
The expectation raised by the United States in allowing a UN Security Council resolution on Gaza pass through on December 22, 2023 without having to exercise its veto — albeit a watered-down one that stopped short of calling for ceasefire — was that the manifest international isolation facing Washington and Tel Aviv would inevitably impact Israel’s options going forward.
However, there are contrarian trends. Israel started the new year by ordering the withdrawal of part of its military forces from Gaza, but the spokesman of the IDF Daniel Hagari emphasised that the war will continue in 2024 and called this withdrawal in line with the renewal of forces and new organisation of Israeli army. Speaking on New Year’s Eve, Hagari said, “Tonight, 2024 begins and our goals require a long war, and we are preparing ourselves accordingly. We have a smart plan to manage our deployments, taking into account reserves, the economy, families, and resupply, as well as the continuation of combat and training.”
Hagari’s ambivalent hint that the military has wrapped up major combat in northern Gaza was buttressed with the claim that the forces would “continue to deepen the achievement” in northern Gaza, strengthen defences along the Israel-Gaza border fence and focus on the central and southern parts of the territory.
On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant also presented a plan of a shift toward less intense military operations. The minister’s office said in a statement, “In the northern region of the Gaza strip, we will transition to a new combat approach in accordance with military achievements on the ground.” But Gallant added, “It will continue for as long as is deemed necessary.” Under Gallant’s plan, the war in Gaza will continue until all of the hostages are released and remaining military threats are neutralised.
Basically, Hagari’s remarks and Gallant’s plan can be seen as a nod to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who is expected in Israel later this week after visiting Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Israel has, typically, also ratcheted up tensions by a series of belligerent acts in the recent days.
There has been a new escalation of cross-border fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Besides, the targeted killing of a top Hamas political leader Saleh al-Arouri in a Hezbollah stronghold of Beirut last week; the killing of a senior IRGC commander and four others in the suburbs of Damascus; terrorist attacks in Kerman (Iran); killing of the commander of the elite Radwan forces of Hezbollah; — all these within the space of the past week are attributable to Israeli intelligence one way or another.
These events in turn have added to the resurgent fears lately that an Israel-Hamas war could erupt into a broader conflict. Earlier today, Hezbollah deputy leader Naim Qassem, said in a televised speech his group did not want to expand the war from Lebanon, “but if Israel expands, the response is inevitable to the maximum extent required to deter Israel.”
The pattern of Israeli behaviour needs to be understood from different angles. This is an incredibly complicated matrix. First and foremost, the Israeli operation in Gaza so far has been a failure. It turned the world opinion, especially in the Global South, heavily against Israel — South Africa’s petition to the International Criminal Court over war crimes in Gaza being the most telling evidence of it — while the Israeli military came a cropper in terms of its agenda to decimate Hamas.
Tel Aviv has reached none of its stated goals in the Gaza war, which are annihilation of Hamas or disarming of Hamas and release of captives held by Palestinians in Gaza. That brings the security and military establishment in Tel Aviv, whose reputation has been seriously dented following the October 7 attack, under immense pressure. On the other hand, there has been a cover-up of the heavy casualties suffered by Israeli troops in the Gaza operation. The Kerman terrorist attack and the killing of Saleh al-Arouri actually betray a high level of frustration.
In political terms, there is a convergence between the security and military establishment and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (whose political future hangs by a thread) and the ultra-rightist fascist forces aligned with him, whose interests lie in an extended war.
The only external force capable of pressuring Israel is of course the US administration. But it is too much to expect President Biden to draw the ‘red line’ to Israel — that is, even assuming that he has the political will to do so — given the Israel Lobby’s control of the Congress and its seamless capacity for making or destroying the careers of US politicians.
Washington has not changed the intensity of Israeli military operations. On the other hand, the US has shipped to Israel 10,000 tons of arms to Israel in the recent period alone. In fact, it cannot be a coincidence that every single Blinken visit to the region since October 7 has witnessed a particularly brutal Israeli attack to up the ante. In effect, the US is broadly in support of the Israeli policy and a commitment to the destruction of Hamas, in particular.
Therefore, Biden’s interest narrows down to prevent the war from spreading in the region lest direct American military intervention becomes necessary. The US rhetoric and diplomatic posturing largely aims at damage control in Washington’s relations with its erstwhile allies in the region. Quintessentially, Blinken’s mission comes down to cheap window dressing — viz., to bringing the regional states to the same page that Israel is facing an existential crisis. But it does not take into account that the region has changed radically.
What truly distinguishes the present crisis is that the Arab world is profoundly concerned and feels outraged by the barbaric Israeli behaviour toward hapless Palestinians — ‘animals,’ as Israeli politicians have described them. The Arab psyche is convinced that an enduring final settlement of the Palestine problem cannot be postponed indefinitely. Something has fundamentally changed even for Saudi Arabia which had clandestine dealings with Israel for decades and was inching toward establishing formal relations with it.
A Saudi statement said that while receiving Blinken in Al ‘Ula on Monday, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “stressed the importance of stopping military operations, intensifying humanitarian action, and working to create conditions for restoring stability and for a peace process that ensures that the Palestinian people gain their legitimate rights and achieve a just and lasting peace.” The Saudi statement is at sharp variance with the readout by the US state department.
Interestingly, an article in the Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat focused on Blinken’s forthcoming visit highlighted fundamental differences between Riyadh and Washington on a range of issues — ceasefire in Gaza (“not just a humanitarian truce or exchange of prisoners, but rather a comprehensive halt”); security of the Red Sea (“the responsibility for security in the Red Sea lies with the riparian countries first, and with a UN-international responsibility in the second place”); Israel’s culpability for “expanding the scope of the war”; futility of “talk about post-war phase” at this point.
The article ended on a sombre note: “If the American administration wants Blinken’s visit to Saudi Arabia and the region to succeed, and if it wants to maintain its partnerships in the region, and preserve its role as a sponsor of peace in the Middle East at a time when international forces hostile to Washington are searching for a foothold in the region, it must adhere to neutrality, and not use the region’s interests and future as a card in the upcoming American elections. It must deal with the disease and not with the symptom as it is doing now.”
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment

DOHA – Head of Hamas’s political bureau Ismail Haneyya has affirmed that the Israeli occupation regime failed to achieve any goal of its genocidal war on the Gaza Strip despite the massacres and destruction, stressing that the only way for the return of the Israeli captives to their homes alive is to release all the Palestinian prisoners.
“The declared goals of the war on Gaza are to eliminate the Hamas Movement, have their captives back and carry out the displacement plan, but I’d like to tell you that the enemy, despite the destruction and massacres, has failed to achieve any of its war goals,” Haneyya said in a conference on Gaza held by the International Union of Muslim Scholars in Doha.
Haneyya underlined that the Hamas Movement exists across the homeland and abroad as well as in the conscience of the Ummah and the world’s free people, so “it cannot be eliminated.”
Haneyya expressed his belief that the occupation state “only succeeded in exposing its bloodthirsty and murderous face to the whole world after committing all these massacres.”
The Hamas leader stressed that after about 100 days, the Israeli intelligence, its spy drones and its Western ally (US) failed to liberate a single captive from Gaza, adding that “the only way for the Israeli detainees to leave Gaza alive is when all the Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails.”
He described the Israeli occupation’s escalation of its aggression in the West Bank as “dangerous and massive,” affirming that 350 West Bankers had been martyred since Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” started.
He also said that the Israeli regime imposed martial law on the Palestinian citizens in 1948 occupied Palestine.
The Hamas leader hailed the resistance front in Gaza as “strong, cohesive and promising,” asserting that it can fight a long battle against the occupation.
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Gaza, Hamas, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment

Dr. Mary Kelly Sutton (who goes by “Kelly”) on Oct. 30 lost her license to practice medicine in New York for writing eight vaccine exemptions in California between 2016 and 2018. New York was the third state to enforce this penalty, after Massachusetts and California. Sutton is now no longer able to practice medicine anywhere in the U.S.
Both the New York and Massachusetts medical boards adjudicated Sutton’s case on the basis of “reciprocal discipline,” rubber-stamping the Medical Board of California’s 2021 decision without allowing her to challenge the validity of the original findings.
Reciprocal discipline avoids the time and costs of relitigating. Therefore, like the Massachusetts Board of Medicine hearing last July, the October hearing in New York was just theater and the board never intended to allow Sutton to defend herself.
Instead, the New York board maintained that the purpose of the hearing was limited to determining what penalty should apply to Sutton’s state license in light of the findings already established in California.
Medical Board of California misinterpreted the law
Sutton, an integrative medicine physician practicing since the early 1970s, told The Defender that the Medical Board of California misinterpreted the law when it determined she violated “standards of care” when writing the vaccine exemptions.
Those exemption-specific standards — which came into effect in 2016 via Senate Bill (SB) 277, a California bill that stripped parents of the personal belief exemption for rejecting vaccines for their children — only stated it was up to the physician to decide on a medical exemption based on the needs of the child.
However, in 2019, California passed two more bills — SB 276 and SB 714 — designed to make vaccine exemptions even more difficult to acquire.
Specifically, when a doctor writes more than five medical exemptions per year (as of Jan. 1, 2020) or a school’s immunization rate falls below 95%, the California Department of Public Health (CPDH) has the right to review the medical exemptions.
Physicians since January 2021 are also required to use a standardized electronic exemption form submitted to a statewide database, and CPDH may revoke exemptions that do not conform to vaccination guidelines established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Sutton claimed the Medical Board of California applied its own definition of “standards of care,” in direct contravention to the standard established by SB 277.
“In California, any time a standard of care is written into statutory law, it is more preeminent than a community standard of care that is just held among the general opinion of doctors in practice,” she said.
Sutton believes the Medical Board of California was also applying laws derived from SB 276 and SB 714 that went into effect well after the date she wrote the exemptions.
The CDC’s and ACIP’s vaccine recommendations do not constitute mandates or requirements. According to Sutton, during the lobbying phase of SB 277, a doctor called ACIP and asked whether its recommendations should be considered mandates, and was told that they were only guidelines.
The ACIP guidelines do not mention the word “exemption,” according to Sutton, nor were the guidelines mentioned in SB 277.
“That’s the way guidelines have always been used in standards of care,” Sutton said, calling them “indicators, supports, references — but not mandates.”
Sutton said the mood of medicine is shifting away from a doctor exercising his or her own training and experienced judgment towards doing what the standards and guidelines say.
“This is decidedly against the quality of medicine because there’s no freedom to individualize for the patient,” she said.
Dissecting the California case
The California board revoked Sutton’s license for “gross negligence” and “repeated negligent acts” in issuing permanent vaccine exemptions for eight pediatric patients, saying the exemptions did not comply with standards of care and vaccine guidelines at the time.
The board’s sole expert witness, Dr. Deborah Lehman, infectious disease physician at the University of California, Los Angeles, dismissed Sutton’s claim that SB 277 clearly articulated standards of care regarding exemptions, saying those were not the “community standard of care,” Sutton recounted.
Sutton explained:
“SB 277 was brief and direct to the point. It said that if a child who is required to have vaccines receives a note from a physician stating that it is in the child’s best interests to not be vaccinated, then that suffices to fulfill the requirement and the child can go to school without having the required vaccines. The deciding factor is the physician’s discretion.”
The relevant clause from the bill states:
“If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt from the requirements.”
Lehman said doctors must only grant an exemption when there is a contraindication to a vaccine and at no other time.
Lehman claimed the standard of care was determined by whether another physician would treat the medical issue the same or similarly. However, according to Sutton, she omitted the all-important phrase “in the same community.”
In the integrative medicine community in which Sutton practices, it is common for patients to receive more individualized treatments rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.
“It was kind of a force-of-personality situation that was successful in the setting of the courtroom hearing at the administrative level,” Sutton said. “And the board witness prevailed upon the judge to believe that the law had no meaning and that community opinion was higher.”
The California board also questioned Sutton’s decision not to request patients’ medical files or perform physicals in the cases for which she wrote exemptions.
“If I required a physical exam for every vaccine exemption, I could be accused of ‘padding the bill’ because the physical exam contributes nothing to the decision about the risk for a vaccine injury,” Sutton said.
Instead, Sutton’s process was primarily to review patient histories to understand if the child or a family member had suffered a negative reaction to vaccines.
She said:
“From my understanding and from the group of physicians that I worked with at the time — Physicians for Informed Consent — the risk factors for vaccine injury lie completely in the story of what’s happened to the child when they have had vaccines and what has happened to their blood relatives when those people had vaccines.”
After the passage of SB 277, Sutton said there was “a great deal of conversation” among doctors about how the law could be read and interpreted and how exemptions could be constructed rationally based on the scientific literature.
That literature showed several different areas of concern around vaccinations, including “The aluminum contained in vaccines can trigger neurologic issues and autoimmune disease,” Sutton said, adding, “There is the question of regression after vaccines and neurodevelopmental delays such as autism.”
“There’s also a higher risk of allergies, and then there’s the immediate reactions where a person collapses or has a seizure after a vaccine,” she said.
“A doctor has to make an extra effort in order to understand the historical pattern of vaccine reactions that would indicate risk of vaccine injury, or how to diagnose mitochondrial dysfunction,” Sutton said.
During the California hearing, Sutton shared extensive scientific citations supporting her medical decision-making, including research by Dr. Chris Exley on the dangers of aluminum in vaccines.
She told the board that it was neither intelligent nor humane to force a family to continue to vaccinate after one of their children had already died or been injured by a vaccine, and shared her clinical observation that unvaccinated patients are healthier than those who are vaccinated.
The California board also claimed Sutton neglected to provide informed consent to her patients requesting vaccine exemptions.
Sutton was uncertain exactly what the board meant here but surmised it was saying she did not adequately highlight the diseases that could develop if the parents failed to vaccinate their children.
Deeming the real issue with informed consent to be advising patients about the potential harms of vaccination, Sutton said, “I don’t think I repeated the CDC bylines.” Instead, she believed the parents who came to her for exemptions were already “more than aware” of the risks of childhood diseases.
From her point of view, there was already enough vaccine promotion happening with mainstream media and schools “echoing over and over” how “vastly dangerous chickenpox” and the other childhood diseases were.
The California board’s concern about Sutton not requesting previous medical records is based on the notion of “Don’t trust a single word the patient says,” Sutton said, an attitude that necessitates getting “every documentation” about adverse vaccine reactions before making a decision.
“That’s not the way medicine works,” Sutton said. “But that’s what was expected in terms of a medical exemption interview. It’s like building a legal case instead of a medical case.”
Further wrongdoing was implied by the California board in pointing out that a number of the exemptions Sutton wrote were for patients for whom she was not the primary care provider.
“That is implying that the primary care doctor knows the patient best,” Sutton said. “And that is good in a lot of ways, but it can be a problem for the patient if it’s a large practice that has been forbidden to give vaccine exemptions.”
Sutton said that if a patient’s need cannot be addressed by that group, even if it’s their primary care group, then it is akin to patient abandonment.
SB 277, the law in effect during the period Sutton wrote the exemptions, never had a requirement that exemptions be written by the primary care physician, or even by a pediatrician or pediatric infectious disease expert, according to Sutton.
“So their [Medical Board of California’s] statements were beyond the law and that’s what they were enforcing against doctors,” she said.
Although the board improperly focused on laws that went into effect in 2019 and later, Sutton said, “That very argument could not be persuasively made by the attorneys at the time.”
Board expert: ‘Science has been decided’ on vaccine risks
The Medical Board of California conducted a three-day “trial” for Sutton in June 2021 in an administrative court with a single judge and no right to a jury.
Three experts spoke on behalf of Sutton, while Lehman, the board’s single expert, testified against her.
Lehman lacked basic knowledge of vaccine risks and stated that all doctors should follow the CDC’s vaccine schedule.
When asked to quantify the risk of vaccine injuries, Lehman said, “I don’t need to cite articles in my report, because the science has been decided … If you want answers to these questions, I would refer you to the CDC.”
After denying any knowledge of Dr. Peter Aaby’s more than 400 articles on PubMed analyzing vaccine dangers, Lehman characterized the journal as “low impact” and Aaby as “anti-vax.”
Sutton’s witnesses were Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, pediatric neurologist, Dr. James Neuenschwander, family physician with vaccine expertise and Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, integrative medicine pediatrician.
They skillfully articulated the heterodox perspectives on vaccine dangers and referenced a number of recent studies on vaccine adverse effects, while noting the lack of data on vaccine safety or government studies comparing health outcomes for vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals.
“And on this very little evidence, people like the board expert are proclaiming to the high heavens these are safe and effective,” Sutton said. “All of these other concerns are irrelevant.”
Administrative court structure promotes ‘raw power’
In Sutton’s interactions with California, Massachusetts and New York, she observed a notable lack of due process when compared with civil and criminal courts.
In the proceedings with the Massachusetts board, one of the documents filed against her did not list any specific complaints, making it difficult for Sutton to defend herself. “I had to intuit what they were complaining about and then make up the answers,” she said.
When she brought this shortcoming to the magistrate’s attention, he confirmed that such detail is not required in administrative courts.
“The structure of the administrative-level courts promotes the raw power that’s exercised by the medical boards,” Sutton said, adding, “It’s not an exercise within the law and it doesn’t benefit the people, but only the administrative state itself.”
Sutton mentioned the Federation of State Medical Boards, which coordinates all of the medical boards in the U.S., sent out warnings to doctors about misinformation, masks, vaccines and exemptions related to COVID-19, she said.
“It’s a private, unelected group that’s been around for over 100 years,” she said. “It’s not visibly related to any government entity.”
Together with its partner agency, the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities, it forms an integral part of the administrative state that is undermining the doctor-patient relationship and helping to delicense doctors like Sutton.
Sutton said, “They are both in the same building at the same address in Euless, Texas. So there is a centralized organ to control medical boards around the world, which means controlling doctors around the world.”
“The coordination of COVID happened through organizations like that,” she added.
Doctors incentivized to ignore vaccine injuries
Sutton said the financial incentives to vaccinate everyone within a medical practice discourage doctors from connecting adverse health outcomes to the vaccines.
“The Blue Cross Blue Shield Provider Incentive Program manual of 2016 listed a $400 bonus to the doctor for every two-year-old who was on the CDC vaccine schedule on time,” she said, “as long as 63% of the practice was vaccinated.”
“That’s going to influence how you respond to a parent when they say, ‘Johnny had a seizure after the MMR [measles-mumps-rubella] vaccine,’” Sutton said, adding, “Do you put that in the chart as an MMR vaccine reaction? Or do you say, ‘Oh, it must be something else’?”
If a child has a febrile seizure, the doctor may well chalk it up to normal childhood fever rather than to a recent vaccination, Sutton said. “So we bias our own literature, our own notes, by the things that have been allowed in terms of financial incentives.”
Sutton said financial incentives must be removed from medicine to restore its integrity.
“It’s too much impact on physician judgment and motivations are not angelic,” she said. “We’re humans. So if somebody says ‘If you just get 10 kids vaccinated you’ll get $4000,’ I’m going to be looking for those 10 kids to vaccinate and I’ll be rationalizing to myself why that’s okay.”
Part of the problem, according to Sutton, is the state of the vaccine research literature that keeps doctors in the dark about the reality of adverse events.
“Vaccines have been very poorly studied,” she said. “Some of them were approved, like hepatitis B, after only four days in one case and five days in another brand’s case study — and it was approved for use in every newborn baby.”
Other vaccines have been studied for as long as 42 days, but none long-term, which is necessary to see the development of autoimmune diseases like asthma that don’t show up immediately after vaccination, she said.
“So the board expert could say there’s no evidence that an adverse event is related to vaccines, which is not accurate because the evidence is there — but it’s not in the evidence that the CDC accepts,” Sutton said.
According to Sutton, the CDC “very carefully curates” the articles and studies it puts on its website to support its own policies. If a CDC-sponsored study shows adverse vaccine reactions, it won’t appear on its website, she said.
Sutton shared the story of a former cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic who was training to do heart transplants when her 12-month-old daughter received an MMR vaccine and immediately regressed with severe autism. The woman had to leave the cardiology program and return to her home in Europe to care for her child.
Sutton said this woman claimed the CDC was researching a lot of topics, including that the rubella virus in the MMR vaccine persists in the body for a long time and results in granulomas in the case of immune-deficient children and sometimes immune-competent adults.
“This is not on the CDC website,” Sutton said. “So if we look at the nature of the research supporting our vaccine program, we would be astonished and staggered and ashamed because we’re injecting our children with very little evidence that these vaccines are safe or effective.”
Financial incentives in research and drug approvals are also highly problematic, according to Sutton.
“Medicine is no longer medicine,” she said. “It’s become co-opted as another business. Sickness is more profitable than health and mandates are more profitable than choice.”
“Otherwise, despite the efforts of individual doctors, the profession will be working against humanity and really becomes organized brutality instead of healthcare,” Sutton said.
‘The whole storm is not finished’
Sutton has exhausted or curtailed her administrative appeals with the states that have removed her license to practice medicine.
However, she and several doctors are planning to file a collective action in federal court in the spring. They are being supported by the nonprofit Physicians & Patients Reclaiming Medicine, where Sutton’s story is currently featured.
Meanwhile, Sutton keeps in touch with many of her colleagues who have suffered the same fate.
“They are recouping from the reputational and financial losses after being attacked,” she said. “So people don’t quit, but there is a lot of sadness about medicine.”
Sutton talked about the “diaspora” away from the state of California because of the discrimination that’s happened to families who had a health concern about a vaccine for their child.
“There’s been a lot of pain. So the whole storm is not finished,” she said.
Lacking a medical license, Sutton has turned to offering health education for a small group of clients. They meet monthly over Zoom, and individuals can discuss their concerns privately with her. But she no longer diagnoses, treats or does physical exams.
Sutton is currently preparing a course about integrative medicine to present to a group of acupuncture students.
John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The American Psychological Association (APA) is among those organizations enlisted to join the “war on misinformation” back in 2021, when APA took a $2 million grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to help push the Covid narratives of the time.
APA’s particular task there was to come up with “a scientific consensus statement on the science of misinformation.”
Now, APA is clamoring for even more federal money as it declares psychology to be “leading the way on fighting misinformation” and advertises psychologists as the right people to research the problem (as it has been presented over the last years), and also be “part of the solution.”
An article on APA’s site doesn’t shy away from using terminology that spreads a sense of alarm, such as “the scourge of misinformation” and asserting that clinicians now have to treat patients “subsumed” by conspiracy theories, while institutions and communities are all allegedly suffering unspecified “harm.”
And APA also doesn’t shy away from mentioning the US presidential election, or from positioning that event as something that makes combating misinformation “messier and more important than ever.”
Messy it is, alright. To position itself properly among all those vying for funding/influence by exaggerating the threat posed by misinformation as a new phenomenon, APA actually states that, with the election in mind, fighting misinformation is “one of the top trends facing the field (physiology) in 2024.”
Really, APA? Maybe the author meant – a top trend faced by the organization itself, since it has had to show something in return for the $2 million 2021 CDC grant given to it to research “the science of stopping misinformation.”
(Spoiler: that “science” is already well-developed and applied; it’s called censorship.)
Beside the general alarmist tone, APA also came up with “recommendations.”
First, shut up – “don’t repeat misinformation.” Next, leverage “trusted sources to share accurate information.” At this point APA is pretty much parroting Big Tech’s various “guidelines” that have justified a lot of legitimate information getting obliterated over the past years as (never precisely and objectively defined) “misinformation.”
The “recommendations” address fellow physiologists, urging them to become “literate” in this newly crafted “science” – in order to be able to take active part in “the solution.”
According to APA’s current standards, helping people (as psychology professionals) should now include the total of eight recommendations (prominent and fairly ominous, free speech-wise, among which is – “collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation”).
And practitioners should do this everywhere – “(in) our labs, our communities, or our families.”
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | United States |
Leave a comment
A group of journalists and political commentators with large followings were banned on X without notice. The owners of the banned profiles pointed to criticisms of Israel and Elon Musk.
On Tuesday morning, the accounts of Alan MacLeod, Ken Klippenstein, Rob Rousseau, the True Anon Podcast, Steven Monacelli, and an anonymous account @Zei_Squrill, were all banned on the platform owned by Musk.
MacLeod, who had over 200,000 followers on X, posted on Telegram that the suspension came without warning. “Today, without warning or explanation, Twitter suspended my account, @AlanRMacLeod. They told me to check my email for a reason, but no email has been forthcoming,” the journalist wrote. “I have never even remotely been involved in any controversy/been reported/been stuck in Twitter jail before, so I assume the real reason is political, especially as high-profile leftist accounts like Rob Rousseau and Zei_Squirrel were also targeted today.”
In a statement provided to The Libertarian Institute, MacLeod said, “I’m deeply concerned about Twitter banning a host of influential anti-war accounts today, including my own. It is a sign that Elon Musk’s supposed passion for free speech might not be all that it seems.”
Musk acquired Twitter in October of 2022 and later renamed the platform X. At the time, he said he aimed to make Twitter a “platform for free speech around the globe.”
In one of his first acts as owner of Twitter, he allowed Matt Taibbi and other journalists to access the business communications of the company’s leadership. In the Twitter Files, Taibbi exposed a coordinated effort between the government and Twitter to censor speech that countered the establishment narrative on the election, covid, and the war in Ukraine.
However, as America has entered an election year, Musk-owned X is stepping up its censorship efforts.
Last month, Klippenstein wrote an article on his Substack explaining that Musk had discussed artificial intelligence with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he traveled to Israel. He highlights the discrepancy between Musk’s public warning about the threats posed by AI while supporting Israel as it uses AI as the backbone of its targeting selection process for its war in Gaza.
The account @Zei_Squirrel, which had 200,000 followers, explained in a Substack post that it was suspended over criticisms of Israel and Bill Ackman but was also not provided with an explanation from X. “If they don’t unban me, it will prove beyond all doubt that Twitter and Elon Musk are just explicitly doing the bidding of the genocidal Israeli regime and its deranged supporters like Bill Ackman.” The post continues, “There is no possibility that anything I have posted rises to the level of being ban-worthy, but nothing that Zionists posts constantly, explicit calls for genocide and mass killing of Palestinians, isn’t.”
The author then points to the posts that call for violence against Muslims and Palestinians, while the accounts are not banned for their calls to violence.
The True Anon Podcast account, which had nearly 150,000 followers, was also taken down. Co-host of the show Liz Franczak posted on her personal account, “Why did Elon ban my podcast account what about free speech why is the woke mob coming after hard working American small businesses.”
She added in a second post, “Podcasts are the backbone of the Twitter economy podcasts create two out of every three new tweets podcasts drive innovation support small business hard working podcasts.” She tagged the accounts of Musk, Ackman, and Israel in the post.
Monacelli is a special investigative correspondent with the Texas Observer. In a post on Threads, he wrote, “I have to actually start using Threads because Elon Musk was awake at 3am thinking about me,” referring to his early morning ban. He included an image in his post that pointed to recent reporting on the right-wing movement in Texas upsetting the owner of X.
X has not issued a statement on why the accounts were banned. MacLeod and Zei_Squrril believe the best way to get the accounts restored is for users to tag Musk and demand reactivation. “Probably the only chance I have to get the account back is if enough people object to this/kick up a stink. This should probably include messaging/tagging Twitter support and telling them to unban us all,” MacLeod wrote.
Update: Musk said he plans to investigate the suspensions. “I will investigate. Obviously, it is ok to be critical of anything, but it is not ok to call for extreme violence, as that is illegal,” he posted.
Update: Klippenstein’s account has been restored.
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment
“Atlanta Trump Prosecutor Accused Of Secret, Disqualifying Romance With DA Fani Willis”

Fani Willis hired Nathan Wade at a steep premium to what she was paying other prosecutors in her office, the filing alleges (Atlanta News First )
ZeroHedge just reported allegations pertaining to the Trump prosecution in Atlanta—allegations that seem too spectacularly shabby and sordid to be true. Indeed, even a satirical novelist as zany as Carl Hiaasen would probably hesitate to make up such a ridiculous farce.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis hired her secret lover to serve as special prosecutor in the Georgia racketeering case against Donald Trump and 18 other defendants, according to a Monday filing on behalf of Mike Roman, a defendant who led election day operations for the 2020 Trump campaign:
“[T]he district attorney and the special prosecutor have been engaged in an improper, clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case, which has resulted in the special prosecutor, and, in turn, the district attorney, profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers.”
The prosecutor is Nathan Wade, a private attorney in the midst of a divorce who “has little to no experience trying felony cases, much less complex RICO actions,” according to the 127-page filing which seeks to have the charges against Roman dropped and both Willis and Wade disqualified from further participation in the case.
According to the complaint, Wade has raked in at least $653,000 and upwards of $1 million for handling the high-profile case. By virtue of their relationship, that pile of taxpayer money benefits Willis, as they’ve traveled together to Florida, the Caribbean and Napa Valley, California, adding that Wade has also bought tickets for the pair to travel on Norwegian and Royal Caribbean cruise ships.
In addition to his $250 hourly rate, Wade has also billed Fulton County for thousands of dollars in air travel and hotel stays, according to invoices attached to the filing. He categorized them as interview and research trips.
The filing also alleges that Willis contracted with Wade without proper approval, as such a move requires a vote by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant tells the Wall Street Journal her search of board meeting minutes found no indication his appointment was ever discussed, much less voted upon.
Can this story be true? Perusing the 127-page filing, I came across the following statement:
The Court may well be wondering, and for good reason, “How do you know this?” and “Why does it matter?”
How Do We Know This?
- Open records requests to Fulton County reveal that the district attorney did not obtain county approval to appoint the special prosecutor. Why would the district attorney not obtain this approval prior to appointing the special prosecutor?
- The special prosecutor has admitted his oath was not filed prior to his work on this case. Why would the special prosecutor not just file the oath, a simple administrative task for a lawyer?
- The special prosecutor is seeking a divorce in Cobb County and sought successfully to seal those records, hiding them from public view. Why would a private citizen such as the special prosecutor shield filings related to his income and spending from public view? While the filings in the divorce case are sealed by Court order (the legality of which is open to question), information obtained outside of court filings indicates that the district attorney and special prosecutor have traveled personally together to such places as Napa Valley, Florida and the Caribbean and the special prosecutor has purchased tickets for both of them to travel on both the Norweigan and Royal Carribean cruise lines. Traveling together to such places as Washington, D.C. or New York City might make sense for work purposes in light of other pending litigation, but what work purpose could only be served by travel to these traditional vacation destinations?
- The district attorney and the special prosecutor have been seen in private together in and about the Atlanta area and believed to have co-habited in some form or fashion at a location owned by neither of them.
- Sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship during the pendency of the special prosecutor’s divorce proceedings.
- According to these sources, the personal relationship between the district attorney and the special prosecutor began before this prosecution was initiated and before the district attorney appointed the special prosecutor.
- Undersigned counsel knows the special prosecutor and has researched his litigation experience. That research reveals that the special prosecutor has never tried a felony RICO case. The State of Georgia and the City of Atlanta has several lawyers who specialize in the prosecuting and defending RICO cases. Despite having access to these resources, why would the district attorney, instead, appoint someone who has never tried a felony RICO case, particularly in a case with such national significance as this one?
- The special prosecutor, based on his lack of experience in this type of felony, would not be qualified under Fulton County’s standards to be appointed to represent any defendant in this case given the complexity of the charges. If the special prosecutor is not qualified to defend this case under Fulton County’s standards, then how is he qualified to prosecute the case? Is that why the district attorney did not seek approval for his appointment? If so, why did she seek to appoint an unqualified lawyer without approval to preside over this prosecution?
- Since being appointed as special prosecutor, the special prosecutor has been paid an estimated almost $1,000,000.00 in legal fees. Of course, additional fees would be expected when private counsel is hired, but that would assume they are not in a relationship with the district attorney and they were qualified to do the work they were hired to do.
- The special prosecutor’s fees have been lucrative in comparison by any reasonable measure. The district attorney’s yearly salary, including state and county supplements, is $ 198,266.66 and the total annual budget for the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office for fiscal year 2022 was $31,541,968.00. The district attorney lobbied for additional money from Fulton County to hire lawyers and staff to clear the backlog after Covid. Why didn’t she use that money to hire qualified in-house staff to try this case? Why did she, instead, use that money to retain the special prosecutor?
Click on the following link to read the full report.
Atlanta Trump Prosecutor Accused Of Secret, Disqualifying Romance With DA Fani Willis
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception | United States |
Leave a comment
By Lucas Leiroz | January 9, 2024
In recent days there has been a major escalation in the Middle Eastern conflict. Israel has launched a series of attacks against targets outside Palestine, including Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of key members of anti-Zionist organizations. Israel’s targeted assassinations have been seen as an affront to Lebanese national sovereignty, increasing the risks of an open war between the Zionist state and Hezbollah.
Israel has been bombing its neighboring countries since the war began in October. However, the frequency and brutality of these raids has grown significantly in recent weeks. Lebanon has become one of the main targets of Israeli attacks, especially in strikes targeting strategic public figures. In one of these operations, Wissam al-Tawil, deputy head of the Radwan group, a special unit of the Shiite militia, was murdered. Al-Tawil was a high-ranking member of Hezbollah, which means there will certainly be a retaliation.
A few days earlier, a brutal Israeli attack in Beirut had left six high-ranking Hamas members dead, including the Palestinian organization’s deputy head, Saleh al-Arouri. At the time members of Hezbollah were not targeted, and the strike was aimed at killing Hamas militants gathered in Beirut. However, the fact that the attack was carried out on Lebanese soil obviously generated outrage among members of the Shiite militia, who promised retaliation for the violation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Hassan Nasrallah, general secretary of Hezbollah, made two statements about these events. According to him, Hezbollah is already fighting Israel, but is using only a small percentage of its combat potential. The militia’s involvement is “limited”, being focused on neutralizing Israeli intelligence targets on the border. For now, the objectives of these operations are, according to Nasrallah, to generate military pressure against Israel and help the Palestinians by eliminating IDF’s resources. However, Nasrallah made it clear that if Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty, the group will launch a “war without restrictions”, using full power against Zionist troops.
Apparently, Israel is not interested in de-escalation. The attacks on Lebanon have continued even after Nasrallah’s warnings – and more targeted killings of Hezbollah members could happen at any time. In fact, Tel Aviv is currently in a complicated military situation. The war in Gaza has become “unwinnable”, as the debris from the bombings have severely damaged the IDF itself, preventing the flow of armored vehicles and creating a network of hiding places and barricades that favor Hamas.
There is currently a guerrilla war in Gaza, with members of the Palestinian Resistance having the advantage, as they know the terrain better and are skilled at carrying out surprise attacks and hiding among the debris of buildings and tunnel networks. Although Israel has managed to destroy the physical structure of Gaza, the consequences of its attacks have mainly affected civilian people and have not been extremely effective in neutralizing Hamas and other Palestinian militias. The result is an uncomfortable situation, with Israel involved in a permanent war of attrition.
Given this, Israel is betting on the internationalization of the conflict as a way of “winning” the war. Since it is not being successful in Gaza, the Israeli government hopes to generate new outbreaks of hostilities by launching attacks against Lebanon and Syria. The aim is to bring new actors into the war, creating a situation of total regional conflict that makes intervention by Israel’s Western partners “inevitable”.
The main problem with this Israeli “strategy” is that the consequences could be devastating. It will not be easy to garner Western support and justify an intervention in the conflict, as global public opinion is outraged by Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza. Furthermore, Hezbollah is showing patience and strategic mentality by avoiding symmetrical responses to Israeli attacks. The group is trying not to engage in an all-out war, as the IDF is already in a delicate situation and there is no need to open a new front. Hezbollah’s focus appears to be to launch surgical strikes across the border, delaying more involvement as long as possible.
To get a strong reaction from Hezbollah, Israel will have to further increase the brutality of its raids against Lebanon. And this will be a serious problem in the Zionist strategy, since by doing this Tel Aviv will be justifying Hezbollah’s reactions, and there will therefore be no legal arguments for the West to mobilize collectively to support Israel. In fact, without full Western support, Israel will not be able to fight a two-front war, being a real catastrophe for the IDF itself.
This is further evidence of how Israel took wrong actions at the beginning of the conflict. Instead of only responding to Hamas’ “Operation Al Aqsa Flood”, Tel Aviv chose to launch a campaign of genocide and territorial expansion, sinking into a prolonged war that will not be won so easily.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram.
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
The last thing the Founding Fathers wanted for our country was omnipotent government — that is, a government that wields totalitarian-like powers. Thus, when the U.S. Constitution called the federal government into existence, it expressly restricted its powers to those enumerated in the Constitution. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be legally exercised.
The powers enumerated in the Constitution were few and limited. The Constitution’s enumerated powers did not include the power to murder people. That’s because our American ancestors did not want to live under a government that had the power to murder people.
Americans were leery about the enumerated-powers concept. They were concerned that federal officials would ignore the concept and exercise totalitarian-like powers anyway, including the power to murder people.
That’s why the Bill of Rights was enacted. It expressly prohibited the federal government from exercising totalitarian-like powers that would destroy the fundamental, God-given rights of people. The Bill of Rights made it clear that our American ancestors were concerned about the power to murder people. Thus, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear and unequivocal: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
Notice that the term “person” is used. Not “American” but rather “person.” Our ancestors did not want the federal government to wield the power to murder anyone.
What is “due process of law.” It is a term stretching all the way back to Magna Carta. It requires a formal criminal charge and a trial before the federal government can kill someone. In other words, the Fifth Amendment prohibits federal officials from murdering people.
Why do I bring all this up? Because a few days ago the Associated Press reported that the Pentagon conducted an airstrike in central Baghdad, Iraq, that intentionally murdered two Iraqi citizens and injured five more.
No formal criminal charges. No trial. Just outright murder. Permit me to repeat the express restriction of the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
Notice that it doesn’t say: “except when it’s the Pentagon or the CIA that is doing the killing.” It also doesn’t say “except when the person is a citizen of Iraq.” It says “No person.”
But wait a minute! Did that Associated Press article actually say that these killings took place in Iraq? Isn’t that the nation that the Pentagon and the CIA invaded after the 9/11 attacks, where they killed, injured, tortured, and abused countless Iraqi people in the process of installing a pro-U.S. regime? Given such, what in the world is the Pentagon doing murdering Iraqi citizens in the middle of Baghdad?
The Pentagon says that it is retaliating against militias in Iraq who are attacking U.S. military bases in Iraq. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if the Pentagon didn’t have U.S. soldiers based in Iraq, there would be no attacks in U.S. military personnel in Iraq and, therefore, no need to murder people in Baghdad.
An obvious question arises: Why do people in Iraq want to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq? I thought that their “Operation Iraqi Freedom” invasion was supposed to cause the Iraqi people to love the U.S. government. The reason for the widespread anger is because people in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East are extremely angry over the U.S. government’s unconditional military and financial support for the Israeli government and its brutal and deadly military campaign in Gaza. Question: Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government authorized to deliver taxpayer-funded military and financial aid to any foreign regime, including the government of Israel?
In any event, here you have a classic example of how one U.S. intervention — i.e, the unconditional U.S. support of the Israeli government — ultimately leads to another intervention — i.e., the cold-blooded murder of people who are suspected of targeting U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq. Of course, the operative word is “suspected” given that there was never a formal criminal charge or trial accorded to the murder victims, as the Fifth Amendment expressly requires.
The recent U.S. murders in Baghdad reveal how the conversion of the U.S. government to a national-security state has resulted in the type of government our American ancestors feared and opposed: one that exercises omnipotent powers with impunity, including the power to murder people.
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Illegal Occupation, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | CIA, Human rights, Iraq, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
January 9, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | Hamas, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Those who have experienced serious health issues following their Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccination are raising more concerns about censorship on social media platforms. These individuals, who consider themselves victims of the vaccine, report that their attempts to share their experiences and symptoms online are being stifled.
Among these is a father of two who suffered a life-altering blood clot, leading to permanent brain damage, after receiving the vaccine in spring 2021. He is currently pursuing legal action against AstraZeneca in the High Court in London. Similarly, a lawsuit has been filed by the husband of a woman who tragically died following her vaccination.
Others who believe they have suffered adverse reactions to the jab, yet are not involved in any legal battles, have expressed frustration over the suppression of their voices on platforms like Facebook.
They claim that they are being pushed towards using cryptic language and self-censorship to evade group shutdowns, as reported by the Telegraph.
UK CV Family, a private Facebook group founded by Charlet Crichton, serves as a support network for over 1,000 members who feel they have been harmed or bereaved by the Covid vaccines. Crichton, who experienced a severe reaction to the AstraZeneca vaccine, had to abandon her 13-year-long Sports Therapy business due to prolonged bed rest. The group, which was established in November 2021, has earned the status of core-participant in the Covid Inquiry, allowing members like Crichton, who claims to have suffered myocarditis post-vaccination, to testify in the inquiry.
Crichton revealed that her comments had been blocked to prevent misuse, and she even faced a temporary ban from Meta for allegedly not meeting their standards.
She also noted that some members have experienced shadow banning, where their posts are obscured from public view.
Further, YouTube attempted to censor a video featuring lawyers discussing vaccines at the Covid Inquiry, citing a breach of their medical misinformation policy. A video of Stephen Bowie, a Scottish Vaccine Injury Group member who suffered a spinal stroke and blood clots post-vaccination, received a similar warning.
January 8, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Last month I explored the historical origins of the State of Israel and the intertwined expulsion of the Palestinian refugees from their ancient homeland. During this discussion, I emphasized the crucial role that the Jewish Holocaust had played in justifying and facilitating those momentous events of three generations ago.

I read or reread more than a dozen books for my long review article, and also glancingly mentioned an additional one, which I’ve now digested as well. My main focus had been on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and The Seventh Million by Tom Segev only slightly touched on that topic. But his descriptive subtitle “The Israelis and the Holocaust” suggested a related subject of inquiry that proved quite fruitful.
Born in 1945, Segev is generally regarded as one of Israel’s leading journalists, the author of numerous widely-praised histories regarding Israel’s origins and its various wars. Although his 1991 bestseller was controversial, the back cover carried glowing praise from such top Israeli figures as Abba Eban and Amos Elon, as well as important Holocaust scholars such as Prof. George L. Mosse and leaders of the Jewish diaspora such as Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. I found it quite enlightening, though perhaps not entirely in the way the author intended.
Even aside from its main theme, the first chapter provided some extremely useful information. Back in 2018, I’d drawn upon the shocking research found in the books of maverick leftist Lenni Brenner to publish a long article on the surprising relationship between the various Zionist factions and Nazi Germany, which spent most of the 1930s working together in a close economic partnership that laid the basis for the creation of the State of Israel.
Although Brenner’s documentary research seemed rock-solid and had never been seriously challenged, I’d always had a few slight doubts at the back of my mind. I had wondered whether such utterly astonishing facts could really be true and yet remained totally concealed for generations by virtually all of our journalists and academics, but Segev’s brief discussion completely put those concerns to rest. Segev is a very mainstream pro-Zionist Israeli writer and he probably despised Brenner, a radical anti-Zionist Trotskyite, never mentioning the name of the latter anywhere in his nearly 600 pages of text. But Segev drew upon the same underlying archival sources to fully confirm all of Brenner’s most incendiary historical claims and even added a few additional ones, though all of this similar material was obviously presented in a very different fashion.
By the 1920s the mainstream leftist Zionist movement was heavily influenced by Marxism and led by Russian-born David Ben-Gurion, who modeled himself after Lenin, but those Zionists still eagerly formed a 1930s economic partnership with Nazi Germany based upon an obvious commonality of interests. Hitler was eager to encourage the departure of Germany’s problematical 1% Jewish minority while the Zionists were just as eager to receive them, along with the huge infusion of financial and industrial capital they could provide. During this period, important SS leaders including Adolf Eichmann were invited to Palestine as honored Zionist guests and then published their flattering accounts of the successful development activities of their Zionist partners in Joseph Goebbels’ leading Berlin Nazi newspaper. Some Zionist leaders reciprocated, traveling to Germany for very friendly meetings with their Nazi counterparts, and they reported how well the Jews of that country seemed to be doing despite Hitler’s supposedly harsh new regime.
Indeed, Segev’s figures demonstrate the enormous prosperity of German Jews, explaining why the Zionists were so eager to arrange for them to relocate to impoverished Palestine. The Nazis agreed that every such Jewish emigrant could take with him the present-day equivalent of $200,000 in foreign currency, plus another $250,000 or more in German merchandise. These were huge sums for what had been the desperately poor society of Weimar Germany, and such Jewish wealth had obviously been one of the major sources of anti-Semitic resentment in that country.
If the main Zionist groups cooperated with Nazi Germany on purely utilitarian grounds, their right-wing Zionist rivals had more ideological motives since they had modeled their movement after that of Mussolini, and always regarded themselves as fascists as did their bitter opponents. Many of these Zionists even considered Hitler’s notorious anti-Semitism as a mere political blemish rather than as an insupportable obstacle preventing their admiration. In 1933 a leading Zionist writer ranked the German dictator among the world’s “shining names,” alongside Mussolini, Ataturk, and the various other right-wing heroes of his movement, while another Zionist figure had loudly declared that “Hitler saved Germany.” Even after World War II began, one of these Zionist factions led by a future prime minister of Israel repeatedly sought to enlist in the Axis Powers, hoping to join the military alliance led by Hitler and Mussolini.
One of the interesting points made by Segev is that although a large majority of ordinary Jews around the world were intensely hostile to Hitler’s regime, the leadership of most of the different Zionist factions quietly became fierce competitors for German patronage, with those that lost out then sometimes hypocritically denouncing the Nazi affiliations of their more successful rivals. These bitter words led to the 1933 assassination of one of the top mainstream Zionist leaders in Palestine at the hands of his right-wing critics.
Although this Nazi-Zionist partnership was controversial at the time, it obviously became much more so following the Axis defeat and the concerted Allied effort to demonize the Nazis through the Nuremberg show trials and other propaganda spectaculars, so the newly established State of Israel made every effort to hide this dark secret of its recent past. When those 1930s historical facts later threatened to leak out in the mid-1950s due to the legal problems of an important Israeli political figure, the man was assassinated, and Segev suggested that Israel’s government had probably arranged the killing in order to permanently shut his mouth.
After that rather surprising first chapter, the bulk of Segev’s narrative shifts to a very different topic, namely Israel’s tangled relationship with the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of some six million helpless Jewish civilians by Nazi Germany, mostly in the gas chambers of various World War II concentration camps. On these basic facts, the author’s views seem absolutely conventional ones, and at several points he notes the bestial cruelty of the diabolical Nazi plan to erase all Jews from the world. But although references to the Holocaust, gas chambers, or the most famous concentration camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Dachau are sprinkled across a large fraction of all these pages, Segev largely avoids discussing the details of that industrial slaughter, apparently assuming that all of his readers are thoroughly familiar with the standard narrative account produced by modern Holocaust scholarship, which began in the wake of Raul Hilberg’s seminal 1961 volume. Ironically enough, Segev notes that as of the date of his writing, Hilberg’s classic work still remained untranslated into Hebrew, probably because it had reported that all those many millions of Jews had willingly gone to their deaths, shepherded by their own community leadership and without ever showing any signs of active resistance.
However, Israeli society is unusual in that such a substantial fraction of its founding population consisted of postwar Holocaust survivors, “the seventh million” of Segev’s title, individuals who had themselves passed through the various Nazi death camps. Therefore, their gripping personal accounts seem to have provided much of the understanding of those momentous events for the Israeli public, including Segev himself, who was born just weeks before Hitler’s suicide and the collapse of his German regime.
Perhaps because Segev’s first chapter documented the close Nazi-Zionist partnership of the 1930s, which might disconcert his readers, he preceded this discussion with a Prologue that recounted the utter horrors of the Holocaust that soon followed chronologically. He focused upon the books of a particular Auschwitz survivor named Yehiel De-Nur, who had spent two years at that notorious death camp, and although the name of that writer means little in America these days, he became a celebrated postwar author in Israel.
Although all of De-Nur’s several autobiographical volumes were published under a pseudonym and his true identity remained concealed for many years, his works constituted some of the earliest Holocaust literature in Israel and were hugely influential in bringing the horrifying details of that catastrophe to Israeli popular attention, with a special literary prize established in his honor, awarded every two years by Israel’s president.
Indeed, Segev explained that he and most other Israeli teenagers of his generation first learned the extremely disturbing details of the Holocaust from De-Nur’s books, so when he managed to arrange a personal interview with the author, he did so with great trepidation. De-Nur’s writing had always emphasized the sadistic acts that were a daily part of life at Auschwitz, including the widespread sexual abuse of young Jewish boys and girls by their Nazi captors, and Segev describes the works as considerably pornographic.
According to Segev, De-Nur had been a young Yeshiva student in pre-war Poland with huge literary pretensions, desperately trying to get his writing into print when the war came along and he ended up at Auschwitz. De-Nur later claimed that Eichmann had personally condemned him to that fate so he served as a leading witness at the 1961 Eichmann trial, with his testimony ended in a fainting spell, supposedly reflecting the unspeakable personal memories that still haunted him even decades later.

As it happens, I also recently read Hannah Arendt‘s 1963 classic Eichmann in Jerusalem, and De-Nur was one of the few witnesses whom she also focused upon, treating his testimony far less gently than did Segev. According to her account, De-Nur’s bizarre, rambling monologue included a heavy focus upon astrology and all sorts of other strange things, considerably embarrassing the serious legal proceedings. When the prosecutor finally interrupted to ask a couple of basic, factual questions, De-Nur immediately collapsed in a hysterical fit, allowing the judge to salvage the situation by ordering the witness permanently removed from the stand. Arendt suggested that De-Nur’s testimony demonstrated the tremendous difficulty that emotional eyewitnesses sometimes have in distinguishing between their actual memories of events from many years earlier and the products of their own vivid imagination.
Indeed, Segev seemed to confirm Arendt’s observation, explaining that De-Nur had been so emotionally broken by his experiences at Auschwitz that he required many years of psychiatric counseling and also began a series of LSD treatment-sessions, in which he recalled visions of his days in the camp. Eventually, he produced a new Holocaust manuscript that included presumably imaginary scenes of such brutal events as an SS guard murdering the Jewish boy who had been the victim of his sexual perversions, then grilling the boy’s body on a spit and devouring the flesh piece by piece.
These bizarre pages of the Prologue apparently represent much of the Holocaust narrative as understood by most Israelis and I found it rather disconcerting that they were immediately followed by the chapter describing the mundane details of the Nazi-Zionist partnership of just a few years earlier, an extremely odd juxtaposition of such radically different situations. Thus, according to Segev’s apparent reconstruction, the friendly and respectful business arrangements between German Nazis and Zionist Jews of the late 1930s were suddenly replaced in the early 1940s by a diabolical and sadomasochistic effort by the Nazis to totally exterminate all of the world’s Jews, an extremely strange transformation that raised serious questions in my mind.
As far as I know, the mainstream Holocaust narrative in America has never portrayed the German concentration camps as hotbeds of rampant sadomasochistic sexual perversion. However, such themes were found in a series of popular 1970s exploitation films beginning with Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS. This leads me to wonder if many of those survivor-based accounts in Israel might fall into that same category. And indeed, according to De-Nur’s Wikipedia page, a Holocaust organization in Israel has denounced De-Nur’s books as merely pornographic fiction, not least because Nazi law absolutely prohibited any sexual relations between Aryans and Jews.
Equally bizarre and scatological stories had also been found in The Painted Bird by writer Jerzy Kosinski, which in 1976 became America’s first widely popular Holocaust memoir. But that huge bestseller was later revealed to be totally fraudulent, and the plagiarizing author eventually committed suicide. Indeed, there have been so many fake Holocaust memoirs over the years that they nearly constitute a literary genre of their own. Probably the most world’s most famous Holocaust survivor was Elie Wiesel, who parlayed the stories of his wartime suffering into becoming an enormous political celebrity, capping his career with a Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, whose announcement declared him “a messenger to mankind.” Yet journalist Alexander Cockburn has persuasively argued that Wiesel was simply a fraud, and his famous autobiographical work Night just another literary hoax.
According to Segev, one odd element of Israeli Holocaust dogma has been the widespread, almost universal conviction that the Nazis had rendered Jewish bodies into soap, with even top government leaders firmly describing that atrocity as fact. Not only was this a notorious hoax, but Segev explained that Yad Vashem, Israel’s most authoritative center of Holocaust research has fully debunked it as totally fraudulent.
Meanwhile, even some of the less gruesome stories that Segev passes along seem rather doubtful. According to a prominent Israeli attorney who later claimed to have liberated death camps as a Jewish officer during the war, a large group of men, women, and children were herded into one of the gas chambers, but because their numbers were insufficient, the penny-pinching Germans didn’t want to waste a full dose of gas on them, so they were forced to stand there naked for a day and a night awaiting additional victims, only to be rescued from death when their camp was suddenly liberated.
In reading Segev’s account of the role of the Holocaust in Israeli society and the sort of outrageous Holocaust stories that dominated the narrative in that country, I couldn’t avoid noticing a strong connection to much more recent events.
The surprisingly successful Hamas attack on October 7th was deeply embarrassing to the Israelis, and pro-Israel propagandists soon began heavily emphasizing ridiculous hoaxes such as the claims of forty beheaded babies or a baby roasted in an oven. All of these frauds were provided by extremely disreputable characters, but eagerly accepted and promoted by leading Western political elites and media outlets.
The latest wave of very doubtful claims has focused upon second-hand stories of Hamas gang-rapes and sexual mutilations. These accounts only came to light two months after the events in question and lacked any supportive forensic evidence, with many of the claims coming from the same individuals behind the beheaded babies hoax, suggesting that they are equally desperate propaganda ploys. Journalists Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, and others have discussed the extreme credulity of the Times and other media outlets in promoting these blatantly fraudulent stories. Many of these points are summarized in a brief video discussion:
Meanwhile, consider the very strong evidence from silence. According to news reports, small GoPro cameras were worn by the attacking Hamas militants, which recorded all their activities, and the Israelis recovered many of these from their bodies and began carefully examining hundreds of hours of this extensive video footage. They surely would have soon released a video compilation providing any incriminating evidence that they found, yet I’m not aware of a single public clip that shows any such brutal atrocities or mass killings, strongly suggesting that very little of that occurred. Indeed, the Gray Zone demonstrated that the main photograph provided of an allegedly raped and murdered Israeli woman actually turned out to be that of a female Kurdish fighter from years earlier that had been plucked off the Internet, demonstrating the apparent desperation and dishonesty of the pro-Israel propagandists promoting these stories.
These developments bring to mind a couple of paragraphs I’d published in 2018 on similar matters:
Anyone who reads serious history books knows that Jews have generally enjoyed a reputation for producing many of the world’s greatest swindlers and frauds, hardly surprising given their notorious tendency to lie and dissemble. Meanwhile, the Jewish community also seems to contain far more than its fair share of the emotionally disturbed and the mentally ill, and perhaps as a consequence has served as a launching-pad for many of the world’s religious cults and fanatic ideological movements.
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.
The Gray Zone editors noted that any skeptical analysis of those outrageous Hamas atrocity stories has prompted pro-Israel advocates to fiercely denounce such critics while stubbornly refusing to provide any solid evidence.
This is obviously correct. However, I think an equally skeptical approach must also be applied to the conventional narrative of the Holocaust, which constitutes the central ideological pillar of the Jewish State, its political leadership, and its committed supporters, both Jewish and Gentile alike. Unfortunately, applying such analytical methods may be quite psychologically difficult for many Westerners because over the last couple of generations Hollywood has elevated that historical event of the 1940s into something resembling a quasi-religion. As I wrote in 2018:
All three of America’s television networks were under Jewish ownership or control, so it was hardly surprising that two years later ABC decided to repeat this process with the 1978 television miniseries Holocaust, which also achieved an audience of 100 million and generated enormous profits…
The following year, William Styron published Sophie’s Choice, a heart-rending tale involving deeply buried memories of the extermination of Christian Polish children in the Auschwitz gas chambers. Although such an occurrence was absolutely contrary to the doctrines of all Jewish Holocaust scholars, the novel became a huge national best-seller anyway, and a 1982 film of the same name soon followed, with Meryl Streep winning an Oscar for Best Actress. A decade later, Steven Spielberg’s 1993 Schindler’s List won a remarkable seven Oscars, while grossing nearly $100 million.
With Hollywood so overwhelmingly Jewish, the consequences were hardly surprising, and a huge cinematic genre soon developed. According to Finkelstein, Hollywood produced some 180 Holocaust films just during the years 1989-2004. Even the very partial subset of Holocaust films listed on Wikipedia has grown enormously long, but fortunately the Movie Database has winnowed down the catalog by providing a list of the 50 Most Moving Holocaust Films.
Many billions of dollars have surely been invested over the years on the total production costs of this ongoing business enterprise. For most ordinary people, “seeing is believing,” and how could anyone seriously doubt the reality of the Holocaust after having seen all the gas chambers and mounds of murdered Jewish corpses constructed by highly-paid Hollywood set designers? Doubting the existence of Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk would be almost as absurd.
Some 2% of Americans have a Jewish background, while perhaps 95% possess Christian roots, but the Wikipedia list of Christian films seems rather scanty and rudimentary by comparison. Very few of those films were ever widely released, and the selection is stretched to even include The Chronicles of Narnia, which contains no mention of Christianity whatsoever. One of the very few prominent exceptions on the list is Mel Gibson’s 2004 The Passion of the Christ, which he was forced to personally self-fund. And despite the enormous financial success of that movie, one of the most highly profitable domestic releases of all time, the project rendered Gibson a hugely vilified pariah in the industry over which he had once reigned as its biggest star, especially after word got around that his own father was a Holocaust Denier.
In many respects, Hollywood and the broader entertainment media today provide the unifying spiritual basis of our deeply secular society, and the overwhelming predominance of Holocaust-themed films over Christian ones has obvious implications. Meanwhile, in our globalized world, the American entertainment-media complex totally dominates Europe and the rest of the West, so that the ideas generated here effectively shape the minds of many hundreds of millions of people living elsewhere, whether or not they fully recognize that fact.
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI sought to heal the long-standing Vatican II rift within the Catholic Church and reconcile with the breakaway Society of St. Pius X faction. But this became a major media controversy when it was discovered that Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the leading members of that latter organization, had long been a Holocaust Denier and also believed that Jews should convert to Christianity. Although the many other differences in Catholic doctrinal faith were fully negotiable, apparently refusing to accept the reality of the Holocaust was not, and Williamson remained estranged from the Catholic Church. Soon afterward he was even prosecuted for heresy by the German government.
Internet critics have suggested that over the last couple of generations, energetic Jewish activists have successfully lobbied Western nations into replacing their traditional religion of Christianity with the new religion of Holocaustianity, and the Williamson Affair certainly seems to support that conclusion.
Consider the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Funded by Jewish interests, it spent years launching vicious attacks against Christianity, sometimes in crudely pornographic fashion, and also periodically vilified Islam. Such activities were hailed by French politicians as proof of the total freedom of thought allowed in the land of Voltaire. But the moment that one of its leading cartoonists made a very mild joke related to Jews, he was immediately fired, and if the publication had ever ridiculed the Holocaust, it surely would have been immediately shut down, and its entire staff possibly thrown into prison.
Western journalists and human rights advocates have often expressed support for the boldly transgressive activities of the Jewish-funded Femen activists when they desecrate Christian churches all around the world. But such pundits would certainly be in an uproar if anyone were to act in similar fashion toward the growing international network of Holocaust Museums, most of them built at public expense.
Indeed, one of the underlying sources of bitter Western conflict with Vladimir Putin’s Russia seems to be that he has restored Christianity to a favored place in a society where the early Bolsheviks had once dynamited churches and massacred many thousands of priests. Western intellectual elites held far more positive feelings toward the USSR while its leaders retained a stridently anti-Christian attitude.
In the same very long 2018 article, I described how I’d become curious about the evidentiary basis of the Holocaust, and after careful investigation concluded that the Holocaust was largely, perhaps almost entirely a hoax.
In particular, I found strong indications that during the years immediately following World War II, most of America’s mainstream journalists and academics seem to have quietly recognized that the stories claiming that millions of Jews had been killed in gas chambers by the Nazis were merely crude wartime propaganda, not dissimilar to the First World War accusations that the Germans had raped Belgian nuns and eaten Belgian children.
One important piece of evidence was my discovery of a book written by Prof. John Beaty, who had served as a colonel in Military Intelligence during the war.
Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.
As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace.
Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs. And as a very minor aside, he also criticized the Israelis for continuing to claim that Hitler had killed six million Jews, a highly implausible accusation that had no apparent basis in reality and seemed to be just a fraud concocted by Jews and Communists, aimed at poisoning our relations with postwar Germany and extracting money for the Jewish State from the long-suffering German people.
Furthermore, he was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.
Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of The American Conservative, Beaty’s book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking only behind Russell Kirk’s iconic classic, The Conservative Mind.
Moreover, although Jewish groups including the ADL harshly condemned the book, especially in their private lobbying, those efforts provoked a backlash, and numerous top American generals, both serving and retired, wholeheartedly endorsed Beaty’s work, denouncing the ADL efforts at censorship and urging all Americans to read the volume. Although Beaty’s quite explicit Holocaust Denial might shock tender modern sensibilities, at the time it seems to have caused barely a ripple of concern and was almost totally ignored even by the vocal Jewish critics of the work.
Given his crucial wartime role, there probably would have been few Americans better informed of our Intelligence information than Prof. Beaty, and his huge 1951 bestseller casually dismissed the Jewish Holocaust stories as nonsense. His book was strongly endorsed by many of our leading generals, and although the ADL and other Jewish groups ferociously attacked him on every other point, none of them ever challenged his statements on the Holocaust.
I went on to explore the striking absence of any significant mention of the Holocaust during those years:
Beaty’s very brief 1951 discussion has been the earliest instance of explicit Holocaust Denial I have managed to locate, but the immediate postwar years seem absolutely rife with what might be described as “implicit Holocaust Denial,” especially within the highest political circles.
Over the years, Holocaust scholars and activists have very rightfully emphasized the absolutely unprecedented nature of the historical events they have studied. They describe how some six million innocent Jewish civilians were deliberately exterminated, mostly in gas chambers, by one of Europe’s most highly cultured nations, and emphasize that monstrous project was often accorded greater priority than Germany’s own wartime military needs during the country’s desperate struggle for survival. Furthermore, the Germans also undertook enormous efforts to totally eliminate all possible traces of their horrifying deed, with huge resources expended to cremate all those millions of bodies and scatter the ashes. This same disappearance technique was even sometimes applied to the contents of their mass graves, which were dug up long after initial burial, so that the rotting corpses could then be totally incinerated and all evidence eliminated. And although Germans are notorious for their extreme bureaucratic precision, this immense wartime project was apparently implemented without benefit of a single written document, or at least no such document has ever been located.
Lipstadt entitled her first book “Beyond Belief,” and I think that all of us can agree that the historical event she and so many others in academia and Hollywood have made the centerpiece of their lives and careers is certainly one of the most extremely remarkable occurrences in all of human history. Indeed, perhaps only a Martian Invasion would have been more worthy of historical study, but Orson Welles’s famous War of the Worlds radio-play which terrified so many millions of Americans in 1938 turned out to be a hoax rather than real.
The six million Jews who died in the Holocaust certainly constituted a very substantial fraction of all the wartime casualties in the European Theater, outnumbering by a factor of 100 all the British who died during the Blitz, and being dozens of times more numerous than all the Americans who fell there in battle. Furthermore, the sheer monstrosity of the crime against innocent civilians would surely have provided the best possible justification for the Allied war effort. Yet for many, many years after the war, a very strange sort of amnesia seems to have gripped most of the leading political protagonists in that regard.
On that matter, I quoted a very interesting passage by Prof. Robert Faurisson, who became one of France’s leading Holocaust Deniers in the 1970s:
Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill’s The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found.
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.
Consider the full implications of these facts.
As Faurisson emphasized, during the years 1948-1959, Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle published their memoirs and histories, which totaled more than 7,000 pages. These individuals were the greatest victorious heroes of World War II and the massive works they had published were intended to permanently establish their places in history, not merely for the next few years, but for many decades and even centuries to come.
Mainstream Holocaust scholars have reasonably argued that the event they study was probably the greatest crime ever committed in the history of the world, the rapid extermination of six million innocent victims by one of the world’s most highly-educated countries using diabolically advanced scientific means.
Those three leaders had led the global campaign to defeat the country responsible for the Holocaust, which had only occurred about a decade earlier.
Yet no one reading those 7,000 pages of text would have ever suspected that any Holocaust had even occurred. How can that possibly be explained under the standard historical narrative?
My own contrary explanation is a very simple one. All three of those top leaders knew perfectly well that the Holocaust was merely a hoax, a ridiculous concoction of wartime propaganda. They were sure that within another five or ten years, twenty at the most, the Holocaust hoax would have been completely debunked and universally recognized as absurd, just as had happened with the atrocity-hoaxes of the First World War. So they believed that if they mentioned it in their books, they would be endlessly ridiculed by future generations, and they wanted to avoid that embarrassing fate.
I’ve never looked into it, but I assume that all the prominent Allied leaders who published their histories and memoirs after WWI were very careful to avoid including any claims that the Germans had raped Belgian nuns or eaten Belgian children.
The “rediscovery” of the Holocaust in Western historiography only occurred at the beginning of the 1960s, and some of those very ironic circumstances seem to point towards the same controversial conclusion. As I wrote in my 2018 article:
The late scholar Raul Hilberg is universally acknowledged as the founder of modern Holocaust studies, which began with the 1961 publication of his massive volume The Destruction of the European Jews. In his very interesting 2007 Hilberg obituary, historian Norman Finkelstein emphasizes that prior to Hilberg’s work, there had been virtually no writing on the Holocaust, and discussion of the topic was considered almost “taboo.” For a recent event of such apparent enormity to have been so completely wiped away from public discussion and the consciousness of historians and political scientists can be explained in several different ways. But once I began to investigate the circumstances behind Hilberg’s ground-breaking work, I encountered all sorts of strange ironies.
According to Wikipedia, Hilberg’s family of Austrian Jews coincidentally arrived in the United States on the exact day in 1939 that war broke out, and in his early teens he was soon horrified to read all the news reports of the ongoing extermination of his fellow Jews in the continent his family had left behind, even telephoning Jewish leaders asking why they were doing so little to save their kinsmen from annihilation. He subsequently served in the U.S. military in Europe, then majored in Political Science at Brooklyn College after the end of the conflict. The inspiration for his future scholarly focus seems to have come when he was shocked by a remark made by one of his lecturers, Hans Rosenberg:
The most wicked atrocities perpetrated on a civilian population in modern times occurred during the Napoleonic occupation of Spain.
When Hilberg asked how Rosenberg, himself a German-Jewish refugee, could have so totally ignored the murder of 6 million Jews, a monstrous crime committed just a couple of years earlier, Rosenberg sought to deflect the question, saying that “it was a complicated matter” and “history doesn’t teach down into the present age.” Since Rosenberg was a student of Meinecke, whom Lipstadt has bitterly denounced as an implicit Holocaust Denier, one wonders whether Rosenberg may have shared the beliefs of his mentor but was reluctant to admit that fact to his overwhelmingly Jewish students in emotionally-charged postwar Brooklyn.
Later, Hilberg conducted his doctoral research at Columbia under Franz Neumann, another German-Jewish refugee scholar. But when Hilberg indicated he wanted his research to focus on the extermination of Europe’s Jews, Neumann strongly discouraged that topic, warning Hilberg that doing so would be professionally imprudent and might become “his academic funeral.” When he attempted to publish his research in book form, it received numerous negative reviews, with Israel’s Yad Vashem fearing it would encounter “hostile criticism,” and over a six year period, it was rejected by several major publishing houses along with Princeton University, based on the advice of the influential Jewish intellectual Hannah Arendt. One naturally wonders whether all these established scholars may have quietly known something that a naive young doctoral candidate such as Hilberg did not. His book only appeared in print because a Jewish immigrant whose business had suffered under the Nazis funded the entire publication.
Yet another strange element, thoroughly documented but rather difficult to square with the traditional Holocaust narrative is that large numbers of part-Jewish Germans served loyally in Hitler’s armies, with some of them holding very high military ranks:
Consider the interesting case of Field Marshal Erhard Milch, Hermann Goering’s very powerful number-two in the German Luftwaffe. His father was certainly a Jew, and according to researchers Robert Wistrich and Louis Snyder, there is archival evidence that his mother was Jewish as well. Now it is certainly not impossible that a Third Reich supposedly dedicated with grim fanaticism to the extermination of each and every Jew might have spent the entire war with a full- or half-Jew near the absolute top of its military hierarchy, but surely that puzzling anomaly would warrant careful explanation, and Milch’s apparent Jewish background was certainly known during the Nuremberg Trials…
Indeed, the fascinating and widely-praised 2002 book Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers by Bryan Mark Rigg notes that aside from Milch, Hitler’s military contained over a dozen half-Jewish generals and admirals and another dozen quarter-Jews of that same high rank, plus a total of roughly 150,000 additional half- or quarter-Jewish soldiers, with a large fraction of these being officers. All of these individuals would have had some fully-Jewish parents or grand-parents, which seems decidedly odd behavior for a regime supposedly so focused on the total eradication of the Jewish race.
I discussed all of these issues and many others as well in my very long 2018 article, as well as a related piece published the following year:
For those who prefer to absorb some of this same information in a different format, I was interviewed last year by Iranian broadcast television on a number of the highly-controversial topics excluded from the Western media, and two of the half-hour segments focused on the Holocaust. Channel Four of the Iran Broadcasting Corporation is one of the country’s largest, having a potential audience of ten million, and after the segments were put online, I had them video-captured and uploaded to a Rumble channel:
Analyzing the Holocaust, Part I • 25m
Video Link
Analyzing the Holocaust, Part II • 32m
Video Link
Although totally ignored by our dishonest Western media, over the last two generations principled Holocaust investigators have uncovered and accumulated an enormous volume of persuasive evidence, demonstrating the utter and complete falsehood of the traditional historical narrative on a very wide range of different grounds.
One of the earliest major works was originally published in 1976 by Prof. Arthur R. Butz of Northwestern and after having been updated several times since then, his volume still constitutes one of the most comprehensive introductions to the subject. The book bears the very appropriate title of “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” and although it was purged by Amazon several years ago, it is still easily available here and elsewhere.
As I discussed in my 2018 article, the most important recent addition to this extensive collection of material was probably published about a decade ago by a respected science historian.
Most recently, Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, who had spent eleven years as a historian of science on the staff of University College, London, suffered this same fate in 2008. His scientific interests in the Holocaust provoked a media firestorm of vilification, and he was fired with a single day’s notice, becoming the first member of his research institution ever expelled for ideological reasons. He had previously provided the Isaac Newton entry for a massive biographical encyclopedia of astronomers, and America’s most prestigious science journal demanded that the entire publication be pulped, destroying the work of over 100 writers, because it had been fatally tainted by having such a villainous contributor. He recounted this unfortunate personal history as an introduction to his 2014 book Breaking the Spell, which I highly recommend.
Kollerstrom’s text effectively summarizes much of the more recent Holocaust Denial evidence, including the official Auschwitz death books returned by Gorbachev after the end of the Cold War, which indicate that Jewish fatalities were some 99% lower than the widely-believed total. Furthermore, Jewish deaths actually showed a sharp decline once plentiful supplies of Zyklon B arrived, exactly contrary to what might have been expected under the conventional account. He also discusses the interesting new evidence contained in the British wartime decrypts of all German communications between the various concentration camps and the Berlin headquarters.
Dr. Kollerstrom’s excellent book was purged from Amazon, but is freely available on the the Internet or can be easily downloaded in various formats, and I would highly recommend it to those interested in the topic.
Much of his important material was presented in an interesting two hour interview on Red Ice Radio, eventually purged from Youtube but still available elsewhere on the Internet.
A couple of decades earlier, German chemist Germar Rudolf had been similarly purged and later imprisoned for his skeptical investigation of the scientific evidence for the Holocaust. Rudolf eventually created the most comprehensive published collection of Holocaust Denial literature, one that includes the works of Butz and Kollerstrom as well as dozens of other books by various scholars, nearly all of them freely available for downloading;
For those who prefer to receive their information in video format, that same website has a considerable collection of such video documentaries and I would particularly recommend the following three very long ones, all produced around 15 years ago by a San Francisco resident. Although they lack the lavish production values of a big budget Hollywood film and the quality of the narration is only so-so, I think the volume of factual material presented in these videos is extremely comprehensive and persuasive, just as I had remembered from originally watching them four or five years ago.
One-Third of the Holocaust • 4h15m
Video Link
Buchanwald, a Dumb, Dumb Portrayal of Evil • 2h21m
Video Link
The Auschwitz Hoax – Why the Gas Chambers are a Myth • 50m
Video Link
I think that anyone who has carefully investigated the subject would soon conclude that there is an overwhelming volume of strong factual evidence against the reality of the Holocaust, which appears to be almost entirely fictional, just as fraudulent as the recent claims of forty beheaded babies. But that Holocaust myth has nonetheless remained in place and steadily grown for more than three generations, having seemingly become a lie too enormous to ever be challenged.
One likely reason for such impunity has been the successful transformation of the historical Holocaust into the quasi-religion of Holocaustianity, which in many respects reigns as the dominant faith of much of today’s deeply secular West. I have noted that although Pope Benedict XVI and his successor had been willing to accept deviations from the canonical doctrines of their Catholic Church on numerous questions, no skepticism towards the Holocaust could possibly be tolerated. Many otherwise courageous individuals are very reluctant to challenge such a religious faith, especially one in which they themselves have been immersed from their early childhood, perhaps without even recognizing that process.
However, belief in such pernicious falsehoods may sometimes prompt acts of the most dreadful nature, just as the recent Israeli atrocity-hoaxes have been used to enable the horrific ongoing massacre in Gaza.
According to Segev’s book, the widespread postwar belief among the Jews of Palestine that the Germans had exterminated six million of their people provoked a group of Zionist militants to plot the extermination of six million German civilians in retaliation, spending months infiltrating the water supply facilities of Occupied Germany and securing large quantities of the deadly poison that they planned to introduce. Fortunately, their project failed and although Segev seems convinced that the plot was real and came close to success, I am personally more skeptical. But the mere possibility that the most enormous mass-murder in all of human history might have been prompted in retaliation for an imaginary Holocaust crime is a sobering one.
Soon afterward, the Zionists leveraged the same Holocaust story to provide themselves the political cover they required for their brutal war of aggression and expulsion towards the native inhabitants of Palestine, seizing nearly 80% of the land and forcing 80% of the longstanding Arab population to flee as pitiful refugees.
During the many decades that followed, that same get-out-of-jail-free Holocaust card has been endlessly played, invoked by Israel’s leaders and its fierce advocates to justify every naked violation of international law and every grisly war crime, culminating now in the destruction of defenseless Gaza. Over the last three months, more than 22,000 bodies of dead civilians have been identified by the Gaza Health Ministry, and with so many thousands more still missing, their bodies buried in the rubble of 100,000 destroyed buildings, the true death-toll is probably well above 30,000.
Without doubt, this is the greatest televised slaughter of helpless civilians in the history of the world, and some of Israel’s top leaders have used explicitly genocidal language to describe their plans for the millions of Palestinians. Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches, either unwilling or unable to halt the killing. After more than three months of this unending massacre, the government of South Africa has now filed an 84-page legal brief condemning Israel for this ongoing “genocide.”
In our own country, popular progressive slogans advocating for a single unified secular democratic state of Palestine have been demonized as calling for “Jewish genocide.” When several elite college presidents refused to suppress criticism of Israeli policy on their campuses, they were browbeaten by Congressional interrogators and billionaire Jewish donors, with two of them already forced to resign.
The Israel Lobby appears to possess near total control of our political system, government, and media organs, and most observers see no prospect of change, agreeing that it would take an unprecedented ideological earthquake to dislodge such control. But surely the collapse of the Holocaust narrative would constitute exactly that sort of unprecedented ideological earthquake, perhaps causing the total disintegration of the entire Zionist project built upon it. For most pro-Israel partisans, the reality of the Holocaust is the fundamental cornerstone of their understanding of the world, and calling it into question would threaten the complete annihilation of their entire system of beliefs.
Those who wish to end what they regard as the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians must recognize that one of their best and only chances to achieve that goal may involve their courageous willingness to challenge a purported genocide from eight decades ago, a genocide that never took place, but has subsequently been used to justify an enormous catalog of war crimes and massacres.
I can only repeat the closing paragraphs of my original 2018 article on Holocaust Denial:
Despite this situation, the powerful media focus in support of the Holocaust over the last few decades has elevated it to a central position in Western culture. I wouldn’t be surprised if it currently occupies a larger place in the minds of most ordinary folk than does the Second World War that encompassed it, and therefore possesses greater apparent reality.
However, some forms of shared beliefs may be a mile wide but an inch deep, and the casual assumptions of individuals who have never actually investigated a given subject may rapidly change. Also, the popular strength of doctrines that have long been maintained in place by severe social and economic sanctions, often backed by criminal penalties, may possibly be much weaker than anyone realizes.
Until thirty years ago, Communist rule over the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies seemed absolutely permanent and unshakable, but the roots of that belief had totally rotted away, leaving behind nothing more than a hollow facade. Then one day, a gust of wind came along, and the entire gigantic structure collapsed. I wouldn’t be surprised if our current Holocaust narrative eventually suffers that same fate, perhaps with unfortunate consequences for those too closely associated with having maintained it.
And the Holocaust is merely one of many enormous falsehoods regarding the central shaping events of the twentieth century that I had discussed in several pieces last year:
Related Reading:
January 8, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Germany, Zionism |
Leave a comment
Activists in a number of countries worldwide have signed up to a global day of action that will see marches take place on January 13 demanding an end to Israel’s genocidal campaign in the besieged Gaza Strip.
The demonstrations will be held a day before the 100th day of Israel’s hostilities.
Four percent of the population in Gaza have been either killed, injured or gone missing since early October.
UK-based advocacy groups organizing the initiative say the marches seek to mobilize people to demand a permanent ceasefire.
Events are planned in dozens of cities across countries including the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Australia, Brazil, Jordan, and Turkey, among others.
The Palestinian Forum, one of several British groups organizing the move, said the growing number of cities joining the global action “reflects a shared commitment to ending the violence in Gaza.”
“Together, we stand united in the #GazaGlobalAction campaign, sending a resounding message that the world demands change, justice, and a future free from violence.”
The Palestinian Forum said the “grim reality” in Gaza “underscores the urgent need for international attention, humanitarian aid, and a concerted effort towards achieving a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.”
Calls to join the global day of action have been shared widely on social media using the hashtags #CeasefireNow #EndTheSiege and #FreePalestine.
Ismail Patel, the chair of the pro-Palestine Friends of Al-Aqsa group, has said the demonstrations principally seek to “empower the international community to challenge Israel’s allies.”
“The global day of action hopes to highlight the worldwide condemnation of Israel’s relentless bombing and siege of Gaza, which is claiming around 300 lives daily, the ongoing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, the discrimination against Palestinians within Israel, the dehumanizing of Palestinians by Israeli leaders, and Israel’s provocative attacks targeting Syria and Lebanon,” Patel said.
The groups that have organized the pro-Palestine day of action spearheaded protests against the US war on Iraq on February 15, 2003. Those demonstrations were held in more than 600 cities worldwide and drew in millions of people.
Since October 7, 2023, Washington has already vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
In a last-ditch effort in December, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing the regime of genocide in Gaza. The hearing is scheduled for January 11 and 12.
Israel has been bombing hospitals, schools, supply vehicles and even UN-run facilities in Gaza since October 7. The regime has also killed more than 23,000 people, most of them women and children.
January 8, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | Israel, Palestine, Zionism |
Leave a comment