Why I Don't Call Socio-Communists "Liberals"

I never call Leftists "liberals", unless in inverted commas, for several reasons, the most important of which is that they are not liberals.

Classical liberalism, a political philosophy born in 17th-18th-century Europe, may have had many defects but it did not descend to the hellish depths of socialism and communism.

The reason why socialists and communists today call themselves "liberal" is because "socialist" and "communist" would be much more unpalatable to the public.

But changing your name doesn't alter the reality of what you are; it merely deceives others.

The term "liberal" instead has a nice ring to it. Beyond the political sphere, the dictionary is full of positive meanings for it: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas", "favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms", "favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform", "(of a person) giving generously".

In addition, it has the same root as the word "liberty", and here is where the deception is at its worst: "liberals" are usually people who much prefer a big to a small state and want to shut up dissidents and silence opposing views, in the good old socio-communist tradition.

Incidentally, the difference between socialism and communism is not as great as many erroneously think. Karl Marx theorised them as two stages of the same process. After the social revolution, he said, a dictatorship of the proletariat will be established, and that he named "socialism"; after some time such dictatorship will wither away, because socialism will make the presence of the state unnecessary, and will be replaced by communism, which ultimately coincides with anarchy or absence of the state (from its Greek root, which means "absence of power"), which Marx termed "communism", characterised by the formula "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (of which the present system of welfare state and high taxation adopted by modern Western countries, also known as "redistribution of wealth", is an only slightly lesser form).

There are still many individuals, very often in high places of command (like politics) or influence (like the media and Hollywood), who have not abandoned the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, or of anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin, or - even closer to us - of the Cultural Marxism that emerged from the Frankfurt School, with Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer.

They know that, after the mass-murderous experiences of failed attempts to establish communist societies that have opened many people's eyes to the evil of those ideas, they cannot overtly declare themselves to be what they are.

Hence the origin of the widely-employed label "liberal".

But they every so often show their true colours when they reveal their appreciation and admiration for the worst communist dictators and killers, as US President Obama did when he praised Ho Chi Minh. Similarly, when Venezuelan communist President Hugo Chavez died, it turned out that he had many friends among our Western "liberal" leaders, like British hard-Left politicians George Galloway, Labour Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn.

It's true that those blessed with political awareness do know that, when the word "liberal" is used - particularly in America -, the opposite of its sense is actually meant.

But why use it at all in that sense, then? Why accept the socialists' and communists' ploy to disguise themselves? Why not call a wolf a "wolf" - noble as these predatory animals are -, even if in sheep's clothing? Why call it a "lamb"?

Stamford Hill and the Campaign against the “Jewification of Britain”

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


Until a few years, or even one year, ago I wouldn't have believed that an anti-Jewish - not anti-Israel – mass protest by Whites - not by Muslims - could have taken place in Britain.

And yet, a march against the “Jewification of Great Britain” was planned by Joshua Bonehill, the 22-year-old leader of National Liberation. Scheduled for 22 March, it was called “Liberate Stamford Hill”, after an area of north-east London home to about 20,000 Jews. This is a poster of the proposed demo, which according to The Guardian was reading: “On 22nd of March as one white and unified mass movement we will be finally pointing the finger in the right direction … You owe it to your race white man.”

The namesake Facebook page of the campaign appearing on the poster has been removed, and if you search it on FB you’ll end up with its opposite: “Liberate Stamford Hill from Fascists”.

The poster shows the photos of two phenomena appearing in the streets of Stamford Hill that the White Nationalists oppose: a member of the Shomrim, the corporate Jewish Police that started patrolling the neighbourhood in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks on Jews, and a Jewish sign telling women on which side of the road they should walk.

The campaign’s Twitter account has also been taken down. Since announcing the Liberate Stamford Hill march, Bonehill and other 5 of its organisers have been arrested, with 3 of them banned from entering London.

As a result, the protest has been postponed to 2nd May. This is, as the Daily Bale News website puts it, “due to unprecedented mass abuse of police powers previously never applied to the Jewish EDL”, a reference to the Jewish connections of the pro-Israel English Defence League, whose target has mostly been Islam.

But Stamford Hill has not been quiet in recent times. On the planned day of the postponed protest, a group of over 20 men and women stormed a synagogue in the area. The blog Endzog reported:

Six indigenous white Fascists from the new fascist movement Liberate also known as ‘National Liberation’ protesting against the Jewish Occupation of Britain have been arrested after an antisemitic attack by 20 Liberate and associated activists at a synagogue in the Jewish Occupied settlement and mini theocratic state of Stamford Hill North London – leaving one Jew needing minor hospital treatment after Jews turned violent in the fracas.

As Jews have used their huge financial power to buy up properties in the area over the years the indigenous people have been gradually forced out. Meanwhile Jewish MPs and Jewish controlled local councils have brought several million 3rd world immigrants into London to ethnically cleanse it of English people.

A small demo organised by other nationalist groups did take place in Stamford Hill on 18th April.

Another possibly related episode concerns a store in Tottenham, another district in north London, belonging to the mobile (or cell) phone giant company EE. Staff at the shop refused to give phone chargers to at least two Orthodox Jewish men wearing traditional attire.

Assistant manager Daniel Reid was contacted by The Jewish Chronicle and reportedly told the paper: "There is no discrimination in our business. I am black and Christian. I am not being funny, Jewish people are very arrogant but we serve them to the best of our ability. I do find them arrogant."

The allegation of “arrogance” is interesting, because it is not isolated. In July 2010 Christina Patterson, a Stamford Hill resident who was for ten years until 2013 a journalist on the staff of The Independent, wrote a column, “The limits of multi-culturalism”, in which she complained of the bad manners of the Hasidic Jews living in her neighbourhood:

I would like to say to the man from whom I bought some paper cups, and who handled my money as if it had been dipped in anthrax, that it wouldn't kill him to say "please" or "thank you", and I would like to say to the fishmonger who asked my (black) friend whether he really wanted to buy some fish from his shop, that you should probably assume that if someone is asking for fish in your shop, then the answer is in the affirmative.

And I would like to say to the little boy who sat bang in the middle of two seats on the bus and who, when I tried to sit next to him, leapt up as if infection from the ebola virus was imminent, that it does slightly make one feel like a pariah, and I would like to say to the women who roam the streets with double-decker pushchairs and vast armies of children, that it's sometimes nice to allow someone else to get past, and I would like to say to all these people that I don't care if they wear frock-coats, and funny suits and hats covered in plastic bags, and insist on wearing their hair in ringlets (if they're male) or covered up by wigs (if they're female), but I do think they could treat their neighbours with a bit more courtesy and just a little bit more respect.

When I moved to Stamford Hill, 12 years ago, I didn't realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention. I didn't realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn't been chosen by God. And while none of this is a source of anything much more than irritation, when I see an eight-year-old boy recoiling from a normal-looking woman (because, presumably, he has been taught that she is dirty or dangerous, or, heaven forbid, dripping with menstrual blood) it makes me sad…

[T]here's nothing in the Torah to say that… goyim should be treated with contempt.

There certainly is in the Talmud.

The article, published in The Independent, a politically correct paper with Leftist tendencies, was extolling the overall virtues of multiculturalism.

This didn’t save Patterson from entering the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs list for 2010. She was fired from her newspaper 3 years later, although no-one can say whether the two things are connected. This journalist, who was clearly a fan of the Left, wrote at the time:

The LA Simon Wiesenthal Centre had, it said, "unveiled its Top Ten Anti-Semitic Slurs" for 2010 and I – nestling between a Lithuanian Holocaust-denier, who described the Nuremberg trial as "the biggest legal farce in history", and anonymous contributions on the Goldman Sachs message boards, which begged for the return of the Gestapo and exhorted readers to "burn all the Jews" – was at No 9…

They [the Simon Wiesenthal Centre], and their friends in this country, seem pretty damn serious that anyone, anywhere, who criticises the behaviour of anyone who happens to be Jewish should be stuck in the stocks and slapped with a label that marks them out as not just racist, but a hater of a particular, entire race, so that when anyone puts their name in Google, what pops up is words like "anti-Semitic", "prick" and "bigot". They seem pretty damn serious that their support for "Jewish Rights in the World" translates into direct support of Israel, too.

Patterson managed, though, to shed the spotlight on Stamford Hill and its ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish inhabitants. The Telegraph reported:

There are now estimated to be around 1.3m Haredi [of which Hasidim are a part] worldwide, and according to a 2007 study by Dr Yaakov Wise at the University of Manchester, strictly-orthodox Jewry in Europe is expanding more rapidly than at any time since before the Second World War. In Britain - home to the largest Haredi community in Europe - almost three out of every four Jewish births are in the Haredi community. If current trends continue, the strictly-Orthodox will constitute the majority of British Jews by 2050. [Emphasis added]

High birth rates are something we normally associate with Muslims.

The similarities between Islam and Judaism, both of which are particularist and supremacist doctrines, full of contempt for those who don’t believe in them, are astounding. Indeed, the comments on the behavior of Hasidic Jews in London echo the notorious behavior of Hasidic Jews in Postville, Iowa. They had no interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers. In a small Midwestern American town, that is a recipe for distrust and even hatred.

There are also similarities between Muslim and Jewish communities living in Britain and in Western countries generally, and the problems they cause.

Both have their own approved food, respectively halal and kosher which, in the case of meat, has to derive from animals slaughtered inhumanely without previous stunning; both, in the case of certain groups, tend to self-segregation, self-isolation, desire not to integrate into the wider society, ghettoisation; both wish to differentiate and separate themselves through their clothing; both have feelings of being superior; both have a different ethical code for the treatment of ingroup and outgroup members (“What you do to the goyim is not the same as what you do to Jews”); both are obsessed with purity and with not being contaminated by the impure kaffir or goyim; both consider kaffir or goyim not quite human and think that these outsiders’ purpose is to be their own slaves; both have ways of separating men from women and consider contact between the sexes to be avoided; both have arranged marriages; both have their own courts; both have their own police.

London Jewish patrols have cars that look very similar to police vehicles and bear the security group’s name “Shomrim” – Hebrew for “guards” – along the sides and back. Their uniforms also bear that name. According to Wikipedia, Brooklyn and Baltimore in the US also have Shomrim: “However, the volunteer patrol in New York has been criticized by the New York City Police Department for not always notifying police when a call comes in.”

Muslims also instituted patrols in London, a sort of Sharia morality police to ensure that everyone around some mosques follows Sharia law. For example Muslim patrols tell passers-by that they can't walk a dog (impure animal in Islam), wear a skirt, drink alcohol. In fact Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within a mosque’s geographical reach.

Finally, paedophilia is a problem that seems to affect Muslim and Jewish communities in higher proportion than the White population, which may derive from their attitudes to it, different from ours.

For Islam, what we consider paedophilia is not even a sin or a crime, as attested by very numerous facts, including that its prophet Muhammad – the perfect man who should serve as a model for all Muslims - married A'isha when she was 6 and consummated their marriage when she was 9, and that paedophilia is commonly practiced with the blessing of the law in Muslim countries today as child marriage.

In Judaism too paedophilia is not considered immoral. In the Talmud we find this:

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition [coitus], and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.

And this:

When a grown-up man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl, or when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman, or [when a girl was accidentally] injured by a piece of wood — [in all these cases] their kethubah [a wife's marriage settlement] is two hundred [zuz].

Despite the similarities, the Jewish and Muslim questions have very different repercussions for Whites, and this subject has been regularly and repeatedly discussed.

How in my opinion these two questions should be treated by White Nationalists will be the subject for the next article.

Michael Jones on Jewish Impact on World History

Dr. E. Michael Jones, a Catholic historian and author, editor of Culture Wars magazine (formerly called Fidelity Magazine), explains the content of his book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) .

Whatever you think of what he says, you should read his book if you want to open and expand your views and stop getting stuck with Islam, as if all problems ended with it.

All those who are aware of Islam and rightly opposed to it should, if they haven't already done so, take a better look at Judaism.

Only people who know very little of Judaism can think that it's doctrinally close to Christianity.

Judaism is very similar to Islam. Judaism is antithetical to Christianity.

We always invite people to take a look at and read the Quran to see for themselves what Islam is. Well, to see what Judaism is take a look at and read the Talmud, where you'll find the most hateful assertions against goyim (a highly offensive term for non-Jews, similar to the word "kaffir" in Islam), Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary.

The "Catholic Church" of the Vatican II in general and Nostra Aetate in particular had been infiltrated by crypto-Jews even at the high levels of its hyerarchies.

The real, pre-existing Catholic Church was Jewish-realist and knew how to deal with Jews: it is the only force that did know how to deal with them. In the same way as the real Catholic Church was also the only force that defeated Islam.

E. Michael Jones undoubtedly introduces an interesting historiography of the Jewish question.

I have three prima facie objections, though:

1) is it a tested, evidence-based hypothesis that usury is the only cause of the progressive accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands? If you think of a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, totally implementing sharia law that forbids usury, you see that riches (generally from oil) are indeed in the hands of few.

2) Michael Jones reintroduces Marx's theory of capitalists' appropriation of surplus value produced by labour. We know, and Jones knows, that Marx is one of the most potent Jewish forces responsible for the destruction of Christian West. How can he reconcile his two positions?

3) Michael Jones elsewhere denies to be a racist, as this would be against his Catholic beliefs. But being race-realist wouldn't be. Sometimes he appears to be opposed to race-realism too, which would be a mistake.

We were all created equal before God, but not equal in our characteristics.

Equality is an ethical prescription, not a factual description.

Italy Is Losing to Illegal Migration

In February, the people smugglers who constantly ferry African immigrants to Italy fired on a patrol boat of the Italian Coast Guard because they wanted to take back the small vessel which had just transported hundreds of illegal immigrants.

On Tuesday, it was instead a patrol boat of the Libyan Coast Guard, paid by the traffickers, that fired shots in the air to speed up the transfer of 250 immigrants to the Italian tugboat Asso 21, with the aim, once again, to get their hands on the wooden boat that had carried them, an old tub which will soon be seen again in the waters of the Strait of Sicily with a cargo of Africans bound for Italy, with the complicity of Italy's fleet and that of the European "Triton" mission.

Asso 21 is an Italian private tugboat. Its owner, Mario Mattioli, said: "Our tug was called to carry out this rescue operation of 250 migrants. The smugglers fired in the air and not at our crew or the migrants. They did so to speed up the transfer operation, as if to tell the migrants to hurry up."

Mattioli explained that "the incident occurred in international waters," arguing that a response from the tug's crew was impossible.

He went on: "We are civilians, with only 12 people aboard. We answer these rescue calls primarily to save lives in danger. Theoretically, I do not mean that we should not save them, it might seem like a terrible statement, but as an Italian citizen I'm saying that this migration flow cannot be solved through the use of civilian vessels. Imagine 12 crew members having to handle 250 migrants, many of whom sick, and we certainly have no doctor on board."

With the wooden boat in tow, the Libyan patrol boat sailed back home, guarded by an Italian Navy helicopter the and the "Bergamini" missile frigate, a technological jewel worth half a billion euros but powerless in the face of the mockery made ​​by the small Libyan unit which justified its behavior with the necessity not to leave in the sea an abandoned boat, dangerous for navigation.

But certainly the Asso 21 could have also towed the boat to Italy, where it would have been seized and destroyed. The point, however, is that, if the Libyan soldiers were even prepared to fire in the air to take possession of it, it means that for them it was a rich booty. Given the shortage of boats suffered by the Libyan smugglers and the fact that a boat with 250 seats can earn over half a million euros for a trip, it's easy to understand "the sense of duty" that motivated the Libyan crew.

Less easy to understand is the way Italy surrendered. Italy never uses force to respond to threats, attacks and terrorism, thus risking encouraging traffickers, militants and terrorists representing a constant threat to Italian soldiers and civilians operating close to the Libyan coast.

Of course, according to international law, if the Bergamini frigate had blocked the Libyan patrol boat, it would have committed an act of war. But war against whom? The Libyan state does not exist and that Coast Guard patrol boat responds to a Libyan "government" not recognised by the international community, and chock-full of Islamist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis supported by Qatar and Turkey.

In fact, with a little more courage, Italy could have done more to prevent yet another mockery. But, in order to do that, the military should be given more aggressive rules of engagement, which obviously the current government, like its predecessors, would not have the political capacity to authorise.

Moreover, Italy's "Mare Sicuro" (Safe Sea) operation (another misnomer which is likely to be ridiculed even more than the previous operation called "Mare Nostrum" or Our Sea, the Roman name for the Mediterranean) has shown with this episode not to be a credible deterrent against the Libyan gangs.

The assistance given to 10,000 illegal immigrants brought to Italy just in the recent few days makes everyone think that the Italian ships and the few European ships of the EU-wide Triton operation actually do nothing but continue the work of humanitarian welcoming carried out by Mare Nostrum.

Two days ago, Italy's deputy foreign minister, Lapo Pistelli, condemned Triton without appeal, stating that "the system is not sufficient. In 90 days it has saved 1,700 people, while over the same period our Coast Guard has saved 17,000, 10 times more."

The problem that seems to escape even an intelligent politician like Pistelli is that, in the race to bring more immigrants to Italian shores, the only loser is Italy because, if Italy doesn't refuse to take in more immigrants, their flow will never end, and because the country is not capable in social and financial terms of accommodating these masses.

No-one has ever seen a state so clearly helping criminals and terrorists to enrich themselves, well knowing who profits from the trafficking of human beings.

Illegal immigration flows could be even more intense if the traffickers owned a sufficient number of boats. A great increase in thefts of vessels in all the ports of southern and eastern Mediterranean has been reported.

Theses crimes feed the needs of people smugglers. There are also rumors of a frenetic activity taking place in the small shipyards on the Tunisian coast which have changed their production and now build as quickly as possible rudimentary boats commissioned by Libyan gangs.

For the Talmud All Land Is Jewish, Says Lawyer

UPDATE
The article this post is about has been removed from Times of Israel (ToI) website and replaced by announcements and tirades about white supremacists having hijacked the ToI’s blog with a fake profile but adopting the name of a real Jewish lawyer living in Australia.

It turns out, though, that the forgery had nothing to do with “white supremacists” or “anti-Semites”, but was the act of Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a Jewish man who for a long time had been employing false profiles on the internet for the purpose of inciting Muslims to commit terror attacks, having university professors suspended due to "anti-Semitism", and for other unsavoury goals, now arrested and facing imprisonment if convicted.

The Times of Israel, however, never corrected the baseless slander nor apologised for it, in a way similar to what we’ve done here.

This didn’t surprise us, as we already knew that, to people who follow the conditioned reflex of using the label of "anti-Semitism" for everything and everyone they dislike or disagree with, what is or is not true doesn’t matter.

We regret the error we made. But let’s not make another mistake: although the article was apparently not genuine, at least some quotations and concepts contained in it are. For example, the New York Times reports:

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail," Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said in a eulogy.

Regarding the difference in rights to property between Jews and non-Jews, this is what the Talmud says (Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 72a, The Babylonian Talmud (Complete Soncino English Translation)):

If his neighbour came and stole it from him, [that man] is put to death on account of it.
Now this is quite right with the first circumstance because [the original thief] caused trouble to an
Israelite; but what had [the second thief] done in the latter circumstance [to be put to death]!3
(3) He would not be executed for stealing the property of a non-Jew.

END UPDATE

Straight from the horse's mouth.

The Talmud contains the Jewish law and, as Netanyahu says, it should be the basis of Israel's - as the Jewish state - laws.

And the Talmud unequivocally states that non-Jews were born only to serve Jews, and thall all land in the world belongs to Jews.

We've heard a lot about Muslim supremacism, but very little about Jewish supremacism.

From The Times of Israel, blog post by Australian Jewish lawyer Josh Bornstein:

"However, by acknowledging the idea of “Palestinian land,” Netanyahu is betraying the Talmud and Talmudic law. If there is one term that I truly cannot stand to hear, it’s the term “Palestinian land.” Talking to other people in the Jewish community, I often hear the term “Palestinian land” thrown about, and it always deeply irks me. Any Jew who speaks of “Palestinian land” clearly has a very deep misunderstanding of Jewish law.

"The Talmud makes it very clear that all land belongs to Jews, and that Jews may seize any land that they so desire.

"Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: “All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples.” This is directly from the Talmud.

"Why, then, should the “Palestinians” be entitled to any land? Why should they even be allowed to exist?

"In the words of top Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel.”

"Likewise, Rabbi Ya’acov Perin has publicly stated: “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” Shocking? It shouldn’t be. This is Talmudic law as well.

"The Talmud makes it very clear that the life of a non-Jew has no value, and that gentiles exist only to serve Jews.

"Sanhedrin 59a: “Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.” Abodah Zara 26b: “Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed.” Baba Necia 114, 6: “The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts.”

"Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”This is directly from the Talmud, and these are just a few of many examples.

"Jewish divine law makes it very clear: the “Palestinians” not only have no right to any land, but the “Palestinians” are not even human beings and thus have no right to even live at all.

"The “Palestinians” are worthless subhuman beasts and vermin. Jews are human beings, but gentiles are subhuman beasts whose only purpose is to serve the people of Israel.

"The only reason that goyim have to exist is to serve Jews. If goyim cannot serve Jews, then they should be exterminated.

"We [Jews] allow Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans to exist because they serve Jews and they serve Israel – and, when they get out of line, we attack them, like we did to the Americans when we sunk their USS Liberty.

"In the words of former Israeli Knesset member Yossi Sarid, “We control US politicians like marionettes.”

"Countries like the US, Sweden, and Australia play valuable roles not only in protecting Israel, but also in serving as dumping grounds (or garbage cans) where Israel can send Sudanese, Syrians, and other subhuman waste who seek asylum in Israel.

"Multiculturalism in the West has ultimately been of great benefit to the people of Israel, as it allows Israel to ship off invaders to the West rather than having them infiltrate and invade the Jewish state of Israel, thus threatening Israel’s Jewish character.

"Multiculturalism is something that exists strictly for gentiles. It is NOT something that should ever be attempted in Israel.

"Israel is the Jewish state, and allowing ANY non-Jews into Israel would be unthinkable. This is precisely why, when African baboons come to Israel, they are sterilized, shoved into crude containment facilities, and eventually shipped off to gentile nations like Sweden, Canada, and Australia – as they should be.

"Their inferior monkey genes are not wanted anywhere in Israel, as they spread nothing but crime, destruction, ignorance, and misery.

"Non-Jews have absolutely no place in Israel, and they have absolutely no place attempting to boss Israel around.

"The life of a non-Jew is disposable, and Jews are entitled to take the lives of non-Jews whenever necessary.

"Again, the only purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews. If non-Jews are not able to serve Jews, then, under Talmudic law, they should be exterminated.

"“Palestinians” do not serve Jews in any way. In fact, “Palestinians” do the exact opposite. “Palestinians” are the single biggest threat to the continued existence of the Jewish state that there is.

"As such, it’s time to stop pretending that “Palestinians” have any rights whatsoever. It’s time to deal with the “Palestinians” the exact same way that we would deal with cockroaches, termites, fleas, ticks, and all other parasites: through swift and merciless extermination.

"The Talmud clearly states (Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772): “Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.”

"Isn’t it time for a mass sacrifice of ignoble “Palestinian” scum? Isn’t it time to cleanse the land of Israel – which rightfully belongs to the Jews – of all inferior subhuman vermin?

"What we need to do is to round up all “Palestinian” cockroaches and slaughter them like cattle. We need to take immense pleasure in raping, torturing, and murdering “Palestinians.” We need to boil “Palestinians” alive in boiling human feces. We need to take “Palestinian” babies and stomp them to death in front of their parents. We need to cut open pregnant “Palestinian” women, put their fetuses on pikes, and leave the fetus-pikes all over “Palestinian” neighbourhoods. We need to anally rape “Palestinian” women with butcher knives in broad daylight. We need to burst into “Palestinian” hospitals and butcher “Palestinian” newborns right in front of their helpless mothers. We need to stuff pig’s heads with explosives and throw the explosive pig heads into “Palestinian” mosques and community centres. We need to take Uzis, bust into “Palestinian” preschools, and slaughter every single “Palestinian” child and teacher inside. We need to mutilate, rape, beat, and torture “Palestinians” in public, while other “Palestinians” watch helplessly.

"We need to massacre “Palestinian” men, women, and children without any mercy or pity. The Talmud orders us to do so, and any Jew who disagrees has clearly never read and understood the Talmud."

And:

"I will never condemn ANY act – no matter how cruel or savage – committed against a “Palestinian.” The “Palestinians” are inferior subhuman beasts, and are not even worthy of breathing in Jewish air. The life of a “Palestinian” has no more value than the life of a flea or a tick. They are vile, filthy, disgusting, worthless, parasitic, subhuman vermin and they need to be violently purged from the face of the Earth, which rightfully belongs to the Jewish people. We need to hate them, we need to segregate them, we need to discriminate against them, and, most of all, we need to kill them. Israel is not going NEARLY far enough in its attempts to wipe out the “Palestinians.”"

It continues like this.

Anti-Italian Bias in Kercher Case Comments

Published in Italian on Italia Oggi

By Enza Ferreri


If we have followed the debate about the murder of Meredith Kercher and the prime suspect Amanda Knox on both sides of the Atlantic, we may have observed a strange phenomenon. As most people know, the former, the victim, was English, while the latter, now acquitted, is American. The two girls were students living in Perugia, Italy, where the murder was committed and the case tried.

Analysing the comments, we find this. For Americans, the Italian justice is to be condemned as too severe, to be compared even to the Inquisition. For the British, instead, the Italian justice is to be condemned because, on the contrary, too permissive, unable to do justice and punish the guilty. Such accusations shed light on prejudices that reign in the media, and in particular the anti-Italian prejudice, more than they say about the crime itself and the Italian justice.

A thorough study of high academic level published on the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, "The Amanda Knox Case: the Representation of Italy in American Media Coverage" by Sarah Annunziato, a university scholar who researches, among other things, how Italy is represented in the US media, analyses as many as 409 between articles and television programs on the case, from the most widely-read print media and the most popular TV channels in America, in a period of over two years. The researcher concludes that 251 of these journalistic pieces are neutral, 158 unfavorable to Italy, and zero favourable to Italy.

The details of the case are often presented unilaterally. Declarations of "Fellini forensics" and "the whole of Italy should be ashamed," along with unsubstantiated allegations of police's physical and psychological violence against Amanda Knox, abound. There is, at times, some anti-Catholic hint in certain statements that Amanda was put on trial for her lifestyle at odds with the prevailing Italian culture.

Sarah Annunziato discovers traces of so-called "litigation journalism", in which one of the parties seeks to influence the outcome of the trial through the media. A sign of its presence is the tendency of some US journalists to repeat the same criticisms of Italy and its justice system already expressed by Knox open supporters.

The last sentence of the study says it all in its prescience: "If the Amanda Knox
conviction is later reversed, what will American journalists say about their use of anti-Italian stereotypes?"

Across the Pond, in Britain, Italy is described as retrograde, misogynist and medieval. "Amanda Knox was acquitted because she is rich and American, says Patrick Lumumba," headlines The Guardian.

The British online publication Spiked, in an article titled "Opportunity Knox for Italy-bashing", summarises: "Italy, its culture and its legal system, has been as determinedly calumnied and demonised by American and British observers." A Guardian commentator called the Knox trial an indictment of Italy’s whole judicial system, such as to raise serious doubts about Italy’s ability to mete out criminal justice. A considerable jump from a particular case to the generality.

Among the comments in UK Internet forums one can read: "Italy's legal system is as flawed and as complicated as its parliamentary system"; "Just consider Berlusconi: there you have Italy's system fully exposed"; "The court did release her [Knox]. Why, when she was still the prime suspect? I can't imagine that happening in the UK"; "Just seems like they keep rolling the dice until they get an outcome they like. Scary"; "It [the trial] looks like a purely political event driven by emotion rather than logic"; "[Italy's] legal system has often been criticised for being influenced by the Mafia and politics, well, say no more. Great food, excellent wines, fascinating history, beautiful cities, but confidence in 'the system', I don't think so"; "Italy is a lovely place, but it is not well regulated".

The problem is that people who say these things generally know next to nothing about Italy.

All this reminds me of when I arrived in England in 1984, and could not find anyone who did not believe that Italians have lots and lots of children. Only later did the newspapers begin to report the fact that Italy had, with Spain, the lowest birth rate in the world. A great discovery, with several years of delay.

The Lavon Affair: How to Make Jews Look Good and Muslims Look Bad

Published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


There's so much talk - usually derogatory - these days about "conspiracy theories" and "false flags".

Contrary to a widespread understanding of this term, the noun "theory" does not have a connotation of falsity or groundless, far-fetched speculation.

Science is made of theories. Relativity is a theory, and so is quantum mechanics. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton created theories that gave birth to the science of physics.

A theory can turn out to be false but can also turn out to be true.

Specifically, I’ll describe a historical case - one of the many - in which a real event was dismissed and derided as an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory", just as it happens today.

What is also interesting about this case, known as the “Lavon Affair”, is that it reassumes many of the traits that are typical of the way organised Jews think, operate and cover their tracks.

Exactly 10 years ago (give or take a few days), on 30 March 2005, Israel honoured nine Egyptian Jews recruited by its Military Intelligence as spies and terrorists, and Israel’s President Moshe Katsav presented the three surviving members of the bomber ring with certificates of appreciation.

Katsav went as far as calling them “heroes” when he said: "Although it is still a sensitive situation, we decided now to express our respect for these heroes."

This was Israel’s official admission, after having publicly denied any involvement in the incident for 51 years, of its responsibility in the Lavon Affair, to the point of even celebrating and honouring the Jewish terrorists who had attacked American targets.

Didn’t hear much in the media about that, did you? Israel seems to have completely escaped any blame in the West for this. Wikispooks explains why thus:

Israel used Egyptian Jews as fifth-columnists to mount terrorist attacks on American and British-owned targets in Cairo and Alexandria. That it was actually Zionist terrorism was discovered when one of the saboteurs was caught planting a bomb in 1954. Israel blamed antisemitism in Egypt for the accusations and anyone who dared repeat them, silencing almost all western comment. [Emphasis added]

Let the Lavon Affair be described by a Jewish source, Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

Israel's plan was to bomb Western targets, make it seem as though Egypt was behind the attacks…

[T]he strategic goal its operators had set: the cancellation of the planned British evacuation of the Suez Canal…

The Lavon affair - also known locally as esek habish, "the rotten business" - was a plan to discredit Egypt's government, then headed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, by bombing theaters, post offices and U.S. and British institutions, and making it seem as though Egypt was behind the bombings. The thinking in Israel at the time was that if the British were to give up control of the Suez Canal, it would be left in Egypt's hands, putting Cairo in a better position to exert pressure on Israel.

The agents were told "to undermine the West's trust in the [Egyptian] government by causing public insecurity" while concealing Israel's role in the sabotage.

Noteworthy in the Haaretz article – and for that matter in all other Jewish sources I consulted - is the concern for the fact that the operation was unsuccessful, rather than for the use of violence and deception again allies, one of which, the United States, has been Israel’s main benefactor and defender, militarily, financially and politically.

The Lavon Affair was a “false flag” operation, also called a “pseudo operation.” The name “false flag” has its origin in the naval attacks in which a flag other than the belligerent's true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre to deceive. It has come to mean operations conducted under false identity to cause an enemy to be blamed for them.

In 1954, Egypt’s President was Gamal Abdul Nasser, who had some backing from the United States. After WWII, an impoverished Britain was withdrawing from its colonial interests and wanted to give up the giant military base it had in the Suez Canal Zone. Israel was afraid that US policy of support for Egyptian nationalism would encourage Britain to withdraw its military forces from the Suez Canal.

Israel feared that, after British withdrawal, Egypt would nationalise the Suez Canal, and wanted to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in the Canal area; but diplomatic means had failed. Israel also wished to prevent Washington from becoming too friendly with Cairo.

The Jewish state then thought of another way to alienate the US and Britain from Egypt and Nasser and to damage Egypt’s relationship with the West.

In the Summer of 1954, Israeli Military Intelligence – helped by David Ben-Gurion - conceived such a plan.

Israeli agents had already laid the groundwork, by infiltrating Egyptian society and recruiting some Egyptian Jews, who were then trained in Israel and deployed back in Egypt, with the idea of creating a fifth column in a future war against Egypt. But the intended spies were given different commands: bomb American and British buildings and plant evidence implicating Egyptians, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. The operation was code-named “Operation Susannah”.

If Americans could be made to believe that the Egyptians did it, they would turn against Egypt.

Here’s another Jewish source, JTA:

Within weeks, an Israeli military intelligence unit known by its code-number, 131, recruited nine young Egyptian Jews to stage terrorist attacks that, they thought, would be blamed on local insurgents and would discredit Nasser’s rule…

What was more hurtful was Israel’s refusal to take responsibility for Ninio, Natanzon and their accomplices, who had undergone secret military training in Tel Aviv before the mission…

“Givli overlooks the fact that we were soldiers in active service who were dispatched by the State of Israel. We went through the officers’ course, were mobilized and were sent to carry out a mission in enemy territory,” fumed Robert Dasa, who, like Ninio, got a 15-year sentence…

It is hard to believe that there were those in the political or military echelons who believed that by planting improvised bombs in public buildings in Egypt it would be possible to shake the regime there and drive a wedge between Gamal Abdel Nasser and the West,” Ha’aretz correspondent Yossi Melman said. [Emphases added]

The targets were sites frequented by foreigners. On 2 July the Israeli agents bombed an Alexandria post office. On 14 July, they exploded bombs inside libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo.

But the campaign ends when a firebomb prematurely detonates in the pocket of one of the terrorists, Philip Natanson, when he is about to plant it inside a cinema in Alexandria, setting his clothes on fire and nearly killing him.

A fire engine waits in front of the cinema, as double agent Avri Elad allegedly had informed the Egyptians of the Israeli false flag operation and the Egyptian Intelligence Service had followed Natanson. Egyptian authorities arrested him, found incriminating evidence in his apartment and got him to name his accomplices.

On 23 July the Israeli agents still at large set off firebombs inside two Cairo cinemas and in Cairo’s central post office and railway station. By 27 July all the members of the cell are apprehended. Two commit suicide. Two Israeli commanders escape and flee back to Israel.

If this terrorist operation had succeeded, it could have provoked an American war against Egypt, an innocent country, on the side of Israel, which was perhaps Israel’s hope.

Characteristically, when the operation became known and a scandal erupted, Israel responded with claims that there was no spy ring and it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites".

The events of the Lavon Affair were later documented in the diaries of the Israeli Prime Minister of the time Moshe Sharett, who did not know of the plot until after its end. They formed the basis of the book Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) by Livia Rokach.

In the book we find the following statement by Moshe Sharett to Israeli Parliament’s 514th meeting on 13 December 1954:

In my speech in the Knesset on November 15 I said "The uncontrolled behavior of Egypt . . . does not indicate . . . that its leadership . . . is seeking moderate approaches and peace. How far Egypt is from this spirit [of moderation and peace] can be learned from the plot woven in Alexandria, the show-trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who became victims of false accusations of espionage, and who, it seems, are being threatened and tortured in order to extract from them confessions in imaginary crimes."…

The government of Israel strongly rejects the false accusations of the general Egyptian prosecution, which relegates to the Israeli authorities horrible deeds and diabolic conspiracies against the security and the international relations of Egypt. From this stand we have protested many times in the past persecution and false accusations of Jews in various countries. We see in the innocent Jews accused by the Egyptian authorities of such severe crimes, victims of vicious hostility to the State of Israel and the Jewish people. If their crime is being Zionist and devoted to Israel, millions of Jews around the world share this crime. We do not think that the rulers of Egypt should be interested in being responsible for shedding Jewish blood. We call upon all those who believe in peace, stability and human relations among nations to prevent fatal injustice.

Although there are good reasons to believe that Sharett was not aware of the plot behind the false flag operation when he delivered this speech, the latter reveals the well-known pattern of Jews’ closing ranks and defending members of their own group against an accusation from the outgroup as their first reaction, before and without learning the details. At the same time the pattern includes an automatic blaming of the accusers: that’s how the concept of “anti-Semitism” must have been invented.

This doesn’t happen in Western, White, Christian cultures, where an introspective examination and self-analysis is the primary response to accusations, followed maybe by taking the blame and accepting the guilt even when innocent.

Even after Israel has admitted that its role in the Lavon Affair was real and not “imaginary” and therefore the corresponding conspiracy theory was true, Jewish attitudes are typically different from those that Westerners would display. I’ve already observed earlier that the main concern seems to be with the fact that the operation resulted in a “fiasco” rather than whether it was ethical. The participants were honoured and given military titles. They seem proud of what they’ve done and Israel is proud of them:

More than a decade later, the five surviving Egyptian spies, and Natanzon’s widow, have asked the Education Ministry to incorporate the episode into the history syllabus of Israeli high schools. The ministry said it would pass the request to the professional educational committees that meet on the syllabus before every school year.

The innocent Prime Minister Moshe Sharrat was replaced by one of the perpetrators, David Ben-Gurion. From Wikispooks:

Ben-Gurion went on to conceive and carry out a number of wanton provocations and killings, including the 1956 attack on Suez, the mass-killing of Egyptian POWs and the first major destruction in Gaza…

Israel suffered no adverse public relations consequences in the west, while generating significant antisemitism in Egypt and elsewhere in the region.

Here again, we see an example of anti-Semitism being provoked by legitimate reasons, as a reaction to having been targeted and damaged by Jewish interests.

This hatred was of great assistance to Zionist efforts to ingather Jews needed to work in the fields and to protect the new borders of Israel (far beyond what had been claimed in the Declaration of Independence).

Prime Minister Moshe Sharett denounced "the show trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who have fallen victims to false accusations". The trade union newspaper Davar claimed that the Egyptian regime "seems to take its inspiration from the Nazis" and lamented the "deterioration in the status of Egyptian Jews in general" For Haaretz the trial "proved that the Egyptian rulers do not hesitate to invent the most fantastic accusations if it suits them" and added that "in the present state of affairs in Egypt the junta certainly needs some diversion". The Jerusalem Post headlined "Egypt Show Trial Arouses Israel, Sharett Tells House. Sees Inquisition Practices Revived."[9]

Egyptian Jews with skills and contacts did their best to get to Europe or the US, those with only manual skills (often brown-skinned and speaking no Hebrew) were put to work in the fields. An additional part of their duty was to be armed and to kill any Palestinians attempting to return to their homes and lands. [Emphases added]

Nice. I guess those Palestinians – if they survived - became “anti-Semitic”.

The attacks are still known in English by the Zionist narrative, the "Lavon Affair" with little recognition that this was a quite straightforward terrorist campaign aimed at the US and the UK.

Zionist sympathisers at the Wikipedia have been hostile to calling it a "False Flag Operation" and all such references have been repeatedly removed from the WP again in June 2011 (a top admin and personal friend of Jimbo Wales) and Jan 2012… Some Israeli sources have claimed that the fire-bombing was an "Intelligence Operation" rather than an attack.

It is also underplayed in Commentary (a Jewish website) and the Jewish Virtual Library, where, once again, a terminology is used that seems to point to Israel as the victim and not the aggressor (“a nasty mark on the young state”). This paragraph from the Jewish Virtual Library sets the tone:

The "Zionist spies," as they came to be called, hadn't been well treated before they admitted they had been working on behalf of Israel. But it was bearable. That all changed after their association with Israel was known.

Wikipedia describes the affair as a “covert operation”, and declares: “There were allegations that evidence had been extracted by torture”. Is this another Jewish victimology pattern? I found it in the Trento trial of ritual child murderers too. In the Lavon Affair no-one can dispute the veracity of the confessions, though, however obtained.

False flag operations are not used only by Israel. But, for a country with such a short history, they seem to be employed with relative largesse by Israel which, from its early days, has made regular use of them:

It is therefore a fact that Israel has a prior history of setting off bombs with the intent to blame Arabs for them.

This is not the only example of a "False Flag" operation designed to trick the United States into attacking Israel's enemies. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector now living in Canada, Ronald Reagan was tricked into bombing Libya by means of a radio transmitter smuggled into Tripoli by the Mossad, which broadcast messages designed to fool the United States into thinking Libya was about to launch a massive terror attack on the west. On the basis of this fake evidence, the US bombed Libya, killing Khadaffi's daughter.

The Jews of Iraq is a story by a Jewish writer revealing yet another false flag operation where Israelis used bombs and planted the blame on Arabs.

More recently, Captain Ward Boston, who served as senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, has come forward to report that the Court of Inquiry was ORDERED to conclude that the attack was an accident by President Lyndon Johnson. In hindsight, given the use of unmarked aircraft and boats by Israel during the actual attack, it appears that Israel intended to sink the US ship and frame Egypt for the attack, tricking the US into the war against Egypt.

Think about the fact that most American and British people have never heard about this Israeli terrorist attack against them, and probably never even heard of Jewish terrorism. It shows the power of controlled media.

Israel, which could be described as an illegal state because its recognition by the United Nations in 1948 was conditional on the country's allowing the return of Palestinian refugees, which Israel never allowed, is in an understandably and justifiably very precarious situation, and needs to manipulate the public opinion of the world - and particularly of certain countries which are world powers - so that they will be persuaded by deception and against their interests to protect this kind of rogue state from which many of the problems that the West is currently experiencing with the Muslim world derive.

Making the US and Britain believe that enemies of Israel like Egypt committed terror attacks on them in 1954 or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 is the way Israel and its lobby sometimes operate.