mercredi 30 septembre 2009

Staline lucide

"Le Sionisme veut dominer le monde. Il se vengera de nos succès et accomplissements. Le Sionisme international avec toute sa puissance s'efforcera à détruire notre Union de sorte que notre pays ne puisse jamais se rétablir."


"Zionism strives for world domination. It will take revenge for all our successes and achievements. International Zionism with all its power will strive to destroy our Union, so that our country would never recover."


-- Joseph Staline (Août 1939)


 












This is a grotesque but accurate representation of the vile, ugly and brutal Bolshevik revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, whose intellectual disciples evolved into the ruling elite in hard-line Zionist “neo-conservative” circles in America today. How “left wing” Trotskyite elements rose to power in the United States by infiltrating the “right wing”— while working to eviscerate traditional American nationalism — is part of the amazing panorama outlined in The Judas Goats.



Nationalism vs Internationalism – Uncovering the Judas Goats

Uncovering the Judas Goats with Michael Collins Piper

By Curt Maynard
Having just finished reading Michael Collins Piper’s latest book The Judas Goats, I am once again amazed by his insightful analysis of what is truly one of the greatest problems facing the world today and that is the misunderstanding of nationalism and what that means for the future of mankind. My own view on the matter is admittedly simple, I see, in the words of Zeppelin front man Robert Plant, “two paths we can go by,” and that is either Internationalism or Nationalism. We already have Internationalism as manifested by the frenetic pursuit in establishing the global economy and with it the inevitable emergence of a one world government, a “New World Order,” by any other name. The Zionist media would have us believe that it’s inevitable, that it can’t be stopped, but the fact is, this idea is founded on nothing more than the mantras associated with it. Nationalism has received nothing but bad press in the Zionist dominated media ever since WWII, and when bad press alone wasn’t able to stop the materialization of Nationalist thought somewhere in the world, the Zionists pressured their proxy agent, the United States of America to intercede in some manner, usually militarily. This is exactly what happened in Serbia, after the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Serbs sought to establish, rightfully, their suzerainty over an area that had traditionally been heavily Slavic in orientation, but was also mixed with Turks and their descendants.
The Zionist media never attempted to understand the Serbian point of view, rather they sought only to stifle the expression of Nationalism among the Serb people; they saw the emergence of Serbia under Milosevic as a threat and for that reason and that reason alone, the Zionist media found itself allied with Muslims in Bosnia, Macedonia, and Albania. It wasn’t out of a sense of altruism and benevolence that the Zionists allied themselves with the region’s Muslims as clearly evidenced by the recent conduct of the Zionist state of Israel in the Middle East, and their co-ethnics coverage of the wars in the American, Canadian, French, German and British media, it was simply a matter of stifling the expression of Nationalist sentiment among a population in Eastern Europe. They’d do the same if that expression manifested itself in Southeast Asia or Central and South America. Nationalism is the greatest enemy of Internationalism; they are diametrically opposed political paradigms and cannot coexist in perpetuity. It is essential, in the minds of the power elite; that all expressions of Nationalism fail and fail quickly, lest someone notice that under such a system, a semblance of peace and prosperity might emerge; Nationalism cannot be part of the future they intend for the world, anymore than the expression of traditional Islamic thought and the societies built around such views.
I am in no way attempting to mitigate any atrocities the Serbs may have committed against the Muslims in the region, but I will say that atrocities have been committed on both sides, but only the Serbs were subjected to any media scrutiny. Because of the Zionist media, the entire world was aware of the so called ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs, yet very few people in America are today aware of the fact that many Serbs have been ethnically cleansed and/or murdered by their former victims since Serbia’s capitulation following the American led bombing campaign.
However, Nationalism, unlike Internationalism, can respect the sovereignty of another nation. Nationalism, according to Wikipedia can be defined as “an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. Nationalism makes certain political claims based upon this belief: above all, the claim that the nation is the only legitimate basis for the state, that each nation is entitled to its own state, and that the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.” Internationalism on the other hand demands that there be no borders or national sovereignty, in a nutshell Internationalism is a theory constructed around the idea that “members of the working class should act in solidarity towards world revolution and support working people in other countries, rather than following their respective national governments. Proletarian internationalism is summed up in the slogan, Workers of all countries, unite!,” which according to Wikipedia, “is the last line of The Communist Manifesto.”
What that means of course is that nation states, and their inhabitants, cannot expect to have their sovereign rights recognized in an Internationalist world, they cannot expect any real level of security, if the media says that a country is engaged in activities that aren’t conducive to the views of the “free” world [meaning the media apparatus] then that nations government, regardless of whether or not it was democratically elected to power, can expect to be overthrown in one way or another, either from the inside by way of a treasonous coup or from the outside in some ambiguous “police action.” That’s just the way it is, either we embrace a political philosophy that has a modicum of respect for the sovereignty of the nation state and its people or we adopt an approach that respects nothing but raw power and intrigue, cloaking itself in the so called respectability of “world consensus.”
Although Piper’s book The Judas Goats is full of pertinent information from beginning to end, some of its greatest points were established in the last dozen pages. In respect to exposing Zionist intrigue and its influence in the American media and on the American government, Piper states that we [inclusive in every sense] “can no longer assume that the average American knows what better informed Americans know. For they don’t know what we know. It’s our job to make average Americans know what we know by simply telling them the truth in no uncertain, vague or “coded” terms.”[1] Truer words have never been spoken, the Zionists cannot operate in the light of day, they cannot continue their charade if they are being scrutinized, thus they rely on subterfuge and deception in order to keep the sheep in the dark. At this juncture there is no longer any point or purpose to holding back, we don’t have much more time, we either extricate ourselves from the grip of Jewish Supremacism in the very near future or we capitulate to the slavery the Zionist entity has in mind for us all. It’s time to call a spade a spade!
Piper states in no uncertain terms, “We can no longer continue worrying about offending ‘the nice Jewish man next door whose sister lives in Israel’… If the nice Jewish man resents the fact that grassroots Americans don’t like the way the Israeli lobby is dictating U.S. foreign policy to the detriment of America’s interests, that’s his problem.”[2]
There is no other choice, the time is now, we either break free or we submit totally to what the New World Order has in store for us.
Piper’s book was written with the intent of exposing the numerous “Judas Goats,” or traitors within the ranks of the American Nationalist movement, which additionally includes the traditional conservative movement as well, but the book becomes considerably more than that, it’s a veritable treatise outlining the subversive strategies employed by America’s power elite – Piper uncovers and fully exposes the Machiavellian policies employed against the American people themselves, and how the government works hand in hand with the media apparatus to betray the very people they are supposed to protect. More so than any other book I aware of, Piper’s book details how the Zionist power elite infiltrate every single movement in the United States, whether it be of the socialist, nationalist, or anarchist persuasion, whether it be right-wing or left-wing, whether it be conservative or liberal, the groups are infiltrated and either steered away from any platform that might include criticism of Israel, Zionism or organized Jewry or they are thoroughly discredited, usually as a result of actions taken from within the group by the Judas Goats themselves and the inevitable negative media coverage that is certain to follow. Zionists have totally dominated African-America movements over the last 100 years and are currently worming their way into pro-illegal immigrant movements here in the United States in an effort to do what they have always done in the past, infiltrate, dominate or destroy.
Piper sums it up by penning:
“Even more politically astute Americans fail to understand how U.S. government intelligence agencies and allied private spy organizations not only infiltrate undercover agents into “dissident” organizations of both the “left” and the “right,” but even also “create” dissident groups in order to monitor the dissenters. Government infiltration, manipulation and outright creation of political movements in America has a long and sordid history – and one that did not begin in America.”
By saying that of course, Piper means this type of government behavior originated in Russia under the Bolsheviks, which as we all know by now means under the Jewish Supremacists that absolutely dominated the Bolshevik government of the early Soviet Union. Piper successfully ties in the so called “neo-conservative,” movement of today, with its true Trotskyite origins, he reveals that there isn’t a dimes worth of a difference between the Internationalists under Leon Trotsky and the Internationalists of the modern era – they still seek to spread their poison around the world with the ultimate goal of establishing a One World Government under the tutelage of Talmudic Judaism and destroying anyone or anything that stands in their way. In a recent “Open Letter to the President of Iran,” the illustrious John “Birdman” Bryant noted the fact that the neo-conservatives,” have even gone so far as to hire former KGB and Stasi officials to properly prepare the way for the introduction of the modern American Police State.
Piper leads off The Judas Goats in the way of an introduction with the following words, “Nationalism is the wave of the future [and is the] prime target of the global forces of Zionism and Internationalism.”
Without a doubt Piper is correct, nationalism must be the way of the future, with two paths before us, one in which the world is composed of many nation states governed by representatives of such states or one in which a One World Government sweeps aside all pretense and the few govern the masses with an iron hand and the cruelty of an impersonal bureaucracy, the likes of which we have never seen before, nor could even imagine, we must choose nationalism, we don’t really have a choice, it’s a matter of freedom or slavery, life or death.
In The Judas Goats, Piper introduces the reader to several tried and true nationalists, good people like Willis Carto, Pat Buchanan, and Eustace Mullins, individuals that have sacrificed a great deal so that future Americans might learn that America hasn’t always embraced the Internationalist worldview it does today and the author also introduces the reader to the Judas Goats themselves, people like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Moore, David Horowitz, Oliver North and many, many others. The aforementioned care not what happens to their neighbor, all they care about is the wealth and fame that comes along with their treasonous duplicity – they cast their neighbor to the crocodile hoping to be the last eaten.
The author reveals James Mitchell Rosenberg, the “ADL’s favorite Nazi,” a Jew who infiltrated the American far right back in the late 1970’s, pretending to be a non-Jew named “Jimmy Anderson,” who then became one of the most ‘outspoken and outrageous American “right wing” extremists’” of all time, inciting racial violence at every opportunity, all the while dressed in a Nazi uniform. Eventually Rosenberg’s true identity was discovered and he has since faded from the scene, but not before the damage was done, he had done his part to discredit nationalism by “creating” problems where none had previously existed and then calling on his friends in the media to cover his violent rhetoric in an effort to alienate the average American from anything that even sounded like nationalism. Piper also details the story behind another ADL “plant,” a gentleman named Mordechai Levy who assumed the moniker “James Guttman,” in an effort to infiltrate the Klan and generate as much negative attention as possible by staging a rally where he hoped to foment violence and capture it on video, editing it where necessary, so that that he might show that Klan in the worst possible light – fortunately he wasn’t successful and nobody got hurt.
The author convincingly proves that the John Birch Society itself, an organization considered for years to be the paragon of American conservatism, was in actuality nothing more than a CIA/FBI/ADL front, set up in order to monitor the American conservative movement from the inside and to subvert any and all expressions of true nationalism among its membership. Piper also details the story of one Roy Bullock, an ADL mole that attempted to infiltrate the Liberty Lobby – fortunately Piper saw through his lies and identified him early on as an agent provocateur, and he wasn’t able to do any damage to the Liberty Lobby or The Spotlight, an associated publication world famous for its fearless journalism. Eventually Roy Bullock became embroiled in an embarrassing scandal of monumental proportions involving the ADL and the Los Angeles police department – Bullock had been using a police officer named Tom Gerard to steal information from LAPD files and then was passing it along to the ADL, information they had no right to have, and no doubt intended to use against whomever it was they were seeking information on. The entire scandal blew up in the face of the ADL, but much of it went unnoticed by average Americans because the largely Jewish media suppressed the story and its implications.
Uncovering an excellent source, Piper cites a gentleman by the name of Morris Horton within the body of The Judas Goats who had some special insight into the Zionist question. A voice from the past, Horton reinforces Piper’s modern day thesis in that he wrote in 1969:
“There is no genuine validity in either the “Right” or the “Left” positions in politics. These are artificial Jew invented positions. Jewish control of communications is absolutely essential to the success of this power system. Jewish political quackery would not long survive exposure. The Right-Left age is the Jewish age, and it is an age which, on the world stage, is now receding into the past. If America continues to live in this past, then America has no future.”[3]
Of course Morris meant that the Zionist media exploited the so-called differences between the right and left in order to dominate the issues themselves – the Zionist media could be relied on to emphasize what supported the Zionist agenda and suppress what didn’t. This isn’t something new, patriotic Americans have been quite vocal about Jewish control of the American media for more than ninety years. Such eminent American military officers as General Mosley, General Patton, General Fries, General Willoughby, General Wedemeyer, General Stratemeyer, General Pedro del Valle were convinced to a man that Jews wielded a disproportionate influence in various American institutions but most especially in the media, where they felt public opinion was being manipulated in such a way as to advance Jewish interests [Later Zionist interests] and discredit those who sought to draw the American peoples attention to these matters. It is safe to say that no other American minority group has to the extent of Jews been accused of the same manipulative and/or hegemonic influence. As an example, one never hears the idea that African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Arab-Americans dominate the media; it is and has always been always Jewish-Americans.
In an article this blogger wrote earlier this year entitled “There’s the Big Lie and then there’s the Really Big Lie,” I pointed out that the so called “Big Lie,” didn’t originate with whom the media would like you to believe it did, that is Adolf Hitler, the term was utilized by Hitler to describe a technique Jews had been using through their monopoly on the German press as far back as first decade of the Twentieth Century in Germany – and that is the creation or fabrication of history and the present. The modern American media would have you believe that 9-11 was carried out by 19 Arabs armed with box cutters, and a deep hatred towards Americans because of our “freedoms,” despite the overwhelming evidence that implicates the United States government itself, the state of Israel and the Zionist Fifth Column media here in America. This is an example of the “Big Lie,” at work – who would ever believe that our own government, and a so-called Middle Eastern ally with the complicity of the mainstream media would ever engage in the mass murder of American citizens? It’s outrageous! It’s too fantastic to even consider! It’s crazy! Nonetheless there it is, there is no way in hell that 9-11 was carried out by 19 Arabs with bad attitudes. There is no way in hell that the World Trade Center towers [plural] collapsed as a result of being hit by airplanes. There is no way in hell that building number 7 should have collapsed that day either, after all it wasn’t even hit by an airplane, but it did, all 47 stories of it.
Fortunately Americans seem to be in the early stages of figuring this out – a poll released by CBS News on 10/09/06 revealed that 83% of those polled believe George Bush is either lying about why we’re in Iraq or is “hiding something.” The truth is, George Bush is both lying and hiding something – he’s hiding the fact that he’s complicit in 9-11 and used the treasonous attacks as an excuse to lie to the American public in an effort to further the Zionist agenda by justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Zio-American government is just about ready to launch another terrorist attack, but this time it’ll be used as an excuse to attack Iran. Will we, the American people stand for it again? Will we willingly give up our children to be drafted and ground to pieces by the Zionist war machine?
Will we continue to tolerate a media that splashes the face of any Arab that happens to be supportive of the Palestinians plight all over the cover of every news magazine, newspaper, and television network in this country, all the while denouncing him as a terrorist, when that same media refuses to report stories that are vastly more significant, but involve Jews committing acts of terror against the people of the United States of America? This is happening right now, at this moment, did you know that Al Qaeda’s most recent spokesperson is an American Jew from California named Adam Pearlman whose grandfather was a board member of the Anti-Defamation League? It’s a fact, yet the media isn’t telling you that. Have you heard of Ariel Weinmann? No? You should have, he was arrested approximately five months ago for having stolen Top Secret data directly related to America’s National Security in that it was connected with to the targeting of nuclear missiles and gave it to Israel? Did you know that the American media did everything it could to lie about Weinmann, to suggest that he wasn’t a Jew and that he didn’t give that information to the Zionist state? It’s true!
Piper’s The Judas Goats is a book that explains how all this happens – it discards pointless ambiguities and gets right to the core of the problem. One cannot afford not to have Michael Collins Piper’s book The Judas Goats in their research library, it’s a must have, especially as an addition two of Piper’s other books, The High Priests of War and The New Jerusalem.

[1] Piper, Michael C. The Judas Goats. 2006. American Free Press. Pg. 343.
[2] Piper, Michael C. The Judas Goats. 2006. American Free Press. Pg. 344.
[3] Piper, Michael C. The Judas Goats. 2006. American Free Press. Pg. 150

Article Source: Curt Maynard’s Newest Blog

Source: The Judas Goats -- The Enemy Within (p.148-154):


On September 15, 1969, writing in the popular American nationalist newspaper, Common Sense, which had, over the years, frequently featured the works of outspoken Jewish-born American anti-Zionist spokesman Benjamin Freedman, one Morris Horton (under his pen name “Fred Farrell”) wrote a fascinating assessment of the reality of Trotskyite Communism. Horton wrote in part:
Originally “Communism” was nothing but a tool of the
wealthy American Jews of New York. In the United States,
and in much of the rest of the world, it is still just that. Let
us now address ourselves to a question important to anyone
who really wants to understand Communism:“What is the
difference between a Stalinist and a Trotskyite? Some people
will tell you:“All Communists are alike.”
This is a dangerous piece of shallow misinformation. It
is acceptable only if you are willing to substitute shallow
sloganeering for real knowledge. A Stalinist represents pri-
mordial Russian nationalism. A Trotskyite represents the
Jewish interests of New York City. The Jewish interests of
New York suffered a terrific setback one day many years
ago, when a taciturn hood planted an ax in Leon Trotsky’s
skull in a villa in Mexico.
The world Communist conspiracy is not a Russian con-
spiracy; it is an American Jewish conspiracy.Today it is falling
into great disrepute around the world. America is being
blamed for supporting communism around the world.
Unhappily, the charge is true. New York is the real hub of the
conspiracy. If some of our Anti-Communists would stand up
four square and tell this plain truth, we might possibly yet
be liberated from Jewish misrule.
Few of them ever do.
Most of the Communists and many of the Anti-
Communists are on the same payroll, the Jewish payroll.
They carry on a sham battle with each other.The first basic
rule of this sham battle is:“Never drag any real truth into the
matter on either side; tell anything else you want to tell, but
never tell the truth.” This is the basic background of most of
the phony “experts” on Communism who have been “exper-
ting” about it for forty years and haven’t made a dent in it.

Horton was particularly adamant in pointing out that the American “anti-Communist” movement was increasingly falling into the hands of very real Communists—the Trotskyites—who in the guise of “fighting Communism” were actually working to introduce it into the American system. This is a point that few anti-communists understood then and even today they find it difficult to digest. Horton wrote:

These people generate the literature on Communism
that is generally available to the American public.They have
no interest in providing any genuinely valid information.
Their aim is to manipulate public opinion.
Therefore, they seek to divide the Gentile.They seek to
make the middle class believe that the working class is allied
to Red Russia; All of this is, and always was, pure hallucina-
tion, generated by Jewish intellectual quacks in order to pro-
mote a minority tyranny over the American Majority.


In his essay, Horton emphasized that the age-old labels of “Right” and “Left” no longer had any real meaning—a point that even many legitimate and self-styled modern-day American “conservatives” of the 21st century have yet to realize:

There is no genuine validity in either the “Right” or
“Left” positions in politics.These are artificial, Jew-invented
positions. Jewish control of communications is absolutely
essential to the success of this power system. Jewish politi-
cal quackery would not long survive exposure.
The Right-Left Age is the Jewish Age, and it is an age
which, on the world stage, is now receding into the past. If
America continues to live in this Jewish past, then America
has no future.


Horton’s words—written nearly 50 years ago—continue to reverberate. But to drive home the point further, it is worth reviewing a translation of an analysis of Zionism published in Spanish in the November 4, 1979 edition of Granma, the official newspaper voice of the communist regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
(Similar versions of this had previously appeared in the Soviet Union, at a time when there were increasing public noises against Zionism, much to the dismay of the American Trotskyites who were then reinventing themselves as “the neo-conservatives.”
While this analysis from the communist point of view has been superceded by the collapse of the Soviet empire as it existed when this document was first published, it contains fascinating insights into the sources of tension between Zionism and Communism.
The Zionist movement, created by the Jewish big bour-
geoisie at the end of the 19th century, was born with a
decidedly counterrevolutionary purpose. From the founding
of the World Zionist Organization in 1897 to the present,
Zionism, as ideology and political practice, has opposed the
world revolutionary process.
Zionism is counterrevolutionary in a global sense in
that it acts the world over against the three major forces of
revolution: the socialist community, the working class move-
ment in capitalist countries and the movement for national
liberation.
Zionist counterrevolution began by making inroads in
the European working class movement. In the early years,
when the growth of monopoly capitalism and the expan-
sion of reactionary tendencies that accompanied the estab-
lishment of the imperialist phase of capitalism demanded
the unity and solidarity of the proletariat, the Zionists
focused on dividing the working class.
They propagated the thesis that all non-Jews were, and
would always be, anti-Semites; asserted that the only possi-
bility for the Jewish masses’ well-being and justice was to
emigrate to the “promised land”; and defended class collab-
oration, thus diverting the Jewish proletariat away from the
struggle for their real emancipation and dividing and weak-
ening the working class movement. It’s not fortuitous that in
czarist police archives one finds documents calling for sup-
port for the Zionist movement as a way of stemming the tide
of proletarian revolution.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote at the
time in his diary:“All our youth; all those who are from 20 to
30 years old, will abandon their obscure socialist tendencies
and come over to me.”
However, the efforts of Zionist counterrevolution
could not hold back the wheels of history.The victory of the
Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia ushered in a
period of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world
scale. The first victory of the proletariat, the premise of
future victories, was a heavy blow to Zionism.
Most of the money that filled Zionist coffers came from
Russia, where czarism had humiliated and oppressed the
Jews for centuries. Russia provided a million immigrants for
the Zionist colonization of Palestine. When the Russian
Revolution liquidated the exploitation of man by man, it also
destroyed the basis for Zionism in the Soviet Union.
Leninist policy on the national question toppled all
Zionist myths that the Jews could not be fully incorporated,
with equal rights, into society and destroyed all the racist
claims on the inevitability of anti-Semitism. The Zionists
never did, and never will, forgive the Soviet state and its
Leninist Party, not so much for cutting off the money flow
from Russia and for the loss of workers for the colonization
effort, but because the Bolsheviks implemented a correct
policy that incorporated the talents and efforts of the Soviet
Jews into the tasks of building a new society and thus
demonstrated the class origins of discrimination and anti-
Semitism, breaking with the past and providing a genuine
solution to the Jewish problem, a solution which was not
and could never be a massive exodus to Palestine.
Zionist counterrevolution took on an anti-Soviet
thrust. Before October 1917 the Zionists collaborated with
Kerensky. Later they supported all the attempts at counter-
revolution and enthusiastically participated in the different
white “governments” set up in different parts of the country
during the Civil War [in Russia].They were active in all the
moves against the Soviet Union from abroad, and their pow-
erful propaganda machine spread a spate of lies about the
first workers’ and peasants’ state in the world.
Not even the Soviet victory over German fascism,
which saved so many Jewish lives, made the Zionists change
their anti-Soviet stand.
With the outbreak of the cold war the Zionists collab-
orated in all the subversive and diversionary activities
against the USSR and other socialist countries. The secret
services of the Zionist state of Israel coordinated their spy
activities with the CIA. Zionist agents played an active role
in the counter-revolutionary attempts in Hungary and
Czechoslovakia.
Today Zionism seconds the hypocritical anti-Soviet
campaign on presumed violations of the human rights of
Jews in the Soviet Union and does all it can to put pressure
on Soviet citizens of Jewish origin so they will leave their
true homeland and go to Israel.This effort by Zionist coun-
terrevolution can only lead to new failures. And to complete
the picture there is the Zionist counterrevolutionary action
against the national liberation movements.
Soon after World War I, Zionist settlers penetrated into
Palestinian territory, acting as the spearhead of British impe-
rialist interests in opposition to the Arab peoples’ hopes for
independence. Their role was clearly spelled out by the
prominent Zionist leader Max Nordau in a statement to the
British authorities:
“We know what you want from us: that we defend the
Suez Canal.We must defend your route to India which pass-
es through the Middle East.We are ready to take on that dif-
ficult task. But you must allow us to become powerful
enough to carry out that task.”
And, as a matter of fact, the Zionists became a power
and succeeded in establishing their own state in 1948: the
Zionist state of Israel. Now their task is to defend oil routes,
protect all the interests of U.S. imperialism and block the
advance of the Arab revolution.
Backed by tremendous amounts of imperialist eco-
nomic and military aid, the Zionists are constantly acting
against national liberation movements.
At one time it was their mission to penetrate African
and Asian independence movements, guarantee that the
newly independent states followed paths acceptable to
imperialism, that they not stray from the confines of neo-
colonialism. Israel offered courses, advisers, all sorts of aid.
But the ploy wasn’t very successful. Israel’s increasing
role as imperialism’s policeman in the Middle East, its racism
and avowed expansionism made the young African and
Asian nations see the dangers of Israeli “aid,”the treachery of
Israeli foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the Zionist state took up a new role in
the struggle of world reaction against progress. It went
beyond the geographical confines of the Middle East, estab-
lished friendly ties with all reactionary regimes and began to
supply arms, equipment and advisers to those who were try-
ing to suppress national liberation struggles.
The Israeli armaments industry specialized in design-
ing and producing all sorts of weapons for urban and rural
anti-guerrilla warfare.
The South African racist regime, the dictatorships of
Guatemala and El Salvador, and the fascist Pinochet are
among the best clients of the Israeli armaments industry.
Israeli arms sales in 1978 were estimated at $400 million.
One of their best clients was the Nicaraguan dictator
Anastasio Somoza.
Zionist counterrevolution was present in Somoza’s
Nicaragua in the form of Galil guns and Pull-push planes, but
they couldn’t stop the victory of the Sandinista revolution-
aries.
This is a symbol of our times: neither the machinations
of Zionist counterrevolution, nor Israeli arms, can hold back
the victorious march of the peoples of the world.
(END OF THE GRANMA ARTICLE)







Trotskyite Communism -- Now Called 'Neo-Conservatism' --
And The Story Behind Senator Joseph R. McCarthy


Excerpt from Chp.14 of Michael Collins Piper's
book
"The Judas Goats" (2006)



What follows is the text (slightly annotated for purposes of clarity) of a sworn statement that De West Hooker (1918-1999) executed on September 30, 1954 outlining his findings about the role of the self-styled "American Jewish League Against Communism" and how it was manipulating then Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy's efforts to investigate communism in high places in the American system. The affidavit reads:


"I had an astounding interview for two hours some time ago with Norman L. Marks of the American Jewish League Against Communism, Inc. As a matter of fact, I was brought along by another party, and Mr. Marks did not know anything about me (hence he really opened up because the person who took me was "trusted" by him). The AJLAC has offices at 220 West 42nd Street, New York City. Its national chairman is Alfred Kohlberg. Its executive director is Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, and its treasurer is Harry Pasternak. Listed on its national board are the following: Bern Dibner, Lawrence Fertig, Theodore Fine, Benjamin Gitlow, Hon. Walter R. Hart, Herman Kashins, Eugene Lyons, Norman L. Marks, Morris Ryskind, Rabbi David S. Savitz, Nathan D. Shapiro, George E. Sokolsky, Maurice Tishman, Rabbi Ascher M. Yager.
http://www.henrymakow.com/hooker1.jpg[DeWest Hooker, left]

I swear under oath to you that the following is as accurate as it is possible to put down from memory an hour or so later. Also, the information can be verified by the other unnamed party.

Mr. Marks, listed above and on the letterhead of the AJLAC as a member of the national board, said: "Far and away the principal financial contributor to the AJLAC is Mr. Bernard Baruch." When questioned on this point as to what percentage he would say Mr. Baruch contributed, he answered: "About 85% or 90% of the funds."

I said that I had thought Mr. Kohlberg was the main contributor to the AJLAC and Mr. Marks answered: "Well, he contributes some but nothing like what Baruch contributes." I asked Mr. Marks why Baruch's name did not appear on the letterhead. He stated that Baruch was very emphatic about NOT having his name appear on the letterhead, and that it was to be unknown that he contributed funds to it.

Mr. Marks said that the organization was entirely Jewish but that a funny thing was that many of the founders of it seemed to have "Christian" wives. He said that they used to meet every Thursday at the Ambassador Hotel for lunch and talk about the world situation. Marks said that the organization would not accept either a "Christian in it" or a "Christian dime of support" and that no Christian money had ever been accepted in the past--that it was completely a Jewish organization and financed by them.

He said there were only two purposes for its founding: That the Number One purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support Zionism. He said that: "for a while there, almost all the spies of the Communists that were turned up were Jews and that they had become concerned, and thought that something should be done to take the sting off the Jews. They wanted to show the Christian world that ALL Jews were not Communists."

When asked just how they went about this whole project, Mr. Marks said: "It's impossible for a Christian to get away with criticizing the Jews. Only a Jew can do that."

He went on: "And so we got together a strong group of Jews that "were known to be anti-Communists" and started our campaign of pressure from our point of view."

[According to Hooker's original affidavit, Marks' reference to those who were said to be "anti-Communists" actually meant that the Jewish leaders in question were, as Hooker put it, "meaning anti-Stalinist."--Ed.]

Marks stated: "We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by the investigations through his sub-committee."

Mr. Marks stated that a lot of Jews called McCarthy an anti-Semite but little did they know that "he is the best friend the Jews ever had."

[Hooker noted of McCarthy that "Eventually they destroyed him anyway when he started calling up Jewish Communists later on."--Ed.]

Marks went on to say that "other investigations might have turned up Jews and McCarthy had been given credit for them, but that if we traced the record back, we would find that McCarthy actually did not call up a single Jew in that period when the heat was on the Jews." He later qualified these remarks by saying that "while McCarthy was operating as a temporary subcommittee under the Truman administration, he did not call up any Jews; that when he once got himself elected as the chairman of the permanent investigating committee, in the new administration, he then began to call witnesses "as they came." [That is, whether the witnesses were "Jewish or not," according to Hooker--Ed.]
http://www.henrymakow.com/chimage.jpeg
Mr, Marks continued: "But that doesn't make much difference now because he accepted our own men to work right with him. For example, he accepted as his top man next to him our man Roy Cohn, left, which was arranged through another of our men, George Sokolsky."

If memory serves me correctly, Marks stated that Julius Kahn was also their man on the McCarthy committee, but who was now on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He definitely stated that David Schine was NOT with the AJLAC but that he was put there by "another group which I don't know about."

Mr. Marks went on to say that "not only is McCarthy under our control but so are Jenner and Velde, who also took our men to work right with them. Benny Mandel and Robert Morris represent us on the Jenner Committee." He mentioned Robert Kunzig as "their man" for Velde. Marks also stated definitely that Professor Louis Budenz was under "their control" and one of "their men," and that he was working to take the "heat" off the Jews.

[Budenz was a well-known "ex-communist" who became a leading figure in the so-called anti-communist movement, key elements of which had come under the control of the Zionist and Trotskyite elements. Hooker's revelations explain why--Ed.]

He stated that [Alfred] Kohlberg, their national chairman, was the one who "found" Budenz when he was testifying in Washington and Kohlberg "picked him up and practically supported him for a while in order to get him started and built up to the man he is today in the anti-Communist movement."

Marks also stated that they got "their man Robert Morris" elected recently as a judge in New York City, and that Victor Lasky was another one of their men who did a lot of "press work" for them, and "made speeches favoring their people, for example, Robert Morris." He said, "All these people agreed to take the 'heat' off the Jews."

I recall now another statement by Mr. Marks that "there is a vast pooling of information in the New York City area and throughout the country which is connected with our organization."

I asked if J. B. Matthews and his files were in on "the deal" and he said: "Yes, we have access to all of his files."

[J. B. Matthews was a prominent "anti-communist crusader" in the period, but, clearly, under the control of the Zionist-Trotskyites.--Ed.]

He said that they have at least "thirty Communists on our payroll who report information to us," and that "we know everything that goes on in this field."

Mr, Marks told all the above information as if there was nothing "wrong" with what he was saying. He even invited me and this other unnamed fellow to go to a meeting the following Tuesday night at the University Club, sponsored by Norman Lombard.

When they finally found out who I was, however, I was told by Norman Lombard and Norman Marks not to come to the meeting. I sure hope that the true patriotic American nationalists will be able to straighten out a few of these "pseudo-patriots" who are trying to lead the so-called "anti-communist" movement.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm just as anti-Communist as any of you, but I don't want our country to be led head-long into traps which enable these pseudo-patriots to "use" the fine instincts of the American people and the anti-Communist movement for their own diabolical ends. In other words, some of these pseudo-patriots are "anti-Communist," meaning "anti-Stalin communism," but are pro- as hell another form of Communism (American brand) leading to dictatorship by them in our own country and the rest of the world under Bernard Baruch and the crowd he represents.


[The "American brand" of communism to which Hooker referred, although he didn't say it directly, was precisely the Trotskyite brand, then in its evolution, that has come today to be known as "neo-conservatism." --Ed.]

(Signed) DeWest Hooker



INTRO TO THE BOOK THE JUDAS GOATS:




Russian-born hard-line Jewish nationalist Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky (1880-1940) — often called “The Jewish Fascist” — is revered by the Trotskyite “neoconservatives” who are the most pivotal forces in global Zionism today, exploiting U.S. military power in the drive for a planetary imperium: the New World Order. In the 1920s Jabotinsky emerged as one of the most popular and influential Zionist leaders and is today commemorated on Israeli currency (inset). Many young graduates of Jabotinsky’s militaristic Betar brigades (above) became members of the infamous Irgun, which pioneered modern-day terrorism in brutal attacks on British forces and Arab civilians in Palestine. Later, the Irgun and their allies became the foundation of the modern-day “right wing” Likud faction in Israel. Although the American media glorifies Jewish nationalism, all other forms of nationalism are vilified as a cause of war and oppression.

By Way of an Introduction:

Nationalism: The Wave of the Future —
The Prime Target of the Global Forces
of Zionism and Internationalism

. . .THE JUDAS GOATS — THE ENEMY WITHIN examines the manner in which internationalist forces have worked to take over and/or destroy legitimate, genuine, traditional nationalist movements in the United States during the 20th century. As such, it seems appropriate to begin our journey into this shadowy netherworld of spies and subversion by first defining precisely what constitutes “nationalism” in the American sense.
. . .Nationalism — in its various incarnations throughout history and all across the globe — has always been and certainly always will be a preeminent factor in dictating the course of mankind’s direction. Nationalism and the counter-force of internationalism together form the axis around which the events of our world today revolve. There is hardly any conflict anywhere on the face of the planet that does not hinge upon the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. So what then is nationalism?
. . .In America alone, the word nationalism means many different things to many different people — including those who consider themselves to be nationalists or rank themselves as part of “the nationalist movement.”
. . .The “nationalist movement” in America has always been quite internally quarrelsome, at times so philosophically disjointed that it almost seems a double misnomer to dare describe the phenomenon as either “nationalist” or as a “movement” at all.
. . .There are many (albeit naïve) classic “rock-ribbed Republicans” who would call themselves nationalists — however inappropriately — revering the “Big Stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, reveling in the idea that Uncle Sam should make his presence and his considerable military might felt ‘round the globe — America right or wrong. This, to these folks, is “nationalism”— but, of course, it isn’t, although the modern-day “neo-conservatives” who relish the thought of using America to advance the worldwide Zionist agenda have been quite ready to exploit “TR” as almost one of their own.
. . .In marked contrast to these “neo-conservatives,” there are many other Americans — who truly are nationalists in the classic sense of the word — who question the very idea that the United States should act as a world policeman, putting out brushfire wars and advancing some undefined dream of “democracy,” which has now become the rallying cry of the neo-conservative (that is, Zionist-Trotskyite) schemers.
. . .In fact, the genuine American nationalists, as opposed to the “neocons” (who truly are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism — not internationalism — is the indispensable bulwark of American independence.”
. . .In his now long-forgotten, but still quite timely, volume, The Trail of a Tradition (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1926), Vandenberg sought to define the American nationalist tradition in the context of U.S. engagement with the world at large — from the days of our Founding Fathers through the era of Woodrow Wilson and the attempt to enforce a world regime through the engine of the failed League of Nations.
. . .In the end, of course, Vandenberg himself underwent a remarkable transformation — thanks largely, it appears, to having been blackmailed and otherwise “influenced” by British intelligence operatives — and shifted into the internationalist camp — acting as an outspoken advocate of free-wheeling U.S. involvement in global affairs. However, in his early years,Vandenberg was indeed very much a part of what we might rightly call the genuine “nationalist” camp — one that occupied quite a large bit of territory in the land of American political thought.
. . .Another area where self-described “nationalists” seem to part company is on the ever-important issue of trade. There, the conflict between real nationalism and the internationalist, imperial perversion of “nationalism” is critical to the debate. Free trade versus protectionism (as advocated by traditional nationalists) presents a very real dilemma for self-styled “conservatives” within Republican Party ranks, for example, who, on the one hand, consider themselves “nationalists” and say they are for America First, but who — on the altar of free trade — are actually working to sacrifice American sovereignty to multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates. So there is a very basic divergence between free trade and national sovereignty.
. . .The fact is that free trade has historical ties not only to British imperialism and global super-capitalism, but also even with the great bugaboo of American conservatives: communism itself. In 1848, Karl Marx, the father of communism, advocated free trade because, he said, “it breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonisms of proletariat [workers] and bourgeoisie [small businessmen] to the uttermost point.”
. . .According to Marx, “the free trade system hastens the social revolution.” In short, modern day conservatives who support free trade are actually supporting a central tenet of Marxism. So, are these “conservatives” truly “nationalist” in the classic sense? It seems not.
. . .Which brings us to the definition of nationalism . . .
. . .The word “nationalism” — and the general knowledge of the history surrounding the concept of nationalism — raises negative images in the minds of those people — largely educated people, largely politicized people — who bother to think about the subject.
. . .For the average student (at either the high school or college level) who devotes little of his academic energies toward the realms of history or political science — the quite sensible would-be rocket scientist, architect or accountant who has no desire to dabble in political endeavor — the word “nationalism” may even conjure up the absolute, all-encompassing definition of evil as perceived by today’s society and culture and repeated endlessly in the mass media:
. . .NATIONALISM: Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, German militarism, concentration camps, six million innocent Jews — maybe as many as seven or eight million, possibly eleven million — marched off to the gas chambers, later to be incinerated in gas ovens. And don’t forget Japanese kamikaze fighter pilots — and Tojo, too.
. . .Taken right from the comics or a Hollywood drama, that in essence, sums up the common-place perception — indeed, really, the more or less “official” definition — of what constitutes “nationalism.”
. . .And this is no accident. The writing of both popular and academic history and the authority and power to define what “nationalism” was co-opted and has since been dominated — at least throughout the second half of the 20th century, and in the Anglo-American world, in particular — by persons and institutions distinctly hostile to nationalism in all its varieties and forms.
. . .This is a direct consequence of the growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of an elite few — closely connected families and financial groups — who benefit from internationalist policies. This is no “conspiracy theory,” by any means. Prominent media critic Professor Ben Bagdikian, in his book The Media Monopoly, summarizes the situation well:
. . .The [media] lords of the global village have their own political agenda. All resist economic changes that do not support their own financial interests. Together, they exert a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and commerce that affects populations larger than any in history. Neither Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope, has commanded as much power to shape the information on which so many people depend to make decisions about everything from whom to vote for to what to eat . .
. . .Monopolistic power dominates many other industries and most of them enjoy special treatment by the government. But media giants have two enormous advantages: They control the public image of national leaders who, as a result, fear and favor the media magnates’ political agendas; and they control the information and entertainment that help establish the social, political and cultural attitudes of increasingly larger populations . . .
. . .Now, in the wake of this most unfortunate phenomenon — this monopolization of the power to educate and inform — the actual nature and substance of what truly constitutes “nationalism” has been distorted. As such, more modern-day efforts to not only understand and define and advance the cause of nationalism have been relegated to what the Masters of the Media loosely call “the fringe.”
. . .During the mid-20th century, the one notable independent effort to define nationalism — at least in the American historical context — came through the work of one Willis A. Carto, the Indiana-born founder of a Washington-based institution known as Liberty Lobby, the publisher of a widely-read national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight.
. . .Although driven into bankruptcy and destroyed in 2001 by a politically- motivated lawsuit that was affirmed by a federal judge, The Spotlight emerged, during its heyday, as perhaps the largest and most effective voice for traditional American nationalism — the very reason that the maverick newspaper was targeted for evisceration.
. . .A survivor of wounds inflicted upon him by the Japanese during brutal combat in the Pacific theater during World War II, Liberty Lobby’s future founder, Carto, returned home and — unlike many veterans who believed the official propaganda — began his own personal journey of investigation, seeking the answers to the “how” and the “why” of American involvement in that genocidal world conflagration.
. . .Ultimately, Carto came to question the necessity of U.S. involvement not only in World War II but in virtually all of the wars of the 20th century. In fact, long before it became politically popular to do so — and certainly unlike many on the traditional “right” — Carto raised questions about the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, while conventional “Cold War Liberals” were still pushing for deeper American entanglement in the region, ultimately leading to the Vietnam debacle.
. . .Never considering himself anything but a nationalist, Carto made a conscious effort to draw the lines and distinctions between American “conservatism” of the Republican stripe and traditional nationalism. Rejecting what he considered to be the tired and worn and thoroughly inadequate concepts of “right” and “left,” Carto worked energetically through Liberty Lobby to develop a thriving nationalist movement, specifically focusing on the dangers of internationalism, placing nationalism as central to the overall framework of an American populist philosophy exemplified by Thomas Jefferson and an approach toward foreign relations (in particular) as laid out by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
. . .Carto’s book, Populism vs.Plutocracy:The Universal Struggle, captured the essence of Carto’s nationalist point of view, reflecting on the monumental figures of American populism and their particular contributions to nationalist thought: ranging from statesmen such as Jefferson and Jackson to progressive firebrands as Robert LaFollette and Burton Wheeler to famed radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, America First Committee spokesman Charles Lindbergh, nationalist Sen. Robert Taft, and such intellectual giants as Lawrence Dennis, undoubtedly the premier American nationalist theoretician of the 20th century.
. . .The views of these men — plus many other giants — taken together comprised a basis for the nationalist philosophy that Carto put forth in every way possible through a wide variety of media at his disposal over some 50 years of active involvement in the American public arena.
. . .Carto insisted that adherence to Washington’s words of wisdom provided not only the means to ensure America’s tranquil relations with its neighbors — near and far — but also a foundation for building a strong nation capable of ensuring its own domestic stability.
. . .Perhaps more than any other American — including Washington himself — Carto utilized the considerable media outreach at his disposal to repeat, time and time again, Washington’s warnings:
. . .So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It also leads to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.
. . .Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
. . .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they acuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
. . .Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
. . .The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith: — Here let us stop.
. . .It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.
. . .In the spirit of Washington, Carto contended that true nationalists — of all nations — believed in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and historic sovereign borders and placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists did not start wars of imperialism, he said, but respected the nationalist instincts of others.
. . .Profiteering internationalist plutocrats, Carto charged, condemned nationalism because it interfered with their goal of profit and their aim to submerge all nations in a “Global Plantation” under their domination.
. . .In Carto’s estimation, internationalism was a dream of naive idealists that the eradication of all national and racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will live happily ever after — a chimerical dream of poets and religious leaders for millennia.
. . .In actual application, Carto averred, internationalism could only produce mass confusion, tension, anarchy and violence. Plutocrats used internationalism to break down national boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world super state, the Global Plantation, often called a “New World Order”— by both the nationalists and the internationalists.
. . .Carto put it simply: the concept of a New World Order is no less than the drive for a world government directed by the plutocrats who see it as a way to capture all of the natural resources of the globe and to effectively enslave all of the people under an international bureaucracy chosen and controlled by the financial elite.
. . .In any event, Carto’s influence in shaping the philosophical foundation of the American nationalist movement was (and is) beyond question. In fact, when longtime Republican Party figure Pat Buchanan — the syndicated columnist — began emerging as a serious, high-profile critic — from a nationalist perspective — of the growing internationalist bent within Republican ranks, major media voices throughout the land acknowledged — albeit grudgingly — that it had been Carto and Liberty Lobby that helped pave the way for Buchanan’s ascension.

. . .It was Pat Buchanan — formerly a “mainstream” figure — who began echoing the rhetoric and historical foundation that had been preserved through Carto’s earlier work, and thereby brought at least a Buchanan version of “nationalism” into the American political arena as he made successive bids for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. As early as June 26, 1995, the progressive weekly, The Nation, began taking note of the new populism and nationalism that was driving the Buchanan campaign. Describing a Buchanan rally in New Hampshire, The Nation pointed out that:
When asked to cite what issue most moves them about Buchanan, a number of [them] referred to the economic nationalism of his crusades against NAFTA and GATT. Buchanan has howled about trade pacts that benefit transnational corporations at the expense of American workers and surrender U.S. sovereignty to a not-to-be-trusted international establishment, thus melding populism of the left and right.

The Nation explored Buchanan’s new emphasis further:
. . .It was in New Hampshire that Buchanan’s economic populism first stirred. When he campaigned in the state in 1992, he encountered people socked by recession.
. . .Buchanan had been propelled into that race by his far-right disgust at President Bush’s decision to sign a civil rights measure and to renege on the read-my-lips declaration [against new taxes]. But while trudging through the Granite State, Buchanan discovered economic dislocation — hardworking Americans hurled out of well-paying jobs. The fault, he concluded, lay with globalization and U.S. trade policies.
. . .Since then he has assailed the big banks and corporations that seek these jobs-exporting trade agreements and that finance a slew of lobbyists who guarantee that the trade deals slide through Congress. He is the only Republican contender to acknowledge and address the decline in real wages that has hit middle-income America.
. . .In doing so, Buchanan adds fresh troops to the social conservatives in his “Buchanan Brigades.” Mad at the Japanese? Outraged your child can’t pray in school? Buchanan is out there welding constituencies.
. . .Alone in the GOP, he attacks Washington as both the Establishment that promotes a liberal secular order and the Establishment that pushes the corporatist New World Order. Though also a fierce Catholic foot soldier in service to a conservative social and religious Establishment, Buchanan is the closest thing to a genuine populist in the 1996 race so far.
. . .The political “right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative” Weekly Standard — financed by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism — raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist broadsides against the power elite. The Standard asserted:
. . .In an increasingly conservative America, one political figure defiantly resists the historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and multinational corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of the American factory worker ahead of those of the so-called international trading system. Still refuses even to contemplate any cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending programs like Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J. Buchanan, America’s last leftist . . .
. . .Noting that Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The Standard then pointed out that:
. . .His campaign speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.
. . .This isn’t anything remotely like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era. What it sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward. The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes how far that party has drifted from its own past.
. . .The Standard charged that Buchanan had abandoned the “traditional” stands of conservative Republicans and had begun to shift (or at least attempt to shift) the Republican Party in a nationalist direction:
. . .The important question for traditional conservative Republicans is how far Mr. Buchanan should be permitted to take the party. The success of Buchanan’s 1992 campaign has already begun to redirect the Republican Party to a more restrictive position on immigration and a much harder line on affirmative action . . .
. . .Should he be welcomed or not? In 1992, many conservatives suffered excruciating difficulty in deciding . . .This time, though, the choice ought to be easier. Conservatives need to recognize that Buchanan’s politics is . . . something new: a populism formed to seize the political opportunities presented by strident multiculturalism and stagnating wages for less-skilled workers . . .
. . .As things are going, it is likely only a matter of time before Buchanan himself recognizes the rapidly mounting distance between his politics and those of mainstream conservatism. His friend and fellow columnist Sam Francis, whose ideas Mr. Buchanan has increasingly echoed, has already dropped the word “conservative” outright. The danger is not so much that Buchanan will hijack conservatism as that, even after he charges out of it on is way toward some unscouted ideological destination of his own, his statist and populist ideas will seep backward into it . . .
. . .At this juncture, the Murdoch-financed voice for internationalism formally declared war on Buchanan and read him out of the ranks of “conservative” Republicans:
. . .Buchanan has never shied from a fight, and neither should those Republicans who oppose him. Republicans who hold fast to the traditions of postwar conservatism that Buchanan is rejecting — small government and American global leadership — should make clear that they understand as well as Buchanan does the immense difference between his politics and theirs. He has turned his back on the fundamental convictions that have defined American conservatism for 40 years, and conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to say so. After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn’t we who have left Pat Buchanan; it is Pat Buchanan who is leaving us.
. . .In other words, Pat Buchanan, if elected president, would take the Republican Party out of the internationalist camp and that’s the last thing this “conservative” voice wanted to happen.
. . .Ultimately, of course, Buchanan left the Republican Party and opted to run — in 2000 — as the candidate of the Reform Party. However, when all was said and done, the Buchanan Movement failed — and failed badly. The American nationalist movement was dealt a harsh electoral blow with Buchanan’s devastatingly poor showing in that election. Nationalists were left holding the bag as Buchanan moved back into the world of big-time media punditry. In the meantime, the nationalist movement — the real nationalist movement — seeks not only rejuvenation, but leadership.
. . .Ironically, the greatest force standing against traditional American nationalism happens to be Zionism. Although Zionism is, in itself, defined as Jewish Nationalism, aimed at the establishment of a Jewish State, which, in fact, ultimately emerged in 1948 with the founding of Israel, the truth is that Zionism is essentially an international movement of vast scope and power with Israel serving as hardly more than its spiritual (albeit geographically specific) capital.
. . .In that regard, in this author’s previous work, The New Jerusalem, we explored the striking reality that, for all intents and purposes, the Zionist movement has essentially adopted the United States — through sheer force of financial and political power — as its primary base of operations, using the American military (generally against the wishes of the military leadership) to enforce a global imperium designed to advance the power of Israel (and the Zionist agenda) on the world stage.
. . .So it is that a relatively small group of intriguers — the so-called “neo-conservatives” (explored in detail in this author’s other previous volume, The High Priests of War) — have come to power in America and have done all in their vast reach to advance the Zionist cause.
. . .As it stands,even many of the harshest critics of Zionism and Israeli misdeeds fail to understand it, but the truth is that he conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab world is but a portion of the overall Zionist agenda which is boundless in scope: it is, you see, no coincidence that Zionist philosophy teaches that Israel — in the sense of the Jewish people—has no boundaries.
. . .It is also no coincidence that the American neo-conservatives are intellectual disciples of hard-line Zionist ideologue, Vladimir Jabotinsky — often called “The Jewish Fascist” — who candidly declared in a 1935 interview: “We want a Jewish Empire.” Although Jabotinsky died in 1940, his ideological heirs carry his torch forward, more forcefully perhaps than Jabotinsky would have ever dreamed possible.
. . .The intrigues by Zionism on American soil have been extraordinarily well-calculated,operating on multiple levels and through multiple mechanisms. In the pages of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within we will be examining the ugly history of the Zionist drive to infiltrate, undermine, subvert and/or otherwise grab control of the American nationalist movement in order to suppress and thereby destroy it.
. . .But rest assured that Americans are not standing alone in the face of this menace. There are other nationalist movements across the face of the planet that are rising up in opposition to Zionist power — from Moscow to Caracas, from Kiev to Kuala Lumpur: in every place where informed people dare to think freely and to continue to speak out.
. . .Therefore, let us note this: the enemies of nationalism might as well face one basic fact: Like it or not, both here in America and around the globe, nationalism is the wave of the future.
. . . There’s no way to stop it.
. . .Let us now move forward and examine precisely who The Judas Goats are — and have been — and how they truly are America’s Enemy Within. Prepare yourself for a very ugly — though fascinating — story.







1953, la chute d'un Haman moderne (le "tyran antisémite" Staline)
Pendant le Farbrengen du repas de Pourim de 5713 (1953), il est survenu quelque chose de tout à fait exceptionnel : au début du Farbrengen, le Rabbi avait prononcé un Maamar, précédé des minutes de préparations habituelles. Puis, quelques heures plus tard, à la fin de la nuit, le visage du Rabbi a pâli puis s’est enflammé dans une expression de dévotion extrême.(...)Quelque temps plus tard, tous comprirent quand il fut dévoilé que Staline, le tyran antisémite, avait eu une embolie cérébrale cette nuit-là. Il est mort quelques jours plus tard, le 5 mars 1953...

 

Today I Am a Woman: Stories of Bat Mitzvah around the World
books.google.com/books?id=uLdNQi2-j9EC



Soviet Jews Saved From Stalin’s Genocidal Plans on Purim
United With Israel
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin has in actuality murdered more people than Adolph Hitler. Stalin, like Hitler, was an anti-Semite and the Jews of the Soviet Union suffered immensely under his rule. Many Jews, such as Genya Reichman, were forced to engage in slave labor under Stalin upon fleeing Nazis-controlled areas. In fact, even Jewish refugee children, such as Annia Segal, grew up under horrendous conditions in the Soviet Gulag. Yet, by 1953, the status of Soviet Jewry had deteriorated even further and Soviet Jews were facing a possible genocide. But on Purim about 60 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin collapsed. Soon afterwards, he died, thus sparing the Jewish people another Holocaust. It was a miracle!
Stalin’s plan to annihilate the Jews of the Soviet Union which he had formulated immediately prior to his death is one of the lesser known facts of history. Yet, not even ten years after the conclusion of the Holocaust, there was a full-scale attack upon Soviet Jews, complete with purges, executions, imprisonments, and the imposed exile of tens of thousands of Jews. In early 1953, the Soviet media was alleging that Jewish doctors had a conspiracy to poison top-level Soviet officials, thus increasing the level of hostility directed towards Soviet Jews. The Jews of the Soviet Union were living in terror under Stalin, especially in the early 1950’s. And then, in the midst of the so-called doctor’s plot, Stalin had started to plan for the deportation of 2 to 4 million Jews to Siberia and Central Asia, where they would be annihilated, as a collective punishment for a conspiracy invented by the Stalin-controlled Soviet media.
Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov
Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov
During a meeting with top-level Soviet officials, there were other Soviet government members who did oppose Stalin’s plans against the Jewish people. Vyacheslav Molotov, who was married to a Jewish woman, staunchly objected to Stalin’s plans against the Jewish people and had the audacity to tell the dictator that such a move would be horrendous for public relations. Kliment Yefremovich Voroshilov, who also had a Jewish wife, actually went as far as chasing away Soviet agents from his home using a rifle in order to protect his Jewish wife. He then had the audacity to tell Stalin that he no longer wished to be a member of the Communist Party. An enraged Stalin responded that only he had the right to determine who will be in the Communist Party. Soon after that, on that Purim day about 60 years ago, Stalin collapsed on the floor and he would die not long after that.
Interestingly, on the same day that Joseph Stalin collapsed, the Lubavich Rebbe was leading a Purim gathering. Members of the Jewish community had asked for him to pray for the Soviet Jewish community. However, instead of doing this, the Lubavich Rebbe told a story. He proclaimed, “After the czar fell in Russia, it was announced that the government would be holding elections. The Rebbe Rashab, fifth to Chabad dynasty, sent word to the Chasidim that they were to participate in the voting process. There was one particular Chasid who was completely removed from the affairs of the world; to him the political arena was foreign territory. Nonetheless, having received an explicit instruction from the Rebbe, he set out to fulfill his command. With a sense of awe and reverence he immersed himself in a mikvah, donned his gartel (belt for prayer) and set out for the polling booth. Of course, when he got there, he had no idea what he was expected to do, but some of the more worldly Chasidim helped him cast his vote. Adjusting his gartel, the Chasid did what everyone else was doing. When the votes were cast, everyone cried out ‘Hurrah!’ Taking his cue from those around him he likewise cried out, ‘Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!’”
339976 
Yet in this mans heart, he meant to cry this out in Hebrew, which is Hu-Ra (he is evil). As the Lubavich Rebbe stated the word “Hu-rah,” his face was burning in such an inspiring way that his Purim crowd also began to shout “Hu-rah,” in regards to Stalin. It is an interesting coincidence that soon after that Stalin passed away. It is as if the Jewish people were praying for a miracle and they got one. According to Dr. Rushnin, author of Why Stalin Didn’t Murder All of the Jews, Stalin’s death “in itself [is] such a happy end to a huge threat [that] deserves to be remembered and commemorated by all Jews.” Jews traditionally believe that whenever the Jewish community is miraculously saved from disaster, this date should be celebrated on the appropriate date. Thus, in 1996, Dr. Rushnin initiated Little Purim celebrations in honor of Soviet Jewry being saved and this Little Soviet Purim is celebrated in over 100 synagogues across the United States.
By Rachel Avraham


Shturem
Eyewitness Account: Inside the Downfall of a Modern-Day Haman
Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, responsible for the murder of over twenty million human beings (with some estimates running as high as 40,000,000) was one of the most evil tyrants the world has ever known. In modern times, he was paralleled only by Hitler, may their names be erased.
In early 1953, according to many historians, Stalin began to orchestrate a plan which, he intended, would result in the deportation of millions of Jews of the Soviet Union to Siberia and Central Asia and, eventually, to their annihilation.
His ruse began with a blood libel: A group of Jewish doctors were “caught” conspiring to poison top Soviet officials, and thereby “destroy the motherland.” Stoked by the Russian propaganda machine, anti-Semitic hatred was riled against the Jews.
With Stalin poised to take the next step of his nefarious plot – the extent of which was unknown to the public at the time – at least one Jewish leader seems to have known of the scheme.
In his recent testimony given to the My Encounter with the Rebbe project, Reb Yoel Kahan, who participated in the Rebbe’s Farbrengen of Purim, 5713, shared the events of that day which, clearly, played a role in the story’s unexpected ending. As in the original Purim story, “It was turned upside down, and the Jews were victorious over their enemies.”

This special interview was dedicated in loving memory of: Tzvi Yechetzkel Ben Eliezer Gordon
To view click play