ITS A LONDON RIOT !

News Blackout on London Protest

By Craig Murray
May 10, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -  The almost total blackout on broadcast media of the police attack on the popular protest by thousands outside Downing Street – with 30 injured and 17 arrests – is in stark contrast to the wall to wall coverage of the staged fake “riot” in Glasgow in which 6 people were slightly rude to Jim Murphy with no arrests and no injuries.
Thanks to the UK’s appalling electoral system, we now have a seriously right wing government with absolute power from an absolute parliamentary majority, but which 63% of voters voted against, and which was supported by only 23% of those eligible to vote. Many of the 38% who did not vote at all, were not apathetic but actively disgusted by a corrupt political system which offers little meaningful choice in most of the UK.
Legitimacy is a different question to legality. The government is undoubtedly legal under the current rotten system, but its legitimacy is a different question entirely. Legitimacy lies on the popular consent of the governed. With an extreme government supported by only 23% of the population, actively planning to inflict actual harm on many more than 23% of the population, there are legitimate philosophical questions to be asked about the right of the government to rule. With so many, particularly but not exclusively young people, now reading sources like this one and not being enthralled by the mainstream media, today’s protest is but a start.

Time Bomb in Cameron Government. A Future “Little Britain”, separated from Scotland, subservient to America, outside the EU?

The Irreconcilable opposition of SNP to CFI lobby as well as Trident

By Anthony BellchambersMay 10, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "GR" -  A future Little Britain: separated from Scotland, subservient to America, outside the European Union and beholden to the conflicting agendas of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) lobby and the SNP is a frightening prospect.
A government expenditure of £100 billion to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent would be about as protective to Britain as writing a powerful computer virus which if used would permanently damage our own entire communications infrastructure leaving all state security systems disabled. The Trident weapon of mass destruction has no legitimate purpose: its use would be impossible as huge numbers of civilians, including millions of British citizens, would be unavoidable victims.
The plain facts are that: ‘international terrorism, cyber-attacks and natural hazards as greater threats than nuclear war. The cost of replacing Trident would be enough to fully fund A&E services in UK for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students.’
The Trident so-called deterrent is for status reasons only. It should be scrapped and Britain’s defence infrastructure should be rebuilt without nuclear or chemical weapons of mass destruction and without any collaboration from Israeli-owned arms suppliers. Britain’s defence should not be compromised by the use of equipment sourced from outside the EU or NATO. To do so, potentially places us, in Britain, all in danger in the event of any future conflict.
The Conservative government’s current defence policy is dangerously flawed and with an isolated Britain divorced from Scotland and outside the EU – would be an easy target for international terrorism.

How Big Money and Big Brother won the British Elections
By Nafeez Ahmed
 

May 10, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -  The Conservatives have won the 2015 elections with a slim majority. Labour and the Liberal Democrats suffered unexpected crushing defeats, prompting their leaders, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, to resign. And despite winning a significant percentage of votes, UKIP only managed to win one seat, with its leader Nigel Farage also resigning after losing to a Tory MP.

But the Tory victory reveals precisely why British democracy is broken.

The ultimate determinant of which party won the elections was the money behind their political campaigns — the winning and losing parties correlate directly with the quantity of funding received. Yet there is also compelling evidence of another factor — interference from Britain’s security services.

The best democracy money can buy
 

As of the end of last year, the Electoral Commission found that the Tories received the largest amount of donations, at £8,345,687, the bulk of which came from financiers associated with banks, the hedge fund industry, and big business. Two million pounds worth of donations were associated with hedge funds, and a further £4 million with people attending private dinners hosted by senior Tories.

Next up in donations was Labour at £7,163,988, much of which came from trade unions, as well as corporate donors like PricewaterhouseCoopers, a major proponent of corporate tax avoidance; then the Liberal Democrats with £3,038,500, UKIP with £1,505,055, and the Green Party with £248,520.

That was last year. This year, donations continued to come in. In the final week of the campaign, the Tories managed to raise 10 times more donations than Labour — a total of a further £1.36 million — once again largely from hedge fund managers, property tycoons, and a telecoms firm that has avoided paying corporation tax in the UK since 2007.

Political parties appear to have achieved electoral success in direct proportion to the amount of money received to fund their political campaigns, indicating that the most important precondition for victory in Britain’s broken democracy is the party’s subservience to corporate power.
 

Oligarchy
 

The role of party donors in determining election outcomes — by determining the effectiveness and reach of national public relations campaigns — has consistently been overlooked by the main parties, despite some obligatory lipservice that has gone nowhere tangible.

Over the last five years, 41% of all individual and corporate donations to British party political-related causes have come from just 76 extremely wealthy people, including City financiers, corporate moguls, and owners of multi-million pound businesses.

Public relations spin has increasingly played a critical function in permitting corporate power to translate its wealth into political power.

In their study of the subject, A Century of Spin (2007), Prof. David Miller and Dr. William Dinan, sociologists and directors of the public interest investigations body, Spinwatch, show how the corporate co-optation of PR has been used to subordinate liberal democracies to corporate rule, and to limit the scope of populist grassroots movements to influence the political party system.

Under a climate of economic uncertainty and lack of independent sources of news and information, public opinion has become evermore vulnerable to slick partisan campaigns that mobilise wealth to create highly effective media spin by which to manipulate voters.
 

The Tory-UKIP money machine
 

While UKIP has positioned itself as an independent counterweight to the ‘establishment’ parties, standing up for swathes of under-represented working people, the truth is the opposite.

A large bulk of UKIP’s funding boost came from former Tory donors, millionaire bankers, and corporate executives, pushing the fringe party to receive the third largest percentage of the vote.

But not all these former Tory donors are former Tory donors.

‘Former’ Tory donor Robin Birley, for instance, who owns a Mayfair nightclub and who is one of UKIP’s biggest donors, had also bankrolled the campaign of Tory MP Michael Gove, government chief whip.

Another major former Tory donor, Growth Financial Services, switched to UKIP in 2014, giving the party £90,000 before switching back to fund the re-election campaigns of two prominent Tory MPs, Amber Rudd and Mark Field, who sits on the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

Similarly, hedge fund millionaire Crispin Odey donated to UKIP in 2014, but in late March 2015 provided funds to support the re-election of Tory MP and climate denier Jacob Rees-Mogg.

In other words, a number of major Tory donors plugged into the heart of the Conservative Party establishment were funding both UKIP and Tory political opponents.

Days before the elections, Tory-UKIP funder Robin Birley told pro-Tory newspaperThe Telegraph that UKIP supporters should strategically vote Conservative in seats that UKIP could not win — which was most of them. In seats that Tories were unlikely to win, he urged Tory supporters to vote UKIP.

This Tory-UKIP switch strategy, he said, would “stop Britain being left with a government being formed by a hard left rabble of parties.”

Ironically, Birley’s recommendations for UKIP supporters to vote tactically for the Tories were vehemently opposed by Nigel Farage, the very leader of the party he had funded.

But the idea of a Tory-UKIP strategic voting bloc had also been endorsed just days before Birley’s announcement by the Bow Group, the oldest conservative think-tank in Britain.

Chaired by Ben Harris-Quinney, who has worked on foreign policy issues for the Conservative Party in the UK and EU parliaments, the Bow Group includes on its board of patrons several senior Tory figures, such as Lord Norman Lamont, Lord Michael Heseltine, Lord Michael Howard, and Lord Earl Howe — who as of 2010 was appointed by David Cameron as Department of Health minister.
 

MI5 and The Bow Group
 

The Bow Group’s Conservative Party patrons had all served in senior Cabinet positions, under either Margaret Thatcher or John Major. All four of them made a point of publicly distancing themselves from their chairman’s exhortations to vote UKIP, which were published by The Telegraph.

But also on the board of patrons is renowned philosopher, Prof. Roger Scruton, who has been connected to dubious anti-left intelligence information operations. Unlike his colleagues in the Tory party, Scruton was silent throughout this affair.

In the 1980s, Scruton was a member of the neoconservative Hillgate Group, a network of British academics who coordinated various policy publications to influence government. Their focus was hyping up the threat of Marxist, leftwing or “radical” infiltration of British universities and schools. Scruton admitted to historian David Callaghan, however, that the Group’s policy reports were “quietly encouraged by 10 Downing Street to concoct an outside pressure group to influence policy.”

Scruton’s Hillgate Group was run by Baroness Caroline Cox, another senior Conservative Party figure with a history of political agitation on behalf of British intelligence. In 1977, Cox was part of a study group behind a report on how leftwing “radical minorities” were subverting “capitalist, free market civilisation.” The report was published by the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC), a “think tank” created jointly by the British and American intelligence services, specifically the CIA, an MI5-MI6 linked intelligence unit in the Cabinet Office, and the Foreign Office.

The Bow Group’s role in promoting the Tory-UKIP voting strategy was therefore not a curious aberration. Rather, it reflected a strategy being explored by senior elements in the Tory establishment and its elite support-base in the corporate oligarchy.

Scruton’s role in the Bow Group further raises questions about the role of Downing Street and Britain’s intelligence services in the use of UKIP to ramp up pro-Tory votes.

Roger Scruton could not be reached for comment.
 

MI5 and UKIP
 

Unbeknown to many, UKIP too had early roots in Britain’s intelligence services.

In 2001, former Conservative Party chairman Norman Tebbit called for an independent inquiry into revelations that UKIP had been infiltrated by MI5. In a televised interview on BBC News, Tebbit said:

“A chap came to me and said UKIP had been infiltrated by the British intelligence services and then he gave me two names of people and from various ways I came to the conclusion that I was absolutely and completely certain that these people — although they had left the service and the Foreign Office some years earlier — in fact had been intelligence agents.”

As Tebbit explained in a Spectator article that even Douglas Murray recently endorsed, he “half-heartedly” made his “own inquiries” after a source inside UKIP raised the concerns with him, “and unexpectedly struck gold… I am perfectly sure that the individuals had been active agents, although both would claim to have retired some years ago.”

Tebbit had not suggested that UKIP’s leadership was aware of the intelligence operation. At the time, Nigel Farage admitted that he could not discount Tebbit’s allegations.

It eventually turned out that the two people identified by Tebbit — Heather Conyngham and Christopher Skeate — had indeed been former MI6 officers, who had worked together at one time in Latin America. They were also both senior figures in the now defunct Referendum Party, Skeate as a candidate in 1997.

Robin Birley, the major Tory-UKIP donor who had urged a Tory-UKIP mutual tactical voting strategy, was at that time operations director of the Referendum Party, a Eurosceptic party similar to UKIP. Both Conyngham and Skeate had transferred their allegiance to UKIP after the death of Referendum Party founder, Sir James Goldsmith (Birley’s stepfather).

Birley and his Referendum Party also had a wider relationship to Latin America, specifically Chile. In 1998, Birley had recruited Referendum’s communications director, Patrick Robertson, to work with his campaign group, ‘Chilean Supporters Abroad,’ in support of notorious dictator Chilean General Pinochet, who had been supported by Margaret Thatcher herself.

The late Pinochet had been installed in a brutal military coup in 1973, which had been planned and backed by the CIA and MI6 since the democratic elections that brought leftwing nationalist President Salvador Allende to power in 1970. Birley’s ‘Chilean Supporters Abroad’ published a pro-Pinochet pamphlet that promulgated a range of MI6 and CIA disinformation about Allende.

Senior Tory pro-Pinochet apologists Norman Lamont and Michael Howard are today senior patrons of the Bow Group.

It later transpired that Tebbit’s original informant was then UKIP press officer Chris Jones, who months earlier had written a formal letter to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal about his “allegation, based on detailed circumstantional [sic] evidence gathered over 5 months that UKIP has been penetrated and is largely controlled by British Intelligence agents.”

The letter requested that the Tribunal:

“… call upon files on UKIP: myself: Dr R AE North: G Franklyn-Ryan: Nigel Farage MEP: Heather Coyningham a former FCO official; Christopher Skeate also FCO: Tony Stone: Mark Daniel (alias): Janet Girsman and G Lance Watkins.”

The curious overlap of MI5-MI6 officers with the Referendum, UKIP and Tory parties, and the movement of donors between all three parties, raises questions about the manipulation of the popular vote by a nexus of powerful British interests encompassing a network of corporate elites and Whitehall officials
 

MI5 and SNP
 

The Tory-UKIP nexus is not the only instance offering disturbing evidence of the interference of British intelligence in our national elections.

Last month, The Telegraph  — which had also promoted the Tory-UKIP strategy put out by the Bow Group and Robin Birley — published an ‘exclusive’ about a leaked FCO memo, which purportedly recorded Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Nicola Sturgeon telling the French Ambassador she would prefer a Tory government.

But as former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and longtime Foreign Office (FCO) official, Craig Murray, remarked about the alleged memo, “both sides of the alleged conversation categorically deny it was said. Nicola Sturgeon denies she said it and the French Embassy deny she said it.”

Supposedly, the confidential contents of Sturgeon’s meeting with the French Ambassador had been passed to the Foreign Office and transcribed by a Whitehall official as a matter of FCO protocol.

“The extraordinary thing is, this is just a lie,” said Murray.

“As someone who worked in the FCO for over twenty years and was an Ambassador myself, I can assure you there is absolutely no protocol requirement on the French Ambassador to give the FCO the content of the meetings she, her Consul-General or anybody else from the French Embassy held in Edinburgh. That claim is absolute nonsense.”

Even more bizarrely, it turned out that the Foreign Office itself denied being the source of the alleged ‘leaked memo.’

Drawing on the example of the MI6-forged Zinoviev letter ‘leaked’ to the Daily Mail in 1924, which triggered the fall of the Labour government, Murray concluded: “The fake FCO memo has MI5 written all over it. This is the worst example of British security services influencing an election campaign since the Zinoviev letter.”

“I have been warning the SNP that we are going to be the target of active subversion by the UK and US security services. We are seen as a danger to the British state and thus a legitimate target,” the former Ambassador added.

“That the attempt to destabilise Nicola Sturgeon originates with the UK government and the Telegraph should give everyone pause. It is very obviously a security service effort. How otherwise is an account which the French Embassy says is completely false, contained in an official memo to be leaked? This episode raises very serious questions. But they are not questions about Nicola Sturgeon. They are questions about the subversion of democracy by the security services, and the willing complicity of the corporate media.”

There is thus alarming evidence that not just Big Money, but Big Brother, made a concerted effort to disrupt the SNP and co-opt UKIP, as a mechanism to sideline what Birnley characterised as a “hard left rabble of parties,” cementing a Tory parliamentary majority.

The next five years promises more of what we have already seen over the last five years: austerity, corporate empowerment, privatisation of public services widening inequality, continued obfuscation on climate change, subservience to Big Oil and nuclear lobbies, and a return of the snoopers’ charter — previously blocked by the Lib Dems — that would enshrine excessively intrusive surveillance powers into law.

So we should make no mistake. This is not a victory for British democracy. It is a victory for Britain’s increasingly draconian corporate-security complex.

Lessons of the Tory Victory

By Jonathan Cook 
May 10, 2015 "Information Clearing House" -  There’s much that could be said about the Conservative party’s victory today in Britain’s election. Not least David Cameron has emerged stronger: he now has a small but absolute majority in parliament, compared to his last government, in which he had to share power, a little of it anyway, with his minor coalition partners, the Lib Dems.

According to the rules of the British system, he has won a supposed mandate to carry out all his party’s policies, even though the Tories gained the support of slightly less than 25% of the total electorate, and little more than a third of those who actually voted. That in itself should be enough to discredit the idea that Britain is a democracy in any meaningful sense.
But I want to focus on two issues that this particular election highlighted. Although this refers to the British election, the lessons apply equally to US elections.
The first is a debate that gripped some on the far left after Russell Brand interviewed Labour leader Ed Miliband and subsequently gave Miliband his backing. This was quite a surprise – and disappointment – given that Brand had shaken up British politics over the previous 18 months by arguing that the whole political system was inherently flawed and undemocratic. He had called on people not to vote as a way to show that the system had no popular legitimacy, and invest their energies instead in a different kind of grassroots politics. Britain’s two main parties, Brand and others argued, represented the interests of the big corporations that now dominate Britain and much of the globe.
The labels of Conservative and Labour are the misleading vestiges of a time when there was some sort of class politics in Britain: the Tories representing the unalloyed interests of the capitalist class, and Labour the interests of organised labour. But the  Tories under Margaret Thatcher long ago destroyed the power of the trade unions. Labour became a shell of its former self, its finances and ability to organise workers crumbled as the corporations entrenched their power, assisted by the Tories.
Under a power-hungry Tony Blair, Labour allowed itself to be captured by those same corporations, famously illustrated by his Faustian pact with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Labour sold what was left of its soul, becoming a Tory-lite party, and winning the support of Murdoch and his media empire as a result.
Brand seemed to understand this, arguing that what we needed was to turn our back on sham elections every five years between two parties representing the interests of the 1%. Instead the people needed to foment a non-violent political revolution, and take back power. How did voting for Miliband, a man who had largely adopted the Blair credo, make sense in the light of Brand’s earlier claims?
Brand justified his change of mind using a familiar argument. He admitted Miliband was far from perfect but was still the preferable choice because he was prepared to listen to the people, unlike Cameron’s Conservatives. He was the “lesser evil” choice.
The problem with his logic – aside from its faith-based component – was that the same argument could have been used about any recent British election. It was an excuse to avoid engaging in real politics.
Supporters of Tony Blair, even after he committed the supreme war crime by invading Iraq, could have argued quite convincingly that the Tories too would have invaded Iraq – plus they would have done worse things at home, inflicting greater damage on the health and education systems. Thus, on the lesser-evil argument, it was legitimate to vote for the war criminal Blair. A man like Blair could destroy another nation, cause suffering on a scale unimaginable to most of us, and yet still claim the moral high ground because the alternative would be even worse.
The faulty logic of the lesser-evil argument is apparent the moment we consider the Blair case. If there is no political cost for committing the ultimate war crime, because the other guys are worse, what real leverage can the electorate ever have on the political system. The “left” vote will always gravitate to the slightly less nasty party of capital. No change is really possible. In fact, over time the political centre of gravity is likely to shift – as has in fact happened – ever more to the right, as the corporations accrete ever greater power.
Further, where does Brand’s logic take us now that Miliband has lost. If we were supposed to have faith that Miliband would have listened had he achieved power, then why not extend that faith to his successor? If we are satisfied by the lesser-evil argument, why not wait till the next election to see if we can get another slightly less nasty candidate into Downing Street? We can defer the choice to demand real change indefinitely.
The second point is that the programme of extreme austerity at the heart of Cameron’s manifesto has been fully discredited by most economists over the past few years. Not only does it penalise the overwhelming majority of the population by redistributing wealth away from the working and middles classes to the financial elite, but it also inflicts great damage on the long term health of the economy. In other words, British voters look like supreme masochists. They voted to seriously harm their own, and their country’s, interests. Are Britons collectively insane?
Of course, not. So how can we explain their insane choice this week? The answer is staring us in the face. In fact, Blair showed us what was required to win a British election. A party hoping to win power needed first to seduce the corporations, and their media divisions. Without most of the media on your side, no party stands a chance of winning because the media subtly controls the narrative of the election: what count as “the issues”, how the leaders and their platforms are presented, what and who is considered credible.
Miliband’s failure was that, unlike Blair, he looked a little half-hearted about his desire to be the 1%’s mouthpiece in parliament and Downing Street. Maybe what seduced Brand about Miliband was the sliver of humanity that was still just visible below the surface of the corporate employee the Labour party had groomed their leader to become.
The revolution that we need in Britain and the US has to start with a disengagement from the mainstream media’s representation of events. We have to discard their narratives. Even more important than an overhauled electoral system, one that fairly reflects the electorate’s preferences, we need a grassroots media that is free of the control of fabulously wealthy proprietors and major corporations, that does not depend on the massive subsidies of corporations (in the form of advertising), and that does not rely, like the BBC, on funding from government. We need independent journalists, and we need to demand a new funding model for the media. And we need to do all this while the mainstream media entirely control the narrative about what a free media is.
It is a huge challenge – and one that reflects the extent of our own ideological confinement. Just like the political parties, we have been captured by the 1%. We cannot imagine a different world, a different economic system, a different media landscape, because our intellectual horizons have been so totally restricted by the media conglomerates that control our newspapers, our TV and radio stations, the films we watch, the video games we play, the music we listen to. We are so imaginatively confined we cannot even see the narrow walls within which our minds are allowed to wander.
As long as the media represent the span of interests of the 1% – from the psychopathic Murdoch empire to the capitalism with a little heart of the Guardian Media Group – our politicians will range from the Blue Tories of the Conservative party to the Red Tories of the Labour party. And we will remain enslaved.

THE IRA IS NOT ON FACEBOOK STUPID

Lonesome Yanks
Postcards from the End of America 
By Linh Dinh

January 14, 2015 "ICH" -  I was sitting in the Friendly Lounge, one block from my Philly apartment. Next to me was a 59-year-old man, Robert. Seeing my wedding band, he confided, “You’re lucky to have somebody to go home to. I always had a lover, a boyfriend, but I haven’t had anybody in ten years. And it’s not the,” and he suddenly dipped his head down near my crotch, “but the support, you know. I can’t just go home and say to somebody, ‘Bitch, I love you!’”

I was getting buzzed in Dirty Frank’s, downtown Philly’s second cheapest bar, when an old friend proposed, “You should come over some time. I’ll make you dinner.” She knew I was married. On another occasion, this lovely woman moaned, “I just want somebody to love.” On a third, she called me after 2AM, “Motherfucker, where are you?!”

Sitting home, I received an email from a Vietnamese poet who lives in a sunshiny state. Though I’ve known this unhappily married 40-year-old for more than a decade, we’ve never met face-to-face. In Vietnamese, she wrote, “Crazy teacher, please help me to translate: I’m aroused. I’m horny. I’m a whore. I’m an aroused whore. I’m an extremely horny whore. Thank you very much.”

I cite these handy examples not to embarrass anybody or to, God forbid, present my splotchy carcass as somehow in demand, but simply to point out the loneliness that afflicts this society is so appallingly pervasive and, I suspect, unprecedented. Our infants are immediately removed from their moms, our toddlers are parked in front of blathering televisions when not institutionalized, our dating millennials stare at separate iPads, our married couples hide their sexting and porn habits from each other, our old people blunder down a dark hallway or endless sidewalk alone. Else, they lie unvisited, waiting for death, and when kaput, may not be discovered for a week, as happened to my friend Lee Goldston. Yo, Lee!

In 1970, only 17% American households had but a single person, but it’s up to 27.5% now. Moreover, many of those who live with others may be sharing a dwelling with annoying strangers, or curled up in their parents’ basement. Take Robert’s situation. In a house with four other people, he has a room “the size of a napkin.” Each time he uses the bathroom, he’s “afraid to step on the floor. The ceiling tiles are falling down. The wall tiles are falling out. It’s gross in there!” And Robert never uses the kitchen because that’s filthy too. No one ever washes the dishes. In short, it’s not a home, but then most Americans don’t really have one anyway.

For many, it’s merely a spot to lie down after the long commute. For others, it’s a nest that can be blown away after the next missed rent or mortgage check. Made of sheetrocks, marathon loan payments and always rising taxes, an American home is about as permanent as a bad sitcom. To have no true home is to be constantly anxious, if not panic stricken, and since many of us are also isolated, physically and psychologically, what you have, then, is a society of frustrated, angry, ashamed and nervous wrecks. No wonder we take more drugs than anybody else!

One man who still has his family home is my acquaintance, Bill. For a decade, Bill made beaucoup bucks as a computer technician but, at age 44, had to switch career to become a transit policeman. (He even applied to Homeland Security, but wasn’t hired.) Assigned to a shopping mall, Bill had to occasionally arrest shoplifters or break up fights among unruly teens, but mostly he just strolled around to flirt with selected cashiers. Fresh from Lindenwold, New Jersey, 18-year-old Chelsea with her bleached blonde hair and rose and vine tattoo climbing up one pale arm was particularly enticing. For a few seconds, Bill fantasized about rescuing her from Starbucks. A playa, in short, he doesn’t mind living alone in his eight-bedroom, inherited house, though his winter heating bills are a real bitch. Though a teenager at heart, Bill has also just turned 50, so most nights find him eating turkey, his favorite, while watching Netflix next a huge dalmatian, Myer. Unlike humans, dogs don’t experience drawn out illnesses that may last decades. Bill likes it that way.

Thanks to a large inheritance, Jim also has his own house and, unlike Bill, doesn’t even have to work. A typical day finds him listening to Pharoah Sanders, Sun Ra and Abbey Lincoln while browsing Rolling Stone and CounterPunch. After a leisurely porn pause, he might check in on National Public Radio. At 53-years-old, Jim has never had to take care of anyone save a series of tabbies, and his biggest exertion in life, his greatest achievement ever, was his escape from a decade-long crack habit. Further, Jim considers himself a “revolutionary,” though the only people he’s ever fought were his neighbors. With a shovel, Jim shattered a bar window, then hit a homeless man with a rebar, but it wasn’t until he threatened someone with a grass trimmer that he ended up in a psychiatric ward for three days. Out, Jim’s back to his half-listening, half-reading and half-masturbating routine, and he’ll maintain this progressive regiment until social justice is tightly entwined in a 69, yin yang fashion, with equitable wealth distribution. Actually, forget the second part, for there’s no way Jim will share one square inch of his two-story house with anything larger than a slim cat. Jim likes it that way.

In downtown Camden, I heard a street preacher holler, “We are a relational people!” and he certainly got that right. Further, I ardently believe that human bodies are really one continuum that has been tragically yet mercifully broken up. If you’re cut, I should feel pain, and vice versa, and when we’re at our best, that’s exactly what happens. Too often, though, people derive an orgasmic pleasure from watching someone being blown up. Excited, they cheer.

Elias Canetti talks about how instinctively humans laugh at seeing a person falling, and he traces this to our days as flesh hunters. Since a fallen body represents meat, we laugh out of joy. Beside this atavistic impulse, however, we also rush to help the fallen because we recognize the body in distress as our own. Our entertainment industry, though, is relentless in pushing the fantasy of the super predator, somebody who’s capable of destroying countless bodies “of the bad guys.” With its mesmerizing war and “action” films, Hollywood has amplified, to an insane degree, all of our worst sadistic tendencies. Sex, too, has become a matter of body count, but this is perfectly in line with our obsession with numbers. Ain’t that right, Bill? How many have you scored?

The American porch shrank, then disappeared. Sidewalks emptied or became overgrown with weeds. Behind closed doors, an unending cacophony of disembodied voices hyperventilate over nothing or sing the same old songs. Making duck faces or pulling their pants down, a little lower, yeah, like that, Americans snap selfies compulsively to make sure nothing of their noisily desperate lives is lost to eternity. We’ve all become famous to ourselves, and that’s good enough, somehow.

Say, what are the political ramifications of having a nation of inattentive, narcissistic jerk offs? Well, me, myself and I think it’s way beyond divide and conquer, for what it is is rule by fragmentation into 320,159,176 pieces, and counting. Yes, we have this, that and that camp but each takes its cues from the right or left hand of our ruling apparatus. To know what to do, say or even dress, we look towards Midtown Manhattan, Hollywood and Northwest DC. Talk about a disastrous recipe! Unwilling or unable to deal with each other in the flesh, we must plug in to even squeak a dissident note, so it’s no surprise our feeble rebellion remains virtual.

While the internet allows many fringe voices to find their miniscule audiences, its dominant aim is to tease, tickle and titillate the mind into numbness. With multiple windows and everything flickering by, nothing matters. Skimming over bullshit and insights alike, we forget a minute later what we’ve just glimpsed. Swarming with words, the internet desensitizes us to language.

After that last paragraph, my phone rang, so I picked it up to hear Casey, someone I hadn’t heard from for over two years. After the briefest of chit chat, middle-aged Casey spilled that her wife had left her, “I was crazy, she was crazy, but she was even crazier than I was!” Later, her upstairs neighbor, a crackhead, punched Casey so hard, “my brain moved to the other side! After I maced the bitch, I was dragged to court, can you believe it?!” Concluding, Casey said I should come over soon to catch up. “I always have beer in the fridge.”

“How are you making money these days?” I asked.

“Oh, I do freelance art works,” Casey answered rather defensively, “and I get food stamps.”

For a while, the smirking mainstream media celebrated social media as a tool for rebellions or even revolutions, but let’s get real here. If that shit’s effective, the people of Iraq, Libya and Ukraine, etc., wouldn’t have had their countries wrecked by this empire. FaceBook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and the rest are no more than means for the masses to report themselves, minutely and in real time, to the authorities.

Faced with an ultra violent enemy with its kill lists, bombs, missiles, bullets, black sites and torture, we bark abstractions or demand nothing as our demand, such is our feebleness and nihilism. Giving up on reality, we claim a speck sized corner of the internet as our free speech zone. Impotent, we wave virtual fists in the direction of Wall Street or 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

To make more concrete statements, true rebels won’t be so vaguely semaphoric. Whether lone wolves or in roving bands, they’ll have to dodge the best technology ruthlessness can buy, however. No pixelated posers, they won’t telegraph their moves in advance but simply act, and though their successes will likely be merely symbolic, at least they won’t be surfing on fantasies.Linh Dinh http://linhdinhphotos.blogspot.comThe 



Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash


By Paul Craig Roberts
January 14, 2015 "ICH" - The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.
Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.
Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story.https://www.intellihub.com/18-year-old-charlie-hebdo-suspect-surrenders-police-claims-alibi/
The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi.
Some media merely reported Mourad’s surrender in a headline with no coverage in the report. The list that I googled includes the Washington Post (January 7 by Griff Witte and Anthony Faiola); Die Welt (Germany) “One suspect has turned himself in to police in connection with Wednesday’s massacre at the offices of Parisian satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo;” ABC News (January 7) “Youngest suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack turns himself in;” CNN (January 8) “Citing sources, the Agence France Presse news agency reported that an 18-year-old suspect in the attack had surrendered to police.”
Another puzzle in the official story that remains unreported by the presstitute media is the alleged suicide of a high ranking member of the French Judicial Police who had an important role in the Charlie Hebdo investigation. For unknown reasons, Helric Fredou, a police official involved in the most important investigation of a lifetime, decided to kill himself in his police office on January 7 or January 8 (both dates are reported in the foreign media) in the middle of the night while writing his report on his investigation. A google search as of 6pm EST January 13 turns up no mainstream US media report of this event. The alternative media reports it, as do some UK newspapers, but without suspicion or mention whether his report has disappeared. The official story is that Fredou was suffering from “depression” and “burnout,” but no evidence is provided. Depression and burnout are the standard explanations of mysterious deaths that have unsettling implications.
Once again we see the US print and TV media serving as a ministry of propaganda for Washington. In place of investigation, the media repeats the government’s implausible story.
It behoves us all to think. Why would Muslims be more outraged by cartoons in a Paris magazine than by hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by Washington and its French and NATO vassals in seven countries during the past 14 years?
If Muslims wanted to make a point of the cartoons, why not bring a hate crime charge or lawsuit? Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming every aspect of it.
If a Muslim lawsuit was deep-sixed by French authorities, the Muslims would have made their point. Killing people merely contributes to the demonization of Muslims, a result that only serves Washington’s wars against Muslim countries.
If Muslims are responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo, what Muslim goal did they achieve? None whatsoever. Indeed, the attack attributed to Muslims has ended French and European sympathy and support for Palestine and European opposition to more US wars against Muslims. Just recently France had voted in the UN with Palestine against the US-Israeli position. This assertion of an independent French foreign policy was reinforced by the recent statement by the President of France that the economic sanctions against Russia should be terminated.
Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb.
Some will contend that Muslims are sufficiently stupid to shoot themselves in the head in this way. But how do we reconcile such alleged stupidity with the alleged Muslim 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo professional attacks?
If we believe the official story, the 9/11 attack on the US shows that 19 Muslims, largely Saudis, without any government or intelligence service support, outwitted not only all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, Dick Cheney and all the neoconservatives in high positions throughout the US government, and airport security, but also the intelligence services of NATO and Israel’s Mossad. How can such intelligent and capable people, who delivered the most humiliating blow in world history to an alleged Superpower with no difficulty whatsoever despite giving every indication of their intentions, possibly be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the head when they could have thrown France into turmoil with a mere lawsuit?
The Charlie Hebdo story simply doesn’t wash. If you believe it, you are no match for a Muslim.
Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France. Operation Gladio proves this. The largest part of the government of Italy was ignorant of the bombings conducted by the CIA and Italian Intelligence against European women and children and blamed on communists in order to diminish the communist vote in elections.
Americans are a pitifully misinformed people. All of history is a history of false flag operations. Yet Americans dismiss such proven operations as “conspiracy theories,” which merely proves that government has successfully brainwashed insouciant Americans and deprived them of the ability to recognize the truth.
Americans are the foremost among the captive nations.
Who will liberate them?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

SAVE THE REPUBLIC

"The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish woman.  The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities of all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority in the past."  - 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic"

How the Irish Became White,
Michael O'Meara



Part 3 of 3

A propos of Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York and London: Routledge, 1995)

Nativism, Ignatiev writes, ‘lost out not to the vision of a nonracial society, but to a society polarized between black and white’. In the process, the Irish allegedly ‘became white’. He is wrong on both counts.

‘Became white’: what could this possibly mean? Did the Irish become white in the way Northern Anglo-Protestants or Southerners were ‘white’? Was there some other category of white for them? Peter Quinn claims the more interesting question is: How did the Irish stay Irish? (Peter Quinn, Looking for Jimmy: A Search for Irish America [2007].)

These questions, suggesting a certain cultural chasm between the whiteness of Kathleen Ni Houlihan and that of Uncle Sam, interest the whiteness historians not in the least, as they ideologically assume that whites are something of a homogenized monolith and that when the Hibernian ‘interlopers’ ‘became white’ they did so in a way that had little cultural significance, except racially – it was all a matter of black or white. The historians accordingly ignore or demote the significance of rival Gaelo-Catholic and Anglo-Protestant conceptions of Americanism (or whiteness) and thus the larger cultural/religious differences (that were actually quite small compared to non-white races and peoples) that have always separated whites of one national family from another – especially in America.

The anti-essentialists may claim whiteness has no cultural depth – Mick or Yank, same difference. But if the Irish became ‘white’, why did they continue to oppose the Saxons or see themselves as Celts? And why did no one tell the KKK in 1928 that Al Smith was ‘white’? The fact is that there was no ‘smooth, self-propelled passage into whiteness’ for the Irish, who refused to abandon their culture, religion, and identity in order to assimilate the Republic’s middle-class, highly Judaicized, Anglo-Protestant culture.

The Irish would eventually acculturate, but they never fully assimilated (for they were caught between two cultural worlds and were forced to forge a new identity from this cultural clash). Not coincidently, Gaelo-Americans and Anglo-Americans remained divided until the 1960s, even after the former had ‘made it’ – particularly over issues of racial integration and birth control. Then, after the Sixties and the final transition from ghetto to suburb, there was no more Irish America or WASP America – only the abominations of Transamerica. (John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History[2003]; Everett H. Akam, Transnational America: Cultural Pluralist Thought in the Twentieth Century [2002].)

From an arguably more explanatory perspective, US history can be seen as a history of intra-racial strife between different kinds of whites over religion, section, and class rather than as a strict interracial polarization between whites and blacks, as the whiteness historians (along with not a few white nationalists) contend. These historians also snub the fact that, from the beginning, America was a highly ‘segmented’ society – with few overarching standards and numerous divergent traditions – all of which further divided whites and retarded their ethnogenesis. (Robert H. Wiebe, The Segmented Society: An Historical Preface to the Meaning of America [1975].) Given its fuzziness, the social construct of so-called whiteness cannot but slight the complexities that come with meaningful differences created by nature, history, and culture – differences that effectively resist the formlessness of a truly egalitarian world.

(As an aside, I might mention that the WASPs were not exactly ‘white Anglo-Saxon Protestants’ nor were they the caste-like ruling class Digby Baltzell made them out to be, but rather a motley bunch, with almost as many ‘savage Ulstermen’ and ‘boorish Palatinate Germans’ in their ranks as Anglo-Saxons – along with some Jews and even a few Catholics – and though they (the WASPs) were all ‘old money’, listed in the Social Register, and sent their sons to elite New England boarding schools, they were never exclusively Anglo-Saxon and never totally exclusionary toward other white ethnic groups, with the possible exception of Catholics. It was actually something of an ‘open admissions aristocracy’ (in the spirit of the country’s historic Protestant pluralism). The WASP as a social designation was also broader than what is called the ‘American East Coast Establishment’ – led by Wall Street international bankers – constituting the ‘ruling class’ in the Marxist sense. In a country, though, where class realities were not readily acknowledged and where status was confused with power, class realities often assumed ethnic form, with the ‘elites’ identified as WASP [actually, ‘Yankee’ or ‘American’] and the working class as Irish [later ‘ethnic’]. [Robert C. Christopher, Crashing the Gates: The De-WASPing of America’s Power Elite (1989)].)

***

However disoriented in passing from their pre-modern peasant world to the great bustling metropolitan centers of the New World (New York City preeminently), the Irish didn’t take long to figure out the difference between whites and blacks, and which side was theirs. Given their history and identity, though, they spurned the Anglo-Saxonist notion of whiteness, and instead defined themselves as ‘Celts’ – a branch of the white race spiritually opposed to the profanities of the ‘sourfaced Saxons’ and their North American cousins. For however dispossessed and cut off from the main sources of American social advancement and power, the Irish treated middle class Protestant morality with the cynicism ‘it deserved’.

They also felt a certain Catholic disdain for Anglo-Protestants — heretics and gombeen men that they were. As the Australian historian, Patrick O’Farrell, writes: ‘The English raised up against themselves a people who were as convinced of their superiority in the spiritual realm as the English were in the temporal’. Given also their distrust of Protestant institutions and the Republican Party’s Social Darwinian theory of ‘free labor’ that prevented working people from organizing and making collective demands on industrialists, it would be clan and community that counted most with the Irish, not the American Dream of success (whose pursuit entailed sacrificing one’s identity).

Instead, the Irish would stand or fall together. ‘Unlike other immigrants’, Bill Williams observes, ‘the Irish had to succeed as a people, not just as individuals’. Later, with Father Coughlin and Senator McCarthy, the Irish (along with the Germans) would show that they were even ‘better’ Americans than the Anglo-Protestant elites of the New Deal coalition, eager collaborators with Jews, Communists, and degenerates. (Patrick O’Farrell, Ireland’s English Question: Anglo-Irish Relations 1534–1970 [1971]; Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race [1998]; William H. A. Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream’: The Image of Ireland and the Irish in American Popular Songs Lyrics, 1800–1920 [1996].)

If the Irish implicitly rejected aspects of America’s Anglo-Protestant heritage, especially those that demonized Catholicism or reduced human relations to the cash nexus, they nevertheless whole-heartedly embraced the liberty and opportunity of this thriving Protestant country – free of Carthaginian landlords and their oppression. Indeed, their nationalist dream of a liberated Ireland was modeled on the American Republic – itself born in struggle against English imperialism. (Wasn’t George Washington, ‘whose very name evoked images of the empire on its head’, the idol of the last Gaelic bards?)

The Irish were determined to be part of this ‘first new nation’ – determined to become American. But however fiercely (and naively) loyal to their new homeland (representing the foremost exemplar of modern liberal society, heir to the British Empire, with its Judeo-capitalist aversion to Catholicism and the other anti-liberal forces obstructing money’s meaningless reign (what Continentals refer to as ‘Anglo-Saxon Civilization’) — they would become American in their own way, negotiating their ‘acculturation’, so that by the early twentieth century, after the ‘new’ immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe helped Yankees discover a certain racial/cultural affinity with the former ape men, the Irish became increasingly acceptable to them. Even the Nordic supremacist, Madison Grant (whose ‘racialism’ was more Protestant than scientific), designated the Irish as ‘Nordic’, unlike earlier generations of Anglo-Americans. (Jonathan Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant [2009]; Joseph P. O’Grady, How the Irish Became American [1973].)

Similarly, the image of the ‘wild, rowdy, and undisciplined’ Irish in much of nineteenth-century popular American songs and entertainment had become, by the advent of the new century, almost ‘conservative and old-fashioned’, having been gradually transformed into an image of ‘a grand people from a grand country . . . [that] had successfully established itself in America’. (Today, this image/caricature has again changed, as the cultural vanguard depicts them as ‘racist, reactionary Republicans’ – though Irish-America, like the insula sacra, no longer actually exists today, being now dead and in the grave with O’Leary – having succumbed to a horror greater than anything the English ever devised: the American way of life, whose Dionysian excesses demand the most extreme human sacrifices.) (E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior [1993].)

As to race, the Irish needed no instruction from Americans, for their Gaelic racial consciousness had been forged in a thousand years fighting Vikings, Normans, Saxons, Lowlanders, and Britons (not to mention one another) – war, of course, being the preeminent shaper of destiny and identity. In any case the Irish were not going to be instructed, in matters of blood or anything else, by Protestant heretics.

III.

The God-given supremacy of America’s New World project (steeped in the Hebraic heritage of Puritan New England, and the fundamentalist conviction that they should rule the earth) were at one time expressed in explicitly racial terms. But this was not always the case. Long before modern biology, the English colonists (in their ‘perennial attraction to things Jewish’) saw themselves as a chosen people, superior not only to those they encountered in the wilds of North America, but in the civilizational centers of Catholic Europe. Thus it was that the nineteenth-century Indian doomed by the scientific laws of evolution was the same Indian religiously condemned in the seventeenth-century as a savage incapable of Protestant redemption (which, of course, implies nothing about the justice of either judgment).

The American sense of superiority (its supremacism) has assumed different forms historically. It was initially expressed in civilizational, and especially Protestant religious terms, then, after the revolution, democratic/republican, then again, in the second half of the laissez-faire nineteenth century, Darwinian, and finally, today, military, financial, and hyperreal ideological ones. Supremacism is arguably inbuilt to the idea of America: for the country’s Anglo-Saxon liberal heritage dismissed everything unlike itself as inherently ‘inferior’ (‘the pharisaism which worships itself and is unable to perceive any goodness apart from itself’).

Supremacism (or ‘racism’) in this sense is an offshoot of the liberal idea of progress animating America’s national saga, with certain peoples and nations seen as representing a higher state of progress or evolution than others. In this vein, indifferent to the past and bound for a rootless (i.e., destiny-less) future, Herman Melville characterized America in preeminently Hebraic, hence globalist terms – the ‘Israel of our time’ – the ‘ark of liberties’ — the political messiah of the New World. America, in a word, would not be like the ‘nations’ of the Old World – but instead the ‘exception’, whose God-given mission (even in today’s godless world) elevates it above the non-chosen. (Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory [2012]; Sacvan Bercovitch, The America Jeremiad [1978].)

Since 1945, the older racial expressions of American supremacism have been conscientiously replaced by non-racial ones, whose color-blind market view of the world better fits the multicultural Reign of Quantity that is today America’s New World Order. Claiming ‘there is no alternative’ to it, this supremacist system, whose policies of exploitation and enslavement are promoted in the name of ‘development’, now terrorizes the planet with what Vladimir Putin calls its ‘bomb and rocket democracy’ – in which abstract democratic rights are empowered to subvert the rights of nations – just as, domestically, this system now threatens those whose ancestors, Saxon or Celt, created and settled the United States, for their North European stock no longer matches ‘the United Colors of Benetton’. Again Melville: ‘We are not a nation, so much as a world’ – a world beyond time and history, whose anti-traditional ‘empire of liberty’, born of what James Kurth calls the Protestant Deformation, resists all that is rooted and ordered, all that stands against its inherent leveling individualism and the manic sensate materialism of its capitalist Utopianism. (D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature[1923].)

Since the WASPs’ anti-fascist crusade of 1937–45, American supremacism is no longer about Anglo-Saxon racial pride (or arrogance or white superiority of any kind), but about what it has always been about: the supremacy of its own self-interests – of its particularsystem, its Creed or grand récit, and, above all, its usurious capitalism, whose bureaucratic-economic empire, in supplanting earlier forms of self-rule, takes the lead in imposing its principles of equality, pluralism, and multiculturalism on the whole world. But however changed, American supremacism still confuses its particularism with universalism – only here legitimized by the Low Church ‘genetics’ of its redemptive ‘shock capitalism’.

Conceiving of ‘man’ as a ‘naked animal’, without history, culture, or place, America’s world-destroying system today destroys everything impeding its one-world alienations – such as authority and sovereignty, and more specifically traditional Christianity, family-based communities, and those shared beliefs and identities that went into the country’s founding. What at one time was a racially expressed supremacism (i.e., ‘white supremacy’) – bearing the mantle of ‘Anglo-Saxonism’ or ‘Americanism’ or ‘Manifest Destiny’ – has since been transformed into an anti-racist supremacism, buttressed by democratic and human rights opposing everything, high and low, impeding the endless, senseless circulations of capital sustaining its world-market empire. (Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 [2006]; Carla Pestana, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World[2009]; William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order [2004].)

***

In contrast to the supremacists of ‘Calvin’s gang’, with their secularized evangelism, economic individualism, and cult of progress, Ireland’s pre-modern exiles – ensconced in urban villages spiritually centered on the Catholic church, and, civilly, on the parallel societies (schools, hospitals, charities, benevolent associations, saving banks, newspapers, etc.) constituting their counter-hegemony to the purely instrumentalist and relativist forces of the WASPs’ pluralistic Gesellschaft – created in its stead a working-class America in which family, parish, union, and flag, rather than wealth and self-realization, were the high marks of American citizenship. The religious, class, and ethnic character of Irish America (with the exception, of course, of the ‘lace curtain’) actually developed largely in opposition to the Anglo-Protestant culture of New England – rejecting the haughty Yankees, with their Paddy stereotype and profane manias (abolitionism among others).

For Protestants, whose country it originally was, Irish Catholicism (inherently authoritarian and subversive) posed an imminent threat to their republic and liberties. The Irish (who had been in America since its inception) threw the argument back at the Protestants, offering a counter-narrative emphasizing a communal rather than an egoistic understanding of liberty (‘the common good over individual rights’) that made character and virtue more important than wealth and respectability. (Lawrence McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America [1997]; Denis Clark, Erin’s Heirs: Irish Bonds of Community[1991]; Mary Doyle Curran, The Parish and the Hill [1948].)

A ‘creeping fascism’ — resistant to the state’s social-engineering schemes, contemptuous of liberal reformers, and actively hostile to the liberal, i.e., WASP and Jew, intelligentsia — Twentieth-century Irish America horrified ‘Marxist’ Jews like Ignatiev, as much as they did the Big State progressives, who took the helm under Franklin Roosevelt. For this ethnic, urban America shared the Catholic corporatist traditions of interwar Europe: of de Valera’s Free State, Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and other Continental, largely Catholic and Orthodox peoples rejecting the secular Anglo-Saxon model of liberal capitalist ‘civilization’ and its blood-thirsty system of ‘state supported usury’. (See the 2011 edition of F. P. Yockey’s Proclamation of London.)

Thus it was that after 1945, the Authoritarian Personality, the Slaughter of the Cities, and suburbanization were introduced by American planners to break up and disperse the urban Catholic communities opposing the Judeo-WASP designs of the New Deal/War Deal state (whose coalition of interests had converged in opposition to America First). (E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing [2004].)

***

Mexicans today do the hard labor the Irish once did, and they too are forming communities outside the American mainstream, which in time will significantly alter its course.

The story of Irish America, in this sense, is the story of America itself, as each new demographic wave of immigrants sweeps away the previous one – in the frantic, leveling spirit distinct to the country’s ‘New World’ ideology.

In the second volume of Democracy in America, Tocqueville observed that the ever bustling character of the new republic meant that ‘the tie that unites one generation to another is relaxed or broken [and that] every man there readily loses all trace of the ideas of his forefathers or takes no care about them’. Hence, the larger narrative of America’s perpetual self-destruction and re-invention, driven by something in its founding that subordinated the Yankees’ Judeo-Calvinist identity to the caprices of a deracinating and deculturating Mammon, whose culmination today privileges the presentist, history-less, pleasure-oriented character foremost in the American Negro, now the official model of our postmodern, post-European world.

The result: the Irish who overran the WASPs were overrun by the ‘new immigrants’ from Eastern and Southern Europe, and they in turn are today being overrun by the Third World tide – because America’s market society and its Low Church oligarchs care nothing about the country’s ethno-cultural identity – only its global system of usurious capitalism.

The ongoing destruction of the nation’s flesh and blood (archive of its spirit) has long imbued Americans with those ‘negative’ freedoms corrosive of organic attachments, as ‘all fixed, fast-frozen relations’ were swept away in the swirling consumerist paradise that is their Synagogue of Satan. Such a liberation has since stripped American life of the significance of family, community, church, tradition, authority – in the name of progress – all the while closing off any possibility of a meaningful transmission from one generation to the next, and thus to any possibility of reproducing the people as a ‘people’ – or even ‘reproducing the species’.

This identity-destroying, nation-dissolving, destiny-denying project will not go on much longer, for the empire of consummate meaninglessness has entered its late Winter phase (especially evident in the disorders inherent in its unraveling nomos). Collapse is in the cards, however they are dealt. (Guillaume Corvus [Faye], La Convergence des catastrophes [2004]; Robert A. Hall, The Coming Collapse of the American Republic[2011].)

The big question today (besides the possibility of America’s muddling disposition, in its decline, to provoke World War III) is: what will follow? Will it be the miscegenation, Brazilization, and/or extinction of European life in a ‘third-worldized’ America run by international usurers led by the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, or – fantasy that it may be, given the absence of a Celtic-Saxon or White Nationalist consciousness – will it be a revolution that overthrows the ‘universal nation’, forges an elite of blood and spirit, and founds a breakaway White Republic, free of the utterly perverse and inherently ethnocidal United States?

A JEW WARNS AMERICA AGAINST ISRAEL ON WW3

Foreword 

Some of my best friends, mentors, intelligent 

and  talented friends are Jewish. Indeed I once 

had a girlfriend who is Jewish. 

I am not anti-semitic and it is very important, 

that the reader of the following article, 

distinguishes between Zionist and Jew. 

However having witnessed first hand, British 

repression injustice and war crimes against

humanity in my own country, I have come to 

recognize the barbaric ethnic cleansing in 

Palestine, which has captured world headlines 

incessantly, in my lifetime as a litany of war 

crimes and atrocities that dehumanize us all. I 

believe a universal boycott of Israel is the only 

peaceful way to bring it to a conclusion.

Brian Clarke

A Jewish Defector Warns America

Benjamin Harrison Freedman

Benjamin Freedman’s warning is one of the most important documents of the 20th century.

by Benjamin H. Freedman

listen to the speech (43 minutes; mp3)

Introductory Note:

Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company.

He broke with organized Jewry after World War II, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish power structure which dominates the United States.

Mr. Freedman’s testimony is especially important because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. – Kevin Alfred Strom

A JEWISH DEFECTOR WARNS AMERICA
a speech by Benjamin H. Freedman

From a letter by Benjamin Freedman in the Revilo Oliver archives

HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.

The First World War

What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week’s food supply — and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.” England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that — seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

Stalemate in 1916; Zionists Offer to get USA into the War

Benjamin Freedman was attacked by the Jewish establishment, as in this 1955 issue of the American Jewish Committee's magazine, Commentary

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because it’s a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make — they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

1955 Commentary article mentioning Benjamin Freedman

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain’s ally.

I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

USA Railroaded into World War I; Balfour Declaration

Arthur Balfour, author of the infamous declaration

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

The Balfour Declaration

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” They didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Versailles

Propaganda to make us hate those whom the Zionists wish us to war against did not begin with Iraq: a poster from WW1, illustrating the common but utterly false characterization of Germans as so-called Huns threatening women

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know.

Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.

Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Ballin, [Albert Ballin - RW] who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

Further demonization of those whom the Zionists wished us to hate: World War 1 poster

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They’d been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisroel” or “Our Father.” Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.

Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

But it had nothing to do with home and country -- just as the current wars have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Click to see a larger version of this WW1 poster and note the emotional triggers: the wife fingering a cross, the child, the grisly souvenir of a dead man's helmet.

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn’t one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.

German Camps in 1933

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Germans fought Jewish Control

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security.

After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone’s head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn’t fight one another with pistols. Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

1933: Jews Declare “Holy War” (and Trade War) on Germany

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you.” You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?

In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, “The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration,” which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs saying “Hitler,” “murderer,” and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany.” Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I’ve been observing women’s legs for many years and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy’s boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “murderers,” “Hitlerites,” and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Naturally, the Germans said, “Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

“Kristallnacht” and Rearmament

The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now I don’t like to use the word “anti-Semitism” because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that “Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.

Nuclear War for Israel?

For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.

Zionist wars can happen again

What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was “confidential man” to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.

So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.

That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their “commonwealth.” They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” I don’t know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.

History of ‘Jews’

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, “You want to help repatriate God’s Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don’t you? It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.” But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted.

It is as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems “Arabs.” Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed’s birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves “Arabs.” You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn’t become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews.

Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God’s Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.” Could there be a bigger lie than that?

Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.

Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them?

I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect.

And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.

*   *   *

Subsequent research has shown that the “Khazar hypothesis,” i.e., Freedman’s and Arthur Koestler’s idea that Ashkenazi Jews are almost entirely of Khazar descent, is wildly exaggerated. For example, Science News for October 3, 1998 stated “Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied. This genetic research has clearly refuted the Khazar story — Khazars: a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence. …The DNA tests results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

The demise of the Khazar hypothesis doesn’t much vitiate Freedman’s argument that the “blood right” of Jews — who do show some degree of mixture with their host populations and who are probably less related to the original inhabitants of “Israel” than are the Palestinians — to take over Palestine is a sham. And, of course, it doesn’t at all affect his insider revelations of Zionist intrigue. – Kevin Alfred Strom

This article was transcribed and prepared for publication by Kevin Alfred Strom, with additional work by Rae West.