#because Zionists want these words to be interchangeable | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

snarky-gourmet · 2 months

Text

necessary context: x

I'm posting these all together to more effectively address these-- thank you for taking the time to write this out. I'm not going to lie, for several days I've gone back and forth between whether or not I'd direcrtly answer you or not because some of the wording you used set off alarms not only to me but to other people I asked their thoughts on all this. I'm choosing to still take your words in good faith, and I hope that isn't the wrong decision.

I straight up don't know what you mean by "people in the leftist sphere deliberately engaging in dual loyalty blood libel." I know what dual loyalty is, I know what blood libel is, but when I tried to gather context for that combined phrase, all I got were zionists claiming it was antisemitic to claim that the israeli occupation was deliberately targeting palestinian children in the genocide. That is what the israeli occupation is doing. To be clear. Like that is what they are doing and that is what supporting zionism is also endorsing... it's not feeding into a conspiracy theory to state that they are killing palestinian children, on purpose, for the sake of committing a genocide, and I'm remarkably concerned with not being able to find anything not highly suspicious to help sort out what you meant.

Out of an abundance of caution and desire to be as clear as possible, I also don't wish for this to descend into a back and forth argument of "what you said was suboptimal" "oh yeah well what you said was also suboptimal", however I want to make clear to anyone who reads this that your words are your own and I am also not necessarily in agreeance with bringing up and emphasising OP's status as a muslim while trying to discern their motives, or the (accidental?) condescending tone that accompanies "i think they're hurting But(..)", nor am I particularly comfortable delving into the topics of religiosity in this context, as you said it is a separate issue, but also because I think it's a road to nowhere for two people who are not jewish, and presumably not muslim, to weigh in on. However I want to thank you for bringing up the contents of their blog, and their habitual conflation of zionism with judaism, because if you hadn't, I would not have gone to check, nor been made aware that there actually are more relevant examples of blatent antisemitism on their blog that inform the place in which they wrote the post in question from earlier. Someone who makes that sort of post is not someone I want to engage with or agree blindly with on any level.

I think despite both of our best efforts, this will ultimately still boil down to a case of semantics; we seem to have different understandings of why exactly general comparisons between nazism and zionism have been made, as well as why it persists, and colloquial use of the terminology with regards to what constitutes someone or some entity receiving accusations or a label of specifically nazism over fascism.

My understanding of the greater topic at hand, apart from the OP's post--which as established, has a bias attached to it that renders it in need of criticism--is that fascism and nazism are not being conflated 1:1 and used interchangably in these instances, nor is the label of nazi being thrown around to punish or weed out "bad jews", as you imply. (As an aside, I honestly am quite wary of bringing up that sort of terminology here when we are talking about an ethnostate abusing judaism to justify its end goals; I'm unsure it's situationally appropriate to liken this to practices of tokenism, and I can see it being read a bit too closely to the common talking point that zionism being criticised is inherently antisemitic, due to misconstruing the point and insisting that it's not the colonial violence, establishment of an ethnostate, racism, apartheid, genocide, etc, that's wrong, but that it's a jewish state doing it that people simply don't like, which is not something I wish to impart, nor do I think that was your intention for that matter, but I do not feel comfortable posting this while not offering a disclaimer.) Rather, it is the label being applied to a geopolitical entity that has adopted ideals, apart from "just" textbook fascism, that are also inherent to those of the broader nazi ideology, specifically--such as but not limited to the topics and practices I previoisly mentioned in the last reply--and also the way in which the israeli occupation upholds ideals of racial superiority, white supremacy in particular. It's nowhere "just" the weaponisation of forced starvation where the similarities lie. If you were to hear someone call a group of people "human animals", or paint themselves as "the children of light" and their targets "the children of dark", for example, it would be reasonable to immediately label this nazi rhetoric, regardless of who is saying it, because things exactly like this were and still are said by those who are nazis. By extension, if you were to see an ethnostate practice and enforce eugenics, such as forcing ethiopian jewish women to take contraceptives against their knowledge as a condition of being allowed into israel, or the marriage laws that exist within israeli society barring jews from marrying non-jews, and argue ethnic superiority, it would be kind of wild to choose to die on the hill of insisting that people not liken that to nazi ideology. Not all fascism is automatically nazism, but if something mirrors nazism specifically, this closely, there are going to be people calling it that, because that's what it looks like and that's what it operates like. I do not believe it is any coincidence either that those who aren't jewish and are on the alt-right very often wind up being outspoken zionists, even in cases where those same people are also outspoken antisemites and even self identify as nazis, neo-nazis, or white supremacists. The ideologies ironically do not conflict like they seem they should, and I firmly push back against the insinuation that pointing this out is feeding into the israeli propaganda that says all jews are only safe as fellow colonisers in an occupied palestine, especially when zionists target non-zionist jews with particular ferocity.

Ultimately, I'm unsure if either of us, as not just one, but two gentiles, are actually in an acceptable position to debate the broader appropriateness of this matter definitively, and how it pertains to the language that we use. But I do think it's remarkably important to pay mind to who we share words from, and how those words may come across, and exercise due caution to avoid missteps.

Among the people whos stances and words have informed my understanding of matters as detailed above, I have seen a remarkable amount of jews themselves liken zionism--and the methods of genocide the israeli occupation implements--to nazis, nazism, and the holocaust, calling to attention their own familial trauma and experiences while doing so, as well as detailing the massive slap in the face it is to all jews for the israeli occupation to weaponise judaism while committing acts of such incredible depravity, especially in cases where defenders of and active participants in zionist violence continue to say "never again". But this very well could be one of those things where it's okay for some people to say, and not others-- and as in cases like the OP of that post, there is a clear problem with someone saying that while also partaking in blatant antisemitism. I'm not sure, as it's not something that everyone most affected are likely to agree on collectively, but I don't think that everyone who makes these comparisons is inherently operating in bad taste, have intentions of malice, or are throwing around words carelessly. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not out here saying "well I'M going to be saying it, because if they did it then it's ok for me to" or anything of the sort-- because I'm not, and I don't feel it'd be an appropriate response reflective of our conversation's goals. With such an issue, I think it's important to recognise as much nuance as possible, while also treading as carefully as possible, in any given situation, and to carefully examine sources for potential prejudice that alter the overall message being conveyed and the wording used, which are all things that drastically changed the perception of the initial OP's post, and I do want to stress that I am thankful for you bringing that to my attention

#also your syntax reminds me of someone i know--do we know each other?#i suppose theres only so many ways to write but its uncanny #i could be off the mark here so feel free to disregard #however it is unlikely i will leave anon on as i do not wish to invite further discourse from individuals who may not wish to remain civil

1 note · View note

hadeantaiga · 3 months

Note

I mean this entirely in good faith, but I think a lot of people might object to the petition not because it’s asking for the release of Israeli hostages, but because of the wording. I just looked it up and it seems to praise Biden for his role in aiding Israel, and also totally ignores the fact that Israel is the primary aggressor towards Gaza, not Hamas, not to mention that on one slide it lists every nationality of the hostages EXCEPT Palestinians.

I’m not saying I agree with the ire towards Waititi for simply signing this petition I’m just explaining why I think people take issue with it but from what I’ve seen these last few months I could also be wrong and they could just be antisemites frothing at the mouth to call anyone with the wrong opinion a Zionist lol

Hamas is the primary aggressor towards Israel, and Israel is the primary aggressor towards Hamas. Palestinian and Jewish civilians are the victims here.

But on to the letter.

The letter starts with thanks to Biden for helping in the release of two American hostages. The letter doesn't praise Biden for aiding Israel, it thanks him for supporting Jewish people. That's the actual wording.

When you say "Israel" here, you mean it as the state of Israel. The state of Israel and "Jewish people" are NOT interchangeable terms.

The state of Israel itself is literally not mentioned in the letter at all, so I'm really not sure how you got "the letter seems to praise Biden for aiding Israel".

The letter openly mentions Palestinians twice in the letter before getting to the part where it lists all the nationalities of the remaining kidnapping victims, so it's not like they aren't acknowledging the plight of Palestinians.

If there are Palestinian Oct 7th kidnapping victims being held by Hamas, then yes, it would be fucked up that this letter did not list them among the other nationalities. I currently cannot confirm or deny that, though. I can't find any sources that state any of the Oct 7th kidnapping victims were Palestinian, so if someone has such a source I will gladly read it.

Excerpts from the letter:

"Thank you for your unshakable moral conviction, leadership, and support for the Jewish people, who have been terrorized by Hamas since the group’s founding over 35 years ago, and for the Palestinians, who have also been terrorized, oppressed, and victimized by Hamas for the last 17 years that the group has been governing Gaza." "We all want the same thing: Freedom for Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in peace. Freedom from the brutal violence spread by Hamas. And most urgently, in this moment, freedom for the hostages."

10 notes · View notes

arabian-batboy · 3 years

Photo

The New York Times, not a random blog, The New York Times published this.

All that Dua Lipa, Gigi and Bella Hadid (who are Palestinian refugees themselves) did was attend a pro-Palestine protest and speak against Israel’s various war crimes and all of the sudden they have their faces on one of the biggest American newspapers with rockets being fired in the background behind them and with sentences like “calling for a 2nd Holocaust” and "calls for the murder of Jews wherever they are found" and “when people criticize Zionists they mean Jews�� inside the article?

This is so fucking ridiculous, these are one British pop star and two American models and they’re talked about as if they’re members of a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group and direct descendants of Hitler for daring to speak against a foreigner occupation (that directly affect 2/3 of them)? If this doesn’t show you that American/Western media has a serious problem with Palestinian human rights and that Zionist influences is a danger to free speech then I don’t know what will.

#if you look at the end you will see that this ad was organized produced and paid by a Rabbi called Shmuley Boteach #which will explain why they used Jews instead of Israelis as if these two words were interchangeable #because Zionists want these words to be interchangeable #seriously this whole article is propaganda to the max I can't believe they got away with this #Palestine #palestinian #anti zionist #anti zionism #anti israel #anti israeli #dua lipa #bella hadid #gigi hadid

10K notes · View notes

troybarnesbucky · 5 years

Note

What did the actress beind Amira do? But I wouldn't feel guilty about watching it you're allowed to seperate people from characters and Amiras season could be really good and important but do whatever u thinks best :)

i’ve posted about this before, so you can scroll down on my blog and check it out. long story short, she posted on her instagram story two things:

1. a link to a video that blames “Zionists” for a Palestinian woman dying at the border. Once again, “Zionist” is a term that should only be used by Jewish people, and is not actually a bad term. It literally just means people who believe that Jews should be allowed to have a place to call home, that’s it. Additionally, it goes to show that she cannot separate Jews, Israelis, and Zionists, which cannot be used as blanket terms. It has been noted that anyone who uses those terms interchangeably most definitely has antisemitic tendencies. But of course I took this with a grain of salt, because she didn’t say anything and she just linked the video. I wasn’t going to label her as problematic or hurtful because she was mourning the loss of a Palestinian woman.

2. Yesterday she posted a blank story that said, in english, “It is Palestine, NOT Israel.” Now please note that she is German, she always posts in German, and very rarely does she use English on Instagram. Hell, the other part of the story was in German, which says a lot. My point is, she wanted every follower, German-speaking and otherwise, to understand one thing: in her eyes, there’s no such thing as Israel.

Listen, as a sephardic Jewish girl, I’ve been to Israel twice. I loved it, it’s very special to me. I do recognize that what the Palestinians are going through is nothing to be proud of, and I do criticize the Israeli government when it needs to be, which isn’t once in a blue moon anymore. I recognize Israel’s flaws. But it is home to some of my family, it is where my family escapes persecution before going to Canada.

Israel exists. It’s not Palestine. Touka is erasing years of history. But most importantly, she knows the implications of her words, because although they might seem harmless, “It is Palestine, NOT Israel,” is not a conversation, nor is it right.

What she is doing is starting a chain-reaction, she knows that her words ONLY have negative implications, and although the phrase itself might not seem antisemitic, it— more often than not— leads to a conversation that very often ends up in an antisemitic place.

Touka plays Amira, a Sana counterpart. Sana, a character who preaches and fights for the concept and idea that anyone who uses religion to spread and fuel hatred is not someone who should be listened to. Touka plays Amira on Druck, a show about communication, about knowing that there’s more than two sides to every story, about love and acceptance.

Is this me saying that Israel is in the right, always? Is this me saying that Palestinians aren’t valid? NO, I truly believe that Jewish people have a right to a place to call home, as well as Palestinians have a right to be safe. These two facts DO NOT negate each other, they are not opposites nor do they cancel each other out. I am a Jewish girl living in America. I do love Israel, too. It’s not perfect, far from it.

Even more so, I think that Touka has a certain responsibility, particularly because she’s the German Sana counterpart. She should know the antisemitism that’s rising in Europe, and she shouldn’t use her platform like she has been. She knows fully well that by posting what she did, she’s not starting any conversation, she’s simply saying what she believes and that no one can change it.

This isolates Jewish fans, and also Israeli fans, in the Skam/Skam remake fandoms.

I love Amira, and I love all the Sana counterparts. As a Jewish girl, I relate heavily to their story, like seriously.

“It is Palestine, NOT Israel,” is not a conversation, it’s not right, and the implications aren’t good, either. And it seems as thought I’m the only one who cares. And I know that it’s possible to separate the actress from the part she plays, but the next season most likely revolves around Amira, and the fact that the actress herself is just blatantly inducing and sparking potential antisemitism with her beliefs…. I don’t think I can separate or support an actress that doesn’t understand the implications and impacts of her words. And Im not going to explore the implications, because there are so many. But just know that nothing good ever comes out of saying “It is Palestine, NOT Israel.”

I’ll reblog the post I made yesterday right after this is posted, and please note that once again, this isn’t me endorsing the every move that Israel makes. I’m an American Jew, I don’t control or have any say in what the Israeli government does, and quite frankly, neither do most Israelis. To hate on every single person who lives in Israel because of what their government does is like hating every single person in America because of the dumb shit our government does. It makes no sense. But people love to hate Jews, and hating Israel is often times just a mask for hating Jews, despite the fact that we should be able to be understood and respected as separate from Israel, as well as together.

#druck #druck cast #touka el fawwal #amira thalia mahmood #antisemitism #ok to rb but pls dont add anything #unless ur jewish

5 notes · View notes

thesinglesjukebox · 6 years

Video

youtube

NETTA - TOY

[5.00]

She won Eurovision, but can she win us over?

Jessica Doyle: True story: twenty years ago I got back to Grenoble, after a weekend away with the other kids in my study-abroad group, to find my (Orthodox, Lubbavitcher, Sephardic) host mom grinning. "Israel won Eurovision," she explained. Last I heard at least one of her four kids had moved to Israel with their families; and I worry sometimes, in the face of no direct evidence whatsoever, that such a move had more to do with increasing anti-Semitism in France than with their personal circumstances. (Reading this, written in 2012, made me simultaneously nostalgic and sad. But there's still a Chabad in Grenoble, yay!) And now there's "Toy," which is too gleefully, deliberately mindless to lend itself well to a Zionist analysis -- and God bless, at a time when even poor Natalie frickin' Portman can't pass the Zionist-Enough test, that somebody decided Israel was confident enough to risk a Eurovision anthem that didn't lend itself well to a Zionist analysis. And God bless all those European voters who were willing, at a time when the personal has to be political (and when Lorde's camp apparently can't tell the difference between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem), to forget about boycotting, divesting, and sanctioning for a moment and cluck along. [7]

Jonathan Bogart: During the final ceremony, I thumbnailed Israel's entry as "Meghan Trainor meets Reggie Watts," an uncharitable but not inaccurate reading of Netta's gleefully unhip beat-box looping grafted onto proudly full-figured but otherwise embarrassing empowerment anthems. (I should perhaps have added Beth Ditto for sheer vocal power.) But it was the Wonder Woman line that made me pause, because Israel's soft-power propaganda campaign has had its clearest advocate over the last several years in Gal Gadot. Like Gadot, Netta served her mandatory term in the IDF; unlike her, she served exclusively in military bands. It would be foolish to reduce my response to Netta entirely to her nation's crimes (if it came to that, few of us could escape judgment), but I can't help wondering how complicit she, and all of us (I saw Wonder Woman opening weekend), are. [5]

Leonel Manzanares de la Rosa: I love the fact that Netta's "Toy" won Eurovision, yet I hate the idea of Israel hosting next year. The most brilliant track conquered Europe, rightfully, but I have a huge problem with my favorite music event of the year taking place in an apartheid state. That being said, there's so much going on in the song, and it's all so freakin' exciting, I don't know exactly where to begin. Okay, the song is built around a vocal looper, and Netta's incredible acrobatics, chicken noises, percussive clicks and sheer rhythmic brilliance, but there's also a bona fide ethno-pop banger underneath, in which we can hear her deliver all sorts of ear-catching melodies (even going full Migos flow for a while). And just because she's that much of a badass, there's a full-on dabke break at the beginning of the second verse, a homage to the rich musical traditions of the Levant. "Toy" is a work of genius; both accessible and experimental, both ethnic and cosmopolitan, in line with contemporary trends, but compositionally in a league of its own. It was the best song, by far, in Lisbon, a clear pre-show favorite, and it took the crystal microphone. It's also a well-deserved fuck you to last year's winner Salvador Sobral's tone-deaf, unfortunate "fireworks vs. feelings" statements; not only because Salvador himself hated the song, but because Netta is indeed an incredibly accomplished musician, and however funny and bubbly "Toy" is, everything about it is as "real music" as that jazz interval show with Caetano Veloso in the Grand Final. Last year I mentioned how the contest will still be a big, beautiful, camp, queer party, and that music can be fireworks, feelings, and fun. "Toy" is all that, and much, much more. [9]

Katherine St Asaph: Douze points to... takes! So many separate vectors for takes that the intended #MeToo take doesn't register at all. Or any song. [2]

William John: The zany affectations and gurned squeaks bring to mind the way in which Björk is conceptualised by those who've never before heard a Björk song as the embodiment of unexplainable eccentricity. But the more obvious reference point for "Toy" is the singer previously of Karmin (who, as an aside, is now masquerading in blackface under a new nom de plume). In the same way that Karmin's showy YouTube cover clips endeavoured to reduce rap to a game of tongue-twisters, performer Netta here overwhelms her song's attempt to champion autonomy with garish, irritating theatrics. [1]

Will Adams: The studio version of "Toy" is a stormer, zooming from section to section with off-the-wall production so fast it's hard to keep up with. We've got Pikachus and teddybears and iPhone dings and Netta's committed performance all leading up to an uplifting breakdown that quickly swerves into Arrested Development-style mockery of the stupid boy. The song itself is great. But Eurovision songs don't exist in a bubble; they incorporate staging, choreography, styling choices, the pressure to play to juries and audiences' expectation of what Eurovision "zaniness" looks like. And so we get bullshit like the Netherlands's tone-deaf entry and Israel's Stefani-esque grossness. The problem here is that it's 2018 and people are still trotting out that old "what's WRONG with paying tribute to OTHER cultures it's not offensive it's BEAUTIFUL" chestnut. And in a year that was very subdued by Eurovision's standards, it's too egregious to ignore. [6]

Iain Mew: When TV commentators on the semi-final promised upcoming chicken noises, my thoughts turned immediately to Wang Rong. Little did I realise how apt that would prove, with the performance of "Toy" being every "check out this Japanese/Korean/Chinese pop culture, it's so WTF!" article in stage form, but this time skipping the need for anyone East Asian to even be involved. There could be something in separating out "Toy" from its staging, up to the point of Netta explaining that "Baka is also 'stupid' in Japanese" and the realisation that treating Japanese as interchangeable with animal sounds is integral to the song too. [2]

Edward Okulicz: Netta is a superlative performer, and "Toy" has an actual message, but it's taken a really weird, silly song, musically, to bring both of those out. The way she clucks out those syllables while throwing in actual words between the clucks is evidence of impressive verbal dexterity. She's all sing-song in the pre-chorus, and spitting fire in the actual chorus, so it's not just dexterity, it's ability to switch acting personas so playfully that's also astonishing. The song makes me like Netta. But I don't love the song itself, because the chorus with its "boy/toy" rhyme feels very childish and I keep waiting for the string swoops to turn into "7 Nation Army" -- now there's a killer bootleg waiting to happen. As frequently occurs with Eurovision songs, the on-stage production had some questionable aesthetic choices, but I can't say I've ever seen a performer on stage quite like her. [5]

Alex Clifton: God, it's nice to have a fun winner for the first time in a few years, isn't it? Don't get me wrong -- I liked Portugal's song last year, and "1944" is a gorgeous song loaded with pain -- but I come to Eurovision for silly, fizzy pop. "Toy" is an earworm for the ages that makes you want to dance, and also feels welcome in the age of #MeToo. "I'm not your toy" is a sentence I've thought as I've dealt with boys who somehow forget that women have interiority and lives not related to them, but rarely have I felt it as joyfully as when Netta yelps it. Empowerment songs are weird because for all the inspiring lyrics, they rarely have the actual undercurrent of power that should accompany them. Thankfully, Netta's got charisma and force and sells this both as a dance song as well as a warning to the guys who may try to cross her. [8]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

#Netta

1 note · View note

michaeljohnmorgan · 6 years

Text

HOL0DOR; HOLOCAUST INDUDSTRY

HOLODOR "which means “Famine-Genocide.”

Bolshevik Jews who plotted the Ukrainian Holodorom

The aim of Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan in the Ukraine was to destroy family farms through starvation making the peasants “landless” and thereby introducing “collectivization” by which the Ukrainian peasants were forced to become employees of the state. This forced-famine reached its crises point in 1932.

1) Lazar Kaganovich: Stalin’s political figurehead of the Central Committee. In 1928, Kaganovich led the implementation in the Ukraine of Stalin’s first Five-Year Plan.

2) Genrikh Yagoda: Founder of the NKVD (Soviet Secret Police). Assisted in the first Five-Year Plan of starving Ukrainian peasants.

3) Nikolai Yezhov: Appointed by Yagoda as Head of the NKVD. Assisted in the first Five-Year Plan of starving Ukrainian peasants. (Yezhov took on a “Russian” name like most Bolshevik Jews.

Jews want a monopoly on the world’s “sympathy.” But the Jews do not deserve the world’s sympathy as the Ukrainian Christian clergy and peasants deserve it. For they were *innocent victims* of the forced famine.

Marxism, Communism, Stalinism, Bolshevism and Zionism; INTERCHANGABLE

"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent away in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American Hebrew, September 10, 1920)

Bolshevik ERA, Judaic Communists

ZIONIST Jews WANT THE WORLD to believe that they have a monopoly on “Holocaust Remembrances.” But Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko has thrown the Jews a curve by dedicating 2008 as “Ukrainian Holocaust Remembrance Year”

This “holocaust remembrance” recalls the murder by forced starvation of 6 to 8 million+, Ukrainian Christians by the Jewish Bolsheviks. The Ukrainians call this holocaust “Holodomor” which means “Famine-Genocide.” Of course the Zionist Jews deny it. Just like they deny all of their numerous crimes against humanity.

THE WILD BEAST

Revelation13:1; I Michael stood on the sand of the shore,

I saw a wild beast rise up out of the sea of humanity, having TEN HORNS and seven heads, and upon his HORNS TEN CROWNS and upon his heads blasphemous words.

TEN HORNS TEN CROWNS

Atheism, Talmudism, Zionism, Israelism, Judaism, Communism, Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Anti-Christianizm = Anti-Christs

BOLSHEVISM = ZIONISM = ISRAELISM = JUDAISM

Written by Vladimir Moss; MODIFIED BY MICHAEL MORGAN

The unprecedented catastrophe of the Russian revolution required an explanation… For very many this lay in the coming to power of the Jews, and their hatred for the Russian people.

Note: Fake News is controlled in the United States by Zionist Jews; Anti-Christs

After the revolution of February, 1917 the Jews acquired full rights with the rest of the population, and the (already very porous) barriers set up by the Pale of Settlement were destroyed. Jews poured from the western regions into the major cities of European Russia and soon acquired prominent executive positions in all major sectors of government and the economy.

As Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written, February brought only harm and destruction to the Russian population. However, “Jewish society in Russia received in full from the February revolution everything that it had fought for, and the October coup was really not needed by it, except by that cutthroat part of the Jewish secular youth that with its Russian brother-internationalists had stacked up a charge of hatred for the Russian State structure and was straining to ‘deepen’ the revolution.” It was they who through their control of the Executive Committee of the Soviet – over half of its members were Jewish socialists – assumed the real power after February, and propelled it on – contrary to the interests, not only of the Russian, but also of the majority of the Jewish population, - to the October revolution.

Nevertheless, at the time of the October revolution only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews (in the early 1900s they constituted 19% of the party). “At the elections to the Constituent Assembly ‘more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted’ for the Zionist parties.

Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalists. ‘The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘

The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”

The simultaneous triumph of the Jews in Russia and Palestine was indeed an extraordinary “coincidence”: Satanic influences drew the attention of all those with eyes to see this sign of the times when, in one column of newsprint in the London Times for November 9, 1917, there appeared two articles, the one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other – the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (the Balfour declaration).

This coincidence was reinforced by the fact that the atheist Jews who triumphed in Israel in 1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel, came from the same region and social background – the Pale of Settlement in Western Russia – as the atheist Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917. Sometimes they even came from the same families.

Thus Chaim Weitzmann, the first president of Israel, points out in his Autobiography that his brothers and sisters were all either Zionists or Bolsheviks.

HERZL, JABOTINSHY; ZIONIST LEADERS

Theodor Herzl; Te'odor Hertsel, Hungarian: Herzl Tivadar; May 2, 1860 – July 3, 1904), born Benjamin Ze'ev Herzl (Hebrew: בִּנְיָמִין זְאֵב הֶרְצֵל Binyamin Ze'ev Hertsel), also known in Hebrew as חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה, Chozeh HaMedinah (lit. "Visionary of the State") was an Austro-Hungarian journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer.

He was one of the fathers of modern political Zionism.

Herzl formed the World Zionist Organization and promoted Jewish migration to Palestine in an effort to form a Jewish state (Israel).

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, born Vladimir Yevgenyevich Zhabotinsky, Russian: Влади́мир Евге́ньевич Жаботи́нский; 18 October 1880, Odessa – 4 August 1940, Hunter, New York), was a Russian Jewish Revisionist Zionist leader, author, poet, orator, soldier and founder of the Jewish Self-Defense Organization in Odessa. With Joseph Trumpeldor, he co-founded the Jewish Legion[2] of the British army in World War I. Later he established several militant Jewish organizations in Palestine, including Beitar, HaTzohar and the Irgun.

While Herzl is often mistakenly identified as the first major Zionist activist, scholars such as Yehuda Bibas, Zvi Hirsch Kalischer and Judah Alkalai were promoting Zionist ideas before him

Indeed, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that general triumph of Jewish power which we observe in the twentieth century in both East and West, in both Russia and America and Israel. The mainly Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership – and of the world revolution in general – cannot be doubted. Such a view was not confined to “anti-Semites”.

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill wrote: “It would almost seem as if the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the Divine and the diabolical…”

HOLODORM; Holocaust

Of course the Zionist Jews deny it. Just like they deny all of their numerous crimes against humanity.

Bolshevik Jews were the chief architects of the Ukrainian forced-famine which eliminated Ukrainian clergy and 6-8 million Ukrainian Orthodox Christians

THE TOLL

How many millions perished?

Harry Lang, editor of the left-wing Jewish daily Forward, published in New York, visited Ukraine in 1933 and was told by a high-ranking state official that six million people (Christians) had perished from the famine.

Other estimates range from 6.5 to 8.5 million. We will never know the exact number.

COLLECTIVIZATION

In 1928 Stalin suddenly announced accelerated industrialization in the form of the first five-year plan. The plan was hastily put together and, as a result, billions of rubles were wasted.

By 1930 it became clear that Stalin's government was running out of funds. Rather than rethink economic strategies, Stalin ordered more grain to be squeezed out of the peasantry of Ukraine and surround countries.

The quickest method of accomplishing this, according to Stalin, was to establish collective farms by expropriating all peasant land, grain reserves and livestock without compensation. Also, collective farms would have to turn over all their produce to the state.

A NATIONAL TRAGEDY

Historian Valentyn Moroz of the Institute for Historical Review wrote:

— “The Ukrainian village had long been recognized as the bastion of national traditions. The Bolsheviks JEWS sought to strike a fatal blow at the village structure because it was the life spring of the vital national spirit.”

When the Ukrainian peasantry was under attack in 1932-33, Ukrainian political and cultural leaders sprang to their defense. Ewald Ammende, a German eyewitness who analysed this question, wrote in 1936: "The widest circle of the Ukrainian intelligentsia had entered the struggle: teachers, students, Soviet officials, all thought it was their duty to protest against a further sucking dry of their country.... The Soviet regime was faced by a united people, a solid front, including everyone from the highest Soviet officials down to the poorest peasants."

Ukrainian cultural and political leaders paid a heavy price for refusing to become unwilling agents in the extermination of their own people.

In 1933, at the height of the famine, a massive purge was ordered in Ukraine. As P. Postyshev, Stalin's henchmen in Ukrain, pointed out, "almost all people removed were arrested and put before the firing squad."

The purge continued virtually uninterrupted until 1938, claiming the lives of 80 per cent of Ukraine's creative intelligentsia. Thousands of priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were killed, as were that church's 35 bishops.

The desire to stamp out a Ukrainian national consciousness was so extreme that, according to the famous Russian composer, Dmitrii Shostakovich, several hundred blind bandurysty - itinerant folk singers - were executed.

Hundreds of thousands of party members were shot. The purge was so thorough that by 1938 not a single secretary of the Council of the People's Commissars in Ukraine (the cabinet), not even a single deputy of Ukraine's parliament, the Supreme Soviet was left.

The purges were intended to deal a devastating blow to the existence of Ukrainians as a nation. At the 20th Party Congress in 1956 Khrushchev said Stalin had even considered deporting all Ukrainians to Siberia, but "there were too many of them and there was no place to which to deport them."

With the famine and the purges, Stalin had come as close to destroying a nation as his unrestrained power would permit.

From 1936-1939, when Stalin's "International Brigade" forces were dispatched to Spain to fight the Catholics, Jewish Communists comprised the largest faction of his troops, "More than 40,000 volunteers fought in the International Brigade...A huge number of the volunteers were Jews: between 7,000 and 10,000 of the Internationals as a whole, more than one-third of the Americans." Jewish Communist Milton Wolff was the last commander of the American contingent. Rabbi Hyman Katz joined in order to fight Spanish Christians. (cf. Jeffrey Sharlet, "Troublemakers," Pakn Treger, Fall, 1997, pp. 16, 18 and 24).

The Communist Jews slaughtered 6,549 Spanish priests, 283 helpless nuns and 13 bishops. "In Ciudad Real in the center of Spain, the bishop and every single priest of the diocese were murdered; not one escaped." --Dr. Warren H. Carroll, 70 Years of the Communist (Zionist) Revolution, pp. 184-185, 188-189. (Also cf. Justo Perez de Urbel, Catholic Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War [Kansas City, Missouri: The Angelus Press, 1993).

Stalin's propaganda agent in Spain was New Yorker Leon Rosenthal.

Ukraine’s chief Rabbi Yakov Dov Bleich said: — “We can’t equate the Holocaust of the Jews in Germany with the Holodomor in Ukraine. The now Ukrainian Jewish leaders do not support recognizing the Holodomor as genocide.” — Baltimore Jewish Times, Nov 14 2007.

Note: the Orthodox Ukrainian of the Holodorom in Ukraine where CHRISTIANS AND NOT JEW. If it were Jews of the Holodorom then it would be called a Holocaust. The Jews would not kill their own nor join forces with orthodox Christians.

VLADIMIR PUTI

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin, contrary to David Duke’s assertions that he is promoting a white-society, is rather promoting the re-emergence of the historic religion and culture of Russia, namely, Russian Orthodox Christianity.

In a recent statement to Russian Orthodox Christians in America, Putin said, “You now have a believer at the head of Russia’s government.”

Putin has put his money where his mouth is by refusing the request of Russian Jewish scientists to discontinue Russian Christian Orthodoxy 101 in public schools and The International Gay Rights Movement packed its bags in retreat when Putin consistently banned their Gay Parades in the streets of Moscow ever since his reign began in 2000.

ON NOVEMBER 5 2007, a rally was staged in Moscow celebrating Russian Unity Day. Slogans against Jews were shouted out including, “Death To The Jews!” World Jewry is now criticizing Putin for both allowing the rally and not repudiating it. ANTI-SEMETIC

See Jerusalem Post’s Russia Slow To Act Against Anti Semitism

Bottom Line: The clock is now ticking before a huge backlash against the ZIONIST AGENDA occurs both here in America and abroad. Whenever Jews arrogate to themselves overwhelming power, history has taught us that a reaction by the host nations eventually takes place.

Clouds are raising in the midst of the clouds; thunder and lightning; hail and rain; fire and brimstone. A whirlwind; Locust of the Nazarene; Horsemen and Horses a GREAT ARMY. Jesus said, I will send my angels at the sound of a trumpet to gather from the for winds of the earth. A great army that will separate My Sheep from the Goats.

Norm Finkelstein wrote a book called Holocaust Industry; I have placed a you-tub video of his on face book; short but sweet.

1 note · View note

clubofinfo · 7 years

Text

Expert: Previously I argued that the phony war on “islamic terrorism”, the incessant attacks on and indictment of Islam as a violent religion, and the claim to bring so-called “democracy” to a region ruled by “dictators” are ploys for U.S. wars in the Middle East. Real motives instead, I further argued, are driving these wars with the objective to destabilize, remake, or destroy Arab societies, partition all states that are not in line with the U.S. and Israeli policies, and, in short, dismantle the Arab world. Two agendas converge to implement this effort. The first has for a focus the aims of U.S. hyper-imperialism. Besides submitting the Arab nations to U.S. plans and military control, the quest for uncontested global hegemony is the core of this agenda. While such a quest is intrinsic to the making of the colonialist nature of the American state, the part related to the Arab world is a particular detail within the overall agenda. Explanation: The Arab regions in the Middle East and North Africa enjoy unrivaled geostrategic assets palatable to U.S. imperialism. However, targeting the Arab nations for war, destruction, and partition because of resources or geographic positions makes no sense in modern times unless a wider, deeper agenda is playing out in the U.S. calculation. This raises a series of questions. What are the forces directing the Arab agenda of the United States? Are these forces responsible for the persistent hostility toward the Arabs and the active destruction of selective states? Did such a plan start with Kissinger-controlled U.S. foreign policy during Nixon’s presidency or does it go further back in time? Were Sadat’s recognition of Israel, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Iraq’s American-induced invasion of Iran and Kuwait, and U.S. war on Iraq in 1991 the preparatory stages for that plan? A vital question: Do such forces persuade or coerce the United States to oppose all equitable proposals to solve the Palestinian Question? And to close, who is keeping the interventionist agenda going? Who are the proponents of the Fascist Military Pacification Model the United States wants to impose on the Arab nations? The second agenda belongs to Israel. Considering its complex logistics and interwoven interests with the global aims of the United States, this agenda is partly carried out by Israel and partly by the United States but with European and Arab vassals following orders. Israel’s agenda operates on nine levels each of which comes with own scope, parameters, and application tools: General Level: To expand the scope of Zionist narratives on Palestine, so-called right of Jews to return to it, fake historical rights, and so on. Films, TV, false archeology, fake research books, internet, propagandists, and all type of media—even cookbooks—are the avenues for such efforts. American Level: To preserve the duopoly system as is for easy management; keep the White House and Congress under tight Zionist control; keep the display of power as in AIPAC annual pageantries in order to demonstrate system’s obedience and Zionist control; conceive and implement U.S. foreign policy through American Jewish Zionists who occupy key posts in the American system. America’s European Vassals Level: To keep European states under the U.S. umbrella for a stronger Israeli control. Russian/Chinese Level: With over one million ethnic Russian Jews living in Israel, Israel has an advantage in Russia through organized Zionist lobbyists and oligarchs. The scope is to keep Russia out of the Middle East—it failed in Syria—and away from the Arabs. As for China, Israel provides American-designed military technology to increase influence thus preempting potential Chinese support for Arab causes. International Level: The U.S. belligerent posturing toward North Korea is not its own. It is Israeli by all standards and terminologies. Explanation: N. Korea provided military technology to Iran and Pakistan. That is anathema to Israel. If N. Korea were to stop cooperating with countries deemed adversaries to Israel, the U.S. saber rattling would cease instantly. The other scope is to keep flaunting any U.N. resolution critical of Israel using the U.S. hegemon as a buffer. America’s Arab vassals: The United States has practically ended, on behalf of Israel, the Arab system of nations through wars and interventions. Israel is now poised to submit all Arab regimes—not the peoples—to its military power and political will. Regional Level: To maintain Israeli superiority by means of American military supplies, as well as its own. However, the United States is now doing the major job by smashing the Arab states–one by one. The partition of Sudan and the pending partition of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen are examples. Palestinian Level: To implement the plan to settle the Palestinian Question on Israeli terms. This is how it works. Give the Palestinian a semblance of economic independence within the occupation regime; swallow what remains of historic Palestine; suffocate Gaza to death to stop the resistance; declare a “state” called “Palestine” in Gaza comprising lands taken from Egypt. Israeli Level: To intensify the Zionization, fascistization, chauvinism, and racism of the Israeli Jewish society. This is important for the continuation of the Zionist project to create a “greater Israel”. Further, the Zionist project was not about creating a “homeland” for the Jews of Europe. It is about Zionist expansions and empire. According to this scheme, turning the racist ideology of and the colonialist core of Zionism into a permanent way of thinking could guarantee the continuation of Israel as a peculiar racist state. Discussion What we want to see now is what did American Jewish Zionists do to rise to such an unprecedented power in the United States? There is a flipside to the coin. Was such a rise autonomous or dependent on factors rooted in the American system? In other words, who allowed Jewish Zionists to dominate the United States? To answer, we need a starting point. Jewish Zionist propaganda would like the uninformed to believe that the United States was already in pre-Zionist sympathies at least since President John Adams.1 An example of such propaganda outlets is the Zionist website Jewish Virtual Library. This so-called library made a compendium of U.S. presidents who, it claims, supported the idea of “restoring the lands of Israel” to its “people”.2 First, U.S. presidents prior to Theodore Roosevelt might have made favorable expressions to certain Jewish individuals. However, I view such expressions as apolitical, superficial, and ceremonial. Moreover, they had no bearing into the future—this was yet to unfold depending on world events. Nor did they set the path for Franklyn D. Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman to prepare for the installation of a Zionist entity in Palestine. It seems that the “Library” wants to convey the idea that rational political processes brought the United States to side with Zionism and later with Israel. Now, recalling that such “sympathies” might have been made in response to solicitations by Jewish personalities, they were not the political convictions of the American system. However, they became so after Woodrow Wilson publically endorsed the British Mandate for Palestine. Second, because the American system depends on ideological continuity, it is expected that Roosevelt’s anti-Arab racism and Zionist outlook would pass to his successors. Such passage would also confirm that new patterns of domestic power were emerging. Explanation: in U.S. political settings, the presidents of the imperialist state invariably adopt and further expand on the foreign policies of their predecessors. The pretense that what those presidents expressed had amounted to recognition of “Jewish claims” on Palestine is baseless. Needless to argue, the fate of Palestine, then under Ottoman rule until the end of WWI, was not a subject for U.S. presidents to decide. Colonialism, however, was the only historical force able to divide conquered nations according to self-interest or consequent to political machinations. Yet, those expressions revealed something interesting— the cultural ignorance of U.S. presidents. Fixated on biblical stories, they interchanged the religious affiliation of Europeans of Jewish faith with the ancient Hebrews. With this, a historical falsehood had been established. Later, this would become the rationalized basis to install a settler state in Palestine. When American Jewish Zionists twisted the arms of FDR and Harry Truman to make them agree to their demands, and when both presidents gave up under pressure, it became evident that a Jewish Zionist force was born. Under this premise, I view Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklyn D. Roosevelt as the primary facilitators of U.S. Zionism and its ascending power. Harry Truman is another story. Although, the Zionist state was born under his watch, he was not that essential in the gestation of Zionism toward power. It is true, however, that Truman, a war criminal and opportunist who sold out to Zionists to garner their vote, was a catalyst in turning American Jewish Zionists into the masters of the United States. Explanation: the installation of Israel gave momentum to the emergent power of Zionists. Still, during the transition from European Jewish invasion of Palestine to the installation of Israel, Truman did nothing but to continue with the moral cowardice and treachery of Franklyn D. Roosevelt toward the Arabs. To back the views I just presented, I will discuss in this part Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; in the upcoming Part 5, I will discuss Franklyn D. Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt Since ever New York Jewish Zionists supported his campaign for governor of New York, and later for president, Roosevelt, a racist and an avowed colonialist in the American tradition, set the stage for a long-lasting confrontational U.S. policy toward the Arabs. With that policy came the gradual elevation of American Jewish Zionists to the claimed status of “king makers” of American politics—especially in the making of foreign policy. Here I want to stress one aspect, which is how the hate of the Arabs became synonymous with the Jewish Zionist power. It works like this: If an American individual wants to run for office, he must declare or pledge in advance his support of Israel against all its “enemies”—the Arabs. On the other hand, opposing Israel (or Zionism) on any ground could mean losing elections and careers. How did Theodore Roosevelt set the stage for a durable anti-Arab policy of the United States? Let us reprise a quotation that appeared in Part 2. In a private meeting held in 1907, Roosevelt confided: It is impossible to expect moral, intellectual, and material well-being where Mohammedanism is supreme. The Egyptians, for example, were a people of Moslem fellahin who have never in all time exercised any self-government whatever. Britain’s Lord Cromer, Roosevelt added, is one of the greatest modern colonial administrators, and he has handled Egypt just according to Egypt’s needs, military occupation, foreign tutelage, and Christian patience.3 [Sic], [Italics added] Roosevelt’s opinion on regions dominated by Mohammedanism—his word for Islam—was in tune with his bigoted ideology. Anyone, of course, is entitled to his opinion. But when an American president expresses racist remarks debasing peoples and their religion, the implication is enormous. Simply, it means that said president, his administration, and subsequent administrations would most likely take the same path. This is how political states stay in business. Eventually, a nurtured prejudice could evolve into state policy— the systematic destruction of the Original Peoples of the United States and the ideology of the Third Reich are examples. Consequently, it is not farfetched to say that Roosevelt’s prejudice had come a long way. Today, it has become the official philosophy of the United States. A few decades after Roosevelt, John Kennedy, then a senator from New York, proved the assessment I just made. In search of the so-called Jewish vote, he had to go through the rituals of praise (allegiance) to Zionism and to exempt it from the disasters in the Middle East. In addressing a gathering at B’nai Zion Anniversary, he virtually licked the Zionist rear end without shame, pride, or, at least, a little cultivated historical and cultural knowledge. With his speech (1958), Kennedy proved beyond any doubt that 11 years after the installation of Israel (1947), the power of American Jewish Zionist had become a strong fixture in U.S. politics. He said: This myth – with which you are all too familiar – is the assertion that it is Zionism which has been the unsettling and fevered infection in the Middle East, the belief that without Israel there would somehow be a natural harmony throughout the Middle East and the Arab world. Quite apart from the values and hopes which the State of Israel enshrines – and the past injuries which it redeems – it twists reality to suggest that it is the democratic tendency of Israel which has injected discord and dissention into the Near East. Even by the coldest calculations, the removal of Israel would not alter the basic crisis in the area. For, if there is any lesson which the melancholy events of the last two years and more taught us, it is that, though Arab states are generally united in opposition to Israel, their political unities do not rise above this negative position. The basic rivalries within the Arab world, the quarrels over boundaries, the tensions involved in lifting their economies from stagnation, the cross-pressures of nationalist – all of these factors would still be there even if there were no Israel.4 Comment I could write a full dissertation on Kennedy’s speech and the excerpt I just cited . . . What Kennedy said is a classic example of political succumbence. It also shows how indoctrinations, political posturing, and the expected benefits from sycophancy seep from a political epoch to another. For instance, in his lengthy speech, he never uttered the words Palestine or Palestinians. And when he talked about the Palestinians kicked out of their lands by Jewish Zionist terrorists, he called them “Arab refugees”. (See pictures of Palestinians kicked out by Zionists in 1948). Beyond that, it confirms that the imperialist state had blindly embraced the Zionist narratives. And to close, it demonstrates a culture of obedience to Zionism, and acute prejudice against the Arabs. Above all, Kennedy’s speech highlighted the ascending power of American Jewish Zionism in the United States. There is more. Kennedy externalized the standard political making of an American politician seeking office. When candidates confront the issue of Israel and the Arabs before Jewish Zionist gatherings, they invariably become arrogantly offensive toward the Arabs, but exceedingly flattering toward Zionism. (I added Italics to every sentence of the excerpt where a counter-argument can be made to demolish Kennedy’s assertions. I stop here, however, to avoid derailing this article.) Let us go back to Roosevelt. When he made his racist feelings known, he appeared to have implied that only when Christianity is supreme, intellectual and well-being are guaranteed. In saying so, he gave Jewish Zionists the ideological weapons to fight Arab and Palestinian nationalisms. To be noted, Roosevelt’s praise for Lord Cromer is revealing. In casting his praise with words such as, “the greatest modern colonial administrators”, he left no doubt that the guiding light of the United States is an ideology that glorifies colonialism and slavery while turning colonialist administrators into symbols of virtue and rectitude. Aside from supremacist beliefs, Roosevelt’s use of the concept “Christian patience” lacks originality. He plagiarized Rudyard Kipling’s concept of “White’s man burden”. This observation is important: it shows how ideological contagion works. Knowing this little bit about Roosevelt’s sentiments, it should not be surprising, therefore, when he stated it is “entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.”5 The question one may ask, what were Roosevelt’s rationales and historic justification for a Zionist state “around Jerusalem”? Why is it “entirely proper to start a Zionist state”? What makes it proper: his ideology or bigotry? Why did he ignore the Palestinians who lived in, around, and beyond Jerusalem? Woodrow Wilson From studying how U.S. presidents interacted with Zionism and Israel, we may be able to draw some conclusions. For instance, from Theodore Roosevelt to Herbert Hoover, the trend was to mix theology, mythology, and colonialism. From FDR to George H. W. Bush the tunes changed to include the primacy of imperialism and the usefulness of Israel to America’s global agenda. From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, theology and mythology resurfaced but this time the fuel is anti-Muslim Christian Zionism, anti-Arab Neocon Jewish Zionism, and the new plans to partition the Arab states. It is known that the beginning of any process is a tone-setter for the next enterprise. Under this light, Wilson’s way of thinking about a Zionist state acquires special importance. It rested on four grounds: theological dogmas, Manifest Destiney beliefs, colonialist mindset, and on his conviction of the virtues of European colonialist states. When he (under suspicious circumstances),6 selected the Jewish Zionist Louis Dembitz Brandeis to be his informal advisor on foreign policy, he set the precedence for the rise of many Jewish Zionist advisors and chiefs of staff to presidents and vice presidents.7 But when he appointed him to the Supreme Court, he initiated the process of the Zionist penetration into the American state. To evaluate how Brandeis was working on the mind of Wilson, I am going to quote Jerry Klinger. Klinger is a Jewish Zionist propagandist and a founder of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation. In his article Judge Brandeis, President Wilson and Reverend William E. Blackstone changed Jewish history Klinger details the intellectual and ideological interactions Between Wilson and Brandeis: Brandeis knew and understood Wilson. He understood what influences Wilson would respond to. He understood the soul of President Wilson. Brandeis was a master politician and courtroom manipulator of opinion and direction. Wilson needed to be appealed to on the basis of faith but not by faith alone would the President act. Wilson needed to be sure of his political base of popular support for his actions. He needed to be sure it was the right thing for America. He weighed his actions carefully and not impulsively. [Emphasis added] He continues further down: Wilson further understood through Brandeis that there were delicate negotiations going on in Britain for a declaration of intentions regarding Jewish interests once Britain had wrested control of Palestine from the Turks. [Emphasis added] Most important for Brandeis was that Wilson understood he had significant grassroots American political and faith based support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Blackstone Memorial was an American document and not a British document. It was important for Wilson and Brandeis to show that they were not the followers of the British. American foreign policy was not shaped and directed by the British but by American interests. [Emphasis added] Comment Well, now that we know how Wilson had gotten his political education on the claims of Zionism, let us move forward. Brandeis is a master manipulator. Klinger’s statement that Brandeis convinced Wilson that “supporting the British plan for Palestine means that American foreign policy was not shaped and directed by the British but by American interests” was a winning tactic. It gave self‑importance to a United States. I view that tactic as an early indication of how American Jewish Zionists intended to manipulate the United States. Did Wilson comply with the coaching imparted to him by Brandeis? Certainly, in his book, The Elected and the Chosen: Why American Presidents Have Supported Jews and Israel, page 179, Denis Brian, an Irish Christian Zionist provides an adequate answer: Like many previous presidents, Wilson compared the Jews of the old testament with the colonists and the early history of America. He then goes on to quote Wilson directly: Recalling the previous experiences of the colonists in applying the Mosaic Code to the order of their internal life, it is not to be wondered at that the various passages in the Bible that serve to undermine royal authority, stripping the Crown of its cloak of divinity, held up before the pioneer Americans the Hebrew Commonwealth as a model government. In the spirit and essence of our Constitution, the influence of the Hebrew Commonwealth was paramount in that it was not only the highest authority for the principle, “that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,” but also because it was in itself a divine precedent for a pure democracy, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy or any other form of government. To think that I, the son of the manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people. Comment Despite academic credentials and a university post, Wilson manifested clear intellectual confusion. First, he mingled between diverse categories of thought. Second, his mix-up was so severe that he bundled theology (divinity, etc.) with mythology as in his “various passages in the Bible”. And, if that were not sufficient, he added to the mixture a dose of political gibberish as in the dictions “pure democracy”, “monarchy”, etc. Then he resorted to colonialism as in his phrase “to help restore”…etc. Not only that, but his approach to important U.S. policy directions that structurally overlooked the existence of the Palestinians—the future victims of his planned “restoration” smacks of ignorance, dishonesty, callousness, and ethical perfidy. I wonder how Wilson would have responded to a question such as this: Mr. President, did you ever think to restore the Original Peoples of the United States to the lands you and your predecessors have stolen by fire, forced relocations, and extermination? Next, I will discuss Franklyn D. Roosevelt and other issues. • First published in American Herald Tribune Read Part One here; Part Two here; Part Three here Next: Part 5: Part 6: Interview with Francis Boyle Part 7: Interview with James Petras Part 8: Interview with Kim Petersen * The Austrian Nathan Birnbaum coined the term Zionism in 1890. I view any prior similar ideology as pre-Zionist. * Jewish Virtual Library, S. Presidents & Israel: Quotes About Jewish Homeland & Israel * Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945, University of North Carolina Press, 2008, p. 16. * JFK Presidential Library and Museum, Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at the B’nai Zion, February 9, 1958. * Quoted in Benjamin Glatt, Today in History: Teddy Roosevelt and the Jews, The Jerusalem Post, 2016. * Alleged Wilson’s adultery was seized to blackmail him. I’m no fan of hoaxes and allegations. However, unbiased research is needed to ascertain validity. The following link provides some background on this issue: The Making of Woodrow Wilson— An American Nero? * Examples include Henry Kissinger, Samuel Berger, Irving Lewis Libby, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, etc. http://clubof.info/

0 notes