Archive | January 24th, 2011



by crescentandcross  

Posted in WorldComments Off on News**News**News

Blind Spot


by crescentandcross 



By John Kaminski

Despite clear proof that Jewish influence destroyed from within the great civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, France, Russia and Germany, citizens of the United States remain essentially blind to this same catastrophic threat that has prostituted their own government and is about to eviscerate their own country.

Now totally controlled by rich international Jews, the world perpetually teeters on the brink of war while governments poison their own people, trying to pay off shrewd debts that never really end to their Talmudic overlords on Wall Street and in the City of London.

The American mind is hopelessly deluded by Jewish education, Jewish media, and politicians owned by Jews, all eager to fund projects for Israel and build more Holocaust museums at the expense of now impoverished Americans, who have been deliberately made sick by Jewish medicine and Jewish entertainment.

Americans can’t — or the media won’t let them — see the continuing crimes of Jews on Wall Street stealing our money by the trillions, Jews in the White House provoking foreign wars that don’t benefit America, and Jews controlling the business world with poison products in concert with drugs they invent to cure the diseases they’ve

Yet when you try to discuss the obvious elephant in the living room of the world, most people cringe and don’t want to talk about it, probably not realizing that, at this point, talking about this is the only way they have even a remote shot at saving their lives, their liberty and freedom of thought having been completely revoked in the
autumn of 2001.

I am honored to have some highly intelligent friends whose acumen in their fields dwarfs my dilletantish generalized tourist credentials in a broad spectrum of subjects pertaining to the human condition. One item that almost always comes up in our conversations is this.

How can it possibly be that . . . in a world full of incredible leaps in knowledge and new levels of understanding in virtually every area of science and technology . . . the brightest minds have no clue about the real power structure of the world, even though it’s obvious and paraded daily right before their eyes?

How can people not see?

The world that unfolds before our eyes is scripted from cradle to grave to conceal the real operators of the system, the bloated moneycrunchers behind the bankers behind the politicians we get to vote for when they are selected for us by this same process.

The information we ingest is created as carefully as that newspaper story that says all is well and tells you nothing about what it is really pretending to talk about.

The skills we learn pertain only to our moneymaking ability, and the ethics and morals of the crafts we master are reduced to questionable production methods in our headlong dash to the bottom line.

The entertainments we pursue are crafted by spinmasters according the Talmudic principle of gradually poisoning by any and all means necessary all those who oppose the insane Jewish monolith, Moloch posing as Yahweh, the beast in control of all the guns in the world.

This is the question my friends most often ask. What is it that makes the Jewish threat, which has plagued the world since civilization first congealed into villages, so invisible to those who are its victims? Is this a willing blindness, or is it inculcated?

What makes it so acceptable to those who take its paychecks even though they know the yacht they’re piloting and the coke they’re snorting was purchased at the expense of Congolese cannon fodder and Afghan practice targets, human beings gunned down for sport, collateral damage in the Homeland Security League, just a paycheck forthose with the right credentials?

What makes it so mind-deadening to folks reading along at home is that there is no glimmer of hope in any direction, only the creeping mindlock of acceptable thought spreading like an ink stain through the world mind, dripping on innocent, sneezing bystanders the poisonous chemtrails which make you sick and keep you sick.

And still people are afraid to say anything. You’ll lose your job, if you still have one. And your friends, the ones who like to keep quiet, don’t want to be around you anymore for fear some authority will want to know who you’ve been associating with.

This is the dark shadow coming at you out of your blind spot. You’ve done your best to ignore it all your life, but you can’t afford not to look at it anymore.

What we have chosen not see is the puppetmasters who jangle our strings, the educators who twist our minds against our own country, the musicians who fail to sing the truth because it will keep them off the stage, the moviemakers who plant the seeds of poison products in our brains, and the writers and reporters who can only tell so much of the truth they know before their paychecks start going in the wrong direction.

What we have chosen not to see is the shadow of control which has dogged America since its creation, always with the same culprit at the controls, big money Jews buying politicians who make laws guaranteeing the financial fraud that makes them rich and us poor.

What we have chosen not to see is the very fiber of thought processes has been manipulated and mutated by Freud, Marx and Einstein into a nihilistic matrix of chaotic destabilization and sabotage, which derives from the core teachings of the Jewish Talmud.

The world doesn’t have to be this way. And yet the men with the guns say it does.

This whole problem is absolutely due to one simple precaution that civilizations have failed to take down through history. And that is, they have not read the Talmud.

Now you can’t find the Talmud at your local drugstore. Jews try to hide what’s in the Talmud from everyone, because it’s so horrible, if everybody in the world realized what is actually in the Talmud, Jews wouldn’t be safe anywhere. And ironically, if that situation arose, everybody else would be safe — or at least safer than they are now —

And that’s why they call it a blind spot.

Posted in WorldComments Off on Blind Spot

Would the isolation of America persuade Obama not to veto?


by crescentandcross  

By Alan Hart


Despite strong U.S. opposition, a proposed resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank did make it to the UN Security Council. It was not put to a vote and no vote is expected for some time, if ever, because of the probability as things stand of an American veto. But given growing global support for the resolution, there is a case for wondering if President Obama can remain Zionist-like in his own implicit defiance of international law on Israel’s behalf.

Introduced by Lebanon, the resolution states that “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” And it demands that Israel cease “immediately and completely” not only all settlement construction in the occupied territory including East Jerusalem, but also “all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.”

Washington had hoped that signalling its opposition to the proposed resolution would be enough to cause its Palestinian and other Arab sponsors to back away from taking it to the Security Council. Deputy American UN Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said the U.S. opposed bringing the settlement issue to the Council “because such action moves us no closer to a goal of a negotiated final settlement and could even undermine progress towards it.” She also said the Security Council should not be the forum for resolving the issues at the heart of the Israel/Palestine conflict. In my view that has to be among the most ridiculous statements any diplomat has ever made in any place at any time.

When the Arab sponsors discovered that they do have testicles and refused to be intimidated by Uncle Sam, the result was a huge embarrassment for Obama because, as noted by Tony Karon in an article for Time, the resolution’s substance “largely echoes the Administration’s own stated positions.” In Ha’aretz under the headline Settlements issue isn’t Israel’s problem, it’s Obama’s, Natasha Mozgovaya was more explicit. The resolution has put Washington “in the awkward position of having to veto a resolution it absolutely agrees with.”

That was why a number of former senior U.S. diplomats and officials wrote to Obama urging him to support the resolution. They included former Reagan Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, and former Assistant Secretaries of State Thomas Pickering and James Dobbins. They said the resolution is not incompatible with negotiating an end to the conflict and does not deviate from the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security. They added:

“The proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established U.S. policies, deploying a veto would severely undermine U.S. credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.”

How far outside the international consensus the U.S. already is on account of its unconditional support for Israel right or wrong was demonstrated by the fact that the resolution attracted the support of 120 nations. Diplomats were certain that the U.S. was the only one of the five permanent members on the 15-country Security Council with veto power that would have vetoed if the resolution had been put to a vote when it was introduced. In other words, without a U.S. veto it would have passed. That would have more or less confirmed Israel’s pariah status in much of the world and just might have been a game-changer.

In contrast to the Zionist lobby in America which has naturally been urging – ordering? – Obama to veto, J Street, the “dovish” Jewish advocacy group which is pro-Israel and more or less anti-AIPAC, is among those who understand that a veto would not be in America’s own best interests. Or Israel’s, despite what its deluded leaders assert to the contrary. In a statement J Street said:

“As a pro-Israel organization and as Americans, we advocate for what we believe to be in the long-term interests of the state of Israel and of the United States… Ongoing settlement expansion runs counter to the interests of both countries and against commitments Israel itself has made,.. While we hope never to see the state of Israel publicly taken to task by the United Nations, we cannot support a U.S. veto of a Resolution that closely tracks long-standing American policy and that appropriately condemns Israeli settlement policy.”

Because J Street almost certainly speaks for far more silent and troubled American Jews than AIPAC does, that’s quite an important statement.

The advocacy group Americans for Peace Now was more explicit in its message to Obama. It not only urged him to avoid vetoing the resolution, it also said this:

“It is indefensible that the Netanyahu government, heedless of the damage settlement activity does to Israel’s own interests and indifferent to the Obama Administration’s peace efforts, has not only refused to halt settlement activity but has opened the floodgates, including in the most sensitive areas of East Jerusalem. In this context, the move by the United Nations Security Council to censure Israel’s settlement activity should surprise no one… Vetoing this resolution would conflict with four decades of U.S. policy. It would contribute to the dangerously naive view that Israeli settlement policies do no lasting harm to Israel. And it would send a message to the world that the U.S. is not only acquiescing to Israel’s actions, but is implicitly supporting them.”

It might well have been their fear of a Tunisian domino effect that helped to embolden the regimes of the sponsoring Arab states to defy a U.S. administration on this occasion. Their challenge to America’s unconditional support for Israel was, as Tony Karon noted, “a low-cost gesture that will play well on the restive street.” At least for a while, I add. (The truth about the Arab street is that for the past 40 years very many people on it have been humiliated and angered not only by Israel’s arrogance of power and American support for it, but also by the complete failure of their own governments to use the leverage they do have to put real pressure on the U.S. to oblige Israel to end its occupation of all the Arab territory it grabbed in 1967).

If the sponsoring Arab regimes have the will to keep the heat on Washington over the resolution and insist that there must be a vote on it at some point in the not too distant future, and if the number of nations who support the resolution stays firm and better still increases, crunch time for Obama on the Israel-Palestine conflict will arrive.

If and when it does he will have three options: to veto; to order America’s vote in the Security Council to be cast for the resolution; or to abstain. An American abstention would have the same practical effect as a “Yes” vote – the resolution would be passed.

A veto would protect Obama from the wrath of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. But it would also propel America further down the road to isolation, perhaps to the point where, like Israel, it was regarded as a pariah state by much of the world. Can Obama or any American president really afford that?

But an American vote for the resolution or even an abstention would, of course, put Obama into head-on confrontation with the Zionist lobby. Could he come out of it a winner (and, some will add, remain alive)?

My crystal ball doesn’t tell me the answer, but it does indicate how he could be the first American president to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on America policy for the Middle East. If he went over the heads of Congress and used his rhetorical skill to explain to his people why it is not in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel right or wrong, there’s a chance that he could win the argument. Americans are not stupid. What they are, most of them, is extremely gullible because of the way they have been mis-informed, lied to, by a mainstream media which, for a number of reasons, is content to peddle Zionist propaganda.

It’s your call, Mr. President. The fate of the region (the Middle East) and quite possibly the whole world will be determined by it.


If the U.S. endorses the Whitewash Israeli inquiry into Israel’s deadly attack on the Free Gaza Flotilla last May, we’ll know that the prospects of Obama putting America’s own interest first at crunch time are very, very remote, to say the least.

Posted in USAComments Off on Would the isolation of America persuade Obama not to veto?

Pro-Lifers for Mass MURDER


by crescentandcross  


By Laurence M. Vance

“Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? Either a vine, figs? So can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.” (James 3:10-12).

Pro-lifers are dedicated to the idea that God values all human life, they are committed to educating women about the dangers to their physical and emotional health if they undergo abortions, they are relentless in pointing out the horrors of abortion – and they are some of the most bloodthirsty warmongers on the planet.

Beginning in 1984, the Sunday in January closest to January 22 has been designed by many pro-life and religious organizations as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. This is designed to coincide with the anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 that overrode most state abortion statutes and effectively made abortion a fundamental constitutional right.

Every year on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday churches of all denominations observe this day with special sermons, prayers, and presentations, testimonies from former abortionists, recognition of pro-life organizations, denunciations of pro-choice politicians, Planned Parenthood, and the Roe v. Wade decision, calls for legislation to restrict abortion, and distribution of anti-abortion literature.

As both a Christian and a steadfast opponent of abortion (see my articles “For Whom Would Jesus Vote?” and “Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?” and “The Pro-Life Assault on Ron Paul and the Constitution”), I sympathize with the pro-life cause. But I go much further than the typical pro-lifer. I don’t think abortion is okay after the third trimester; that is, I believe in the right to life for everyone – including adults and foreigners.

How many churches on the recent Sanctity of Human Life Sunday mentioned the right to life of countless numbers of Iraqis and Afghans who have been killed by American bombs and bullets in unjust wars instigated by the United States? How many churches mentioned the right to life of U.S. Soldiers who have died in vain and for a lie in senseless foreign wars? If the pro-lifers in churches that observed Sanctity of Human Life Sunday care about innocent children then surely they mentioned children in Iraq and Afghanistan who have lost their parents because of the U.S. Waging war on their countries, children born with birth defects due to the U.S. Military using depleted uranium, and children in Iraq killed by brutal U.S. Sanctions? Surely they mentioned the orphaned and emotionally scarred children of dead and injured U.S. Soldiers?

Although some churches may have mentioned these things, I suspect that the number is rather small or, in the case of most evangelical churches, very insignificant. And if it be argued that the churches that observed Sanctity of Human Life Sunday should be excused because the day is just about abortion then what about the rest of the year? Do not adults have the same right to life as unborn children? Do not foreigners who are not a threat to this country have the same right to life as American babies? Do not U.S. Soldiers have the same right to life that other Americans have?

But in some churches it is even worse. Not only is no mention ever made of these things, the U.S. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are defended and celebrated. Although they may call themselves evangelical churches, they are warvangelical churches. They are churches that worship God and venerate the institution of the military; they are churches that preach Christ and promote warmongering Republican politicians. They are pro-lifers for mass murder.

It is only natural that most pro-lifers love Republican politicians. At the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit held in Washington DC this past September, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) was the top choice of conservative activists. This same group named abortion as the top issue they were concerned about. Pence was also the top pick for vice president.

The German Nazis fought for the fatherland. The Soviet Red Army fought for the motherland. Mike Pence wants Americans to fight for the homeland. He “supported creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, the largest reorganization of the government since the beginning of the Cold War.” Because of the Department of Homeland Security, “our ability to defend the homeland is more effective, efficient and organized.” Pence is a committed supporter of the bogus war on terror. He even repeats the ridiculous canard that “we must take the fight to the terrorists overseas so we don’t have to face them here at home.”

The runner up to Pence in the Values Voters straw poll was the former preacher Mike Huckabee, who won the top spot last year. Huckabee not only supported the sending of more troops to their death in Iraq, he actually maintained that we should not withdraw from Iraq because “we are winning.” This advocate of perpetual war in the Middle East had only one criticism for Bush regarding his handling of the war in Iraq: he was too timid and not sufficiently bloodthirsty.

Pence and Huckabee are no different from DeMint, Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, Graham, Palin, and Santourm – they are all ardent supporters of war, empire, and police statism. Yet, any one of these individuals would get the support of most evangelicals as long as they played the pro-life card. Once a Republican candidate passes a pro-life litmus test (applied to just American babies), nothing else about them seems to matter. They could call for bombing Iran, Pakistan, or Yemen back to the Stone Age and it wouldn’t change anything.

Why are pro-lifers so indifferent to, and in some cases so defensive of, war, militarism, and nationalism? I think the main reason is ignorance. Ignorance of the Republican Party. Ignorance of U.S. foreign policy. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of the military. Ignorance of the Bible they profess to believe. This is especially true if all one does is listen to SRN News on radio, watch Fox News on television, and read news by the American Family Association on the Internet. The importance of must here be mentioned. I have lost count of the number of Christians that have written me about how LRC has been instrumental in changing their thinking.

Pro-lifers should be just as concerned about their government sanctioning the killing of foreigners on the battlefield in an unjust war as they are about their government sanctioning the killing of babies in the womb in an abortion.
It is hypocrisy in the highest degree to talk about the sanctity of life and the evils of abortion and then turn around and show contempt for, or indifference to, the lives of adults and foreigners.

Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. Pro-lifers, these things ought not so to be.

January 24, 2011

Posted in USAComments Off on Pro-Lifers for Mass MURDER

Gaza’s Children, & Zio-Nazi Trauma




Abdullah (in red shirt) and his little brother (r) play “Arabs and Israelis” with their friends in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah. (Photo M. Omer)

IMEMC, January 23, 2011

The Sept. 6, 2010 issue of the leading German newspaper Der Spiegel included the article “Studies Show Nurture at Least as Important as Nature” by Joerge Blech on the findings of a groundbreaking study on intelligence.

Researchers found that prolonged poverty, stress and other environmental factors—including war and the deprivation of basic needs—directly affect a child’s intelligence and, therefore, his or her life prospects.

Previously it was believed that intelligence was 80 percent genetic. These latest findings, however, show that at least 50 percent of an individual’s intelligence is actually determined by environmental factors. More specifically: the more stress, the more arrested mental development. As one of the researchers, Richard Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, noted: “During World War II, some children in Holland started school late because of the Nazi occupation—with momentous consequences. The average IQ for these children was seven points lower than for children who came of school age after the siege.”

The Nazi persecution and World War II in Europe, which lasted from 1933 to 1945, affected an entire generation of children. By contrast, Israhell’s dispossession and occupation of Palestine has lasted some six decades—and counting. Generations of Palestinian children have been affected physically, psychologically and materially. Since Ariel Sharon instigated the al-Aqsa intifada in late 2000, Israeli repression has been most restrictive, and most steadily escalated, in Gaza. According to “Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion,” a 16-page BBC report released in March 2008: “In September 2007, an UNRWA survey in the Gaza Strip revealed that there was a nearly 80 percent failure rate in schools grades four to nine, with up to 90 percent failure rates in Mathematics. In January 2008, UNICEF reported that schools in Gaza had been cancelling classes that were high on energy consumption, such as IT, science labs and extra curricular activities.”

The report adds that “The number of people living in absolute poverty in Gaza has increased sharply. Today, 80 percent of families in Gaza currently rely on humanitarian aid, compared to 63 percent in 2006. This decline exposes unprecedented levels of poverty and the inability of a large majority of the population to afford basic food.”

War, poverty, stress caused by financial and personal insecurity due to living under occupation, the constant scarcity of basic necessities including food, sewer treatment, water and medical care, the threat of constant attack by military forces, forced imprisonment, lack of movement, lack of rights—these are the daily realities of children in Gaza, realities they, their parents and their grandparents have known their whole lives.
This is the recurring nightmare that is Gaza.

A Child’s Life

At first glance, 13-year-old Khalil seems like your average teenager. His young body is just beginning to mature, and he is curious, easily distracted and slightly mischievous. A closer inspection, however, reveals a vacant look in his eyes more associated with age. In fact, if one saw only his eyes, one would guess Khalil is close to 50, not 13. What’s missing is that sense of invincibility and heightened optimism common among youth his age elsewhere in the world. Where American and European children talk about the latest rap band, their school vacation or their latest crush, Khalil simply shrugs apathetically.

“Excuse me, but the war has wiped blank all my beautiful memories,” he says somewhat sarcastically. “The front half of my house was damaged, so that I am transferred to a life-situation that I never dreamed I would be experiencing. After years of living in a large house,” he explains, “I now live at Al Zahra city.”

Khalil’s home was destroyed in January 2009, during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” assault, plunging his middle-class family into homelessness in an instant. Unlike in a natural disaster, insurance funds and global assistance were not available. His situation was man-made—and Khalil is far from alone.
Still traumatized, he remembers a friend of his being blown to pieces when an Israeli missile struck his neighborhood.

Understandably, these are things he would rather forget—but can’t. Because of Israel’s siege, few resources are available to help him cope with his trauma and move on with his life.

The children’s stories are difficult to hear, of course. But as any parent knows, the pain of their children is felt two-fold by those responsible for care giving. Love, after all, can go only so far.

A Parent’s Frustration

Abu Abdullah of Rafah expresses the pain of most parents in Gaza: the inability to protect his children. His wife frets because she cannot comfort them. The younger children, aged 10, 7 and 4, wet their beds and she feels helpless to quell their fears. “It’s like a cancer you can’t control or stop,” Umm Abdullah says.

Nodding, Abu Abdullah sits on the stoop of his house watching his children play “Arabs and Israelis,” the occupied territory’s version of “Cowboys and Indians” or “Cops and Robbers.” In the role of a soldier, his oldest son, Abdullah, aims a plastic Chinese toy gun at his brother’s head. “I am going to kill you right now,” the teenager says.

The game is popular among children who’ve had few outlets to channel their emotions since Operation Cast Lead. Abu Abdullah would rather they play soccer, but this game reflects the reality of their lives and gives his children some sense of control.

Even when he’s awake Abu Abdullah’s 12-year-old son suffers from nightmares about Israeli F-16s bombing his neighborhood. In his dreams, all the children are running away from home or school.

Some of his friends are injured, others dead, and ambulance sirens scream incessantly in his head. But it’s more than a dream: it’s what he actually witnessed, and it replays in his mind ad nauseam, rarely giving him peace.

Nor are Abdullah’s fears imaginary. When his mother sent him to buy lentils from the nearby grocery store less than three minutes away, the boy returned home with no lentils and his pants soaked in urine. Asked about the lentils, Abdullah began crying and told his mother in a voice quaking with fear that “the drones are bombing.”

Teachers who work with at risk students in inner-city neighborhoods around the world can attest to the effect poverty, violence, guns and fear have on the children forced by circumstance to live in these situations. Gaza is the inner city on steroids. Its children deal not only with gangs in the form of resistance, but they also must endure the assaults—usually in the middle of the night—of the world’s fourth most powerful military. The effects on the children are predictable: Fights and violent behavior, in schools and on the streets, have escalated in frequency and intensity, according to psychologists who visit Gaza’s schools.

Psychologist Zahia Al Qarra with the Gaza Community Mental Health Program (GCMHP) says that 79.9 percent of the children she sees feel they are in a big prison. Another 79.3 percent say that they cannot afford to buy what they need or want.

According to a recent GCMHP study, 20 percent of Gaza’s children suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD], and another 13 percent are diagnosed with depression. In Gaza’s UNRWA-run schools, where literacy and academic standards are usually high, 9,000 primary students failed their school work and exams last academic year.

Another GCMHP psychiatrist confirms that cases of disease, behavioral problems and psychological traumas have multiplied among Gaza’s children, citing increases in autistic behavior, bedwetting, thumb-sucking, nail biting, anger, slow-motion flashbacks, reliving war scenes in familiar neighborhoods, fear of the dark, agoraphobia, panic at the sound of planes overhead, and disinterest in taking part in social and group activities—all symptoms of PTSD and depression.

“It’s not just the children” says Abu Diaa, a father of seven. “It’s also we adults who need psychological counseling.”

Like most parents in Gaza, Abu Diaa, whose only income is a disability pension from a 2003 injury, worries constantly about finding food and clothing for his children.

“It is two different types of traumas,” Abu Diaa explains, “living in fear of attacks and worrying about not having a job to protect one’s family.”

Psychiatrists and general practitioners in Gaza observe that parents often do not realize the extent to which their children are traumatized. Many are trying to deal with their own pain and stress and often neglect or delay their own treatment. Add to this the stigma about seeking psychological treatment for themselves or their children. Palestinian and Arab society does not embrace victimhood, and seeking help is often equated with admitting one is powerless and therefore a victim. GCMHP director Dr. Ahmed Abu Tawahinah notes that when a patient visits a doctor, he “never says I am depressed or I have PTSD.” Rather he’ll say something like, “I have a headache.”

A Society Under Stress

The physical and psychological effects of Gaza’s plight are pervasive. According to the GCMHP’s Al Qarra, divorces have increased, often due to poverty. When parents are unable to fully care for their children due to their own trauma, she adds, increasing numbers of children are forced to leave home or run away. They find themselves on the streets, digging through garbage containers for a few things to sell to make a bit of money or eat. Incidents of sexual abuse, previously unheard of in Gaza, also are being reported.

This past September, 20 months after Israel’s war on Gaza, Dr. Jamil Al Tahrawi, a university lecturer in social psychology, decided to analyze the art work of children in Gaza to try and assess the depth of their psychological trauma. He asked 455 children to draw whatever they wanted. More than 82.3 percent drew images directly related to Israhelli attacks on Gaza. Some of these drawings show Palestinian resistance fighters, Israhelli soldiers, tanks, bulldozers, ambulances, helicopters, F-16s, and pilotless Israeli drones.

The children mainly used light colors in their drawings, avoiding dark colors as if they were afraid of them. Dr. Al Tahrawi and other doctors in Gaza saw a clear indication in the drawings of trauma following war crimes similar to those mentioned in Judge Richard Goldstone’s report for the U.N. Human Rights Council. Indeed, Dr. Al Tawahiha confides, all 1.6 million residents of Gaza are traumatized to some extent—”including myself.”

As Israel continues its attacks on Gaza, the nightmare continues for Abdullah and all residents of Gaza.

Nearly two years after Operation Cast Lead, Abdullah still is afraid to sleep, afraid to play and afraid to walk to school in the daytime, even with his father by his side. One can only guess at the long-term physical, emotional and intellectual effects Israhell’s continued occupation and siege will have on his life and millions of other Palestinians. One thing is certain, however: It is affecting everyone.

Award-winning journalist Mohammed Omer reports on the Gaza Strip, and maintains the Web site:


Posted in GazaComments Off on Gaza’s Children, & Zio-Nazi Trauma

The end of the Palestinian Collaborators?


posted by lenin


JamieSW’s comprehensive summary of the Palestine Papers asks if the comprador regime’s pandering to Israeli rejectionism means it is finished:


Most of the Arab world’s anger so far has been directed not at the Israeli government but at the PA. This makes sense: Arabs take Israeli rejectionism for granted. Unlike many liberals in Europe and America, they cannot afford the luxury of delusions about our ally’s role in the region. The PA’s collaboration has also long been clear, but the extent of the betrayal revealed in the documents is nauseating. They record Abbas greeting Condoleeza “birth pangs” Rice with, “[y]ou bring back life to the region when you come.” “I would vote for you”, senior negotiator Ahmed Qureia told Livni; Ariel Sharon was my “friend”, Abbas enthused. We already knew about the PA’s collaboration with the US and Israel to overthrow Hamas; its support for the Gaza siege; its close cooperation with the Israeli military; and its diplomatic manoeuvres to bury the UN inquiry into the 2008-9 Gaza massacre. These new leaks promise to reveal how PA “leaders were privately tipped off” in advance about the Gaza massacre – something previous leaks have already confirmed.

Again, none of this should come as a surprise. The PA is a product of the Oslo process, which was designed, as former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami put it, to groom a Palestinian leadership class to act as “Israel’s collaborator in the task of stifling the [first] intifada and… [cut] short what was clearly an authentically democratic struggle for Palestinian independence”. The aim, another Israeli minister explained, “was to find a strong dictator to … keep the Palestinians under control.” The PA is “almost wholly dependent upon American, European and Arab political and financial support, as well as security and economic cooperation with Israel” and so can only operate within limits dictated by Israel and its international backers.

This was dramatically illustrated when Palestinians elected a government that didn’t enjoy the backing of their occupiers in 2006. The US, Europe and Israel responded by starving it of funds, isolating it diplomatically, kidnapping a third of the cabinet, killing hundreds of Palestinians, destroying Gaza’s only power station, and training and arming Fatah militias to overthrow it. It is a mistake, then, to focus overly on the corruption and venality of Abbas, Erekat, et al. The more important point is that the PA is structurally incapable of serving as an instrument of Palestinian liberation. Our takeaway lesson from the documents should be the need to end our government’s support for Israel’s occupation and Abbas’s quasi-police state in the West Bank.

The PA’s strategy as revealed in the documents is delusional, on the (perhaps unreasonable) assumption that its objective is to secure a negotiated settlement to the conflict. It appears to be under the impression that if it just offers Israel one more concession, cedes one more bit of territory, compromises on one more basic Palestinian right, then the U.S. will force Israel to accept a settlement.

The reality of the American role hardly needs elaborating here; it is encapsulated well enough in Rice’s response to the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948: “Bad things happen to people all around the world all the time.” The gaping yawn wasn’t transcribed. When Palestinian negotiators objected to Israel’s insistence on annexing yet more Palestinian territory, Rice was blunt: “You won’t have a state… your children’s children will not have an agreement.”

It is still too early to predict how reaction to the leaks will play out. The PA is denying everything on the grounds that, paraphrasing Erekat, ‘we can’t have offered Israel virtually all of East Jerusalem, because if we had then obviously Israel would have accepted it’. What is the Arabic for ‘facepalm’? “We don’t hide anything from our brothers”, Abbas insisted as the PA threatened to shut down Al Jazeera. Abbas has accused Al Jazeera of declaring “war” on the Palestinians – Erekat is presumably drawing up an agreement to cede East Jerusalem to Riz Khan.

The popular legitimacy of the PA, already damaged, is surely now destroyed. In the long-term – possibly sooner – this could spell its demise. Certainly Palestinians will not achieve their liberation under its auspices.


Posted in Middle EastComments Off on The end of the Palestinian Collaborators?

Could the US be Affected by Food Shortages?



by Jeff Davis

Do you think food shortages are a thing of the past? Don’t bet on it. A Breitbart news article reports: “In ‘World on the Edge’, Brown paints a grim picture of how a failed harvest could spark a grain shortage that would send food prices sky-rocketing, cause hunger to spread, governments to collapse and states to fail. Food riots would erupt in low-income countries and with confidence in the world grain market shattered, the global economy could start to unravel…”

This character, Brown is a liberal who wants everybody to eat nothing but veggies and return to the past, when the average height of a grown man was about five foot two and a woman under five feet, and everyone suffered from scurvy, rickets, and chronic malnutrition, and died in their late thirties.

Mandatory vegetarianism has long been an item on the leftist-liberal agenda, although it has taken second place in recent years to “universal health care” –read an incredible government power grab which gives the government power over who gets health care and how much of it.

It is true that there may well be a food shortage looming, but it has more to do with too many black, brown and yellow people on earth. There are seven billion Third World people and only 700 million Whites. We already supply much of the world with food, but we can’t keep up with the limitless growth of the non-White population.

Eventually, there will be food shortages in the Third World. There could be dust bowls and massive crop failures. We probably won’t starve in the US, but we may find shortages of some items and we will probably see $10 boxes of cereal. The Chinese won’t starve either because they have trillions of US dollars and they’ll use that money to compete with us in buying food from American farms.


Posted in USAComments Off on Could the US be Affected by Food Shortages?

the Coming Financial Collapse of the US


The Coming Financial Collapse of the US

by Ian Mosley

The most prestigious financial publication on earth, the Financial Times of London, is predicting the financial collapse of the United States if we don’t get our finances in order, assuming the clinically insane Democrats and the Republicans, who only control the House at this time, can get together and solve all our problems. In other words: Buy lots of canned food, guns and ammo now.

The Financial Times reports: “It was the most startling of warnings. If the US does not get its finances in order ‘we will have a European situation on our hands, and possibly worse’, claimed Paul Ryan, the new Republican chairman of the House of Representatives budget committee. The consequences of not tackling the country’s mounting debt burden would be dire, he last week told an audience of leading budget experts and economists at a gathering in Washington. ‘We will have the riots in the streets, we will have the defaults, we will have all of those ugliness problems,’ he said, referring to ‘French kids lobbing Molotov cocktails at cars, burning down schools because the retirement age will be moved from 60 to 62.’ As it stands today, the US borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The risks are big. If the government rushes into austerity, cutting too much and too quickly, it could stunt economic recovery.”

What kind of credit rating would you have if you borrowed 40 percent of every dollar you spent –and you tried to do that year after year?

The US could have saved its economy if it listened to Ross Perot and killed off NAFTA and GATT. Instead, we went down the road to outsourcing while letting more and more illiterate needy immigrants with 80 point IQs invade the US. There is no guarantee that America will remain a superpower forever. The more we fill up our nation with Third World people, the more we transition into a hybrid status somewhere between the prosperity of a White nation and the poverty of a Third World nation.

Our plunge to poverty is being further accelerated by liberal hand out programs that give Third World people public education, Section 8 housing, food stamps, free emergency room health care and Affirmative Action jobs –kicking out competent White people so that much less competent Blacks and Latinos can have good-paying jobs that they don’t deserve.

We literally can no longer afford to subsidize a First World lifestyle for the gigantic Black and Latino population in the US today. The Affirmative Action program is further introducing staggering incompetence into both government and private corporations.

The Financial Times goes on “But if the political system cannot forge some kind of consensus on steps to restore US deficits to sustainable levels, the danger is potentially even greater: a sovereign debt crisis in the world’s largest economy.”

The US needs to cut the spending and live within its means. The Democrats absolutely refuse to do this, because they have to buy the votes, that keep them in power, from the unions and the minorities. So they insist on borrowing.

The problem is that when you keep on borrowing and borrowing, eventually you reach a point where no one is willing to lend you any more money. The only way to increase the money in circulation (so Obama can borrow it) is to have the Jewish-controlled Federal Reserve print more and more money, thus increasing the money supply and creating inflation.

If you want to know what happens next, look up the history of Weimar Germany and/or Zimbabwe.

The collapse of the US will start with the financial bankruptcy of the states. California, Illinois and New York will likely be the first states to go bankrupt and this could happen a lot sooner than most people think. Once the Blacks quit getting their welfare checks and evicted from their Section 8 apartments, don’t expect things to stay peaceful.

Gerald Celente has been predicting financial chaos and riots for some time, and he was one of the few to see the subprime mortgage disaster coming. Canned food and ammunition will soon be more important than stocks and bonds.


Posted in USAComments Off on the Coming Financial Collapse of the US

Duke: Vido Archive! Quick Links to Videos!



My Channel is now Restored


Who Taught America to Torture?


 The Little Bank that Saved Christmas!


Zionist Extremism and Its Media Cover Up


David Duke Wishes You a White Christmas!


The Zionist Matrix of Power HD


Christmas versus Hanukkah Peace and Love vs War and Hate HD


The War on Christmas! — How Zionist Extremists are Waging War on Western Culture


Wikileaks Exposes Zionist Treachery!


How Nations Die!


Bombs, Body scans, and Israhell!


Freud, Zionism and Sexual Revolution


How Zionists Divide and Conquer!


Rape and Reality in America


Top Rabbi in Israhell Exposes Zionist Racism!


Sex and Lies in Israhell!


The Shocking Zionist Role in Slavery I – What Jewish Historians Say


The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery II – The Media Cover Up


David Duke for President? –It’s up to YOU!


Race is Far More than Skin Color!


Oliver Stone Apologizes for Telling the Truth


Black Panthers, Obama & White Civil Rights!


Expose Senator Schumer and Israhell Terrorism!


Will the White Race Survive?


The Racial Supremacist State of Israhell


Racism – Rand Paul & Rachel Maddow Part II


Zionist Racist Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul Part I


No War for Israhell in Iran ! — Keep Americans Safe


White Genocide in South Africa


White Civil Rights?


Should Christians Support Israhell?


Zionist  Terrorism Against America!


The Dynamics of the Zionist Elite!


Affirmative Action is Racist !!


The Purim Celebration of Hate


Purim II: Promotion of Genocide


Hollywood Basterds by David Duke


Do Zionist Control the Media? — The LA Times Says Yes!


Shoe Bombers, crotch bombers, 9/11 and Israhell


The Zionist Matrix of Power in America


The Zionist Red Army by David Duke


Stop the Genocide of European Mankind


David Duke a Tribute to European Women


David Duke “Heart to Heart” Part 1


David Duke “Heart to Heart” Part 2


Hanukkah Hypocrisy by David Duke Part 1


Hanukkah Hypocrisy by David Duke Part 2


Holocaust Survivor Redefines AntiSemitism by David Duke


The War on Christmas!


War is Good – Obama Nobel Peace Prize Speech




Posted in USAComments Off on Duke: Vido Archive! Quick Links to Videos!

Is The Big Society Zio-Freemasons or Zionist Dick Atkinson Lie?


Common Wealth: Christians for economic and social justice

Common Wealth: Christians for economic and social justice

Common Wealth


In the face of sweeping public spending cuts and a UK government economic strategy which targets the poor to pay for a crisis produced by the wealthy, a group of Christians in public life (activists, ministers and theologians) have issued this statement calling for Christian unity with others in the movement to resist the cuts in public and welfare provision. It urges the churches to be wary about being co-opted into the Big Society initiative – which it calls ‘a big lie’ in economic terms. The document articulates a radical theological critique of government policies and the social and economic order they seek to maintain. It is rooted in an alternative vision based on strong Christian roots and wide solidarities, arguing for a Common Wealth that expresses the central dynamics of the Gospel message. The statement is also a call to form a network of discernment, resistance and creativity in the generation of fresh approaches to the shared life of people and planet.

Introduction: the Big Society or the Big Lie?

Christians in Britain today are called to take a stand. Faced with the biggest cuts to public spending for over a generation, it is not enough to retreat into the private ghetto of religious consolation.

As Christians, we are convinced that the actions of the current government are an unjustified attack on the poor [1]. The rhetoric of necessary austerity and virtuous belt-tightening conceals a grim reality: the victimisation of people at the margins of society and the corrosion of community. Meanwhile, the false worship of markets continues unchecked and the immorality of the growing gap between rich and poor goes unquestioned.

We call on the churches to resist the cuts and stand in solidarity with those targeted. We urge them to join the forces fighting back against a distorted ideology. Above all, we commit ourselves not to give in to despair, fear and fatalism. Another world is possible, the world announced by Jesus in his teachings, embodied in the love he took to the cross, alive in the Spirit of his risen strength.

Some might scorn such sentiments. After all, surely the government is sympathetic to Christian ideals? They promote the Big Society, in which the state hands power to individuals, entrepreneurs, charities, and, yes, faith groups. So shouldn’t the churches be taking this opportunity with both hands? Shouldn’t Christians show they can contribute through this ‘Big Society’ opportunity to easing the pain of these hard times?

We challenge this misconception. Not because we enjoy the luxury of opposition for its own sake, but because we believe that the rhetoric of Big Society is a Big Lie. It masks oppressive business as usual, suffocating all dissent with its phoney ‘we’re all in it together’ soundbites. It is divide and rule dressed up as high-minded community spirit.

We recognise that, on the ground, churches and ministers are faced with difficult choices. We have to work within the current system as a means of trying to get the necessary resources to support the vulnerable and the poor. Sometimes that will mean taking government money with a ‘Big Society’ label to do what has to be done.

When we find ourselves ‘caught in the middle’ in this way we need to help and support each other making the right decisions, never forgetting that we have been placed in this position by a government which takes the side of big business.

It follows that any engagement we have with the Big Society agenda or its equivalents should always be guided – and often limited – by a fundamental critique of the present order. Praying and holding onto the vision of the Kingdom that is revealed in the Church’s sacraments and other symbols of transformation, we are called to speak against the false consciousness of the market driven idolatry in which we presently labour. Nothing should dim the fire of the hope that is in us.

In this document, we briefly set out why we take this position on specifically Christian grounds. We stand ready to work with those in other communities and traditions who resist the cuts.

The Big Society: collusion and sacrifice

In his speech to the Conservative party conference on 6th October 2010, David Cameron continued to press his case for the ‘Big Society’. This, according to Cameron, is to be a society in which government empowers individuals and communities to take responsibility for public services. Rather than being passive consumers, dependent upon a centralising State, we are invited to become active citizens doing things for ourselves. We won’t expect the State to do everything for us. We’ll do our bit, pull together and contribute to the common good.

Christians might be expected to warm to this ideal. Cameron argues that we need to see our relationship to society not simply as a utilitarian transaction, but as a relationship. We are part of a greater whole, he says, and what we feel and think matters. Surely we should agree that the state monolith – bolstered by Labour’s centralisation of power – has to go? And, in its absence, won’t Christian organisations be the first to show what faith in action can really do?

There is, however, a much more sinister dimension to this particular utopian flourish. In the course of his speech, Cameron stated ‘Your country needs you. And today I want to tell you about the part we’ve all got to play and the spirit that will take us through.’ Commentators were quick to note the direct use of words made famous by the World War One poster of Lord Kitchener. In 1915, ‘Your Country Needs You’ meant ‘your country needs you to sign up, fight and die for it’. Your country needs you to sacrifice yourself for the sake of its political, economic and imperial interests.

Cameron’s message reads very differently set in this context. Notice that he is telling us ‘about the part we’ve all got to play’ in the times that lie ahead. There are no exemptions, and no choice. There is a pre-determined agenda, something Cameron makes clearer as he uses the Kitchener phrase again near the end of the speech: ‘Your country needs you. And it takes two. It takes two to build that strong economy . . . So come on. Let’s pull together. Let’s come together. Let’s work together in the national interest.’

Cameron is not ‘one of the people’, working out together how best to organise our common life under present circumstances. He is imposing a particular interpretation of those circumstances and their root causes, one which places the blame upon the public sector and those on benefits. Never mind the banking and financial sectors which got us into this mess. His rhetoric is an ideological disguise, designed to maintain the status of the economically and politically powerful.

This much is clear: there is no discussion about what a ‘strong economy’ is, or about the myth that only more and more ‘growth’ is the answer. There is no evading the over-riding claim the so-called ‘national interest’ has upon us. We are to subordinate ourselves to it. The fundamentals of our economy, and of the distribution of power in that economy, were never going to be questioned by Cameron. No: in place of that, we are invited to submerge ourselves in a national identity, to the point where any criticism of our country can be deflected back to us: ‘it’s your own fault, we’ve given responsibility to you.’ And all the time the real levers of power remain in the hands of big corporations and financiers who seem to have little regard for the welfare of ‘the country’, the people.

‘It takes two’ says Cameron, exposing the reductionist logic at the heart of his Big Society. On the one hand there is me, an individual; on the other hand there is the country, the state, the government (it is not clear whether Cameron really distinguishes between these three). In such a ‘relationship’ there can be no question of mutuality. At the end of the day, we must conform. And if we fail to do what the government tells us we have got to do, then presumably we will be counted as on the outside of society, along with all the anti-socials, illegals, benefit scroungers and layabouts who have become the new internal enemy of the state. Meanwhile, the forces which actually control our lives are rendered invisible.

This is the watchword of the Big Society: sacrifice. That might sound extreme, as we are not being asked to fight any literal wars. But remember that the wars initiated by Labour (supported by the Tories and acquiesced in by the Liberal Democrats) were never directed solely overseas. The ‘war on crime’ and ‘war on terror’ were the internal face of that same war, which shows no signs of abating under the Con-Dem Coalition’s watch.

Economic necessity may dictate rolling back some military engagements. But that same necessity becomes a cover for attacks on the dispossessed, children, the unwanted, the poor, the disabled, for all the arts and scholarship that are considered economically unproductive.

Christians also talk about sacrifice, but the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is different. It is a refusal of the sacred power and authority of anything but the love and justice of God. Jesus’ nonviolent resistance to the forces of Empire (Roman, in his day) and the religious establishment set us free from the worship of abstract, impersonal economic forces. It allows us to see through the religious aura such forces often borrow and with which they try to compel our collusion. Jesus stands with the scapegoats, with all those whose exclusion and persecution is a necessary feature of societies of sacrifice.

The kingdom of God – perhaps better translated today as the commonwealth (or kin-dom) of God – is not the domination of the individual by some human authority or order. That kind of dualism is undercut. It doesn’t take ‘two’, it takes a multiple, a holy disorder of God’s restless people to work out what it means to live as people created, loved, restored by God. The kingdom is not the ‘national interest’ – a phrase designed to whip up support for the status quo and any number of imperialist follies. The kingdom is the common interest of God, God’s people and God’s earth.

The Christian God, of course, is not a monolithic Force or abstract Power. God is God-in-relationship, a divine giving and receiving in which there is no domination by some iron necessity. God always creates, and always creates more than enough. There is no economic scarcity of God’s love, no competition for God’s favour, no divine Ego to appease. These aspects of Christian faith suggest a radically different approach to what life, power, economy and community are really about.

In the end, for all the debates about how progressive or regressive particular taxation and benefit measures may be, the Big Society is still held in thrall by the capitalist dogma of salvation by markets alone. And the evident effect of proposed cuts is to create further markets, such as we inherited in light of the Thatcher-Reagan era of unrestrained neo-liberal capitalism. It is the markets who dictate to us the terms of our surrender. As Nick Clegg puts it, it is the ‘pinstriped traders in the bond markets’ [2] who ultimately call the shots on government policy. And so, so quickly, we are led to forget the role that chaotic, hubristic markets played in creating so much human and ecological devastation.

The Big Society is a Big Lie. It is a smokescreen, another ideological veil. Its pretence of radical change is simply a means of persuading us to live in submission to the great God Capital.

Of course, there are Christians and Christian organisations who see in the Big Society agenda a recognition of what they are already doing in their social activism, and an opportunity to take it further [3] . However, we believe that the craving for relevance is overriding any more searching critique of what is on offer.

Writing in the Guardian, Luke Bretherton argues that the current government offers two ‘anthropologies’: one which is essentially about empowering individuals, one which accepts that we are always part of a greater whole. He invites the churches to decide ‘which anthropology best reflects their vision of the good life and work out how best to strengthen it.’ [4]

Missing from Bretherton’s approach is any critical distance, any sense that Christians might wish to critique the project as a whole. Ultimately, the Big Society does not offer an alternative to individualism and capitalism, as Bretherton supposes; it is simply a modification of those things. The nation state as a unit of political economy set within and serving unchanging global economic laws, is simply taken as a given. The individual has to conform (and preferably run a school, an old people’s home and a community policing scheme in their spare time).

In the light of this, churches who simply seek ways of working with the Big Society agenda risk colluding with forces and principles fundamentally at odds with the gospel. The question is not ‘what can advance the cause of the churches and make them look more relevant in today’s society?’ The question is, ‘how can churches bear witness to the radical transformation of society called for by their proclamation of the kingdom of God?’

Again, there may well be overriding pragmatic reasons why churches should compromise, drawing on resources available in the present system in order to make life more tolerable and more humane for those they serve. But the critical, cutting edge of Christian witness must never be lost at such times to an accommodation to Big Society ideology. [5]

As Jürgen Moltmann puts it, ‘kingdom-of-God theology intervenes critically and prophetically in the public affairs of a given society, and draws public attention, not to the church’s own interests, but to “God’s kingdom, God’s commandment, and his righteousness,” as Thesis 5 of the Barmen Theological Declaration says.’ [6] This does not mean the churches give up all activism in order to shout from the sidelines. But it does mean their actions and judgements need to be motivated very differently, echoing prophetic voices from the margins and the divine cry from the cross.

It is in that context that we need to question one of the persistent facets of current debate over government spending cuts: the issue of fairness.

Fake Fairness: the ideal which changes nothing

In a sense, fairness is one of those values no one can oppose. Who doesn’t want fairness?

However, this uncontroversial universality of ‘fairness’ is precisely what makes it a slippery and misleading term for framing any debate. Politicians of different parties bat accusations of unfairness back and forth, but the real issue is what ‘fairness’ means, and what its use conceals. If no one opposes fairness, what content does it have? More to the point: whose interests does it serve?

The problem with the government’s claims of fairness is that they leave the essential parameters of economic power and inequality in place. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has argued that the effect of cuts falls disproportionately on the poorest despite the rhetoric which claims ‘we are all in it together’ [7]. Part of the point is that people living close to margins of poverty or homelessness stand to lose far more than those experiencing proportionally similar cuts from a higher base. When we take into account the likely reduction in public services, on which those with lower incomes depend more, the regressive implications of the cuts stand out even more starkly. More specific examples could be added: the attack on those in receipt of housing benefit, or those in care; the targeting of those with children; the disproportionate effect of cuts on women.

However, even such analysis does not go far enough. Christians need to drag the idea of ‘fairness’ into the light, to expose it as the ideological prop that it is. Neither the government nor their Labour party critics are addressing the chaos, exploitation, conflict and inequality endemic to the economic system which has created current conditions. The major political forces of our country have been at one in embracing trade liberalisation and the free-run of financial markets, with little concern for their human and ecological impact.

Why else have companies like Vodafone and Boots been allowed to evade billions in tax through exploiting loopholes? Why do we continue to press ahead with the tens of billions it will cost to replace the Trident nuclear missile system? Why is the cost of unemployment, increased crime and ecological vandalism not factored into the equation? Why are the jobless forced to work for nothing whilst bonuses are doled out to those in the banks whose greed and neglect threw people out of work in the first place? Why else, but that the current agenda of cuts and reforms have nothing to do with ‘fairness’ and everything to do with ensuring that a system founded on inequality stays in place.

Christians are called to a different perspective, because, put simply, the gospel is not about ‘fairness’. It is about revolutionary, excessive grace.

The parable of the labourers in the vineyard draws us into this drama. The labourers are all paid the same, paid the whole amount even though some only joined the work late in the day. When those who have worked all day complain, the employer asks them ‘are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matthew 20.15).

The story is not a literal prescription for how to pay workers. It is a re-imagination of what economy means. First, everyone is given the full amount. There is no discrimination, no competition for more. Secondly, this giving is not dictated by an impersonal law of supply and demand, but by a conviction that the contents of all our transactions are ultimately rooted in divine gift. Thirdly, the equality of the workers is not based upon some kind of envious class hatred. Rather, it is the desire for inequality that is exposed as driven by envy.

Neo-liberal capitalism may not have been the economic form of Jesus’ day (though a form of commodity capitalism clearly was, and all those traders selling their luxury wares are weeping and gnashing teeth in Revelation), but it is the very spirit of competitive inequality, mutual suspicion and envy. Christians live in the world and have to deal with the world as it is, but that should not blunt the edge of their critical voice and actions. Pursuing ‘fairness’ in the context of a system which is built on establishing inequality (not to mention exporting it to other countries and visiting it upon the earth itself) is at best tinkering around the edges and at worst a cynical deception.

Fairness is the fancy dress put on by a corrupt system. In short, it is seen as the best way of dividing up the scarce spoils of a market driven economy. But what if the way the market drives that economy creates the appearance of scarcity and the need for unequal outcomes in the first place?

Again, Christians need a more radical perspective, not conforming to the world as though its current state were inevitable, natural or divinely sanctioned; but being conformed to Christ, who speaks a word of judgement upon our systems of violence and exclusion. The Christian claim is that the earth and all that is in it belong to God. It is not ours by right of possession, to do with what we will. We cannot own the earth or any aspect of the ecology of which we are a part. Property is never an absolute right, only a relative one, a means to the end of universal human flourishing. As Anthony Reddie argues, ‘fairness’ simply leads to the reification of the status quo. Instead, the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian Tradition is one of Equity – which doesn’t treat people all the same, but treats them according to their need. [8]

God did not create people to be the pawns and slaves of economic powers, shifted around by the political arbiters of ‘fairness’. Nor did God make the earth to be the spoilheap and raw material for ever-increasing consumption. So we don’t start from the assumption that people are naturally unequal and we have to iron things out a bit with a dose of philanthropy; we start from the conviction that creation is gift, to be stewarded in common. The early church put this vision into practice: they held things in common, as a natural expression of the prayer and breaking of bread which they also shared.

This confirms our original claim: Christians must not retreat into a private religious sanctuary, because our faith is always earthed, always embodied, always political. Our faith is not merely words and ideas. It is food and drink for the hungry ’without money and without price’ (Isaiah 55.1).

Common Wealth – A Biblically Rooted Alternative to Capitalism

The Bible is not a simplistic set of facts or rules. We can find in its pages a variety of viewpoints about the value placed on wealth, and how people should organise their life together. The Bible needs to be interpreted, to speak to the context of our questions, dilemmas and passions today. Nevertheless, the Bible can still speak a word of judgement, a word of crisis, which calls our values, our economy and our politics to account.

We believe this is possible because there is guiding thread running through the scriptural story: the earth is created by God and belongs to God. It is a gift. And no amount of human power-grabbing can change that reality.

We therefore claim that there is a trajectory running through the Bible: from the created gift of the world to the laws which challenged debt enslavement and dispossession; from the wisdom tradition which looked sceptically on wealth and thankless labour, to the prophets who directly challenged the oppression of the poorest members of society, and the injustice handed out to paid workers; from the early Christian community, holding all in common, to the vision of a ‘New Jerusalem’, a world freed from exploitation.

For Christians, at the centre of this lies the person and story of Jesus. In his teachings, he reversed people’s assumptions about wealth, value, forgiveness and purity. In the way that took him to the cross, he confronted an imperial system keen to preserve its ideological and idolatrous status as the salvation and peace of the world. In the light of the resurrection, he offers a real peace, a shalom which embraces earth, body and spirit in community.

The law, the prophets and the gospels are complex texts. But they continually lead us to the point of scandal, where the sheer otherness of God and the sheer gratuity of God’s love pass judgement upon our worship of what is limited, and upon the ideologies and systems which keep the powerful in place at the expense of all others.

It is this point of scandal that we take as the interpretative clue to reading the scriptures in our day. In each particular context, communities will work out what that means for them, guided by the Spirit. What follows is simply suggestive of how we in the UK today might release the scriptures from their bondage to religious individualism and political conservatism.

It is clear that much of the Biblical tradition is very sceptical about the value of accumulated wealth, the basis upon which our contemporary system is built. Indeed, rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures is the notion that no one should have too much and no one should have too little.

Leviticus 25 makes clear that the primary resource for existence – land – is God’s. In verse 23 it says ‘the land shall not be sold in perpetuity because the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants’. No one should own too much and no one should be without for long. The earth’s resources should not be exploited excessively and should be managed to maintain an ecological balance (25:4).

Equally, accumulation of wealth and exploitation of labour is frowned upon: the year of Jubilee is proclaimed as a time for redistribution of wealth, the cancellation of debts, liberation from bonded labour and an acknowledgement that God hears the cry of the poor (Leviticus 25:39-43 and Deuteronomy 15:1-15).

The prophet Amos is clear about the need to be aware of how our standard of living may be built upon the back of exploitation and oppression (2:7) and Ezekiel 34 warns of the dangers of false leadership that seeks to ensure the maintenance of the property and profits of the rich at the expense of the poor. Isaiah is scathing about the hypocrisy of his society, in which economic injustice sat side by side with a false piety: ‘you serve your own interests on your fast day and oppress all your workers . . . Is not this the fast that I choose, to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the things of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?’ (58.3,6)

Jesus picks up on this tradition. We see in the synoptic gospels particularly, his radical appropriation of this concept of economic justice rooted in the Hebrew Bible. In Luke, drawing upon Isaiah 61, he proclaims himself at his opening sermon in Nazareth as bringing in Jubilee (4:16-21) and throughout his ministry and teachings he articulates what this means in living reality.

Pivotal examples include the story of the rich fool (12:13-21) where Jesus critiques accumulation; the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), where Jesus radically overturns assumptions about the rich when the poor man is named and the rich man goes unnamed. The judgment on the rich man in this story is not because he failed to offer charity to the man at his gate, but because of his role in building up his own wealth at the expense of pushing the likes of Lazarus into poverty and total destitution.

In this story Jesus raises the question: why did the rich man become so rich that he ate sumptuously every day and wore purple (an incredibly expensive dye at the time) and why did the poor man become so poor? The people listening to Jesus would have known the answer: the rich man accumulated land at the expense of impoverished peasants who then had to hire their labour and when work was scarce in the country moved to the city to find further work, often failing to do so and falling into increasing destitution. It is a story that is still lived out today throughout the world. The implication is that charity alone is an insufficient response, and may even mask the distorted relationships which are at the heart of inequality.

What was shocking to Jesus’ contemporaries in this story, and is equally shocking to our own wealth-obsessed culture, is that for Jesus it is not the rich who are spiritually blessed but the poor. This theme is continued in Jesus’ encounter with the rich man who asks him how to inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18-30). Jesus’ challenge to the rich questioner is to give all he has to the poor, again with the assumption that his wealth has been built on the exploitation of others. This ends in the rich man leaving with a heavy heart.

But the telling part of the engagement is what happens afterwards in the conversation with the disciples in which Peter, astounded when Jesus declares his pun about rich men, camels and needles, asks ‘ Who then can be saved?!’ Peter’s exclamation reveals a commonsense belief that the rich are blessed by God and the poor cursed. Jesus challenges this notion throughout his ministry by declaring the exact opposite, that is at the heart of the Biblical tradition: it is the poor who have favour with God and the rich who stand under God’s judgment. The early Christian song attributed to Mary celebrates this reversal: ‘He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty’ (Luke 1.52-53).

This is not simply about rich and poor exchanging places, but the transformation of the world to reflect God’s created gift. For example, Peter, who is so shocked by Jesus’ radical economics of salvation, becomes the leader of the early church communities in Acts (2:43-47), who live out Jubilee amongst themselves having been transformed through a living encounter with the risen Christ and filled with the power of His Holy Spirit. The ‘new creation’ of which Paul speaks is not just a collection of individuals who are saved, but a community which breaks bread together in justice and hope for liberation.

On the cross, Jesus stands in solidarity with those who have nothing but their own bodies: bodies upon which the forces of empire inscribe the wounds of servitude, suppression and fear. But he does not let these things have the final word. In utter helplessness, he reveals the other power that is God’s loving justice, the free gift of grace.

We believe this is God’s way, the ‘foolishness’ of God measured by the world’s standards, the weakness of God measured by the world’s strength. It has always been there, calling for a reversal of values, be it with the chosen people of Israel struggling to free themselves from slavery and build a new society, the Biblical Prophets calling that same people back to the economic justice of God or the early disciples of Jesus, those ‘people of the Way’ attempting to live the radical economics that he taught. The disciples knew through their experience of the resurrection that the commonwealth of God was actually on its way and sought to live it.

And this is the relevance we should seek today. For we are people of the resurrection who have been resurrected from the fatalism and lies of the false gods of death and destruction whose claim is that capitalism is the only way. We are people of hope who believe that God’s commonwealth will come. We seek to live it now in our faith communities. We join with others of goodwill beyond the church in supporting movements where people become agents of change for a world where no one has too much and no one has too little, a world on its way to the Common Wealth of God. [9]

We draw our inspiration from deep wells. From the Hebrew Bible, from Jesus, from the early church, and from the radical traditions of Christianity represented by such movements as the Levellers. From the contemporary voices of liberation and ecofeminist theology which have named the forces which desecrate God’s earth and God’s people. Rumours that this tradition has died in the triumph of liberal capitalism are refuted each and every day by countless acts of resistance and solidarity across the globe. As people of resurrection, we affirm that God’s ‘Yes’ to creation can never be silenced.

This is why we make this call – as Theologians, Activists, Ministers, Contemplatives united in our faith in Christ – to our sisters and brothers in the faith to resist the lure of the Big Society and to work instead with those who resist the cuts to jobs and services and seek with others to build a movement for a radical social alternative.

Our Call

We encourage Christians to:

• Sign this Statement and become part of the Common Wealth Network.

• Read and learn about arguments against the cuts and dominating myths about the need for debt reduction, e.g.

• Explore study material arguing for a radical Christian vision for economic justice, based on recovery of Biblical tradition. Check out the resources page on Common Wealth website [and see below].

• Support and work with local anti–cuts alliances and the national co-ordinating bodies facilitating resistance to the cuts for instance The Coalition of Resistance (

• Support workers to struggle for ways to more fully participate in their own economic wellbeing and that of their co-workers.

• Oppose the waste that spends billions on weapons of mass destruction like the Trident missile system

• Seek ways to share our wealth from rich churches to ones based in poorer communities in funding projects to alleviate the worst excesses of the cuts and to assist organizing grassroots community organized resistance

• Support initiatives like Church Action on Poverty ( and its community organising arm ChangeMakers, empowering local communities often at the brunt of the cuts in public services and welfare benefits to speak and act for themselves.

• Find creative ways to resist the cuts and witness to God’s Common Wealth of Economic & Social Justice

Explore Together – Pray Together – Act Together.

Common Wealth (


[1] See and…
[3] Note the enthusiastic endorsements reported here, and the more cautious welcome offered by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[5] Perhaps ensuring this by making sure any such projects are based on partnering with organisations working with models of real community empowerment – models such as Church Action on Poverty’s ChangeMakers initiative…
[6] Jürgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology – Ways and Forms of Christian Theology (Fortress 2000) p.xx
[8] Anthony Reddie, ‘People Matter Too: The Politics and Method of doing Black Liberation Theology’ Practical Theology, issue 1, No.1, pages 43-64.
[9] See for instance the extremely interesting programme for a Radical Economic policy that challenges both the idolatry of the worship of the market in the austerity programme and the limited mantra for growth from the opposition in… and also from Green Party MP Caroline Lucas at…

The initial signatories of this statement are:

* Al Barrett, Anglican vicar, Parish of Hodge Hill, Birmingham
* Anthony Reddie, Methodist preacher, Research Fellow in Black Theology, Queens Theological Foundation Birmingham, author of Black Theology, Slavery & Contemporary Christianity, and editor of Black Theology journal
* Chris Howson, Anglican priest at Soul Space, Bradford, and author of A Just Church: 21st Century Liberation Theology in Action
* Chris Shannahan, Methodist minister, Research Fellow in Urban Theology, Birmingham University, and author of ‘ Power to the People: A Theology of Community Organising’
* David Torevell, Associate Professor, Department of Theology, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Liverpool Hope University
* Gary Hall, Methodist minister and Tutor in Practical Theology, Queen’s Theological Foundation, Birmingham, and Co-ordinator of the Open Horizon anti-trafficking group
* Keith Hebden, Anglican priest, St Katherine’s Church Matson, and editor of ‘A Pinch of Salt’ magazine
* Lisa Isherwood FRSA, Director of the Institute for Theological Partnerships, University of Winchester, and executive editor of Feminist Theology journal
* Ray Gaston, Anglican and Methodist minister, Inter-Faith tutor and enabler at Queen’s Theological Foundation and Birmingham Methodist District; author of A Heart Broken Open – Radical Faith in an Age of Fear
* Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, writer and theologian, former assistant general secretary of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
* Steven Shakespeare, Anglican priest; Lecturer in Philosophy, Department of Theology, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Liverpool Hope University, and author of Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Introduction
* Tim Gorringe, Anglican priest, Professor of Theology, Exeter University, and author of The Common Good and the Global Emergency
* Zoe Bennett, Director of Postgraduate Studies in Pastoral Theology at the Cambridge Theological Federation and editor of Practical Theology journal

If you would like to be a signatory to the statement and become a supporter of the Common Wealth network, email your details to:

Further signatories are recorded here:

This statement is also downloadable on the Common Wealth site as a Word document through Google Documents (…).


Additional resources:

Ekklesia news and analysis of the cuts ( and the Autumn Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review (

Towards an Economy Worth Believing In (2009) –

Is God bankrupt? – a response to a British and Irish churches’ report on ‘prosperity with a purpose’ (2006) –

Where is the Church of England’s heart invested? (2009) –

Big society, small cash? by Vaughan Jones –

Debtonation: the global financial crisis (political economist Ann Pettifor) –

ToUChstone (TUC cuts watch) –

Countering the cuts myths (Red Pepper) –

New Economic Foundation –

The Green New Deal: to tackle the ‘triple crunch’ of climate change, economic crisis and oil depletion –

Sabbath Economics: investing in community and an alternative economy –

Robin Hood Tax campaign –

Church Action on Poverty (CAP) and ChangeMakers –

Oikocredit: microfinance to support the poor and social justice –

Coalition of Resistance –

No ‘Shock Doctrine for Britain –

Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ) –

GND Group –


(c) Common Wealth, 2010. See: This statement is reproduced under a Creative Commons arrangement (see below).

Keywords: alternative economics | common wealth | comprehensive spending review | cuts | government cuts | kingdom of god | radical christianity | radical christians

Posted in UKComments Off on Is The Big Society Zio-Freemasons or Zionist Dick Atkinson Lie?

Shoah’s pages