Paul Eisen

Paul Eisen

Thursday, 24 April 2014

More from the Holocaust capital of the world (Something has to be done)

Following my post on the power of the Holocaust Industry in the UK do look at this from Shoah- The Palestinian Holocaust

This situation in the UK is really no joke. Something has to be done

Or, how to make enemies of people who aren’t

by Stuart Littlwood
Posted on 23 April 2014.


by Stuart Littlewood

The head of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock, has once again succeeded in wringing an apology from a British MP for remarks about what happened to Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe and what is happening now to Palestinians in Israeli-occupied Gaza and the West Bank.

During the same parliamentary debate in which Sir Gerald Kaufman gave Israel a severe rollicking (see Gaza crisis: “We must impose sanctions on Israel,” says British MP) Yasmin Qureshi, MP for Bolton South East, told the House that the suffering in Gaza was intolerable. Let readers judge whether there’s anything to apologise for in what she said:

“The situation has been going on for nine years. Everyone, from all parties — this is not a party political issue — and every one of our Foreign Secretaries have said, ‘Yes, we think this is wrong, and we all believe in the two-state solution. Yes, we are friends of Israel, and we have told Israel that it should not be doing this.’ But guess what? Nothing has happened….

“What has struck me in all this is that the state of Israel was founded because of what happened to the millions and millions of Jews who suffered genocide. Their properties, homes and land — everything — were taken away, and they were deprived of rights. Of course, many millions perished. It is quite strange that some of the people who are running the state of Israel seem to be quite complacent and happy to allow the same to happen in Gaza.

“The issue is not just about Gaza; let us think about the West Bank and Jerusalem as well. Many Palestinians are being turfed out of their homes in Jerusalem. The Israelis are the occupying power in the West Bank, where they have got rid of Palestinian homes and replaced them with hundreds of thousands of settlements, recognised by the United Nations as illegal…. The policy pursued by the state of Israel is not helping to lead to a two-state solution. All it is doing is making Palestinians even more depressed and anxious. They think, ‘What hope is there for us?’, and they rightly ask, ‘What is the international community doing about this?’ Let us face it: if what is happening to Gaza, done by Israel, were happening to any other nation, the whole world would be up in arms, and rightly so.”

(from Hansard )

Fair comment? Not according to Ms Pollock. The MP was immediately accused of making “offensive and inappropriate comparisons” about the Middle East, as reported in The Guardian . “We expect our politicians to speak responsibly and sensitively about the past and about events today,” said Pollock. “These lazy and deliberate distortions have no place in British politics. Whilst current events in the Middle East understandably stir emotions, it is astonishing to think that anyone could visit Auschwitz-Birkenau, learn about the industrial nature of the Nazis’ murderous regime, even walk through a gas chamber – and then make these offensive and inappropriate comparisons.”

Readers will point out that some events in occupied Palestine not only “stir emotions”, as Ms Pollock downplays it, they are plain war crimes.

In the Jewish Chronicle Labour Friends of Israel director Jennifer Gerber strongly condemned the comparisons between the Holocaust and the situation in Gaza. “In her remarks, she [Qureshi] directly links Israeli policies towards the Palestinian people to the Nazis’ efforts to exterminate world Jewry. This is both deeply offensive to the memory of the Holocaust and its millions of victims, but also wilfully ignorant of the actual situation in Gaza. We would ask Ms Qureshi to apologise for her remarks, and to cease using such upsetting and offensive comparisons.”

Ms Qureshi replied that she had not intended to draw a direct parallel and felt “personally hurt” that anyone could think so – especially as she had visited one of the most notorious death camps. “The debate was about the plight of the Palestinian people and in no way did I mean to equate events in Gaza with the Holocaust. I apologise for any offence caused.” She does not seem to have withdrawn the remark, however.

Ordinary people won’t be told what to think or say

A year ago Liberal Democrat MP David Ward was in hot water for his “use of language” in condemning the Jewish state’s atrocities against the Palestinians while the horrors of their own suffering at the hands of the Nazis were still fresh in their memory. He wrote on his website a few days before Holocaust Memorial Day: “Having visited Auschwitz twice — once with my family and once with local schools — I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza.”

The sky promptly fell on him. Karen Pollock and Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews launched a vicious attack with Pollock claiming that Ward “deliberately abused the memory of the Holocaust” and his remarks were “sickening” and had no place in British politics.

Benjamin said he was outraged and shocked by Ward’s “offensive” comments. He complained: “For an MP to have made such comments on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day is even more distasteful…”

They demanded the party withdraw the whip. Such was the pressure that wobbly LibDem bosses appointed a team to lay down language rules, determine whether Ward was “salvageable” and then re-educate him.

After that, in Brighton, the Sussex Friends of Israel turned on MP Caroline Lucas. During a pro-Israel lobby day in Parliament Lucas accused Israel of “blocking humanitarian aid” and “humiliating” the people of Gaza. Simon Cobbs, a founding member of the Sussex Friends of Israel, told The Algemeiner: “The problem we have with Caroline Lucas is that she’s taken a side over and above her own constituency needs.”

Ms Lucas’s remarks were perfectly valid and there was no way Cobbs could deny it. He should have put his point to the 80 percent of Conservative MPs and MEPs who have signed up with Friends of Israel, an organisation that flies the Israeli flag in the British parliament and promotes Israel’s interests. Such activities are not only “above the needs” but very probably detrimental to the interests of their constituencies.

Then Colchester MP Sir Bob Russell, speaking during a debate on the national schools curriculum, put a question to Education Secretary Michael Gove about world history lessons, saying: “On the assumption that the 20th century will include the Holocaust, will he give me an assurance that the life of Palestinians since 1948 will be given equal attention?”

The idea that Israel’s murderous oppression of the Palestinians should be given the same prominence in British schools as the Shoah did not go down well. “These remarks are a shocking piece of Holocaust denigration,” said Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Jeremy Newmark. “There is simply no comparison between the two situations. It is worrying that so soon after the David Ward affair another MP thinks it is acceptable to play fast and loose with the language of the Holocaust in this context.”

Prickly Ms Pollock also pounced on Russell: “To try to equate the events of the Holocaust – the systematized mass murder of 6 million Jews – with the conflict in the Middle East is simply inaccurate as well as inappropriate.”

First of all, it isn’t a “conflict”. It’s a brutal occupation and blockade in which millions of innocent civilians have been dispossessed at gunpoint and put to flight, or collectively punished for decades by a military force armed to the teeth with high-tech weaponry. As for the atrocities carried out in Nazi-occupied Europe and Israeli-occupied Palestine there is no equivalence in terms of scale. But some similarities are inescapable to those who go and see for themselves. The crucial message of the Holocaust, that such cruelty must never be allowed to happen again, seems lost already.

Governments may bow to Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism and politicians may be bullied into submission, but civil society won’t stand for it. Ordinary people don’t like to be told what to think or say. They won’t allow honest debate to be shut down. They hold Israel to the same standards expected of all nations. And because Israel won’t respect international law, human rights and other norms, and because its leaders are never held to account for their monstrous crimes, civil society has taken matters into its own hands and turned to measures like BDS.

True, growing numbers of Jews bravely speak out and condemn Israel. But more need to do so…. because no-one does a better job of abusing the memory of Holocaust victims than the Zionist regime itself, which drove into exile some 700,000 Palestinians in 1947/8 and has had its boot on the necks of those remaining for the 65 years ever since. The advice of Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, is surely ringing in enough ears: “Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world”.

Ms Pollock, as a ‘guardian’ of the Holocaust enterprise, has a job to do in promoting the message and defending the memory against detractors. But why make enemies of those who are not? Instead, she might consider taking an educational trip into the occupied Palestinian territories. The Holocaust teacher would benefit from becoming a Nakba student for a few days and learning about the Israelis’ evil Matrix of Control, their theft of Palestinian resources, their strangulation of the Palestinian economy, their frequent air-strikes, the midnight raids of their snatch-squads, the decimation of Gaza’s fishing industry, their imprisonment of children, the obstacles they place in the way of university students and sportsmen and women, their blocking of food, medical and building supplies, the all-round misery and destruction they inflict on everyone, and much, much more.

Only then would she be in a position to advise MPs on comparisons and how appropriate or inappropriate they are.

Rethinking the Khazar Theory by Dr. David Duke

I first came across the Khazar theory a few years ago when I read Koestler's "The Thirteenth Tribe". At the time it was a rather marginal, slightly cranky idea but then, suddenly, it became very fashionable - a convenient way of explaining Jewish origins and also of de-legitimising Jewish claims to Palestine.

Now that I think about it, the whole theory did seem a bit pat and a bit too convenient and here, David Duke pretty well tears it apart.

Rethinking the Khazar Theory by Dr. David Duke
APRIL 23, 2014

By Dr. David Duke.

When I was first began to understand the ultra-racist, supremacist ideology of Judaism and Zionism, I came into contact with the theory that present-day Jews are genetically unrelated to the historical Jewish community.

The allegation, known as the “”Khazar theory”, claims that the Ashkenazim Jews of today are actually the descendants of the Khazar people, a Central Asiatic tribe who allegedly converted to Judaism in the 9th Century AD. It is claimed that these newly-minted Jews then migrated into what is now Russia, Eastern Europe and later Western and Northern Europe.

Interestingly enough, the Khazar theory was launched, and is still to this day, driven primarily by Communist Jews. It is ironic that the three most prominent exponents of the theory that “the Jews are not a race” all have almost exaggerated caricatures of features people ascribe as Jewish. Above, left to right: Zionist extremist and Communist Party member Arthur Koestler (author of the “The Thirteenth Tribe”); Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik; and Shlomo Sand, an Israeli academic and former member of the Union of Israeli Communist Youth (Banki). All three maintain that large numbers of present-day Jews are completely genetically unrelated to the Middle Eastern-origin Jews who wrote the Babylonian Talmud.

For years I accepted the Khazar theory as true. After it, all it was repeated by some writers who also recognized the leading Jewish role in Communism and their leadership in many other subversive movements.

It was only later, when I considered the question logically and scientifically, were my doubts about the Khazar theory aroused.

There are three fundamental issues which need to addressed: the scientific evidence; the historical-logical evidence; and the reasons why the Khazar theory came about.

Part I: The Scientific Evidence—Twelve DNA Studies Which Disprove the “Khazar Theory”

1. A 1999 study titled “Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes” (M.F. Hammer, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences 6769–6774, doi: 10.1073/pnas.100115997) found that:

“[D]espite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level.

“Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities . . . Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.”

2. A November 2001 study titled “The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East” (Almut Nebel et. al., American Journal of Human Genetics, Nov 2001; 69(5): 1095–1112) found that in most Jewish populations, male line ancestors appear to have been mainly Middle Eastern.

The study found that Ashkenazi Jews in particular “share more common paternal lineages with other Jewish and Middle Eastern groups than with non-Jewish populations in areas where Jews lived in Eastern Europe, Germany and the French Rhine Valley. This is consistent with Jewish traditions in placing most Jewish paternal origins in the region of the Middle East.”

3. A September 2006 study titled “European Population Substructure: Clustering of Northern and Southern Populations” (Michael F Seldin, PLOS Genetics, DOI: 0.1371/journal.pgen.0020143) found that both Ashkenazi Jews as well as Sephardic Jews showed more than 85% membership in the ‘southern’ European group which made their results “consistent with a later Mediterranean origin of these ethnic groups.”

4. An April 2008 study titled “Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora” (Doron M. Behar, PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(4): e2062. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002062) found that about 40% of Ashkenazi Jews originate maternally from just four female founders, who were of Middle Eastern origin.

5. A January 2009 study titled “A genome-wide genetic signature of Jewish ancestry perfectly separates individuals with and without full Jewish ancestry in a large random sample of European Americans” (Anna C Need, Genome Biology, 2009; 10(1): R7. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-1-r7) found that “individuals with full Jewish ancestry formed a clearly distinct cluster from those individuals with no Jewish ancestry.”

This study showed that in DNA terms, Jews, both Sephardic and Ashkenazim, cluster as a distinct group—something that, if the Khazar theory was true, would be impossible.

6. A December 2009 study titled “Genomic microsatellites identify shared Jewish ancestry intermediate between Middle Eastern and European populations” (Naama M Kopelman, BMC Genetics. 2009; 10: 80. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-10-80) found that :

“Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations of European descent.”

7. A December 2009 study titled “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” (Doron M. Behar, et. al., Nature 466, 238–242 (08 July 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09103) analyzed individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations in order to “provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa.”

The results identified a “previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East” and that “Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster,” and that “trace[s] the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.”

8. A June 2010 study titled “Abraham’s children in the genome era: major Jewish diaspora populations comprise distinct genetic clusters with shared Middle Eastern ancestry” (Atzmon et al., American Journal of Human Genetics, 2010;86:850-859) refuted the idea of large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry.

This study found used genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and “demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture.”

This paper specifically excluded the “Khazar theory” as an origin for present-day Jews, saying “the genetic proximity . . . is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs.”

9. A March 2012 study by Steven M. Bray et. al., titled “Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population” (Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, 16222–16227, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004381107) found that the “Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population . . . has a common Middle Eastern origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations” while concluding that the Ashkenazi Jewish population has had the most European admixture.

10. A March 2012 study by Christopher L. Campbell et. al., titled “North African Jewish and non-Jewish populations form distinctive, orthogonal clusters” (Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204840109) found that genome-wide analysis of five North African Jewish groups (Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Djerban, and Libyan) “demonstrated distinctive North African Jewish population clusters with proximity to other Jewish populations.”

Furthermore, the study showed, the Sephardic Jewish genome is “compatible with the history of North African Jews—founding during Classical Antiquity with proselytism of local populations, followed by genetic isolation with the rise of Christianity and then Islam, and admixture following the emigration of Sephardic Jews during the Inquisition.”

Finally, this study added “These populations showed a high degree of endogamy and were part of a larger Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish group.”

(*Endogamy: the practice of marrying within a specific ethnic group, rejecting others on such a basis as being unsuitable for marriage or for other close personal relationships.)

11. In his book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People” (Oxford University Press, USA; May 2012), Harry Ostrer, a professor of Pathology and Genetics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and Director of Genetic and Genomic Testing at Montefiore Medical Center, Medicine, concluded that “Jews exhibit a distinctive genetic signature.” (Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal–Author Uncovers DNA Links Between Members of Tribe, The Jewish Daily Forward, May 04, 2012).

Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, said in his conclusion that “Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a race.”

Ostrer also deals specifically with the Khazar theory. He pointed out that the findings from the Jewish HapMap Project (see below) completely refute “the theories that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs.” (Jews: A religious group, people or race?, Jerusalem Post, 8/26/2012)

12. The Jewish HapMap Project, a joint project of Albert Einstein College of Medicine and New York University School of Medicine, was created to “understand the structure of the genomes in Jewish populations” and is an outgrowth of the Human HapMap Project.

According to this project, “Jewish populations are remarkable for maintaining continuous genetic, cultural, and religious traditions over 4000 years, despite residence all over the world.”

Its findings, based on first hand DNA studies amongst Jewish populations around the globe, found no evidence to support a Central Asian DNA origin for Jewry.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the “Jewish HapMap Project in New York City has so far shown “in exquisite detail what had been conjectured for a century. Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups – Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi – form a distinctive population cluster that is closely related to Semitic and European populations. Within this larger Jewish cluster, each of the Jewish populations formed its own subcluster.

“A high degree of mixing of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Italian and Syrian Jews caused them to become more closely related to each other than they were to Middle Eastern, Iraqi and Iranian Jews. This genetic split seemed to have occurred about 2,500 years ago.” (Jews: A religious group, people or race?, Jerusalem Post, 8/26/2012)

DNA Studies Find that Ashkenazim Jews have 30% European Admixture

Both the Behar study (section 7 above) and the Atzmon study (section 8 above) were commented upon by the British former deputy editor of the journal Nature, and currently the scientific correspondent for the New York Times, Nicholas Wade, in an article in that newspaper as follows:

“Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives,” adding that a “major surprise from both surveys is the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim.”

Wade pointed out that the two studies “refute the suggestion made by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’ that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times.

“Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant; Ethiopian Jews and two Judaic communities in India are genetically much closer to their host populations,” Wade wrote.

“The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City.

“Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.” (Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity, Nicholas Wade, New York Times, June 9, 2010).

Eran Elhaik’s Single Study Attempts to Refute the Mass of Earlier DNA Evidence

The mass of DNA and genetic evidence is, therefore, overwhelmingly indicative that, despite a certain amount of European admixture among Ashkenazim Jewry, there is still a clearly definable Middle Eastern genetic component to both Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewry.

Despite all of these studies—and many more, too numerous to list individually here—in December 2012, a single individual by the name of Eran Elhaik, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, attempted to refute all of the above mentioned evidence.

His paper, titled “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” was published in the journal Genome Biological Evolution ((2013) 5 (1):61-74.doi: 10.1093/gbe/evs119).

In a nutshell, Elhaik—whose rather obviously Jewish physical appearance should by itself indicate that there is indeed a common Jewish “type” (how else can many Jews be physically “recognized” as Jews?)—argues that his method of doing comparative studies between present-day Central Asian populations, Ashkenazim Jews and non-Jewish test groups, “proves” that Ashkenazim Jews are a hotchpotch of genetic origins, with a strong link to what he identifies as the “Khazar” tribe.

Even though Elhaik’s work is the only single paper (as opposed to literally dozens of opposing DNA studies), written by a single Jewish individual (as opposed to the other papers which were written by dozens and dozens of scientists from around the globe, Jewish and non-Jewish alike), it has quickly become the most-quoted “proof” of the “Khazar Theory.”

Critical Errors in Elhaik’s Paper

Elhaik’s paper has a number of errors, some small and a number of major ones. But they are all serious, because even the “small” errors cast doubt on his academic ability and motivation.

For example, his paper discusses in detail what he sees as the geographic origin of the Khazars—yet he completely misidentifies the geographic location of one of his test sample groups, the Mbuti and Biaka Pygmies.

These two groups, Elhaik asserts at least twice, are to be found in “South Africa.”

Actually, the Mbuti and Biaka Pygmies are nowhere near South Africa, and are only to be found literally half a continent away, in the Congo.

While this may seem a “small” error, it does indicate sloppiness in research which certainly does not bode well for the rest of the paper.

This sloppiness is again repeated when Elhaik asserts that “Eastern and Central European Jews account for approximately 90% of over 13 million worldwide Jews.”

In reality, the figure is far less. Of the estimated 13 million Jews worldwide, 8 million are Ashkenazim and 5 million are Sephardic, a division of 61% “European Jews” to 39% “non-European Jews.” And it should be pointed out that the Zionist State of Israel actually has a Sephardic and Mizrahi (non-Ashkenazi) Jewish majority among Jews.

These actual facts on Jewish ethnicity are readily available, and Elhaik’s motivation for making this clearly false claim could only be ascribed to a desire to underscore his general assertion, namely that most Jews are not Middle Eastern in origin and that Jews are not race, or a genetically similar people.

The most important error in Elhaik’s paper, however, is actually openly admitted: namely that there is actually no “Khazar DNA” in existence, against which any sort of measurement can be taken.

Elhaik himself admits this in his paper: the “Khazars have been vanquished and their remains have yet to be sequenced. . .”—in other words there is no record of what exactly Khazar DNA might have been.

As there is no record of what Khazar DNA is—it is, ipso facto, physically impossible to determine who is descended from it and who is not.

Elhaik attempts to circumvent this major problem by selecting what he calls “surrogate populations”—in this case, “contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasus populations.”

Anyone with a basic understanding of historical events in the Caucasus in particular will immediately see that Elhaik’s assertion that current populations in that region can be taken to reflect those of 1,500 years ago, is highly problematic and quite simply, unsustainable.

The Caucasus, a region at the border of Europe and Asia, situated between the Black and the Caspian seas, has been crisscrossed by numerous peoples and races over the last 2000 years, ranging from Indo-Europeans, Semites, Mongols and others—and is today highly genetically diverse. A claim that DNA samples from this region can be taken as any sort of DNA yardstick, is dubious to say the very least.

Finally, Elhaik’s methodology in comparing the DNA samples is, to make an understatement, unique to him. As Marcus Feldman, director of Stanford University’s Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, said, “He [Elhaik] appears to be applying the statistics in a way that gives him different results from what everybody else has obtained from essentially similar data.” (‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert. The Jewish Daily Forward, May 07, 2013)

Interestingly, the study which was cited in the New York Times of the “Jews as a race” is exactly the same conclusion that was reached by German National Socialist anthropologists and other experts who studied race science in the United States and elsewhere. Also, many of the present-day extensive studies have been carried out by both Gentile and Jewish geneticists alike, obviating any claims of racial bias.

Elhaik’s theory is completely refuted by the new, most massive and most complete study ever done of the Jewish Genome

One of Elhaik’s arguments was that the previous studies (referenced above) “were done in the pregenome-wide era using uniparental markers and including different reference populations”—implying that their results are not in line with the most modern DNA sequencing methodology.

In fact, at least one study—which appeared after Elhaik’s work was first published—has confirmed the accuracy of the original studies, and also completely refuted Elhaik’s hypothesis.

Titled “No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews,” this study was published by the journal Human Biology in August 2013 (Behar, Doron M.; Human Biology, Access Pre-Prints. Paper 41), this paper emphasized the serious error with Elhaik’s work:

“Because the Khazar population has left no obvious modern descendants that could enable a clear test for a contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, the Khazar hypothesis has been difficult to examine using genetics.

“Furthermore, because only limited genetic data have been available from the Caucasus region, and because these data have been concentrated in populations that are genetically close to populations from the Middle East, the attribution of any signal of Ashkenazi-Caucasus genetic similarity to Khazar ancestry rather than shared ancestral Middle Eastern ancestry has been problematic.”

This latest, most massive study of the Jewish genome was a worldwide effort of geneticists, both Gentile and Jewish, to analyze Jewish genetics. Researchers from laboratories around the globe, including Estonia, Russia, Italy, Greece, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Armenia, the US, and Israel, gathered together the largest Jewish DNA data set ever yet assembled. The paper explained as follows:

“Here, through integration of genotypes on newly collected samples with data from several of our past studies, we have assembled the largest data set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins.”

“Employing a variety of standard techniques for the analysis of population genetic structure, we find that Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations, and among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East.

“No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews with populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly with the populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.”

The latest, most up-to-date and modern DNA analysis has, therefore, completely refuted the “Khazar Theory.”

It is important to understand that this refutation has come from non-Jewish and Jewish scientists from dozens of different universities and geneticists all over the world, and cannot be ascribed to a “conspiracy.”

Part II: The Historical-Logical Evidence

The Historical Record Shows Jewish Physical Consistency

One of the most obvious indicators of genetic commonality is physical appearance. European people broadly resemble each other; African people broadly resemble each other; Chinese people broadly resemble each other; Australian Aborigines broadly resemble each other and so on.

It is a characteristic of genetically similar people to physically resemble each other.

Jews are no different in this regard to any other people. They too show a resemblance to each other—this is why it is possible to often “recognize” a Jewish person by his physical appearance.

A good example in point is the already mentioned Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik, who, despite physically embodying a Jewish sterrotype recognized around the world, tries to claim that there is no genetic commonality amongst Jews.

The “Khazar theory” holds that most Ashkenazim Jews are not Semitic, but are “Central Asian” converts to Judaism.

Proponents of the “Khazar theory” fail to understand the logical consequence of their belief—namely that a supposed Central Asian origin of “most” Ashkenazim Jews means that they will not physically resemble other Jews.

As anyone can see, this is not the case. Sephardic Jews are, on average, slightly darker than Ashkenazim Jews, but there is no doubt that there is a physical similarity which allows them still to be recognized as such.

Above: These two illustrations make the point even more dramatically. On the left, the Ashkenazim Jewess, Barbara Streisand, New York, 1966. On the right, a Jewish leader of Israelite trade delegation as portrayed on a mural on the wall of the 18th Dynasty (1400 BC) Tomb of Sobekhotep, Thutmose IV; Egypt.

Streisand’s paternal grandparents came from Galicia (Poland–Ukraine) and her maternal grandparents came from Russia—if anyone would be “Khazar,” according to that theory, it would be her. Nonetheless, she closely resembles the only designated Jew as portrayed on an Egyptian tomb from 3.400 years ago, the leader of a Jewish trade delegation to Egypt.

The genetic continuity is clear—and if the Khazar theory was true, there would be no physical similarity, because there would have been a racial sea change in Jewish appearance.

Left: The famous banker of Pompeii, Jucundus, who lived circa 20–62 AD. Identified as a Jew by the German anthropologist, Hans F.K. Günther, in his book “Racial Elements of European History” (Fig, 240a and b, chapter VIII). Alongside, the Ashkenazi Jew, Abe Foxman of the ADL. The similarity between Jucundus and Foxman is clear, and serves a further indication of the physical continuity of the Jewish type over centuries—something that would be impossible if the “Khazar theory” was true.

In addition to genetic studies, there have been extensive physiological comparison of Jewish remains from burial sites from ancient Israel and present-day Ashkenazi and Sephardic physiology, all of which conclusively shows their similarity across both the Sephardic and Ashkenazi spectrum—and their difference from European populations.

Jewish Supremacist Behavior Through the Millennia Disprove the “Khazar Theory”

Another piece of the jigsaw which disproves the Khazar theory, is that Jewish Supremacist behavior has remained constant throughout the millennia—from biblical times right through to the present day.

Most Christians are aware of the behavior of the Old Testament Jews—who burn, rampage, kill rape and enslave their way through Palestine supposedly on order of their tribal God. They are aware of the fact that the gospels of the New Testament show that elite of the Jews, the Pharisees, were the biggest enemies of Christ and arranged for his crucifixion, and the New Testament is clear that they led the persecution of Christians which has continued through both Jewish Bolshevism and the cultural assault in the Zio global media.

It must also be clear that the Talmud, the books of Jewish law promoting Jewish extremist supremacism and hatred against all non-Jews, was written hundreds of years before any alleged Khazar conversion.

While it another debate altogether as to the historical accuracy of those events, there is no question about Jewish interaction with Gentiles—and Romans in particular—during the first century AD.

The world’s first anti-Jewish riots broke out in the city of Alexandria in 38 AD, and re-occurred in 66 AD, 115 AD, 118 AD, and 411 AD. In that year, the archbishop of Alexandria, Cyril, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from the city.

The Roman historian Socrates of Constantinople (not be confused with the Socrates of Classical Greece), in his Ecclesiastical History, recorded the reasons for this first great expulsion of Jews from a non-Jewish city in detail, and reveals behavior by Jewish Supremacists exactly as the world experiences it today, over 1,500 years later:

“. . .[T]he Jews were continually factious; and there was added to their ordinary hatred of the Christians . . . Cyril, on being informed of this, sent for the principal Jews, and threatened them with the utmost severities unless they desisted from their molestation of the Christians. These menaces, instead of suppressing their violence, only rendered the Jewish populace more furious, and led them to form conspiracies for the destruction of the Christians, one of which was of so desperate a character as to cause their entire expulsion from Alexandria” (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., VII, 13; PC, LXXXII, 759 ff).

The very first Jewish community outside of the Middle East was established in Rome in 139 BC—and it was not long before their activities roused Roman public opinion against them.

The famous orator Cicero, among others, frequently spoke against the presence of Jews during sittings of the Roman senate. In his famous Pro Flacco oration (which dealt with the case of a Roman aristocrat, Lucius Valerius Flaccus, accused of unlawfully confiscating Jewish money), Cicero said:

“Now let us take a look at the Jews and their mania for gold. You chose this site, [chief prosecutor] Laelius, and the crowd which frequents it, with an eye to this particular accusation, knowing very well that Jews with their large numbers and tendency to act as a clique are valuable supporters to have at any kind of public meeting.”

Many other prominent and famous Romans, such as Seneca, Juneval, and Tacitus all went on record as complaining about the activities of Jews within the Roman Empire.

The Roman historian Tacitus, in his most famous work, Histories, described the activities of the Jews as follows:

“In order to secure the allegiance of his people in the future, Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral . . . The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth may be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews.

“But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles. Though a most lascivious people, the Jews avoid sexual intercourse with women of alien race. Among themselves nothing is barred. They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others.” (Tacitus, Histories, 5.2–5).

The famous British historian Edward Gibbon, in his monumental work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (Lippincourt, Philadelphia, 1878, vol. 2, page 4), discussed Jewish Supremacist behavior in Roman times this way:

“From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyria, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the Legions against a race of fanatics whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of all human kind.”

Anti-Jewish literature during Roman times was very widespread. One work by the Greek, Apion, was so well-known that the Romanized Jewish historian Josephus (who wrote the famous account of the Jewish uprising of 70 AD, called The Jewish Wars) wrote an entire book trying to refute Apion’s arguments.

The Roman Emperor Tiberius formally expelled the Jews from Rome in 19 AD. They returned shortly thereafter, only to be expelled once again in 49 AD.

In 116 AD, Emperor Trajan ordered that all Jews in Mesopotamia should be killed, saying that they were the cause of continual uprisings in that region.

One of the most famous emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, Justinian (527–565 AD), adopted a comprehensive anti-Jewish policy which barred Jews from the civil service, military posts, and any other positions of influence in his government.

All of these events pre-date the supposed “Khazar conversion” by centuries—yet it can be seen that the identical behavioral patterns are on display before and after the supposed “Khazar” infusion.

Logic dictates that if the racial make-up of Jews changed substantially after the year 700 AD, then their behavioral traits would also have changed.

The fact that they did not, is yet more proof that there was no racial sea-change amongst Jews as is claimed by the supporters of the “Khazar theory.”

The historical-logical evidence therefore clearly shows that there has been no change in Jewish Supremacist behavior from the time of the ancient Romans to the present-day. If there had been large-scale conversions, as the “Khazar theory” claims, the genetic continuity of the Jewish people would have been disrupted, which would likely have caused a change in behavior.

As this behavior as remained constant, the historical account indicates that the “Khazar theory” is untrue.

Part III: The Reasons Why the “Khazar Theory” Has Come About

1. The “Khazar Theory” Deflects Attention from the Most Racist Jews of all, the Sephardic Jewish Extremists, suggests that there is not “Jewish problem” but a Khazar or Ashkenazi problem.

The “Khazar theory” falls down when it is understood that it only attempts to explain the origin of the “European” or Ashkenazim Jews—and completely ignores the Sephardic element of Jewry, which compromises nearly 40% of all Jews today and about 50 percent of Jews in Zionist State of Israel.

The ludicrousness of the situation is underlined when it is appreciated that the Sephardic element of Jewry tends to be the most religious and the most orthodox. They most closely follow the dictates of the Talmud and the Torah laws—and are therefore most immersed in the racist supremacy and anti-Gentile hatred which guides all Jewish behavior.

It was, after all, the former chief rabbi of the Sephardic Jews in Israel who announced that Gentiles are donkeys, created by God only to serve Jews, among many other overtly racist comments. This ultra racist Jew, Rabbi Yosef, recently died and had the largest funeral in the history of Israel.

By focusing on the bogus “Khazar” theory, its proponents deflect attention away from the proven historical record that Jewish Supremacist behavior is common to both Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewish extremists.

This is proven by the fact that Israel uses DNA tests to check if potential immigrants to that country are Jewish or not.

If there was a wide divergence between Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewry, as the “Khazar theory” would maintain, then it would not be possible for Israel to genetically distinguish who is a Jew and who is not.

2. The “Khazar Theory” is Popular Among Anti-Zionists (For the Wrong Reasons)

In the wake of the Second World War and establishment of the Zionist State of Israel, the Khazar theory gained traction in the anti-Zionist movement.

It seemed to be powerful argument against Zionism. If the leaders of the Zionist movement had no relation to the historical people called Jews in the Mideast, then the theoretical rationale of the Zionists to claim Palestine as a historical homeland, was demolished.

This logic is, of course, fundamentally flawed, because it matters not if modern Jews were related or partly related to Jews who lived in the region 2,000 years earlier.

No matter what the case, there is no moral justification for the Jewish terrorist creation of Israel. It is a crime against humanity to drive hundreds of thousands of men, women and children from their land and homes, terrorize them and murder thousands, just because of a claim that one’s distant ancestors supposedly lived there millennia ago.

It this “logic” is carried through to its conclusion, then it would be “justified” to drive from their homes 99.9 percent of the people alive on planet Earth—because there is hardly a region on earth that has not been subjected to invasions or migrations throughout history.

To explain this inconsistency another way: by using the “Khazar theory” as “proof” that the Zionists cannot claim Israel because they are not the real Jews, the anti-Zionists are in fact saying that IF it can be shown that the Zionists ARE the real Jews, then they would have the right to claim Palestine as a homeland. Remember that a majority of Jews in Israel are Sephardic or Mizrahi Jews who are non-Ashkenazi.

This “logic”, as detailed above, is false.

3. The “Khazar Theory” is a Tactic to Disguise Jewish Supremacist Racism

The “Khazar argument” is intrinsically related to the question of whether the present-day Jews are a religion or a race.

Prominent Jews have long referred to Jews as a “race,” even in modern times.

If there was any leader of world Jewry in the days before The Second World War it was Nahum Goldman, the President of the World Zionist organization. He said:

“The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.”

Even the current prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking before a gathering of Jews from all over the world, candidly referred to the “Jewish race”: “If Israel had not come into existence after World War II than [sic] I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived.” (Daily Pilot, Newport Beach/Costa Mesa, Feb. 28, 2000, front page.)

Leading Jews have always defined themselves as much more than a religion but as people of special genealogy, and expressed the ultimate supremacism that God has chosen them above all others.

Israel is a Jewish religious state, in which the religious dictates hold supreme. The rabbis determine all the important issues: immigration, education, housing, and marriage. It matters not if a person believes in God or not—the only thing that counts is if one is of Jewish lineage, or Jewish descent.

It matters not if one’s Jewish mother was an atheist or a Haredim, or if her great grandmother was religious or not—what ultimately counts is one’s blood, not one’s belief in God.

Ironically, this is not only true in Israel. It is true in the very synagogues of the Jewish religion across the globe. Atheist? No problem as long as if you are of the tribe.

The tactic of claiming that Judaism is simply a religion is an effective defensive strategy.

Whenever anyone complains about Jewish domination of any institution (achieved by favoring their own and disfavoring their non-Jewish competitors), Jewish Supremacists simply say that they are a “religion” like any other, rather than an ethnic group.

People in America, Europe, and the Western world, all overwhelmingly endorse the concept of religious freedom—and thus they equate criticism of Jewish actions as “religious bigotry” and oppression. “After all,” the claim is made, “it is just a religion.”

This is a Jewish Supremacist tactic: They disguise Jewish racism through religious dogma, rather than admitting ethnic nationalism.

I have come to believe that the Khazar theory is one more piece of controlled opposition as illustrated in Orwell’s 1984 where Emmanuel Goldstein is supposedly Big Brother’s opposition, but in fact he is part of the Big Brother apparatus.

How convenient it is to suggest that Jews are not a race, not a related people that gives them a unity and strength in conflict with other peoples.

One cannot explain the power of Zionism unless one understands Jewish tribalism.

Jewish tribalism (racism) and favoritism and preference for fellow Jews combined with discrimination against non-Jews ultimately enables them to take over almost any institution.

Without Jewish racism, Zionism could not flourish, for that is what gives the Jewish extremists its enormous economic, media and political influence.

Christians who propagate the “Khazar theory” should not forget that the Talmud is perhaps the most anti-Christ tome ever written. The Talmud portrays Jesus being boiled in human excrement—“forever”!

The Talmud as well the gospel recounting of the Jewish persecution behind the crucifixion of Christ all took place hundreds of years before any supposed Khazar conversion!

How convenient it is for the anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish supremacist efforts be divided on the foundation of the Jewish problem.

Bear in mind, the problem we face is not a “Khazar” problem, it is a Jewish problem, it is a problem of extremist Jewish racism and supremacism which continually plunges our world into war, hatred, tyranny and degradation.

It is for these reasons, that I no longer believe the Khazar theory.

Anyone who opposes Jewish extremism, supremacism and Zionism I consider an ally and brother in the cause for the liberation of Europeans and every people on the Planet from the Zio-Globalist threat.

I accept whole heartedly those who still believe the Khazar theory, but at the same time I must express what I think to be the truth: that, overall, the theory does more harm than good in our efforts to oppose Jewish tribalism.

I will no longer endorse a false theory fostered upon us by Jewish communists who seek to lessen our understanding of the core threat of Jewish racism.

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

St George of Palestine

Today in England it is St George's Day. Everyone here knows that St George is England's patron saint - but what is less known is that he was also a great Palestinian.

This is from the BBC

Why St George is a Palestinian hero
By Yolande KnellBBC News

As England celebrates the day of its patron saint, many Palestinians are gearing up for their own forthcoming celebrations of the figure they also regard as a hero.

A familiar flag flaps in the wind above a Palestinian church in the West Bank village of al-Khadr.

The red cross on a white background has been associated with Saint George since the time of the Crusades.

It is the national flag of England and is also used as an emblem by other countries and cities that have adopted him as their own patron saint.

However, Palestinians have particular reason to display the symbol and revere the early Christian martyr. For them he is a local hero who opposed the persecution of his fellow Christians in the Holy Land.

"We believe he was a great martyr for his faith who defended the Christian faith and values," says Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna.
The St George's flag flies above a Palestinian church

"By making sacrifices for his faith he was able to defeat evil. We take St George as a patron for people living here - and as he was born in historic Palestine, we pray to him to remember us and this holy land."

St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD, when the Emperor Diocletian was in power. It is said that he once lived in al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family.

While the saint's father is usually traced back to Cappadocia, an area in modern Turkey, it is believed his mother was Palestinian from Lydda - now Lod, in Israel.

The saint is remembered for giving away his possessions and remaining true to his religion when he was imprisoned and tortured before he was finally executed.

There are many churches in the West Bank and Israel that bear the name of St George - at al-Khadr, Lod and in the Galilee, for example.

While the Western world marks St George's Day on 23 April, in the Palestinian areas it falls on 6 May, according to the older calendar used by the Eastern Churches.

A service is held for the saint at al-Khadr, bringing worshippers from the Bethlehem area and much further afield to light candles and say prayers. During the feast, special bread is baked that shows him in his typical pose as a dragon slayer.
The image of St George appears in the form of statues, mosaics and even bread (top right)

Such images are also a permanent feature on many Palestinian Christian homes and public buildings. It is thought that the saint brings them protection.

"He's a native saint who has done many miracles. We respect him a lot," explains sculptor Akram Anastas.

"He's presented as a knight full of peace and grace, riding his horse and always fighting evil, which is symbolised by the dragon. We write underneath in Arabic 'God bless our house.'"

Anastas has worked on thousands of stone carvings of the saint during his career, selling them to Palestinian and international buyers.

"I like him very much. He's a good friend of mine and I've found him many times in my life. He's my guardian angel," he says.
Sculptor Akram Anastas has made thousands of stone carvings of St George

With its associations of courage, gallantry and honour, the Christian name, George, remains one of the most common in the Palestinian Territories.

Other variants are Khadr (Arabic for "green one") and Jeries.

In a Bethlehem coffee shop known locally as "Abu George" [the father of George], I sit with members of the Thalgieh family, who are all called George.

"Maybe we have 10 people [named George] until now. Perhaps in the future we will reach 100," says George Elias Saba Thalgieh.

"Here in Bethlehem, it's not just our family. We all believe that St George will help us when we need him. If you have an accident the first thing you say is 'Ya Khadr' - it means we are calling for St George to help us.

"I love the name. Our grandfather is George, I am George so now my sons will name their sons George," adds the older man's nephew, George Nabil George Thalgieh, a well-known singer.
The Many Georges of the Talgieh family standing outside the "Abu George" coffee shop

Anticipating this year's St George's Day, the two generations join in a traditional verse.

"Oh, St George we pray at al-Khadr," go the lyrics. "We are the Christians with the candles in our hands."

There are a number of customs associated with the saint.

Sometimes the Greek Orthodox priest is asked to insert a key into the mouth of children with speech difficulties, turning it to "unlock" their tongues.

There is a ritual in which visitors put a chain around their neck, pass it over their body and kiss it three times. This is thought to ward off sickness.

Letters asking St George to solve family disputes are placed inside the glass that covers his icon.

People appealing to the saint for help also give sheep to the church so it can distribute meat to the poor.

Boy Georges

(Clockwise from top left) George Salameh, who runs a falafel restaurant in Bethlehem: "I was born on the eve of St George's Day so my family decided to call me George. This is our custom if you are born on the day of a saint - you should be named after him or her. Now I have my birthday and St George's Day next to each other."

George Canawati, manager of Radio Bethlehem 2000, based in Beit Sahour: "I do really like my name and I like St George. My grandfather was called George and now there are five Georges in my immediate family."
George Andoni, a carpenter from Beit Sahour: "I was called George because of the saint. I'm proud of my name because I respect St George a lot. It's an honour to share a name with him"
George Shomali, from Beit Sahour, works in ceramics at the Lifegate Centre in Beit Jala: "I like my name. Palestinians like the name George a lot. In my family I am called JoJo as a nickname."

Some Palestinian Muslims, especially those from al-Khadr, also follow the practices.

"It's not only the Christians that appreciate him, the Muslims also feel the power and the miracles of St George," says Father Ananias.

"When the church was built [in the Byzantine period] the neighbours were Christians. I don't know when the local people became Muslims, but under the Turkish [Ottomans] they protected the monastery and remained very close."

An old woman wearing a traditional embroidered dress and the Islamic veil tells me: "We all believe in al-Khadr, even my husband. I made a vow to light a candle in al-Khadr church."

Many Muslim scholars suggest that a servant of God mentioned in the Koran as an associate of Moses, refers to the figure of al-Khadr, who is identified with St George.

In the 1,700 years or so since his death, the saint has also become identified with other figures, some historical and some mythical.

The legend of him saving a maiden by killing a dragon probably originated in the Middle Ages.

Although many details of his life remain unclear, Palestinians see him as having set a powerful example for helping the needy and bravely standing up for one's beliefs.

It is this reputation that has also made him popular around the world.

More babble from Mondoweiss

I've tried to read this babble from Mondoweiss about six times and still don't really understand what it's about  ....he said this, she said that.... he did this,she did that - but I did manage to work out that it's something about someone trying to smear Max Blumenthal with links to (gasp) White supremacists.

But one thing leaped out at me:

1. "Before journalist and author Max Blumenthal turned his eye towards Israel/Palestine, he was a dogged investigator of the seedy world of neo-Nazism and white supremacism in the U.S."

Well, who are these "neo-Nazis" and "white supremacists" who Max Blumenthal used to investigate? Well, I've been hanging around the Jew/Zionism/Israel/Palestine/anti-Semitism etc etc scene for about 20 years if not my whole life and the only "neo-Nazis" I've ever come across are people who are sick to death of being kicked around by Jews and want to see non-Jews given a fair shake. As for 'white supremacists', they seem to be anyone who takes any pride whatsoever in their European heritage and wants to see their identity preserved. So is it not entirely appropriate that Blumenthal should have progressed from doing battle with those enemies of the Jews to joining Free, Free, Palestine! thus keeping a watchful eye on those other other enemies of the Jews i.e. the Palestinians?

Haaretz joins Rush Limbaugh and company in trying to link Max Blumenthal to KC shooter suspect
Alex Kane and Phan Nguyen on April 16, 2014 

Author Max Blumenthal.

Before journalist and author Max Blumenthal turned his eye towards Israel/Palestine, he was a dogged investigator of the seedy world of neo-Nazism and white supremacism in the U.S. But now, liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz has joined right-leaning Israel advocates in trying to turn the tables on him by linking the journalist to Frazier Glenn Miller (also known as Frazier Glenn Cross), the suspect in Sunday’s deadly shooting at two Jewish centers in Kansas City.

Various personalities are waging a concerted smear campaign against Blumenthal, whose book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel kicked up a storm of controversy over its indictment of Israel’s human rights abuses. The canary in the coal mine for them was that Miller, who posted on the far-right forum Vanguard News Network as “Rounder,” once posted about an interview Blumenthal did on Russia Today.

“Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment,” Miller, who has been a violent white supremacist activist long before Blumenthal began reporting, wrote.

Earlier this week, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed the suspect “admits he was inspired by [people like Blumenthal], and that’s why he took action against the three Jewish people in Kansas City.” Limbaugh cited an article by neoconservative writer Ron Radosh, who wrote that the posting showed “who inspire[d] him to have taken his dreadful murder today.” Radosh also claimed that Miller’s rant was “similar to the arguments of Walt and Mearsheimer, John B. Judis and other realists and leftists.”

FrontPageMagazine claimed that Blumenthal was “very proud” at “finally having achieved his great dream” through Cross’s actions. Daniel Pipes in the National Review wrote that Frazier Glenn Miller “gives every appearance of being a true believer inspired in part by Blumenthal’s ravings.”

White supremacists’ linking to discussions about the Israel lobby is not new. The website of David Duke has approvingly cited this site and such authors as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; analyses about the Israel lobby have been used by Duke to attempt to show malign Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy, though Walt, Mearsheimer and others are simply not anti-Semites and make clear that Zionism and Judaism are not the same. It brings to mind what Tony Judt, paraphrasing Arthur Koestler, said during a debate on Walt and Mearsheimer’s work: “You cannot help it if idiots and bigots share your views for their reasons.”

Haaretz joins the fray

Earlier this morning, the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz joined the right-wing campaign.

In a news article entitled “Kansas Murderer Admires Prominent Israeli Critic,”Haaretz revealed that accused shooter “Frazier Glenn Cross repeatedly praised controversial journalist Max Blumenthal.”

The single source for Haaretz’s claim was an article in the right wing news outletWashington Free Beacon—a source so unreliable that it recently consulted an “expert” to determine that a pineapple in a Facebook photograph was the symbolic representation of the Jewish people.

The Free Beacon’s current report was inspired by similar accusations being made by other pro-Israel outlets to smear Blumenthal for his outspoken criticism of Israel.

Let’s look at how accurate this claim is. Haaretz writes:

According to the [Free Beacon] report, a search of the VNN Forum – a prominent white supremacist website run by [accused Kansas shooter] Cross – finds over 300 references praising Blumenthal’s criticism of the State of Israel and American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.

Every single element of this sentence is false. Let’s break it down:

…the VNN Forum – a prominent white supremacist website run by Cross…

Wrong. The forum of the Vanguard News Network (VNN) is not “run by Cross” but instead is run by its founder, Alex Linder, who is also listed on the VNN Forum as the administrator.

Alex Linder, the founder and administrator of the VNN Forum

…finds over 300 references…

Wrong. The number 300 is based on a Google search for all instances of the phrase “Max Blumenthal” appearing under the domain name “” At the time of this writing, the Google search link provided by Free Beacon displays what the search engine initially claims to be “about 375 results.”

Yet a closer look reveals that Google suspects the majority of the results to be duplicates, and that—after weeding out those duplicates—Google finds only “about 71” references to “Max Blumenthal.”

Even within those 71 references, I found several more duplicates, narrowing the count to 46.

…over 300 references praising Blumenthal’s criticism of the State of Israel and American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.

Wrong. Among the VNN Forum’s approximately 46 references to “Max Blumenthal,” many of them would not be considered “praise”—nor do they reference “criticism of the State of Israel” or “American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.”

For instance, the VNN Forum has a weird way of showing “praise” when its participants refer to Blumenthal as:

Jew Max Blumenthal

Kike Max Blumenthal

Jewish propagandists including … Max Blumenthal

an avowed queer like Max Blumenthal

Max Blumenthal … a flamboyant, exhibitionistic anti-racist

that douche bag sodomite Max Blumenthal

One page on the forum even links to an article that sarcastically refers to Blumenthal as “Country Music Expert Max Blumenthal.”

A different VNN page refers to “obvious biases and outright misinterpretationscontained in Max Blumenthal’s article,” while another one accuses Blumenthal of“vicious character assassinations.”

One forum participant excerpted an article on white supremacism by Blumenthal in order to mock it, summarizing Blumenthal’s reporting thusly:

Jew Max Blumenthal speaks for us, we’re all happy because Obama is going to win.

As with that reference, many of the references to Blumenthal on the VNN Forum have nothing to do with “criticism of the State of Israel” or “American-Jewish support of Israeli policy.”

One reference appears under the subject heading “The Jew Media Drools over faggot prostitute.” Quite a few references appear in the context of a feud with right-wing radio host Hal Turner. Another reference is about Mike Huckabee, and yet another is about Sarah Palin.

It should also be noted that some of these VNN Forum references to Blumenthal are simply reprints of articles from mainstream sources like Huffington Post andDaily Beast.

As irrelevant as all these references are, they serve to puff up the feeble contention of a Blumenthal–Kansas shooting nexus.

The idea is to tie Blumenthal to the Kansas shootings, by way of the alleged perpetrator Frazier Glenn Cross. Yet for all their attempts to create a connection, the single tie is this:

Cross is believed to have been a frequent contributor to the VNN Forum. Out of 12,683 forum posts attributed to Cross, one single post was found to have mentioned “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal.” That single post contains a broken linkto a page that once linked to a YouTube clip of a brief interview with Blumenthal. In that interview, Blumenthal explained how neoconservative supporters of Netanyahu in DC were hoping to sway the 2012 presidential election in their favor.

That is it. On the basis of that single strand of serendipity, Haaretz declared, “Kansas murderer admires prominent Israeli critic” and “Frazier Glenn Cross repeatedly praised controversial journalist Max Blumenthal.” Instant news. (For point of comparison there are 255 references on the forum to actor Kevin Bacon.)

Immediately after the Haaretz article went online, several commentators criticizedHaaretz on Twitter. Blumenthal himself challenged Haaretz Managing Editor Simon Spungin to justify the piece. Initially Spungin made a slight alteration to the article but otherwise kept it intact and placed the onus on Blumenthal to prove the article wrong.

Eventually—and while we were preparing this report—Spungin removed the articlefrom the Haaretz website, with no notice of correction or public apology. (A cached version can be found here.)

Questions remain, however: Who authored the article? And why did Haaretz find the article credible and newsworthy?

Haaretz did not explicitly blame Blumenthal for the Kansas shootings, but the timing, the accusations, and the pretense of relevance implied such. After all, wouldHaaretz have published an article headlined “Kansas Murderer Really Liked Chocolate”? The very act of publishing such an article at such a time would only be to connect the killer’s alleged influences to his motives for killing.

Applying Haaretz and Free Beacon’s arbitrary methodology, Rania Khalek notedthat there were 11,500 mentions of Haaretz in the VNN Forum, and that Miller himself had cited Haaretz in roughly seventy forum postings, thus making Haaretzeven more culpable in the Kansas shootings. In addition, Miller has linked to numerous writers and news outlets–including Thomas Friedman and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. In addition, he once wrote that David Horowitz, the conservative activist and publisher, is ”one of those jewish neocon ‘new friends’ of the White man who actually throws Whitey journalistic bones from time to time, such as his book ‘Hatin Whitey.’” Horowitz is an ally of Blumenthal critic Ron Radosh, and Radosh refused to speak with Alex Kane for this article about Miller’s affinity for his friend saying over e-mail he knows his “enemies” and that, since he’s in Germany, he wouldn’t waste money calling him.

What’s clear is that the current right-wing campaign is a continuation of attacks against Blumenthal over his book Goliath. Protective of Israel’s image and worried that Blumenthal’s book could contribute to the changing debate over the country in the U.S., they’re throwing the kitchen sink at unflinching critics of Zionism.

What difference does it make?

I never thought that the death of Muhammad al-Dura was a hoax and I still don't - but it could be. But if it is or it isn't, some things need to be said. 

  • There is no reason to believe that victims, just like perpetrators, are not capable of lying.
  • Whatever did or did not happen to Muhammad al-Dura (or to anyone else for that matter) makes no difference whatsoever to the basic distinction between Palestinians the victims and Jews the perpetrators. 
  • Given the lies and distortions put about (largely by Jews) about Jewish victimhood and non-Jewish culpability, calling an alleged al-Dura hoax the 'Blood libel of the century' must rank as one of the great chutzpahs of world history. 
Other than that, does it make any difference? I think I'll leave that to you.

"When Pictures Lie"
Philippe Karsenty - The al Dura Hoax