Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen

Monday, 31 December 2012

Oh, how I wish I could stop posting David Duke

Oh, how I wish I could stop posting David Duke (it gets me into no end of trouble).

Trouble is, he just will not stop telling the truth.

Come on David, give a Jew a break!

Sunday, 30 December 2012

Pity Our Nation By Jafar M Ramini

It is at this time of year that people start to reflect on what has transpired throughout the last twelve months. I am afraid I am no exception.

The sad irony is that today, while I am sitting in Rome, breathing and experiencing ancient history and culture I cannot but remember that on this very day, four years ago, Gaza was raped by the Zionist occupiers of our land. Many innocent men, women and children were murdered. Many buildings were destroyed. Many schools, hospitals and homes were demolished.

During last month, the Israeli loathing for Gaza manifested itself yet again in the most vile and vicious manner resulting in more innocent deaths and wanton destruction. Their vying for our blood and lust for our land doesn’t stop at Gaza. It is happening all over Palestine, in Hebron, Beit Ummar, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarim and elsewhere. The most bitter of all is the utter Judaeisation of Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

In the meantime, our lamented leaders proclaim Pyrrhic victories and make false pronouncements of unity in confronting our common enemy. Other Arab leaders have made Gaza their Mecca in the last few weeks. They came bearing gifts and empty promises. Yet we are as divided and fragmented as ever. Which leaves me wondering; where is the Arab nation and where is the Muslim Ummah that I grew up believing in and waiting for?

Another sad irony is the unnecessary and unwarranted destruction of Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Why is all this so very sad? It is because our imported enemies are aided and abetted by our so-called Muslim Ummah and the Arab nation.

If I am getting morbid it is because exile does this to you. You are away from your home, from your land, from your people and wherever you look and whatever your eyes see is foreign, alien and unfamiliar. Here, I ask again, where is the Arab nation and where is the Muslim Ummah?

I am not going to dwell on this because I don’t want to feel too depressed nor do I want to depress my readers. I shall leave it to another exile, the poet, Khalil Gibran to say it for me.

“Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave, eats a bread it does not harvest, and drinks a wine that flows not from its own winepress.

“Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful.

“Pity the nation that despises a passion in its dream, yet submits in its awakening.

“Pity the nation that raises not its voice save when it walks in a funeral, boasts not except when its neck is laid between the sword and the block.

“Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox, whose philosopher is a juggle, and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking.

“Pity the nation that welcomes its new ruler with trumpetings, and farewells him with hootings, only to welcome another with trumpetings again.

“Pity the nation whose sages are dumb with years and whose strong men are yet in the cradle.

“Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation.”

My friends, we are not a nation. We are, as Gibran said, divided and fragmented. We have become tribes with flags. And the Muslim Ummah, instead of being an Ummah, has become an instrument of our own destruction like a mutilating sword in the hands of our many enemies.

This is what has become of us and this is where our detractors would like us to stay. But, deep in my heart, I sincerely believe that there are still enough of us, Arabs and Muslims, committed to the cause who will not spare any effort to make us a nation, proud and united again. Our day will come.

Happy New Year to all.

Let us Put a Human Face on the Global War for Truth in History by Dr. Ingrid Rimland

The fake chimney built after WWII for the fake gas chamber at Auchwitz with an SS hospital right next door

Herewith I announce that I have set myself the worthy goal of shedding light on who we really are and what we really say. I’ll try to do this weekly.

Who’s “we”, you ask? We, whom our numerous detractors like to call all kinds of nasty names – among them, “Holocaust Deniers.”

It’s got to stop – and it won’t stop by our salutary efforts of heaping facts on top of facts and reason upon reason. For thirty-plus years, that’s what Revisionists have done.

We counted on people with brains, on people who understand fairness, people who would not close their eyes to overwhelming evidence that “Germans” didn’t do what “Jews” proclaim they did.

We need to rethink our strategies. Facts are too dry – too unappealing and too boring. Facts by themselves will never win the battle. Spielberg understood that perfectly with his defamatory feature, Schindler’s List. Logic takes brains, and brains take a hike when strong emotions are triggered. Name-calling costs nothing and works like a charm.

“It’s just a novel,” we pleaded. “Look at forensic evidence. Science does not lie, not even for a ‘Nazi.’”

Fat chance that argument would make the tiniest difference.

Put Schindler’s List and the Leuchter Report side by side, and not another word need to be said. You know the “truth.” You saw it in the movies and read it in the papers. Period.

I had a telling experience once when I was more politically naïve than I am now. The year was 1995. I had just launched a website and had christened it the Zundelsite – and did I ever cause a global cyber-storm! This was a time, remember, when html coding was still done by hand? I had the feeling I was flying a jumbo-jet solo – with no idea about what kept it in the air.

Down came a huge, huge censorship attack. I felt like a mosquito being shot at with a cannon – what had I done that was so scandalous?

I soon found out. I had just met an interesting Swabian with the world’s thickest accent and thought that he needed some help, publicity-wise – a task at which I excelled.

Smack on the Zundelsite, I posted a fat trial transcript titled ”Did Six Million Really Die?” and half a dozen essays from The Institute for Historical Review. Long story. I lived in San Diego at the time.

My introduction into Revisionist Purgatory went thusly:

I got a friendly call from a producer of a television series called “The Learning Channel”, broadcasting out of San Francisco. Did I mind doing a program on my … ah… controversial views?

I didn’t know I had any.

He insisted gently I did. He would pay my airline. He would send a cab. He would make sure I had protective escort. No need for me to be nervous. Me, nervous? Whatever for?

I was a novelist of some acclaim, doing media all the time. By then, I was a pro at doing interviews. I didn’t come unglued in front of a camera. I thought he was a bit too squirming and solicitous, but did not give the matter further thought.

I would be glad to do a show with him, I told him.

I wasn’t really all that knowledgeable about what he referred to as “… the hoary issues between the Germans and the Jews,” but what was there to fear? This was America.

It’s hard to believe, but in the mid-‘90s I was a grass-green novice.

So far, so good. I flew to San Francisco. I was picked up by a young Jew, as friendly and engaging as they come.

It was an impressive studio, with all kinds of people smiling and smiling at me. Wall-to-wall smiles. Ear-to-ear smiles. The anchor, a young, very blond female, a Jane Pauley type – with a smile as radiant as the sun – simply outdid herself by making me feel welcome. She could not have been nicer – as smooth, polite, and polished as can be.

An assistant pinned the mike on me. My stunningly beautiful anchor leaned forward, pulled her face into the ugliest visage of hatred I have ever had the displeasure to see, and literally hissed at me:

“Are you a Nazi?”

I leaned forward, too. I said as calmly and as sweetly as I could: “Are you a Kike?”

I might as well have punched her in the nose. She reeled back. She was speechless.

I caught my breath and added:

“I just called you a name. You didn’t like it, did you? You just called me a name. I didn’t like it either.”

After that, as I remember this episode, we just stared at each other for a minute or so. There was the Great Divide. I stood right at the precipice. I know I didn’t flinch. To my knowledge, that interview was never broadcast.

I have sometimes told this story to others, and I can always sense that, while people might agree with me and even sympathize, they think that wasn’t very ladylike of me.

That in itself is telling. It’s perfectly okay to insult a German morning, noon, and night, right? It’s not okay to answer tit for tat?

Ernst Zundel – the man never wavered or blinked

I want to spend this coming year to do my part in diminishing the virulent, utterly unjustified hatred against Germans in general and my own love specifically.

Ernst is a kind and thoughtful activist who is not what his detractors shriek from the roof tops. Ernst Zundel doesn’t hate. Ernst Zundel is an activist of rock-hard principles, however. What’s fair is fair, he says.

Well, isn’t he a “racist” and “White Supremacist” – and isn’t racial hatred a byproduct of being biased and intolerant against non-Whites?

That argument is hardly ever made by all the numerous minorities his opponents like to recruit into their camp. Most minorities sense Ernst’s good will and his abundant tolerance for others.

It’s not minorities of different skin hues who are the ones who will resort to innuendo.

Here is one such example, drawn straight from experience itself:

The year is 1984. Ernst has just been convicted in Canada for “spreading false news.” For the first time in his life, he finds himself in a cell awaiting sentencing. What now?

His feeding slot clicks. A female guard is on the other side of the heavy metal door.

He gets on his knees to peer out. On the other side is a pair of the most beautiful, expressive black eyes that he has ever seen.

“Mr. Zündel? Mr. Zündel? Can I do something for you? Can I get you something?”

He speaks with gallows’ humor: “A saw?”

Her large eyes fill with tears.

He is taken aback. “What did I say? How did I hurt you?”

She whispers, barely audible: “I am a Palestinian.”

Or picture this scenario:
America has just been treated to a mini-Holocaust called Waco. More than a dozen small children have been fried to a crisp on government orders for reasons never fully proven or explained.

Survivors are arrested by the U.S. government. Among them is a jet-black woman named Anita, David Koresh’s nurse, who was by his side when he drew his last breath.

She is what the government calls a “material witness” – and her testimony, logic tells you, might well be feared by some who would like nothing better than to sweep the details of the U.S. mini-holocaust right under a convenient rug.

Anita is contacted by a dissident Southern attorney, Kirk Lyons, well-known in alternative political circles. Anita rightfully fears for her life. Kirk manages to get her released and asks Ernst to give Anita shelter at the Toronto Zündel-Haus.

He did. She stayed. She lived there for seven months, washing Ernst’s dishes and making herself otherwise useful until the danger passed.

When Ernst told me this story of Anita living at the Zündel-Haus, I said: “For heaven’s sakes! Why you?” and Ernst said dryly: “Well, isn’t that the last place they would have looked for her?”

When Ernst was arrested in 2003 and deported back to Canada, Anita – who now lives quietly in the vicinity of Buffalo – offered to be a character witness for him.

As you will recall, Canadian officials did not allow exonerating character witnesses – or any other evidence – to prove that Ernst was not the “security risk” they had gone to great pains to capture in America and import back to Canada … so as to kick him out!

             H.K. Edgerton – Former NAACP chapter president, Ashville, N.C.

There is a third vignette it is my pleasure sharing with my readers to make my point that Ernst does not deserve the “racist” slur his political enemies routinely hurl in his face.

This is the story of “His Excellency”, as we would call him fondly.

I don’t even remember his real name, but I do remember that this little, dainty Black was – perhaps still is! – the representative of the Asheville branch of the national NAACP.

His Excellency was as delicately graceful as can be – impeccably dressed, perfectly groomed, proudly sporting a political attitude you would never have expected, if you are sold on stereotypes, from a spokesperson of the NAACP.

Politically, His Excellency was stoutly on the side of various Southern Confederacy organizations and had carved himself a niche as a much-sought-after speaker at their political events and even demonstrations.

It was only natural that he and Southern Activist Attorney Kirk Lyons would strike up a friendship. On occasion His Excellency would double up as Kirk’s driver because Kirk has a vision problem and does not like to drive, especially at night.

That’s how we met His Excellency sometime in 2002, prior to Ernst’s arrest and kidnapping.

One sunny morning an FBI Special Agent named Scott Nowinski showed up at our door and said to Ernst, who was puttering around with some flower beds in front of our home: “Your friends in Canada sent us your file.”

(Scott, who was tasked to sniff out yet another “White Supremacist”, as we found out via FOIA, later denied that he said that, but that statement is in our notes…”)

Would Ernst agree to a friendly little chat?

Ernst said he would be glad to, but not without a lawyer present. He added he would call Kirk Lyons and meet with Nowinski at FBI quarters in Knoxville.

And thus it came to pass that one late afternoon Kirk and His Excellency appeared at our door to spend the night with the Zündels. And since the Zundel couple was short on beds but long on hospitality, His Excellency slept on my couch.

When the next morning the threesome arrived at FBI quarters, special Agent Scott Nowinski threw up his hands in surprise behind His Excellency’s back and asked with raised eybrows: “Ernst…? “ Ernst isn’t sure if he added, “… what gives?” or if a big fat question mark just stood by itself in the air.

Both Ernst and I remember His Excellency with real affection. He is the one who rose, his dignity intact, from our couch to settle down for breakfast, unfolded his napkin, put it on his lap, and spoke with understated elegance: “I like my toast with honey.”

This article shall be my launching pad. I want you to get to know the flesh-and-blood people behind the nasty stories – the “Holocaust Deniers” and other sundry activists who have spearheaded science and scientific scholarship at great costs to themselves. Above all else, I want you to draw a mental picture in your head about the man who kick-started it all by sending Fred Leuchter to Auschwitz.

Below, I introduce a clip that shows yet one more side of Ernst that might solicit some respect and perhaps even a lump in the throat. It describes what happened right after he was arrested in Tennessee – almost ten years ago to the day. We are still waiting that he be allowed to return:

Could anyone be more horrible than Jonathan Sacks? It's certainly possible...

Chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis fears rise in anti-semitism

Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis Ephraim Mirvis, rabbi at Finchley Synagogue in north London, takes over from Lord Jonathan Sacks

The next chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, says he fears anti-semitism may spread to Britain from the rest of Europe.

The 55-year-old, a former chief rabbi of Ireland, will succeed Lord Jonathan Sacks in September.

Rabbi Mirvis said he believed some rhetorical attacks on Israel stemmed from anti-semitism.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme he also admitted there were some divisions among Britain's Jewish community.

Lord Sacks, 64, has held the post of chief rabbi since 1991.

The role is traditionally seen as the figurehead of British Jews, although it is only officially representative of the 70,000-strong United Synagogue - the biggest wing of orthodox Judaism in the UK - and other communities across the UK and parts of the Commonwealth.
'Rising trends'
The chief rabbi does not officially represent other branches of Judaism.

Rabbi Mirvis said Britain had a good record on combating anti-semitism but he added: "There are rising trends on the continent and we do have a fear for the future that some of this will spread to the UK."

He said: "We are delighted that anti-semitism is seen here not as being a problem only for the Jews, it's a problem for society and it is part of overall racism."

Rabbi Mirvis added: "There are sometimes attacks on Israel which at their base arise out of anti-semitism, and sometimes that's not the case."

Asked whether the Orthodox Jewish and Reform Jewish communities were more divided than ever, Rabbi Mirvis said: "There is some division but there are many areas in which we are working in a very cohesive way.

"My track record is that I have always sought to work with warmth and in a constructive way with the leaders of other components of the Jewish faith."

Ned Temko, former editor of the Jewish Chronicle, told the Sunday programme that Lord Sacks would be a "difficult act to follow" but he said Rabbi Mirvis's track record as a "conciliator" might help him to bridge divisions within the Jewish community.

The Archetypal American Jew

This is Barbara Streisand urging American women to vote for Barack Obama. Ancient history now of course, so why post it? 

I posted it because the clip is a great peek at the archetypal American Jew enunciating the archetypal American Jewish agenda.

They're all here, all the old favourites: Women's rights, human rights (except for Palestinians), abortion (termed rather coyly here as 'planned parenthood' and 'a woman's right to choose'), 'social and economic justice' (for this multi-millionairess?), state medical care - for 'them' (she certainly doesn't need it), lesbian and gay 'rights' and on and on and on.

"Mitt Romney does not share our values" says Ms Streisand, but whose values are 'our' values?

I happen to rather support a lot of those things (except for abortion which I've never much liked) it's just that when a rich Jew like Barbara Streisand is asking for them, you've got to start wondering why.  

David Irving on Hardtalk

This was David Irving after his debilitating defeat in the British High Court.

It's hard to watch the usually pugnacious Irving on the ropes like that and, just like the court case itself, one wonders why he chose to do it.

But, on reflection and also like the court case, it actually does him great credit. It puts a human face on him and shows him to be what he is - an astonishingly honest man.

Labour's Old Romantic

Shocking technical quality but Brits and all romantics will love this beautiful picture of a beautiful man.

Saturday, 29 December 2012

The Work of David Duke - Proud to post it.

This is by David Duke. You're not supposed to like David Duke and you're certainly not supposed to promote his work. Well, I'm proud to post it.

What does being Jewish mean to you?

This wonderful item is from the Jewish Chronicle. It asks all British Jews to say, in fifty words, what it means to them to be Jewish and below gives, as examples, links to the he responses of four celebrated Jews.

I'm certainly going to follow this and I'm also going to try to write my own - but I've little expectation of much success

What does being Jewish mean to you?

Today the Jewish Chronicle and JW3, the Jewish Community Centre for London, launch a project with an ambitious aim: to present a snapshot of British Jewry, which will be studied by future generations in a century’s time.

To make that happen, we are asking every Jew in the country to participate.

Next year, JW3 will open its new building in London, a centre for the entire community, from secular and cultural Jews to the most strictly observant. Our plan is to bury a time-capsule in the piazza floor of the building — and this is where you come in.

Both the JC and JW3 are concerned with the essential questions of Jewish identity. So we are asking all readers, young and old, devout or not, to tell us what being Jewish means to you — and to do so in 50 words or less.

Those with a lifetime’s experience, children, teenagers, soldiers, taxi drivers, teachers, nurses, MPs, celebrities, and —just possibly — the odd doctor, accountant, academic and lawyer: we want to hear from everyone.

With the consent of participants, as many as possible of the responses will then be put in the time-capsule and form part of an exhibition at JW3 once the building opens.

In the spring of 2113, our descendants will be able to look at the replies and see what made us tick

It could be something as meaningful as a passionate devotion to Israel, or as simple as a shared love of terrible Jewish jokes. It could be the instant recognition of another “member of the tribe”, or the painful testimony of a Holocaust survivor.

It could be a family Friday-night dinner, arguing over the JC letters page, or the departure lounge of an airport before the flight to Tel Aviv.

Food and arguments, incidentally, already seem to play a large part in some early responses.

If you prefer, rather than writing something in 50 words, you can make a one-minute video and upload that, or send us pictures which sum up the Jewish experience for you.

We have set up a dedicated website to take your words, pictures and videos:

Please help us tell the unique Jewish story.

These guys seems to speak the truth

These guys seems to speak the truth. What they say about Obama reminds me so much of what some in 1997 were saying about Tony Blair - that he simply rebranded Thatcherism

'New' Revelations About Wiesenthal and Lincoln Confirm IHR Scholarship

By Mark Weber
Director, Institute for Historical Review
March 10, 2011

Over the years, the IHR has often presented new information that the "establishment" media simply ignored or dismissed, but then later grudgingly acknowledged as accurate and valid.

Consider the case of Simon Wiesenthal.

Twenty one years ago, we published a carefully researched article, "Simon Wiesenthal: Bogus 'Nazi Hunter'" that presented compelling evidence proving that this much-praised man had lied about his past and his alleged achievements. "Wiesenthal's reputation is undeserved," we wrote. "The man whom the Washington Post calls the 'Holocaust's Avenging Angel' has a well-documented record of reckless disregard for truth. He has lied about his own wartime experiences. He has misrepresented his postwar 'Nazi-hunting' achievements, and has spread vile falsehoods about alleged German atrocities. He is certainly no moral authority."

But this article's leading edge scholarship was ignored by the mainstream media.

In 1995 we published a follow up article that provided additional evidence of Wiesenthal's long record of lies and deceit.

This well referenced article, which has been posted for years on our website, was likewise ignored by establishment historians and the mainstream media.

In recent months, though, the establishment media has confirmed the very same points we made 21 years ago.

In Britain, an eye-opening article headed "Why I believe the king of the Nazi hunters, Simon Wiesenthal, was a fraud" appeared in September in the London Daily Mail.

"In my view," the author told readers, "Simon Wiesenthal was a liar and a fraud. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he was one of the biggest conmen of the 20th century. I spent four years working on a history of Nazi-hunting that was published last year, and the material I gathered on Wiesenthal was enough to make me scream out loud. When I started my book, I too believed that the great man was just that - great. But when I looked at all his memoirs, biographies and original archive material, I realised that, like so many others, the image I had built up of Simon Wiesenthal was hopelessly incorrect. There were too many distortions and inconsistencies, too many outright lies …”

And in Germany Der Spiegel magazine made much the same point. Wiesenthal, the prestigious weekly acknowledged, "used questionable methods. He took credit for the achievements of others." He "concocted legends surrounding the story of the Holocaust and his own suffering. It was years before he corrected a claim he made after the war that the Nazis had used the bodies of dead Jews to make soap … Much of the other information Wiesenthal provided was wrong, such as his conclusions on the whereabouts of the Nazi concentration camp doctor Josef Mengele."

Here in the US, even Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent Jewish historian of the Holocaust, was recently moved to acknowledge that "Wiesenthal's account of his experiences during the years of the Holocaust is clearly fabricated .. .. Wiesenthal's claims about tracking war criminals in the post-war years are likewise riddled with exaggerations, if not outright falsehoods … Over the years, Wiesenthal repeatedly announced that he knew precisely where Mengele was. Most of these pronouncements, it seems, were mere guesses designed to win media attention."

None of these belated concessions to truth seems to have dented the reputation or influence of the formidable canter, based in LosAngeles, that bears Wiesenthal's name. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a fierce supporter of Jewish-Zionist interests with a long record of reckless propaganda for war against Israel's enemies, continues to be treated with deference by politicians and the major media.

Or consider a recent "revelation" about Abraham Lincoln.

A few weeks ago newspapers in the US and Britain told readers that, contrary to what many have assumed for years, President Lincoln vigorously promoted deporting or "colonizing" free blacks to other countries because he was convinced that blacks and whites could not live together harmoniously in the same society.

This "news" was announced by the daily Washington Times in an article headlined "Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves."

And in London an article in the Telegraph told readers: "Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship freed black slaves away from the US to British colonies in the Caribbean even in the final months of his life, it has emerged. A new book on the celebrated US president and hero of the anti-slavery movement, who was born 202 years ago on Saturday, argues that he went on supporting the highly controversial policy of colonization."

More recently, a widely-distributed Associated Press item reported that throughout his presidency Lincoln kept "promoting his idea of colonization: resettling blacks in foreign countries on the belief that whites and blacks could not coexist in the same nation. Lincoln went on to say that free blacks who envisioned a permanent life in the United States were being 'selfish' and he promoted Central America as an ideal location .. .. " The article goes on to cite a new book that "makes the case that Lincoln was even more committed to colonizing blacks than previously known."

But none of this should surprise attentive IHR readers. Eighteen years ago we laid this out in a scholarly, well-documented IHR article, "The 'Great Emancipator' and the Issue of Race: Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement." First published in 1993, it's been posted for years on our website.

"While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution," this IHR article explained, "it is also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States … This effort, Lincoln recognized, 'may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition.' Some form of resettlement, he said, amounts to an 'absolute necessity'."

It’s gratifying to note, reconfirm the solidity, relevance and importance of IHR scholarship. As the saying goes, “Better late than never.”

When Netanyahu speaks the world listens...

In posting this, my message to you is "Do not underestimate this man. Do not underestimate his power. But also, do not underestimate his coherence or even his integrity."

Now you can hear a Jewish defector warning America

You read how A Jewish Defector Warned America, now listen to him do it!

How Jewish is Hollywood?

A poll finds more Americans disagree with the statement that 'Jews control Hollywood.' But here's one Jew who doesn't.


I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

So I've taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that's what we do best. I'm weighing several slogans, including: "Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!"; "Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible"; and "Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all."

I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs "do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans," and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to "weaken the influence of religious values in this country."

That's a sinister canard, Foxman said. "It means they think Jews

meet at Canter's Deli on Friday mornings to decide what's best for the Jews." Foxman's argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter's more often.

"That's a very dangerous phrase, 'Jews control Hollywood.' What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood," he said. Instead of "control," Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry "happen to be Jewish," as in "all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish."

But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. "I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They're disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well," he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I've noticed, aren't so big on circumcision.

I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

Twin Swords Of Damocles Over The Heads Of All Humanity By Francis A. Boyle

December 26, 2012

During the 1950s I grew up in a family who rooted for the success of African Americans in their just struggle for civil rights and full legal equality. Then in 1962 it was the terror of my own personal imminent nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis that first sparked my interest in studying international relations and U.S. foreign policy as a young boy of 12: “I can do a better job than this!”

With the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1964 and the military draft staring me right in the face, I undertook a detailed examination of it. Eventually I concluded that unlike World War II when my Father had fought and defeated the Japanese Imperial Army as a young Marine in the Pacific, this new war was illegal, immoral, unethical, and the United States was bound to lose it. America was just picking up where France had left off at Dien Bien Phu. So I resolved to do what little I could to oppose the Vietnam War.

In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson gratuitously invaded the Dominican Republic, which prompted me to commence a detailed examination of U.S. military interventions into Latin America from the Spanish-American War of 1898 up to President Franklin Roosevelt’s so-called “good neighbor” policy. At the end of this study, I concluded that the Vietnam War was not episodic, but rather systemic: Aggression, warfare, bloodshed, and violence were just the way the United States Financial Power Elite had historically conducted their business around the world and in America. Hence, as I saw it as a young man of 17, there would be more Vietnams in the future and perhaps someday I could do something about it as well as about promoting civil rights for African Americans. These twins concerns of my youth would gradually ripen into a career devoted to international law and human rights.

So I commenced my formal study of International Relations with the late, great Hans Morgenthau in the first week of January 1970 as a 19 year old college sophomore at the University of Chicago by taking his basic introductory course on that subject. At the time, Morgenthau was leading the academic forces of opposition to the detested Vietnam War, which is precisely why I chose to study with him. During ten years of higher education at the University of Chicago and Harvard, I refused to study with openly pro-Vietnam-War professors as a matter of principle and also on the quite pragmatic ground that they had nothing to teach me.

Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III.

By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last.

This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53):

“The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination--a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind... “

It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity.

Francis A. Boyle is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He has advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes, genocide, nuclear policy, and bio warfare. He received a PHD in political science from Harvard University.

Thursday, 27 December 2012

Stuff Jerusalem by Michael Dickinson

Doing Unto Others

Stuff Jerusalem


Or rather, fill it. Gather as many as possible of the dedicated Jews and Zionists dispersed throughout the world, and settle them in settlements in the disputed areas of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank/Judea and Samaria in order to strengthen the power of the Israeli State. That’s the plan of native New Yorker Michael Freund, the millionaire founder and chairman of Shavei Israel, an organization that locates ‘lost Jews ‘and hidden Jewish communities, assisting them to return to their ‘roots’ in the ‘Holy Land’.
Former Deputy Director of Communications and Policy Planning under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Freund was at Tel Aviv Ben Gurion Airport on Monday to greet the arrival of 53 passengers, the first of over thousands expected from the Bnei Menashe community from northeastern India, linking up with family members who have already settled in Israel. They are said to be descendants of the 10 tribes who lived in the kingdom of Israel in Biblical times and who were dispersed, according to the Bible, after the invasion of the Assyrians in 721 BC.
When the Bnei Menashe were recognized by Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar as a lost tribe in 2005, he insisted they undergo conversion to be accepted as Jews, sending a rabbinical team to India that converted 218 Bnei Menashe before Indian authorities stepped in and stopped it.
“The members of this tribe have never forgotten where they came from and we are excited to be able to help them come back,” said Freund, whose Shavei Israel Hebrew Centers have been working with the community in India to prepare them for life in Israel, teaching them Ashkenazi customs and Hebrew. Shavei Israel is also working on the return of ‘lost Jews’ in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Brazil and Poland. Not all Israelis welcome the converts, however, some suspecting that they are simply fleeing poverty in their own countries.
Where to put them all? No problem. Permission has just been given by the Israeli government for 1,500 apartment units to be built in the northern Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, for instance, which straddles the Arab-inhabited neighborhoods of Beit Safafa and Shuafat to its north and east. Despite criticism by some world leaders, and pleas from Ban Ki Moon to “refrain from continuing on this dangerous path,” there are also plans to build thousands of other housing units in Jerusalem, which will effectively divide the West Bank in two.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the state of Israel and we will continue to build there. A united Jerusalem reflects a wide national consensus.”
“By doing so, we can ensure that this precious land remains ours forever more,” said Freund. “Groups like the Bnei Menashe constitute a wide demographic and spiritual reserve, for being used, by Israel and the Jewish people. There are now over 300,000 Jews living in the parts of Jerusalem that were liberated by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, and that number is set to soar in the years to come. There can be no turning back the clock or hitting the rewind button here, so the world should just accept reality. Jerusalem is now truly indivisible. And, I might add: thus it shall remain, forever and until the end of time.”
“After waiting for thousands of years, our dream came true,” said one of the new arrivals from India, who arrived with her husband and 8-month-old daughter. “We are now in our land.”
Our land? The ignorance of the poor woman! And the mad arrogance of those who claim to be ‘The Chosen People’, given the land by God, superior to all, and especially their Palestinian neighbours, who have lived there longer than they have! And let us not forget the original inhabitants of the country, the Canaanites, who were annihilated, wiped out by the invading Jews, drunk on the idea of their “Promised Land”.
I believe they’re still waiting for a Messiah, a leader anointed by God who will rule the united tribes of Israel and herald an age of global peace. Why didn’t Jesus get the job?
“Treat other people as you would like to be treated,” was his simple message. Is that advice too difficult to put into practice? The alternative of the message is practiced by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people, and the cruel treatment they suffer is similar to that practiced by Christians against the Jews during their long exile. In many ways Zionists are identical to Nazis.
Let’s start again. Let’s throw out all religions and accept the fact that all the people of the world are brothers and sisters who share one loving God. Or even if you’re an atheist, that you support the universal law, the Gold Rule,–
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
“Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like them to do to you.”
If that were the rule in Israel, then Jerusalem might be truly called ‘golden’. Until then it will remain an abomination.
Michael Dickinson can be contacted at

DND removes report on killing of Canadian soldier by Israeli forces

By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

December 25, 2012

 Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three other United Nations observers were killed in 2006 when the Israeli military targeted their small outpost with repeated artillery barrages as well as an attack by a fighter aircraft. (Photo: Courtese CTV)

The Defence Department has quietly removed from the Internet a report into the killing of a Canadian military officer by Israeli forces, a move the soldier’s widow says is linked to the Conservative government’s reluctance to criticize Israel for any wrongdoing.

Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three other United Nations observers were killed in 2006 when the Israeli military targeted their small outpost with repeated artillery barrages as well as an attack by a fighter aircraft.

IN early 2008, the Defence Department posted on its website a 67-page report from the Canadian Forces board of inquiry into the killing. The board found Hess-von Kruedener’s death was preventable and caused by the Israeli military.

But less than a year later, the report was quietly removed from the DND website and has since remained off-limits to the public through official channels.

Hess-von Kruedener’s widow, Cynthia, told the Citizen that the decision to remove the document from the public domain was made by DND and the government in an effort to protect Israel’s reputation.

“They don’t want people reading about it,” she said. “It’s embarrassing to the Israelis and, as we know, Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper has given his unconditional support to the Israelis.”

The circumstances surrounding Hess-von Kruedener’s death and the attempts by DND and the Canadian Forces to limit access to the board of inquiry report are outlined in an article in the new edition of Legion magazine, an Ottawa-based publication sent to members of the Royal Canadian Legion.

DND originally refused to provide the magazine with the previously public board of inquiry report, claiming the publication needed to use the access-to-information law to obtain a copy.

Legion magazine obtained a copy of the report by other means. It has now posted the report on its website.

In an email sent to the Citizen, DND confirmed it had removed the board of inquiry report from its website in early 2009 for security reasons “after it was discovered that some of its content is considered protected information.”

That explanation, however, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as Legion magazine compared both the 2008 version and the 2012 copy issued under the access law, discovering that the latest version actually contains more information than the original.

The Legion article also raises questions about the disappearance from DND of a United Nations report into the killing. The document was used by the Canadian Forces for its board of inquiry and the UN report is cited in the Canadian report. But DND’s access to information branch claims it has done a thorough search of records and no such report could be found.

DND could not comment on claims by defence sources that hard copies of the board of inquiry report were also removed from military libraries.

The death of Hess-von Kruedener, a UN observer assigned to the Israeli-Lebanon border, has largely been forgotten.

The Israeli attack on the UN outpost began shortly after noon on July 25, 2006, prompting the UN deputy secretary general to almost immediately call the Israeli ambassador to the UN and complain.

Several hours later another artillery barrage hit the outpost. That was followed by another 16 artillery rounds hitting the base, destroying most of the buildings above ground and blowing the door off the underground bunker where Hess-von Kruedener and his fellow peacekeepers had taken refuge.

At one point, a general in charge of UN operations in Lebanon called the Israeli liaison officer and told him, “You’re killing my people.” Previously, the Israelis halted such attacks when protests were received.

Later that day, an Israeli fighter pilot directed a precision-guided bomb through the door of the UN bunker. The blast from the massive bomb killed the four men.

Gen. Rick Hillier, then the chief of the defence staff, later described the major’s death as a “tragic accident.”

Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener told the Citizen that the Canadian Forces didn’t inform her of her husband’s death. Instead, she learned he had been killed from a television news report.

The Legion article notes the Israelis had deliberately targeted the base. The base had been included in the Israeli military’s “targeting list” which they acknowledged was an error on their part.

Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener also takes issue with some of the remarks made by Harper about her husband. At the time of the killing, Harper questioned what Hess-von Kruedener was doing at the UN outpost.

She said the answer is simple: He was doing his job as ordered by the Canadian Forces and government of Canada. “Instead of asking why this happened, (Harper) turned it onto an innocent UN peacekeeper,” she said.

On Sept. 19, 2006, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert wrote Harper, expressing his deep regret. Harper wrote back on Nov. 20, 2006, thanking Olmert for his “expression of condolences, for the Israeli government’s rapid investigation of the incident and for information provided to Canadian officials.”

However, the Legion magazine article noted that the Israelis refused to answer questions from Canada about the attack.

Palestinian Hunger

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

The terror lurking in a Christmas tree by Jonathan Cook

Israel tries to ban non-Jewish celebrations 

Israel’s large Palestinian minority is often spoken of in terms of the threat it poses to the Jewish majority.

Palestinian citizens’ reproductive rate constitutes a “demographic time bomb”, while their main political programme – Israel’s reform into “a state of all its citizens” – is proof for most Israeli Jews that their compatriots are really a “fifth column”.

But who would imagine that Israeli Jews could be so intimidated by the innocuous Christmas tree?

 This issue first came to public attention two years ago when it was revealed that Shimon Gapso, the mayor of Upper Nazareth, had banned Christmas trees from all public buildings in his northern Israeli city.

 “Upper Nazareth is a Jewish town and all its symbols are Jewish,” Gapso said. “As long as I hold office, no non-Jewish symbol will be presented in the city.”

The decision reflected in part his concern that Upper Nazareth, built in the 1950s as the centrepiece of the Israeli government’s “Judaization of the Galilee” programme, was failing dismally in its mission.

Far from “swallowing up” the historic Palestinian city of Nazareth next door, as officials had intended, Upper Nazareth became over time a magnet for wealthier Nazarenes who could no longer find a place to build a home in their own city. That was because almost all Nazareth’s available green space had been confiscated for the benefit of Upper Nazareth.

Instead Nazarenes, many of them Palestinian Christians, have been buying homes in Upper Nazareth from Jews – often immigrants from the former Soviet Union – desperate to leave the Arab-dominated Galilee and head to the country’s centre, to be nearer Tel Aviv.

The exodus of Jews and influx of Palestinians have led the government to secretly designate Upper Nazareth as a “mixed city”, much to the embarrassment of Gapso. The mayor is a stalwart ally of far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman and regularly expresses virulently anti-Arab views, including recently calling Nazarenes “Israel-hating residents whose place is in Gaza” and their city “a nest of terror in the heart of the Galilee”. Although neither Gapso nor the government has published census figures to clarify the city’s current demographic balance, most estimates suggest that at least a fifth of Upper Nazareth’s residents are Palestinian. The city’s council chamber also now includes Palestinian representatives.

Christmas trees "offensive to Jewish eyes

But Gapso is not alone in his trenchant opposition to making even the most cursory nod towards multiculturalism. The city’s chief rabbi, Isaiah Herzl, has refused to countenance a single Christmas tree in Upper Nazareth, arguing that it would be “offensive to Jewish eyes”.

 That view, it seems, reflects the official position of the country’s rabbinate. In so far as they are able, the rabbis have sought to ban Christmas celebrations in public buildings, including in the hundreds of hotels across the country.

A recent report in the Haaretz newspaper, on an Israeli Jew who grows Christmas trees commercially, noted in passing: “Hotels – under threat of losing kashrut certificates – are prohibited by the rabbinate from decking their halls in boughs of holly or, heaven forbid, putting up even the smallest of small sparkly Christmas tree in the corner of the lobby.”

In other words, the rabbinate has been quietly terrorizing Israeli hotel owners into ignoring Christmas by threatening to use its powers to put them out of business. Denying a hotel its kashrut (kosher) certificate would lose it most of its Israeli and foreign Jewish clientele.

Few mayors or rabbis find themselves in the uncomfortable position of needing to go public with their views on the dangers of Christmas decorations. In Israel, segregation between Jews and Palestinians is almost complete. Even most of the handful of mixed cities are really Jewish cities with slum-like ghettoes of Palestinians living on the periphery.

Apart from Upper Nazareth, the only other “mixed” place where Palestinian Christians are to be found in significant numbers is Haifa, Israel’s third largest city. Haifa is often referred to as Israel’s most multicultural and tolerant city, a title for which it faces very little competition.

Non-Jewish New Year celebrations "seriously forbidden"
But the image hides a dirtier reality. A recent letter from Haifa’s rabbinate came to light in which the city’s hotels and events halls were reminded that they must not host New Year’s parties at the end of this month (the Jewish New Year happens at a different time of year). The hotels and halls were warned that they would be denied their kashrut licences if they did so.

 “It is a seriously forbidden to hold any event at the end of the calendar year that is connected with or displays anything from the non-Jewish festivals,” the letter states.

 After the letter was publicized on Facebook, Haifa’s mayor, Yona Yahav, moved into damage limitation mode, overruling the city’s rabbinical council on 23 December and insisting that parties would be allowed to go ahead. Whether Yahav has the power to enforce his decision on the notoriously independent-minded rabbinical authorities is still uncertain.

But what is clear is that there is plenty of religious intolerance verging on hatred being quietly exercised against non-Jews, mostly behind the scenes so as not to disturb Israel’s “Jewish and democratic” image or outrage the millions of Christian tourists and pilgrims who visit Israel each year.

Goebbel's Place in History by Mark Weber

No other name is so firmly associated with the term propaganda, conjuring lies and deceit, than that of Joseph Goebbels. But the popular image of this man, particularly in the United States, is a crude caricature.

Following his birth in 1897 in Rheydt, a medium-size city in the German Rhineland, Paul Joseph Goebbels was raised in a solidly middle-class, staunchly Roman Catholic family. Although physically unimpressive and handicapped (one leg was shorter than the other), he was gifted with intelligence, a quick tongue and a melodious voice. He excelled in his studies. After a rigorous "humanistic" Gymnasium education, he studied at several German universities, receiving a doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1921.

After an unsuccessful effort to find employment as a writer for major national daily papers, and a nine-month stint working at a bank in Cologne, he became an activist in the fledgling National Socialist Party, and served as editor of two party periodicals, the weekly Völkische Freiheit ("National Freedom") and, later, of NS-Briefe ("NS Letters"). With pronounced working class sympathies, and even some pro-Communist sentiments, during this period he was known as a member of the Party's "left wing."

In 1926, Hitler appointed him Gauleiter (district leader) for Berlin. He lost no time taking firm control of the small and feuding Party organization there, and infusing it with new dynamism. Goebbels threw himself into his task, quickly proving himself a master organizer and public speaker. As part of his ceaseless efforts in Germany's most important city, in July 1927 he started his own newspaper, Der Angriff ("The Attack"). Goebbels faced an uphill battle because he aimed, above all, to win support from the city's working class population -- which overwhelmingly supported the Marxist Social Democratic and Communist parties -- while at the same time not alienating middle class voters.

This strategy was perhaps most severely tested during the 1932 Berlin transport workers strike, which paralyzed the great city's bus, elevated railway and subway systems. Only the National Socialists and the Communists supported the workers in their strike against the city government, which was controlled by the Social Democratic party. The result was an odd temporary "Nazi-Commie" alliance that alarmed many middle class Germans.

Goebbels missed no opportunity for humor, sarcasm or mockery. When the Social Democratic government banned the wearing of uniforms by the Party's brownshirted stormtroopers -- its paramilitary citizens militia -- Goebbels mocked the ban by having the men march in public, costumed in stovepipe hats, paper caps, and similar items. Another stunt he organized was a "debate" with Chancellor Heinrich Brüning. Because Brüning refused to participate, Goebbels "debated" an empty chair, responding -- in Rush Limbaugh style -- to a phonograph recording of a speech by the Chancellor. With wit and sarcasm, Goebbels "ironed flat" his colorless opponent -- to roars of laughter from the mass audience. Berliners loved such audacious spectacles, and showed their appreciation at the ballot box. In May 1928 Goebbels was elected as a deputy to the German parliament (Reichstag), and six months later was elected to the city council.

In 1929 Hitler named him director of propaganda for the entire National Socialist party, a demanding post of considerable responsibility. In spite of formidable and sometimes violent opposition -- Party speakers were routinely banned, for example, and Hitler's voice was not permitted on German radio -- the National Socialist movement grew rapidly during this period. By 1932 Hitler's Party had become Germany's most important, with by far the largest faction in the Reichstag.

The Party's vast propaganda and publishing empire -- supervised by Goebbels -- included 120 daily or weekly newspapers regularly read by about a million people across the country. With a distinctly youthful leadership, the National Socialist movement was especially popular among younger Germans. For example, by the time Hitler became Chancellor, National Socialists had already swept the student council elections in German universities.

On January 30, 1933, President Paul von Hindenburg named Hitler as Chancellor, entrusting the 43-year-old former First World War corporal with responsibility for governing an economically devastated nation on the verge of civil war. Six weeks after the National Socialist "seizure of power," the 35-year-old Goebbels was named "Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment." In this position, and as President of the "Reich Culture Chamber" (Reichskulturkammer), he exercised wide control over Germany's radio, film, newspapers, periodical press and book publishing, as well as over the nation's cultural life.

During the first years of the Second World War, 1939 to 1942, Goebbels' job as Propaganda Minister was relatively easy. With an almost unbroken string of German and Axis military victories, maintaining public morale was not difficult. His greatest challenge came during the final two years of the war, as Germany's armies suffered ever more terrible military reverses, her great cities crumbling into ruins under a growing storm of British-American bombings, and with utter defeat looming. It was during this period that Goebbels most dramatically proved his skill as a master molder of public opinion. In spite of the drastically worsening situation -- both militarily and on the home front -- he largely succeeded in maintaining public morale, confidence in Hitler's leadership, and even hope.

Although German historian Helmut Heiber paints a highly critical and generally unflattering portrait in his biography, Goebbels (New York: Hawthorn, 1972), at the same time, he acknowledges Goebbels' talents and strengths.

He notes:
[Goebbels] was able, until the very last minute, to encourage and exploit a blind trust in Hitler and his genius. It is indeed one of the cabre phenomena of the Third Reich that even in their country's agony the mass of the German people remained docile and faithful to Hitler's banner ... In spite of everything they had experienced, they kept the faith. [p. 133]
After the great defeat at Stalingrad in early February 1943, Goebbels was the first official forthrightly to acknowledge the seriousness of the peril that faced the nation and Europe, and frankly to concede that Germany could lose the war.

Probably the best known of his wartime speeches was his brilliantly crafted "Total War" address of February 18, 1943. Masterfully delivered to a large audience in Berlin's Sportpalast hall, it was broadcast on national radio and excerpts were shown in the weekly "Deutsche Wochenschau" newsreel. Speaking in the aftermath of the Stalingrad catastrophe, Goebbels stressed the grim truth that catastrophic defeat was a real possibility, and concluded with a rousing call for national mobilization. (Germany's national economy was still operating on a largely peacetime basis, with factories turning out a vast array of non-essential consumer goods.) An enormous banner proclaimed the rally's slogan: "Total War, Shortest War."

Goebbels' frankness and even courage won him a measure of popular admiration. Writes Heiber:
He understood the value of admitting reverses and even, now and then, errors; his readiness to be thus "candid" was a kind of knowledgeable wink at his audience -- "Look, I take you seriously. Let's be frank with one another" -- and enabled him to ensnare them all the more. The result was that later on, after 1943, after he had borrowed ... the "blood, sweat and tears" theme of Churchill, people were ready to believe in the ray of hope which he astutely let shine through the somber coloring of his speeches. [p. 134]
"As other influential Nazis began to creep into their shells," comments Heiber, "Goebbels could dare to appear before a mob and not only gain a hearing, but even arouse faith and hope ..." [p. 134]

As the war dragged on, Goebbels' front-page editorial essays in the weekly paper Das Reich played an increasingly important role in sustaining public morale. They were widely reprinted and routinely read over the radio. "His articles in Das Reich," acknowledges Heiber, "were indeed excellent, brilliantly written, and full of bright ideas ..." [p. 235]

Heiber also notes:
Goebbels' articles were carefully worked out more than a week before they were to appear, written in excellent, polished German, stylistically enjoyable and relatively discriminating in content; often they seemed illumined by the lofty wisdom of a great thinker. Their very titles were reminiscent of philosophical treatises: "On the Meaning of War," "The Essential Nature of the Crisis," "On the Work of the Spirit," "On Speaking and Being Silent," "The Indispensability of Freedom," "About National Duty in War." ...It is all very well turned and very solid. These articles made an impression, and Goebbels knew it. [ p. 252 ]
Regrettably, little of what Goebbels wrote and said during the latter war years -- when he was at the peak of his powers -- has been translated into English.

One of Goebbels' greatest wartime propaganda achievements was his exploitation of the Katyn massacre story. In April 1943, the Germans discovered at Katyn, near Smolensk in occupied Russia, a mass grave of thousands of Polish officers who had been taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1939, and shot by Soviet secret police in April 1940. On Goebbels' orders, German newspapers and magazines devoted great attention to the story, giving it weeks of detailed, often front-page coverage. His astute treatment of the story contributed significantly to a major Allied political defeat -- a break in relations between the Soviet government and the Polish government-in-exile. (Meanwhile, American and British officials and newspapers backed the Soviet lie that Germans were responsible for the atrocity.)

In addition to his work as the nation's chief propagandist, during the war Goebbels took on ever greater organizational and policy-making responsibilities, playing an increasingly important role in keeping the nation's industrial and social machinery functioning. In February 1942 Hitler entrusted him with special authority to oversee assistance to people ravaged in Allied air attacks -- a post that was to assume ever greater importance as the aerial bombardment of Germany steadily escalated.

In the summer of 1944 Hitler named him "Reich Plenipotentiary for the Total War Mobilization." Thus, during the final catastrophic months of the war Goebbels -- along with Armaments Minister Albert Speer -- directed Germany's human and material resources for maximum war production, while simultaneously continuing somehow to operate the nation's electric power and water plants, transportation and telephone systems, food and fuel supply networks, public schools, radio broadcasting and daily newspaper publishing. This organizational feat of keeping essential social and community services functioning, while at the same time maintaining and even sharply increasing armaments production -- in spite of devastating aerial bombardment and an ever worsening military situation -- is an achievement without historical parallel.

"We have become a people on the defensive," Goebbels wrote in Das Reich of Feb. 11, 1945 -- eleven weeks before the end. "We work and we fight, we wander, we leave our homes, we suffer and endure, and we do all this with a silent dignity which, in the end, will arouse the admiration of the entire world. Europe may well be happy that it still possesses such a people. Today this people is the salvation of Europe. Tomorrow, therefore, it will be Europe's pride."

His final radio address, broadcast over what remained of a tattered network, was delivered on April 19, 1945. As he had done every year since 1933, he spoke on the eve of Hitler's birthday. Even on this occasion, when the terrible end was glaringly obvious to all, Goebbels still spoke with eloquent, controlled passion, frankly acknowledging the supreme gravity of the situation while inspiring hope. He had not lost his ability to rouse his countrymen with fervor as well as a certain seeming nobility.

"Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamor that will now begin," he urged in a letter written to his stepson just days before his death. "There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph." In his final testament written just hours before he took his life, Hitler named Goebbels as his successor as Chancellor -- a tribute to steadfast loyalty even to the bitter end. But Goebbels held this empty position for just a few hours. After he and his wife had their six children put to death, and with Soviet troops just a few hundred yards away, on the evening of May 1, 1945, Joseph and Magda Goebbels ended their lives in the courtyard outside the Führerbunker.

Contrary to popular belief, Goebbels was successful as a propagandist not because he was a master of the "Big Lie," but rather as a result of his fidelity to facts and truth. As biographer Heiber notes:
Goebbels was accordingly able to celebrate his information policy as being not only superior to the enemy's in its monolithic character, but also of a "seriousness and credibility" which "simply cannot be surpassed." The boast could be made with some justification: Seen in the long view, Goebbels preached, the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth." [p. 254]
"Goebbels' real lies, his conscious lies, always pertained to mere detail ...," writes Heiber. "Goebbels' lies were more in the nature of those equivocations and evasions by which government spokesmen everywhere seek to 'protect' the 'national interest'." [pp. 134, 135]

It is also common to imagine that, however skilled, Goebbels was little more than a clever ranter who won support from his countrymen by appealing to base feelings of envy, revenge, conceit and arrogant pride. This view, which implicitly demeans Germans as a nation of emotional and mental cripples, is especially widespread in the United States. If he thinks about it at all, the typical American imagines that if he had been living in Third Reich Germany, he would not have "fallen" for Goebbels' "obvious" lies.

Such a self-flattering view is based on ignorance. In his classic study, Propaganda (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968; Vintage, 1973 [p. 54]), French scholar Jacques Ellul pointed out that Goebbels' postwar image is itself a propaganda distortion:

There remains the problem of Goebbels' reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: "Everybody must know what the situation is." He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion) -- and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.

From The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1995 (Vol. 15, No. 1), pages 19-21.

Israel Recruits 'Sayanim'

For those of you who don’t know, ‘sayanim’ are semi-official agents, usually recruited from Jewish communities abroad, who can at times, be called on to act for Israel

Israel recruits citizen advocates in Europe

'Allies and friends' will promote government policy to press and public meetings as part of fresh PR drive
Avigdor Lieberman
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, has ordered a range of measures in a bid to improve Israel's image in Europe. Photograph: Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images

Israel has instructed its embassies in 10 European countries, including the UK, each to recruit 1,000 members of the public to act as advocates for its policies in a new public relations offensive.

A cable from the foreign affairs ministry was sent to embassies last week, with instructions from Avigdor Lieberman, the controversial and extreme right-wing foreign minister, to adopt a range of measures aimed at improving Israel's standing in Europe.

The most unusual was the order to identify up to 1,000 people by mid-January to act as "allies" to Israel. One source described them as "friends who are willing not just to receive messages but to actively promote these messages". These individuals – likely to be drawn from Jewish or Christian activists, academics, journalists and students – will be briefed regularly by Israeli officials and encouraged to speak up for Israel at public meetings or write letters or articles for the press.

Five European capitals have also been identified for a more conventional PR push. Israeli embassies in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Rome will receive funds to hire professional PR firms and lobbyists.

PR companies will be asked to focus on political messages, such as: Israel's position on talks with the Palestinians; subjects which can help "brand" Israel, such as tourism and technology; and regional issues to which Israel wishes to draw attention, such as human rights in Iran or Arab countries.

The foreign affairs ministry also suggested that embassies across Europe organise monthly high-profile public events to promote Israel and its government's policies, and visits to Israel for influential individuals. Lieberman is planning to meet ambassadors to European countries next month to push the new PR offensive.

An Israeli official refused to comment on the disclosure but said: "Obviously we are always looking for ways to improve our communications, there's nothing unusual in that," adding: "There is anxiety about the way Israel is perceived abroad, and there is particular worry about certain countries in western Europe."

Israel has previously launched drives to improve its image through hasbara – literally meaning explanation, although alternatively interpreted as public diplomacy, spin or propaganda. During its three-week war on Gaza, which began in December 2008, Israel launched a PR strategy through its national information directorate to co-ordinate key messages on a daily basis.

The Israeli government, military and various embassies are adept at using social media such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to promote material. Organisations such as Bicom, the Britain Israel Communications Research Centre, in the UK and the Israel Project in the US, which describe themselves as independent, are dedicated to promoting Israeli policies. Both organisations offer regular briefings, contacts and tours to foreign correspondents based in Israel and Palestine, and all-expenses paid trips to Israel for journalists, including from the Guardian, based elsewhere.

Other countries undertake similar PR drives. Rwanda hired the London-based company Racepoint to feed positive stories to the media. Bell Pottinger, headed by Lord Bell, a former adviser to Lady Thatcher, represents Sri Lanka and Madagascar.

Meanwhile, the Israeli cabinet today approved a plan to build a huge detention centre capable of holding up to 10,000 illegal immigrants and refugees near its border with Egypt. Israel began building a fence along the border earlier this month. The population and immigration authority has said between 1,200 and 1,500 people, mainly from sub-Saharan Africa, have crossed the border each month this year, compared to 300 per month last year. "There is a swelling wave threatening Israeli jobs, a wave of illegal migrants that we must stop because of the harsh implications for Israel's character," Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, told the cabinet today.

Also today, Major-General Uri Bar-Lev, the top policeman being investigated for alleged sexual assault and rape, said he was withdrawing his candidacy to become Israel's police commissioner and taking an unspecified time of leave.

VIDEO - Such Extraordinary Arrogance

The body-language itself is enough to make you sick!

Monday, 24 December 2012

Miko Peled being wonderfully clear

American Jews and Jewish America

At the heart of the conflict is the relationship between Israel and America. The statistics – billions in aid and loans, UN vetoes, etc., etc. need not be repeated here - American support for Israel seems limitless. But what is the nature of this support? For many, perhaps most, the answer is relatively simple. Israel is a client state of America, serving American interests or, more particularly, the interests of its power elites. This view is underpinned by the obvious importance of oil, the huge strategic importance of the region and the fact that, if Israel did not further the interests of those who control America, then we can be sure America would not support Israel. Also, there is no doubt that, in the IDF, America has found a marvellously flexible and effective force, easily aroused and let loose whenever any group of Arabs get a little above themselves.

But is this the whole story? Does Israel really serve America’s interests and is their relationship wholly based on the sharing of these interests? Consider how much in terms of goodwill from other nations America loses by its support for Israel, and consider the power and influence of the “Jewish”, “Zionist” or “pro-Israel” lobby, as when many an otherwise responsible lawmaker, faced with the prospect of an intervention in their re-election campaign from the Jewish lobby, seems happy to put his or her re-election prospects way in front of what is good for America.

The details of the workings of AIPAC and others, and the mechanics by which these groups exert pressure on America’s lawmakers and governors, have been dealt with elsewhere; we need only note that this interest group is undoubtedly extraordinarily effective and successful. Not just a small group of Jews supporting Israel, as its supporters would have us believe, these are powerful and committed ideologues: billionaires, media magnates, politicians, activists and religious leaders. In any event, the power of the Jewish lobby to make or break pretty well any public figure is legendary – not for nothing is it often referred to simply as “The Lobby”.

But again, there may be far more to the Israel/U.S. relationship than just a commonality of interest and the effectiveness of certain interest groups. That support for Israel must be in the interests of those who control America is certainly true, but who controls America? Perhaps the real relationship is not between Israel and America but between Jews and America.

The overwhelming majority of Jews in America live their lives just like any other Americans. They’ve done well and are undoubtedly pleased that America supports their fellow Jews in Israel but that’s as far as it goes. Nonetheless, an awful lot of Jews certainly do control an awful lot of America – not the industrial muscle of America - the steel, transport, etc., nor the oil and arms industries, those traditional money-spinners. No, if Jews have influence anywhere in America, it’s not over its muscle and sinew but over its blood and its brain. It is in finance and the media that we find a great many Jews in very influential positions. Lists abound (though you have to go to some pretty unpopular websites to find them) of Jews, prominent in financial and cultural life: Jews in banks; Jews in Forbes Magazine’s Richest Americans; Jews in Hollywood; Jews in TV; Jewish journalists, writers, critics, etc., etc.

Nor have Jews been slow in exploiting their position. Jews have not hesitated to use whatever resources they have to advance their interests as they see them. Nor does one need to subscribe to any conspiracy theory to note how natural it is for Jews in the media to promote Jews and their values as positive and worthy of emulation. When did anyone last see a Jew portrayed in anything other than a favourable light? Jews are clever, moral, interesting, intense, warm, witty, complex, ethical, contradictory, prophetic, infuriating, sometimes irritating, but always utterly engaging. Nor is it any wonder that Jews in influential positions are inclined to promote what they see as Jewish collective interests. Is it really all that incredible that Jewish advisers around the Presidency bear Israel’s interests at heart when they advise the President on foreign affairs?

But so what? So there are a lot of Jews with a lot of money, and a lot of Jews with a lot to say and the means to say it. If Jews by virtue of their ability and use of resources (as honestly gained as by anyone else) promote what they perceive as their own collective interest, what’s wrong with that? First, with some notable exceptions, the vast majority of Jews can, in good faith, lay hands on hearts and swear that they never take decisions or actions with collective Jewish interests in mind, certainly not consciously. And even if they did, they are acting no differently from anyone else. With a few exceptions, Jews have earned their advantageous positions. They came with nothing, played according to the rules and, if they use their influence to further what they perceive as Jewish interests, what’s so special about that? Do not the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Gun lobby, the Christian Evangelicals also not work to further their group interests?

The difference between Jews and other groups is that they probably do it better. Jews are, by pretty well any criteria, easily the most successful ethnic group in America and, for whatever reason, have been extraordinarily successful in promoting themselves both individually and collectively. And there would probably be nothing wrong with this were it not for the fact that these same people who exert so much control and influence over American life also seem to refuse to be held accountable. It is the surreptitiousness with which Jews are perceived to have achieved their success which arouses suspicion. Jews certainly seem cagey about the influence they have. Just breathe the words “Jewish power” and wait for the reaction. They claim it’s because this charge has so often been used as a precursor to discrimination and violence against them, but never consider the possibility that their own reluctance to discuss the power they wield arouses suspicion and even hostility.

But there is another claim, subtler and more worrying. This is that it doesn’t exist; that Jews do not wield power, that there is no Jewish lobby; that Jews in America do not exert power and influence to advance Jewish interests, even that there are no such things as Jewish interests! There are no Jewish interests in the war in Iraq, there are no Jewish interests in America; most amazing, there are no Jewish interests even in Israel and Palestine. There is no Jewish collective. Jews do not act together to advance their aims. They even say that the pro-Israeli lobby has actually not all that much to do with Jews, that the Jewishness of Israel is irrelevant and the Public Affairs Committees (PACs) which lobby so hard for Israel are in fact doing no more than supporting an ally and thus looking after America’s best interests even to the extent of concealing their true purpose behind names such as “American for Better Citizenship”, “Citizen’s Organised PAC” or the “National PAC” – none of which make one reference in their titles to Israel, Zionism or Jews. Similarly, Jews and Jewish organisations are said to be not so much furthering Jewish interests and values as American, or, even, universal interests and values. So, the major Holocaust Museum, styled as a “Museum of Tolerance”, focuses not only on anti-Semitism, but on every kind of intolerance known to mankind (except that shown by Jews to non-Jews in Israel and Palestine). Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League is but an organisation for the promotion of universal principles of tolerance and justice, not just for Jews but for everyone.

This conflation of Jewish interests with American interests is nowhere more stark than in present American foreign policy. If ever an image was reminiscent of a Jewish world conspiracy, the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East, this must be it. But we are told that the fact that the Jewish neo-cons, many with links with right wing political groups within Israel, are in the forefront of urging a pro-Israel policy, is but a coincidence, and any suggestion that these figures might be influenced by their Jewishness and their links with Israel is immediately marginalised as reviving old anti-Semitic myths about Jewish dual loyalty. The idea that American intervention in Iraq, the one viable military counterweight to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and therefore an inspiration to Arab and Palestinian resistance, primarily serves Israeli rather than American interests has also been consigned to the nether world of mediaeval anti-Semitic myth. The suggestion that those Jews around the president act from motives other than those to promote the interests of all Americans is just anti-Semitic raving. And maybe they’re right. Perhaps those who promote Jewish interests are in fact promoting American interests because, for now at least, they appear to be one and the same.


Jewish America

In Washington, D.C. is a memorial to a terrible tragedy. Not a memorial to a tragedy visited on Americans by a foreign power as at Pearl Harbour or 9/11, nor to a tragedy visited by Americans on Americans such the sacking of Atlanta. Nor is it a memorial of contrition to a tragedy inflicted by Americans onto another people, such as to slavery or to the history of racial injustice in America. It is to none of these. The Holocaust memorial is to a tragedy inflicted on people who were not Americans, by people who were not Americans, and in a place a very long way from America. And the co-religionists or, even, if you like, the co-nationals, of the people on whom the tragedy was visited and to whom the memorial is built make up around two percent of the American population. How is it that a group of people who make up such a tiny percentage of the overall American population can command such respect and regard that a memorial to them is built in the symbolic heart of American national life?

The Jewish narrative is now at the centre of American life, certainly that of its cultural and political elites. There is, anyway, much in the way that Americans choose to see themselves and their history which is quite naturally compatible with the way Jews see themselves and their history. What more fitting paradigm for a country founded on immigration, than the story of the mass immigration of Jews at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? For many Americans, the story of those Jews who came to their Goldenes Medina, their Golden Land, with nothing and, through hard work and perseverance, made it to the very top of American society, is also their story. And what could be more inspirational for a country, if not officially but still viscerally, deeply Christian than the story of the Jews, Jesus' own people and God's chosen people, returning to their ancient homeland and transforming it into a modern state. And for a nation which sees itself as a beacon of democracy in the world, what better international soul-mate than the state of Israel, widely held to be "the only democracy in the Middle-East"? Finally what greater validation for a country itself founded on a narrative of conquest and ethnic cleansing than the Biblical narrative of the conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land with the addition of the equally violent settlement of modern Palestine with its own ethnic cleansing and then "making the desert bloom"?

Most resonant, of course, is the notion of Jews as a suffering people. The fact that this “suffering people” is now enjoying a success beyond the dreams of any other ethnic group in America seems irrelevant. Also ignored is how American Jews have made it to the very top of American society whilst, every step of the way, complaining about how much they’re being discriminated against. Nonetheless, to America, Jews have an enduring and ongoing history of suffering and victimhood. But this history has rarely been examined or even discussed.