For several weeks prior to the election of a new prime minister in Israel, the Israeli election campaign was a major story in all of the news media in the United States. Who will it be: Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, who as Israel’s defense minister arranged and facilitated the murder of several thousand Palestinian women and children in refugee camps in Lebanon in September 1982? Or will it be Ehud Barak, who gave up a career as an international terrorist to go into politics?
The media over here played the story as one of hawks versus doves. Sharon, the leader of the hawk faction, deliberately provoked the fighting of recent months between Jews and Palestinians with his visit to the Temple Mount last fall. The reason for that was to motivate his hawk constituency and provide a new power base for himself prior to the election. His plan seems to have been quite successful. Of course, what’s been going on between the Jews and the
Palestinians since Sharon’s provocation last year isn’t fighting in the usual sense of the word: it’s Palestinian children throwing stones at heavily armed Jewish soldiers, who in turn have had snipers sitting behind barricades with rifles and telescopic sights and picking off the more active young Palestinians. At the same time the Jewish government has been sending out murder squads in civilian disguise to assassinate leaders of the Palestinian community in their homes. That’s why nearly all of those killed have been Palestinians.
Assassination used to be what Barak did for a living before he went into politics. He used to sneak into Lebanon under the cover of darkness to murder Palestinian writers, poets, and anyone else who might provide motivation and cohesion for the Palestinian resistance. In the recent election campaign he was portrayed as the dove, the would-be peacemaker. Some dove! To maintain the illusion his supporters were shown on American television marching in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with signs calling for peace. Many of the signs were in English, however, a pretty good clue that they really were aimed at American TV viewers rather than at Israeli voters. Americans are perennial suckers when the call goes out to support the so-called “peace process” with another few billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury. The “peace process” has become almost as big a swindle as the “Holocaust.” Undoubtedly, the Jews would like for the Palestinian children to stop throwing stones at them. They want the Palestinians to go back to carrying the water and hewing the wood for the Jews, like good Gentiles, and to give up their silly effort to get back their land. After all, the Jews’ tribal god Yahweh promised the Jews that they could steal that land, and that’s what they did, and now they have no intention of giving it back. That line goes over pretty well with the nutcase fundamentalist Christians in the United States, who were rooting for Sharon in the recent election. And the nutcase liberals in the United States, who really and truly believe that it is possible for the Palestinians and the Jews to coexist peacefully on Palestinian land, rooted for Barak.
The main thing for the Jews is to keep the laughable charade known as the “peace process” limping along without actually doing anything except demanding more money from American taxpayers and at the same time continuing to bleed the Palestinians by selectively killing off their leaders until they no longer have the will to resist Jewish domination. It worked for the Jews in Ukraine and Russia, in the Baltic states and in Poland, so why not in Palestine too? The American liberals who have a hard time believing that the Jews are anything but the gentle, inoffensive, peace-loving, humanitarian, violin-playing egalitarians that they pretend to be on their controlled television undoubtedly missed a news item from Israel last month. This is a report from Associated Press International, datelined Jerusalem, January 21. The report begins: An Israeli court on Sunday sentenced a Jewish settler to community service and a fine for the beating and kicking death of an 11-year-old Palestinian boy. The boy’s father expressed outrage and accused the court of issuing a “license to kill.”
The report goes on to say that the Jew, 36-year-old Nahum Korman, was a security guard at a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem. He drove into a nearby Palestinian village looking for Palestinian children who had been reported throwing stones at passing Israeli cars. He found 11-year-old Hilmi Shusha and decided to make an example of the boy. The Associated Press report continues:
The prosecution contended that Korman beat and kicked the child, knocked him down, put his foot on the boy’s head, and struck him with a pistol. The boy suffered a head injury and a fractured spinal cord and died the next day in a hospital The Jewish judge ordered Korman to perform community service and to pay a fine for killing the child.
Now, I’ll bet you didn’t read that report in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Both of those newspapers subscribe to the Associated Press wire. But this particular report was one that the Jewish bosses at those newspapers decided you didn’t need to see. It might have confused you. It doesn’t fit the picture of Jewish behavior or Jewish values they believe you should have. But it does fit the ages-old Jewish pattern. The key here is that the murderer was a Jew, and the victim was not. The Jewish religion permits Jews to murder Gentiles without penalty unless the murder might be discovered by other Gentiles and result in harm to the Jews. And that’s why Nahum Korman was fined and ordered to do community service: the Palestinians kicked up a fuss abut the murder, and it got picked up by foreign reporters.
If any lemmings are listening, they will not believe a word of that, of course. They know that Judaism is pretty much like Christianity. Haven’t you heard of “Judeo-Christianity,” the “JudeoChristian tradition,” and so on? All of the politicians and the Christian preachers and the media people use those terms all the time. And we all know that the Christians and the Jews have the same Ten Commandments, don’t we? Actually, the Jews and the Christians are related to one another in a very fundamental way: the relation is that of deceivers and deceived, of wolves and sheep. What would they do without each other?
Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that I am not denigrating the Jews because they value their own lives quite differently from the lives of non-Jews. I am not denigrating the Jews for not being the egalitarians they pretend to be. I am denigrating them for pretending to be what they are not. No one in his right mind is an egalitarian. The members of every tribe that will survive very long on this planet value the lives of their fellow tribesmen above the lives of those who are not members of the tribe. Judaism is a survival-oriented religion. Christianity is not. Perhaps a more meaningful and relevant difference between the two religions is that Judaism is a religion for survival in a multicultural society. It is a religion for governing the behavior of a Jewish minority in the presence of a non-Jewish majority. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion for governing the behavior of Christians in a homogeneous Christian society. In a multicultural society it becomes suicidal. Judaism makes very clear distinctions between Jews and non-Jews, and the rules are different for the way a Jew should behave toward his fellow Jews and the way he should behave toward non-Jews: quite different. In Christianity the rules are the same for everybody. That’s an important distinction, and it’s important for us to understand it. It’s important for the minority of Christians who aren’t lemmings to understand it too.
So again, I don’t denigrate Jews because they don’t believe in treating everyone the same. They want to survive, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to survive. What’s pathological about the Jews is that they are constituted for existing as a predatory minority in a non-Jewish society. Judaism is a religion for predators. Christianity is a religion for pacifists. Judaism encourages deception. Christianity insists on truthfulness. Each is suited to a specific sort of environment. The Jews, through their control of the mass media of news and entertainment, have deliberately changed the environment in America to suit themselves, to enhance their own survivability at the expense of the non-Jewish majority. That’s what they always do everywhere that they are allowed to get away with it. That is their nature. That is why they often are successful, and it also is the reason why they are so hated and always have been. It is for good reason that we have the very well known and often used terms “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic,” but don’t have equivalent terms for other ethnic groups. “Anti-Semite,” of course is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn’t mean a person who doesn’t like Arabs or other Semites; it means only a person who doesn’t like Jews. There is no term “anti-Buddhist” or “anti-Hindu,” even though there are far more Buddhists and Hindus in the world than Jews. Believe me, the Jews are special. They are unique.
We may have conflicts with other groups — we may be threatened by other groups — but no other group has ever threatened our existence in the way we are threatened by the Jews. Being predatory by nature may give the Jews certain survival advantages, just as it tends to get them into trouble a lot more often than is the case for most other groups. It also makes it very difficult for them to have a “normal” mode of existence: that is, to live only among themselves, instead of as a minority among non-Jews. In Israel, for example, aside from the Palestinians, and aside from the White women they import as sex slaves from eastern Europe, they have no one to prey on but themselves. Convincing their fellow Israelis to invest in fraudulent stock schemes is not as easy as selling the Brooklyn Bridge to naïve Gentiles in America, so their predatory instincts tend to come to the fore in other ways: in the way they treat their own women, for example.
In this regard recent revelations about the sexual behavior of male Jews on Israeli kibbutzim are especially relevant. The kibbutz, or Jewish communal village, is an Israeli institution dating from the time before the Second World War when the Jews were bent on proving to the world the virtues of communism. Everything in the communes is community property, including the children and the women. Children are taken from their parents shortly after being weaned and thereafter live in dormitories, where an extraordinarily large number of them are sexually abused. This sexual abuse of children became entrenched in many kibbutzim because of taboos against seeking assistance from police or other authorities outside the kibbutz. The abusers were protected by a code of silence.
The code of silence was broken recently when a former kibbutz member, Nahshon Golatz, filed a lawsuit against the kibbutz movement and the government of Israel seeking compensation for the abuse to which he had been subjected as a child. His lawsuit has opened a floodgate, and hundreds of other former kibbutz members have come forward with their own horror stories: stories that most Jews would prefer to keep quiet. Several newspapers in Britain, including the Times and the Independent, reported some of the details last month, and this in turn has encouraged other kibbutz victims to speak out.
Especially interesting is the picture that has emerged of the treatment of women and girls in the kibbutzim. Rape is a common feature of kibbutz life. Women, teen-aged girls, even children as young as three years old are regularly raped, unless they have a male protector who is strong enough to fight off the gangs of rapists who prey on them. Gang rape of unprotected women is an especially popular sport among male kibbutzniks.
I’ll read you a few lines from a report that appeared in the British newspaper the Independent on January 20. The report quotes an Israeli woman, herself a former kibbutznik, who heads a rapecrisis center in Israel: “There were girls who were fair game, whom it was permitted to victimize,” she said. “A stranger won’t understand, but on the kibbutz, sick as it may sound, the girls who were hurt werealways from weak families.”
She compared the predatory kibbutz male to “the tiger in the wild that marks out the wounded, limping ewe for himself and hurls himself on her — that was exactly how the attacking males, adolescents and adults, in the kibbutz identified the victims.” I am reminded of the horrible stories from the 1950s of what happened to German girls on Israeli kibbutzim. Ever since the Second World War, of course, the Germans have been exposed to nonstop Jewish propaganda about what terrible people they are for having been so nasty to those wonderful, innocent, gifted, blameless, sensitive, violin-playing Jews who lived in Germany before Hitler came along and got rid of all of them for no good reason. As usual, the young women were most affected by this guilt-propaganda, and after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, many guilt-stricken young German women went off to Israel to do penance by serving as volunteer workers on kibbutzim. Well, you can imagine what happened to those poor girls. Many of them simply disappeared. But they kept coming and kept disappearing because the German news media dared not report anything unfavorable about the Jews, and so it took a while for the news of what was happening to get out.
Anyway, we have a new prime minister in Israel now. I don’t know that he’s any more of a Jew than Ehud Barak was — a Jewish assassin has been replaced by a Jewish mass murderer — but I do suspect that the United States is more likely now to get pulled into yet another war in the Middle East to advance Jewish interests there.
George Bush is busy winning points with American conservatives by pushing for a big tax cut. He’s fighting the Democrats who want to use the money for more government-managed welfare programs of one sort or another in order to win points with their own constituency. This fight against the Democrats is making Bush a hero to conservatives, but I do not see Mr. Bush as a hero of any sort. In particular I do not believe he will stand up to Israel. I do not believe that he will resist the new demands that will be made on the United States by the Sharon government. I do not know exactly what is being planned in Israel now. I do not know what the Israelis will use as a pretext for war. Perhaps it will be the claim that Saddam Hussein has developed new weapons of mass destruction and needs to be put down. Perhaps it will be Syrian troop movements. Perhaps it will be increased militance among the Palestinians. I do not know what it will be, but I see a war coming just as surely as I saw a war coming when Bill Clinton appointed an all-Jewish foreign-policy and national-security staff after his reelection in 1996. In early 1997 I predicted that Madeleine Albright and the rest of Bill Clinton’s all-Jewish crew would deliberately get us involved in another war, and two years later we were bombing Belgrade in preparation for turning the Serbs of Serbia’s Kosovo province over to the tender mercies of the KLA’s cutthroats.
Mr. Bush has all non-Jews out front now in the most visible positions on his foreign-policy and national-defense team. Cynic that I am, the reason that I see behind this is that when the war comes the public will not see any visible Jews out front leading the charge and so will not be inclined to say that the Jews dragged us into another war for Israel. And I believe that the war will come — in less than two years this time. And it certainly will be a war for Jewish interests, not our interests.
There cannot be peace in the Middle East as long as the Jews are determined to dominate the region. And the Jews, being what they are, will have it no other way. That’s why I call the socalled “peace process” in the Middle East a laughable charade, a deliberate fraud on the American people designed to keep them sending money and military equipment to the Jews. I am afraid, however, that this time it will be American blood as well that the Jews will expect us to supply in order to ensure their victory in their next war against their neighbors. And you know, it’s more than our money and our blood. Think what it means for America publicly to support a country led by a creature such as Ariel Sharon. Most Americans and most Europeans and other people around the world weren’t aware that Ehud Barak worked as an international terrorist for the government of Israel in the past. But everyone knows what Ariel Sharon did in Lebanon. Everyone knows that he is a bloodthirsty mass murderer of women and children. And America will be supporting him. Mr. Bush will hug him when he comes to visit the White House. The other politicians in Washington will be falling all over themselves to shake his hand and have their pictures taken with him. A disgusting prospect.
You know, if Ariel Sharon showed up at the White House with Nahum Korman, the Jewish settler who was fined for kicking and stomping an 11-year-old Palestinian child to death, I have No doubt that Mr. Bush would give Mr. Korman a big hug too. George Bush and Bill Clinton may have different policies on taxes, but when it comes to taking orders from their Jewish handlers, there is no difference at all between the two politicians.
And here we are sending U.S. military units, our soldiers, to Israel now, this week, where the chances are excellent for them to become involved in hostile action — perhaps something else along the lines of the bombing of the USS Cole — giving Mr. Bush an excuse to get us even further entangled in Israel’s dirty affairs and ultimately in another war. I cannot help but think that that is exactly what someone had in mind when the decision was made to deploy American soldiers from their base in Germany to Israel this week.