Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - dean_saor

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
[I've linked to The Truthseeker site, as its link to SOTT takes one to the article in the Polish version]

Former Israeli Intel Operatives Run Security at Brussels Airport

SOTT — March 23, 2016

The aviation and general security services firm ICTS handles security operations at Brussels airport, the scene of a bomb attack yesterday morning.

ICTS was established in 1982 by former members of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency and El Al airline security agents, and has a major presence around the world in airport security including operations in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Japan and Russia. ICTS uses the security system employed in Israel, whereby passengers are profiled to assess the degree to which they pose a potential threat on the basis of a number of indicators, including age, name, origin and behavior during questioning.

Chairman of the Supervisory Board at ICTS is Menachem J. Atzmon. Atzmon is a former Likud party member who was indicted and convicted in 1996 in a fraud and embezzlement case relating to the misappropriation of funds raised by charities. Atzmon is also the CEO of the port authority of Rostock in Germany.

This will not, however, be the first time that ICTS has come under scrutiny for possible security lapses leading to a ‘Muslim terror attack’.

As the provider of security services to Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport and United Airlines and US Airways, the firm’s security system was criticized for somehow allowing erstwhile ‘underwear bomber’, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to “slip through” and board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit with explosive materials on Christmas day 2009.

[pic - So-called ‘knicker bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Click to enlarge]

The Christmas knicker bomber, as he came to be known, was not your usual disgruntled Arab or lowly Muslim acolyte. He was the son of Nigerian banking mogul and former Nigerian government minister Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, one of the richest men in Africa. We’re talking one of the African colonial elite here, an African version of the British ‘old boy’s network‘ While in London, his son, the knicker bomber lived in a ₤4 million apartment in Mansfield Street, in the city’s West End. He also enjoyed access to visas for several different countries, including the US.

Unlike most alleged Muslim terrorists who usually bring their passports to the scene of their ‘suicide attacks’ (and often leave them there for police to find) Abdulmutallab apparently arrived at Schipol airport to board his flight to the US with a one way ticket, no luggage and without a passport.

Now usually this would have spelled a premature end to his planned attack, but according to Detroit attorney and eyewitness to events at Schipol, Kurt Haskell, Abdulmutallab benefited from the help of a sharply dressed Indian man who was able to escort the youngster to the boarding gate where he told the attendant that Abdulmutallab had no passport but should be allowed on the flight anyway. When the sharply dressed man was told that he would have to speak to the security manager, he did so and successfully planted the knicker bomber on the plane.

Now this requires some serious string pulling, and all the hoopla in the press at the time about whether or not the security system worked was just hubris, because if the knicker bomber appeared at the gate without a passport, it is unlikely that he went through the normal process up to that point, including check-in which requires passengers to show their passports.

In all probability, Abdulmutallab was escorted as a ‘VIP’ to the gate by the sharply dressed man. So how do two suspicious looking dudes, at least one of them without a passport and carrying bomb materials, get to the gate in an airport and then onto the flight? The answer is they don’t, unless they have some friends among the people running the security controls at the airport. In this case, ICTS.

Within a few months of the underwear attack, the US State Department admitted that it had known about Mutallab’s intentions for some time and had not revoked his entry visa to the USA because they, effectively, wanted to see what he would do.

“Revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, “rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort.”

[pic - ‘Shoe-bomber’ Richard Reid. Click to enlarge]

But ICTS’ security faux pas’ don’t end there. In December 2001, they somehow managed to let deranged shoe bomber Richard Reid, onto his Miami-bound flight in Paris, and this was after ICTS had cleared Reid through security at Amsterdam airport on a flight to Tel Aviv in July 2001 for what was apparently an all-expenses paid week-long trip to the Israeli city. What precisely he did there remains a mystery. Reid later said that ICTS/El Al had failed to detect that he had explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv, an amazing revelation considering the Israeli airline’s tight security and the fact that, six months later, they were responsible for letting him board the Miami-bound flight with the very same type of ‘shoe bomb’. Israel had not informed British, American, or any other security agency of their concerns about Reid. Reid’s aunt, Claudette Lewis who raised Reid in south London, was quoted as saying she believed her nephew had been “brainwashed”.

[pic- 7/7 bus wreck. Click to enlarge]

ICTS also somehow missed several of the alleged 9/11 hijackers who allegedly flew out of Boston’s Logan airport on September 11th 2001. ICTS also handled security for London’s bus network during the July 7, 2005, ‘suicide’ bomb attacks. In fact, two of its subsidiaries, ICTS UK and ICTS Europe Systems, are based at Tavistock House, Tavistock Square in London, scene of the London Stagecoach bus bombing that day.

That’s quite a record, all in all. And we have to wonder how many terror attacks could have been prevented, how many innocent lives saved, how much further we might be today from a burgeoning police state, if outfits like ICTS and those that support them had not allowed so many unlikely and hapless ‘Muslim terrorists’ to “slip through”.

Of all the authoritarian ‘leaders’ that benefit from the insecurity created by ‘Muslim terrorism’, the political elite of the state of Israel benefit the most. And of all the people who suffer from terrorist attacks, people of Muslim faith suffer by far the most. Israel, a country created on stolen Palestinian land and surrounded by Muslims, requires the continued threat of ‘Islamic terrorism’ to justify its existence. In pushing this insane agenda so far, by encouraging Europe and the ‘West’ to adopt Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians, it seems that the conditions are being created whereby the events of Nazi Germany may well repeat, only this time with Muslims in the position of the Jews.

This is an informative blog post, and topically relevant. The layout could do with some work, but the content is interesting:

 Posted on March 23, 2016 by scholarlyislam   

    “Diagnosing terrorism as a symptom and Islam as the problem, though popular in some circles, is flawed and has serious risks with dangerous repercussions.”
    – John Esposito, (Who Speaks for Islam, 97)

Nabeel Qureshi is a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and is now a full time Christian apologist with a Ministry. But if you read his USA Today Opinion piece, headlined The Qur’an’s deadly role in inspiring Belgian slaughter this critical fact would not come to your attention – as the author begins the article by describing himself as “a Muslim growing up in the United States.”  Anyone may easily read this entire piece and conclude – as numerous comments on the article show – that Qureshi is a practicing Muslim who finally “confirms” that the Qur’an is an inherently violent text. His actual allegiances are only mentioned at the end of the article. This sort of deceptive writing by someone who claims to be promoting “love” toward Muslims represents the height of dishonesty. It is only eclipsed by the sort of dubious and factually problematic arguments Qureshi advances. One should note that Nabeel Qureshi possesses no credentials in the academic study of Muslim law, history, thought or Qur’anic studies. He is a self-admitted Christian apologist (except in the body of the article under question) and his arguments must be viewed in light of his evangelical agenda.

Qureshi’s problematic thesis is that the Qur’an as a whole is violent, that its literal interpretation enables and inspires ISIS, and that its Surah (Chapter) 9 commands Muslims to commit unconditional violence against all non-Muslims and “subjugate Jews and Christians.” Qureshi is quick to say that “My point is not to question the faith of such Muslims nor to imply that radical Muslims are the true Muslims.” But once sentence later, he goes on to say that ISIS “radicalizes” people “by primarily by urging them to follow the literal teachings of the Quran and the hadith, interpreted consistently and in light of the violent trajectory of early Islam.” By declaring that the Qur’an itself inspires and commands violence, Qureshi is trying to brand “real Islam” as inherently violent.  He even concludes that “As long as the Islamic world focuses on its foundational texts, we will continue to see violent jihadi movements.”

Not only is Qureshi’s analysis historically and textually inaccurate, his entire article is nothing more than a Christian apologist’s attempt to attack Islam and convert Muslims. While Qureshi is entitled to his opinion, dressing up his Op-Ed as the honest views of a Muslim is simply not in keeping with either Christian or Muslim values of honesty and integrity.

Does the Qur’an command unconditional violence?

Firstly, the Qur’an does not contain a doctrine of “jihad” and the word “jihad” in the Qur’an does not simply mean “warfare”. The word jihad means struggle and striving and its usage in the Qur’an encompasses all kinds of strivings- moral, religious, spiritual, and physical. Muslim jurists developed the concept of jihad in legal discourse in which jihad is not much different than the Christian concept of the “just war.”

Qureshi refers to Surah 9, but fails to even consider this Qur’anic chapter as a whole. Instead, like many other Islamophobic writers, Qureshi reads the Qur’an in a way unknown to the vast majority of Muslims who believe in it. He only refers allusively (without quoting any verses, giving their historical context, or providing comments of traditional Muslim exegetes) to a handful of verses. Qureshi’s conclusion is that “it is fair to wonder whether any non-Muslims in the world are immune from being attacked, subdued or assimilated under this command.” Qureshi then makes the bogus claim that “Muslim thought leaders agree that the Quran promotes such violence” but is only able to cite one individual, Maajid Nawaz, whose reputation among Muslim scholars and intellectuals is questionable at best. Even then, Nawaz as quoted by Qureshi is not even speaking to Qureshi’s own claims. Meanwhile Qureshi ignores the hundreds of leading Muslim scholars who openly condemned ISIS understanding of the Qur’an (read it here). So what does Surah 9 of the Qur’an say about violence?

As adopted directly from Kabir Helminski’s article at HuffPost,  Surah 9 was revealed, Muhammad and his followers had begun to establish themselves securely. They had returned triumphantly to Mecca without violence, most Meccans themselves had become Muslims, and many of the surrounding pagan Arab tribes had also accepted Islam and sent delegations to the Prophet pledging their allegiance to him. Those that did not establish peace with the Muslims were the bitterest of enemies, and it was against these remaining hostile forces that the verse commands the Prophet to fight. The verses 9:4 states, “Those with whom you have treaties are immune from attack.” It further states, “Fulfill your treaties with them to the end of their term, for God loves the conscientious.” This was a guidance to the Prophet at that specific time to fight those idolaters who, as 9:4 mentions, violated their treaty obligations and helped others fight against the Muslims. It is not a general command to attack all non-Muslims, and it has never signified this to the overwhelming majority of Muslims throughout history. Had it been so, then every year, after the “sacred months are past,” (The “sacred months” are four months out of the year during which fighting is not allowed) history would have witnessed Muslims attacking every non-Muslim in sight. This yearly slaughter never occurred.  9:6 even says “And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety.”

The fundamental Quranic principle is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense, and it is only against those who actively fight against you. Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war. If the enemy inclines toward peace, however, Muslims must follow suit: “But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful” (2:192). Also read: “Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing” (8:61). Even then, Muhammad had very clear rules for warfare – attacks on noncombatants, women and children, destruction of property, torture, etc. – were all OFF LIMITS.

Are “Literal Readings” of the Qur’an the Real Problem?

The entirety of Surah 9 of the Qur’an must be read in light of the WHOLE Surah and the rest of the Qur’an. And this leads to a second point. Are violent groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. reading the Qur’an literally? Actually, they are not doing so at all. A literal reading of the Qur’an would still affirm ALL of the Qur’an – including all the verses cited above that place limits on violence.

For example, John Esposito, a Professor of Islamic Studies writes and summarizes what the Qur’an as a whole says about violence:

    Although atrocities and acts of terrorism have connected Islam with terrorism, the Islamic tradition places limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijacking, and hostage taking. As happens in other faiths, mainstream and normative doctrines and laws are ignored, distorted, or co-opted and misinterpreted by a radical fringe. Islamic law, drawing on the Quran, sets out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and rejects acts of terrorism… The Quran provides detailed guidelines and regulations regarding war: who should fight (48:17, 9:91), when fighting should end (21:92), and how to treat prisoners (47:4). It emphasizes proportionality in warfare: “Whoever transgresses against you, respond in kind” (2:194). Other verses provide a strong mandate for making peace: “If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God” (8:61) and “Had Allah wished, He would have made them dominate you, and so if they leave you alone and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them” (4:90).
    (John Esposito, What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam, 140)

A literal reading of the Qur’an does not ignore all of the above. Groups like ISIS do not read the Qur’an literally. They ignore more than 95% of the Qur’an, and most of the Islamic tradition as a whole. Instead, they simply pick and choose verses, ignore all the verses around them, ignore the historical context, and ignore 1,400 years of Muslim exegesis on the Qur’an. For example, if ISIS and other violent groups were literalists, then they would properly follow this flowchart here:

[ graphic - Quran flow chart ]

Carl Ernst, another Professor of Islamic Studies, concludes that ISIS’ Islam is not a literal Islam but a PHONY Islam:

    Their so-called “prophetic methodology” is nothing more than cherry-picking what they like and ignoring what they do not. Furthermore, it is past time to dispense with the idea that organizations like ISIS are “literalist” in their reading of texts. Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not. Nor would they interpret literally, “God is the light of the heavens and the earth,” or any number of other passages from the Quran that the so-called “literalists” are compelled to either ignore or read as some kind of metaphor or allegory…there is a wide chasm between someone who “laces” his conversations with religious imagery (very easy) and someone who has actually studied and understood the difficulties and nuances of an immense textual tradition (very hard). I personally know enough Shakespeare to “lace” my conversations with quotations from Hamlet and the sonnets. Does that make me a serious Shakespeare scholar?
    (Ernst, The Phony Islam of ISIS, The Atlantic)

What does the Qur’an actually say about other faiths?

“For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.” (Qur’an 5:48)

“Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:62)

“O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.” (Qur’an 49:13)

Global Muslims by the Numbers:

Anyone can cherry-pick any text – the Qur’an, the Bible, the Vedas – and use specific snippets de-contextualized from their original place and history to justify violence. The question is – when this happens, is the text itself responsible? Motivation and justification are two very different things. As much peer reviewed research has shown, the primary motivation for violent extremists is social isolation, criminal history, political grievances, and mental problems. If the Qur’an as a whole inspires violence – then why don’t we see this everyday among the global Muslim population?

A. Fact: there are only about 100,000 estimated total militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.5 billion people. See:

B. Fact: the biggest victims of ISIS and Al-Qaeda ARE Muslims; and not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of Muslims hate ISIS and al-Qaeda. To say otherwise – to claim that substantial numbers of Muslims support ISIS and other terror groups is like saying that most murder victims support their murderers, or that most rape victims support their rapists and in fact want to emulate them. See:

C. Fact: The overwhelming majority of U.S. Muslims (78%) stated that it is never morally justifiable to target and kill civilians, compared to only 38% of Protestants, 39% of Catholics, 43% of Jews, 33% of Mormons, and 56% of people with no religion/atheists/agnostics.


D. Fact: Muslims worldwide are least likely among other religious groups to support violence against innocent people:


E. Fact:  According to the 2005 Gallup Poll and other studies discussed by John Esposito in his book, “Who Speaks for Islam”:
— Only 46% of Americans believe that ‘bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians’ are “never justified” while 24% believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified”. This means that the majority of Americans believe that bombing and other attacks aimed at civilians can be justified. Compare this to Muslim majority countries where the same Poll found that 74% of respondents in Indonesia, 86% in Bangladesh, 86% in Pakistan, and 80% in Iran – in other words, the majority of these Muslims believe that attacks on civilians are “never justified.”

— 6% of the American public thinks that attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified”; Compare this to 2% of those in Lebanon and Iran and 4% in Saudi Arabia who think that attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified.

F. Fact: In wars and violent conflicts during the last 30 years, Harvard Professor Stephen Walt concluded that Muslims have killed about 10,325 Americans, whereas the U.S. has killed 288,000 Muslims. See:
For all these reasons, Islamic studies Professor John Esposito concluded that:

    “Muslims hold no monopoly on extremist views and are, in fact, on average more likely than American public to unequivocally condemn attacks on civilians.”
    (John Esposito, Who Speaks of Islam, 94)

Qureshi is free to claim whatever he wants about the Qur’an, but the fact of the matter is that the Qur’an as read, practiced, and lived everday by 99.9% of the 1.5 billion Muslims does not promote violence. So either 99.9% of the global Muslim population have been misinterpreting its own scripture for centuries…or Nabeel Qureshi has a not-so-hidden agenda.

Media Watch / Minds dot com
« on: August 31, 2015, 12:27:51 PM »
Does anyone have any experience of this new(-ish) social media site? Will it go the way of Google Plus, do you think?

General / TBF's new novel
« on: April 24, 2013, 12:01:47 AM »
For those who remember Todd Brendan Fahey, he's just posted a YouTube promo for his new novel Wisdom's Maw.

As he says:

"Film promo clip of my novel, Wisdom's Maw. Now up on YouTube. Do, please, spread this link around. Many thanks (and especially to the video architect and mine longtime Web genius Christopher Hunt):"

[embed=425,349]<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value=";version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=";version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>[/embed]

General / Merry Christmas to be Politically Incorrect
« on: December 22, 2012, 10:20:11 AM »
Merry Christmas one and all, and a Happy New Year.

General / WRS - Wind River Shoshoni
« on: April 18, 2012, 11:37:10 AM »
WRS is very ill. Does anybody have up-to-date information about him?

Arts, Entertainment & Sports / Judith Durham and The Seekers
« on: February 08, 2012, 09:48:42 AM »
Morning Has Broken

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>

I actually prefer this to Cat Stevens's version, although it was his that made famous Elizabeth Farjeon's lyrics to the Gaelic hymn Leanaibh an Àigh (Child of Blessing) to the tune Bunessan.

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>

Arts, Entertainment & Sports / Celtic folk music
« on: February 02, 2012, 04:36:00 AM »
Yezhou Bihan

Breton - sung in Breton and Gaelic by Gilles Servat and Karen Matheson

<a href="http://[url=][/url]" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://[url=][/url]</a>

These are the only lyrics I could find. The Breton doesn't always seem to correspond with what Servat sings. The Gaelic is in Irish for some reason and bears virtually not relation to the Scots that Karen Matheson sings:


Yezhoù, ma vez graet bihan ac’hanoc’h,
Evel ar stered, o strinkañ e brozh an noz,
Ha petra vefe al loar hep o skedoù,
Met ur gouloù nemetañ, kreiz an egor goullo?

Yezhoù, ma vez graet bihan ac’hanoc’h,
Evel gwad hag aour bokedoù ar pradoù,
Ha petra vefe ar geot hep ho karmoù,
Met lavnennoù, holl heñvel, en ec’honderioù don?

Teangacha mionlaigh, mar a thugtar oraibh,
Realtai breactha ar ghuna na hoich
Ni bheadh sa Re gan bhur lasracha gle
Ach solas aonair i bhfolus siorai

Yezhoù, ma vez graet bihan ac’hanoc’h,
E-giz inizi war ar mor bras hadet,
Ha petra vefe ar mor hep ho klasted,
Nemet irvi hag irvi hep diwezh an tonnoù?

Teangacha beaga, mar a thugar oraibh,
Fuil agus or na mblath fiain
Ni bheadh sa bhfear gan bhur screach
Ach ionannas leamh o lann go lann

Teangacha beaga, teangacha mionlaigh,
Oileain scaipthe san fharraige mhor
Ni bheadh sa mhuir gan bhur bhfuinneamh
Ach iomairi seasca na dtonntracha buan.

Conspiracy then and now. / The Truth of Silence
« on: April 08, 2011, 09:30:57 AM »
The Truth of Silence

By T Stokes on April 8, 2011


Almost 70 years ago on May 10 1941, Hitler sent his deputy Rudolph Hess to Britain to try to [put] a stop to World War II before it became the all-consuming conflict we know of today.

The offer was for Germany to pull back all its forces and put the map back to where it was before war broke out. Hitler also sought an agreement to put an end to the bombing of civilian targets.

In short Hitler wanted a peace accord with Britain and its Commonwealth allies so he could concentrate his efforts on what he saw as the real threat to Germany, Communist Russia.

The year before in late May through early June, most of the British Expeditionary Force had evaded capture by Germany’s invading armies in France. When in Churchill’s words “the whole root and core and brain of the British Army” had been stranded at Dunkirk and seemed about to perish or be captured.

It was almost as if they had been allowed to escape, as if even then Hitler still had hopes for an alliance with Britain.

For much of what follows I owe a debt of gratitude to the Bletchley Park code breaker John Burrows whose remit was the Hess coded signals, and Churchill secretaries Joan Bright-Astley and Patrick Kinna.

Patrick claimed that the Focus group that backed Churchill were vampire like Jewish bankers who twisted everything backwards and were jocularly known not as the Focus group but the Sucof group. These bankers wanted revenge on Germany for banning them and their usurious banking practises. These same bankers under Juan March had also bribed Franco to keep Spain out of the war; so Churchill was afraid that their apparent anti-communism might make them side with Hitler.

Even at that late juncture the war could have been stopped had Winston Churchill and his financial backers not been committed to it.

However as I’ve claimed at lectures, Hess’s seizure was an MI6 ‘sting’ operation to bring him into British hands. This despite the fact that most British intelligence personnel were against the war, which is why Churchill started the Special Operations Executive recruiting them from left-leaning, pro-communist linguists.

The TV producer John Leigh's statement fits what we know; when he said Hess’s arrival was expected and his father who was in MI6 was told, and I quote: “get into your motorbike and sidecar and go and pick up a senior German official and bring him back here, use utmost haste before the others get to him”.

The “others” I take to mean Churchill’s men.

Remember that Neville Chamberlain previously commissioned a secret 4-year investigation into Hitler and the Third Reich, which concluded that Germany was not a threat to Britain but to Russia; which is why when Britain was the world’s biggest sea power, Germany did not build up hers believing that Britain could join them against Russia.

Incidentally Chamberlain, like intelligence chief Vernon Kell, the king’s brother the Duke of Kent and Polish leader General Sikorski were all murdered because they disagreed with Churchill’s plans for war. While the head of the British naval intelligence Admiral Barry Domville was incarcerated without trial throughout the war for insisting that the Soviets, not Germany, was the real threat.

So closely did Neville Chamberlain’s government work with Germany against the Communist threat prior to WWII that Joachim Von Ribbentrop, the German diplomat asked permission from both governments if he could retire to Cornwall. The author Andrew Lanyon spent 3 years researching this and claimed that Ribbentrop loved the region, particularly St Ives. While Hitler himself wanted Britain to be a holiday retreat for all Anglo-Saxon peoples.

Because the Russian royal family were murdered in 1917 in the Rothschild sponsored revolution, Britain’s own Royal family who were close to their Russian cousins, were terrified of a communist take over and secretly supported Hitler. Even while the Queen Mother was being particularly vocal about how awful Hitler was, she was secretly sending money to the Nazis.

This despite her well-known miserliness reveals how afraid the Royal Family was of communism. While the real reason for the abdication of the immensely popular King Edward VIII had nothing to do with Wallace Simpson, but his continual peacemaking efforts with Nazi Germany.

The British Home Secretary Herbert Morrison, a senior member of the Jewish underground supporting Russia, is on record as saying that he “wished to see Bolshevisation all across Europe”.

The records for Manton Court where Rudolph Hess was held are still in the restricted archives. Although Hess was continually drugged and beaten, never once did he tell who the supporters for peace were either in the Royal family or outside it. And although he was locked up throughout the war he was still found guilty at Nuremberg and remained imprisoned for the rest of his life.

There have been many questions about whether the man held at Spandau was indeed Hess and if he did in fact commit suicide in 1987.

The war department propaganda operative Sefton Delmer said in a rare radio interview that Hess was incarcerated and subsequently murdered to stop him from telling what really happened. Now I don’t have any political leanings either way but I do feel that after 70 years we should know the truth of why we declared war on Germany when WWII could have been stopped with Hess’s visit.

As far as I’m concerned this exposes Winston Churchill for the traitor he really was.

T Stokes, London

With thanks to many people including arresting officers, Spandau guards and intelligence personnel over many years.
Also see: ‘The life and death of Rudolph Hess’. by Wolf Rudiger Hess, his son

Posted in Feature Posts, Hidden and Revisionist History

T Stokes is an investigator into and lecturer on the paranormal and consultant palmist[/color]

Poster's Comments:

1. I've lightly subbed the article for punctuation and readability.

2. Churchill's mother was Jenny Jerome (Jacobson), a New York "princess". His father's, Lord Randolph Churchill's (youngest son of the Duke of Marlborough), political career was blighted through this marriage and because he was far too friendly with Jews, especially Jewish bankers, as he was considered "unsound" thereby by the Conservative Party led by the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. Winston's entire political career seems to have been an attempt to vindicate his father and he was embraced by the very same "orientals" and promoted by them.

3. The Prime Minister we should have had after Neville Chamberlain was Lord Halifax (the man who said, "what was the point of going to war with Germany and losing the British Empire as a consequence?". The "orientals" were having none of it.

4. The US Ambassador, Joe Kennedy, reported to Roosevelt that Chamberlain had said to him that it was the Jewish bankers who were forcing the UK into the war with Germany. Remember the Daily Express splash in 1933 "Judaea Declares War on Germany".

5. Herbert Morrison was the grandfather of the notorious homosexual Peter Mandelson - Blair's handler, and a Rothschild man.

Sue's Place / Lawyers
« on: March 30, 2011, 07:33:32 AM »
A group of terrorists burst into the conference room
at the Ramada Hotel where the American Bar Association
was holding its Annual Convention.

More than 500 lawyers were taken as hostages.

The terrorist leader announced that, unless their demands
were met, they would release one lawyer every hour.

London 7/7 / 7/7 Revisited
« on: October 22, 2010, 09:37:43 AM »
These videos (still up on YouTube) are really worth watching.

7/7 Revisited is a 6 part video of Nick Kollerstrom, author of Terror on the Tube, and David Shayler, former MI6 Counter Terrorism officer, discussing the events of 7 July 2001 and dissecting the Official Narrative showing why it can't possibly make sense, how the "4 evil Muslims from Leeds" couldn't have done the deed, and how it's highly likely that it was an outside intelligence agency.

From the way that Part 6 ends, it looks as though there should be (or is going to be) a Part 7.

7/7 Revisited, Part 1: (Shayler on the left; Kollerstrom on the right)

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>

7/7 Revisited, Part 2:

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>

7/7 Revisited, Part 3:

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>

London 7/7 / The London 7/7 Bombings: A Murder Investigation
« on: October 18, 2010, 02:48:55 AM »`s-cross/

The London 7/7 Bombings: A Murder Investigation

Germain Lindsay at King`s Cross

The evidence here referred to was heard on the morning of Thursday 14 October 2010 at the 7/7 Inquest (in the Old Bailey) and can be found here between sections 58 and 101.

Mr. Fayad Patel was employed as a customer service assistant by London Underground and was on duty at a barrier at the end of a `˜gate line` near the main ticket hall in King`s Cross underground station. Mr Patel, sometime between 08:15 and 08:45 was approached by a man he later identified as being Germain Lindsay `“ who, we are told, shortly afterwards murdered 26 people on a tube train travelling between King`s Cross and Russell Square.

According to Mr. Patel`s evidence to the court, Mr. Lindsay told Mr Patel that he `wanted to speak to the `duty  Manager``¦..then later `It`s something very important.` Patel had earlier given this testimony in 2006 under oath, and here repeated it without change. Patel gave an equally startling and unexpected reply to Lindsay: `Well, we`re quite busy at the moment because of, obviously, with the station control.`  `“ The what?

Mr Patel described to the Inquest how delays on the Northern Line, on National Rail and perhaps elsewhere that morning meant that `the entire Tube gate line area was congested and we`d implemented a station control to try and minimise the flow of passengers.` This involved shutting escalators off, shutting the main entrance and exit points and then periodically opening them as and when appropriate. Therefore unusual controls were being imposed on the main concourse at King`s Cross. Passengers were being delayed and, as Mr Patel says later, getting angry and `abusing` staff.

In addition, various police community support police officers were coming into the station `“ as Mr Patel told the Inquest:

    Q. Do you know why they were there?

    A. I believe they were just passing through or they were going to a training course or something, and they heard about `” and they came to help.
    Q. What had they heard about?

    A. They had just heard that there`s some kind of problem or some kind of power failure or `” at King`s Cross.

This could have been related to the terror-drill that morning, alluded to by Peter Power. With extra police and lockdown controls, whatever was happening was `˜obvious` `“ according to Mr Patel`s reply given to Lindsay.

So this is the scene confronting the `˜suicide bomber` Lindsay as he arrives at King`s Cross underground station on the morning of 7/7.

The question arises`¦.  What goes through the mind of a suicide bomber during his final hour on earth?

We already know from Inquest evidence given previously during the week that he arrived early in the car park at Luton station, dozed off while waiting for the others in his car and got given a parking ticket while asleep.

That`s one relaxed suicide bomber.

Now, inside King`s Cross, he sees hordes of angry people being prevented from moving around the station and he has something `very important` to say to the station Duty Manager. (Mr Patel found it very unusual that Lindsay would use this specific term for the man in charge. Normally people ask for `˜the foreman` or `˜the supervisor`)

One wonders what it was about the unusual situation and the angry people that disturbed Mr. Lindsay.

Perhaps he was concerned for their health and safety?

The obvious point here is that the idea of a SUICIDE BOMBER wanting to approach a station manager to sort out an issue, however serious, is utterly, utterly ridiculous.

To any reasonable person this fact alone should prove that Germain Lindsay was definitely NOT a suicide bomber.

It surely does not take much imagination to realise that any man about to die on a suicide mission is bound to be locked into his own obsessed, prayerful, demented bubble. That Lindsay should have arrived at the point where he was about to do his killing and THEN had second thoughts of some kind is nuts. That he would want to share his concerns with an employee of the London Underground, simply insane.

However, there is an alternative narrative that does make much more sense.

Lindsay arrives at King`s Cross `“ with or without the others, that`s up to you `“ to play his particular (well-paid) role in a terrorism `drill`. When he gets to the main concourse he sees mayhem. There is something very unusual (to him, at least) going on. Ghastly possibilities start to unfold in his mind.

The thought occurs, `what if we are being set up to take the rap for real bombs?` He wonders what to do. He decides he will not continue with the game until he is reassured by someone who is in on the drill that there is nothing to worry about. He speaks to Mr. Patel.

Mr. Patel goes to get the Duty Manager (Lindsay knows this title from the run-throughs he and his three pals have been through with their handler). He looks again at the chaos around him. While waiting for the Duty Manager to arrive he thinks to himself, `if we are being set up why should this person be looking out for my interest? Why should I trust him, whatever he tells me?`


`¦.`I`m outa here``¦..

Germain Lindsay deserts the drill. Unfortunately for him and the others, the special mobile phones they have been given by their handlers (see other evidence) to communicate with each other before and during the drill can be used to track their positions at all times. Lindsay does not realise this. Nor does Khan, nor Tanweer. Lindsay uses his phone to register his alarm to the others.

They were too late for their mission anyway.

They now know there have been real explosions. Something dreadful is going on. They use the phones to meet again. They go on the run.

The information they are transmitting is being used to hunt them down`¦

Summarising, we have two glimpses of Germaine Lindsey that morning, both destructive of the official story: one of him quite relaxed and nodding off in his car up at Luton, the other at King`s Cross when the dreadful possibilities start to dawn upon him.

Media Watch / BT - Sorry, the website cannot be found
« on: September 30, 2010, 11:27:15 AM »
"BT - Sorry, the website cannot be found"

I've been getting this all day today. I wonder what's happened to Rixon Stewart's site? Maybe British Telecom is working for the enemy?  :o

The World Below / Obama: ˜The Generals Made Me Do It!™
« on: September 29, 2010, 09:14:14 AM »
Obama: `˜The Generals Made Me Do It!`

What's a community organizer to do?

by Justin Raimondo

September 29, 2010

All Washington is atwitter: the grand old man of the Court Historians, Bob Woodward, has come out with yet another `book` `“ i.e. another long-winded press release on behalf of the Powers That Be `“ explaining, `reporting,` and rationalizing the war policies of the current regime. Oh, glory be! Drop everything and run to the nearest bookstore `“ or just go online and download the excerpts at the Washington Post`˜s incredibly cumbersome web site, loaded down with so many ads, pop-ups, and pop-outs that one imagines his next book will be out before your computer stops grinding.

Chapter One ought to have been titled `The Generals Made Me Do It.` Poor President Obama: he`s the most powerful man on earth, and yet he can`t get past his own generals. When he asked them for `options` in Afghanistan, they came up with what was essentially a single option: 40,000 more troops and a counterinsurgency that would last until Hell (or Afghanistan) froze over. The President was `frustrated,` and even `impatient` `“ `I need a plan, a plan, my kingdom for a plan that will get me out of this box!` Okay, so that`s not a direct quote, but you get the idea.

Lacking such a plan, Obama drew up a document resembling a `contract,` which stated the terms and conditions under which he`d go along with the escalation of the war. Key to this was the much-vaunted 2011 `withdrawal` date, i.e. the date we would supposedly start `downsizing` our footprint and begin the `training` phase that would get us the heck out of there, and get Obama out of the hot water he`s increasingly in with his Democratic base.

What`s interesting, here, is that our commander-in-chief automatically took one option `“ a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, followed by withdrawal `“ off the table. It is not even mentioned as a possibility, however distant. This is not surprising, given the Washington consensus, which is that the Empire never stops expanding, but only pauses once in a while to catch its breath.

Even less surprising is that the President is portrayed as an empty shell, a political creature who cares not one whit about the moral and ideological aspects of the momentous decision he is about to make, but only about what kind of electoral advantage (or disadvantage) a given policy option promises. Here is a hollow man, without a moral or ideational core, an empty vessel waiting to be filled by others `“ who are more than ready to oblige.

Chapter Two might be called `Good Cop, Bad Cop,` with the former being Vice President Joe Biden, and the latter the collective voice of the generals. The Biden plan `“ start training the Afghan army, and then get the heck out `“ is well-known, so it`s not necessary to go into the operational details here. Suffice to say it was a mirage, never meant to be taken seriously, and put up there, I would argue, merely to salvage the remnants of Obama`s conscience. The assumption being he has a conscience `“ which, I believe, is entirely unwarranted.

When a member of the President`s national security staff makes the argument, in the final meeting, that conditions in July, 2011, aren`t going to be much different in Afghanistan than they are today `“ `We want to get from here to there, but, my God, how in hell are we going to do this?` `“ the President replies:

``Yeah,` the president said graciously, indicating that he did not disagree. `˜Thanks for being candid. It can`t be easy for you to come in here and tell me that. Basically, we`re going to have to execute our heart out to make this work.`

Listen to the cold, hard, bureaucratic language of a self-proclaimed `pragmatist`: execute. Yeah, Mr. President, you got that one right.

The account of the final meeting, in which the President gives the military everything they want `“ short of ten thousand troops who will be on their way a few months later `“ is almost comic, in a Seinfeldian kind of way. There is President Obama, sternly demanding that everyone in the room sign on to the agreement, and not come out in public saying something else. This ultimatum is ostensibly directed at the generals, but they just sit there smiling, luxuriating in their victory, and wondering, like Petraeus, why he didn`t save them the trouble and agree to 30,000 more troops from the start. The anti-escalation faction, small and ineffectual as it is, is the real target of this presidential admonition, although Woodward doesn`t say this: he simply reports what happened. In short, the President was saying `Keep your big mouth shut, Joe `“ I beat you fair and square in the primaries, and you`re deluded if you think you`ll get a second chance.`

Poor Joe: his job is to go on the Rachel Maddow show and patiently explain to the base `“ or what`s left of it `“ why the escalation of the war is really a necessary prelude paving the way for complete withdrawal. Indeed, it sounds very much like he was practicing for that role when he pipes up at the end and says:

`As I see it, this is not a negotiation. . . . I view this as an order from the commander in chief. This was a mission change. If this is not perceived as a change in mission, we cannot justify why we spent months working on this.

He almost seems to be talking to himself, justifying in his own mind what was certainly a negotiation with the Pentagon `“ with the President in the position of taking orders rather than giving them.

A `mission change` `“ yeah, that`˜s the ticket! He thinks he can sell that one:

`We can`t lose sight of Pakistan and stability there. The way I understand this, Afghanistan is a means to accomplish our top mission, which is to kill al-Qaeda and secure Pakistan`s nukes. We must be making progress separately against al-Qaeda and separately in Pakistan.`

Woodward provides no visuals, but his readers can clearly see Biden smiling, like a man who`s rarely happy unless he`s hearing the sound of his own voice.

Petraeus, for his part, doesn`t waste any time savoring his victory: he`s too busy trying to figure out how `time could be added to the clock,` and later muses: `This is the kind of fight we`re in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids` lives.`

He`s right, of course. The idea that the US can clear, hold, and build a US client state in Afghanistan capable of standing on its own, militarily, is a social engineering project on a mind-boggling scale. It is also a pipe dream, as the Soviets discovered. The British, too. Yet the lessons of the past are lost on our so-called `progressives,` who like to think they are making history rather than being ruled by it. They really believe they can remake a society, any society, be it Afghan or American, if only they `execute` their hearts out.

Andrew Bacevich, whose excellent new book I`m reading, is convinced, like Woodward, that the President doesn`t really believe in the Afghan mission, and that`s true to a certain extent `“ but not in the way Bacevich seems to mean it. As a self-described `pragmatist,` the President doesn`t really believe in anything except `what works.` Which means doing whatever he can get away with without paying too high a political price.

I have to say, finally, that the most disturbing aspect of Woodward`s account, so far, is the extent to which Obama is intimidated by the military, and the alarming power of Gen. Petraeus as he openly thumbs his nose at the chief executive. Both Petraeus and McChrystal went public demanding 40,000 more troops before the decision was even made: if that isn`t insubordination worthy of firing, then what is?

The President had already ceded his authority to the generals before the `debate` was even begun: the rest was merely filling in the details of his capitulation. The issue was trenchantly summarized by Army Col. John Tien at the final meeting of Obama`s national security inner council:

`Mr. President, I don`t see how you can defy your military chain here. We kind of are where we are. Because if you tell General McChrystal `˜I got your assessment, got your resource constructs, but I`ve chosen to do something else,` you`re going to probably have to replace him. You can`t tell him, `˜Just do it my way, thanks for your hard work.` And then where does that stop?

Although Col. Tien is trained not to ask such questions, what I want to know is: where does the power of the Pentagon stop?

This is the most ominous development, among many, of the post-9/11 political atmosphere: the rise of the generals as an almost co-equal force with the President. The elevation of the Pentagon was the logical outgrowth of the `war on terrorism` and the Bushian magnification of the president`s wartime powers. If we think of the presidential persona as invested with a trinity of identities `“ citizen, chief executive, and commander-in-chief `“ it`s clear that the first has been obliterated since at least the advent of the cold war, and the second has been subordinated to the third since 9/11. With Congress gone A.W.O.L. on foreign policy, it`s only natural that the Pentagon would replace the legislative branch.

A stronger chief executive could challenge and reverse this militarist trend: unfortunately, Obama is not up to the task. Indeed, if Woodward`s portrait of the President is even half accurate, we haven`t seen such a weak chief executive since the days of James Buchanan.

Media Watch / Megaphoneys leading the charge in Islamophobia
« on: September 19, 2010, 01:21:49 PM »
It would appear that the Megaphoneys are leading the anti-Islam hysteria. Sadly a very great number of Christians are buying into their dezinformatsiya. Here's one offering:

Political party or religion? `¢ September 19, `¢ September 19, 2010

As I continue to attempt to educate myself regarding Islam, the phrase "the religion of peace" just keeps popping up in all sorts of venues. Be it in this newspaper, TV or on the computer. And by in large by the supposedly educated and politically correct. But is it a religion? "The fundamental principle of Islam is that it's politics are sacred, perfect, eternal and universal All other political systems are man made and must be replaced with Islamic Law. Islam is a fully developed political system and the oldest form of politics active today" (An Abridged Koran) "Where most people define peace as the absence of war, Islam sees war as the means of creating peace. Political Parties can create war and/or the atmosphere of it. The complete rule of Islam, covering the globe, is the aim of the Jihad.

Jihad is war against the unbeliever, the infidel. Thus it is a political tool used for submission of the infidel, you and I.

Orthodox Muslims are pressing their political agenda on all America. (the world). Having infiltrated mainstream television news, movies, newspapers, government officials and school textbooks, a distorted view of true Islam is being served up to the American public. This action in itself qualifies Islam as a political party with a political agenda, world domination. When theological Islam is criticized, political Islam responds espousing negativity against the criticizer.

I believe that if one state could and would at a time, all states would follow suit, to declare that Islam is NOT a religion but a political party, many problems of the future would not appear. Who or whom said that Islam was a religion? The 300 million dead because of it from it's start 1400 years ago until now certainly hasn't said it.

Their souls continue to cry out for vengeance and justice. Now I remember. Mohammed, Allah's prophet said it. How could anyone with a real desire to be religious believe him? For fifteen years he coerced people into following him. He became a thief, a murderer, a slave trader, a pedophile, an adulterer and other things consider by Allah to make him a true prophet.

There has never been a real religion that murdered non believers. Political parties in Germany and Communism in Russia and in China murdered many millions of the intellectual populous. Islam has done this for 14 hundred plus years. Thus, a political party.

Political Parties sometimes outlaws religious groups. Communist China, Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern Islamic countries have outlawed Christianity and Judaism. Yet Islamist become upset and "murderous" when a Mosque is defaced or by threats of the burning of a Quran.

Political Parties petition the government for concessions, modifications and change in the rule of law. And then supply their own rule of law. Islam does this repeatedly. Real religions do not.

Political Parties try to change history to make it have a more favorable opinion in the public eye.

Political parties change the standard of normal every day living of previous standards to promote their way of thinking and acting.

Political Parties continue to act on the public conscience as in mass conscious to public opinion and change for the betterment of the political party. Religions act on individuals to change themselves to be better people with the recognized help of a real God.

With Islam being declared a political party, it can rank up there ahead of Nazism and Communism. Both of those political parties proposed peace. Islam ranks high in the number of people murdered, not counting enslaved in the past and the continuing of the enslavement of many of the peoples of the African continent to this day. How dark can you get? With it being declared a political party, It would have to give account to the Constitution, not its Sharia Law. What other religion has "laws" that requires brutal punishing sentences for crimes that are more "social" in nature. Another fact that should make it a "political party". What other "religion" has "religious police" roaming the streets of the Mid East looking for law breakers that not dressed correctly and are punished then when found.

We should be able to on a Federal level determine more easily where money goes and who it's supporting. It should and could be made more difficult to support the terrorist activities of the "religion of peace". We would be able to understand how much money is coming from the oil rich countries supporting terrorism, and we yet support those countries with money we spend buying oil.

With Islam being recognized as a political party only, it's call to those against it would be short lived and a mute suggestion that one could be labeled as a "Islamophobic or racist or bigot because of outspoken disbelief of theological Islam. This is Islam's cry when anyone speaks against it. Seeking "political " justice for theological trespass. Not so if declared a political party.

The First Amendment gives us the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. My grievance is that our lawmakers should examine Islam and remove it from the list of religions. No matter what uprisings and threats arise in the Mid East or in New York from Imam Abdul Rauf. A copy of this will go to each of my states congressmen and representatives. It's my hope that you will also do the same.

John Turner


General / I've just seen geese flying south
« on: August 29, 2010, 11:28:26 AM »
It's not yet the end of August, and there's some weird goings on here in London. The leaves are already falling, and the Councils' men with the blowers are out in the parks clearing them away. It's quite cold and raining heavily most days. And just now - literally about 10 minutes ago (it's 1927 GMT) - a gaggle of about 20 geese flew past my sitting room window heading south.

Are any equally unseasonal things happening out your ways?

General / "The J Word" By John Kaminski
« on: August 28, 2010, 10:59:56 AM »
"The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic." `” Otto von Bismarck, 1876

The J Word
By John Kaminski

`He`s a hater!` she shouted. Her words spewed out like napalm, silencing the room for a long burning moment. Finally, with her arms smugly crossed, she delivered the coup de grace. `You`re an anti-Semite.`

That broke the spell `” the magic words. Immediately, the template of responses to this tired banner of hypocrisy appeared on my mindscreen.

They burst out of my mouth.

1. Anybody with a brain is an anti-Semite, if you only realize the true nature of Jewish history, parasitizing cultures and destroying them with wars where they control both sides. If you`d only understand that the wars now are just like the wars then, manipulation of feeble minded locals by the far-advanced tactics of the maladapted money masters, Judaism would have long before now been exposed for the crime scheme it surely is.

2. Anti-Semitism is something Jews say to distract you for the purpose of covering up their criminal behavior as a culture, always working to sabotage the host nation with well-thought-out strategies to seemingly improve things. But like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or even going back to the abolitionist movement, the subterranean purpose of all these seemingly noble endeavors is to further the aims of the ever present, always working Jewish destabilization template, though which astonishing profits are made through the destruction of societies.

3. Anti-Semitism is just another Jewish lie constructed for the purpose of gaining advantage in the real world through the selling of sorrow and empathy. The Holocaust of World War II is an utter fabrication that was not really invented in full until the 1960s, when it began to be used as a psyop after the first Kennedy assassination.

By understanding Nietzsche`s inversion of values principle, you can see how these liberal causes appealed to our sense of honor and duty, yet these same causes caused the ruin of America, overrun past common sense with the delusions of drugs, sex and rock and roll, fused with some vague sense of duty among the new recruits but not by the guys running the show.

4. The Holocaust public relations campaign is the actual dividing line between who realizes what`s really going on and who doesn`t, between who is trapped in the Jewish media myths and who is not. The creation of the Holocaust mystique was actually the first in a long line of media engendered historical mystifications that firmly separated actual human reality from Jewish media reality in that it established a Jewish falsehood into humanity`s consensual reference template, and became the bad stone of the foundation that the future was built upon, producing the Cold War and an unending string of `little` wars that continue to this day.

5. Am I supposed to admire killers like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Chertoff and Bernie Madoff? A perfect portrait of Jewish America, out to kill or enslave the world.

I could go on about how to respond to anti-Semitism, but there are more important things to talk about.

That so-called Good Book says in the beginning was the word. Now that we come to our so-called End, it turns out the key word is the word you cannot say in public, out loud, or over mass media. It is perhaps best known as `” pull down the shades now! `” the J word.

A lot of well-known personalities on the World Wide Web who have spent a fair amount of time assassinating my character have done so because of my deliberately unbridled use of this word. I chose to do this because nobody else seemed to have the balls to do it, and I felt it needed to be done. No language should contain any word that for any reason is deemed to be `too uncouth` to say. Better to know what that word actually means, and detoxify it. What does it really mean?

The personal penalty I have paid for this question is high, though I don`t blame it totally for my woeful financial condition. Sure, when I first used the word Jew big time as in `Jews don`t believe in freedom of speech,` about all my Internet exposure came to a sudden halt.

Most people concluded that offending Jews in this way would denature their financial support, and they were right. The consequence is that they are still and business and in some cases thriving, while I have been excluded for `” yes, you guessed it! `” telling the truth.

The one that you never hear on television. There`s that J word again.

Bottom line: they prosper, but you don`t get the real truth, and nothing gets fixed. The scam just continues. It started with them being accepted as part of the crowd. Well, they never were, they never did fit completely in anywhere, and by the time people really noticed what was happening, their country was destroyed. Go ask a German. Or a Pole.

The great unspoken secret never heard in polite company is that Jews run everything, and they are pulling the plug on America. Those non Jews who pretend that Jews `just happen` to have reached a totalitarian ascendancy in all avenues of society don`t realize that with a single word, the Jewish community can shut down America totally, rather than continue to destroy it piecemeal, the way it is happening now.

We may not talk about this in unidentified mixed company because you never know who is listening, do you? Cicero expressed that sentiment in the glory days of the Roman republic.

We`ve developed plenty of nicknames for them so `they` won`t know who we`re talking about, supposedly.

The particularly strident anti-Jew websites all use defamatory epithets to describe them. Most of these sites also vilify blacks and other races, further muddying the waters of trying to identify the perpetrators of the same kinds of crimes over thousands of years.

I always suspect these openly hateful websites as somehow being covertly funded by secret Jewish money to keep the fires of anti-Semitism burning, like Hal Turner, recently convicted FBI informant, proved by his campaign to assassinate judges. Who knows how many genuinely concerned citizens he revealed to the Feds by his overeager urging of thoughtless and violent acts. What the Turner episode shows, however, is that there are a lot more people than the government thought willing to stand up to them, and shoot if they have to.

But the J-word still doesn`t fly on most of the Web, and nowhere in mainstream media.

You can say Israelis when you`re talking about shooting teenage peace demonstrators in the back of the head or selling stolen kidneys in New Jersey. You can say Communists when you talk about the forces controlling U.S. domestic policy. You can say medical experts when focused on these constant calls to get flu shots, or international bankers when contemplating this calculated depression that is about to impoverish us all. You can say `prudent jurists` when high courts composed of perverts rule that it`s all right to have sex with children. You can call them anarchists when they try to improve everything with their way of thinking. And you can call them our lord and masters for the religions they have invented and the systems of government they have imposed on us. And lastly, you can call them our killers, because they surely have taken aim at eliminating all of us they choose not to like.

And so it is this constant, ubiquitous non-use of the J word that represents the great lacuna `” meaning vacuum, absence `” in all of our social problems, in the money that is being siphoned from our pockets through a false and criminal financial system, in our health being taken from us by stealth, poisoned skies, murky water, and cardboard food, and through the lives of countless people gunned down for a criminal (because all wars are about theft) economic fantasy.

The J word represents that thing you cannot say, because they will kill you if you do, one way or the other, inevitably. This is the world we live in, as well as why it is the way it is.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast preparing to debark for points unknown. Any appreciation for this work and its continuance may contribute by mail to John Kaminski Retail Books (need the `retail books` because there are seven other John Kaminskis at this bank) Regions Bank, 1425 E. Venice Ave., Venice FL 34292.

General / Black Murders Eight Whites; Media Blames Whites
« on: August 28, 2010, 09:46:08 AM »
Black Murders Eight Whites; Media Blames Whites

Dennis Prager

The title of this column seems unbelievable, but it is in fact what happened in America this past week. And almost no one has noticed.

After 50 years of being inundated with stories of white racism, and being taught in college that in this white-dominated society, only a white can be a racist, the American public has been properly brainwashed into accepting the otherwise incredible: A black man murdered eight white people at his place of work because they were white, and the media story is about the murderer's alleged experiences of racism.

Here's the Associated Press Report from Aug. 7, four days after the murders. It was reprinted in The Washington Post and throughout America:

"To those closest to him, Omar Thornton was caring, quiet and soft-spoken ... But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.

"'I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,' said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah.

"'He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,' said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. 'Basically they wouldn't give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.'

"'Thornton changed jobs a few times because he was not getting raises, Brocuglio said."

The New York Times Aug. 3 headline read: "Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing," and in the second paragraph, the Times reported:

"He might also have had cause to be angry: he had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman's mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed."

On Aug. 7, 2010, The Washington Post headline read, "Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism."

Of course, Thornton was fired for stealing beer, and there was video proof of him doing so. But this fact -- the one indisputable and most pertinent pre-murder fact -- got lost within the larger context of Thornton's claims of being a victim of whites.

Those preoccupied with Thornton's charges of workplace racism might wish to reflect on this: Racist and other bigotry-based murderers always blame their victims. Medieval Christians who murdered Jews blamed the Jews for poisoning wells, baking Christian children's blood in their matzo or some other terrible crime. Whites who lynched blacks blamed those blacks for rape or some other crime. Nothing is new about the Thornton racist murders except that the society in which in it occurred concentrated on the racist's excuses rather than on his murders.

Just as leading liberals would not ascribe Islamist motives -- until there was no possibility of denying them -- to recent Muslim attacks on Americans, the liberal media, i.e., almost all news media in America, does not brand these Connecticut murders for what they are: racist. That is why Thornton told the 9-1-1 operator, "I wish I could have gotten more of the people (i.e., whites)."

We are repeatedly told by liberal whites and blacks that America needs an honest dialogue on race. Needless to say, they don't mean it because the moment a white or black says anything critical of black behavior, he is labeled racist or Uncle Tom. So most non-liberal whites and blacks just keep quiet.

One result is this morally upside-down reporting of the murders in Connecticut.

Another example is the liberal narrative on blacks in prison -- "there are more black men in prison than in college." Every decent American regards this fact as a major tragedy. But most Americans believe that the fault lies primarily with the black criminals, not with a racist society. Most Americans believe that blacks who mug, rape, rob or murder commit those crimes for the same reason whites do -- they lack a sufficiently strong moral conscience.

But the dominant liberal narrative is that while white criminals are criminals, black criminals are largely victims.

Another example was the liberal narrative of the 1992 "Rodney King" riots in Los Angeles. It was perfectly expressed by the major newspaper of that city, the Los Angeles Times. During the riots, in which innocent Koreans, whites and others were beaten, maimed and killed, and innocent businesses burned to the ground, the daily special section on the riots in the Los Angeles Times was titled "Understanding the Rage." When blacks riot, whites are the reason. When a black murders eight whites in Connecticut, whites are the reason.

One terrible consequence of this liberal attitude toward black violent crime is that too many blacks come to believe that less is expected of them morally than from whites. And the truth is that most Americans on the left do expect less from blacks.

But saying any of this gets us nowhere because it is simply labeled racism. If you don't believe me, check leftist reactions to this column on the Internet.

Most liberal leaders want an honest dialogue about race as much as they want to honestly describe the murders in Connecticut.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.;_media_blames_whites/page/full/

General / What Hit The Pentagon?
« on: August 27, 2010, 01:32:38 PM »
What hit the Pentagon?

I bring this up again, because both Mike Rivero and Lex Truther were insisting in today's broadcast (27 Aug) that a plane did.

Well, a plane might have done, but what sort? A Boeing 747, 757, 767, something else? Then there's the problem of the wreckage, and how Hani Hanjour was able to follow the flight path he is said to have - although Mike Rivero accepts the use of computer control Global Hawk-style.

There are two thoughts that come to mind (well, there're more than that, but these are relevant to this) - how do we know that the plane that is supposed to have hit the Pentangle actually existed: it might have been one of the notional ones from the NORAD exercise that was written up as having attacked the building? And the similarities with the ElAl Boeing that struck the block of flats at Bijlmeer just outside Amsterdam (photos have conveniently disappeared from Google) - there was wreckage everywhere, huge chunks of aircraft, an almost intact tailplane, engines, wheels, incredible amount of damage to the building (the whole of one side of the high-rise collapsed); then there's the pathetic amount of damage at the Pentagram.

So, what really did strike the thing? Was it a plane, if so what sort? And where's the wreckage and damage to the lawns and roads, and lamposts?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4