There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which “global” swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were “global crises” and “global challenges”, the only possible resolution to which lay in “global solutions” necessitating “global agreements”. Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a “global alliance” in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word “global”, as in “global economic crisis”, meant: “It’s not my fault”. To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.
The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of “global agreements” reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.
Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational “legally binding agreements”, what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous “democratic deficit” of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro?bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.
But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.
Israel now shares a monstrous distinction with China. It illegally harvests organs from the dead. The former head of Israel’s Abu Kabir forensic institute has admitted the ghoulish practice, according to a reported published by The New Zealand Herald. Abu Kabir’s forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, primarily Palestinians, without the permission of their families.
Palestinians have feared for many years that Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and Gaza have targeted them for organ harvest.
In August it was reported by Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest circulation daily, that Israeli troops killed Palestinians specifically to harvest their organs. The report appeared after an American Jew was arrested in the United States for illicit organ trafficking. The story made news in Israel, where some commentators compared it to medieval libels that Jews killed Christian children for their blood. Daniel Seaman, who heads Israel’s government press office, said the article played on “vile anti-Semitic themes,” according to the Associated Press.
The Swedish newspaper reported that Israeli soldiers targeted Palestinians specifically in order to harvest their organs.
Journalist Donald Bostrom wrote in the article that Palestinians “harbor strong suspicions against Israel for seizing young men and having them serve as the country’s organ reserve – a very serious accusation, with enough question marks to motivate the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to start an investigation about possible war crimes.”
An Israeli official called Bostrom’s story “hate porn” and the American magazine Commentary wrote that the story was “merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of European funded and promoted anti-Israel hate.”
“The fact is, however, that substantiated evidence of public and private organ trafficking and theft, and allegations of worse, have been widely reported for many years. Given such context, the Swedish charges become far more plausible than might otherwise be the case and suggest that an investigation could well turn up significant information,” writes Alison Weir, executive director of If Americans Knew.
The latest accusation was revealed in connection to the Swedish report. The former head of Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr Jehuda Hiss, was interviewed in 2000 by an American academic who released the interview because of the report in Aftonbladet and the denials of the Israeli government. “We started to harvest corneas,” Hiss told the academic. “Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family.”
“We’d glue the eyelid shut,” Hiss added. “We wouldn’t take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids.”
Israel’s Channel 2 TV aired parts of the interview over the weekend.
In addition to corneas, skin, heart valves, and bones were taken from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.
Hiss also said skin was taken from the backs of dead Palestinians and the families of the dead never discovered the theft because they did not examine the bodies before burial. Muslim custom dictates that the deceased be buried as soon as possible after death, avoiding the need for embalming or otherwise disturbing the body.
After the interview aired on television, the Israeli military admitted the macabre practice.
Palestinians have feared for many years that Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and Gaza have targeted them for organ harvest.
In an article published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affair, Mary Barrett reports on the killings of young Palestinians. Her report contains an interview with Dr. Hatem Abu Ghazalch, the former chief health official for the West Bank under Jordanian administration and director of forensic medicine and autopsies. Barrett asks Ghazalch about “the widespread anxiety over organ thefts which has gripped Gaza and the West Bank since the intifada began in December of 1987.”
“There are indications that for one reason or another, organs, especially eyes and kidneys, were removed from the bodies during the first year or year and a half,” Ghazalch responded. “There were just too many reports by credible people for there to be nothing happening. If someone is shot in the head and comes home in a plastic bag without internal organs, what will people assume?”
In 2000, Nancy Scheper-Huges characterized organ harvesting as a form of modern cannibalism. “Today, China stands alone in continuing the use of organs of executed prisoners for transplant surgery,” she wrote.
Now Israel joins China as an international outlaw in this gruesome practice.
Organ harvesting will now be added to the list of Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations in the Occupied Territories.
I’m going to sketch a chronology and analysis that draw on the history of several centuries of science and on many volumes written about that. In being concise, I’ll make some very sweeping generalizations without acknowledging necessary exceptions or nuances. But the basic story is solidly in the mainstream of history of science, philosophy of science,sociology of science, and the like, what’s nowadays called “science & technology studies” (STS).
It never was really true, of course, as the conventional wisdom tends even now to imagine, that “the scientific method” guarantees objectivity, that scientists work impersonally to discover truth, that scientists are notably smarter, more trustworthy, more honest, so tied up in their work that they neglect everything else, don’t care about making money . . . But it is true that for centuries scientists weren’t subject to multiple and powerful conflicts of interest. There is no “scientific method.” Science is done by people; people aren’t objective. Scientists are just like other professionals – to use a telling contemporary parallel, scientists are professionals just like the wheelers and dealers on Wall Street: not exactly dishonest, but looking out first and foremost for Number One.
“Modern” science dates roughly from the 17th century. It was driven by the sheer curiosity of lay amateurs and the God-worshipping curiosity of churchmen; there was little or no conflict of interest with plain truth-seeking. The truth-seekers formed voluntary associations: academies like the Royal Society of London. Those began to publish what happened at their meetings, and some of those Proceedings and Transactions have continued publication to the present day. These meetings and publications were the first informal steps to contemporary “peer review.”
During the 19th century, “scientist” became a profession, one could make a living at it. Research universities were founded, and with that came the inevitable conflict of interest between truth-seeking and career-making, especially since science gained a very high status and one could become famous through success in science. (An excellent account is by David Knight in The Age of Science.)
Still it was pretty much an intellectual free market, in which the entrepreneurs could be highly independent because almost all science was quite inexpensive and there were a multitude of potential patrons and sponsors, circumstances that made for genuine intellectual competition.
The portentous change to ”Big Science” really got going in mid-20th century. Iconic of the new circumstances remains the Manhattan Project to produce atomic bombs. Its dramatic success strengthened the popular faith that “science” can do anything, and very quickly, given enough resources. More than half a century later, people still talk about having a “Manhattan Project” to stop global warming, eradicate cancer, whatever.
So shortly after World War II, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established, and researchers could get grants for almost anything they wanted to do, not only from NSF but also from the Atomic Energy Commission, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of the Interior, the Agriculture Department . . . as well as from a number of private foundations. I experienced the tail end of this bonanza after I came to the United States in the mid-1960s. Everyone was getting grants. Teachers colleges were climbing the prestige ladder to become research universities, funded by grant-getting faculty “stars”: colleges just had to appoint some researchers, those would bring in the moolah, that would pay for graduate students to do the actual work, and the “overhead” or “indirect costs” associated with the grants – often on the order of 25%, with private universities sometimes even double that – allowed the institutions to establish all sorts of infrastructure and administrative structures. In the 1940s, there had been 107 PhD-granting universities in the United States; by 1978 there were more than 300.
Institutions competed with one another for faculty stars and to be ranked high among “research universities,” to get their graduate programs into the 20 or so “Top Graduate Departments” – rankings that were being published at intervals for quite a range of disciplines.
Everything was being quantified, and the rankings pretty much reflected quantity, because of course that’s what you can measure “objectively”: How many grants? How much money? How many papers published? How many citations to those papers? How many students? How many graduates placed where?
This quantitative explosion quickly reached the limits of possible growth. That had been predicted early on by Derekde Solla Price, historian of science and pioneer of “scientometrics” and “Science Indicators,” quantitative measures of scientific and technological activity. Price had recognized that science had been growing exponentially with remarkable regularity since roughly the 17th century: doubling about every 15 years had been the numbers of scientific journals being published, the numbers of papers being published in them, the numbers of abstracts journals established to digest the flood of research, the numbers of researchers . . . .
Soon after WWII, Price noted, expenditures on research and development (R&D) had reached about 2.5% of GDP in industrialized countries, which meant quite obviously that continued exponential growth had become literally impossible. And indeed the growth slowed, and quite dramatically by the early 1970s. I saw recently that the Obama administration expressed the ambition to bring R&D to 3% of GDP, so there’s indeed been little relative growth in the last half century.
Now, modern science had developed a culture based on limitless growth. Huge numbers of graduates were being turned out, many with the ambition to do what their mentors had done: become entrepreneurial researchers bringing in grants wholesale and commanding a stable of students and post-docs who could churn out the research and generate a flood of publications. By the late 1960s or early 1970s, for example, to my personal knowledge, one of the leading electrochemists in the United States in one of the better universities was controlling annual expenditures of many hundreds of thousands of dollars (1970s dollars!), with several postdocs each supervising a horde of graduate students and pouring out the paper.
The change from unlimited possibilities to a culture of steady state, to science as zero-sum game, represents a genuine crisis: If one person gets a grant, some number of others don’t. The “success rate” in applications to NSF or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is no more than 25% on average nowadays, less so among the not-yet-established institutions. So it would make sense for researchers to change their aims, their beliefs about what is possible, to stop counting success in terms of quantities: but they can’t do that because the institutions that employ them still count success in terms of quantity, primarily the quantity of dollars brought in. To draw again on a contemporary analogy, scientific research and the production or training of researchers expanded in bubble-like fashion following World War II; that bubble was pricked in the early 1970s and has been deflating with increasingly obvious consequences ever since.
One consequence of the bubble’s burst is that there are far too many would-be researchers and would-be research institutions chasing grants. Increasing desperation leads to corner-cutting and frank cheating. Senior researchers established in comfortable positions guard their own privileged circumstances jealously, and that means in some part not allowing their favored theories and approaches to be challenged by the Young Turks. Hence knowledge monopolies and research cartels.
A consequence of Big Science is that very few if any researchers can work as independent entrepreneurs. They belong to teams or institutions with inevitably hierarchical structures. Where independent scientists owed loyalty first and foremost to scientific truth, now employee researchers owe loyalty first to employers, grant-givers, sponsors. (For this change in ideals and mores, see John Ziman, Prometheus Bound, 1994.) Science used to be compared to religion, and scientists to monks – in the late 19th century, T. H. Huxley claimed quite seriously to be giving Lay Sermons on behalf of the Church of Scientific; but today’s scientists, as already said, are more like Wall Street professionals than like monks.
Since those who pay the piper call the tune, research projects are chosen increasingly for non-scientific reasons; perhaps political ones, as when President Nixon declared war on cancer at a time when the scientific background knowledge made such a declaration substantively ludicrous and doomed to failure for the foreseeable future. With administrators in control because the enterprises are so large, bureaucrats set the rules and make the decisions. For advice, they naturally listen to the senior well-established figures, so grants go only to “mainstream” projects.
Nowadays there are conflicts of interest everywhere. Researchers benefit from individual consultancies. University faculty establish personal businesses to exploit their specialized knowledge which was gained largely at public expense. Institutional conflicts of interest are everywhere: There are university-industry collaborations; some universities have toyed with establishing their own for-profit enterprises to exploit directly the patents generated by their faculty; research universities have whole bureaucracies devoted to finding ways to make money from the university’s knowledge stock, just as the same or parallel university bureaucracies sell rights to use the university’s athletics logos. It is not at all an exaggeration to talk of an academic-government-industry complex whose prime objective is not the search for abstract scientific truth.
Widely known is that President Eisenhower had warned of the dangers of a military-industrial complex. Much less well known is that Eisenhower was just as insightful and prescient about the dangers from Big Science:
in holding scientific research and discovery in respect . . . we must also be alert to the . . . danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite
That describes in a nutshell today’s knowledge monopolies. A single theory acts as dogma once the senior, established researchers have managed to capture the cooperation of the political powers. The media take their cues also from the powers that be and from the established scientific authorities, so “no one” even knows that alternatives exist to HIV/AIDS theory, to the theory that human activities are contributing to climate change, that the Big Bang might not have happened, that it wasn’t an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and so on.
The bitter lesson is that the traditionally normal process of science, open argument and unfettered competition, can no longer be relied upon to deliver empirically arrived at, relatively objective understanding of the world’s workings. Political and social activism and public-relations efforts are needed, as public policies are increasingly determined by the actions of lobbyists backed by tremendous resources and pushing a single dogmatic approach. No collection of scientifically impeccable writings can compete against an International Panel on Climate Change and a Nobel Peace Prize awarded for Albert Gore’s activism and “documentary” film – and that is no prophesy, for the evidence is here already, in the thousands of well-qualified environmental scientists who have for years petitioned for an unbiased analysis of the data. No collection of scientifically impeccable writings can compete against the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, innumerable eminent charities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, when it comes to questions of HIV and AIDS – and again that is no prophesy, because the data have been clear for a couple of decades that HIV is not, cannot be the cause of AIDS.
As to HIV and AIDS, maybe the impetus to truth may come from politicians who insist on finding out exactly what the benefits are of the roughly $20 billion we – the United States – are spending annually under the mistaken HIV/AIDS theory. Or maybe the impetus to truth may come from African Americans, who may finally rebel against the calumny that it is their reprehensible behavior that makes them 7 to 20 times more likely to test ”HIV-positive” than their white American compatriots; or perhaps from South African blacks who are alleged to be “infected” at rates as high as 30%, supposedly because they are continually engaged in “concurrent multiple sexual relationships,” having multiple sexual partners at any given time but changing them every few weeks or months. Or from a court case or series of them, because of ill health caused by toxic antiretroviral drugs administered on the basis of misleading “HIV” tests; or perhaps because one or more of the “AIDS denialists” wins libel judgment against one or more of those who call them Holocaust deniers. Maybe the impetus to truth may come from the media finally seizing on any of the above as something “news-worthy.”
At any rate, the science has long been clear, and the need is for action at a political, social, public-relations, level. In this age of knowledge monopolies and research cartels, scientific truth is suppressed by the most powerful forces in society. It used to be that this sort of thing would be experienced only in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, but nowadays it happens in democratic societies as a result of what President Eisenhower warned against: ”public policy . . . become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
The political creed of Zionism has big ears and a long trunk and I think it’s time that was pointed out. It also stampedes through our lives at every level and that needs to be said, too.
It has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called ‘anti-Semitic’ if you dare to state the bloody obvious.
They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. It does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.
When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That’s understandable given the propaganda, but it is seriously misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what’s going on here.
Zionism means Rothschild just as Israel means Rothschild. When we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world we are looking not at ‘manipulating Jews’, but manipulating Zionists representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds.
Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish. These include the Christian Zionists and Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television ‘I’m a Zionist’. Here’s the clip if you can stand it … If, as Biden rightly says, you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it be a racial rather than a political movement? It can’t. It’s just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the ‘you’re a racist’ card can be played over and over.
Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:
‘The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.
They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem — but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.
Let’s get this straight. Zionism doesn’t give a damn about Jewish people. To the Rothschilds and their Zionist gofers and thugs the Jewish people as a whole are merely cattle to be used and abused as necessary – just like the rest of the human population.
The networks of the House of Rothschild were behind Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in the Rothschild heartland of Germany where they had changed their name from Bauer in 18th century Frankfurt and launched the dynasty that was to control global finance.
After the war the Rothschilds used public sympathy for Jewish people targeted by the Nazis to press for a homeland in Palestine. This was the alleged reason for the founding of Zionism, but that is only part of it.
As I show in my books, the campaign to impose a Rothschild fiefdom in Palestine goes back at least to the earlier part of the 19th century and probably long before. It was given a massive boost with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared in a letter his government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
This letter was sent by Balfour, an inner-circle member of an elite secret society called the Round Table, to Baron (Walter) Rothschild who funded the Round Table.
Today, Rothschild Illuminati fronts like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and others, still answer to the Round Table which string-pulls and coordinates from the shadows. This is why Zionists in government are invariably connected with these Rothschild-controlled organisations.
The Rothschilds funded the early settlers from Europe to relocate in post-war Palestine and they also funded and armed the terrorist groups, like Irgun, which bombed and terrorised Israel into existence in 1948, a campaign which forced 800,000 Palestinians to leave the land of their birth.
Israel is simply the State of Rothschild and how appropriate that they paid for the construction of the Israeli parliament building, the Knesset, and the Israel Supreme Court. The name Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield ‘Star of David’ symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt …
The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship.
The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they’ve done it before.
The world’s second biggest Zionist population is in the United States and given that both America and Israel are controlled by the Rothschild networks it is not hard to fathom why that slither of land in the Middle East receives around a third of all US overseas aid.
An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’, controlled by the Rothschilds. One hand of the network hands over the cash to another.
This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world’s most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject.
The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist (Rothschild) control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the ‘Greater Israel’ that the Zionists seek to secure.
The ‘Bush’ government was the glove-puppet of the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives, whose only political philosophy in truth was the interests of Zionism. At the heart of the Rothschild-controlled neocon cabal were Richard Perle (Zionist), Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), Dov Zakheim (Zionist), Douglas Feith (Zionist), John Bolton (Zionist), Lewis Libby (Zionist), the list goes on and on. These were the people who orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the Rothschilds.
Economic policy was dictated through the years of Reagan-Bush, Father Bush, Clinton and most of Boy Bush by Alan Greenspan (Zionist), chairman of the privately-owned US ‘central bank’, the Federal Reserve. Privately owned, that is, by the Rothschilds through a network of front people and organisations.
Greenspan introduced the policies of deregulation that culminated, as designed, in the free-for-all frenzy of greed by banks and financial markets in general that led to the crash in the last weeks of the Bush presidency. Greenspan resigned from the Fed before the consequences of his long-term game-plan exploded in lost homes, jobs and savings. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Zionist).
Greenspan was enthusiastically supported in his deregulation through successive administrations by Treasury Secretaries in the Clinton years, Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) and Larry Summers (Zionist), and also by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Fed cabal, Timothy Geithner (Zionist).
When Mr. Fake Change won the presidency amid the gathering financial crisis, caused by all of the above, and others, he appointed Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and Summers as head of the White House Economic Council. Both are protégés of Robert Rubin who resigned from Citigroup earlier this year for his role in ‘advising’ it to the brink of collapse.
Obama’s Budget Director is Peter Orszag (Zionist) who headed the company that advised the Icelandic Central Bank in the prelude to the crash of Iceland’s financial system. This has led to Iceland being fast-tracked into the Rothschild-created European Union to ’save’ its economy. Orszag also advised the Russian Treasury when state-owned assets and resources were handed to Zionist oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich who is famous in the UK as the owner of Chelsea Football Club.
Add to all this the fact that the World Bank is headed by Robert Zoellick (Zionist), who replaced Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), and that the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is run by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Zionist).
Anyone still doubt that the Rothschild network controls global finance and therefore the lives and choices of virtually every man, woman and child on the planet?
The Rothschilds are at the heart of the Obama White House in the form of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Zionist) and Chief White House Advisor David Axelrod (Zionist). Emanuel has served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the Rothschild terrorist group, Irgun, as it bombed Israel into being. This included the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that killed 91 people.
Rahm Emanuel also worked closely Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) during the Clinton years to impose NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was designed from the start to be a stepping-stone to a North American, and eventually an American Union, along the lines of the EU. The Zionist world is very small indeed.
David Axelrod ran Obama’s election campaigns and now oversees his every word slavishly read from his teleprompter screens. There is little that Obama says that his Zionist handlers don’t tell him or give him to say.
They have also ensured that US policy for Iran and the Persian Gulf is headed by Dennis Ross (Zionist) who has served Israeli interests in successive American administrations. There will not be a cigarette paper behind the scenes between him and that trio of tyranny, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, the prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister of Israel. Rothschild stooges, in other words.
Zionist Mandelson works for the pyramid
The most influential figure by far in the current British government is Peter Mandelson (Zionist) who continues to amass more titles and powers from the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mandelson is an insider operative for the Rothschilds and has frequently accepted hospitality from his close friend and associate, Nathaniel Rothschild. This week Mandelson called for the UK to join the (Rothschild) single European currency.
Meanwhile, the hapless and hopeless Gordon Brown did as he was told and appointed Ivan Lewis (Zionist) to be minister of state with responsibility for, wait for it … British policy on the Middle East. Lewis, vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, was an outspoken supporter of Israel’s slaughter of the innocent in Gaza this year. Lewis said of his new job:
‘My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel.’
What chance do the Palestinians have of fairness and justice? None.
In France, as I mentioned last week, President Sarkozy (Zionist) is a long-time asset of Mossad, the Rothschild enforcement agency masquerading as the intelligence agency of Israel. Mossad has been implicated in terror attacks and other horrors all over the world because it represents the Rothschild global agenda and not the people of Israel.
Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist).
The Rothschilds control America
The Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (Zionist) wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’. Stein went on:
‘The Jews are so dominant. I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! … As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’
And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, wrote: ‘The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge’. Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times. The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet.
When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won’t be Zionists.
What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans? There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the centre of the web.
The Rothschilds established B’nai B’rith in 1843 to prevent exposure of the global Zionist networks. The ‘ BB’ is an offshoot of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and operates worldwide to brand as ‘anti-Semitic’ anyone who exposes the Rothschild operation.
In 1913, B’nai B’rith launched an organisation specifically to target and defame researchers, in fact anyone, who questions, criticises or exposes Israel and the ever-gathering Zionist influence across the world. With typical irony they called it the Anti-Defamation League, better known as the ADL, and claimed it was there to protect Jewish people. As Plato said: ‘This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector’.
The ADL is, in fact, a sub-agency of the Israeli (Rothschild) centre for covert operations, the Mossad, which, according to a former agent, has the motto: ‘By way of deception, thou shalt do war’. If that isn’t the motto, it should be. The ADL is behind the introduction of ‘hate laws’ which are aimed at silencing dissent against Zionism or Israel. The Jewish academic, Noam Chomsky, said this of the ADL in his book, Necessary Illusions:
‘The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.
These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.’
The American rabbi, Michael Lerner, agrees:
‘The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).’
Firstly, the ADL has never been a civil rights organisation. Its very purpose has been to take them away. Secondly, it is not there to defend anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It’s there to represent the sadistic interests of the House of Rothschild and the wider Illuminati.
It is so important that people are aware of this background to Zionism because at the moment it is basically speeding along unchallenged through lack of awareness and fear of being dubbed ‘racist’.
Well, I couldn’t care less what people say about me with regard to this or anything else. I want to uncover the truth, not win a popularity contest.
Please, let’s circulate this information as effectively as we can and bring it from the shadows to public attention. We must refuse to be intimidated into silence over this.
Martin Luther King said: ‘… we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.’
There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which “global” swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were “global crises” and “global challenges”, the only possible resolution to which lay in “global solutions” necessitating “global agreements”. Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a “global alliance” in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)
Get the RSS