here’s three separate uploads of the same thing, cos BBC could scrag it

prepare thyselves to deal with further examples of sub-marxism (a mental cult akin to church of the sub-genius)

Finkelstein condemns ‘obscene’ Labour anti-Semitism row
Lizzie Dearden, Platon Lebedev’s privately owned opinion newspaper (the Independent), May 4 2016

The Pindosi ‘political scientist’ (sneer quotes cos ‘political science’ is an oxymoron – RB) who posted the diagram that triggered an antisemitism row in the Labour Party has dismissed the furore as “obscene”. Norman G Finkelstein, a Jewish author whose parents survived concentration camps during the Holocaust, (ya ya ya ya ya) ….. said he published the map shared by Naz Shah on his blog in 2014. It went up on his website on Aug 4, the day before the future Bradford West MP shared it on her Facebook page. Ms Shah has been suspended from Labour and quit two of her posts, while comments made by Ken Livingstone in her defence sparked a new row culminating in an independent review into anti-Semitism in the party. Finkelstein said he posted the map because he found it funny, and that such “jokes are commonplace in Pindostan.” In an interview published by Open Democracy, he called comparisons to Adolf Eichmann“sick.” He said:

What are they doing? Don’t they have any respect for the dead? All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position, have they no shame?

Finkelstein, whose work including a book called The Holocaust Industry has met with controversy (assholes in female form like Lizzie Dearden – RB) also said Livingstone was “more or less accurate” with his subsequent claims about Adolf Hitler. The former Mayor of London was suspended from the Labour Party for saying:

Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism, this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.

Analysts (WTF is that? A psychoanalyst? Fuck off, Lizzie – RB) have said that although Hitler’s government explored various “transfer agreements” before the Final Solution, it did not amount to supporting Zionism, because the Nazis opposed the self-determination at the heart of the movement. Finkelstein called comparisons between the Israeli government and Nazis “gratuitous and a distraction,” but said politicians should not be “crucified” over them. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the divisive (displeasing) author, who was banned from entering Israel for 10 years in 2008, does not represent “mainstream” views in Britain. The Board’s hasbara overlord, Simon Round, told the slavish Independent:

He might think the map was funny, but most Jews in this country think the very opposite. It might have been treated as some kind of joke, but there are sensitivities there, and the context is vital. It’s not something that sits well.

Mr Finkelstein was also sceptical of Labour’s anti-Semitism inquiry, arguing that finding a working definition of the term will be “impossible.” Something claiming to be a ‘UK-based Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’ told The Independent that being “anti-Zionist” is anti-Semitic. A robot voice on the line from Unit 8200 said:

Zionism is the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in Israel. All people have the right to self-determination. but only when we bring up their cases favourably within the world press, of course. So denying that right just to Jews is anti-Semitic. It is not anti-Semitic to oppose Israeli policies, but examples of hatred directed at Jewish people, disguised as political discourse, (include but are not limited to p, q, r, s, t, u, v and w).

But (stop saying ‘but’) the Plastelina Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said there was a clear difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, calling the latter a “political ideology” that could be legitimately contested. Their spox said:

While some seek to define Zionism as the right of Jewish people to self-determination, the Zionism of the Israeli state has resulted in the denial of basic human rights to Plastelinans Arabs. To confuse legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism, whether deliberately or otherwise, only serves to undermine the struggle against racism.

Ms Shah stood down from her post on the Home Affairs Select Committee as the row continued on Tuesday. The committee is conducting the inquiry into anti-Semitism, which could see David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn among the prominent politicians giving evidence.

Cameron? WTFTFTF??? Anyway, here is the Finkster in extenso. After this, I shall take the rest of the day off. Famous last words! – RB

The Pindo Jewish scholar behind Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ scandal breaks his silence
Jamie Stern-Weiner (what a name! – RB), Open Sesame Open Democracy, May 3 2016

Norman Finkelstein is no stranger to controversy. The Pindosi Jewish scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the Isro-Pal conflict and the political legacy of the Nazi holocaust. Apart from his parents, every member of Finkelstein’s family, on both sides, was exterminated in the Nazi holocaust. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, which was serialised in the Graun, became an international best-seller and touched off a ferocious shitstorm. But Finkelstein’s most recent political intervention came about by accident. Last month, Naz Shah MP became one of the most high-profile cases to date in the ‘anti-Semitism’ scandal still shaking the Labour leadership. Shah was suspended from the Labour party, among other things, for reposting an image on Facebook that was alleged to be anti-Semitic. The image depicted a map of Pindostan with Israel superimposed, and suggested resolving the Isro-Pal conflict by relocating Israel into Pindostan. It has been reported that Shah got the image from Finkelstein’s website. I spoke with Finkelstein about why he posted the image, and what he thinks of allegations that the Labour party has a “Jewish problem.”

Q: Did you create the controversial image that Naz Shah reposted?
A: I’m not adept enough with computers to compose any image, but I did post the map on my website in 2014. An email correspondent must have sent it. It was and still is funny. Were it not for the current political context, nobody would have noticed Shah’s reposting of it, either. Otherwise you’d have to be humourless. These sorts of jokes are a commonplace in Pindostan. So we have this joke: Why doesn’t Israel become the 51st state? Answer: Because then, it would only have two senators. As crazy as the discourse on Israel is in Pindostan, at least we still have a sense of humour. It’s inconceivable that any politician in Pindostan would be crucified for posting such a map (nothing is inconceivable, said niqnaq darkly – RB).
Q: Shah’s posting of that image has been presented as an endorsement by her of a “chilling transportation” policy.” John Mann MP compared her to Eichmann.
A: Frankly I find that obscene. It’s doubtful these Holocaust mongers have a clue what the deportations were or of the horrors that attended them. I remember my late mother describing her deportation. She was in the Warsaw Ghetto. The survivors of the Ghetto Uprising, about 30,000 Jews, were deported to Maijdanek concentration camp. They were herded into railroad cars. My mother was sitting in the railroad car next to a woman who had her child. And the woman… I know it will shock you… the woman suffocated her infant child to death in front of my mother. She suffocated her child rather than take her to where they were going. That’s what it meant to be deported. To compare that to someone posting a light-hearted innocuous cartoon making a little joke about how Israel is in thrall to Pindostan or vice versa, is sick! What are they doing? Don’t they have any respect for the dead? All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position! Have they no shame?
Q: What about when people use Nazi analogies to criticise the policies of the State of Israel? Isn’t that also a political abuse of the Nazi holocaust?
A: It’s not a simple question. First, if you’re Jewish, the instinctive analogy to reach for, when it comes to hate or hunger, war or genocide, is the Nazi holocaust, because we see it as the ultimate horror. In my home growing up, whenever an incident involving racial discrimination or bigotry was in the news, my mother would compare it to her experience before or during the Nazi holocaust. My mother had been enrolled in the Mathematics faculty of Warsaw University, I guess in 1937-38. Jews were forced to stand in a segregated section of the lecture hall, and the anti-Semites would physically attack them. You might recall the scene in Julia, when Vanessa Redgrave loses her leg trying to defend Jews under assault in the university. I remember once asking my mother, “How did you do in your studies?” She replied, “What are you talking about? How could you study under those conditions?” When she saw the segregation of African-Americans Black Pindostanis, whether at a lunch counter or in the school system, that was for her like the prologue to the Nazi holocaust. Whereas many Jews now say, “Never compare,” (Elie Wiesel’s refrain, “It’s bad but it’s not The Holocaust”), my mother’s credo was, “Always compare.” She gladly and generously made the imaginative leap to those who were suffering, wrapping and shielding them in the embrace of her own suffering. For my mother, the Nazi holocaust was a chapter in the long history of the horror of war. It was not itself a war. She was emphatic that it was an extermination, not a war. But it was a unique chapter within the war. So for her, war was the ultimate horror. When she saw Vietnamese being bombed during the Vietnam War, it was the Nazi holocaust. It was the bombing, the death, the horror, the terror, that she herself had passed through. When she saw the distended bellies of starving children in Biafra, it was also the Nazi holocaust, because she remembered her own pangs of hunger in the Warsaw Ghetto. If you’re Jewish, it’s just normal that the Nazi holocaust is a ubiquitous, instinctual touchstone. Some Jews say this or that horror is not the Nazi holocaust, others say it is, but the reference point of the Nazi holocaust is a constant.
Q: What about when people who aren’t Jewish invoke the analogy?
A: Once the Nazi holocaust became the cultural referent, then if you wanted to touch a nerve regarding Plastelinan suffering, you had to make the analogy with the Nazis, because that was the only thing that resonated for Jews. If you compared the Plastelinans to Native Americans, nobody would give a darn. In 1982, when I and a handful of other Jews took to the streets of New York to protest Israel’s invasion of Lebanon (in which up to 18,000 Lebanese and Plastelinans Arabs were killed, overwhelmingly civilians, I held a sign saying, “This son of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Auschwitz, Maijdanek, will not be silent! Israeli Nazis, Stop the Holocaust in Lebanon!” After my mother died, I found a picture of me holding that sign in a drawer among her keepsakes. I remember as the cars drove past, one of the guys protesting with me kept saying, “Hold the sign higher!’ and I kept replying, “Easy for you to say!” If you invoked that analogy, it shook Jews. It jolted them enough that at least you got their attention. I don’t think it’s necessary any more, because Israel’s crimes against the Plastelinans Arabs now have an integrity of their own. They no longer have to be juxtaposed to or against the Nazi holocaust. Today, the Nazi analogy is gratuitous and a distraction.
Q: Is it anti-Semitic?
A: No, it’s just a weak historical analogy, but if coming from a Jew, a generous moral one.
Q: Last week, Ken Livingstone took to the airwaves to defend Naz Shah, but what he said wound up getting him suspended from the Labour party. His most incendiary remark contended that Hitler at one point supported Zionism. This was condemned as anti-Semitic, and Labour MP John Mann accused Livingstone of being a “Nazi apologist.” What do you make of these accusations?
A: Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough and lacked nuance, but he does know something about that dark chapter in history. It has been speculated that Hitler’s thinking on how to solve the Jewish Question, as it was called back then, evolved as circumstances changed and new possibilities opened up. Hitler wasn’t wholly hostile to the Zionist project at the outset. That’s why so many German Jews managed to survive after Hitler came to power by emigrating to Plastelina. But then Hitler came to fear that a Jewish state might strengthen the hand of “International Jewry” (that is more realistic than Gilad’s silly idea that Hitler was seized by a fit of anti-imperialism! – RB), so he suspended contact with the Zionists. Later, Hitler perhaps contemplated a ‘territorial solution’ for the Jews. The Nazis considered many ‘resettlement’ schemes. The Jews wouldn’t have physically survived most of them in the long run. Finally, they embarked on an outright exterminatory process. Livingstone is more or less accurate about this, or as accurate as might be expected from a politician speaking off the cuff. He’s also accurate that a degree of ideological affinity existed between the Nazis and Zionists. On one critical question, which raged in Britain during the period (1917) when the Balfour Declaration was being cobbled together, anti-Semites and Zionists agreed: could a Jew be an Englishman? Ironically, in light of the current hysteria in Britain, the most vociferous and vehement opponents of the Balfour Declaration were not the Arabs, about whom almost nobody gave a darn, but the upper reaches of British Jewry. Eminent British Jews published open letters to newspapers like the Times opposing British backing for a Jewish home in Plastelina. They understood such a declaration, and Zionism itself, as implying that a Jew belonged to a distinct nation, and that the Jewish nation should have its own separate state, which they feared would effectively disqualify Jews from bona fide membership in the British nation. What distinguished the Zionists from the liberal Jewish aristocracy was their point of departure. As Theodor Herzl put it at the beginning of The Jewish State:

The Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one… It is a national question.

Whereas the Anglo-Jewish aristocracy insisted Judaism was merely a religion, the Zionists were emphatic that the Jews constituted a nation. And on this point, the salient point back then, the Zionists and Nazis agreed. John Mann, when he accosted Livingstone in front of the cameras, asked rhetorically whether Livingstone had read Mein Kampf. If you do read Mein Kampf, which I suspect none of the interlocutors in this debate has done (I used to teach it, before the ‘Zionists’ drove me out of academia ), you see that Hitler is emphatic that Jews are not a religion, but a nation. He says that the big Jewish lie is that they claim to be a religion; whereas in fact, he says, they’re a race (at that time, ‘race’ was used interchangeably with ‘nation’). And on page 56 of the standard English edition of Mein Kampf, he says that the only Jews honest enough to acknowledge this reality are the Zionists. Now, to be clear, Hitler didn’t just think that Jews were a distinct race. He also thought that they were a Satanic race, and ultimately, that they were a Satanic race that had to be exterminated. Still, on the first, not trivial, premise, he and the Zionists were in agreement. As a practical matter, the Zionists and Nazis could therefore find a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine. It was a paradox that, against the emphatic protestations of liberal Jews, including sections of the Anglo-Jewish establishment, antisemites and Zionists back then effectively shared the same slogan: Jews to Palestine. It was why, for example, the Nazis forbade German Jews to raise the swastika flag, but expressly permitted them to hoist the Zionist flag. It was as if to say, the Zionists are right: Jews can’t be Germans, they belong in Palestine. Hannah Arendt wrote scathingly about this in Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is one of the reasons she caught hell from the Jewish/Zionist establishment.
Q: Even if there was a factual basis for Livingstone’s remarks, to bring the issue up at that moment – wasn’t he just baiting Jews?
A: I can understand his motivation, because I’m of roughly his generation. If he was ‘baiting’, it was a reflexive throwback to the factional polemics in the 1970s-80s. Israel marketed Zionists as the only Jews who had resisted the Nazis. The propaganda image projected back then was, the only resistance to the Nazis came from the Zionists, and the natural corollary was, the only force protecting Jews now is Israel. Every other Jew was either a coward, ‘going like sheep to slaughter’, or a collaborator. Those who dissented from Israeli policy back then, in order to undercut this Zionist propaganda, and to strike a nerve with them, would recall this unsavoury chapter in Zionism’s history. Some pamphlets and books appeared – such as Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) – to document this ‘perfidious Zionist-Nazi collaboration’. Livingstone’s recent comments were born of the same reflex that motivated us back then. These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin. That’s how we used to fight this political battle: by dredging up those sordid chapters in Zionist history. Livingstone based himself on Brenner’s book. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that perhaps Brenner’s book contains factual errors, it’s more of a party pamphlet than a scholarly tome, and it’s not exactly weighed down with copious documentation. Still, the fact of the matter is, when Brenner’s book was published, it garnered positive reviews in the respectable British press. The Times, which is today leading the charge against Livingstone and the elected Labour leadership, back then published a review praising Brenner’s book as ‘crisp and carefully documented’. The reviewer, the eminent editorialist Edward Mortimer, observed that ‘Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s’. So, it’s a tribute to Ken Livingstone that at age 70 he remembered a book he read more than 30 years ago, that got a good review in the Times when it first appeared. If the Times is upset at Livingstone’s remarks, it has only itself to blame. I myself only read Brenner’s book after the Times review.
Q: Let’s zoom out a bit. You’ve written a great deal about how antisemitism accusations have been used to discredit and distract from criticism of Israel. Should we see the current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left more generally as the latest episode in that history?
A: These campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent political isolation. If you search your nearest library catalogue for ‘new anti-Semitism’, you’ll come up with titles from the 1970s proclaiming a ‘new anti-Semitism’, titles from the 1980s proclaiming a ‘new anti-Semitism’, titles from the 1990s proclaiming a ‘new anti-Semitism’ and then a huge uptick including from British writers during the so-called Second Intifada from 2001. Let’s not forget, just last year there was a hysteria in Britain over anti-Semitism. A couple of ridiculous polls purported to find that nearly half of Britons held an anti-Semitic belief and that most British Jews feared for their future in Britain. Although these polls were dismissed by specialists, they triggered the usual media feeding frenzy as the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent hyperventilated about this ‘rampant’ ‘new anti-Semitism’. It was exposed as complete nonsense when, in Apr 2015, a reputable poll by Pew found that the level of anti-Semitism in Britain had remained stable, at an underwhelming 7%. This farce happened only last year. One would have imagined that its mongers would be hiding in shame, and that we would enjoy at least a brief respite from the theatrics. But lo and behold, in the blink of an eye, right in the wake of the Pew poll showing that anti-Semitism in Britain is marginal, the hysteria has started up all over again. The reality is, there is probably more prejudice in Britain against fat people than there is prejudice against Jews. Ask yourself a simple but serious question. You go for a job interview. Which trait is most likely to work against you: if you’re ugly, if you’re fat, if you’re short, or if you’re Jewish. It’s perhaps a sad commentary on our society’s values, but the trait most likely to elicit a rejection letter is if you’re ugly; then fat; then short. The factor least likely to work against you is, if you’re Jewish. On the contrary, aren’t Jews smart and ambitious? Pew found anti-Semitism levels at 7%. Is that grounds for a national hysteria? A May 2015 YouGov poll found that 40% of British adults don’t like Muslims, and nearly 60% don’t like Roma. Imagine what it’s like to apply for a job if you’re a Roma! So where is your order of moral priorities?
Q: Many of those involved in last year’s ‘anti-Semitism’ hysterics are also participants in the current campaign against Corbyn.
A: The question you have to ask yourself is, why? Why has this issue been resurrected with a vengeance, so soon after its previous outing was disposed of as a farce? Is it because of a handful of allegedly anti-Semitic social media postings from Labour members? Is it because of the tongue-in-cheek map posted by Naz Shah? That’s not believable. The only plausible answer is, it’s political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation. Instead, a few suspect cases of anti-Semitism, some real, some contrived, are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it’s transparently a smear campaign. The ‘anti-Semitism’ accusations are being driven by the Conservatives ahead of the local and Mayoral elections. But they’re also being exploited by the Labour Right to undermine Corbyn’s leadership, and by pro-Israel Zionist groups to discredit the Plastelina Solidarity Movement. You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the anti-Semitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn. Incidentally, when my book The Holocaust Industry came out in 2000, Freedland wrote:

(Finkelstein) is closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it.

Although he appears to be o-so-politically-correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to suggest that I resembled the Nazis who gassed my family. We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders… for them, it’s all in a day’s work. Why should anyone get agitated? Later, on the program, it was pointed out that the Guardian, where he worked, had serialised The Holocaust Industry across two issues. He was asked by the presenter: If my book was the equivalent of Mein Kampf, would he resign from the paper? Of course not! Didn’t the presenter get that it’s all a game? Compare the Pindostani scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in Pindostan, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in Pindosi history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims! Meanwhile, what are the Blairite, Israel Lobby creeps up to in Britain? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a journey! Of course, what they mean is:

She’s on a journey of self-revelation and epiphany, to understanding the inner anti-Semite at the core of her being!

But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an anti-Semite. Because of these people! Because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion! Here is this Muslim woman MP who is trying to integrate Muslims into British political life, and to set by her own person an example both to British society at large and to the Muslim community writ small. She is, by all accounts from her constituents, a respected and honourable person. You can only imagine how proud her parents, her siblings, must be. How proud the Muslim community must be. We’re always told how Muslim women are oppressed, repressed and depressed, and now you have this Muslim woman who has attained office. But now she’s being crucified, her career wrecked, her life ruined, her future in tatters, branded an ‘antisemite’ and a closet Nazi, and inflicted with these rituals of self-abasement. It’s not hard to imagine what her Muslim constituents must think now about Jews. These power-hungry creeps are creating new hate by their petty machinations. As Donald Trump likes to say, it’s disgusting. Labour has now set up an inquiry that is supposed to produce a workable definition of ‘anti-Semitism,’ which is to say, to achieve the impossible. It’s been tried countless times before and it’s always proven futile. The only beneficiaries of such a mandate will be academic ‘specialists’ on anti-Semitism, who will receive hefty consultancy fees. I can already see Richard Evans at the head of the queue. Israel will no longer be in the spotlight. I understand the short-term political rationale. But at some point, you have to say, ‘enough already’. Jews are prospering as never before in Britain. The polls show that the number of, so to speak, hard-core anti-Semites is miniscule. It’s time to put a stop to this periodic charade, because it ends up besmirching the victims of the Nazi holocaust, diverting from the real suffering of the (Plastelinan sheeple, or as Rowan sometimes exasperatedly calls them, creeple), and poisoning relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities. You just had an anti-Semitism hysteria last year, and it was a farce. And now again? Another inquiry? Another investigation? No. In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these anti-Semitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer, but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah and begging her forgiveness.

CLARIFICATION: Readers have expressed shock at the scandalous remarks attributed to Jonathan Freedland. Finkelstein decided to amend the paragraph so as to quote Freedland word-for-word. Readers will now perhaps be even more shocked.

definitely time for another of my kabbalistic efforts (remember, i pull these straight outta my ass)

In previous posts, I have given a general picture of four worlds. Assiah (action) is the lowest world, and it is nothing other than the physical universe itself, considered purely in material terms. I consider that ‘matter’ is ‘the shells’, by the way. I do not believe in another world for the ‘shells’ beneath Assiah. Minds (ruhot) all live in Yetzirah (formation, approx), which is the next world up. We might as well call it the Astral Plane, though of course this is just one of those dotty english expressions coined by Mme Blavatsky in the 19th century e.v. for the Theosophists. I think of Yetzirah as something like Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Lost World”, which was a prehistoric jungle protected by some sort of freak geological fissure in the middle of Africa and inhabited by classical and much-loved prehistoric monsters. But Yetzirah is entirely non-material. You can be whatever you will to be in Yetzirah, as long as your will is strong enough to sustain you. You have no body and no brain, so your mind is held together by will and self-awareness alone. It is in this form and onto this plane that you emerge at physical (shell) death. Now I want to make my actual point, which I warn you involves faculties you may not have yet. The test is as follows: can you recall, on acid perhaps, looking at a visual surface of undetermined location (whether without you or within you), and perceiving that it is itself already latently alive? And that your own gaze is having the effect of differentiating previously indistinct points on it, which begin to emerge from the surface and acquire personalities, self-awareness, and apparently even ‘souls’ of their own, simply because you are gazing upon them? Read David Tibet’s magnificent (anti-Christian) song “Christ and the Pale Queens, if you haven’t. Notice the lines:

But when the angels came to awareness within their light,
They forgot me and wanted to be as I am…

That is not quite how I perceive it: in fact, when I was a teenage acidhead I was always terrified I would invite a fierce response against myself if I allowed these hallucinations to develop. But now I have a superior (and legal) psychedelic, salvia divinorum, and I am in a position to say that I should have let it happen. Given the subcultural mores of the day (1968/9), I would probably have emerged as a sort of teenage Satanist. My point in any case does not concern my own capacities or lack of them, but the substantial layout of the four worlds. What I am trying to develop is the idea that each world has an undifferentiated continuum as its floor, composed of the substance of the consciousness which inhabits the next world down. So when the beings in the upper world look down, they immediately begin to evoke self-aware individualities from the world below, beings which would not otherwise have come into differentiated, individual, self-aware existence except by being gazed upon. So:

  • Assiah has a floor composed of matter (qlipah).
  • Yetzirah has a floor of nefesh (animal life energy, dominant form of consciousness in Assiah).
  • B’riah has a floor of ruh (mind, dominant form of consciousness in Yetzirah).
  • Atzilut has a floor of neshamah (soul), dominant form of consciousness in B’riah. IMO, the neshamot are group souls. They are in fact our ‘heavens’, since they are the highest that human-style individualities can ever reach. IMO, the surface of each group-soul is composed of numerous erotically and actively interwoven ruhot, but the interior contains the neshamah proper, which is a higher form of consciousness corresponding roughly to what on earth is called a nation, a faith, a race, or whatever. (It cannot be read off from material DNA, I promise you that.) It is not possible to fly up from the floor of Yetzirah to your desired and longed-for group-soul home in B’riah unaided, unless somebody up there likes you, or else you have really fantastic wings (ie willpower) – RB

one has to wonder why parry doesn’t give a link to the huffpost blog where this originally appeared (perhaps it was deleted there?)

Kristen Breitweiser is a 9/11 widow and activist who along with other 9/11 widows known collectively as the “Jersey Girls” pressured the govt to conduct a formal investigation into 9/11. This article originally appeared as a blog post at Huffington Post. 9/11 widows Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken also signed their names to this blog post. So says Parry, who gives no link – RB

Shying Away from 9/11 Evidence
Kristen Breitweiser, Consortium News, May 3 2016

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote an op-ed last week in Pindostan Today, trying to “temper” feelings surrounding the release of “the 28 pages.” Kean and Hamilton wrote:

The 28 pages have generated a lot of public speculation over the years and have been described as a ‘smoking gun’ implicating the Toads in the deadliest terrorist attack carried out on Pindosi soil. What often gets lost in those theories is that the 28 pages were based almost entirely on raw unvetted material that came to the FBI. That material was written up as possible leads for further investigation, and the 28 pages were a summary of some of those reports and leads as of the end of 2002, all of them uninvestigated.

What Kean and Hamilton fail to acknowledge is the reason the “raw, unvetted material” was left “uninvestigated” was strictly because of the 9/11 Commission’s Staff Director, Philip Zelikow, who has too many conflicts of interest to list in this article. Suffice it to say that a critical portion of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report can be seen as merely a fairy-tale rendition or intelligence “legend” of Zelikow’s design. Zelikow’s own Staff Statement talks about an “intelligence story.” Chapters 5 & 7 provide most of the vital pieces of information surrounding the 9/11 plot, citing ‘KSM’s nterviews’ (RB) as their primary source. Why any responsible historian, such as Zelikow professes to be, would base an official accounting of the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor on the bogus ramblings of a tortured terrorist (or patsy or fuck knows what – RB)? That’s why anything and everything that comes out of Zelikow’s mouth should be questioned for its veracity and motive. If the person in charge of torturing KSM wanted to obscure the role of the Toads, is it surprising that KSM would say what his torturer wanted to hear? And is it a surprise that the person or persons in charge of KSM’s torture wanted to obscure the Pindosi government’s own awareness of the threat, and indeed specific knowledge of many of the terrorist activities before the attack? Indeed, regarding the 9/11 Commission’s treatment of the role in the 9/11 attacks, Zelikow’s hand is easily detected. Look at these three items:

  1. Zelikow blocked and then fired Dana Lesemann when she tried to investigate the uninvestigated leads in the 28 pages. Where were Tom and Lee when this happened?
  2. It was only Zelikow and Dieter Snell who were granted access and able to question Omar Bayoumi, a man who stands at the center of any possible Toad connection to the 9/11 attacks. Why were Zelikow and Snell the only ones permitted to interview such a key individual?
  3. It was Zelikow and Snell who “rewrote” the entire section of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report dealing with the Toads, leaving out all the damning, incriminating information. Where is that missing information today? Available for public review?

So please, when Kean and Hamilton say that they “found no evidence linking the Toads to the 9/11 attacks,” pay careful attention to the cute use of their words, “found no evidence,” because there may not have been any soprt of conclusive proof, but there were certainly indications and evidence that required further and immediate follow-up. In addition, note when Kean and Hamilton talk about access granted to the 28 pages being given to “relevant” staff. Which staffers were deemed relevant? Who decided who they were? Zelikow? Everyone had security clearance, so why didn’t all investigative staff have access to the 28 pages? (well, as I’ve said before, TS clearance in itself doesn’t get you access to anything operational; you need SCI read-in to that ‘compartment’ first – RB). Kean and Hamilton proudly state that their report is unclassified and available to the public. But while their final report is unclassified, the source documents for that report remain classified and hidden from the public. And unlike redacted reports where you can readily see what is being kept secret by the dark lines crossing out words, with the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report, we’ll never know how much other pertinent information was kept out and classified by Zelikow. As someone who has looked for specific documents on the National Archives website, I can state emphatically that many of the 9/11 Commission’s most vital and damning documents remain redacted, withheld, classified and/or unavailable to the public. Consider how Kean and Hamilton characterize the 9/11 Review Panel. In reality, it did nothing more than tie up the loose, uncomfortable (damning) ends that would inevitably (have been) created with the release of the 28 pages. Was the Panel’s purpose to uncover the entire 9/11 story, or to stop further inquiry that would eventually uncover the entire truth? I do agree with one section of Kean and Hamilton’s editorial. They write:

The 9/11 attacks were the worst mass murder ever carried out in Pindostan. Those responsible deserve the maximum punishment possible. Therefore, accusations of complicity in that mass murder from responsible authorities are a grave matter. Such charges should be levied with care.

I just hope that both Kean and Hamilton mean what they say when they talk about those responsible and complicit in the 9/11 attacks “deserving the maximum punishment possible.” I hope their definition of complicity is as broad as mine, including actions before and after the crime and actors from inside and outside Pindostan. So for example, let’s just say that our CIA (or a rogue element of it) tried to recruit two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, who were already in contact with agents of the Toads. In carrying out that task, the CIA worked with those Toad agents, in the recruitment process. Thus, all the Toad contacts and support for the hijackers detailed in the 28 pages (the so-called “smoking gun”) necessarily reveals the CIA/Toad cooperation in dealing with those two 9/11 hijackers. Incidentally, this might explain why DCI Brennan has joined the chorus in stating that all information released in the 28 pages is “uncorroborated, unvetted information.” Will Kean and Hamilton support holding the CIA officials accountable? Will Cofer Black and James Pavitt be held accountable? George Tenet? John McLaughlin? What about John Brennan? Or Michael Hayden? Bob Mueller? Richard Clarke? Too late for Sandy Berger and those docs he stuffed in his socks, but what about Bill Clinton? Bush? Cheney? Rice? And Obama? How about Zelikow, and all others who have known the truth for years and kept silent? When Kean and Hamilton say complicity is a “grave matter,” I hope they follow through on their word. Clearly, much will depend on how good a job was done by the 9/11 Review Panel, but putting that aside, I certainly hope the government does not expect the 9/11 families to ignore 15 years of their cover-up and capitalized “opportunities” in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. I’m quoting Condi Rice in the immediate wake of the attacks. She said:

How can we capitalize on these opportunities?

That’s right, she called the mass murder of 3,000 innocent people an “opportunity” that should be “capitalized upon.” Recently, we’ve seen that even though decades have passed since Dennis Hastert committed his despicable deeds, he was eventually caught and held accountable for the cover-up of those deeds. To me, this demonstrates that the truth will always emerge. Fifteen years after the 9/11 murders, we have uncovered a part of that truth, let us hope it does not take another 15 years for the whole truth to emerge. Rest assured, we will never give up nor will we ever go away.

whether the covert policy behind this is pindo or israeli, it is in any case jewish, so don’t be fooled by any bluster from turkey about gaza or anything else

Erdogan preparing to replace Davutoglu
Orhan Coskun, Ercan Gurses, Ayla Jean Yackley, Nick Tattersall, Reuters, May 4 2016

ANKARA – Turkey’s ruling party is set to replace PM Davutoglu at an extraordinary congress in the coming weeks, no fewer than five AK boxtops confirmed to Reuters on Wednesday, signalling the end of his term as premier and plunging the country into further political uncertainty. The decision came after a meeting of more than 90 mins between Davutoglu and Erdogan that followed weeks of increasingly public tension between the two. Erdogan wants an executive presidency in Turkey to replace the current parliamentary system, a plan for which Davutoglu has offered only lukewarm support. His departure is likely to pave the way for a successor more willing to back Erdogan’s ambition of changing the constitution and strengthening the presidency, a move which obviously will herald growing authoritarianism. One of the officials told Reuters:

The president and prime minister reached agreement on the congress. I don’t think Davutoglu will be a candidate again.

Erdogan already serves as prime minister in practice. The lira weakened more than 4% against the dollar, its weakest since the end of February. Wolfango Piccoli of Teneo Intelligence (whatever the hell that is – RB), said:

Davutoglu’s likely early exit as party leader and PM constitutes another episode that show that Erdogan’s dominance over the AKP and the executive is absolute and unchallenged. In the short term, policy paralysis will prevail, and then once a new party leader is elected, a more incisive effort to amend the constitution could ensue.

The AKP boxtop said the congress would be held between May 21 and Jun 6, the first day of Ramadan, and that Erdogan was adamant there should be no vacuum of power at the head of government. Three sources close to the presidency said possible successors included govt spox Kurtulmus and Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag. Transport Minister Binali Yildirim and Energy Minister Berat Albayrak (Erdogan’s son-in-law) have also been touted as possibles. Erdogan’s drive to tighten his grip on power has caused an increasingly open rift with Davutoglu. Erdogan wants a robust presidential system as a guarantee against the fractious coalition politics that hampered Turkey in the 1990s. His opponents see a stronger presidency as a vehicle for his own ambition. Such a system would have seen Davutoglu, a more mild-mannered academic and former diplomat who lacks Erdogan’s natural appeal to crowds, sidelined. The two have governed in a strained alliance since Erdogan won the presidency in 2014 and Davutoglu replaced him as prime minister. Aides to Davutoglu had largely dismissed the tensions as matters of style rather than substance. But in the clearest sign yet of a power struggle, the authority to appoint candidates to provincial AKP posts was taken from Davutoglu last week. The move reduced Davutoglu’s hold over the party grass-roots and cemented Erdogan’s influence. The two leaders have appeared at odds over the deal with the EU, Davutoglu’s project, and its future may be less certain after his departure. Erdogan has at times appeared to belittle Davutoglu’s progress. Erdogan said recently about the much-prized visa-free entry to the EU:

During my time as prime minister it was announced it would come in Oct 2016. I don’t understand why bringing it forward four months is presented as a win. I’m saddened by the presentation of small things in a bigger light.

Former diplomat and political commentator Sinan Ulgen of the EDAM think-tank whatever in Istanbul said:

(The two have always faced a) fundamental dilemma. Erdogan’s end goal is to consolidate enough popular support to switch to a presidential system. Davutoglu’s end goal is to consolidate his own power and be a successful prime minister.

none of this is as surprising or disgraceful as it seems, because there are hardware triggers in the normal human that will make it happen, given favourable media

Elor Azarya, King of Israel
Dan Cohen, Mondoweiss, May 4 2016


The episode since IOF medic Elor Azarya (a dual-national Israeli-French citizen, by the way) was filmed summarily executing Abd’al-Fattah al-Sharif has been a sobering reminder of the Israeli right wing’s total and long-standing dominance over the Zionist left, manifesting into a display unseen since the last war on Gaza, when anti-war protesters were beaten in the streets. On Mar 24, Azarya was caught on film summarily executing a wounded & incapacitated Plastelinan man Arab youth as he lay on the ground in Hebron. As the video went viral, the Israeli public Jewish public (this endless effort to recast a colonialist racial war in terms of nineteenth-century abstract nationalism is fundamentally dishonest and intended solely to prevent the Pindo creeple fron unwelcome comparisons to their own dear civil war – RB) rallied around Azarya. A petition for his release gained 50,000 signatures in a few days, and a poll revealed that 82% of Israelis Jews support the execution (his act! My God, this is bad writing – RB). Across the country, Israelis (Jews) held public events including town halls and streets demonstrations, culminating with a rally for Azarya in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square on Apr 19 that drew what I estimate to be at least 5,000 supporters. From the stage, the square was full as far as the eye could see.

Amid an atmosphere that was overtly celebratory, the mood became sombre at times, as if Azarya was a martyr or had been captured by a rival armed group. But his captors were his own government, and the people demanded his release. On stage, Elor’s mother Oshra Azarya, who called to kill Plastelinan Arab mothers and children on Facebook, broke down when she spoke (babbled in an infantile trance of her own) about her son’s “angel eyes.” Elor’s father Charlie couldn’t muster much beyond nationalistic statements and antiphonal chants like:

We are a strong people! We won’t let anyone wipe us out! Am Israel Chai! We’ll win and fuck the Arabs! Olé! Olé! Olé!

The celebration was a release of the anger from the betrayal they felt from politicians across the board who explicitly instructed soldiers, police and civilians to shoot-to-kill on-the-spot, exactly as Azarya had done. While the event concluded, around 80 Israeli men and boys of army age, some wearing Israeli flags, rose from one knee and jumped (some wearing blue & white asswipes as capes, did some sort of sub-Jabotinskyesque bit of macho military ballet – RB), while chanting (implausibly – RB):

Elor ha-melech Israel! Chai, chai ve kayam!

Traditionally, the chant is “David ha-melech Israel.” According to Orthodox Judaism, the messiah will descend from the bloodline of David. And Elor Azarya, for coldly executing (again, this is simply the wrong word – RB a defenseless man, was David’s heir. Originally named Kings of Israel Square, Israel’s largest public venue was renamed Rabin Square after Rabin was assassinated there in 1995. But Kings of Israel Square is a much more fitting name (I agree – RB). The political forces responsible for Rabin’s assassination were the victors, and they returned to celebrate and crown their king du jour, Elor Azarya. Inciter-in-chief of Rabin’s murder was none other than Netanyahu, currently Israel’s second longest-serving prime minister. Then a member of the opposition, Yael Aronoff wrote in The Political Psychology of Israeli Prime Ministers, Netanyahu led a mock funeral for Rabin featuring a casket and hangman’s noose, and participants chanted “Death to Rabin!” When security services informed Netanyahu of plots to assassinate Rabin, he poured gas on the fire. At an anti-Oslo rally in Jayloomia, images were seen depicting Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform, and Netanyahu addressed the crowd next to a poster reading “Death to Rabin!” Netanyahu’s theatrics purposefully inflamed right-wing anger at Rabin for his role in the Oslo Accords, which established the quisling Palestinian Authority. It was perceived as a rollback of the state’s sovereignty and a threat to Jews. According to Orthodox Judiasm (sic! – RB), the god Yahweh has promised Eretz Yisrael, the biblical Land of Israel, to the Jewish people (That must be the most obtuse sentence yet, not even corrected for spelling mistakes – RB). The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Plastelina, R Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook (again he mindlessly blurts out whatever formulae enter his head, this time the boring litany of forenames – RB), developed a doctrine that settling the land of Plastelina would bring redemption, meaning the establishment of a religious kingdom. Followers of his son, R Zvi Yehuda Kook, established Gush Emunim (the Bloc of the Faithful) (sic, but the Gush is a block on the ground, not a ‘bloc’ – RB), the political settler movement. It was within this national-religious doctrine that Yigal Amir, a right-wing law student, used a loophole in religious law to justify the murder of Rabin (Yigal Amir was not a product of Kook but of Lubavitch plus Kach, they all are nowadays – RB). Derived from the Talmudic dictum, “Whoever comes to kill you, kill him first,”, Amir cited din rodef, a religious license to kill a fellow Jew (din rodef literally means, the law of the pursuer – RB). After three failed attempts, Amir successfully carried out the killing, shooting Rabin after a rally in support of the Oslo Accords.

Often portrayed as a great diplomat, Rabin himself had played the same cynical game too. At an election debate in 1988, he boasted about how many Plastelinans Arabs had been killed, beaten and imprisoned under his command. During the First Intifada he famously ordered IOF to snap the limbs of Plastelinan protesters (ie break the bones of Arabs. Another absolutely crappy sentence! What is wrong with these people? They all write like brainwashed, sleepwalking robots that are themselves trying to sound like humans, cos Pindostan is fucked beyond recovery – RB). But like Rabin, the same forces that Netanyahu rode to the top of Israeli politics are turning on him. He has proven to be a skilled politician, able to navigate Israel’s tribalistic political landscape by adopting increasingly right-wing policies while explaining away the violence meted out against Plastelinans Arabs to the outside world. Public rage directed at Netanyahu throughout the episode of Elor Azarya serves as fodder for figures who have positioned themselves to his right. Like Rabin and Netanyahu did before them, Bennett and Liberman are the most prominent figures to capitalize on Netanyahu’s position. Two weeks before the rally in Tel Aviv, a feeling of anger prevailed over a town hall event in the soldier’s home town of Ramleh. In contrast to the Rabin Square rally, a musical performance was shouted down and forced off stage by the attendees, the loudest of whom was then invited to speak on stage by the mayor.

The man shouted to wild applause:

The moment you send a soldier down path (another failure to correct some sort of typo. As for all these implausible and virtually meaningless slogans and quotes, they are really unimportant, and so indeed is this blog, and that one too. What happens, happens. It has nothing to do with the froth poured out on little stages anywhere – RB) and then call him a murderer, there is a limit to what you can do! Bibi go home!

Outside the event, a young man warned:

We will no longer vote for you, Bibi! Just as we made you rise, so we will make you fall!

The public outpouring of support for Elor Azarya successfully created enough public pressure for the Israeli military prosecutor to downgrade murder charges to manslaughter, and set the stage for the celebration in Rabin Square. Keenly aware of the the political atmosphere, Netanyahu released a statement a few hours before the rally urging leniency for Azarya, saying “IDF soldiers are not murderers.” For now, the primary target of the public rage is DM Ya’alon, who initially distanced himself from the killing for the sake of Israel’s image abroad. Ya’alon is widely seen as having abandoned Azarya, an act of betrayal given the military’s sacrosanct status in Israeli society. Throughout the demonstrations I filmed, signs appeared reading “Ya’alon is expendable. The soldier is not.” An image of Ya’alon’s face in crosshairs with a call for “political assassination” was circulated on a right-wing Whatsapp group:

One Russian Israeli Jewish protester told me:

He’s a fucking leftist kibbutznik! We are Jewish people, and he is Judenrat!

Again, you know, this is all just meaningless froth, it is not serious. But here we must sit & waste time and depress ourselves needlessly, until soon my bride will come and I shall put this blog on ice and disappear with her for as long as possible – RB). The irony of Ya’alon being called a Leftist reaches the highest levels of absurdity. His storied career from the ranks of Israel’s elite commando forces, to applying what he called “chemotherapy” in the occupied West Bank during the Second Intifada, to overseeing the 2014 mega-assault on Gaza, has left him responsible for more death and destruction than any of his detractors will likely ever accomplish. In response to public criticism, Ya’alon called supporters of the soldier, “ISIS”, lending credence to the popular comparison between the self-proclaimed Jewish and Islamic States first made by journalists Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and myself (adding insult to injury is normal Jewish behaviour, and here Rania Khalek does it too – RB). Aware of the damage that “Death to Arabs!” rallies do to Israel’s image abroad, mainstream media outlets and prominent pro-Israel Jewish journalists enlisted in the campaign to smear and delegitimize supporters of Azarya, ie the vast majority of Jewish Israelis, as an aberration unrepresentative of Israeli (Jewish) society. Pindostan-born Times of Israel correspondent Judah Ari Gross wrote an article entitled Tel Aviv rally for Hebron shooter draws fewer than expected. The JPost, now run by Yaakov Katz, a former advisor to Naftali Bennett, sent Pindostan-born correspondent Ben Hartman to the event. The crowd “numbered only a few thousand in the mostly empty square,” he wrote. The JPost’s video of the event thoroughly whitewashed the event (more failure to proofread – RB), omitting the regular chants of “Death to Arabs” and “We will burn your village” emanating from the crowd, as well as signs reading “KILL THEM ALL” and “My honour is loyalty.”

Notably, the video’s lone interviewee made the same criticism (took the same line) as Naftali Bennett, gently criticizing the political and military leadership for “basically trying the young man before we knew all the details.” Even Ha’aretz, the newspaper of Israel’s intelligentsia (well, there is such a thing as a right-wing ‘intelligentsia’ too, and even a centrist one, possibly several. But what the hell, this is just Mondoweiss, just like Niqnaq is just Niqnaq – RB), recently published a podcast reducing the number of protesters to 2,000 and called al-Sharif (the youth murdered by Azarya) a “terrorist” who “wasn’t innocent at all,” despite the Israeli police investigation finding that he didn’t carry out the attack.

Even if Al-Sharif had carried out the stabbing, an attack on an occupying soldier is legal under international law (This is just one of the many stupid, empty, provocative statements the Left keeps making – RB). In sharp contrast to popular media portrayal, Azarya’s family and the crowd were inspired by the strong turnout. Charlie Azarya said to the crowd:

You can not believe the amount of people here! All the sane people are here!

Tablet correspondent Yair Rosenberg, who hails from NYC, dismissed the mob as “extremists”:

Host and former MK Sharon Gal was well aware of the rage towards the media. He shouted:

We came to love! They’re trying to make us look bad!

Even before Gal’s incitement, crowds of young men and boys attacked at least three journalists. A video of David Sheen went viral immediately. Sheen has since uploaded his own footage and combined it with the original viral video. If Ya’alon’s ISIS comment and mainstream media’s marginalization of those in support for Azarya prove anything, it’s that Mizrahim are subject to the same anti-Arab racism that is so prevalent throughout Israeli (Jewish Ashkenazi) society. Indeed, Mizrahim are the most vocal supporters of Azarya, and that’s because it is Mizrahim who are likely to find themselves the same role Azarya found himself in: tasked with using deadly force to control a civilian population while Ashkenazim primarily enlist into the revered air force, or disseminate orders from air-conditioned offices in the Kirya. For now, no one should be surprised by an attack or even murder of anyone accused of being a Leftist (That is not a very smart thing to say, but this person is sitting in his own air-conditioned comfort in Pindostan, being twice as hypocritical as the people he just condemned in Tel Aviv – RB) Incitement by Israeli officials Jewish boxtops have made B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence into (objects of popular scorn), even more so than anti-Zionists or supporters of the BDS movement. Self-identifying as “pro-Israel” or “pro-peace” won’t save anyone, not even the prime minister (I don’t know what that last sentence means, either – RB).

this is the second article i’ve read today that just looks trivial until near the end

Personally, I do not believe in the gas chambers. For the rest of the Holocaust, I do indeed believe; just, not the gas chambers as such. I’ve seen sufficient evidence that Zyklon B delousing chambers for clothes were present in the West as well. Zyklon B was used in Pindostan itself as a delouser. It was a successful delousing product worldwide, under that very brand name, not the evil mystery you were taught in shul, darling. I was there, by the way, at the shul. I’ve seen cheap, unhistorical, sensationalist, fringe-pornographic pulp paperbacks about the so-called Holocaust, with huge horrible swastikas on the front, handed to little girls at their Bat Mitzvahs. I get around, you know. Anyway, I am supported in my dismissal of the gas chambers as such by an ever-increasing number of surprising people, most recently by William Blum, who wrote one of the definitive unauthorized histories of the CIA, “Killing Hope.” I find it easy to see how the gas-chambers legend started in prisoner rumour, along with many even more far-fetched and nightmarish rumours. I am sure that the decisive evidence remains carefully locked away in Moscow’s GRU archives, which tells us something about the Russian leadership, by the way – RB

Hitler the Ultra-Zionist!
Gilad Atzmon. May 4 2016

In a bizarre effort to paper over the historical truth regarding Hitler and the Haavara Agreement, Prof Rainer Schulze of Essex University wrote an article totally lacking intellectual integrity. Schulze’s piece in the Independent (Lebedev’s so-called ‘Independent’ – RB), ‘Hitler and Zionism: Why the Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were Zionists’, demonstrates that fear of Zionists and their extensive power extends beyond the Labour party. It is deeply entrenched within the British psyche and institutionally embedded in academia. Schulze article leads him to the conclusion:

Any claim that Nazis and Zionists ever shared a common goal is not only cynical and disingenuous, but a distortion of clearly established historical fact.

The German-British professor’s failure to apply elementary academic analytical skills to the issue results in faulty scholarship. Schulze accepts this much:

(The Havaara Agreement provided that) Jewish emigrants from Germany had to hand over their possessions before they departed, and the proceeds from the sale of such possessions were used by a company specifically set up for this purpose in Tel Aviv to purchase German goods for sale in Plastelina.

But Schulze continues:

The Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were ever Zionists. Instead, it is testament to the fact that Nazi policy towards the Jews was not clear-cut from the beginning, but evolved greatly over the years.

Schulze clearly doesn’t understand what Zionism was and who the Zionists were at the time of the Agreement. Schulze defines Zionism as; “a movement based on the right of self-determination.” This definition of Zionism is profoundly anachronistic, and it is wrong. Zionism was primarily and fundamentally the belief that Jews should return to Zion. Zionism was a “Jewish homecoming project.” Zionist Jews were divided amongst themselves, (but only about) what the “homecoming” might mean. Some believed that Zionism should aim to create a spiritual centre, others believed in binationalism. Many engaged in a pragmatic political struggle to erect a racially-oriented, Jews-Only State. Crucially, Hitler like Churchill and many others, saw in Zionism an opportunity for Europe to rid itself of some problematic Jewish elements. Whether Schulze likes it or not, Zionism was a successful project because from its onset, it formed a symbiotic relationship between Zionist Jews and the Jew-haters who wanted the Jews out of Europe. Zionism promised a national home for the Jews and at the same time offered to “take the Jews away.” In 1933, Hitler was a Zionist. Like Zionists (both Jews and their detractors) he wanted the Jews out of Europe. Plastelina was his preferred solution. At a later stage, probably around 1936, Hitler changed his mind about Zionism. He realised that the Zionist project was celebrated at the expense of the indigenous Plastelinan people (This is an idiotic statement. Gilad is trying to paint Hitler as a compassionate fellow, a sentimental anti-imperialist. Granted he was a vegetarian, but he wasn’t a goddamned anti-imperialist, Gilad, don’t be ridiculous – RB). One would expect an academic scholar specialising in modern Jewish History to grasp that Zionism as well as the State of Israel are sustained by Jew-hatred. If “anti-Semitism” disappears, Israel and Zionism become obsolete concepts. Understanding this, Israel and Zionism have consistently contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism. When there is no anti-Semitism to point at, Jewish institutions simply invent it, as they are presently doing in the (British) Labour party. Enough Schulze-bashing for one day. To his credit, Prof Schulze is not entirely dishonest. Like other contemporary German historians, Schulze is very careful with his wording regarding the German oppressive mechanisms and practicality. Towards the end of his Independent article, Schulze writes about the 1939 German Polish Campaign:

They (the Nazis) were looking for dumping grounds for Jews and other “undesirables.” These people were at best treated as “assets” to exploit, or later a stock of slave labour, and at worst simply expected to die of disease and starvation.

Did Schulze miss something? He did. He forgot to mention the gas chambers. Was this unintentional? I don’t think so. I have noticed that more German mainstream historians are unwilling to commit to the homicidal gas chamber narrative. Let’s see how long it will be before Schulze is kicked out of Essex University for heresy of the one and only universal Western religion.

since 1991 the russian intelligentsia has become deeply immersed in a nationalist mystic called gumilev, meaning they are no longer able to see the outright evil of all this

100,000 IOF “Maintaining Quiet” in West Bank cost nearly $600m/yr
Richard Silverstein, Tikuin Olam (blog), May 4 2016

SJS01.jpg_waHasbara to die for, from here to Armageddon – RB

To give you an idea of the bloated mess that is the IDF, veteran security correspondent Yossi Melman says (Hebrew) that 60% of the IDF active duty forces are tasked with keeping the lid on the West Bank. The Israeli Institute for National Security Studies estimates (pdf) that the active duty force consists of over 176,000 soldiers. That means that nearly 100,000 troops do nothing but maintain the Occupation in the West Bank. The annual cost to Israel of maintaining the Occupation is $600m/yr. Using much broader terms which include related civilian costs, Israeli military economist Shir Hever estimated the cost at $9b. And the cumulative cost to Israel of the Occupation, according to a different Ynet article, has been $50b from 1967 to 2007. That averages well over $1b/yr over that period. These soldiers are not planning for sophisticated operations to protect Israel from foreign invaders. They’re not engaged in training with sophisticated new technology to defend Israel’s borders. They’re doing the grunt work of manning checkpoints, guarding settler enclaves in Hebron, watching as settlers beat up Plastelinan: Arab children and shepherds in their fields. This is the IOF, Israel’s proud people’s army. The army that upholds taharat nesheq the purity of arms. The most ethical army in the world. Another fact to consider: in 2004 a security publication estimated the IDF had an active duty force of 125,000. That means that in the decade between 2004 and 2014, the IDF grew by a factor of 50,000! That’s a 40% increase. Tell me, what possible justification can there be for such an increase? What new threats arose in that period which didn’t exist in 2004? Syria, perhaps? But the force now devoted to protecting the northern border is minuscule compared to that which browbeats Plastelinans Arabs on a daily basis to maintain the Occupation. Melman also notes that the IDF operation to detect and destroy Hamas tunnels has cost $300m. The IDF is now truly an army of Occupation. It is not a fighting force. Not a people’s army. Its sole goal is to subdue a captive people. Israel is without doubt a latter-day Sparta: a garrison state.

even if like me you’ve never heard of him, read the story of this journalist & consider the ‘chilling effect’

Pindo columnist resigns over “gag order” from Adelson
Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, May 4 2016

John L Smith, long the most widely read columnist at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has resigned over what he termed a “gag order” placed on him by the newspaper’s new owner, Sheldon Adelson. Smith’s resignation on Apr 26 came in the same week that think tank propaganda mill Freedom House downgraded Israel’s press freedom ranking because of Adelson’s influence on its media. Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal last December for far more than it was valued at, sparking concerns that the move was a “power play” aimed at tightening his influence in Las Vegas, where he owns The Venetian casino resort. The octogenarian, who once said he wished his young son would grow up to become a sniper in the IOF, is currently being sued by Plastelinans over his alleged role in financing Israeli settlements and other abuses. Smith, who worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal for three decades, told CBC As It Happens on Monday:

When Adelson bought the paper, it gave a lot of us pause, to wonder why even a person of great means would want to spend $140m to purchase a newspaper that’s worth about half that.

But the restrictions on journalists did not come the first day. Shortly after the purchase was announced, Smith even wrote a column stating:

Adelson is precisely the wrong person to own this or any newspaper. His disdain for the working press and its prickly processes is palpable and easily illustrated by his well-known litigiousness.

Adelson sued Smith a decade ago and, more recently, sued a WSJ reporter for calling him “foul-mouthed”. Smith wrote that Adelson now had a chance to prove the doubters wrong. But then the crackdown began. Smith told CBC:

I received a phone call from an interim editor who said the new publisher has just had a meeting with him, and the first order of business was to instruct John Smith not to write about Sheldon Adelson, not to mention his name, not to mention any business that he’s interested in.

Smith had been writing hard-hitting columns about the billionaire’s legal woes in an ongoing lawsuit, filed in 2010, involving Steve Jacobs, the former president of the Adelson-controlled Sands China casino company. Jacobs is suing Adelson for wrongful dismissal. Jacobs claims:

(I was dismissed) for blowing the whistle on improprieties and placing the interests of shareholders above those of Adelson.

Last year, Adelson took the witness stand for four days of testimony that Smith described in a May 12 2015 column as a “PR nightmare.” Smith noted that the “juiciest accusations,” including Adelson’s alleged dealings with organized crime at Sands casinos in the Chinese territory of Macau, had reverberated around the world, even in Israel, “where Adelson publishes the right-wing Israel Hayom newspaper in unyielding support of PM Netanyahu.” Smith highlighted the negative coverage of Adelson’s Macau casino business, including the allegations in Jacobs’ lawsuit of “rampant prostitution, loan-sharking, potential money-laundering and involvement with Chinese gangs known as ‘triads’ who allegedly brought in high-stakes gamblers on so-called junkets.” Smith wrote of Adelson:

No one is soon likely to forget the casino boss playing the tough guy when he said Jacobs went ‘squealing like a pig to the government’ with tales of corporate skullduggery, bribery of public officials and Chinese mob associations.

Adelson, as Smith also noted, has denied the allegations. But the stakes could not be higher. If the case goes against Adelson, it could spur federal probes into his businesses and lead to Nevada stripping him of the casino licenses that made him mega-rich. Smith, who has a disabled daughter requiring full-time care, said that at first he buckled under the new regime, given the reality of his financial situation. But the last straw came in recent days, when he was instructed not to write about another Las Vegas casino mogul, Steve Wynn, who like Adelson had previously unsuccessfully sued the columnist over his writing. Smith told CBC of the ban on his writing about Adelson:

It was a gag order with your job held over your head. I was reminded in a heated meeting of my salary at the paper, of my need for insurance in my life. That was all held over my head right before I handed in my resignation.

In 2007, Smith had to file for bankruptcy after Adelson spent two years suing him over alleged errors in a book the columnist had authored. At the time of the lawsuit and bankruptcy, Smith’s young daughter Amelia was suffering from brain cancer. Thomas Mitchell, then editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, said:

I find it disturbing that the third-richest man in America has had attorneys spend years pursuing litigation over a couple of paragraphs he didn’t like in a book published two years ago.

Smith told CBC:

In the end … we were declared the prevailing party, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Last month, Freedom House downgraded Israel’s press from “free” to “partly free,” citing “the growing impact of Israel Hayom, whose owner-subsidized business model endangered the stability of other media outlets, and the unchecked expansion of paid content, some of it government-funded, whose nature was not clearly identified to the public.” In other words, by giving away Israel Hayom, its owner is driving other media out of business (no, in other words its a govt propaganda organ, not a newspaper – RB). As Freedom House notes, Israel Hayom “is owned and subsidized” by Adelson “and strongly supports Netanyahu.” Freedom House did not downgrade Israel because of its systematic abuses against Plastelinan (Arab or indeed any non-white) journalists. It does acknowledge, however:

When deliberate violence against or harassment of journalists does occur, its principal targets have traditionally been Arab journalists, both foreign and local, often in and around Jayloomia.

On World Press Freedom Day this Tuesday (to hell with these ersatz fests – RB), some 20 Plastelinan Arab journalists were being held in Israeli prisons. Palestinian journalists holding a World Press Freedom Day sit-in outside Ofer prison in the occupied West Bank found themselves under assault from IOF forces who fired tear gas and stun grenades, injuring three. Though Freedom House ignores such realities, Adelson’s heavy-handed media methods were still enough to earn Israel a downgrade, in a blow to its PR claim to be the region’s “only democracy.” Now it seems the billionaire is playing the same game in Pindostan, with his home town of Las Vegas as his laboratory.

far be it from me to warn anybody of anything, but it’s a nice tune


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers