29 October 2008

Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama and McCarthyism for the 21st Century

Once upon a time, Ireland was a colony of the British Empire. A lot of Irish people lived in the United States. They did not like Great Britain. They happened to be a potent political force. Politicians competed to curry favor with the Irish and spoke out forcefully against British rule. They were not accused of supporting violence or revolutionary conspiracies -- except by the British.

Cuba is currently ruled by a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Many Cubans fled the island to live in American exile. They don't like the Communist regime. They happen to be a potent political force in the state of Florida. Politicians compete to curry favor with the Cubans, and speak out forcefully in favor of "liberating" Cuba. They are not accused of inciting war against a sovereign nation -- except by the Cuban government.

Israel currently occupies land that was intended by the United Nations to form a Palestinian nation. Many Palestinians have fled into exile in the United States as well as throughout the Middle East. They don't like Israel, and just like the Irish, and just like the Cubans, they've sometimes taken violent action against their enemies. Yet all the Democratic candidate for President has to do is sit in the same room as a Palestinian-American Ivy League professor, who happens to be a native of this country, and he is once again accused by the likes of Comrade Palin, the governor of Alaska, of palling around with terrorists.

It seems that Palestinians are unique among the peoples of the earth in having no right to resist an occupation that they consider unjust -- though there are signs that the South Ossetians and Abkhazians would be assigned to this category by American politicians. All the conspiracies of Irishmen and Cubans are patriotic, brave and freedom-loving, while all Palestinian efforts are wicked. No American, apparently, may side with the Palestinians against Israel without risking the charge that he endorses religious fanaticism and an amorphous terrorism that may as well be directed against his own country as far as some people are concerned. Not even Senator Obama concedes a Palestinian right of resistance, yet because he put friendship above politics and attended an event in Rashid Khalidi's honor, the McCain-Palin dead-enders, the anti-Arab bigots and the bigots in general have launched a new round of McCarthyite guilt-by-association tactics on both Obama and Khalidi. Judge Khalidi for yourself, then judge this latest pathetic outburst from the neocons.

Imagine if I dared say that anyone who has ever expressed support for Zionism, including Obama and McCain is a pal of terrorists; that they must have retroactively endorsed and applauded the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946; that they must be friends of the late Meir Kahane and his acolyte, the mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein. Reader: if you support Zionism, then don't you endorse all these things? No? Then play by the same rules when the subject is Palestine, or shut the hell up. It won't be until Americans decide that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on morality that this problem will have a chance of being settled. So if you're an American, and you don't think Palestinians have any moral standing or any legitimate claims in this dispute, you're part of the problem. Learn some history and grow up already. I'd say the same to McCain and Palin, but it's probably too late for them.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:


I suspect that you anticipated that I would like this one. You are quite correct about the double standard. The Zionists are much more of a problem than the PLO supporters. The Zionists have a much greater grip on the American political system than the Arabs too. Media influence, political campaign financing and all the "powers which count" are in the hands of the Zionists.

It is amazing that the supporters of the Palestinians can be attacked as sympathizers of "terrorists" when the Zionists used the most massive terror against both the English and the Arabs to create the state of Israel. The essential facts about the Zionist-Palestinian dispute are regularly blacked out by the American media. Thus, the average American has absolutely no idea what the basic historical background actually is. Palin and McCain are firmly under the control of the Zionists. Barack Obama is more astute on the realities but knows perfectly that he must do the bidding of the Zionists who finance him. This is why the American people have no real choice in their elections. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are controlled by the same alien force. The Republicans are the party of the Vladimir Jabotinsky revisionist zionists; the Democrats are the party of the Jewish bolsheviks and the Bund. To hell with both of them.

On to another subject. The British Government is currently holding in prison Dr. Haold Tobin, an Australian Holocaust Denier. They are considering an extradition request by Germany to send Dr.Tobin for trial for expressing opinions which are not illegal in either the United Kingdom or Australia, of whom Dr. Tobin is a citizen. I have prepared an open letter to the British Embassy in America, which I invite Mr. Wilson to sign (as well as any other interested parties).

British Embassy
3100 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Frederic Tobin is being detained by the British government pending extradition to Germany for having violated German laws criminalizing denial or questioning of the Holocaust. Am I to understand that the German government now claims jurisdiction over offenses committed outside its borders by non-German citizens? If national states can now apply their statutes to foreign nationals on foreign soil, does this mean that I, as an American citizen, can be deported under a present or future treaty obligation to be tried in Germany for an opinion considered legal in the United States? I can think of no valid reason why not.

The implications of all this are Orwellian. Not merely is national soverignty being eroded, freedom of thought and inquiry are being put at the mercy of a form of international thought control. The particular character of Dr. Tobin's opinions does not concern me. What concerns me is the opportunity offered to repressive governments to target, anywhere in the world, dissidents to whom they object. The conduct of the British government is outrageous. The persecution of Dr. Frederic Tobin should cease. Ideas of historical fact and interpretation are always someone's opinion, and opinions on history have been known to both vary widely and to change from decade to decade.

Dr. Tobin should be allowed to argue any interpretation of history he pleases. As to the Federal Republic of Germany, let it apply its statutes to its own citizens on its own soil, where those statutes should have their sole applicability.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

Mr. Wilson does not believe in the principle of collective guilt, as he has already made clear. But his rhetorical questions on whether present day supporters of Zionism are post-humously ratifying the atrocities which went into the making of the state of Israel does indeed raise intriguing questions of dual loyalty, treason and collective guilt. Let it never be said that Anonymous1 shrinks from ugly issues.

Senator McCain's father was the admiral in charge of the USS Liberty cover-up in which the Israelis "mistakenly" attacked our intelligence ship during the 1967 war. Junior, now running for president, figured out a long time ago which side his bread was buttered on. When the Jews were assassinating English soldiers and officials right and left in Palestine in 1944-1948, the Jewish population would regularly protect and hide them from English investigators. The tribal unity of the Jews was complete. Not one underground terrorist was ever betrayed or turned over to the English. A vast arms smuggling operation was catrried on in the United States, where Jews would regularly ship arms disguised as fruit to their brother Jews in Palestine. Not one of these smugglers was ever betrayed to the authorities. These facts would seem to indicate both tribal unity and collective responsibility.

Those Jews who support the state of Israel now are well aware of the methods by which it was created. They are only too willing to use the same methods to advance its agenda now. Does the guilt of the King David Hotel attatch to Jews of the present day? It does, in the same way that the guilt of Joseph Stalin's Jewish commissars attatches to the Jews of the present day who continue to cover up while sniveling over non-existent "gas chambers". Mr. Wilson brings in the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy essentially argued that the liberals were the accessories of the crimes of the communists. Had it not been for the liberals whitewashing the true nature of communism and getting us into war on its behalf, the crimes of the communists would never have been possible. The charge was, and still is, perfectly true. Do I believe in collective responsibility for liberals the same way I believe in collective responsibility for Jews? Indeed I do.

One of the main reasons more sensible Jews objected to Zionism in the days of Lord Balfour was precisely that the doctrine would revive the ancient charge of "dual loyalty". As is now obvious, the charge is true. Overwhelmingly, the Jews of America are traitors and do put loyalty to the state of Israel above any loyalty to these United States. Recently, a meeting was held in Massachusetts where survivors of the "Liberty" attack explained what really happened. One of the crew members bluntly stated that if the heavily Jewish audience felt more loyal to Israel than the US that they should go live there. He was heavily hssed and booed. The Jewish audience unanimously denied that the attack was deliberate in spite of overwhelming evidence that it was. When Jews were first granted civic equality by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1807, they promised that Jews were a religion only and that Jews had no desire to recreate their ancient state in Palestine. One hundred fifty years later the state of Israel was born.

The implications of these facts are plain. The Jews will never admit that they are traitors any more than they will ever admit that they apply one standard to the Palestinians and another standard to themselves. But the evidence of an alien strangle hold over the US becomes ever more ominous. The strangle hold shall either be broken, or the US will go down.

Samuel Wilson said...

The problem with America's approach to the Middle East is probably more simply explained. As opposed to the Irish and Cubans I cited for comparison's sake, Palestinians haven't settled in this country in sufficient numbers to turn an election anywhere, except maybe in some towns in Michigan. While I don't doubt the existence of an Israeli lobby, I think there'd be at least a competitive Arab lobby if Arabs had the numbers here (both physical and monetary) to back it up.

I'm going to research the Tobin case more before commenting on it, but at first glance it looks pretty alarming. What's his actual first name, anyway?

Since I'm not going to change Anon's mind on the question of collective responsibility, let's move on to a more practical question: do you believe in collective punishment, and if so, what form should it take?

Finally, I don't think you can call Senator McCain "Junior," as I believe he is actually J. Sidney McCain III, but I'll welcome correction on this point.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

I largely agree that were there sufficient numbers of Arabs in this country we would have a problem comparable to the Zionist lobby. Because of the increasing numbers of hispanics in this country whose real loyalties lie south of the border while residing north of the border, we already have a similar problem with them. In times gone by, tha Anglophiles on the east coast had a great deal to do with getting the US into two unnecessary wars with Germany. There is one difference between the pro-Arab and pro-Israeli lobbies, however. The Zionists intend to permanently manipulate US foreign policy on behalf of Israel; the Palestinians only want back that which is rightfully theirs.

The issue of what punishment the Jews deserve is a tricky one because the ultimate logical conclusion would be unacceptable to too many people. (Yes, that means mass murder.) So what to do? The Catholic countries of Europe expelled them time and again during the Middle Ages and Rennaissance without solving the problem. Zionism aimed to solve the problem by giving Jews a "country of their own". (We all know how that worked out.) I personally think the solution is to give the Jews a clear cut choice: If they pledge their allegiance to the US and not to Israel, they should be accorded the full rights of citizens which should be protected and inviolate. If, however, they continue to put their true loyalties elsewhere and, moreover, continue to espouse doctrines to be officially labeled UnAmerican, i.e., espousing communism, socialism, feminism, one-worldism and racial equality schemes, then all gloves are off. That means expropriation, denial of voting rights and right to serve in any level of government, banishment from the professions and the media and essentially, return to the ghetto. If even that doesn't work, then it is off to the gulags and the Alaskan-Ukrainian death famine. That would be the penalty of last resort.

I will, of course, be accused of fanaticism on this issue but the Jews are the real fanatics-as their behaviour through the centuries has very clearly demonstrated. Now on to Frederic Toben (It is Toben, not Tobin as I erroneously first wrote.) Dr. Toben heads a research institute called the Adelaide Institute down in Australia. That institute is a "Holocaust Denial" think tank and has published many essays denouncing the "six million" swindle. Dr. Toben has been in constant trouble with the Australian courts which have ordered Dr. Toben to cease publishing such material on the grounds that it constitutes the promotion of "hatred" against Jews. Dr. Toben has basically told the Austalian courts to "shove it". In the instant case Dr. Toben was traveling to Dubai (for what purpose this writer does not know). He was stopped at London's Heathrow airport on a stopover for refueling or flight change when he was dragged off the plane and imprisoned. This was done at the request of the Federal Republic of Germany which had issued a EU warrant for Dr. Toben's arrest. The charge was that Dr. Toben had violated Germany's laws against denying the Holocaust and that therefore Dr. Toben should be extradited to Germany to stand trial even though there is no law in the United Kingdom prohibiting denial of the Holocaust. The lower court in England agreed with Toben's lawyer that the warrant lacked "specificity" on the date and location of the offenses and has therefore remanded the case to a higher court to adjudicate. In the meantime Dr. Toben is under injunction not to have any access to the internet nor to talk to the press. His bail was set at 100,00 pounds on the grounds that he is a flight risk.

The case is attracting massive unfavorable press in England where the dangers of the prcedent are generally realized. There are interviews on YouTube with English historian David Irving denouncing the case and pointing to the dangers involved to free thinkers everywhere. The facts are easily accessible on the internet. I will only say that if the Jews actually had the evidence to bag up their claims they would not need to resort to such methods. Anyone who doubts that there exists a "Jewish international" with massive powers of repression should ask himself this question: How is it that governments around the world are locking up otherwise law abiding citizens for violating "thought crimes" statutes in foreign jurisdictions? To whose pressure are these governments responding, if not to that of the Jews world wide? Moreover, this is not the first such case. Gary Lauck, an American Holocaust Denier visiting in Denmark was extradited by the Danes at the request of the German government and imprisoned for several years for expressing opinions perfectly legal in the US. Both Ernest Zundel and Germar Rudolf, German emigres living peacefully in the US, were deported back to Germany and are currently in jail for having expressed legal skepticism in America over Jewish war time claims.

The Jews are running very, very scared. They know that their extermination story is a deliberate, calculated lie-and they also know what will happen to them if the truth ever gets out. They will stop at nothing. Americans may think that they are protected by the First Amendment. They are-so far. But if the US were to sign international treaties which incorporate "Holocaust Denial" statutes as part of their language, those treaty provisions would override the Constitution-and the First Amendment. That means that yours truly, and any other dissident the tribe and "Homeland Security" do not like, could be rounded up and sent to prison in Germany or Israel for thought crimes. Currently there is a statute called the "Homegrown Terrorist and Violent Radicalization Act" either pending or passed. Under this act, claimibg that Jews were not "gassed" by Adolf Hitler-but should have been-could be construed as "terrorism"-and thus legally punishable. Remember, our sophistical Supreme Court has already ruled that freedom of speech does not apply to-calles "sexual harassment" ("Your ass looks nice, baby"). Why, then, should freedom of thought and speech apply to so-called "terrorists"?

Do not imagine that these things cannot happen. Given another 09/11 set-up (and, believe me, the first one was indeed a set-up) the hysteria would allow Commissar Chertoff to do just about anything he wanted. Already John Demjanjuk and many other Eastern Europeans despised by the Jews have been stripped of their citizenship and deported. The exact same thing can, and will, be done to those who expose the "Mother of All Lies". Be very afraid, Mr. Wilson, for the Jews are already boasting of their "global justice" system. That system will not punish the rapists of the Palestinians or the Jewish commissars-it will punish me-and maybe you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous1 says:

There is a further issue that needs to be discussed here. Users of the internet currently enjoy what might be called "jurisdictional immunity". In other words, the sender of dissident material enjoys absolute legal immunity, based on freedom of speech principles, both at the transmission end and the reception end. Jewish lawyers are working, day and night, to take away this immunity. They wish to establish "hate" and "thought crimes" statutes in various countries, and then establish that if a transmitter on the internet knowingly sends a message legal in the country of origin to a country where he either "knows or should have known" that the message would be illegal, that he can then be prosecuted for sending the message. Intense efforts are being made right now to acieve this state of affairs. The chilling effect of this on free transmission on the internet need not be described. People will be very, very careful about what they post if facing a jail sentence or massive fine.

The efforts to stem revisionist material come entirely from Jewish sources. No one is being disturbed for posting anti-Moslem material or for denying the crimes of Jewish commissars. If there is an international Jewish conspiracy at work, it would need the suppression of those who expose its activities. That is exactly what is taking place. The conclusion speaks for itself. Mr. Wilson has noted the disparity which exists when criticizing Palestinian versus Zionist terrorism. An ominous evil is becoming ever more visible in the world. As this conspiracy nears its culmination, more and more suppression shall be enforced. The identity of the enforcers shall be as obvious as the faces of the gulag commissars of fifty years ago.

Samuel Wilson said...

I've read some material on the Toben case that still leaves the legal situation unclear. It would seem that Germany has a case against Dr. Toben as a bail-jumper and fugitive from justice, yet it looks as if a fresh offense is claimed. If the offense is that he posts Holocaust-denial content on the Internet, the proper remedy, repugnant as it is to me to acknowledge, is for Germany to follow China's lead and arrange for the blocking of such content from access by German internet users. This would be preferable, at least, to holding foreigners accountable for posting content on what should be regarded as an international commons. I think that Anonymous 1 will find that others beside Jewish lawyers are laboring to abolish jurisdictional immunity, since just about any dictatorship would be happy to suppress "defamtory" (i.e. subversive or dissident) content all over the world. Further, if no one is yet in trouble for posting anti-Muslim content, that's probably only because no one has yet brought it to the right Muslims' attention. They are just as interested as any other population, if not more so, in suppressing "defamation" in any form, as the world well knows.

I learned also that the European Arrest Warrant employed by Germany in this case has questionable legal standing within Germany itself, since the local law implementing the warrant was ruled unconstitutional in 2005. The EAWs have allegedly also been abused, according to reports cited on Wikipedia, to force the extradition of persons accused of very minor offenses like small-scale drug possession, and to force speedy extradition of suspected terrorists, as in the case that led to the German court decision.

Finally, in reading some quotes from Toben I find him repeating a fallacious argument that I've identified with President Ahmadinejad in the past, namely that to refute the "Holocaust myth" is to deny legitimacy to Israel. That viewpoint is ahistorical, since everyone knows that Zionist settlement in Palestine was well underway, and the Balfour Declaration already promulgated, long before Hitler took power in Germany. The Holocaust may have influenced some votes in the United Nations in 1948, but for Jewish people arguing for rule over Palestine it was really a redundant piece of evidence.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the Zionists decided that they wanted Palestine for reasons which long predated the "Holocaust". However, it is certainly true that they made massive use of the extermination myth post-war to enhance their claims. Anyone can read the record of the post-war investigations, such as the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry of 1946, the Morrison-O'Grady Report or the various debates before the United Nations in 1947 to see that this purely emotional ploy was resorted to, over and over again. It was also the foremost opinion in influencing world public opinion, which never heard of or read the aforementioned reports. As to the Balfour Declaration, it was spurious on many grounds. The British Empire had no authority to give away Arab Palestine to anyone. Moreover, even if it did, Palestine had already been included in the area pledged to Arab independence after the war, in the MacMahon-Hussein correspondence of October 1915. (That is, if one reads the language of the text, in which Palestine is clearly to the south of the territory exluded from the pledge, and hence included in the Arab area of independence.) Moreover, The British Empire did not in fact write the Balfour Declaration, even though it was issued on the paper of the British Foreign Office and was signed by Arthur James Balfour. The declaration was the work of the combined efforts of over three dozen craftsmen working on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Most of the drafters were Zionists, such as Felix Frankfurter, Benjamin Cohen, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Richard Gottheil and others in America, and Lords Alred Milner, Robert Cecil, William Ormsby-Gore and others for the British working with Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, Rabbi Moses Gaster and other London Zionists. Many drafts were prepared and the really meaningful verbiage came from the Zionists, with the English either approving or disapproving depending on the extravagance of the initial claims. Thus, a "Jewish state" became a "Jewish national home"; the "historic right" of the Jews to Palestine became amended to the Jewish "historical connection", as amended by the anti-Zionist Lord Curzon, etc. The two best books on the subject are "The Balfour Declaration" by Leonard Stein, a former Political Secretary of the Zionist Organization in London at the time all this was going on and "Palestine: The Reality" by the staunchly anti-Zionist English journalist, J.M.N. Jeffries. The Zionists wrote their own declaration, then handed it to the English and pretended that the English wrote it to the Zionists, gratis. As Jeffries so astutely puts it in his chapter on the subject, the last two lines of Balfour's declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, "I should be grateful if you (Lord Rothschild) would bring this declaration to the attention of the Zionist Federation." were among 'the most cynically humorous ever penned'.

So much for the Balfour Declaration nonsense. Mr. Wilson is correct that others besides Jews can make use of these "denial of historical events" statutes. But he is dead wrong about the driving impetus behind the statutes. Just to reinforce the point I shall mention that the US State Department has issued a position paper claiming that making provably true statements about Jewish influence (Jews created communism, Jews run America's Mid-East foreign policy) constitute "antisemitism". The controlling hand in all these thought crimes repressions is only too clear.