the latest in a series of documents in which the Pentagon has elaborated the underlying strategy ofpreventive war that was unveiled in 1992—that is, the use of war as a means of destroying potential geopolitical and economic rivals before they acquire sufficient power to block American domination of the globe.

The document was formally released at this week’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, an annual event bringing together senior officers and Defense Department officials for a series of speeches and panel discussions, along with a giant trade show mounted by arms manufacturers to show off their latest weapons systems and pursue lucrative Pentagon contracts.

Much of this year’s proceedings were dominated by dire warnings about the impact of cuts to the Army’s troop strength brought about by sequestration. Gen. Raymond Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters at the AUSA conference Monday that he was “starting to worry about our end strength” and regretting having told Congress in 2012 that the Army could manage with 490,000 active-duty soldiers.

In addition to the 490,000, there are 350,000 National Guard soldiers and 205,000 reservists, for a combined force—referred to by the Pentagon as the Total Army—of well over one million American troops. The answer to why such a gargantuan armed force would seem inadequate to Gen. Odierno can be found in the new Army Operating Concept (AOC), a reckless and dangerous document laying out a strategy of total war that encompasses the entire planet, including the United States itself.

The document makes clear that in regard to the ongoing debate over “boots on the ground,” for the top brass of the US Army there is no question: there will be boots and plenty of them.

At the outset, the AOC states its “vision” for the coming wars to be fought by the US Army. In language that recalls former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s invocation of the “unknown unknowns,” the document asserts: “The environment the Army will operate in is unknown. The enemy is unknown, the location is unknown, and the coalitions involved are unknown.”

The only logical explanation for this paranoid scenario is that the US military views every country beyond its borders as a potential enemy. Starting from the premise that the environments, the enemies, the locations and the coalitions involved in future conflicts are unknown, the US Army requires a strategy for war against all states and peoples. This strategy is derived from the unstated, underlying imperative that US imperialism exert hegemony over the entire planet, its markets and resources, and that it be prepared to militarily annihilate any rival that stands in its way.

The document states bluntly that the “character of armed conflict” will be influenced primarily by “shifts in geopolitical landscape caused by competition for power and resources.” For the Army’s top brass, such wars for imperialist domination are a certainty.

The Army’s strategic aim, according to the document, is to achieve “overmatch,” which it defines as “the application of capabilities or use of tactics in a way that renders an adversary unable to respond effectively.”

What do these words entail? In the case of a confrontation with another nuclear power, they encompass the implementation of a first-strike doctrine of mass annihilation. In regard to the subjugation and domination of other areas of the globe, they call for massive ground operations to quell popular resistance and enforce military occupation.

Significantly, after more than a decade of the so-called “global war on terror, “ when countering a supposedly ubiquitous threat from Al Qaeda was the overriding mission of the US military-intelligence apparatus, “transnational terrorist organizations” are rather low on the Army’s list of priorities.

First and foremost are “competing powers,” a category that includes China, followed by Russia. In the case of China, the document evinces serious concern over Chinese “force modernization efforts,” which it says are aimed at achieving “stability along its periphery,” something that the US military is determined to block. China’s military efforts, it states, “highlight the need for Army forces positioned forward or regionally engaged,” and for “Army forces to project power from land into the air, maritime, space and cyberspace domains.”

Based on recent events in Ukraine, the document accuses Russia of being “determined to expand its territory and assert its power on the Eurasian landmass,” precisely US imperialism’s own strategic goal. Only a powerful deployment of US ground forces, it argues, can deter Russian “adventurism” and “project national power and exert influence in political conflicts.”

From there, the paper proceeds to “regional powers,” in the first instance, Iran. It also accuses Iran of “pursuing comprehensive military modernization” and argues that “Taken collectively, Iranian activity has the potential to undermine US regional goals,” i.e., undisputed hegemony over the Middle East and its energy resources. Iran’s activities, it concludes, “highlight the need for Army forces to remain effective against the fielded forces of nation states as well as networked guerrilla or insurgent organizations.”

The document does not limit the “vision” of future military operations to war abroad, but includes the need to “respond and mitigate crises in the homeland,” which it describes as “a unique theater of operations for the Joint Force and the Army.” The Army’s mission within the US, it asserts, includes “defense support of civil authorities.”

The AOC document is stark testimony to a military run amuck. Involved in these strategic conceptions are advanced preparations for fighting a Third World War, combined with the institution within the US itself of a military dictatorship in all but name.

Gen. Odierno’s complaints about troop strength will not be satisfied by any minor congressional adjustments of the Pentagon budget. The kind of warfare that the Army is contemplating cannot be waged outside of a massive military mobilization by means of universal conscription—the return of the draft.

The founders of the United States repeatedly expressed grave distrust of a standing army. The military as it presently exists and its plan for global warfare represent a hideous modern-day realization of their nightmare scenario. The implementation of this doctrine of total war is wholly incompatible with democratic rights and constitutional government within the US. It requires the ruthless suppression of any political opposition and all social struggles mounted by the American working class.

Within the US ruling establishment and its two political parties, there exists no serious opposition to carrying the militarization of life within the so-called “homeland” to its ultimate conclusion. Civilian control of the military has been turned into a dead letter, with politicians routinely bowing to the generals on matters of policy, both foreign and domestic.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Army Operating Concept (AOC): US Army Drafts Blueprint for World War III

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Meetings Conclude: Storm Clouds Gather Over World Economy

Global Research
The Global Economic Crisis: Causes and Devastating Consequences

The annual International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings concluded in Washington over the weekend in the midst of a deepening economic and financial crisis, with no prospect of a recovery in the world economy.

The euro zone seems set to enter its third recession since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, and there are fears that the policies being pursued by the world’s major central banks are creating the conditions for another crash.

The IMF and World Bank meetings were held following the release of data showing that Germany could be moving into a recession. Industrial production dropped 4 percent from July, the biggest decline since January 2009. New orders for September fell at their fastest pace since 2009, according to a survey of purchasing managers.

Output of investment goods slumped 8.8 percent in August, intermediate goods were down 1.9 percent, consumer goods fell 0.4 percent, and construction dropped by 2 percent. Only energy output increased, by 0.3 percent.

The IMF cut its forecast for German growth for 2014 from 1.9 to 1.4 percent and downgraded its 2015 prediction from 1.7 to 1.5 percent. Even these predictions are likely to be too optimistic, since Germany’s economy shrank in the second quarter of this year. Germany, which depends highly on exports, is being hit by stagnation across Europe, its largest single market, as well as recession in Brazil, another key market, and the marked slowdown in Chinese growth.

The world slump, growing uncertainties over the direction of central bank policies and increasing geo-political tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East are all combining to create volatile conditions in financial markets.

Trading on Wall Street opened this week with the S&P 500 Index experiencing its worst three-day loss since 2011, led by falls in airline shares as a result of the Ebola crisis and declines in energy stocks as the price of oil hit its lowest point in four years. Monday’s losses came after a week in which $1.5 trillion was wiped off the value of global equities.

Fears of another financial crisis prompted US and British financial officials to organise a war game yesterday in which they sought to ascertain whether lessons had been learned from the 2008 crisis. Reporting on the war game on Sunday, Larry Elliott, the Guardian economics correspondent, summed up the atmosphere at the IMF meeting.

“The Fund’s annual meeting was like a gathering of international diplomats at the League of Nations in the 1930s. Those attending were desperate to avoid another war but were unsure how to do so. They see dark forces gathering but lack the weapons or the will to tackle them effectively.”

Elliott pointed out that the IMF and central bankers are well aware that pumping money into the financial system has not boosted the real economy through expanded investment and increased production, but led only to increased financial risk-taking. At the same time, they fear that lifting interest rates to halt speculation will push their economies into recession, and so they “cross their fingers and hope for the best.” The IMF, he continued, knows something is going “badly wrong in Europe, but was powerless to do anything about it.”

Clear evidence of the gathering slump is provided by the sharp declines in commodity prices. Oil prices are reported to be in “free fall,” with benchmark Brent Crude down 24 percent since the middle of the year. The International Energy Agency says oil prices have been “weighed down by abundant supplies” and weakening demand.

The price of iron ore, a key indicator of investment because of steel’s role in construction, has dropped by 41 percent this year to its lowest level for five years. The Bloomberg industrial metals index is down 37 percent from its highest point after the financial crisis and 50 percent below the levels reached in 2007.

The price of gold is 38 percent off the high it reached in 2011. Agricultural product prices, another key indicator, are also sharply down. Corn prices are 22 percent lower than they were in June, wheat is down by 16 percent over the same period, and soybean prices have fallen 28 percent to their lowest level in four years.

The growing slump is compounded by uncertainty and confusion in financial markets. Last week, the US Federal Reserve Board released the minutes from the September meeting of its policy-making committee, revealing that “some participants expressed concern that the persistent shortfall of economic growth and inflation in the euro area could lead to a further appreciation of the dollar and have adverse effects on the US external sector.” The Fed’s vice-president, Stanley Fisher, has said that the central bank will monitor the impact of the dollar’s strength on the level of global demand for US goods and services.

The minutes raised questions over how far and how fast the Fed will seek to raise interest rates to more normal levels. The risk of turbulence results from the fact that while the Fed is ostensibly on an ill-defined path back to higher rates, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan are pushing rates down. This creates the conditions for so-called carry trades, where investors borrow at lower rates in international markets and then invest in US assets, pushing up the value of the dollar and impacting US exports.

The uncertainty over the direction of Fed policy has contributed to a sharp rise in the VIX volatility index, which tracks movements on US share markets. It has increased by 21 percent over the past week, following months of what was described as an “eerie calm.”

The problems in financial markets are exacerbated by differences in the policies of the major economic powers, which emerged into the open at a seminar organised during the IMF meeting.

Centering his fire on Germany, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who last year warned of the prospect of “secular stagnation” for the world economy, criticised Europe’s “dismal” economic performance, comparing it to the two-decades-long stagnation in Japan and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble struck back, dismissing the suggestion that the crisis was the outcome of European policy failings. “America was the cause of the crisis, to be frank,” he said.

The US, as well as the IMF, wants the ECB to extend its asset-buying program to the purchase of government bonds in order to increase financial stimulus. But ECB President Mario Draghi has said the ECB is close to the limit of what it can do. In 2012, Draghi managed to avert a financial crisis originating in Spain, Greece, Portugal and other highly indebted euro zone countries by declaring that the ECB would do “whatever it takes.”

As six years of central bank interventions have demonstrated, however, injections of money cannot bring about increased investment and production in the real economy, which is where the crisis is now centered. The only beneficiaries are the banks, finance houses and ultra-wealthy speculators.

Moreover, there are deep divisions in the ECB itself. German representatives have already voted against the present round of asset purchases and are certain to stridently oppose any central bank move to buy up government bonds and extend quantitative easing.

The IMF discussions presented a picture of a ruling class in disarray. Divided over what to do and unable to advance a program to promote anything remotely resembling an economic recovery, the ruling elites are acutely aware they are sitting on a powder keg. They are united only by their fear that the worsening social conditions and deepening inequality produced by the breakdown of the economic order over which they preside will provoke an explosion of social struggles from below.

Posted in Politics, WorldComments Off on International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Meetings Conclude: Storm Clouds Gather Over World Economy

Doctors Nationwide Slam the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Handling of Ebola




Infectious Disease Experts, Safety Experts, Doctors and Nurses All Say the CDC Has Been Messing Up the Ebola Response

Global Research

Healthcare experts throughout the U.S. are strongly criticizing the Centers for Disease Control for its handling of Ebola.

For example:

  • Infectious disease experts say the CDC is blaming nurses for their exposure to Ebola when the CDC has given faulty instructions on how to handle Ebola patients
  • Public health experts also criticize the CDC’s statement that any hospital in the U.S. can handle Ebola patients
  • And nurses are calling the CDC hypocrites for saying that cloth masks and goggles are sufficient … while CDC personnel wear respirators and full hazardous materials suits when visiting hospitals with Ebola patients

US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Pushing to Vaccinate Entire Countries with Ebola Vaccine

Global Research,

Everything that the alternative media has been warning about concerning the Ebola epidemic is now coming true, including that this latest disease scare would eventually be used by the U.S. government to push more drugs and vaccines on the gullible public.

The director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), recently spilled the beans to members of the Canadian press about a major component of the government’s agenda with this crisis: to vaccinate everyone.

This was the implication, at least, of statements made by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who in the past has pushed vaccines for things like bird flu and swine flu. In keeping with this tradition of corruption, Dr. Fauci is now claiming that it may be impossible to stop the spread of Ebola unless everyone is vaccinated.

“It is conceivable that this epidemic will not turn around even if we pour resources into it,” stated Dr. Fauci, as quoted by Modern Healthcare.

“As the epidemic gets more and more formidable and in some cases out of control it is quite conceivable, if not likely, that we may need to deploy the vaccine to the entire country to be able to shut the epidemic down. That is clearly a possibility.”

Exactly which country Dr. Fauci is referring to here remains unclear. But presumably, any nation where an outbreak has been declared is susceptible to this Orwellian prospect, which could eventually include the U.S.

CDC, NIH, Obama and others keep changing their stories to keep Ebola circulating

Dr. Fauci’s assumptions about the pouring out of resources are a bit presumptuous, though, and exceptionally misguided, as practically everything that the U.S. and the international community have done so far in response to the outbreak has only helped facilitate the spread of Ebola around the world.

Air travel between West Africa and the U.S. is still taking place, for instance, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Tom Frieden insists that stopping it will make Ebola worse. The southern border of the country also remains wide open, allowing anyone with a potential infection to enter freely.

The Obama Administration is now openly lying to the world about how Ebola is spread, which will only worsen the crisis. And all of this is while the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly admits that Ebola can go airborne.

Nothing about the way that authorities anywhere in the world seem to be handling the crisis suggests that they actually want it to stop anytime soon. Instead, the stage is being set, it seems, for drug and vaccine interests to once again use a major international crisis – and one that may have been set off on purpose – to push more drugs and vaccines on the public.

Back in the summer, Truthstream Media reported on statements made by virologist Dr. Ben Neuman that suggest the Ebola crisis is being purposely hyped, just like swine flu, bird flu and seasonal flu, to scare people into enriching the pocketbooks of the world’s drug lords.

“It’s not just one drug we need for Ebola. We need a cocktail of drugs and perhaps a nice vaccine that could be used,” stated Dr. Neuman, in rapturous anticipation of what the powers that be have in store for the world.

Lamenting about what was not the case back then, but that is now coming to pass, he added:

“These all take a lot of money and… I don’t know that there’s enough panic or enough people who are potential customers for these drugs to warrant a company … putting the money it would take to develop this.”


Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on Doctors Nationwide Slam the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Handling of Ebola

Shoah’s pages