Terra Firm no.24: The Zionists’ Rise to World Domination.

Foot has been a member of the socialist workers party for decades. Unlike the rest of the left, the party still maintains its political integrity and continues to oppose the zionist government’s oppression of palestinian people, “A sustained policy to curb the excesses of the israeli government in palestine, the russian government in chechnya and the pakistani and saudi governments against their own people would do far more to isolate bin laden and his terrorists than the relentless bombing - and inevitable further impoverishment - of the poorest country on earth.”[46]

Freedland's article is an example of arab-baiting, pro-semitic bigotry, from yet another of the guardian’s zionist revisionists. The idea of america invading iraq was concocted by three jews, perle, wolfowitz and feith. When they became members of the bush adminstration, they, and their zionist supporters in the media, used lies about weapons of mass destruction, saddam’s links to international terrorism, etc to trick the american public into supporting the invasion of iraq which, so far, has cost vast amounts of money that could have been used for better purposes and the lives of nearly 900 american military personnel. As far as the zionists in the bush administration were concerned, the aim of the invasion was to increase the control of the zionist state of palestine over the arab world. The idea that america wanted to bring democracy to the middle east is as fallacious as the idea that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. If americans wanted to bring democracy to the middle east then, after the gulf war, they would have insisted that kuwait created a democracy but they did nothing of the kind. If americans wanted to bring democracy to the middle east the first thing they have to do is to stop funding the racist zionist state in palestine which is the prime cause preventing palestinians from creating a democratic state.

Ariel sharon initiated the idea of a need for widespread reforms of palestinian institutions and the election of a democratioc palestinian leader before he would be willing to discuss peace in palestine. This tactic was, of course, purely and simply a delaying and diversionary tactic to prevent any peace negotiations with the palestinians since he has never supported peace negotiations with them at any time in his life. However, he managed to persuade both bush and blair of the need for this laughable reform.

The democratization of palestinian institutions was the origin of the idea of bringing democracy to iraq and to the whole of the middle east. The idea of the democratization of the middle east is currently being used as a means of diverting attention away from the need for peace negotiations between palestinians and zionists. It is a simple bit of zionist propaganda to ensure zionist domination of the middle east. Is it not amazing that ariel sharon managed to persuade bush and blair to support the policy of democratizing palestinian institutions and bringing democracy to the middle east? And people say that ariel sharon has no influence over bush and blair!

Friedman’s made the shock discovery that arabs/moslems are beginning to discover a relationship between america and the zionist state in palestine. "Now you find a steadily rising perception across the Arab-Muslim world that the great enemy of Islam is JIA - "Jews, Israel and America," all lumped together in a single threat." Now how on Earth could they have come to such a ludicrous conclusion??? The real problem is that americans understand this relationship far less than arabs/moslems.

Friedman proffers some advice to the jews-only state that no one else has ever thought about before, "One thing that Israel can do is push harder to defuse the conflict with the Palestinians …" Well, zionists have been murdering palestinians for the last 50 years, so it’s not realistic to expect them to stop now.

His understanding of the middle east is bizarre, "not because the continuing conflict is all Israel's fault - it is not". I’m sorry but when did the palestinians deserve blame for resisting 50 years of zionist occupation?

Arafat is the palestinians' democratically elected leader. The reason that sharon won’t negotiate with him is because he won’t negotiate with any palestinian. Sharon has only ever believed in a military solution to the palestinian problem never a political solution.

Here’s a conundrum. Does friedman really make a living out of writing such utter nonsense or is this the sort of utter nonsense that you have to write to make any money out of writing for the zionist owned media in america?

The following is a quote from an emailer i found on an email group. It's a little vulgar but i feel it accurately pinpoints a phenomenon of which friedland is such a fine example, "Its called nepotism, and cronyism, or lets make a new word for it, jewism. I've seen this first hand as a publicist. I know of many great writers, non-jewish unfortunately, who struggle hard to make a living and barely recieve any recognition. Then I've seen some jew writers, not just untalented but pretty much plagiarizing everything they wrote. In no time at all they got a jew agent, a jew publisher, jew reviewers raving about their "Genius", jew book store chain owners who will stock the book, jew TV and radio interviewers to talk about the book on jew controlled tv and radio, jew book reviewers to write articles printed in jew magazines and jewspapers, jew college professors who will have the jew writer speak on campus and pay them by the jew administration and sponsored by some jew "benevolent" society. Lots of jews will show up at the book signings to show solidarity. They will be given numerous awards from Jewish controlled literary clubs and societies. " From Tai Kung at LF: http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=13082

Tom engelhardt published an article about the american military turning fallujah into rubble. He stated, "Imagine in any case simply pouring artillery fire into a cityscape. For example, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who flew out to "Camp Fallujah" with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers (now, there's high-class embedding for you) to "inspect the toughest problems in Iraq firsthand" had this throwaway line in a piece about what else? how we've arrived at the "tipping point" in Iraq: "Most of the fighting in Fallujah was over by the time we arrived at this headquarters compound, although the tom-tom beat of 155-millimeter howitzers, still pumping rounds into the city, was constant." Remind me one more time about that definition of "over..." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Draining the Swamp’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=4013 November 20, 2004). Ordinary journalists do not get rides with america's jewish generals leading america's proxy zionist war against iraq unless their reputation for pro-american and pro-zionist bigotry are beyond doubt.

"According to the myth, Barak's proposal would have given the Palestinians, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is fond of repeating, "95 percent of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem, with all the settlements gone". In fact, what Barak actually offered at Camp David was to withdraw from 89-90 percent of the West Bank, not 95 percent; to give the Palestinians sovereignty in a few non-contiguous neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, not half of Jerusalem; and, far from assuring that all the settlements would be gone, to annex to Israel settlements housing fully 80 percent of the 200,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and 100 percent of the 170,000 settlers in East Jerusalem. (Kathleen Christison ‘From LBJ to GWB The Full Story of Resolution 242L: How the US Sold Out the Palestinians’ http://www.counterpunch.org/kchristison0628.html June 28th 2002).

Tom Friedman, the jewish racist, supporter of the invasion of iraq, and supporter of the jews-only state in palestine, published an article entitled ‘If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution’ in which he smears the muslim community in britain for not stopping muslims who were allegedly involved in the july 7th 2005 london bombings. He stated, "To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden." (Tom Friedman ‘If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution’ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/
opinion/08friedman.html?incamp=article_popular_5 July 8, 2005). Juan cole exposed the wholesale errors of this statement. See ‘Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_07_01_juancole_archive.html July 09th 2005). So either friedman was lying or he is grossly ignorant about a subject he has been writing about for many years.

For the hypocrisy of this jewish warmonger let’s take a couple of paragraphs of his article and then rewrite them from a muslim point of view bearing in mind the appalling violence that jews are dealing out to moslems around the world. And then let’s see whether the jewish community is doing anything whatsoever to root out the terrorists within its own midst such as ariel sharon. After all, ariel sharon is the jewish counterpart to osama bin laden.

Here are the rephrased paragraphs: "And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the jewish world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst (the racist jews-only state in palestine). If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect jewish-Western relations everywhere. Only the jewish world can root out that death cult. It takes a village. What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said jewish bombing of palestinian areas was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated war criminals like ariel sharon. But when jews decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with palestinians they continued expropriating palestinian property. The village didn’t say enough was enough."

There is not one mainstream jewish organization anywhere around the world which denounces ariel sharon as a terrorist or which denounces the jews-only state in palestine as a racist and terrorist state. It is the jews-only state that is poisoning western and islamic civilizations. It is jewish communities around the world who are helping to spread this poison by refusing to denounce jewish terrorists and jewish racism. If jewish communities around the world denounced their extremists with the same intensity as muslim communities denounce their terrorists then there would be peace in the middle east. But, as we all know, zionists don’t want this because then they’d have no excuse for stealing palestinian land.

There is little doubt that seymour hersh is what would, in traditional political terms, be described as a globally renowned political radical. He has written some stories exposing injustices which have achieved almost global attention. "He won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1969 exposé of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which American soldiers killed more than 500 civilians. " (Mary Jacoby ‘Seymour Hersh's Alternative History of Bush's War’ Salon.com http://www.middleeast.org/mernew.htm 18 September 2004). His latest expose was american torture at the abu ghraib prison in iraq.

But there has always been another side to hersh and this is his silence on zionist extremism. Like that other globally famous american jewish radical, noam chomsky, there are now serious question marks about his commitment to combatting zionist terrorism. In the past, when the main political spectrum stretched from socialism to capitalism the significance of zionist terrorism was minor but as the political sprectrum has emerged which stretches from support for zionist world domination to opposition to zionist world domination, the issue has become of profound importance. As a consequence, his silence on this issue has become louder and louder until it can no longer be ignored.

Given his attempt to condone zionist terrorism and the rise of zionist occupied governments it is not surprising that his political analyzes of global events are becoming increasingly distorted. In his new book, "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib’ he blames iran for driving america into the invasion of iraq by providing it with false evidence about saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. "I think these guys in their naiveté and single-mindedness have been so completely manipulated by - not the Israelis - but the Iranians. The Iranians always wanted us in. I think there's a lot of evidence that Iran had much to do with [Ahmed] Chalabi's disinformation [about nonexistent Iraqi WMD]. I think there were people in the CIA who suspected this all along, but of course they couldn't get their view in. He (chalabi) had a villa in Tehran. But basically I think Iran was very interested in getting us involved. We get knocked down a peg; they become the big boys on the block." (Seymour Hersh interviewed by Mary Jacoby ‘Seymour Hersh's Alternative History of Bush's War’ Salon.com http://www.middleeast.org/mernew.htm 18 September 2004).

Middle East Realities have justifiably issued a health warning about his articles, "Indeed one does have to wonder if Hersh hasn't been set up by some of his long-time big-time Israeli spook friends when it comes to pushing the confounding thesis that it was "Iran not Israel" that pushed the U.S. into invading/occupying Iraq. And maybe even something more than set up, for Hersh simply refuses to really get into the Israeli angle of things in so many cases. He doesn't focus on how the Israelis have been using horrendous torture, bombing, infiltration, and assassination techniques for years now, with ever-growing CIA and Pentagon involvment. He doesn't focus on the powerful Israeli-Jewish lobby in Washington -- in fact he seems to avoid it like the plague. He dosn't focus on the interconnections in the Middle East between the mis-nomered 'peace process', Iraq, and events throughout the region from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon to Turkey to Pakistan. And he doesn't highlight the clear connections between the Washington Neocons whom he does criticize - though rarely ever mentioning that most of them are Jewish and hard-line Zionists - and the intimate practically conspiratorial connections they have had for years with the Israelis. In fact, the more one thinks about this, the more one reaches the possible conclusion that while Hersh is on target (though incomplete) when it comes to the torture scandal, when it comes to the geostrategic, especially when it comes to matters relating to Israel, Hersh may well be being used for disinformation and continually engages in a kind of self-censorship and cover-up. Bottom Line: Take Hersh very seriously when he is writing about massacres and torture - his long-time specialties since Vietnam and his New York Times days. But when it comes to matters relating to Israel and geopolitics and now Iran - which he admits in this interview to be "too cosmic" for him - be extra skeptical. Hersh, liberal Jewish Democrat himself, has a long history in Washington of not being willing to seriously report about the crucially-important realities involving the Israeli-Jewish lobby. And after the trouble he had years ago with his limited book The Sampson Complex Hersh seems to have made extra efforts to stay on the good side of his 'liberal' Jewish and Israeli friends who not only make up a considerable segment of the book-buying public and New Yorker subscribers but whose influence in the American media is so tremendously powerful...and thus dangerous. MER" (Middle east Realities ‘Much Worse Yet To Come Warns Journalist Sy Hersh’ http://www.middleeast.org/mernew.htm September 21st 2004).

Hutton advocates a new theory he calls ‘hard liberalism’ which he describes in the following way, “It is unrelenting in its pursuit of the progressive ideals of justice, equity and liberty. Liberalism properly understood, an insistence on universal values that apply to all societies, is the philosophy under which we can be both aggressive and just.” [48] Is it not amazing that someone who advocates such universal values and progressive ideals should see nothing wrong with insisting on military action against moslem terrorists but not zionist terrorists? “The weeks since 11 September have seen unprecedented agreement about the necessity to eliminate global terrorism, using whatever military force is necessary. That is not at issue. The debate rather is how far this war should go, how it should be prosecuted and what international framework is needed to ensure a lasting victory. Hard liberalism offers the best route to success, and hard liberals must stand up for their case as aggressively as their critics. I use the term hard liberalism deliberately.” [49]

Only a despicable jewish/zionist bigot could make such a vile racist statement such as, "Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted."

Juan cole has denounced jacoby’s blatant racism, "Jacoby's position is pure bigotry. We have to be clear about this. Anti-muslimism is a form of racial prejudice no different from any other. If Jacoby said, "What is wrong with those people of African descent, that they are so violent all the time when nobody else is?" he'd probably be fired. It is not all right for him to do the same thing to Muslims. While Muslims are a religious group, in the contemporary United States they most often are racialized. It comes to the same thing." (Juan Cole ‘Why Jacoby is Wrong’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_05_01_juancole_archive.html May 20, 2005

I don’t understand why jacoby isn’t arrested for such racism.

I don’t understand why lefties, such as the World Socialist Web Site, and liberals don’t condemn such jewish racism. Perhaps it’s because they too, like america’s so-called conservatives, are dominated by jewish racists.

Perhaps they believe that jews are totally immune from racism? Perhaps they believe that all jews should be excused for their racism? But then again perhaps they are lovers of jewish racism who just want to cover up jewish racism?

What’s even more amazing is that the left used to denounce jewish racism towards palestinians but since they’ve been taken over by jewish racists you’ll never hear them talking about the jews who treat palestinians as niggers. You can tell how racist leftists are from the fact that they won’t even debate the reasons for their refusal to condemn jewish racism.

"Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11."

"Let me be absolutely clear: by Likudisation I do not mean that key members of the Bush administration are working for the interests of Israel at the expense of US interests. What I mean is that on September 11, George Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his role as "war president". He found that philosophy in the Likud doctrine, handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks ensconced in the White House. In the three years since, the Bush White House has applied this logic with chilling consistency to its global war on terror - complete with the pathologising of the "Muslim mind". It was the guiding philosophy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may well extend to Iran and Syria. It's not simply that Bush sees America's role as protecting Israel from a hostile Arab world. It's that he has cast the US in the same role in which Israel casts itself, facing the same threat. In this narrative, the US is fighting a never-ending battle for its survival against irrational forces that seek its total extermination." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004).

Klein believes that bush borrowed sharon's propaganda rather than sharon force feeding him zionist propaganda. "Sharon is not the commander-in-chief of the war on terror; that dubious honour stays with George Bush. But on the anniversary of 9/11, he deserves to be recognised as this disastrous campaign's guru, a trigger-happy Yoda for all wannabe Luke Skywalkers out there, training for their epic battles of good vs evil." (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1301504,00.html September 10, 2004). Klein's view assumes that bush is an intelligent, independent, and worldly, individual capable of analyzing the merits and political implications of new ideological theories. This is erroneous. Bush knew virtually nothing about the world until he was thrust into the presidency and expecting such a person to initiate a new global perspective is absurd. Klein also assumes that the zionist media and the zionist congress have had no impact on shaping bush's political views. No matter how cutting her criticisms of the zionist state appear to be, she is in effect protecting sharon for his responsibility in initiating world war three. Sharon is the terrorist leader of the war against terror. Bush and the american congress are just sharon's muppets. Klein is a good zionist who simply can't face up to the reality that zionists pushed america into a proxy zionist war against iraq.

For sheer libertarian stupidity this surely must take the biscuit. Benjamin marks offers some words of wisdom to palestinians having to endure their vile oppression by the racist zionist state in palestine, "Instead of Palestinian activists embarking on suicide bombing missions or lobbying and negotiating with the Israeli government, they should ignore it as much as possible and commit themselves to peaceful relations like commerce. To trade, as Mises has shown, is to destroy the ideology that generates conflict. And it is the only way." (Benjamin Marks ‘Messy Messianism’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/bmarks.php?articleid=4729 February 5, 2005). Yes, perhaps palestinians ought to start selling their rubble so the racist zionist state can build even more "Jews only" roads. Perhaps benjamin marks would like to set himself up as a roads contractor for the zionist state?

Marks received some support from a poster who stated, "If the Palestinians gave up their socialist faith & became capitalists, the Israelis would have that much more incentive to treat them correctly." He continued the 'blame palestinians' theme by arguing, "My point is that the Palestinians can change the Jews behavior towards them by changing their own behavior towards the Jews. Just like the Jews can change the Palestinians behavior towards them by changing their own behavior towards the Palestinians." It wasn't long before the poster was churning out the zionist cliche, "I have talked about both sides using terrorism." It has to be pointed out that there is no moral equivalence between the aggression of invaders and the defensive actions of the invaded. Ever since 1948 the zionists have been the terrorists and the land grabbers. They are the sole cause of the conflict in palestine. Peace in palestine will come about only when zionists stop their aggression and agree to give back the property they have stolen. There is nothing the palestinians can do to change the mind of zionofascists.

A second poster supported marks's zionist perspective of 'blame the palestinians' even whilst pretending he was neutral, "If they were to become more freedom oriented and encouraged joint Israeli/Palestinian owned ventures then maybe this commonality might help end this terrible state of affairs." The zionists deliberately divorced themselves from palestinians economically and socially even as far back as the early part of the 20thC. It is zionist exclusivity and supremacism that is the problem not the failure of palestinians to change their ways.

To pretend like benjamin marks that there is anything the palestinians can do to stop the vile aggression that zionofascists are waging against them is such a complete misreading of what is happening that it is indicative of a blatant zionist bias.

It's difficult not to suspect that marks is just a zionist agent in the libertarian movement trying to persuade libertarians, and the american public, that the palestinians are to blame for their own oppression.

She alleges, almost hysterically, "It was the most crucial question in the American election .." As far as can be ascertained, she seems to be the only person in america who holds such a crackpot view. What is also interesting about her article is that her concern is not with the impact that mass immigration might have on american culture but its impact on jewish americans thereby reinforcing the proposition that jewish americans tend to analyze all american issues in terms of whether it is good for jews in america/the zionist state in palestine.

The sheer racism of this article is breathtaking. "But "the stock of Abraham," which has flourished in the New World, producing uniquely entrepreneurial, creative, and philanthropic citizens, is now threatened by what it perversely promotes: mass immigration—in particular, immigration from Muslim countries." In other words, muslims do not belong to the ‘stock of abraham’ and are a threat to such races.

It has to be wondered, yet again, what dimensions of time and space she is living in when she argues, "Our forefathers typified the Jewish immigrant experience in that they assimilated entirely, becoming productive, loyal citizens." The vast majority of jewish-americans never lost their judaic culture nor their attachments to the zionist state in palestine which is why they managed to push america into two proxy zionist wars against iraq that have cost the lives of over a thousand non-jewish americans.

It’s good to know that jewish americans are up to the task of combating this threat to their interests, "To be fair, Jewish organizations are tracking this menace (of mass immigration)." It would be foolish for a group pursuing world domination not to "track this menace".

The great hope for peace in the middle east, and around the world, lies in muslim immigrants organizing themselves financially and politically along jewish lines to protect their countries’ political interests in america and thereby curbing the domination of international zionism. What is needed is mutually assured destruction between jews and muslims.

It appears that monbiot, the so-called green guru, hasn't noticed the zionist Elephant perched on his head. He argues, "Why do broadcasters (and newspapers) that have a reputation for balance, impartiality and even liberal bias side with the powerful?" but singularly fails to mention zionist ownership of the media. Monbiot will never become a real journalist if he can't bring himself to mention the word 'jew'. His article is sub-titled, 'A US comedian brings us closer to the truth than the BBC. Most of our journalists fail us'. Monbiot is like virtually all other journalists working for the zionist dominated media.

Loquaciousness, loquaciousness, and loquaciousness. Words slither out of george’s pen like honey from a honey pot. It’s quite amazing how loquacious a writer can be without ever having to engage in any actual thought process. For george is one of those politically kosher greenies who lives in fairyland where there is an evil sprite called ‘The Media’ which has no character. The people who own and run ‘The Media’ come from nowhere, have no special interests, no special goals, no special concerns, and no special values. They are utterly planetless beings with no connections anywhere around the world. Their sole concern in life is in making ‘The Media’ more profitable. As a sociologist exploring people’s vested interests, george would score very few points for such a scintillatingly bland analysis.

Let’s hear what he has to say about those working in ‘The Media’: "The role of the media corporations in the US is similar to that of repressive state regimes elsewhere: they decide what the public will and won't be allowed to hear, and either punish or recruit the social deviants who insist on telling a different story. The journalists they employ do what almost all journalists working under repressive regimes do: they internalise the demands of the censor, and understand, before anyone has told them, what is permissible and what is not."

It must therefore be the fact that zionists own the media in america and britain that causes george to avoid any mention of zionists in his analyses no metter whether these zionists operate in the zionist occupied governments of palestine, america or britain. In a way, then, by his silence george is trying to tell us the truth without ever being able to blurt it out.

George laments (he rarely gets angry), "On Thursday, the fairy king of fairyland will be recrowned. He was elected on a platform suspended in midair by the power of imagination. He is the leader of a band of men who walk through ghostly realms unvisited by reality. And he remains the most powerful person on earth. How did this happen? How did a fantasy president from a world of make believe come to govern a country whose power was built on hard-headed materialism? To find out, take a look at two squalid little stories which have been concluded over the past 10 days."

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/