Signs of Resistance to Jewish Supremacism

Skip to first unread message

Fritz Wuehler

Dec 29, 2007, 8:20:23 AM12/29/07
Signs of Resistance to Jewish Supremacism
By Bob Finch

Since the second world war, Jewish elites in America and other western, over-
industrialized, countries have mushroomed in economic and political power
until today they compose either a significant part of these countries’
ruling elite or, as is the case in America, its dominant part. These elites
promote Jewish supremacism. This ideology consists of the following
* Uncritical support for the Jews-only state in Palestine;
* Uncritical support for Jewish expansionism both inside, and outside,
* The continual extension of the definition of antisemitism;
* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of the Jewish apartheid
state as antisemites;
* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of Jewish interests as
* The hyping of islamophobia, the racial hatred of all Moslems; and,
* The manipulation of America and other western countries into fighting
more wars in the middle east in order to boost the military dominance of the
Jews-only state in the region i.e. Jewish race wars boosting Jewish
Jewish elites around the world, but especially in America, are promoting
what they call ‘world war four’ against islamo-fascists. Jewish racists lump
all Moslems together as if they form one cohesive enemy called islamo-
fascists not merely Baathists but al Qaeda, and Shiite Iran and Hezbollah.[1]
They believe Moslems pose “a threat equal to or greater than World War II
and the Cold War.” (Jim Lobe ‘Et Tu, Cal’
43 July 06, 2007).
It is remarkable that Jewish supremacists are pressuring and manipulating
western countries into fighting racist wars on behalf of the Jews-only state.
Even more remarkable is that it is not in the west’s interests to fight such
wars as the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate all too clearly.
What is even more remarkable is that western political leaders seem willing
to fight such wars for the benefit of the Jews-only state no matter what it
costs western countries in lives, treasure, and reputation. But what is most
remarkable of all is that these political leaders have become blatant
quislings to the Jewish cause who are willing to fight such racist wars no
matter what public opposition there is to these wars. The west’s invasion of
Iraq has been a huge benefit to the Jews-only state but a catastrophe for
America and the west. An attack/invasion of Iran is likely to make this
contrast even more stark. Never have so many dupes been willing to lay down
their lives, their livelihoods, and their countries, for so few and for such
dishonourable objectives.
The mouthpieces of America’s ruling Jewish elite extolling Jewish
supremacism are not merely the neo-cons but neo-liberals, neo-libertarians,
neo-christians (so-called Christian Zionists), neo-lefties (such as Chomsky
and Zunes), neo-greenies, and neo-pacifists. They are willing to drive the
whole world into what many of them triumphally proclaim as the fourth world
war because this would provide an enormous boost for Jewish supremacism in
the middle east even though it would also throw the rest of the world into a
political, military, and economic, catastrophe. They put their loyalty to
the Jews-only state above their political or religious principles. They
traitorously regard their loyalties to the warmongering Jews-only state as
being more important than their loyalties to the countries in which they
were born and raised despite publicly professing their loyalty to the latter.
Since September 11, 2001 only a handful of commentators have been willing to
warn of the dangers posed by America’s ruling Jewish elite on America’s
political system. But, as the drumbeats for a proxy Zionist war against Iran
become faster and louder, more seem willing to challenge Jewish supremacism.
The choice is either challenge Jewish racism or allow Jewish supremacists to
drive the world into the ‘fourth world war’ with all the death and
destruction and mayhem this will cause.
The taboos against criticizing Jewish interests are beginning to weaken:
* Jewish economic power;
* the rise of Jewish elites;
* the existence of America’s Jewish lobby;
* the political power of America’s Jewish lobby;
* the New York money men who finance the Jews-only lobby and hard-line,
likudnik fundamentalist, think tanks;
* the zionist domination of the American media;
* the Jews-only lobby’s almost total domination of the American congress;
* the huge proportion of likudniks in the Bush regime;
* the Jewish elite’s major influence over the American president;
* the Jewish elite’s almost total dominance over candidates contesting
what are becoming America’s fake presidential election in 2008 in which the
American people are faced by a choice between various shades of likudnik
* the likudniks’ dominant influence (but not total control) over America’
s foreign policies;
* the common policies, strategies, and tactics, pursued by all Jewish
lobbies throughout the western world;
* Jewish elites in western countries manipulating the west into fighting
Jewish race wars against middle eastern countries; and,
* the traitorousness of those willing to sacrifice their own countries’
interests for the sake of boosting the regional supremacism of the Jews-only
state in Palestine.
This article lists, in a roughly chronological order, some of the most
prominent opponents of the likudniks’ politically kosher paradigm. [2]

Read the list at the link below:

Bert Hyman

Dec 29, 2007, 10:01:24 AM12/29/07
Fritz Wuehler <>


Another stinking neo-Nazi steps up and identifies himself.

Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN


Dec 29, 2007, 10:55:36 AM12/29/07

"Bert Hyman" <> wrote in message
> In

> Another stinking neo-Nazi steps up and identifies himself.
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN
Even a fanatic can be right once in awhile. Look into it if you dare:
" ... Originally, in the context of
the United States, it referred to a
right-wing movement of former political leftists. As Michael Lind has
observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on
the left, not the right. They are products of the influential
Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s,
which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and
finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in
American culture or political history. ..." from
Then search "global stragety councils". Follow that with "irving kristol
Look up - article5010.htm.

" ...Buying Influence
Saban was one of the major contributors to the former California governor
Gray Davis, and in return Davis appointed him to the board of regents of the
University of California. However, more recently, Saban, along with Steven
Spielberg, have shifted their loyalties to Arnold Schwarzenegger after the
new California governor's unequivocal support for Israel's latest invasion
of Lebanon ... " Haim Saban, Another rabid zionist that
owns politicians." ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing
the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The Zionist Organization of America is a tax-exempt organization under
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and all contributions
to it are deductible as charitable contributions as provided in IRC section
170. from
Look up "mordechai levy" and his "jdo" to learn more about what some Jews
are doing in this country. See
" "stand for israel" encourages Christian churches, leadership and
individuals to support Israel and the Jewish people through prayer and
advocacy." from about helping Jews remove Arabs in Palestine.

See for more on christian zionism.
See for facts about hagee.

" ... Ever since Benjamin Netanyahu -- Israel's prime minister from 1996 to
1999 -- cultivated ties with U.S. Evangelicals and other Christians during
his tenure, Israeli governments have sought to strengthen relations with the
sector of the Christian world which, for religious reasons, tends to take a
pro-Israeli view of the Arab-Jewish conflict. On Mr. Robertson's website, he
says that God gave this land "to the descendants of Israel," not to
"so-called Palestinians." Older churches, such as Orthodox and Catholic
denominations, have more local Palestinian followers and tend to support
that side of the conflict. ...". A Theme Park for Holyland? Ilene R.

" ... True, Judaism does not assign the same status to the unborn child as
to life after birth. Thus abortion is always permissible, indeed mandatory,
when the mother's life is threatened. ..." National Review, 7/8/1991. Don
Feder. Also see J J Goldberg's "Jewish Power", pp. 41-42.

" ... 10. The United States was anxious to have other countries supply
assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that
Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing
Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the
United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald
Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the
United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.
The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was
present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the
Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that
he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so. ..." from "teicher

"Elliott Abrams Ex-assistant secretary with Ronald Reagan, backed invasion
of Nicaragua and Panama. Witheld information during Iran-Contra scandal but
was pardoned in 1992. A protege of Reagan's UN envoy, Jeane Kirkpatrick
John Negroponte Bush choice for UN ambassador. Was US envoy to Honduras from
1981-85 during illegal war on Nicaragua. Accused of misleading Congress
about abuses in Honduras
Now that you have responded by using the zionist approved response of
"neonazi" I'm sure the rabbi is very proud of you.


Dec 30, 2007, 10:57:11 AM12/30/07
Signs of Resistance to Jewish Supremacism

By Bob Finch

Since the second world war, Jewish elites in America and other
western, over- industrialized, countries have mushroomed in economic
and political power until today they compose either a significant part
of these countries' ruling elite or, as is the case in America, its
dominant part. These elites promote Jewish supremacism. This ideology
consists of the following components:

* Uncritical support for the Jews-only state in Palestine;

* Uncritical support for Jewish expansionism both inside, and outside,

* The continual extension of the definition of antisemitism;

* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of the Jewish
apartheid state as antisemites;

* The vilification, and persecution, of critics of Jewish interests as

* The hyping of islamophobia, the racial hatred of all Moslems; and,

* The manipulation of America and other western countries into
fighting more wars in the middle east in order to boost the military
dominance of the Jews-only state in the region i.e. Jewish race wars
boosting Jewish supremacism.

Jewish elites around the world, but especially in America, are
promoting what they call 'world war four' against islamo-fascists.
Jewish racists lump all Moslems together as if they form one cohesive

enemy called islamo-fascists not merely Baathists but al Qaeda, and

Shiite Iran and Hezbollah.[1] They believe Moslems pose "a threat
equal to or greater than World War II and the Cold War." (Jim Lobe 'Et

Tu, Cal' July 06, 2007).

* Jewish economic power;

line, likudnik fundamentalist, think tanks;

* the zionist domination of the American media;

* the Jews-only lobby's almost total domination of the American

* the huge proportion of likudniks in the Bush regime;

* the Jewish elite's major influence over the American president;

* the Jewish elite's almost total dominance over candidates contesting
what are becoming America's fake presidential election in 2008 in
which the American people are faced by a choice between various shades
of likudnik extremism;

* the likudniks' dominant influence (but not total control) over
America's foreign policies;

* the common policies, strategies, and tactics, pursued by all Jewish
lobbies throughout the western world;

* Jewish elites in western countries manipulating the west into
fighting Jewish race wars against middle eastern countries; and,

* the traitorousness of those willing to sacrifice their own
countries' interests for the sake of boosting the regional supremacism
of the Jews-only state in Palestine.

This article lists, in a roughly chronological order, some of the most
prominent opponents of the likudniks' politically kosher paradigm. [2]

Senator William Fulbright - 1962.
"Senator William Fulbright, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, conducted hearings on foreign influence-buying in Congress
in the 1960s. He later said: "I hadn't realized before the hearings
that the Jewish lobby was so powerful. ... I didn't know they were
subverting the Congress." He also said: "The lobby can just about tell
the President what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in
Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly us and
ultimately to Israel itself." These comments came from one of the most
influential U.S. senators of the twentieth century. Senator Fulbright
was known for his courage - for example, in 1954 he challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his powers. Senator Fulbright
also raised strong objections to President Kennedy about the impending
Bay of Pigs Cuban invasion. In 1966, Fulbright published The Arrogance
of Power in which he attacked the justification for the Vietnam War
and Congress' failure to set limits on it." (Ron Forthofer 'Lobbying
for a foreign country' August
27, 2007).

Tom Hayden
Hayden turned into a Quisling for the Likudniks - 1982.
In 1981 Tom Hayden, whose wife at the time was Jane Fonda, was seeking
election to California's state assembly. He chose to contest a
district only to find it controlled by two brothers: Howard Berman and
his chief operative Michael Berman. "I was a neophyte running for the
California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to
them. "I represent the Israeli defense forces," Michael said. I
thought he was joking. He wasn't. Michael seemed to imagine himself
the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political
interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews
represented one-third of the Democratic district's primary voters,
Berman held a balance of power. He (Michael Berman) and his brother
were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam
Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they
calculated that Schiff couldn't win without name recognition, so they
were considering "renting" me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But
there was one condition: that I always be a "good friend of
Israel."" (Tom Hayden 'I Was Israel's Dupe'
July 20, 2006).

If Hayden was to win the crucial Jewish vote in the district he was
contesting he needed to show his support for the Jews-only state in
Palestine and win approval from Jewish opinion formers. "However, all
these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of
Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a
candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be
certified "kosher," not once but over and over again. The certifiers
were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple
mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city's Jewish
Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-
Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated
with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors,
counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements
declaring someone a "friend of Israel." In my case, a key to the
"friendship issue" was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin
Navon. The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated
indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference
in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in
public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be
quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared
"kosher" by the ultimate source, the region's representative of the
state of Israel." (Tom Hayden 'I Was Israel's Dupe' July 20, 2006).

The price Hayden had to pay to win approval from the Jewish community
increased dramatically in the summer of 1982 when the Jews-only state
launched an illegal and pre-emptive invasion of Lebanon to drive the
Palestine liberation organization out of the country. "Ever curious,
and aware of my district's politics, I decided we (he and Fonda)
should go to the Middle East, but only as long as the Israeli
"incursion," as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-
kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket
fire. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan
promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized
border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon,
with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen.
Ariel Sharon's secret plan all along, and I never will know with
certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone
else. For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel's
"right" to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how
foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel's invasion was
continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America. Finally, a close
friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk,
looked into my eyes and said: "Tom, you can't do this. You have to
stop." (Tom Hayden 'I Was Israel's Dupe'
July 20, 2006). Hayden stopped legitimizing the invasion but did not
criticize or condemn it and, as a consequence, "I easily won the
general election in November."

Hayden now describes his involvement in these events as "a descent
into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today."
Alexander Cockburn was much more trenchant about Hayden's quisling
behaviour. "Twenty four years ago Ariel Sharon's artillerymen
bombarded Beirut, causing huge terrible civilian casualties, just as
Israel's bombs are doing today. The destruction was so savage that
NYT's Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman complained bitterly in an
indiscreet in-house memo when his editors axed the word
"indiscriminate" which Friedman had used to describe the bombing. I
published that internal memo in the Village Voice and Friedman thought
he was going to lose his job. Standing next to those Israeli gunners
and cheering them on were Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, eager to promote
Hayden's political career in California. It was one of the most
disgusting political spectacles of the 1980s and I wrote angrily that
"in the halls of the National Gallery in Washington DC there are 54
portraits of Benedict Arnold. None look alike. All resemble Tom
Hayden."" (Quoted in Tom Hayden 'I Was Israel's Dupe' July 20, 2006).

Fears the Likudniks are going to throw Mid East into Crisis - July
"An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long
advocated the "Lebanonization" of the Middle East, meaning the
disintegration of nation states into "a chaos of squabbling, feuding,
fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties." This divide-and-conquer
strategy, a brainchild of the region's British colonizers, is already
taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state,
installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays
itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites.
The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops
to remain." (Tom Hayden 'I Was Israel's Dupe'
July 20, 2006).

Paul Findley - 1985.
"In my 1985 book, "They Dare to Speak Out," I detailed the tactics
used to silence criticism of Israeli policies. One of the groups
employing these tactics is the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee. On its Web site, AIPAC calls itself "America's pro-Israel
lobby" and boasts a New York Times description of it as "the most
important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."
All citizens have the right to band together and push for policies
they believe are right. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups do
not plead the case for Israel on the stage of public opinion. Instead,
they often resort to smear campaigns and intimidation to clear the
floor so that only their side is heard." (Paul Findley 'Carter enters
lions' den',0,5388645.story
February 7, 2007).

Marlon Brando - 1994.
On a prime time television show, Marlon Brando criticized the Jewish
domination of Hollywood and his comments were published around the
world. But everyone knows Hollywood is dominated by Jews so what was
unique about his outburst was that he was willing to discuss the issue
in public. What is also interesting is what happened to Brando after
he broke this Jewish taboo. "Jewish power is such that they can make
craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an appearance on
the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that
"Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews." Brando contended that
Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while
they slander every other racial group, "but are ever so careful to
ensure that there is never any negative image of the Kike." Jewish
groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that
they would see to it that he "would never work again." No one in the
Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated
Brando's observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so
intimidated that he had to arrange an audience with Wiesenthal
himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal's
hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal
absolved him for his sin, and Brando has said nothing but positive
things about Jews ever since." (David Duke 'Who Runs the Media?' ).

William Cash - October 1994.
In the early 1990s Britain's right wing political magazine, the
Spectator, was edited by Dominic Lawson and was owned by Conrad Black,
a Canadian Jew, who also owned the Jerusalem Post. Nevertheless,
Lawson published an article by William Cash about the rise of Jewish
power in America. Cash, the son of the right-wing Tory mp Bill Cash,
commented on an article in the October 1994 issue of America's Vanity
Fair magazine, 'Redefining Power in America: The New Establishment',
listing America's 100 richest and most powerful people. He drew a
conclusion from the article that Vanity Fair had carefully evaded:
that many of those listed were Jews. Just in case he might be thought
a tad antisemitic he shored up his contention by quoting from a book
about Jews in Hollywood written by a Jewish author. "It should first
be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As
Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of
Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie
pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald's
model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to
Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east." (William
Cash 'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994).

Cash contrasted the Vanity Fair article with an article about
America's ruling elite written by Henry Fairlie for the Spectator in
1955. He proposed three interesting generalizations about the shifts
in economic and political power in America that he believed had taken
place between the publication of these two articles. Geographically, a
shift from America's east coast to the west coast. California is often
referred to as the world's fourth biggest economy. Economically, from
the military-industrial complex to the media, entertainment, and
information industries. (This was quite an insight given that Silicon
valley had only recently started to grow). And ethnically, from the
old wasp establishment to a new Jewish establishment.

Cash was worried that the old (wasp) establishment's clannishness
might also be adopted by the new (Jewish) establishment but concluded
the evidence was ambiguous. "The extent to which this adds up to any
sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of the 21st-Century
Entertainment Superhighway is difficult to assess." (William Cash
'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994). He astutely
noted that although many wealthy Jewish parvenus in Hollywood's early
days had imitated the social habits of the former wasp elite, this was
not so noticeable with the new Jewish elite. "The movie Jews joined
the Hollywood Polo and Riding Club in droves; they paid their
expensive dues at the West Hills Hunt Club with its own pack of Irish
foxhounds, whose (mostly Jewish) members still gallop every Saturday
in season around the hills around Los Angeles in sunglasses and full
British hunting gear. The idea of 'New Establishment' players like
David Geffen (who refuses to wear a suit), Mike Ovitz or Steven
Spielberg dressing up in a tail-coat to go fox-hunting is ludicrous.
Now that they are the Power Elite, they view the creaky East Coast
Wasp institutions and such reserves as the LA Country Club (which
still proudly excludes Jews and showbiz types') as anachronistic
jokes. Whilst Louis Mayer would have been trying everything to get a
photograph of himself shaking hands with Prince Charles during his
three-day visit (or escape) to LA, today's breed of super-mogul
couldn't care less." (William Cash 'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator
October 29th 1994).

Cash's article raised a few eyebrows in Britain but, after being
circulated through Hollywood's Jewish elite, it unleashed a political
storm in America. "As I say, the article caused little comment in
Britain when it was published. However, Mr. Michael Williams-Jones,
the chief executive of United International Pictures in London, which
distributes films abroad for MGM, Paramount and Universal, took the
trouble to send faxes of the article to his contacts in Hollywood. Mr.
Williams-Jones wrote in an accompanying note, 'The article is odious
in its innuendo and inaccurate in its facts.' At the other end the
moguls got in touch with Mr. Bernard Weinraub, the highly experienced
Los Angeles correspondent of the New York Times. While none of them
wished to be quoted personally, Mr. Weinraub reported that they were
collectively of the view that the Cash article was 'disgusting'
'despicable', 'bigoted' and 'odious'." (Dominic Lawson 'Taboo or not
Taboo, That is the Question' The Spectator, Nov. 19, 1994).

The following week the Spectator published a selection of protest
letters about Cash's article. The following letter provides a flavour
of their content, "SIR: William Cash worries about inevitable shrieks
of antisemitism as a consequence of his antisemitism. Not to worry.
People as powerful as us have no need to shriek. We will bide our time
and silently see justice done. Maybe before Passover. You run a filthy
magazine. Leon Wieseltier Literary Editor, The New Republic,
Washington, DC." (The Spectator November 5th 1994).

Cash's response to this paranoid hysteria was written in the same
jaunty style he'd adopted in his original article - clearly indicating
he still wasn't aware of the toxic sludge into which he was about to
be pushed. He seemed to believe he was on safe ground by pointing out
he'd only been regurgitating the views of a Jewish commentator. "The
attacks on me in the American media have been led by Neal Gabler,
author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.
What is so galling is that all the historical data I present in my
article about how Jews have always worked together in the movie
business, along with the very words that have been objected to, came
straight from his book, including the red-flag phrase 'Jewish cabal',
which he employs almost with relish on page 263." (William Cash
Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). But such a seemingly solid defence proved to
be incapable of stemming the flood of abuse being hurled in his
direction because he'd failed to appreciate that he'd inadvertently
broken a cardinal Jewish taboo: anyone can praise Jewish power but no-
one is allowed to criticize it.

Dominic Lawson came to Cash's aid. He pointed out that Cash had drawn
only an obvious conclusion from the list of America's most powerful
people which Vanity Fair had inexplicably omitted. "What struck
William Cash, was that, while strenuously pointing out that the New
Establishment was not Wasp, Vanity Fair had at no point in a survey
the size of a small book mentioned that most of the members of the soi-
disant 'New Establishment', particularly in Hollywood, are
Jewish." (Dominic Lawson 'Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question'
Spectator November 19th 1994). He explained how Jewish leaders
organized their retaliation against the Spectator for publishing
Cash's article. "Following Mr. Weinraub's article, the Anti-Defamation
League swung into action from its New York office as a result of this
one of our valued advertisers cancelled its contract with us and the
Los Angeles Times ran a leader page article to denounce young William
Cash." (Dominic Lawson 'Taboo or not Taboo, That is the Question'
Spectator November 19th 1994). Lawson even exposed Leon Wieseltier's
hidden agenda. "..the journalist Leon Wieseltier... the literary editor
of New Republic, is the nearest thing the political correctness mob
have to a cultural Gauleiter. In an interview with New York magazine
earlier this year Mr. Wieseltier referred grandly to 'part of my job
of policing the culture'." (Dominic Lawson 'Taboo or not Taboo, That
is the Question' Spectator November 19th 1994).

What comes out of this dispute is not a debate but mutual
incomprehension since this was like a tectonic shift between two
different political paradigms. Lawson tried dismissing criticisms of
Cash as being examples of political correctness gone mad without
realizing that he too, like Cash, was in the process undermining the
politically kosher paradigm. Their adversaries on the other hand
simply ignored their infringements of the politically correct paradigm
since they could tolerate no infractions of their politically kosher
paradigm. Clearly Lawson rather naively believed that the politically
correct paradigm trumped his adversaries' objections without realizing
that the politically kosher paradigm had already become the dominant
paradigm. It is highly unlikely that Lawson would repeat his
infractions of what is now the clearly understood dominance of the
politically kosher paradigm. Cash himself ultimately justified his
stance by falling back upon what seemed to him to be the bedrock of
the great tradition of British journalism, "What Hollywood may have
misunderstood is the colorfully subversive and coruscating tradition
of British journalism .." (William Cash Spectator Nov. 19, 1994). This
too was quickly crushed under the Jewish heels of the politically
kosher paradigm and there has been no further evidence of it since

In many ways the Cash affair was a foretaste of what happened twelve
years later when Mearsheimer and Walt published their essay on the
Jewish lobby. Firstly, just as Cash had drawn his conclusions from
evidence provided by a Jewish author, so Mearsheimer and Walt went out
of their way to back up their conjectures by citing copious Jewish
sources. In both cases, such a tactic proved to be no defence because
whilst it is possible to praise Jewish interests it is not possible to
criticize them. Jews can boast about their achievements, non-Jews can
proclaim such achievements, but no-one, neither Jew nor non-Jew, can
criticize such achievements. In other words, Jewish taboos are not on
topics or ethnic groups but on criticisms. As far as the Jewish elite
is concerned criticisms are the first steps towards the re-
establishment of extermination camps and cannot be tolerated.
Secondly, Cash's focus had been on the Jewish elite whilst the focus
of Mearsheimer and Walt had been on the Jewish lobby, and yet they
were all were condemned for being antisemitic because the Jewish lobby
insisted their focus was on the Jewish people

There is some amusing speculation about Cash seeking forgiveness from
those he'd offended. And, even more hilariously, doing so in a way
that upstaged the great Marlon Brando who even at that time was often
regarded as a legend.

George W. Ball.
"Words spoken years ago by George W. Ball, a distinguished diplomat,
author and champion of human rights, have vivid, new currency: "When
Israel's interests are being considered, members of Congress act like
trained poodles. They jump dutifully through hoops held by Israel's
lobby." In the same interview, Ball said, "The lobby's most powerful
instrument of intimidation is the reckless charge of antisemitism."
Sadly, his words ring true today, verified by my own experiences and
those of many of my colleagues in the U.S. legislature." (Paul Findley
'Study shows undue Israeli influence on U.S. policy' April 19,

Robert Novak - December 2002.
"In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
has insisted that Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, is the world's most
dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al
Qaeda's global record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the
world's most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel's
standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-
based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. Thus, Rice's
comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being
Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to
Arik Sharon. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon
bond creates tension throughout Islam. On balance, war with Iraq may
not be inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon's
war disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam
Hussein but worry about the background of an attack against
him." (Robert Novak, Washington Post, December 26, 2002. Quoted in
Bill and Kathleen Christinson 'Israel, American Jews, And Bush's War
On Iraq. Too Many Smoking Guns To Ignore' January 2003).

Tony Judt - October 2003.
Bush as the Jews' Ventriloquist's Dummy.
"The Middle East peace process is finished. Israel continues to mock
its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard
of the "road map." The President of the United States of America has
been reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the
Israeli cabinet line: "It's all Arafat's fault."" (Tony Judt 'Israel:
The Alternative' October 23,

The Jews-only State dragging America's Reputation through the Mire.
"This is where the US enters the picture. Israel's behavior has been a
disaster for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem
has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to
withdraw from land seized and occupied in war. Israel is the only
Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine and lethal weapons of
mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US has effectively
scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such weapons
from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent
states. Washington's unconditional support for Israel even in spite of
(silent) misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the
world no longer credits our good faith." (Tony Judt 'Israel: The
Alternative' October 23, 2003).

Gilad Atzmon - December 20, 2003.
Gilad Atzmon could be described as the foremost philosophical critic
of Jewishness and the Jews-only state in Palestine. He has launched a
full scale, full frontal, assault on virtually all aspects of Jewish
supremacism. It is impossible to do justice to the depth and breadth
of his analyzes in a work such as this and so the following quote will
have to serve as being representative of his work. In this quote he's
tackling head-on one of the most forbidden of Jewish topics, the
'Elders of Zion' syndrome. "Zionists complain that Jews continue to be
associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political lobbies,
media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty
accusation? The following list is presented with pride in several
Jewish American websites.

Jews in Bush's Administration:

Ari Fleischer: White House Press Secretary

Josh Bolten: Deputy Chief of Staff

Ken Melman: White House Political Director

David Frum: Speechwriter

Brad Blakeman: White House Director of Scheduling

Dov Zakheim: Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)

Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense

I. Lewis Libby: Chief of Staff to the Vice President

Adam Goldman: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

Chris Gersten: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration
for Children and Families at HHS

Elliott Abrams: Director of the National Security Council's Office for
Democracy, Human Rights and International Operations

Mark D. Weinberg: Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for Public Affairs

Douglas Feith: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Michael Chertoff: Head of the Justice Department's criminal division

Daniel Kurtzer: Ambassador to Israel

Cliff Sobel: Ambassador to the Netherlands

Stuart Bernstein: Ambassador to Denmark

Nancy Brinker: Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin: Ambassador to Singapore

Ron Weiser: Ambassador to Slovakia

Mel Sembler: Ambassador to Italy

Martin Silverstein: Ambassador to Uruguay

Jay Lefkowitz: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the
Domestic Policy Council

Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even
worse. Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's
population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were
Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so. We have to ask ourselves what
motivates American Jews to gain such political power. Is it a genuine
care for American interests? Soon, following the growing number of
American casualties in Iraq, American people will start to ask
themselves this very question. Since America currently enjoys the
status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed
above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take
the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world
very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical,
racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn
America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super
power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security
matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN
resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions
against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests
that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether
the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or
rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionist) do try to
control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for
themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of
their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon." (Gilad Atzmon
'On Antisemitism'
December 20, 2003).

The Jewish neocons, of course, are allowed to joke about such a
conspiracy firstly to demonstrate that they have the authority to talk
about such issues without any fear of chastisement but also to tempt
critics to criticize Jewish power so they can be denounced as
antisemitic peddlers of Jewish conspiracy theories. "Neoconservatives
said they were generally supportive of Giuliani's positions and saw
them as being in line with those taken by the other leading Republican
presidential candidates. "I would say, as a card-carrying member of
the neoconservative conspiracy, that I think Giuliani, McCain and
Thompson are all getting really good advice - and Romney," said
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. Kristol said that none
of the leading Republican candidates "buys any of these fundamental
criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to
go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy."" (Michael Cooper and Marc Santora
'Hawkish handlers guide Giuliani on foreign policy' October 24,
2007). It ought to be mentioned that although they'd been around as a
cohesive political force since the early 1970s, at the turn of the
century the Jewish neocons were still successfully denying there was
any connection between them and that there was any such thing as
neoconservatism. They were able to denounce those using the label as
antisemites but, after the America's proxy zionist invasion of Iraq,
the term has become so popular they've had to give up the pretence
that there's no substance behind the concept. This is one of the few
battles the Jewish neocons have lost over the last thirty five years.

Thomas Friedman - February 2004.
"Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week
when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements
in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that
this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has
the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house
arrest. That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat
under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush
under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat
surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian
pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to
do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the
president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year, all
conspiring to make sure the president does nothing." (Thomas L.
Friedman 'A Rude Awakening'
63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Hezbollah February
5, 2004).

Ralph Nader - June 2004.
On June 21, 2004, Ralph Nader, the well known consumer rights'
activist and prospective presidential candidate, took the dramatic,
and radical, step of accusing George Bush Jnr and the American
Congress of being zionist puppets. "The subservience of our
congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has
been consistent. They're almost all puppets. There are two sets:
Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief
puppeteer (Ariel Sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets
prance." (Ralph Nader 'Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking' The
American Conservative
June 21, 2004).

Nader reiterated the same point a week later, "What has been happening
over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the
head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to
Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White
House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the
puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars.
It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the
Washington peace show."" (Nader's speech to the conference of the
Council for the National Interest entitled, "The Muslim Vote in
Election 2004? quoted in 'Ralph Nader Calls Israel a "Puppeteer"' June 30,

The national director of the Anti-Discrimination League, Abraham H
Foxman, complained that Nader was an antisemite. "He said Nader was
continuing to spread a "canard" about the Jews. "He fuels the
conspiracy theory that the Jews control the White House and the
Congress. And it's a lot more sinister after Iraq."" ('Nader stands by
claim that White House, Congress are Israeli "puppets"' August 14,

On august 5, 2004 Nader responded to these accusations by mentioning a
zionist joke, "The Israelis have a joke for the obvious, that the
United States is the second state of Israel." (Quoted in Ralph Nader
'Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict' August
5, 2004). He also endorsed Thomas Friedman's statement quoted above.

On August 13, Abraham Foxman replied on the ADL's website to Nader's
letter. "I was disappointed to read your letter of August 5 because it
merely confirmed my concerns about your original comments, in which
you characterized the Jewish State and American Jews as being
"puppeteers" who control foreign policy in Congress and the
Administration. Rather than allay our concerns, your letter only
furthers conspiracy theories about Jews and borders on bigotry."

On august 12, a Washington Post editorial compared Nader's comments
with the views of neo-nazi white supremacist groups. "This is
poisonous stuff. And if Mr. Nader doesn't understand what such words
actually mean, the less savory elements of American society certainly
know how to read such code." The same comparison was made a few days
later in the same paper, "After all, both play on the age-old
antisemitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating politics and
manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends. Yet if Mr.
Nader is at all disquieted by the company he is keeping by using such
metaphors, he sure isn't showing it." ('Mr. Nader's Baiting'
Washington Post August 14, 2004 Page A20). Nader denounced this
editorial as "shameful and unsavory".

In October, Nader condemned the ADL for its usual trick of putting
antisemitic words in the mouths of its opponents in order to denounce
them for being ... antisemitic! "My comments related to the Israeli
government, with the fifth most powerful and second most modern
military machine in the world, through its prime minister possessing
the role of puppeteer to puppets in the White House and Congress. You
distorted the comment into "Jews controlling the U.S. government."
Shame on you. You know better. If you do not see the difference
between those two designations, you yourself are treading on racist
grounds." (Ralph Nader 'Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing
Israel is not Antisemitism'
October 12, 2004). And this was the last time Nader spoke about this
issue which has become the most fundamental political issue in America
and the rest of the western world.

Naomi Klein - September 2004.
Naomi Klein has rightly pointed out that Sharon succeeded in foisting
his policies on the Bush regime after the bombings of September 11,
2001. Sharon with the aid of America's Jewish elite turned Bush's so-
called 'war against terrorism' into America's war against terrorists
threatening the Jews-only state in Palestine. "Common wisdom has it
that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by
what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on
terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that
all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate
to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on
September 11 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted
against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on
earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the
world: the real legacy of 9/11." (Naomi Klein 'The Likud doctrine' The
September 10, 2004).

Juan Cole - September 2004.
Cole is correct in his assessment of the relationship between the
leader of the world's hyperpower and the leader of a tiny, and
supposedly much less powerful, country in the middle east. "Bush has
just lain down on the ground and pleaded with Sharon to walk all over
him with hobnail boots, and then smiled for the privilege. Arab
satellite television shows Israelis repressing Palestinians every day.
The Bush administration has actually endorsed the forcible Israeli
annexation of Palestinian land, which violates the United Nations
Charter and the Geneva Accords!" (Juan Cole 'Arguing with Bush yet
Again' July 14, 2004); "It is September 11.
It is obvious to me that what September 11 really represented was a
dragooning of the United States into internal Middle East political
conflicts." (Juan Cole 'Dual Loyalties'
September 9, 2004).

Brent Scowcroft - October 2004.
"Quite aside from partisan attacks coming from the Kerry camp, the
most biting critique has come from Brent Scowcroft, who mused to
Britain's Financial Times the other day that while the transatlantic
relationship is "in general bad," George W. Bush's attention is
elsewhere: "[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon just has him wrapped
around his little finger. I think the president is mesmerized. When
there is a suicide attack [followed by a reprisal] Sharon calls the
president and says, 'I'm on the front line of terrorism', and the
president says, 'Yes, you are. . . ' He [Mr. Sharon] has been nothing
but trouble." (Justin Raimondo 'Bizarro Bush'
October 22, 2004).

Scowcroft was duly punished for his sin of exposing Bush's
subservience to the Jews-only state in Palestine. "Of particular
concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell
London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush
"mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little finger." As chair of the
prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under
George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft
was uniquely positioned to know, and to draw comparisons. He was
summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now
persona non grata at the White House." (Ray McGovern 'Helping Israel
Die' February 10,

Roberts, Paul Craig - January 2005.
Roberts was a member of the Reagan administration so was doubtlessly
privy to the battles within that administration between
neoconservatives and the traditional conservatives or paleo-
conservatives as they became known when the term neoconservative
became popular. He has become one of the most vehement and outspoken
critics of neoconservatism and the following quotes are representative
of his views.

Bush is Ariel Sharon's Poodle.
"If Bush were aware that his army has failed to "secure Iraq," he
might wonder at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might
even stop being Richard Perle's puppet. Or Ariel Sharon's
poodle." (Paul Craig Roberts 'Not One Bad News Bearer in Bush's Inner
Circle' January 20,

America is a Colony of the Jews-only State in Palestine.
"Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring
massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence
Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan
Heights. That is what the "war on terror" is about." (Paul Craig
Roberts 'Bush Must Go: Only Impeachment Can Stop Him' January 15, 2007).

The Likudniks are Nazis.
"Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would
send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire
civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and
the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be
tried for war crimes." (Paul Craig Roberts 'Is the Military the Last
Hope? Cracks in the Pentagon'
February 14, 2007).

Bush's attack on Iran would be a greater Evil than that committed by
the Nazis'.
"Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and
"American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world
has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and
Communist regimes." (Paul Craig Roberts 'Dump the Dollar! How the
World Can Stop Bush'
February 12, 2007).

Likudniks' Islamophobic Hysteria.
"In America today blind ignorant hate against Muslims has been brought
to a boiling point. The fear and loathing is so great that the
American public and its elected representatives in Congress offer
scant opposition to the Bush administration's plan to make Iran the
third Middle East victim of American aggression in the 21st century.
Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and
deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less
that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American
occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been
displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the
Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush
administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and
deliberation." (Paul Craig Roberts 'The Politics of Blind Hatred: Who
Are the Fanatics?'
September 5, 2007).

Mearsheimer and Walt - March 2006.
Mearsheimer and Walt published their tract, "The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy" in march 2006 and an edited version of the paper
appeared in the London Review of Books on March 23, 2006. In this
essay the authors accused the Jews-only lobby of seriously distorting
America's foreign policies and blamed it for pushing the Bush regime
into an invasion of Iraq which was not in America's interests. The
essay received little attention from America's mainstream, i.e.
zionist dominated, media.

General Wesley Clark - January 2007
Arianna Huffington was lucky enough to be around when Wes Clark
sounded off about the corruption of American politics. "At the packed-
to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in,
Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I
said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he'd read in
this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece,
which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de
Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush
administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S.
air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal. "How can
you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?"
said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we
don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option
is off the table, but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's
not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's
sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and
our hopes, and building relationships." When we asked him what made
him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he
replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The
Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being
channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." At
one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he
said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking
notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I know."
For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S.
"I'm worried about the surge," he said. "But I'm worried about this
even more."" (Arianna Huffington 'D.C. Notes: Wes Clark is Steamed'
January 4, 2007).

Clark's statement was inevitably lambasted by the Jews-only lobby in
America and its allies in the zionist dominated media and, like so
many before him, he was forced to retract by his likudnik masters.
"Within days, the general was in caught in a familiar crossfire,
smeared as an instigator of antisemitism by some Republican Jewish
organizations, his remarks headlined as "Protocols of the New York
Money People" by a Wall Street Journal columnist. Soon he was engaged
in a humiliating apology and repentance ritual with Abe Foxman of the
ADL." (Scott McConnell 'Bloggers vs. the Lobby' March 12, 2007). This
retraction is why it's possible Clark might still become Hilary
Clinton's new secretary of state for defence if she's elected

However, what was unusual about the reaction to Clark's outburst was
that there were a small number of voices, Jewish ones, willing to
insist he'd said nothing wrong. "For within a day or two, one could
read in the blogs some surprising assertions that amounted to a truth
defense of Wes Clark. It seemed to come primarily from young, or
comparatively young, Jewish bloggers. Significantly, these were not
voices from an older and more alienated Chomskyian Left but from an
American Prospect-like liberal mainstream." (Scott McConnell 'Bloggers
vs. the Lobby' March
12, 2007).

Matthew Yglesias - January 2007.
Yglesias was one of those who leapt to Clark's defense. "Everything
Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true.
The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed
himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because
it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be
accused of trafficking in antisemitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for
his trouble, got ... accused of trafficking in antisemitism." (Matthew
Yglesias 'Smears for Fears'
January 23, 2007).

So here we have an open secret: a truth known to all but which nobody
is allowed to talk about. This is very much like the Jews' nuclear
weapons: everyone knows they've got them but nobody is allowed to
mention them. And if they do mention them then they're denounced as

Yglesias goes on to mention another commonplace of Jewish dominance:
it is permissible for people to make approving remarks about Jewish
political and economic influence but it is not permissible to make
critical remarks about such influence. Anyone who is critical is
condemned as antisemitic. "And, indeed, it is interesting, for
demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's
Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of
America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's
considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that
said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because
they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are
willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by
way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're
denounced as an antisemite." (Matthew Yglesias 'Smears for Fears'
January 23, 2007). This phenomena has been noted above. It is
permissible for the Jews-only lobby to boast of its power over
American politicians but if anyone criticizes the lobby for having
such power they are vilified and persecuted as antisemites promoting
the dangerous nonsense of a Jewish conspiracy over national politics.

Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald was another Jewish commentator who came to Clark's defence.
"In early February, Glenn Greenwald, a New York attorney who recently
published a book on the Patriot Act, wrote a blog entry that focused
on the New York AIPAC gathering attended by both John Edwards and
Hillary Clinton. Greenwald quoted an article from the New York Sun,
there is no more unimpeachably right-wing Zionist source, that
featured Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf's claim that
"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money
come from the Jewish community. If ... you want dollars from that group,
you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most
to them." The issue that matters most, the article went on to say, is
Israel, and what this group most wants to hear with regard to Israel
is commitment to bellicosity toward Iran. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton did
their best to comply, though according to a report in the equally
Likud-friendly New York Post, Clinton apparently disappointed some in
attendance by suggesting that diplomacy might be attempted before war.
"This is the wrong crowd to do that with," commented one attendee.
Greenwald went on to point out that these articles made exactly the
same point that Clark made, adding, "It is simply true that there are
large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are
agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because
those groups are devoted to promoting Israel's interests and they
perceive it to be in Israel's interests for the U.S. to militarily
confront Iran."" (Scott McConnell 'Bloggers vs. the Lobby' article.html March 12, 2007).

James Petras - May 2007.
Petras is the foremost political and economic critic of Jewish power
in America. It is impossible here to do justice to his work so the
following quote is, once again, taken to be representative of his
analysis. He argues that if Bush's foreign policies were dominated by
America's national interests, as represented by the country's gigantic
multinational energy companies, they would overwhelmingly favour Arab
states which export 40% of the world's oil rather than the Jews-only
state which has no resources of its own. It would have sought peace
between Jews and Palestinians. Perhaps even more strikingly, it would
have committed itself to a strategic alliance with Iran at the expense
of the Jews-only state. The fact that the Bush regime pursues foreign
policies that benefit the Jews-only state rather than those which
benefit America, America's multinational energy companies, Arab oil
states, and Iran, clearly reveals the dominance of the Jews-only state
and its Jewish allies in America. "The Council of Gulf Cooperation
composed of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United
Arab Emirates are the world's biggest oil suppliers (over 40%), made
up of conservative, pro-US regimes, housing US military bases, linked
to the largest US oil and financial houses and the biggest purchasers
of military hardware from the US military-industrial complex. They met
in late March 2007 and called for the US to engage Iran diplomatically
and not militarily or with economic sanctions. Israel took a
diametrically opposing view pushing for tighter sanctions and a
military confrontation. Automatically the ZPC echoed the Israeli Party
line (Daily Alert, March 26-30, 2007). Congress and Bush ignored Big
Oil, the military-industrial complex, its Arab clients and followed
the Zionist line: they escalated sanctions, increased commando
operations, added to the war-ships off the coast of Iran and offered
to send fighter-planes into Iran after British sailors, engaged in
espionage, were captured (Blair, for once, rejected the war
provocation). Once again the ZPC out-muscled Big Oil and the military-
industrial complex in dictating US Middle-East policy." (James Petras
'The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for
May 14, 2007).

Charley Reese
Americans dying for the Jews.
"But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its
main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli
lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who
claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or
lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful
lobby in America. So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start
the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the
case of Iraq. In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die
and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than
dual loyalty." (Charley Reese 'Israel's Bad Influence' January 6, 2007).

Opposition to America's Likudnik policy of Pre-emptive War.
The Jews-only state in Palestine has long promoted a policy of pre-
emptive war against its defenceless neighbours. The Jews-only lobby,
the zionist dominated media and the neocons wanted the Bush regime to
adopt the same policy to enable it to attack enemies of the apartheid
state. "The concept of a pre-emptive war should be an abomination to
every American. Pre-emptive war is a war of aggression. It was the
policy of Hitler's Germany and of the Japanese imperial government. To
our national shame, apparently many Americans support the concept.
They should never again criticize the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, the
Third Reich for the invasion of Poland, or the Soviet Union for the
invasion of Afghanistan. Click your heels and salute. You are no
different from the people who cheered for Hitler." (Charley Reese 'Who
Cares?' August 13,

Chris Hedges - July 2007.
"U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush
administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli
foreign policy. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided
direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding
of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991
Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with
Iraq." (Chris Hedges 'A Declaration of Independence From Israel'
July 02, 2007).

Seymour Hersh - October 2007.
Wes Clark's proclamation about New York money men triggered support
from Seymour Hersh, America's premier commentator whose articles
sometimes necessitates responses from the president of the united
states. During an interview with Amy Goodman, he stated that the
reason so many democratic presidential candidates were supportive of
the Jews-only state was that their campaigns were being financed by
wealthy Jews. Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hilary Clinton for
voting in favor of a senate resolution calling on the state department
to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard corps a terrorist
organization. When asked to respond to Gravel's criticism Clinton just

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds,
Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come
on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money,
and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran
is an existential threat. And I think it's as simple as that. When
you're from New York and from New York City, you take the view of,
right now, when you're running a campaign, you follow that line. And
there's no other explanation for it, because she's smart enough to
know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I, you know, it's shocking. It's really surprising and
shocking, but there we are. That's American politics circa
2007." (Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran' October
2nd, 2007).

Hersh's statement seems to have elicited none of the usual hysterical,
paranoid denunciations from the Jews-only lobby in America. It has
once again been warmly greeted by a small number of (Jewish)

Philip Weiss - October 2007.
Weiss offered his support for Hersh. "This is a significant moment.
Hersh is a wild man, wild and brilliant. Yet in all his anti-Bush and -
Cheney interviews about Iraq over the last few years, I've heard him
talk code on this issue. He's attacked the neoconservatives as a crazy
band of thinkers; but he's never put the blame fully where it belongs,
on a broader segment of the Jewish community that has immunized the
neocons from blame for the war, on the Israel lobby, which includes
many Democrats too. Now he's done so (though apparently not in the New
Yorker, which regards Walt and Mearsheimer as fueling hysteria). This
is a beautiful moment, too. Hersh is a progressive Jew. Now he is
turning on other Jews. "New York Jewish money," he says. The soul
searching that I have called for within the Jewish community has
begun!!!!" (Philip Weiss 'Walt & Mearsheimer Perestroika Alert: Sy
Hersh Says 'Jewish Money' Is Pushing Iran War'
October 02, 2007).

Richard Dawkins - October 2007.
"In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how
fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact,
they are less numerous I am told, religious Jews anyway, than atheists
and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far
as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction
of that influence, the world would be a better place."" (Richard
Dawkins quoted in Ewen MacAskill 'Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the
A-word among America's unbelievers',,2180660,00.html
October 1, 2007).

Daniel Finkelstein, editor of the London Times comments' section,
criticized Dawkins comments. "So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes,
er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it
is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am
over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened." (Daniel Finkelstein
'Dawkins on the power of the Jews'
October 05, 2007).

Three points ought to be made about Finkelstein's retort. Firstly, and
most obviously, Dawkins claimed the Jews-only lobby controls America's
foreign policies not that Jews control the world.[3] Finkelstein
condemns Dawkins in the same way that Abe Foxman, a hardline likudnik
fundamentalist, had condemned Ralph Nader i.e. by putting racist words
into his mouth. It is far from clear whether Finkelstein regards
himself as an English Jew or just Jewish.

Secondly, did Finkelstein really believe the role of Britain's Jewish
elite could go on increasing without being noticed, commented on, or
criticized? Did he think suspicions weren't being raised when their
fundraising efforts for the Labour party seemed to be going hand in
hand with the Blair government's increasing support for the Jews-only
state in Palestine? Blair's increasingly racist foreign policy reached
such a stage of barbarism, no matter how well covered up by his
alleged commitment to humanitarian interventionism, that he believed
the best way to bring peace to Palestine was by starving Palestinians
into submission.

Thirdly, given that Jewish racists and their allies around the world
are currently trying to starve Palestinians into submission perhaps
more concern ought to be given to innocent Palestinian civilians than
Finkelstein's hyper-sensitive nervous system.

Vanity Fair's Latest version of the New Establishment - October 2007.
William Cash suffered considerable abuse, and eventual political
oblivion, at the hands of the Jews-only lobby in America when he dared
to point out that many of those in Vanity Fair's list of the top 100
most powerful people in America were Jews. The controversy surrounding
Cash's article did not deter Vanity Fair from making the list an
annual publishing event. Indeed, the list has become even more
grandiose since it now consists of the most wealthy and powerful
individuals around the world. However, in October 2007 the magazine
wasn't reticent about mentioning the disproportionate number of Jews
on the list. "It's a list of "the world's most powerful people," 100
of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape
the lives of billions. It's an exclusive, insular club, one whose
influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically
in the highest corridors of power. More than half its members, at
least by one count, are Jewish. It's a list, in other words, that
would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins,
calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in
finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many,
would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list - not a
pack of fringe antisemites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous
publications on the newsstands. Published between ads for Chanel and
Prada, Dior and Yves Saint Laurent, it's the 2007 version of "The
Vanity Fair 100," the glossy American magazine's annual October
ranking of the planet's most important people. Populated by a Cohen
and a Rothschild, a Bloomberg and a Perelman, the list would seem to
conform to all the traditional stereotypes about areas of Jewish
overrepresentation. Printed over 15 pages before an interview with
Nicole Kidman, the rankings, described on the magazine's cover as the
membership of "The New Establishment", are less than scientific,
accompanied by a paragraph-long introduction that neither defines
power nor describes the methodology behind the list." (Nathan Burstein
'Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair''
d=1191257286817 October 12, 2007).

Indeed, Burstein quoted one Jewish commentator who believed such a
list was something about which Jews ought to be proud. "Yet the list
doesn't appear to have generated concern so far, instead drawing
expressions of satisfaction and pride from the lone Jewish commentator
who's responded in writing. Joseph Aaron, the editor of The Chicago
Jewish News, thinks it's a list his readers should "feel very, very
good about." "Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk
about us having power in this society," Aaron wrote this week, in
apparent reference to Jewish life in the United States. "Talk about
antisemitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer
needing to be afraid to be visible and influential."" (Nathan Burstein
'Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair''
d=1191257286817 October 12, 2007). This is sound advice which
Finkelstein ought to heed.

Justin Raimondo provides a couple of interesting insights firstly,
into the likudnik fundamentalists publishing the magazine and
secondly, about how the Jews on the list like to boast of their
membership of the global ruling Jewish elite. "Some, like CBS's Leslie
Stahl, have owned up to the temporary collapse of their critical
faculties (by failing to expose the lies used to boost support for the
invasion of Iraq); others, like Vanity Fair's David Rose, are silent.
It was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread in the glossy, perfumed
pages of the magazine the elites love to display on their coffee
tables made the most extreme claims about the imminent danger posed by
Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly working on a long-range missile
project, which was perilously close to becoming operational. Not only
that, but, according to Rose and his INC sources, the Iraqis had a
"dirty bomb" in the works, as well as blueprints and the means to
build chemical and biological warheads. The relentlessly visual Vanity
Fair editors even included a map that purported to show where these
various sites were located in Iraq, including a nuclear weapons
development laboratory. When none of this turned up in the aftermath
of the invasion, did the editors of Vanity Fair cry "mea culpa"?
Certainly not. Instead, they ran a piece, "The Path to War," that
blamed "the media" for all that INC-generated misinformation, but
failed to mention their own role in promoting it. The piece was
written by Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, and, hold on to your seat,
David Rose." (Justin Raimondo 'How Did We Get Here? October 24, 2007).

With Vanity Fair's publication of the list of what is in effect
America's ruling Jewish elite, the Jewish oppression of Americans is
reaching new levels of sophistication. Most dictatorships, like most
democratic governments, do their best to cover up bad news which would
reflect badly on the regime. The greater their dictatorial power the
greater their chances of burying news that might undermine their
regimes. But clearly with Vanity Fair's list, America's ruling Jewish
elite is now so confident about its grip over American society that it
no longer feels there's a need to cover up news that could be
exploited to undermine its control. America's most powerful Jews can
enjoy boasting about their achievements knowing that the natives are
unlikely to start questioning the benefits of these achievements.

Israel Shamir - October 2007.
If Gilad Atzmon is the foremost philosophical critic of Jewish
supremacism, and James Petras the foremost critic of Jewish political,
and economic, power in America, then Israel Shamir is the foremost
intellectual critic of Jewish power. Atzmon is probably in a better
position than most to make the following judgment. "An ex-Jew, Shamir
is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is the sharpest critical
voice of 'Jewish power' and Zionist ideology." (Gilad Atzmon 'The
Protocols of the Elders of London'
c.2004). It is not possible here to summarize Shamir's many books so
the following quotes, taken from his latest article, serve as a sample
of his work.

Shamir argues the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is not just
an issue affecting Palestine but has global ramifications because of
the power of Jewish elites around the western world, especially
America, to win support for whatever the Jews do in Palestine. The
starting point of pre-apocalyptic politics is clear. "Thus the
distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists is the most important
distinction, the great divide between war and peace, life and
death." (Israel Shamir 'Right Ho, Lobby'
October 10, 2007). Given the torrent of propaganda lies and
fabrications against Iran since the turn of the millennia the
following is also true. "The real formidable power of the Jewish Lobby
lies in its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block
others' attempts to unite.".


It's time for profound political choices to be made. Either succumb to
Jewish supremacism, support an attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on
Iran, and promote the ridiculous 'fourth world war' which could last
for generations. Or, limit the power of the west's Jewish elites, curb
likudnik warmongering, abolish the Jews-only state in Palestine, and
seek alliances with the Moslem world to secure global peace. The
'fourth world war' would involve over half a billion people from
turkey to Pakistan. It would be a huge benefit for the Jews-only state
but would be devastating for the greater Middle East and a catastrophe
for the rest of the world. Why should the western world continue to
fight Jewish racist wars against virtually unarmed Moslems? Why should
it go on sacrificing its own lives, treasure, and reputation, for the
sake of Jewish supremacism?

Only once the world is free from Jewish oppression will it then be
able to tackle the most profound issue of our time: protecting the
Earth's life support system. The 'fourth world war' to boost Jewish
supremacism by breaking up Middle Eastern states into mini-states
would provide a huge boost to global burning. Jewish racists believe
they can eventually carry out the Nazi policy of lebensraum against
the Palestinians but by the time they've created a racially pure Jews-
only state, the Earth's life support system will be on the verge of
collapse and global burning will be accelerating out of control. The
land they are proud to have turned green with the blood of
Palestinians will turn to sand. Jewish supremacists believe they can
create an island of racial purity in a world of potential enemies.
They do not want to rely on any other countries for their own
survival. They believe they are so special they do not need other
people. But the planetary reality is that they are totally dependent
on people around the world to protect the Earth's life support system.
No country can be an island when the planet is heating up. The Jews
are no more special than any other people and no less dependent on
people around the world than everyone else.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in

Thomas Jefferson


Dec 31, 2007, 7:39:19 AM12/31/07
> Now that you have responded by using the zionist approved response of
> "neonazi" I'm sure the rabbi is very proud of you.

And I am sure uber-racist David Duke is proud of you. Now go practice your
goose step that is after you get your parole.

To see my stock picks go to Enter lubow in Enter Topic

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages