October 28, 2007

The Signs of Resistance to Jewish Supremacism.

Updated November 11, 2007

I update as many of my articles as I can but, as far as this one is concerned, there are two additional reasons for doing so. Firstly, the error over conrad black. I failed to consult my own website where i’d clearly stated black wasn’t jewish. I’m afraid that once again i’d got caught out by that bizarre phenomenon of gentiles talking like likudniks. There’s a temptation to believe that someone who spouts militant likudnik fundamentalism must be jewish. This temptation is especially strong since zionism is not in gentiles’ interests.

Secondly, as a result of another mistake, i failed to pick up on the full extent of the anti-zionist outburst caused by the passage of the kyl/lieberman amendment to the senate’s defence authorization bill. This out and out likudnik amendment gave george bush the authority to attack iran. It was such a blatant example of the jews-only lobby manipulating american politicians into promoting the interests of the jews-only state in palestine against america’s interests that it caused a small political reaction. Mike gravel expressed his outrage. Seymour hersh waded in by criticizing jewish money men. And then philip weiss and william cook defended gravel’s and hersh’s statements. It is rare indeed for diverse anti-zionists to react in common.

In this second edition I’ve added a few more names to the list of those critical of jewish supremacism. This is not an historical work about those who have spoken out against jewish supremacism. I’ve just listed those I remember and apologize to those I’ve missed out. Hopefully, after further editions, this article will gradually approximate more of an historical record.

Since the second world war, jewish elites in america and other western, over- industrialized, countries have mushroomed in economic and political power until today they compose a significant part of the west’s ruling elites or, as is the case in america, its dominant part. These elites promote jewish supremacism. This ideology consists of the following components:
* uncritical support for the jews-only state in palestine;
* uncritical support for jewish expansionism inside the jews-only state and in the occupied territories;
* the continual extension of the definition of anti-semitism;(1)
* the vilification, and persecution, of those who seek the abolition of the jews-only state;
* the vilification, and persecution, of those who criticize the barbaric policies of the jews-only state;
* the hyping of islamophobia, the racial hatred of all moslems;(2)
* the manipulation of america and other western countries into fighting serial wars in the middle east in order to boost the military dominance of the jews-only state in the region; and,
* the promotion of what the likudniks call ‘world war four’ against islamofascism whose goal is the break up of all moslem states in the greater middle east from turkey to pakistan and from lebanon to saudi arabia.

Jewish racists seek to transform the ‘war on terror’ into the fourth world war. They believe that islamofascism is "a threat equal to or greater than World War II and the Cold War." (Jim Lobe ‘Et Tu, Cal’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=43 July 06, 2007). They believe it poses a greater threat to america and the western world than nazi germany or the soviet union. "Advocates of the "war on terror" fantasize about the Muslim world as a Soviet Union-type challenge to the United States." (Juan Cole ‘Combating Muslim Extremism’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/cole November 1, 2007). The stark raving paranoia of likudnik propagandists is typified by one of the likudniks’ many candidates for america’s presidential elections in 2008. "For John McCain to proclaim that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat to US security than was the Soviet Union, which had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at this country, is to enter Alice's Wonderland." (Juan Cole ‘Combating Muslim Extremism’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/cole November 1, 2007).

In this manichean cosmology or, more accurately, warmongering likudnik paranoia, yasser arafat was adolf hitler; osama bin laden is hitler, mahmoud ahmadinejad is hitler. In fact anyone who criticizes the existence of the jews-only state, or its policies, or any aspect of jewish power in any country around the world, is deemed an antisemite i.e. a potential nazi or, in today’s nomenclature, a sympathizer of islamofascism.

The likudniks hype up the threat posed by islamofascists by lumping together all moslem organizations as if they formed a cohesive group. They imply that all of these disparate, often mutually hostile, groups from al qaeda, the baathists, to shiite iran, and hezbollahare part of a worldwide conspiracy against jews and the western world.(3) They often refer to so-called islamofascists as islamists in order to mislead western public opinion into believing that all moslems are islamofascists and thus potential nazis. Jewish racists are incensed about accusations of a global jewish conspiracy but they invariably resort to wild, paranoid, accusations that all moslems around the world are involved in a global conspiracy against jews. The neocons are constantly fighting worldwide conspiracies against the jewish people. Soviet russia was engaged in a vast conspiracy involving terrorists around the world. So was saddam. And now iran.

The west’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq have been a considerable benefit to the jews-only state in palestine but a disaster for america and the west. An attack/invasion on iran is likely to be an even greater benefit to the jews-only state but a catastrophe for the western world. It is remarkable that jewish supremacists have been so successful in pressuring and manipulating america and other western states into fighting or supporting jewish race wars on behalf of the jews-only state in palestine. What is even more remarkable is that despite western countries suffering because of their disastrous invasions of afghanistan and iraq, western political leaders seem willing to fight more such wars no matter what it costs their own countries in lives, treasure, and reputation. They have become such blatant quislings to jewish supremacism that they are willing to fight proxy zionist wars no matter what the public opposition to these wars. Never have so many dupes been willing to lay down the lives of their citizens and their countries’ national interests, for so few and for such dishonourable objectives.

The mouthpieces of america’s ruling jewish elite who extol or defend jewish supremacism are not merely the neo-cons but neo-liberals, neo-libertarians, neo-christians (so-called christian zionists), neo-lefties (such as chomsky and zunes), neo-greenies, and neo-pacifists.(4) They are willing to drive the western world into the so-called fourth world war because this would provide an enormous boost for jewish supremacism in the middle east even though it would throw the west into a political, military, and economic, catastrophe and provoke a global economic recession. They care more about the jews-only state than they do their political or religious principles. They even put their loyalties to the jews-only state above their loyalties to the country in which they were born and raised despite traitorously professing their loyalty to the latter.

Since september 11, 2001 only a handful of commentators have been willing to warn of the dangers posed by america’s ruling jewish elite on america’s political system and its foreign policies. But, as the drumbeats for a proxy zionist war against iran become faster and louder, more seem willing to take on the challenge. The choice is either confront and marginalize jewish supremacists or allow them to bribe, lie, and manipulate, the western world into the so-called ‘fourth world war’ with all the death and destruction this will cause.

This article lists, in a roughly chronological order, some of the most prominent opponents of jewish supremacism or what could be called the likudniks’ politically kosher paradigm.(5) It provides quotes from three distinct types of politician/commentator. The first consists of those who make one-off comments about an aspect of jewish supremacism and thereafter ignores the issue. It is bizarre that such people could comment on what they clearly regard as a critical political issue but then retire from the battle. The most likely reason for this is their fear that further comments would bring about retaliation which would damage their reputation or careers. The second type consists of zionists who are unhappy with some aspects of jewish supremacism. They are the jews-only state’s loyal opposition and include such people as juan cole, norman finckelstein, thomas friedman, etc. The third group consists of those who believe that jewish supremacism needs to be systematically dissected and condemned and are willing to put up with whatever punishment the jews-only lobby tries to inflict on them. Those in the first two categories far outnumber those in the last. Commentators who make solitary comments are to be applauded, especially so since their criticisms suggest such views may be more widespread than is thought. However, the greatest applause has to go to those on the front line who confront jewish supremacism head-on, on an almost daily basis.

Senator William Fulbright - 1962.
"Senator William Fulbright, then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, conducted hearings on foreign influence-buying in Congress in the 1960s. He later said: "I hadn’t realized before the hearings that the Jewish lobby was so powerful. … I didn’t know they were subverting the Congress." He also said: "The lobby can just about tell the President what to do when it comes to Israel. Its influence in Congress is pervasive and, I think, profoundly harmful...to us and ultimately to Israel itself." These comments came from one of the most influential U.S. senators of the twentieth century. Senator Fulbright was known for his courage – for example, in 1954 he challenged Senator Joseph McCarthy, then at the height of his powers. Senator Fulbright also raised strong objections to President Kennedy about the impending Bay of Pigs Cuban invasion. In 1966, Fulbright published The Arrogance of Power in which he attacked the justification for the Vietnam War and Congress’ failure to set limits on it." (Ron Forthofer ‘Lobbying for a foreign country’ http://imeu.net/news/article006305.shtml August 27, 2007).

Tom Hayden
Hayden turned into a Quisling for the Likudniks - 1982.
In 1981 tom hayden, whose wife at the time was jane fonda, was seeking election to california’s state assembly. He chose to contest a district only to find it controlled by two brothers: howard berman and his chief operative michael berman. "I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them. "I represent the Israeli defense forces," Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of power. He (michael berman) and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition, so they were considering "renting" me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a "good friend of Israel."" (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

If hayden was to win the crucial jewish vote in the district he was contesting he needed to show his support for the jews-only state in palestine and win approval from jewish opinion formers. "However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified "kosher," not once but over and over again. The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a "friend of Israel." In my case, a key to the "friendship issue" was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared "kosher" by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel." (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

The price hayden had to pay to win approval from the jewish community increased dramatically in the summer of 1982 when the jews-only state launched an illegal and pre-emptive invasion of lebanon to drive the palestine liberation organization out of the country. "Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we (he and fonda) should go to the Middle East, but only as long as the Israeli "incursion," as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon, with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else. For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s "right" to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America. Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: "Tom, you can’t do this. You have to stop." (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006). Hayden stopped legitimizing the invasion but did not criticize or condemn it and, as a consequence, "I easily won the general election in November."

Hayden now describes his involvement in these events as "a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." Alexander cockburn was much more trenchant about hayden’s quisling behaviour. "Twenty four years ago Ariel Sharon’s artillerymen bombarded Beirut, causing huge terrible civilian casualties, just as Israel’s bombs are doing today. The destruction was so savage that NYT’s Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman complained bitterly in an indiscreet in-house memo when his editors axed the word "indiscriminate" which Friedman had used to describe the bombing. I published that internal memo in the Village Voice and Friedman thought he was going to lose his job. Standing next to those Israeli gunners and cheering them on were Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, eager to promote Hayden’s political career in California. It was one of the most disgusting political spectacles of the 1980s and I wrote angrily that "in the halls of the National Gallery in Washington DC there are 54 portraits of Benedict Arnold. None look alike. All resemble Tom Hayden."" (Quoted in Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

Fears the Likudniks are going to throw Mid East into Crisis - July 2006.
"An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the "Lebanonization" of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into "a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties." This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain." (Tom Hayden ‘I Was Israel’s Dupe’ http://www.counterpunch.org/Hayden07202006.html July 20, 2006).

Paul Findley - 1985.
"In my 1985 book, "They Dare to Speak Out," I detailed the tactics used to silence criticism of Israeli policies. One of the groups employing these tactics is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. On its Web site, AIPAC calls itself "America's pro-Israel lobby" and boasts a New York Times description of it as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel." All citizens have the right to band together and push for policies they believe are right. But AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups do not plead the case for Israel on the stage of public opinion. Instead, they often resort to smear campaigns and intimidation to clear the floor so that only their side is heard." (Paul Findley ‘Carter enters lions' den’ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0702070020feb07,0,5388645.story February 7, 2007).

Marlon Brando - 1994.
On a prime time television show, marlon brando criticized the jewish domination of hollywood and his comments were published around the world. But everyone knows hollywood is dominated by jews so what was unique about his outburst was that he was willing to discuss the issue in public. What is also interesting is what happened to brando after he broke this jewish taboo. "Jewish power is such that they can make craven even the greatest of Hollywood icons. During an appearance on the Larry King television show, actor Marlon Brando said that "Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews." Brando contended that Jews are always depicted as humorous, kind, loving, and generous while they slander every other racial group, "but are ever so careful to ensure that there is never any negative image of the Kike." Jewish groups came down hard on Brando, stating in their press releases that they would see to it that he "would never work again." No one in the Jewish press seemed to notice that the threat simply validated Brando’s observation of their unchallenged media power. Brando was so intimidated that he had to arrange an audience with Wiesenthal himself. Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for forgiveness for his truth-telling. Wiesenthal absolved him for his sin, and Brando has said nothing but positive things about Jews ever since." (David Duke ‘Who Runs the Media?’ http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_06.html).

William Cash - October 1994.
In the early 1990s britain's right wing political magazine, the spectator, was edited by dominic lawson and was owned by conrad black who also owned an array of publications in the jews-only state in palestine including the jerusalem post. Nevertheless, lawson published an article by william cash about the rise of jewish power in america. Cash, the son of the right-wing tory mp bill cash, commented on an article in the october 1994 issue of america’s vanity fair magazine, 'Redefining Power in America: The New Establishment', listing america’s 100 richest and most powerful people. He drew a conclusion from the article that vanity fair had carefully evaded: that many of those listed were jews. Just in case he might be thought a tad antisemitic he shored up his contention by quoting from a book about jews in hollywood written by a jewish author. "It should first be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald's model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east." (William Cash 'Kings of the Deal' The Spectator October 29th 1994).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In many ways the cash affair was a foretaste of what happened twelve years later when mearsheimer and walt published their essay on the jewish lobby. Firstly, just as cash had drawn his conclusions from evidence provided by a jewish author, so mearsheimer and walt went out of their way to back up their conjectures by citing copious jewish sources. In both cases, such a tactic proved to be no defence because whilst it is possible to praise jewish interests it is not possible to criticize them. Jews can boast about their achievements, non-jews can proclaim such achievements, but no-one, neither jew nor non-jew, can criticize such achievements. In other words, jewish taboos are not on topics or ethnic groups but on criticisms. As far as the jewish elite is concerned criticisms are the first steps towards the re-establishment of extermination camps and cannot be tolerated. Secondly, cash’s focus had been on the jewish elite whilst the focus of mearsheimer and walt had been on the jewish lobby, and yet they were all were condemned for being anti-semitic because the jewish lobby insisted their focus was on the jewish people.(6)

There is some amusing speculation about cash seeking forgiveness from those he’d offended. And, even more hilariously, doing so in a way that upstaged the great marlon brando who even at that time was often regarded as a legend.(7)

George W. Ball.
"Words spoken years ago by George W. Ball, a distinguished diplomat, author and champion of human rights, have vivid, new currency: "When Israel’s interests are being considered, members of Congress act like trained poodles. They jump dutifully through hoops held by Israel’s lobby." In the same interview, Ball said, "The lobby’s most powerful instrument of intimidation is the reckless charge of anti-Semitism." Sadly, his words ring true today, verified by my own experiences and those of many of my colleagues in the U.S. legislature." (Paul Findley ‘Study shows undue Israeli influence on U.S. policy’ http://www.sj-r.com/sections/opinion/stories/83937.asp April 19, 2006).

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

Tony Judt - October 2003.
Bush as the Jews’ Ventriloquist's Dummy.
"The Middle East peace process is finished. Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the "road map." The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: "It's all Arafat's fault."" (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).

The Jews-only State dragging America’s Reputation through the Mire.
"Israel's behavior has been a disaster for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to withdraw from land seized and occupied in war. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent states. Washington's unconditional support for Israel even in spite of (silent) misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith." (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).

Proposal for a Binational State.
"The time has come to think the unthinkable. The two-state solution, the core of the Oslo process and the present "road map", is probably already doomed. With every passing year we are postponing an inevitable, harder choice that only the far right and far left have so far acknowledged, each for its own reasons. The true alternative facing the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. That is indeed how the hard-liners in Sharon's cabinet see the choice; and that is why they anticipate the removal of the Arabs as the ineluctable condition for the survival of a Jewish state. But what if there were no place in the world today for a "Jewish state"? What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural. "Christian Europe," pace M. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, is a dead letter; Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others, as any visitor to London or Paris or Geneva will know. A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the alternatives are far, far worse." (Tony Judt ‘Israel: The Alternative’ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671 October 23, 2003).(8) It should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of political integrity that the jews-only state has chosen the path of ethnic cleansing or as the nazis called it lebensraum.

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

Jews in Bush's Administration:
Ari Fleischer: White House Press Secretary

Josh Bolten: Deputy Chief of Staff

Ken Melman: White House Political Director

David Frum: Speechwriter

Brad Blakeman: White House Director of Scheduling

Dov Zakheim: Undersecretary of Defense (Controller)

Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense

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

Adam Goldman: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community

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

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

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

Douglas Feith: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

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

Daniel Kurtzer: Ambassador to Israel

Cliff Sobel: Ambassador to the Netherlands

Stuart Bernstein: Ambassador to Denmark

Nancy Brinker: Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin: Ambassador to Singapore

Ron Weiser: Ambassador to Slovakia

Mel Sembler: Ambassador to Italy

Martin Silverstein: Ambassador to Uruguay

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

Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 2.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so. We have to ask ourselves what motivates American Jews to gain such political power. Is it a genuine care for American interests? Soon, following the growing number of American casualties in Iraq, American people will start to ask themselves this very question. Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters. The one-sided pro-Zionist take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American veto against every 'anti-Israeli' UN resolution, the war against Iraq and now the militant intentions against Syria, all prove beyond doubt that it is Zionist interests that America is serving. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionist) do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least. Whether the Americans enjoy the deterioration of their state's affairs will no doubt be revealed soon." (Gilad Atzmon ‘On Anti-Semitism’ http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/onanti.html December 20, 2003).(9)

The jewish neocons, of course, are allowed to joke about such a conspiracy firstly to demonstrate that they have the authority to talk about such issues without any fear of chastisement but also to tempt critics to criticize jewish power so they can be denounced as anti-semitic peddlers of jewish conspiracy theories. "Neoconservatives said they were generally supportive of Giuliani's positions and saw them as being in line with those taken by the other leading Republican presidential candidates. "I would say, as a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy, that I think Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice - and Romney," said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. Kristol said that none of the leading Republican candidates "buys any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy."" (Michael Cooper and Marc Santora ‘Hawkish handlers guide Giuliani on foreign policy’ http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/24/america/camp.php October 24, 2007). It ought to be mentioned that although they’d been around as a cohesive political force since the early 1970s, at the turn of the century the jewish neocons were still successfully denying there was any connection between them and that there was any such thing as neoconservatism. They were able to denounce those using the label as anti-semites but, after the america’s proxy zionist invasion of iraq, the term has become so popular they’ve had to give up the pretense that there’s no substance behind the concept. This is one of the few battles the jewish neocons have lost over the last thirty five years.

Thomas Friedman - February 2004.
"Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, dropped a bombshell this week when he said he was laying plans to withdraw most Israeli settlements in Gaza and to move others in the West Bank. It's not surprising that this potential breakthrough move came from Mr. Sharon, since he has the two other main players in the Arab-Israeli drama under house arrest. That is, Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates, and by political handlers telling the president not to put any pressure on Israel in an election year, all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing." (Thomas L. Friedman ‘A Rude Awakening’ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E2D6123BF936A35751C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/H/Hezbollah February 5, 2004).

Ralph Nader - June 2004.
On june 21, 2004, ralph nader, the well known consumer rights’ activist and prospective presidential candidate, took the dramatic, and radical, step of accusing george bush jnr and the american congress of being zionist puppets. "The subservience of our congressional and White House puppets to Israeli military policy has been consistent. They’re almost all puppets. There are two sets: Congressional puppets and White House puppets. When the chief puppeteer (ariel sharon) comes to Washington, the puppets prance." (Ralph Nader ‘Ralph Nader: Conservatively Speaking’ The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html June 21, 2004).

Nader reiterated the same point a week later, "What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."" (Nader's speech to the conference of the Council for the National Interest entitled, "The Muslim Vote in Election 2004" quoted in ‘Ralph Nader Calls Israel a "Puppeteer"’ IsraelNN.com http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=64895 June 30, 2004).

The national director of the anti-discrimination league, abraham h foxman, complained that nader was an anti-semite. "He said Nader was continuing to spread a "canard" about the Jews. "He fuels the conspiracy theory that the Jews control the White House and the Congress. And it's a lot more sinister after Iraq."" (‘Nader stands by claim that White House, Congress are Israeli "puppets"’ August 14, 2004).

On august 5, 2004 nader responded to these accusations by mentioning a zionist joke, "The Israelis have a joke for the obvious, that the United States is the second state of Israel." (Quoted in Ralph Nader ‘Nader Writes to the Anti-Defamation League on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119 August 5, 2004). He also endorsed thomas friedman’s statement quoted above.

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

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

In october, nader condemned the adl for its usual trick of putting anti-semitic words in the mouths of its opponents in order to denounce them for being … anti-semitic! "My comments related to the Israeli government, with the fifth most powerful and second most modern military machine in the world, through its prime minister possessing the role of puppeteer to puppets in the White House and Congress. You distorted the comment into "Jews controlling the U.S. government." Shame on you. You know better. If you do not see the difference between those two designations, you yourself are treading on racist grounds." (Ralph Nader ‘Nader to Anti-Defamation League: Criticizing Israel is not Anti-Semitism’ http://votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=276 October 12, 2004). And this was the last time nader spoke about this issue which has become the most fundamental political issue in america and the rest of the western world.

Naomi Klein - September 2004.
Naomi klein has rightly pointed out that sharon succeeded in foisting his policies on the bush regime after the bombings of september 11, 2001. Sharon with the aid of america’s jewish elite turned bush’s so-called ‘war against terrorism’ into america’s war against terrorists threatening the jews-only state in palestine. "Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).

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

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

Scowcroft was duly punished for his sin of exposing bush’s subservience to the jews-only state in palestine. "Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little finger." As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know, and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non grata at the White House." (Ray McGovern ‘Helping Israel Die’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=10500 February 10, 2007).(10)

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

Bush is Ariel Sharon's Poodle.
"If Bush were aware that his army has failed to "secure Iraq," he might wonder at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might even stop being Richard Perle's puppet. Or Ariel Sharon's poodle." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Not One Bad News Bearer in Bush's Inner Circle’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01202005.html January 20, 2005).

America is a Colony of the Jews-only State in Palestine.
"Bush has made the US into a colony of Israel. The US is incurring massive debt and loss of both life and reputation in order to silence Muslim opposition to Israel’s theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights. That is what the "war on terror" is about." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Bush Must Go: Only Impeachment Can Stop Him’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01152007.html January 15, 2007).

The Likudniks are Nazis.
"Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Is the Military the Last Hope? Cracks in the Pentagon’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02142007.html February 14, 2007).

Bush’s attack on Iran would be a ‘greater Evil than that committed by the Nazis’.
"Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dump the Dollar! How the World Can Stop Bush’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02122007.html February 12, 2007).

Likudniks’ Islamophobic Hysteria.
"In America today blind ignorant hate against Muslims has been brought to a boiling point. The fear and loathing is so great that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress offer scant opposition to the Bush administration's plan to make Iran the third Middle East victim of American aggression in the 21st century. Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The Politics of Blind Hatred: Who Are the Fanatics?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09052007.html September 5, 2007).

Eric Altman - April 2005.
The Neocons are mostly Jewish.
"The ranks of the Neoconservatives were largely composed of former sectarian Marxists of mostly Jewish academic origin, who transferred their intellectual allegiance to capitalism and American military power but retained their obsession with theological disputation and political purity." (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

Jewish Financiers fund Jewish Publications.
With the backing of jewish and zionist financiers, the jewish neocons either took over established publications, or set up new ones, to promote the interests of the jews-only state. "These media products included such Bradley (together with Scaife and the Olin Foundation) funded organs as The National Interest, The Public Interest (both overseen by Irving Kristol), Commentary (funded by Rupert Murdoch and the Bradley, Olin and Scaife foundations among others), The New Criterion (funded with Scaife and Olin), Reason (funded by Scaife, among others), The American Spectator (funded with Scaife, Olin and Bradley money), The Manhattan Institute's "City Journal," the Heritage Foundation's "Policy Review," and AEI's "American Enterprise," all of which are generously funded by the same foundations. This ideological/media universe also includes William Buckley's National Review, Steve Forbes' Forbes, Robert Bartley's Wall Street Journal editorial pages, and Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, New York Post, and Fox News Channel and network." (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

The Jewish Neocons take over the American Media.
The jewish neocons have become the dominant force within the american media. "Neoconservatives have never lacked for publications from which to pontificate. In fact, for much of the movement's three and a half decades observers have quipped that it has enjoyed more magazines than members. At least until Francis Fukuyama completes his plans to replace The National Interest with a new Neocon foreign policy journal, to be called, "The American Interest," the neocons will have to make do with the following media and governmental institutions:

* Commentary
* The Weekly Standard
* Most of National Review
* Half The New Republic
* City Journal
* The New Criterion
* The Washington Times
* Insight
* The New York Post
* The New York Sun
* The editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal
* 60 or so percent of the Washington Post op-ed page
* A twice-a-week appearance on the New York Times op-ed page
* All of Fox News
* Much of MSNBC
* A bit of CNN
* More and more of PBS
* The American Enterprise Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* The Hoover Institution
* The Project for the New American Century
* The US National Security Council
* The Department of Defense
* Parts of the World Bank and the UN Ambassador's office
* A healthy chunk of the State Department
* The Vice-President's office
* And an unknown percentage of what is politely referred to as "the president's mind."" (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

The Jewish Neocons take-over of the American Media has led to their take-over America’s Foreign Policies.
"The distance between their conquest of the media to their conquest of US foreign policy was only a short step." (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

Jewish Neocons are perhaps the world’s most paranoid, warmongering, conspiracy mongers. They’re Lyricists not Intellectuals.
"Despite the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and the fact that most Neocons bet wrong on the 2000 presidential election, excitedly preferring John McCain to George W. Bush, and despite the fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union had demonstrated just how fundamentally wrong had been their analysis of the relative power of both superpowers for most of their existence, they, nevertheless, were the ones with actionable ideas lying around when it came time to find an appropriately macho-tinged response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

America’s jewish Neocons have created a ruling Caste System which means as long as you’re Jewish (or Jew-ish) you can demonize whoever you want, be as malignant and fundamentally wrong as you like, as many times as you like, no matter how catastrophic the consequences, and the jewish controlled media will encourage you to continue fabricating whatever barbaric policies best suits the Interests of Jewish Supremacism.
One day a student might do his/her phd research on the neocons’ innumerable errors of judgment. For example, the invasion of iraq would be a cakewalk. But in today’s jewish-owned/controlled media it doesn’t matter how wrong headed you are as long as you’re jewish then your errors will be ignored and you’ll be encouraged to continue spouting spouting pro-jewish propaganda. If ageing neocons can’t pump out as many poisonous diatribes as they once did they can always pass on this responsibility to their well trained offspring. The neocons are a self perpetuating ruling caste who will drive america into a meltdown for the benefit of their beloved jews-only state. "Irving Kristol grew too old to direct a movement but his son William will be around to do so for decades. Norman Podhoretz cannot fulminate against the evil that lurks in liberal hearts as often as he used to, but now his son John does so twice a week. Every few years, we read of some set of events that imply the "end of Neoconservatism." Don't believe the hype. It would be hard to imagine a more profound rebuke to their world view than the various events that have followed in the wake of the Iraqi invasion. The United States is now less safe, poorer, more hated and more constrained in its ability to fight terrorism than it was before the tragic loss of blood and treasure the war has demanded. And yet the Neocons have admitted almost no mistakes and continue to be rewarded with plum posts in the Bush administration. What doesn't kill them just makes them stronger. In their example lies many lessons for liberals, alas." (Eric Alterman ‘Neoconning the Media’ http://www.mediatransparency.org/neocons.php April 5, 2005).

Mearsheimer and Walt - March 2006.
Mearsheimer and walt published their tract, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" in march 2006 and an edited version of the paper appeared in the london review of books on march 23, 2006. In this essay the authors accused the jews-only lobby of seriously distorting america’s foreign policies and blamed it for pushing the bush regime into an invasion of iraq which was not in america’s interests. The essay received little attention from america’s mainstream, i.e. zionist dominated, media.

Arnaud De Borchgrave - April 24, 2006.
Aipac avoids having to register as a Foreign Agent because of Wealthy Dual Citizens.
"With some 200 employees and 100,000 wealthy benefactors, AIPAC claims it doesn’t have to register as a foreign agent because all its funding comes from U.S. sources. There are also over 500,000 Israelis with dual citizenship, a number of them AIPAC contributors." (Arnaud De Borchgrave ‘Touching the third rail’ http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1157963.php/Touching_the_third_rail April 24, 2006).

Aipac Espionage against America.
Clearly, the FBI did not understand the role and power of AIPAC when it launched an investigation into espionage on behalf of Israel. The accused was Larry Franklin, an Iranian expert in Feith’s 1,600-strong Pentagon shop. Classified Pentagon documents on Iran had been shared with senior AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. An Israeli diplomat was the ultimate recipient. When Franklin was arrested, the Israeli was promptly recalled. AIPAC fired its two senior officials who then were also indicted on charges of receiving and transmitting classified defense information in violation, not of the Espionage Act, but an obscure World War I-era statute. Franklin was sentenced to a prison term of almost 13 years, but allowed to remain free with a promise of a much-reduced sentence if he helped the prosecution of Rosen-Weissman. But Rosen, as AIPAC’s brilliant director of foreign policy issues, has a global Rolodex of 6,000 influential friends. For the past 23 years, he has been the architect of numberless Congressional initiatives to meet Israel’s strategic and funding needs." (Arnaud De Borchgrave ‘Touching the third rail’ http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1157963.php/Touching_the_third_rail April 24, 2006).

General Wesley Clark - January 04, 2007
Arianna huffington was lucky enough to be around when wes clark sounded off about the corruption of american politics. "At the packed-to-the-rafters brunch preceding Nancy Pelosi's formal swearing in, Melinda and I ran into Wes Clark (and I mean that literally; like I said, it was packed). Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece, which Clark quickly forwarded to my BlackBerry from his Trio, de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal. "How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the military option is off the table, but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It's not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It's sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships." When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." At one point Melinda reminded him that she was taking down everything he said (a fact that would have been hard to miss, since she was taking notes on a not-inconspicuous legal pad). His response: 'Yes, I know." For Clark, this is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the U.S. "I'm worried about the surge," he said. "But I'm worried about this even more."" (Arianna Huffington ‘D.C. Notes: Wes Clark is Steamed’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dc-notes-wes-clark-is-_b_37837.html January 4, 2007).

Clark’s statement was inevitably lambasted by the jews-only lobby in america and its allies in the zionist dominated media and, like so many before him, he was forced to retract by his likudnik masters. "Within days, the general was in caught in a familiar crossfire, smeared as an instigator of anti-Semitism by some Republican Jewish organizations, his remarks headlined as "Protocols of the New York Money People" by a Wall Street Journal columnist. Soon he was engaged in a humiliating apology and repentance ritual with Abe Foxman of the ADL." (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007). This retraction is why it’s possible clark might still become hilary clinton’s new secretary of state for defence if she’s elected president.

However, what was unusual about the reaction to clark’s outburst was that there were a small number of voices, jewish ones, willing to insist he’d said nothing wrong. "For within a day or two, one could read in the blogs some surprising assertions that amounted to a truth defense of Wes Clark. It seemed to come primarily from young, or comparatively young, Jewish bloggers. Significantly, these were not voices from an older and more alienated Chomskyian Left but from an American Prospect-like liberal mainstream." (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007).

Forward on Jewish New York Money men - January 05, 2007.
It is not known whether this article was written to provide some evidence for wes clark’s statement or whether it was just a complete coincidence that it was published the day after his outburst. If the latter then it would be a case of jewish newspapers enjoying their freedom to discuss jewish new york money men buying american presidential candidates. "Arizona Senator John McCain has scored an early victory in the battle between GOP presidential frontrunners by locking up support from several New York-area Republican moneymen also coveted by his northeastern rival, former Big Apple mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain’s stable of national finance co-chairs includes Lewis Eisenberg, a multimillionaire financier from Rumson, N.J. who previously served as finance chairman for the Republican National Committee and was a key fundraiser for former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. According to a 140-page memo leaked to the New York Daily News and published earlier this week, Eisenberg’s name, along with that of fellow Jewish financier and McCain supporter Henry Kravis, was originally included on a "prospective leadership" list drafted by the Giuliani campaign. McCain’s heavily Jewish finance committee includes Kravis; Mark Broxmeyer, a Long Island real estate magnate; Dr. Ben Chouake, president of the New Jersey-based pro-Israel political action committee Norpac, and Barbara Sobel, whose husband, entrepreneur Clifford Sobel, is a major GOP fundraiser who was appointed by President Bush as ambassador to the Netherlands and later Brazil. In recent weeks, McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward. On the staffing front, the Arizona senator has recruited Jay Zeidman, former White House liaison to the Jewish community, to help with finance and fundraising operations as well as with Jewish outreach. Zeidman’s father is Houston Republican Fred Zeidman, who is chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and one of Bush’s closest donors. While insisting that the heavy representation of Jews among McCain boosters is not based on a "religious thing," exploratory committee spokesman Craig Goldman embraced the suggestion that the list reflects well on the senator’s campaign. "We are honored and thrilled" to have their support, Goldman said, adding that McCain "is by far [the] frontrunner for the president of the United States. They believe in his message, they believe in what he says and what he believes in, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s a strong supporter of Israel, as well."" (Jennifer Siegel ‘McCain Lines Up N.Y. Money Men, Raising Pressure on Rudy Giuliani’ http://www.forward.com/articles/mccain-lines-up-ny-money-men-raising-pressure-on/ January 05, 2007).

Matthew Yglesias - January 2007.
Yglesias was one of those who leapt to clark’s defense. "Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism." (Matthew Yglesias ‘Smears for Fears’ http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394 January 23, 2007).

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

Yglesias goes on to mention another commonplace of jewish dominance: it is permissible for people to make approving remarks about jewish political and economic influence but it is not permissible to make critical remarks about such influence. Anyone who is critical is condemned as anti-semitic. "And, indeed, it is interesting, for demonstrating the bizarre rules of the road in discussing America's Israel policy. If you're offering commentary that's supportive of America's soi-disant "pro-Israel" forces, as Barone was, it's considered perfectly acceptable to note, albeit elliptically, that said forces are influential in the Democratic Party in part because they contribute large sums of money to Democratic politicians who are willing to toe the line. If, by contrast, one observes this fact by way of criticizing the influence of "pro-Israel" forces, you're denounced as an anti-Semite." (Matthew Yglesias ‘Smears for Fears’ http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12394 January 23, 2007). This phenomena has been noted above. It is permissible for the jews-only lobby to boast of its power over american politicians but if anyone criticizes the lobby for having such power they are vilified and persecuted as anti-semites promoting the dangerous nonsense of a jewish conspiracy over national politics.

Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald was another jewish commentator who came to clark’s defence. "In early February, Glenn Greenwald, a New York attorney who recently published a book on the Patriot Act, wrote a blog entry that focused on the New York AIPAC gathering attended by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Greenwald quoted an article from the New York Sun, there is no more unimpeachably right-wing Zionist source, that featured Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf’s claim that "New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community. If … you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you’re interested in the issue that matters most to them." The issue that matters most, the article went on to say, is Israel, and what this group most wants to hear with regard to Israel is commitment to bellicosity toward Iran. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton did their best to comply, though according to a report in the equally Likud-friendly New York Post, Clinton apparently disappointed some in attendance by suggesting that diplomacy might be attempted before war. "This is the wrong crowd to do that with," commented one attendee. Greenwald went on to point out that these articles made exactly the same point that Clark made, adding, "It is simply true that there are large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups which are agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests and they perceive it to be in Israel’s interests for the U.S. to militarily confront Iran."" (Scott McConnell ‘Bloggers vs. the Lobby’ http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article.html March 12, 2007).

James Petras - May 2007.
Petras is the foremost political and economic critic of jewish power in america. It is impossible here to do justice to his work so the following quote is, once again, taken to be representative of his analysis. He argues that if bush’s foreign policies were dominated by america’s national interests, as represented by the country’s gigantic multinational energy companies, they would overwhelmingly favour arab states which export 40% of the world’s oil rather than the jews-only state which has no resources of its own. It would have sought peace between jews and palestinians. Perhaps even more strikingly, it would have committed itself to a strategic alliance with iran at the expense of the jos. The fact that the bush regime pursues foreign policies that benefit the jews-only state rather than those which benefit america, america’s multinational energy companies, arab oil states, and iran, clearly reveals the dominance of the jews-only state and its jewish allies in america. "The Council of Gulf Cooperation composed of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are the world’s biggest oil suppliers (over 40%), made up of conservative, pro-US regimes, housing US military bases, linked to the largest US oil and financial houses and the biggest purchasers of military hardware from the US military-industrial complex. They met in late March 2007 and called for the US to engage Iran diplomatically and not militarily or with economic sanctions. Israel took a diametrically opposing view pushing for tighter sanctions and a military confrontation. Automatically the ZPC echoed the Israeli Party line (Daily Alert, March 26-30, 2007). Congress and Bush ignored Big Oil, the military-industrial complex, its Arab clients and followed the Zionist line: they escalated sanctions, increased commando operations, added to the war-ships off the coast of Iran and offered to send fighter-planes into Iran after British sailors, engaged in espionage, were captured (Blair, for once, rejected the war provocation). Once again the ZPC out-muscled Big Oil and the military-industrial complex in dictating US Middle-East policy." (James Petras ‘The Pro-Israel Lobby and US Middle East Policy: The Score Card for 2007’ http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/the-pro-israel-lobby-and-us-middle-east-policy/ May 14, 2007).

Admiral William Fallon, CENTCOM commander – May 2007.
"IPS reported last May that Fallon had indicated privately that he was determined to prevent an attack on Iran and even prepared to resign to do so. A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be "no war with Iran" while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack. Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, "There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box," according to the same source." (Gareth Porter ‘Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11781 October 19, 2007).

Charley Reese
Americans dying for the Jews.
"But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful lobby in America. So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the case of Iraq. In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual loyalty." (Charley Reese ‘Israel's Bad Influence’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=10276 January 6, 2007).

Opposition to America’s Likudnik policy of Pre-emptive War.
The jews-only state in palestine has long promoted a policy of pre-emptive war against its defenceless neighbours. The jews-only lobby, the zionist dominated media and the neocons wanted the bush regime to adopt the same policy to enable it to attack enemies of the apartheid state. "The concept of a preemptive war should be an abomination to every American. Preemptive war is a war of aggression. It was the policy of Hitler's Germany and of the Japanese imperial government. To our national shame, apparently many Americans support the concept. They should never again criticize the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, the Third Reich for the invasion of Poland, or the Soviet Union for the invasion of Afghanistan. Click your heels and salute. You are no different from the people who cheered for Hitler." (Charley Reese ‘Who Cares?’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11430 August 13, 2007).

Chris Hedges - July 2007.
"U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq." (Chris Hedges ‘A Declaration of Independence From Israel’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070702_a_declaration_of_independence_from_israel/ July 02, 2007).

Michael Scheuer.
September 26, 2007.
.. "the basic un-Americanism of the neoconservatives; they are a foreign and, I think, malign influence in our body politic. There is no better overall description for Norman Podhoretz's World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism than "low and dishonest."" (Michael Scheuer ‘Why Does Norman Podhoretz Hate America? A review of Norman Podhoretz ‘World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism’ http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670 September 26, 2007).

November 08, 2007.
"Finally, I wish to directly refute Mr. Schoenfeld's claim that I "cast aspersions on American Jews." I do not cast aspersions, I forthrightly damn, and pray that God damns, any American – Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Irish, German, Hindu, hermaphrodite, thespian, or otherwise – who flogs the insane idea that American and Israeli interests are one and the same. The nation-state of Israel is an intolerable burden to the treasury and security of the United States, and Washington's current relationship with Israel, sanctioned by the AIPAC-funded political leaders of both parties, is one of several factors that are leading to full-scale American participation in other peoples' religious wars, religious wars that David Horowitz's recent "Islamofascist Awareness Week" manifestly wants to bring to the streets of the United States." (Michael Scheuer ‘The Anti-Americanism of the Israel-Firsters’ http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11871 November 08, 2007). Philip weiss commented on scheuer’s article. "Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer is not only a smart guy, he's legit. He was on '60 Minutes' three years back talking about the hunt for bin Laden. Well, now Scheuer is out of the closet, on antiwar.com, with accusations of dual loyalty! He angrily describes Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld and others as "Israel-firsters," Americans who claim that Israeli and American interests are identical. This is of course, crazy." (Former '60 Minutes' Star Joins List of Those Alleging Dual Loyalty Re Israel’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/11/former-60-minut.html November 08, 2007).

Jim Lobe alleges AIPAC wrote the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment - September 2007.
Jim lobe exposed aipac’s role in drafting and lobbying for an amendment which designated iran’s islamic revolutionary guards as a terrorist organization and thereby authorized an american military attack on iran. The jews-only lobby was the primary organization involved in pushing the bush regime into a war with iran. "Amid growing speculation about prospects for military action against Iran, neoconservatives and other hawks won a significant, if somewhat incomplete, victory in rallying the Democratic-led Congress to its side. In a 76-22 vote Wednesday, senators approved a non-binding amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill that called for the administration of President George W. Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "a foreign terrorist organization." Indeed, it was Lieberman and Republican Sen. John Kyl, the honorary co-chairs of the pro-Likud Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), who co-sponsored the Senate amendment naming the IRGC as a terrorist group in an effort clearly designed to help tilt the internal balance within the administration. As introduced, the amendment, which, according to several Capitol Hill sources, was drafted by AIPAC, actually went considerably further, deploying language that some senators argued could be interpreted as authorizing war against Iran." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Hawks Win Partial Victory in Congress’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=11683 September 28, 2007).

Mike Gravel - October 2007.
The former alaska senator and democratic presidential hopeful mike gravel was incensed by the role played by the jews-only lobby, and its likudniks associates, in pushing the bush regime into a war with iran. He was interviewed by ray suarez on the jim lehrer news hour show.

RAY SUAREZ: You're 77. Why put yourself through this?

MIKE GRAVEL: I love my country, and I love the human race. And I want to see a change made in the leadership of our country so we can do more to protect the human race....With respect to my country going to war when there's no reason to go to war, killing human beings, I'm ashamed of this. I'm ashamed of the leadership we have, whether it's Democratic leadership or Republican leadership. That's the reason why I'm in. Look what we're trying to do with Iran right now. Last week, the Lieberman resolution, he's the guy that wrote the resolution with Iraq and killed over 3,000 Americans and a million Iraqis. And now he comes forward with another resolution, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate doesn't even have the brains or the judgment to recognize what he's doing. Sanctions on the Republican Guard? They already have sanctions. The U.N. passed them in March, Resolution 1747. What is the game they're playing right now to have sanctions? I mean, this was AIPAC that put Lieberman up to do this. This is disaster... If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.

RAY SUAREZ: You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American- Israeli Political Action Committee?

MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. The worst that will happen will be a nuclear exchange, and I don't think we'll ever be able to contain once they start shooting bombs at each other nuclear devices. This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray." (Gravel Discusses Campaign Funding, Relations with Iran http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/gravel_10-01.html October 1, 2007).

Philip weiss commented on this exchange. "What is most significant about this is that the question of Israel's interest versus America's interest in confronting Iran is out on the table, on public television." (Philip Weiss ‘Sen. Gravel Say AIPAC Is Pushing Confrontation With Iran’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/sen-gravel-say-.html October 02, 2007).

Seymour Hersh - October 2007.
Amy goodman interviewed seymour hersh, america’s premier commentator whose articles sometimes necessitate responses from the president of the united states. It is more than likely that prior to the interview, hersh had heard the rumour that aipac had drafted the kyl/lieberman amendment giving bush the go ahead for a war against iran. During the interview, goodman played a clip of an exchange between mike gravel and hilary clinton. Gravel bitterly criticized clinton for voting in favor of the amendment. When asked to respond to gravel’s criticism clinton just laughed. Goodman then asked hersh why so many presidential candidates were supportive of a war against iran. Hersh responded by resurrecting wes clark’s proclamation about the political role being played by new york’s money men. Except that hersh went one step further and stated what even clarke had been reluctant to mention: that these new york money men were jewish.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of, right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I, you know, it’s shocking. It’s really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That’s American politics circa 2007." (Seymour Hersh: White House Intensifying Plans to Attack Iran’ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/02/1438251 October 2nd, 2007).

Hersh’s statement did not seem to elicit any of the usual hysterical, paranoid denunciations from the jews-only lobby in america. It was even welcomed by a jewish commentator, philip weiss.

Philip Weiss - October 2007.
"This is a significant moment. Hersh is a wild man, wild and brilliant. Yet in all his anti-Bush and -Cheney interviews about Iraq over the last few years, I've heard him talk code on this issue. He's attacked the neoconservatives as a crazy band of thinkers; but he's never put the blame fully where it belongs, on a broader segment of the Jewish community that has immunized the neocons from blame for the war, on the Israel lobby, which includes many Democrats too. Now he's done so (though apparently not in the New Yorker, which regards Walt and Mearsheimer as fueling hysteria). This is a beautiful moment, too. Hersh is a progressive Jew. Now he is turning on other Jews. "New York Jewish money," he says. The soul searching that I have called for within the Jewish community has begun!!!!" (Philip Weiss ‘Walt & Mearsheimer Perestroika Alert: Sy Hersh Says 'Jewish Money' Is Pushing Iran War’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/walt-mearsheime.html October 02, 2007).

William A Cook - October 2007.
William cook also reported on the exchanges between suarez and gravel, and between goodman and hersh. The following quote picks up the story after gravel says to suarez. "It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray."

"In asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators capitulated to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated the expressed will of the American people. Gravel, once a Senator from Alaska during the Vietnam War period, answers unhesitatingly, "yes," the short answer is yes. The obvious follow-up question would appear to be: "Why do you think that our Senators would vote against the expressed wishes of their constituents in favor of a special interest lobby?" It was never asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in an interview with Amy Goodman that same day, responded to a question posed by Goodman, a question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary Clinton for having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the 76 votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land," Gravel commented, "We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it." Goodman's question is simple enough, why would 76 senators vote for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ... That's American politics circa 2007."" (William A Cook ‘Unmasking AIPAC’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html October 5, 2007).

Cook continued, "Gravel understands the consequences of giving Cheney and Bush the freedom to attack Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization rather than as the legally constituted military of the state existing to protect the citizens of that state. Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident? Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten America."

He concluded, "Gravel's awareness of this threat as expressed to PBS represents the rare occurrence when the reality of our total support for Israel's interests is aired in public. Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq, Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer, Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met." (William A Cook ‘Unmasking AIPAC’ http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10052007.html October 5, 2007).

James Fallows - October 2007.
The following incident was highlighted on philip weiss’s blogsite. James fallows wrote an article concerning three different political lobbies in america and stated. "To the (ongoing) extent that AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", is trying to legitimize a military showdown between the United States and Iran, it is advancing its own causes at the expense of larger American interests. The people who are doing this are not from one ethnic group in the conventional sense but are mainly of one religion (Jewish)." (James Fallows ‘Armenians, Cubans, and AIPAC’ http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/armenians_cubans_and_aipac.php October 22, 2007).

The likudniks criticized fallows’ opinion using a variant on their usual anti-semitic smear tactic – accusing the author of focussing exclusively on jews. Fallows retorted: "Yesterday I mentioned the parallels among the lobbying efforts and influence of three special interest groups, or "factions": the (mainly Orthodox) Armenian-Americans who pushed the Armenian Genocide resolution; the (mainly Catholic) Cuban-Americans who have pushed the US embargo of Cuba; and the (mainly Jewish) supporters of AIPAC who have been making a case for a military showdown with Iran. Today Gabriel Schoenfeld of Commentary Magazine quotes only the part about AIPAC, and then asks why I am singling out the Jews!?!?! "Why is this game played only one way, with America’s Jews the primary target?" (Full text after the jump) Not much amazes me any more, but.... I wonder which is the more plausible interpretation: That the author heard I'd written something objectionable and attacked it without reading it? Or that he did read it, and deliberately left out everything that didn't fit his case, including through artful cutting of quotes? I took it for granted that Commentary wouldn't see the Iran issue the way I do, given their recent cover story on "The Case for Bombing Iran" etc. But wow, this makes me nostalgic for the comparative "honesty" of the Chinese state media I've been dealing with recently." (James Fallows ‘Now this truly amazes me (Commentary magazine and AIPAC)’ http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/now_this_truly_amazes_me_comme.php October 23, 2007).

Richard Dawkins - October 2007.
"In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told, religious Jews anyway, than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."" (Richard Dawkins quoted in Ewen MacAskill ‘Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers’ http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2180660,00.html October 1, 2007).

Daniel finkelstein, editor of the london times comments’ section, criticized dawkins comments. "So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened." (Daniel Finkelstein ‘Dawkins on the power of the Jews’ http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/dawkins-on-the-.html October 05, 2007).

Three points ought to be made about finkelstein’s retort. Firstly, and most obviously, dawkins claimed the jews-only lobby controls america’s foreign policies not that jews control the world.(11) Finkelstein condemns dawkins in the same way that abe foxman, a hardline likudnik fundamentalist, had condemned ralph nader i.e. by putting racist words into his mouth. It is far from clear whether finkelstein regards himself as an english jew or just jewish.

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

Thirdly, given that jewish racists and their allies around the world are currently trying to starve palestinians into submission perhaps more concern ought to be given to innocent palestinian civilians than finkelstein’s hyper-sensitive nervous system.

Vanity Fair’s Latest version of the New Establishment - October 2007.
William cash suffered considerable abuse, and eventual political oblivion, at the hands of the jews-only lobby in america when he dared to point out that many of those in vanity fair’s list of the top 100 most powerful people in america were jews. The controversy surrounding cash’s article did not deter vanity fair from making the list an annual publishing event. Indeed, the list has become even more grandiose since it now consists of the most wealthy and powerful individuals around the world. However, in october 2007 the magazine wasn’t reticent about mentioning the disproportionate number of jews on the list. "It's a list of "the world's most powerful people," 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It's an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power. More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish. It's a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media. Making matters worse, in the eyes of many, would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list - not a pack of fringe anti-Semites but one of the most mainstream, glamorous publications on the newsstands. Published between ads for Chanel and Prada, Dior and Yves Saint Laurent, it's the 2007 version of "The Vanity Fair 100," the glossy American magazine's annual October ranking of the planet's most important people. Populated by a Cohen and a Rothschild, a Bloomberg and a Perelman, the list would seem to conform to all the traditional stereotypes about areas of Jewish overrepresentation. Printed over 15 pages before an interview with Nicole Kidman, the rankings, described on the magazine's cover as the membership of "The New Establishment", are less than scientific, accompanied by a paragraph-long introduction that neither defines power nor describes the methodology behind the list." (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1191257286817 October 12, 2007).

Indeed, burstein quoted one jewish commentator who believed such a list was something about which jews ought to be proud. "Yet the list doesn't appear to have generated concern so far, instead drawing expressions of satisfaction and pride from the lone Jewish commentator who's responded in writing. Joseph Aaron, the editor of The Chicago Jewish News, thinks it's a list his readers should "feel very, very good about." "Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having power in this society," Aaron wrote this week, in apparent reference to Jewish life in the United States. "Talk about anti-Semitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and influential."" (Nathan Burstein ‘Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair'’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1191257286817 October 12, 2007).(12) This is sound advice which finkelstein ought to heed.

Justin raimondo provides a couple of interesting insights firstly, into the likudnik fundamentalists publishing the magazine and secondly, about how the jews on the list like to boast of their membership of the global ruling jewish elite. "Some, like CBS's Leslie Stahl, have owned up to the temporary collapse of their critical faculties (by failing to expose the lies used to boost support for the invasion of iraq); others, like Vanity Fair's David Rose, are silent. It was Rose, after all, whose four-page spread in the glossy, perfumed pages of the magazine the elites love to display on their coffee tables made the most extreme claims about the imminent danger posed by Saddam: the Iraqis were feverishly working on a long-range missile project, which was perilously close to becoming operational. Not only that, but, according to Rose and his INC sources, the Iraqis had a "dirty bomb" in the works, as well as blueprints and the means to build chemical and biological warheads. The relentlessly visual Vanity Fair editors even included a map that purported to show where these various sites were located in Iraq, including a nuclear weapons development laboratory. When none of this turned up in the aftermath of the invasion, did the editors of Vanity Fair cry "mea culpa"? Certainly not. Instead, they ran a piece, "The Path to War," that blamed "the media" for all that INC-generated misinformation, but failed to mention their own role in promoting it. The piece was written by Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, and, hold on to your seat, David Rose." (Justin Raimondo ‘How Did We Get Here? http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11803 October 24, 2007).

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

Israel Shamir - October 2007.
If gilad atzmon is the foremost philosophical critic of jewish supremacism, and james petras the foremost critic of jewish political, and economic, power in america, then israel shamir is the foremost intellectual critic of jewish power. Atzmon is probably in a better position than most to make the following judgment. "An ex-Jew, Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and probably is the sharpest critical voice of ‘Jewish power’ and Zionist ideology." (Gilad Atzmon ‘The Protocols of the Elders of London’ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3220 c.2004). It is not possible here to summarize shamir’s many books so the following quotes, taken from his latest article, serve as a sample of his work.

Shamir argues the conflict between jews and palestinians is not just an issue affecting palestine but has global ramifications because of the power of jewish elites around the western world, especially america, to win support for whatever the jews do in palestine. The starting point of pre-apocalyptic politics is clear. "Thus the distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists is the most important distinction, the great divide between war and peace, life and death." (Israel Shamir ‘Right Ho, Lobby’ http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng23.htm October 10, 2007). Given the torrent of propaganda lies and fabrications against iran since the turn of the millenia the following is also true. "The real formidable power of the Jewish Lobby lies in its ability to unite people against its enemy, and to block others’ attempts to unite."(13)

Eric Margolis - October 2007.
"A new danger looms. The US invasion devastated Iraq and effectively split into three pieces – fulfilling the first step in Israel’s grand strategy of fragmenting Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria." (Eric Margolis ‘The Thunder of Turkish War Drums’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis90.html October 30, 2007).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi - October 2007.
"Given the above, the film deserves at best a "C" grade, because in the final analysis it perpetuates the artificial sense of crisis generated in Washington, as a prelude for a confrontation with Iran, largely as a proxy war on behalf of Israel." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Preaching to the converted’ A review of ‘Showdown with Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ31Ak03.html October 31, 2007).

Justin Raimondo - November 2007.
"Beating the drums for war, the Israel lobby is pulling out all the stops, and this time they are out in the open about it. The fear that the Lobby would be too visible in promoting Israel's interests motivated them to keep a relatively low profile during the run-up to war with Iraq, but it isn't holding them back now. AIPAC, for one, is openly leading the charge for war, and, as the overwhelming vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman indicates, they are doing a bang-up job of it. The Democrats are terrified of the Lobby: the loss of all that New York money, which is essential for Hillary's victory, would be a disaster for them." (Justin Raimondo 'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm': Why war with Iran is likely’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846 November 2, 2007).

A small number of commentators are challenging jewish supremacism by discussing the following taboo subjects:
* the scale of jewish economic power;
* the rise of jewish elites;
* the existence of america’s jewish lobby;(14)
* the political power of america’s jewish lobby;
* the new york money men who finance the jews-only lobby; hardline, likudnik fundamentalist, think tanks; and american presidential candidates;
* the zionist domination of the american media;
* the jews-only lobby’s almost total domination of the american congress;
* the huge proportion of likudniks in the bush regime;
* the jewish elite’s major influence over the american president;
* the jewish elite’s almost total dominance over candidates contesting what america’s fake presidential election in 2008 in which the american people are faced by a choice between various shades of likudnik extremism;
* the likudniks’ dominant influence (but not total control) over america’s foreign policies;
* the common policies, strategies, and tactics, pursued by all jewish lobbies throughout the western world;
* the jewish elites in western countries manipulating the west into fighting jewish race wars against islamic countries in the greater middle east;
* the jewish elites manipulating western countries into jewish race wars which are against these countries’ interests but which boosts the regional dominance of the jews-only state;
* the traitorousness of those willing to sacrifice western countries’ interests for the sake of boosting the regional supremacism of the jews-only state in palestine; and,
* the jewish elites’ responsibility for killing american troops in the middle east. The likudniks in the bush regime accuse iran of killing american troops in iraq but, by the same logic, it must also be true that the jewish elites are responsible for killing thousands of american troops by pushing america into the invasions of afghanistan and iraq.

Many commentators predicted that america’s invasion of iraq would be a political, military, and economic, disaster but the jewish neocons ignored their advice and continued pushing america into the war because of the benefits it would provide to the jews-only state in palestine. They doubtlessly hoped the invasion would be a cakewalk and that iraqi oil would pay america’s military costs but there was a strong possibility the invasion would go badly. They were perfectly willing to take this risk because of the benefits that would accrue to the jews-only state. Either way, whether america triumphed or suffered a disaster in iraq, the war would benefit the jews in palestine. Even worse is that although it rapidly became apparent that america was suffering a disaster in iraq, the jewish neocons did their best to sustain the popularity of the american occupation because of the benefits this was producing for the jews-only state. If, before the invasion, the jewish neocons seemed hypothetically willing to sacrifice america lives for the sake of the jos, once it became obvious that the american military was suffering, the neocons continued to support the occupation in spite of the damage to the american military. By showing that they are willing to support the occupation of iraq at all costs, the jewish neocons are promoting anti-american policies. Their traitorous warmongering is ruining america for the sake of jewish supremacism. The jewish neocons show not the slightest remorse or guilt for the disaster they have inflicted on america. On the contrary, their only concern is to push america into an even greater disaster by attacking iran because this would produce even greater benefits for the jews-only state. "If Iran turns into a major catastrophe not only for the U.S. and Iran but also for the entire region, will Lieberman take the blame as a principal enabler of the war so desired by Norman Podhoretz? If Lieberman's lack of contrition over Iraq is anything to go by, almost certainly not." (Philip Giraldi ‘Joe Lieberman's War’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=11858 November 6, 2007).

One of the main reasons the likudniks have not suffered for being so wrong about america’s invasion of iraq is because their political opponents have refused to condemn their role in the war. They have refused to expose the jewish architects of this war and the jewish elite’s grip over american politics. Until the jewish neocons are blamed and punished for their part in the iraq war disaster their domination of the american media will continue which will enable them to go on advocating a war against iran and all other countries in the middle east.

Profound political choices need to be made. Either succumb to jewish supremacism, support an attack, possibly a nuclear attack, on iran, and promote the ridiculous ‘fourth world war’ which could last for generations. Or, limit the power of the west’s jewish elites, curb likudnik warmongering, abolish the jews-only state in palestine, and seek alliances with the moslem world to secure global peace. The ‘fourth world war’ would involve over half a billion people from turkey to pakistan. It would be a huge benefit for the jews-only state but would be devastating for the greater middle east, a catastrophe for the western world, and a disaster for the global economy. Why should western countries continue to fight jewish racist wars against moslem countries that pose no threat to the west? Why should they go on sacrificing their own lives, treasure, and reputation, for the sake of jewish supremacism?

Only once the world is free from the political and economic power of jewish supremacism will it be possible to tackle the most profound issue of our time: restoring the Earth’s life support system in order to stabilize the climate. The ‘fourth world war’ would result in a huge boost to global burning. Jewish racists believe they can eventually carry out the nazi policy of lebensraum against the palestinians but by the time they’ve created a racially pure jews-only state, the Earth’s life support system will be on the verge of collapse and global burning will be accelerating out of control. The land they are proud to have turned green with the blood of palestinians will turn to sand. Jewish supremacists believe they can create an island of racial purity in a world of potential enemies. They do not want to rely on other countries for their survival. They believe they are so special they do not need other people. But the planetary reality is that they are totally dependent on people around the world to protect the Earth’s life support system. No country can remain immune from the effects of runaway global burning. The jews are no more special than any other people and no less dependent on people around the world than everyone else.

(1) The original definition of anti-semitism was a hatred of jewish people. Over the last decade or so, however, jews have sought to widen its remit to include those who criticize the existence of the jews-only state in palestine. Their most recent effort to extend the definition is to include all those who oppose a war with iran! "there’s also the AIPAC warning Capitol Hill that any legislators seeking to restrain the White House from military action against Iran will henceforth be treated as anti-Semites ..." (Tony Karon ‘Iran: Chronicle of a War Foretold?’ http://tonykaron.com/2007/09/26/iran-chronicle-of-a-war-foretold/ September 26, 2007).

(2) Jewish racists have organized 'Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week' in order to stir up american hatred for moslems in america and around the world. In reality of course, this is aimed not merely at moslems but americans who are, in effect, being told that if they don't hate moslems then they will be deemed anti-semitic.

(3) "Baathism, al Qaeda, and Iran as all part of the same phenomenon called ‘Islamo-Fascism’." (Jim Lobe ‘Gates in the Lion’s Den’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=73 October 17th, 2007).

(4) Please do not fall off your chair but the most recent revelation concerning the invidious work of the neo-pacificists/peaceniks is that the organization ‘Americans for Peace Now’ is a member of the jews-only lobby. "In fact, APN (Americans for Peace Now) is part of AIPAC. APN is a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and all the members of the Conference of Presidents are on the AIPAC executive committee. This is one of the marvels of the Israel lobby: it is a loose coalition. When I learned as much earlier this year, I wondered why APN doesn't resign from AIPAC to protest AIPAC's role in the Iraq war, or in the Syria Accountability Act, or in defending the settlements, or in supporting the Lebanon War. But APN doesn't resign. And no one starts an alternative lobby (and when George Soros notions it, the lobby suggests he was a collaborationist in Hungary during the Holocaust and Soros bows out). This is modern Jewish history. My sense is that Jewish organizations, fearful for Israel's existence, tend to close rank when it comes to speaking to the U.S. government, and thereby allow the rightwing hardliners to be the court Jews. This cultural/political/institutional mystery is not fully understood by Walt and Mearsheimer, no, but they have done a wonderful job under the circumstances." (Philip Weiss ‘'Foreign Affairs' Savages Walt & Mearsheimer's 'Methodology' and Misses the Point’ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/11/foreign-affairs.html November 01, 2007).

(5) Over the last couple of decades, those on the right wing of the political spectrum in both america and britain have successfully popularized the phrase "political correctness" to ridicule the values and policy prescriptions of their left wing opponents. The left never bothered to try and parry the blows by countering with their own ridicule of the right for being politically conventional. However, both of these paradigms have been marginalized by the increasing dominance of the politically kosher paradigm.

(6) Whilst cash explored america’s ruling elite, mearsheimer and walt did not. They focussed exclusively on the jews-only lobby rather than an analysis of america’s class or power hierarchy. They made no attempt to show that the jews-only lobby derives its funds and political power from america’s ruling jewish elite. What is more whilst cash found more than enough evidence to indicate that jews have become highly influential in the american media, mearsheimer and walt pretend there is no such evidence. In these two ways, cash, a mere journalist, remains far ahead of these two highly respected academics.

(7) According to david duke, brando sought forgiveness for his outburst about the jewish domination of hollywood. "Brando cried and got on his knees and kissed Wiesenthal’s hands, begging for forgiveness …" If this wasn’t dramatic enough, a writer on a now defunct website alleged that william cash was so desperate for redemption from his sins against jewish taboos that he pushed brando away from his touching scene with wiesenthal in the hope of also gaining forgiveness. It’s far from clear whether he got what he wanted before being dragged off stage by security guards! "When Marlon Brando held a news conference at the Museum of Tolerance (MOT, a state-funded Holocaust museum operated by Orthodox rabbis) to apologize for his comments about Jews on the Larry King Show, William Cash leaped on stage and started babbling about his desire to repent for his article. Cash was led away by security guards. Later, Cash was told by Jack Valenti and the honchos at the MOT that he was forgiven. Cash now lives in Great Britain and Italy." (Jews to Islam ‘Hollywood Jews’. c.2004 Website now defunct). Surely this story must be true. Nobody could have made this up!

(8) However judt has also argued there is nothing morally wrong with the jews-only state. "Does he think Israel’s existence is morally wrong? "Good God, no," he said. "Of course I don’t believe that."" (J.J. Goldberg ‘A ‘Lobby’ Prof Asks: Can We Talk?’ http://www.forward.com/articles/a-%e2%80%98lobby%e2%80%99-prof-asks-can-we-talk/ October 13, 2006). It is not known whether judt has changed his mind or is able to reconcile what appears to be blatantly contradictory views.

(9) For a more up to date list please see:
‘The Jews in and around the first Bush jnr Administration.
The Jews in and around the second Bush jnr Administration.

(10) See also. "More troubling still, in the fall of 2004, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as chair of the younger Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times. A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized," that he had our president "wrapped around his little finger." Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately removed from the advisory board." (Ray McGovern ‘Attacking Iran for Israel?’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11835 October 31, 2007).

(11) These statements, however, are not unrelated given the extent to which america could be depicted as a hyper-power especially when such a huge number of american ambassadors around the world are jewish.

(12) Burstein pointed out, "Highest among the Jewish entries are Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, co-listed at #3, down one from 2006." This is perhaps why when using google’s search engine any search involving words such as ‘jew’ or ‘jews’ warrants a warning. But then again such a warning is an excellent way of hyping up jewish mystique, turning jews into a special group of people who deserve to be given special privileges and treatment – which of course is not too far away from recognizing them as a superior race. What a clever way of stealthily promoting jewish supremacism whilst seeming to uphold the basic principle of anti- racism! The political health warnings google is posting on its website are not meant to defend a race which is so weak and vulnerable it is on the verge of extinction. It is a warning to non-jews that they need to respect the power and authority of jewish elites and pay homage to jewish supremacism.

(13) In the 1980s jewish elites in most of the western world succeeded in vilifying russia to "free" russian jews. In the 1990s they won considerable support throughout much of the western world for the vilification of saddam hussein which led ultimately to the invasion of iraq. And, since the turn of the millenium, they’ve launched a massive propaganda campaign to win sufficient support for the proxy zionist invasion of iran. For nearly three decades, jewish elites have brought about a remarkable transformation in political and public attitudes throughout much of the western world.

Jewish elites, or ‘masters of discourse’ as shamir calls them, achieved such transformations through jews-only lobbies, the zionist dominated western media, and by new york money men financing likudnik think tanks. Jewish lobbies could not have brought about such a transformation by themselves. They needed the help of the zionist dominated media. Whilst jews-only lobbies pressurize and manipulate governments to support jewish racism, the zionist dominated media produces the propaganda to condition western societies.

(14) Despite the vast power and influence of the jewish lobby very few americans even know about its existence because it has rarely been mentioned in the zionist dominated american media.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home