Duration: 9 mins

On September 15, 2008 the US investment bank filed for bankruptcy protection.

Download 5MB (right click & "save target as")

There has been a transmutation and modernization of anti-Semitism in a more general way—“usury” has become “Wall Street” and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” have reappeared as the conspiracy of the neoconservatives aiming at world conquest.

THE PROTOCOL OF ZION VS THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY’S MISSION STATEMENT~FRAUD VS REALITY

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fraudulent anti-Semitic text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for achieving global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the twentieth century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies which were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were major proponents of the text: It was studied, as if factual, in German classrooms after they came to power in 1933, despite having been exposed as fraudulent years before. In the opinion of historian Norman Cohn, the Protocols was Hitler's primary justification for initiating the Holocaust — his "warrant for genocide."^[1]

The Protocols purports to document the minutes of a late 19th-century meeting of Jewish leaders discussing their goal of global Jewish hegemony by subverting the morals of Gentiles, and by controlling the press and the world's economies. It is still widely available today, often offered as a genuine document, on the Internet and in print, in numerous languages.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."^[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."^[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.^[3][4]

Of course it is commonly accepted that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake and an attempt to slander the Jews, however, The Project for a New American Century is real.  So much so until David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, editors of the American Jewish Year Book 2004, felt they had to issue a disclaimer in War in Iraq: A Jewish Scheme?

War in Iraq: A Jewish Scheme? As the authors state, “The record, without exception, has been that such situations do not bring an increase in either behavioral or attitudinal anti-Semitism.”  The debate in 2003 over going to war in Iraq was another “conflict situation with a potential for anti-Semitic fallout, as charges circulated about an undue and inappropriate level of Jewish involvement in the formulation of American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.”  At antiwar rallies held on February 15, support for the Palestinians was clearly in evidence, although the focus was on opposition to the impending war and anti-Jewish voices were decidedly muted.  Exercising caution nevertheless, the national Jewish organizations carefully avoided voicing support for war before it began.  Many of the critics of the war were Jewish such as MIT linguist Noam Chomsky.

There was considerable speculation among the pundits about the influence of Israel and of American Jews on the White House’s Iraq policy.  Of particular interest was the role played by several Jewish “hawks” in the administration, such as Deputy secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others.  Often, the word “Jew” was eschewed so as to avoid any imputation of anti-Semitism, the loaded epithet replaced by the euphemism “neoconservative.”

Yet another strategy to hint at a Jewish role without explicitly saying so was provided by James Atlas in the New York Times (May 4), who documented the record of “Straussians” (alleged followers of the late University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss)—most of whom were Jews—in the [Bush] administration. (80-1)

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a political philosopher who specialized in classical political philosophy. He was born in Germany to Jewish parents and later immigrated to the United States. He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.

CHRISTIANITY AND ANTI-SEMITISM

Laqueur posits that traditionally, Europe was the continent in which anti-Semitism had its strongest roots and most extreme manifestations.  This is no longer so, partly because of the small number of Jews living there, but also because of the weakening of the traditional main pillars of anti-Semitism—the churches, the extreme right, and the fascist-Nazi movement.  The political influence of the churches is weaker than ever before; furthermore, the churches have denounced anti-Semitism and engage instead in interfaith, ecumenical dialogue with the emphasis on amity and forgiveness.  Individual churchmen continue to spread anti-Semite propaganda (in Italy, Greece, Russia), but altogether this does not amount to much. (10)

Even though Laqueur credits the weakening of the “main pillars of anti-Semitism—the churches, the extreme right, and fascistic movement in Europe, these are the programs that James Moore and Wayne Slater in The Architect, say that neoconservative American Jews rallied to in order to elect George W. Bush president.

Karl Rove’s [very workable] plan for winning the White House and asserting overwhelming Republican control of American democracy involved acquiring significant Jewish support.  He intended to do that by tilting his candidate and the GOP more toward Israel, thereby attracting both Jewish voters and conservative evangelicals who’re convinced that the nation of Israel is vital to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. (50-1)

Rove had to fashion an improbably coalition of Jews and Christians, if he were to cause long-term damage to the Democratic Party and get Bush elected president in 2000.  This was not easy, especially when Bailey Smith, one of the founders of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, stated at a religious roundtable in Dallas of 15,000, “God Almighty does not hear the prayers of a Jew.”  It was Robertson that quoted Pat Buchanan, who accused Jewish and German intellectuals of conspiring to create communism.  He also insisted that U.S. Constitution was a Christian document, thereby implying that the people who didn’t agree with him were a danger to America because they didn’t understand what the founders had intended.  Robertson stated, “But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people, they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society.”

Even an Anti-Defamation League investigation of Robertson by David Cantor did not cool Orthodox Jewish ardor for the Christian Right under the mechanisms of Karl Rove.  Knowing that Jewish voters accounted for only about 2 percent of the U.S. population but were an important source of campaign money to Democrats—funds Rove envisioned diverting to the GOP.  Therefore Rove got in league with Ralph Reed to help solve his “Jewish Problem.”

In a speech broadcast on C-Span titled “From Confrontation to Cooperation,” Reed acknowledged that many religious conservatives have been “insensitive and have lacked a full understanding of the horrors experienced by the Jewish people.”  Eventually this speech in the words of Fredrick Clarkson signaled a détente between the Jewish Right and the Christian Right.

A Secret Chef Cooks Up the Case for War

Moore and Slater write of the neocons, all ensconced in the Bush Whitehouse or affiliated with the Right-wing Republicans that helped cook up the so-called War on terror: Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative who hold the Freedom Cahier at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington; Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, the third most powerful position in the Pentagon; Harold Rhodes and Larry Franklin, two employees from Feith’s office, all got together to help reshape the Middle East in Israel’s favor.

 

 

WILL PALESTINE STATEHOOD DECREASE ANTI-SEMITISM

 

Extremism On Both Sides

Walter Laqueur writes that it cannot be taken for granted that Israel will follow a policy of accommodation to Palestine; the fundamentalist-nationalist extremism of the Muslim world has its counterpart in strong fringe groups of equal fanaticism inside Israel.

 

  

BBC NEW MIDDLE EAST 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15239538

Intimidating protest highlight Israeli religious divide

Middle East / 10 October 2011

… a noise she asks, 'are they there, are they out there?'" By most people's standards Hadassah and her family are orthodox Jews - deeply religious,…

 

Once the Palestinians have a viable state, however, and once Israel has taken other steps to accommodate Muslim interest—such as internationalize of the holy places in Jerusalem—there is a reasonable chance that Arab anti-Semitism will decrease even though it will not disappear.

On the other hand, mainly because of the deep-seated propensity of Arab and Muslim societies to believe in conspiracies, however far-fetched and unreal, there is no certainty that the deeply ingrained fanaticism will quickly fade.   In a nuclear age such fanaticism could have devastating consequences.

 

Hitler Lives

Laqueur writes that Jews will be under pressure and attack in many parts of the world, mainly (but not entirely) because of their insistence that they have rights not only as individuals but also as national group.  That this is in no way comparable to the persecutions of the 1930s and 1940s goes without saying.  Whether to call this pressure anti-Semitism or Judeophobia or post-racialist anti-Semitism or radical anti-Zionism is a fascinating semantic question that can be endlessly discussed.  Hitler gave anti-Semitism a bad name and there is widespread reluctance on the part of even the most severe critics of the Jews to accept this label.  A spade is no longer called a spade but an agricultural implement.  But whatever terminology used, there is not reason to believe that the last chapter in the long history of anti-Semitism has already been written.

Avraham Burg in The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes (2008) writes that it seems that more than six decades after his death, Hitler retains his influence over American Jews.  Vulnerability can be felt in the most impressive community the Jews have ever built, a Jewry more glorious than those of Babel and Spain, even more so than German Jewry and existed between the time of Mendelssohn and of the Shoah (Holocaust).  The potential is there for Jews to change the world for the better, if they only free themselves from the Nazi shackles.

Courageous Israel is a mini-America in the “Wild East.”  It faithfully represents the American spirit n a region that is very much in need of salvation.  In Israel you find frontiers and pioneers with vision just like the early American West.  Israel plays the cowboy, and the Jews of America provide the strategic support that compels every U.S. administration to support Israel.  In turn, Israel supports the administration that is supported by the Jewish organizations that support Israel that supports them.  What is wrong with mutual back scratching?

Burg posits that there is a major weakness in this triangle of strategic alliance.  Jewish voters traditionally cast their votes to the Democratic Party; Jewish Republicans are relatively few in number.  Even in the heyday of Jewish support of Republican president—Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush—not more than one-third of Jews voted Republican.  The American Jewish voter is apparently more concerned with domestic issues than with what the Jewish wheeler-dealers claim is good for Israel, namely a Republican president.

“Good for Israel” means different things to the Jewish masses and to their leaders.  It seems that instinctively, millions of Jews understand that a White House that is good for Israel should not necessarily do everything that Israel request, but rather do what Israel needs.  Furthermore, an ordinary Jew though he is affected by his family’s memories and suffering for their traumas, wants his children to grow in a healthy society.  He would rather integrate into a multicultural society and look forward to the future than linger, holding on to the past.  He would want to preserve solidarity with the government, reducing its involvement to a minimum.

American Jews seek solutions both as members of the Jewish faith and as partners in the building of the American nation.  The one-issue strategy does not address these goals as it deals with Israel and nothing else.  Yet every time a strategic revaluation concerning Israel is called for, the silencing voices are hear: Shoah, pogrom, self-hating Jews.  Again anti-Semitism, swastikas, and Hitler decide the debate on Jewish identity and an opportunity for dialogue dies before it even begins. (42-3)

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/worldupmc

 

11 Oct 11 NZ Oil Spill / Miscarriage Guilt

Tue, 11 Oct 11

Duration: 30 mins

Available: 7 days remaining

Burma to release 'political prisoners' / Conductor Claudio Abbado / Ultra Orthodox vs Orthodox Jews in Israel

Download 14MB (right click & "save target as")