March 24, 2008

The Taboos and Fantasies that Jews have imposed on the World

If a taboo is a reality which cannot be discussed in public, its obverse is a fantasy, a non-existent reality sustained solely by public discourse but especially by political/media power. These two phenomena are often intimately linked like a mirror image. Those initiating a taboo also tend to provide a fantasy as an alternative reality to that which cannot be discussed. This article highlights the taboos and fantasies that jews have imposed on the modern world. The number and substance of these taboos/fantasies provide an insight into the degree of power wielded by zionists around the world. There are allegations about how much power jews possess in politics, in the media, in the financial world, and in the business world. The vast majority of ordinary people have little involvement in the worlds of politics, media, finance, and business, so their personal experience of who is exercising power is virtually non-existent. However, taboos and fantasies are a common experience even amongst ordinary people. These experiences should enable them to gauge the power of those who have established these taboos and fantasies.

Zionism was formulated in the late 19thcentury. From the moment of its birth, zionists promoted a nazi-like slogan which denied the existence of anyone living in palestine, "A people without a country, for a country without a people".(1)
When they did admit there were non-jews in palestine they denied such people were palestinians because they claimed palestinians had no national identity i.e. they were not a palestinian people.
After the illegal establishment of the jews-only state they denied terrorizing palestinians out of palestine.
Then, once the zionists had taken over palestine, they denied there was any such place as palestine and insisted that nobody around the world mention the word.(2)

In september 2001 the british public discovered that the jews-only state in palestine was forcing british politicians to abide by the taboo on the word ‘palestine’. Jack straw, the left-leaning british foreign minister, mentioned the word during his tour of the middle east and ariel sharon erupted in fury. "Mr straw, who started a four day tour of the middle east yesterday, prompted controversy by writing a letter in which he twice referred to Palestine. The Israelis do not recognize the term for that part of the middle east. An Israeli cabinet minister called Mr Straw’s comments an "obscenity" which, he said, turned Israel from the victim of terrorism into the accused."(3) The jews were so intent on maintaining this taboo on british politicians that sharon even refused to meet straw in what would have been an unprecedented political rebuff. The meeting went ahead only after the personal intervention of tony blair who agreed that henceforth his foreign secretary would comply with sharon’s wishes.(4) After all, blair’s political career had been funded primarily by britain’s jewish lobby so he wasn’t going to turn against his jewish paymasters just to defend his labour cabinet colleague. The taboo on the word ‘palestine’ has been imposed not only on british politicians but on americans(5) and many others around the globe.(6)

This is far from being the only taboo that the jews-only state in palestine, and its allies in jewish lobbies around the world, have imposed on the global political community. Zionists insist that politicians should not use the word ‘occupation’ when describing jews’ military occupation of palestine. Neocons insist that the term "neo-conservative" should be verboten.(7) Zionists have also imposed a taboo on any comparison between the zionist state and the former apartheid state in south africa.(8) They project the fantasy that the zionist state is a secular, liberal, multi-racial, law abiding, democracy like those in the western world.

Zionists have also imposed a taboo on comparisons between the jews-only state and nazism. But this taboo is far more wide ranging than the taboo against comparisons with the south african apartheid system because it includes taboos on all the allegations that the nazis made against the jews. Thus since the end of nazism zionists have imposed a taboo on any discussion of jewish people running banks or hedge funds or private equity groups indeed, owning any wealth at all. There are taboos against public discussion of jews owning newspapers or playing a prominent role in the media especially hollywood. There are taboos against pointing out that wealthy jews use their money for political purposes; that jewish organizations wield political power; that jewish lobbying groups influence a country’s foreign policies; and that jewish individuals are members of a government.(9) These wide ranging taboos are reinforced by the jewish fantasy that jews are perpetual victims. How can they be wealthy, influential, or politically powerful, if they are by definition perpetual victims?

The word ‘holocaust’ is also taboo. It can be used only under two circumstances. Firstly, when referring to the nazi extermination of jews during the second world war and, secondly, when denouncing ‘holocaust deniers’.(10) In the west, the sacredness of the word is emphasized by its capitalization as "the Holocaust".

By far and away the most blatant of the taboos the jews-only state has imposed upon the world concerns its possession of nuclear weapons. No politician around the world is permitted to publicly mention such weapons nor their military implications.(11) For the last three decades, no president, prime minister, pope, or politician, anywhere around the world has dared to state publicly that the zionist state possesses nuclear weapons. This means it is impossible to point out that these weapons pose a terrible threat to every country in the greater middle east.(12) Indeed, since these weapons can now be launched by jewish submarines, they threaten every country around the world including america. The jews’ precise stance on their nuclear weapons is that they will neither confirm nor deny their existence. They have sustained this extraordinary political ambiguity for decades in a world where countries are preoccupied with their military capabilities and where billions of ordinary people are terrified of nuclear weapons.

The taboo over jews’ nuclear weapons has led to one of the most absurd political pantomimes in the modern age: a veritable brian rix west-end farce or a particularly extravagant episode of the muppet show. In the 1990s, the western world compelled the united nations to carry out the most systematic and intrusive inspections to search for saddam’s non-existent nuclear weapons. For the last few years it has also been insisting on intense ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections to discover iran’s equally non-existent nuclear weapons. And yet no western politician dares to mention the zionist state’s nuclear weapons, let alone demand that the united nations send in inspectors to search for them, even though mordechai vanunu has provided far more evidence about their existence than united nations’ inspectors have found over last two decades about nukes in iraq and iran. The jews-only state imposes a global taboo on its own nuclear weapons whilst conversely imposing paranoid fantasies on the united nations about non-existent nuclear weapons in iraq, iran, and syria.

There is no more conclusive proof of the huge amount of political power that jews have over the world’s politicians than that they have succeeded in forcing these politicians to deny that jews possess nuclear weapons. The jews pull the strings of their puppets and get them running around hither and thither pretending to look frantically for non-existent weapons in iraq and iran whilst somehow failing to notice those in the racist state. Brian rix would be dazzled by their buffoonery. Doubtlessly the world’s politicians have their rationales for not mentioning jewish nukes that preserves, at least in their own eyes, a modicum of their political integrity. But to any rational outsider they are being made to look like preposterous fools as jews blatantly jerk their strings. How is it possible for these politicians to create the world peace they demand so fervently when jews have such inordinate power that they can prevent their puppets from confronting the reality of their nuclear weapons?

Quite clearly, any politician around the world who refuses to acknowledge the jews-only state’s possession of nuclear weapons is a liar whose views on all other issues should be regarded as suspect. Such politicians are almost certainly in the pay of jewish lobbies and thus solely interested in promoting the interests of the jews-only state in palestine no matter how much this might run counter to their country’s own national interests. And conversely, any politician who refuses to be stifled by this jewish taboo should be applauded as a person of integrity whose wider views should be taken more seriously.

One of the jews’ fastest mushrooming fantasies concerns the remit of anti-semitism. Most decent people would accept that an anti-semite is a bigot who has a hatred of all jewish people. But jewish commentators/lobbies around the world are not content with such a straightforward, and politically conventional, definition. They have been trying to extend this definition until it becomes all encompassing.(13) The first step in this expansionary process is to suggest that those who criticize the policies of the jews-only state in palestine and the existence of this racist state are also anti-semites. Even though such people may not hate jews at all, if they criticize jewish policies or the jewish apartheid state then they are denounced as anti-semites as if they were as bad as those bigots who hates jews. It is as if those who hated america’s war against vietnam were denounced as anti-americans who hated all americans. The great political advantage of this broader definition of anti-semitism is that it doesn’t matter what evils the zionist state might perpetrate, criticizing it is proof of anti-semitism. It is thus a device for undermining all those who criticize the racist nature of the jews-only state.

But jewish commentators/lobbying organizations are not even content with such a wide-ranging taboo. They have even greater imperialist ambitions. They insist that the definition of anti-semitism should also include those who try to encourage the jews-only state in palestine to sue for peace with its arab neighbours. Hence jimmy carter is denounced as an antisemite because he encouraged the jews to reach a peace agreement with egypt. "True, this effort has not much chance of success, but people in Jerusalem are worried nonetheless. That's just what we need, Bush acting like that anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter, who twisted Begin's arm and forced him to make peace with Egypt!" (Uri Avnery ‘Ahmadinejad Has Screwed Us Again! How They Stole the Bomb From Us’ December 10, 2007).

What this ever expanding definition of anti-semitism is leading to is that anti-semitism will be deemed to be any negative comment about a jewish person, or a jewish group, or the jews-only state. The goal of an all encompassing definition of anti-semitism is to make it illegal to criticize jews no matter what evil they do. The zionists are well on their way to establishing for jews, jewish groups, and the jews-only state, a criticism-free existence.(14)

A recent taboo that zionists have inflicted on the world concerns the ‘israeli lobby’. Hardline zionist fundamentalists insist there is no such thing as an ‘israeli lobby’ or a ‘jewish lobby’.(15) This taboo is at its most powerful in america but it also exists in all other countries around the world which have such a jewish lobby. Then along come other, less zealous, zionists who accept that the ‘israeli lobby’ exists but deny it has any major influence. For good measure, they continue to uphold the taboo on the phrase ‘the jewish lobby’.(16) Left wing zionists provide their extreme right wing jewish colleagues with legitimacy by arguing that although the ‘israeli lobby’ exists it is so utterly powerless it might as well be ignored. Even prestigious wasp academics such as mearscheimer and walt who seek to expose the activities of the ‘israeli lobby’ find themselves entangled in this semantic distraction and support the taboo on the phrase "jewish lobby" even though it is commonly used in the jews-only state.

The latest fantasy that the jews-only state and its zionist, likudnik, neocon, allies around the world have started to promote is that all enemies of the racist state in palestine are part of a huge islamic conspiracy aimed at exterminating all jews around the world. Islamophobia is the belief that yasser arafat, saddam hussein, osama bin laden, mullah omar, mahmoud ahmadinejad, hassan nasrallah, and ismail haniyeh, to name but a few, are colluding with each other to overthrow the apartheid state in palestine and exterminate all jews around the world.(17) Even though saddam hated osama bin laden and went to war against iran; and even though shia iran nearly went to war against the sunni taliban in afghanistan, and have arrested hundreds of al quaeda members; all of this was just a ruse to cover up their conspiracy against the jews. In reality, islamophobia is the hatred that jewish racists and supremacists have for islamic people.

It is a not uncommon experience for non-zionists discussing the world’s power structures or the global political agenda to find themselves immediately confronted by paranoid, hysterical zionists intent on laying down the grounds rules for any further debate i.e. an acceptance of zionist taboos and fantasies. Palestinians? There’s no such people. Palestine? There’s no such place. Jewish nuclear weapons? There’s no such weapon. The jewish lobby? There’s no such organization. Jewish racism? There’s no such thing. It’s almost impossible for non-zionists to debate any substantive issue before they’ve been baptized by zionists into what is politically kosher and what is not. This is almost invariably accompanied by accusations should anyone stray beyond zionists’ ground rules. Zionists rapidly spin-off arguments into semantics to prevent any discussion of substantive issues.

It should be transparent from this cursory analysis that zionists determine politically what is real and what is not real irrespective of, to borrow a phrase, "actually existing reality". They compel the world’s politicians to abide by jewish taboos and to uphold jewish paranoid fantasies:
non-existent palestinians, living in a non-existent place called palestine;
jews’ non-existent nuclear weapons which pose a non-existent military threat to neighbouring countries;
the terrible threats posed to regional and global security by saddam’s/iran’s/syria’s non-existent nuclear weapons; and,
the fantasy of the global islamic conspiracy which poses a non-existent threat to all jews around the world.

Such taboos and fantasies have nothing to do with rational political discourse but are insane rantings which ought to be confined to mental institutions.

There is no other country that is able to impose so many taboos and fantasies on so many fundamental global political issues as the jews-only state in palestine. Indeed, there is even a growing taboo on the words jew/jews which the global jewish elite forces google to acknowledge. The zionists have established themselves as the world’s "masters of discourse" (israel shamir) who enforce politically kosher taboos and turn jewish fantasies into global realities. Zionists’ ability to determine politically what is real and what is not, is a measure of their world domination. Zionists ability to determine the world’s global political agenda is another effective measure of zionist world domination.

(1) "From its first day, the Zionist movement has lived in total denial of the Palestinian issue. As long as possible, it denied the very existence of the Palestinian people. Since this has become ridiculous, it denies the existence of a Palestinian partner for peace. In any case, it denies the possibility of a viable Palestinian state next to Israel. The idea of turning the West Bank over to the Hashemite kingdom was built on the illusion that there is no Palestinian people ("They are all Arabs!"), so it could suffer no injustice." (Uri Avnery ‘An Israeli Love Story’ July 9, 2007).

(2) Even today there are jewish extremists who argue that palestinians don’t exist. "In rereading Norman Finkelstein's book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, I noticed that in the furor that occurred in the mid-80s over the false issue of whether there were even Palestinians in Palestine when Israel was born, an important part was played by the great former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis. Not to get too deep into the issue, but in 1984 Joan Peters published From Time Immemorial, which claimed that most Palestinians had immigrated into Palestine once the Jewish immigrants got things rolling there. She based her "analysis" on British Mandatory records of in- and out-migration. A couple of scholars, notably Norman Finkelstein and Yehoshuah Porath, defenestrated Peters's claims. They looked at the same records and showed that she had misrepresented numbers, gotten numbers wrong. All to serve a highly tendentious argument, that there were no Palestinians, or few of them. Finkelstein says there was a struggle to get the word out. Joan Peters's book was a Jewish bestseller, endorsed by Saul Bellow and Barbara Tuchman. Finkelstein had trouble publishing his own findings. Ultimately Alex Cockburn wrote about them in the Nation, though, and that did some good; and Porath published in the New York Review of Books. And then in the middle of it all, Anthony Lewis wrote a noble column: "There Were No Indians." He called the lie a lie in the center of mainstream-intellectual culture, the Op-Ed page of the Times." (Philip Weiss ‘What Clarence Thomas Is to Thurgood Marshall, Bill Kristol Is to Anthony Lewis’ March 17, 2008).

(3) Mirror, London September 25, 2001 p.5.

(4) "The row began when Mr Straw said anger over the plight of the Palestinians was helping to breed terror. He also referred to Palestine, a term Israel does not recognize. Downing street said "no offence was intended" by Mr Straw’s remarks. The Prime Minister’s spokesman said the government will go back to referring to the "Palestinian controlled authorities" instead of Palestine. Mr Straw said, "I stand very firmly against the terrorism which the Israeli people have suffered."" (Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5).

(5) A british commentator pointed out. "(Jack Straw) dares to say the "P" word, Palestine, which Washington fights shy of." (Paul Routledge Mirror 26.9.2001 p.5).

(6) "Pro-Israel advocacy groups campaign around the globe against the use of the word Palestine, since no such country exists, but it turns out that globes being sold in Israel bear the term. Billed as an educational toy that teaches young children geography, the widely sold "Ravensburger Puzzle Ball Classic Globe" includes both Israel and Palestine . Although the product has been on the market for more than two years, all of those contacted by The Jerusalem Post, from toy store owners to the Israeli distributor to the German manufacturer, reacted with surprise when informed of the imaginative geography. Demands to change the design have been quick to follow discovery of the error, with those involved in distribution and sales of the globe in Israel saying they have appealed directly to Ravensburger. "I was very, very angry when I found out about this," said Meir Klughaft, CEO of Saheknu, which imports the puzzle globe. "I personally asked [Ravensburger] to change the product, and to remove the word Palestine and leave only Israel . They promised me in a letter that they would."" (Matt Zalen ‘German globe maker 'establishes' Palestine’ http://www.jpost. com/servlet/ Satellite? cid=116237843617 8&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle% 2FPrinter Nov 20 2006).

(7) "The New York Times announced last Saturday that Bill Kristol is becoming an Op-Ed columnist. Its story is remarkable for a few reasons. First, the article insists on calling Kristol "a conservative" and describing his father, Irving, as "one of the founding forces behind modern conservatism." Irving and Bill are neoconservatives. Evidently that's the new n-word. (And so it follows the protocols of the other n-word: from now on, only neoconservatives can say it, but anyone else who uses the word is antisemitic.)" (Philip Weiss ‘This Time the Best and the Brightest Just Get Promoted’ January 02, 2008).

(8) See for example. "The two respected journalists (alan rusbridger, the guardian's editor and the former haaretz editor david landau) also talked about the infamous series of articles written by a former Guardian correspondent to South Africa and Israel. In 2006, Chris McGreal published a special report comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. Speaking on Sunday night, Rusbridger said the word "apartheid" may not have been the best term to use." (Jonny Paul 'Guardian' editor apologizes for Jenin editorial’ March 4, 2008).

There are, however, a number of commentators who defy zionist condemnations and highlight the similarities between the two political systems.

Robert Fisk.
"But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn't Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-like, when I recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South Africa, one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of apartheid, paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter's book." (Robert Fisk ‘Banality and barefaced lies’ December 23, 2006).

Chris Hedges.
"And the tools of repression against Palestinians now match those once imposed on South African blacks by the apartheid regime, with the exception that the South Africans never sent warplanes to bomb the townships." (Chris Hedges ‘Mutually Assured Destruction in the Middle East’ July 14, 2006).

Axel Brot.
The use of the term "Bantustan" in this context has nothing to do with an anti-semitic slur: when former South African premier and Nazi sympathizer John Vorster visited Israel in 1976, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel Shamir, et al, lauded the South African system of racial separation as a role model for dealing with "their kushims" ("niggers"). During the 1970s and 1980s Israel and South Africa were joined at the hips in their common fight against the kushims (and against the still numerous Jewish communists, hated by the Israeli political class more than the remaining German Nazis)." (Axel Brot ‘Germany, The Re-Engineered Ally. Part 2: Everything is broken’ August 9, 2007).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"The US has no manifest destiny, no holy mandate, to "democratize" other nations, including the ones in the Middle East. Nor, as the United States' solid backing of 19th-century oil sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf or the apartheid state of Israel clearly show, is this an ideal put in practice consistently by Washington, rather than an instrument of influence mostly used against America's adversaries." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Calling time out on UN sanctions’ March 22, 2007).

(9) "While anti-Semitism is gaining ground both in Europe and the United States, Jews must fight back "without being intimidated," Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman told The Jerusalem Post Sunday. The new form of American anti-Semitism, he said, is not unlike the old claims that Jews run the banks, the newspapers, Hollywood. The difference is that now, that perception is gaining ground in the mainstream. Foxman said that over the last two years, questions of Jews' loyalty to the United States and to what extent Jews dictate American foreign policy, have been given new legitimacy. "We have lived this for years, but never quite like today," he said." (Saul Elbein ‘'Jews worldwide should fight back'’ June 24, 2007).

(10) "The use of the term "holocaust" is usually restricted to descriptions of the Nazi genocide of the Jews in Europe in the Second World War, and many Israelis resent its use in any other context." (James Hider ‘Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza’ March 1, 2008); "Presumably uncomfortable with a senior public figure in Israel comparing his government’s policies to the Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry, many news services referred to Vilnai’s clearly articulated threat as a "warning", as though he was prophesying a cataclysmic natural event over which he and the Israeli army had no control. However, no one in Israel was fooled. "Shoah", which literally means "burnt offering", was long ago reserved for the Holocaust, much as the Arabic word "nakba" (or "catastrophe") is nowadays used only to refer to the Palestinians’ dispossession by Israel in 1948. Certainly, the Israeli media in English translated Vilnai’s use of "shoah" as "holocaust"." (Jonathan Cook ‘Israel Plots Another Palestinian Exodus: The Meaning of Gaza's 'Shoah'’ March 8-9, 2008).

(11) "Soltanieh's comments came after Israeli ambassador Israel Michaeli told the conference that Arab speakers' assertions that Olmert had said Israel had nuclear weapons were "lies"." (Michael Adler ‘Iran and Israel face off over nuclear weapons’ September 21, 2007).

(12) Chirac broke the taboo in an offhand comment but was quickly chastised by the taboo masters. "The advocates of the war declare that it is necessary in order to prevent a "Second Holocaust". That has already become a mantra. This week, Jacques Chirac nearly exploded it, when he expressed the self-evident: that if an Iranian nuclear bomb were launched at Israel, Israel would wipe Tehran from the face of the earth. The Iranian rulers are not mad and the "balance of terror" will do its job. But the "friends" of Israel and the USA started to pelt Chirac with verbal rocks, and he hastily retracted." (Uri Avnery ‘Wars and Scandals. The Fatal Kiss’ February 5, 2007).

(13) For zionists global efforts to promote a global concept of anti-semitism please see. "What do Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, Ehud Olmert and, yes, me all have in common? We could each be censured for racism according to the European Union Monitoring Centre's 'working definition of anti-Semitism' which was last week adopted by the UK's National Union of Students as official policy. This definition has lately been sweeping all before it, taking endorsements everywhere from the All Party Parliamentary Report on anti-Semitism to the US state department's special envoy for combating anti-Semitism. The British government has pledged to re-examine its own definition of anti-Semitism if the EUMC's successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, ratifies the new lingua franca. So it's actually a bit shocking to discover that it was largely drafted by a pro-Israel advocate who gives talks on how to elide the distinction between anti-Zionism and Jew Hatred. Kenneth Stern is the American Jewish Committee's expert on anti-Semitism and in 'Defining Anti-Semitism', a paper published by Tel Aviv University's Stephen Roth Institute, he explained how he developed the working definition 'along with other experts' in the second half of 2004." (Arthur Neslen ‘When an Anti-Semite is Not an Anti-Semite’ April 7/8, 2007).

(14) The reason that zionists are so intent on hyping up the fantasies about anti-semitism is because they want to combat assimilated jews and pressure them into emigrating to palestine. "If we have a conference on anti-Semitism," he (Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman) said, "sure, it could be here. But it would be better for it to be in Brussels. I think Israel is the ultimate answer to anti-Semitism, but as a place of refuge. The Law of Return is the most powerful weapon for fighting anti-Semitism that the Jewish people could have ever created." (Saul Elbein ‘'Jews worldwide should fight back'’ June 24, 2007

(15) See Philip Weiss 'There Is No Israel Lobby' March 13, 2008. See also, "The columnist who wrote the piece is Dana Milbank, who in 2006 suggested that Walt and Mearsheimer are Nazis for talking about something called "the Israel lobby." When Milbank cites "fealty to Israel" and describes security guards with Israeli accents, it's hard to tell how ironic he is being. I think he is impish; and is trying himself to marginalize Obama without coming out and saying so." (Philip Weiss ‘Apparently Without Irony, Washington Post Says Jewish Advocates Demand that Obama Show 'Fealty to Israel'’ March 18, 2008).

(16) See for example tony karon.

(17) "Regarding John McCain's patently false statement that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Qaeda members in Iraq, a falsehood which the McCain campaign attributed merely to the fact that "John McCain misspoke and immediately corrected himself" … There are only two plausible possibilities which could account for McCain's false statements: (1) he was engaged in the standard tactic of war advocates, perpetrated ever since 9/11, of just asserting that disparate (and even warring) Muslim factions are allies with one another in the Endless War without there being any evidence that this is so (Saddam loves Al Qaeda which loves Hezbollah which loves the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which loves Iran which loves the Taliban which loves Hamas which loves Osama bin Laden, etc. etc.), or (2) McCain is just completely ignorant of the most elementary facts about the region and the war in which the media has decreed him to be a Great Expert." (Glenn Greenwald ‘McCain's repeated "slips of the tongue" on Iran and al-Qaida’ March 19, 2008).

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home