Archive for the ‘Jewish’ Category



by Michael A. Hoffman II

with notes, glossary,

bibliography and index

In this scholarly and deeply considered work, the author documents his provocative thesis that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament, but the newly formalized belief system of the Pharisees, which arose in Babylon with the commitment of the formerly oral “tradition of the elders” to writing, in the wake of the crucifixion of Israel’s Messiah and the destruction of the Temple.

Basing his findings on authoritative Judaic sources, Hoffman demonstrates that Judaism is a man-made religion of tradition and superstition, which represents the institutionalized nullification of Biblical law and doctrine.

Liberating the reader from the accumulated shackles of decades of misinformation, this book shows that Judaism’s God is not the God of Israel, but the strange gods of Talmud and Kabbalah, and the racial self-worship they inculcate.

Making a relentless case with massive documentation and a lapidary attention to detail, Judaism’s Strange Gods constitutes a shocking and original revelation about a subject we thought we knew only too well.

Michael A. Hoffman II was educated at the State University of New York at Oswego. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and the author of several books, including Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare and The Great Holocaust Trial.

Fair Usage Law

November 26, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Sephardic, Tel Aviv, West Bank, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Truth about Leo Frank and Mary Phagan

Leo Frank was a criminal who murdered a 13-year-old girl named Mary Phagan in 1913. Because he was the Atlanta chapter head of B’nai B’rith (essentially, Brotherhood of the Chosen), many Jews from across the US worked in a concerted movement to free him for the crime, with one Jewish donor alone donating $100,000 towards Frank’s defense (equivalent to over $2 million today).

Many Jews argued that racist Gentiles in the deep South were simply persecuting Frank because he was Jewish, and wanted to let the real criminal, a Black man, go free – because everyone knows how much Whites in the deep South prefer Black rapist child-murderers to White Jews (written with obvious sarcasm) – or so some Jews with their deficient arguments claimed.

While unsuccessful in their attempts to secure a new trial, with appeals up to the Supreme Court being denied based on the evidence, B’nai B’rith was successful with getting the governor (who had been a law partner with Frank’s defense team) to change the murderer Frank’s sentence from death to life imprisonment.

The public was outraged because of the child-murderer Frank being freed. Frank had reportedly raped Mary Phagan, according to some accounts. However, it may not have simply been a sex-crime. Indeed, it may have been a much more depraved act than has been admitted, as noted in the Brief of Evidence (part 1 – linked – see p. 11). Read Newt Lee’s testimony at the Frank trial, describing Mary Phagan’s body when initially found:

“Her face was punctured, full of holes and was swollen and black. She had a cut on the left-side of her head, as if she had been struck, and there was a little blood there. The cord was around her neck, sunk into her flesh.”

Punctured? Full of holes? She had been tied with cords? Other testimony, however, while showing that she was indeed strangled to death, suggests that the head wounds may have been caused by a blunt instrument. Whatever the case may have been, it was a hideous crime nevertheless–one for which Frank undoubtedly deserved the death sentence.

Governor John Slaton was not re-elected because of his decision to commute Frank’s sentence. The prosecuting attorney in the Frank case, Hugh Dorsey, ended up being elected to governor for his ethical and civil behavior in getting Frank his just death sentence. Thomas Watson, who undauntedly informed the public about the true nature of the Frank case, was elected to the Senate. And, some Southerners who were concerned about justice being lost decided to give Frank the death sentence he rightly deserved–to hang Frank themselves.

Later, in 1986, after years of trying to get the sentence changed, due to the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (with the ADL having been formed due to the Frank case, as many aristocratic Jews sought to help Frank due to him being the Atlanta chapter head of B’nai B’rith), Frank was pardoned by the prison parole board. The parole board pardoned him not because he was innocent but because that the board felt that citizens, working as vigilantes to ensure justice was met, somehow deprived Frank of his rights.

Read about the case of Leo Frank – born in blood – that caused B’nai B’rith so much distress that they effectively covered it up today:

Fair Usage Law

November 26, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

B’nai B’rith Responds to Filthy Jewish Terrorists

Responding to:


B’nai Brith Canada calls on Attorney-General to immediately lay hate crime charges against genocide-advocating York student

TORONTO, 2010 – B’nai Brith Canada has called on Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley to move without delay to lay hate crime charges against Salman Hossain, a Bangladeshi-Canadian York University student who has allegedly called for a “genocide [to] be perpetrated against the Jewish populations of North America and Europe” on a website apparently owned by him. Yesterday, York University suspended Hossain pending his appearance at a disciplinary panel. Three years ago, Hossain made news for posting messages supporting terrorist attacks in Canada. At that time, the OPP investigated the matter but the Attorney-General decided against pressing charges.

“The hateful writing is on the wall and the Attorney-General must move without delay to lay hate crime charges against Hossain,” said Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President of B’nai Brith Canada. “Just recently, every political party in the Ontario Legislature came together and showed their commitment to fighting hatred in Ontario. While we appreciate their condemnation of the hate-fest know as ‘Israel Apartheid Week,’ it is now crucial that that commitment is followed up with concrete action.

“The website, which despite the announced investigation continues to be accessible, outrageously calls for the genocide of the Jewish people in North America and Europe, in addition to smearing Christians and moderate Muslims, and supporting terrorist attacks against Canadians. Hossain’s alleged posts clearly dictate that the Attorney-General should waste no time in moving forward with charges against him.”

B’nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 as the Jewish community’s foremost human rights agency

Responding to:

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2010   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Racism News, Racist News, Tel Aviv, West Bank  Comments Closed

B’nai B’rith, British Weapon Against America

B’nai B’rith, British Weapon Against America

by Paul Goldstein

Rev A – See Notes

(from – 12 MB pdf image-file)

Since the time of Philo of Alexandria, as before him, the religion of the antiprogress, landed oligarchy has been and is Isis worship. Through the intervening centuries, the high priesthood of the Isis cult has consciously directed one of its prime strategic efforts toward molding a small fraction of Jews, the “selected ones,” into an evil pseudo-religious cult. Drawing on the cult rituals of the mystical “Covenant” promise of return to the “Land of Zion,” and the irrational Cabala tradition of Judaism, the oligarchy’s priesthood formed from among its own secret society, the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a “Jewish” Masonic order. That order is the B’nai B’rith; its purpose to serve as defenders of the faith of the oligarchy against the threat of Neoplatonic humanism.

With the 1603 coup that “restored” the Stuart dynasty to the English throne, the seat of the oligarchy moved to Britain, where it remains to the present day. Beginning in the 18th century, the primary strategic threat to the oligarchy was the emergence of an institutionalized expression of Neoplatonic humanism in the form of the American republic’s stated founding commitment to generalized scientific and technological progress. Against that republic the British-centered oligarchy has thrown its entire arsenal of subversion, to and including the assassinations of at least three American Presidents.

The B’nai B’rith, as the oligarchy’s agents-in-place in America, has functioned as the clearinghouse for British subversion against the American republic. Therefore, the story of the B’nai B’rith, its Isis-cult roots, its 136-year record of treason against the United States, is essential to understanding who and what our enemy is, how it operates, and how we will destroy it.


The official history of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, the parent cult to the “Jewish” Masonic order of B’nai B’rith, testifies to the built-in, viciously antireligious bias of the Rite’s cultist outlook, and the so-called Jewish influence in its historical development.

Masonry derives much of its ceremonial practices from the Collegia of Rome and their prototype, the Ernoi of Greece. In these societies the pattern of imitation was the Sun God under the name of Dionysus…, whose death and resurrection formed the main theme. In Masonry their place has been taken by Hiram as the type of Sun, whose name is derived from light. These are traces of Jewish influences on the Craft. Perhaps the reason for this may lie in the fact that when the Baccaric were suppressed in Rome Caesar permitted the Jews “and only these” to continue their rites. The placing of the Jewish Scriptures on the Altars of Masonry as the Volume of the Sacred Law may be due to the tenacity with which the Semitic Race clung to the conception of the Unity of the Deity. “Hear, O Israel — Tetragammation — Our God Tetragammation — Unity” was the rally cry of the “Chosen People.”

The cult outlook becomes even clearer by examining and comparing a relatively buried account recorded by a member of the order at the time of the B’nai B’rith’s founding. The official journal The Menorah stated:

Their reunions were frequent and several of them being members of existing benevolent societies, especially of the order of Free Masons and Odd Fellows, they finally concluded that a somewhat similar organization, but based upon the “Jewish idea” would best obtain their object.

The Jewish religion has many observances and customs corresponding to the secret societies known to us. The synagogue, for instance, might be compared to a lodge room. It used to be open twice a day; for a Jew desiring to find a friend, he had but to go there and make themselves known by a certain sign and token The sign consisted of a grip with a full hand and the magical word Sholem Alachem. The messussah on the doorpost was the countersign, Shema Israel (Hear, O Israel — ed.) was the password. (emphasis added.)

Known as the “Order of the Sons of the Covenant,” the B’nai B’rith came into existence under the personal direction of the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord Palmerston, who was the Grand Patriarch of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and their “Hofjuden” (Court Jew) accomplices, Sir Moses Montefiore and the family of the Rothschilds. In a July 1841 memorandum to Foreign Minister Palmerston, written in part as a motivation for the then recent founding of the “Colonization of Palestine Society,” Shaftesbury described the usefulness of the Jews for British strategic intentions, an idea elaborated as follows in his biography, The Life and Work of the Earl of Shaftesbury;

They (the Jews —ed . ) have ancient reminiscences and deep affection for the land …; they are almost everywhere, accustomed to arbitrary rule and being totally indifferent to political objects, confine their hopes to the enjoyment of what people to habits of endurance and self-denial (are accustomed ) they will submit to the existing form of government having no preconceived theories to gratify, and having almost everywhere trained in implicit obedience to autocratic rule ”

Financing for the British colonization scheme was arranged by Queen Victoria’s “favorite Jew” Sir Moses Montefiore, who, along with his brother-in-law Nathaniel Rothschild, used their financial conduits in the United States as a major feature of the plan. The Montefiore Society, the North American Relief Society for Poor Jews in Palestine, the Widows’ and Orphan Fund, plus dozens of other benevolent societies, provided the funds to establish a “Jewish homeland.”

From its inception in 1843, the American side of this operation, the B’nai B’rith, functioned not only as a secret Masonic cult to undermine the humanist Judaic tradition of Philo of Alexandria but, moreover, to use American Jews as part of Britain’s strategic design to destroy the American republic. The special role assigned to the leadership of the “Jewish” Masonic cult was to facilitate the deployment of numerous secret societies and cults the British had implanted in the U.S. during the last decade of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century.

Working with the Anglican-American heresy tendency among the Jesuits and B’nai B’rith under the direction of the British Secret Intelligence Service, the “mother cult” Scottish Rite created numerous secret societies and cults modeled to varying degrees on the cult of Dionysus. The Transcendentalists, the Know-Nothings, the abolitionists, the secessionists of the Knights of the Golden Circle, and more, including the post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan, were synthetically created to participate in subverting U.S. institutions and leaders. Among the crimes committed by these networks were the assassinations of three U.S. Presidents; the sabotage of the American System economic program; and the undermining of the population’s belief in Reason and its product, Progress, as the guiding force of the U.S.’s and global development.

One humanist Jewish visitor to the U.S., Israel Joseph Benjamin, writing in his book Three Years in America, 1859-62 , commented on the B’nai B’rith: “This is a secret society, like the Freemasons with passwords and the like and was quite a new phenomenon for me … still I think the existence of such a society not at all necessary. Benjamin’s remarks, in contrast to standard portrayals of the B’nai B’rith as a “benevolent society” dedicated to defending and propagating “Jewish heritage” in the United States, are not only accurate, but place those authorities of the “benevolent viewpoint” in the category of the morally insane.


Under the Black Guelphs’ Knights of St. John Of Jerusalem, the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry emerged as the aristocracy’s major political secret intelligence operation against humanist forces throughout Europe and the Mediterranean over several centuries. Officially, the Scottish Rite did not surface as the “mother cult” until the 18th century, but its roots are directly traceable to the destruction of the city-building Knights Templar in the 14th century, and to King Robert Bruce of Scotland, who declared himself “Grand Master of the Order of Heredom de Kilwinning,” the predecessor of the Scottish Rite.

The wave of repression begun by King Robert Bruce against the Knights Templar and their allies among the Philo-oriented Jews of Europe during the 14th-17th centuries, offered an early occasion for “Zionist project” recruitment and profiling of “selected Jews.” The symbiotic relationship that developed between the Jewish “chosen ones” and the knights of St. John of Jerusalem stemmed from the unique services the Jewish merchant banking families offered the Knights of St. John, under the overall control of the Genoese-Roman black nobility families.

The “selected Jews” were assigned a twofold task in the designs of the black nobility. First, by papal edict they were permitted to participate in usurious mercantile “money-lending” practices among the larger masses of Jews — those, that is, who did not flee to Greece, Turkey, and the Eastern Mediterranean — who were being herded into ghettos and victimized in the pogroms. Second, the “selected Jews” were to employ Cabalistic mysticism as a form of “mass-brainwashing” control over ghettoized Jews, creating false messiahs and holding out promises of salvation in the Land of Zion.

One Jewish writer recounts the story of one such false prophet produced during the period of the pogroms named Abraham Abulafia. “Abulafia, was a Cabalist,… to him the Bible was one huge cipher. He was able to rise to heights of ecstasy by concentrating on the letters of the Scripture, not on words or sentences, but on individual letters, combined and recombined in an infinite number of forms.”

One of the biggest frauds perpetrated during the 13th century, and which had a lasting impact on Jews into the 18th century, was the publication of Zohar, the Book of Splendor. In keeping with the priesthood tradition of the Pharisees, the “selected Jews” used Zohar as the outstanding “Talmudic”-type text for interpreting Moses’ law and for creating a distorted version of the Mosaic “Covenant.” Commenting on the Zohar, Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger states, “The Zohar was put before the public by Moses de Leon, a well-known cabalist; (it) was composed in moments of exaltation and high emotional stress and its author no doubt believed himself to be writing under direct divine guidance.”

Mere publication of such texts or the emergence of mystic leaders in the hideous ghettos was not enough for the black nobility, however. Several “return to the Land of Zion” projects financed by the King of Portugal and his “selected Jewish financiers” were carried out over a period of time. In 1524, for example, David Reubeni and Solomon Molcho, self-proclaimed emissaries of the “Ten Lost Tribes,” arrived in Venice and traveled through northern Italy calling for “Holy War” against the Turks so that the Jews could return to their homeland and so that the Messiah could reveal himself. Theirs was a short-lived project — Reubeni ended up in prison, while Molcho was burned at the stake.

Perhaps the most infamous of these “self-appointed” messiahs was Sabbatai Zevi, who had gathered a vast following among Turkish Jews in the 1640s. After several years of intensive study of the Cabala, Sabbatai proclaimed himself the Messiah and by 1648, with the Jewish population inundated in the belief that 1648 was the year of the advent of the Messiah, Sabbatai launched his campaign. One account described Sabbatai as a “devoted student of the Cabala, (who) began to indulge in practices that kindled the hope of his enthusiasts”; Sabbatai’s aim was to restore Palestine to “Jewish control.” An indication of the source of his messianic zeal is that Sabbatai’s father had been for years in contact with certain British merchants seeking to break open the Turkish Empire’s control over the Near East.

Our historical research to date reveals these 17th century messiah projects to be the direct result of work done at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, where Hebraic “scholarship” had been restored under the direction of the leading priests of the Black Guelph oligarchy in Britain, Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Cecil. The Fifth Earl of Shaftesbury, who, with others, enabled the Genoese-Dutch banking interests aligned with the Bruce dynasty to defeat humanism in England under Elizabeth I and laid the basis for destroying Cromwell’s Commonwealth, shaped the Oxford and Cambridge projects.

As Scottish Rite historian Henry Evans develops in his book, The History of the Scottish and York Rite of Freemasonry,” it (the Scottish Rite) has been allied with the Jacobite movement (cult of fundamentalism — ed.) in Scotland and England, and with the Cabalistic (Jews) and Rosicrucian societies in Europe….” Pointing unmistakably to the direct interconnection between the early Scottish Rite and the Cabalistic societies’ promotion of the “Jewish idea,” Evans states further that the key figure of the mid-17th century, after Bacon’s death, was Elias Ashmole.

Ashmole is, in fact, perhaps the most important figure in the development of the Scottish Rite and the “Jewish idea” project for Zionism — Ashmole, that is, and his band of Oxford cultists including William Lilly, Christopher Wren, Sir Edward Dugsdale, and Dr. Robert Plot. In an 1880s official Scottish Rite biography of Ashmole, Dudley Wright states: “Ashmole was made a mason in 1645 at Warrington, a society of Rosicrucians formed in London on the principles established in Germany about 1604, and partly perhaps in the plan of Literary Societies, allegorically described in (Sir Francis) Bacon’s New Atlantis as the House of Solomon; …”

Ashmole and his Scottish Rite cultists reorganized Oxford University for the purpose of resurrecting the ancient cult of Hermes occult practices of the Egyptian priesthood, fully integrating ancient Hebraic scriptures and the Cabala into these rituals. By directing the research projects, by setting up the Scottish Rite Organization, and by founding the Ashmole Museum, Elias Ashmole institutionalized the beginnings of the modern “Zionist project.”

In commenting on these activities, Sir John Alexander Cockburn and Oxford biographer C.H. Joster have shown clearly the relationship between the Scottish Rite practices and the Cabala. Cockburn writes: “Christopher Wren maintained that the Scottish Rite derived its origin from the symbolic minds of the Eastern Races and was imported into Europe by the Crusaders, who thinking to subdue the Saracens, were themselves made captive by the enchantment of the Eastern mysticism and the Jewish Cabala’ (emphasis added). Joster added: “In Feb. 1652, Ashmole added yet another subject to his learned pursuits. The practice of engraving magic sigils with Cabalistic signs and related studies he had brought to his notice on Judaic sources which made Hebrew most desirable” (emphasis added).

The purpose of ritualized mystical cult practices became clear when, in 1763, the first official Hofjuden institution, the Board of Jewish Deputies, was created by the British oligarchy to oversee the “Jewish idea” project. The board was composed of Cabalistic rabbis and Hofjuden financiers, including the Montefiores, the Sebags and, later, the Rothschilds. The board was the brainchild of the “Hebraic studies” project of Ashmole and Rabbi Solomon Frank, who converted to Anglicanism after the 1603 Stuart Restoration but continued to work with Ashmole. Ashmole, for example, recorded in his diary lessons in Hebrew scriptures given by Rabbi Frank.

Sir Robert Gould reports in his five-volume work on the Library of Freemasonry that the Hebrew words “Akiman Rezon” or “akim” (brothers), “manah” (to appoint), and “ratzon” (to select) were chanted as part of the daily ritual of the Hofjuden deputies as they went about their tasks.

Many of the first rabbis to come to America had been trained by the Ashmolean-Oxford school and the Anglican Church-created British and Foreign School Society, which was founded in 1807 as a direct continuation of the earlier Ashmole project.


Prior to the emergence of a “Jewish” Masonic cult, the high priesthood of the oligarchy relied upon the already established network of Jewish merchant families that were part of the old Dutch West Indies gold and slave trade. Practically all of these so-called Sephardic Jews had been in the United States since the late 18th century and some even from the 17th century. Most were the initiating members of the U.S. wing of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

Based in New York City, Charleston, South Carolina and other southern cities including Baltimore, these “selected Jewish” merchants operated as part of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service networks. Among them were Moses Cohen, Moses Levi, Isaac Da Costa, and Moses Peixotto, who organized the initial web of associations called the Hebrew Benevolent and Hebrew Orphan Aid Societies — the earliest of which was founded by Mendes Lopez in Charlestown in 1784. Numerous Hebrew Literary Societies were set up alongside these benevolent organizations.

It is important simply to note here, for development further on, that Judah P. Benjamin, later Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the Confederacy — and the man who more than likely gave the order for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln — was recruited into the Charleston Hebrew Orphan Aid Society in 1827.

At the outset the benevolent associations were either simple extensions of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem Hospitallers (hospitals and hospices) or of the “Literary Societies” of Sir Walter Scott and Sir Isaac Disraeli. Disraeli’s History of the Jews in England provided the ideological bond and historical justification for the Hofjuden’s servile relationship to the oligarchy, while Sir Walter Scott’s feudalist extravaganza novel, Ivanhoe, glorified that theme — colored, of course, with Scott’s typical anti-Semitic emphasis. Scott’s heroine is a Jew named Rebecca, namesake of Rebecca Gratz, the daughter of a Philadelphia Jewish merchant Scott knew well.

The point to be understood about these early developments in the U.S. is twofold. First, the British had to create the conditions for imposing upon American Jews the belief that the American notion of progress and assimilation could not be allowed to occur. Therefore the need for a “separate” Jewish organization based on the mythos of Zion, on the return to the “promised land of Palestine,” had to be infused into American Jewish thinking as the only chance Jews had for true salvation. The earlier Hofjuden were not doctrinally equipped to serve British design in this fashion. Second, and particularly important for today, was the need to replicate the same servile dependency outlook among American Jews that the Montefiores, Sebags, and the like had for their British lords. The Jewish benevolent societies created in the U.S. were to serve as indoctrination centers for inculcating this outlook among the Jewish immigrants newly arrived from Germany and Poland, Jews who had fled the ghettos and pogroms of Europe.

By 1801, in keeping with the need to train both a religious and political-financial leadership among Jews in the U.S., the “Grand Council of the Princes of Jerusalem of the Mother Supreme Council of the Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Order of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry” conferred an official charter upon the former Dutch West Indies Jewish merchants of Charleston, South Carolina — Da Costa, Cohen, Israel de Lieben, Dr. Isaac Held, Moses Levi, John Mitchell, and Frederick Dalacho — the men who had established a foothold in America for Britain’s “Jewish idea” through the Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Aid Societies.

The task assigned these American Jews was not an easy one, however. Intense animosity between these “established Jews” and the new Jewish immigrants from Germany, Bavaria, and Poland prevented any coherent organization from coming into existence. Moreover, the immigrant Jews recognized in the American republic and the promise of assimilation the potential for far more advanced levels of technological, scientific and cultural achievement than anything even conceivable in the ghettos of Europe. Commitment to generalized scientific and technological progress ran very high in the Jewish immigrant community.

Therefore, a new program had to be developed to subvert that commitment and to bring leading American Jews into line with Britain’s schemes.

B’nai B’rith’s Organized Treason

“Glance at the attitude of England toward the United States. We see there are two well-defined parties, neither of them friendly to us as a nation; one the cotton interest siding with the South, and the other, the abolition coteries siding with the North, and so England, balancing herself adroitly between these two parties …. can give aid … to one section or to the other or both, to prevent conciliation, as best may service the political purpose of England, the Permanent Division of the United States.”

With these words, penned in 1860, the famous inventor Samuel Morse, an American counterintelligence officer, summarized his findings in connection with a vast British espionage network operating in the United States by the time of the Civil War. At the center of the network was B’nai B’rith.

As Morse says, the network included the Southern secessionists, and also the so-called Abolitionists. It also included American Heresy Jesuits, whose political descendants operate out of Georgetown University today. It included most of the leading figures in the Democratic Party, and a boatload of others. But the Zionist “Order of the Covenant,” popularly known as B’nai B’rith, squatted at the center.

At the time Morse wrote, the B’nai B’rith was a British intelligence cult dedicated to the destruction of the American Republic. It was an arm of British intelligence with that chartered purpose at the time of its founding in 1843, and remains so to this day.

The founder of B’nai B’rith, contrary to official histories, was Henry Lord Palmerston, then British Foreign Minister, who simultaneously created the entire international Zionist movement, in the period of 1843-1860. Zionism was only one of tens of cults created under Palmerston, some “Jewish” and some “Christian” in name, and spread across Europe and America as subversive arms of the British Empire. Each cult was modeled on the Ashmolean Scottish Rite of Freemasonry — of which Palmerston was Grand Master — itself modeled on Ptolemaic Egypt’s death cult of Isis. B’nai B’rith emerged in 1842 as the American extension of the “Jewish” Rite of Freemasonry in America.

According to the history of B’nai B’rith by Edward Grusd, “the mastermind” behind the early growth of this Jewish Masonic order was Baruch Rothschild, relative of the original Meyer Amshel Rothschild who founded the family banking dynasty in 18th century Germany. Rothschild was sent into the B’nai B’rith shortly after its founding to launch a ”membership drive” because, as he himself put it, “the members were not all equally well educated and of far different mental capacities.” In short, B’nai B’rith was not for just any Jew. Through Rothschild’s building job, it was to become an intelligence executive body, whose leaders would subsequently play controlling roles in other British networks, directing the Abolitionist-Slaveholder confrontations of the 1840s and 1850s, the Secession of the South that produced the Civil War, the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, and numerous post-war destabilizations of the American Republic.

The impetus which got B’nai B’rith and other, interfacing British networks off the ground in the United States was provided by the “Oxford Movement,” a groundswell of evangelical religious reform fever organized in the 1820s by the Anglican Church itself, Kings College of London University, and Oxford University, home of British intelligence. The religion the “Oxford Movement” espoused under the leadership of John Newman, and E.G. Pusey, Regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, was neither Christian nor Jewish, but a simple revitalization of the old Ashmolean cult of Isis-Osiris-Dionysus, whose spiritual leaders were actually Palmerston and the Scottish Masons.

The “Oxford Movement” was deployed as a cult-creating force internationally. Into the United States, in conjunction with Hapsburg-Holy Alliance forces on the continent, Newman and Pusey sent the “American Heresy” Jesuits, “Christians who are not Christians,” who still operate on behalf of the British monarchy out of Georgetown. The second phase of the Oxford deployment, slightly later, would be B’nai B’rith, “Jews who are not Jews.”

The Jesuits launched an organizing drive among Irish Catholic immigrants, welding this mass into a base of support for Andrew Jackson’s ascension to the Presidency. Jackson, controlled by British agent Martin van Buren, subsequently destroyed the backbone of American economic development with his destruction of the Bank of the United States. The Jesuits also set up a vast spy apparatus called the St. Leopold Foundation, based in Baltimore, Maryland, the city that would also be the “Cradle of American Zionism.” The principal product of the seminaries and schools operated by the St. Leopold Foundation was assassination and other dirty work. The inner circle of figures involved in the Lincoln assassination, including John Wilkes Booth, were in the main trained by these Jesuits.

Samuel Morse, who was part of the overall U.S. political intelligence service numbering Edgar Allen Poe, Winfield Scott, and Washington Irving among its active agents, exposed the Scottish-Hapsburg Rite deployment of Jesuits to America with his pamphlet, “Foreign Conspiracy Against Liberties of the United States.” At approximately the same time, “Oxford Movement” leader John Newman proposed to the Anglican Church that it create a Jesuitical order of its own, so impressed was he with the work of the order in America.

During the same period of Jesuit activity, the Scottish Rite circles in England sent agents to organize an “anti-Catholic” ferment in the United States, producing mass anti-Catholic riots under the banner of the “Order of Native Americans,” and the “Order of the Star-Spangled Banner.” These operations later fused under one umbrella, the ritualized political organization known as the “Know Nothings.” Under the American Party banner, this British-controlled agency ran presidential candidates which played a determining role in the outcome of the Pierce (1852) and Buchanan (1856) presidential elections. Both Pierce and Buchanan were pro-British.

The same period of pre-Civil War subversion saw British promotion and manipulation of both Abolitionists and Secessionists, in a manner exposed by Morse in his 1860 pamphlet, “The Present Attempt to Dissolve the American Union, a British Aristocratic Plot.” Morse told his readers of a conversation between the Earl of Shaftesbury, and a Dr. Cheevcr. who ran the Abolitionist-Secessionist scenario from England. Shaftesbury said ” I, in common with almost every English statesman, sincerely desire the rupture of the American Union. Morse, writing in mock reply, said, ‘True words, my lord, you have epitomized with great precision and conciseness the inner political workings of the British aristocratic mind for many long years.”

Each of the above cited operations by the British actively involved the networks of B’nai B’rith. Evidence of the interface that existed between Jesuit and Zionist is had in the authoritative report that it was Judah Benjamin, a secret controller of B’nai B’rith, who gave the directive for Lincoln’s assassination to networks of the St. Leopold Foundation. Similar connections existed between Zionists and Abolitionists. When Moses Wiesenfeld, business partner of Aaron Friedenwald, the prominent Baltimore Zionist traitor, was arrested and convicted of maintaining Confederate war materiel in his factory, he was defended by Johns Hopkins, the leading Quaker “abolitionist.”


The British-Scottish Rite intelligence agents who played the most prominent role in the subversion of the American Republic before, during, and after the Civil War were Judah P. Benjamin, Benjamin Peixotto, Albert Pike, and August Belmont. Peixotto, was a President of B’nai B’rith; Albert Pike, a Confederate General, was a Grand Master of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in America. Their superiors were Lincoln-assassin Benjamin and August Belmont, Lord Rothschild’s personal agent in the United States.

August Belmont made his inauspicious arrival in the United States in 1832, a decade before B’nai B’rith’s founding. Of Jewish extraction, he later “converted” to Christianity by marriage into the Perry family, and was never officially a member of B’nai B’rith. The same story of “conversion” applies to Judah Benjamin. Belmont and Benjamin’s long and close association with the Zionist leadership, however, is a matter of public record, and might be compared to the relationship of Henry Kissinger and the Zionist Lobby today. Belmont, Rothschild’s official financial representative in New York, was a British puppet, like each leader of B’nai B’rith.

Belmont, whose activity as a British agent was most notoriously conducted through the leadership role he played in the Democratic Party, (double-crossing and bribing his way into the chairmanship 1856-76) depended on the B’nai B’rith leadership in almost every dirty operation he carried out. An exemplary instance was the Belmont project to create an ultra-revolutionary pseudo-Republican “youth cult” formation within the Democratic Party.

The “youth cult” project was a British design which went far beyond America. Its architect was British Colonial Secretary Edward Bulwer-Lytton, a builder of the British opium empire with Palmerston, a leading Knight of St. John of Jerusalem, and a man whose writings did most to promote the revival of Isis-worship internationally. In England, Lord Lytton’s disciple, Benjamin Disraeli, founded the feudalist-romantic Young Englander movement. Similar movements were created by British intelligence in virtually every European country — Young Italy, Young Turkey, Young Russia, and so forth — an international terrorist network at the disposal of the British Empire.

In 1845, at the direction of August Belmont, a pamphlet appeared in the United States called “The Position and Duties of Young America.” The pamphlet had been copied in outline from a tract by Young Germany British agent Arnold Ruge. The American author was a powerful man in B’nai B’rith, Edwin deLeon.

As early as 1515, the Portuguese marrano deLeons were active in the slave trade for New World plantations. They later settled in Charleston, which many marranos preferred because its “liberal” state constitution permitted them not merely to trade in black flesh, but to own slaves and plantations themselves. Every member of the deLeon family was a traitor during the Civil War. David deLeon took command of the Confederate Army medical corps. Edwin deLeon, author of Belmont’s “Young America” pamphlet and later Consul General to Egypt under the pro-slavery President Franklin Pierce, was sent to Europe by Judah Benjamin on behalf of Jefferson Davis’s Confederate Government to meet with Lord Palmerston to raise funds for the Confederacy. The deLeon family’s slave-trade partner, Seixas, published a poem in the South Carolina Gazette that fervently extolled the joys of slave trading.

Edwin deLeon, whose appointment as Confederate Commissioner in Europe came from B’nai B’rith controller Judah Benjamin, joined with George Sanders, a Belmont man and former employee of the Bank of England, to form the youth cult within the Democratic Party, appropriately called Young America. The movement had a threefold program, published in a journal, also called ‘Young America,” run by “Abolitionist” Ralph Waldo Emerson:

— Reciprocal Free Trade

— Special cooperation with European (British-run) republican movements

— Ally with Great Britain against Russia and Austria British formation of these “youth cults” in cooperation with Zionists internationally was merely a prelude to the formation of an international assassination bureau at the disposal of the high priests of the Scottish Rite. In 1853, Franklin Pierce appointed George Sanders to be U.S. Consul in Liverpool, England; August Belmont became Ambassador to Holland, Belmont’s James Buchanan became U.S. Ambassador to England, and Senator Pierre Soule, owned by Judah Benjamin, became U.S. Ambassador to Spain.

In June, 1853, the high priests themselves, Lord Palmerston, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Russell, brought Sanders, Belmont, Buchanan, and Soule together at a series of meetings in London with Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Orsini of Young Italy; Arnold Ruge of Young Germany, Alexander Herzen of Young Russia, and Kossuth of Young Hungary. Out of this meeting came the international assassination bureau of the Scottish Rite-Order of Zion, whose first target was Louis Napoleon of France. A later target was Abraham Lincoln, first in 1861 in Baltimore, B’nai B’rith stronghold, and then, the fatal 1865 “hit” in Washington.

Samuel Morse, in works cited, labelled the American Civil War a “British Aristocratic Plot.” The vehicle selected by Palmerston, Russell, Shaftesbury et al. for their long-planned rupture of the American Union was a secret society, the Knights of the Golden Circle. It was in the main composed of the leadership of the Scotch Rite Freemasons in America and the leaders and controllers of B’nai B’rith: Judah Benjamin, Benjamin Peixotto, August Belmont, Albert Pike, Jefferson Davis, George Sanders, and others.

The Knights of the Golden Circle emerged out of the Nullification Crisis of 1828-32, when South Carolina set a precedent for sectional strife by attempting to secede from the Union over the tariff issue — the state was controlled by deLeon-striped Zionist slave-traders who controlled B’nai B’rith. In the 1840s, the Knights of the Golden Circle arranged — through Knight General William Walker, with Albert Pike serving under him — the U.S. military expedition into Mexico (something not ordered by the President), and related attacks on Cuba and Central America whose open object was the seizure of new slave-territory, fanning tensions between North and South which “Abolitionists” made the most of.

Subsequently, as the crisis they were building reached a head with Lincoln’s election and the waves of secession by Southern states, the Knights of the Golden Circle attempted a coup d’etat against Lincoln’s government immediately upon his inauguration. Involved directly were Judah Benjamin, Grand Master Mason Robert Toombs, Scottish Rite Commander Albert Pike, and the leading Zionist banking houses in Baltimore and New York, led by the Seligmans. The Seligmans financed all of the B’nai B’rith’s New York front organizations for the assimilation and indoctrination of immigrant Jews (“The German- Hebrew Literary Society” and so forth). The coup would have involved seizure of the capital city’s railroads, the Treasury and other strategic points, an assassination of Lincoln en route to the Baltimore stronghold of B’nai B’rith and the Jesuits, and the installation of John Breckenridge, secretly a Knight. The object of the coup was to ensure that the Civil War, already inevitable, would be fought out in the North, ravaging American industry in the British interest. The coup had been well planned, and only General Beauregard’s premature firing on Fort Sumter gave Lincoln and General Winfield Scott the warning they needed to crush the coup.

Immediately, the B’nai B’rith leaders in the Knights assumed leading positions in the Confederacy, with notably Judah P. Benjamin becoming first Attorney General and then Secretary of War under Knight-President Jefferson Davis. Benjamin subsequently became Secretary of State, assuming control of the espionage service of the Confederate States. Coordinating with Benjamin’s office was a “Secret Cabinet” located in British Canada, which helped run the Copperhead draft resisters’ operation in the north, created by August Belmont, and employing the talents of George Sanders among others. Among the spies in the North directly controlled by Benjamin and the Canadian “Secret Cabinet” was John Wilkes Booth. Also at Judah Benjamin’s disposal throughout the Civil War was every branch of B’nai B’rith.

B’nai B’rith’s networks consisted of those synagogues and Jewish welfare organizations established by Zionist slave-traders in the first half of the century. Their deployment was open and loud from the first days of the Secession Crisis. During the peak of the crisis in 1861, “Covenant” Rabbi Morris Raphall of New York City gave a sermon on the “Bible View of Slavery,” justifying every hideous aspect of the previous 300 years’ Zionist fortune-making off black flesh. His sermon was widely praised in synagogues controlled by B’nai B’rith everywhere.

The Baltimore Hebrew Congregation, established in 1830, received its funding monies from the Dutch banking family of Judah Benjamin. Among its members were the treacherous Friedenwalds. Rabbi Bernard Illomay, in support of Raphall, addressed the congregation on Lincoln’s government: “Who can blame our brethren of the South for their being inclined to secede from a society under whose government their ends cannot be attained and whose union is kept together by heavy iron ties of violence and arbitrary force? Who can blame our brethren of the South for seceding from a society whose government cannot or will not protect the property rights (read: slaves) and privileges of a great portion of the union?” Slavery, said Illomay, is “divinely ordained.”

Baltimore, a strategically placed port city and transportation center, was a key to the B’nai B’rith-Knights of the Golden Circle’s attempted coup against Lincoln, and the Confederacy’s broader strategy throughout the Civil War. In this city, the Zionists of the “Covenant” and other British agencies planned chaos. In April, 1861, rioting broke out between Union soldiers attempting to reach Washington to crush the Golden Circle coup and mobs led by members of B’nai B’rith, Young Italy, and the Jesuits. Persons opposing the mob “were molested; some were beaten and killed” including one Union soldier, according to eyewitnesses. Printing presses, including those which printed the “Sinai” newsletter of Rabbi David Einhorn, an anti-Zionist Jew who denounced slavery, were destroyed. Homes were set afire; train tracks entering the city were destroyed. One of the individuals arrested was Joseph Friedenwald, sire of a leading Zionist family in Baltimore. Opposition to B’nai B’rith within the Jewish Community was crushed. Rabbi David Einhorn was run out of town and to this day, he is slandered by B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League spokesman as “merely an abolitionist.”

Not only in Baltimore, but throughout the border state area and South, B’nai B’rith lodges were functioning as “safehouses” and centers for espionage operations directed by Judah Benjamin. It was this that prompted General Ulysses Grant, late in the war, to issue a directive that all Jews from Tennessee to Mississippi were to be arrested for espionage. Those B’nai B’rith officials and others subsequently put on trial for espionage were defended by lawyer Simon Wolf. Grant then ordered Simon Wolf himself arrested. Wolf’s release was secured by the traitor Edwin Stanton, Lincoln’s Secretary of War. Wolf went on to become the President of B’nai B’rith some years later.


Eight months after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865, Judah Benjamin and Albert Pike created the Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan out of what remained salvageable from the Knights of the Golden Circle. Aiding them in this project, and a Klan leader, was a Charleston South Carolina Zionist named Baruch, Bernard Baruch’s grandfather. Judah Benjamin contributed some funds for the funding of the KKK, but the bulk of the financing was handled by the southern branches of B’nai B’rith. The various Klans in the United States are controlled by the Anti-Defamation League and related Zionist organizations to the present day.

Benjamin and George Sanders subsequently fled to the safety of England, with Pike remaining to run the Klan operation in the South. The operation was modelled on the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, with all the rituals attending thereto. Pike had been one of the intellectual guides of the order, and had written extensively on the subject of mysticism and the ancient cults, including books: “The Christian Mysteries,” “Gnosticism, the Kabala and the Mysteries of Masonry,” and “Zoroaster of Sarathrustra and His Doctrines.” Pike described his (and B’nai B’rith’s) worship of the goddess Isis, as follows:

“It began to shape my intellectual vision,” wrote Pike in reference to the Scottish Rite, “into something imposing and majestic … It seems to me like the pyramids in the grandeur and loneliness whose yet undiscovered chambers of generations of the sacred books of the Egyptians (are) … so long lost to the world; in its symbolisms which are its spirit of brotherhood and its essence, Freemasonry is more ancient than all of the world’s living religions.”

Another famous quote of Pike’s was, “Masonry says, ‘Be content, compare not your condition with the few above you … that he hath not the wealth of Rothschild’ …”

After the Civil War, Benjamin Peixotto, the former B’nai B’rith president, secured an appointment as U.S. consul to Romania, through the intervention of German-born Carl Schurz, a long-time British intelligence agent. As an advisor Peixotto took along Simon Wolfe, also a B’nai B’rith president. The appointment had been an aim of the Rothschilds and Montefiores in London. In Romania, Peixotto created the infamous Order of Zion, which worked to destroy the Russian-U.S. entente that had helped save Lincoln’s Union from British intervention during the Civil War.


The Platform of Zionism’s Humanist Enemy

In 1861 Rabbi David Einhorn was driven out of Baltimore for his attacks on the proslavery Zionists who (as today) ran the city. Reprinted here is the text of his “Pittsburgh Platform,” as adopted by the Central Conference of Reformed Rabbis in 1889. Ninety years later, it still embodies the ecumenical qualities of humanist Judaism.


First — We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the infinite, and in every mode, source, or book or revelation held sacred in any religious system, the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God idea as taught in our Holy Scriptures and developed and spiritualized by the Jewish teachers, in accordance with the moral and philosophical progress of their respective ages. We maintain that Judaism preserved and defended, midst continual struggles and trials and under enforced isolation, this God idea as the central religious truth for the human race.

Second — We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as priest of the one God, and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and moral instruction. We hold that modern discoveries of scientific researches in the domains of nature and history are not antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception of divine providence and justice, dealing with man in miraculous narratives.

Third — We recognize in the Mosaic legislation a system of training the Jewish people for its mission during its national life in Palestine, and today we accept as binding only the moral laws, and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization.

Fourth — We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress, originated in ages and under the influence of ideas altogether foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt to rather obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.

Fifth — We recognize, in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect, the approaching of the realization of Israel’s great messianic hope for the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice, and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any laws concerning the Jewish state.

Sixth — We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of Reason. We are convinced of the utmost necessity of preserving the historical identity with our great past. Christianity and Islam being daughter religions of Judaism, we appreciate their providential mission to aid in the spreading of monotheistic and moral truth. We acknowledge that the spirit of broad humanity of our age is our ally in the fulfillment of our mission, and therefore we extend the hand of fellowship to all who operate with us in the establishment of the reign of truth and righteousness among men.

Seventh — We assert the doctrine of Judaism, that the soul of man is immortal, grounding this belief on the divine nature of the human spirit, which forever finds bliss in righteousness and misery in wickedness. We reject as ideas not rooted in Judaism the beliefs both in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden (Hell and Paradise) as abodes for everlasting punishment or reward.

Eighth — In full accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic legislation, which strives to regulate the relation between rich and poor, we deem it our duty to participate in the great task of modern times, to solve on the basis of justice and righteousness, the problems presented by the contrasts and evils of the present organization of society.


Rev A: Changed nonbreaking spaces to regular spaces to prevent premature line breaks

Fair Usage Law

November 23, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Samson Option explodes one of the world’s most closely guarded secrets—the secret of Israel’s atomic arsenal.

The Samson Option explodes one of the world’s most closely guarded secrets—the secret of Israel’s atomic arsenal. It relates, for the first time, the political, diplomatic, and military repercussions that have for decades been concealed from the world.

It is also about America’s ability not to see what it does not want to see. All American presidents since John F. Kennedy have turned a blind eye toward Israel’s growing nuclear capacity while paying lip service to the goal of nuclear nonproliferation.

In The Samson Option, Seymour M. Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winner who wrote the first account of the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam, reveals one of the classic clandestine operations of our time: Israel’s spectacular underground nuclear facility in the Negev Desert, where its technicians and scientists began manufacturing nuclear warheads in the late 1960s. It describes the bitter infighting within the Israeli government over the bomb and its huge cost. It tells how the money for me nuclear program was raised abroad, and how the early technology was acquired with the aid of France. And it shows how and when Israel threatened to use its nuclear power.

The Samson Option reveals many startling events that played a secret and significant role in the history of our times from the early 1960s through the Gulf War:

• How, in the late 1970s, Israel not only stole reconnaissance intelligence from our most secret of satellites, the KH-11, but used that data to help target the Soviet Union;

• How Jonathan Pollard, the American spy now serving a life sentence in jail, was a key figure in Israel’s nuclear program (and how some of Pollard’s intelligence was turned over to the Soviet Union at the express direction of Yitzhak Shamir, the Israeli prime minister);

• How Israel created a false control room at the nuclear reactor at Dimona to give U.S. inspectors the false impression that the facility was solely for research;

• How the Eisenhower administration made a concerted last-ditch effort in December 1960 to force Israel to acknowledge its nuclear ambitions—and failed;

• How Israel threatened Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon with the use of nuclear weapons on the third day of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, successfully blackmailing the White House to airlift much needed supplies;

• How South Africa cooperated with Israel to create a mysterious 1979 “flash” in the South Atlantic, actually a test of an Israeli-South African nuclear artillery shell;

• How Israel used a top London newspaper editor to help catch Mordecai Vanunu, its nuclear traitor;

• How a prominent American Jewish Democratic party fund-raiser also raised money for the Israeli bomb—and was able to intervene repeatedly at the White House; and

• How the American intelligence community was finally able to learn what Israel was doing at Dimona—though it was understood that no one’s career would be enhanced by providing such intelligence to the White House.

The Samson Option is ultimately a narrative of how the bomb influenced the diplomatic relations between Israel and America far more than was seen or understood by the press and the public. It shows that, in every sense, Israel was born a nuclear power. Since its founding, some of its leaders, including David Ben-Gurion and Ernst David Bergmann—the little-known scientist who was the father of the Israeli bomb—were determined that no future enemy would be able to carry out another Holocaust. Just as Samson brought down the temple and killed himself along with his enemies, so would Israel destroy those who sought its destruction.

The message of The Samson Option is stark: The next Middle East war might very well be nuclear.

Fair Usage Law

November 19, 2010   Posted in: AIPAC, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, Gaza, Golan Heights, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Sephardic, Tel Aviv, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

O, Palestine! – Grendel Report

Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century.

October 6, 2010
O, Palestine!

September 01, 2010
O, Palestine!

By Moshe Dann

The notion of a Palestinian people and Palestinian identity, although taken for granted today, has neither a long nor a distinguished history. Understanding its origins and what it represents explains why the peace process between Israel and the Arabs has failed and will continue to fail.

Inherent in Palestinianism, from its origins, is the rejection of a Jewish state in any form. That opposition is not negotiable and not open to compromise; it is essential.

Palestinianism was never for anything; its raison d’être was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. That purpose has never changed.

Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century. Most weekly newspapers from that period which he surveyed were not even from Palestine and had scant distribution.

“Palestinian identity” then, as now, was negative, focused entirely on opposition to Zionists rather than a positive self-definition. Arab Palestinian leaders, like the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, an ardent supporter of the Nazis, and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat — both “fathers” of Palestinianism ignored by Khalidi — rejected Zionism and promoted terrorism.

Local Arab uprisings against British rule were anti-colonial and anti-Zionist, not directed toward another independent Palestinian state. Arab riots and pogroms, like those in 1929 and 1936, for example, were not motivated by Palestinian nationalism; there were no calls for a Palestinian state. The battle cry was, “Kill the Jews.”

In 1937, Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi told the Peel Commission, “There is no such country as ‘Palestine’; ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented!”

The riots of 1936 were whipped up by the newly created “Arab [not Palestinian] Higher Committee,” the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine, organized by a group of elites led by Amin al-Husayni. In 1948, the Arab League organized the All-Palestine Government, the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Led by King Abdullah of Jordan and nominally Amin al-Husayni, who had returned from Berlin, where he spent the war, it called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan. Husayni later arranged Abdullah’s assassination.

A Palestinian National Council convened in Gaza in 1948, under Amin al-Husayni’s leadership, passed resolutions calling for an independent state over all of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Adopting the flag of the Arab Revolt that had been used by Arab nationalists, it called for the liberation of Palestine. But it had no following.

In 1946, Arab historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history.” In 1947, Arab leaders protesting the U.N. partition plan argued that Palestine was part of Syria and “politically, the Arabs of Palestine [were] not [an] independent[,] separate … political entity.”

In 1947, the U.N. proposed a “Jewish” State and an “Arab” — not Palestinian — State.

The womb of Palestinianism was war, the Nakba (catastrophe) in the Arab narrative, the establishment of the State of Israel. Five well-armed Arab countries invaded the nascent state, joining local Arab gangs and militias in a genocidal war to exterminate the Jews. Yet this was not seen as a war for Palestinian nationalism, or Palestinianism; it was an all-out Arab war against Jews, Zionism, and Zionists.

Arab gangs that attacked Jews in 1948, composed of locals and Arabs from the region, were called the “Arab — not Palestininian — Army of Liberation.” The reason is that prior to Israel’s establishment, the notion of a “Palestinian people” simply did not exist, or was irrelevant, because Arab affiliations are primarily familial and tribal — not national. And because “Palestinian” then meant something else.

Before 1948, those who were called (and called themselves) “Palestinians” were Jews, not Arabs, although both carried the same British passports. In fact, only after Jews in Palestine called themselves Israelis, in 1948, could Arabs adopt “Palestinian,” as theirs exclusively.

The idea of an “Arab Palestinian people” was formed and enshrined in UNRWA “refugee camps” — today, large, developed towns — where its residents are indoctrinated with hatred, the “right of return” to Israel, and Israel’s eventual destruction. Except in Jordan, which granted them citizenship, the residents of these UNRWA towns in Lebanon and Syria are severely restricted and denied basic human and civil rights.

UNRWA’s controversial definition of “Arab refugee” includes anyone who claimed residence in Palestine since 1946, regardless of origin; this date is important because it marks the high point of a massive influx of Arabs from the region into Palestine, primarily due to employment opportunities and a higher standard of living. This category of “refugees,” moreover, was different from all others in that it included not only those who applied in 1949, but all of their descendants, forever, with full rights and privileges. This is one of the core issues preventing any resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s existence, therefore, perpetuates the conflict, prevents Israel’s acceptance, and breeds violence and terrorism.

Ironically, only when Israel took control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza could the residents of UNRWA towns in those areas move and work freely, obtain decent education and health care, and express a newly designed Palestinianism — albeit often dedicated to violence and Israel’s destruction.

With an annual budget of over a half-billion dollars, UNRWA supports about one-and-a-half million “refugees” in 58 “camps” and 5 million “registered refugees” (throughout the world) — who can claim their “rights” as “refugees” at any time. The total population is expected to reach 7 or 8 million next year, and it keeps growing.

Were it not for the policies of Arab countries and UNRWA, the “Arab refugees” might have followed the example of Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries, came to Israel, and went on to live normal lives. Given the same chance, perhaps, Arab Palestinians might have established a state of their own. The desire to destroy Israel, however, trumps state-building, and it is fundamental to Palestinianism.

The first attempt to define Palestinianism was in 1964, in the PLO Covenant, during Jordan’s occupation of “the West Bank” (a Jordanian reference from 1950 to distinguish the area from the East Bank of the Jordan River) and when Egypt held the Gaza Strip. On behalf of the “Palestinian Arab people,” the Covenant declared their goal: a “holy war” (jihad) to “liberate Palestine,” i.e. destroy Israel. There was no mention of Arabs living in “the West Bank” and Gaza Strip, since that would have threatened Arab rulers. Arab “refugees” were convenient proxies in the war against Israel, not their hosts; Palestinianism became a replacement nationalism for Zionism, a call to arms against Jews.

This balancing act was no longer necessary after 1967, when Israel acquired areas that had been originally assigned to a Jewish State by the League of Nations and British Mandate — Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip — and the Golan Heights, all rich in Jewish history and archeology. A year later, the PLO Covenant was amended to cover both “occupations” — in 1948 and 1967.

Dedicated to armed struggle, their goal has never changed; unable to defeat Israel militarily, however, the Arab strategy is to demonize and delegitimize, creating yet another Arab Palestinian state in addition to Jordan. In order to accomplish this, they concocted a narrative, an identity, and an ethos to compete with Zionism and Jewish history: Palestinianism.

Presented in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter (1988), the purpose of Palestinianism is to “liberate Palestine” and destroy Israel; neither reflects any redeeming social or cultural values. Moreover, Palestinianism is moving towards Islamist extremism.

According to Palestinian Basic Law (Article 4), ratified by PA President Mohammed Abbas in 2005:

1. Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.

2. The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation.

3. Arabic shall be the official language.

“Palestinianism” lacks the basic requirements of legitimate national identity: a separate, unique linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or religious basis. It is nothing more than a political-military construct, currently led by Fatah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Yet it became legitimized by the U.N.

Despite PLO mega-terrorist attacks, and backed by the Arab League, Muslim and “non-aligned” countries, the PLO was accepted by the United Nations in 1974. The following year, the U.N. passed its infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution, sanctioning Israel’s demonization and setting the U.N. on a course of Israel’s destruction.

The myth of Palestinianism worked because the media accepted Arab and PLO claims and their cause. Nearly all media, for example, use the term “Palestinian” or “Israeli-occupied West Bank,” reinforcing Palestinian claims, rather than the authentic designation which appears on earlier maps, Judea and Samaria, which refer to the regions’ Jewish history. The use of “West Bank” is a political, not a geographic statement.

Eventually, by the early 1990s, Palestinianism was accepted by some Israeli politicians, Left-dominated media, academia, cultural elite, and some jurists as a way of expressing their opposition to “settlements” and hoping for some sort of mutual recognition with the PLO. Their efforts culminated in the Oslo Accords (1993), which gave official Israeli sanction to Palestinianism.

Anti-Israel academics around the world promote “Palestinian” archeology, society, and culture as a brand name and a political message. Advertising works; every time someone uses the term “Palestinian,” it acknowledges and reinforces this myth.

Palestinianism, however, regardless of its lack of historical, cultural, and social roots, is now well-established and here to stay as a political identity that demands sovereign rights and a territorial base. The question seems to be not if, but where.

The solution is regional. Arab Palestinians are entitled to civil and human rights in their host countries, where they have lived for generations. A second Arab Palestinian state, in addition to Jordan, which was carved out of Palestine in 1921 — whose population is two-thirds “Palestinian” — will not resolve any core issues at the heart of the conflict. The conflict is not territorial, but existential; recognition of a Jewish state — i.e., Israel — is anathema to the Palestinian cause. That explains why Palestinian Arab leaders refuse to accept it in any form.

The problem for Palestinianism is not “the occupation” in 1967, but Israel’s existence; seen as an exclusively Arab homeland, Palestine is an integral part of the Arab world, completely under Arab sovereignty. This is axiomatic; there are no exceptions and no compromises.

Promoted in media, mosques, and schools, anti-Jewish incitement, denial of the Holocaust and Jewish history, and rejection of the right of Jewish national self-determination, by definition, Palestinianism is the greatest obstacle to peace.

The author is a writer and journalist living in Israel.

Page Printed from: at October 06, 2010 – 05:27:16 PM CDT

More here:
O, Palestine! – Grendel Report

Fair Usage Law

October 6, 2010   Posted in: Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine  Comments Closed

Uprooted Palestinians: Gilad Atzmon: The Jewish Division

I learned from Haaretz’ expose of the Jewish Division that its leader Roberta Moore, 39, is a Brazilian Jew born in Rio de Janeiro, she once lived in Israel and now resides in north London. In the following video you can watch Moore …

Monday, August 16, 2010
Gilad Atzmon: The Jewish Division
Sunday, August 15, 2010 at 7:56PM Gilad Atzmon

I guess it shouldn’t take us by surprise that the Israeli flag has become a common feature at the ultra nationalist English Defence League’s (EDL) demonstrations and gatherings.

The EDL calls for taking action against the “Islamization of Britain” and “Muslim fundamentalists”. It is a magnet for extremist right-wing activists and is driven by xenophobia and ethno centrism. Recently the organisation gained an ‘important’ addition to its coalition of hatred. It is called the “The EDL Jewish division.” According to the Jewish Chronicle “hundreds of (Jewish) followers” joined immediately.

Supporters include an ex-Community Security Trust volunteer who claims “a lot of Jewish guys want to get stuck in”. Another follower wrote on Facebook “we are all Shayetet 13″, the barbarian Israeli Navy commando unit that was directly responsible for the massacre and executions on the Mavi Marmara. It is also notable that this Jewish bloodthirsty ‘patriot’ didn’t say ‘we are all SAS, British Navy or RAF’. He for some reason preferred to affiliate himself with a foreign Navy, a Navy unit that fights Jewish wars rather than so-called British ones.

I guess that the English Defence League’s leaders are not aware of the fact that their ‘Jewish Division’ is there to exploit the new organization.

Roberta Moore, a prominent persona within the Jewish Division admitted this week to the Israeli Haaretz that it is “actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL.”*
As we are trying to recover from the devastating influence of the infamous ‘Labour friends of Israel’ and while becoming accustomed to the unethical impact of the “Conservative Friends of Israel” that already has succeeded in amending British universal jurisdiction, we are also becoming used to seeing the Israeli flag wave at us in extremist right wing demonstrations. Clearly, this is far from being a big surprise. The continuum between apartheid Israel, European Islamophobia, Melanie Philips’ Londonistan and Nick Cohen’s anti Islam is apparent and transparent.

I learned from Haaretz’ expose of the Jewish Division that its leader Roberta Moore, 39, is a Brazilian Jew born in Rio de Janeiro, she once lived in Israel and now resides in north London. In the following video you can watch Moore preaching Islamophobia while covering her body with an Israeli flag.

Moore told Haaretz “We believe that if we call the enemy by his name, we will be able to fight him. We single out organizations that discriminate against Jews and Zionist organizations, and try to explain there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism…The problem is that they (Muslims) are being brainwashed and believe they are superior to everyone else. They have the right to think that, but don’t try to force your opinions on me and tell me the clothes I wear or the music I listen to are bad. Or that my beliefs are inferior and I must not do this or that. Why do we women have to cover anything?”

Interestingly enough, I also live in Britain, in London, probably not too far from Moore. I am a successful musician and a public figure and I can never recall Muslims trying to suggest to me what music to play or what clothes to put on. Astonishingly enough, I can recall Jack Straw (former British Home Secretary) suggesting to Muslim women what to wear and how to appear in public.

Moreover, as far as I am aware, it was actually Jews, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the so called ‘Jewish anti Zionists’ who pathetically and unsuccessfully tried to block my music and writing. Also, it is Jews rather than Muslims who believe in being chosen.

If Jews like Moore believe themselves to be ordinary, why don’t they join the EDL as equal members? If racist Jews are as ordinary as other bigots, why do they operate within a racially orientated cell (‘Jewish division’)?

The answer is simple, the Jewish Division is a continuation of Zionist supremacy and as Moore admitted, it is there to “Exploit the EDL”* or just to take it for a little Zionist ride.

“Islam is not a religion, but a cult, it has all the features of a cult” Moore emphasizes. Moore is obviously deluded. Not only is Islam a religion, it is also driven by an aspiration for peace (salam) universalism and humanism. It is practiced by a Billion people. It cannot be a cult or considered as such.

However Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism) which Moore clearly succumbs to, contains all the elements of a cult. Jewishness, is a marginal ideology, it refers to a set of beliefs or practices that are reasonably considered strange from a universalist and humanist point of view. It is also a racially orientated supremacist ideology. It has even set a list of barbarian rituals that are known as the Zionist practice.

Moore is obviously a shallow human being and I won’t spend any energy debating her. However, the fact that she is proudly and openly preaching hate in Britain under the Jewish banner and carrying the Israeli flag is very significant. I guess that we should encourage her never to stop. Not only does she expose the true face of Jewish tribal politics, she also brings to light the true ideological impetus behind Islamophobia in Britain.

But there is another interesting aspects in Moore’s political attitude. Considering that Moore is an immigrant in this country, I find it slightly puzzling to hear her calling to Muslims to “get out of our land… go back to your home”.

I guess that by ‘our land ’ she is referring to Britain. I wonder when did Britain become ‘her land’? And if it is her land, why is it her land more than other millions of Muslim immigrants who settled in this country like Moore and myself?

Moore offers an answer “they (the Muslims) are unwilling to respect the laws of the place.” Moore must have failed to gather the obvious fact that Britain has aspired to multi ethnic and multi cultural ideologies. It is actually Moore and her Jewish followers who fail to respect the British value system. She reverts to the most repulsive Zionist rhetoric “Let them go back home. They have enough places (to go to).” I wonder how would Moore react if someone suggests to her to consider going back to where she comes from, or where she belongs.

Interestingly enough, Moore has many lands. England is her land. She doesn’t want Muslims here. But she also considers Israel to be her land. “I don’t understand why the Israeli flag doesn’t fly over Al-Aqsa [Mosque in Jerusalem],” Moore remarks. “That mosque is on our land.” Seemingly, Moore like many other Diaspora Jews ‘owns’ very many lands.

I guess it will not be long before the English Defence League gathers the true motivation behind the newly emerging Jewish phony patriotism.The EDL claims to show support for the British armed forces. The EDL may want to find out what is the current representation of the Jewish community within the armed forces. The EDL better also check out how many Jews have given their life for Britain in Iraq, a criminal war that was enthusiastically cheered by Jewish Chronicle writers such as David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen.

If Moore and her followers within the Jewish Division were slightly attentive to Jewish history they would gather that Jewish tribal patriotism has always been exposed for what it is: Judeo centric tribalism.

(*)“They think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish division. If anything, we are exploiting them (the EDL) .” (Roberta Moore, Haaretz 13.7.10)

Read the rest here:
Uprooted Palestinians: Gilad Atzmon: The Jewish Division

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2010   Posted in: Jewish  Comments Closed

The Lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 and the Murder of Mary Phagan in 1913

The Lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 and the Murder of Mary Phagan in 1913

If you want to know what really happened in the Leo Frank Case you can read the following books.

The best books on the subject –

1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, By Mary Phagan Kean

2. The Abridged Trial Testimony of the Leo Frank Murder Trial (1918)

3. The Leo Frank Case (Mary Phagan) Inside Story of Georgia’s Greatest Murder Mystery 1913

And The man the Jews blame for causing Leo Frank to be Lynched, five works by Tom Watson.

Five Books on the Leo Frank Case by Tom Watson (MUST READ)

1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson’s Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See

page 139 for the Leo Frank Case. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See

page 235 for ‘A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson,


3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915)

Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for ‘The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo

Frank”. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915)

Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for ‘The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew

Pervert’. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.

5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom

Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company,

Thomson, Ga.

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Chomsky on Israel and Palestine Two State Solution

Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-Semitism
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Chronicles of Dissent, 1992
QUESTION: One of your books, The Fateful Triangle, focuses specifically on the Middle East, and I was wondering if you could talk about your position on a possible two-state solution to the Palestinian question.

CHOMSKY: I don’t think that’s the optimal solution, but it has been the realistic political settlement for some time. We have to begin with some fundamentals here. The real question is: there are plainly two national groups that claim the right of self-determination in what used to be Palestine, roughly the area now occupied by Israel minus the Golan Heights, which is part of Syria.

So there are two national groups which claim national self-determination. One group is the indigenous population, or what’s left of it — a lot of it’s been expelled or driven out or fled. The other group is the Jewish settlers who came in, originally from Europe, later from other parts of the Middle East and some other places. So there are two groups, the indigenous population and the immigrants and their descendants. Both claim the right of national self-determination. Here we have to make a crucial decision: are we racists or aren’t we? If we’re not racists, then the indigenous population has the same rights of self-determination as the settlers who replaced them. Some might claim more, but let’s say at least as much right. Hence if we are not racist, we will try to press for a solution which accords them — we’ll say they are human beings with equal rights, therefore they both merit the claim to national self-determination. I’m granting that the settlers have the same rights as the indigenous population; many do not find that obvious but let’s grant it. Then there are a number of possibilities. One possibility is a democratic secular society. Virtually nobody is in favor of that. Some people say they are, but if you look closely they’re not really. There are various models for multi-ethnic societies, say Switzerland or whatever. And maybe in the long run these might be the best idea, but they’re unrealistic.

The only realistic political settlement, for the time being, in the past ten or twelve years, that would satisfy the right of self-determination for both national groups is a two-state settlement. Everybody knows what it would have to be: Israel within approximately the pre-June 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or maybe some other arrangement. This would be associated with maybe demilitarized zones and international guarantees of some sort or another, but that’s the framework of a possible political settlement. As I say, I don’t think it’s the best one, but that’s the realistic one, very realistic. It’s supported by most of the world. It’s supported by Europe, by the Soviet Union, has been for a long time, by almost all the non-aligned countries, it’s supported by all the major Arab states and has been for a long time, supported by the mainstream of the PLO and, again, has been for a long time, it’s supported even by the American population, by about two to one according to the polls. But there are also people who oppose it. It’s opposed by the rejection front in the Arab world, the minority elements of the PLO, Libya, a few others, minority rejectionist elements, but crucially it’s opposed by the leaders of the rejection front, namely the United States and Israel. The United States and Israel adamantly oppose it. The United States will not consider it. Both political groupings in Israel reject it totally. They reject any right of national self-determination for the indigenous popula- tion in the former Palestine. They can have Jordan if they want, or the former Syria, or something, but not the area that they now hold under military occupation. In fact they’re explicit about it. There are carefully fostered illusions here that the Labor Party is interested in compromise over the issue. But if you look closely, there’s no meaningful compromise. The position of the Labor Party remains what was expressed by their representative, who is now President, Chaim Herzog, who said that “no one can be a partner with us in a land that has been holy to our people for 2000 years.” That’s the position. They’re willing to make minor adjustments. They don’t want to take care of the population in the West Bank, because there are too many Arabs; they don’t want a lot of Arabs around, so what they would like to do is take the areas and the water and the resources they want from the West Bank but leave the population, either stateless or under Jordanian control. That’s what’s called a “compromise solution.” It’s a very cynical proposal, even worse in many respects than annexation. But that’s called here compromise and the reason is that we are again educated elites in the United States and national discussion takes a strictly racist view of this. The Palestinians are not human, they do not deserve the rights that we accord automatically to the settlers who displaced them. That’s the basis of articulate American discussion: pure, unadulterated racism. Again, that’s not true of the population, as usual, but it is of the politically active and articulate parts of it and certainly the government. As long as the United States and Israel reject the political settlement, there can’t be one.

There certainly have been very plausible opportunities for a political settlement over many years, in fact, just to mention a few which have disappeared from history because they’re too inconvenient: in February 1971 President Sadat of Egypt offered a full peace treaty to Israel on the pre-June 67 borders. In accordance with official American policy, incidentally, but not operative policy, offering nothing to the Palestinians, he didn’t even offer them a Palestinian state, nothing. Nevertheless Israel rejected it, and the United States backed them in that rejection. In January 1976 Syria, Jordan and Egypt, the so-called “confrontation states,” made a proposal in the U.N. Security Council for a two-state settlement with international guarantees and territorial rights secured and so on. That was backed and even prepared by the PLO, supported by the Soviet Union and most of the world. It was vigorously opposed by Israel, which even boycotted the session, in fact, it bombed Lebanon in retaliation against the United Nations, killing about 50 people, no excuse at all, just a fit of anger, “We’re going to kill anybody who gets in our way if you push this,” and the United States vetoed it. There have been a series of such things ever since. The United States has always blocked them and Israel has always refused them, and that means there’s no political settlement. Rather there is a state of permanent military confrontation. That’s aside from what it means to the Palestinians, which is obvious and terrible; it’s very bad for Israel. It’s leading to their own destruction, in my view, certainly to their economic collapse and moral degeneration and probably, sooner or later, their physical destruction, because you can’t have a state of military confrontation without a defeat sooner or later. It’s leading the world very close to nuclear war, repeatedly. Every time we have an Arab-Israeli conflict — and there will be more of them, as long as we maintain a military confrontation — the Soviet Union and the United States come into confrontation. Both are involved. The Soviet Union is close by, it’s not like Central America, it’s a strategic region right near their border, they’re involved; it’s very far from us but it’s a strategic region for us because of the oil nearby, primarily. So we’re involved, the fleets come into confrontation, it’s very close. In 1967 it came very close to nuclear war and it will again. So it’s very dangerous, it’s the most likely spot where a nuclear war would develop, but we are pursuing it, because we don’t want a political settlement. The United States is intent on maintaining a military confrontation.

QUESTION: You mentioned racism vis-à-vis the Palestinians. To what extent, if any, have Israelis of Ashkenazic origin absorbed German racial attitudes toward not just Arabs but even to the Oriental Jews, the Sephardim, is there anything in that?

CHOMSKY: I wouldn’t call it particularly German.

QUESTION: European?

CHOMSKY: Yes. It’s part of European culture to have racist attitudes toward the Third World, including us, we’re part of Europe in that respect. Naturally the Jewish community shared the attitudes of the rest of Europe, not surprising. There certainly are such things inside Israel. My feeling is they could be overcome in time under a situation of peace. I think they’re real, but I don’t think they’re lethal, through slow integration they could probably be overcome. The one that probably can’t be overcome is the anti-Arab racism, because that requires subjugation of a defeated and conquered people and that leads to racism. If you’re sitting with your boot on somebody’s neck, you’re going to hate him, because that’s the only way that you can justify what you’re doing, so subjugation automatically yields racism, and you can’t overcome that. Furthermore, anti-Arab racism is rampant in the United States and much of the West, there’s no question about that. The only kind of racism that can be openly expressed with outrage is anti-Arab racism. You don’t put caricatures of blacks in the newspapers any more; you do put caricatures of Arabs.

QUESTION: But isn’t it curious that they’re using the old Jewish stereotypes, the money coming out the pockets, the beards, the hooked nose?

CHOMSKY: I’ve often noticed that the cartoons and caricatures are very similar to the ones you’d find in the Nazi press about the Jews, very similar.

QUESTION: What dimension does the Holocaust play in this equation? Is it manipulated by the Israeli state to promote its own interests?

CHOMSKY: It’s very consciously manipulated. I mean, it’s quite certainly real, there’s no question about that, but it is also undoubted that they manipulate it. In fact, they say so. For example, in the Jerusalem Post, in English so you can read it, their Washington correspondent Wolf Blitzer, I don’t recall the exact date, but after one of the big Holocaust memorial meetings in Washington he wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post in which he said it was a great success. He said, “Nobody mentioned arms sales to the Arabs but all the Congressmen understood that that was the hidden message. So we got it across.” In fact, one very conservative and very honest Zionist leader, Nachem Goldman, who was the President of the World Zionist Organization and who was detested towards the end because he was much too honest — they even refused to send a delegation to his burial, I believe, or a message. He’s one of the founders of the Jewish state and the Zionist movement and one of the elder statesmen, a very honest man, he — just before his death in 1982 or so — made a rather eloquent and unusual statement in which he said that it’s — he used the Hebrew word for “sacrilege” — he said it’s sacrilege to use the Holocaust as a justification for oppressing others. He was referring to something very real: exploitation of probably the world’s most horrifying atrocity in order to justify oppression of others. That kind of manipulation is really sick.

QUESTION: That disturbs you and…

CHOMSKY: Really sick. Many people find it deeply immoral but most people are afraid to say anything about it. Nachem Goldman is one of the few who was able to say anything about it and it was one of the reasons he was hated. Anyone who tries to say anything about it is going to be subjected to a very efficient defamation campaign of the sort that would have made the old Communist Party open-mouthed in awe, people don’t talk about it.

QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It’s been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: My “agnosticism” is in print. I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they’re basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It’s a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

QUESTION: There’s tremendous support for Israel in the United States at least in elite groups. There’s also on another level a very steady, virulent anti-Semitism that goes on. Can you talk about that?

CHOMSKY: Anti-Semitism has changed, during my lifetime at least. Where I grew up we were virtually the only Jewish family, I think there was one other. Of course being the only Jewish family in a largely Irish-Catholic and German-Catholic community–

QUESTION: In Philadelphia?

CHOMSKY: In Philadelphia. And the anti-Semitism was very real. There were certain paths I could take to walk to the store without getting beaten up. It was the late 1930s and the area was openly pro-Nazi. I remember beer parties when Paris fell and things like that. It’s not like living under Hitler, but it’s a very unpleasant thing. There was a really rabid anti-Semitism in that neighborhood where I grew up as a kid and it continued. By the time I got to Harvard in the early 1950s there was still very detectable anti-Semitism. It wasn’t that they beat you up on the way to school or something, but other ways, kind of WASP-ish anti-Semitism. There were very few Jewish professors on the faculty at that time. There was beginning to be a scattering of them, but still very few. This was the tail end of a long time of WASP-ish anti-Semitism at the elite institutions. Over the last thirty years that’s changed very radically. Anti-Semitism undoubtedly exists, but it’s now on a par, in my view, with other kinds of prejudice of all sorts. I don’t think it’s more than anti-Italianism or anti-Irishism, and that’s been a very significant change in the last generation, one that I’ve experienced myself in my own life, and it’s very visible throughout the society.

QUESTION: How would you account for that?

CHOMSKY: How would I account for it? I think partly that the Holocaust did have an effect. It brought out the horrifying consequences of anti-Semitism in a way that certainly is striking. I presume, I can’t prove this, but there must be, at least I hope there is, a kind of guilt feeling involved, because the role of the United States during the Holocaust was awful, before and during. They didn’t act to save Jews, and they could have in many respects. The role of the Zionist organization is not very pretty either. In the late 1940s there were plenty of displaced persons in the Jewish DP camps. Some survived. It remained awful, they stayed in the DP camps, in fact, for a while they were dying at almost the same rate they were under the Nazis. Many of those people, if they had been given a chance, surely would have wanted to come to the United States. There are debates about how many, but it’s just unimaginable that if they’d been given a chance they wouldn’t have wanted to come here. They didn’t. A tiny scattering came. There was an immigration bill, the Stratton bill, which I think admitted about 400,000 people, if I remember, to the United States, very few Jews among them. Plenty of Nazis, incidentally, straight out of their SS uniforms. The reason that bill passed, I think it was 1947, was that it was the beginning of the Cold War and priority was being given to basically the Nazis, because we were resurrecting them all over the world, a lot of them were brought in, a lot of Nazi war criminals, and others, but very few Jews. That’s not a very pretty sight. You say, during the war you could have given some argument, not an acceptable argument, but you could have given at least a not ridiculous argument that you had to fight the war and not worry about the people being sent to the gas chambers, but after the war you couldn’t give any argu- ment. It was a matter of saving the survivors, and we didn’t do it. I should say the Zionist organization didn’t support it either, they didn’t even lobby for the bill. The only Jewish organizations that lobbied for the admission of Jewish refugees to the United States were the non-Zionist or the anti-Zionist organizations. The reason was that they wanted to send them off to Palestine. Whether they wanted to go there or not is another story, the same matter being relived today, incidentally, with the Russian emigres. The Zionist organization wants to force them to go to Israel. Most of them, especially from the European parts of Russia, want to come to the United States, and all sorts of pressures are being brought to bear to prevent that. It’s kind of a reenactment at a less hideous level of the same story. I suppose there’s some element of guilt, certainly over the Holocaust and maybe over the post-war matter.

Besides that, the Jewish community has changed socially and economically. It’s now become substantial, not huge in numbers, but given its numbers it’s a substantial part of the dominant privileged elite groups in every part of the society — professional, economic, political, etc. It’s not like the anti-Semitic stereotype, they don’t own the corporations, but relative to the numbers they’re very influential, particularly in the ideological system, lots of writers, editors, etc. and that has an effect.

Furthermore, I think it’s changed because of what’s happened since 1967. In 1967 Israel won a dramatic military victory, demonstrated its military power, in fact, smashed up the entire Arab world, and that won great respect. A lot of Americans, especially privileged Americans, love violence and want to be on the side of the guy with the gun, and here was a powerful, violent state that smashed up its enemies and demonstrated that it was the dominant military power in the Middle East, put those Third World upstarts in their place. This was particularly dramatic because that was 1967, a time when the United States was having only minimal success in carrying out its invasion of by then all of Indochina, and it’s well worth remembering that elite opinion, including liberal opinion, overwhelmingly supported the war in Vietnam and was quite disturbed by the incapacity of the United States to win it, at least at the level they wanted. Israel came along and showed them how to do it, and that had a symbolic effect. Since then it has been presenting itself, with some justice, as the Sparta of the Middle East, a militarily advanced, technologically compe- tent, powerful society. That’s the kind of thing we like. It also became a strategic asset of the United States; one of the reasons why the United States maintains the military confrontation is to assure that it’s a dependable, reliable ally that will do what we want, like, say, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, and that also increases the respect for Israel and with it tends to diminish anti-Semitism. I suppose that’s a factor.

QUESTION: But you’ve pointed out that as long as U.S. state interests are being served and preserved, Israel will be favored, but the moment that those interests…

CHOMSKY: That’s right, it’ll be finished, in fact, anti-Semitism will shoot up. Apart from the moral level, it’s a very fragile alliance on tactical grounds.

QUESTION: So what happens to the moral commitment, the concern for justice in the Jewish state and all that — out the window?

CHOMSKY: On the part of whom?

QUESTION: The United States.

CHOMSKY: There’s no concern for justice and there never was. States don’t have a concern for justice. States don’t act on moral grounds.

QUESTION: Except on a rhetorical level.

CHOMSKY: On a rhetorical level, they all do, even Nazi Germany. On the actual level, they never do. They are instruments of power and violence, that’s true of all states; they act in the interests of the groups that dominate them, they spout the nice rhetorical line, but these are just givens of the international system.

QUESTION: You’ve been very critical of the American liberal community and in fact you’ve said that they’re contributing to Israel’s destruction. Please talk a little bit about that.

CHOMSKY: The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect. I don’t know if it was a decisive effect, but it had some noticeable effect on bringing about U.S. government support for the persistent military confrontation and U.S. government opposition to political settlement. For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States. It’s not just the Jewish community, which is what they see; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.

QUESTION: Edward Said, for example, has pointed out that there is much more pluralism in terms of the discussion, the debate, in Israel itself than inside the United States.

CHOMSKY: There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed. That’s quite typical. Positions that I maintain, which are essentially in terms of the international consensus, they’re not a majority position in Israel, but they’re part of the political spectrum, they’re respectable positions. Here it’s considered outlandish.

QUESTION: In the time we have remaining, I’d like to ask you two questions. The first one is, in what ways, if any, has your work in linguistics and grammar informed your political analyses and perspectives?

CHOMSKY: I suspect very little. Maybe, I don’t know, I’m probably not the person to ask, but I think working in a science is useful because you somehow learn, you get to understand what evidence and argument and rationality are and you come to be able to apply these to other domains where they’re very much lacking and very much opposed, so there’s probably some help in that respect. There’s probably, at some very deep and abstract level, some sort of common core conception of human nature and the human drive for freedom and the right to be free of external coercion and control, that kind of picture animates my own social and political concerns. My own anarchist interests, which go way back to early childhood, and on the other hand, they enter here in a clear and relatively precise way into my work on language and thought and so on, but it’s a pretty loose connection, not a kind of connection where you can deduce one connection from another or anything like that.

QUESTION: You have an international reputation for your work in linguistics and philosophy and obviously you weren’t content with that, you wanted to go out into the social and political world–

CHOMSKY: Quite the contrary. It’s one of the many examples that show that people often do things that they don’t want to do because they have to. I made a very conscious decision about this. Actually, my political views haven’t changed much since I was about 12 or 13. I’ve learned more, I suppose they’re more sophisticated, but fundamentally they haven’t changed. However, I was not an activist. I was, until the early 1960s, working in my own garden, basically, doing the kind of work I liked, intellectually exciting, rewarding, satisfying, you make progress. I would have been very happy to stick to it. It would have been, from a narrow personal point of view, much better for me in every imaginable respect. I remember I knew as soon as I got involved in political activism that there was going to be no end, the demands would increase forever, there would be unpleasant personal consequences — and they are unpleasant. I mean there are less unpleasant things than being maced, for example, or spending a day in a Washington jail cell or being up for a five-year jail sentence or being subjected to the endless lies of the Anti-Defamation League and its friends, etc. There are more pleasant things. I didn’t know in detail, but I knew it was going to be much less pleasant than just working in the fields where I felt I was good and I could make progress and so on. And I knew I had to cut back on things I really wanted to do and that I enjoyed doing, many things in personal life, and I knew personal life was going to contract enormously, something has to give, and in many ways there would be negative consequences, and I really thought about it pretty hard and I finally took the plunge, but not with any great joy, I must say.

QUESTION: I think a lot of people are grateful that you did.

CHOMSKY: Thanks.

Fair Usage Law

July 21, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Gaza, Golan Heights, Israel, Jewish, Palestine, Tel Aviv, West Bank, Zionism  Comments Closed


JUDAISM’S STRANGE GODS Michael A. Hoffman IIwith notes, glossary,bibliography and indexIn this scholarly and deeply considered work, the author documents his provocative thesis that Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament, but the newly formalized belief system of the Pharisees, which arose in Babylon with the commitment of the formerly oral “tradition of […]

Fair Usage Law

November 26, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Sephardic, Tel Aviv, West Bank, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Truth about Leo Frank and Mary Phagan

Leo Frank was a criminal who murdered a 13-year-old girl named Mary Phagan in 1913. Because he was the Atlanta chapter head of B’nai B’rith (essentially, Brotherhood of the Chosen), many Jews from across the US worked in a concerted movement to free him for the crime, with one Jewish donor alone donating $100,000 towards […]

Fair Usage Law

November 26, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

B’nai B’rith Responds to Filthy Jewish Terrorists

Responding to: IMMEDIATE RELEASEB’nai Brith Canada calls on Attorney-General to immediately lay hate crime charges against genocide-advocating York studentTORONTO, 2010 – B’nai Brith Canada has called on Ontario Attorney-General Chris Bentley to move without delay to lay hate crime charges against Salman Hossain, a Bangladeshi-Canadian York University student who has allegedly called for a […]

Fair Usage Law

November 25, 2010   Posted in: Anti Racism, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Discrimination News, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Racism News, Racist News, Tel Aviv, West Bank  Comments Closed

B’nai B’rith, British Weapon Against America

B’nai B’rith, British Weapon Against America by Paul Goldstein Rev A – See Notes(from – 12 MB pdf image-file)Since the time of Philo of Alexandria, as before him, the religion of the antiprogress, landed oligarchy has been and is Isis worship. Through the intervening centuries, the high priesthood of the Isis cult has consciously […]

Fair Usage Law

November 23, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, B'nai B'rith, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank, Race Relations, Racism News, Racist News, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

The Samson Option explodes one of the world’s most closely guarded secrets—the secret of Israel’s atomic arsenal. Samson Option explodes one of the world’s most closely guarded secrets—the secret of Israel’s atomic arsenal. It relates, for the first time, the political, diplomatic, and military repercussions that have for decades been concealed from the world.It is also about America’s ability not to see what it does not want to see. All American […]

Fair Usage Law

November 19, 2010   Posted in: AIPAC, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Ashkenazi, Gaza, Golan Heights, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Sephardic, Tel Aviv, West Bank, White Nationalism, White Supremacism, Zionism  Comments Closed

O, Palestine! – Grendel Report

Concern for Palestine among a few Arab intellectuals, as Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi shows in his book on the subject, did not exist until Zionists began settlements at the turn of the century.

Fair Usage Law

October 6, 2010   Posted in: Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews, Judaism, Palestine  Comments Closed

Uprooted Palestinians: Gilad Atzmon: The Jewish Division

I learned from Haaretz’ expose of the Jewish Division that its leader Roberta Moore, 39, is a Brazilian Jew born in Rio de Janeiro, she once lived in Israel and now resides in north London. In the following video you can watch Moore …

Fair Usage Law

August 16, 2010   Posted in: Jewish  Comments Closed

The Lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 and the Murder of Mary Phagan in 1913

The Lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 and the Murder of Mary Phagan in 1913If you want to know what really happened in the Leo Frank Case you can read the following books. The best books on the subject – 1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, By Mary Phagan Kean The Abridged Trial Testimony […]

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism News, Jewish, Jewish Heritage, Jews, Judaism, Leo Frank  Comments Closed

Chomsky on Israel and Palestine Two State Solution

Israel, the Holocaust, and Anti-SemitismNoam ChomskyExcerpted from Chronicles of Dissent, 1992QUESTION: One of your books, The Fateful Triangle, focuses specifically on the Middle East, and I was wondering if you could talk about your position on a possible two-state solution to the Palestinian question.CHOMSKY: I don’t think that’s the optimal solution, but it has been […]

Fair Usage Law

July 21, 2010   Posted in: Anti-Semitism, Gaza, Golan Heights, Israel, Jewish, Palestine, Tel Aviv, West Bank, Zionism  Comments Closed

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."