Sent by Muhammad al-Masari
Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Satanist Winston Churchill
Fear-Monger, War Criminal, Racist.
Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster
by MICHAEL DICKINSON
This week Britain is commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill. Millions of people worldwide watched his state funeral on television in 1965, and thousands of people lined the streets of London to pay their last respects as his cortege slowly passed. But I somehow doubt that President Obama will be adding his own warm words of remembrance for the iconic British wartime leader.
After all, his own paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was one of 150.000 rebellious Kikuyu “blackamoors” forced into detention camps during Churchill’s postwar premiership, when the British governnment began its brutal campaign to suppress the alleged “Mau Mau” uprising in Kenya, in order to protect the privileges of the white settler population at the expense of the indigenous people. About 11,000 Kenyans were killed and 81,000 detained during the British government’s campaign to protect its imperialist heritage.
Suspected Mau Mau insurgents were subject to electric shock, whippings, burning and mutilation in order to crush the local drive for independence. Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured for resisting Churchill’s empire. He never truly recovered from the ordeal.
Africa was quite a playground for young Winston. Born into the privileged British elite in in 1847, educated at Harrow and Sandhurst, brought up believing the simple story that the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation, he set off as soon as he could to take his part in “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples,” whose violence was explained by a “strong aboriginal propensity to kill”.
In Sudan, he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages”.
In South Africa, where “it was great fun galloping about,” he defended British built concentration camps for white Boers, saying they produced “the minimum of suffering”. The death toll was almost 28,000.
When at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his “irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.
(On his attitude to other races, Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, once said: “Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin.”
Churchill found himself in other British dominions besides Africa. As a young officer in the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, Churchill one day experienced a fleeting revelation. The local population, he wrote in a letter, was fighting back because of “the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own,” – just as Britain would if she were invaded.
This idle thought was soon dismissed however , and he gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops, believing the “natives” to be helpless children who will “willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown”.
But rebels had to be crushed with extreme force. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, Churchill unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland’s Catholic civilians, making a hypocritical mockery of his comment: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination.”
His fear-mongering views on Islam sound strangely familiar: “But the
Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening,
the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by
the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been
subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this
form of madness.”
“On the subject of India,” said the British Secretary of State to India:
“Winston is not quite sane… I didn’t see
much difference between his outlook and
When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance against British rule in India, Churchill raged that Gandhi: “ought to
be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and
then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new
Viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it
stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed.”
In 1931 he sneered: “It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”
As Gandhi’s support increased, Churcill announced: “I hate Indians.
They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
In 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused by the
imperial policies of the British. In reply to the Secretary of State for India’s telegram requesting food stock to relieve the famine, Churchill wittily replied: “If food is scarce, why isn’t Gandhi dead
Up to 3 million people starved to death.
Asked in 1944 to explain his refusal to send food aid, Churchill jeered:
“Relief would do no good. Indians breed
like rabbits and will outstrip any available
Churchill statue in London. Photo: Getty Images.
Just after World War I, approximately one quarter of the world’s
land and population fell within the spheres of British
influence. The Empire had increased in size with the addition of territories taken from its vanquished enemies.
As British Colonial Secretary, Churchill’s power in the Middle East was immense. He “created Jordan with a stroke of
a pen one Sunday afternoon”, allegedly drawing the expansive boundary map after a generous lunch. The huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s
Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze”.
He is the man who invented Iraq, another arbitrary patch of desert, which was awarded to a throneless Hashemite prince; Faisal, whose brother Abdullah was given control of Jordan. Sons of King Hussein, Faisal and Abdullah had been war buddies of Churchill’s pal, the famous “T.E. Lawrence of Arabia”.
But the lines drawn in the sand by British imperialism, locking together conflicting peoples behind arbitrary borders were far from stable,and large numbers of Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds and Palestinians were denied anything resembling real democracy.
In 1920 Churchill advocated the use of
chemical weapons on the “uncooperative
Arabs” involved in the Iraqi revolution
against British rule.
“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas,” he declared.
“I am strongly in favor of using
poison gas against uncivilized tribes. It
would spread a lively terror.”
As Colonial Secretary, it was Churchill who offered the
Jews their free ticket to the ‘Promised
Land’ of ‘Israel’, although he thought they should not “take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience.” He dismissed the Palestinians already living in the country as
“barbaric hoards who ate little but camel
Addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain was justified in deciding the fate of Palestine, Churchill clearly displayed his white supremacist ideology to justify one of the most brutal genocides and mass displacements of people in history, based on his belief that
“the Aryan stock is bound to triumph”:
“I do not agree that the dog in a manger
has the final right to the manger even
though he may have lain there for a very
long time. I do not admit that right. I do
not admit for instance, that a great wrong
has been done to the Red Indians of
America or the black people of Australia. I
do not admit that a wrong has been done
to these people by the fact that a stronger
race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly
wise race to put it that way, has come in
and taken their place.”
In fact, many of the views Churchill held were virtually Nazi. Apart from his support of hierarchical racism, as Home Minister he had advocated euthanasia and sterilisation of the handicapped. In 1927, after a visit to Rome, he applauded the budding fascist dictator, Mussolini: “What a man! I have lost my heart!… Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world… If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.”
(“The Bestial Appetites and Passions of Leninism”, eh? Where can I get a copy?)
But years later, in his written account of the Second World War (Vol. 111), fickle-hearted Winston applauded the downfall of his erstwhile hero:
“Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate
was sealed. As for the Japanese, they
would be ground to powder.”
Britain’s American allies saw to that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they dropped their atomic bombs and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Churchill had ordered the saturation bombing of Dresden, where,
on February 13 1945, more than 500,000
German civilians and refugees, mostly
women and children, were slaughtered in
one day by the British Royal Air Force
(RAF) and the United States Army Air
Force (USAAF), who dropped over
700,000 phosphorus bombs on the city.
Prime Minister Churchill had said earlier: “I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the
German refugees on their escape from
In Dresden he got his wish. Those who perished in the centre of the city could not be traced, as the temperature in the area reached 1600 degree Centigrade. Dresden’s citizens barely had time to reach their shelters and many who sought refuge underground suffocated as oxygen was pulled from the air to feed the flames. Others perished in a blast of white heat strong enough to melt human flesh.
Instead of being charged with being responsible for ordering one of the most horrific war crimes of recent history, in which up to half a million people died screaming in his firestorms, Churchill emerged from the war as a hero. An unwavering supporter of the British monarchy throughout his life, he was made a knight of the Order of
the Garter, Britain’s highest order of
knighthoods, by Queen Elizabeth II in
“The monarchy is so extraordinarily useful. When Britain wins a battle she shouts, “God save the Queen”; when she loses, she votes down the prime minister,” he once said.
Shortly after the Second World War was won, however, Churchill’s Conservative government was voted down by a Britain tired of battle, austerity, and hungry for change.
“History will be kind to me for I intend to
write it,” said Churchill, and to a certain extent he succeeded. exte habit of dictating in the nude to his male secretaries. y and conscriptioneople were massacred ‘Winnie’ became Britain’s great national icon, with his trade-mark cigar and V-sign, remembered for leading Britain through her finest hour (we won’t mention his eccentric habit of pacing about the office in the nude while dictating to secretaries!) The fat cigar clamped in his mouth a symbol of cocky British defiance, Churchill was genial courageous Big Brother figure, revered by the media. His stirring wartime speech: “We shall fight them on the beaches! We shall never surrender!” makes no mention of “We shall bomb them in their cities! We shall make them suffer!”
Churchill’s brutality and brutishness have been ignored, but he never reckoned on the invention of the internet, or its power to allow authors to question his view of history and expose the cruelty and racism of the man.
When George W Bush moved out of the White House he left a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval office. He’d used it to inspire him on his ‘war against terrorism’. Barack Obama had it removed. I wonder if he found the bust offensive? Was it out of respect for the pain and distress his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, suffered on Churchill’s orders ?
Removing a bust is a fairly simple matter, but toppling a statue is quite another. In Westminster Square in front of Parliament in London there are several statues of deceased politicians and dignitaries, one of which I find particularly distasteful. Hands clasped behind back, the jodphur-clad figure striding purposely forward is that of Jan Christian Smuts. racist forefather of the Apartheid system in South Africa.
As for Churchill, who, as Home Secretary, said: ‘I propose that
100,000 degenerate Britons should be
forcibly sterilized and others put in labour
camps to halt the decline of the British
His hulking toadish statue stands tall on a granite plinth, clutching a walking stick, his unblinking bulldog gaze on the Houses of Parliament where he reigned twice as a Conservative Prime Minister.
If I were Prime Minister of Great Britain, one of the first things on my list would be the removal of memorials to facist-minded racist imperialists.
The statues of Smuts and Churchill in Parliament Square would be the first to come down.
MONSTER AND WAR
CRIMINAL KNIGHTED BY
by MICHAEL DICKINSON
1. Satanist Winston Churchill
2. Fear-Monger, War Criminal, Racist.
3. Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster
4. 150.000 rebellious Kikuyu “blackamoors” forced into detention camps during Churchill’s postwar premiership
5. About 11,000 Kenyans were killed and 81,000
6. Suspected Mau Mau insurgents were subject to electric shock, whippings, burning and mutilation in order to crush the local drive for independence.
7. Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured for resisting Churchill’s empire. He never truly recovered from the ordeal.
8. Africa was quite a playground for young Winston. Born into the privileged British elite in in 1847, educated at Harrow and Sandhurst, brought up believing the simple story that the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation, he set off as soon as he could to take his part in “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples,” whose violence was explained by a “strong aboriginal propensity to kill”.
9. In Sudan, he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages”.
10. In South Africa, where “it was great fun galloping about,” he defended British built concentration camps for white Boers, saying they produced “the minimum of suffering”. The death toll was almost 28,000.
11. When at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his “irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.
12. (On his attitude to other races, Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, once said: “Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin.”
13. Churchill ... gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys (SWAT), destroying houses and burning crops, believing the “natives” to be helpless children who will “willingly, naturally, gratefully include themselves within the golden circle of an ancient crown”.
14. As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, Churchill unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland’s Catholic civilians, making a hypocritical mockery of his comment: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination.”
15. “But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”
16. “On the subject of India,” said the British Secretary of State to India: “Winston is not quite sane… I didn’t see much difference between his outlook and Hitler’s.”
17. Churchill raged that Gandhi: “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back. Gandhi-ism and everything it stands for will have to be grappled with and crushed.”
18. In 1931 he sneered: “It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.”
19. Churchill announced: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
20. In 1943 ... Up to 3 million people starved to death.
21. Asked in 1944 to explain his refusal to send food aid, Churchill jeered: “Relief would do no good. Indians breed like rabbits and will outstrip any available food supply.”
22. He “created Jordan with a stroke of a pen one Sunday afternoon...The huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze”.
23. He is the man who invented Iraq
24. In 1920 Churchill advocated the use of chemical weapons on the “uncooperative Arabs” involved in the Iraqi revolution against British rule.
25. “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas,” he declared.
26. “I am strongly in favor of using
poison gas against uncivilized tribes. It would spread a lively terror.”
27. As Colonial Secretary, it was Churchill who offered the Jews their free ticket to the ‘Promised
Land’ of ‘Israel’,
28. He dismissed the Palestinians already living in the country as “barbaric hoards who ate little but camel dung.”
29. Addressing the Peel Commission (1937) on why Britain was justified in deciding the fate of Palestine, Churchill clearly displayed his white supremacist ideology to justify one of the most brutal genocides and mass displacements of people in history, based on his belief that “the Aryan stock is bound to triumph”:
30. “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right.
31. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.
32. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
33. as Home Minister he had advocated euthanasia and sterilisation of the handicapped. In 1927,
34. he applauded the budding fascist dictator, Mussolini: “What a man! I have lost my heart!… Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world… If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely from the beginning of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passion of Leninism.”
35. Prime Minister Churchill had ordered the saturation bombing of Dresden, where, on February 13 1945, more than 500,000 German civilians and refugees, mostly women and children, were slaughtered in one day by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), who dropped over 700,000 phosphorus bombs on the city.
36. what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.”
37. he was made a knight of the Order of the Garter, Britain’s highest order of
knighthoods, by Queen Elizabeth II in
38. “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it,” said Churchill
39. his eccentric habit of pacing about the office in the nude while dictating to secretaries!)
40. Churchill, who, as Home Secretary, said: ‘I propose that 100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilized and others put in labour camps to halt the decline of the British race.’
Michael Dickinson can be contacted at email@example.com
Top: Jewish Leaders Folder: Sir Winston Churchill: Churchill Was Legally Jewish Because His Mother Was Jewish
This article appeared freely on the Internet on December 15, 2005 at http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm and is archived here only for scholarship, research, education, and personal use by those previously requesting it in accordance with the "fair use" provision in Title 17 Section 107 of the copyright law.
Archived for Educational Purposes only Under U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107
by Jew Watch Library at www.jewwatch.com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in the Jew Watch Library is archived here under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research and educational purposes only.
If you have additions or suggestions
Email Jew Watch
Churchill Was a Mass Murderer and Worshipped Mammon
David Irving: "The legends pollute the history books and have a charm and existence of their own, devoid of any foundation in the archives."
..by Jonas E. Alexis
Pick up any popular biography of Winston Churchill by popular historians and people who have internalized the demands of their oppressors and you will hear only great things about the man.
The BBC tells us that Max Hastings’ Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord, 1940-45 “presents a positive version of the Churchill story.”
These popularizers have invented things about Churchill and World War II. In the words of David Irving, these people “have created legends of magisterial permanence.” Irving adds:
“The legends pollute the history books and have a charm and existence of their own, devoid of any foundation in the archives.”Irving continues to tell these “conformist historians” that the best way to write something that will stand the test of time is to use archival evidence. But these people want to please the powers that be and therefore have to make things up. How else would they embrace Hermann Rauschning’s fabrication?
To many admirers and sympathizers, Churchill was a savior who brought salvation to Europe during World War II. According to John R. Lukacs of the University of Oregon, Churchill’s speech basically saved civilization. Others declare that he was an “unexpected hero,” a military leader who rescued European Jews from Nazi Germany, a great statesman whose words one ought to live by, a “prophet” who was also a “liberal statesman,” and on and on the chorus goes.
Thomas Sowell, a scholar and popular commentator who has been saying crazy things about Iran for years, calls Churchill “legendary.” James C. Humes opens his book by saying,
“Winston Churchill is rightly celebrated as the greatest statesman of the twentieth century and among the greatest of any century.”
Popular historian Boris Johnson argues Churchill is a “man of contagious bravery, breathtaking eloquence, matchless strategizing, and deep humanity.”
If those accolades are true, then we are in deep trouble precisely because Churchill was one of the strategic mass murderers in the twentieth century. As we have seen in the past and as we shall see in a moment, he signed pacts with the greatest mass murderer in the twentieth century (Joseph Stalin), literally starved thousands upon thousands of German civilians and even Indians to death, and invented bold and categorical lies to marshal what one ought to call a diabolical plan. His wicked acts are rarely known because people like Humes and Johnson have desperately tried to obscure the historical facts. Sowell says,
“Anyone who wants to read one book that will help explain the international crises of our time should read The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill. It is not about the Middle East or even about today. It is about the fatuous and irresponsible foreign policies of the 1930s that led to the most catastrophic war in human history.”
Shouldn’t a serious scholar really laugh at this risible statement? How does Sowell know that Churchill didn’t pepper The Gathering Storm with a “bodyguard of lies”? Does he really take Churchill seriously when Churchill writes things like Hitler had nothing but contempt for all Jews? How would he explain the fact that there were at least 150,000 people of Jewish descent in Nazi Germany?
Moreover, does Sowell really believe Churchill when Churchill writes that Hitler’s knowledge of the Jews was basically conspiratorial and had virtually nothing to do with actual facts?
Perhaps Sowell needs to pick up Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery 1870-1939, by Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, by Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, and Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia, by Eric Harberer. The scholarly literature is quite conclusive on this point: Jewish revolutionary and subversive movements gave rise to Nazi Germany, gave rise to anti-Jewish reaction in Europe, and gave rise to bloody conflict during World War II.
Furthermore, Hitler and German politicians knew about those subversive movements. In fact, virtually no serious German intellectual or thinker on the eve of World War II was oblivious of Stalin’s “Great Purge” in the early 1920s, which was largely a Jewish movement.
In fact, Dr. Friederich Karl Wiehe published his Germany and the Jewish Question in 1938 and meticulously argued that Jewish behavior was the main cause of anti-Jewish reaction around the world. Wiehe argued that wherever
“immorality was made into a business, Jews were prominent, if not dominant…Even the so-called ‘Sexual Science’—one of the unsavory products of the last century—was a purely Jewish invention and exploited by them into a most flourishing and lucrative branch of trade.”If you think this is far-fetched, then pick up a copy of Bristow’s Prostitution and Prejudice and find out. Bristow argues quite persuasively that pornography in the nineteenth century was largely a Jewish enterprise, and Hitler and his government knew this. Wiehe moved on to say that “as the result of the revolution in Germany in 1918, all barriers of law, order and censorship were broken down.” Wiehe continued:
“Jews played a leading part in corruption scandals everywhere. In France it was Hanau, Oustric and Stavisky; in the United States of America it was Insull and in Austria Bosel, Berliner and Castiglioni were the outstanding figures. Fundamentally it is not surprising that this plague of corruption became most widespread and acute in the period which followed the disastrous World War….
“It is understandable that Germany, as the loser of the war, became infected to a particularly acute degree with the germ of corruption.”
Wiehe cited examples after examples and names after names to support his case. He argued that right after World War I, Jewish companies and individuals began to suppress and oppress the average German for
“quick profits….Jewry’s great and triumphant hour of corruption came with the end of the Great War. The liquidation of the armaments factories and the sale of military stores and equipment offered splendid opportunities for handsome profits and the Jews were not backward in exploiting this state of affairs.
“The Jew, Richard Kahn, to mention an example, made a contract with the Deutsche Werke—the largest state-owned armaments plant—whereby the whole of its valuable stock was sold to him at scap-metal price.”
Wiehe quoted a Jewish author by the name of Felix Pinner saying that Jewish revolutionaries “firmly established themselves financially with the advent of the currency inflation period.”
Some of those revolutionaries, said Wiehe, had connections to Leon Trotsky. Pinner moved on to say that Jews such as Jakob Michael, Richard Kahn and Ciprut made a fortune from “the decomposing stench of German currency.”
As the saying goes, those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. When the stock market crashed in 2008, guess which company was making a fortune from the “decomposing stench” of the ruined economy?
Goldman Sachs. This became so apparent that one writer for Forbes said: “Goldman can no longer retain public trust. The government should terminate high-level people who worked previously at Goldman, and never recruit from Goldman again. The revolving door between Goldman and government empowers abusive conflicts of interest even more.”
Churchill proved that he could not get a rational thought in his head when he wrote:
“The main thesis of Mein Kampf is simple. Man is a fighting animal; therefore the nation, being a community of fighters, is a fighting unit. Any living organism which ceases to fight for its existence is doomed to extinction.”
I simply could not hold my laughter here because Churchill was a sort of social Darwinist. One of the obscure writers who played a profoundly influential role on Churchill was Winwood Reade, author of The Martyrdom of Man, a book which left Churchill with a “sombre vision of a godless universe.” Historian Richard Toye of the University of Exerter writes,
“The book’s message needs to be understood in the context of an intellectual atmosphere much influenced by Charles Darwin (with whom Raede had corresponded). It was common to apply Darwinian insights not only to the social competition between individuals but also to that between nations.
“It was widely believed that…the day of the small nations had passed, and that of empires had arrived. In order to survive in a predatory world, states needed to expand in order to maximize their populations and natural resources.”Agreeing with Darwin, Raede argued that “war had acted as ‘the chief agent of civilization’ in the ancient world.” In that sense, war is the hero of the plot. It has magical powers. It can create prosperity, happiness, and provide healing to a wounded civilization. “It seems that Churchill’s cheerful vision of war as the engine of social improvement—which he maintains in the 1940s—was heavily influenced by Raede.”
Churchill became prime minister in May of 1940. During his speech, he pronounced unapologetically:
“You ask, what is our policy? I will say: it is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might…”Here once again we see the marriage (or competition) between the Darwinian ideology and Jewish subversive movements. They both support the idea that wars will bring about the greatest good—at the expense of the weak and needy. Wars, according to Darwin, is inevitable because the “higher animals” need to wipe out the “lower” ones.
The Malthusian doctrine, said Darwin, could be applied “with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.” In that sense, “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life,” which incidentally is the subtitle of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, is of primary importance. Darwin, in a covert and pernicious way, subverted the moral order and replaced it with the “favoured races.” It was no coincidence that colonial empires were viewed in a Darwinian terminology. As one historian puts it,
“Contemporaries explained this rush for land in terms of Darwin’s evolutionary theories. The fittest and most adaptable of the great powers would survive and grow stronger at the expense of the enfeebled…As Churchill observed in 1899, ‘the position of England among the nations is the position of a dog with a bone in the midst of a hungry pack.’”Zionism, as we have seen in previous articles, is no different: the Palestinians have to be wiped out in order for the “Jewish state” to exist. In fact, Zionism has been doing exactly that in the Middle East.
So, when I hear people talking about the genius of Darwin and the so-called “evolutionary thinking” and then condemning Zionism, then it is an infallible sign to me that those people are either propagandists, useful idiots, or do not understand logic and reason. You cannot be a consistent Darwinist and condemn Zionism at the same time. Soon or later you will be floating in the irrational and illogical world.
At one point, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Toye writes that Churchill “gave his views on the Indian famine of 1873-4, claiming that Viceroy had been right to refuse demands that he prohibit grain exports.” Another observer writes that
“Churchill had corroborated Malthus’s perspective, writing of an 1898 Indian plague: ‘a philosopher may watch unmoved the destruction of some of those superfluous millions, whose life must of necessity be destitute of pleasure.’”
Churchill said elsewhere:
“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum.”Darwin used similar words to describe “uncivilized men.” In fact, Darwin constantly used phrases such as “higher animals” to describe how the powerful would eliminate the weak. Following Darwin’s ideology, Churchill declared,
“I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race or… a more worldly wise race…has come in and taken their place.”When people were objecting to his views about poisoned gas, Churchill said that they were being too squeamish, adding that
“the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war….
Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze? It is really too silly.”
It got even better:
“when an aide pointed out that Tito intended to transform Yugoslavia into a Communist dictatorship on the Soviet model,” Churchill responded by saying, “Do you intend to live there?”The plot thickens. Turning an entire country “into a Communist dictatorship on the Soviet model” is no problem for Churchill. But he is complaining about Hitler’s Mein Kampf?
Keep in mind that it was Churchill himself who said in 1943,
“In wartime, Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
So, can Sowell explain Churchill’s diabolical statement to us in a logical fashion here?
As it turns out, Churchill and his apologists would ideologically find themselves in the same boat with Friedrich Nietzsche, who said unapologetically:
“To be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory to all.”
Despite the fact that Zionist historians have tried for years to darken the minds of the public with distorted statements, the truth continues to spring forth like a mighty stream even in unexpected places. The Daily Mail has recently reported the dark side of Churchill:
“The confession was a startling one, in light of the great man he became. ‘The only thing that worries me in life is — money,’ wrote Winston Churchill, then aged 23, to his brother, Jack. ‘Extravagant tastes, an expensive style of living, small and diminished resources — these are fertile sources of trouble.’
“Indeed they were. For the qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into colossal debt.
“In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year.
“In my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have never encountered addiction to risk on such a scale as his…. As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
“And it was only by a wildly improbable intervention, almost an act of God, that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of Prime Minister: as war loomed, a secret benefactor wrote two cheques for well over £1 million to clear Churchill’s debts. His inventive efforts at tax avoidance would spell scandal if attempted by any politician today.”
Instead of pursuing morality and abide by the moral law, Churchill locked himself in the world of greed and lust, which became his ontology in his early 20s. In that sense, Churchill would have almost certainly been on the side of Donald Trump or Milton Friedman.
Trump—who still believes that President Obama is a Muslim!–thinks that you have to “kick ass in business and life” in order to make it big. Friedman argues that virtually nothing serious can be accomplished in life without greed and lust.
Friedman ended up educating a number of economists who now believe that greed (along with usury) is the nuts and bolts of economics. For example, in an article entitled “I Love Greed,” Walter E. Williams of George Mason University tells us:
“It turns out that it’s human greed that gets the most wonderful things done. When I say greed, I am not talking about fraud, theft, dishonesty, lobbying for special privileges from government or other forms of despicable behavior. I’m talking about people trying to get as much as they can for themselves.”
How Williams differentiates greed from theft and fraud and dishonesty so quickly still remains a mystery to me. It is like trying to separate capitalism from usury.
In any event, what Williams ends up articulating is that greed is like magic. It can accomplish great things. It can raise the dead (zombie economics) and do miracles. David Hume told us that miracles were impossible, but Friedman and Williams are implicitly saying that Hume died too soon: miracles are possible when it comes to capitalism. Without morality, argue modern capitalists, people can and will help their fellow man. It is the “invisible hand,” to use Adam Smith’s own words.
The simple fact is that this dubious and worthless theory has never worked in any decent society. In fact, it has destroyed economic progress over the ages. Without morality, economic activity is just like social Darwinism: survival of the fittest, “kick ass,” and pursuing greed and lust at the expense of virtually everyone else.
Without morality, economic progress means expanding the lifestyle of the rich and powerful, who always end up manipulating the market and playing dominoes with people’s lives. Williams moves on to give this ridiculous example:
“This winter, Texas ranchers may have to fight the cold of night, perhaps blizzards, to run down, feed and care for stray cattle. They make the personal sacrifice of caring for their animals to ensure that New Yorkers can enjoy beef. Last summer, Idaho potato farmers toiled in blazing sun, in dust and dirt, and maybe being bitten by insects to ensure that New Yorkers had potatoes to go with their beef.
“Here’s my question: Do you think that Texas ranchers and Idaho potato farmers make these personal sacrifices because they love or care about the well-being of New Yorkers?
“The fact is whether they like New Yorkers or not, they make sure that New Yorkers are supplied with beef and potatoes every day of the week. Why? It’s because ranchers and farmers want more for themselves. In a free market system, in order for one to get more for himself, he must serve his fellow man.”
Does Williams seriously think that companies like Goldman Sachs serves its fellow man? Doesn’t he know that Goldman Sachs, as Mat Taibbi has brilliantly put it, jams “its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”? Doesn’t he know that no one has ever prosecuted the pernicious activities that those companies have pursued over the years?
In any event, Churchill, like the Friedmanites and even Adam Smith, was working with the premise that economic miracles can happen without morality. This led him to get involved in what one ought to call magical activities, which actually sent him to the abyss of desperation.
“Surrounded by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and commodities. He was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities, especially in exploration for oil and gas.
“Gripped by investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher to demand an advance on his royalties, boasting of the profits he could grasp if he acted without delay.
“He plunged tens of thousands of dollars into oilfields and rolling stock, assuring his bankers that, ‘I do not expect to hold these shares for more than a few weeks.’“In the States, he stayed with media tycoon William Randolph Hearst and bought stakes in electrical ventures and gas companies, before heading to California where he indulged in late-night parties with Hollywood’s movie elite and toured the studios.
“After lunch with Charlie Chaplin on the set of his latest film, City Lights, Churchill boarded Hearst’s yacht and wrote to Clemmie that he had banked £1,000 (£50,000 today) by cashing in some shares in a furniture business called Simmons. His buying had spiralled out of control. Everything he could raise was plunged into U.S. stocks, in businesses from foundries to department stores.”
Churchill certainly did treat people as subjects and instruments to get what Christ calls Mammon. Churchill was completely broke because greed and lust know no limits. In the end, he got involved in gambling, and that too failed miserably and pathetically. He became poor, owing more than $100,000. Obviously that led him to depression and drinking.
“In fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000). His gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a single holiday at a casino in Cannes in 1936, for example.
“His efforts to cling to some kind of solvency became desperate. He borrowed money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his publishers and newspaper editors.”
Churchill was financially handcuffed.
“But by 1938, as the European situation with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
“His journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors were clamouring on all sides.
“His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts to bargain were ignored.”
Churchill was so desperate that he once said:
“For a while, the dark waters of despair overwhelmed me. I watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before me in mental gaze the vision of Death.”When death came to his front door, Churchill certainly had to find a way to escape. The Dreadful Few rescued him, but he had to loot and kill for them. He had to liquidate poor German civilians. In the process, he had to mercilessly slaughter the Germans en mass and brag that he had great fun doing it. He declared in 1915:
“I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.”Churchill continued,
“The twin roots of all our evils, Nazi Germany and Prussian militarism, must be extirpated. Until this is achieved, there are no sacrifices we will not make and no lengths in violence to which we will not go.”
So, when he explicitly said that he wanted “to starve the whole [German] population—men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission,” he meant it. This became apparent when he told Joseph Stalin in 1944:
“The problem was how to prevent Germany getting on her feet in the lifetime of our grandchildren.”
It must be emphasized that Churchill already had blood all over his hands by 1919. “We are enforcing the blockade with rigour,” he said, “and Germany is very near starvation.”
When all was said and done, Churchill ended up slaughtering almost 90,000 Germans. He also was responsible for the deaths of more than a million Indians.
“Britain’s wartime prime minister did not discuss in his six-volume account the 1943 famine in the eastern Indian province of Bengal, which killed 1.5 million people by the official estimate and 3 million by most others.
“One primary cause of the famine was the extent to which Churchill and his advisers chose to use resources of India to wage a war against Germany and Japan, causing scarcity and inflation within the colony.”But it would have been almost impossible for him to slaughter so many people (most specifically the Germans) without outside forces.
Jewish historian Martin Gilbert himself tells us that Churchill had “a lifelong friendship” with the Jews. For example, right after the outbreak of World War I, Theodor Herzl’s son, Hans, was immediately “naturalized.” Chaim Weizmann, a powerful Zionist Jew, provided Churchill with acetone, “the solvent used in making cordite: the essential naval explosive.”
Weizmann was a biochemist and later became the first President of Israel. Weizmann was working at Manchester University when Churchill approached him and declared, “Well, Dr. Weizmann, we need thirty thousand tons of acetone. Can you make it?”
Weizmann was a little chocked, but then said in part:
“Once the bacteriology of the process is established, it is only a question of brewing. I must get hold of a brewing engineer from one of the big distilleries, and we will set about the preliminary task.”
Weizmann later recalled,
“I was given carte blanche by Mr. Churchill and the department, and I took upon myself a task which was to tax my energies for the next two years, and which was to have consequences which I did not foresee.”
Since Weizmann was a flaming Zionist, he certainly perceived that thousands upon thousands of German civilians would end up losing their precious lives through Churchill’s pernicious activity. By 1917, Weizmann
“was using bacterial fermentation to produce substantial quantities of substances needed for the manufacture of explosives. Weizmann used the bacterium clostridium acetobutylicum—known as ‘the Weizmann organism’—to produce the acetone for the cordite which was critical to the British and Allied war effort.”
So, one can reasonably say that Churchill was a willing executioner: he took his orders from members of the Dreadful Few and executed them. If you think this is far-fetched, let us listen to Churchill himself:
“‘Yes, we are all guilty men,’ admitted Churchill to Weizman. ‘You know, you are are masters. And yours,’ he added pointing Attlee and Wedgwood, ‘and yours,’ to Victor Cazalet and James de Rothschild, the others round the table. ‘What you say goes. If you ask us to fight we shall fight like tigers.’”But executing people at will and destroying much of Germany (and England, through debt) for the Dreadful Few came with a huge price:
“Britain’s triumph over Germany was the classic illustration of a pyrrhic victory. Britain had not only bankrupted herself, emerging from the war with a debt that was ’14 times what it had been in 1914,’ it had also lost its empire to its American creditors. In order to continue, that empire would have to become the Anglo-American empire.”
 See for example “Winston Churchill’s Way With Words,” National Public Radio, July 14, 2012; JP O’Malley, “Winston Churchill was a very human leader, says Churchill and Empire author Lawrence James,” The Spectator, August 13, 2013.
 “Churchill: As good as we think?,” BBC, September 3, 2009.
 David Irving, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power (London: Focal Point, 2003), 84.
 John R. Lukacs, Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat: The Dire Warning—Churchill’s First Speech as Prime Minister (New York Basic Books, 2008).
 Paul Addison, Churchill: An Unexpected Hero (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), chapter six.
 See for example James C. Humes, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2012), chapters 17 and 18.
 See for example Winston Churchill, Never Give In!: The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches (New York: Hatchette Books, 2004).
 Paul Johnson, Churchill (New York: Penguin, 2010), chapters 2 & 5.
 Thomas Sowell, “A Churchill for Our Times,” National Review, March 15, 2015.
 Humes, Churchill: The Prophetic Statesman, 1.
 Boris Johnson, The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014).
 Thomas Sowell, “Random Thoughts,” Townhall.com, February 11, 2014.
 Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), chapter 4.
 See Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002).
 Friederich Karl Wiehe, Germany and the Jewish Question (Ostara Publications, 2014), 99.
 Ibid., 42.
 Ibid., 43.
 Michael Snyder, “How Goldman Sachs Made Tens Of Billions Of Dollars From The Economic Collapse Of America In Four Easy Steps,” The Economic Collapse, December 30, 2009; Terry Macalister, “Revealed: Goldman Sachs ‘made fortune betting against clients,’” Guardian, April 25, 2010; William D. Cohan, “The Great Goldman Sachs Fire Sale of 2008,” NY Times, February 18, 2010; William D. Cohan, Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World (New York: Anchor Books, 2011).
 Robert A. Green, “It’s Getting Harder To Defend Goldman Sachs,” Forbes, May 18, 2011.
 See Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 331.
 Churchill, Gathering Storm, 48.
 Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 59; Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 16-17.
 Richard Toye, Churchill’s Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010), 28.
 Ibid., 30.
 The Quotable Churchill (Philadelphia: Running Press Publishers, 2013), 163-164.
 Quoted in Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India During World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 204.
 Lawrence James, Churchill and Empire: A Portrait of an Imperialist (New York: Pegasus Books, 2014), 28.
 See for example Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2007); The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011).
 Quoted in Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 78.
 Toye, Churchill’s Empire, 30.
 Mukerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, 204.
 Quoted in Warren Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World (New York & London: I. B. Tauris & Co., 2015), 113.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), 1: 168.
 Dockter, Churchill and the Islamic World, 178; Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews, 120; Addison, Churchill, 137.
 Quoted in Giles Milton, Russian Roulette: How British Spies Thwarted Lenin’s Global Plot (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2013), 243.
 Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 85.
 Winston Churchill, Churchill by Himself (New York: Random House, 2008), 27.
 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin, 1976). 47.
 David Lough, “Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders. Yet a new book on Churchill’s finances reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze,” Daily Mail, September 11, 2015. What is so frustrating about this is that David Irving has been saying similar things from time immemorial! For example, he wrote that Churchill’s imperative was none other than “self-preservation—certainly political, probably financial.” Irving, Churchill’s War, 86.
 Jill Colvin, “Trump condemned for not correcting statement Obama is Muslim,” Associated Press, September 18, 2015.
 Donald Trump, Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), chapter ten.
 Walter E. Williams, “I Love Greed,” Townhall.com, January 4, 2012.
 Actually, Hume failed miserably in this regard. See for example John Earman, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
 E. Michael Jones provides numerous examples of this in Barren Metal.
 Matt Taibbi, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” Rolling Stone, April 5, 2010; see also “The People vs. Goldman Sachs,” Rolling Stone, May 11, 2011;
 See for example Harry Bradford, “7 Wall Street Bankers Pushing To End ‘Too Big To Fail,’” Huffington Post, March 12, 2013.
 Greg Smith, “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs,” NY Times, March 14, 2012.
 Lough, “Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders. Yet a new book on Churchill’s finances reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze,” Daily Mail, September 11, 2015.
 Quoted in Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 101.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1211.
 Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders, 58.
Murkerjee, Churchill’s Secret War, ix..
 Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2007), 23.
 Ibid., 24.
 Ibid., 27.
 Quoted in Irving, Churchill’s War, 91.
 Jones, Barren Metal, 1211.
The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on September 24, 2015, With 5683 Reads, Filed under History, Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on September 24, 2015, With 5683 Reads, Filed under History, Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS WEEK
- Vladimir Putin: The New World Order Worships Satan
- Israeli Russian Threat Hoax Pushes World to Brink of War
- Obama Goes Potty at UN
- Putin to NWO Agents and Satan Worshipers: I’m Coming for You!
- Putin Knocks Charlie Rose and Other NWO Agents Out in a Second!
- Your Radiation This Week No 23
- Duff Back Alive
- Real War News, Israeli Commando’s Fight Alongside ISIS in Syria
- Israel Lies Debunked, Russia Releases Combat Video of ISIS Strikes
- ‘We heard them screaming’: US troops told to ignore Afghan s...
- Baby-busters, the New Underclass
- Putin-Obama UN showdown on Monday – Truth or Consequences?
- VT’s Secret Mission to Syria
- Is America now destined to become the World’s Pariah along with it...
- Postmodernism and the (Sexual) New World Order in Japan
- Barricading Canadian Democracy
- The Secret ISIS Safe Havens Nobody Wants You to Know About
- General Breedlove and his “Red Menace” Fantasy
- Syria Gives Tanks to Hezbollah as Russia Beefs Up Its Forces
- TRUTH JIHAD: “No statute of limitations on treason or murder!”
- NWO Agent Mark Levin Is a Stalinist and a Satanist
- ‘If we stop training, arming jihadists, the war will end’ – Virginia sta...
- US for unchanged status quo in Syria
- Jim W. Dean on The Debate: War on Syria
- Thomas Paine on Anti-Gentile Teachings in Judaism
- TRUTH JIHAD: Attorney John Remington Graham files motion: Free Dzhokhar ...
- Cameron drops demand for Assad to go, as he targets Isil
- NEO – Great Britain is a Centre of Money Laundering
- Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams ‘policies of exceptionalism a...
- Climategate Still The Issue as Carbon Pope Lauds Corrupt Climate Science
- The Hidden History of the Incredibly Evil Khazarian Mafia (Updated)
- When the Tables Turn – Do not embarrass your friends
- What will Obama and Putin talk about?
- EMPIRE FILES: The Rise of History’s Biggest Empire
- A Century of Purse-Snatchings, Smears and Assassinations
- Pentagon is all aboard the fear porn band wagon
- Armageddon is not turning out quite as Gog and Magog planned it
- Pravda: Putin Threatens to Release Satellite Evidence of 9/11
- Speaking Truth to Empire: If Americans Knew
- Duff in Trier
- Bill Whittle on the F-35 Debacle
- Churchill Was a Mass Murderer and Worshipped Mammon
- Uri Avnery: The Ministry of Fear
- Chuck Hagel: US Should Consider Engaging Russia in Anti-ISIL Fight
- It’s a Gag!
- ISIS militants in Iraq, Syria have WMD components, Lavrov warns UN Secur...
- Michelle Obama Could Be First Transgender First Lady in the White House
- Airline whistleblower solves 9/11
- France carries out first airstrikes against ISIS in Syria
Israel, the psychopathic nation
Is Zionism a collective personality disorder?
By Dr. Laurent Guyénot, translated and introduced by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
Can a nation be a psychopath?According to one expert on political psychopathy, Andrzej Lobaczewski, the answer is yes. Whole nations, even international political movements, can exhibit behavior that parallels that of psychopathic individuals.
Lobaczewski, a Polish psychiatrist, diagnosed psychopathic symptoms among the Communist-era leadership. He argued that individuals with personality disorders, especially psychopathy, tend to gravitate to positions of power, which can set off a contagion in which the entire regime takes on psychopathic characteristics.
In a brand-new article, translated and published here for the first time, Laurent Guyénot argues that Israel (and the international Zionist movement surrounding and empowering it) is a textbook case of political psychopathy. Naturally the Zio-psychopaths, who always have to be 100% right and cannot accept the slightest bit of criticism, will not respond well to this article. Their reaction will offer yet another item of evidence that Dr. Guyénot’s thesis is correct.
Laurent Guyénot is an Engineer (National School of Advanced Technology, 1982) and medievalist (PhD in Medieval Studies at Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2009). He has authored numerous books; the latest is JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State. My recent interview with him on the Charlie Hebdo affair is archived here.
ISRAEL, THE PSYCHOPATHIC NATION
by Laurent Guyenot
“Judeophobia is a psychosis. As a psychosis, it is hereditary and as a disease transmitted for two thousand years, it is incurable.” (Leo Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation, 1882)
Jewishness is a notoriously ambivalent notion. On the one hand, Judaism is a religion; on the other, Jews are a people, an ethnic group or race. It all depends on the circumstances. But in both cases, Jewishness may legitimately be subjected to psychological analysis. If Judaism is a religion, we may turn to Freud, who addressed the relationship between religion and neurosis in three books: Totem and Taboo, Civilization and Its Discontents and The Future of an Illusion, in which he calls “religion” (referring mainly to Catholicism) a “universal obsessional neurosis of humanity.” If, conversely, the Jews are a people, then we can base our analysis on common sense, which admits that every people has a national character forged by history – or a collective memory, which is to say, its own representation of its history. Concerning the character of the Jewish nation, there is no shortage of opinions from Jewish intellectuals.
The hypothesis presented in this paper can be summarized as follows: The Jewish nation, as a state, but also as an organized world community, acts collectively towards other nations and other human communities in the way a psychopath acts towards his fellow men. I will first describe psychopathy as a cognitive and behavioral structure and show how the ideology and methods of the chosen people are related to it. It goes without saying that I do not intend to imply that “the Jews” are psychopaths, but instead that they are the first victims of a mental straitjacket imposed by their elites, who through veritable intellectual terrorism, make of them, to the extent that they comply, the instruments of the collective psychopathy of Israel.
What is a psychopath?
Psychopathy is a syndrome of traits classified among the personality disorders. Canadian psychologist Robert Hare (1) in the wake of Hervey Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity (1941), has defined its diagnostic criteria on the basis of a cognitive model that is now widely adopted, though some behaviorally-oriented psychiatrists prefer the term sociopathy. In an effort to get everyone to agree, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders, the American psychiatric bible, suggested antisocial personality disorder; but the term psychopathy is still in use.
The most striking traits of the psychopath are lack of empathy and conscience. Other traits are common to narcissism: psychopaths have a grand vision of their own importance. In their minds, everything is owed to them because they are exceptional. They are never wrong, and failures are always the fault of others. They often show megalomania, but some learn to hide their arrogance under false modesty. If the psychopath pretends to rise to the universal level, it is because he confuses it with his personal interests, and the truth with his own opinions. However, the psychopath is distinguished from the simple narcissist by his appetite for power, which makes him much more destructive. Moreover, his capacity for harm is not inhibited by any scruples or remorse: he is incapable of feeling guilt. Although he imagines himself a hero, and in some cases looks like a hero, the psychopath is, on the human spectrum, the polar opposite of the hero who sacrifices himself for his community; he will not hesitate to sacrifice the people around him, and when he knows he is lost, he consoles himself by causing as many people as possible to fall.
Basically, the psychopath perceives others as objects. He has a mechanical view of people and human relationships (and, in some way, of himself as well). Although devoid of conscience, he often has a keen perception of the law, which he, as a mechanic of the social engine, overestimates. He has not internalized moral law and in this sense is not socialized, but he has mastered the rules of the game and cheats without qualms if he can. For the same reason, the psychopath almost always develops an immoderate taste for money; he idealizes it as the epitome of power, the very essence of the social; he thinks that people can be bought and sold like things, and life often proves him right.
The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy also include pathological lying, deception (cunning) and manipulative behavior. The psychopath feels only very superficial emotions and has no real feelings for anyone; but he has developed a great ability to deceive. He can be charming to the point of being charismatic. He typically shows highly-developed verbal intelligence and lies with disconcerting aplomb. He is unable to empathize, but learns to simulate it, sometimes with a tendency to histrionics (Latin histrio, “theater actor”). The psychoanalyst Helène Deutsche makes this trait the mark of “as-if personalities” endowed with purely mimetic “pseudo-emotions,” devoid of inner experience, “a little like an actor with good technique, but not animated by any actual life.” (2) But the psychopath is more than that: he is a manipulator. It is through his extraordinary ability to feign, trick, trap, and capture that the psychopath draws his power. Although he himself is immunized against guilt, he becomes a master in the art of using guilt to dominate others.
In any situation, the psychopath projects a persona, which can vary according to circumstances. The opinions he wears in public are all disguises that he tailors to his own advantage. However, lying is so deeply embedded in his nature that the question of his “sincerity” is almost irrelevant: the psychopath can beat a lie detector. The truth has no value in his eyes, or merges with the version of events that suits him. The psychopath is unable to put himself in the place of others, and thus to view himself critically. Confident in any circumstance of being right and innocent (and superior), he considers the resentment of his victims as irrational and pointless.
Although those close to the psychopath – at least those who learn the hard way his true nature – can judge him raving mad, the psychopath is not “sick” because he does not “suffer.” He is innocent of neurosis, and never requests psychiatric care (except as a strategic calculation). He is not psychotic, and cannot be regarded as maladapted to social life. On the contrary, he is, in a certain sense, over-adjusted. That is why the real mystery, from a Darwinian point of view, is not the existence of psychopaths, but their low proportion in the population.
Jewishness and selective empathy
The most optimistic low-end estimate of the proportion of psychopaths in the Western population is 1%. This 1% should not be confused with the famous 1% who own half the world’s wealth; but a study of senior executives of large companies, published under the title Snakes in Suits, shows that psychopathic traits are widespread among them (3). This is not surprising; modern society values psychopathic traits and favors the upward mobility of psychopaths.
The fact that Jews today are disproportionately represented among the elite (they form half of billionaires in the United States, while representing only 2.4% of the population) (4) does not allow us to conclude that psychopathy is more prevalent among the chosen people. In a way, quite the opposite is the case: Jews demonstrate among themselves an extraordinary capacity for empathy, or at least familiarity that breeds exceptional solidarity to the point of self-sacrifice. But the selective nature of this empathy suggests that it is addressed less to the humanity of others than to their Jewishness. In Nomads. Essay on the Jewish Soul (1929) we learn what transpires when two Jews meet. “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.” (5)
This is a comment from Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, about his meeting with Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Council of the Federal Reserve, two very influential Americans, about whom we would like to believe that such familiarity does not affect their judgment of the nation’s interest. Kadmi Isaac Cohen described Judaism as “the spiritualized deification of the race […]. Thus the divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.” (6) It is as if the Jews felt united by a collective or ethnic soul, which occupies more or less of their individual soul according to individuals and circumstances.
This is indeed how many Jews recall their Jewishness. “Being Jewish to me,” says Alain Finkielkraut, “is to feel involved, concerned, sometimes compromised by what other Jews do. It’s a feeling of belonging, affiliation; and in this affiliation, there is, for example, the tortured link to Israel.” (7) Every Jew experiences himself as part and parcel of the chosen people; everything he is doing reflects on the community. When a Jew is a victim, all Jewish people are victimized. (By contrast, if he is a torturer, his Jewishness is repressed because it would implicate the whole people in his guilt.) Jewishness is in some sense a latent sentiment capable of being activated by the slightest alarm. “The feeling of Jewishness remains in me something dark, abyssal, and above all, unstable. Both powerful and labile. Nothing is as important to me as my Jewishness which, however, in many respects, has so little importance in my life,” writes Jacques Derrida. (8)
In contrast to the empathy it shows for itself, the Jewish community as a whole, to the extent it submits to its representative elites, tends to behave towards the mass of Gentiles in a psychopathic rather than empathic manner. This is why a goy observer, Werner Sombart, despite his reputation as a Semitophile, highlights features of Jewish collective psychology that are similar to psychopathic tendencies including a temperament that is “coldly utilitarian” and “calculating,” alongside a propensity to mimicry, combined with a mechanical conception of human relations. (9) The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), very critical of his Jewish community, noticed among Jewish intellectuals a pragmatic and self-interested notion of truth, which can be compared with that of the psychopath: “The Jew . . . seeks to learn not in order to replace his collective prejudices by reflective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. . . . [H]e superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no effect of the former upon the latter”. (10) Many Jewish historians, for example, seem to value History less as a pursuit of truth than as a means of power.
The hypothesis of a form of “collective psychopathy” with narcissistic tendencies makes it possible to deconstruct the universalism in which Judaism is draped. At the first level, Jewish universalism is a fable intended to obfuscate reality and confuse the goy. But it is not only this, as it also appears in the literature internal to the Jewish community, where it amounts to an expression of limitless ethnic narcissism. The Jewish people are “the seed that is germinating the humanity of the future” (Jacob Kaplan, Chief Rabbi of France); “the living ladder that meets the sky” (Emmanuel Levinas); “Israel equals humanity” (Levinas) (11); “The Jew is closer to humanity than any other,” so that “the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity” and therefore killing Jews is “murdering all mankind” (Elie Wiesel) (12). Worse, “Hitting a Jew is hitting God Himself,” according to Cardinal Aron Jean-Marie Lustiger (13), taken almost verbatim from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b: “Hitting a Jew is like slapping the face of God himself “). This is why the strange notion of “crimes against humanity” was created specifically in 1945 at the Nuremburg Trials to describe the massacre of Jews, while the term “genocide” was coined for the same purpose by Raphael Lemkin in 1944. These terms having since been generalized to other victims of history, the copyrighted term Holocaust was coined — hard to beat.
This equation between Jewishness and humanity, which is the height of ethnocentrism, is the real meaning of Judaism’s claim to embody humanism. Though Israelis are “the most separatist people in the world” according to Nahum Goldman (former president of the World Jewish Organization and founder of the World Jewish Congress), he adds: “The Israelis have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them .” (14) So there is not necessarily a contradiction in their minds between universalist discourse and the practice of tribalism. If the Jew is the essence of humanity, what is good for the Jews is good for humanity, on principle. And although fundamentally racist, Jewishness cannot see itself as such: “Judaic ethics […] by definition deny racism. A Jew cannot be racist.” (Elie Wiesel) (15). This does not prevent the same Elie Wiesel from stating that “Jewish history describes an ongoing conflict between us and the others. Since Abraham, we are on one side and the whole world is on the other.” (16)
It has often been said that Jews have an ethnocentric conception of universal history, which has no meaning in their eyes except in relation to the Jewish people. Josef Kastein acknowledges this in his book History and Destiny of the Jews (1936): “Because it accepted the idea of the chosen people and salvation, the Jewish world was Judeocentric, and Jews could interpret everything that happened according to a single point of view, with themselves as the center.” (17) Joshua Jehouda illustrates this perfectly in Antisemitism, Mirror of the World: “He who plumbs the depths of universal history, to gain an overall vision, finds that from ancient times until today two opposing currents are fighting over history, penetrating and shaping it constantly: the messianic current and the anti-Semitic current […] Because messianism and anti-Semitism are the two opposite poles of the journey of humanity.” (18)
In his megalomania, the psychopath is convinced that when he uses others, it is for their own good. Similarly, according to rabbinical logic, it is to enlighten humanity that the Jewish community must preserve itself, prosper, and eventually dominate humanity: “Judaism considers only the salvation of the house of Israel, which alone will permit the salvation of the seventy nations of the universe” (Rabi, Anatomy of French Judaism, 1962) (19). This is where the double ethno-religious nature of Judaism helps streamline the paradox that the Jews should remain a separate people in order to spread their universal religion. Such Jewish intellectuals as Felix Adler (1851-1933) have defended the paradoxical idea that the Jewish people must remain ethnically united to accomplish their mission: To spread the universalism that will dissolve ethnicity from the rest of humanity. Only when the mission is completed will the Jewish people disappear. In this way has the most ethnically oriented community manages to impersonate the champions of universalism. (20) Thus when Martin Buber called for a state for the Jews, it was so they could serve humanity. For it is only by fulfilling his messianic dream of a national home, he said, that the Jewish religion can lead humanity towards the messianic age. (21) This argument, developed by Reform Judaism, is intended primarily for goyim but also for “soft” Jews, in order to convince them that their commitment in favor of the group is a service to humanity.
The Innocent Victim
The psychopath is unable to see the other person’s point of view, and criticism strikes him as irrational aggression. This is the reaction of the Jewish elites to criticism: To them it can be nothing other than the expression of visceral anti-Semitism, an atavistic goyish disease. “Judeophobia is a psychosis,” wrote Leo Pinsker, a founding father of Zionism, “a hereditary demonic madness,” “a congenital perversion of human mentality,” “passed down for two thousand years,” “incurable.” (22)
The psychopath does not know the feeling of guilt; he constantly plays innocent. Those who get in his way, or even cast a shadow over his path, are solely responsible for their own destruction. Their accusations are baseless fabrications, their anger an irrational hatred. “One thing that Judaism has which other spiritualities lack is innocence,” explains André Neher, one of the leaders of “the Jewish school of thought of Paris” (with Emmanuel Levinas and Leon Ashkenazi). “We are innocent, and we feel even more deeply that we are innocent when we are accused. […] It is this innocence that we must be aware of at present, and that we must never deny, never, in any circumstance.” (23) And it works: “You will understand nothing of anti-Semitism,” wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, “if you fail to remember that the Jew, that object of so much hatred, is perfectly innocent, nay harmless.” (Anti-Semite and Jew, 1946). The Jewish question is thus reduced to the question of anti-Semitism, which, thanks to the mythology of the Holocaust, is elevated to the status of metaphysical Evil. “The hatred of the Jews is the enigma of enigmas …” (André Glucksmann, Hate Speech, 2004) (24). It is a necessary enigma, without which the Jewish people could dissolve. Towards the end of his life, the Jewish writer Ilya Ehrenburg repeated that he would consider himself a Jew “as long as there was a single anti-Semite left on earth.” (25) Persecution is the central theme of the Passover holiday, Hanukkah, Purim and Yom Kippur, and Jewish history as taught to Jewish children, according to Michael Walzer, is one long tale of exile and persecution – Holocaust history read backwards. (26) According to historian Zygmunt Bauman, Israel uses the Holocaust “as the certificate of its political legitimacy, as a safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and, above all, as advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit.” (27)
Israel, Psychopath State
The State of Israel is now in the international scene what the psychopath is in a human community. With regard to the Palestinians, “Israeli Jews’ consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians, and insensitivity to their suffering,” in the words of journalist Akiva Eldar (“Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in 2008-2009″). (28) As noted by the Deputy Director of Military Intelligence Yehoshafat Harkabi: “Dazzled by its self-righteousness, Israel cannot see the case of the other side. Self-righteousness encourages nations no less than individuals to absolve themselves of every failing and shake off the guilt of every mishap. When everyone is guilty except them, the very possibility of self-criticism and self-improvement vanishes…” (29) The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz in 2010 that “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior.” However, the diagnosis he offers, including “paranoia, schizophrenia and megalomania,” (30) is in my opinion insufficient. It must take into account Israel’s extraordinary manipulative capacity on the world stage via corruption and propaganda, that is to say, the Bank and the Press.
Israel’s relationship to the United States is that of a typical psychopath to an influential and impressionable man he has decided to use to accomplish his misdeeds. The golden rule of manipulation formulated by Colonel Mandell House (who was the intermediary between the Zionist network and President Woodrow Wilson) applies generally to Israel’s manipulation of the United States: “With the President […] it was invariably my intention to always to make him believe that ideas he derived from me were his own.” (31) Indeed, Israel has managed to lead America into a Middle East policy that only serves Israeli interests, by pretending to the American people that it serves their interests. The psychopath tries to interfere in all the human relationships of his prey, so as to prevent any alliance that could allow him to be unmasked. Isolate and divide-and-rule are the essence of this strategy. This is exactly what Israel and its neoconservative moles have done, by trying to split the United States from its historic allies in the Middle East, with the aim of one day remaining the only ally of the United States in the area; the demonization of all heads of state in the Arab world is part of this strategy.
The power of the Zionist manipulation of the United States, based on quasi-total control of the mainstream media alongside large-scale psychological operations such as September 11th, is truly bewildering. But it becomes understandable in light of the cognitive mechanisms of psychopathy. It even becomes predictable to some extent, if we keep in mind that the psychopath has no ability to question, no limits to his appetite for power, and no remorse about leading humanity into ruin to save his skin. Nothing better illustrates the psychopathic nature of Zionism than the apocalyptic nuclear blackmail Israel perpetually exercises over the West under the name “the Samson Option.” In 1974 Golda Meir summed it up as “Israel’s willingness in a doomsday situation to take the region down with it” (32) in the event of looming defeat.
And remember: there is no limit to the psychopath’s thirst for power, because he does not seeks power for the comfort it can bring him, but instead loves power for the sake of power.
By drawing a parallel between psychopathy as a personality disorder and the attitude of Israel, I do not mean, of course, the Jews in general. They are the first to be manipulated by their elites, and they are part of this collective psychopathy only to the extent of their submission to those elites. Jewishness, do not forget, is whatever idea the Jews make of it; and the idea the Jews make of it is, almost entirely, the one imposed on them by their elites.
What is at issue is the prevailing ideology of Israel, and (more discreetly) of the organized Jewish community. Dominant discourse is always shaped by the elite. Sometimes a strong current of popular thought emerges to challenge the dominant way of thinking, but nothing of this kind is yet observable in the Jewish community; it is overwhelmingly docile to its elite, which currently dominates the media and the entertainment industry and therefore enjoys considerable mind-control powers. Their ruse is to maintain in the Jews an absolute conviction of the immaculate innocence of their people, and simultaneously to inculcate a paranoid fear of anti-Semitism, this “disease transmitted for two thousand years, incurable.” (Leon Pinsker) (33)
In The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Free Press, 2005), Joel Bakan noted that those “legal persons” that are large companies behave like psychopaths, insensitive to the suffering of those they crush in their pursuit of profit: “Corporate behavior is very similar to that of a psychopath.” That company culture, which involves every employee to one degree or another, is driven by its ruling elite. The Enron case has shown the world the tremendous damage that can be done by a company run by people of high intelligence and perverse ideology. (34) My analysis here of the Jewish community is based on exactly the same reasoning. Like it or not, the character of a nation is as much determined by its legitimate leaders than the reverse. Until proven otherwise Benjamin Netanyahu is as much Israel as Vladimir Putin is Russia.
And since Israel has New York as its second capital, we must also count among its elites the neoconservatives (“neo” here means “crypto” and “conservative” means “Likudnik”), whose leaders define themselves as disciples of Leo Strauss, therefore implicitly as super-Machiavellian. (In his Thoughts on Machiavelli, in fact, Strauss claims he is the only one who understands what Machiavelli never dared to write). This hyper-Machiavellianism of the neoconservatives, to which they admit when speaking amongst themselves, must be taken very seriously. In an article in the Jewish World Review of June 7, 1999, the neoconservative Michael Ledeen defends the thesis that Machiavelli was a “secret Jew” since “If you listen to his political philosophy you will hear Jewish music.” (35) According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the super-patriot who understands that only the nation has an eternal soul, and that, therefore, the best leader is one who has no fear of losing his soul, since he has none. In practice, the art of the Machiavellian prince is to terrorize while diverting popular resentment toward his enemies. I believe that the admission of Ledeen sheds light on the psychopathic nature of Israel. From the Judeo-Machiavellian (i.e. neoconservative) point of view, the current leaders of Israel from Tel Aviv to New York – from Benjamin Netanyahu to Larry Silverstein – are super-patriots.
This article is in no way anti-Semitic; it is a severe criticism of “Jewishness” as a system of thought, a representation of the world and the self. We are critiquing an idea by exposing its dangerous irrationality, nothing more. Even if it is as old as the world, an idea still deserves critique. Since the first victims of a toxic idea are the men and women it inhabits, they are likewise the first we would help liberate. This article is basically a fraternal message to all Jews: Jews of all countries, disunite! Break away from your elites and their pathological ideology! Rejoin humanity!
Likewise, not all elites deserve to be put in the same bag. Many are the Zionist leaders who have had the courage to confront the monster they created, and to try to undo the damage. Moshe Sharett, Foreign Minister from 1948 to 1956 and Prime Minister from 1954 to 1955, advocated a moderate Zionism respectful of international rules, in contrast to the methods of Ben Gurion, Pinhas Levon, Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres, the clan determined “to set the Middle East on fire,” “to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims,” by raising “terrorism to the level of a sacred principle” according to Sharett (36). The Zionist leader Nahum Goldman, quoted above, was in favor of a genuine dialogue with the Arabs and was deeply disillusioned by the attitude of Ben Gurion, whom he described as “organically incapable of compromise” and blinded by self-righteousness. After 1967 he became an outspoken critic of illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. During the government of Begin, he advised President Carter to “break the back” of the Zionist lobby that he had long headed, which he believed had become a “negative factor” afflicting American foreign policy. (37)
Why have men like Sharett and Goldman never managed to overcome the psychopathic ideological power machine of Zionism? Could it be because it – like Jewishness itself – is rooted deeply in the Bible? In the final analysis does not the Zionist manipulation go back to the creation by those ancient priests, the Levites, of a tribal god by the name of Yahweh, who usurped the title of the Creator of the Universe and Father of Humanity? Ultimately, is not Zionism the logical outcome of Yahwism? This is a question that I will reserve for another article.
1) Robert Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, The Guilford Press, 1993.
2) Helene Deutsche, Les «comme si» et autres textes, 1933-1970 (1992), Seuil, 2007, p. 55, cited in Roland Gori, La Fabrique des Imposteurs, Le Lien qui Libère, 2013, p. 232.
3) Paul Babiak et Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, HarperCollins, 2007. Theme expressed in documentary film I am Fishead (2011) : www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXFmo6WipNk
4) Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, University of Chicago Press, 1993 ; J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Basic Books, 1997.
5) Robert Reich, Locked in the Cabinet, Scribner, 1997, cited in Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger 1998, kindle edition 2013, e. 9222-27.
6) Cited in André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, p. 418-419.
7) www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Alain-Soral-commentaires-de-l-actualite-et-conseils-de-lecture-25711.html, à 15:12.
8) Cité dans Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 183.
9) Werner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie économique (1902), KontreKulture, 2012, p. 482 et 158.
10) Cited in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, édition kindle 2013, e. 5403-10.
11) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, La Guerre eschatologique, Éditions Baskerville, 2013, p. 23-24 et Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 184-189.
12) Cited in Roger Garaudy, Le Procès du sionisme, 1998, p. 17 et dans Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 184-189.
13) Jean-Marie Lustiger, La Promesse, Parole et Silence, 2002.
14) Nahum Goldman, The Jewish Paradox, Fred Jordan Book, 1978, p. 8 et 56-57.
15) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 191.
16) Hervé Ryssen, La Guerre eschatologique, Éditions Baskerville, 2013, p. 25.
17) Josef Kastein, History and destiny of the Jews, Garden City publishing, 1936, cited in Douglas Reed, La Controverse de Sion (1956), Kontre Kulture, 2012, p. 163.
18) Josué Jehouda, L’Antisémitisme, miroir du monde, Éditions Synthesis, 1958, p.185, cited in Léon de Poncins, Les Juifs et le Concile Vatican II, Kontre Kulture, 2014, p. 173.
19) Cited in Martin Peltier, L’Antichristianisme juif. L’enseignement de la haine, Diffusion Internationale Édition, 2014, p. 250-252.
20) Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Praeger, 1998, Kindle edition 2013, e. 9983-10008 ; see also Separation and Its Discontents, Praeger, 1998, Kindle edition 2013, ch. 7.
21) Cited in Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Praeger 1998, Kindle edition 2013, e. 5485-91.
22) Léon Pinsker, Autoémancipation, Lettre d’un juif russe à ses frères (1882), Éditions Mille et Une Nuits, 2006, p. 17 et 21.
23) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Les Espérances planétariennes, Éditions Baskerville, 2005, p. 319.
24) Cited in Hervé Ryssen, Psychanalyse du judaïsme, Éditions Baskerville, 2006, p. 205.
25) Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Kindle 2013, e. 3176-78.
26) Michael Walzer, “Toward a New Realization of Jewishness,” Congress Monthly n° 61, 1994, p.4, cited in MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Kindle 2013, e. 4675-86.
27) Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, Kindle 2013, e. 4674-86.
28) Cited in Max Blumenthal, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, Nation Books, 2013, p. 16.
29) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 2: David Becomes Goliath, p. 42-49.
30) Gideon Levy, “Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behavior,” Haaretz, January 10, 2010, www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/only-psychiatrists-can-explain-israel-s-behavior-1.261115
31) Arthur Howden Smith, The Real Colonel House (1918), Bibliographical Center for Research, 2010, citd in Aline de Diéguez, Aux Sources du chaos mondial actuel, on line at: http://aline.dedieguez.pagesperso-orange.fr/mariali/chaos/house.html.
32) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 194.
33) Léon Pinsker, Auto-émancipation, 1882, cited in Jean Daniel, La Prison juive, Odile Jacob, 2005, p. 133.
34) See the documentary The Smartest Guy in the Room (2005), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxzLX_C9Z74
35) Michael Ledeen, “What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses,” Jewish World Review, 7 juin 1999, www.jewishworldreview.com/0699/machiavelli1.asp
36) Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents, Association of Arab-American University Graduates, 1986, p. 42-49.
37) Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 2: David Becomes Goliath, p. 42-49.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.
Sent by Muhammad al-Mass'ari
An excerpt from the soon-to-be-released 'The British Mad Dog'
Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.
Sent by Muhammad al-Mass'ari
Terrorism and the other Religions
Contrary to what is alleged by bigots like Bill Maher, Muslims are not more violent than people of other religions. Murder rates in most of the Muslim world are very low compared to the United States.
As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.
I don’t figure that Muslims killed more than a 2 million people or so in political violence in the entire twentieth century, and that mainly in the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 and the Soviet and post-Soviet wars in Afghanistan, for which Europeans bear some blame.
Compare that to the Christian European tally of, oh, lets say 100 million (16 million in WW I, 60 million in WW II– though some of those were attributable to Buddhists in Asia– and millions more in colonial wars.)
Belgium– yes, the Belgium of strawberry beer and quaint Gravensteen castle– conquered the Congo and is estimated to have killed off half of its inhabitants over time, some 8 million people at least.
Or, between 1916-1930 Tsarist Russian and then Soviet forces — facing the revolt of Central Asians trying to throw off Christian (and then Marxist), European rule — Russian forces killed an estimated 1.5 million people. Two boys brought up in or born in one of those territories (Kyrgyzstan) just killed 4 people and wounded others critically. That is horrible, but no one, whether in Russia or in Europe or in North America has the slightest idea that Central Asians were mass-murdered during WW I and before and after, and looted of much of their wealth. Russia when it brutally conquered and ruled the Caucasus and Central Asia was an Eastern Orthodox, Christian empire (and seems to be reemerging as one!).
Then, between half a million and a million Algerians died in that country’s war of independence from France, 1954-1962, at a time when the population was only 11 million!
I could go on and on. Everywhere you dig in European colonialism in Afro-Asia, there are bodies. Lots of bodies.
Now that I think of it, maybe 100 million people killed by people of European Christian heritage in the twentieth century is an underestimate.
As for religious terrorism, that too is universal. Admittedly, some groups deploy terrorism as a tactic more at some times than others. Zionists in British Mandate Palestine were active terrorists in the 1940s, from a British point of view, and in the period 1965-1980, the FBI considered the Jewish Defense League among the most active US terrorist groups. (Members at one point plotted to assassinate Rep. Dareell Issa (R-CA) because of his Lebanese heritage.) Now that Jewish nationalsts are largely getting their way, terrorism has declined among them. But it would likely reemerge if they stopped getting their way. In fact, one of the arguments Israeli politicians give for allowing Israeli squatters to keep the Palestinian land in the West Bank that they have usurped is that attempting to move them back out would produce violence. I.e., the settlers not only actually terrorize the Palestinians, but they form a terrorism threat for Israel proper (as the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin discovered).
Even more recently, it is difficult for me to see much of a difference between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Baruch Goldstein, perpetrator of the Hebron massacre.
Or there was the cold-blooded bombing of the Ajmer shrine in India by Bhavesh Patel and a gang of Hindu nationalists. Chillingly, they were disturbed when a second bomb they had set did not go off, so that they did not wreak as much havoc as they would have liked. Ajmer is an ecumenical Sufi shrine also visited by Hindus, and these bigots wanted to stop such open-minded sharing of spiritual spaces because they hate Muslims.
Buddhists have committed a lot of terrorism and other violence as well. Many in the Zen orders in Japan supported militarism in the first half of the twentieth century, for which their leaders later apologized. And, you had Inoue Shiro’s assassination campaign in 1930s Japan. Nowadays militant Buddhist monks in Burma/ Myanmar are urging on an ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya.
As for Christianity, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda initiated hostilities that displaced two million people. Although it is an African cult, it is Christian in origin and the result of Western Christian missionaries preaching in Africa. If Saudi Wahhabi preachers can be in part blamed for the Taliban, why do Christian missionaries skate when we consider the blowback from their pupils?
Despite the very large number of European Muslims, in 2007-2009 less than 1 percent of terrorist acts in that continent were committed by people from that community.
Terrorism is a tactic of extremists within each religion, and within secular religions of Marxism or nationalism. No religion, including Islam, preaches indiscriminate violence against innocents.
It takes a peculiar sort of blindness to see Christians of European heritage as “nice” and Muslims and inherently violent, given the twentieth century death toll I mentioned above. Human beings are human beings and the species is too young and too interconnected to have differentiated much from group to group. People resort to violence out of ambition or grievance, and the more powerful they are, the more violence they seem to commit. The good news is that the number of wars is declining over time, and World War II, the biggest charnel house in history, hasn’t been repeated.
In honor of St.Patricks Day, we remember the victims of Winston Churchill's brutal oppression of the liberty-loving Irish.
In his capacity as 'Secretary of State for War (and Air), Winston Churchill establishes the Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve, which comes to be known as 'The Black and Tans'. Churchill's RICSR is a mercenary policing force recruited for the purpose of suppressing Irish independence.
Recruitment begins in Great Britain in late 1919. Thousands, many of them unemployed British Army veterans of World War I, answer Churchill's call. By November 1921, about 9,500 men will have joined.
The nickname "Black and Tans" derives from the colors of the uniforms they wear. The Black and Tans become infamous for their arbitrary reprisals against the civilian population. In the summer of 1920, Churchill's thugs burn and sack small towns and villages throughout Ireland -- Tuam, Trim, Balbriggan, Knockcroghery, Thurles, Templemore and many others. In November 1920, the Tans besiege Tralee and closed all the businesses in the town. No food is allowed in for one week and three local civilians are shot dead.
1- Churchill’s Black and Tans enjoy some laughs in Ireland.
2- Irish villagers mourn the brothers Patrick and Harry Loughnane. They were kidnapped, tortured, and physically mutilated by Churchill’s boys.
3- Churchill's thugs are still remembered in song and films
The Black and Tans are suspected of abducting and murdering a Roman Catholic priest, Father Michael Griffin, in Galway, whose body is later found in a bog. In December, 1920, they sack Cork, destroying a large part of the city centre. In January, 1921, the British Labor Commission issues a report that is highly critical of the Churchill’s security policy in Ireland.
The actions of the Black and Tans alienate public opinion in both Ireland and Great Britain. The violence only stiffens Irish resolve while the British public presses for a peaceful resolution. Edward Wood MP, better known as the future Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, a pro-peace advocate who would clash with Churchill during World War II, rejects force and urges the British government to make a generous offer to the Irish. Other Parliamentarians are also horrified over the murderous tactics of Churchill's bad boys.
The King, senior Anglican bishops, and parts of the press become increasingly critical of the Black and Tans. Says famed Indian pacifist Mahatma Gandhi of the British peace offer:
"It is not fear of losing more (British) lives that has compelled a reluctant offer from England but it is the shame of any further imposition of agony upon a people that loves liberty above everything else".
Due to the numerous war crimes committed, the reputation of the Black and Tans is still hated in Ireland to this day. One of the best known Irish Republican songs is "Come out Ye Black and Tans" and the Irish War of Independence is sometimes referred to as the "Black-and-Tan War."
Amazingly, though the Black and Tans are still remembered and hated, Churchill's direct responsibility - thanks to the sanitizing of Churchill's record by the court-historians of Anglo-American academia - is mostly forgotten. But facts, no matter how well concealed, still remain facts.
The murderous Black and Tans gang was the
monster-brainchild of the
blood-thirsty bastard, Winston Churchill.
1 - Headline, 1920: “Bloody Sunday” in Dublin; Twenty-Six Dead, 70 Hurt In Raids and Reprisals
2 & 3 - The well-known opening track for a 1983 album released by the Irish Rock Group ‘U2’ is titled “Sunday, Bloody Sunday”. It refers to the ‘Bloody Sundays’ of 1920 and also 1972.
HELP US LAUNCH THE 250 PAGE
ILLUSTRATED BOOK THAT WILL DESTROY
By signing up for our Amazon Launch Party, you are making a non-binding pledge to purchase THE BRITISH MAD DOG on or about the day of roll-out. A fast start will propel the book up the Amazon Search Engine and introduce new people to the truth about this vicious monster and the New World Order gang that made him.
Submit E-mail below only if you intend to purchase a paperback(Kindle & pdf will also be made available)