Before America Can Become “Great Again”, This Issue Requires Resolution
The Trial of Jeremy Bedford-Turner, May, 2018
“The Israeli Lobby In America” | Al Jazeera Part 1 Of 2 (3 & 4 to be released)
“The Israeli Lobby In America” | Al Jazeera Part 2 Of 2 (3 & 4 to be released)
Source: State of the Nation
Why is the U.S. Treasury issuing sanctions for Israel?
Posted on November 4, 2018 by State of the Nation
Will Israel-lobby-captured OTFI sanction Americans?
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was ordered to register as an Israeli foreign agent on November 21, 1962 when it was part of the American Zionist Council. AIPAC has never complied with the order, and the Department of Justice has never enforced it. AIPAC’s associated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was spun off from AIPAC as a survival tactic during a 1980s FBI investigation into AIPAC over economic espionage that produced America’s worst-performing bilateral trade agreement. Incredibly, decades later both organizations appeared to want to get into law enforcement and were instrumental lobbying President George W. Bush for the 2004 launch of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) Treasury unit. (See Washington Institute for Near East Affairs congressional testimony in support of the creation of OTFI to be headed by Stuart Levey)
Although OTFI proclaims it is “safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats,” the secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons complex.
As AIPAC and WINEP demanded in 2003, the office as initially led by Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who worked in unusually close coordination with the Israeli government. Levey’s Harvard thesis (PDF) was about how Israel lobbying organizations could become more effective by staying beneath the radar of public scrutiny and distancing themselves from the notoriety generated by the illicit activities of such ideological fellow travelers as the Jewish Defense League. JDL was a Department of Justice-designated terrorist organization involved in bombings and more recently had a supporter indicted for 2017 violence against a peaceful protester of AIPAC’s policy conference.
In its early years OTFI rebuffed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) attempts to obtain information about OTFI operations and the purpose of Levey’s numerous taxpayer-funded trips to Israel by citing the Bank Secrecy Act. OTFI is even more impenetrable to outside scrutiny than most Treasury offices, most particularly OTFI’s personnel records. Levey made OTFI briefers available mostly for private presentations and off-the-record Q&A sessions to a limited number of organizations well-known for having the advancement of Israel as a top organizational goal, such as WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Please go to State of the Nation to read the entire article.
Source: The Ugly Truth
The ‘Jewish problem’ explained and understood in a slow motion science experiment
November 5, 2018
Insane Grease Fire Blows Up in Slow Motion
ed note–not a perfect metaphor, but one which pretty much sums up the entire ‘Jewish problem’ and why it is that certain western leaders have been and remain to this day reluctant to just ‘do the right thing’ with regards to Palestine and the disaster that has been wrought upon these people for the last century.
First, a little ‘re-adjustment’ of a few historical facts that is in order here–
As much as the entire tragedy of creating the Jewish state is laid at the feet of individuals such as Herzl, Balfour and those western leaders who were ‘on the take’–much/most of which is true–there is another side to this story which people who immerse themselves in the study of this subject tend to forget, which is that the Europeans wanted the Jews gone, and not just for a few years, but going back 1900 years when their Roman ancestors destroyed Judea, creating the ‘wandering Jew’ that was a foreigner in every Gentile locale in which he/she happened to find him/herself. The tension between Gentile and Jew has always been a constant source of political/social upheaval, but which climaxed in the mid 19th century with all the Marxist mayhem that was in large part a Jewish concern. At this point, the various elements occupying the higher echelons of the political pyramid in Europe decided that something needed to be done about this 1900 year old problem before this menace ripped the fabric of European society apart thread by thread.
It was within this atmosphere that Herzl’s plan for the creation of Judea, Resurrecta was received with warm applause by almost the entirety of those making up the top tiers of the political pyramid, the only dissenting voice being that of the Vatican, who (half-heartedly) rejected this for religious reasons, i.e. that the Jews remained fixed in their Judaism and in their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
Therefore, what needs to be understood is how the entire ‘Jewish state’ paradigm was viewed by those western Gentile leaders who threw their support behind it–a dumping ground for the worst elements of Jewry who were unassimilable in Christian Gentile society and who would forever remain a thorn in the side of all social order as long as they remained out of their own ‘element’. Yesterday’s versions of Sarah Silverman, Bernie Madoff, Al Goldstein, Howard Stern, et al and all the obnoxious, toxic influence and repulsive-to-the-nostrils behavior which they freely imposed upon Western Gentile society had reached a point where something drastic had to be done, while Jews who had in large part abandoned the more backwards protocols of their Judaism and who could be counted on to live in peace with their respective Christian Gentile societies rather than being in a state of perpetual war against them were free to remain and were even welcomed to some extent, given the Jews’ historical talent in terms of business and money management.
Please go to The Ugly Truth to read the entire article.
Source: The Occidental Observer
Reply to Jordan Peterson on the Jewish Question — From His Heroes: Part Three: Jung
October 26, 2018/24 Comments/in Anti-Jewish Writing, Anti-Semitism, Featured Articles /by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
C. G. Jung
Go to Part 1: Solzhenitsyn
Go to Part 2: Dostoevsky
A Reply to Jung.
Jordan Peterson references Carl Jung in almost every interview, talk, or text he delivers, and these references are especially frequent in his lecture series on the Biblical stories. In 12 Rules for Life (p.131), Peterson describes Jung as both a “great psychiatrist” and a “psychoanalyst extraordinaire.” Jung’s ideas about the subconscious and archetypes form the backbone of much of Peterson’s self-concept and public work. One therefore wonders what Jung would have made of Jordan Peterson’s “On the So-Called Jewish Question.”
To begin with, Jung would almost certainly object to Peterson’s implicit assumption that Jews are easily integrated parts in the machinery of Western civilization, equal or even superior in suitability to all others. Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he would have stressed the need to take this personality into account. Even in his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.” A formative factor in the Jewish personality was the rootlessness of the Jews and the persistence of the Diaspora. Jung argued that Jews lacked a “chthontic quality,” meaning “The Jew … is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.” Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel. Even today, vastly more Jews live outside Israel than within it. Jews remain a Diaspora people, and many continue to see their Diaspora status as a strength. Because they are scattered and rootless, however, Jung argued that Jews developed methods of getting on in the world that are built on exploiting weakness in others rather than expressing explicit strength. In Jung’s phrasing, “The Jews have this particularity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”
Jung would probably have been doubtful regarding Peterson’s claims that Jews obtain positions of influence solely on their intellectual merits and because they score high on Openness to Experience. Jung believed that Jews were incapable of operating effectively without a host society, and that they relied heavily upon grafting themselves into the systems of other peoples in order to succeed. In a 1934 essay titled ‘The state of psychotherapy today,’ Jung wrote: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” This process of group development often involved ‘aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary,’ along with other flexible strategies.
Jung also believed (in common with a finding in Kevin MacDonald’s work) that there was a certain psychological aggressiveness in Jews, which was partly a result of the internal mechanics of Judaism. In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. Jung believed that Jewish men were “brides of Yahweh,” rendering Jewish women more or less obsolete within Judaism. In reaction, argued Jung, Jewish women in the early twentieth century began aggressively venting their frustrations against the male-centric nature of Judaism (and against the host society as a whole) while still conforming to the characteristic Jewish psychology and its related strategies. Writing to Martha Bernays, Freud’s wife, he once remarked of Jewish women that “so many of them are loud, aren’t they?” and later added he had treated “very many Jewish women — in all these women there is a loss of individuality, either too much or too little. But the compensation is always for the lack. That is to say, not the right attitude.”
Please go to the Occidental Observer to read the entire article.
Undercover Documentaries on the Diabolical Israeli Lobby
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman) • November 5, 2018
Israeli lobby power exerts enormous influence over nearly all members of Congress. With rare exceptions, House or Senate members don’t dare confront it or criticize Israeli policies, a career ender for some who tried.
Truth-tellers about Israeli state terror risk being intimidated, blackmailed, smeared, pressured, removed from positions of authority, or called national security or terrorist threats.
Israel gets away with mass murder and much more because virtually no one in Washington, other Western capitals, or top UN officials dares challenge its apartheid viciousness, demanding it be held accountable for offenses too horrendous to ignore.
James Petras discussed the lobby’s enormous influence in his important titled “The Power of Israel in the United States.”
Norman Finkelstein challenged Israel in his book titled “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.” A short article on his book launched my pro bono writing, a second career in retirement.
Petras, Finkelstein, and others explained Israel’s longstanding abuse of power, its horrendous human and civil rights abuses, institutionalizing racist hate-mongering as official policy.
The lobby’s sinister operations have been ongoing since the early 1950s – AIPAC one of 52 major US Zionist organizations, the most prominent one with enormous influence over US foreign policy.
The lobby has deep roots throughout government, the business community, the dominant media, academia, the clergy, and powerful wealthy Jewish and other families.
Broad support comes from doctors, lawyers, accountants, other professionals, philanthropists, journalists and other segments of society.
With help from its lobby, Israel created the eternal Jewish victim, the myth of unique Jewish suffering claimed.
Vested interests take full advantage, deflecting or suppressing Israeli criticism, critics called anti-Semites.
Criticizing Israel and Zionism have nothing to do with anti-Semitism – hostility or discrimination against Judaism as a religion. Israel is a nation-state. Criticizing its ruthlessness is essential to challenge what’s clearly intolerable.
Please go to stephenlendman.org to read the entire article.
As this article is read think back to 9/11 when Senator Tom Daschle’s office was sent a letter containing anthrax spores. Keep in mind this was written by Jewish sources dated 2002 one year after the events of 9/11. In other words, if you disagree with US policy on Israel, this somehow makes you “anti-Israel”?
“Oct. 15, 2001, is a day I’ll never forget. On that day one of my staff members opened an anthrax-laced letter addressed to me, and my office became a part of the deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history. Anthrax was also sent through the mail to a number of other people and organizations — the National Enquirer, the New York Post, broadcaster Tom Brokaw and Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont. These attacks killed five people, injured 17 others, disrupted operations all over Capitol Hill and alarmed an entire nation.” — Tom Daschle
Daschle’s anti-Israel past
Jewish World Review Oct. 11, 2002 / 5 Mar-Cheshvan, 5763
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | WASHINGTON New questions are being raised about the anti-Israel past of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). In the 1970s, Daschle was a top foreign policy advisor to then-Sen. Jim Abourezk (D-SD), very well the most anti-Israel member of the U.S. Senate at the time, a role that could now come back to haunt Daschle.
With Congress voting to authorize the use of military force against Saddam Hussein, thousands of Jews and Christians rallying in the nation’s capital this weekend in support of defending Israel, and mid-term elections just weeks away, now is not a good time for Daschle to be on the defensive. But there he finds himself, nonetheless.
Daschle’s office late Thursday issued a statement strongly denying the Senator had signed a radical anti-war petition, as claimed by a liberal web site (Not In Our Name, www.NION.us). “Senator Daschle did not sign this petition nor did he direct anyone to add his name to the petition,” insisted his communications director Ranit Schmelzer. “It is unfortunate that someone would choose to forge Senator Daschle’s name.”
But one person who did sign the petition — and allowed his name to be used in the full page New York Times ad — was Sen. Daschle’s old boss: former Sen. Jim Abourezk, the American-born son of Lebanese immigrants.
Never heard of Sen. Jim Abourezk? Read on. But be forewarned, his quotes and views may disturb you.
The following are excerpts from a WORLD magazine Oct. 12, 2002 cover story, “MAD DASCHLE” by the publication’s national editor, Bob Jones.
• Fresh out of the Air Force and not yet 25 years old, Tom Daschle needed to find a rising political star to help launch his own career. He’d considered himself a Democrat at least since high school, so there was no question which party he would get behind — only which candidate….
• Mr. Daschle signed up with liberal Rep. Jim Abourezk as a $175-a-week field worker. When Abourezk was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mr. Daschle became the senator’s point man on “Space, Defense (including Veterans), Foreign Affairs (including Middle East), [and] South Dakota Projects”…with “primary responsibility for Middle East and all other foreign relations matters.”….
• Mr. Abourezk called the Israeli government “terrorist” and consistently opposed arms sales to Tel Aviv. He called for recognition of the PLO and embraced Syrian President Hafez Assad, a major sponsor of international terrorism.
• Later, during the Gulf War, the former senator even compared Israel to Nazi Germany: “Israel has been grabbing land since 1948, and I don’t know how you call it self-defense…. Hitler said he took Czechoslovakia in self-defense, you know.”….
• Mr. Abourezk’s papers, now stored in more than 1,000 boxes at the University of South Dakota, contain hundreds of pages of statements from the Congressional Record, but usually only in printed form. What few drafts have survived are mostly typewritten and unsigned, making it impossible to determine the author. But there are tantalizing exceptions that suggest Mr. Daschle was more than just a rubber stamp for the senator’s views.
Please go to JWV to read the entire article.
Israeli Intelligence Might Have Tracked Me On My Way to Palestine