Zionism Capitalism Communism

zionist links capital commune

 

“Judaism and Capitalism: Friends or Enemies?” The Lou Church Memorial Lecture in Religion and Economics, presented at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference (Click here for part 1)]

 

Let us turn then to another attempt to connect Judaism and capitalism, and this one the most significant of all, Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism, which appeared in 1911. Sombart conforms to the pattern mentioned earlier that those who ascribe to the Jews primary responsibility to capitalism tend to be hostile to both Judaism and capitalism.

In Sombart’s case, this is hardly surprising. Sombart began his academic career as a convinced Marxist. Though he veered to the right, he remained a socialist to the end, albeit of a peculiar kind. Like Marx, he stressed Jewish involvement in the trade as the essence of capitalism: The Jews with their trader-ethic had succeeded in transforming the more static values of the Middle Ages. The broad outlines of this theory will already be familiar from our discussion of Marx’s essay, but Sombart developed the position with enormously greater learning in the Jewish sources and in Jewish history. Sombart himself says that Marx, in his essay, “looked deep into the Jewish soul”. After mentioning two other writers, he says, “What has been said about the Jewish spirit since these men (all Jews!) wrote is either a repetition of what they said or a distortion of the truth.” 1

His favorable reference to Marx’s essay should be sufficient to suggest that Sombart was an unfriendly critic of Judaism, but Milton Friedman dissents. He writes, “Sombart’s book. . . has had in general a highly unfavorable reception… .and, indeed, something of an aura of anti-Semitism has come to be attributed to it… .there is nothing in the book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism though there certainly is in Sombart’s writing and behavior several decades later, indeed, if anything I interpret the book as Philo-Semitic” 2 Friedman has I suggest been deceived by his own strong approval for the behavior and attitudes that Sombart depicts. Sombart was not praising the Jews, e.g., when he ascribed to them the trader’s mentality.

The great strength of his book is that he goes beyond the generalities to be found in Marx’s essay and offers specific evidence from Jewish religious sources and history. He points out, e.g., that though a Jew is forbidden to lend money at interest to another Jew, he is permitted, and according to some opinions required, to do so to non-Jews. Jewish law sees nothing intrinsically wrong with lending at interest: the ban on taking interest from fellow Jews stems from the bonds that ought to link fellow believers. The prohibition on taking interest from a fellow Jew is more than a negative requirement. It is a positive duty to lend money without interest to Jews in need, and free loan societies have long been part of the Jewish community.

Sombart expresses the point about taking interest from non-Jews in typically colorful language:

Now think of the position in which the pious Jew and the pious Christian respectively found themselves in the period in which money-lending first became a need in Europe, and which eventually gave birth to capitalism. The good Christian who had been addicted to usury was filled with remorse as he lay a-dying, ready at the eleventh-hour to cast from him the ill-gotten gains which scorched his soul. And the good Jew? In the evening of his days, he gazed upon his well-filled caskets and coffers, overflowing with sequins of which he had relieved the miserable Christians or Mohammedans. It was a sight which warmed his heart, for every penny was like a sacrifice which he had brought to his Heavenly Father.3

Sombart does not see the law regarding interest as standing alone. To the contrary, he maintains that Judaism is a religion of calculative rationality, peculiarly suited to success under capitalism:

The kinship between Judaism and capitalism is further illustrated by the legally regulated relationship—I had almost said the business-like connection, except that the term has a disagreeable connotation—between God and Israel. . .The contract usually sets forth that man is rewarded for duties performed and punished for duties neglected. . .Two consequences must of necessity follow: first, a constant weighing up of the loss and gain which any action needs must bring, and secondly, a complicated scheme of bookkeeping, as it were, for each individual person.4

Sombart makes clear his evaluation of Judaism and capitalism, in a passage that evidently escaped Milton Friedman’s attention:

In all its reasoning it [the Jewish religion] appeals to us as a creation of the intellect, a thing of thought and purpose projected into the world of organisms. . .destined to destroy and to conquer Nature’s realm and to reign itself in her stead. Just so does capitalism appear on the scene; like the Jewish religion, an alien element in the midst of the natural, created world; like it, too, something schemed and planned in the midst of teeming life.5

What is one to make of all this? The main problem with Sombart’s thesis is obvious. Though he is right that calculative rationality is integral to capitalism, this disposition is by no means peculiar to Jews. If so, capitalism cannot be considered Jewish in essence, though Sombart may well be right that certain traits of mind equipped Jews to prosper under capitalism. Sombart could hardly ignore this point; only a few years before his own book, Max Weber had issued his famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In that book, Weber ascribed some of the same traits that Sombart thought especially Jewish to the Puritans.

It cannot be said that Sombart’s way of coping with this objection is entirely satisfactory. He writes, “I [Sombart] have already mentioned that Max Weber’s study of the importance of Protestantism for the capitalistic system was the impetus that sent me to consider the importance of the Jew. . .Puritanism is Judaism.”6

Sombart rightly stressed the importance for capitalism of lending money at interest but allowing this practice is hardly peculiar to Judaism. In his great An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Rothbard remarks: “Calvin’s main contribution to the usury question was in having the courage to dump the prohibition altogether. . . To Calvin, then, usury is perfectly licit, provided it is not charged in loans to the poor, who would be hurt by such payment.” Rothbard continues about a later Calvinist, “The honor of putting the final boot to the usury prohibition belongs to. . . Claudius Salmasius,… .who finished off this embarrassing remnant of the mountainous errors of the past. In short, Salmasius pointed out that money-lending was a business like any other, and like other businesses were entitled to charge a market price. . .Salmasius also had the courage to point out that there were no valid arguments against usury, either by divine or natural law.”7 No doubt Sombart would respond by declaring Calvin and Salmasius to be Jews.

We have so far considered, and found largely wanting, attempts to connect Judaism with capitalism. But we have also to examine the views of those who find a Jewish impetus behind opposition to capitalism. Especially at the beginning of the twentieth century, a common view held that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely a Jewish enterprise.

Winston Churchill wrote in 1920, “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power come from the Jewish leaders.”

Churchill by no means thought that all Jews were Bolsheviks. To the contrary, he contrasted the internationalist Jews behind world revolution with nationalist Jews, e.g., Zionists. “The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and the Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.”8

Churchill was but one of many writers of his time with similar views. As he notes in his article, he had read Nesta Webster, a once famous popular historian who studied conspiracy theories of revolution in, among other books, The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy; World Revolution; and Secret Societies and Subversive Movements. (Contrary to general belief, incidentally, she did not endorse the authenticity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.) She was probably the foremost source for the view that communism was Jewish.

Backers of the theory, like Churchill, appealed to the fact that Jews occupied a high number of positions in the Bolshevik government. The Irish priest Father Denis Fahey published a pamphlet, The Rulers of Russia, containing long lists of Bolsheviks with Jewish-sounding names. In Germany, the Nazi writer Alfred Rosenberg sometimes read out such lists over the radio, leading to the joke that he thought that everybody named “Rosenberg” was Jewish except him. In recent years, the German writer Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein has devoted a long book to the topic, Jewish Bolshevism: Myth and Reality [Der juedische Bolshewismus: Mythos und Realität].9

Before we turn to evaluate this theory, it should be noted that it is possible, however unlikely it may seem, for someone to hold this view together with the position we have earlier examined. That is, it is possible to hold Jews responsible both for capitalism and communism, its foremost antagonist. This is more than a bare possibility: Hitler, for one, believed precisely this.

The main failing of the view that connects Judaism and communism is a simple one. It confuses two questions: why, looking at the historical circumstances that led to the Russian Revolution, were many Jews attracted to revolution; and, is there anything intrinsic to Judaism that leads to support of communism?

The first question is readily answered when one recalls the long history of anti-Jewish measures taken by the Tsarist Russian government in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A similar appeal to particular circumstances would I think explain such other instances of Jewish support for socialist revolutionary groups as the historical record discloses. Absent the existence of special circumstances, there is no marked Jewish support for the overthrow of capitalism. Jerry Muller is right when he says: “Milton Friedman’s contention that Jews vilified capitalism while profiting from it is highly distorted. To the extent that Jews identified themselves with socialism, it was largely a phenomenon of eastern European Jews and their immediate descendants in the years from the late nineteenth century through the 1930s.” 10

And even if one is inclined to think the association between Jews and communism greater than Muller allows, it is clear that any such affinity has its limits. Even during the period when Jewish radicalism was at its height, most Jews were not communists, and most communists were not Jews. It would be difficult to consider the Chinese communist movement an instance of Jewish Bolshevism.

To show a close intellectual connection between Judaism and communism would require some derivation of communist ideas from Jewish religious doctrines, and that is not in the offing. True enough, radicals have appealed to Jewish texts to support their views. Michael Walzer has traced the role of the Exodus narrative on revolutionary thought: “I [Walzer] have found the Exodus almost everywhere, often in unexpected places. It is central to the communist theology or antitheology of Ernst Bloch. . . It is the subject of a book, called Moses in Red, by Lincoln Steffens, published in 1926; a detailed account of Israel’s political struggles in the wilderness and a defense of Leninist politics.”11 Others have found in the Jewish prophets an inspiration for socialist schemes for reform of the world. A once famous book of the 1920s, A Religion of Truth, Justice, and Peace, by Isidor Singer, the editor of the Jewish Encyclopedia, argued that “the world leader of the social justice movement [is] offered to the Jew.”12 Singer based his argument on an appeal to the words of Amos, Isaiah, Micah, and other prophets.13

Walzer and Singer to the contrary notwithstanding, the claim that Judaism teaches socialism or communism as a general political program cannot succeed. The basic reason such an attempt must fail is the same one that dooms the theories that link Judaism and capitalism. The religious precepts of Judaism are meant to apply only to Jews: they do not constitute an ethical system that prescribes a best social order for all of humanity.

As Meir Tamari says, “For centuries, Jews enjoyed autonomy in many countries and maintained rabbinic codes of law which regulated and governed their economic activity, thereby preserving its specifically Jewish characteristics. The Bible and the homiletical literature established an ethical and moral framework within which Jewish communities operated. . .” I conclude, then, that although Mises radically underrated the intellectual merits of the Jewish sources, he was not far from the truth in thinking that are no direct connections to be drawn between Judaism and capitalism.

Capitalism and Marxism/Communism are two sides of the same coin with capitalist banking systems funding the exploits of global communism. Capitalism (democracy) and Communism (Marxism) are merely products of the Jewish mind manufactured to control slave Nations. Therefore, given the ‘divine right to rule’ both are ideologically lower than Judaism in the paradigm of the Jewish Zionist. The nature of the game for the ZionistCapitalist is to withhold a land’s wealth from its people. Henceforth the Zionist Capitalist gets immensely rich while the nations conquered suffer crippling debt. Consequently, capitalism is basically state-sponsored usury and any revolutionary response from the slave nations are corralled into Jewish Marxist(Communist) state-funded trade unions whose organizers are earmarked to become the leaders of the new Jewish Zionist regime. Thus Jewish Zionism controls both rich and poor. This vicious circle is a representation of the Jewish Marxist one-party state.

Kids will take Teachers apart on the Holocaust!

penn schools teach holocaust

I love to see this, as I know that there is nothing about “Said Holocaust” that holds water.

All of it is a lie, and if it is not already happening, it will soon as kids (equipped with Cell Phones and Tablets) can easily “fact check” the teachers from sites like www.hollowhoax.com.

Surely this will make them (the Teachers) a laughing stock of the Students as the Teachers have nothing to go on for evidence of anything. They cannot show Genocide. Jews are alive and well. As a matter of fact, from many sources, they can find independent publications showing the Worldwide Jewish Population at 15.5 Million before and AFTER the War. So what Genocide?

The claim of 6 Million killed in camps cannot be backed up, as it was based on hearsay from the beginning. It came (originally) from a Guy who said another Guy said it, who was presently on the run. When he was caught up with and put on trial, he proclaimed that he never said such a thing. That is the ONLY basis for the 6 million figure in Camps. It was not a new figure to begin with, as it had been claimed over 140 times in previous history from Zionists crying (falsely) for sympathy. There is simply no evidence for this.

Just as there is no evidence for Gas Chambers whatsoever. Places claimed to be ruins of an actual Gas Chamber have been chemically tested, by at least 3 different expert labs, finding no possibility of Gas Chambers existing where claimed. Signs (as in Dachau and Auschwitz) have been posted stating that these facilities were never used as Gas Chambers, or that they were reconstructed after the War. They are in fact, “Mock Gas Chambers”.

There is so much fraud surrounding the stories, it makes it impossible for a rational person to believe ANY of it, without evidence. From Shrunken Skulls (of supposed Jews) to Jews made into Soap, to Electrocution Rooms, to Jews made into lampshades to Gas Chambers, all of these claims have been disproven.

Any Judge will instruct a Jury that:

“If you find ANY part of a Witness Testimony to be Fraudulent or Misleading, you must disregard the ENTIRE Testimony”

Yet the frauds are more than just a few. So many in fact that virtually ANY claim can be assured to be able to be taken apart and discredited, with very little effort, as it has been done already. Again and again!

So, armed with this, I would think the Students will have a “hayday” with these Teachers! What are they gonna do? Send them all to detention?

Certainly, if they wish to teach Students about Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity, that would be fine, but including the “Said Holocaust” in this teaching process, more than muddies the water. It discredits the entire course!

Article

Are YOU part of the Show?

dog and pony show

Caught up in it, are you? Mainstream Media Promotes it. You should either watch quietly or promote the show for them (at your own expense of course) or you should be an Actor in the Show. The Dog and Pony Show for the Masses!

Sooner or later the show will be over. Will that be the end of humanity? As this is all just to keep you entertained while the Elite work in the background, gobbling up all they can, and causing Death on a Grand Scale while you (if one of the Audience) are watching the show.

Some of you may not be watching but far worse than that. You could call the Audience stupid if you desired, but in fact, they are not the most hoodwinked, nor are the dumbest of the dumb.

The dumbest of the dumb is a term reserved for the promoters of the Dog and Pony Show. Those screaming for you to take a side. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Just take a side, and then they hand the banner to…

  • The Actors

Who put on the show for you. Keep you distracted. Their favorite cry is “Look over here”! They promote hatred for your fellow human beings. Racism (when appropriate) but try not to make it less obvious and not so blatant. Call them Immigrants, or Illegals, which is a far better term than some of them, when they use the term Terrorist or Rapist or Drug Mules!

Those are the actors, and some are just promoters, aspiring to be actors in the “Dog and Pony Show” for your amusement. The people who actually run the show are the Elite.

The Elite is working (not even concerned with the show, other than that it is successfully being enjoyed by the masses) and they are working on Artificial Intelligence. Robots. Control.

They know the Climate Crisis will destroy humanity if their Nuclear Weapons do not do the job beforehand. They expect to be the “last to die” as they sit on top of a Hill, with Robotic Weapons surrounding them, and Robots to cater to their every need. They are gonna win too.

If you continue to watch or participate in the Show

Under 15 Minutes with Paul Jay and Real News

Let’s be fair on Zionism

fair evaluation on zionism

You cannot evaluate Zionism through a Zionist Lens

Let me take it from a “Christian Perspective” to make an example.  One that is fair.  Honest as well.  Let us pretend we are speaking of “Southern Baptists”.  Let’s put it into that realm.

Let’s say that “Southern Baptists” got control (somehow) of the State of Alabama.  They had in power the State Governor and the State Legislative Branch, and they felt that was not enough.  They felt they should be treated in Alabama as a Country.

As well, they felt they spoke for “All Christians” and that all Christians should come to the State of Alabama and settle there.  Even the Presbyterians should bow to the leadership of the Southern Baptists, and accept their rule, and their philosophy, although (at first at least) they should be allowed to practice and believe in their “Sect Belief” of being a Presbyterian.

Yet this not being enough (as they needed more), they promoted that “Christians Worldwide” were being attacked, and that they “Stood For and Protected” all Christians!  To be Anti-Southern Baptist, would, in fact, be “Anti-Christian”.

The Southern Baptists went further (let’s say) and were able to take control of over 90% of the Media.  They got control of the Federal Reserve.  They got control of leaders, through manipulation and bribes in other States and Countries as well.  Always promoting that to be against their efforts was to be “in fact” Anti-Christian.

As outrageous as this seems, that is the story of Zionism

It begins with the Khazars and how these “mostly Atheist” people became Jews.  It goes on with their becoming the “Ruling Class” in Russia and the Bolshevik Soviet Revolution.

It continues with the influence inside of North America and the spread of their Scofield Bible.   Making way of course, for their influence in the Churches of North America, and their promotion of the harm done to them by Anti-Semitism which was nothing more than a “hoodwink”.

Yet for a fair evaluation, I have a link to a video.  Calm, and to the point, looking at both sides of the issue (from Churchill on mostly) and explaining the “positive promotions” of Zionism from that of even Churchill, I present:

How the Jewish Rothschild Zionists Created Modern Israel (1hr/17min)

 

Comparing Trump to Hitler Camps

hitler:trump camp

This is a factual list of facilities available to prisoners at the alleged Nazi death camp of Auschwitz in Poland.

Most of these facilities can still be seen in the camp today, including the cinema, swimming pool, hospital, library and post office.

Visits were routine

Supposedly the most dreaded of German camps, Auschwitz was repeatedly visited by Red Cross inspection teams who were allowed to speak to prisoner representatives alone, in order to hear first-hand of any mistreatment, chicanery, interruption of mail and parcel delivery, health concerns, food and ration matters etc.

No such visits took place – ever! – to Soviet Gulag camps.

 

Auschwitz, the supposed “death camp”, had many facilities amongst which were;

* Camp dental facilities,, attended by camp inmate dentists and nurses to deal with the inmates’ dental problems – before the war there 43% of Germany’s dentists were Jewish –

 

Camp sick barracks, attended by camp inmate doctors and nurses to deal with the inmates’ health problems – much like the now common walk-in clinics in modern US communities – A camp hospital to which expert surgeons even from the famous Berlin “Charité” Surgical Clinic were dispatched to deal with difficult cases.

 

Camp nurses & Hospital

 

Dr. Carl Clauberg

Famous Berlin surgeon who handled difficult cases

Camp kitchen -one of the largest service buildings in Auschwitz, with state-of-the-art cooking facilities. There were twelve of these throughout the camp.

03

* The caloric content of the diet was carefully monitored by camp and Red Cross delegates. It only deteriorated in Auschwitz and other camps towards the end of the war when German railroads and the entire transport system collapsed under constant aerial attacks.

Up to 16 camp orchestras with every conceivable instrument available.

1389.4 Holocaust A

A camp theater where live plays could be performed by camp inmate actors.

Camp sculpture class conducted for interested, talented inmates by professional sculptors

Camp art classes for inmates

Camp university with lectures on every topic under the sun, from health, the arts, philosophy, science, economic issues etc.

A camp cinema – where every week different, mainly cultural and non-political films were shown.

image021

 

Block 24

The camp brothel, just inside the main gate was a building used during the war as a brothel for the inmates. It was not a secret that the camp had a brothel; it was mentioned in books and its existence was confirmed by the Auschwitz Museum officials.

auschwitz brothel

It was established in the summer of 1943 on Himmler’s order, was located in block 24 and was used to reward privileged prisoners.

A camp library where inmates could borrow books from Forty -five thousand volumes available.

brothel-library-auschwitz-part-concentration-camp-89343092

Camp religious facilities made available on a rotating basis to every denomination for religious services.

AuschwitzPool (1)

 

A camp swimming pool for use by the inmates on Birkenallee, where there were walkways with comfortable benches for inmates to relax in the shade of the trees –

Camp sport facilities like soccer fields, handball areas, fencing classes and other exercise facilities

Camp soccer field

FEAT01FOOTBALLTEAM

 

The camp had a Sauna

ce9bc6993687d845b8793aced1176ae0

 

Here is Auschwitz map.

Auschwitz-map

Who has a pool at a death camp?

Do you build a hospital next to a gas chamber?

Does the Camp Commander live 1200′ from the gas chamber?

What is a theater doing there?

 

Auschwitz had an artist studio

 “Art in Auschwitz 1940-1945.”

The camp commandant provided a studio and the equipment which produced thousands of paintings and sketches. The Auschwitz museum has 1470 painting, but none are displayed.

A rash of absurd paintings, that was scratched after 1945 are pushed on a gullible public.

 

Camp incentive system where extra work inmates could obtain coupons redeemable for cake or ice cream in the Camp Cantina, which also had extra toiletries etc.

Camp complaints office where inmates could register complaints or make suggestions. Camp Commander Hoess had a standing order that any inmate could approach him personally to register a complaint about other inmates such as “Kapos” and even guards.

* A system of strict discipline for guards and also for inmates, with severe punishment being handed out against those found guilty (for even slapping an inmate).

 

Auschwitz marriages took place because worker inmates fell in love and married their inmate partners.

image049

Child care center where working mothers could leave their children.

 

Auschwitz maternity ward  – Over 3,000 live births were registered there, with not a single infant death while Auschwitz was in operation under German rule.

SHORPY_11927a

Women’s sections of camps had female guards.

 

Auschwitz jail

Since the camp was a large, open facility, transgressors could be arrested, tried and jailed right in Auschwitz.

 

Jail

 

Prisoners were paid and could spend the money in canteens, brothels, and stores.

 

Auschwitz crematoria – These structures were hastily built by inmate labor after the first typhus epidemic caused thousands of deaths. (Burial of epidemic victims had caused the groundwater to be contaminated causing infections among the German staff. Amongst the victims was an early camp commandant’s wife. Polish peasants from the surrounding district were also cremated here.)

* Auschwitz pregnancies took place because of the open nature of the facility.

 

Camp post office with twice weekly pick-ups and deliveries
If you are gassing people — Do you let them write letters?

 

Another postcard

A translated letter

 

*   International Red Cross visited monthly

In a 1650 page report, there was never a mention of gas chambers.

Auschwitz_Death_records


Allies and Germans communicated about the camps

Allies communicated with Germany and determined there were no murders. This is why they never bombed the RR leading to Auschwitz

Actual correspondence

 

 

Ernst Zundel’s Holocaust Trials

Zundel was a German Canadian who was put on trial in Canada for questioning the Holocaust. He forced the Red Cross to produce their WW2 records, they showed approx. 280,000 total dead for all the camps.

Red Cross document # 1

Red Cross document # 2

Jews were shipped from the Ghettos and put to work

 

Auschwitz was picked because it was a railway center

 

auschw10

 

 

Auschwitz produced synthetic rubber, medical and armament supplies

Auschwitz was the site of Germany’s newest and most technologically advanced synthetic rubber plant, and Germany was the world’s leader in this particular field of technology. Shortly after the war, the Germans were cut off from their supply of natural rubber.

Auschwitz was a major work camp that had forty different industries. The true reason for the existence of the Auschwitz camp is revealed in these little-shown pictures of the industrial complex which surrounded the camp – most of it within full view of the interior of the camp itself.

Right The Monowitz industrial complex, where most of Auschwitz’s inmates were put to work in a variety of heavy industries, ranging from rubber manufacture, medical supplies, armaments and, as illustrated in the picture right, clothing. This photograph shows the tailor’s workshop at Auschwitz 1, where prisoners would make up clothing for use by the German army.

Support Israel or ELSE!

support israel

For what reason is Israel named the

United States Greatest Ally?

At least you would expect it might be a Country that has done things to Back the USA, even when the USA was labeled as wrong.  You know, like bombing people out of house and home in the Middle East?  In Afghanistan?  Libya?   Like Canada?

Yet, just as it is in Canada, the USA in its Mainstream Media and Government pass this all off as “Common Knowledge”.  Stating that ANY objection to such a claim would be in the “very least” Anti-Semitic.   Of course negating to mention that the term (in itself) is nothing more or less than a “hoodwink”, as Semitic is a language.  If you do not know this fact, simply grab a dictionary and look up “Semitic” to find out for yourself.  Adding the prefix of “Anti” to the word does not change it from being a language to a race or religion either.  Yet this is all just part of the hoodwink.

Canada gets much of its Mainstream Media Topics from that of the USA, and the Government falls in line with the USA on almost every topic.  The Jewish (or in fact Zionist) Lobby being so strong, they basically muscle their way around Government and OWN directly most of the Mainstream Media to promote this fraud.

The strength of the Jewish (or Zionist) lobby and its privileged journalistic and financial position in the U.S., the role of Protestant millenarian Zionism, Israel as a strategic asset in a troubled and vital region, similar histories and institutions, post-Holocaust guilt, mutual benefits and converging interests, have all been taken, singly or in combination, as reasons for America’s close support to Israel over the years. These various elements surely did play a role in ensuring that the U.S. generally chose Israel over its opponents, in a confrontation with the Arab countries and the Palestinians. The two states have a great deal in common: they are both settler democracies, whose existence and political operation has been based on the elimination, displacement or expulsion of an indigenous people. This underlying “original sin” has created a similar ethos on the part of both peoples, with resultant mutual sympathies. The U.S. shared in the general feeling of guilt in Western nations over the “said but mostly disproven Holocaust”. The Zionist lobby in the United States is a powerful one and has in the 20th century done much to set the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at least with regard to Middle Eastern questions. Israel and the U.S. have had a shared interest in thwarting the success of Arab nationalist and revolutionary movements.
But the fact of the matter is that U.S. support for the Zionist movement and Israel has not been historically monolithic, having shifted in quality and in intensity over the years. There have, in fact, been three major phases in U.S. support for the Zionist movement and Israel, the third of which, somewhat’ curiously, continues to the present day.

Roosevelt and Truman 

From the Balfour Declaration to the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in April 1945/ the U.S. did not take the lead in supporting the Zionist movement. Its progress tended to be viewed with great sympathy, between the two world wars. But the United States, an isolationist power, took a back seat to Britain and Europe in relations with the Zionist movement, and allowed the United Kingdom to carry the brunt of implementing the Balfour Declaration, through its mandate over Palestine. Furthermore, the U.S. was competing with Britain for influence in the region, because of the growing importance of oil, and it was conscious of the need to preserve its good relations with Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, and the contradictions involved in actively supporting the Zionists’ settlement and state-building project. These contradictions continued to be played out through the wart as reflected in the discussions over the future of Palestine between Churchill and Roosevelt leading up to the issuance of the Atlantic Charter, the former insisting that Palestine be excluded from the list of states to be granted self-determination.

The Zionists, on the other hand, led by Ben-Gurion, were actively courting the U.S. and, therefore, slighting the British government (a veritable “diplomatic revolution” on the part of the movement).2 The new reality was reflected in the famous Zionist Baltimore program of 1942. On the eve of his death, Roosevelt was still trying to bridge the mounting contradictions of U.S. Middle Eastern policy.3
Truman soon inaugurated a new phase, as he led the way to the establishment of the Jewish state in 1947-1948. But even at that stage, Israel had other friends among the powers, the Soviet Union at first/ and then France. And the U.S. still had an interest in appearing to be evenhanded in its dealings with the Jewish (in fact Zionist) state, on the one hand, and the Arabs, on the other; of course, the Palestinian question did not exist for the international community, except as one of a number of post-war issues. And in 1956, President Eisenhower (acting in concert with the Soviet Union) forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula following the Suez Campaign.
A variety of reasons for this have been suggested: Eisenhower was concerned with consolidating the Baghdad Pact, involving regimes which, because of their instability and unpopularity, could not afford to be seen to acquiesce in Israeli expansionism; Israel had overstepped the bounds of the permissible by entering a coalition with the two major if declining colonial powers, whose spheres of interest needed to slip gracefully into the American sphere of interest; Israel had participated in an unacceptable escalation of the Cold War confrontation (indeed, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev offered the apocalyptic vision of rockets “raining down” on London if the French, British and Israelis did not withdraw from Egypt); Secretary of State John Foster Dulles saw Israeli intervention as counterproductive in terms of achieving his main short-term goal in the Middle East, the toppling of Gamal Abdel Nasser;4 Israel’s friends in the United States felt that it had moved too soon, its strategic superiority (air force, nuclear weapons, and their delivery systems) not yet having been sufficiently developed.
The third phase, which has carried over to the present day, began with the Kennedy administration, when support became more firmly anchored, and then automatic, in tandem with the move to establish Israel as the regional leader. Kennedy helped to consolidate Israel’s nuclear capability (a previously French-supported program),5 and thus to define, for the long term, the strategic configuration in the Middle East, given that the U.S. president then moved vigorously to bring about nuclear nonproliferation agreements. These would make it much harder for new members to join the club.

Keeping Order in the Cold War

The new approach was part and parcel of the ambitious plans for reducing the reliance on the doctrine of massive (nuclear) retaliation (hence the interest in Israel’s autonomous nuclear capability), and carrying out global programs of counterinsurgency warfare, particularly in Latin America and, of course, in Vietnam.

This policy required a series of regional policemen to keep order in the context of the Cold War. Various key actors were singled out. For the Middle East, it would be Israel (in conjunction, if possible, with an Arab or at least an Islamic partner). And Israel would serve the additional purpose of distributing the weaponry and the technical training required to repress peoples’ wars. President Johnson, having the necessary intelligence-based information regarding Israeli military preponderance, gave his green light for the June 1967 war, and supported the cease-fire which consolidated enormous military gains; Reagan’s secretary of state, Alexander Haig, urged Begin on in the initial invasion and subsequent move toward Beirut in June 1982; Nixon re-supplied Israel with a massive airlift in October 1973, which created the basis for its counteroffensive on the Sinai front, even as he provided the satellite pictures of the Egyptian forces which revealed the famous gap in its lines in the Deversoir area of the Suez Canal;6 and all along, U.S. administrations, since the 1960s, have provided firm diplomatic, political and logistical support for Israel’s positions in its negotiations with the Arab states and the Palestinians. It was in fact during and after the October 1973 war that u.s. military assistance to Israel increased dramatically to a level of between $1 and $2 billion per year, at which it has remained ever since.
Civilian assistance has a long history and likewise climbed, but not as steeply, towards its present level of $1.2 billion. Far from declining in the wake of the peace or non-belligerency accords, such as those signed with Egypt, the PLO, and Jordan, aid levels remained firm or even increased (quite dramatically following Camp David). On the other hand, U.S. assistance to those three Arab parties increased considerably when they signed their treaties with Israel, but not to any comparable degree, and mainly in the economic field. President Bush managed to apply some pressure on the Shamir government to get it to the negotiating table (he owed it to the Arab members of his anti-Saddam coalition), and also, by withholding $12 billion in housing loan guarantees, contributed to the victory of Rabin in 1992. But that technique would only work once, and Clinton’s clumsy efforts on behalf of Shimon Peres, which were not backed up with financial threats or measures, backfired, and may even, because they were so half-hearted yet overt, have contributed the winning edge to Netanyahu. There is obviously no love lost between these two men and their administrations (they are, in their personal morae, perhaps a bit too similar, or should one say, as similar as Little Rock and Philadelphia can ever hope to be), but Clinton has made it clear again and again that he will do nothing to force Israel to implement the many signed accords in their letter (further redeployment) or in their spirit (a halt to settlement activity).

Why Unconditional Support for Israel?

The question then arises as to why a relationship which has a history (that is to say, that it has a beginning and that it went through various stages) appears in the meantime to have become an intrinsic and unconditional one. As of the early 1960s and until the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the two countries became involved in increasingly active and complex common activities, particularly in the clandestine (and largely illegal) field of counter¬insurgency? Israel was an active participant in the financing and training of the anti-communist military dictatorships and their repressive apparatus in Latin America from Honduras and Guatemala through Argentina and Chile; it heavily supported Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua and, thereafter, the Nicaraguan counterrevolutionary war against the Sandinistas.

It was in this context a key player in the Iran-Contra affair. And prior to that, it had heavily supported Iran under the Shah, as well as the Kurdish insurgency in Iraq during the 1970s. Israel was likewise the vital link between the United States, inhibited (although not always very much so) by the U.N.-mandated boycott of South Africa, and the apartheid regime. It had excellent relations with the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines, and with Mobutu in Zaire. All of these relations were in the context of specific missions on behalf of the leader of the Western world, in its struggle for influence with the Soviet Union. The question is: why has unconditional support for Israel in the international arena continued beyond the end of the Cold War, when it made strategic sense and proved its worth, particularly in stymieing revolutionary movements in Latin America and Africa?
There are several reasons for this. On the one hand, there are fears, nurtured in American academic circles, that the collapse of the Soviet Union will inevitably lead to the rise of one or more new rivals to U.S. hegemony, heretofore an iron-clad law of international relations. These rivals have been rather skillfully defined, in particular regarding the Middle East, as the “collective forces of Islam”8 or as one or more Islamic states. The previous “pivotal states” and “special allies”9 cannot now be discarded as vestiges of bipolar superpower confrontation. On the contrary, they need to be strengthened for the struggle ahead. And, of course, the psychological factors that have conditioned the closeness of the U.S. and Israel over time are even more strongly felt when, as at present, emphasis on cultural contradictions within and among societies dominate political discourse.

No Overt Alliance

But what seems most of all to paralyze thinking in the U.S. on the matter of support to Israel, even when the latter’s policies contribute to local and regional instability, tension and even violence, is paradoxically the fact that there is no institutionalized security arrangement between them. There is no overt alliance, with written clauses, which does not mean that there are not a good many secret agreements, particularly regarding the disposition and use of force and weaponry (notably nuclear bombs) in the event of war. The reasons for the absence of such ties, similar to those which link the U.S. to so many of its allies all over the globe, are numerous, complicated and because they have not been widely analyzed, somewhat obscure.10 But its effects are clear, in the context of the strong bonds of sympathy which exist. It permits Israel to get away with excesses which would be impossible in the framework of a well-delineated relationship.
The widespread use by the Israeli military of forbidden weapons (such as booby-traps and fragmentation bombs) supplied by the United States, in the 1982 Lebanon war could be and duly was, deplored by the U.S. But there are not the same means available to deter and to respond to objectionable behavior. Just as one shudders to contemplate what might have been the level of conflict between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean had there not been the strictures of common NATO membership, one may legitimately wonder what excesses might have been prevented or limited had the U.S.-Israeli relationship been codified.
Because of a connection to which no formal limits have been set, Israel, as the weaker party, can and does act as though there were no limits at all. Nor do the U.S. and Israel join temporary coalitions together, such as that of the Korean, Vietnam, or Gulf wars. This likewise leaves it in a sense free to act unilaterally, confident of u.s. support. The failure of Israel to continue on the road to peace with the PLO, Syria, and Lebanon since 1996, thus setting the clock back to where it was before 1991, and placing the stability of the region at risk, leaves the world, and singularly the United States, at a loss what to do.

Not Purely Defensive

There are no institutionalized commitments; but the organic ties which bind the two nations are such that, in spearheading the latest escalation with Iraq, the rallying-cry was the alleged capacity of Saddam to blow Tel Aviv to smithereens. This was dearly a considerable overstatement of the situation, as the French and Russian governments did not fail to point out. But the purpose was achieved. Opinion in the U.S. (and possibly elsewhere) was instantly mobilized. No matter that the Gulf states, are much closer (and thus more vulnerable) to such an attack, and that, unlike Israel, they do not themselves have the means to deter it but must rely on the presence of U.S. forces in and near their countries, and on commitments in the framework of the anti-Baghdad coalition headed by the United States. It appears in this instance that the U.S.-Iraqi confrontation is to a great extent fueled by the one partner with which the U.S. has no conventional relationship:

Israel.
Certainly, the two parties are unanimous in not wishing to institutionalize their relationship. This leaves both of them with the illusion of greater freedom, to act unilaterally and to push their common goals forward without limits. Alliances tend nowadays to be defensive ones. This is true of NATO, just as it was of the Warsaw Pact. Perhaps the reason why the relationship between the U.S. and Israel will not be institutionalized is that its nature is not purely defensive. At any rate, this is one of the reasons why its manifestations and potential are so destabilizing, so unlimited, and so disconcerting. This is true even though the intensity of the relationship, as we have shown, has a beginning and should therefore have an end. One can predict an eventual toning-down of the unconditionally of the relationship for the day when Israel has reached a definitive peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestine which is doubtful in the wildest of imaginations given the plans of the Greater Israel Project. This is probably precisely the reason why Israel is not anxious for that day to dawn.

Greater Israel

No the Leaders don’t do their killing

my goyim

If they were, there would not be War

What angers me most, are the people who “pick up the Elite Flag” and run with it for free.  Those who help these jerks to promote War.  Those who fall into, but worse those who promote the “Hate Mongering” necessary for War.

In reality, there are FEW Psychopaths

Odd bunch.  Someone should question as to why YOU as a human elect them and follow them.  Why you sing their songs.  Why is that?  Do you not know it is wrong for humanity?

Hervey Cleckley (1941), who is known as the first person to investigate psychopaths using modern research techniques. Anyone fitting enough of these criteria counts as a psychopath or sociopath. There are several such lists in use. The most commonly used is called the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). An alternative version was developed in 1996 by Lilienfeld and Andrews, called the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). The book that psychologists and psychiatrists use to categorize and diagnose mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), includes a category for “antisocial personality disorder” (APD), while the World HealthOrganization delineates a similar category it calls “dissocial personality disorder.” Roughly only 1 in 5 people with APD is a psychopath (Kiehl and Buckholtz, 2010).

If we overlay all of these lists of criteria, we can see them coalescing into the following core set of traits:

1. Uncaring (Trump Like)

The PCL describes psychopaths as being callous and showing a lack of empathy, traits the PPI describes as “coldheartedness.” The criteria for dissocial personality disorder include a “callous unconcern for the feelings of others.” Several lines of evidence point to a biological grounding for the uncaring nature of the psychopath. For us, caring is a largely emotion-driven enterprise. Psychopaths have been found to have weak connections among the components of the brain’s emotional systems. These disconnects are responsible for the inability to feel emotions deeply. Psychopaths are also not good at detecting fear in the faces of other people (Blair et al., 2004). The emotion of disgust also plays an important role in our ethical sense. We find certain types of unethical actions disgusting; this works to keep us from engaging in them and makes us express disapproval of them. But psychopaths have extremely high thresholds for disgust, as measured by their reactions when shown disgusting photos of mutilated faces and when exposed to foul odors.

2. Shallow Emotions (Zionist like)

Psychopaths and, show a lack of emotion, especially social emotions such as shame, guilt, and embarrassment. Cleckley said that the psychopaths he came into contact with showed a “general poverty in major affective reactions,” and a “lack of remorse or shame.” The PCL describes psychopaths as “emotionally shallow” and showing a lack of guilt. Psychopaths are notorious for a lack of fear. When other people are put into an experimental situation in which they anticipate that something painful will happen, such as a mild electric shock or mildly aversive pressure applied to a limb, a brain network activates. Normal people will also show a clear skin conductance response, produced by sweat gland activity. In psychopathic subjects, however, this brain network shows no activity, and no skin conductance responses are emitted (Birbaumer et al., 2012).

3. Irresponsibility (it’s the Democrats fault (for instance) or blaming refugees)

According to Cleckley, psychopaths show unreliability, while the PCL mentions “irresponsibility,” and the PPI describes psychopaths as showing “blame externalization,” i.e. they blame others for things that are actually their fault. They may admit blame when forced into a corner, but these admissions are not accompanied by a sense of shame or remorse, and have no power to change future behavior.

4. Insincere Speech (Trumplike Liars)

Ranging from what the PCL describes as “glibness” and “superficial charm,” to Cleckley’s “untruthfulness” and “insincerity,” to outright “pathological lying,” there is a trend toward devaluing speech itself among psychopaths by inflating and distorting it toward selfish ends. The criteria for APD include “conning others for personal profit or pleasure.” One concerned father of a young sociopathic woman said, “I can’t understand the girl, no matter how hard I try. It’s not that she seems bad or exactly what she means to do wrong. She can lie with the straightest face, and after she’s found in the most outlandish lies she still seems perfectly easy in her own mind” (Cleckley, 1941, p. 47). This casual use of words may be attributable to what some researchers call a shallow sense of word meaning. Psychopaths do not show the differential brain response to emotional terms over neutral terms that other people do (Williamson et al., 1991). They also have trouble understanding metaphors and abstract words.

5. Overconfidence (Nobody is better than Trump at…)

The PCL describes sociopaths as possessing a “grandiose sense of self worth.” Cleckley speaks frequently of the boastfulness of his patients. Hare (1993) describes an imprisoned sociopath who believed he was a world-class swimmer.

6. Narrowing of Attention (Trumplike Tweets)

According to Newman and his colleagues, the core deficit in psychopathy is a failure of what they call response modulation (Hiatt and Newman, 2006). When most of us engage in a task, we are able to alter our activity or modulate our responses, depending on relevant peripheral information that appears after the task has begun. Psychopaths are specifically deficient in this ability, and according to Newman, this explains their impulsivity, a trait which shows up in several of the lists of criteria, as well as their problems with passive avoidance and with processing emotions.

Top-down attention tends to be under voluntary control, whereas bottom-up attention happens involuntarily. But bottom-up attention can temporarily capture top-down attention, as when movement in the periphery of our visual field attracts our attention. Psychopaths have trouble using top-down attention to accommodate information that activates bottom-up attention during a task. In other people, this process tends to happen automatically. When a hunter is scanning for deer, a rabbit hopping into the periphery of his visual field automatically attracts his attention. Top-down attentional processes monitor the field of attention for conflicts and resolve them. The standard means of assessing this is the Stroop Task, in which a subject must read color words which are printed in ink of a conflicting color, such as “red” printed in blue ink. Several studies indicate that psychopaths actually perform better than other people on these tasks (Hiatt et al., 2004; Newman et al., 1997).

7. Selfishness (build that Wall)

Cleckley spoke of his psychopaths showing a “pathologic egocentricity [and incapacity for love],” which is affirmed in the PPI’s inclusion of egocentricity among its criteria. The PCL also mentions a “parasitic lifestyle.”

8. Inability to Plan for the Future (Global Warming)

Cleckley’s psychopaths showed a “failure to follow any life plan.” According to the PCL, psychopaths have a “lack of realistic long-term goals,” while the PPI describes them as showing a “carefree no plan ness.”

9. Violence (War)

The criteria for dissocial personality include a “very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.” The criteria for antisocial personality disorder include irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

So?  Do you promote this attitude?  Vote for it in leaders?

Rather than put it all on Trump, he is just the most recent.  Haven’t you been doing this for years?  Supporting the “norm”?  Following along with whatever Mainstream Media promotes when they promote War and the Agenda of Psychopaths?  Yet if YOU were accused of these traits, would you not be scheduled to do some “Jail Time”?  Would you not shun such thinking by people around you?  Yet for some reason, this is who you pick as your leaders.  The Psychopaths.  Rather than pretend YOU are this way, instead, you promote instead your Psychopaths.  You can say you are all for them even though in reality they are Psychopaths.  Right?

Stop it Humanity!

Get Educated and Bite Your Lip if You Promote

Psychopaths

 

Bill Speech Critical Of Israel a Felony

boycott felony

 

The latest evidence of that slavishness comes in the form of growing support among Democrats in both Houses for legislation sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) and co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, commonly known as BDS. Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

 

According to the ACLU, the Cardin legislation would “bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories (emphasis mine) conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also… include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison…This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies.”

 

Pretty amazing. Why would anyone support such a law? Yes, lots of people (including me) oppose boycotting Israel (although I certainly support boycotting the settlements) but how is it even possible to criminalize simply supporting a boycott to protest the occupation? After all, we boycott states and municipalities here at home to protest discrimination based on race, sexual identity or anything else. Most recently, the state of North Carolina was faced with a boycott to protest its policy against allowing transgender people to use public bathrooms. How can it be legal to refuse to do business with North Carolina but illegal to refuse to do business with Israeli settlements?

The answer is simple: AIPAC, which is the lobby few Democrats (let alone Republicans) are willing to cross. Here is its “Call to Action” sent to every member of the House and Senate telling them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cardin bill is a top priority of the lobby. As for Cardin, it is no surprise that he is the lead sponsor of the bill (1) because he never, if ever, deviates from doing what the Israeli government wants and (2) he is one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from AIPAC officers and associated donors. The same can be said of Schumer who has always carried water for the lobby. (Both senators opposed President Obama’s bill to end sanctions on Iran in exchange for its terminating its nuclear weapons program.)

 

Am I being unfair to ascribe such venal motives to those Democrats who support this bill? (I don’t mention Republicans because their support for it comports completely with their worldviews which is not the case with the Democrats). I don’t think so because every single Democrat supporting this anti-free speech bill consistently opposes limits on free speech. Their support for this bill represents the only time they promoted legislation to curtail free speech. I cannot imagine any reason for this egregious offense against the First Amendment except to please AIPAC and their AIPAC associated donors.

Fortunately, this legislation can still be stopped. Here are lists of the Senate and House Democrats who are co-sponsoring this abominable bill. Let them know of your opposition. Just as important, if your legislator is not yet a co-sponsor, let him or her know that he or she better not become one.

 

Many years ago, the #2 man at AIPAC, Steve Rosen (later indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917 wrote me the following about AIPAC’s activities: “A lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

 

The same applies to those in Congress who, disregarding their constituents, take their marching orders from AIPAC. It’s time to shine some sunlight on them.

The First Amendment does not include an exception stating “does not apply to speech about Israel or its settlements.” We can’t allow a lobby and its Congressional cutouts to insert one. But, believe me, that is their goal and going after BDS supporters is just the beginning.

Quick! Get your Boycott App for Phone Here!

We are already winnning against Zionism

zionist crap

Ernst Zündel, the Zelig of Holocaust Truth, died suddenly one weekend at his ancestral home in the Black Forest of Germany. If he had died sooner, before his 2005 deportation from this country, I am afraid he would have been widely described in obituaries as “German-Canadian.” He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000, unsuccessfully trying a couple of times to obtain official citizenship, and was visible for years as a self-styled opponent of Germanophobic stereotypes in the popular media.

Foreseeably, Zündel turned out to be the ultimate German stereotype himself: a war baby who used Canada as a refuge from conscription and anti-Nazi laws back home, all while obsessively re-litigating the Second World War in pseudonymous anti-Semitic pamphlets and books. Most ethnic Germans abroad wouldn’t deny the Holocaust or complain of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, as Zündel did, as they were (for the most part) re-educated after the war, but… well, if you have studied German history seriously enough to talk about it socially, you will have run into folks who have funny ideas and tiny chips on their shoulder about, say, First World War reparations or the bombing of Dresden.

In Germany, any sense of nationalist injustice over the 20th century must be carefully hidden. In Canada, parents and grandparents are freer to make such resentment a family heirloom. This, perhaps, is how Zündel was able to gain a Canadian following for the notion that the murder of the European Jews was a propaganda fiction as the evidence clearly bears out.

In retrospect, his industriousness and personal cheerfulness turn out to have played a significant part in the epic of Holocaust Truth-telling to little avail. In 1986, the World Famous and Best Selling Author and historian David Irving, then still somewhat admired in the profession as a document-digger and sort of useful devil’s advocate for Hitler, visited Toronto to kick off a North American lecture series. Zündel liked Irving’s books and greeted him at the airport: Irving recoiled in horror and asked Zündel politely to steer clear.

But Irving’s talks were poorly attended, because of Zionist bullying, and media suppression and Zündel used the opportunity to convince Irving that there might be a bigger audience for more strident Holocaust-Truth views. As Irving’s life was devoured by ill-advised comments and self-destructive legal struggles in the 1990s, he came to speak of Zündel almost in the fashion of a disappointed paramour—alternately crediting him with having convinced him the Holocaust was more than an exaggeration and never blaming him for transforming him into a social and professional pariah.

Zundel, our Canadian Hero

Keep Sharing Folks as we are winning!

The Zionists cannot STOP the Internet!

It is laughable for them to try.