Questionable Morality: Examining the Vulgar Scope of American and Israeli Moral Revisionism

22.5.08

The Angryindian

05.21.2008

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

- Sir Winston Churchill

The galvanizing incident that led me to put pen to paper for this commentary ostensibly occurred on May 14th 1948, but the perceivable aggravated antagonism responsible for its tone transpired on May 15th 2008. In a globally televised speech before the State of Israel’s legislative body, (Knesset) marking the birth of the Apartheid Jewish country, American president George W. Bush uttered the following comparison:



“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”[I]

There is always the lingering menace of good old boy intellectual jeopardy when Bush the Younger attempts to wax philosophical and this most recent major gaff is no different than the long list of other inaccuracies vomited from the foul orifice of the Crawford Coward. But unlike other similar declarations of personal inanity coming from the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, his personal integrity and family history rather than just his own ineptness is at issue here.
At first glance such a statement would seem appropriate given the situation and the audience addressed, particularly to persons with an underprivileged sense of 20th century European history and hopelessly drunk on the satiric parody of American pre-eminence. Upon further examination, the intrinsic absurdity of his comments, the political ramifications of the locale and the highly salient point that he, George W. Bush, is the very last person on the globe that should even have made such a statement begs a gravely resounding and elucidating rejoinder.

Given the geo-political, theological and moral imperatives involved, it would be entirely imprudent to continue this elucidation without first acknowledging the historical background behind his remarks and the reason his Eugenic proclamations were roundly applauded by the Israelis present and those keeping tabs back in Brooklyn where most of the more virulently rabid Zionists originate from. While the self-identified and egotistic White World both Jew and Gentile partied in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of modern Israel’s 20th century reincarnation, Aboriginal Palestinians sombrely acknowledged yet another reality, the Nakba or the "Catastrophe" that represents the official state sponsored genocide against the Palestinian people and their nation.

As this article goes to press, the “Third Jewish Commonwealth” government and its supporters have done absolutely nothing to empirically rectify the incessant displacement, cultural destruction or purposeful annihilation of Palestine’s Indigenous Arab population since granted recognition by the Truman Administration a scant 11 minutes following David Ben-Gurion’s representative decree on May 14th 1948, the very same day the last of the British military forces formally departed the region[II]. (For an example of historical irony, Israel was also more or less immediately recognised as a lawful nation by the Islamic government of Iran which now stands as a central entity for Israeli-U.S. aggressions.) The role of the UN and that body’s attempt at a tenable resolution following the horrific aftermath of Europe’s last organised attempt at absolute xenophobic obliteration of its ethnic minorities, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181[III] bears mentioning here. While superficially of strategic importance to the British-approved Jewish Agency for Israel, the neurotic theoretical underpinnings of Euro-centrically charged Zionist ideology unquestionably provided the genuine foundation for the state’s very existence and its historical persecution of that area’s Arab population.

As is generally the case when the overwhelming and collective burdens of a foreign colonial and military gravity are weighed against the ancestral rights of a subject people, the narrative of those impinged upon fades in to the abyss of apathetic settler indifference. As evidenced by the worldwide Euro-settler climate of pro-Israel sentiment, even by the hypocritically closeted Judeophobic Christian Zionist movement, the basic human and territorial rights of Palestinian Arabs are aggressively written off in favour of good old fashioned support for European colonial settler power. To any objective observer honestly appraising this situation, the unswerving and bizarre hostility accorded towards those who can effectively mount a coherent defence of the Arabian right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is little more than the long-established racist White settler claims of European power and privilege as articulated by Rudyard Kipling.[IV] Without reasonable doubt and in spite of revisionist historical contortion, all historically documented instances of colonial White settlers pursuing a fusion of official and un-official anti-native genocide against the by and large powerless victims of such machinations are morally, if not materially, supported by other White national powers. White men defend White men, no exceptions.

I humbly request that the reader makes an effort to seriously consider what I am saying here. There exists virtually no historical reference wherein Europeans after having invaded and by force of arms came to successfully gain power over a non-European/non-Christian people in which the operational liquidation of the Aboriginal population is not morally supported by the rest of the White world.

I fully anticipate vociferous emotional opposition if not outright disgust to this allegation and I challenge those so opposed to my analysis to present verifiable and demonstrable historical evidence to the contrary. And since non-European history is likely to be disregarded under the frequently raised presumption of its supposedly un-historical and un-scientific relevance to “reality,” let’s take a brief look at some intra-European examples of racist settler colonialism. A subject almost completely removed from polite western political discourse.

We can realistically begin with English-speaking Europe’s most evident illustration of anti-Indigenous disputation, Celtic Eire, (Ireland) the third largest island of the Eurasian sub-continent. Ireland, as a uniquely distinguishable cultural and political entity, has undergone centuries of invasion, colonial nuisance and externally inspired inter-tribal conflict designed to keep the island internally weak and wide open for economic exploitation. Once The Catholic Church’s appointed representative of Jehovah on Earth Pope Adrian IV gave the Norman usurper King Henry II of England authorization to claim Ireland as British property,[V] the Irish in one fashion or another have resisted and ardent rebellion to non-Celtic rule continues up to this day.

How about the Basque people? As recently discovered and acknowledged by the western scientific method of DNA research, the Basque are not only genetic cousins to the Celtic peoples of Ireland and Wales but represent perhaps the purest and longest surviving pre-agricultural population in Western Europe.[VI] Their struggle to maintain their distinctive identity and territorial integrity in opposition to aggressively enforced modern European geo-political assimilationist models has led to various forms of resistance ranging from self-imposed social isolation to direct militancy measures against the governments in which they are encased. And while the more visibly forceful aspects of European Indigenous self-determination make the papers, the originating aspects of these issues rarely, if ever, are appreciated or conveyed as reasons behind the conflict in the first place.

And we cannot conclude this gateway assessment without due mention of the Sámit (Sami) peoples of the Euro-Scandinavian northlands. Forcibly excluded from their homelands and denied the right to speak their own languages or practice their traditional religions, the Sami have experienced non-stop passively racist, if not occasionally violent, ethno-cultural repression. However, Norway, a decidedly progressive modern northern European nation unlike its neighbours to the south has taken respectable steps towards rectifying this situation.

As recently as 1997, official recognition by King Harald V, the hereditary sovereign of Norway extended a state apology to the Sámi people wherein he admitted to and took government responsibility for his nations treatment of the Sami which included formal acknowledgment of their Indigenous status. This was followed by acknowledgment of the Church of Norway General Synod’s anti-Sami policies and how their role in suppressing Sámi identity and territorial integrity.[VII] Lastly, the governor of Finnmark, northern Norway came forward that same year with a public request for forgiveness over that state authority's policy of exclusion towards the Sámi people. As a result if this, the Sami are currently experiencing a re-birth of sorts in which they are re-evaluating their self-identity with a cultural revival that promises to sustain their existence in a positive manner for generations to come.

The reconciliatory manners of Norway are extraordinary to say the least, particularly when brought into comparison with other European and Euro-settler states in their own treatment or acknowledgment of Aboriginals trapped within their claimed borders. Obviously Norway has not collapsed nor has it suffered reactionary violence from the Indigenous population in the wake of improved relations via diplomacy and dialogue with its principle victims. From this example alone, it seems safe to assume that should other Euro-settler states adopt similar measures that recognise Aboriginal pre-colonial realities, the human right of Indigenous existence and self-determination including a candid appraisal and apology for past and current misdeeds that the past can be honourably dealt with for all involved. How many other Europocentric colonial societies will actually take such courageous steps without undue proto-Nazi manipulation of the dynamics concerned still remains to be seen.

This brings us back to Israel, its policy of Arab ethnic extermination and the latest in a long series of dangerously daft remarks made by American president-appointed George W. Bush to a global audience. While there is much in the way of “acceptable” chauvinistic discourse on the “rightness” of the Jewish state and its ethnocentric behaviour, there exists no affirmative accurate discussion on how the nation was engendered in the first place.

Settler-societies as a rule always come forth with all the emotional intent of an invasive Changeling; they seek to substitute the Indigenous population with their own people by any means necessary and usually with extreme prejudice. The resolutely one-sided argument by made by Israeli enthusiasts on the less referenced role of Jewish terrorist organisations such as Irgun, (“National Military Organization in the Land of Israel”) the Stern Gang, (or Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) and other less known militant cabals should be a central factor of debate surrounding the birth of the Jewish state but it isn’t for the obvious reasons.

To concede that militant Europeans, in this case Jews, have been forgiven for using the tactics of indiscriminate and malicious terrorist hostility against Britain, the United States and Palestine’s Arabs in pursuit of their own reactionary political agenda naturally brings this discussion deep into the murky waters of Euro-imperial political expediency. After the assassinations of prominent military and diplomatic personnel such as Count Folke Bernadotte of Wisborg and Walter Edward Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne of Britain, (it has been claimed that the latter victim was deemed a legitimate target due to his support for an Arab Federation and anti-Jewish protests where Arabs were supposedly promoting a racially superior ideology) the King David Hotel, the Cairo-Haifa train bombings and the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, Israel has absolutely no business at all charging anyone else, especially a people they are attempted to liquidate, with terrorism. And the United States and Britain should also at this juncture become silent, for it was they who created the controversy in the first place by inserting Jews into an already colonially occupied country by an extant, descendant people.

We can initially lay blame for this mishagosh, (or “mess” for the truly Goyim) on British imperialist Winston Churchill, for it was he that suggested on inserting Ashkenazi refugees in Palestine in the first place. But in the interest of historical clarity, we must be clear here before we go any further, Churchill was a true blue believer in the axiom “The ends justify the means,” and this loyal son of the British Empire and a headstrong Brooklyn-borne mother was a committed Eugenicist. In 1910 as Home Secretary he announced a nefarious scheme to then Prime Minister Herbert Asquith to artificially sterilize nearly 100,000 English "mental degenerates" and designed a plan to deport thousands of other “sub-human” unfortunates to government sponsors forced labour camps.[VIII] Like fellow “Racial Hygienicists” Margaret Higgins Sanger and H.G. Welles, he believed that such dastardly deeds were necessary to weed out the weak and those not of pure European genetic stock. Inferior races they asserted bred often and incessantly and since there can be no guarantee that White males will keep their trousers buttoned when in the presence of the half-human/half-devil non-European female, it was necessary to cleanly eliminate them or risk the danger of ‘racial pollution.’

As Secretary of State for the War Office, he gave permission to the Royal Air Force to make use of chemical warfare against Arabs saying, "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."[IX] Churchill along with T.E. Lawrence, (who paternalistically remarked, "I liked a particular Arab, and thought that freedom for the race would be an acceptable present," formulated a “British” plan for the “Middle East” in which a White face in a sea of Brown offered a distinct advantage to Europe’s maintenance of the region. And after WW2, European Jews became seen as a useful and equally malleable resource in this meticulously racist regard.

Like Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill was a practical imperial politician, “whatever works, works” and is therefore justifiable on the grounds of “diplomacy.” Jews like Arabs were chips to be played, not respected as human beings. On the subject of British Jews, Sir Churchill was no less forwardly bigoted and went so far as to pen an article on the subject which he later legally prevented from being published. Titled, "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution,"[X] Sir Churchill duly noted their dedicated service to the nations in which they dwelled but he then immediately reverses himself and begins blaming Jews for "the antagonism from which they suffer." Written in 1937 but not considered for publication in the English Sunday Dispatch newspaper until 1940, Churchill’s article remained hidden from the British public until recently discovered by a Cambridge University historian in 2007.

To be fair, Churchill was not alone in his assessment. During the entire war as well as before, the British government in Palestine forbade entry into the region as early as 1939 by European Jews escaping Nazi persecution by hording them into concentration camps and sending a number of them to various detention centres elsewhere in Western Asia. In the period immediately following the war, more than 250,000 Ashkenazi refugees were forced into displaced persons reservations, (DP camps) throughout Europe, often in countries with virulent, long-held pre-Holocaust anti-Jewish prejudices.

Even with substantial world opinion, (meaning European and Euro-colonial) requesting that 100,000 European Jews be granted without delay unrestricted immigration to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on the grounds that Jewish terrorism and treachery would considerably increase with so many piously pro-Zionist and war-seasoned fighters flowing into the area. In retort, militant ultra-clandestine Jewish terrorism units then went to work against the British colonial command to remove English troops from the region.

The reply from the British Government was mass renditions which imprisoned thousands of Jewish immigrants, including women and children, who were held for long periods without formal charges or trial.[XI] Most were known by the British to be pacifist non-combatants and many were holocaust survivors subject to a new oppression under another European imperial government. Although the British Mandate for Palestine has officially elected the region a Jewish residency, the British disclaimed any connection between Palestine proper and the dire state of affairs concerning Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews. Lord Moyne, later assassinated by Jewish terrorists rejected the idea that England should assist a group of Jews trying to escape Europe:

“Military authorities have suggested that we should not relieve the Axis powers of the problem which these Jews represent by assuming the burden ourselves and thereby adding to the strain on our limited transport and resources.”[XII]

It wasn’t just the economic concerns that stopped England from doing more. As British conservative politician Richard Law, 1st Baron Coleraine explained it, England would then be, “Relieving Hitler of an obligation to take care of these useless people.”[XIII]


Under immense pressure and understandably frightened over their security as a people without a nation, Jewish terrorism fought on and clashes with Arabs already battling the British for their own independence became much more frequent. The violence escalated to the degree that Britain was forced by political as well as economic gravity to relinquish the situation to the new United Nations which pursued an agenda of “co-existence” in which Ashkenazi’s and Arabs would live in an internationally approved dual-state with Jerusalem serving as an neutral diving line.[XIV] Naturally, no one was happy about this solution including Churchill’s government which eventually walked away from the British Mandate on May 15th, 1948. But like the post-British colonial situations in Hindustan, (India), Kenya and South Africa, Europe would not willingly relinquish compete rule without a measure of covert political and economic controls.

Appealing to the original terms of the Mandate at the UN, British representatives openly rejected on principle any political conclusion that would give rise to an Arab majority in Palestine and Churchill, vigorously supported by the Truman administration, strongly argued for a workable “Jewish only” state on “good relations” with the European Community.[XV] When queried as to the destiny of the Palestinian Arabs, Churchill audaciously employing the Euro-universal lingo of imperialism made it clear that the “Palestinian Question” was not one of his main concerns”

"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."

Thus by necessity of political expediency on the part of capitalists in Europe and the U.S., the Ashkenazim, a tribe who just lost more than six million of their people to Europocentric eugenicist terrorism, became overnight, “White.” It should be understood by one and all that the ethnic and theological bias towards Jews did not and has not abated one tenth of one iota, but it was promptly pardoned when it came to preventing non-White Arabs from gaining control over their own nationalistic and territorial future.

In short, the Arabs were to be replaced by a ‘more worldly wise race,” Ashkenazi Jews exceptionally familiar with European concepts of White power over “inferior races.” It was a deal with the Devil made under pressure and by the fear that they needed a nation or Jews were within a few more generations likely to not exist at all. They used any and all means to gain it including the utilization of blind, racist violence against another people not directly responsible for Jewish deaths at the hands of an ever-simmering Judeophobic pro-White Europe.

Going back to Churchill for a moment, it should be recognised that the British Bulldog is due respect for a certain amount of candour unseen in today’s xenophobic atmosphere of political discourse. Statements such as, "Why should we Anglo-Saxons apologize for being superior?” at least allow us to see where the lines are drawn. The illusion mass media entertainment presents of a race-neutral global society is only a ruse to help those who just might be sympathetic to the ongoing high human toll of global capitalism to forget that they allow it to happen only because they benefit from it. How many “civilised people” would convert to vegetarianism if their survival depended on killing and dismembering their meal? Civilisation means citizens can end up with a finished product free from direct personal involvement in the controlled mayhem of the slaughter process.[XVI]

The claim that White populations are uniquely entitled to enter alien lands and forcibly appropriate them for their own use is a major ideological component of European colonialism and Zionists adopted this perspective quite early. As articulated by Zionist theorist Ze'ev Jabotinsky in his most influential work, “The Iron Wall,”[XVII]

“Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains.

I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

Many European Jews with means and sympathetic Gentile assistance managed to purchase a limited amount of territory from British-approved Arab landowners in the decades preceding the madness of WW2. In fact, many Arabs were sympathetic to their plight, often welcomed fugitive Jews sought by the British authorities into their homes, and alerted Jewish community leaders of impending attacks against them. It is said that French Arab Imans in Vichy Algiers ordered their parishioners forbidding Muslims to appropriate seized Jewish property. As one Jew from Tunisia sincerely put it, "The Arabs (in Tunisia) watched over the Jews."[XVIII]

But liberally progressive co-operation and mutual respect between Arabs and Zionists were ridiculed by Jewish hardliners like Jabotinsky who flatly disregarded such symbols of minority unity since it did not in any way underscore their goal of a purely White Jewish state. He further opined that it was foolish to think that Arabs, even congenial Arabs, would be willing to sell outsiders the entire country:

“This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.”

In an attempt at being objective, one could regard people like Jabotinsky as a sincere pragmatist struggling for the survival of his people, but his opinion was obviously based on long-believed and accepted principles of pro-White European racial discrimination.

To deny the unattractive detail that Zionism, an ideological product of a marginalised tribe severely affected by historical racism in turn managed to earn a place at the table by adopting and internalising such psychologically narrow ideas is preposterously akin to any of the historical and moral injustices I mention in this work. Zionism, whether conservative or liberal, contains within it an element of not just theologically derived pro-Jewish ethnocentrism but a “White” ethnocentrism mirroring the very racial biases they were hypothetically attempting to avoid.

It is worth spending some time looking at this while the graveyards overflow with Arab bodies killed by American-made weaponry. The more candid amongst this mind-set such as Raphael Eitan, then Israeli Defence Forces Chief of Staff do bite their tongues when discussing the matter. As he bluntly told a New York Times reporter in 1983, "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."[XIX]

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who can find some sort of moral validation in such a statement in my humble estimation does not deserve to regard themselves as human any longer, if they ever did. Such misanthropes have recklessly given up their humanity club cards as well as their “right” to comment on this or any other situations in which people suffer from minority prejudice. Such inherent bias not only effectively blocks honourable efforts to flesh out a reasonable and respectful solution, but promotes instead a furious ethnocentric malevolence worthy of those who sat in the dock at Nuremberg and who themselves proclaimed that they were despite all appearances closeted Zionists “at heart.”

Benny Morris late of the “New Historian” intelligentsia guild in the calm before the 2000 Arab Intifada put it this way to a reporter from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who dared portray the Palestinian evacuation of 1948 as "ethnic cleansing," Morris countered with:

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide, the annihilation of your people, I prefer ethnic cleansing."[XX]

Even after the acknowledgment of such blatantly bigoted attitudes, Morris and many other Zionists still insist to one degree or another that while Israel is responsible for substantial Arab territorial displacement, the Israeli government never entertained a systematic and purposeful programme of Arab genocide.

This flies in the face of verifiable documentation such as a surreptitious military communication sent out on October 31, 1948 by Major General Moshe Carmel in the midst of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to his military commanders with the following damming message: “Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered.”[XXI] By “helped” he meant by means of force including pain of death for any Arab resisting “deportation.” For revisionists like Morris and many others, the loophole asserts that since the communiqué did not expressly specify “violence” or “killing,” there is no empirical proof that Israel sought to cleanse Israel by means of a belligerent genocide.

The Israeli-U.S. pro-Zionist lobby may not see all of this is worthy of discussion but I do along with many millions of others including many laudable Jews of all backgrounds who want these items at the debate table when it comes to discussing the future of Palestine.

Especially in light of the clear fact that Israel is indeed guilty of gross violations of the legal, if not moral terms of the United Nation’s ‘1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’[XXII] law constructed to address crimes against humanity and based specifically on contemporary European episodes such as the Ottoman slaughter of hapless Assyrians at the close of WW1, the Armenian and German sponsored xenophobic mass-ethnocides, racial propaganda and the practise of eugenic medical prevention of minority births in the 20th century.

Participating countries are instructed to recognise, thwart and punish occurrences of genocide in their nations and wherever they claim influence during hostilities as well as in peacetime. The number of nations having ratified the convention currently stands at an official count of 137. Significantly, The United States, a latecomer to the Convention is still not a full signatory to the edict out of justified fears that the Convention could potentially be enacted against the U.S. government by American Aboriginals, Africans and other populations such as the Kingdom of Hawaii, Cuba and Puerto Rico who could and would lodge formal charges of intentional genocide with the international justice community. The United States Senate finally capitulated in 1988 provided that a lengthy series of “riders” branded by its promoters as the “Lugar-Helms-Hatch Sovereignty Package” could be attached to the legislation which in effect would exempt the U.S. Senate’s unspoken and passionate defence of the Ku Klux Klan, federal U.S. anti-Indian policies and other White terrorist activity against America’s ethnic and Indigenous minorities pre and post-independence from the English Empire.[XXIII]

The question of Palestinian disarticulation and slaughter aside for a moment we must, as individuals claiming to be dedicated to democracy and social justice, must be willingly disposed to asking the hard questions no matter how difficult they may be or how embarrassing the rightful answers may appear to those involved. By allowing governmental power structures whether democratic, fascistic or theological to redefine historical evidence and institutional pedagogy to reflect nationalist mythology rather than genuine accounts of how nations are/were fashioned, the potential for systematic abuse remains ever present. Many societies have created out of whole cloth spurious accounts of their origins and generally leave out the negative aspects that nearly always occur in the often messy business of nation or empire building.

The much-heralded history of modern Israel is one such case in point. Following the inexcusable and absolute breakdown of all human morality in the wake of Western Europe’s eugenics experiment in continental xenophobia, the history of Europocentric Judeophobia as a concept has been misrepresented into something exclusively centred on the mid-20th century German model despite the fact that European hatred towards Jews and their cultural traditions were and are commonly held across the European world.

The testimonies of rabid anti-Jewish Völkisch hate mongers such as Guido Von List and Henry Ford might not escape mention, but famous Romans such as Marcus Tullius Cicero or Seneca virtually never make this list. Neither does the Christian Protestant “reformer” Martin Luther, philosophers such as Francis Bacon, Voltaire and Ralph Waldo Emerson or functional early neo-conservative American Nazi appeasers like Charles H. Lindbergh and the current U.S. President’s grandfather Prescott Bush. Neo-conservative icons H.L. Mencken and George Bernard Shaw and an embarrassingly long list of Catholic Popes find themselves in this club as well. The unreasonable reluctance to hold these historical figures accountable for their Judeophobia says more about the Gentile European than it does about the falsehood fabricated about the treacherously subversive Jew.

Further and no less important, the active role of Christian theological and racist bias against the very ethnic group their professed lord and saviour was born into begs an theological examination far beyond the political scope of this article, but it bears mentioning that the Indigenist opposition Jesus the Christ represented in ancient Palestine towards Roman colonialism has been given a pass, while Judaism as a whole is still, after more than 2000 years, still being held accountable for having the temerity to stand up to a foreign military invasion and occupation by a European empirical power.

Given the incontrovertible socio-political, physical and psychological injury accorded to Jewry throughout the centuries, the habitual neglect shown by Europe towards its own bestial impulses of fear and loathing for the outsider is a damming indictment of how truly two-faced western culture and thought really is. It claims an exclusivist Semitic theological tradition as its own centred in the Roman-established Vatican yet viscerally despises the very people the religion originated from in the first place. When one stands in judgement of Israel and its actions, it is only logical and proper that one also consider the position of the individual Jew as a person beset by the threat of random, frequently irrational anti-Jewish hatred brought on by frightened Europeans who historically only know apprehension towards anyone or anything that they cannot bring under their direct control. The vast documentation that exists of European belligerence towards Jews and the plethora of anti-Jewish propaganda which continues to be circulated is clear evidence of this.[XXIV]

The entirely idiotic and plagiarized bible of committed Judeophobes, “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” is one such example although there are many others. An early work of extreme xenophobic conspiracy theory literature wholeheartedly received by the exceedingly naive as the secret minutes of a Jewish meeting organized in the latter years of the nineteenth century, it has been proclaimed by anti-Jewish fanatics to be empirical substantiation of a generations old plot by world Jewry to take over the White Christian capitalist world. Despite the incontrovertible discrediting of the work as a combined plagiarism of two earlier European volumes, one, “Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu,” (The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu) first published in 1864 and “Biarritz” published in 1868, fearful European Christians and other suckers seeking easy scapegoats for their own shortcomings still cling to the Protocols as “proof” that Jews, (and Freemasons) are trying to dominate them for their closeness to Jesus the Christ and his laws.

I for one have always declared and have long argued to no apparent avail with average everyday Jew-haters that if the Protocols were true and that if Jews actually held such awesome power over the societies in which they found themselves that the European Holocaust and earlier pogroms would never have occurred. Somehow, the common sense presented in my dissention from such racist nonsense, even amongst my radical American African brethren, has led to more confusion than enlightenment. Most, if not all true believers in the Protocols I have come to understand fundamentally assume that the work is a factual account simply because so many seemingly intelligent people believe it to be true. People want to believe it so in effect, they do. And we all, not just Jews, suffer from this Europocentric yearning for identifiable enemies as a result.

As we have seen, xenophobic propaganda can work in many ways and sardonically works best on the literate and the highly educated. But more to the point, racist literary and visual confirmations only work at all when a climate exists that already seeks to substantiate ethical justification for its unfounded biases. If one can “prove” that Jews, Aboriginals, women, Homosexuals, Africans and Arabs, (far from a complete list) are “dangerous,” the door is then open to reactionary and aggressive actions undertaken ostensibly under the guise of “self-defence.”

This analysis is not, but should be applied to Israel’s use of propaganda in their zeal to eliminate Arabs from their traditional homelands in which ethnic Jews have not occupied in great numbers since the end of the First Jewish-Roman War. Pragmatic confirmation of a continuous ethnic Jewish existence in Palestine goes back more than 3,000 years, but their genetic brethren, the Tribes of Arabia, can trace their occupation of the area to a much older though not as clearly defined socio-political antiquity. For sake of space I will not go much further into Jewish claims to their historical “right” to Palestine, but is should be sufficient to note that Roman imperialism, not Arab expulsion, led to the obliteration of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 CE and that the ensuing Jewish Diaspora was a result of traditional European racism, not the modern manifestations of neo-Nazi and reactionary Arab Judeophobia.

Moreover, during the Christian Crusades for control of Palestine, utterly defenceless ethnic Jews still remaining in the area were literally butchered on sight. Many were quartered, immolated, sexually abused and survivors were routinely sold into the developing Arab or established European slave systems. In fact, the random killing of Jews by Christian combative formations began in sub-continental Europe even before the Crusaders' ever reached the Holy Land.[XXV] So the current obsession with blaming Arabs as the fixed mortal enemy of world Jewry and modern Israel in particular is simply more falsely conjured political propaganda perpetuated by Europeans to mask their own sordid history of racist anti-Jewish genocide. Only in the late 20th century and the dawning of the 21st has it become politically and morally desirable for Europeans and their colonialist cousins to defend a viable Jewish existence anywhere let alone in Western Asia and Euro-capitalist economic realpolitik is without a doubt the primary impetus for a reversal of such an fanatical history of hatefully biased sentiment.

Ever since industrious and avaricious Europeans realised that petroleum stores existed underneath the sands of Western Asia, a concentrated and ever-increasing endeavour has developed to dehumanise the realities of the Arab experience and their natural rights to self-determination over said territory and resources. It follows therefore, if European occupation and domination over the Indigenous Americas can be used as a litmus test, that Arab peoples are mortally engaged in an gargantuan effort to not only defend their lands but their very existence as a distinct populace. It is for this reason alone given the salient example of the “New World” where effective liquidation of the Indigenous population was a matter of paramount psychological and terrestrial importance to the European invader, the Arab Palestinian is within his rights to recognise self-preservation as the first law of nature and that the Arab must defend themselves in the face of unrelenting Euro-settler aggression.

This is far from a radical calculus. The inane suggestion irritatingly proposed, or more to the point imposed, upon Indigenous Palestinians that they must first lay down their arms and all other forms of resistance to their incessant homicide by Israel smacks of the very same racist paternalism Jews themselves severely rejected in response to the Roman occupation and destruction of the first Jewish commonwealth which completely collapsed in 70 CE. I can find little historiographical divergence between what Israel suffered under early racially-justified European imperial occupation and the modern eugenically driven anti-Arab occupation as practised by the Israeli U.S. client-state since the end of the European tribal wars of the 1940’s.

It is utterly deceitful and historically revisionist to assert otherwise that on a variety of levels Israel’s Jewish post-European Holocaust leaders are enacting exactly the very same form of panicky European ethnocide that they among all other White people should have learned represents the very worst of man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. It is inexcusable to distance ourselves from this analysis in a world in which total nuclear annihilation is an all too realistic possibility.

There is just one more item I wish to mention before moving on to the nitty-gritty of this article and that is the attempts by the State of Israel to develop an Arab-specific biological weapon designed to eliminate Arab peoples as a whole while leaving other residents of the region theoretically immune to its effects.

In an article which appeared in the London Times in November of 1998, entitled: “Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in” by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin, (with additional reporting by Matthew Campbell in Washington, Hugh McManners) the Times revealed that the Israeli government’s biological laboratories at Nes Tziyona were “close” to the final stages of a new ethnic-specific bio-warfare agent that uniquely targets a distinguishing genetic trait exclusive to certain Semitic populations.[XXVI] Chiefly, modern Western Asia’s decidedly non-Ashkenazi, or non-European Semitic populations.

The neo-conservative New York Post swiftly “debunked” the story although a year before in 1997 William Cohen then serving as Secretary of Defence addressed the U.S. Dept. of Defense and reported that the possibly of race-specific bio-warfare in fact existed.[XXVII]


The ethical connections to the German “Final Solution,” in even thinking of such a programme, let alone by Jews, go without saying. But it must be understood that the neo-Nazi flavour of Israel’s attitude towards Arabs is a unpardonable disgrace of the post-WW2 world and that we are all morally guilty of allowing it to fester. Israel is utterly wicked for its shameful record of genocide in regards to Arabs as well as its belligerence towards Jews who question Israel’s motives and actions. If Europe and its bastard offspring the United States had not stood by with apathetic, stoic-faced indifference while Germany herded its unwanted minorities into death chambers funded by U.S. and German big business, this situation could have been dealt with under very different conditions.

After all of the factors I have alluded to in this article, I personally can find not one redeeming value in the modern State of Israel as it is currently configured that does not fade into dust once compared with what we are seeing in Israel today. It is a violent, xenophobic nation that callously and viciously exploits the moral guilt of European apathy during the 1930’s to pursue an agenda of hate and genocide against its opponents. And to deny this on the highly questionable grounds of a post-WW2 moral purity is willing participation in Arab genocide.

European, and European settler societies in particular, have acquired for themselves a spiteful record of habitually blaming the targets of their abuse for the existence of the abuse itself. In political terms such a practise is possible in large part to the fact that Europeans in many ways still possess a near-total and exclusive control over how history is written and analysed leaving the vanquished in positions of stern disadvantage when it comes to deconstructing the actual record. In relation to the historical itemisations I contend led to the jaundicing of the facts behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it should be patently unambiguous to the reader that the unswerving thread running through all of the items listed is the conviction that White Europeans are in fact the “master race.”

There is not one reference in this work that does not point to a sincere belief, even by the victims, of a congenital Social Darwinist White racial superiority so certain of its God-given ascendancy that it is ideologically predisposed to employing murder against any and all who, including their own, who can efficiently articulate a sound refutation of their racist egoism. It safeguards for itself in-vitro a prevailing and overtly chauvinistic perspective of undeserved and unalleviated entitlement to anything they decide amongst themselves is good for them irregardless of how their infantile egocentricity affects other, “lesser” groups of people. As radical Europocentric polemical author Ragnar Redbeard wrote in 1896:[XXVIII]

"In this book and wilderness of Steel and Stone I raised up my voice that you may hear....To the East and West I beckon, to the North and South I show a sign, Proclaiming Death to the Weakling, Wealth to the Strong....I break away from all conventions. Alone, untrammelled I raise up my voice in stern invasion. The Standard of the Strong. No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me. No cult, no dogma shall encramp my pen. Man is under no obligation to obey anything or anybody."

It should be a simple matter at this time to move into the original intent of this piece. I wish not to return to what has already been mentioned, but it should be said at this point that when American President George W. Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset last week and obliquely accused presidential candidate Barack Obama with “appeasement” towards Islamic terrorism with a not-too-subtle allegorical reference to the German Nazi Party, that the conditions I reference to above are not just by fiat substantiated, but duly demonstrated to still be in effectual operation.

Why do I feel confident in saying this? Because while Bush the Younger and Israeli leader Ehud Olmert were playing grab-arse at the Knesset, not one person within that governmental body had the chutzpah to identify Bush as what he is, a heir-apparent whose own family was directly responsible commercial appeasement of the Nazis during the darkest recorded period of Jewish history.

George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Sheldon Bush was a U.S. Senator representing the state of Connecticut legendary for his reputation as a successful businessman with interests in companies such as Brown Brothers Harriman and his directorship of the Union Banking Corp. He and his father-in-law George Herbert Walker is also famous for his deep involvement and financial investments favourable to the German Nazi Party before and after America’s involvement in World War Two. The Bush family financially aided the German strategies of forced labour and minority genocide beginning in 1926 and persisted until his firm's assets were seized by the U.S. government under the “Trading with the Enemy Act” in 1942.[XXIX]

U.S. government documents archived at the National Archives, the Library of Congress and the U.S. Department of the Treasury disclose that the Bush family and their business partners worked closely with the German industrialist Fritz Thyssen who helped finance Hitler as a Nazi supporter until 1938 when he objected to what appeared to be impending friction between Hitler and the Catholic Church. Before that however, Thyssen had no qualms about using Jewish and Rom slave labour and was instrumental in convincing Hitler’s inner circle that Ernst Roehm and his Brownshirts a serious problem which led to the purge known as the “Night of the Long Knives.” And after more than six decades after the last European war a lawsuit was filed in Germany against the Bush family by two surviving slave labourers who were detained at Auschwitz. Holocaust survivors Kurt Julius Goldstein and Peter Gingold began their quest for justice in the U.S. only to have the case thrown out on the argument that the U.S. government cannot be held liable due to internationally recognised "state sovereignty".

Remember when I mentioned that the U.S. is not a “full” signatory to the 1948 UN Convention? Well, the U.S. isn’t a signatory to the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC) either.[XXX] Jan Lissmann, a solicitor for the survivors alleges that President Bush withdrew U.S. participation from the Court not only to protect his own family for their pro-Nazi business connections but to protect the current White House administration and the companies such as Halliburton currently profiting from the military occupation of Iraq.

But the treachery doesn’t end there. Not only was Bush the Younger’s grandfather a German fascist supporter, but he was himself a practicing American Fascist who along with a small cabal of other uber-corporatists secretly planned a seditious takeover of the United States federal government and reportedly considered assassinating Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt if he did not capitulate to the coup’s backers. They approached Marine General Smedley Butler (Ret.) to lead a private army of 500,000 WW1 veterans against the U.S. government but made the mistake of not considering that Gen. Butler, an enthusiastic FDR supporter, would be the one to stop the coup in its tracks by turning the conspirators in to the U.S. Congress.

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee, (predecessor to the later House Un-American Activities Committee) created to investigate the matter reviewed the testimony of Butler but refused to subpoena any of the coup plotters other than small fish Gerald MacGuire, a Wall Street bond trader and former American Legion commander who was assigned to recruit Gen. Butler. In the end, while the committee did marginally acknowledge the existence of a conspiracy,[XXXI] the committee itself routed the investigation; tightly censored its final report by scrubbing out the names of all the corporatists involved and worse, forced the press to pay no heed to the story and to label General Butler and reporter Paul French as “crackpots” whipping up a fantasy tale for the papers. Butler was so incensed by the government’s cover-up of the conspiracy he appeared in radio spots in an effort to alert the public to the threat America faced from the fascists here at home.

Stoutly opposed to Roosevelt's liberal “New Deal” measures, the fascists, inspired by pro-business happenings in Germany, Italy and Spain, decided to replicate a similar system of corporate governance in the United States. And they were willing to raise arms against the United Sates government to do it. As Paul French, a close friend of General Butler's who also spoke with MacGuire reported to the commission that what the conspirators wanted was exactly what Europe already had by 1933:

"We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight."[XXXII]

If this all seems too implausible to accept, we should bear in mind that in 1933 the American business community and nearly all of the upper-class elitists of the landed U.S. gentry admired Mussolini and his iron-fisted destruction of organised Italian left-wing labour movements and they also liked Hitler and his racial policies. People forget today that Adolf Hitler was Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1933 and Fortune Magazine’s man of the year in 1934. Industrialists like Henry Ford liked Hitler so much that copies of his autobiographical “Mein Kampf” were distributed among his workforce until he could write his own Judeophobic magnum opus, “The International Jew.”[XXXIII]

So things have really come full circle haven’t they? The more things change, the more they stay the same. As White Israel celebrates 60 years of unrelenting anti-Arab genocide, the irony that a someone from a family of American fascist seditionists and Nazi economic appeasers can not only be allowed to step foot in Israel but could feel free enough to voice unfounded insinuations against a political opponent by equating him with Nazi “appeasement” during Hitler’s reign of terror in Europe in front of the Knesset is more than a usually healthy stomach take reasonable take. The State of Israel has at this point lost any credibility it could possibly claim after allowing this hereditary beneficiary of Nazi profiteering and fascist breeding to address their government and use a Nazi analogy to smear an American political opponent back home. And this writer defies anyone to explain this situation as anything different than what it is.

Again, we can look to the past to see where all this was going. Zionists and their supporters are more than happy to point out that Arab nationalist Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, made acquaintances with both fascist Italy and Germany during WW2 and went so fat as to recruit European Muslims for the Waffen-SS in return for Hitler’s pledge to help prevent Jews from developing a political base in Palestine. He managed to secure material aid from the Axis powers during the war and actively sought to establish a form of German-style fascism within Arab politics. While these allegations are indeed true, it is also true that the combative Zionist organisation Lehi sought to collaborate with the Nazis as well.[XXXIV] They offered to activate independent underground Jewish terrorist cells in Europe and Palestine that would use sabotage, bombings and assassinations of British and Allied installations in return for Germany’s assistance in, "The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich". Unlike al-Husayni, Irgun’s generous realpolitik offer was rejected.

If there are any distinctions to be drawn from any of this I leave it to the reader to search for them within the privacy of your own mind while you still have it. This Orwellian nightmare is for real. See if you can follow this brain-twister and still say that there exists a just God: here is The Israeli-honoured Lehi, an extremist, pro-Jewish terrorist organization that was eager to actively support anti-Jewish European fascists already a few years into eliminating Jews and others people in death-parks across Europe in order to further their respective nationalistic goals. Zionist Morality? Where is it? Not in Israel as far as extreme Zionists and its government is concerned.

While there are strong arguments that Lehi was actually attempting to actually save Ashkenazi Jews from the Final Solution by “helping” the Nazi rid Europe of their Jews by emigrating them, the Haganah, Beitar and The Irgun did not make such contradictory moves instead choosing to focus on their issues with the British and eventually went on to help them quell Arabic nationalism. It is said that Lehi’s stab at a deal with the Nazi’s is not reflective of the whole Zionist movement or its goals, but the fact that Israel still hails them as heroes in spite of this blemish is false-hearted, just as President Bush’s recent visit and comments to the Knesset while IDF forces shot Palestinian Arabs the morning he was speaking.

As Santayana warned us, "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." Many people and most Americans in particular know very little of the darker corners of European colonialist history and less about that history in Western Asia. White folks used to seeing themselves as the pinnacle of all intelligent life in the universe are genuinely taken aback when certain subjects and situations are raised that soil that conceited self-image. And when these points are used in relation to current events the reaction can be explosively revisionist further stretching Europocentric credulity beyond its capacity to morph the historical record of their manifestly passionate xenophobia into something that purports to serve the Semitic deity and all of mankind.

Therefore it is thusly a matter of those within the nations who claim an allegiance to democratic principles and human rights to comprehend that saying freedom and justice for all is simply resonated air unless the hard lessons of the past are learned and accepted. We can continue to ignore the dangers of manipulative corporate-controlled mass media propaganda by looking the other way while people die needlessly because of a rich European’s business plan. Or, we can choose to step up and become knowledgeable and operate from a position of information rather than indoctrination. That is the best philosophical suggestion citizens of a complex society, Jew or Gentile, could follow. And it doesn’t involve violence.


The Angryindian / Sequoyah Kofi bin-Tomas

Editor, Inteligentaindigena Novajoservo/Indigenist Intelligence Report


Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0



Footnotes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[I] Boston Globe editorial, May, 17th 2008: “Bush's appeasement malarkey”

[II] The Jerusalem Post, April 30 1998: “ One Day that Shook the world”

[III] See: Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Session Supplement No. 11,Volumes l-lV.

[IV] See: "The White Man's Burden." McClure's Magazine 12 (Feb. 1899).

[V] D. W. Cunnane: “Catastrophic Dimensions: The Rupture of English and Irish Identities in Early Modern Ireland, 1534-1615” Published by the Corcoran Department of History at the University of Virginia 1999

[VI] Report: “Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans,” The Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. ISSN: 0737-4038 2004

[VII] The Sami Act (act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 concerning the Sami Parliament (the Sámediggi) and other legal matters pertaining to the Samis); “The constitutional amendment states: “It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life.” This provides a legal and political protection of the Sami language, culture and society. In addition the “amendment implies a legal, political and moral obligation for Norwegian authorities to create an environment conducive to the Samis themselves influencing on the development of the Sami community.”

[VIII] BBC, “Racism: a History-A Response by Executive Producer David Okuefuna” [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/racism-history.shtml]

[IX] See: “Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo,” Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation July 29th 2004 [http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html]

[X] The Jerusalem Post, “Did Churchill pen 'anti-Semitic' paper?” Mar 11, 2007

[XI] British Public Records Office, document folder FO 371/52651

[XII] UK Public Records Office document: FO 371/42724 Item 146 April 1944, written in response to a request to help 65 Jews holding Spanish passports leave occupied Europe.

[XIII] UK Public Records Office document: FO 371/42724 145 13/4/44

[XIV] “British White Paper of 1939” The Avalon Project at Yale Law School [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1939.htm]

[XV] Wall Street Journal “Saving Civilization From Itself-Churchill understood that the Jews are the bedrock of Western tradition,” Arthur Herman, Nov.8th 2007

[XVI] Jean Paul Sartre's “Statement 'On Genocide'” delivered at the Second Session of the Bertrand Russell International War Crimes Tribunal on Vietnam, held in Denmark in November 1967

[XVII] Vladimir Jabotinsky, "Ihe Iron Wall-(We and the Arabs) 1923

[XVIII] Myrtus: “Arab Heroes During the Holocaust” October 16, 2006 [http://myrtus.typepad.com/myrtus/2006/10/arab_heroes_dur.html]

[XIX] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2005

[XX] Iinterview with Haaretz, 8 January 2004,

[XXI] Benny Morris, "Operation Hiram Revisited: A Correction" Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter, 1999)

[XXII] Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

[XXIII] Ward Churchill, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas" 1997

[XXIV] “THE ANTI JEWISH PROPAGANDA ON CRAIGSLIST IS DISGUSTING (SHAME ON YOU CRAIG FOR ALLOWING IT)” May 20 2008 [http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/pol/688434218.html]

[XXV] Internet Medieval Source Book, "Albert of Aix and Ekkehard of Aura: "Emico and the Slaughter of the Rhineland Jews" [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1096jews.html]

[XXVI] See: “Preventing the use of biological and chemical weapons: 80 years on,” Jacques Forster, vice-president of the ICRC, 10-06-2005

[XXVII] William Cohen (April 28, 1997). Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy. Sam Nunn Policy Forum, University of Georgia.

[XXVIII] Ragnar Redbeard, "Might Is Right, or The Survival of the Fittest," Auditorium Press, 1890

[XXIX] GuardianUK, “How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power” September 25 2004

[XXX] The American Society of International Law, “U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty” May 2002

[XXXI] Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4. p. 85 "As for the House committee, headed by John McCormack of Massachusetts, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

[XXXII] Jules Archer, “The Plot to Seize the White House” Hawthorne Books, 1973

[XXXIII] The International Jew. The Worlds Foremost Problem. Being a Reprint of a Series of Articles Appearing in The Dearborn Independent from May 22 ... 1920 [to January 14, 1922] Dearborn, Mich. Dearborn Publishing Co., 1920-1922

[XXXIV] David Yisraeli, The Palestine Problem in German Politics, 1889-1945, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 1974. Also see Otto von Hentig, Mein Leiben (Goettingen, 1962) pp 338-339

Labels: bush the younger, editorial, europocentricism, genocide, Israel, judeophobia, Occupied Palestine, Racism