The Jewish state has yet to verify its allegations that UNRWA – the largest aid organization in Gaza which has been supporting Palestinians since 1950 – was purportedly involved in the October 7, 2023 Hamas incursion.
According to The Guardian, Tel Aviv has demanded that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) be dismantled and its responsibilities and staff transferred to a new entity in exchange for allowing more aid into the Gaza Strip.
The newspaper quoted unnamed sources as saying that the proposal was discussed by Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi and UN officials in Israel, and then handed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Under the plan, 300 to 400 UNRWA staff will be transferred either to an existing UN agency, such as the World Food Program (WFP), or to a newly established organization focused on food distribution in Gaza. More UNRWA staff and assets may eventually be transferred, although it remains unclear who would administer the new entity or provide security for its operations.
UNRWA was not involved in the proposal-related talks because of Israel’s reluctance to interact with the agency amid Tel Aviv’s unverified claims that 12 of the agency’s 13,000 Gaza staff participated in the October 7 Hamas incursion.
Tamara Alrifai, the agency’s director of external relations, warned that Israel’s plan would undermine the effective distribution of aid in Gaza, while a number of UN insiders, as well as other aid agencies and human rights organizations, insisted that the proposal actually aims to eliminate UNRWA.
“If we allow this, it is the slippery slope to us being completely managed directly by the Israelis, and the UN directly being complicit in undermining UNRWA, which is not only the biggest aid provider but also the biggest bastion of anti-extremism in Gaza. We would be playing into so many political agendas if we allowed this to happen,” The Guardian quoted an unnamed UN official as saying.
Alrifai, for her part, stressed that if the World Food Program were to start distributing food in Gaza tomorrow, they would use UNRWA trucks and bring food to UNRWA warehouses and then distribute food in or around UNRWA shelters.
“So they’re going to need at a minimum the same infrastructure that we have, including the human resources,” she added.
The same tone was struck by Chris Gunness, a former UNRWA spokesman, who said, “It is outrageous that UN agencies like WFP and senior UN officials are engaging in discussions about dismantling UNRWA.” He recalled that it is the UN General Assembly “which gives UNRWA its mandate and only the general assembly can change it, not the secretary general and certainly not a single member state.”
Martin Griffiths, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, tweeted that “attempts to sideline UNRWA must stop”.
“UNRWA is the backbone of the humanitarian operation in Gaza. Any effort to distribute aid without them is simply doomed to fail. No other agency has the same reach, experience or community trust needed to do the job,” Griffiths pointed out.
Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzya, for his part, called for a review of the decision to dismiss UNRWA staff and also stressed the need to restore funding to the agency. He was referring to the fact that several countries, including the US, the UK, Germany and Japan, have suspended funding in response to Israeli accusations of UNRWA’s involvement in the Hamas attack.
The Israeli army withdrew from inside the Al-Shifa Hospital and the surrounding areas west of Gaza City early Monday, leaving scores of casualties and extensive destruction in the hospital and its vicinity, Anadolu news agency reported.
The army fully withdrew from inside the hospital and the surrounding neighbourhoods towards areas south of Tel al-Hawa neighbourhood, southwest of Gaza City, witnesses told Anadolu.
The Israeli forces burned all buildings in the hospital resulting in complete cessation of services, the witnesses added.
They also noted that the army destroyed the specialised surgery building and burned the main reception and emergency building.
Israeli forces also burned the buildings of the kidney and maternity wards, mortuary refrigerators, and cancer and burn facilities, and destroyed the outpatient clinic building, according to the witnesses.
According to Palestinian medical sources, the hospital is now completely out of service and the army destroyed all medical equipment in the complex, operation rooms, and intensive care units.
The witnesses reported that scores of scattered bodies were found in the hospital and in the streets surrounding it.
They explained that the army destroyed the makeshift cemetery established by Palestinians in the facility and removed the corpses from it, scattering them in various areas of the hospital.
They further noted that Israeli forces burned and destroyed many homes and residential buildings in the vicinity of the hospital.
The Israeli army raided the hospital, the largest medical facility in the Gaza Strip that houses thousands of patients and displaced people, on 18 March.
Israeli officers and soldiers have admitted that most of the fatalities classified by the army as “terrorists” during its war on the Gaza Strip are actually civilians, a report said Sunday.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz collected testimonies from officers and soldiers who have fought in Gaza during the war, which has been ongoing since Oct. 7, 2023.
“The Israeli army says 9,000 terrorists have been killed since the Gaza war began,” the report said.
Israeli officials and soldiers, however, told Haaretz that “these are often civilians whose only crime was to cross an invisible line drawn by the Israeli army.”
“We were explicitly told that even if a suspect runs into a building with people in it, we should fire at the building and kill the terrorist, even if other people are hurt,” one soldier told the newspaper.
According to the testimonies of the officers and soldiers, the Israeli army fires at anyone entering the “kill zone” it has defined, whether armed or civilians.
A reserve officer said that “in practice, a terrorist is anyone the army has killed in the areas in which its forces operate.”
“They ask you how many, and I give a number based on what we see and understand on the ground, and we move on. It’s not that we invent bodies, but no one can determine with certainty who is a terrorist and who was hit after entering the combat zone of an Israeli force,” he added.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing severe criticism within Israel for failing to achieve the goals of the war on Gaza, particularly in eliminating the Palestinian group Hamas and returning Israeli hostages.
What is biowarfare? COVID was due to a biological warfare agent. It was designed in one or more laboratories to be more virulent than its natural precursors:
to prefer to infect humans;
to infect more organs than possible in naturally occurring strains;
to interfere with the body’s immune responses.
I say one or more laboratories becasue many of its features had been previously discovered or created in various laboratories, and then these features were essentially grafted onto a coronavirus, one by one; or some features were achieved by passaging the virus through humanized mice, other humanized animals, human cell tissue cultures or humans themselves.
Why were these features created? In which labs?
Why were they painstakingly added to a coronavirus backbone? Where was this done and how many labs were involved?
Why was a coverup by western scientists so critical? Because claiming that pandemics come from animals living in nature, and are spread to humans due to our incursions into their territory, was needed to justify the entire biosecurity agenda that the WHO is steamrolling over us.
By the way, the newest version of the treaty (released March 7, 2024) states that part of the WHO plan is to “identify” those areas where disease “spillover” occurs. You watch: the WHO will then empty those areas of humans. It really is a great cover story, “spillover.” Except it is a total lie.
_____________________
Historically most biowarfare agents were naturally occurring viruses or bacteria. Here is one example in which whistleblowers identified the hand of the CIA.
It is “gain-of-function” research that makes them more virulent and/or more transmissible. Gain of function research was considered illegal under international law until about 2001, and then the customary norms of national behavior simply changed, after the US was caught ignoring the usual norms—as revealed in the NYT on 9/4/2001 and in the book GERMS.
The WHO suggested it should be put in charge of gain-of-function research in the pandemic treaty draft that was released on February 14, 2024. It only took 3 weeks before a new draft was issued on March 7, 2024 in which all mention of “gain-of-function” was erased. I wonder if the rapidity of release of the next draft (it usually takes about 3 months to get a new draft) had to do with cutting out the Gain-of-Function section.
But the idea of requiring nations to supply the WHO with samples of potential pandemic pathogens, and to upload their genetic sequences to publicly accessible databases asap remained, was discussed with even more details in the newest March 7 draft. The WHO and nations would be free to share biological warfare agents aka potential pandemic pathogens (essentially) with anyone they liked.
This makes no sense any way you look at it. The goal seems to be a situation where “Pandemics R Us” and they appear frequently, with no ability to tell where they came from or whether they were deliberate or an accident. By sharing them all globally the WHO has paved the way for using the alibi of accidental release for future COVIDs.
The biowarfare segment starts at about 26 minutes into the episode.
As I said, we at DoortoFreedom.org are here to help you educate your lawmakers while you urge them to question this effort publicly, introduce resolutions, and in other ways throw some boulders in front of the steamroller, just like Louisiana’s Senate did this week.
The last time the extent of Hillary Clinton’s tech “savviness” or lack thereof, became public knowledge was way back in 2016, when she lost the presidential election, amid, among other things, the (classified) emails scandal.
Now, Clinton has graduated from not knowing how email works, to feeling she is qualified to discuss the impact of immeasurably more complex technology, such as AI.
To give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, it has been a long time, and perhaps she has used that time to educate herself.
However, it also turns out that nearly a decade later she still blames her loss to Donald Trump on the since-debunked conspiracy theories about “election disinformation” that supposedly decided the outcome of that vote.
So, Clinton-the-victim’s comments now, half a year before the next US presidential election and amid mainstream media’s “disinformation/AI panic” might read as little, if anything, more than political campaigning.
She claims this is her focus now: still talking about the alleged wrongdoing done to her in 2016, still alleging this was all about “disinformation” – and that it was all “primitive” – compared to what she anticipates is happening now.
Clinton also plays her audience by at once “admitting” that she and hers are ignorant (“I don’t think any of us understood it. I did not understand it. I can tell you, my campaign did not understand it”), to then claim that, for some reason, she should now be taken as an authority.
Not about social media, memes, the “dark web” (or, God forbid, the concept of email…) but also, the regulation of online providers/content. Enter the CDA Section 230 debate – where it seems each side of the ideological aisle interprets its importance according to their political needs of the day.
“Their, you know, the so-called ‘Dark Web’ was filled with these kinds of memes and stories and videos of all sorts… portraying me in all kinds of… less than flattering ways,” Clinton said. “And we knew something’s going on, but we didn’t understand the full extent of the very clever way in which it was insinuated into social media.”
Clinton is now quoted in the press as saying that tech companies – enjoying, and, conservatives say, indulgently abusing their Section 230 protections over third-party content (to favor liberals) – suddenly should no longer have those privileges.
An experienced observer may see this turn of events – somebody like Clinton apparently advocating for Section 230 to be abolished – as simply a maneuver to pile on more pressure on major tech companies to be careful “not to slip” in their “censorship diligence” this election season – or else.
Either way, this is what Clinton said: “Section 230 has to go. We need a different system under which tech companies and we’re mostly talking obviously about the social media platforms – operate.”
What Americans were sold during the COVID vaccine rollout hype was an injection to return to normal – medical blackmail. A two-dose series turned into multiple boosters, as high as nine now recommended by the CDC if you are counting. As many capitulated, no public spokesperson or mainstream media outlet marketing the shot uttered a word about its safety or what would happen if someone was harmed by the rushed, experimental product…a tactic called strategic silence.
A ‘black hole’ for COVID vaccine injury claims was the title of a June 29, 2021 Reuters article describing the Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program, or CICP, run by the Health Resources and Services Administration. A program few Americans ever knew existed and probably still don’t.
This is the program people who are injured by the COVID shot get tossed into if they are educated enough to recognize the harm from the shot and their doctor understands and is courageous enough to file a claim. And here are a few other stipulations that matter:
No attorney & medical expert fee reimbursement
1-year statute of limitations (from the date of administration)
No reimbursement for future medical care
No pain & suffering damages
No appeal to a higher court in the CICP
No medical testimony or hearings. You vs Sec’y of HHS
Lack of transparency on reporting of decisions
It’s been three years since the COVID vaccine rollout and hundreds of millions of doses later, injury compensation is still lacking to the point it borders on criminal. The CICP has recently released their monthly updated injury compensation numbers – three weeks late for those keeping an eye on them.
11 claims compensated…
For a grand total of… $38,893.
Proponents of COVID vaccine safety will use this number, 11, as proof the vaccine is indeed safe ignoring how the CICP is monumentally unfit for its current purpose.
Meanwhile, as the public tries to piece together the true human damage caused by the COVID shots, we take a look at another broken, unfit program in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Can you spot an issue once the COVID shots began going into American arms on an industrial scale in 2021?
In addition to the deaths, there have been 214,906 hospitalizations, 154,245 urgent care visits, 242,537 doctors office visits, 10,767 cases of anaphylaxis, 17,688 cases of Bell’s palsy, 5,115 miscarriages, 21,524 heart attacks, 28,215 cases of myo/per-carditis, 69,936 cases of ‘permanently disabled,’ and 39,544 ‘life-threatening’ and so many more reports to VAERS after the COVID shot. In all, a total of 1,630,913 reports.
Let’s take a moment to do some math here. VAERS is a system that is notorious for underreporting. A study of the system found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Assuming the current number of VAERS reports of 1,630,913 is only 1%, the true number may be closer to something like 163,091,300.
When asked by Chairman Brad Wenstrup if the government was prepared for such an avalanche of reports to VAERS, Marks replied, “We tried to be prepared for that but the avalanche of reports was tremendous.”
So on one side with VAERS, we have a broken government intake program getting overwhelmed on the front end while the other (CICP) sees the outflow of compensation for damages and cases awarded administratively throttled. Caught in between are untold numbers of Americans left hanging in the wind shouldering unsettled medical harms and the bills to follow. America can do better.
The entire vaccine damage infrastructure needs a historic overhaul. From education for medical professionals to recognize and encourage reporting of harms from the shots to greater research on why some are more susceptible than others to vaccine injury while addressing decades of ignored scientific research.
Most importantly, a true compensation mechanism for the injured beyond CICP’s pittances and the long-broken National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The beginning of a fair compromise should, at the very least, end the product liability shield for vaccine manufacturers.
“Drug companies should be liable in civil court for vaccine injuries and deaths and so should anyone giving vaccines to people being denied the human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “There is an urgent need to hold vaccine manufacturers and doctors accountable in civil court for the safety of vaccines and how they are being given.”
“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”
—The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
When confronted by journalist Vicki Dillard on his stance on several Black issues—including his support for Israel’s genocidal obliteration of Gaza, Israel’s targeting of Black youth, and Israel’s training of police in America—presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., ducked, dodged and resorted to the standard political pablum that every politician knows to pitch to the Black electorate. But when this Caucasian Irish Catholic lectured Blacks on how grateful they should be to white Jews for ALL they have done for them, he brought arrogance and ignorance to new levels. A verbatim transcript of his remarks follows:
“I would point out to you that during the civil rights movement that the Jews in this country and particularly the leadership of the Jews took a, um, were at the forefront of that movement and were embraced by Martin Luther King, were embraced by the other leaders of the movement. Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi. They died or that Black Americans could—first the civil rights movement. Many, many other Jews took, took great risk and suffered because of their sacrifices for this civil rights movement…”
And with this fairytale-filled paragraph Kennedy believes he can dismiss the immense record of Jewish slave trading and the slavery-derived profits that made America the “promised land” for Jews, who, as a direct result of the slave trade, slavery, and sharecropping, achieved unprecedented wealth and prosperity. It is impossible to tell exactly what Kennedy is referring to with his disjointed word salad, but what is clear is that Kennedy believes he can milk an alleged civil rights legacy left to him by his father and uncle, Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy respectively. His double-barreled gambit is that (1) he can “embrace” the Black vote with a nostalgic civil righteousness; and (2) he can keep Jewish money flowing into his current presidential campaign by repeating an imaginary “civil rights” history Jews love to hear over and over and over again.
Indeed, Kennedy referred to the civil rights “movement” five times in that single paragraph. But the hard truth is that as attorney general, RFK, Jr.’s father ordered the FBI’s 24-hour surveillance and wiretapping of the movement’s leader—the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King—as part of his Justice Department’s notorious COINTELPRO operation that terrorized and murdered Black leaders and organizations. The harassment suffered by Dr. King, his family, and his movement has been well-covered elsewhere (here and here), but it included sending a menacing letter to Rev. King (see graphic) calling him “an evil, abnormal beast” and advising him to kill himself. Ultimately his assassination in 1968 was most likely carried out by these same agents of the U.S. government. When confronted recently on the role his father played in this targeting of Rev. King, RFK, Jr. exonerates his elders: “There was good reason for them doing that at the time… They knew that Hoover was out to ruin King,” Kennedy acknowledges. Blacks would be hard pressed to find a “good reason” for anyone to unleash J. Edgar Hoover on Black America’s most revered religious leader.
The Kennedys’ Alleged Civil Rights Legacy
As attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy—RFK,Jr.’s father— developed a reputation as an advocate of civil rights in large part based on an incident that occurred in Georgia in 1960 involving the Rev. Martin Luther King, whom the FBI had been monitoring for five years. Dr. King was leading more than 200 activists in a campaign of sit-ins at 11 department stores in Atlanta when he was among the 51 Blacks arrested, but King was sentenced to four months of hard labor at a Georgia penitentiary.
When the incident hit the national news, the public outcry and pressure on “Bobby” to act was intense and so Kennedy called the sentencing judge and appealed to him to allow King to be released on bond and to appeal the conviction. Thus, Robert Kennedy became known as a “protector” of Black rights, if not a crusader. But the Atlanta episode exposed the underbelly of the Black–Jewish relationship and challenges the notion that the “Jewish leaders,” as Kennedy so smugly claimed, “um, were at the forefront of that movement.”
The arrest of Dr. King and the many demonstrators with him occurred at Rich’s Department Store, the largest department store in the South—at the demand of its Jewish owner Richard Rich (in photo). Rich was an honored member of his Atlanta synagogue and a president of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and he was even voted Georgia’s Citizen of the Year by the Association of County Commissioners. Certainly he would be considered a Jewish leader, and he certainly was at the “forefront” of the civil rights movement—but on the opposite side of Black justice.
Rich (who changed his name from Rosenheim) operated the largest segregated business in Atlanta. He paid Blacks less than whites, had separate cafeterias and restrooms, and even held separate Christmas parties. Despite having one of the largest Black customer bases, he denied Blacks the right to work in any capacity other than in the kitchen, and he put those Black women in “Aunt Jemima costumes” to serve the all-white diners. All of this is by anyone’s definition the very opposite of “civil rights.”
This is significant because Jews and their supporters—like RFK, Jr.—demand that Blacks only consider the works of the “helpful” Jews like Goodman and Schwerner, but ignore the much larger role of those powerful Jim Crow Jews like Richard Rich who created the very conditions that necessitated the civil rights movement.
According to the book We Are Not Afraid: The Story Of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney by Seth Cagin and Philip Dray, after the first anti-segregation protest at his store a defiant Richard Rich “warned them angrily that integration would not be tolerated at Rich’s and that if they attempted a sit-in in his store again he would have them all arrested.”
Rich said he based his racism on “local customs,” but the other Jim Crow stores indicated that their racist policies were based on Rich’s, because his store was by far the largest. It was on the orders of the racist Richard Rich that Martin Luther King was handcuffed and jailed. When the publicity threatened to affect Rich’s profits, he tried to escape responsibility and declined to prosecute—but not because King and fellow protestors were right, but because, according to Rich and his attorney Morris Abram, “we didn’t want to make martyrs out of them and King.”
Rich was the most important Jew in Atlanta, and he was following in the footsteps of another leading Jew of a previous generation. In 1906, Oscar Pappenheimer was the most influential Jewish businessman in Atlanta. He offered this “practical suggestion” for Black civil rights in the Atlanta Constitution:
“I propose the registration of negroes in the southern states 14 years of age and more….Each person so registered should possess… a certificate… in which should be entered description, date and place of birth and, at each registration, record of abode, employment, conduct and reference….Let others decide whether it be legal to pass laws bearing on this subject with reference to the colored race only…”
So far, where do these Jews fit in RFK, Jr.’s civil rights fairytale?
RFK’s “Three Jewish boys”
In a truly embarrassing gaffe Kennedy claimed that “Three Jewish boys—Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney—were killed in Mississippi.” This, of course, would be news to James Chaney (left) and his family, who were not only Black but members of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Meridian, Mississippi. Nonetheless, the three martyrs cannot be forgotten for the ultimate sacrifice they made in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1964 for the cause of Black human rights. Nor can we allow falsehoods and propaganda to be cynically promoted in their names. Kennedy is the latest in a long line of mostly Jewish deceivers who use the names and tragic stories of the two “Jewish boys” to very subtly conceal the long and very uncivil history of Jews in the apartheid South.
By far Mississippi had more lynchings and racist violence than any other state. It is where at least 581 human beings met a horrifying, trial-free demise, and it is where three outright massacres of Blacks occurred in Vicksburg, Clinton, and Macon. After slavery Blacks made great strides in education and began building independent communities, so whites who saw no other role for Blacks but as plantation laborers increased their anti-Black violence and repression. In 1890, Mississippi legislators passed a state constitution specifically to “eliminate the nigger from politics.”
On the other hand, the two Jewish New Yorkers—Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman—were coming to a state that had loved and embraced Jews—and vice versa—for centuries. It is a secret reality that the most distinguished Jewish historians, Rabbi Dr. Jacob Marcus and Dr. Abraham Peck, proudly expressed in the book Jews in Early Mississippi:
“Where else would members of the Christian community donate monies to help build the local synagogue? Where else could Jews be members of the city council or even become mayor? Where else, as in the case of Leopold Marks, could a town be named after a Jew? And when it came time to answer the call to arms [serving the pro-slavery Confederate army] the Jews of Mississippi went with enthusiasm.”
Drs. Marcus and Peck write that these Jews “had love of and devotion to the state of Mississippi.” With the same evident pride the Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Lifelists 23 Jewish mayors who reigned in cities and towns all over Mississippi. And note that these Jews were considered by their overwhelmingly white gentile voters to be the very best people to lead their slavery-based, apartheid-practicing, drop-of-a-hat lynching, black voter-discriminating towns and cities. As the Institute says, “For the most part, Jews have enjoyed remarkable acceptance in Mississippi.”
Here is a screenshot of their listing:
Jewish leaders, like Natchez, Mississippi, merchant Jacob Soria, would not have “embraced” Martin Luther King, as RFK, Jr. surmises, but would have sold him and his fellow protesters at Rich’s along with the 32 Black men, women and children he advertised for sale at auction in 1839.
Jewish hate groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center exploit the triple murder tragedy to advance the fallacy that the fates of Blacks and Jews in America were somehow intertwined—that their histories are one and the same. And from this hypocritical trick these satanic shysters, claiming to be “friends and allies” of Blacks, have been able to maneuver themselves into organizational control over the Black “civil rights” leadership.
Typical of this Tricknology is the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, who in 2023 stood in front of Dr. King’s children and other Black leaders and pompously “counseled” them on “the history of how Blacks and Jews struggled alongside one another…” He said, “They don’t remember the sacrifices of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman…” But it is Greenblatt who doesn’t remember the sacrifices Blacks made for Jewish wealth in Mississippi and elsewhere in America.
To wit, B’nai B’rith is the parent organization of Greenblatt’s ADL. In deep, dark, Ku Klux Klan-saturated Mississippi the B’nai B’rith of Vicksburg held a dance (left photo below) in 1917 at the dedication of their palatial new “BB club.”
Their new building—opulent even by today’s standards—was designed in Spanish Renaissance architecture and constructed with Georgian marble and fine mahogany with ivory inlay. The lower level had a swimming pool, massage tables, locker rooms, a servant’s entrance, a butler’s pantry; and the upper floors had meeting rooms with pivoted windows, a walnut-encased billiard room, high-relief plaster work accented with electric lighting, a fine dining room, a lounge area in the mezzanine leading to the balcony overlooking the chandeliered ballroom, a roof garden, a gallery with a tiled floor and stone balustrade, a kitchen with a gas range, and a library.
This is how Mississippi Jews were faring 47 years before Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner arrived to help Blacks achieve voting rights! At that same moment, Mississippi Blacks “were landless sharecroppers or laborers facing inescapable poverty,” trapped in oppressive “contracts” with wealthy landowners like H. Hiller, a Jewish merchant who owned 400 of these sharecropper farms.
The pictured “negro shack” on white-owned land was the lot of the vast majority of Mississippi Blacks, whilst Jews flaunted the wealth they acquired in the most obscene way, in the most violently racist state in America.
Today we must ask why on earth would these Jews want to jeopardize, let alone change, this golden reality by participating in any “civil rights” movement? Logically, they would not, and indeed they did not.
Nonetheless, by all accounts both Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman came to Mississippi as dedicated individuals committed to racial justice, and, tellingly, not representing any synagogue or Jewish organization. And though their memories are cynically exploited—as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., just did—for political benefit, a very thoughtful Andrew Goodman offered his community some sage advice about a Black organization that “Jewish leaders” like Greenblatt and his predecessor Abraham Foxman were dedicated to destroying:
“… it is true that the white man (and by this I mean Christian civilization in general) has proved himself to be the most depraved devil imaginable in his attitudes towards the Negro race…. The historical contempt that the white race held for the Negroes has created a group of rootless degraded people. The current neglect of the problem can only irritate this deplorable state of affairs. The Black Muslims should constitute a warning to our society, a warning that must be heeded if we are to preserve the society. The road to freedom must be uphill, even if it is arduous and frustrating. A people must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively.”
According to the aforementioned book We Are Not Afraid, Goodman’s 31-page thesis “The Black Muslims: A Phenomenon of Negro Reaction,” completed just days before he was murdered, “was a young man’s cri de coeur, a pronouncement of beliefs, and an explanation for the action he was about to take.” Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Jonathan Greenblatt must then come to grips with a very inconvenient racial reality—that Andrew Goodman, the man they hold up as a sacred symbol of the Black–Jewish relationship, made his fateful decision to aid the Black struggle in Mississippi as a consequence of the Teachings of the Nation of Islam.
For more on this topic see the Nation of Islam book series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews. Download the free guide by clicking here.
Has Europe really stopped supporting the genocide, ethnic cleansing and starvation war taking place in Gaza? It is clear that changes have occurred in European positions recently, compared to previous months.
European officials have begun to express increasing “concern” about the humanitarian conditions in the Gaza Strip and have recently mentioned the word “international law” in their statements regarding the brutal Israeli war after they had previously ignored it. Then, the European Union (EU) called for a ceasefire for the first time at the European Council summit on 21 March, finally after the Israeli army killed 32,000 Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip.
European positions have budged, but very slowly and with great caution and the result is that they have not yet left the trenches of supporting the ongoing genocide, with scattered exceptions issued by Belgium, Ireland, Spain, Malta and Norway.
It seems clear that the criticism directed at the Israeli side from most European platforms is still cautious, with great care being taken to choose expressions carefully. Most importantly, Europe ignores the fact that its influence gives it the ability to stop war and genocide immediately if it has the political will through a package of sanctions, for example, but it simply does not want to.
Instead, European politicians are currently trying to give the impression that they disagree with the horrors committed by the Israeli government and its forces against 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip, but without doing anything to deter them. Because the invasion of Rafah will bring back the most horrific scenes of World War II to the world of colours, Europe clearly opposes the invasion of this narrow area crowded with displaced persons, as do the allies in Washington as well. However, most European platforms do not declare opposition to the ongoing war, despite all the atrocities that have accompanied it. Indeed, the Israeli war leadership still enjoys generous military supplies from European countries, in addition to the continuation of mutual partnership and cooperation agreements without prejudice or even the threat of being suspended.
Instead of taking serious action to curb the horrific massacre, Europe’s political leadership is deluding its people and the world that it is really acting by talking a lot about providing humanitarian aid and showing concern about the worsening famine in the Gaza Strip, without this changing anything in reality, which is, in fact, worsening. There are also renewed declarations of support for the political vision of the two-state solution, readiness to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state and denounce the attacks of extremist settlers in the West Bank and perhaps impose sanctions on them. Regrettably, none of these relate to the essence of the ongoing war on Gaza, which includes genocide, even though the EU and most European capitals have avoided pronouncing this forbidden word when it comes to Israeli behaviour.
Even if Europe imposes sanctions on a few settlers who attack Palestinian citizens, it ignores what is being done by the Israeli army and its soldiers, who do not stop killing, terrorising and abusing Palestinians in the West Bank, in addition to their atrocities in Gaza. Europe grants immunity to the Israeli army, its officers and its soldiers from any sanctions or even any explicit criticism. The focus of criticism on the behaviour of the settlers is always accompanied by a clear insistence on exempting the army from blame and accountability for war crimes.
History will forever recall that Europe’s political establishment supported genocide against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip from day one in multiple forms through military support, political encouragement, propaganda and financial aid. Moreover, they have remained indifferent to the ongoing public objections against this shameful involvement. The war leadership with clear fascist tendencies would not have been able to wage this terrible massacre without this unwavering European cover, in addition to US and Western support in general.
Political Europe supported the atrocities through a rhetorical plot that included prior justification for everything that any army could commit against civilians. They did this despite knowing that the matter is related to an occupying army whose record is replete with war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. In fact, the Benjamin Netanyahu government, which is the most extreme and racist Israeli government since its creation, had from the very first days declared its intentions to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, war and total destruction. The evidence in this regard is well-documented in the case file South Africa submitted to the International Court of Justice. Yet the EU and most European capitals stuck to a unified narrative, providing excuses for all the atrocities that this army committed in the Gaza Strip, the majority of whose residents are refugee children and women.
European positions did not budge partially until after months of horrific massacres that reached a record level of Palestinian civilian casualties. Their partial change only came months after the brutal Israeli bombing campaign destroyed most homes, hospitals and civilian facilities with ammunition supplied by US and European industries and after starvation in Gaza reached a terrifying and visible peak before the entire world.
Still, European politicians behave as if they are incapable of acting. They continue to make feeble statements and diplomatic appeals to the Israeli side without telling their people and the world that they can take immediate, deterrent and effective steps to stop the genocide, ethnic cleansing and brutal starvation. Alas, they simply do not want to.
The easiest test of the seriousness of European positions is to compare their stand toward the Israeli occupier with the punitive steps taken after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The EU and other European countries have imposed strict, extensive and unprecedented sanctions on Russia since 24 February, 2022, in addition to the sanctions that were previously imposed after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The EU also imposed sanctions on Belarus and Iran due to their roles in supporting the Russian war effort.
On the other hand, the EU and other European countries did not take any clear punitive steps towards Israel, except for the imposition of sanctions against a few settlers. The strangest thing, however, is that Europe rushed to punish the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the Palestinian citizens served by the UN agency by hastily cutting off its funding as soon as uncorroborated Israeli allegations were received regarding some of its employees.
In contrast, Europe’s politicians still exempt the Israeli occupation army from even verbal censure. They choose carefully worded phrases when commenting on the terrible atrocities that the world sees, such as the mass killings at aid distribution points, so that these atrocities are not explicitly linked to the Israeli army.
One of the taboos of political discourse in the EU and the capitals of the continent is the use of specific vocabulary to describe what is happening. During half a year of horrors, expressions such as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing”, “atrocities” and “war crimes” did not appear in European official comments, except in rare exceptions from non-conformist politicians in blog posts. The logical question that has been repeated for months in the words of demonstrators in European squares is: How many more victims would make you consider what is happening to be genocide?
Political Europe is now trying to disavow the image of the party supporting Israel’s war on the Palestinian people with all its atrocities. It is covering up its involvement in justifying this war and encouraging the genocide campaign that has been ongoing for months, including providing multiple forms of military, political, financial and propaganda support from several European countries. Ending the policy of supporting genocide, starvation, war and brutal war crimes has a clear title: ending the partnership and cooperation agreements, imposing strict sanctions, banning the supply of weapons and ammunition and launching a serious humanitarian operation to end the programmed starvation policy. The question remains: How many victims are needed in order to do something like this?
Police in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkov, have said that criminal proceedings have been launched against a local woman who insisted that Ukrainians should not be celebrating their troops’ shelling of Russia’s border regions.
She expressed the opinion despite her own home being hit by a Russian airstrike on her city, which had reportedly targeted electrical infrastructure and defense industry facilities.
Police said in a statement on Saturday that officers “have found a video on social media,” in which a 59-year-old female resident of Kharkov’s Shevchenkovsky District “denied the armed aggression by Russia, supported the invasion of Ukraine and the occupation of part of the state’s territory and condemned the actions of the Ukrainian authorities.”
The clip in question featured a short interview following Russian airstrikes on Kharkov on March 24. The woman spoke with a journalist through an empty window-frame in her home; the glass had apparently been blown out by a nearby explosion.
In the footage, the local resident refused to condemn Moscow and called for an end to violence, saying that the Ukrainians should not “throw” missiles at Belgorod and other Russian border regions and “should not celebrate” those attacks.
When the journalist disagreed with her stance, she replied by saying that they simply had different views. “I believe that one must have friendly relations with neighbors,” the woman stressed, referring to Ukraine and Russia.
Kharkov is located just 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of the Russia–Ukraine border and remains a predominately Russian-speaking city.
She is now being probed for “collaborationist activities,” the police said. As part of a pre-trial investigation, the officers have spoken to witnesses, who “confirmed the pro-Russian stance of the person in question and reported conflicts with her on this issue,” the statement read.
The Ukrainian criminal code was adjusted in March 2022, a few weeks after the launch of Russia’s military operation. It criminalizes a vast array of activities, including the public backing of Moscow’s actions, offering direct material and financial aid to the Russian forces, and the execution of official roles in areas captured by Russia.
Earlier this month, a court in the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia ordered the confiscation of the apartment of an 80-year-old woman for posting pro-Russian comments on social media. She was also slapped with a four-year prison term. The sentence was delivered in absentia because the defendant has been living in Russia for the past several years.
The British government has been grappling with the question of extremism for years now. It has failed even to define extremism in any clear fashion, and has been struggling to fight back against an avalanche of criticism that its counter-extremism policies are Islamophobic.
The genocide in Gaza has focused minds in the British elite, because of the massive sympathy for the Palestinians visible on the streets.
The desperate attempts to cast pro-Palestine protestors as genocidal is a desperate attempt to split the movement. The government is trying to reframe “extremism” in such a way that more radical supporters of Palestinian liberation are demonised, criminalised and disavowed by the rest of the movement.
It’s no coincidence that the new policy he is introducing was dreamt up by Policy Exchange in a paper published in 2022. It recommended: Firstly, a consolidated Centre for the Study of Extremism within government, dedicated to the research and diagnosis of Islamist and other forms of extremism. Secondly, a separate communications unit dedicated to publicly combatting disinformation about the Government’s counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies. Thirdly, a due diligence unit, which develops and monitors criteria for engagement with community organisations.
Lord Shawcross
All of its main proposals were adopted by Lord William Shawcross in his review of Prevent, published in 2023. Shawcross is famously Islamophobic and his review was even denounced by Amnesty. He was appointed as a senior Fellow at the Policy Exchange in 2018, prior to being appointed to the Prevent Review in 2021.
Shawcross’s recommendations were all accepted by the government, and thus the new policy has effectively been written by a leading Islamophobic think tank.
Blacklisting agency
Among the innovations are a new blacklisting agency in Gove’s department (a so-called counter-extremism centre of excellence) and a change in the status of the Commission for Countering Extremism which changes from being an advisory to an enforcement agency.
Behind Policy Exchange
But behind Policy Exchange lies a shadowy group of foundations which provide cash for its work. Though they are secretive, we can reveal at least two.
The first and most significant is the Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, which donates almost every year and has given Policy Exchange more than £3 million between 2007 and 2022. The Wolfson family, which runs the trust, are the owners of the Next retail chain. The boss, Simon Wolfson, declined his bonus in 2020-21, and despite this earned almost £3.4 million that year.
The Wolfson family also funds Beit Halochem, which channels money to the occupation forces which it describes as “heroes”. The family also gives money to the Jerusalem Foundation, which is engaged in promoting illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem.
Another source of funds is the Rosenkranz Foundation, which has given support to the think tank for more than a decade. Along with other Islamophobic causes. Its director, Robert Rosenkranz, was appointed a director of Policy Exchange in 2010.
In other words, British government policy on extremism is captured by Policy Exchange and Policy Exchange is in part a front for Zionist interests.
Defining ‘extremism’
The British government is in a bind. It can’t define extremism and yet it wants to pretend that it can. An amazing display of the lack of support the proposals have was shown on the BBC Question Time programme, where the presenter Fiona Bruce, after weathering many criticisms asked plaintively: “Let me just ask in the interests of balance, is there anyone here who welcomes what Michael Gove had to say?” She was greeted, as she put it with “not a hand up”.
The government claims that its new policy contains a “new definition” of extremism. But there was never an old definition. And the text they have published is not a definition either. There is still no legal definition of extremism, and this is why the government is at pains to point out that “This definition is not statutory and has no effect on the existing criminal law.”
The reason for this is that the government knows that if it tries and create a statutory definition, it will be subject to legal challenge which it will most probably lose. There is a nervousness about this which is intriguing.
First of all, Michael Gove named five “extremist” organisations under Parliamentary privilege, because he knows he would be subject to legal action were he to name them outside the House.
Disrupting the Palestine solidarity movement
Secondly, though the aim here is to destroy and disrupt the Palestine solidarity movement, primarily, no Palestine-related groups were named.
But pro-Palestine group Friends of al-Aqsa was named in drafts of the speech leaked to the media. It also named the Muslim news site 5Pillars and FoA as “divisive forces within Muslim communities”. The government was too nervous even to name them in Parliament.
Gove stated in the Commons that “Islamism is a totalitarian ideology which … calls for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law”. He named three groups, the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage, and Mend, all perfectly legal organisations.
Mend immediately challenged Gove “to repeat his claims outside of parliament and without the protection of parliamentary privilege… [to] provide the evidence… that MEND has called for the establishment of an ‘Islamic state governed by sharia law’”.
Even normally staunch allies, such as government adviser John Mann have criticised the policy. He stated that ministers should be prioritising “bringing communities together”. “The government needs to listen to people who are advising that the politics of division will not work,” he told the BBC.
Sophisticated engagement
The division appears to be between those pushing for a Likudnik scorched earth approach and those who favour a “sophisticated engagement” strategy – as it was described by the Zionist think tank Reut and their collaborators the US Zionist spy agency, the Anti-Defamation League in a report in 2016. Back in 2010, the Reut Institute urged Israel’s “intelligence establishment” to “drive [a] wedge between soft and hard critics” abroad. The former should be subject to “sophisticated engagement strategies” while the latter should be subject to “sabotage” and “attack”, it said.
This is not just a political and strategic difference, but a question of defending the millions in state and Zionist funding ploughed into the maintenance of hundreds of jobs in sophisticated engagements, such as the interfaith industry.
Underlying all this, the danger is that the definition best fits genocidal Zionist groups and their supporters within government, most notably Michael Gove himself. The penetration and capture of key elements of security policy by the Zionists is nothing if it is not, as the new so-called definition puts it, an attempt to “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights” in the service of attempting to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”, most obviously Muslims and Palestinians and their supporters.
Internist & Board-Certified Nephrologist, Suzanne Humphries, MD, shares details on the 10th Anniversary Edition of the groundbreaking book she Co-Authored, Dissolving Illusions, and how the vaccine safety space has changed in a post-COVID world where doctors are speaking out in droves over controversial topic of vaccine injury.
The Libertarian Party has questions for the Department of Justice after the FBI claimed that a “foreign threat” had accessed its Facebook account. A preliminary analysis by the LP was hindered by Meta, which has offered little clarity on the incident.
In a statement published on Friday, LP chair Angela McArdle shared a letter the party received from the bureau warning of the alleged breach. “The FBI maintains active investigations that seek to identify the activities of hostile foreign governments and their intelligence services who target the US government, private sector, and political processes,” the letter says. “The FBI recently obtained information showing that one of these foreign threat actors was in control of various IP addresses that the group used to log into a Facebook account controlled by your organization. The group accessed the account sometime between August 2023 and February 2024.”
One LP employee with knowledge of the letter told the Libertarian Institute that roughly 10 people have access to the Facebook account. The party has not changed access to the page within the past two months.
The employee said the LP was unable to access the user archive for its Facebook account to determine if it had been hacked and has so far received no assistance from Meta in resolving the issue. The organization plans to do what it can to learn more about the supposed “foreign threat actor” and why the FBI was surveilling the account in the first place.
While the source acknowledged that the letter could be the result of “good police work,” the party is concerned the move could amount to a veiled threat from federal agents. Those worries are significantly heightened as two members of the party’s leadership have been contacted by the FBI within the past year, the employee added.
McArdle expressed similar fears in her statement. “We do not trust the FBI. Stories of aggressive FBI field agents have been popping up all over the country. The Biden administration seems to be cracking down on dissenting voices in preparation for the general election.” She continued, “We will continue to dissent, and we will call out the corruption of the current DOJ and Biden administration.”
“The greatest threat to freedom in the US isn’t an anonymous ‘hostile foreign government.’ It is the United States Government. It is the current administration, who has engaged in an unprecedented amount of censorship, coercion, and Orwellian control tactics.”
The letter to the LP came after multiple pro-Palestinian activists said they received visits by FBI agents interested in their social media posts. Rights group Palestine Legal said the house calls amounted to efforts to “intimidate and censor” activists as the US heads toward an election in which Libertarian voters and supporters of Palestine could play a crucial role.
More than 100,000 democratic voters in Michigan voted “uncommitted” in last month’s primary to protest US support for Israel, while LP presidential hopeful Jo Jorgenson received more votes than the margin between Donald Trump and President Biden during the 2020 general election.
The label for Humira, once the best-selling drug in the world, lists its risks in plain print. One of them, in the label’s own words, is new “autoimmune” disease.
A drug prescribed for a condition labelled autoimmune carries a warning that it can cause a condition labelled autoimmune. That contradiction sits in every box, on a folded paper almost nobody reads.
My new book starts there.
No Autoimmunity: The Body Doesn’t Attack Itself
For seventy years, “your body is attacking itself, and we don’t know why” has ended the conversation for people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Hashimoto’s, Type 1 diabetes, Crohn’s and psoriasis. More than eighty conditions now carry the autoimmune label. The diagnosis comes with a prescription for life. It almost never comes with a question about cause.
This book asks the question and answers it from the framework’s own records: its drug labels, its journals, its regulatory filings, and its own experiments. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.