Saturday, 19 May 2018

Last call on the Monarchy: Become like us, or pack up and leave

Today, two parasites wed in London, in an event which the media has been ramming down our throats for so long, that the wedding itself must come as a relief to people sick to the stomach of seeing Harry Whodunnit and the Actress Meghan Markle constantly on TV, in papers, or talked about on radio, while the betrayal of the People by the EU-phile House of Lords and Theresa May's regime, goes almost unreported.

In the Royal-owned UK, the most dysfunctional nation on the planet, the wedding of two irrelevant people is being pushed by the €$tablishment media (the Family propaganda machine) as something to be celebrated!  According to the media, everyone in the UK is enthusiastically celebrating the Royal Wedding, but unsurprisingly, the truth is somewhat different to the media story. Apart from a few die-hard Royalists who genuinely enjoy being owned by the despots of Buckingham Palace, the vast majority of Britons have absolutely no interest in the posturings of the Monarchy. Most people see the wedding as an irrelevance, with a substantial proportion of the people going beyond not caring to openly expressing treasonous sentiments. It would seem that the behaviour of the Royals has at long last awoken the people to the undeniable need for the parasites to go and for the people to control their own nation as a Free Republic.


What has so irked the British public that we are refusing en masse to participate in the rituals of our overlords? Could it be that the parasites-in-chief - who are the richest family on the planet - haven't paid a penny towards the wedding, but have stolen from an already financially suffering nation by taking £32 million from the taxpayer for their gaudy show of power and elitism? Maybe. Could it be the Royal Family's bootboys, the Police, attacking the homeless in Windsor, by impounding a mobile soup-kitchen / bus with beds, which the poorest in the town rely upon?


Maybe what has really got to the British people is the fact that the groom likes to parade around in military uniform but has never faced real danger unlike the professionals he insults every time he dons his fancy dress. Yes he 'served' in the Army for ten years, but he never faced a situation where his life was in danger.   In his ten years PR exercise, the Royal Family has profited greatly with other people dying (never the 'royals') in their wars for imperial conquest, oil and drugs (heroin mainly). The ordinary British people aren't falling for this pathetic attempt to make the ongoing wars respectable, or for that matter to make us support the enemies in Buckingham Palace who directly profit from the deaths of our people and people overseas who (at least before they were attacked) were no threat to us.

Perhaps the hypocrisy of the Royal Family has reached the point where the people are so sick of them that we will no longer play along with the charade? After all, we are told that we must look up to these creatures and despise families who behave anti-socially. The mother of the Groom was treated abysmally by the family she wed into, with her life amongst them coming to an end when she was murdered by the royals - possibly as punishment for her relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, possibly for giving birth to a child who isn't related to the royals (Harry Whodunnit).  In royal Britain the Ruling Class behave in a way which decent people would not.  But we are supposed to love and respect them as our 'betters' and 'role models'!

There has been too much attention paid to the monarchy and their latest wedding - including by the SMPBI!  We do not wish them any harm. But we will not be silent and accept their on-going power and corrupt rule.  The monarchy must go.  The palaces and splendour must be returned to the People. If they can live as we do, then that is not a problem, but if they cannot accept that they are no better than any of the rest of us, they must leave our lands.  Enough is Enough. We do not want to be subjects of the monarchy, we want to be Citizens of a Free Republic.

Friday, 18 May 2018

The Monarchy Are Our Oppressors: Republic Now!


The Peoples of the Isles are a hard-pressed people. In many ways we as a people are an example of what the globalists have in store for the world. We have been manipulated by our rulers to the point that we take pride in what has been done to us, and what we have done to others at the behest of our rulers. In true Orwellian style, we have come to love Big Brother.

How did this sorry state come to pass? How did the people of the Norse Eddas, mingled with Rome, Germania, and the truly magickal people of the Celtic nation, become so subservient to the Ruling Caste that not only do we not revolt against our oppressors, but we actively persecute those who can see the reality beyond the pantomime? How did the British become the engine of the globalist machine which is destroying every people and culture on the planet, replacing them with a beaten-down mass of organic robots, with no allegiance to anything except self, materialism and survival?

To understand how debased the British and Irish have become, we need to go back to a time to pre-British days.  For the purpose of focus, we need to look at England, rather than Britain, and to a time when being English was a badge of honour. The nation of England was born with the fusion of the smaller nations which had occupied the land prior to unification.  England existed as a sovereign land until 1066 when the 'Normans' invaded. Led by William the Bastard, the Norman conquest saw England reduced to a vassal of a foreign power. The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom which had gradually been forged with the admixture of Angles, Saxon, Jutes, Celts and other kindred European peoples was subjected to a new regime, which rather than blending with the general population, imposed its will by means of harsh persecution and butchery of all who refused to accept the new overlords. This tragedy in the history of the English was unparalleled in its brutality by any invasion prior or since. Even the horrors inflicted upon the Druids by the Romans paled in comparison with the slaughter unleashed by the Normans and those who collaborated with them.

Following the Norman Conquest, Anglo-Saxon England was changed forever. The traditional organic moot system of government was replaced by the feudal system. Whereas before, leaders ruled with the consent and approval of a cooperative people, under the new system, rule was imposed by fear and the use of barbarity and cruelty of truly Biblical proportions. It was with the arrival of the cosmopolitan Norman ruling elite that the divisive class system was introduced. The spiritual quality of the nation was undermined with the wholesale butchery of the spiritual elders (labelled as Witches for the purpose of justifying murder). The Anglo-Saxon language was likewise attacked, with French being imposed as the official language of commerce and government. The French tongue trickled into the vernacular of the masses creating the hybrid language which evolved into the English spoken today.  It is ironic that Welsh Language activists speak of the degradation of Welsh by the Anglo-Saxons, when the Anglo-Saxon tongue itself was brutalised by the Norman Ruling Class tyrants.

The hatred for the French-speaking elite has been passed down through the generations in folklore. Anyone who knows the story of Robin hood will know that he was a native of Yorkshire who led raids upon the lackeys of the establishment, and then redistributed the wealth thus obtained amongst his impoverished Anglo-Saxon kinsmen.  His is a story of Socialist heroism in the face of an unbeatable economic occupation - which we still have to fight.  Across the channel in France, the same hated establishment so persecuted the native population that in time they rose up and beheaded those who ruled them and claimed to be French. In England, a similar uprising did not occur until it was all but too late. A hatred of all things French bedded into the popular culture, which was ironic, as the real French were as much victims of the establishment oppressors as were the English - in classic divide and rule style, the focus of animosity was targeted against a linguistic group, not against the true enemy who happened to speak their language. Certainly, the Royal Family in England were deposed, but during the short-lived Commonweal of Cromwell, the tyranny of the state was accelerated to the point that the hated Royals were given back the position of authority which they had enjoyed before the revolt. The ruling class did not experience the same justice as their brethren across the Channel and for them the English Republic was but a brief break in overt control.  Had Cromwell been a better leader, perhaps the Republic would have held, but religious obsession was the ruination of what could have been.


In the run up to the regime of the puppet Republic, the Royals ensured that their control was extended to the farthest reaches of the nation. Contrary to the romantic myth, the Royals were hated by the general population who understood them as outsiders who had stolen the Crown by massacring those who stood against them.

In the first series of English Civil Wars - Wars which has become known as the War of the Roses - the 'French' elite fought against their 'Welsh' cousins for mastery of England. The bloodshed was such that to this very day there is animosity between the counties of Yorkshire (the White Rose) and Lancashire (the Red Rose). The War served only to advance the agenda of the Royal dictators. Foolish Englishmen from Yorkshire and Lancashire still hold a burning hatred for one another for the crimes committed by the rulers they still champion. It is one thing to honour our dead ancestors, but an entirely different matter to revere the butchers whose blood lust and power-mania was the sole cause of their deaths. With the defeat of the Plantagenets, the ruling power passed to the house of Tudor. The Tudor dynasty hailed from Wales. Ironically the Tudors were as harmful to the English as the faux-French monarchs they replaced, and even more harmful to the Welsh, who they subjugated entirely.

Akin to all the despots who have ruled England, Henry VIII was a cruel and twisted tyrant, infamous for splitting the Church to satisfy his lust. A man obsessed with his own selfish interests, this gluttonous oaf was a serial adulterer and murderer. Married to Catherine of Aragon, he allowed his lust for Ann Boleyn to go before the needs of the nation he ruled over. Confronted by a woman who refused to allow her body to be used as he saw fit in an adulteress manner, the sex-obsessed egomaniac ordered his lackeys to annul his marriage - in spite of the fact that there were no acceptable grounds for this. The Pope had no choice but to excommunicate Henry the heretic. The despicable Monarch soon tired of his new 'wife' and in due course ended his officially sanctioned cohabitation ('marriage'). Ann Boleyn was, unlike Catherine of Aragon, not the daughter of a powerful Monarch, so he had no need to fraudulently annul the arrangement - he simply had her beheaded - ostensibly for incestuous adultery which ironically was classed as treason. Henry VIII went on to divorce another 'wife', and behead another. Such was the glorious beginning of the Church of England.

Henry VIII may have been the man responsible for rift between the English Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church IN England, but it was his daughter, Elizabeth, who created the Church OF England as a separate entity. The entire justification for the founding of the Church was to legitimise the adultery, divorce and remarriage of Henry VIII. From this one event followed centuries of persecution of Catholics, across every part of the Isles, but notably in Ireland.  There was stiff resistance in the early days of the C of E, and it took the insane tortures ordered by the Ruling Class (Royal and Cromwellian) to break the will of the people and make them submit to the Monarchy as 'divine' heads of the State.  From this brutal beginning, the power of Monarchy, the value of goods and money above the common people, paved the way for the descent into Capitalism and all the suffering that abomination was to cause.

Queen Elizabeth was in every way as evil as her namesake of modern times. It was during her reign that the pirate ships of her criminal navy terrorised the high seas, murdering and stealing for the benefit of the Crown. It was also during her reign that the Francis Bacon led a team of writers who wrote the plays attributed to the actor, William Shakespeare. These plays are a perfect example of political censorship, in that they falsified history in order to create a positive image of the ruling elite. These plays which are celebrated as masterpieces of English literature and art unfortunately also have obliterated knowledge of our true history. George Orwell's description of the revision of history with the truth disappearing down the memory hole was not merely a pseudo-prophetic analysis of the potential for manipulation by a coming elite, it was actually describing events which have already unfolded. The Elizabethan era saw the Establishment of the English Empire, and its accompanying Secret Police as created by John '007' Dee. We have been mis-educated in the school system to look back at this period as a great time for England. In truth it saw the birth of a despotic empire which murdered generations of Englishmen in the pirate navy, and the slave fields. If any point in history can be seen as the moment when the English became nothing more than cannon fodder and slaves to the ruling class, the Elizabethan era was that point. The descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celts never recovered from the Norman occupation and the capture of the State by the Tudors. They allowed a false jingoist patriotism to pervert them from being a family-centred people, into Empire-worshipping materialistic bigots.

As England and then Britain was turned from a natural society into a materialistic sewer, those who dissented were beaten into submission by a tyrannical Army and Police State. The natural reaction of the people should have been to revolt against an armed force killing our brothers and sisters. Instead the people rallied behind the troops at massacres such as Peterloo. When the Luddites who protested against the mechanisation of production and the destruction of childhood (with children dying in massive numbers in mills unfit for any human presence), were murdered by the establishment, the people did nothing. As the industrial era progressed and the English Empire became the British Empire, the common people rallied to the rag of their oppressors, proudly flying the Union Jack and celebrating the butchery in Ireland and across the globe. Press-ganging, slavery (first of Englishmen, then of the Irish, then of Africans) was treated as nothing to complain about, the rule of the elite via barbaric punishments such as exiling the hungry to prison colonies in Australia for the crime of trying to feed themselves and their families - these and other signs of the sickness of the elite were ignored, and later celebrated.

During the reign of the insane butcher, Victoria, and into the Twentieth Century the establishment fought a succession of Imperialistic wars of aggression, against the Dutch and German farmers (Baueren/Boers) in southern Africa, and against continental Europe in the Great War and Second World War. The people, so befuddled by generations of subservience to the Ruling Class tyranny raced to 'join-up' to increase the wealth of the Royal and Bourgeois classes. Those who had the wisdom to see that the wars were acts of pure evil, solely for the enrichment of an inhuman elite, were slandered as cowards and shot for refusing to participate in the carnage which destroyed the humanity of those who fought.

The demise of Britain and Ireland was finalised with a cowed and despondent public sheepishly embracing the post-war Europe and allowing themselves to be stampeded into the EU prison state. Why did they allow this? Simply because being the product of generations of psychological and physical abuse at the hands of a criminal elite, it was all they knew. Just as an abused child expresses its love for the abuser, so the abused British express their devotion to the Monarchy and their hatred for those who expose this diseased family and seek its overthrowal.

Pity our damaged nation. Nothing short of a revolution will save us now.  This weekend, the Ruling Class are having another wedding which the cowed monarchists will celebrate.  They are unwittingly celebrating a brutal oppression which has lasted nearly a thousand years.  In Ireland, our Brothers and Sisters are being stampeded into voting to murder their own children as the 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution is almost certain to be repealed.  On both sides of the Irish Sea, the Ruling Class are mocking us.  The problem is the same - it is the submission to the Capitalist distortion of humanity; it is the failure to realise that we have to stand up and build a unified Proletarian Republic in which People Matter and Money is a tool, not a master.   We can make a difference by highlighting the lies of the Ruling Class, and building a United Republic of the Isles where Monarchy no longer exists, and where the idea of a family with untold wealth having its wedding paid for by people who have to struggle to feed themselves and their children, is never tolerated again.

Thursday, 17 May 2018

Royal Wedding? A Parasitic Celebration Paid for by Us

Even though the majority of the people of the Isles are bored rigid by the 'royal wedding' of Meghan Markle and Harry Whodunnit, the media are pushing the wedding of a pampered posh-lad and an actress (who is acting the role of her life to get her snout in the trough) as if it matters to the entire world!  The only part of it that matters to the Working Class is the cost - which we will have to pay through taxation, even though the groom is part of the Ruling Class family which has more money than many entire nations.

At this occasion, it is worth re-visiting the great Patriotic Socialist, James Connolly, in a speech he made on the visit of George Windsor (not related to Harry, but Great-great Grandfather of Harry's half brother, William) to Ireland in 1911.

5 years after making the following speech, although mortally wounded fighting for the People, he was judicially murdered by the regime of George V for the 'crime' of wanting to be free.  What he said was correct in 1911, and is correct now; What he did in 1916 was heroic, and even though under the Taosieach, Leo Varadkar, his courage is spat on through the deliberate crushing of the Irish Working Class, it remains an inspiration.  Bring on the Republic!



Fellow-Workers,

As you are aware from reading the daily and weekly newspapers, we are about to be blessed with a visit from King George V.

Knowing from previous experience of Royal Visits, as well as from the Coronation orgies of the past few weeks, that the occasion will be utilised to make propaganda on behalf of royalty and aristocracy against the oncoming forces of democracy and National freedom, we desire to place before you some few reasons why you should unanimously refuse to countenance this visit, or to recognise it by your presence at its attendant processions or demonstrations. We appeal to you as workers, speaking to workers, whether your work be that of the brain or of the hand – manual or mental toil – it is of you and your children we are thinking; it is your cause we wish to safeguard and foster.

The future of the working class requires that all political and social positions should be open to all men and women; that all privileges of birth or wealth be abolished, and that every man or woman born into this land should have an equal opportunity to attain to the proudest position in the land. The Socialist demands that the only birthright necessary to qualify for public office should be the birthright of our common humanity.

Believing as we do that there is nothing on earth more sacred than humanity, we deny all allegiance to this institution of royalty, and hence we can only regard the visit of the King as adding fresh fuel to the fire of hatred with which we regard the plundering institutions of which he is the representative. Let the capitalist and landlord class flock to exalt him; he is theirs; in him they see embodied the idea of caste and class; they glorify him and exalt his importance that they might familiarise the public mind with the conception of political inequality, knowing well that a people mentally poisoned by the  adulation of royalty can never attain to that spirit of self-reliant democracy necessary for the attainment of social freedom. The mind accustomed to political kings can easily be reconciled to social kings – capitalist kings of the workshop, the mill, the railway, the ships and the docks. Thus coronation and king's visits are by our astute never-sleeping masters made into huge Imperialist propagandist campaigns in favour of political and social schemes against democracy. But if our masters and rulers are sleepless in their schemes against us, so we, rebels against their rule, must never sleep in our appeal to our fellows to maintain as publicly our belief in the dignity of our class – in the ultimate sovereignty of those who labour.

What is monarchy? From whence does it derive its sanction? What has been its gift to humanity? Monarchy is a survival of the tyranny imposed by the hand of greed and treachery upon the human race in the darkest and most ignorant days of our history. It derives its only sanction from the sword of the marauder, and the helplessness of the producer, and its gifts to humanity are unknown, save as they can be measured in the pernicious examples of triumphant and shameless iniquities.

Every class in society save royalty, and especially British royalty, has through some of its members contributed something to the elevation of the race. But neither in science, nor in art, nor in literature, nor in exploration, nor in mechanical invention, nor in humanising of laws, nor in any sphere of human activity has a representative of British royalty helped forward the moral, intellectual or material improvement of mankind. But that royal family has opposed every forward move, fought every reform, persecuted every patriot, and intrigued against every good cause. Slandering every friend of the people, it has befriended every oppressor. Eulogised today by misguided clerics, it has been notorious in history for the revolting nature of its crimes. Murder, treachery, adultery, incest, theft, perjury – every crime known to man has been committed by some one or other of the race of monarchs from whom King George is proud to trace his descent.

We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.

Fellow-workers, stand by the dignity of your class. All these parading royalties, all this insolent aristocracy, all these grovelling, dirt-eating capitalist traitors, all these are but signs of disease in any social state - diseases which a royal visit brings to a head and spews in all its nastiness before our horrified eyes. But as the recognition of the disease is the first stage towards its cure, so that we may rid our social state of its political and social diseases, we must recognise the elements of corruption. Hence, in bringing them all together and exposing their unity, even a royal visit may help us to understand and understanding, help us to know how to destroy the royal, aristocratic and capitalistic classes who live upon our labour. Their workshops, their lands, their mills, their factories, their ships, their railways must be voted into our hands who alone use them, public ownership must take the place of capitalist ownership, social democracy replace political and social inequality, the sovereignty of labour must supersede and destroy the sovereignty of birth and the monarchy of capitalism.

Ours be the task to enlighten the ignorant among our class, to dissipate and destroy the political and social superstitions of the enslaved masses and to hasten the coming day when, in the words of Joseph Brenan, the fearless patriot of '48, all the world will maintain:

'The Right Divine of Labour
To be first of earthly things;
That the Thinker and the Worker
Are Manhood's only Kings.

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Karl Marx - the David Icke of his day (Wilberg On Wednesday)


Among other subjects, David Icke has put together compilations of material on the history, financial power and machinations of the Rothschild dynasty that, in my view, are  so important and valuable that I firmly believe they deserve publication in their own right - not only but least for Jewish readers. He is also very clear, as it is also very obvious, that it suits the Rothschild-Zionist agenda very well to identify anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. But it is just as easy to tar too many people with the brush of being ‘Rothschild-Zionists’  agents’ - here I am thinking specifically of thinkers such Karl Marx, whom Icke does brand in this way. I feel strongly however that to refer to any great thinker in this way - yet without actually referring to his actual thinking and writings can be most misleading. In this context I would be tempted to say: “David, take a bit of time to actually study Marx. If you did so I think you would see that, far from being a Rothschild Zionist or ‘agent’, if anything, Marx was nothing less than the David Icke of his day!!!” For what sort of ‘Rothschild Zionist’ would write words such as the following - which might remind you of someone! 

“At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the state …”

“The Bank of England begin with lending money to the government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of bank notes … It was not long before this credit money, made by the Bank itself, became the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the state, and paid, on account of the state, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the Bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation [of capital]. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and this turns into capital, without the necessity of exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry …”

“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews … "

“Captain Hamilton, for example, reports:  ‘The devout and politically free [Christian] inhabitant of New England …. makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced  that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.”

“Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.”

More true today than ever – particularly in the context of the big Christian-Zionist evangelical churches in America. Not least however, Marx also strongly echoes the words of Heinrich Heine in speaking of money as the new ‘God’ of our times, with Rothschild as its prophet:

“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man –  and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore,  robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.”

Yet all David writes to back up his accusation against Marx is that he “married into the aristocracy” – as if this said enough to confirm the accusation against him - whilst not mentioning that in so marrying Marx pauperised his own ‘aristocractic’ wife – whom he effectively removed from her ‘bloodline’ rather than marrying into it. Unfortunately the ‘tarring’ of Karl Marx and other later Communists by many of those opposed to a global ‘New World Order’ does not in any way serve the noble purposes of overcoming ignorance  but is itself an expression of it  - for few who write of Marx in this way have actually ever studied him. Marx himself of course, like David Icke, devoted his life to study, research and analysis.  In contrast the founder of the Rothschild dynasty himself took pride in having abandoned a life of almost wholly unpaid study of the sort Marx led – and instead opting for a ‘successful’ career in banking and usury.

And what did Marx have to say about usury itself? Quite a lot, both in volume 3 of Kapital and in his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’.

As Michael Hudson writes (see From Marx to Goldman Sachs) Marx also recognised full-well the parasitic nature of  unproductive ‘money capitalism’ or  ’usury capitalism’ i.e. the interest burden it places on  the profits of productive industrial capitalism, the upward pressure this places on prices and the downward pressure it places on both the wages and purchasing power of the working class.

“Usury centralises money wealth,” Marx states. “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself to it as a parasite and makes it miserable. It sucks its blood, kills its nerve, and compels reproduction to proceed under even more disheartening conditions. … usurer’s capital does not confront the labourer as industrial capital,” but “impoverishes this mode of production, paralyzes the productive forces instead of developing them.”

“Under the form of interest the whole of the surplus over the necessary means of subsistence (the amount of what becomes wages later on) of the producers may here be devoured by usury…”

The words of a Rothschild agent?  I think not. More like those of a David Icke. More the pity that David appears so unacquainted with Marx’s actual thinking and with principal works such as The Communist Manifesto and Kapital and like so many others opposed to world government  by a ruling elite into the trap of equating and conflating ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’ (“fascism/communism”). This is easy to do if neither are actually studied as ideologies and philosophies and not just as historical phenomena. Ideologically, fascism places a suprem value on the state. It is hard-line statism – more specifically corporatist and totalitarian ‘state capitalism’ of the sort we see in China today. ‘Communism’ on the other hand – as defined by Marx himself – would be above all characterised by a “withering away of the state” and of state power as such – both nationally and globally. In its place would come no form of fascist or Soviet-style state-run state ‘collectivism’ or 'New World Order' but something completely different: a money-less society in which a new form of non-egotistic individualism would flourish and in which, to quote The Communist Manifesto itself:  “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.

As for the neo-Nazi myth of Lenin and Stalin too being Rothschild agents, whilst there can be no doubt that the Rothschild bankers profited enormously from both world wars – and from the ‘cold war’, let us not forget that is was Lenin who first alerted Marxists to the growing danger of international finance capitalism, and that the nature of money and banking in the erstwhile U.S.S.R. – both under Lenin and Stalin - bore absolutely no relation whatsoever to the type of debt-based money creation, speculative bond trading and profiteering from  usury that is rightly associated with the Rothschilds (see Money, Banking & Credit in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by Adam Zwass, not to mention Lenin’s own writings on Finance Capitalism and the Financial Oligarchy.

That said, I believe  there is a far deeper dimension to Marx’s own thinking which has  so far remained unthought and which I address in my own writings. In these I reinterpret Marx’s view of history as pointing to a fundamental shift in human consciousness, one that occurred alongside the development - out of early and highly equalitarian tribal communities – of class societies - each governed by a ruling class obsessed with the accumulation of  wealth in the form of private property. For alongside this growing concentration and fetishism of private property went something much deeper, namely a belief that human consciousness or ‘subjectivity’ itself -  far from being but one expression of an infinite and universal Awareness - unifying and connecting all beings -  was nothing but the private property of individual beings, egos or ‘subjects’ – each separate from the other. The result was a new  experience of consciousness as something bounded by our bodies – and ultimately the current scientific nonsense that it is or could be a mere product of our brains.  Along with this fundamental shift in human consciousness also went a new experience of natural phenomena and of other beings – one which reduced them to mere objects of egotistic consciousness, and ultimately to a mere “standing reserve” (Heidegger) of resources and commodities to be sold and disposed of at will. It was as a result of this most fundamental shift in human consciousness that the ruling elites ultimately came to worship a single ‘monotheistic’ god , one which representing nothing other than the human ego itself – which saw its duty as ruling over nature, human feelings and other human beings, in the way that its ‘God’ – a type of divine ‘superego’, was seen  as ruling over man. The human ego – rather than our innermost and divine soul or self, was seen as the very apex of the pyramid of human consciousness - a single ‘I’ symbolised by a single ‘eye’ - and one which reduced everything beneath it to a mere object of perception and of enslavement.

The divinisation of the human ego - and with it of competitive egotism – replaced man’ earlier sense of communion and cooperation with nature and other human beings, and turned the most egotistic worldly rulers into gods in themselves. The sovereignty and power and worship of god-kings and their divine right to rule replaced the experience of a divine-universal Awareness. Yet what followed was a further transformation – from the worship of monotheistic gods and/or ‘divine’ kings or monarchs into the worship of money.



“Money is the God of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”

Heinrich Heine


If Abraham and Moses were the prophets of religious monotheism in all its forms – Jewish, Christian and Islamic, then the first of the Rothschild dynasty can indeed be recognised for what he was, the prophet of a new religion - the Monotheism of Money. Yet it was Marx’ profound analysis of the nature of commodities that first provided the key to this new understanding of history. For it was Marx’s great insight that whereas the properties and ‘use value’ of commodities was something sensually tangible – like the shape and texture of an apple or sword – the same could not be said of what he called their ‘exchange value’ in the market place, for ‘exchange value’, whilst it could be defined as a number (the amount of one commodity deemed as necessary to trade it for another) was something that which by its nature was something immaterial – having no sensual or ‘material’ qualities of its own. In this sense, as Marx intuited, ‘exchange value’ was akin to a type of quasi-religious, supra-sensible or immaterial ‘spirit’, one which came to be the universal measure of value as such – a supreme value superseding all other values - not least all that we understand as truly human values. Money in the form of commodities, precious metals was merely the incarnate ‘spirit’ of exchange value, only eventually to be dematerialised - first in the form of mere symbols (such as the image of a pyramid!) printed on paper notes - and ultimately as mere ‘electronic’, ‘digital’ or ‘virtual’ money, mere abstract numbers on electronic accounts and created principally as credit i.e. what David Icke rightly calls “money that does not exist”, being accumulated solely as debt. Rather than representing anything of human value it serves only to expropriate and substitute for anything of substantial or tangible human value.

Marx again: “Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore,  robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.”

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

Anti-Zionism is Anti-Apartheid, Anti-Tyranny, Anti-Injustice


If you think that the Zionist Entity in Occupied Palestine should not be murdering Palestinians, and if you think that the Usurious system of Banking (the backbone of Capitalism) which puts the acquisition of wealth above such concerns as human welfare, then you are...an ANTI-SEMITE! Right? Wrong!

The following concerns some of the very many Jewish people and groups (including Israelis) who have spoken out against Zionist Criminality.  In the twisted minds of liberal fanatics who see 'anti-Semites' hiding around every corner, eagerly waiting to start 'another' holocaust, these are dangerous people who threaten the Jewish people wherever they may be!  Opposition to the crimes of Zionism is not racism, no matter what the apologists for the crimes commited in the service of that ideology, may claim.

The following is from the website, 'the Hyper Texts', which is well-worth having a look at. Search HERE with keywords such as Zionism, Israel etc for a lot of interesting information - facts, not distorted and biased propaganda - which shows that anti-Zionism is something everyone with a shred of human decency must embrace...




Jewish Intellectuals Who Have Opposed Zionism and/or Israeli Racism, Injustices, Occupation, Apartheid and/or Ethnic Cleansing

Albert Einstein

Einstein denied any superior rights for Jews, calling for "complete equality" for Palestinians as the "most important aspect" of Jewish policy, saying: "The most important aspect of our policy must be our ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst ... The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people." Only cooperation with Arabs, led by "educated, spiritually alert" Jewish workers, he wrote, "can create a dignified and safe life." He also said, "What saddens me is less the fact that the Jews are not smart enough to understand this, but rather, that they are not smart enough to want it."

Sigmund Freud 

I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust.

Isaac Asimov

Asimov commented on Zionism in I. Asimov, his third autobiographical volume. Asimov mentioned his distress at the capability of the historically oppressed (such as the Jews) to in turn become oppressors if given the chance. Asimov wrote: “Right now, there is an influx of Soviet Jews into Israel. They are fleeing because they expect religious persecution. Yet at the instant their feet touched Israeli soil, they became extreme Israeli nationalists with no pity for the Palestinians. From persecuted to persecutors in the blinking of an eye.”

Sir Edwin Montagu 

Montagu was the second British Jew to enter the Cabinet, the inner circle of British government. However, he was strongly opposed to Zionism, which he called "a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom." He also opposed the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which he considered to be antisemitic and whose terms he managed to modify. (Montagu was probably responsible for inserting the provision in the Balfour Declaration that said: "Nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.") In a memo to the Cabinet, he outlined his accurate understanding of the Balfour Declaration: "...I assume that it means that Mahommedans [Muslims] and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference... When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country..."

Martin Buber

The establishment of a Jewish state, the philosopher Martin Buber feared, would mean "premeditated national suicide." He believed strongly that the most important possibility for Zionism was in changing the relationships between people. He wrote powerfully in favor of Arab rights in Palestine. Even in later years, he worked for the establishment of a joint Arab-Jewish state. Professor Shemuel Hugo Bergman said that with Dr. Buber's death, "humanity has lost one of its greatest sons, Jewry has lost its greatest son, and Israel has lost her living conscience."

Ben Ehrenreich 

The fate Buber foresaw is upon us: a nation that has lived in a state of war for decades, a quarter-million Arab citizens with second-class status and more than five million Palestinians deprived of the most basic political and human rights. If two decades ago comparisons to the South African apartheid system felt like hyperbole, they now feel charitable. The white South African regime, for all its crimes, never attacked the Bantustans with anything like the destructive power Israel visited on Gaza in December and January, when nearly1,300 Palestinians were killed, one-third of them children.

Hannah Arendt

Arendt in "Zionism Reconsidered," written in 1944 before the creation of the modern state of Israel, predicted the Nakba, unending conflict, Zionist dependence on the American Jewish community that would ultimately conflict with that community, and the contribution of political Zionism to worldwide anti-Semitism. She wrote: "Nationalism is bad enough when it trusts in nothing but the rude force of the nation. A nationalism that necessarily and admittedly depends upon the force of a foreign nation is certainly worse. This is the threatened state of Jewish nationalism and of the proposed Jewish state, surrounded inevitably by Arab states and Arab people. Even a Jewish majority in Palestine–nay even a transfer of all Palestine’s Arabs, which is openly demanded by the revisionists–would not substantially change a situation in which Jews must either ask protection from an outside power against their neighbors or come to a working agreement with their neighbors… The Zionists, if they continue to ignore the Mediterranean people and watch out only for the big faraway powers, will appear only as their tools, the agents of foreign and hostile interests. Jews who know their own history should be aware that such a state of affairs will inevitably lead to a new wave of Jew-hatred; the antisemitism of tomorrow will assert that Jews not only profiteered from the presence of foreign big powers in that region but had actually plotted it and hence are guilty of the consequences… Only folly could dictate a policy which trusts a distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbors. What then, one is prompted to ask, will be the future policy of Zionism with respect to big powers, and what program will Zionists have to offer for a solution of the Arab-Jewish conflict?… If a Jewish commonwealth is obtained in the near future–with or without partition–it will be due to the political influence of American Jews… But if the Jewish commonwealth is proclaimed against the will of the Arabs and without the support of the Mediterranean peoples, not only financial help but political support will be necessary for a long time to come. And that may turn out to be very troublesome indeed for Jews in this country [the U.S.], who after all have no power to direct the political destinies of the Near East. It may eventually be far more of a responsibility than today they imagine or tomorrow can make good."

Four years later, in 1948, Arendt accurately predicted what would happen if Israeli Jews were to prove victorious in battle: "And even if the Jews were to win the war, its end would find the unique possibilities and the unique achievements of Zionism in Palestine destroyed. The land that would come into being would be something quite other than the dream of world Jewry, Zionist and non-Zionist. The ‘victorious’ Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded into ever-threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defense to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities. The growth of a Jewish culture would cease to be the concern of the whole people; social experiments would have to be discarded as impractical luxuries; political thought would center around military strategy… And all this would be the fate of a nation that — no matter how many immigrants it could still absorb and how far it extended its boundaries (the whole of Palestine and Transjordan is the insane Revisionist demand)–would still remain a very small people greatly outnumbered by hostile neighbors. Under such circumstances… the Palestinian Jews would degenerate into one of those small warrior tribes about whose possibilities and importance history has amply informed us since the days of Sparta. Their relations with world Jewry would become problematical, since their defense interests might clash at any moment with those of other countries where large number of Jews lived. Palestine Jewry would eventually separate itself from the larger body of world Jewry and in its isolation develop into an entirely new people. Thus it becomes plain that at this moment and under present circumstances a Jewish state can only be erected at the price of the Jewish homeland…

Jacques Derrida 

I wish to state right away my solidarity with all those, in this land, who advocate an end to violence, condemn the crimes of terrorism and of the military and police repression, and advocate the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories as well as the recognition of the Palestinians’ right to choose their own representatives to negotiations, now more indispensable than ever.

Israel Shahak

Shahak...opposed racism and oppression in any form and in any country. After being liberated from the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945, Shahak and his mother emigrated to Palestine. He went on to have a distinguished career as a professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and was repeatedly voted as the most admired teacher by students. Following the 1967 war, Shahak became a leading member of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and was elected chairman in 1970. He devoted the rest of his life to opposing Israel’s inhumane treatment inflicted upon its Arab citizens and upon Palestinians in the occupied territories. Shahak's obituary in The Guardian of London notes that "Shortly after the 1967 six-day war, he concluded from observation that Israel was not yet a democracy; it was treating the newly occupied Palestinians with shocking brutality. For the next three decades, he spent all his spare time on attempts to change this. He contributed to various small papers, but when this proved to have little impact, he decided to alert journalists, academics and human rights campaigners abroad. From his small, bare West Jerusalem flat poured forth reports with titles such as 'Torture in Israel,' and 'Collective Punishment in the West Bank.' Based exclusively on mainstream Israeli sources, all were painstakingly translated into English." In Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Shahak pointed out that while Islamic fundamentalism is vilified in the West, Jewish fundamentalism goes largely ignored. He also argued that classical Judaism is used to justify Israeli policies which he viewed as xenophobic and similar in nature to the anti-Semitism suffered by Jews in other times and places. Nowhere could this be seen more clearly, in his view, than in Jewish attitudes to the non-Jewish peoples of Israel and the Middle East.

Judith Butler

People who expect enmity to suddenly convert into love are probably using the wrong model. Living with one another can be unhappy, wretched, ambivalent, even full of antagonism, but all of that can play out in the political sphere without recourse to expulsion or genocide. And that is our obligation.

Ilan Pappé

The Zionist goal from the very beginning was to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians in it as possible ... Before choosing the title for my book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, I thought a lot because I knew the connotations, I realised that for too many people it would be too radical. I remember even my publisher had reservations about it. But then I checked the American State Department website about ethnic cleansing and the description of what ethnic cleansing is, and it fitted so well with what was and is going on in Palestine. This description does not only describe an act of expulsion but also its legal implications, which is in this specific case, is a crime against humanity. It also says very clearly that the only way to compensate for ethnic cleansing is to ask the people who were expelled whether they want to return or not.

Erich Fried

Due to his encounters with Nazism and anti-Semitism Erich Fried became an outspoken voice in the West German anti-Vietnam war movement. His experiences with racism and fascism led him to take up verbal cudgels against Zionism and to support the Palestinians, who, like himself, had been driven from their native land into exile. In his poem "Hear, O Israel!" he asks his fellow Jews: "When we were the oppressed, I was one with you, but how can we remain one now that you have become the oppressor?"

Erich Fromm

Erich Fromm, an eminent scholar and author, argued that Palestinian Arabs had a much more legitimate claim to ownership of the land than the Jews: "The claim of the Jews to the Land of Israel cannot be a realistic political claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territories in which their forefathers lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse."

Franz Kafka

Franz Kafka was very critical of Zionism. According to Philip Weiss, “Kafka was against political Zionism because he understood it would transform the Jewish presence in society. It would make Jews the administrators of a nation rather than inhabitants of one. I think he anticipated that Jewish nationalism would call on the worst aspects of Jewish society.”

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and the author of more than 50 books on war, human rights and international law. In a statement issued by the UN, “Gaza: Silence Is Not An Option,” he called Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories “a crime against humanity.” Falk also has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews and has said, “I think the Palestinians stand out as the most victimized people in the world.”

Uri Avnery

Avnery wrote that after an Israeli military victory, “What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet. In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel.”

Noam Chomsky

There is good reason to believe that he [Uri Avnery] is right. Israel is deliberately turning itself into one of the most hated countries in the world, and is also losing the allegiance of the population of the West, including younger American Jews, who are unlikely to tolerate its persistent shocking crimes for long. Decades ago, I wrote that those who call themselves “supporters of Israel” are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. Regrettably, that judgment looks more and more plausible. Meanwhile we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called “politicide,” the murder of a nation — at our hands.

Norman Finkelstein

Professor Norman Finkelstein...has called Israel a "lunatic state" for murdering peace activists. He has also asked very difficult questions about Israel and U.S. support of Israel: "I have to ask a simple question: which leader of another American ally has appointed a man who favors genocide and ethnic cleansing as the deputy speaker of the legislature? Which other democracy has legitimate political parties in the governing coalition calling for permanent occupation of a neighboring state – and deliberate social engineering to create a new demographic ethnic reality in that conquered land? Putin’s Russia has not sunk that low. And we are not merely talking about a hypothetical situation. The grotesque death toll from Gaza is a distillation of this mindset – revealing at best a chilling contempt for Arab life and at worst, with the shelling of schools and shelters, a policy of indiscriminate hatred and revenge. Yes, killing women and children in shelters is about as low as you can get in wartime. As the State Department, in a rare moment of public candor, noted, it is appalling and disgraceful. To see in front of one’s nose is a constant struggle. But I see evil in front of noses here – and evil that is gaining strength because of willful American blindness."

Tony Judt

Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the “road map.” The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: “It’s all Arafat’s fault.” ... Anyone who supposes that [ethnic cleansing] is unthinkable above all for a Jewish state has not been watching the steady accretion of settlements and land seizures in the West Bank over the past quarter-century, or listening to generals and politicians on the Israeli right, some of them currently in government. The middle ground of Israeli politics today is occupied by the Likud. Its major component is the late Menachem Begin’s Herut Party. Herut is the successor to Vladimir Jabotinsky’s interwar Revisionist Zionists, whose uncompromising indifference to legal and territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet “fascist.” When one hears Israel’s deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proudly insist that his country has not excluded the option of assassinating the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, it is clear that the label fits better than ever. Political murder is what fascists do.

Joe Klein

I have now been called antisemitic and intellectually unstable and a whole bunch of other silly things by the folks over at the Commentary blog. They want Time Magazine to fire or silence me. This is happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society: There is a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who unsuccessfully tried to get Benjamin Netanyahu to attack Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, and then successfully helped provide the intellectual rationale for George Bush to do it in 2003. Their motivations involve a confused conflation of what they think are Israel’s best interests with those of the United States. They are now leading the charge for war with Iran.

Roger Cohen

Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran “its sophistication and culture” than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I’m a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran. Or perhaps I was impressed that the fury over Gaza, trumpeted on posters and Iranian TV, never spilled over into insults or violence toward Jews. Or perhaps it’s because I’m convinced the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran and likening of any compromise with it to Munich 1938 — a position popular in some American Jewish circles — is misleading and dangerous.

Gabriel Kolko 

The result of the creation of a state called Israel was abysmal ... There is simply no rational reason that justifies the state’s creation. The outcome is a small state with a military ethos that pervades all aspects of Israel’s culture, its politics and, above all, its response to the existence of Arabs in its midst and at its borders. From its inception, the ideology of the early Zionists — of Labor Zionism as well as the rightist Revisionism that Vladimir Jabotinsky produced — embodied a commitment to violence, erroneously called self-defense, and a virtual hysteria. 

Henry Siegman

Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that “achievement,” one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world. The inevitability of such a transformation has been held out not by “Israel bashers” but by the country’s own leaders. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon referred to that danger, as did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who warned that Israel could not escape turning into an apartheid state if it did not relinquish “almost all the territories, if not all,” including the Arab parts of East Jerusalem.

Elmer Berger

Throughout his adult life Rabbi Elmer Berger’s definition of Judaism did not vary. In the introduction to his book A Partisan History of Judaism he wrote: “There are those who see Judaism as ‘the religion of the Jewish People.’ This book will not please them. For it indicates, unmistakably, that the origins of Judaism were not in ‘the Jewish people’ and that the best and finest of Judaism today transcends the Jewish people.” At the end of this same book, Elmer Berger succinctly gave his definition: “Judaism is to do justice and to have mercy and to walk humbly with God; and all the rest is commentary and of secondary importance.” It was from this perspective that Elmer Berger carefully and specifically documented his case against Zionism and against the oppressive character of the Zionist state. He called upon the state of Israel to de-Zionize, i.e. to cease being an exclusivist Jewish state granting by law rights and privileges to Jews not granted to non-Jews. He beseeched the state of Israel to develop as a truly democratic state, to be just and merciful to all people and thus to walk humbly with God.

Arthur Hays Sulzberger

Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times from 1935-1961, claimed that Zionism was to blame for some of the Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. He alleged in a 1946 speech that the refugee crisis during the war had been “a manageable, social and economic problem” until “the clamor for statehood introduced an insoluble political element” into the issue. “It is my judgment that thousands dead might now be alive” if “the Zionists” had put “less emphasis on statehood,” Sulzberger asserted. While this claim may seem outrageous, letters and statements by Zionist leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and Golda Meir do make it seem that the overriding goal of a Jewish state made individual lives secondary. For instance, Golda Meir instructed that only healthy Jews should be allowed to emigrate to Palestine, at a time when many Holocaust survivors were far from healthy.

Lessing J. Rosenwald

In 1944, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism and chairman of Sears, Roebuck & Company, equated the Zionist ideal of Jewish statehood with "the concept of a racial state -- the Hitlerian concept." 

Judge Richard Goldstone

Pursuing justice in this case [the charge of war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force] is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state. Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during the fighting will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice, and reveal an unacceptable hypocrisy. As a service to the hundreds of civilians who needlessly died and for the equal application of international justice, the perpetrators of serious violations must be held to account.

Other Jewish critics of Zionism and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians include renowned author Philip Roth, acclaimed poet Adrianne Rich, actor Ed Asner, actress Rosanne Barr, Sidney Hook, Jeff Halper, I. F. Stone, Paul Wellstone, Maxine Rodinson, Moshe Menuhin, Yehudi Menuhin, Alfred Lilienthal, Roger Cohen, Professor Don Peretz, journalist Eric Rouleau, Harvard Professor Sara Roy, Professor Jennifer Loewenstein, former South African government mnister Ronnie Kasrils, Professor Saul Landau, Professor Zachery Lochman, Professor Joel Beinin, Professor Ian Lustick, Professor Edward Herman, writer Stephen Lendman, Anthony Loewenstein, Professor Steven Zunes, Stanley Heller, Danny Schechter, Lenni Brenner, Jeff Blankfort, author and journalist Alain Gresh, Professor Cheryl Rubenberg, Professor Michael Selzer, Professor David Fromkin, Howard Zinn, author Seymour M. Hersh, Bob Simon, Senior CBS Foreign Correspondent Barry Lando, Democracy Now radio host Amy Goodman, media critic Norman Solomon, writer Bennett Muraskin, Professor Lawrence Davidson, Jerome M. Segal, Professor Mark Levine, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rabbi Brant Rosen, Jewish Voice for Peace activist Sydney Levy, Mark Braverman, author Phylis Bennis, journalist and editor David Finkel, Professor Mark Ellis, Joel Fischer, Professor Noel Ignatiev, Professor Bill Robinson, Allan C. Brownfeld editor of the American Council for Judaism Issues magazine, New York University Professor Bertrell Ollman, Dr. Gideon Polya, activist and writer Ralph Schoenman, writer Mike Marquisee, Swedish activists Snorre Lindquist and Lasse Wilhelmson, New York Times journalist Anthony Lewis, journalist Robert Scheer, journalist and blogger Philip Weiss, journalist Adam Horowitz, blogger Richard Silverstein, activist and writer Tim Wise, Professor Eric Alterman, Tsela Barr, Judith Laitman, Haley Michaels Pollack, Michelle Goldberg, activist and writer Adrienne Weller, Dan Leiberman editor of Alternative Insight, Dr. Marc Sapir, Hannah Mermelstein, Anna Baltzser, Professor Sharon Weill, Professor Randall Kuhn, author Ben Ehrenreich, Dr. Norton Mezvinsky, Dr. Joel Kovel and many other leading Jewish activists, intellectuals and religious figures.

Jewish and Israeli Peace and Humanitarian Organizations that have Opposed Israel's Racism, Apartheid and/or Ethnic Cleansing

Breaking the Silence (Israeli soldiers tell the truth about the Occupation)
Rabbis for Human Rights
Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions
B'Tselem
Jewish Voice for Peace
Gush Shalom

and many others ...

Monday, 14 May 2018

The Massace in Gaza unfolds as the Zionist-led USA spits on Palestine in Embassy move to Al Quds



"If you know who you can't criticise, you know who rules you."

So now we can only wait and see...Which nations will dare to criticise this and all other barbarous Israeli crimes - and which nations will be too weak and cowardly to speak out? Which nations will now call for sanctions on ISRAEL - and not on Iran or Russia? And which nations will finally call for 'regime change' in ISRAEL - and for an end to its racist and warmongering Zionist state???



From http://www.middleeasteye.net:

As of Monday afternoon, the Gaza Ministry of Health released the names of 43 Palestinians killed:

1. Ezz el-din Musa Mohamed Alsamaak, 14 years old

2. Wisaal Fadl Ezzat Alsheikh Khalil, 15 years old

3. Ahmed Adel Musa Alshaer, 16 years old

4. Saeed Mohamed Abu Alkheir, 16 years old

5. Ibrahim Ahmed Alzarqa, 18 years old

6. Eman Ali Sadiq Alsheikh, 19 years old

7. Zayid Mohamed Hasan Omar, 19 years old

8. Motassem Fawzy Abu Louley, 20 years old

9. Anas Hamdan Salim Qadeeh, 21 years old

10. Mohamed Abd Alsalam Harz, 21 years old

11. Yehia Ismail Rajab Aldaqoor, 22 years old

12. Mustafa Mohamed Samir Mahmoud Almasry, 22 years old

13. Ezz Eldeen Nahid Aloyutey, 23 years old

14. Mahmoud Mustafa Ahmed Assaf, 23 years old

15. Ahmed Fayez Harb Shahadah, 23 years old

16. Ahmed Awad Allah, 24 years old

17. Khalil Ismail Khalil Mansor, 25 years old

18. Mohamed Ashraf Abu Sitta, 26 years old

19. Bilal Ahmed Abu Diqah, 26 years old

20. Ahmed Majed Qaasim Ata Allah, 27 years old

21. Mahmoud Rabah Abu Maamar, 28 years old

22.Musab Yousef Abu Leilah, 28 years old

23. Ahmed Fawzy Altetr, 28 years old

24. Mohamed Abdelrahman Meqdad, 28 years old

25. Obaidah Salim Farhan, 30 years old

26. Jihad Mufid Al-Farra, 30 years old

27. Fadi Hassan Abu Salmi, 30 years old

28. Motaz Bassam Kamil Al-Nunu, 31 years old

29. Mohammed Riyad Abdulrahman Alamudi, 31 years old

30. Jihad Mohammed Othman Mousa, 31 years old

31. Shahir Mahmoud Mohammed Almadhoon, 32 years old

32. Mousa Jabr Abdulsalam Abu Hasnayn, 35 years old

33. Mohammed Mahmoud Abdulmoti Abdal’al, 39 years old

34. Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Hamdan, 27 years old

35. Ismail Khalil Ramadhan Aldaahuk, 30 years old

36. Ahmed Mahmoud Mohammed Alrantisi, 27 years old

37. Alaa Alnoor Ahmed Alkhatib, 28 years old

38. Mahmoud Yahya Abdawahab Hussain, 24 years old

39. Ahmed Abdullah Aladini, 30 years old

40. Saadi Said Fahmi Abu Salah, 16 years old

41. Ahmed Zahir Hamid Alshawa, 24 years old

42. Mohammed Hani Hosni Alnajjar, 33 years old

43. Fadl Mohamed Ata Habshy, 34 years old

Peace be upon them all.

حسبنا الله و نعم الوكيل

Sunday, 13 May 2018

Socialist Quotes for Sunday Reflection pt 10


"We should educate all Party members and other working people to become genuine patriots who first love their parents, spouses and children and further sincerely shed sweat and dedicate their all to spruce up their homes, villages and workplaces so that they are better than others' and add radiance to their country, their motherland."
- Kim Jong Un

........................

A Situationist critique of the decadence of the Mai 68 students:

“The millions of human beings who were shot, tortured, starved, treated like animals and made the object of a conspiracy of ridicule, can sleep in peace in their communal graves, for at least the struggle in which they died has enabled their descendants, isolated in their air-conditioned apartments, to believe, on the strength of their daily dose of television, that they are happy and free. The Communards went down, fighting to the last, so that you too could qualify for a Caribbean cruise.”
― Raoul Vaneigem

The sociologist Jacques Julliard made a very deep observation on this subject by underlining that the militants of Mai 68, when they denounced traditional values, “did not know that these values (honor, solidarity, heroism) were, by definition, the same as those of socialism, and that by terminating them, they opened the way to the triumph of bourgeois values: individualism, rational calculation, efficiency.”
- Alain de Benoist

....................

[Jalal Al-e-Ahmad, one of the inspirations of the Islamic revolution inf Iran, and who compared his task to that of Ernst Jünger]

"The important point is that we the people of the developing nations are not fabricating the machines. But, owing to economic and political determinants and to the global confrontation of rich and poor, we have had to be gentle and tractable consumers for the West's industrial goods or at best contented assemblers at low wages of what comes from the West. And this has necessitated our conforming ourselves, our governments, our cultures, and our daily lives to the machine. All we are we have had to conform to the measure of the machine. The one who created the machine has grown accustomed to this new god, its heaven and hell, over the course of two or three hundred years' gradual transformation. But what of the Kuwaiti who became acquainted with the machine only yesterday, or the Congolese, or myself as an Iranian ? How are we to vault over this three-hundred-year historical gap ?

We have been unable to preserve our own historicocultural character in the face of the machine and its fateful onslaught. Rather, we have been routed. We have been unable to take a considered stand in the face of this contemporary monster. So long as we do not comprehend the real essence, basis, and philosophy of Western civilization, only aping the West outwardly and formally (by consuming its machines), we shall be like the ass going about in a lion's skin. We know what became of him. Although the one who created the machine now cries out that it is stifling him, we not only fail to repudiate our assuming the garb of machine tenders, we pride ourselves on it. For two hundred years we have resembled the crow mimicking the partridge (always supposing that the West is a partridge and we are a crow). So long as we remain consumers, so long as we have not built the machine, we remain occidentotic. Our dilemma is that once we have built the machine, we will have become mechanotic, just like the West, crying out at the way technology and the machine have stampeded out of control."
- Jalal Al-e Ahmad, "Occidentosis: A Plague From the West", 1962, pp. 30-31

.................

UNRWA are terrorists

The SMPBI has been campaigning since the 7th October Massacre in Israel for the paliarstinan terrorists to be exposed for the murdering filt...