Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 12th, 2008 #1
canuck57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North America
Posts: 119
canuck57
Default Proof Israeli snipers kill US troops in Iraq.

http://www.rense.com/general74/ssno.htm


Israeli Snipers Killing
US Troops In Iraq
Source: Joanna Francis and CNN
11-11-6


Anderson Cooper of CNN showed this video of snipers killing U.S. troops in Iraq on his October 18, 2006 show. CNN says it obtained the video from a "representative" of an unnamed "insurgent leader." Bear in mind that Anderson Cooper used to work for the CIA.


Richard Wilson's hypothesis: Israeli soldiers and/or Mossad agents are killing our soldiers in Iraq in order to enrage American troops so that the slaughter continues.


Proof: At the very beginning of this video clip, you see a rifle with a video camera attached to it. This weapon is made by the Rafael company, an Israeli arms manufacturer, that also makes IEDs. If you watch the video all the way through, it explains how this rifle works. CNN stated that the camera used to film these shootings was not a mounted rifle camera. But as you watch the video, you see that with each shot fired, the camera recoils. That would only happen if it were mounted on the rifle. Why is this significant? Because this kind of rifle-camera is extremely sophisticated and not available to your average Iraqi insurgent. I mean, it's not exactly an easily obtainable Saturday night special! Something this sophisticated points to Mossad.


Mossad is a master at false flag operations, e.g., Oklahoma City, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the July 7, 2005 London bombings, the 9-11 attacks in New York, the assassination of the Prime Minister in Beirut, the stoking of Muslim riots in France last year, the bombing of the Hassan al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, etc.


Israelis freely move among US and UK troops in Iraq, and have access to top-level US intelligence. Until July 2003, the head of all US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan was General Tommy Franks, a Zionist Jew. (He is now on the board of directors for Bank of America.) On November 7, 2006 another Zionist Jew became a principle liaison between Mossad and US forces in Iraq: Major General Richard F. Natonski of the Marine Corps. His title is Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies and Operations.


Because of this access, the "insurgents" (i.e., Mossad agents) know exactly where US vehicles will be and who will be inside them. This allows them to target for maximum false flag effect.


For example, on July 23, 2005, a detachment of 19 female US Marines was sent to Fallujah to check Iraqi women for bombs. An IED blew up their truck. Two of the young American women were killed, five were critically wounded, and four were captured. The bodies of the four captured women turned up later in a garbage dump with their throats cut. Americans were outraged. Islamic clerics insisted that only Israelis could be so cold-blooded. And who was in charge of US forces in Fallujah at the time? None other than Major General Natonski, the Mossad liaison.


Americans are supposed to believe that rag-tag "insurgents" use IEDs powerful enough to kill three US troops per day, on average. An American soldier even set up a blog on how "Intel" is betraying and targeting US troops. But sometimes Mossad bomb-makers accidentally blow themselves upin Iraq.


According to Richard Wilson, Israeli sniping and IEDs are false flag operations. He says that on March 28, 2005, Americans arrested 19 Mossad agents who fired twice on a US Marine checkpoint. The Marines beat up the Mossad agents and tore off their Star-of-David necklaces. (The US media incorrectly said the agents were Americans.) The Mossad agents said they were employees of Zapata Engineering, which helps the CIA conduct interrogations, and also manages US ammo dumps and US motor pools in Iraq.


IEDs in Iraq are powerful enough to flip over a 70-ton tank. Some of the models shoot depleted-uranium projectiles, and are triggered by electronic devices surreptitiously planted on US armored vehicles. Zapata Engineering (which employs Mossad agents) makes this exact kind of trigger, and oversees some of the US motor pools.


Rumsfeld says the IEDs come from Iran, but Richard says they come from Mossad, and are not "improvised" at all. The Israeli company, Rafael (see above), makes IEDS, which are buried in the middle of a road. Beside the road is a device which emits a laser or radio signal. This device is manufactured by firms like Zapata Engineering, which is controlled by Zionist Jews. The IED mine, manufactured by Israel, is inert until a US vehicle (secretly planted with a triggering device) rolls over it.


Whenever Mossad carries out these false-flag operations they produce a videotape or a recording from an "unnamed source" that is "close to al-Qaeda." Sometimes they say "the claim was posted on an Internet website, but its authenticity could not be verified."


But Israelis would never kill anyone in cold blood, would they? After all, the USS Liberty massacre was "an accident!"




Disclaimer

Email This Article




MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,568
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default Jews Murder Anyone Who Gets In Their Way

[Jews have a history of murdering any goyish elite, by the individual (Patton, JFK, Jesus), or by the class (kulaks, Polish elite at Katyn).]

The Zionists Killed General George S. Patton.

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

Sunday, 4 March 2007
Why The Zionists Killed General George S. Patton

Why The Zionists (Including Henry Morganthau) Controlling The Allies Killed General George S. Patton

At the end of World War II, one of America's top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient "accident" which took his life.

Thirty-two years ago, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors' justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

Patton was regarded as the "fightingest" general in all the Allied forces. He was considerably more audacious and aggressive than most commanders, and his martial ferocity may very well have been the deciding factor which led to the Allied victory. He personally commanded his forces in many of the toughest and most decisive battles of the war: in Tunisia, in Sicily, in the cracking of the Siegfried Line, in holding back the German advance during the Battle of the Bulge, in the exceptionally bloody fighting around Bastogne in December 1944 and January 1945.

During the war Patton had respected the courage and the fighting qualities of the Germans -- especially when he compared them with those of some of America's allies -- but he had also swallowed whole the hate-inspired wartime propaganda generated by America's alien media masters.

He believed Germany was a menace to America's freedom and that Germany's National Socialist government was an especially evil institution. Acting on these beliefs he talked incessantly of his desire to kill as many Germans as possible, and he exhorted his troops to have the same goal. These bloodthirsty exhortations led to the nickname "Blood and Guts" Patton.

It was only in the final days of the war and during his tenure as military governor of Germany -- after he had gotten to know both the Germans and America's "gallant Soviet allies" -- that Patton's understanding of the true situation grew and his opinions changed. In his diary and in many letters to his family, friends, various military colleagues, and government officials, he expressed his new understanding and his apprehensions for the future. His diary and his letters were published in 1974 by the Houghton Mifflin Company under the title The Patton Papers.

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson: "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."

Patterson replied, "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture."

Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe. We have lost the war!"

Patton's urgent and prophetic advice went unheeded by Patterson and the other politicians and only served to give warning about Patton's feelings to the alien conspirators behind the scenes in New York, Washington, and Moscow.

The more he saw of the Soviets, the stronger Patton's conviction grew that the proper course of action would be to stifle Communism then and there, while the chance existed.

Later in May 1945, he attended several meetings and social affairs

with top Red Army officers, and he evaluated them carefully. He noted in his diary on May 14: "I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits."

And Patton's aide, General Hobart Gay, noted in his own journal for May 14: "Everything they (the Russians) did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty."

Nevertheless, Patton knew that the Americans could whip the Reds then -- but perhaps not later. On May 18 he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."

Having immediately recognized the Soviet danger and urged a course of action which would have freed all of eastern Europe from the communist yoke with the expenditure of far less American blood than was spilled in Korea and Vietnam and would have obviated both those later wars not to mention World War III -- Patton next came to appreciate the true nature of the people for whom World War II was fought: the Jews.

Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized.

He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP's) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes. He observed with horror that "these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor."

He described in his diary one DP camp, "where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression 'lost tribes of Israel' applied to the tribes which disappeared -- not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe -- lost to all decency."

Patton's initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower's insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part: "This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it."

These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them.

Another September diary entry, following a demand from Washington that more German housing be turned over to Jews, summed up his feelings: "Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is -- not intended for the individual but for the race, Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals."

One of the strongest factors in straightening out General Patton's thinking on the conquered Germans was the behavior of America's controlled news media toward them. At a press conference in Regensburg, Germany, on May 8, 1945, immediately after Germany's surrender, Patton was asked whether he planned to treat captured SS troops differently from other German POW's. His answer was: "No. SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America -- that is not to be quoted. I mean by that that initially the SS people were special sons of bitches, but as the war progressed they ran out of sons of bitches and then they put anybody in there. Some of the top SS men will be treated as criminals, but there is no reason for trying someone who was drafted into this outfit . . ."

Despite Patton's request that his remark not be quoted, the press eagerly seized on it, and Jews and their front men in America screamed in outrage over Patton's comparison of the SS and the Democratic Party as well as over his announced intention of treating most SS prisoners humanely.

Patton refused to take hints from the press, however, and his disagreement with the American occupation policy formulated in Washington grew. Later in May he said to his brother-in-law: "I think that this non-fraternization is very stupid. If we are going to keep American soldiers in a country, they have to have some civilians to talk to. Furthermore, I think we could do a lot for the German civilians by letting our soldiers talk to their young people."

Various of Patton's colleagues tried to make it perfectly clear what was expected of him. One politically ambitious officer, Brig. Gen. Philip S. Gage, anxious to please the powers that be, wrote to Patton: "Of course, I know that even your extensive powers are limited, but I do hope that wherever and whenever you can you will do what you can to make the German populace suffer. For God's sake, please don't ever go soft in regard to them. Nothing could ever be too bad for them."

But Patton continued to do what he thought was right, whenever he could. With great reluctance, and only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower, he had thrown German families out of their homes to make room for more than a million Jewish DP's -- part of the famous "six million" who had supposedly been gassed -- but he balked when ordered to begin blowing up German factories, in accord with the infamous Morgenthau Plan to destroy Germany's economic basis forever. In his diary he wrote: "I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up -- that is, preventing Germany from preparing for war -- can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons."

Similarly, he expressed his doubts to his military colleagues about the overwhelming emphasis being placed on the persecution of every German who had formerly been a member of the National Socialist party. In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he said: "I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff . It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW's to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death."

Despite his disagreement with official policy, Patton followed the rules laid down by Morgenthau and others back in Washington as closely as his conscience would allow, but he tried to moderate the effect, and this brought him into increasing conflict with Eisenhower and the other politically ambitious generals. In another letter to his wife he commented: "I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is 'Liberty, then give me death.' I can't see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it."

And in his diary he noted:, "Today we received orders . . . in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc? . . . We are also turning over to the French several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles."

His duties as military governor took Patton to all parts of Germany and intimately acquainted him with the German people and their condition. He could not help but compare them with the French, the Italians, the Belgians, and even the British. This comparison gradually forced him to the conclusion that World War II had been fought against the wrong people.

After a visit to ruined Berlin, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945: "Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It's said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed."

This conviction, that the politicians had used him and the U.S. Army for a criminal purpose, grew in the following weeks. During a dinner with French General Alphonse Juin in August, Patton was surprised to find the Frenchman in agreement with him. His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin: "It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country -- and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism."

Later diary entries and letters to his wife reiterate this same conclusion. On August 31 he wrote: "Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it's a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans." And on September 2: "What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole."

By this time the Morgenthauists and media monopolists had decided that Patton was incorrigible and must be discredited. So they began a non-stop hounding of him in the press, a la Watergate, accusing him of being "soft on Nazis" and continually recalling an incident in which he had slapped a shirker two years previously, during the Sicily campaign. A New York newspaper printed the completely false claim that when Patton had slapped the soldier who was Jewish, he had called him a "yellow-bellied Jew."

Then, in a press conference on September 22, reporters hatched a scheme to needle Patton into losing his temper and making statements which could be used against him. The scheme worked. The press interpreted one of Patton's answers to their insistent questions as to why he was not pressing the Nazi-hunt hard enough as: "The Nazi thing is just like a Democrat-Republican fight." The New York Times headlined this quote, and other papers all across America picked it up.

The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton's eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night lie wrote: "There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs. They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . . Another point which the press harped on was the fact that we were doing too much for the Germans to the detriment of the DP's, most of whom are Jews. I could not give the answer to that one, because the answer is that, in my opinion and that of most nonpolitical officers, it is vitally necessary for us to build Germany up now as a buffer state against Russia. In fact, I am afraid we have waited too long."

And in a letter of the same date to his wife: "I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can't tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America."

Eisenhower responded immediately to the press outcry against Patton and made the decision to relieve him of his duties as military governor and "kick him upstairs" as the commander of the Fifteenth Army. In a letter to his wife on September 29, Patton indicated that he was, in a way, not unhappy with his new assignment, because "I would like it much better than being a sort of executioner to the best race in Europe."

But even his change of duties did not shut Patton up. In his diary entry of October 1 we find the observation: "In thinking over the situation, I could not but be impressed with the belief that at the present moment the unblemished record of the American Army for non-political activities is about to be lost. Everyone seems to be more interested in the effects which his actions will have on his political future than in carrying out the motto of the United States Military Academy, 'Duty, Honor, Country.' I hope that after the current crop of political aspirants has been gathered our former tradition will be restored."

And Patton continued to express these sentiments to his friends -- and those he thought were his friends. On October 22 he wrote a long letter to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, who was back in the States. In the letter Patton bitterly condemned the Morgenthau policy; Eisenhower's pusillanimous behavior in the face of Jewish demands; the strong pro-Soviet bias in the press; and the politicization, corruption, degradation, and demoralization of the U.S. Army which these things were causing.

He saw the demoralization of the Army as a deliberate goal of America's enemies: "I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have leveled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes (of veterans) would do."

His denunciation of the politicization of the Army was scathing: "All the general officers in the higher brackets receive each morning from the War Department a set of American (newspaper) headlines, and, with the sole exception of myself, they guide themselves during the ensuing day by what they have read in the papers. . . ."

In his letter to Harbord, Patton also revealed his own plans to fight those who were destroying the morale and integrity of the Army and endangering America's future by not opposing the growing Soviet might: "It is my present thought . . . that when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth . . . I should not start a limited counterattack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive . . . ."

Two months later, on December 23, 1945, General George S. Patton was silenced forever.

From Dick Eastman [email protected]


From Gavin Oughton

The Man Who Killed General Patton

The Assassination Of US General George Patton

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George S. Patton

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me."
- General George S. Patton

"Moral Courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men".
- General George S. Patton

The murder of Patton is known for a fact, known for the very simple reason that an agent of the well-known OSS (Office Of Strategic Services), an American Military Spy named Douglas Bazata, A Jew of Lebanese origin, announced it in front of 450 invited guests, nearly all high-ranking ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC the 25th of September, 1979.

Bazata stated, word-for-word: "For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because I am the one who was hired to do it. Ten thousand dollars. General William J. 'Wild Bill' Donovan himself, director Of O.S.S, entrusted ne with the mission. I set up the 'accident.' Since he didn't die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed with a cyanide injection."

The tragic fate of General George S. Patton convinced other 'colleagues' and their honorable 'compatriots' of the uselessness of fighting against the 'War Powers' That Be.

"Espionage is not a nice thing, nor are the methods employed exemplary. Neither are demolition bombs nor Poison Gas... ...
We face an enemy who believes one of his chief weapons is the fact that none but he will employ terror. But we will turn terror against him...".
- General William J. 'Wild Bill' Donovan
Labels: http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/


Disclaimer and Fair use
Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 9th, 2009 at 11:24 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,568
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[Sometimes jews character-assassinate their victims, as they did with Ezra Pound, who was stuck in a crazy house because he criticized jews.]

Poet Ezra Pound, an American Giant [1]

By Tom White

Idaho-born writer Ezra Loomis Pound (1885-1972) delved into the poetry of the West with fantastic energy and intensity from his school days on. He studied for two years as a “special student” at the University of Pennsylvania, starting when he was only fifteen years old, then went on to Hamilton College in New York State, where he took his bachelor’s degree. He then returned to the University of Pennsylvania, receiving his Master of Arts degree in Romance philology in 1906. After an initial college teaching job in Indiana that he lost in less than a year, I think he never again held a “9 to 5” job of any kind. He moved to England in 1908, He was from then on focused on poets and poetry that “added something new,” first, to the European poetic canon, and then to world poetry. His learning over seven decades is encapsulated in his great work, The Cantos, meant as a guide drawn from the human past “to teach, move, and delight” his contemporary and future readers (ut doceat, ut moveat, ut delectet in a famous medieval formulation).
His studies in ancient Greek, Latin, and Provencal poetry and in Anglo-Saxon verse, 19th century French literature, Chinese poetry, Confucian learning, and so on, which have proved so fascinating to scholars all over the world, have tended to somewhat obscure the fact of his unflagging interest in that magic 1,000 years between c. 410 A.D. and c. 1410 A.D., the period that Culture Wars editor and publisher, E. Michael Jones, has called the millennium of the “Rule of Christ,” and which post-Enlightenment writers denigrate as the “Dark Ages.” It was in this period, and in the Christian Mediterranean culture, that Pound found the arts and intellectual traditions that were most congenial to him.

It was in this stretch of time and culture that Pound found the Provencal poets and the later Italian poets, Cavalcanti and Dante, who were for him high water marks of genuine poetic art and true culture. And in this same period he found the Christian philosophical stress on (economic) justice for all, which led him to reject the whole post-Calvin usurious society of the last 500 years and adopt the uncompromising view of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that usury, the taking of interest on money, is theft, sin, a monstrous evil that over time will destroy society and life itself.

I don’t know of any reference to Thomas Aquinas in Pound; he perhaps never read all, or even much of, Thomas’s Summa; but he was saturated in the cast of mind it summarized and applied to the whole of Christian moral and spiritual life. Thomas’s taste for philosophical abstractions was not Pound’s, but Thomas’s taste for truth, order, and fair dealing was exactly his.

Pound’s position on usury, so opposed to the developed modern sense of commerce and banking, is given in many places in his work, but most monumentally in Canto XLV, I believe the longest poem on usury in the language, and certainly the most mordant and beautiful treatment of this gross evil and its effects on human life. I wish I could reproduce it here, but better to send you to the text itself, which, after all, is the whole purpose of this article.

The Money Theme

"Sovereignty rests in money. The United States Constitution is the greatest state document yet written, because it alone of them all, clearly recognizes this power and places it in the hands of congress. . . . The basis of the state is its economic justice."

—Ezra Pound in Guide to Kulchur, page 270

To write about Pound is to attack the proverbial mountain. He lived 87 years, published more than 60 books, and was involved in enough controversy for any ten men, maybe any hundred or even thousand men. His major interests or concerns were, above all, world poetry and, then, economic, social, and political theory and practice, especially the age-old scourge of usury. He viewed our present money system as radically evil, and destructive of economic and social justice.
Taking on the world the way Pound did is a tall order, you will agree. But Pound always kept his view, his angle of approach, personal: what has this or that individual writer written; what has this or that particular financier or politician done, what, indeed, was he, Pound, doing, what impact was he having on his friends? Until very close to the end of his life, Pound had a touching faith in his ability to persuade others of the truth of what he believed—he knew—to be true. Why, all you have to do—is it not?—is set out the true facts in a case, present them well (Pound knew how to do that), and surely no one can deny the point of them? Of course, people in droves can deny the truth. Pound also knew that perfectly well; he was no naïf; but he chose never to give up.

This approach worked astonishingly well when he was trying in friendship to show other writers, and even other kinds of artists—sculptors and musicians—what he had learned and what they might learn from him. As Eustace Mullins, a biographer of Pound, has pointed out, there were four men, all Pound’s friends, who won Nobel Prizes and whose writing Pound heavily influenced, Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, and Hemingway. Pound himself, of course, never got the prize.

I particularly like to recall something James Joyce said about Pound, who was instrumental in getting Ulysses published and getting Joyce money to live on when he needed it most: “We all owe him much. I most of all.” Such encomiums of Pound—Eliot called him the “better maker” in his dedication of “The Wastelands” to Pound—were offered up in profusion by people he called friends. Pound heavily blue-penciled “the Wastelands, into the final version the world now knows as the most famous long poem in English of the last century. The “power people,” on the other hand, hated him and his work and still do.

Antisemitism

I should have liked to begin this overview by talking of Pound’s massive contributions to world poetry. And I definitely wanted to discuss his work on usury (defined simply as the taking of interest on money loans) and his sense of the urgent need for local and non-usurious money. But I think it is not yet possible to begin an introduction to Pound by climbing either of those slopes on the mountain.

Instead, I believe we simply have to deal first, after some fashion, with the whole question of Pound’s “antisemitism” (I prefer this simpler spelling to the standard “anti-Semitism”); because the charge against him that he was a vicious antisemite refuses to die—and refuses, too, to become any sort of minor note in his biography. Probably nothing that I can do will help it to die. The accusation of antisemitism turns up over and over again; it gets into every discussion of him or his work. It is the standout sub-theme of his biography on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Pound); a document worth reading despite that, since much of what it covers will not be dealt with here.

I recall standing in the lobby of a hall at the intermission of a symphony concert a couple of years ago talking to several people I knew, including an assistant professor of English at our local university (not incidentally, she was Jewish). We were talking about something having to do with writing or reading, and I sensed a chance to insert a test question that I occasionally use in talks about such matters. I find it a way to get a quick reading on where someone fits along a sort of a spectrum of sophistication in modern letters. I asked, “What do you think of Ezra Pound?” “He’s crazy,” she snapped back. A lot said in two words: since Pound was long dead, this was not so much an opinion of his character but of his work, all of it. “Crazy.” I let the subject drop. Not the place for a harangue. And I knew it would be that or nothing.

About all I can expect is to persuade a few people, willing to bother with a “poet” at all, that this poet was a giant among men. The accusation that he was a Jew-hater is, I believe, simply not true. It is a total canard. What is true is that he said some very unpleasant things about “bankers,” while emphasizing that many, if not all, of the biggest of them were Jews, about whom, in the context of their being “Big Jews,” he also said some harsh things. Pound, who was dedicated to clarity of communication if to anything, used vivid (that’s an understatement) terms to speak and write. A quote from one of his early 1940’s broadcasts from Rome is in the Wikipedia article (page 4):

The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Derbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process. . . . You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew. . . . And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into.”

An aside: as a writer I admire the way E. Michael Jones, publisher of this magazine, eschews precisely the kind of “bad language” that Pound employed in his attacks on the usurers over the radio from Rome, and in print in a lot of places when he was writing about economic crime and folly.

I do not presume to dictate “literary manners and morals” for anybody; nor would I presume to chide or rewrite Pound. But for myself, I think the day for scurrilous personal attacks on any enemy has gone by. To do that is precisely to copy “the Jews” in their accusations of antisemitism. The Christian rule, as I understand it, is always to blast the crime with maximum decibels, but love the criminal and seek his reform. A tough dictum, but it is also dominical, and I have (I hope) given over improving on the Lord.

As things stand now, the endless repetition of “Pound is an antisemite” serves principally to assassinate his reputation as America’s most astonishing, rewarding, and influential 20th century poet. It serves, as well, to obscure and fend off facing the real point at issue: was he right or wrong that usury was a civilization-wrecking, nation-wrecking practice? And was he right or wrong that the use of usury to exploit and ultimately destroy nations and civilizations was an ancient Jewish practice, done in plain defiance of the prohibition against usury in the Torah, with an end in view, finally, of the rule of the whole world, by means of usury, by the “Big Jews.” (In all of this discussion, I am assuming that most Jews, like most of everybody else, are pawns and serfs of the Money Masters—the superbankers.)

Pound was clearly saying that indeed there was a “conspiracy” of the few to steal the wealth of all. Well, is it true or not? That’s the only question in this whole money matter that is worth discussing.

The Usury Gimmick

Pound’s writings on usury amounted to a direct attack on the central mechanism, the “primary gimmick,” that “the Jews”—again, the “Big Jews,” the ones who “organize” and have the superbig money—have used to fund, isolate, and advance their tribe in the world for a very long time. (Some would say since the Babylonian Captivity or even before that; Canadian David Astle, in an extraordinary study of the sources, nature, and relationships of currencies from antiquity to the present says just that in his Babylonian Woe: A Study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (A private edition published in 1975 by the author and printed by Harmony Printing Ltd, Toronto).

And as Kevin MacDonald has shown in a number of scholarly volumes, the one thing Jews have done historically above all others is maintaining themselves as a separate people. They do it today, even while many phalanxes of Jews also establish themselves as citizens of many other nations. They have done this notably in the U.S in the last 150 years as they had done in the two preceding centuries in Northern Europe. Their mode of operating, again above all, includes arranging, with remarkable skill, brilliance, and effectiveness, that wherever they gain power and wealth, everything that goes forward is, as much as they can manage and that is usually very much, “good for the Jews.”

The foregoing sentences would be certain to earn me a place among the ever-burgeoning number of “antisemites” on the character-assassination attack list, if I were anybody of consequence. It’s even a badge of honor to be so designated—“up to a point,” as Evelyn Waugh has one of his characters in one of his novels say when trying to gently disagree with his egomaniacal boss, without exactly disagreeing with him.

The “Swarm”

When the word goes out that so-and so is “bad-for-the-Jews” the “swarm” goes into action. What is the swarm? Let us borrow Israel Adam Shamir’s language here. Shamir is a Russian native, an ex-Jew, now an Orthodox Christian, and a resident of Jaffa in Israel, a state he believes should be one nation, with a one-man, one-vote system, and with right of return for all Palestinians. (The present writer discussed him and reviewed one of his books in an article, Pardes: A Study in Cabbala, in the Sept. 2005 issue of Culture Wars):



After [U.S. ex-President] Carter spoke [making the point that Israel is an “apartheid state”], he was immediately counter-attacked by organized Jewry—you couldn't miss it! In my native Siberia, in its short and furious summer, you can watch a swarm of gnats attack a horse, each small bloodsucker eager for his piece of the action. After a while, the blinded and infuriated animal rushes headlong in a mad sprint and soon finds its death in the bottomless moors. The Jews developed the same style of attack. It is never a single voice arguing the case, but always a mass attack from the left and the right, from below and above, until the attacked one is beaten and broken and crawls away in disgrace.

Each attacker is as tiny and irrelevant as a single gnat, but as a swarm they are formidable. Observe them separately: Dershowitz, an advocate of torture and of hostage killing, an apprehended plagiarist who never was elected to any position of authority and commands no respect, demands to debate the president. It is indeed beyond chutzpah; but Dershowitz is supported by other Jews in prime positions and his ridiculous demand is seconded by both university and media until this thieving nonentity gets equal time on a TV channel to present “his case”. Another gnat is a Deborah Lipstadt, a nonentity brought forth by the Washington Post. Plenty of others are even smaller than these two, for instance 14 Jews who gave up their positions at Carter Center. If they were not able to keep the media in their hands, they wouldn't be heard by anyone but their spouses.

Their technique is quite simple: They switch the focus of argument onto the personality of their adversary. Thus, instead of discussing apartheid in Israel, we discuss Jimmy Carter, whether he is a bigot and antisemite (thus Foxman, the “bad Jew”) or he is not (Avnery, the “good Jew”). The correct answer is “irrelevant”: Carter’s love for Jews or lack of it has no bearing on the question of apartheid in Palestine. Likewise, if we discuss the situation in Bosnia or Kosovo, we do not go into our sentiments towards Serbs, Albanians or Croats. But Jews are different!

For instance, General Wesley Clark said that rich Jews, the great donors of Washington politicians, push for war with Iran. Well, this can be discussed, maybe even denied, but instead they derail the discussion into another topic, whether Clark is an antisemite . . .

From this moment, Clark will stick to defending himself, and the guys will take care that his hands will be full. Here again, the correct answer is a polite shrug: who cares whether Clark is a bigot? Maybe he is also a paedophile and usurer, but this ad hominem has no bearing on what he said. And an accusation, “You do not love Jews” is not much different from “You do not love your aunt”, and you probably have learned to live with it at the age of six.

(From http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng9.htm)



The charge of antisemitism has dogged Pound since he began to study “the economic causes of warfare” immediately after World War I. But I here submit, as Shamir suggests, that the charge of antisemitism against Pound is supremely irrelevant.

Control of Media

One of the principal Jewish tactics directed to making themselves “Masters of Discourse” (Shamir’s term), has been to buy up the “major media” and so control what and how events or news are disclosed to the public. The fact of that in America is now common knowledge and is even bragged about by various Jewish writers.

The recent “outing” of AIPAC, the America-Israel Political Action Committee by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, not to mention the extraordinary work of the publisher/editor of this periodical, has pushed along an emerging freedom from “fear of the Jews,” but it has so far progressed only a little, because “fear of the Jews” is no joke in politics or writing or teaching (especially at the university level). Ask Joseph Sobran, whose career as perhaps the most intelligent and articulate American-Catholic commentator on our politics was derailed by his mild but very public criticism of the Jews. Pat Buchanan has survived, but only after a fashion, after similar “indiscretions.” Neither man has any chance of great influence anymore. The list of people who have disadvantaged themselves in this way could be much enlarged. The latest addition to it is of course ex-president Carter.

Incarcerated nearly 13 years

Ezra Pound was a virtually archetypical case of this same Jewish attack on free speech that was, from their point of view, radically too free. He paid for it. Initially charged with treason, he spent 12-1/2 years (1946 to 1958) in St. Elizabeths federal mental hospital under a diagnosis of insanity made by a panel of psychiatrists who examined him in 1946. It seems obvious that the psychiatrists involved thought it not a good idea to let the nation’s major poet be tried for treason; the insanity finding seemed a way out of the dilemma.

That diagnosis denied Pound a trial on the charge of treason against him, a trial Pound plainly wanted since he believed he could rebut it. However, the “nuts” designation effectively kept him in prison-hospital all those years. No one with any sense ever thought Pound was “insane.” The work he did in the prison camp in Pisa and in St. Elizabeths precludes that. On the other hand he was radically stressed by the trouble he brought on himself and surely had some very bad days.

The major media largely kept up the attack on him as a traitor while he was in prison, until at the last, important articles in Life and Time Magazines, then owned and edited by Henry Luce, initiated a “let him go” attitude. Pound would accept release only on condition all charges against him were dropped. In order to let the government get rid of this hot potato, the government agreed. The charges were dropped, and he was released—to return to Italy, where, in Venice, he died and was buried.

The bald external facts of Pound’s fateful years in Italy until he was flown back to the United States in military custody would seem to a superficial observer to be prima facie evidence of the validity of the U.S. government’s case against him. He had been living in Italy seventeen years when the U.S. entered Word War II. He tried to book passage home for himself and family members but for complicated reasons was not able to do so. He had opposed the war from the start, and opposed it to the end. In 1943 he asked the Mussolini government for permission to go on Rome Radio—and was granted it—to present his anti-war case, in English (often in a kind of cracker-barrel jargon of his own). He directed his broadcasts to the Allied governments and their troops as they approached ever nearer.

He was harshly critical of President Roosevelt and made anti-Jewish points repeatedly. The broadcasts were often enough difficult to understand; they very likely were never heard by many, or perhaps even any, people in the U.S. Pound’s central theme was that the U.S. was serving the Jewish/British/American world-wide banking cabal by attacking and destroying Europe, an idea he had developed, defended, and extensively explicated from the 1920s on. Just after WW I he wrote that he had begun a systematic study of the “economic causes of warfare.”

The conclusion he came to was that the “bankers” and their universal usury were chiefly at fault, not just for wars, but for the general economic malaise of Western societies that had prevailed, really, since the close of the Christian medieval, anti-usury era, at just about the same time as the early 16th century “Reformation” occurred, and John Calvin declared that business men should be permitted to charge interest on money loans, something the Roman Church had opposed all during the previous millennium, as E. Michael Jones’s articles on the Revolutionary Jew make clear.

World War I, and the death of so many of his artist and poet friends in it, had both deeply saddened and challenged, even enraged, Pound. He had already demonstrated before he left England for France that he was a dynamic, brilliant poet and scholar, who was working on nothing less than making a revolution in the whole nature and course of poetic expression in the modern era. He worked at that as hard as a good scientific researcher works. He became from that time on, while remaining a dedicated poet, also a devastating and relentless critic of the murderous policies of the industrially advanced national governments of the Western world, which had caused the needless deaths of millions of young men in the Great War of 1914-1918, the “war to end war,” a civilizational disaster repeated in WW II:

“There died a myriad,

And of the best among them,”

For an old bitch gone in the teeth,

For a botched civilization.

Charm smiling at the good mouth,

Quick eyes gone under earth’s lid,

For two gross of broken statues,

For a few thousand battered books.

—“Hugh Selwyn Mauberley,” 1920

“Hugh Selwyn Mauberley” (1919) and “Homage to Sextus Propertius” were the two major poems that closed out his fourteen years’ residency in England (1908-1922). He moved to Paris in 1922 and never again lived in England. After that, his major poetic effort went into his Cantos, a work it is hard not to see as his response to the challenge of Whitman’s great Leaves of Grass. Both were accumulations of verse over many years, massive “works in progress” that took most of their authors’ poetic energies until the near approach of death. The works were comparable in those ways, although utterly different in form and content. Initially, Pound, who, in his youth tended to like rather allusive and esoteric forms and themes, disliked Whitman’s democratic “yawp” and sprawl. As Pound matured, though, he wrote:

“I make a pact with you, Walt Whitman—
I have detested you long enough. . . .

We have one sap and one root--

Let there be commerce between us.

Joined now in death, it is plain that Pound and Whitman are “the two great American poets.”

As I come toward the close of this essay, the text of a speech on U.S. foreign policy and civil liberties by Justin Raimondo has just come to hand. It appeared June 4 on the website antiwar.com, which Raimondo directs. In it Raimondo, who strenuously opposes Israeli influence in U.S. foreign policy and internal politics, manages a very curious distinction. He speaks against AIPAC, against the neoconservative (largely Jewish) party in Washington, and in favor of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, whose famous “taboo-busting” study, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has made such a stir, and of course been attacked by “the Swarm.” Then Raimondo makes the (to me) astonishing statement, without supporting reference, that the views of the Israeli Lobby and those of “most American Jews are poles apart.”

I am unaware of any study or poll proving such a point or of any Jewish organization expressing it. I am aware of many individual Jews who oppose the Lobby and even Zionism, but a financed, organized, and well-publicized group doing so? I don’t think so. I believe the burden of lifting the banker-usury yoke from the shoulders of mankind is destined, as Shamir has suggested, to be borne by Jews; but the hour seems not yet, because a complete change of heart among “the Jews” is obviously a prerequisite.

What, then, are we to do? Just now very little. We are forbidden hatred and violence by the Lord. Anyway there is very little indeed that can be done against the entrenched power of the statist institutions that now stand against any alteration in the status quo of our usurious, banker-ruled society. Christ’s demonstration on Calvary is our model. Not a hand is to be raised against “the Jews,” as the popes have repeatedly said across the centuries. But we have also been told by the Lord Christ that we are to be wise as serpents. Nonviolence and wisdom are the only tools we have for this battle. I submit that Pound offered much wisdom about money and the evil of usury; in fact he cast his whole life and work into the balance to make that wisdom known to as many of his countrymen as possible. In an echo of a famous little poem by Walter Savage Landor, he wrote in an ironic epitaph for himself. “I strove with all, for ALL were worth my strife. . . .”

The Pound canon is now enormous; any halfway decent library will have quite a few titles by or relating to Pound. He said himself the clue can be got in an afternoon; I found that so in 1950 sitting in a library in Cambridge, Mass. an afternoon that I have never forgotten.


-------------------------------

[1] Reprinted with permission from the July-August 2007 issue of Culture Wars Magazine. Web: www.culturewars.com Mail: Culture Wars Magazine, 206 Marquette Ave., South Bend, IN 46617.
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,568
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[Sometimes jews character-assassinate their victims, as they did with Ezra Pound, who was stuck in a crazy house because he criticized jews.]

Poet Ezra Pound, an American Giant [1]

By Tom White

Idaho-born writer Ezra Loomis Pound (1885-1972) delved into the poetry of the West with fantastic energy and intensity from his school days on. He studied for two years as a “special student” at the University of Pennsylvania, starting when he was only fifteen years old, then went on to Hamilton College in New York State, where he took his bachelor’s degree. He then returned to the University of Pennsylvania, receiving his Master of Arts degree in Romance philology in 1906. After an initial college teaching job in Indiana that he lost in less than a year, I think he never again held a “9 to 5” job of any kind. He moved to England in 1908, He was from then on focused on poets and poetry that “added something new,” first, to the European poetic canon, and then to world poetry. His learning over seven decades is encapsulated in his great work, The Cantos, meant as a guide drawn from the human past “to teach, move, and delight” his contemporary and future readers (ut doceat, ut moveat, ut delectet in a famous medieval formulation).
His studies in ancient Greek, Latin, and Provencal poetry and in Anglo-Saxon verse, 19th century French literature, Chinese poetry, Confucian learning, and so on, which have proved so fascinating to scholars all over the world, have tended to somewhat obscure the fact of his unflagging interest in that magic 1,000 years between c. 410 A.D. and c. 1410 A.D., the period that Culture Wars editor and publisher, E. Michael Jones, has called the millennium of the “Rule of Christ,” and which post-Enlightenment writers denigrate as the “Dark Ages.” It was in this period, and in the Christian Mediterranean culture, that Pound found the arts and intellectual traditions that were most congenial to him.

It was in this stretch of time and culture that Pound found the Provencal poets and the later Italian poets, Cavalcanti and Dante, who were for him high water marks of genuine poetic art and true culture. And in this same period he found the Christian philosophical stress on (economic) justice for all, which led him to reject the whole post-Calvin usurious society of the last 500 years and adopt the uncompromising view of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that usury, the taking of interest on money, is theft, sin, a monstrous evil that over time will destroy society and life itself.

I don’t know of any reference to Thomas Aquinas in Pound; he perhaps never read all, or even much of, Thomas’s Summa; but he was saturated in the cast of mind it summarized and applied to the whole of Christian moral and spiritual life. Thomas’s taste for philosophical abstractions was not Pound’s, but Thomas’s taste for truth, order, and fair dealing was exactly his.

Pound’s position on usury, so opposed to the developed modern sense of commerce and banking, is given in many places in his work, but most monumentally in Canto XLV, I believe the longest poem on usury in the language, and certainly the most mordant and beautiful treatment of this gross evil and its effects on human life. I wish I could reproduce it here, but better to send you to the text itself, which, after all, is the whole purpose of this article.

The Money Theme

"Sovereignty rests in money. The United States Constitution is the greatest state document yet written, because it alone of them all, clearly recognizes this power and places it in the hands of congress. . . . The basis of the state is its economic justice."

—Ezra Pound in Guide to Kulchur, page 270

To write about Pound is to attack the proverbial mountain. He lived 87 years, published more than 60 books, and was involved in enough controversy for any ten men, maybe any hundred or even thousand men. His major interests or concerns were, above all, world poetry and, then, economic, social, and political theory and practice, especially the age-old scourge of usury. He viewed our present money system as radically evil, and destructive of economic and social justice.
Taking on the world the way Pound did is a tall order, you will agree. But Pound always kept his view, his angle of approach, personal: what has this or that individual writer written; what has this or that particular financier or politician done, what, indeed, was he, Pound, doing, what impact was he having on his friends? Until very close to the end of his life, Pound had a touching faith in his ability to persuade others of the truth of what he believed—he knew—to be true. Why, all you have to do—is it not?—is set out the true facts in a case, present them well (Pound knew how to do that), and surely no one can deny the point of them? Of course, people in droves can deny the truth. Pound also knew that perfectly well; he was no naïf; but he chose never to give up.

This approach worked astonishingly well when he was trying in friendship to show other writers, and even other kinds of artists—sculptors and musicians—what he had learned and what they might learn from him. As Eustace Mullins, a biographer of Pound, has pointed out, there were four men, all Pound’s friends, who won Nobel Prizes and whose writing Pound heavily influenced, Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, and Hemingway. Pound himself, of course, never got the prize.

I particularly like to recall something James Joyce said about Pound, who was instrumental in getting Ulysses published and getting Joyce money to live on when he needed it most: “We all owe him much. I most of all.” Such encomiums of Pound—Eliot called him the “better maker” in his dedication of “The Wastelands” to Pound—were offered up in profusion by people he called friends. Pound heavily blue-penciled “the Wastelands, into the final version the world now knows as the most famous long poem in English of the last century. The “power people,” on the other hand, hated him and his work and still do.

Antisemitism

I should have liked to begin this overview by talking of Pound’s massive contributions to world poetry. And I definitely wanted to discuss his work on usury (defined simply as the taking of interest on money loans) and his sense of the urgent need for local and non-usurious money. But I think it is not yet possible to begin an introduction to Pound by climbing either of those slopes on the mountain.

Instead, I believe we simply have to deal first, after some fashion, with the whole question of Pound’s “antisemitism” (I prefer this simpler spelling to the standard “anti-Semitism”); because the charge against him that he was a vicious antisemite refuses to die—and refuses, too, to become any sort of minor note in his biography. Probably nothing that I can do will help it to die. The accusation of antisemitism turns up over and over again; it gets into every discussion of him or his work. It is the standout sub-theme of his biography on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Pound); a document worth reading despite that, since much of what it covers will not be dealt with here.

I recall standing in the lobby of a hall at the intermission of a symphony concert a couple of years ago talking to several people I knew, including an assistant professor of English at our local university (not incidentally, she was Jewish). We were talking about something having to do with writing or reading, and I sensed a chance to insert a test question that I occasionally use in talks about such matters. I find it a way to get a quick reading on where someone fits along a sort of a spectrum of sophistication in modern letters. I asked, “What do you think of Ezra Pound?” “He’s crazy,” she snapped back. A lot said in two words: since Pound was long dead, this was not so much an opinion of his character but of his work, all of it. “Crazy.” I let the subject drop. Not the place for a harangue. And I knew it would be that or nothing.

About all I can expect is to persuade a few people, willing to bother with a “poet” at all, that this poet was a giant among men. The accusation that he was a Jew-hater is, I believe, simply not true. It is a total canard. What is true is that he said some very unpleasant things about “bankers,” while emphasizing that many, if not all, of the biggest of them were Jews, about whom, in the context of their being “Big Jews,” he also said some harsh things. Pound, who was dedicated to clarity of communication if to anything, used vivid (that’s an understatement) terms to speak and write. A quote from one of his early 1940’s broadcasts from Rome is in the Wikipedia article (page 4):

The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Derbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process. . . . You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew. . . . And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into.”

An aside: as a writer I admire the way E. Michael Jones, publisher of this magazine, eschews precisely the kind of “bad language” that Pound employed in his attacks on the usurers over the radio from Rome, and in print in a lot of places when he was writing about economic crime and folly.

I do not presume to dictate “literary manners and morals” for anybody; nor would I presume to chide or rewrite Pound. But for myself, I think the day for scurrilous personal attacks on any enemy has gone by. To do that is precisely to copy “the Jews” in their accusations of antisemitism. The Christian rule, as I understand it, is always to blast the crime with maximum decibels, but love the criminal and seek his reform. A tough dictum, but it is also dominical, and I have (I hope) given over improving on the Lord.

As things stand now, the endless repetition of “Pound is an antisemite” serves principally to assassinate his reputation as America’s most astonishing, rewarding, and influential 20th century poet. It serves, as well, to obscure and fend off facing the real point at issue: was he right or wrong that usury was a civilization-wrecking, nation-wrecking practice? And was he right or wrong that the use of usury to exploit and ultimately destroy nations and civilizations was an ancient Jewish practice, done in plain defiance of the prohibition against usury in the Torah, with an end in view, finally, of the rule of the whole world, by means of usury, by the “Big Jews.” (In all of this discussion, I am assuming that most Jews, like most of everybody else, are pawns and serfs of the Money Masters—the superbankers.)

Pound was clearly saying that indeed there was a “conspiracy” of the few to steal the wealth of all. Well, is it true or not? That’s the only question in this whole money matter that is worth discussing.

The Usury Gimmick

Pound’s writings on usury amounted to a direct attack on the central mechanism, the “primary gimmick,” that “the Jews”—again, the “Big Jews,” the ones who “organize” and have the superbig money—have used to fund, isolate, and advance their tribe in the world for a very long time. (Some would say since the Babylonian Captivity or even before that; Canadian David Astle, in an extraordinary study of the sources, nature, and relationships of currencies from antiquity to the present says just that in his Babylonian Woe: A Study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (A private edition published in 1975 by the author and printed by Harmony Printing Ltd, Toronto).

And as Kevin MacDonald has shown in a number of scholarly volumes, the one thing Jews have done historically above all others is maintaining themselves as a separate people. They do it today, even while many phalanxes of Jews also establish themselves as citizens of many other nations. They have done this notably in the U.S in the last 150 years as they had done in the two preceding centuries in Northern Europe. Their mode of operating, again above all, includes arranging, with remarkable skill, brilliance, and effectiveness, that wherever they gain power and wealth, everything that goes forward is, as much as they can manage and that is usually very much, “good for the Jews.”

The foregoing sentences would be certain to earn me a place among the ever-burgeoning number of “antisemites” on the character-assassination attack list, if I were anybody of consequence. It’s even a badge of honor to be so designated—“up to a point,” as Evelyn Waugh has one of his characters in one of his novels say when trying to gently disagree with his egomaniacal boss, without exactly disagreeing with him.

The “Swarm”

When the word goes out that so-and so is “bad-for-the-Jews” the “swarm” goes into action. What is the swarm? Let us borrow Israel Adam Shamir’s language here. Shamir is a Russian native, an ex-Jew, now an Orthodox Christian, and a resident of Jaffa in Israel, a state he believes should be one nation, with a one-man, one-vote system, and with right of return for all Palestinians. (The present writer discussed him and reviewed one of his books in an article, Pardes: A Study in Cabbala, in the Sept. 2005 issue of Culture Wars):



After [U.S. ex-President] Carter spoke [making the point that Israel is an “apartheid state”], he was immediately counter-attacked by organized Jewry—you couldn't miss it! In my native Siberia, in its short and furious summer, you can watch a swarm of gnats attack a horse, each small bloodsucker eager for his piece of the action. After a while, the blinded and infuriated animal rushes headlong in a mad sprint and soon finds its death in the bottomless moors. The Jews developed the same style of attack. It is never a single voice arguing the case, but always a mass attack from the left and the right, from below and above, until the attacked one is beaten and broken and crawls away in disgrace.

Each attacker is as tiny and irrelevant as a single gnat, but as a swarm they are formidable. Observe them separately: Dershowitz, an advocate of torture and of hostage killing, an apprehended plagiarist who never was elected to any position of authority and commands no respect, demands to debate the president. It is indeed beyond chutzpah; but Dershowitz is supported by other Jews in prime positions and his ridiculous demand is seconded by both university and media until this thieving nonentity gets equal time on a TV channel to present “his case”. Another gnat is a Deborah Lipstadt, a nonentity brought forth by the Washington Post. Plenty of others are even smaller than these two, for instance 14 Jews who gave up their positions at Carter Center. If they were not able to keep the media in their hands, they wouldn't be heard by anyone but their spouses.

Their technique is quite simple: They switch the focus of argument onto the personality of their adversary. Thus, instead of discussing apartheid in Israel, we discuss Jimmy Carter, whether he is a bigot and antisemite (thus Foxman, the “bad Jew”) or he is not (Avnery, the “good Jew”). The correct answer is “irrelevant”: Carter’s love for Jews or lack of it has no bearing on the question of apartheid in Palestine. Likewise, if we discuss the situation in Bosnia or Kosovo, we do not go into our sentiments towards Serbs, Albanians or Croats. But Jews are different!

For instance, General Wesley Clark said that rich Jews, the great donors of Washington politicians, push for war with Iran. Well, this can be discussed, maybe even denied, but instead they derail the discussion into another topic, whether Clark is an antisemite . . .

From this moment, Clark will stick to defending himself, and the guys will take care that his hands will be full. Here again, the correct answer is a polite shrug: who cares whether Clark is a bigot? Maybe he is also a paedophile and usurer, but this ad hominem has no bearing on what he said. And an accusation, “You do not love Jews” is not much different from “You do not love your aunt”, and you probably have learned to live with it at the age of six.

(From http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng9.htm)



The charge of antisemitism has dogged Pound since he began to study “the economic causes of warfare” immediately after World War I. But I here submit, as Shamir suggests, that the charge of antisemitism against Pound is supremely irrelevant.

Control of Media

One of the principal Jewish tactics directed to making themselves “Masters of Discourse” (Shamir’s term), has been to buy up the “major media” and so control what and how events or news are disclosed to the public. The fact of that in America is now common knowledge and is even bragged about by various Jewish writers.

The recent “outing” of AIPAC, the America-Israel Political Action Committee by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, not to mention the extraordinary work of the publisher/editor of this periodical, has pushed along an emerging freedom from “fear of the Jews,” but it has so far progressed only a little, because “fear of the Jews” is no joke in politics or writing or teaching (especially at the university level). Ask Joseph Sobran, whose career as perhaps the most intelligent and articulate American-Catholic commentator on our politics was derailed by his mild but very public criticism of the Jews. Pat Buchanan has survived, but only after a fashion, after similar “indiscretions.” Neither man has any chance of great influence anymore. The list of people who have disadvantaged themselves in this way could be much enlarged. The latest addition to it is of course ex-president Carter.

Incarcerated nearly 13 years

Ezra Pound was a virtually archetypical case of this same Jewish attack on free speech that was, from their point of view, radically too free. He paid for it. Initially charged with treason, he spent 12-1/2 years (1946 to 1958) in St. Elizabeths federal mental hospital under a diagnosis of insanity made by a panel of psychiatrists who examined him in 1946. It seems obvious that the psychiatrists involved thought it not a good idea to let the nation’s major poet be tried for treason; the insanity finding seemed a way out of the dilemma.

That diagnosis denied Pound a trial on the charge of treason against him, a trial Pound plainly wanted since he believed he could rebut it. However, the “nuts” designation effectively kept him in prison-hospital all those years. No one with any sense ever thought Pound was “insane.” The work he did in the prison camp in Pisa and in St. Elizabeths precludes that. On the other hand he was radically stressed by the trouble he brought on himself and surely had some very bad days.

The major media largely kept up the attack on him as a traitor while he was in prison, until at the last, important articles in Life and Time Magazines, then owned and edited by Henry Luce, initiated a “let him go” attitude. Pound would accept release only on condition all charges against him were dropped. In order to let the government get rid of this hot potato, the government agreed. The charges were dropped, and he was released—to return to Italy, where, in Venice, he died and was buried.

The bald external facts of Pound’s fateful years in Italy until he was flown back to the United States in military custody would seem to a superficial observer to be prima facie evidence of the validity of the U.S. government’s case against him. He had been living in Italy seventeen years when the U.S. entered Word War II. He tried to book passage home for himself and family members but for complicated reasons was not able to do so. He had opposed the war from the start, and opposed it to the end. In 1943 he asked the Mussolini government for permission to go on Rome Radio—and was granted it—to present his anti-war case, in English (often in a kind of cracker-barrel jargon of his own). He directed his broadcasts to the Allied governments and their troops as they approached ever nearer.

He was harshly critical of President Roosevelt and made anti-Jewish points repeatedly. The broadcasts were often enough difficult to understand; they very likely were never heard by many, or perhaps even any, people in the U.S. Pound’s central theme was that the U.S. was serving the Jewish/British/American world-wide banking cabal by attacking and destroying Europe, an idea he had developed, defended, and extensively explicated from the 1920s on. Just after WW I he wrote that he had begun a systematic study of the “economic causes of warfare.”

The conclusion he came to was that the “bankers” and their universal usury were chiefly at fault, not just for wars, but for the general economic malaise of Western societies that had prevailed, really, since the close of the Christian medieval, anti-usury era, at just about the same time as the early 16th century “Reformation” occurred, and John Calvin declared that business men should be permitted to charge interest on money loans, something the Roman Church had opposed all during the previous millennium, as E. Michael Jones’s articles on the Revolutionary Jew make clear.

World War I, and the death of so many of his artist and poet friends in it, had both deeply saddened and challenged, even enraged, Pound. He had already demonstrated before he left England for France that he was a dynamic, brilliant poet and scholar, who was working on nothing less than making a revolution in the whole nature and course of poetic expression in the modern era. He worked at that as hard as a good scientific researcher works. He became from that time on, while remaining a dedicated poet, also a devastating and relentless critic of the murderous policies of the industrially advanced national governments of the Western world, which had caused the needless deaths of millions of young men in the Great War of 1914-1918, the “war to end war,” a civilizational disaster repeated in WW II:

“There died a myriad,

And of the best among them,”

For an old bitch gone in the teeth,

For a botched civilization.

Charm smiling at the good mouth,

Quick eyes gone under earth’s lid,

For two gross of broken statues,

For a few thousand battered books.

—“Hugh Selwyn Mauberley,” 1920

“Hugh Selwyn Mauberley” (1919) and “Homage to Sextus Propertius” were the two major poems that closed out his fourteen years’ residency in England (1908-1922). He moved to Paris in 1922 and never again lived in England. After that, his major poetic effort went into his Cantos, a work it is hard not to see as his response to the challenge of Whitman’s great Leaves of Grass. Both were accumulations of verse over many years, massive “works in progress” that took most of their authors’ poetic energies until the near approach of death. The works were comparable in those ways, although utterly different in form and content. Initially, Pound, who, in his youth tended to like rather allusive and esoteric forms and themes, disliked Whitman’s democratic “yawp” and sprawl. As Pound matured, though, he wrote:

“I make a pact with you, Walt Whitman—
I have detested you long enough. . . .

We have one sap and one root--

Let there be commerce between us.

Joined now in death, it is plain that Pound and Whitman are “the two great American poets.”

As I come toward the close of this essay, the text of a speech on U.S. foreign policy and civil liberties by Justin Raimondo has just come to hand. It appeared June 4 on the website antiwar.com, which Raimondo directs. In it Raimondo, who strenuously opposes Israeli influence in U.S. foreign policy and internal politics, manages a very curious distinction. He speaks against AIPAC, against the neoconservative (largely Jewish) party in Washington, and in favor of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, whose famous “taboo-busting” study, The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, has made such a stir, and of course been attacked by “the Swarm.” Then Raimondo makes the (to me) astonishing statement, without supporting reference, that the views of the Israeli Lobby and those of “most American Jews are poles apart.”

I am unaware of any study or poll proving such a point or of any Jewish organization expressing it. I am aware of many individual Jews who oppose the Lobby and even Zionism, but a financed, organized, and well-publicized group doing so? I don’t think so. I believe the burden of lifting the banker-usury yoke from the shoulders of mankind is destined, as Shamir has suggested, to be borne by Jews; but the hour seems not yet, because a complete change of heart among “the Jews” is obviously a prerequisite.

What, then, are we to do? Just now very little. We are forbidden hatred and violence by the Lord. Anyway there is very little indeed that can be done against the entrenched power of the statist institutions that now stand against any alteration in the status quo of our usurious, banker-ruled society. Christ’s demonstration on Calvary is our model. Not a hand is to be raised against “the Jews,” as the popes have repeatedly said across the centuries. But we have also been told by the Lord Christ that we are to be wise as serpents. Nonviolence and wisdom are the only tools we have for this battle. I submit that Pound offered much wisdom about money and the evil of usury; in fact he cast his whole life and work into the balance to make that wisdom known to as many of his countrymen as possible. In an echo of a famous little poem by Walter Savage Landor, he wrote in an ironic epitaph for himself. “I strove with all, for ALL were worth my strife. . . .”

The Pound canon is now enormous; any halfway decent library will have quite a few titles by or relating to Pound. He said himself the clue can be got in an afternoon; I found that so in 1950 sitting in a library in Cambridge, Mass. an afternoon that I have never forgotten.


-------------------------------

[1] Reprinted with permission from the July-August 2007 issue of Culture Wars Magazine. Web: www.culturewars.com Mail: Culture Wars Magazine, 206 Marquette Ave., South Bend, IN 46617.
 
Old July 9th, 2009 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,568
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

“Kulaks: Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity”
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/kulaks

American Thinker Blog: Was the Starvation of the Kulaks Genocide?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._the_kula.html

Jew Watch - Jewish Genocidal Murders of Others - Christians in the USSR
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide...hristians.html
 
Old July 12th, 2009 #6
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Published on Thursday, January 16, 2003 by the UPI

Israel to Kill in U.S., Allied Nations

by Richard Sale

Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will include staging targeted killings in the United States and other friendly countries, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has forbidden the practice until now, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen former and currently serving U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with United Press International.

But an official at the Israeli Embassy in Washington told UPI: "That is rubbish. It is completely untrue. Israel and the United States have such a close and co-operative intelligence relationship, especially in the field of counter-terrorism, that the assertion is ludicrous."

With the appointment of Meir Dagan, the new director of Israel's Mossad secret intelligence service, Sharon is preparing "a huge budget" increase for the spy agency as part of "a tougher stance in fighting global jihad (or holy war)," one Israeli official said.

Since Sharon became Israeli prime minister, Tel Aviv has mainly limited its practice of targeted killings to the West Bank and Gaza because "no one wanted such operations on their territory," a former Israeli intelligence official said.

Another former Israeli government official said that under Sharon, "diplomatic constraints have prevented the Mossad from carrying out 'preventive operations' (targeted killings) on the soil of friendly countries until now."

He said Sharon is "reversing that policy, even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations."

A former Israeli military intelligence source agreed: "What Sharon wants is a much more extensive and tough approach to global terrorism, and this includes greater operational maneuverability."

Does this mean assassinations on the soil of allies?

"It does," he said.

"Mossad is definitely being beefed up," a U.S. government official said of the Israeli agency's budget increase. He declined to comment on the Tel Aviv's geographic expansion of targeted killings.

An FBI spokesman also declined to comment, saying: "This is a policy matter. We only enforce federal laws."

A congressional staff member with deep knowledge of intelligence matters said, "I don't know on what basis we would be able to protest Israel's actions." He referred to the recent killing of Qaed Salim Sinan al Harethi, a top al Qaida leader, in Yemen by a remotely controlled CIA drone.

"That was done on the soil of a friendly ally," the staffer said.

But the complications posed by Israel's new policy are real.

"Israel does not have a good record at doing this sort of thing," said former CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson.

He cited the 1997 fiasco where two Mossad agents were captured after they tried to assassinate Khaled Mashaal, a Hamas political leader, by injecting him with poison.

According to Johnson, the attempt, made in Amman, Jordan, caused a political crisis in Israeli-Jordan relations. In addition, because the Israeli agents carried Canadian passports, Canada withdrew its ambassador in protest, he said. Jordan is one of two Arab nations to recognize Israel. The other is Egypt.

At the time, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, "I have no intention of stopping the activities of this government against terror," according to a CNN report.

Former CIA officials say Israel was forced to free jailed Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and 70 other Jordanian and Palestinian prisoner being held in Israeli jails to secure the release of the two would-be Mossad assassins.

Phil Stoddard, former director of the Middle East Institute, cited a botched plot to kill Ali Hassan Salemeh, the mastermind of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. The 1974 attempt severely embarrassed Mossad when the Israeli hit team mistakenly assassinated a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway.

Salemeh, later a CIA asset, was killed in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1976 by a car bomb placed by an Israeli assassination team, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

"Israel knew Salemeh was providing us with preventive intelligence on the Palestinians and his being killed pissed off a lot of people," said a former senior CIA official.

But some Israeli operations have been successful.

Gerald Bull, an Ontario-born U.S. citizen and designer of the Iraqi supergun -- a massive artillery system capable of launching satellites into orbit, and of delivering nuclear chemical or biological payloads from Baghdad to Israel -- was killed in Belgium in March 1990. The killing is still unsolved, but former CIA officials said a Mossad hit team is the most likely suspect.

Bull worked on the supergun design -- codenamed Project Babylon -- for 10 years, and helped the Iraqis develop many smaller artillery systems. He was found with five bullets in his head outside his Brussels apartment.

Israeli hit teams, which consist of units or squadrons of the Kidon, a sub-unit for Mossad's highly secret Metsada department, would stage the operations, former Israeli intelligence sources said. Kidon is a Hebrew word meaning "bayonet," one former Israeli intelligence source said.

This Israeli government source explained that in the past Israel has not staged targeted killings in friendly countries because "no one wanted such operations on their territory."

This has become irrelevant, he said.

Dagan, the new hard-driving director of Mossad, will implement the new changes, former Israeli government officials said.

Dagan, nicknamed "the gun," was Sharon's adviser on counter-terrorism during the government of Netanyahu in 1996, former Israeli government officials say. A former military man, Dagan has also undertaken extremely sensitive diplomatic missions for several of Israel's prime ministers, former Israeli government sources said.

Former Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. Gal Luft, who served under Dagan, described him as an "extremely creative individual -- creative to the point of recklessness."

A former CIA official who knows Dagan said the new Mossad director knows "his foreign affairs inside and out," and has a "real killer instinct."

Dagan is also "an intelligence natural" who has "a superb analyst not afraid to act on gut instinct," the former CIA official said.

Dagan has already removed Mossad officials whom he regards as "being too conservative or too cautious" and is building up "a constituency of senior people of the same mentality," one former long-time Israeli operative said.

Dagan is also urging that Mossad operatives rely less on secret sources and rely more on open information that is so plentifully provided on the Internet and newspapers.

"It's a cultural thing," one former Israeli intelligence operative explained. "Mossad in the past has put its emphasis on Humint (human intelligence) and secret operations and has neglected the whole field of open media, which has become extremely important."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0116-10.htm
 
Old September 14th, 2011 #7
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

A Date with Bevin

Audio: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...t_20060724.ram

Monday 24 July 2006

Mike Thomson investiagtes Jewish insurgency in Palestine after WWll and a plot to assasinate Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Earnest Bevin. Follow this link to view a gallery of images taken by Document during the making of this programme.



In 1946, not long after the Second World War was won, Britain was again under threat. Jewish insurgents, who had long been fighting a bloody insurgency campaign against British troops in Palestine, were about to take their war to London. Previously top secret documents reveal that assassination squads were being sent to the capital armed with a hit list. On it were the names of several top government figures. These included Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Earnest Bevin.

Extremist groups like The Stern Gang (or Lehi) and Irgun, were determined to end the British mandate in Palestine and replace it with a Jewish homeland. Hundreds of their fighters, along with many British soldiers, were killed or injured in a struggle that escalated after the end of the war. Desperate to achieve a breakthrough after the arrest or deaths of many of their members, the two groups set up underground cells in Britain. It wasn’t long before British security services got wind of what was happening and in early 1946 they issued this top secret internal warning:

“Members of the Stern group are now being organised and are under training. It is expected that they will be sent to the United Kingdom to assassinate important members of his majesty’s government, particularly, Mr Bevin.”

In the months that followed a number of bombs exploded in London and an attempt was made to drop on a bomb on the House of Commons from a hired plane. This last effort was only stopped after French Police discovered Stern Gang members preparing to cross the channel in a plane containing a large bomb.

Mike Thomson and the Document team track down the assassin sent to kill Earnest Bevin and the man who gave him the explosives to do it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20060724.shtml

Telegram warned of plot to kill Attlee's ministers

Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, Monday 6 March 2006

MI5 was warned that Jewish terrorists planned to assassinate members of Clement Attlee's postwar Labour government and feared that Menachem Begin, then leader of the extremist Irgun resistance group and a future prime minister of Israel, had tried to trick it by having cosmetic surgery to disguise his identity, files released yesterday disclose.

The files include a telegram dated February 12 1946 from Palestine saying that a reliable source claimed the Stern gang were "training members to go to England to assassinate members of His Majesty's Government, especially Mr Bevin [British foreign minister Ernest Bevin]". The Stern gang, in common with Irgun, were fighting against the British mandate of Palestine and murdered Britain's Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo in 1944. A memo from the Officer Administering the Government of Palestine to the Secretary of State for the Colonies the following day warned: "The Stern Group have decided to assassinate both the High Commissioner and the General Officer Commanding. In addition, a number of CID officers are to be assassinated as well as police officers and any high government officials who are thought to be anti-semitic."

In 1946 Irgun blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, and attacked the British embassy in Rome. A year later MI5 received a report about a rumour that Begin had "undergone a plastic facial operation and that his appearance is totally different from that displayed on police photographs". In 1948 Begin founded the Herut party, which later became Likud, and he was appointed prime minister in 1977. He was awarded the Nobel peace prize with Egypt's President Sadat after agreeing to withdraw Israeli forces from the Sinai peninsula and return it to Egypt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...06/israel.past
 
Old November 24th, 2011 #8
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Proud Republican
Posts: 4,118
H.B.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck57 View Post
http://www.rense.com/general74/ssno.htm

Israeli Snipers Killing
US Troops In Iraq
Source: Joanna Francis and CNN
11-11-6
Very believable, but story looks like a fake:

http://www.google.com/#q=Joanna+Fran...w=1280&bih=918

The most popular links all go to other message boards.

Rense is notorious for putting up completely unverifiable junk.

I would not be a surprised if a real story broke and the jews made up this one and gave it rounds on the Internet to steal the thunder and discredit the whole idea.
__________________
"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. WE WILL FOREVER DESTROY because we want a world of our own." - Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles
 
Old November 24th, 2011 #9
Armstrong
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,414
Default

Apparently Mossad has threatened Phil Tourney, survivor of the USS Liberty incident....as well as Mark Glenn

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/20...cle-sam-yawns/
 
Old April 28th, 2012 #10
SmokyMtn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 8,506
Default Zionist Plans To Assassinate US Citizens - Including Presidents

Zionist Plans To Assassinate US Citizens - Including Presidents

Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and president of the Council for the National Interest.

Alison Weir
AntiWar.com
January 25, 2012

On January 13th the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.

In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for U.S. based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”

The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state “obliterate its enemies.”

Adler writes that it is highly likely that the idea “has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles.”

Numerous Jewish leaders quickly condemned Adler, who has now apologized for the column, resigned, and put the newspaper up for sale. An Israeli columnist noted that the hatred being stirred up against Obama is similar to conditions in Israel that led to the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish extremist.

Many of those criticizing Adler claim that he had defamed Israel by suggesting that it would ever do such a thing. Abe Foxman, head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) proclaimed: “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction.”

In reality, however, Adler’s expectation that Israel’s inner circles have explored such a course of action, and would be willing to undertake it, may be entirely accurate. The fact is that Israel has killed and plotted to assassinate people throughout the world; a number have been Americans. One alleged plot was chillingly similar to Adler’s suggestion.

Secret Service warned of Israeli assassination plans

There is evidence that in 1991 an Israeli undercover team planned to assassinate a U.S. President. The intended victim was George Herbert Walker Bush.

The first person to write of the plot was a former 11-term Republican Congressman from Illinois, Paul Findley. In a 1992 article in the Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, Findley described the alleged scheme and how it was revealed.

Findley writes that the U.S. Secret Service had received a warning that elements of Israel’s spy agency might target Bush when he went to Madrid for the opening day of the peace conference to be held that year.

According to Findley, a former Mossad agent named Victor Ostrovsky who had written a book exposing Israel’s spy agency told a group of Canadian parliamentarians that he had received secret intelligence suggesting that the “the Mossad's hatred of Bush – and support for Vice President Dan Quayle – might lead to an attempt on the president's life.”

Israel considered Quayle much closer to Israel than Bush. Bush had particularly angered Israel by attempting to pressure Israel into ending its illegal settlement expansion on confiscated Palestinian land by withholding loan guarantees until Israel ended this practice.

Findley writes that Ostrovsky’s statements were relayed to Findley’s friend and former colleague Paul “Pete” McCloskey, a prominent former Republican Congressman from California who had recently been named by Bush to the National and Community Service Commission.

McCloskey, a decorated Marine veteran and graduate of Stanford law school who had at one time been considered a presidential contender, flew to Ottawa to debrief Ostrovsky in person and evaluate his information.

Findley reports that Ostrovsky told McCloskey that the Mossad wanted "to do everything possible to preserve a state of war between Israel and its neighbors, assassinating President Bush, if necessary." Ostrovsky said that a PR campaign was already underway in both Israel and the United States to "prepare public acceptance of Dan Quayle as president."

Convinced that Ostrovsky was legitimate and his information significant, McCloskey jumped on the next flight to Washington, where he reported Ostrovsky’s intelligence to the Secret Service and State Department.

The apparent plot never went forward, perhaps because Ostrovsky and McCloskey had given it away.

Ostrovsky gave more details about the plot two years later in his 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda,” published by HarperCollins.

In the book Ostrovsky writes that an extremist group within Mossad was responsible for the plan. He says they kept the plan secret from then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, though they believed that Shamir would have ordered such a hit himself if he hadn’t been constrained by politics. In the lead-up to Israel’s 1948 founding war, Shamir had headed up a terrorist group known for its assassinations.

In his review of Ostrovsky’s book, Ambassador Andrew Killgore, a retired career foreign service officer and publisher of the Washington Report, called the book an “insider's probing exposé of some Middle East realities that have been hidden too long from all but Israeli eyes.”

Ostrovsky writes that the Israelis planned a “false flag” operation in which they would pin the assassination on Palestinians. They kidnapped three Palestinian militants from Beirut who were to be the scapegoats, took them to Israel's Negev desert, and held them incommunicado.

“Meanwhile,” Killgore writes, “Mossad-generated threats on the president's life, seemingly from Palestinians, were leaked. These were designed to throw suspicion on the organization of rogue Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. Names and descriptions of the three terrorists were leaked to Spanish police so that, if the plot was successful, blame would automatically fall on them.”

Ostrovsky reports that after the assassination plot was eventually cancelled, the three Palestinian prisoners were “terminated.”

Targeting Americans

If the plot had gone forward, this would not have been the first time that Israel targeted Americans for death. Nor would it be the first false flag operation.
•In 1954 the Mossad planned to firebomb American installations, libraries, and other gathering places in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was to be blamed for the attacks, thus causing American animosity toward Egypt. An accidental early detonation of one of the devices caused the plot, known as the Lavon Affair, to unravel before it could kill or mutilate the intended Americans.
•In 1967 Israeli air and sea forces perpetrated an almost two-hour assault in which they tried to sink a US Navy ship with a crew of 294. While the attack failed to sink the ship, it succeeded in killing 34 Americans and injuring 174. Some analysts have conjectured that this was also a false-flag operation; it is highly likely that Egypt would have been blamed for the attack if the ship had gone down.
•In 1973 Israeli fighter pilots were ordered to shoot down an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane (at the time the U.S. was delivering massive weaponry to Israel to prevent it from losing the “Yom Kippur” war with Egypt and Syria). While the Israelis were unable to reach the altitude of the U.S. plane, they did manage that same year to shoot down a civilian Libyan airliner that had strayed over Israeli territory, killing 104 men, women, and children. One was an American.
•In 1990 a Canadian-American scientist and father of seven, Gerald Bull, was assassinated in Belgium. All indications are that it was an Israeli Mossad hit team that drilled five bullets into the back of his head and neck. (Israel has assassinated a number of scientists of various nationalities. The most recent is a 32-year-old Iranian father with a young son.)
•In 2003 it came out that Israeli leaders had officially decided to undertake assassination operations on U.S. soil. An FBI spokesman, queried about the Israeli plans, said only: "This is a policy matter. We only enforce federal laws."
•In recent years a growing number of American peace activists have been intentionally killed, maimed, and injured by Israeli forces, including 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, 21-year-old Brian Avery, 37-year-old Tristan Anderson, 21-year-old Emily Henoschowitz, and 21-year-old Furkan Dogan.

All of this has been minimally reported in the U.S. press. While major news media from England to Israel to Australia covered the Jewish Times’ apparent endorsement of a possible Israeli assassination of a U.S. President, the scandal has been largely missing from U.S. media. Even Atlanta’s AP bureau inexplicably initially decided not to write a report on it, only finally sending out a story many days later.

Such news omissions concerning Israeli partisans are not rare. In 2004 a fanatic Israel loyalist wrote a letter saying that he was going to burn down Presbyterian churches while worshippers were inside (he was furious at the Presbyterian Church’s decision to divest from companies profiting from the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land). This grisly threat also received minimal media play.

Despite Israeli violence against Americans (even while American taxpayers have given Israel far more of our tax money than to any other nation) American presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, continue to vie over who is most devoted to Israel.

It is ironic that Adler considers Obama so bad for Israel, given that Israeli analysts have rated him second only to Mitt Romney in his fidelity to Israel. And Obama has now released a seven-minute video that may catapult our first African-American president into first place in pandering to an apartheid nation.

But perhaps he’ll be safe from assassins.

References

Adler, Andrew. "What Would You Do?" Atlanta Jewish Times 13 Jan. 2012: 3. Print. Online at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html

"Jewish Times Publisher Resigns over Obama Assassination Column." Atlanta Journal Constitution. 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 23 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/jewish-times-publisher-resigns-1313944.html>.

"Jewish Publisher Is an Idiot - but His Hatred Is Shared by Many." Haaretz (blog). 21 Jan. 2012. Accessed 22 Jan. 2012.http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of...-many-1.408466

Anti-Defamation League. ADL Condemns 'Outrageous' Column By Atlanta Jewish Times Publisher. 20 Jan. 2012. Web. <http://adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/6224_72>.

"List of Israeli Assassinations." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. Accessed 22 Jan. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations>.

While the Wikipedia entry appeared on the day it was accessed to contain an accurate list, it is important to remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia at any moment and inaccurate changes can be made. Israeli partisans have consistently attempted to promote an Israeli agenda on the Internet. See http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/item/1300-israeli-students-to-get-$2000-to-spread-state-propaganda-on-facebook and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142374 and http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/wikip.html

Findley, Paul. "Special Report: Peril in Being President." Washington Report for Middle East Affairs (February 1992): 10. Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...president.html

Ostrovsky, Victor, and Claire Hoy. By Way of Deception. New York: St. Martin's, 1990. Print. http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=nKJBF8RS2LMC

Murphy, Dan. "US Says No Plan to Cut Israel Loan Guarantees, but It's Been Tried before." Christian Science Monitor [Boston] 11 Jan. 2010, Global News Blog ed.http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...n-tried-before

“Pete McCloskey Leading from the Front.” Dir. Robert Caughlan. Perf. Narrated by Paul Newman. The Video Project, 2009. Film. Web. <http://petemccloskeymovie.com/>.

Nakhleh, Issa. "Chapter Seven: Zionist Crimes and Terrorism in Palestine 1948." Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem. Intercontinental, 1991. Online at http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.co...ter07_1of7.htm

MacIntyre, Donald. "Israel's Forgotten Hero: The Assassination of Count Bernadotte - and the Death of Peace." The Independent [London] 18 Sept. 2008. Print. Online at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ce-934094.html

Killgore, Andrew. "The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs April-May (1995): 58-81. Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...et-agenda.html

Melman, Yossi. "Targeted Killings - a Retro Fashion Very Much in Vogue." Ha'aretz [Israel] 24 Mar. 2004. Print. Online at http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...vogue-1.117714

"Iran's Nuclear Scientists Are Not Being Assassinated. They Are Being Murdered." The Guardian. 16 Jan. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/16/iran-scientists-state-sponsored-murder?newsfeed=true>.

Curtiss, Richard H. "The Lavon Affair: When Israel Firebombed U.S. Installations Print." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs July (1992). Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...allations.html

Moorer, Admiral Thomas H., General Raymond G. Davis, Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, and Ambassador James Akins. "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft While the Ship Was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government." Congressional Record October 11 (2004): E1886-1889. Print. Online at http://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-commfindings.html

"The USS Liberty - Compilation of Articles." If Americans Knew. Web. <http://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ussliberty.html>.

“Sharon Pattern from of Old.” United Press International, 17 Apr. 2002. Online at http://rense.com/general30/down.htm

"Who Remembers LAA Flight 114?" Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 19, 1983): 3. Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/conte...light-114.html

Redford, John. "Gerald Bull, Gunsmith." Apr. 1992. Web. 21 Apr. 2012. <http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm>.

"The Man Who Made the Supergun." FRONTLINE. PBS. 12 Feb. 1991. Television. Transcript. Online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ripts/911.html

"Think of the Prestige." The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (Sept, 1992). Print. Online at http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/SGbull.htm

Sale, Richard. "Israel to Kill in U.S., Allied Nations." United Press International 15 Jan. 2003. Print. online at http://www.rense.com/general33/trarg.htm

Some researchers suspect earlier operations on U.S. soil, one presenting evidence suggesting an Israeli connection to the strange 1949 death of U.S. Secretary of Defense James Forrestal:: Martin, David. "New Forrestal Document Exposes Cover-up." 17 Sept. 2004. Web. 2012. <http://dcdave.com/article4/040927.html>.

Sheehan-Miles, Charles. "Israel Goes Too Far." Alternet.com. Alternet, 27 Jan. 2003. Web. 21 Jan. 2012. <http://www.alternet.org/story/15028/israel_goes_too_far/?page=entire>.

Weir, Alison. "The Manufactured Controversy Over Former Senior White House Correspondent Helen Thomas." CounterPunch June 9 (2010). Web. 2012. <http://ifamericansknew.org/media/thomas.html>.

Porter, Gareth. "UN Report: American Citizen Executed By Israelis During Mavi Marmara Raid." Alternet (September 27, 2010). online at http://www.alternet.org/investigatio..._marmara_raid/

"Atlanta Jewish Times Owner 'very Sorry' for Obama Column." Atlanta Journal Constitution. 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2012. <http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-jewish-times-owner-1310454.html>.

"Atlanta Jewish Times Owner Says Sorry for Obama 'hit' Column." The Guardian. 20 Jan. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...?newsfeed=true.

Shalev, Chemi. "Uproar after Jewish American Newspaper Publisher Suggests Israel Assassinate ..." Haaretz. 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. http://www.haaretz.com/news/internat...obama-1.408429 .

"Editor Laments Column's Call to Assassinate Obama." Sydney Morning Herald. 23 Jan. 2012. http://www.smh.com.au/world/editor-l...123-1qdul.html.

Chang, Pauline J. "Arsonist ''Promises Violence'' Against Presbyterian Church over Divestment Policy." The Christian Post (Nov. 12, 2004). Print. Online at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ar...t-policy-3180/

"U.S. Military Aid and the Israel/Palestine Conflict." If Americans Knew. Web.<http://ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html>. Contains Congressional Research Service report.

Rosner, Shmuel. "Israel Factor: Only Romney Better than Obama." Jerusalem Post 11 Nov. 2011. Online at http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThes...aspx?id=244925

Abunimah, Ali. "In Scandalous New Campaign Video, Obama Takes Israel Pandering to Dangerous Levels." Electonic Intifada Blog. 21 Jan. 2012. Web. <http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/scandalous-new-campaign-video-obama-takes-israel-pandering-dangerous-levels>

ReMillard, Frances H. "Is Israel an Apartheid State?" ICAHD-USA. 6 Mar. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. http://icahdusa.org/2010/03/is-israe...artheid-state/.





Posted 26th January by Alien
 
Old April 28th, 2012 #11
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
On January 13th the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to “order a hit” on the president of the United States.

In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to “give the go-ahead for U.S. based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.”
Why go through all the trouble of whacking the sitting POTUS.
Just show him the Zapruder film of that hit they pulled in '63. He'll get the message.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old April 28th, 2012 #12
C. Grady Tucker
Senior Member
 
C. Grady Tucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Caught in the Interwebs
Posts: 925
C. Grady Tucker
Default

I'm sure the ZOG along with the Mossad are running black ops in the war zones, but putting a camcorder on a rifle is no big deal at all. Here's a video of a homemade mount using a cheap camcorder. This would even work on ARs with the A2 carry handle without a scope. Just turn on the camera, place the iron sights in the throat area of a ZOG soldier and you've got a great propaganda video.

 
Old July 8th, 2012 #13
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,239
Serbian
Default

Quote:
Israel’s Mossad Carries Out Assassinations of Iranian Scientists, New Book Argues

Contrary to reports of employing MEK for the killings, the authors say, Israel wouldn't risk such operations with mercenaries

by John Glaser, July 07, 2012

Print This | Share This


Israeli Mossad agents are themselves the ones that have been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, not Iranian dissidents working for Israel, according to a new book by veteran US and Israeli journalists.

CBS reporter Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, a former intelligence correspondent for Haaretz, write in their new book “Spies Against Armageddon” that contrary to reports linking the killings to members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), Israel is very unlikely to have contracted out these sensitive operations through a third party dissident group.


“Our in-depth study of fifty years of assassinations by Israel’s foreign espionage agency,” the authors write at the Daily Beast, “including conversations with current and former Mossad operatives and those who work with them in countries friendly to Israel – yields the conclusion that” those Iranians that have been accused in connection with the assassinations are not the killers.

“The methods, communications, transportation, and even the innovative bombs used in the Tehran killings are too sensitive for the Mossad to share with foreign freelancers,” they find.

“Instead, the assassinations are likely the work of Israel’s special spy unit for the most delicate missions: a kind of Mossad within the Mossad called Kidon (Bayonet).”

Top US officials in February disclosed to NBC News their belief that Israel had employed the MEK, which is an Iranian dissident group currently designated as a terrorist group by the United States, to carry out the attacks.

While Israel may have not employed the MEK, they have certainly considered supporting Iranian dissident groups to act against the Iranian regime. Former director of the Mossad Meir Dagan told a senior US official in 2007, as revealed in a State Department cable published by WikiLeaks that the US and Israel should exploit disaffected minority groups in Iran in order to “change the ruling regime in Iran.”

As recently as 2007, a State Department report warned that the MEK, retains “the capacity and will” to attack “Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond.” In 2002, the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein’s support for the MEK ”terrorist” group justified a US invasion of Iraq.

Still, there has been a big money push by many influential people in Washington to get MEK removed from the State Department’s terrorist list, presumably to make them eligible for US funding.

Whether or not Israel employed the MEK to carry out the killings or it was Mossad agents themselves, Israel has been carrying out illegal assassinations of civilian scientists working on a nuclear program that, even the US and Israel concede, is not a nuclear weapons program.
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/07/i...w-book-argues/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
 
Old July 23rd, 2012 #14
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
Default Yitzhak Shamir: Why we killed Lord Moyne

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak...ed-lord-moyne/

Quote:
October 26, 1993, I had the privilege of meeting former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir at his office in the Knesset. I was in Jerusalem to conduct a series of research interviews for my doctoral dissertation, Revisionist Zionism in America: The Campaign to Win American Public Support 1939-1948.

When I embarked upon this venture Yitzhak Shamir was the first person I contacted with a request for information. Then a mere graduate student at the University of New Hampshire, I doubted that he would respond to my correspondence and was both surprised and delighted to receive his enthusiastic reply. After a number of telephone interviews with him, I had the opportunity to travel to Israel for a face-to-face interview.

Following an hour of security checks I was finally able to enter the Knesset and reach his “cave” in the depths of the complex. With a final check of my credentials and a security flash of my camera, I gained admittance into the sanctum. I was taken back by the size of his tiny office, the lack of adornment, the austere furnishings… a desk, a couple of chairs, some books, a flag of Israel. This was the office of a former prime minister of Israel? It was quite shocking.

In contrast to his well-known rigid persona and uncompromising politics, I found him to be a warm, friendly, energetic man, grandfatherly in nature. His welcoming smile filled the empty room. We discussed a variety of issues ranging from the struggles between the Irgun, the New Zionist Organization and the Hebrew Committee for National Liberation, to the politics of Roosevelt regarding the United States’ dependence on Saudi oil in the 1940′s, British politics vis-a-vis Palestine, the Altalena incident, and his escape from a prison camp in Djibouti.

All of these topics were extremely interesting, and perhaps none more so than his part in the November 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, Leader of the House of Lords, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Resident Minister in Cairo, opponent of the Jews throughout his career as Colonial Secretary. Lehi underground leaders, Yitzhak Shamir and Dr. Israel Eldad, created a plan to do away with Moyne. The correctness of that decision has been debated to this day. One vocal opponent was the former foreign minister and ambassador to the US and UN Abba Eban, who told me during an interview that he believed the actions of the Lehi against Moyne had hindered the Partition Plan and thwarted early statehood for Israel. I brought this idea to Shamir’s attention. He strongly disagreed.

Joanna Saidel: Let me ask you… I spoke with Abba Eban about a month ago, and he told me that he believed that if it wasn’t for the activities of the Lehi, during the early ’40s, Israel would have become a state, would have been partitioned and that the partition plan would have gone through in December of 1944.
Yitzhak Shamir: No, no, no, no…
Saidel: Why does he think this?
Shamir: It is nonsense! It’s nonsense! In ’44, ’45 (laughs), the British have still been here, very strong, and they didn’t think about leaving the country. It was before the end of the war. The end was in ’45, yes? And then, after ’45, Ben Gurion started to organize the Zionist movement and the conference in Baltimore. At this convention they decided that the helm of the Zionist movement has to be a Jewish commonwealth… a Jewish commonwealth! It was curious that the Zionist movement officially didn’t accept the slogan of a Jewish State as the aim of the Zionist movement! You know about it. Weizmann was against it. Weizmann didn’t like this expression of a ‘Jewish State’. All the time it was a strain before the British. He wants to have Jewish unity here, some unity, not a state — I don’t know what! But then came all this rupture between Ben Gurion and Weizmann…. but (laughs) all of them they’ve been together against us!
British Foreign Office documents confirm that a plan for partition was set for proposal. It is questionable whether the plan would have been accepted. According to Eban the motives for the plan were pro-Arab but would, nonetheless, serve the Jewish cause. Winston Churchill’s November 4, 1944 memorandum to Chaim Weizmann noted that Moyne had come over to the Zionist cause, albeit for pro- Arab motives. Reportedly, Churchill became despondent and alienated as a result of the attack on Moyne and did not pursue the plan with his former vigor. It was dropped until 1947. I pursued the point.
Saidel: Someone (Abba Eban) said that Lord Moyne was going to agree with Churchill to support the Zionist movement even though it wasn’t for Zionist reasons.
Shamir: No, no, no … Lord Moyne was very strongly against us, against a Jewish State. Churchill said once that he had some dream about dividing Palestine in a different way — a part to the Arabs, a part to the Jews, but it was a very unclear idea. Very unclear. He was not busy with that, Churchill… And then, after the war, the Labor Party took over power in England and Mr. Bevin became foreign minister, Atlee was prime minister, and Mr. Bevin opposed the Zionist movement, the idea of a Jewish majority … of a Jewish State … and he sent the others to create here an Arab country, an Arab state, with certain autonomy for the Jewish, for the Jewish settlements.
As unclear as the plan was there is no doubt that Moyne’s motivation was not to further the Jewish plan for statehood. Even Eban agreed, telling me: “He (Moyne) did this for Arab reasons. In other words, he said that unless the British were able to stop immigration, which they were not able to do, then the only way to save anything for the Arabs was by seeing that some part of Palestine was reserved for them. So he reached what I would call a Jewish State solution for anti-Jewish reasons, namely that otherwise the Jews would take over the whole of the country, and, therefore, partition was a sort of defense of the Arab position.” Eban claimed that, following the assassination of Lord Moyne, “Churchill went into a sulk which lasted about four or five years” and that “therefore, there’s no doubt that the murder of Moyne had a negative effect.”
 
Old September 8th, 2012 #15
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
Default This Date in History 9/08/1935: Presidential Candidate Huey Long killed by Jew Weiss

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-...-assassin.html

"Just Another Zionist Assassination

Long was assassinated because he was one of the most charismatic leaders of the 1930s, and he was going to run for president. He could have easily defeated Roosevelt, and would have put International Jewry back 200 years."
 
Old November 1st, 2012 #16
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
jewsign Israel Admits to Assassination of Arafat Deputy in 1988



Khalil al-Wazir Death: Israel Admits To Assassination Of Abu Jihad, Arafat Deputy In 1988


JERUSALEM -- Lifting a nearly 25-year veil of secrecy, Israel is admitting that it killed the deputy of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in a 1988 raid in Tunis.
quote
Israel has long been suspected of assassinating Khalil al-Wazir, who was better known by his nom de guerre Abu Jihad. But only Thursday did the country's military censor clear the Yediot Ahronot daily to publish the information, including an interview with the commando who killed him.

Dozens of brazen operations have been attributed to Israel over the decades. But Israel rarely takes responsibility. The acknowledgement gives a rare glimpse into the country's covert operations.

Abu Jihad founded the Palestinian Liberation Organization with Arafat and was blamed for a series of attacks against Israelis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2056636.html
 
Old November 13th, 2012 #17
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
jewsign Israel Hamas Assassinations Resumption In Gaza Considered By Netanyahu



Quote:
Israel Hamas Assassinations Resumption In Gaza Considered By Netanyahu


JERUSALEM — Israel is considering resuming its contentious practice of assassinating militant leaders in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in an effort to halt intensified rocket attacks on Israel's south, according to defense officials.

That Israel might renew a practice that brought it harsh international censure is evidence of the tight spot Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in. With Israeli elections two months away, rocket barrages from Gaza are disrupting the lives of 1 million residents of southern Israel, pressuring the government to come up with an effective response.

In the latest flare-up, Gaza militants have fired more than 100 rockets at Israel in recent days, triggering retaliatory Israeli airstrikes that have killed six people in Gaza.

Some Israelis are demanding a harsh military move, perhaps a repeat of Israel's bruising incursion into Gaza four years ago. Others believe Israel should target Hamas leaders, a method it used to kill dozens of militants nearly a decade ago.

Advocates say targeted killings are an effective deterrent without the complications associated with a ground operation, chiefly civilian and Israeli troop casualties. Proponents argue they also prevent future attacks by removing their masterminds.

Critics say they invite retaliation by militants and encourage them to try to assassinate Israeli leaders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday visited the southern city of Beesheba, where he told municipal officials that Israel will strike back against the Palestinian attacks.

"Whoever believes they can harm the daily lives of the residents of the south and not pay a heavy price is mistaken. I am responsible for choosing the right time to collect the highest price and so it shall be," Netanyahu said.

Defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential discussions, said the assassination of Hamas leaders is shaping up as the preferred response to the stepped-up rocket fire.

They have the backing of two former military chiefs with experience in the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...m_hp_ref=world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...m_hp_ref=world
 
Old March 27th, 2016 #18
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
Default Events Preceding The Russian Revolution

Quote:
Events Preceding The Russian Revolution

The invasion of Russia in 1812 by Napoleon shook the Russian people to the core. Tzar Alexander I set about the task of organizing a recovery programme.

In the hope that he could bring about a united effort throughout the Russian Empire, he relaxed many of the restrictions which had been imposed on the Jews when they were confined to the Pale of Settlement in 1772.

Special concessions were made to the artisans and professional classes. A determined effort was made to establish Jews in agriculture. Under Alexander I they were given every encouragement to assimilate themselves into the Russian way of life.


Nicholas I succeeded Alexander I in 1825. He was less inclined to favour the Jews, because he viewed their rapid inroads into the Russian economy with alarm. His government viewed with great displeasure the determination of the Jews to maintain their separate culture, language, mode of dress, etc.

In order to try to assimilate the Jews into the Russian society Nicholas I, in 1804, made it compulsory for all Jewish children to attend Public School. Nicholas thought that if the young Jews could be convinced that they would be welcomed into Russian society it would go a long way to eliminate misunderstandings. His avowed purpose was to offset the one-sided story of religious persecution which was drilled into their minds from early infancy.

The net results of the Russian experiment didn’t turn out as expected. Education for non-Jewish children was not compulsory. The Jews became the best educated segment in Russia.

Alexander II followed Nicholas I to the throne of Russia in 1855. Benjamin Disraeli referred to Alexander II as “The most benevolent prince that ever ruled over Russia”.

Alexander devoted his life to improving the conditions of the peasants, poorer classes, and the Jews. In 1861 he emancipated 23,000,000 serfs. This unfortunate class had been FORCED to work on the land. They were LITERALLY slaves. They could be transferred from one owner to another in all sales, or leases, of landed estates.

Many Jews, who had taken advantage of the compulsory education, entered universities. They found themselves severely handicapped after graduation when seeking employment.

To correct this ,Alexander II ruled that all Jewish graduates be allowed to settle and hold government positions in Greater Russia. In 1879 Jewish apothecaries, nurses, mid-wives, dentists, distillers and skilled craftsmen were permitted to work and reside, anywhere in Russia.

But the Jewish revolutionary leaders were determined to continue their movement for Popular World Revolution.
Their terrorist groups committed one outrage after another. They worked to enlist the support of disgruntled Russian intellectuals and to plant the general idea of violent revolution in the minds of the industrial working population.

In 1866 they made their first attempt on the life of Alexander II. They tried to murder him a second time in 1879. In some miraculous manner both attempts failed.

It was then decided a very special effort had to be made to remove Alexander. His benevolent rule was completely upsetting their claim “That much needed reforms can only be brought about speedily by revolutionary action”. The conspirators hatched their next plot against the life of Alexander II in the home of the Jewess Hesia Helfman. The Tzar was murdered in 1881.




The assassination of the Russians’ “Little Father” in 1881 caused wide-spread resentment which was expressed by a spontaneous outbreak of violence against the Jewish population in many parts of Russia. The Russian Government passed “The May Laws”. These were harsh laws passed because the Russian officials who sponsored them argued “That if the Jews could not be satisfied and reconciled by the benevolent policy of Alexander II then it was obvious that they would be satisfied with nothing less than the absolute domination of Russia.”

On May 23rd, 1882 a Jewish delegation, headed by Baron Ginzberg, called on the new Tzar Alexander III and officially protested the May Laws. The Tzar promised a thorough investigation into the whole matter concerning the conflict between the Jewish and non-Jewish factions of the Empire’s population.

On September 3rd he issued this statement : “For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews, and their problems and their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the Empire with a view to ascertaining the sad conditions of the Christian population brought about by the conduct of the Jews in business matters.

During the last twenty years the Jews have not only possessed themselves of every trade and business in all its branches but also of a great part of the land by buying or farming it. With few exceptions they have, as a body, devoted their attention not to enriching, or benefiting the country, but to defrauding the Russian people by their wiles.

Particularly have the poor inhabitants suffered, and this conduct has called forth protests from the people as manifested in acts of violence against the Jews. The government, while on one hand doing its best to put dawn these disturbances; and to deliver the Jews from oppression and slaughter; on the other hand thought it a matter of urgency, and justice, to adopt the stringent measures to put an end to oppression as practiced by the Jews on the other inhabitants, and to rid the country of their malpractices, which were, as is well known, the original cause of the anti-Jewish agitations.”

The May Laws had been passed by the Government not only as an act of resentment because of the assassination of Tzar Alexander II, but also because Russian economists had been urgently warning the Government that the national economy was in danger of being ruined if measures were not taken to curb the illegal activities of the Jews.

The economists pointed out that while the Jews only represented 4.2 per cent of the whole population they had been able to entrench themselves so well in the Russian economy that the nation was faced with economic disaster.

How correct the economists proved to be is shown by the action taken after Baron Ginzberg’s deputation failed to have the May Laws rescinded. The International Bankers imposed economic sanctions against the Russian Empire. They almost reduced the nation to bankruptcy. They exercised an embargo on Russian trade and commerce. In 1904, after they involved the Russian Empire in a disastrous war with Japan, the English Banking House of Rothschild repudiated its promise of financial aid and tried to render the Russian Empire bankrupt, while Kuhn-Loeb & Co. New York extended to Japan all the credit asked for.

Encyclopedia Britannica, page 76, Vol. 2 — 1947 says this of the May Laws : “The Russian May Laws were the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-semitism ... Their immediate results were a ruinous commercial depression which was felt all over the empire and which profoundly affected the national credit.

The Russian Minister was at his wits end for money. Negotiations for a large loan were entered into with the House of Rothschild and a preliminary contract was signed when the Finance Minister was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped, the great banking house would be compelled to withdraw from the contract ... In this way antisemitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic policies of Europe, set its mark on the International relations of the Powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian Treasury, quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck’s secret treaty of mutual neutrality, which brought about the Franco-Russian Alliance.”

Many orthodox Jews were worried because of the ruthless terrorism being practised by their compatriots.

They knew that a similar policy was being carried out in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. The less radical Jews worried because they feared a continuation of such terrorism would result in such a wave of anti-semitism that it could quite possibly end with the extermination of the Jewish race. Their worst fears were confirmed by a German Jew, Theodore Herzl, who informed them of Karl Ritter’s anti-semitic policy and warned them that it was rapidly being spread throughout Germany. He suggested the organization of a Jewish Back to Israel Movement on the part of orthodox Jews. This was the beginning of the Zionist movement.

After Tzar Alexander III had issued his verdict blaming AVARICIOUS Jews as the cause of the Empire’s unrest, and economic ruin, the leaders of the revolutionaries organized “The Social Revolutionary Party”. An utterly ruthless man named Gershuni was appointed organiser of the Terrorist Groups.

A tailor named Yevno Azev was appointed to organize the “Fighting Sections”. The leaders of the Social Revolutionary Party also emphasized the importance of enlisting Gentiles in the movement. Gentiles, who passed the tests to which they were submitted, became full members. It was this decision that brought Alexander Ulyanov into the party. Before the revolutionary leaders would admit him into full membership he was ordered to take part in the plot to assassinate Tzar Alexander III. The attempt on the Tzar’s life failed. Alexander Ulyanov was arrested. He was tried, and condemned to death. His execution caused his younger brother, Vlasimir, to dedicate himself to the revolutionary cause. Vlasimir rose in power until he became leader of the Bolshevik Party. He assumed the name of Lenin. He ultimately became the first Dictator of the U.S.S.Rs.

Between 1900 and 1906, in addition to causing serious labour trouble, and creating terrible misunderstanding between all levels of Russian society, the Revolutionary Party rubbed the sore of religious bigotry until it developed into a festering boil. This boil was brought to a head by the hot applications of wholesale murders and assassinations. The boil burst in the form of the revolution of 1905.

The officials assassinated by the Social Revolutionaries Terrorist Section were Bogolepov, Minister of Education in 1901. This assassination was perpetrated to register Jewish resentment against the educational clause in the previously referred to May Laws. This clause limited the number of Jews attending state-supported schools, and universities, to a number in ratio to the Jewish population as compared to the whole Russian population. This measure was passed because the State financed schools had become flooded with Jewish students. A group of young Jews who had “suffered” when boys, because of the educational clause in the May Laws of 1882, were given the task of murdering the Minister of Education. They had to prove their courage and ability to qualify them for duty with the Terrorist section of the Social Revolutionary Party.

Next year (1902) Sipyagin, Minister of the Interior, was assassinated to emphasize Jewish resentment against the May Law which had reversed the policy of Alexander II, and prohibited Jews from living outside the Pale of Settlement. Jews who had been evicted from their homes in Greater Russia as children under the May Law were chosen to carry out this “Execution”. They made no mistake.

In 1903 Bogdanovich, Governor of Ufa was assassinated; in 1904 Vischelev von Plehve, the Russian Premier was killed; in 1905 the first full scale Russian Revolution broke out. The Grand Duke Sergius, uncle of the Tzar, was assassinated on February 17th. In December, 1905, General Dubrassov suppressed the revolutionaries, but in 1906 he was assassinated by the Terrorist Section.

After the Tzar had blamed the Jews for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in Russia, Baron Ginzberg was instructed to work to bring about the destruction of the Russian Empire. It was agreed that to start the Russo-Japanese War the Rothschild interests in Europe would pretend to be friendly with Russia. They would finance the war on Russia’s behalf while secretly the Rothschild’s partners, Kuhn-Loeb & Co. of New York, would finance the Japanese government. The defeat of Russia was to be made certain by the Rothschilds withdrawing financial aid when it was most needed. Chaos and confusion was to be created within the Russian armed forces in the far East by sabotaging the lines of transport and communication crossing Siberia. This caused both the Russian Army and Navy to run short of supplies and reinforcements.[5]

Then again, a Russian Naval Officer bound from the Baltic to Port Arthur in the Far East, ordered his ships to fire on a British Trawler Fleet fishing on the Dogger Bank in the North Sea. No logical reason was ever forthcoming to explain this wanton act of cruelty and mass murder against a supposedly friendly power. Public reaction in England was such that war was narrowly averted. Because of this incident many British Naval Officers and British Merchant Officers volunteered their services to Japan.

The Japanese government was financed by international loans raised by Jacob Schiff (New York). Schiff was senior partner in Kuhn-Loeb & Co. He co-operated with Sir Ernest Cassels (England) and the Warburgs (Hamburg). Jacob Schiff justified his action of financing the Japanese in the war against Russia in a letter he wrote to Count Witte, the Tzar’s emissary who attended the Peace negotiations held at Portsmouth, U.S.A. in 1905.

“Can it be expected that the influence of the American Jew upon public opinion will be exerted to the advantage of the country which systematically degraded his brethren-in-race ? ... If the Government, now being formed, should not succeed in assuring safety, and equal opportunity throughout the Empire, to the Jewish population, then indeed the time will have come for the Jews in Russia to quit their inhospitable fatherland. While the problem with which the civilized world will then be faced will be enormous, it will be solved, and you, who are not only a far-seeing statesman, but also a great economist, know best that the fate of Russia, and its doom, will then be sealed.”

The hypocrisy of Jacob Schiff can be better appreciated when it is explained that from 1897 he had financed the Terrorists in Russia. In 1904 he helped finance the revolution which broke out in Russia in 1905. He also helped to organize on an international basis the financing of the Russian Revolution which broke out early in 1917, and gave him and his associates their first opportunity to put their Totalitarian Theories into effect.[6]

The Russo-Japanese War was fomented by the international bankers in order to create the conditions necessary for the success of a revolutionary effort to overthrow the power of the Tzars. The plans of the International Bankers were upset when the Jewish-led Mensheviks started a revolution independently in Russia in 1905. When the International Bankers withheld financial support the revolution failed right at the moment it appeared to have reached the pinnacle of success.

Because the Jewish-dominated Mensheviks acted on their own initiative the International Bankers decided that Lenin would conduct their revolutionary programme in Russia from that date onwards.

Lenin was born in the city of Simbirsk, located on the banks of the river Volga. He was the son of a government official who had the title of “Actual State Counsellor”. This title was not inherited, but had been awarded to his father for outstanding service as a school supervisor. Lenin received a university education and was admitted to the practice of Law but he never set himself up in business. Jewish students had persuaded him that it was time to overthrow the power of the privileged classes and time that the masses ruled their own countries. It was while Lenin was toying with the idea that “Necessary reforms could only be brought about speedily by revolutionary action” that his brother was arrested by the police and executed.

Lenin was quickly recognized as an intellectual. He was associating with the leaders of the Revolutionary Party when in his early twenties. It has been previously stated that the wealthy direct influential international money-lenders had helped finance and direct the revolutionary activities within the Pale of Settlement. Lenin wanted to find out all he could about the people who directed the various national revolutionary groups which were united in the common cause of Popular Revolution. In 1895, at the age of twenty-five, he went to Switzerland and joined Plekhanov who had fled there from Russia to escape the fate of Lenin’s older brother Alexander.

While in Switzerland, Lenin and Plekhanov, who were Gentiles, joined forces with Vera Zasulich, Leo Deutch, P. Axelrod, and Julius Tsederbaum, who were all Jews. They formed a Marxist Movement on a world wide scale which they named the “Group for the Emancipation of Labour”. Tsederbaum was a young man like Lenin. He had earned a reputation in “The Pale of Settlement” as a ruthless terrorist, and accomplished agitator. He changed his name to Martov. He became leader of the Mensheviks. Lenin ruled the Bolsheviks in Russia.

The abortive revolutionary attempt by the Mensheviks in 1905 convinced Lenin that the only way to have a successful revolution was to organize an International Planning Committee which would first plan and then direct any agreed upon revolutionary effort. Lenin brought into being the Comintern, as the Central International Revolutionary Planning Committee. The International Bankers picked him as their top-level agent in Russia. Lenin had made a serious study of the Great French Revolution. When he learned that the Secret Power which had brought about the French Revolution was still in active operation he threw in his lot with them. His plan was to let the members of the Comintern think they were the Brains, but to influence their thinking, so that they furthered the Long Range Plans of the International Bankers. If the day came when the revolutionary leaders couldn’t be controlled then they could always be liquidated. Evidence will be given to show how this actually happened.

Having decided his own policy, Lenin returned to Russia with Martov to organize his Money Raising Campaign which consisted of blackmail, bank robbery, extortion, and other kinds of illegal practices. Lenin argued that it was only logical to take money from the people whose government they plotted to overthrow. He made it a principle of his party that all young people who aspired to membership should, like his older brother Alexander, be tested for physical courage. and mental alertness. Lenin insisted that part of every young revolutionary’s training should include robbing a bank, blowing up a police station, and liquidating a traitor or spy.

Lenin also insisted that the revolutionary leaders, in all other countries, should organize an underground system. In discussing, this matter, and writing about it, Lenin declared “everything legal and illegal which furthers the revolutionary movement is justified”. He warned, however, that “the legal party should always be in control of the illegal”. This practice is in force to-day, particularly in Canada and the United States. Communists who openly acknowledge their membership in the Labour Progressive Party take great care not to get involved in a criminal way with the illegal activities of the Communist party’s underground organization. But the “Apparatus” secretly directs operations and benefits financially, as a result.

It is a fact that few of the early leaders of Communism were members of the proletariat. Most of them were well educated intellectuals. In 1895 they caused a series of strikes. Some of these were successfully turned into riots. Thus they brought about one of the fundamental principles of revolutionary technique “developing a minor disturbance until it became a riot, and brought the citizens into actual physical conflict with the police.”

Lenin, Martov, and a number of other revolutionaries, were arrested and sentenced to prison. Lenin finished his prison term in 1897.

It is not generally known that in those days in Russia political offenders exiled to Siberia were not imprisoned if they had not been convicted of any other CRIMINAL offence. Therefore, Lenin took his beautiful young Jewish wife, and her Yiddish speaking mother, into exile with him. During his term of exile Lenin drew an allowance of seven rubles and forty copecks a month from the Russian Government. This was just about enough to pay for room and board. Lenin worked as a bookkeeper to earn extra money. It was while in exile that Lenin, Martov, and an accomplice named Potresov, decided upon their release to publish a newspaper for the purpose of combining the brains and energies of the entire revolutionary movement which at that time was broken up into many factions.

In February 1900 Lenin finished his exile. He was granted permission to return to Switzerland for a visit. He joined the other revolutionary leaders and the agents of the Secret Powers. They approved his idea; and Iskra (The Spark) was published. The editorial board consisted of the older revolutionary leaders — Plekhanov, Zasulich and Axelrod — with Lenin, Potresov and Martov representing the younger members. Lenin’s wife was secretary of the board. Trotsky joined the editorial staff two years later. For a while the paper was actually printed in Munich, Germany. The editorial board met in London.[7] In 1903 it was moved back to Geneva. The copies were smuggled into Russia, and other countries, by way of the underground system organized by the Grand Orient Masons. Because the paper was named “Iskra”, the revolutionaries who subscribed to the Party Line, as defined by the editorial board, became known as Iskrists.

The paper called for a Unification Congress to take place in Brussels in 1903 for the purpose of uniting various Marxist groups. The Russian Social Democrats, Rosa Luxemberg’s Polish Social Democrats, the group for the Emancipation of Labour, and the Maximalist group, were represented. Early in August the Belgium police took action, and the delegates moved over to London en masse. This Congress is of historical importance because during this Congress the ideological split developed between the Iskrists. Lenin became leader of the Bolshevik (or majority group) while Martov became leader of the Mensheviks (or minority group).

When the Mensheviks pulled off the abortive revolution in Russia in 1905, Trotsky proved himself a leader of ability. It is difficult for the uninitiated to understand just what caused the effort to fold up, because the revolutionaries had control of St. Petersburg from January to December 1905. They formed the Petersburg Soviet, Lenin and many of his top-level revolutionary leaders stayed aloof. They let the Menshevik Party handle this revolution.

Lenin had been in Geneva consulting with the Secret Powers when the revolution broke out following the Bloody Sunday tragedy in St. Petersburg in January 1905. He didn’t return to Russia until October. The Bloody Sunday tragedy was blamed on the intolerance of the Tzar, but many who investigated the happenings found ample evidence to convince them that the Bloody Sunday incident had been planned by the Terrorist Group for the purpose of arousing anger and hatred in the hearts of the non-Jewish workers against the Tzar. The incident enabled the leaders of the revolutionary movement to enlist the support of thousands of non-Jewish men and women who, until that sad day, had remained loyal to the Tzar, and spoken of him as “The Little Father”. Bloody Sunday is of great historical importance.

In January, 1905, Russia was at war with Japan. Transportation on the railway across the Russian waste-lands from west to east had been broken down. Reinforcements and supplies had failed to get through to the eastern front due to sabotage. On January 2nd the Russian people were shocked with the news that Port Arthur had fallen to the Japanese. They had lost the war against what they had considered a very second class power.

The Imperial Government, in its attempt to gain the favour of the industrial population, had adopted the policy of encouraging the formation of legal trade unions. Known revolutionaries had to be barred from membership. One of the most active leaders in organizing the Legal Trade Unions was the Russian Orthodox Priest, Father Gapon. The liberal reforms, obtained by non-radical citizens, didn’t please the leaders of the revolutionary party who claimed that “necessary reforms could only be brought about speedily by revolution”. Father Gapon had won so much respect he was welcomed by the Tzar, and his ministers, any time he wished to discuss a weighty labour problem.

On January 2nd, when the bad war news swept the Empire, organized labour disturbances broke out in St. Petersburg’s huge Putilov Works. A strike was called, but because of the general situation, Father Gapon said he would settle the matters in dispute by direct appeal to the Tzar. The idea appealed to the majority of the workers, but the “Radicals” opposed it. However, on Sunday afternoon January 22nd, 1905, thousands of workmen, accompanied by their wives and children, formed into a procession to accompany Father Gapon to the palace gates. According to the authentic reports the procession was entirely orderly. Petitioners carried hastily made banners expressing loyalty to the “Little Father”. At the palace gates, without the slightest warning, the procession was thrown into utter confusion by a withering volley of rifle and machine gun fire. Hundreds of workers and their families were slaughtered. The square in front of the Palace was turned into a space of agonized chaos. January 22nd, 1905 has been known as “Bloody Sunday” ever since. Was Nicholas II responsible ? It is a proven fact that he was not in the Palace, or in the city, at the time. It is known that an officer of the guard ordered the troops to fire. It is quite possible he was a “Cell” carrying out the terrorist policy of his superiors. This act was the “spark” that touched the “tinder” provided by the revolutionary leaders. The “blaze” of a full scale revolution followed.

Regardless of who was responsible, tens of thousands of previously loyal industrial workers joined the Socialist Revolutionary Party, and the movement spread to other cities. The Tzar tried to stem the tide of rebellion. Early in February he ordered an investigation into the St. Petersburg events, by the Shidlovsky Commission. In August he announced provision had been made for the establishment of a democratic representative legislature. This became the Duma. He offered amnesty to all political offenders. It was under this amnesty that Lenin, and his Bolshevik leaders, returned to Russia in October from Switzerland, and other countries abroad. But nothing the Tzar did could stem the tide of revolution.

On October 20th, 1905, the Menshevik-led all Russian Railway Union went on strike. On October 25th general strikes were effective in Moscow, Smolensk, Kursk, and other cities. On October 26th the Revolutionary Petersburg Soviet was founded. It assumed the functions of a national government. The Soviet government was dominated by the Menshevik faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party although the Social Revolutionary Party had representation. The first President was Menshevik Zborovisk. He was quickly displaced by Georgi Nosar. He in turn was superseded by Lev Trotsky who became President on December 9th, 1905. On the 16th of December, a military force arrested Trotsky and 300 members of the Soviet government. There wasn’t a single prominent Bolshevik amongst those arrested. This should prove that Lenin was acting for, and protected by, the Secret Powers which operate behind the government.

The revolution wasn’t quite over. On December 20th a Jew named Parvus assumed control over a new Soviet Executive. He called a general strike in St. Petersburg and 90,000 workers responded. The next day 150,000 workers went on strike in Moscow. Open insurrection broke out in Chita, Kansk and Rostov. On December 30th the troops, and government officials, who had remained loyal to the Tzar, in some miraculous manner regained control. They put an end to the revolution.[8] Tzar Nicholas II kept his promise. The Duma was formed and an elected legislature established.

In 1907 the Fifth Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was held in London. Lenin with 91 delegates represented the Bolshevik party; the Mensheviks led by Martov had 89 delegates; Rosa Luxemberg led her Polish Social democrats with 44 delegates; the Jewish Bund led by Rafael Abramovitch had 55; the Lettish Social Democrats, led by Comrade Herman (Danishevsky) made up the remainder. All told there were 312 delegates of which 116 were, or had been, workers.

This Congress had been called for the purpose of holding a postmortem on the abortive Russian Revolution of 1905. Lenin blamed the failure of the revolutionary effort on lack of co-operation between the Mensheviks and other group leaders. He told the 312 delegates that the Mensheviks had run the whole show and made a mess of things generally. He called for unity of policy and unity of action. He argued that revolutionary action should be planned well in advance, and the element of surprise used to full advantage.

Martov hit back at Lenin. He accused him of failing to give the Menshevik revolutionary effort the support he should have done. He accused him particularly of withholding financial assistance. Martov and the other Jewish groups led by Ross. Luxemberg and Abrahamovitch, were annoyed that Lenin had been able to finance the attendance of the largest number of delegates. They accused him of financing his Bolshevik party by robbery, kidnappings, forgery and theft. They reprimanded him for refusing to contribute a fair proportion of his ill-gotten gains to the central unifying organization. One big laugh was created when one of the Mensheviks accused Lenin of marrying off one of his top officials to a rich widow in order to enrich his party treasury.

Lenin is alleged to have admitted he had done this for the good of the Cause. He maintained that the official he had married oft to the widow was a fine, strong, healthy specimen of humanity. He thought the widow would agree she had gotten full value for her money. It was at this Congress that Stalin, then a very minor character, became attached to Lenin. The Congress finally agreed to closer co-operation between the leaders of the various revolutionary groups and decided who should edit their revolutionary newspapers. They put great emphasis upon propaganda. At this Congress they laid the foundation for a re-organization of their propaganda machine with the understanding that all publications should adopt the same editorial policy “The Party Line”.

In 1908 the Bolsheviks started publishing the “Proletarie”. Lenin, Dubrovinsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev were the editors. The Mensheviks published “Golos Sotsial-Demokrata”. Plekhanov, Axelrod, Martov, Dan and Martynov (Pikel) were the editors. All editors were Jewish except Lenin and Plekhanov. Trotsky started a semi-independent publication named “Vienna Pravda”.

In 1909 Lenin won the unconditional support of two Jewish leaders, Zinoviev and Kamenev. They became known as “The Troika” and this friendship endured until Lenin’s death in 1924.

After the Fifth Congress of the Russian Social Democrats Labour Party held in London in 1907, Lenin decided to find out how courageous and trustworthy his new disciple Stalin was. He also wished to convince the leaders of the other revolutionary groups that he was financially independent. To accomplish this dual purpose he instructed Stalin to rob the Tiflis Bank. Stalin picked as his accomplice an Armenian named Petroyan, who afterwards changed his name to Kamo. They discovered the Bank was going to transfer a large sum of money from one place to another by public conveyance. They waylaid the conveyance. Petroyan tossed a bomb. Everything, and everyone, in the conveyance was blown to smithereens, except the strong box containing the cash — 250,000 rubles. Thirty people lost their lives. The loot was turned over to Lenin. Stalin had proven himself as a potential leader.

The Bolsheviks encountered difficulty using the stolen rubles for party purposes because most of the currency consisted of 500 ruble notes. Lenin conceived the idea of distributing the 500 ruble notes among trustworthy Bolsheviks in various countries. They were instructed to get rid of as much of the money as they could on a given day. This directive was carried out, but two of Lenin’s agents fell foul of the police during the transaction. One was Olga Ravich, who afterwards married Zinoviev, Lenin’s great friend. The other was Meyer Wallach, whose real name was Finklestein. He afterwards changed his name again to Maxim Litvinov. He became known throughout the world as Stalin’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939.[9]

After the revolution of 1905 had ended, Tzar Nicholas II set about making many radical reforms. He planned turning the Russian absolute monarchy into a limited monarchy such as is enjoyed by the British people. After the Duma began to function the Premier, Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin became a great reformer. He dominated Russian politics and drafted the “Stolypin Constitution” which guaranteed civil rights to peasants who were about 85 per cent of the entire Russian population. His land reforms granted financial assistance to the peasants so they could purchase their own farms. His idea was that the logical way to defeat those who advocated the communal way of life was to encourage individual ownership.

But the revolutionary leaders wanted to usurp political and economic power. They were not the least bit satisfied with reforms. In 1906 the Terrorist Group attempted to assassinate Stolypin. They destroyed his home with a bomb. Several more plots were hatched to do away with the most progressive premier the Russians could have hoped to have. On a dark September night, in 1911, the Great Emancipator was shot to death, in cold blood, while attending a gala performance at the Kiev theatre. The assassin was a Jewish lawyer named Mordecai Bogrov.

In 1907 the International Bankers organized the Wall Street Panic in order to reimburse themselves for the money spent in connection with the Russian wars and revolutions. They were also financing the preliminary stages of the Chinese revolution which broke out in 1911.

Many of Stolypin’s proposed reforms were carried out after his death. In 1912 an industrial insurance law gave all industrial workmen compensation for sickness and injury to the extent of two-thirds of their regular pay for sickness, and three-fourths, for accidents. Newspapers of the revolutionary parties were given legal status for the first time since they had been printed. Public schools were expanded. The election laws were revised in order to give more representative government. In 1913, the government of the Tzar of Russia, granted a general amnesty for all political prisoners. Immediately they were released from prison they began to plot with renewed energy the overthrow of the Russian Government. Terrorists advocated the liquidation of the Royal Family. But the reforms had appealed to the vast majority of the Russian people. The revolution in Russia looked like a dead issue for the time being. Those who directed the World Revolutionary Movement decided they would give Russia a rest for the time being. They concentrated their efforts in other countries. Portugal and Spain came in for attention.

Because of the Red Fog created by Communist propaganda, and an organized campaign of “L’Infamie” carried on in Russia, as it had been carried on in France and England prior to those revolutions, it is difficult for the average person to believe that the Russian Tzars and Nobles were anything else than big bearded monsters who enslaved the peasants, raped their young women, and speared babies on the points of their swords while galloping through villages on horse back. In order to prove that the last of the Tzars was a reformer we will quote Bertram Wolfe, because Bertram Wolfe was anti-Tzarist and pro-revolutionary. Wolfe says on page 360 of his book “Three who made a Revolution” :

“Between 1907 and 1914 under Stolypin’s land reform laws, 2,000,000 peasants and their families receded from the village mir and became individual proprietors.

All through the war (1914 -1917) the movement continued so that by January 1st, 1916, 6,200,000 peasant families out of approximately 16,000,000 who had become eligible, had made application for separation.

Lenin saw the matter as a race with time between Stolypin’s reforms and the next revolutionary upheaval. Should the upheaval be postponed for a couple of decades the new land measures would transform the countryside so it would no longer be a revolutionary force.

How near Lenin came to being right is proved by the fact that in 1917, when he called upon the peasants to Take the Land they already owned more than three-fourths of it.”
http://www.lovethetruth.com/books/pawns/07.htm
 
Old May 16th, 2017 #19
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,651
littlefieldjohn
Default Israeli minister: ‘The time has come’ to kill Bashar Assad

Lying piled atop lying . Helped along by the lying , jew controlled media ,and of course their dummified white followers.

Quote:
Israeli minister: ‘The time has come’ to kill Bashar Assad

Yoav Galant says revelation that the Syrian president is executing….


An Israeli minister called for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar Assad on Tuesday, saying he “does not have a place in this world.”


The reality of the situation in Syria is that they are executing people, using directed chemical attacks against them, and the latest extreme — burning their corpses, something we haven’t seen in 70 years,” Galant said, in a reference to the Holocaust. As it has been for the last 70 years the holohoax lie is used to justify more lies and crimes.

The minister said Assad’s actions in Syria amount to nothing less than a “genocide,” with “hundreds of thousands killed.”

On Monday, the United States State Department accused the Assad regime of carrying out mass killings of thousands of prisoners and burning the bodies in a large crematorium outside the capital.

“In my view, we are crossing a red line. And in my view, the time has come to assassinate Assad. It’s as simple as that."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli...ssinate-assad/

Last edited by littlefieldjohn; May 16th, 2017 at 06:10 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 PM.
Page generated in 0.37282 seconds.