Archive | July 28th, 2018

Venezuela will refine gold in Turkey to protect reserves from US sanctions

Venezuela will refine gold in Turkey to protect reserves from US sanctions
The Central Bank of Venezuela will start refining gold in Turkey to avoid US sanctions –  penalties that deter the country from carrying out banking operations in Switzerland, according to the Venezuelan mining minister.

“This is an agreement established with Turkey and the Venezuelan central bank,” Victor Cano told journalists. “It’s being done by allied countries because imagine what would happen if we sent gold to Switzerland and we are told that it has to stay there because of sanctions.”

Venezuela’s central bank has been purchasing gold from small miners in the south of the country and then refining the precious metal to use as monetary gold. So far Caracas has been seeking to shore up its international reserves which have plunged as Venezuela struggles with the country’s worst-ever economic crisis.



‘Hand of Faith’, ‘The Great Triangle’ & more: World’s 5-largest gold nuggets that haven’t been melted down 

World’s 5 largest gold nuggets that haven’t been melted down — RT Business News

Gold has been an attractive asset throughout much of human history. Today’s investors use it as a safe haven against market volatility. But where did gold mining start and what does the precious…


Cano didn’t specify which Turkish firms are participating and how much gold would be refined by them. However, the minister said that Venezuela had bought 9.1 tons of gold from small miners in 2018.  After being refined in Turkey the gold is taken back to Venezuela to become part of the central bank’s portfolio of assets.

Venezuela is currently the subject to numerous sanctions imposed by Washington, which accuses the Venezuelan government of violating human rights and undermining democracy. US citizens are currently banned from buying newly-issued debt from Venezuela and its state-owned companies. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called the penalties “economic war” against Caracas.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Venezuela will refine gold in Turkey to protect reserves from US sanctions

The God of ‘Israel’ Is a Bloodthirsty?

The God of Israel Is a Bloodthirsty, Vindictive Sociopath – Does This Explain the Misanthropy of the Jews?

‘“The finest trick of the devil, Charles Baudelaire wrote, is to persuade you that he does not exist”. Perhaps he was mistaken. His finest trick, I believe, is to convince the world that he is God.’

Laurent Guyénot is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018  ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, PO 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556). RI published a review of it in June, 2018: Small Minority of Jews Are the Real ‘Jewish Question’ – Laurent Guyenot’s Important New Book


This article follows and concludes a series of four articles I wrote recently for the Saker blog. In the first one, “How Biblical is Zionism?” (reproduced under a different title on Russia Insider), I wrote: “When Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the (Hebrew) Bible, we should take them seriously and study the (Hebrew) Bible.” In the second one, How Zionist is the New Word Order?

I explained that Zionism was never a nationalist movement like others; insofar as it is rooted in the biblical narrative, it contained from the outset a plan for world domination. In the third article, “Who the Hell is the Prince of this World?” I contended that the core characteristic of the biblical ideology—and the best-kept secret of Judaism—is its materialistic anthropology, best summarized by American rabbi Harry Waton: “the only immortality there is for the Jew is the immortality in the Jewish people.” In the fourth article, “Is Israel a Psychopath?”

I argued that “Israel is the psychopath among nations, and that means a tremendous capacity to manipulate, intimidate, corrupt morally, and get what they want.” In this fifth and final part, I wish to address once again the issue of the biblical root of Jewishness, by arguing that the psychopathic behavior of Israel—understood both as a national state and as an international organized community—is the end result of the psychopathic “personality” of the Jewish God portrayed in the Bible.

Let me first state that I take no pleasure in offending anybody’s religious faith. Some Christians tell me that I do not read the Old Testament correctly, through New Testament glasses. My answer is: read it as you like, and convert the Jews to your reading if you can.

My purpose is to explain how the Jews, by whom and for whom it was written, have been reading it for more than a hundred generations, and how it has shaped their worldview, and continues to shape the worldview of many elite Jews. I understand and even empathize with Christians’ difficulty to engage in this effort, but I believe there will be no lasting cure from the corrupting influence of international Jewry without unprejudiced etiological inquiry.

To assess correctly the underlying ideology of the Hebrew Tanakh and its influence on those who hold it as their “roman national”, requires that we put aside the notion that it was inspired by “God” in any way, for this notion induces a cognitive dissonance which impairs our rational and moral judgment.

In fact, we should perhaps renounce looking at the Hebrew Bible as a religious book, because the category of “religion” fails to account for its strong influence on non-religious Jews. As I have shown in “How Biblical is Zionism?” most Israeli leaders, from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu, are non-religious, but their worldview is profoundly biblical nonetheless.

The biblical outlook is the essence of Jewishness, of which Nahum Goldman said that it is impossible to decide if it “consists first of belonging to a people or practicing a religion, or the two together.”i This ambivalence is strategic: it is used by organized Jewry to ward off criticism by qualifying it either as anti-Semitic or as an assault on religious freedom, depending on the circumstance.

We should not fall into this trap. What I am dealing here is biblical ideology. Whether this ideology should be categorized as religious is irrelevant. Any idea, any ideology may be criticized, no matter how sacred or ancient it is held to be. And since the first victims of a toxic idea are the men and women who believe it, they are the first who need to be enlightened on its toxicity.

The most appropriate category to understand both the Torah and Jewishness is not “religion” but “covenant” (berit in Hebrew, meaning also treaty or oath of allegiance). The foundation of Jewishness is the Mosaic Covenant. While religious Jews consider it a covenant of Jews with God, non-religious elite Jews such as members of the B’nai B’rith (“Children of the Covenant”) or the Alliance Israélite Universelle, regard it as simply a covenant between the Jews themselves. That is why Jewishness could so easily shift from being defined as an oath of allegiance to Yahweh, to being today indistinguishable from an oath of allegiance to Israel.

The Jealous One

Ancient Egyptians believed that “the gods are social beings, living and acting in ‘constellations,’” wrote German Egyptologist Jan Assmann.ii Yahweh, on the other hand, is “the Jealous One” (Exodus 34:14). He is a solitary god who manifests toward all other gods an implacable intolerance that characterizes him as a sociopath among his peers. Egyptians tried to explain this aggressive exclusiveness of Jewish religion by identifying the Jewish god with Seth, the evil god of the desert, famine, disorder and war, who had been banished by the council of the gods after having murdered his elder brother Osiris out of jealousy.iii

From the third millennium BCE onward, nations founded their diplomacy and foreign trade on their capacity to match their gods, thus acknowledging that they were living not only on the same earth, but under the same heavens. “Contracts with other states,” explains Jan Assmann, “had to be sealed by oath, and the gods to whom this oath was sworn had to be compatible.

Tables of divine equivalences were thus drawn up that eventually correlated up to six different pantheons.” But Yahweh could not be matched up with any other god; his priests forbade doing so. “Whereas polytheism, or rather ‘cosmotheism,’ rendered different cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion [Yahwism] blocked intercultural translatability.”iv And when Yahweh directed his people, “You will make no pact with them or with their gods” (Exodus 23:32), or “Do not utter the names of their gods, do not swear by them, do not serve them and do not bow down to them” (Joshua 23:7), he was in effect preventing any relationship of trust and fairness with the neighboring peoples.

Yahweh taught the Hebrews contempt for the deities of their neighbors, making them, in the eyes of these neighbors, a “race hated by the gods” (Tacitus), and therefore a threat to the cosmic and social order. For, wrote Tacitus (and that was long before the Talmud), the Jews show a “stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies” (Histories V.3–5).

Not other nation, in fact, treated its enemies as are said to have done the Hebrews in biblical times. The war code of Deuteronomy 20, which commands to exterminate “any living thing” in nearby conquered cities, and which was applied to the people of Jericho (Joshua 6:21) and to the Amalekites (1Samuel 15:3)—whereas among the Midianites were spared, as booty, the “young girls who have never slept with a man” (Numbers 31:18)—is unheard of in other nations’ archives.

The Assyrians, whose god Assur was no angel, did not slaughter the Israelites, but deported and resettled them, and the Babylonians did the same to the Judeans, who were even allowed to keep their tradition and their cohesion, and to prosper on the riverbanks of the Euphrates.

Yahweh is the most cruel of all national and military gods, even by the standards of biblical time. But Yahweh would have us believe that all other gods, not him, are abominations that need to be eradicated from the face of the earth. It all started with Assur. Yahweh’s jealousy really became pathological after the destruction of Israel by Assyria. In the oldest strata of the book of Isaiah, composed around that time, we hear Yahweh unable to cope with the frustration and humiliation, and consumed with the lust of vengeance:

“Yahweh Sabaoth has sworn it, ‘Yes, what I have planned will take place, what I have decided will be so: I shall break Assyria [Assur] in my country, I shall trample on him on my mountains. Then his yoke will slip off them, his burden will slip from their shoulders. This is the decision taken in defiance of the whole world; this, the hand outstretched in defiance of all nations. Once Yahweh Sabaoth has decided, who will stop him? Once he stretches out his hand, who can withdraw it?’” (14:24–27).

Listen to Yahweh raging after his defeat, and you hear a narcissistic megalomaniac:

“By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word: All shall bend the knee to me, by me every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:23)

Children of the sociopathic god

In the Bible, the fate of the Jewish people is linked exclusively to the criterion of their obedience to Yahweh’s covenant, which includes prohibition of any alliance with the people inhabiting the promised land, and the destruction of their sanctuaries (Exodus 34:12-13). Every reversal of fortune is explained by a breach of contract on the part of the people, and serves to strengthen the submission of the people. When a hostile people attacks the Hebrews, it is never because of what the Hebrews did to them, but because of the Hebrews’ infidelity to Yahweh. In Kevin MacDonald’s words:

“The idea that Jewish suffering results from Jews straying from their own law occurs almost like a constant drumbeat throughout the Tanakh—a constant reminder that the persecution of Jews is not the result of their own behavior vis-à-vis Gentiles but rather the result of their behavior vis-à-vis God.”v

It is important to recognize that, in the Bible, the first victims of Yahweh’s violence are the Jews themselves. Deuteronomy orders the stoning of any parent, son, brother, or wife who “tries secretly to seduce you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ […] since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.” Worse still, Yahweh orders the complete slaughter and burning of any town where such “scoundrels from your own stock […] have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods.’” For that is “what is right in the eyes of Yahweh your God” (Deuteronomy 13:7–19).

When some Israelites married Moabite women, who “invited them to the sacrifices of their gods,” “Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them facing the sun, for Yahweh’” (Numbers 25:1-4).

Those Jews who socialized with their neighbors rather than slaughtering them, who ate with them, who intermarried with them, and who, while doing all this, showed respect to their gods, are the dregs of the Jewish people, according to the Bible. This is how Jews have been taught to see things for a hundred generations (and Christians too, for that matter).

The biblical message is, in essence: “Do not socialize with idolaters (non-Jews), despise their traditions, and—if possible—exploit them, enslave them, and exterminate them. If, after that, they violate you, it is your fault: you have not obeyed scrupulously enough.” Such is the insane cognitive logic, internalized over 25 centuries, that encloses the Jews in the infernal dilemma of election and persecution.

This mode of thinking is based on the denial of the other’s humanity, which is indeed the essence of psychopathy. It does not occur to the psychopath to question the feelings of the other in order to try to understand his anger, because the other is fundamentally an object and not a person: his motivations are irrelevant. Never does the Jewish community take into account the grievances of its persecutors. Its elites forbid it.

To his chosen people, the biblical Yahweh is behaving as a psychopath preventing his only son from building nurturing bonds with others, in order to keep total control over him and make him an extension of himself. If such a psychopath father succeeds, his son will find no comfort, no substitute parent figure, and therefore no lever of resilience.

He will be trained to perceive all generous attention as a threat, any gesture of sympathy as an aggression. All around him he will learn to see only potential enemies. Yahweh convinces the Jews that all non-Jews who wish to be their friends are in fact their worst enemies; that any confidence in Gentiles leads only to disaster. The cultic and food prohibitions are there to prevent any socialization outside the tribe. “I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine” (Leviticus 20:26).

Strict endogamy is the central command, and it is directly linked to Yahweh’s demand for exclusive worship. After the conquest of Canaan, it was forbidden to marry one’s children to the natives, “for your son would be seduced from following me into serving other gods; the wrath of Yahweh would blaze out against you and he would instantly destroy you” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).

In the ancient world, marriage required the mutual adoption of each other’s gods, or at least their cohabitation in the same household. This does not pose a problem to the extent that the gods are social beings who accept each other. But the god of the Hebrews is a jealous god, who tolerates no other. Although most Zionists pretend to be atheists, the fundamental rule has not changed, because it is the essence of Jewishness. To intermarry is, according to Benzion Netanyahu, father of the Israeli prime minister, equivalent to “an act of suicide.”vi What better proof do we need that the Israeli elite think biblically?

We need a revisionist approach to biblical history. It portrays all other nations than Israel as repulsive idolaters. But they were not. The abominable Egyptians had built the first great civilization; they had introduced wheat growing to the world. They were a peaceful and highly spiritual people. So were the Canaanites. Whenever the biblical Israelites resisted Yahweh’s antisocial order to keep separate from them, they are called “stiff-necked.”

But should we not feel sympathy for those rebellious Jews, who tried to befriend their neighbors, and assimilate into the civilizations that hosted them? What about those Jews who resist Yahweh’s orders to kill men, women and children indiscriminately? How should we judge King Saul, who was deposed for sparing one man? If we insist that Yahweh is God, how can we criticize the Jews of today for their strong communitarian loyalty? They learned it from the Bible!

Are Yahweh and Molech the same?

A quick look at Yahweh’s unauthorized biography by biblical scholars will enlighten us on his personality. Long before he claimed to be the Creator of the Universe—that is, long before Genesis was written—Yahweh was a local and tribal god attached to Mound Sinai (also called Horeb), located in Midian, north-west Arabia, according to Exodus 2 (and not in Egypt, as the Roman church would locate it in the 4th century, despite the fact that even saint Paul knew that “Mount Sinai is in Arabia” Galatians 4:25).

This region is volcanic, with eruptions recorded up to the Middle Ages, and Mount Sinai is clearly a volcano: when Yahweh spoke to Moses on the mountain, others only perceived “peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, dense cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast. […] Mount Sinai was entirely wrapped in smoke, because Yahweh had descended on it in the form of fire.

The smoke rose like smoke from a furnace and the whole mountain shook violently. Louder and louder grew the trumpeting. Moses spoke, and God answered him in the thunder” (Exodus 19:16-19).vii Yahweh would never totally forget his volcanic background. He remained “a consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24), especially in apocalyptic literature: in the Last Days, “glowing like a furnace,” Yahweh will “set ablaze” all evil-doers, “leaving them neither root nor branch” (Malachi 3:19).

Yahweh retained other primitive traits. He is known as the God who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, but then held back his hand and satisfied himself with a ram (Genesis 22). He has therefore been compared favorably with the Canaanite god Molech, to whom firstborn infants were said to be ritually sacrificed. But biblical scholars like Thomas Römer believe that Molech was in fact none other than Yahweh himself.

The name mlk, vocalized as Molech in the Masoretic text (the 9th century Tanakh which first introduced vowels into the Hebrew script), but Melech in the Greek Septuagint, is identical to the Hebrew word for “king”, applied more than fifty times to Yahweh and used to form such Hebrew names as Abimelech (“Melech is my father”) in Genesis 20:2 or Elimelech (“Melech is my god”) in Ruth 1:2.

Some psalms contain the acclamation Yahweh melech, “Yahweh is king,” still in use in Jewish religious songs. The Leviticus verses which prohibit infant sacrifice indirectly testify that they were done in Yahweh’s name and in Yahweh’s sanctuary: “You will not allow any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am Yahweh” (18:21); “Anyone, be he Israelite or alien resident in Israel, who gives any of his children to Molech, will be put to death. […] for by giving a child of his to Molech he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name” (20:2-5). Jeremiah 7:30-31 confirms that “the people of Judah” continued “to burn their sons and daughters […] in the Temple that bears my name, to defile it.”

Although Yahweh declares it to be “a thing I never ordered, that had never entered my thoughts,” the very fact that a scribe wrote this indicates, according to Thomas Römer, that the people who sacrificed their children did claim it was required by Yahweh. It is only in the Persian era that human sacrifices became taboo, and that they were dissociated from the cult of Yahweh.viii Nevertheless, Israelites are portrayed as believing in their efficiency, for when the Moabites (Israelites’ relatives as descendants of Abraham’s nephew) were besieged by the Israelites, the king of Moab “took his eldest son who was to succeed him and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. Alarmed at this, the Israelites withdrew and retired to their own territory” (2 Kings 3:26-27).

Is the Mosaic Alliance satanic?

The Exodus story probably reflects a very ancient and sacred tradition regarding the origin of the Mosaic covenant. This covenant, or alliance, was sealed with a ritual sacrifice: altars were built at the foot of Mount Horeb, and oxen were killed as “communion sacrifices”. “Moses then took half the blood and put it into basins, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar.” After reading the “Book of the Covenant,” he “took the blood and sprinkled it over the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you, entailing all these stipulations’” (Exodus 24:4-8). As orientalist William Robertson Smith has shown, this manner of sealing in blood an alliance between tribes, or an oath of loyalty to a chief, was common in pre-Islamic Arabia.ix

The “Book of the Covenant” mentioned in Exodus refers to the complex code of laws that the Hebrews are to follow, which is detailed in the rest of the Torah (Pentateuch). Moses’s speeches in Deuteronomy give us the basic terms of the covenant. When reading it, we should keep in mind that, at this stage of the story, Yahweh is not believed to be God; he has only introduced himself to Moses as “the god of your ancestors” (Exodus 3:6).

“Today you have obtained this declaration from Yahweh: that he will be your god, but only if you follow his ways, keep his statutes, his commandments, his customs, and listen to his voice. And today Yahweh has obtained this declaration from you: that you will be his own people—as he has said—but only if you keep all his commandments; then for praise and renown and honour, he will raise you higher than every other nation he has made, and you will be a people consecrated to Yahweh, as he has promised.” (26:17-19)

“Yahweh will make you abound in possessions: in the offspring of your body, in the yield of your cattle and in the yield of your soil, in the country which he swore to your ancestors that he would give you. For you Yahweh will open his treasury of rain, the heavens, to give your country its rain at the right time, and to bless all your labours. You will make many nations your subjects, yet you will be subject to none.” (28:11-12)

What Yahweh promises is material prosperity, to the detriment of other peoples. On this point, the Tanakh is remarkably consistent: “You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (Isaiah 60:16); “the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be heaped together: gold, silver, clothing, in vast quantity” (Zechariah 14:14). Spiritual rewards are not part of the bargain.

In fact, if we remember that Yahweh taught the Jews that they have no individual souls (read my article “Who the Hell is the Prince of this World?”), which is tantamount to claiming their souls for himself, we can say that the Mosaic covenant has the nature of a Faustian pact: Israel will obtain every worldly success in exchange of his soul: “you, out of all peoples, shall be my personal possession” (Exodus 19:5).

It is instructive to compare Yahweh’s promise to his people that they will rule over “every other nation in the world” if only they “faithfully obey the voice of Yahweh your God, by keeping and observing all his commandments” (Deuteronomy 28:1), with Satan’s bargain with Jesus in Matthew 4:8-10: “the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’”

At the least, it is hard to see what distinguishes Yahweh from Mammon (a personification of Wealth in Matthew 6:24), when he shows himself possessed by greed for precious metals: “I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will flow in, and I shall fill this Temple with glory, says Yahweh Sabaoth. Mine is the silver, mine the gold! Yahweh Sabaoth declares” (Haggai 2:7–8). This can be contrasted with Jesus’s admonition “store up treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:20–21), which is totally foreign to Yahwism.

Yahweh against Baal

Yahweh alone is the true god, he says, whereas all other gods are demons. This is called blame shifting and is typical of psychopaths. We need to see through it and break the spell.

Let us take an unprejudiced look at Baal, Yahweh’s most formidable rival in the Bible. In the Books of Kings, Baal is presented as a foreign god imported by Jezebel, the Phoenician wife of Ahab (1Kings 16:31–32). But Baal was actually worshipped all over Syria long before Yahweh was imported from the semi-desert lands south of Judah.xBaal Shamem, the “Heavenly Lord,” was identified as the God of Heaven and his worship transcended ethnic boundaries.xi So it is ironic that Yahweh, the god of the Jews exclusively, should compete with him for the status of supreme God.

The Cycle of Elijah (from 1 Kings17 to 2 Kings 13) admits that the cult of Baal received royal support in the powerful kingdom of Israel under the Omrid dynasty (9th century BCE). The priests of Yahweh condemned Baal worship, and the biblical tale shows Elijah challenging 450 prophets of Baal to conjure lightning upon the burnt offering of a bull: “You must call on the name of your god, and I shall call on the name of Yahweh; the god who answers with fire, is God indeed.” The prophets of Baal exhaust themselves by shouting to their god, performing “their hobbling dance” and gashing themselves with swords and spears, with no result, while Yahweh sets fire to Elijah’s bull after Elijah has drenched it with twelve jars of water to spice up the challenge.

People then fall on their faces and scream “Yahweh is God!” Then they seize all the prophets of Baal, and Elijah slaughters them (1Kings 18). Thus was proven Yahweh’s superiority, in a showdown worthy of Hollywood. Elijah, however, had to flee retaliation and walked 40 days to Mount Horeb, where after a hurricane, an earthquake and a fire eruption, he received the word of Yahweh. He was to go back to Israel and anoint the general Jehu who, after a coup against the Omrid king in 842 BCE, would first promote the cult of Yahweh in the kingdom of Israel.

Baal was for the Syrians what Osiris was for the Egyptians: both god of fertility and lord of the dead. So Baal worship was associated with the afterlife and what is presented pejoratively as necromancy.xii Such religious beliefs and practices had also strong connections with the symbol of the serpent, associated to the ambivalent nature of death. We are told that the Israelites worshiped and offered sacrifices to a bronze serpent called Nehushtan, supposedly built by Moses, until the great king Hezekiah “smashed” it (2 Kings 18:4).

In Genesis, the serpent has undergone an inversion, as part of the campaign to demonize other religions: when the serpent offers to the first humans the means of “having their eyes opened and be like gods” (Genesis 3:5), it borrows the language of initiatory mysteries meant to acquire immortality; but the Yahwist scribes present him as a liar. As a result, the idea of trying to become like gods passes today as Luciferian, although the Greek fathers of the Christian Church stressed man’s potential for deification (theosis) under the logic that God became man so that man might become a god.xiii

The Queen of Heaven

Yahweh’s hatred for Baal is matched only by his repulsion for Asherah, the Great Goddess worshipped throughout the Mediterranean world under many names. Under the name of Ishtar, she was the “Queen of all the inhabited places, who keeps the people in order,” according to a Mesopotamian anthem.xiv Asherah and Ishtar were also identified to the Egyptian Isis, sister-spouse of Osiris, the “myrionyme” goddess (“of ten thousand names”), who calls herself the “Queen of Heaven” in Apuleius’s novel The Golden Ass, and declares: “My name, my divinity is adored throughout all the world in diverse manners, in variable customs and in many names.”xv More than Baal, the Queen of Heaven (a title which would later be inherited by Christ’s mother) was a truly universal deity, with no “chosen people”, and that is perhaps the deeper reason of Yahweh’s hatred towards her.

In chapter 44 of the Book of Jeremiah, Yahweh declared to the Judeans who had fled to Egypt, that the destruction of Jerusalem was his punishment for their “wicked deeds […] committed to provoke my anger, by going and offering incense and serving other gods” (44:2-3). Yahweh, said his spokesman Jeremiah, could not bear the smell of incense offered to other gods (what he liked is the “pleasing smell” of carbonized animal offerings called holocausts, as we know from Genesis 8:21). Yahweh threatens the Judeans exiles in Egypt with complete extermination if they persist.

Unimpressed, they responded to Jeremiah: “We have no intention of listening to the word you have just spoken to us in Yahweh’s name, but intend to go on doing all we have vowed to do: offering incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring libations in her honour, as we used to do, we and our ancestors, our kings and our chief men, in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem: we had food in plenty then, we lived well, we suffered no disasters. But since we gave up offering incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring libations in her honour, we have been destitute and have perished either by sword or by famine” (44:16-18).

Why not lend a friendly ear to those Judeans’ alternative interpretation of the fall of Jerusalem: it is not because they worshipped other gods than Yahweh that their plight started, but on the contrary because, since the reform of Josiah, they gave up worshipping the Queen of Heaven. For what reason, other than ancestral habit, should we believe Jeremiah and his Deuteronomistic scribes?

In fact, we know they were wrong. Josiah’s grandfather Manasseh is loathed for having done “what is displeasing to Yahweh, copying the disgusting practices of the nations whom Yahweh had dispossessed for the Israelites. He rebuilt the high places that his father Hezekiah had destroyed, he set up altars to Baal and made a sacred pole [an Ashera], as Ahab king of Israel had done, he worshiped the whole array of heaven and served it. […]

He built altars to the whole array of heaven in the two courts of the Temple of Yahweh” (2 Kings 21:2–5). But historians tell us today that Manasseh’s 55-year reign, when the Queen of Heaven was worshipped inside the Jerusalem temple, was a time of peace and prosperity.

It is Josiah, Manasseh’s grandson, who brought disaster to Judea, by removing from the temple “all the cult objects which had been made for Baal, Asherah and the whole array of heaven. […] He exterminated the spurious priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed and who offered sacrifice on the high places, in the towns of Judah and the neighborhood of Jerusalem; also those who offered sacrifice to Baal, to the sun, the moon, the constellations and the whole array of heaven” (2Kings 23:4–5). In Samaria, over which he regained partial control, Josiah ordered the sanctuary of Bethel destroyed, and “All the priests of the high places who were there he slaughtered on the altars, and on those altars burned human bones” (2 Kings 23:20). It was Josiah’s reign that was to provoke Babylonian anger and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem.

The Jewish Question is the Biblical Question

According to the biblical paradigm, the Creator of the Universe became the God of Israel when he chose the Hebrews. But according to biblical scholarship, the historical process was the reverse: it is the god of Israel who became the Creator of the Universe. This process, which was only completed during the Persian period, was not so much due to a progress in metaphysical thought as to a political cunning. The book of Ezra betrays a calculated effort from the Levites to confuse, in the mind of the Persians, “the god of Israel who resides in Jerusalem” (7:12–15) with the “God of heaven” whom the Persians also called Ahura Mazda, with the aim of obtaining the support of the Persian king for their theocratic project in Palestine.

In Ezra, only the kings of Persia, in the various edicts attributed to them, recognize Yahweh as “the God of Heaven,” while in the rest of the text, Yahweh is merely “the god of Israel”. The same can be observed in the book of Daniel, when Nebuchadnezzar, impressed by the gifts of Daniel’s oracle, prostrates himself and exclaims: “Your god is indeed the God of gods, the Master of kings” (Daniel 2:47). Such passages give away, for those willing to see it, the deepest secret of Judaism, which is the key to understanding the relationship of Judaism to universalism: Yahweh is really the god of the Jews, while Gentiles are led to believe that he is the supreme and only God. “In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew,” confirms Maurice Samuel in You Gentiles(1924).xvi

This secret is not a fully conscious thought for most Jews, it is more like a family secret running unconsciously through generations. Nevertheless, it is the binding force of the Jewish people, and I am reminded of Carl Jung’s remark that secrets “are of vital importance on the primitive level, for the shared secret serves as a cement binding the tribe together. Secrets on the tribal level constitute a helpful compensation for lack of cohesion in the individual personality.”xvii

As he usurped the majesty of the Heavenly Father of all mankind, Yahweh in no way lost his character as a military god bent on looting and slaughtering the enemies of his only chosen people. Against the Babylonians, his sword is expected to “devour until gorged, until drunk with their blood” (Jeremiah 46:10). Against the Edomites, “it is greasy with fat” (Isaiah 34:6).

If Yahweh had remained a tribal god from the desert, he would simply be recognized as particularly primitive and cruel, perhaps a demon escaped from hell though an Arabian volcano. But his successful claim to be honored as the true and only God is the biggest sham in human history, and a civilizational disaster of incomparable magnitude.

It is ultimately responsible for the spread of atheism in the West. As long as Christians were discouraged from reading the Old Testament, they were not much disturbed by it. As soon as it became widely available, it started corroding Christianity. Philosophers like Voltaire had an easy job denigrating Christianity by quoting the Old Testament: “Never was common sense attacked with so much indecency and fury” (Sermon of the Fifty). Rather without God than with such a God, became the logical and morally decent thinking.

“The finest trick of the devil, Charles Baudelaire wrote, is to persuade you that he does not exist” (Paris Spleen). Perhaps he was mistaken. His finest trick, I believe, is to convince the world that he is God.

i Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976 (, p. 9.

ii Jan Assmann, Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism, University of Wisconsin Press, 2008, p. 47.

iii According to an Egyptian legend recorded by Plutarch (Isis and Osiris), Seth wandered in Palestine where he fathered two sons, Hierosolymos and Youdaios, that is, “Jerusalem” and “Judah”. Tacitus and other historians also mention rumors that the Jerusalem Temple harbored a golden donkey’s head, the donkey being the symbol of Seth.

iv Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 3.

v Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, e. 6187–89.

vi Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938)Balfour Books, 2012k. 2203–7.

vii The volcanic nature of Mount Sinai and its location in Arabia were first argued by Charles Beke in Mount Sinai a Volcano (1873) and in Sinai in Arabia and of Midian(1878). It is today largely accepted by biblical scholars, and has been popularized in books and films by adventurers such as Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams. Read also Howard Blum The Gold of Exodus: The Discovery of the True Mount Sinai, Simon & Schuster, 1998.

viii Thomas Römer, The Invention of God, Harvard UP, 2015. I read the original French version, L’Invention de Dieu, Seuil, 2017, pp. 181-183.

ix William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundametal Institutions, A&C Black, 3rd ed., 1927, p. 314, quoted in Thomas Römer, L’Invention de Dieu, op. cit., p. 112.

x Thomas Römer, L’invention de Dieu, op; cit., pp. 71-93.

xi Norman Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures, Bookman Associates, 1964, p. 41.

xii Klass Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1986, pp. 344–345.

xiii John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, Fordham University Press, 1974.

xiv Gérard Chaliand, Les Voix du Sacré, Robert Laffont, 1992, p. 32.

xv Françoise Dunand, Isis, mère des dieux, Actes Sud, 2008, p. 232.

xvi Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, New York, 1924 (, pp. 74–75.

xvii Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflexions, Pantheon Books, 1963, p. 342.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The God of ‘Israel’ Is a Bloodthirsty?

Canadian Woman Visits Germany, Questions Holocaust, Gets Tossed in the Slammer

“B’nai Brith, a Canadian Jewish supremacist group, alerted an intermediary in Germany who then went to police about the video, said Aidan Fishman, a director with the organization.”


Editor’s Note: Back in May we brought you what we thought was a very entertaining article about Granny Haverbeck, a 90 year old German grandma who was thrown into prison for questioning the Holocaust: Holocaust-Doubting Grandma Hunted Down by Fearless German Crime Fighters (full text of her video). It got a lot of views and a huge number of comments. Definitely worth checking out. Now another not exactly young woman, this time a visitor to Germany, gets a taste of Germany’s deep-cuck, far left justice system. Meanwhile, more and more people are doubting that the holocaust every happened.

Imprisoned in Germany: Canadian Woman on Trial in Munich for Questioning the Holocaust

If Albertan Monika Schaefer is convicted, she faces up to five years in prison.

Jasper, Alberta. A woman who denied the Holocaust in at least one video posted on YouTube is on trial at a criminal courthouse in Munich.

Monika Schaefer, 59, and her 63-year-old German-Canadian brother, Alfred Schaefer, who lives near Munich, are being tried together for Volksverhetzung, which officially translates in English from the German Criminal Code as “incitement to hatred,” said court spokesperson Florian Gliwitzky in an email to CBC News on Friday.

Ms. Schaeffer is a crunchy granola-eating German-Canadian who likes to play her violin while wondering if the 6 million figure is true.

“Both are under suspicion, that they published video clips, in which they denied the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II,” Gliwitzky said.

The siblings’ trial began Monday this week and continued Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. It is scheduled to continue July 12, 13 and 16. If found guilty, the German sentence for the crime ranges from a fine up to five years in prison.

Imprisoned in Germany after being ‘snatched or ‘kidnapped’ by German police.

LD:  A correspondent (in a round robin email) says he is “baffled”  at Germany taking the law into its own hands. He writes:

Dear All,

It is my understanding that Ms. Schaefer is being prosecuted in Germany for statements made in Canada. I’m baffled. I don’t understand how a statement made in Canada can be prosecuted in a nation other than Canada. Do the Germans have worldwide criminal jurisdiction? I really doubt that.

If I committed a crime in Germany, the U.S. and Germany could extradite me and put me before a German court. But the U.S. court would not be able to prosecute me.

Do I have it wrong? Did some part of what is charged against the Schaefers occur in Germany? Or have the Germans declared themselves the cops of the world?

Monika Schaefer gained fame in July 2016 after appearing in a YouTube video in which she described the Holocaust as the “biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history.” She expressed her view that six million Jewish people did not die at the hands of Germany.

At least one hate speech complaint was filed against her with the Alberta and Canadian human rights commissions. ​

B’nai Brith, a Canadian Jewish supremacist group, alerted an intermediary in Germany who then went to police about the video, said Aidan Fishman, a director with the organization. He said that when Schaefer visited the country, she would have been on their radar.

German freelance photojournalist Anne Wild, who contracts with organizations that monitor patriotic organizations’ activity, recalled Monika Schaefer’s arrest in January at the trial of convicted German Holocaust revisionist, Sylvia Stolz. Since then, Monika Schaefer has been imprisoned in Germany.

‘An outrageous incident’

Wild, one of the accredited press representatives, attended the Schaefer siblings’ trial in a low-level criminal court for three days this week. She said it was the first time she has attended the trial of a foreigner for “incitement of hatred.”

Wild said the duo had about 15 supporters showing up on a regular basis.

“There was an incident right at the beginning that was really sort of horrible,” Wild said. “When Alfred Schaefer was brought into the room, and he was joined by his sister who was brought in, he showed the Nazi salute three times in a row. This is really an outrageous incident in the courtroom. His sister, she was laughing at it, she was laughing.”

Wild said Alfred Schaefer has been vocal throughout the trial so far, telling the court he appreciated sharing his views. Monika Schaefer has been quiet, only speaking when spoken to and smiling every so often at her supporters, she said.

Born in Canada of German heritage, Monika Schaefer described herself on her Facebook page as a self-employed violin instructor. She ran for the federal Green Party in Alberta’s Yellowhead riding in 2006, 2008 and 2011. She was ousted from the party after jewish outrcry over the video.

Sparse media coverage

Wild said there were only three journalists, including herself, in the courtroom. But these type of trials in Germany generally don’t get a lot of media attention, Wild said.

“Some of them think that if you cover it too much, you will just promote it. They don’t want to promote it,” she said. “It’s sort of a mixture. We have to talk about it, but we don’t want to talk too much about it.”

While Wild said denying the Holocaust in public is rare in Germany, it is a criminal offence.

She photographed a June 30 protest against the imprisonment of Holocaust revisionists.

“Still there’s a community of several thousand people who are more or less openly convinced that the Holocaust is a lie,” Wild said. But “there is a big discussion in Germany about what is opinion and what is a crime,” she added.

Posted in CanadaComments Off on Canadian Woman Visits Germany, Questions Holocaust, Gets Tossed in the Slammer

The Jewish Role in the Murder of the Last Tsar and His Family

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr


On this day in 1918, the Romanovs were butchered by bloodthirsty Bolsheviks… but why, and by whom?

“We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But without Jews, there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists have murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.” 

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Exactly a century ago, the Royal Family of Imperial Russia were brutally and most indignantly murdered by the bloodthirsty executioners of the latent Bolshevik government. This issue is largely navigated around and outright ignored for a number of reasons, most notably the origins and motivations of those who pulled the trigger.

In his penultimate book entitled Two Hundred Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn analysed the role of Jews in Russian society from the mid-eighteenth to late-twentieth century, encompassing the Imperial Period right through to the fall of the USSR. Particularly interesting to the Romanov story is the investigation into the Jewish role in the early years of the Soviet Union.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a verifiable axiom that Jews had an extremely prominent and disproportionate role in the early days of Bolshevism, being vastly over-represented in both the civilian administration and the Cheka (precurser to the NKVD – Secret Police). Both the government “committees” and the Secret Police acted with ruthless violence and an enthusiasm bordering on blood-lust and outright psychopathy against their political opponents.

Read: The Bolshevik Revolution’s Jewish Roots

The Tsar and his family fall under the category of political opponents. Seen as a symbol of the “Old Russia”, Bolshevism’s proponents despised the Romanov Family as a representation of everything they believed they were fighting against. To this end, they ensured that the Imperial Family would be destroyed without trace.

The victorious Bolsheviks did not even have the wherewithal to treat Russia’s leading family with dignity in its final days. Devoid of social graces, the savage usurpers of government botched the whole affair, as we all know; bullets flying, children clubbed to death with rifle butts, bayonet wounds and bloody hand-to-hand assaults. This barbarism demonstrates not only the incivility of Bolsheviks, but additionally the bloodthirsty enthusiasm with which they warmed to the task.

The execution of the Romanov Family was ordered by the central government in Moscow – the ruling Central Committee was 80% Jewish – and communicated to the local Soviet in Ekaterinburg. The deed itself was carried out by a squad led by Yakov Yurovsky, a brutal local Cheka commander of, surprise surprise, Jewish roots. Yurovsky had nominally converted to Lutheranism to protect himself from what he perceived as widespread antisemitism during the Tsar’s reign.

This pattern of perceived hardship followed by bloodthirsty retribution was to become all-too-familiar in pre-war Soviet Russia. One only needs to look at the Holodomor, the state-sponsored starvation of 10 million Ukrainian peasants, and other such atrocities committed against the Slavic people, to recognise this trend. Solzhenitsyn himself recognised and wrote about this phenomenon:

“…without Jews, there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists have murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”

“You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russian. They hated Russians. Driven by ethnic hatred, they tortured and murdered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators”.

Pretty strong accusations, but alas accusations supported by the clumsily hidden facts. The assassination of the Romanov Family is just another tragic example of this pattern being played out in this Imperial microcosm.

The Tsar and his family symbolised the perceived oppression and ‘antisemitism’ that the Bolsheviks so opposed, therefore it’s unsurprising that they acted with ruthless butchery against this Imperial ideogram.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on The Jewish Role in the Murder of the Last Tsar and His Family

Who Is the Scoundrel Who Leaked Secrets of Russia’s Hypersonic Weapons?

Criminal cases have been initiated, the press also has a name

Image result for Russia's Hypersonic Weapons CARTOON

A criminal case under article 275 of the criminal code — “treason” — was initiated by the Federal Security Service against employees of the Central Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering. Security officers have accused some scientists from the famous TSNIIMASH in transferring secrets of the Russian hypersonic weapons to Americans.

Five and a half years have passed since Vladimir Putin famously uttered the “This is not the 37” phrase.  In looking at high-profile criminal cases, bloggers often ask: “Why, in fact, this is not the 37th?” After all, the situation, judging by what is happening, is very similar.

Dmitry Payson, the Director of the Research and Analytical Center of the United Rocket and Space Corporation, is suspected of transmitting secret information. It was he who, according to the investigators, received secret data from the institute staff. This is what the Kommersant newspaper claims after first breaking the news.

“Field investigators check information on participation of officials in deliberate transfer of data under a signature stamp of ‘top secret’ about the Russian hypersonic projects to foreign intelligence services. It is established that the leak came from the staff of the Institute, with whom Dmitry Payson remained in close contact,” says one of the interlocutors of the Kommersant familiar with the materials of the FSB. He refused to give the names of the defendants in this case and their procedural status, citing the secrecy of the investigation.

Let us imagine that we live in the XXII century. The fragmentation of humanity has already been overcome, the planet lives in peace, all armies have been dissolved, and the phrase “treason” sounds wild and preposterous. And one day, we find in the depths of the internet, a screenshot of a news article from 80 years ago, in which it is that a respected man named Payson was an American spy. Crazy, isn’t it?

This is roughly what domestic liberals say when it comes to what happened in 1937. But Russian hypersonic weapons is a reality, no matter what some “good persons” claim otherwise. American intelligence agencies really want to get access to it, as in the last century, the Soviet intelligence agencies were looking for ways to learn about developments in the field of nuclear weapons. And as you may remember, they did.

Finally – a characteristic detail: Dmitry Payson in 2011 moved to the TSNIIMASH from the SKOLKOVO Foundation, which is being run by a red-haired gentleman, who, according to the Russian conspiracy theorists is appointed to supervise over “this country” by the globalists. And having received the current position in the United rocket and space Corporation, Payson did not quit his job at the SKOLKOVO. According to the Kommersant’s sources, a few days before the searches, Dmitry Payson was notified of the upcoming dismissal from ORC: this was due to the fact that in the organizational and staff structure of the state Corporation, formed by the new management of Roscosmos, there is no place for the research and analytical center.

When it comes to Payson and other yet unknown to us defendants in the case of treason, their guilt will be determined by the courts, if the investigation will provide convincing evidence. But I would say that this fact looks like a motive: the desire to sell some secret data before dismissal, to get a nice chunk of money for a cloudless pension?

By the way, soon after 1937 it was 1941, but, of course, God forbid.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Who Is the Scoundrel Who Leaked Secrets of Russia’s Hypersonic Weapons?

Why Venezuela’s Election Matters – It Was Under Siege by US, Canadian and EU Influence

Many Americans are angry about Russian interference in the US presidential election. Here’s what they don’t know about their country’s meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs.

By Vijay Prashad / Independent Media Institute – ALTERNET
A mural near Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela. (Comando Creativo)
A mural near Miraflores Palace in Caracas, Venezuela. (Comando Creativo)

On May 20, half the people of Venezuela went to vote. They delivered a mandate to Nicolás Maduro, the 55-year-old successor to Hugo Chávez and the leader of the Chavista movement. Maduro won 68 percent of the vote. His closest challenger, Henri Falcón, who had been a Chavista until 2010, took 21 percent of the vote. It was clear for months that Maduro would win the election. This had nothing to do with “irregularities” in the voting process, as the European Union put it. The residue of loyalty to the Chavista movement is clear. It is also clear that the opposition to Maduro and to the Chavista movement represents the oligarchy. These are not the sentinels of democracy. They are merely using the word “democracy” to return to the old ways. This is clear among Venezuela’s poor, who stick with the Chávez movement despite the privations of the current period.

Why did half of Venezuela’s population not vote? In the last presidential election—which elected Maduro—80 percent of the population voted. What is the reason for the decline? It has everything to do with a clever strategy worked out by the opposition to the Bolivarian Revolution, the revolutionary process opened up in 1998 when Hugo Chávez won the first of many elections. The opposition—and its foreign allies (particularly the government of the United States)—knows that they cannot win at the ballot box. What they have done is to encourage the United States and their fellow oligarchs in Latin America to put the Venezuelan economy under siege. The pain from this “economic war” has certainly disoriented and demoralized the Venezuelan people. At which point, still unsure about their ability to win an election, they have sought to reduce the legitimacy of the Chavista government. Hence, the opposition—backed by the oligarchs and the United States—boycotted the election. This is why only half the population voted.

The “irregularities” in this presidential election came—essentially—from outside interference in Venezuela’s political process. Many are up in arms in the United States about allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. But they are totally sanguine about the open intervention of the United States in the Venezuelan election. There has been no public criticism of the statements made by the White House—notably Vice President Mike Pence—who called the election a “fraud and a sham” weeks before the Venezuelans went to the polls.

Strikingly, the European Union—which has been so sharp in its criticism of the election—and the United Nations were both invited to send election observers, but both declined. Those international observers who did come—including former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero—have said that they did not see anything outrageously untoward in the election process. Certainly, there will be problems. No election is conducted without some measure of fraud. According to the Electoral Integrity Project—based at Harvard University and Sydney University—the United States displays the worst election performance among all Western democracies. To point to this or that example alone is hardly a good measure of a failed election. That the opposition won the 2015 parliamentary elections in Venezuela suggests that the government—even then led by Nicolás Maduro—did not fix the elections to their benefit. Why the opposition decided to boycott this election has—it seems to me—little to do with the possibility of a fair election in Venezuela and much more to do with the attempt to isolate the Venezuelan government and to set the stage for its collapse.

In January, Maduro announced that Venezuela would hold a presidential election in the coming months. Within no time at all, the United States and the European Union said that they would not recognize the election’s legitimacy. The U.S. and the EU found quick allies in the Lima Group, an intergovernmental organization of 17 states of the Americas. These 17 states—from Canada to Chile—have taken an openly hostile position not only against the government of Maduro, but against the Bolivarian process inside Venezuela and in the Bolivarian process across Latin America. Close coordination between the United States, the European Union, and the Lima Group is suggested by the similarity of the language used by their representatives.

ALBA versus Lima

It is important to know a little about the Lima Group, which has functioned as the Latin American mouthpiece for its domestic oligarchs and for the United States and Canada. It was set up in Lima (Peru) in August 2017. The purpose of the Lima Group was to overthrow the government of Venezuela. It was a formation that had been created to put pressure on the Organization of American States (OAS), set up in 1948, to take a firm position against Venezuela.

For some time now, the United States and Canada have not been able to get their way in the OAS. The emergence of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA) in 2004 was a direct challenge to the OAS. Led by Chávez and Fidel Castro, ALBA pushed aside the OAS and produced new formations—without U.S. control—in its place. Chávez called the OAS “a corpse that must be buried” and suggested—in 2010—that it was the “sign of a dying empire.” ALBA would soon have 11 members. It promised a new view of Latin American sovereignty and economic cooperation.

With the coup against Honduras in 2009, the United States announced a more aggressive posture against the ALBA dynamic. Honduras, an ALBA member, now left the group. It was the clearest sign of what was to come. Since 2010, the United States and its allies have worked hard to roll back the “pink tide” in Latin America. Pressure was put on Venezuela, the heartbeat of the ALBA process. When the Lima Group was set up in 2017, Peru’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Luna said, “What we have in Venezuela is a dictatorship.” There was no need for evidence. The term “dictatorship” would now be used by these governments to define the politics of Venezuela. Brazil, another member of the Lima Group, had recently conducted a “soft coup” against the government of President Dilma Rousseff. That did not disqualify them from being a sanctimonious part of this alliance. Nor was there any uneasiness about the Peruvian government of President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski—whom Maduro routinely called a lackey of Wall Street; Kuczynski would later resign under charges of corruption, but not after he offered a pardon for Peru’s dictator Alberto Fujimori. None of these men looked in the mirror. They had their fingers firmly pointed toward Venezuela.

One of the leaders of the Lima Group is Canada, whose Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland felt no embarrassment in October 2017 saying, “If necessary we must put added pressure on the Maduro regime by taking concrete steps to further isolate it from the international community.” This kind of colonial language makes few in North America shudder. Nor did it worry anyone that Freeland gave political advice to the Venezuelan opposition, asking them to unite behind one candidate against Maduro.

Long before Maduro announced the presidential elections, therefore, the opponents of Venezuela (the U.S., the EU, and the Lima Group) had begun the process of denying the government legitimacy. They were openly meeting as the Lima Group to coordinate strategies to isolate Venezuela and to conduct regime change there.

Just before the elections, the United States and the Lima Group engineered the expulsion of Venezuela from the OAS.


The election is over. Predictably, the United States and Canada will increase their sanctions regime. The Lima Group ambassadors are home getting their instructions. They will likely downgrade diplomatic relations with Venezuela. None of this is a surprise. It is what they had already announced. They did not wait to see how the elections went. Isolation of Venezuela is their strategy.

Meanwhile, the ALBA group congratulated Venezuela. They know that this is not just about one election or about Venezuela’s current difficulties. This is a line-struggle between the ALBA group and the Lima group, between those who want to drive a people-centered policy and those who want to drive a Wall Street-centered policy.

Oil prices are high. But these will not benefit Venezuela. Its oil economy is under threat not only from the seizure of its refineries, but also by the lack of investment in its oil infrastructure. Russia and China, as if on cue, have disassociated themselves with the isolation strategy. They will return with capital both for the distressed Venezuelan economy and for the oil sector. But, of course, Maduro will have to face the crisis of his economy—whether created by the “economic war” or not. This has to be his priority—to stem the hunger and frustration inside the country. Venezuela is being garroted. Will Maduro’s government have the means to break the cord?

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Why Venezuela’s Election Matters – It Was Under Siege by US, Canadian and EU Influence

Nicaragua, Venezuela: One Enemy, One Fight For Democracy

Tortilla Con Sal looks at some of the similarities between the violent street protests in Nicaragua and those seen in Venezuela in 2014/2017.

By Tortilla con Sal – Telesur English
All the signs are that – just as in Venezuela – people at the grassroots level in Nicaragua won't get fooled again. (Reuters)
All the signs are that – just as in Venezuela – people at the grassroots level in Nicaragua won’t get fooled again. (Reuters)

Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are all targets of the U.S. government because they challenge control of Latin America and the Caribbean by Western corporate elites and their local allies. By means of soft coups these interests have – at least for now – taken power in Brazil and Argentina, hijacked the government in Ecuador and derailed the peace process in Colombia. Currently, U.S. efforts at regime change focus most urgently on Venezuela and Nicaragua, while reverting to the failed policy of punitive sanctions against Cuba and biding their time for the moment in Bolivia.

Despite the relentless psychological warfare campaign to discredit them, the governments of Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela defend their peoples’ fundamental democratic rights to peaceful economic development focused on human needs rather than corporate profit. This is especially important to understand in the case of Nicaragua. There, the government has democratized the economy to the point where the cooperative, associative and family-based small- and micro-business sectors generate 70 percent of employment, contributing over 50 percent of GDP.

In their different ways, these four countries – all members of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA) – have developed viable economic models directly opposed to Western corporate monopoly finance capitalism. They all face illegal actions by the U.S. government and its allies aimed at destabilizing – and, if possible, overthrowing – their legitimate governments. They all promote diverse models of genuine political and economic democracy for their peoples. Theirs is a common struggle against the U.S. and European imperial elites, whose governments are desperate to brake their own accelerating decline relative to China, Russia and other majority world countries.

Nicaragua and Venezuela: Similarities

While the endless war on Venezuela aims at controlling the country’s enormous oil and mineral resources, Nicaragua also has significant natural resources. It has Central America’s most abundant water resources, well over 60 percent of Central America’s natural eco-systems and also around seven to 10 percent of the world’s biodiversity.

The geostrategic position of Nicaragua and Venezuela enables their governments to project into the Caribbean and their respective neighboring countries the political and economic vision of a multi-polar world based on solidarity and cooperation rather than the subjugation and pillage now rampant in Brazil, Argentina and elsewhere.

The minority opposition – led by the private business, media and NGO sectors in both Venezuela and Nicaragua – have consistently failed electorally and politically, resorting to insurrectional violence aimed at regime change, rejected by the countries’ majorities.

The political opposition is deeply divided in both countries, incapable of offering the electorate a viable inclusive program of sustainable national human development that meets everyone’s needs in every sphere of civil, political, economic, social and cultural life.

The governments of both countries have repeatedly demonstrated their institutional legitimacy in serial elections.

Both countries are surrounded by U.S. and allied military bases.

Both countries are committed to regional integration initiatives – Venezuela in Unasur, Nicaragua in the Central American Integration System (SICA), while both are strong supporters of CELAC.

In the United Nations and other international forums, Venezuela and Nicaragua defend international law, condemning the criminal actions of the United States and its allies against, for example, Palestine, Syria and Iran.

Both governments insist on dialogue and mutual respect to resolve both domestic national conflicts and regional and global international conflicts.

De Facto Popular Front

Differences between the two countries result directly from their different geography and economic structure. Venezuela was able to decide to leave the Organization of American States because its status as a supplier of oil and mineral resources give it sufficient autonomy. Nicaragua, more dependent on agricultural and commercial trade with regional partners, has chosen not to abandon the OAS. That decision may well be partly in order to maintain the number of OAS member countries resisting pressure to legitimize the illegal U.S. war on Venezuela. But Nicaragua’s government also thinks maintaining dialogue with this North American-dominated forum will help disarm potentially strongly aggressive measures from the U.S. government against Nicaragua’s vulnerable economy.

That is also probably why Nicaragua remains a faithful ally of Taiwan, while U.S. client states such as Costa Rica and Panama have abandoned Taiwan in favor of the People’s Republic of China, a key investment and trading ally of Venezuela. However, its loyalty to Taiwan has not prevented Nicaragua from working with China to develop the proposal for a new inter-oceanic canal to complement the Panama Canal by expanding shipping capacity across the Central American isthmus. Nicaragua also maintains excellent commercial and development cooperation relations with South Korea and Japan, as well as various Arab nations, as well as Iran. Venezuela and Nicaragua share this eclectic approach to international relations. Both have very important trade and investment relations with Russia and are developing relations with India.

In effect, the ALBA countries form a modern-day Popular Front. Regionally, they resist the determination of the region’s fascist corporate elites to seize or keep power and subordinate their countries’ economies to North American and European corporate interests. Globally, they defend the vision of a multi-polar world based on solidarity and international law against repeated criminal imperialist economic and military aggression from the United States and its allies. Nicaragua is under attack now because it is a vital component of that regional Popular Front, both for strong political and economic reasons and, too, for deep historical and cultural reasons.

Current National Developments

After five years of unprecedented siege, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro has again defeated the U.S. government and its allies, decisively winning the May 20 elections. Now the war on Venezuela will intensify even more: economically, diplomatically and militarily. Similarly, U.S. government efforts to overthrow Nicaragua’s elected government will also fail. In what amounts to a war of attrition, President Ortega and his government team are  systematically dismantling the illegitimate pretensions of the minority opposition’s makeshift coalition, despite cynical manipulation by the mediating Episcopal Conference trying to gerrymander the National Dialogue for Peace in the opposition’s favor.

Just as in Venezuela, public opinion in Nicaragua is strongly against the violent tactics of extortion and intimidation by the minority opposition. Even OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro has denounced the lies of the opposition representatives in Nicaragua. The Inter American Commission for Human Rights has acknowledged that the deaths and injuries mentioned in its preliminary report have yet to be investigated. As the facts come out, a truer picture will emerge confirming that most of the deaths and injuries have been of government supporters or bystanders caught up in the violence. For example, testimony from one of the protesters unable to square events with his conscience alleges that the two students killed on April 20 in Esteli were shot by paid opposition thugs. Similar testimonies will confirm that the violence in Nicaragua was deliberately instigated by the opposition – exploiting genuine protest – to discredit the government unjustly, just as in Venezuela.

This weekend, campesino leader Comandante Jorge Diaz, president of a demobilized ex-combatants association, withdrew from the opposition side of the National Dialogue urging his rank and file to dismantle their roadblocks, a phenomenon that has paralyzed the country for weeks. He denounced manipulation of his rural worker membership by some of the bishops and the opposition. That move recalls the clear-sighted remarks of assassinated former Nicaraguan Contra leader Comandante Franklin to a Sandinista leader after the 1990 elections: “The oligarchy used you to overthrow Somoza. Now they have used us to overthrow you.” All the signs are that – just as in Venezuela – people at the grassroots level in Nicaragua won’t get fooled again.

Posted in Nicaragua, VenezuelaComments Off on Nicaragua, Venezuela: One Enemy, One Fight For Democracy



by Jonathan Azaziah

Leave it to the Yemeni Islamic Resistance to pick us up when we’re feeling down! Ansarullah has clipped the wings of a Saudi F-16 which was conducting criminal raids on civilians in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. The jet came crashing to the Earth after Ansarullah’s Missile Unit nailed it beautifully with a surface-to-air projectile. Fate of the war criminal pilot is unknown as of this moment, but we have to assume he was either roasted in the blast or has already been captured by Resistance forces. And the putrid Saudi regime can’t deny it either because the Houthis’ Mouqawamist Al-Masirah channel has it all on video–taking a page right out of the brilliant playbook of Hizbullah and its own Al-Manar channel. This is the second warplane in two weeks that the Yemeni Mouqawamah has downed. And going back to the beginning of Al-Saud’s aggression, the number of aircraft obliterated by Yemen’s Mighty Moujahideen is in the dozens. Yesterday, the Yemeni Islamic Resistance and its tribal allies had a field day against the Saudi-led usurpers, eviscerating and wounding over 150 occupation mercs between their counter-invasion operations at the Al-Mouanaqa and Al-Malhamah sites in Jizan, the Qawfal camp in Ma’rib, and multiple gatherings of enemy forces in Najran and Asir.

Reminder to “Muslims” swooning over Judaized White Saviors in the West: While you pin your hopes on an inherently oppressive, inherently flawed, utterly obscene and utterly controlled system that has slaughtered hundreds of millions of our people for centuries, there are REAL revolutionaries in Yemen doing REAL revolutionary work in the face of one of the most savage Zio-Imperialist campaigns against any one of our lands in years. Ansarullah’s men are prevailing against the US-UK-French-‘Israeli’-backed Saudi regime’s siege and aerial assault with nothing but their faith, their ingenuity, their steadfastness, their unity and their nationwide brotherhood. It’s been said before and repeating it now is most apt: This is Hizbullah’s Divine Victory in ’06 all over again. There shouldn’t be a Muslim alive not shouting “Labaykah ya Sayyed al-Houthi! Labaykah ya Ansarullah!” from the rooftops. But sadly, there are very few. If only Sayyed Abdul Malik al-Houthi changed his name to “Corbyn” and Ansarullah changed its name to “Labour”, then maybe the “Islamic” Diaspora and its self-proclaimed friends would give a damn.

Posted in YemenComments Off on SAYYED ABDUL MALIK AL-HOUTHI’S



by Jonathan Azaziah

Jummah Mubarak to the blessed martyrs of today’s MossadDaesh attack on the Iraqi Shi’a Muslims of Moussayib near Karbala. At least 31 of our people have been slaughtered and more than 35 more have been wounded after ISIS unleashed a female suicide bomber in a crowded souk. Death toll is expected to rise. I have just three words for you Takfiri terrorist pieces of filth: HAYHAT MINNA ZILLA. You strike our women and children in markets as they fast, we will strike you in your bases and crush you. You blow yourselves up at an ice cream shop as our families are breaking their fasts, we will chase you down into the holes you crawled up out of and make sure you never emerge again. You harm the innocent and most defenseless among us, we will, whether your American-‘Israeli’-Saudi masters want it or not, eventually meet you on the battlefield and return you to the demons who spawned you. HAYHAT MINNA ZILLA.

You stage these murderous operations because you expect us to be distracted from finishing the liberation of Mosul and the cleansing of the Iraqi-Syrian border, but we will only quadruple down in our resolve to free Iraq from your poisonous Zio-Takfirism. You hope that such cowardly acts will make us think twice before we send our best, brightest and bravest to aid our brethren in the Syrian Arab Republic against the Empire, but we will only send even more moujahideen until Syria too is free of your toxicity. You look to your controllers in Washington, “Tel Aviv”, London and Riyadh for assistance against our Resistance, but no matter what they give you in arms, funds and logistics, your oppression will come to an end just like that of your drunkard, despotic, disgraceful father Yazid (L.A.) We are the sons of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W.), Imam Hussein (A.S.), Zayd (A.S.) and Al-Mukhtar (R.A.) and all the blood that you Wahhabi Khawarij spill only makes us dig our heels deeper into this fight ’till we prevail. And prevail we will. HAYHAT MINNA ZILLA. Us? Humiliated?! Never, ever! May all of our martyrs taste the sweetest nectars of Paradise.




by Jonathan Azaziah

Not too long ago, I was interviewed by the righteous and wonderful brothers at the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Jahady Online about Shari’a, Jihad and Islamophobia. And since we are right smack dab in the middle of Ramadan, I guess there’s no better time to share it! Of course we delve into the political and financial connections of the Zionists to the proliferation of anti-Islam fervor and we also break down the Zionist media’s distortions of some of Islam’s most sacred pillars. In this day and age, there is no greater duty that rests upon the shoulders of Muslims and their allies than defending Islam against the global tidal wave of hasbara launched against it daily by Empire Judaica. I pray that ALLAH (SWT) will find my humble efforts satisfactory and I pray that y’all find it useful. Striking Star Salute to the Iranian nation, its resilient people, its steadfast leadership and its Mouqawamist journalists! Full text of the interview is below.

Jahady: The concepts of “Sharia” and “Jihad” have been misunderstood in Western societies. How could Muslims show the true definition of these words?

Jonathan Azaziah: Indeed they are not just misunderstood but GROSSLY and even MALIGNANTLY misunderstood. And there is one reason for this, so let us not mince our words: Zionism. Islamophobia has become a multi-billion-dollar industry that began with Mossad’s false flag operation and it has only expanded into a big bubble of bigotry over time. At the heart of this are Jewish oligarchic personalities funding it like Nina Rosenwald, her sister Elizabeth Varet, the Chernicks, Seth Klarman, Leslie Wexner and Sheldon Adelson, as well as Jewish (and non-Jewish Shabbos Goy) “journalist” personalities who fuel the hysteria with their columns, books, articles, blog posts and hateful “activism” like Pamela Geller, David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, Gisele Littman (aka Bat Yeor), David Horowitz, Irshad Manji, Frank Gaffney, Brigitte Gabriel and so on. It is this interconnected cluster of Jewish-Zionist gazillionaires and their minions who are responsible for how Western societies view Jihad and Shari’a in such a distorted way, as their poison is pumped out into the (Zionist owned and controlled) mainstream media along with Hollywood (run from top to bottom by Zionist Jews) for public consumption. And the aim of course is to fuel the “war on terror”, itself a Zionist creation, so American-‘Israeli’ hegemony in the Arab-Islamic world can continue. If Muslims are going to defy and overthrow this nexus of negativity and venom, we mustn’t SOLELY tell the truth about our wonderful Deen to our Western brothers and sisters but also expose this Zionist network, name the names behind it and be fearless in our truth-telling so the hatemongers know we only fear ALLAH (SWT) and damn sure not their money and artificial power.

Jahady: In your view, what are true jihads of Muslims today?

Jonathan Azaziah: This is an easy one! Palestine, Palestine and Palestine! There is no Jihad (struggle) in the world today like that of the Palestinian cause and our drive to liberate every inch of Falasteen, most especially Al-Quds, from the Zionist menace. Everything we see happening in the Arab-Islamic world, referred to in colonialist terms as the “Middle East”, as a result of the Washington-‘Israeli-orchestrated “Arab Spring” , was designed to keep us drowning and choking on manufactured internal strife and distract us from what matters most: eliminating ‘Israel’ from existence and restoring sovereignty to the Palestinian people. It should be noted that Wahhabi-Takfirism, a perversion of our religion and its righteous concepts like Jihad and Shari a, is being used by the usurping Zionist entity through its vassal states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to smear Islam and further the overall agenda of the Anglo-‘Israeli’ Imperium. It is thus an imperative to struggle against this false doctrine. Above and beyond such a struggle being a defense of our Deen, it is also a great service to humanity as a whole which may have a warped view of Islam because of the behavior of weaponized Wahhabi-Takfiri terrorists doing unspeakable crimes–on behalf of ‘Israel’ and America–whilst using religion as cover. Allow me also to add that struggling for Yemen is of the utmost importance too as the genocidal war on the Yemeni nation waged by the cruel and tyrannical likes of Saudi Arabia is indeed a war for ‘Israel’. And because of Saudi Arabia’s vast wealth and ability to silence its critics worldwide, very few Muslims are speaking up for Yemen and this is shameful. In short–Jihad against Zionism, Imperialism, Takfirism and Saudi despotism are very much the duties of every Muslim in this age. Because as the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.W.) said, “The best form of Jihad is speaking a word of truth to an unjust ruler.”

Jahady: How does Quran define jihad? How does it lead to proper moral values?

Jonathan Azaziah: In many ways! Centrally though, Jihad is defined as one s inner struggle against the ego and the need to suppress that ego so one can enjoin good, forbid evil and through one’s righteous deeds, guide many a person to Islam. When the ego and carnal desires are suppressed, it frees our minds to focus on things that really matter… Like fighting for those too weak to fight; giving a voice to those who have long been without one; and seeking knowledge that has been suppressed by the hegemonic powers. The aforementioned Zionist network of Islamophobia has falsely and maliciously attempted to equate Jihad with war but like everything else that comes out of these demons’ mouths, this simply isn’t the case. Jihad can be broken down into two forms: Jihad al-Asghar (the lesser Jihad) and Jihad al-Akbar (the greater Jihad). The lesser Jihad is about military conflict with those who would attempt to harm and oppress Muslims and as the Holy Qur’an makes clear, DEFENSIVE WAR is the only war that is halal in Islam. It is the struggle with self however that is categorized in Islamic jurisprudence as the greater Jihad. If all Muslims were mindful of these distinctions, there would be infinitely more justice and infinitely less Zionist power in this world.

Jahady: Is there an agenda behind Western media’s misrepresentation of jihad and sharia?

Jonathan Azaziah: Absolutely. The terrorist, war criminal and all-around maniac Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the artificial ‘Israeli’ entity, famously said that the West is going to have a 100-year war with “radical Islam”. And what he means of course is that World Zionism must continue to fuel the flames of the fallacious “clash of civilizations” so the Islamic East and the Christian West burn each other down in an apocalyptic war so none other than ‘Israel’, the BLIGHT unto the nations, can pick up the pieces. For this scenario to unfold, every now and again, the war-makers and criminal “elites” need to spice things up a bit so to speak for the run-of-the-mill citizen to remain ignorant, afraid and hateful towards Islam. At the forefront of such strategic Zio-Imperialist thinking is frequently repeating and distorting words and pillars considered sacred in our Deen across newspapers, web articles, radio programs and television shows so those who consume this disinformation wind up with an utterly wrong, utterly Orientalist conceptualization. Brainwashing at its finest and most sinister. “Jihadist” and “Jihadi”, “Islamist” and “Islamic militant” have all become synonymous in the Zionized global political lexicon with “terrorist”. But as Ayatollah Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah (R.A.) famously said, “There are no Islamists! Only Muslims!” Even persons from among the ranks of the Anti-Zionist, Anti-Imperialist “movement” have come to use this language when speaking about Takfiri terrorists in Syria. Yet it seems completely lost on them that Lebanon’s Hizbullah, the Palestinian Resistance, Yemen’s Ansarullah, the Iraqi Islamic Resistance and Iran’s IRGC all call their fighters Jihadis/Jihadists. Why? Because to engage in the defense of our people and our religion in the face of Empire Judaica and its Takfiri hordes is most certainly a personification of Jihad al-Asghar. Jihad, like every tenet of Islam, is something beautiful, deep, poetic and even mystical. And in the coming days as we head towards the collapse of the usurping Zionist entity, we will need to take back what it means to be Jihadi and safeguard its true definition so we can educate the unknowing and do right by those who gave their lives in the line of Islamic duty.


Shoah’s pages