Category Archives: Propaganda

Bloomsbury’s Last Secret: Sado-Masochism

Posted on by

Lytton Strachey, the cultural critic and author of “Eminent Victorians,” a book  that  aimed to expose the darker nature of Christian public figures like Florence Nightingale, is one of the most celebrated figures of  the early twentieth century British intellectual circle called the Bloomsbury group.

The group was named after the Bloomsbury neighborhood in central London where members lived and worked.

The circle included some of the most important intellectuals of the time – the famous economist John Maynard Keynes; the feminist writer Virginia Woolf and her husband, the critic Leonard Woolf; the author E.M Forster and the philosopher G.E.Moore.

Many of them had met while students at Cambridge and they continued to maintain close ties with Cambridge scholars and with groups like the Fabian Society.

The Fabians advocated socialism through gradualism and evolution rather than revolution, but, as with Marx and Engels, they were not from the working-class that they claimed to champion, but from the upper middle-class and higher.

And, again, as with Marx and Engels, they were financed by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. 

Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, was one of  the Fabians and he promoted the one- world government favored by the elite class, as well as its cultural agenda of rampant hedonism, practicing the latter by discarding three wives in turn.

The Fabians also included Beatrice and Sidney Webb, notorious for covering up Soviet communist atrocities; the great playwright George Bernard Shaw, who admitted that the “democratic” part of the Fabian platform was pure propaganda; Annie Besant, a theosophist who was instrumental in the founding of the Indian Independence Movement, which was thus from the start infiltrated by the British; and Harold Laski, whose socialist theories filtered down to the former colonies through his teaching position at the London School of Economics. Generations of post-colonial leaders were indoctrinated there in an ideology that was inherently atheistic, radically egalitarian, and totalitarian in nature.

[Celebrated artist Eric Gill, along with G.K. Chesterton, one of the founders of an alleged “third-way” between capitalism and socialism, was also a Fabian at one point.

Gill was regarded for a long time as a kind of secular saint.

But research in recent years has revealed a different picture.

Unknown to the public, Gill was an incestuous pedophile and adulterer, drew pornographic religious art, and dabbled in exhibitionism, homosexuality, and zoophilia, both before and after his “conversion” to Catholicism.]

Through the Woolfs and their friends, the Bloomsbury group was closely tied to the universities, the occult societies, the Fabians, the left, the anti-colonial leadership, and the League of Nations.

The ideas that permeated one area were inextricably joined with the ideas influencing another.

Property redistribution melded into wife/lover-swapping, polyamory, homosexuality, bisexuality, and pederasty.

Property, Christianity, bourgeois morality, and empire –  they all had to fall together.

Not surprisingly, the enlightened Fabian agenda hid many base appetites.

Keynes was an open homosexual/bisexual and pederast:

Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work Keynes at Harvard:

“ In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large group. Homosexuality, sado-masochism, lesbianism, and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of this large and influential group which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.[9]

Virginia Woolf, who had a history of molestation and mental  illness, had a lesbian affair and eventually killed herself.

Strachey himself was a homosexual pederast.

Letters published in 2005 show that Strachey also practiced S&M and once staged a blasphemous sado-masochistic crucifixion scene with his gay lover.

Thus behind the political revolution, we find  the sexual revolution, and behind that  an agenda that is essentially anti-Christian.

“Although Strachey had had a heterosexual relationship with the painter Dora Carrington, with whom he set up house in 1917, he soon became predominantly homosexual – with an occasional flicker of interest directed at women, including Katherine Mansfield. His last boyfriend was Roger Senhouse, who subsequently became a distinguished publisher.

Dearest old creature, what a villain you are! It was certainly settled that you were to keep Monday for me, and now I gather you’ve arranged to do something else. Tut, tut! What is to be done with you? What fearful punishment? To stand with the right ear nailed in the pillory, I think, at Piccadilly Circus, from midday to sunset on that very Monday!

To Roger Senhouse, Wednesday, July 30, 1930

Strachey had always delighted in verbal blasphemy – and, as described here, playing at crucifixion added erotic spice. I imagine the cut was made, à la Longinus’s spear, in Strachey’s side, which would have made it difficult to apply the salve.

My own dearest creature. Such a very extraordinary night! The physical symptoms quite outweighed the mental and spiritual ones – partly because they persisted in my consciousness through a rather unsettled but none the less very satisfactory sleep. First there was the clearly defined pain of the cut (a ticklish business applying the lanoline – but your orders had to be carried out) and then the much vaguer afterpangs of crucifixion – curious stiffnesses moving about over my arms and torso, very odd – and at the same time so warm and comfortable – the circulation, I must presume, fairly humming – and vitality bulking large… where it usually does – all through the night, so it seemed. But now these excitements have calmed down – the cut has quite healed up and only hurts when touched, and some faint numbnesses occasionally flit through my hands – voilà tout, just bringing to the memory some supreme highlights of sensation…”

How Many German Women Did GIs Rape?

Posted on by

In a recent book, “When The Soldiers Came: The rape of German women at the end of WWII ” (Random House, March 2, 2015) Miriam Gebhardt, a German feminist claims that American soldiers raped 190,000 German women during the occupation of Europe after WWII (1945-1955).

The book is being trumpeted in the mainstream press, from The Daily Telegraph to  Der Spiegel and  The Daily Mail , and also in the alternative media.

In the process, the 190,000 becomes “hundreds of thousands,” then, “a quarter of a million,” (adding rapes by British soldiers) and then (perhaps by adding other post 1945 occupation estimates) “nearly a million” on the Internet.

However, even the author’s central claim of 190,000 rapes by American soldiers  is arrived at by extrapolation from much lower figures in the record, as Der Spiegel reports:

“The total is not the result of deep research in archives across the country. Rather, it is an extrapolation. Gebhardt makes the assumption that 5 percent of the “war children” born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. That makes for a total of 1,900 children of American fathers. Gebhardt further assumes that on average, there
are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims.

Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible. Were the number really that high, it is almost certain that there would be more reports on rape in the files of hospitals or health authorities, or that there would be more eyewitness reports. Gebhardt is unable to present such evidence in sufficient quantity.

Another estimate, stemming from US criminology professor Robert Lilly, who examined rape cases prosecuted by American military courts, arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945 — a disgusting number in its own right.”

More scholarly research suggests that Gebhardt’s extrapolations are more true of the Red Army, whose post-war rape of German women is a far better known story.

In July 2009,  reviewing the American premiere of “A Woman In Berlin,” a film about the mass rape of German women after the liberation/conquest of Berlin after WW II, an NPR review cites a figure of “2 million”  rapes as having been established by historians through hospital records, but then writes that the vast majority were committed by Soviet soldiers.  Several hundred rapes, confirmed by court-martial and other records, were committed by Allied soldiers.

In Elisabeth Jean Wood’s “Sexual violence during war: toward an understanding of variation,” (in “Order, Conflict, and Violence,” Shapiro, Kalyvas, and Masoud eds, Cambridge U. Press, 2008), she cites Norman Naimark, “The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1946-1949“ (Belknap Press, 1995) and Anthony Beevor, “The Fall of Berlin 1945” (Viking, 2002) for estimates of the number of rapes committed by Soviet troops in Berlin alone in 1945, and says the “best estimates” were made by staff at two hospitals in Berlin alone who put the number at between 95,000 and 130,000 (Beevor, 2002, 410).

In The Guardian in May 2002,  Beevor describes the situation outside Berlin  thus:

“The death rate was thought to have been much higher among the 1.4 million estimated victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Altogether at least two million German women are thought to have been raped, and a substantial minority, if not a majority, appear to have suffered multiple rape.”

But those are rapes by the Red Army, not by the allies, and that is an established historical narrative, supported by multiple credible authors.

In May 2014, Deanna Spingola, a well-known anti-Zionist “conspiracy” researcher in the alternative media, published a 794 page book on the Allied rape of women in WW II, “The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination“(Spingola, Trafford, 2014).

Spingola’s book only claims 14,000 rapes were inflicted by Allied soldiers, a much more sober account than the mainstream version, suggesting, as usual, that the mainstream purveys paranoia, conspiracy, and libel at least as often as the “conspiracy” community….and usually with much less warrant.

Spingola bases the 14,000 claim on hospital and court records, citing Giles MacDonogh, 2007, and Jeffrey Burds, 2009.

I looked up both books.

“After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation,” MacDonogh, Basic Books, 2007, is the work of a former Financial Times food journalist.

According to this review, MacDonogh’s book covers such horrors as the starvation and/killing/unnecessary deaths of some 3 million Germans in the post-war occupation, the slaughter of some 250,000 Sudetan Germans by Czechs, which I’ve blogged about earlier, and the mass rape of German women.

He writes that the mass rape of German women was largely the work of the Soviet army, although there were several thousands of rapes perpetrated by Allied soldiers, including the American and French.  MacDonogh claims that the British were less culpable in this area, preferring to barter for sex.

Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Research (a scholarly Holocaust revisionist site), reviewing MacDonogh, says this about the rapes:

“Although most of the millions of German girls and women who were ravished by Allied soldiers were raped by Red Army troops, Soviet soldiers were not the only perpetrators. During the French occupation of Stuttgart, a large city in southwest Germany, police records show that 1,198 women and eight men were raped, mostly by French troops from Morocco in north Africa, although the prelate of the Lutheran Evangelical church estimated the number at 5,000. “

Spingola’s other source is Jeffrey Burds, “Sexual Violence in Europe in WWII, 1939-1945” (Politics & Society, 2009).

I couldn’t find the 14,000 number cited by Spingola until I looked at another book from the same year, “Taken By Force: Rape and American GIs In Europe In WWII,“ (Palgrave Macmillan: August, 2007) by J. Robert Lilley, an internationally known criminologist and sociologist, which gives the 14,000 number as the count for all Allied rape victims in France, Belgium, and Germany. Note that Lilley is one of Gebhardt’s sources, from which she extrapolated her 195,000 figure.

In any case, a year before Spingola and two years before Gebhardt, the Allied rape story had already been covered in an academic book.

In “What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI,” (U. of Chicago Press, May, 2013) Professor Mary Louise Roberts of Wisconsin University described how GIs raped French women after  WWII, again citing the figure of 14,000 for the number of women raped by GIs in Western Europe.

That would include West Germany, but not East Germany, of course, since East Germany was taken over by the Russians, not the Allies.

The book was reviewed by the New York Times. The reviewer describes why an earlier account of GI rape in 2003 by Robert Lilley had had a hard time getting published outside academia – it appeared to show the disproportionate prosecution of rapes committed by black GIs and it was written during the Iraq war.

Another figure for rape in the European theater, 17000,  also comes from Lilley, with the explanation that the difference between this figure and the figures in the JAG (Judge Advocate General) record reflects  that branch being overwhelmed by cases.

But Gebhardt’s thesis should not entirely be dismissed because of her failure to present convincing evidence.

Her larger argument carries weight. Calling sexual interactions between occupying soldiers and impoverished women in an occupied country “voluntary” is surely a euphemism,  as this harrowing account of the interaction between American GIs and Japanese women in occupied Japan argues:

“Immediately after the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the Japanese Ministry of the Interior made plans to protect Japanese women in its middle and upper classes from American troops. Fear of an American army out of control led them to quickly establish the first “comfort women” stations for use by US troops.7 By the end of 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Home Affairs had organized the Recreation Amusement Association (R.A.A.), a chain of houses of prostitution with 20,000 women who serviced occupation forces throughout Japan.8 (Many more women known as panpan turned to prostitution in the struggle to survive in the midst of the postwar devastation.) Burritt Sabin of the Japan Times reported in 2002 that just days before the R.A.A. was to open, hundreds of American soldiers broke into two of their facilities and raped all the women.9 The situation prompted MacArthur and Eichelberger, the two top military men of the U.S. occupation forces, to make “rape by Marines” their very first topic of discussion.10 Yuki Tanaka notes that 1300 rapes were reported in Kanagawa prefecture alone between August 30 and September 10, 1945, indicative of the pervasiveness of the phenomenon in the early occupation.11

Historian Takemae Eiji reports that
. . . US troops comported themselves like conquerors, especially in the early weeks and months of occupation. Misbehavior ranged from black-marketeering, petty theft, reckless driving and disorderly conduct to vandalism, assault arson, murder and rape. . . . In Yokohama, Chiba and elsewhere, soldiers and sailors broke the law with impunity, and incidents of robbery, rape and occasionally murder were widely reported in the press. 12

Two weeks into the occupation, the Japanese press began to report on rapes and looting.13 MacArthur responded by promptly censoring all media. Monica Braw, whose research revealed that even mention of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and particularly the effects of the bomb on civilians, were censored, maintains that pervasive censorship continued throughout the occupation years. “It [censorship] covered all means of communications and set up rules that were so general as to cover everything. It did not specify subjects prohibited, did not state punishment for violations, although it was clear that there were such punishments, and prohibited all discussion even about the existence of the censorship itself.”14

Censorship was not limited to the Japanese press. MacArthur threw prominent American journalists such as Gordon Walker, editor of the Christian Science Monitor, and Frank Hawley of the New York Times out of Japan for disobeying his orders. Even internal military reports were censored.15

Five months after the occupation began, one in four American soldiers had contracted VD.16 The supply of penicillin back in the U.S. was low.17 When MacArthur responded by making both prostitution and fraternization illegal,18 the number of reported rapes soared, showing that prostitution and the easy availability of women had suppressed incidents of rape.”

War Thrives On Fools And Criminals

Posted on by

Gordon Duff, a combat veteran of the Vietnam war, dismisses “Sniper heroics,” in a powerful piece at Veterans Today:

“If you kill more than a dozen people as a sniper and you aren’t guilty of murdering innocent civilians, I would be very surprised.  If you are insane enough to convince yourself, let’s say you are in Afghanistan or Iraq, countries where it is legal for any civilian to carry a weapon and no sane person would go outside without one, that shooting “armed Muslims” makes you a hero, you are both a liar and a fool.  You are probably also a psychopath.

Most of the armed “insurgents” the US has killed during the War on Terror were friendly militias, local herdsmen or, at best, armed tribal units that were armed tribal units when they fought the British and Russians as well for hundreds of years.  We are talking about “patriots” defending their country against foreign invaders who support drug cartels and criminal politicians like the governments the US has placed in power over and over.

I do expect this; I expect an American Sniper to use his skills to protect American personnel from attack even if America is there as part of an armed aggression on the part of whoever it is that runs America, which sure as hell isn’t the American people. …… Yes, this is not a simple story and there are no entire good or bad people.  Welcome to reality…..

99% of talk about snipers is plain bull and mythology.  I am not the world expert but I have “done the work” in the worst place on earth, I collect sniper rifles and own a company that builds them. …..

I make weapons and can only hope they are used properly.  There are bad people who deserve killing but most of them are trained and supplied by the Mossad, CIA and our British and French allies, I am talking Boko Harum, ISIS and that gang.  You didn’t know that?  Imagine that…..

In South Vietnam there were some legitimate targets, sort of.  In truth, the US was in South Vietnam illegally and on the wrong side in the first place so any moral high ground disappears immediately anyway.  So, if you were a “sniper” killing the enemy, one thing for certain, you were shooting people better than you are.

It took a fat minute to figure that one out and absolutely everyone knew it, something we aren’t so sure about with our new “professional” military today. …..

While working for an intelligence organization long ago, I remember meeting with fellow “Vietnam vets,” all claiming to be Navy Seals, Marines or Ranger/Special Forces.  They were cooks and truck drivers, honorable occupations of course and perhaps they shouldn’t have felt pressured to make things up, but you see where I am going with this…

During one “ambush” we killed 3 people, a woman, a child and someone over 70.  They had one weapon, an unloaded and broken AK47.

This was during a truce, they were coming back to see their family as per agreement and we were there to kill them in violation of the truce, something we always did.  Nobody talks about such things?  Imagine that……..

What we are saying is simple, snipers played no real role in Vietnam……..

Many of the special operations units spent 90% of their time in rear areas living as well as possible doing exactly what the rest of us would do if we were as smart as them.  It would be impossible for any of these people to see as much real combat as an Army draftee who served as a simple “combat infantryman.”

What has been confirmed is that some American units serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan simply murdered civilians, and we mean women and children in “drive by” type shootings.  They would drive down the road and simply shoot at people walking by.  Americans have been convicted of this.  Another “trick” is to drive by a group of kids and toss a hand grenade at them.

Were these deaths added to the “sniper kills?”  My guess would be yes.

Another point that isn’t bought up is that within the US military street gangs have a very strong presence.  This has made the US military an unreliable guest anywhere in the world.  In Vietnam we had units that were basically “trash.”  Remember the Mai La massacre?  An American unit made up mostly of draftees and 3rd string officers murdered between 400 and up to 800 civilians, lining them up and shooting them down, we are talking only women, babies, small children and a few old men……

War is about thugs with guns working for banks and oil companies, for drug cartels and crooked politicians.  War is a racket, but wait a minute, I stole that from someone else.  There are no good wars, there never were.  The Civil War wasn’t fought over slaves and the American War of Independence, in the end, turned out to be a struggle between international banking cartels with the worst one winning in the end when the Rothschilds took over the US in 1913.

After that, we fought World War I and II on their behalf and the rest is history, a history we live every day.  Hiring criminals from “clown colleges” to rewrite history, making movies about snipers and staging Paris street theatre isn’t going to change any of it.  The whole thing is a con.

No one has clean hands, not me, not anyone.  Even speaking up isn’t enough and few speak up at all.  Simply put, if you leave the US and kill a citizen of another country because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney or their friend Netanyahu makes a buck from it and you consider yourself a hero instead of a fool or criminal, talking to you isn’t going to help.”

Mehdi Hasan On The Notable Absence Of Holocaust Humor

Posted on by

Mehdi Hasan at The New Statesman points out the glaring contradictions in the free speech orthodoxies of the liberal establishment:

“Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No?

[Lila: Consider the following joke:

“Question: How many Jews can ride in a Bentley?

Answer: Six million. Two in the front, three in the back, and 5, 999, 995 in the ash-tray.”

How “brave” would it have been to publish this joke on the front-page of a magazine, while Jews were being rounded up and exterminated by the state?

Would it have been brave free speech or vile Nazi incitation?

If someone had murdered the “humorist,” would decent people have been inclined to shrug and say, “one less idiot,” or would they have marched in solidarity on the streets?]

Mehdi Hasan (cont.):

“How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers?

I didn’t think so (and I am glad it hasn’t). Consider also the “thought experiment” offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January “wearing a badge that said ‘Je suis Chérif’” – the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. “How would the crowd have reacted? . . . Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?” Do you disagree with Klug’s conclusion that the man “would have been lucky to get away with his life”?

Charlie Hebdo: The Free Speech of Fools

Posted on by

From Lenin’s Tomb, a clear-eyed look at the bigotry and spite posing as satire in the pages of Charlie Hebdo:

“From what psychological depths did you drag up the nerve to “laugh” at a cartoon representing veiled women baring their buttocks as they bow in prayer towards “Mecca-relle” [a pun onmaquerelle, the madam of a brothel – trans.]?  This pathetic stream of crap isn’t even shameful; its stupidity embarrasses you, even before it reveals your state of mind, your vision of the world.”

IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID OFFENSE TO MUSLIMS

 

Lenin’s Tomb:

“After September 11, Charlie Hebdo was among the first in the so-called leftist press to jump on the bandwagon of the Islamic peril. Don’t deprive yourself of receiving your own share of the shit, at a moment when the number of Islamophobic acts is breaking records: 11.3% higher in the first 9 months of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012, according to l’Observatoire national de l’islamophobie. They worry about a “new phenomenon” of violence, marked by at least 14 attacks on veiled women since the start of the year.”

Lila:

Here are some more Charlie Hebdo images that the mainstream media will not publish. They demonstrate convincingly that only some religions – specifically traditional Islam and traditional Christianity – were targeted by the cartoonists, not others.

They didn’t mock Judaism, for instance.

That omission makes Charlie Hebdo in effect a mouth-piece of Zionist sensibilities.

Notice also that Arabs and blacks were the main objects of the magazine’s animus,  suggesting that its so-called satire was no more than a vehicle through which it  propagated Anglo-Jewish racial supremacism.

Hebdo Cartoon: JESUS CHRIST SODOMIZING GOD THE FATHER AND BEING SODOMIZED BY THE HOLY GHOST

 

IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID OFFENSE TO CHRISTIANS

Hebdo Cartoon: PROPHET MOHAMMED DISPLAYING HIS BUTTOCKS FOR APPROVAL

 IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID OFFENSE TO MUSLIMS

 

Hebdo Cartoon: ASKING IF DRAWING MOHAMMED’S BUTTOCKS IS PERMISSIBLE

 

IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID OFFENSE TO MUSLIMS

Hebdo Cartoon: FILM MAKER CLAIMING THAT PROPHET MOHAMMED HAD SEX WITH PIGS, BECAUSE  HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR NINE YEAR OLD PROSTITUTES

IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID OFFENSE TO MUSLIMS

Lila:

Meanwhile,  when it came to ridiculing the  religion or beliefs of the ruling class, the COWARDS at Charlie Hebdo failed miserably. 

They published no pornographic pictures of Maimonides or Moses, no edgy jokes about the Holocaust, no genitalia of Anne Frank, no raunchy pedophile gags about Rabbis.

[And I, for one,  would not wish them to. I would wish, however, that they had extended the same respect to other people and other faiths.]

Instead, the magazine caved in and fired an employee over the whisper of anti-Semitism. 

Thus, the moniker of “equal opportunity satire” so universally applied to Charlie Hebdo is demonstrable propaganda,  intend to hoodwink the credulous.

Selective satire was the facade behind which the lewd ravings of Zionist hate-mongers flourished without public outrage,  ceaselessly stoking the searing flames of perpetual civilizational war.

 

 

 

A Traditionalist On Rabbinical Persecution Of Christians

Posted on by

A passionate, politically incorrect refutation of the current pieties about the supposed inveterate anti-Semitism of the traditional Catholic church, at Fish-eaters.com.

It lists the extensive persecution of Christians over the centuries at the hands of Rabbinical Jews, starting with their judicial murder of Jesus,  using the Roman state as a proxy:

I know that it’s politically correct to bash the Romans on this account, but the Romans had no issue with Jesus and “only” acted as instruments to carry out the Jews’ wishes (which is culpability and cowardice enough, to be sure). The Jews, however, did want Christ dead, and used Roman power to make it happen. The Russians didn’t want it, the Poles didn’t want it, the Ugandans didn’t want it, Pilate washed his hands of the matter: the Jews wanted it.

John 11:45-53 (KJV), after the raising of Lazarus: Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Note, though, please, how many Jews here came to know the Messiah, Who Himself was genetically (partly) Semitic and Who fulfilled the Old Testament promises. The point, which I reiterate here, is that “race” and “ethnicity” are not the issue; the issue is a matter of idealogy, faith, belief, and acts of the will. Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc. — most of the Apostles — were Semitic followers of the Old Testament religion who came to know that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and who gave up their lives defending that belief.

In addition, while it is obvious historical fact that, proximately, it was Palestinian Jews who used Roman power to kill the Messiah, it is also true — and has been taught as true since the Church’s beginning — that we are all responsible. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), taught:

Furthermore men of all ranks and conditions were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Gentiles and Jews were the advisers, the authors, the ministers of His Passion: Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, all the rest deserted Him.

and

In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.

In other words, Palestinian Jews were historically, proximately responsible for Christ’s Passion and death, just as were those Romans who allowed themselves to be cowed by them, but culpability for His death lies in us all — the more so with Christians who know Him and believe Him, but still offend Him. While the post-Temple Jewish religion can be described as a “Deicide religion” in that it glories in Deicide when exulting in the murder of Jesus, “the Jews” cannot be decribed as “Christ-killers” in any literal sense. This isn’t some new Vatican II teaching that changed the “anti-semitic traditional teaching of the Church” as anti-Catholics want you to believe so they can shame the Church into submission; it is what the Church has always taught, and the only reasons I even bring it up are our inability nowadays to speak of historical fact as revealed by the Gospels, the willingness of too many people to blame everyone — anyone — but “the Jews” (why it’s OK to diss “the Romans” but not “the Jews” is beyond me as a daughter of Rome), and the stupid, nerve-wracking idea that the Church “used to be anti-semitic,” but now, “since Vatican II,” the Church has changed Her teachings.

That last is only the world’s way of dismissing traditional — i.e, true — Catholic teaching altogether and of making the Church seem wishy-washy, anything but divine, and, above all, malleable (“You’ve ‘changed’ your teachings on the Jews, why not change your attitudes toward sex and priestly celibacy and the ‘ordination’ of women?”) It’s a way of shaming the Church’s History and stealing Her rich heritage from those who love Her. And it’s also a way of propping up “the spirit of Vatican II,” the most destructive force that has ever afflicted Holy Mother Church and which has rendered the institutional Church impotent and sterile, and has almost destroyed the Roman Rite. All one has to do to see the “disconnect” between the what the “the spirit” of this Council really did and how the Modernists want you to perceive it is to study the horrific effects of the interpreations of Vatican II — and then read how Jews, neo-Catholics, and the media speak of the “great Council” while they dismiss the “pre-Vatican II Church” as barbarous and unenlightened.

At any rate, it’s rather paradoxical, this clamor on the part of Jews to absolve “the Jews” of Deicide (note the hysteria in response to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”), especially when in their “holy” books and by the pens of their “sages,” they openly and proudly state that Jews did kill Jesus. Note what Maimonides, who is considered by Jews to be “The Second Moses,” wrote in his “Letter to Yemen”:

[Jesus of Nazareth] impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.

The Jewish historian Josephus confirms the Gospel account in his “Antiquities”:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day [my emphasis].

And see the Toledoth Yeshu (onsite). Interestingly, an article appeared on the website of the American Jewish Committee that affirmed what is being said here about what Jewish writings themselves say about the death of Jesus. That article disappeared from the site within days (oops! how’d this get published?), but you may read the article here on-site.

To continue with the topic: the errors of the Pharisaic rabbis, their legalistic, “anti-goy” elitism, grew even greater after the Temple fell and the only priests left were New Covenant priests. Their desires for a restored Jerusalem and a worldly Messiah-King were not shared by the Christians, ethnically Hebrew or not, whose Messiah told them to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”; this Christian anti-Zionism only fueled the Pharisees’ hatred for the Christians.

Around A.D. 100, the Pharisees started a school at Jamnia (often referred to as the “Council of Jamnia” or “Jabneh”) to solidify the Pharisees’ power. They threw out the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, used by the Palestinian Jews for hundreds of years and cherished by the Apostles, because this version, which contains the Deuterocanonical Books (referred to as the “Apocrypha” by Protestants), was used by the Christians to proselytize Jews due to its more specific language used to convey the Messianic prophecies. From this “Council of Jamnia,” too, came the Birkat ha-Minim — a part of the Amida prayer which consists of a curse against Christians asking God to destroy us. This Amida prayer with its curse against Christians has been prayed by religious Jews three times a day for almost two millennia. Rounding out this racism, in A.D. 125, one of the most respected rabbis (he is quoted over 700 times in the Talmud), Rabbi Simeon Ben Johai, formally declared that non-Jews are not even human.

Jewish pogroms against Christians took place not only in Palestine (note the famous Bar Kochba Rebellion of A.D. 135), in Caesarea, Scytpolis, Yemen, Antioch — a town through which Jews dragged the body of Patriarch Anastasius in A.D. 608, after they threw his genitals in his face and disembowelled him — and any other place they could get away with it.

When reading the typical history book talking about the “repressiveness” of the Church, or hearing a typical dispensationalist Protestant sermon reviling the great Saints like John Chrysostom who spoke against the errors of Pharisaic Judaism (just as Jesus did!), you won’t hear a word about the above — or how Jews agitated anti-Christian animosity among Kings and Emperors, resulting in the slaughter of true Israel (the Church). You won’t read this, from Sozomen’s (c. A.D. 375-c. 447) “Ecclesiastical History,” Book II, Chapter IX:

When, in course of time, the Christians increased in number, and began to form churches, and appointed priests and deacons, the Magi, who as a priestly tribe had from the beginning in successive generations acted as the guardians of the Persian religion, became deeply incensed against them. The Jews, who through envy are in some way naturally opposed to the Christian religion, were likewise offended. They therefore brought accusations before Sapor [King of Persia], the reigning sovereign, against Symeon, who was then archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, royal cities of Persia, and charged him with being a friend of the Caesar of the Romans, and with communicating the affairs of the Persians to him. Sapor believed these accusations, and at first, ground the Christians with excessive taxes, although he knew that the generality of them had voluntarily embraced poverty. He entrusted the exaction to cruel men, hoping that, by the want of necessaries, and the atrocity of the ex-actors, they might be compelled to abjure their religion; for this was his aim. Afterwards, however, be commanded that the priests and conductors of the worship of God should be slain with the sword. The churches were demolished, their vessels were deposited in the treasury, and Symeon was arrested as a traitor to the kingdom and the religion of the Persians. Thus the Magi, with the co-operation of the Jews, quickly destroyed the houses of prayer.

You won’t hear how Jews allied themselves with the Christian-born but later professing pagan Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome between A.D. 361 and 363 and fourth successor of Constantine, who oppressed Christians even as he tried to help Jews rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, a project that ended when mysterious balls of fires emanated from the ground (and sky, depending on the account) at the site, burning the workers to death, and an earthquake struck. (For fascinating accounts from primary sources as to what happened when the Jews tried to rebuild the Temple, see this page, onsite).

You won’t hear how the Jews allied themselves with the Persians in attacking Palestine in A.D. 614 — and how they reveled in slaughtering the Christians there and razing their churches, including the one built over Christ’s Tomb. According to Monk Strategius of Mar Saba (Antiochus Strategos), Jews purchased Christian slaves from the Persians for the sole purpose of slaughtering them “just as one might buy cattle to slaughter.” 3

You won’t hear how Jews rose to high levels in medieval Spanish society by falsely claiming to have converted to the Holy Faith, how many became priests, rose to prominence in the Church, and then proceeded to Judaize that country’s Catholics. You won’t hear how these false converts also cooperated with Muslims to overtake that country during the Muslim aggressions (oh, so that’s why that nasty Catholic Queen Isabella kicked them out in 1492!)

You won’t hear that on Yom Kippur, Jews pray the Kol Nidre, a prayer that releases them, in advance, of all vows they will make in the upcoming year, a prayer which allowed them to engage in fraudulent business practices while still remaining loyal to Judaism.

And you most certainly won’t hear about usury — the other true source of “anti-semitism” in Christian lands.”

 

 

Prof. Boyle Recycles Term Paper, Gets “F”

Posted on by

H/T to  commenter at Lankanewspapers.com for pointing out that Dr. Boyle  has copied his charges against Sri Lanka, made in 2013:

“UN Sri Lanka Tribunal Will Avoid ICC Jurisdictional Issues,“ Francis Boyle, Tamilnet.com, July 23, 2013.

He has recycled them from his charges against Israel in 2008:

“An Israeli war-crimes tribunal may be the only deterrent to a global war,” Francis Boyle, Globalresearch.ca, December 31, 2008.

Furthermore, in  both pieces, Boyle cites U.N. Charter Article 22 as authorizing the creation of an International Criminal Tribunal as a subsidiary organ to which Sri Lanka (and, previously, Israel) would be brought.

But is this even possible under the terms of the charter?

Here is Article 22 from the UN Charter:

The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.”

The language is vague, but is there any warrant here or elsewhere to read this article  so broadly so as to bestow powers on the General Assembly to create an international criminal tribunal?

Especially, when elsewhere the powers of the General Assembly are severely circumscribed?

At JustSecurity.org, Professor Derek Jinks, Marrs McLean Professor of Law at the highly regarded University of Texas law school, blows this notion out of the water.

Citing learned literature on the subject and previous  advisory opinions of the International  Court of Justice itself (which is under the authority of the Security Council, not the General Assembly of the UN), he writes:

 Indeed, the more common reading of Article 22 is that it accords the GA the authority to establish only subsidiary organs enjoying the same powers as the GA itself (for good sources, see Simma, et al., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 427-28 (2nd ed. 2002); Goodrich, et al., Charter of the United Nations 191 (3rd ed. 1969)). In other words, the GA cannot via a subsidiary organ wield any powers it does not otherwise enjoy under the Charter. Article 22, on this view, is not an end run around the enumerated powers of the GA.

An early advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice confirms this view. In assessing the legality of the GA-established United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT)—a tribunal for resolving disputes between U.N. staff and the United Nations—the ICJ found that Article 22 alone does not empower the GA to establish a judicial body because the GA enjoys no judicial authority under the Charter.”

Since Wikipedia gives Dr. Boyle’s resume thus:

A professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.[1] Boyle received a A.B. (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. He also practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould,”

I think it would be safe to say that the activist professor is not incompetent but extraordinarily competent.

That being the case, it would also be safe to infer that  “propaganda” or “chicanery” remains the only cogent explanation for Dr. Boyle’s misleading public statements.

I have excerpted the texts of Dr. Boyle’s two articles (on Israel in 2008 and on Lanka in 2013) to show how much of the latter is simply regurgitated.

Black text:  Identical language

Red text:  Lankan names substituted for Israeli names, with some additional details at the end.

Purple text: Incorrect insertion of names appropriate to the charges against Israel into the document charging Sri Lanka.

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“The United Nations General Assembly (GA) must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Sri Lanka (ICTSL) as a `subsidiary organ` under U.N. Charter Article 22.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

The United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a ‘subsidiary organ’ under U.N. Charter Article 22.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“and organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the Security Council.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“The purpose of the ICTSL would be to investigate and prosecute Sri Lanka war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine“

Lila:  Notice the careless insertion of the wrong countries’ names into a boiler-plate “genocide” denunciation.

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“The purpose of the ICTI would be to investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“–just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Milosevic Regime throughout the Balkans.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Milosevic Regime throughout the Balkans.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“The establishment of ICTSL would provide some small degree of justice to the victims of Sri Lanka`s war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Tamil people in North-East–just as the ICTY has done in the Balkans-“

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“The establishment of ICTI would provide some small degree of justice to the victims of Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine–just as the ICTY has done in the Balkans.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“Furthermore, the establishment of ICTSL by the U.N. General Assembly would serve as a deterrent effect upon Sri Lanka`s political leaders such as Sri Lanka`s President Mahinda Rajapakse, his sibling and Defense Secretary, Gothabaya Rajapakse, another brother and minister for Development, Basil Rajapakse, Military Commander Sarath Fonseka and other top generals that they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Tamils from the NorthEast of Sri Lanka.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“Furthermore, the establishment of ICTI by the U.N. General Assembly would serve as a deterrent effect upon Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, Defense Minister Barak , Chief of Staff Ashkenazi and Israel’s other top generals that they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Lebanese and the Palestinians.”

FRANCIS BOYLE ON LANKA, 2013

“Without such a deterrent, Sri Lanka will likely continue the cultural genocide including forced colonization, grabbing land from Tamil civilians, and militarization of day-to-day life and engaging the military in civilian affairs.

FRANCIS BOYLE ON ISRAEL, 2008

“Without such a deterrent, Israel might be emboldened to attack Syria with the full support of the Likhudnik Bush Jr. Neoconservatives, who have always viewed Syria as ‘low-hanging fruit’ ready to be taken out by means of their joint aggression. If Israel attacks Syria as it did when it invaded Lebanon in 1982, Iran has vowed to come to Syria’s defense.”

Tamils Tigers Allegedly Paid Francis Boyle, Bruce Fein

Posted on by

Like right-libertarian Bruce Fein (a Ron Paul campaign staff-member),  leftist Francis Boyle is alleged to have been hired by the Tamil Tigers in 2009 to propagandize for them.

The Western activists recreated the Tigers as oppressed innocents, in need of a race-based transnational “eelam” of their own.

Bailaman.blogspot.com gives some detailed background on the development of the Tigers in the West, where they are quite content to be a minority ruled by Caucasians, while demanding that Lanka cede half its territory to them.

Bailaman:

The Tamil Tiger sympathisers have always wanted moderate Tamils to think that non-violent demonstrations against laws and policies back in the 40’s, and 50’s fell on deaf years, and the Tamil Tigers were created because peaceful means yielded no results.

I have written in the past how even the non-Tamils protested peacefully at the ‘Sinhalese only law’.

The law was changed in the 50s, the Tigers were formed in late 70s.

Prabhakaran was a bank robber, a common criminal, who transformed his group of thugs into what he called freedom fighters.

Don’t fall for it. I can sit here and point out at the lies in Makenthiran’s article above. But that’s not the purpose of this post.”

(Lila: Tamil Eelam in Lanka has about as much legitimacy as Tamil Eelam in Canada, where, after all, Tamils are also a minority in a Caucasian dominated society.)

Bailaman:

The last time I checked most of Canada’s parliament was Caucasian dominated. Majority and minority representation in a government is no reason to hate. To think that Sinhalese hate Tamils with a passion is beyond logic. Not just Sinhalese, but every ethnic group hated the Tamil Tigers with a passion. And every democratically elected government is bound by laws to protect it’s citizens. No armed entity, like the Tamil Tigers, will be allowed to terrorise parts of Canada with suicide bombs and forced child recruitment to carve out a separate state for only Tamils.

To dream of a mono-ethnic state called Tamil Eeelam, and to prance around like it’s all OK, is just stupid.

Tamil Eelam, the concept and the ideology, is racist in every form.

Educated moderate Tamils should know that any contribution towards segregating Tamils from other ethnic groups in Sri Lanka is morally wrong.

That’s what Eelam stood for.

It wasn’t just a separate state, but half of Sri Lanka’s land mass, and one third of it’s coast handed to terrorist (LTTE) for a Tamil only state.”

(Lila: Since LTTE fronts for Western elite interests, that means the West would in effect have a regional nuclear base in Asia).

Bailaman:

Be ashamed.. Be very ashamed for supporting this doctrine.….

…Rudrakumar is said to have invested over $400,000 on both Fein and Boyle as spokesmen to regurgitate Tamil Tiger propaganda. He hoped that the two distinguished non-Sri Lankans will influence western decision makers. More importantly, he hoped that their criticism of Sri Lanka would help keep the Tamil Eelam flame alive by influencing the ignorant.

The Tigers raised a million dollars a month in Canada. Those digits are dropping fast. A lot is at stake.

It is no secret that the Tigers have been lobbying for support in the US for their cause. Hillary Clinton too has received donations from the LTTE.”

More Disinformation From Francis Boyle

Posted on by

On Facebook, a reader sifts through the disinformation in Francis Boyle’s “Destroying Libya and World Order, ” (Clarity Press, 2013   ):

Careful reading reveals subtle suggestions and outright lies. I will here give to you some examples

2) The Boyle book, constantly “shows” Muammar al-Qathafi as unstable and unreliable! That being why other nations did not want to deal with him!!!! and that no nation ever took Muammar al-Qathafi or his “Third Universal Theory” seriously…and that this is the major reason why Muammar’s hope for Arab or African unification failed.

3) Boyle also accepted the lie that there was an “Arab Spring”, and on p.178 explicitly states that the uprising in Benghazi was justified!!!!!…saying that the West” immediately hijacked a legitimate but very brief ‘Arab Spring’ in Benghazi…”, etc..

Boyle also discredits the notion of there being a malevolent elitist group in the world espousing Zionism; saying, that this concept of an evil “Zionism is a mental illness evident among some more than others”…………

..6) Boyle also retains the CIA line that Syria was responsible for Lockerbie, the Berlin discotheque and the Italian air flight bombings, etc…(reading pp. 186 and onward)
WE KNOW this is utterly untrue, and once again scapegoating for another take-over…as neither IRAN or Syria are the demons as MSM and the Western Governments have portrayed them.

That these acts of terror were FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS committed by the western governments themselves with the CIA, MI 6 and French Intelligence service performing these heinous (amongst innumerable other disgraceful “operations”)……

…I have only barely scratched the errors in this most Western approach to the current situation of North Africa and the contemporary world as mistakenly and falsely portrayed by FRANCIS A. BOYLE.
I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK!”

 

The Talented Professor Boyle…….

Posted on by

Deconstruct E-zine, a Serbian blog, turns the spot-light on Professor Boyle’s controversial resume, which, mysteriously, hasn’t ended his high-profile academic/activist/legal career.

Considering how many people have had their careers derailed and lives ruined for advocating unpopular political positions, it is highly suggestive that Professor Boyle has flourished, while very publicly pursuing war-crimes litigation against President Bush, claiming former Libyan president Qaddafi as a close friend, and cavorting with Muslim extremists of all stripes.

He (Boyle) nevertheless maintains a highly visible public profile for a law professor, making appearances on such interview shows as Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor and Moneyline with Lou Dobbs.

Boyle is a United States citizen, but also holds honorary citizenship of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which he received in 1993 while he was an adviser to Bosnian war-time president Alija Izetbegovi?.

Boyle has also taken a strong stand in favor of Hawaiian independence and against a University of Illinois “pub crawl” that occurs on St. Patrick’s Day, arguing that the latter is offensive to persons of Irish nationality. In the former he uses a resolution signed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton apologizing for U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy as justification for Hawaiian independence. In the latter, he filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, claiming that he had to endure a “hostile work environment.”

And more:

There are a number of journalists who were forced to become “independent reporters” because they dared to veer off the required Serb-bashing “angle,” and some world renowned intellectuals and cultural figures were all-but crucified simply because they refused to fall in line and gang-up alongside others pounding the Serbs, like one of the greatest Austrian writers, Peter Handke.

But Professor Boyle seems to be flourishing, despite his pigheaded support for Islamic radicals world around and dogged efforts to bring great misery upon his own country, by sending its highest representatives to another Kangaroo Court, such as The Hague’s ICTY where Serbian nation is being customarily branded as a nation of genocidal maniacs, oftentimes without even the semblance of a proof.

I guess one should congratulate the Western Elite for managing to turn the world on its ear and foul-up every trace of common decency and basic sense of justice.”