Top

Jewish group pressures syndicate to nix Pat Buchanan’s column

May 20, 2010

A group of Jewish Democrats wants a large newspaper syndicate to stop publishing conservative commentator Pat Buchanan’s columns.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan found himself in hot water last week after he penned a piece saying that if Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is confirmed, the number of Jews on the Court will be highly disproportionate to the U.S. population.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) wrote a letter to Creators Syndicate asking it to take down the column and stop publishing him.

“We ask that you pull down Buchanan’s latest column from your website and that you stop publishing his over-the-top, conspiratorial screeds,” it reads.

In the column, titled, “Are liberals anti-WASP?”, Buchanan wrote: “If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.”

Several Jewish groups have long quarreled with Buchanan, accusing him of making anti-Semitic statements and being opposed to the state of Israel.

Buchanan has denied his remarks have been anti-Semitic and says he supports Israel.

Here’s the letter in full:

To Creators Syndicate:

Pat Buchanan has a history of Jewish obsession and anti-Israel rhetoric. Last week, you allowed him yet again to continue his fixation with Jews, this time criticizing President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, simply because she’s Jewish.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) and its supporters strongly condemn Buchanan’s column – “Are liberals anti-WASP?”

Religion should never be a prerequisite for picking a Supreme Court nominee. Publishing Buchanan’s fringe column gives him and his ideas validity. It’s time to take a stand against this sort of intolerance in our country’s political discourse.

We ask that you pull down Buchanan’s latest column from your website and that you stop publishing his over-the-top, conspiratorial screeds.

During these challenging times, it is more important than ever that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Help us end the practice of promoting ethnic and religious divisiveness by removing this ugly column today.

Source: The Hill.

North Korea threatens ‘all-out war’ if punished over sinking

May 20, 2010

A North Korean submarine torpedoed one of South Korea’s warships near the disputed maritime border in March, investigators said on Thursday, prompting heated denials and threats of war from the North.

South Korean navy personnel stand guard next to the wreckage of the salvaged naval vessel Cheona [AFP]

The South’s President Lee Myung-Bak promised “resolute countermeasures” and the United States, Britain, the United Nations, Japan and Australia strongly condemned the attack which claimed 46 lives.

The communist North said the report, by a multinational investigation team, was based on “sheer fabrication”.

It threatened “all-out war” in response to any attempt to punish it.

“The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine,” the team said, releasing its report on the March 26 sinking at a nationally televised press conference.

“There is no other plausible explanation.”

Seoul’s closest ally the United States called the attack “one more instance of North Korea’s unacceptable behaviour and defiance of international law.

“This attack constitutes a challenge to international peace and security and is a violation of the armistice agreement” which ended the 1950-53 war, said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the North had shown “a total indifference to human life”.

British experts joined the probe, along with specialists from the United States, Australia and Sweden.

eoul has apparently ruled out a military counter-strike for fear of igniting all-out war. It is likely to ask the United Nations Security Council to slap new sanctions on the North.

This would need agreement from China, a veto-wielding council member and the North’s ally, which has indicated it first wants to see strong evidence.

“Resolute countermeasures will be taken against North Korea,” Lee told Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a phone conversation, according to Lee’s office.

South Korea, through strong international cooperation, “should make North Korea admit its wrongdoing and return as a responsible member of the international community”, added Lee, whose National Security Council will meet Friday to weigh its reaction.

Rudd called for an “appropriate” international response.

The sinking near the Yellow Sea frontier flashpoint was the worst apparent cross-border provocation since the downing of a South Korean airliner in 1987 with the loss of 115 lives.

The investigators laid out apparently damning evidence against Pyongyang, which is thought by some analysts to have acted in revenge for a naval firefight last November in the area.

The 1200-tonne corvette was split apart by a shockwave and bubble effect produced by the underwater explosion of a 250kg homing North Korean torpedo, the report said.

It said parts salvaged from the Yellow Sea “perfectly match” a type of torpedo that the North has offered for export.

A marking in Korea’s Hangeul script was found on one recovered section, and matches markings on a stray North Korean torpedo recovered by the South seven years ago, investigators said.

The report said the attack was likely carried out by a small submarine.

The North’s top decision-making body the National Defence Commission said it would send its own investigators to the South to check the purported evidence.

Seoul rebuffed the proposal, saying a commission overseeing the armistice would carry out its own probe.

“Our army and people will promptly react to any ‘punishment’ and ‘retaliation’ and to any ‘sanctions’ infringing upon our state interests with various forms of tough measures including an all-out war,” the North’s statement said.

It threatened in future to respond to any small border incident with a “merciless strong physical blow”.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said the report was “deeply troubling”.

“The Secretary-General has learned of the results of the investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan naval ship of the Republic of Korea with a heavy heart and serious concern,” a statement from his office said.

“The facts laid out in the report are deeply troubling,” it added. Ban would continue to closely follow developments, said the statement.

Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said the sinking of a South Korean navy ship was “unforgivable”.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Stark Truth: Interview with Robert Lindsay

May 20, 2010

Robert Lindsay is an Independent Left journalist, blogger, and “liberal race realist” from California. Topics include:

  • “Liberal race realism”; the definition of racism
  • Critique of White nationalism and positive White identity
  • Immigration and its affects on demographics, the economy, and environment; urban sprawl and destruction of wilderness in California
  • The flaws of libertarianism and Capitalism; Wall Street and financial parasitism
  • Zionism, anti-Semitism vs. rational criticism of Jewish culture and political activism

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 55 min.

Contact Robert:
robert_stark_la hotmail.com

The Sunic Journal: A Speech from Flanders

May 18, 2010

In a speech delivered on Apr. 25 at the New Solidarity Alternative (Flemish: Nieuw-Solidaristisch Alternatief) conference in Antwerp, Belgium, Tom discusses:

  • “Imperialism”, Americanism & Zionism
  • American political theology
  • Question & answers from the audience

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 53 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Jamie Kelso, May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

The centerpiece of the today’s show is the just-announced crushing victory of Rand Paul in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. We don’t have the official count yet, but the exit polls already published indicate that the Rand Paul victory is a steamroller of the 2 to 1 variety. Other primaries took place in Oregon, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania today, but the only story getting national and world attention is the one that White patriots are cheering today…the Rand Paul drubbing of the anointed Neocon favorite, Tray Grayson. We’ll report the official final figures on tomorrow’s show.

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:
24.7keyboard gmail.com

The Heretics’ Hour: Wall Street, International Banking, & Adolf Hitler

May 17, 2010

Adolf Hitler & Hjalmar SchachtAdolf Hitler & Hjalmar Schacht

Carolyn Yeager separates myth from fact and the real from the rogue on this complicated subject, deconstructing the crazy-quilt world of conspiracy theorizing about the German Führer. Topic include:

  • Conspiracy theories questioned
  • The cause of the Weimar hyperinflation
  • Hitler’s economic miracle based on sovereign credit principles
  • Today’s financial crises
  • A Russian opinion poll on Katyn

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn carolynyeager.com

Jamie Kelso, May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

Jamie starts out with a look back at the distinguished history of the Henry Regnery family in patriot publishing, going back to the founding of Human Events in 1944, and the founding of Regnery Publishing in 1947. A great percentage of the patriotic books that made it into print in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were published by Henry Regnery, something anyone active in those years remembers. We bring the story right up to the present with the work of the current generation of Regnerys with William Regnery’s National Policy Institute.

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:
24.7keyboard gmail.com

Mishko and Dietrich, 5/14/2010

May 15, 2010

This Week in Disorganized America:

Dietrich goes on a deserved leave so Mishko continues to discuss our current economic crisis and the following topics.

  • Arizona
  • Eric Holder, retard and liar
  • The full frontal attack on White People
  • What YOU can do to fight back
  • Our future
  • And much more

Joe Lieberman’s fascist agenda to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights -Robert Stark

May 14, 2010

Senator Joe Lieberman is sponsoring a bill with Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown called the “Terrorist Expatriation Act” that would strip terrorist suspects of their citizenship. The bill applies to any American that supports a foreign terrorist organization or any organization that is deemed a supporter of terrorism by an ally of the United States. The bill gives the State Department the power to determine who is a terrorist, and strip away their citizenship.

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman introduced the bill stating, “The State Department will make an administrative determination… the State Department will now have the authority to revoke their citizenship… they will not enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship in the legal proceedings against them…. he could then be tried by military commission as the Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent that he is.”

Even though Lieberman claims the bill is to target Americans who have joined Islamic Terrorist Organizations such as Al Qaeda, it has implications affecting many American political dissidents, not just those who one would usually think of as terrorist. Hypothetical scenarios that the bill might apply to are Americans such as former Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney who are helping out Palestinians in Gaza with food and medical aid. Since Israel considers Hamas a terrorist organization and Israel is considered as ally by the US Government.

Another scenario is American Patriots who are helping out the Afrikaner Resistance Movement, which is a secessionist movement in South Africa. Let’s say the ANC Government in South Africa declares the movement a terrorist organization and the US state department decides to go after Americans who are helping the organization.

Joe Lieberman also sponsored another bill in the Senate with John McCain called the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act”. This bill which has been described as the “Patriot Act on steroids” gives the President the power to determine if an individual poses a terrorist threat so that they can be detained and interrogated. Under this Bill the suspects would loose their Miranda rights and Sixth Amendment Right to an Attorney and fair trial.

McCain explained it stating, “we still don’t have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the (alleged) act of trying to bring about attacks on the United States and our national security interests at home and abroad.”

Lieberman added, “These are not common criminals. They are war criminals. Anyone we capture in this war should be treated as a prisoner of war, held by the military, interrogated for information that will protect Americans and help us win this war and then where appropriate, tried not in a normal federal court where criminals are tried but before a military commission.”

These two bills sponsored by Joe Lieberman tie in to each other. One bill strips Americans of their citizenship, and the other of their right to a fair trial once they lose their citizenship. Many conservatives supported the Patriot Act under Bush thinking it would only be against Islamic extremists, but now Obama can use it to go after those in the Tea Parties and the patriot movement who have already been labeled by the establishment as “domestic terrorist”.

These bills create a dictatorship where the State Department is given the power the strip the rights of any American citizen, especially political dissidents. Maybe some day when Americans take back their country, this law may be used against the same traitors who are behind this bill who also happen to have ties to foreign terrorists.

Source: Examiner.com.

Recent video interview of Tom Sunic in Antwerp, Belgium

May 14, 2010

Rapaille Media Reporter Thierry Vanroy interviews Dr. Tomislav Sunic in Antwerp, Belgium on the day of the anti-imperialist dinner-debate of the New Solidarity Alternative (Nieuw-Solidaristisch Alternatief, i.e. N-SA.be).

Jamie Kelso, May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

Who can we thank for the great pushback against the non-White invasion that has sprung up in Arizona over the last two months? In our May 13, 2010 Jamie Kelso Show we look at the new Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, a 65-year-old Republican who automatically became Governor when the pathetic Democrat Janet Napolitano resigned to accept her position as Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security. Arizona, with a long tradition of White right-wing patriotism, is not surprising as the site in which strong resistance to the non-White invasion has appeared in the form of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which makes it a crime to be an illegal in Arizona. The shocking thing about this law is that it’s the only one of its kind in America. 49 other States need to take the Arizona lead. And Supreme Court appointments of anti-Whites like Elena Kagan, now pending, need to be stopped if laws like SB 1070 are to stand.

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:
24.7keyboard gmail.com

The Stark Truth: Arizona, Machetes, & the Supreme Court

May 12, 2010

Robert Stark & guest co-host Mike Conner discuss:

  • Arizona’s new immigration law and the agenda and hypocrisy of those who oppose it
  • The American flag incident on Cinco De Mayo in Morgan Hill
  • Machete: A new film that advocates violence against those who are for border enforcement
  • Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill to strip citizenship of terrorist suspects and the implication it could have if used against political dissidents
  • Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan
  • Elections: Jim Traficant and Rand Paul

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Robert:
robert_stark_la hotmail.com

Jamie Kelso, May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Today’s show is an all-MacDonald broadcast covering recent writings by American Third Position Director and professor of psychology Kevin B. MacDonald.

(Note: This archive is shorter than usual due to technical problems.)

25 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 49 min.

Contact Jamie:
24.7keyboard gmail.com

The Sunic Journal: Weber on Constitutional conservatism

May 11, 2010

mark Weber

Tom Sunic discusses:

  • Recent developments in the IHR; upcoming speakers at IHR events
  • American conservative wishes to “return to the Constitution”; the post WW2 replacement of German ethnic patriotism with “constitutional patriotism”
  • The Judaic concept of religion as a contractual relationship with god (the Covenant)
  • Hypocritical speech codes and laws
  • The increasing feeling of loss in the West and its rapid demographic transformation
  • Israeli military historian Martin Creveld’s remarks on Israel’s military capacity to blackmail Western Europe

For more information on the Institute for Historical Review, visit their website at ihr.org.  You can contact Mark Weber at weber ihr.org

12 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 51 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Putting Whitey in His Place -Paul E. Gottfried

May 11, 2010

ec9e5d4418cddeb916f54861fa51abb5_m

Just as I was forgetting how much I loathe the GOP, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell brought me back to my senses. Although McDonnell had previously declared April to be “Confederate History Month,” he apologized in a revised proclamation for having failed to mention the enormous evil of slavery. His mea culpa contains this characteristic PC statement:

Whereas it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhuman practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history.

McDonnell seems to have been driven to public contrition after the NAACP and former Democratic governor Tim Kaine complained that he had slighted Democratic voters — also known as American blacks. Apparently Southern whites, whose ancestors fought and bled in the Civil War, should not be allowed to commemorate their ancestral event without having to apologize to black civil rights leaders, for not being obsessive enough about atoning for white racism. But aren’t there already occasions for exhibition of white guilt? Doesn’t black history month serve this purpose? Then whites are encouraged to abase themselves for their sins and for those of their ancestors against non-whites. This updated form of Lent comes in the wake of the celebration of the epiphany of MLK, which also encourages the outpouring of white guilt. Why then are McDonnell’s voters not permitted a single month in which to celebrate their ancestral experiences?

It’s not even the case that McDonnell was giving us good history, as Pat Buchanan explained in a syndicated column. Although slavery contributed to the War Between the States, it was not the only cause, as the revised proclamation strongly suggests. There were regional and tariff differences that led to the struggle. But clearly McDonnell was not offering self-evident historical facts but some NAACP concoction intended to make Southerners feel even guiltier about their onetime institution of slavery.

McDonnell could have provided Kaine with a dignified, manly response (and then challenged him to properly organized duel!) He should have explained that the two of them had radically different constituencies. Unlike Kaine’s followers, his constituents were delighted to have a Confederate History Month. McDonnell had the same right to tend to his people that Kaine had to please his.

Moreover, Southern whites do not gain the respect of white liberals and neocons by doing the PC cringe. I was strongly reminded of this while reading David Brooks’s harangue against the Pellagra Belt in his recent New York Times column “The Limits of Policy.” There Brooks belabors us with these undocumented assertions:

The region you live in also makes a gigantic difference in how you will live. There are certain high-trust regions where highly educated people congregate, producing positive federal loops of good culture and good human capital programs. This mostly happens in northeastern states like New Jersey and Connecticut. There are other regions with low social trust, low education levels, and negative feedback loops. This mostly happens in southern states like Arkansas and West Virginia.

Although McDonnell’s southern state is left unmentioned, like Arkansas, West Virginia and other regions located south of the Mason-Dixon Line, it is presumably a place for Untermenschen. Southern states in general are not the places in which Jewish Yuppies like Brooks and his likeminded or ethnically related buds would want to spend time. And presumably the Confederate Museum in Richmond is not the kind of spot that radiates “good culture” and “human capital programs.” Such a site would not have the morally redemptive value of, say, a brand new conservative synagogue in West Hartford equipped with photos of Joe Lieberman or a Starbucks’ in West Orange, New Jersey. Although I’ve spent summer vacations in the mountains of West Virginia and met scads of Washingtonians in nearby Canaan Valley, it seems that we were sojourning among “untrustworthy” people. I’m happy that Brooks has set us straight on this. From now on I’ll spend my summers walking the streets of Newark, Camden, and Waterbury, CT among “good human capital.”

Besides reflecting his Jewish liberal parochialism, Brooks’s comments skirt some very important issues in the matter of “regional differences.” The critical factor for understanding violence in particular parts of the country, as Steve Sailer and others have explained until the cows come home, is the level of concentration of minority and particularly black populations. Noting this reality is not to be unfairly judgmental. It merely points out what creates an environment of distrust.

The crime rate in West Virginia is on par with that of Connecticut. In fact the violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants in West Virginia is slightly lower than that of my native state (279.7 as against 280.8), but then so are the proportions of blacks and Hispanics relative to whites in the two states. Further: New Jersey’s crime rate (351.6) is higher than that of Connecticut or West Virginia but considerably lower than that of Arkansas (551.6), one of our poorest states and also one that contains a very large black population. Brooks and his fellow-geeks seem to hang out in the northwestern section of the District. They might however know that the rate of violent crime of all sorts in DC (1,508 per 100,000) is considerably higher than that of any state. States with particularly high rates of violent crime, such as Maryland, Tennessee and South Carolina, also have high percentages of blacks in both rural and urban areas. The border state in which Brooks’s home is found is one of our leaders in murders, rapes, and armed robberies. Needless to say, Maryland’s black population is considerably higher than that of West Virginia or Connecticut. And gun control in Maryland and the District is far more intrusive than in the very low-crime state of West Virginia, where having access to weapons may be creating safety, if not Brooksian “trustworthiness.”

There is nothing original about these findings and presumably Brooks and even McDonnell know the data as well as I do. In his monograph Why Race Matters (1997) and in an essay “Recent Fallacies in Discussions of Race” published in The Real American Dilemma (1998), Michael Levin provides an illuminating, mathematically documented case for how black crime has spiraled in a changed cultural political environment. Since the 1960s, black crimes has become a national problem, in proportion to the emergence and establishment of lenient attitudes toward criminals and particularly toward black criminals as “victims of racism.”

Levin does not argue that black malefactors in the American South in the 1920s were treated kindly. They most certainly were not. But the knowledge that blacks who stepped out of line would be punished anywhere in the U.S. (and not only in the Deep South) until the 1960s had an impact on lessening black crime. It is not changed genetic differences but environmental variables that account for changed rates of black crime, and among these factors Levin stresses the changed attitude toward blacks, who were once viewed as an unruly minority and now as WASP victims, in causing black crime to soar in the 1960s and 1970s.

If changed white attitudes — that is the rise of PC — has a positive relation to black crime, then perhaps McDonnell should reconsider his reaching out to the NAACP. He should explain to its bigwigs that they didn’t vote for him and that he owes nothing to them as preferred constituents. Moreover, beating his breast over slavery and spitting in the faces of the proud descendants of Confederate veterans will do nothing to make the Old Dominion State more tranquil or more prosperous. It will simply reinforce the unproductive impression that whitey is back on his knees again kowtowing to the NAACP, a group that has done nothing to contribute to racial harmony or low crime rates.

Source: The Alternative Right

The Heretics’ Hour: Wilhelm Kriessmann’s memoir of 1925-1938

May 10, 2010

Wilhelm Kriessman's book

Carolyn talks with Dr. Kriessmann about his book When I was a Schoolteacher’s Boy, a chronicle of his youth in Feistritz im Rosental (Austria) during the turbulent years between the World Wars. Topics include:

  • A nationalist family
  • School fraternities and the Hitler Youth
  • The Austrian Anchluss, the culmination of hopes

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn carolynyeager.com

Jamie Kelso, May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

Today’s show features readings of new articles from Prof. Kevin B. MacDonald’s scientific and patriotic Web zine The Occidental Observer. We read three new articles by Alex Kurtagic (KURT-uh-gitch), Richard Hoste, and the pseudonymous Dr. Lasha Darkmoon.

26 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 56 min.

Contact Jamie:
24.7keyboard gmail.com

Lies about Zionism and the New World Order from the left and the right -Robert Stark

May 10, 2010

There has been a lot of debate about whether Zionism is nationalism or internationalism from both supporters and critics of Israel. Many leftist critics of Israel view it as a hyper-nationalist state while its supporters have said that it is only trying to defend its national sovereignty. They both agree that Zionism is Nationalism, however the left tends to take the position that nationalism is bad and leads to conflicts and wars.

The late Howard Zinn who was one of Israel’s leading critics on the left in an article titled “Israel was a Mistake” stated “I think the Jewish State was a mistake, yes. Obviously, it’s too late to go back. It was a mistake to drive the Indians off the American continent, but it’s too late to give it back. At the time, I thought creating Israel was a good thing, but in retrospect, it was probably the worst thing that the Jews could have done. What they did was join the nationalistic frenzy, they became privy to all of the evils that nationalism creates and became very much like the United States-very aggressive, violent and bigoted. When Jews were without a state they were internationalists and they contributed to whatever culture they were part of and produced great things. Jews were known as kindly, talented people. Now, I think, Israel is contributing to anti-Semitism. So I think it was a big mistake.”

While many of those on the left see nationalism as the root cause of Zionism’s problems, many supporters of Israel have pitched the idea to American nationalists that Israel is a nation whose national sovereignty is under siege by the same globalist elites who are destroying America’s sovereignty.

One such individual is Canadian Israeli Journalist Bary Chamish. He is a staunch supporter of Israel but has also aligned himself with the American patriot movement speaking out against the New World Order. In his article titled “New World Order’s Control of Israel’s Economy” he starts out stating “The forces who wish to create a New World Order (NWO) based on a One World government, long ago realized that to destroy a nation’s sovereignty, it was not enough to merely corrupt its diplomacy; they must also enjoy the overwhelming leverage that comes with controlling its economy. So, through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), they have planted compliant administrators throughout the governments of the world.”

He goes on to talk about how Israel has been victimized by the globalist stating “by controlling the nation’s economy, the NWO inherits control of its independent diplomacy. In Israel, in the early 1980s, the NWO retaliated against the honorable and independent Prime Minister, Menachem Begin by shooting the inflation rate up to 450%. The men who arranged this from within the government were Bank of Israel Chairman Michael Bruno and Finance Minister Yoram Aridor. Bruno justified a series of measures by Aridor guaranteed to cause instant inflation, including the sudden and unexpected lifting of most duties on imported goods. Both men were rewarded well for their treachery: Aridor, against all natural reason, was made Israel’s United Nations ambassador and Bruno retired to the good life at the IMF.” He concludes his article saying “The Chairman of The Bank Of Israel, is possibly the most dangerous individual in the country.”

Chamish who admired Begin has also claimed that Ariel Sharon was in cahoots with Henry Kissinger to orchestrate the Sabra and Shantila Massacre in Israel’s 1982 War in Lebanon to destroy Begin’s reputation. However it was Begin who was the leader of the 1948 Dir Yasin Massacre against the Palestinians and who said “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

John Hagee who is an evangelical pastor with a following in the millions and founder of Christians United for Israel has also made similar statements about the globalist trying to destroy Israel. Hagee believes that the Rothschilds and international bankers control the Global economy through the Federal Reserve and are setting up a One World Government. Hagee fails to mentions that it was the Rothschilds who helped financed the creation of the state of Israel, including the Israeli Knesset, and have a major street named in their honor in Tel Aviv.

What is ironic is that Hagee’s views about the New World Order are similar to many of those who are considered “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist” and have even got Hagee himself accused of anti-Semitism by some liberal Jewish organizations despite his staunch support for Israel. However he claims that these globalist elites want to destroy Israel, successful at appealing to those who believe in the New World but getting them to support Israel rather than involved in anti-Zionism.

In has long been considered an anti-Semitic canard to accuse Jews of being internationalist dating back to Henry Ford’s infamous “The International Jew.” However many Jews have discussed the role that Jewish interest have played in promoting Globalization. The Kvetcher who is a Jewish blogger that is very critical of the organized Jewish community responded to a statement by David Duke where Duke said that Americans “are bitter because unelected economic czars such as Greenspan and Bernanke, Wolfowitz and a whole coterie of Jewish “people who aren’t like them” have ripped them off and have let so-called “free trade” destroy the American economy.” The Kvetcher stated that “the Jewish role in promoting privatization and globalization is large and unfortunate. It is a communal embarrassment.” Concluding the article the Kvetcher says “Does Duke exaggerate a bit? Sure. He is a conspiracy theorist? Absolutely. But he hits far too closely to the reality far too frequently for any of us to be comfortable with where we are as a community, or for where we have helped push this great country in recent years.”

Asher Ginsberg who is considered the ideological founder of the modern Zionist movement argued that Israel should be a spiritual center for all Jews worldwide and dissagreed with other Zionist such as Theodore Herzl who’s goal was to concentrate the worlds Jewish population in the state of Israel. Historian Dr. Norman Cantor described Ginsberg’s vision that would “serve as a foundation in The Holy Land for a Hebrew-speaking cultural center for world Jewry-an elite cultural center for world Jewry.”

To this day in Israel there are Zionist in Israel who are blood and soil Nationalist but the leaders of the movement are internationalist with dual citizenship who chose not to live in Israel but view it has a safety net in case of an anti-semitic uprising in the West. In the Film about anti-semitism titled “Defamation”, Israeli Film Makers Yoav Shamir asked wealthy ADL’s donors why they did not live in Israel and they replied that Israel is their insurance policy.

The CFR is the one of the nation’s most powerful think tanks who’s membership includes every big name in politics and have promoted a North American Union modeled after the EU. Former Congressman John R. Rarick warned that “The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right to know machinery – the news media – usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.”

Besides supporting the erosion of America’s sovereignty, the CFR has been devoted to hawkish pro-Israel agenda in the middle east. In 2002 The CFR sponsored a book by Kenneth Pollack titled “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” Now CFR President Richard Haas is talking about regime change for Iran. He wrote an article titled (Enough Is Enough: Why we can no longer remain on the sidelines in the struggle for regime change in Iran) where he calls for regime change and UN Sanctions against Iran. Haas has also criticized Obama for not being supportive enough of Israel. Elliot Abrams who is the CFR’s Senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies has even advocated for a US military strike against Iran.

Zinn says that Zionism is flawed because it was based on nationalism, while Chamish makes an appeal to western nationalist who’s sovereignty is under attack. While Israel itself is not the culprit behind globalism, the internationalist power structure in the United States unconditionally supports Israel and most powerful pro-Israel organizations in the West such as the ADL support open immigration and globalization. Israel is dependent on Western financial and military support which powerful pro-Israel interest groups in America and other Western Nations Lobby for. While in principle Zionism may be nationalism in practice it is internationalism.

Source: Examiner.com.

Israel’s fated bleak future -John J. Mearsheimer

May 10, 2010

President Barack Obama has finally coaxed Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. He and most Americans hope that the talks will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, that is not going to happen. Instead, those territories are almost certain to be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will then be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.

Israeli Settlements Map

There are four possible futures regarding Israel and the occupied territories. The outcome that gets the most attention is the two-state solution, where a Palestinian state would control 95 percent or more of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and territorial swaps would compensate the Palestinians for those small pieces of the West Bank that Israel would keep. East Jerusalem would be its capital.

The alternatives to a two-state solution all involve creating a Greater Israel — an Israel that effectively controls Gaza and the West Bank. In the first scenario, it would become a democratic binational state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This solution would mean abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state, since Palestinians would eventually outnumber Jews.

Israel could also expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, preserving its Jewish character through ethnic cleansing. Something similar happened in 1948, when the Zionists drove 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became Israel. The final alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the occupied territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.

The two-state solution is the best of these alternatives, but most Israelis are opposed to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state. There are about 480,000 settlers in the occupied territories and an extensive infrastructure of connector and bypass roads, not to mention the settlements themselves. A Hebrew University Truman Institute poll in March of West Bank settlers found that 21 percent believe that “all means must be employed to resist the evacuation of most West Bank settlements, including the use of arms.” They needn’t worry, however, because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to expanding the settlements throughout the occupied territories.

Of course, there are prominent Israelis like former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who do favor a two-state solution. But that does not mean that they would be willing or able to make the concessions necessary to create a legitimate Palestinian state. Olmert did not do so when he was prime minister, and it is unlikely that he or Livni could get enough of their fellow citizens to back a genuine two-state solution. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right over the past decade, and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement they could turn to for help.

Some advocates of a two-state solution believe the Obama administration can compel Israel to accept a two-state outcome. The United States, after all, is the most powerful country in the world and should have great leverage over Israel, because it gives the Jewish state so much diplomatic and material support.

But no American president can pressure Israel to change its policies toward the Palestinians. The main reason is the Israel lobby, a powerful coalition of American Jews and Christian evangelicals that has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said, “My generation of Jews … became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fundraising effort in the history of democracy.”

Consider that every American president since 1967 has opposed settlement building, yet none has been able to get Israel to stop building them. There is little evidence that Obama is different from his predecessors. Shortly after taking office, he demanded that Israel stop all settlement building in the occupied territories. Netanyahu refused and Obama caved in to him. The president recently made it clear that he wants Israel to stop building in East Jerusalem. In response, Netanyahu said that Israel would never stop building there, because it is an integral part of the Jewish state. Obama, under pressure from the lobby, has remained silent and certainly has not threatened to punish Israel.

The best Obama can hope for is to push forward the so-called peace process, but most people understand that these negotiations are a charade. The two sides will engage in endless talks while Israel continues to colonize Palestinian lands. The likely result, therefore, will be a Greater Israel between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

But who will live there and what kind of political system will it have?

It will not be a democratic binational state, at least not in the near future. The vast majority of Israel’s Jews have no interest in living in a state dominated by Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing would guarantee that Greater Israel retains a Jewish majority, but that murderous strategy would do enormous damage to Israel’s moral fabric, to its relationship with Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing. No genuine friend of Israel could support this crime against humanity.

The most likely outcome is that Greater Israel will become a full-fledged apartheid state. There are already separate laws, separate roads and separate housing in the occupied territories, and the Palestinians are essentially confined to impoverished enclaves. Indeed, two former Israeli prime ministers — Ehud Barak and Olmert — have made just this point. Olmert said that if the two-state solution collapses, Israel will face a “South African-style struggle.” He went so far as to argue, “as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”

Olmert is correct. A Jewish apartheid state is not sustainable over the long term. The discrimination and repression that underpin apartheid are antithetical to core Western values. How could anyone make a moral case for it in the United States, where democracy is venerated and segregation and racism are routinely condemned? It is equally hard to imagine the United States having a “special relationship” with an apartheid state. It is much easier to imagine Americans strongly opposing that racist state’s political system and working hard to change it. An apartheid Israel would also be a strategic liability for the United States.

This is why, in the end, Greater Israel will become a democratic binational state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. This will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

What is truly remarkable about this situation is that the lobby is effectively helping Israel destroy its own future as a Jewish state. On top of that, there is an alternative outcome that would be relatively easy to achieve and is clearly in Israel’s best interests: the two-state solution. It is hard to understand why Israel and its American supporters are not working overtime to create a viable Palestinian state and why instead they are moving full-speed ahead to build an apartheid state. It makes no sense from either a moral or a strategic perspective.

John J. Mearsheimer teaches political science at the University of Chicago and is the co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

Source: Chicago Tribune.

American hero Jim Traficant files for congressional run as an independent -Robert Stark

May 8, 2010

Former Democratic Congressman James Traficant who released last year after serving a seven year sentence wants his old job back. On Monday Traficant filed the paper work to run as an independent candidate for in Ohio’s 17th District Congressional District, which is currently held by Traficant’s former aid Democrat Tim Ryan. About the election, Traficant said “maybe it’s time money doesn’t dictate an election.”

Jim Traficant

A Book by Michael Collins Piper titled “Target: Traficant” presents evidence that Traficant was framed by the Justice Department. He was set up on false charges of bribery, filing false income tax returns, obstruction of justice, racketeering, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, and was ousted from Congress. He was offered a plea bargain but refused to plea guilty to crimes he didn’t commit. Traficant said “they had no physical evidence against Traficant.” He added “Seven people said they bribed him. They had no crime against Traficant. They taped every phone call he ever made, probably. Since 1983.”

About his experience in prison, Traficant quoted Nelson Mandela stating “if you really want to know the truth about a nation, you’ve got to go through their prisons,” and added “Believe me, he’s right. And I learned an awful lot about America going through the prisons.” His personal experience behind bars have shaped his views on reforming our nations prison system. He said “these nonviolent offenders….Instead of spending all that money in prison, send ‘em home. You don’t need to be in prison in America like this.”

While a democrat, Traficant earned the reputation of an independent populist making a lot of powerful enemies within his own party and powerful special interest groups, notably the Israeli Lobby. He was able to win 15% of the vote in 2002 running as an independent despite being in prison. His District is in economic distress due to jobs going overseas and the financial crisis which makes it ripe for Traficant’s economic populist message against Unfair Trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption on Wall Street. Traficant supports the abolition of the income tax and stated that “I want the Internal Revenue Service to look at me very carefully. I plan to throw you the hell out and give Americans some freedom.

Since his release from prison he hosted his own local talk show and has been a frequent guest on shows throughout the country. He was the main speaker at a recent Tea Party and is a popular figure within that movement. However he says that he is not the Tea Party Candidate.

Traficant’s platform calls for the deportation of illegal aliens, brining home the troops from overseas and instating them on the border, a flat 25% consumption tax to replace the income tax, and the abolition of the Department’s of Energy and Education. He has the powers that be dead set against him but he has proved than he is willing to sacrifice is own personal well being for his country and the truth.

Source: Examiner.com.

Bottom