Zionist Watch: Ten facts explaining why Netanyahu is a criminal and that Israel is a "rogue state"
This blog is LOADED with the latest on Zionism. The Jews spearhead the New World Order
1. Netanyahu heads the only undeclared nuclear weapons entity on the planet
yet still ludicrously alleges that non nuclear Iran is trying to
exterminate the state of Israel with its 100s of warheads in its Dimona
secret arsenal, (all of which are outside the inspection of the IAEA),
in an abortive effort to damage the agreed Iran peace deal,
painstakingly negotiated by the UN Security Council members and the EU.
His convoluted political machinations, in Washington and Europe, have
resulted in ignominious failure as Iran rejoins the international
community.
3. His rightwing, extremist government supports the continued illegal occupation and settlement of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in violation of international law, in addition to continuing a blockade of essential materials to 1.8 million in Gaza that has received global condemnation.
4. He exerts a wholly undemocratic influence over the Republican AIPAC dominated US congress in Washington thereby disproportionately skewing American foreign policy in favour of Israel
5. His family background includes a documented association with terrorist organisations notably the Irgun Zvai Leumi paramilitaries
6. His government is in continued breach of the human rights provisions of the EU Association Agreement that affords Israel free trade access to the European single market
7. He allows the socalled 'pricetag' terrorists to continue to persecute Arab residents in the Occupied Territories by the burning and destruction of olive groves and businesses in a program of uncontrolled intimidation and violence
8. He continually threatens to restrict access to Jerusalem's Al Aqsa mosque as did his failed predecessor, Ariel Sharon, apparently in a bid to provoke violence and dissent
9. He is the leader of a party whose published charter requires the ethnic cleansing of all indigenous Palestinians in order to establish a Greater Israel in all of former Palestine
10. Likud's official agenda to establish the socalled 'facts on the ground' is a blatant attempt to abort the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This illegal program has recently been condemned by China as well as by the EU, Russia and the US and is now expected to lead to economic, political and sporting sanctions.
Note: all the above facts are verifiable in the public domain
Zionists Want Multi Cultural Europe And Jewish Only Israel
Jeff Rense & David Duke - Zionist Takeover of The 2016 Election
Complete List of BANKS
Owned/Controlled by the Rothschild Family
What’s the significance of having a central bank within a country and why
should you concern yourself, your family and colleagues?
Central banks are illegally created PRIVATE banks that are owned by the
Rothschild banking family. The family has been around for more than
230 years and has slithered its way into each country on this
planet, threatened every world leader and their governments and cabinets with
physical and economic death and destruction, and then emplaced their own people
in these central banks to control and manage each country’s pocketbook. Worse,
the Rothschilds also control the machinations of each government at the macro
level, not concerning themselves with the daily vicissitudes of our individual
personal lives. Except when we get too far out of line.
The grand plan of The First Sphere of Influence
is to create a global mononation. Please do not confuse this with the term
globalization. Mononation and globalization couldn’t be more different in
concept, scope and purpose. Mononation is one state. It has one government. One
set of laws for all ordinary citizens, no laws for the elite. Globalization
refers to communicating, trading, interacting, etc. among separate, different,
independent, sovereign countries.
The grand plan of The First Sphere of Influence is to create a global
mononation.
Our own Federal Reserve is an illegally emplaced private bank that is directly
responsible for creating all the US’s depressions, recessions, and the
inflation and deflation of our dollar. The Fed controls the printing of our own
currency, and then charges the US government interest on those loans. The
interest is growing each year, making it difficult if not impossible for our
government to pay it. How do we pay this interest? By the US Personal Income
Tax. This tax goes to the Rothschild family.
In the coming months, as I continue to gather intel and write a book about
The First Sphere of Influence, I will share more and more. For now, I kindly
ask that you read each of the 165 lines below. One hundred and sixty-five
reasons to believe my intel. You can click on each bank and visit its website.
I’ve seen each one. They’re real. And they’re one of the reasons why each
country is in such deep debt to this insidious family, the Rothschilds.
By the way, if you’re curious what the US debt is to the BIS, please refer
to the table at the end of this article, taken from the latest statistical
results provided by the Joint External Debt Hub, which receives data from the
BIS, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
What’s the significance of having a central bank within a country and why should you concern yourself, your family and colleagues?
BIS Offices
Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific78th floor, Two International Finance Centre
8 Finance Street, Central
Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China
Telephone: (+852) 2878 7100
Fax: (+852) 2878 7123
Representative Office for the Americas
Torre Chapultepec
Rubén DarÃo 281 – 17th floor
Col. Bosque de Chapultepec
Del. Miguel Hidalgo
11580 México, D.F.
México
Telephone: (+52) 55 91380290
Fax: (+52) 55 91380299
The Rothschild-Owned Central Banks of the World
Afghanistan: Bank of AfghanistanAlbania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Cameroon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philippines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: The Dirty Nasty Stinky Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
Jews celebrate 911
This is the main costume in Israel when they celebrate “Purim” their
holiday when they celebrate their tribal conquest against their enemies.
9-11 was the high-water mark of Israel,
the day the MOSSAD agents took down the twin towers and gave the green
light for Israel to use the United States military to attack all the
nations surrounding Israel.. Many of them speak of the twin towers in
comparison to Samson taking down the two pillars… THEY ARE LAUGHING AT
OUR STUPIDITY AS THEY STICK FLAGS OF AMERICA IN THEIR HAIR, DANCE AROUND
AND MOCK US!
Referring to God using the designation “G-d,” the 112-page complaint–which can be accessed here–was filed by attorney Michael Newdow, who as you might guess is Jewish (or was born, at any rate, into a “nominally Jewish family,” as Wikipedia puts it).
The suit alleges that by being forced to use coins and currency containing the in-God-we-trust motto, the plaintiffs are “burdened” insofar as they are forced to pass along to others “messages” that contradict their own beliefs. One such plaintiff, one of the named ones at any rate, is Mitchell Kahle, a lifelong atheist who “is so deeply and personally offended by Monotheistic religious dogma that he declined to attend the religious funerals of both of his parents.”
Newdow thus wants the word “God” excised from American notes of tender, but apparently he’s fine with having “Federal Reserve” left upon them. It kind of tells you who holds divine status in the US political system these days.
“An atheist group is trying to sue the U.S. government to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from our money,” Graham announced to his followers in a Facebook post. “Not a smart move.”
He goes on to warn of the Zionist Supreme Being’s impending judgment on America and sums up finally with a quote from the Bible (the Old Testament, of course): “The Bible says, ‘Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God” (Psalm 20:7).’”
Reportedly 70 percent of Americans identify as “Christians” to one degree or another. It’s a number sufficient to give politicians incentive to continue pandering to the Christian vote, but of course political power, real political power, resides no more in the hands of Christians than it does with the bottom 99 percent of income earners.
Do the pastors of the churches they attend subscribe to the same outlook? Or do they simply remain silent and say nothing on the matter? It is a crucial question because when church leaders fail to take a stand on the most pressing issues of our day, when they refrain, for instance, from calling for justice, and offer no pulpit denunciations of US wars and sanguinary regime change operations–when the best they can do is say a prayer for the troops and leave it at that, to preside at funerals or visit someone’s sick grandmother in the hospital–then they risk making themselves, and their churches, increasingly irrelevant.
Did Jesus denounce the corrupt leaders of his day? He certainly did. Why do Christian pastors today fail, by and large, to do likewise? Is it out of cowardice? Or is it simply that they have no eyes to see or ears to hear?
If you do a search using the words “Is America a Christian nation?” you will turn up a plethora of articles, the overwhelming majority of which answer the question in the negative. Some take the position that America never was a Christian nation; others use the same “post-Christian” term I have coined; a few advance the thesis that the concept of a Christian nation was invented by “corporate America”; and one article I found goes so far as to offer the view that Christians in America are “pampered by the state.” In a way, the writer is correct. Christian leaders today never make waves for the powers-that-be, so why wouldn’t they be pampered?
And just who are these ‘powers-that-be’ they prefer not to make waves for? If we no longer are living in a Christian land, how exactly do we define today’s America? Is it simply a secular country? Or would it perhaps be more accurate to describe it as a Jewish state? I posed that very question in an article I wrote a little over three years ago.
“With Jewish power in America standing at unprecedented levels, it is only natural we should begin to see Jews reap gains and benefits disproportionately greater than those available to other segments of the population,” I wrote, and among the examples I cited were:
The grant was given in 2012 to establish a “Keshet Ideas and Innovation Center” that would be housed in a newly renovated “Keshet Center for the Arts.” One million dollars is of course a lot of money to award to a local community arts group, and as I commented:
Performances of The Nutcracker have for many years been a Christmas tradition by theater and dance groups all over America, but in its rock-and-roll version, Keshet has given the ballet an innovative twist–with a dance segment set to the song “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones. Here is a video from their 2014 production:
Keshet has professional, salaried dancers on its staff, something
almost unheard of among local community arts groups. It has also staged productions about the holocaust; presently maintains an international exchange program; and last year it launched a tour of Europe.
Many, many changes have overtaken America in the past century. This is true in terms of inventions–from automobiles to airplanes to mobile phones to genetic engineering–as well as in the political arena, and specifically in that regard I’m referring to the level of hucksterism and fraud, as well as outright treachery and depravity, we have seen members of our political ruling class willing to stoop to. Though Americans were shocked at disclosures of the Teapot Dome scandal, and that a member of Warren G. Harding’s administration had accepted bribes from oil companies, it is probably a safe bet that neither Harding nor Interior Secretary Albert Fall ever, in their wildest dreams, contemplated a US alliance with terrorist head-chopping cannibals or collaborating or colluding in the carrying out of false flag attacks on American cities.
The concept of what is, or is not, “laudable” or “morally acceptable” quite obviously has become hugely warped over the past century. In the America of today, spirituality and belief in God have been derogated and de-emphasized, and–in a good many American homes–are missing altogether. Hardly surprising, then, we see the spreading phenomenon of teenage sociopaths in so many American communities.
Rather than a kind and loving God, we worship the false idols of money and Wall Street, and rather than the teachings of Jesus, we now seem to follow the teachings of Hollywood.
But is something about to change?
Like Cruz and Rubio, Trump also touts his Christianity, but the strategem behind this touting seems characterized by a more subtle objective, and unlike those two senators, he doesn’t talk much about Israel. On January 18, Trump gave a speech at Liberty University–that school that was founded in the 1970s by Jerry Falwell, a pastor so zealous in his Christian Zionist beliefs that Israel once rewarded him with his own private jet. The educational institution is still run today by Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr., who serves as president, though it has grown into one of the largest, if not the largest, Christian universities in the world.
Now one of the most striking things about Trump’s speech there last month–and which was scarcely remarked upon by the mainstream media–was his total omission of any comments about Israel. You can go here and watch a video of the event which includes not only Trump’s speech in its entirety, but also the rather lengthy introduction given him that evening by Falwell Jr. Astonishingly, not anywhere in the entire 109 minutes that the video runs is Israel even mentioned–either by Trump, Falwell or anyone else.
Now you would think that a leading presidential contender, in a stump speech at a major Christian university like Liberty, would have used the occasion to tout his Christian Zionist credentials. But no. Not once the entire evening was the subject of Israel even brought up. It would suggest that Trump’s political strategists have made a determination that the Jewish state is rapidly losing public support, not only among the the population as a whole, but even amongst that subset who identify as evangelical Christians.
And if this is the case, we could be on the verge of something like a tectonic shift in US politics.
Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud with Sir Percy Cox.The
covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist
entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British
imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very
few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate
British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics
degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters
degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four
years between 1914 - 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it's not too
difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but
if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war
on mankind for almost four hundred years you're practically on your own
in this endeavor. One must admit, that from the British establishment's
perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.
Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad's descendants. The British officially recognized Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.
On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud's invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism's geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis's acclaimed BBC "Bitter Lake" documentary, whereby he states that the "fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism" drove the "beduins" to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud's Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980's Afghanistan or in today's Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as "moderate rebels." Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan's recent study on the history on Arabs claims that "Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting" the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing "his own objectives" which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]
In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire's commitment to "use their best endeavors to facilitate" the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia's borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha'il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud's Wahhabis is based in their leaders' rejection to facilitate the British Empire's Zionist project in Palestine.
Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire's drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of "moderate rebels" i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
As the United States, the 'successor' to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire's Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.
God and Zionist Politics in Post-Christian America
Has America Become the Second Jewish State?
Recently a lawsuit seeking to have the words “In God We Trust” removed from US currency was filed in a federal court in Ohio. The suit was brought on behalf of 49 plaintiffs, only some of whom are named, with the rest listed anonymously.Referring to God using the designation “G-d,” the 112-page complaint–which can be accessed here–was filed by attorney Michael Newdow, who as you might guess is Jewish (or was born, at any rate, into a “nominally Jewish family,” as Wikipedia puts it).
The suit alleges that by being forced to use coins and currency containing the in-God-we-trust motto, the plaintiffs are “burdened” insofar as they are forced to pass along to others “messages” that contradict their own beliefs. One such plaintiff, one of the named ones at any rate, is Mitchell Kahle, a lifelong atheist who “is so deeply and personally offended by Monotheistic religious dogma that he declined to attend the religious funerals of both of his parents.”
Newdow thus wants the word “God” excised from American notes of tender, but apparently he’s fine with having “Federal Reserve” left upon them. It kind of tells you who holds divine status in the US political system these days.
A Post-Christian America
The lawsuit has been denounced by evangelical pastor Franklin Graham,
but Graham is an ardent supporter of Israel who warns that “Muslims”
are “heavily influencing” the Obama administration–that’s presumably as
opposed to AIPAC–and who once preached a service at the Pentagon (on
Good Friday, no less!).“An atheist group is trying to sue the U.S. government to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from our money,” Graham announced to his followers in a Facebook post. “Not a smart move.”
He goes on to warn of the Zionist Supreme Being’s impending judgment on America and sums up finally with a quote from the Bible (the Old Testament, of course): “The Bible says, ‘Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God” (Psalm 20:7).’”
Reportedly 70 percent of Americans identify as “Christians” to one degree or another. It’s a number sufficient to give politicians incentive to continue pandering to the Christian vote, but of course political power, real political power, resides no more in the hands of Christians than it does with the bottom 99 percent of income earners.
We no longer are a Christian country. Rather, we have entered what I would describe as America’s “post-Christian era.” It’s hard to say precisely when this era began, but I would place it some time in the 1970s. That’s when film directors like Woody Allen and David Cronenberg rose to public prominence and career atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, with a successful Supreme Court ruling against against school prayer in her portfolio, vaulted to celebrity status with interviews in Playboy and appearances on the Donahue Show.And finally today–Larry David, Sarah Silverman and other comedians can mock Jesus, demean Christianity, and rather than be repudiated, are applauded for it. Thus we clearly are in a post-Christian era, although…to be sure…even in the current presidential race, we have candidates, at least on the Republican side, proudly proclaiming their putative Christian faith.
“It’s exactly right,” Ted Cruz boasted recently, “that in terms of who I am, I’m a Christian first. I’m an American second. I’m a conservative third. And I’m a Republican fourth.”The trouble is that both Rubio and Cruz, like Graham, apparently are unable to discern even the tiniest contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and Israel’s genocidal treatment of the Palestinians. Both are ardent supporters of Israel and in essence cheer on the genocide.
“Let me be clear about one thing,” Marco Rubio declared following the Iowa caucuses, “there’s only one savior and it’s not me. It’s Jesus Christ who came down to Earth and died for our sins.”
Do the pastors of the churches they attend subscribe to the same outlook? Or do they simply remain silent and say nothing on the matter? It is a crucial question because when church leaders fail to take a stand on the most pressing issues of our day, when they refrain, for instance, from calling for justice, and offer no pulpit denunciations of US wars and sanguinary regime change operations–when the best they can do is say a prayer for the troops and leave it at that, to preside at funerals or visit someone’s sick grandmother in the hospital–then they risk making themselves, and their churches, increasingly irrelevant.
Did Jesus denounce the corrupt leaders of his day? He certainly did. Why do Christian pastors today fail, by and large, to do likewise? Is it out of cowardice? Or is it simply that they have no eyes to see or ears to hear?
If you do a search using the words “Is America a Christian nation?” you will turn up a plethora of articles, the overwhelming majority of which answer the question in the negative. Some take the position that America never was a Christian nation; others use the same “post-Christian” term I have coined; a few advance the thesis that the concept of a Christian nation was invented by “corporate America”; and one article I found goes so far as to offer the view that Christians in America are “pampered by the state.” In a way, the writer is correct. Christian leaders today never make waves for the powers-that-be, so why wouldn’t they be pampered?
And just who are these ‘powers-that-be’ they prefer not to make waves for? If we no longer are living in a Christian land, how exactly do we define today’s America? Is it simply a secular country? Or would it perhaps be more accurate to describe it as a Jewish state? I posed that very question in an article I wrote a little over three years ago.
“With Jewish power in America standing at unprecedented levels, it is only natural we should begin to see Jews reap gains and benefits disproportionately greater than those available to other segments of the population,” I wrote, and among the examples I cited were:
- More than $25 million in college Pell grants used to pay full tuition for Jewish students studying at yeshivas and universities in Israel–this at a time when student loan debt for a majority of young Americans was already making major headlines in the media;
- A staggering 97 percent of Homeland Security grants, under DHS’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program, being awarded to Jewish organizations–you can go here and listen to then-DHS Director Janet Napolitano justifying the lopsided awarding of the grants and explaining why she thinks Jews face special risks the rest of us don’t have to worry about;
- Numerous inroads into the US economy by Israeli companies, including Elbit Systems, a manufacturer of electronic surveillance technology, which has opened offices in Talladega, Alabama and Fort Mill, South Carolina;
- A strange mutation in local and regional Chamber of Commerce organizations, with a new emphasis on promoting business partnerships between US and Israeli companies (see here, here, here, and here for examples). I referred to it as a “multitude of tentacles.”
The grant was given in 2012 to establish a “Keshet Ideas and Innovation Center” that would be housed in a newly renovated “Keshet Center for the Arts.” One million dollars is of course a lot of money to award to a local community arts group, and as I commented:
Virtually every city in America, large and small, has struggling arts groups of one kind or another—musical, dance, theatrical, and so forth. So why, one might wonder, would this particular group be singled out for such a large grant? And why by the Department of Commerce, when normally one thinks of the National Endowment for the Arts as the main provider of federal grants to the arts?Was this a new commitment to the arts on the part of the Obama administration? Or was it a commitment to a certain type of art?
The award was approved by acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank and publicly announced on September 12 by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall. “The arts are a defining part of New Mexico’s history, community and identity,” said Udall. “This innovative public-private partnership will help provide entrepreneurs with the tools and support they need to grow art-focused businesses.”
Performances of The Nutcracker have for many years been a Christmas tradition by theater and dance groups all over America, but in its rock-and-roll version, Keshet has given the ballet an innovative twist–with a dance segment set to the song “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones. Here is a video from their 2014 production:
Sympathy for the Devil or a Tectonic Shift?
“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,” said the poet Robert Frost…Many, many changes have overtaken America in the past century. This is true in terms of inventions–from automobiles to airplanes to mobile phones to genetic engineering–as well as in the political arena, and specifically in that regard I’m referring to the level of hucksterism and fraud, as well as outright treachery and depravity, we have seen members of our political ruling class willing to stoop to. Though Americans were shocked at disclosures of the Teapot Dome scandal, and that a member of Warren G. Harding’s administration had accepted bribes from oil companies, it is probably a safe bet that neither Harding nor Interior Secretary Albert Fall ever, in their wildest dreams, contemplated a US alliance with terrorist head-chopping cannibals or collaborating or colluding in the carrying out of false flag attacks on American cities.
The concept of what is, or is not, “laudable” or “morally acceptable” quite obviously has become hugely warped over the past century. In the America of today, spirituality and belief in God have been derogated and de-emphasized, and–in a good many American homes–are missing altogether. Hardly surprising, then, we see the spreading phenomenon of teenage sociopaths in so many American communities.
Rather than a kind and loving God, we worship the false idols of money and Wall Street, and rather than the teachings of Jesus, we now seem to follow the teachings of Hollywood.
But is something about to change?
“Maybe just maybe we’re turning the page on a dark part of American politics, because tonight the light overcame the darkness of negative campaigning and you made it happen,” said former Ohio Governor John Kasich after placing second in the New Hampshire Republican primary on Tuesday.It’s a nice thought. But a political system in which money plays such a dominant factor in determining who gets elected has little hope of turning any dark pages. Donald Trump’s popularity would suggest that Americans are finally starting to catch on to that in large numbers. They don’t, for now, seem to be waking up to certain other crucial matters, but at least they are waking up to that.
Like Cruz and Rubio, Trump also touts his Christianity, but the strategem behind this touting seems characterized by a more subtle objective, and unlike those two senators, he doesn’t talk much about Israel. On January 18, Trump gave a speech at Liberty University–that school that was founded in the 1970s by Jerry Falwell, a pastor so zealous in his Christian Zionist beliefs that Israel once rewarded him with his own private jet. The educational institution is still run today by Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr., who serves as president, though it has grown into one of the largest, if not the largest, Christian universities in the world.
Now one of the most striking things about Trump’s speech there last month–and which was scarcely remarked upon by the mainstream media–was his total omission of any comments about Israel. You can go here and watch a video of the event which includes not only Trump’s speech in its entirety, but also the rather lengthy introduction given him that evening by Falwell Jr. Astonishingly, not anywhere in the entire 109 minutes that the video runs is Israel even mentioned–either by Trump, Falwell or anyone else.
Now you would think that a leading presidential contender, in a stump speech at a major Christian university like Liberty, would have used the occasion to tout his Christian Zionist credentials. But no. Not once the entire evening was the subject of Israel even brought up. It would suggest that Trump’s political strategists have made a determination that the Jewish state is rapidly losing public support, not only among the the population as a whole, but even amongst that subset who identify as evangelical Christians.
And if this is the case, we could be on the verge of something like a tectonic shift in US politics.
Richard Edmondson is the author of The Memoirs of Saint John: When the Sandstone Crumbles, a novel about an archaeological expedition to Syria, set amidst the current conflict in the country
American Jews and Israel: A divorce in the making?
http://www.redressonline.com/2016/01/american-jews-and-israel-a-divorce-in-the-making/
USA, ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA- 3 Peas In A POD
How Zionism helped to create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud with Sir Percy Cox.The
covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist
entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British
imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very
few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate
British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics
degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters
degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four
years between 1914 - 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it's not too
difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but
if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war
on mankind for almost four hundred years you're practically on your own
in this endeavor. One must admit, that from the British establishment's
perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.
In late 2014, according to the American journal, "Foreign Affairs",
the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said
"His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations
between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no
exception." Recently, Abdullah's successor, King Salman expressed
similar concerns to those of Israel's to the growing agreement between
the United States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. This led
some to report that Israel and KSA presented a "united front"
in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time
the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in
dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960's, the
Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign
against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after
overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser's Egypt
militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis
to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam's supporters.
Furthermore, the British organized the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times.
The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists
and Saudis together in 1960's North Yemen against their common foe.
However, one must go back to the 1920's to fully appreciate the origins
of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the
Zionist entity. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism
in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian
peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn
Rashid of Ha'il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east)
and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.
Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the
British, but was quickly defeated and his British handler, William
Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire's ally Ibn Rashid. This
defeat greatly hampered Ibn Saud's utility to the Empire and left him
militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The Sharif contributed the most to
the Ottoman Empire's defeat by switching allegiances and leading the
so-called 'Arab Revolt' in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence
from Arabia. He was convinced to totally alter his position because the
British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry
McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab
country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the
defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and
Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.
Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the
British to their war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war
time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The
British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire's new
reality which was a division of the Arab world between them and the
French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration,
which guaranteed 'a national for the Jewish people' in Palestine by
colonization with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the
British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly
averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks
was dubbed the 'Arab Revolt' not the 'Hijazi Revolt'.
Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out
Palestine to the Empire's Balfour Declaration; he will never
acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the
new random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French
imperialists. For their part the British began referring to him as an
'obstructionist', a 'nuisance' and of having a 'recalcitrant' attitude.
The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to
take drastic measures to bring about his approval of the new reality
regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War.
After the Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial
Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the British operatives in the
Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the
Sharif to bribe and bully him to accept Britain's Zionist colonial
project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000
rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an
annual payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and
sell Palestine to British Zionism.
When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence
threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that
"politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable
independent Hashemite kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will
of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain his rule in the
region." [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the
time to visit other leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them
that if they don't tow the British line and avoid entering into an
alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his
Wahhabis who after all is at Britain's 'beck and call'.[6]
Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill traveled to Jerusalem
and met with the Sharif's son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler,
"Emir", of a new territory called "Transjordan." Churchill informed
Abdullah that he should persuade "his father to accept the Palestine
mandate and sign a treaty to such effect," if not "the British would
unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz."[7] In the meantime the British were
planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha'il, Ibn Rashid.
Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to
him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid
expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as
well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became
concerned that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who
controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who
controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes
between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian
Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference,
Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that "Ibn Saud
should be 'given the opportunity to occupy Hail.'"[9] By the end of
1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with "a monthly 'grant' of
£10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received
abundant arms supplies, totaling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to
the critical siege and four field guns" with British-Indian
instructors.[10] Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn
Saud on Ha'il which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was
after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was
no longer to be "Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes" but "Sultan of
Najd and its Dependencies". Ha'il had dissolved into a dependency of the
Empire's Sultan of Najd.
If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border
and armed to the teeth by the British, would finally become more
amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial
project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between
Abdulla's son, acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the
Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was
delivered to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son
requesting that he "accept reality", he didn't even bother to read the
treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new
divisions of Arabia as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to
London to be ratified![11]
Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain's subsidy to
the extent that by the early 1920's they had suspended it, while at the
same time continued subsidizing Ibn Saud right through the early
1920's.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and
London, it dawned on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish
Palestine to Great Britain's Zionist project or accept the new divisions
in Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it
will cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance 'grant'
of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year's subsidy.[14]
In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the 'grant' to Ibn Saud,
the Empire announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif
Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud
and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign
secretary, Lord Curzon called the "final kick" to Sharif Hussain and
attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun
the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta'if. The Empire then wrote to
Sharif's sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not
to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic
terms they were informed "to give no countenance to interference in the
Hedjaz".[17] In Ta'if, Ibn Saud's Wahhabis committed their customary
massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques
and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest
place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced
to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was
replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental
base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British
found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba
into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to
rally Arabs against the Empire's Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known
that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will
attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,
"never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews."[19]Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the 'Arab Revolt', on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.
Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad's descendants. The British officially recognized Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.
On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud's invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism's geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis's acclaimed BBC "Bitter Lake" documentary, whereby he states that the "fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism" drove the "beduins" to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud's Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980's Afghanistan or in today's Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as "moderate rebels." Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan's recent study on the history on Arabs claims that "Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting" the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing "his own objectives" which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]
In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire's commitment to "use their best endeavors to facilitate" the creation of "a national home for the Jewish people". Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia's borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha'il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud's Wahhabis is based in their leaders' rejection to facilitate the British Empire's Zionist project in Palestine.
Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire's drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of "moderate rebels" i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
As the United States, the 'successor' to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire's Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.
POLAND – Polish Church Calls for Christianity to “Return to Jewish Roots”??
https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/poland-polish-church-calls-for-christianity-to-return-to-jewish-roots/#more-115158
Music industry is satanic jewish occupied territory
MUSICK
ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN, YOU SURE WOULDN’T HAVE the KINDS OF CULTURAL ISSUES YOU SEE TODAY IN AMERICA OR EUROPE IN NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMANY. HITLER KNEW THE REAL REASON BEHIND GERMANY’S ECONOMIC,CULTURAL AND MORAL DECLINE – jews- SO HE WISELY BANNED JEWS AND FREEMASONS BY LAW FROM BEING ABLE TO HOLD POSITIONS OF PUBLIC INFLUENCE IN MEDIA,POLITICS AND EDUCATION. ‘THEY CORRUPT IN ORDER TO RULE’ – THE SOONER WE BAN JEWS AND their MASONS FROM holding POSITIONS OF PUBLIC INFLUENCE in society THE SOONER WE CAN STOP TALKING ABOUT FUCKING TALENTLESS PUNKS AND DEGENERATES LIKE JUSTIN BIEBER,DRAKE, LADY GAGA AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS MANUFACTURED BY THE WICKED JEW CONTROLLED MUSICK INDUSTRY and start to have real cultural enrichment.
Everywhere you go in Toronto, there is a
continual stream of invasive audio pumping Canadian ‘entertainers’ Drake
or Justin Bieber into the minds of people. It seeps in consciously–many
people clamor for the next pop hit– or unconsciously because the
subconscious has no firewall.
Elevators, lobbies, taxi cabs, bars, restaurants, cafes, etc. If you
live in Toronto (the ‘six’ boroughs), you cannot go a day without
hearing these clowns.
above – Drake’s new album is called Summer Sixteen and the cover art was just released. It prominently features the symbol 6 with an all-seeing eye within it.
Drake’s image handlers have had him pose using these images before and his clothing brand features another occult symbol: the owl (OVO is stylized as 2 owl eyes and a beak).
The mudra showing the implicit triple-6 is a signal to initiates and adepts. Its nefarious meaning includes the beast of revelations and the kabbalistic interpretation of secular perfection (tikkun olam). Turning to Bieber, he has a tattoo of the all-seeing eye and the owl.
Perhaps even more menacing, the music videos of these ‘entertainers’ usually feature subversive subliminals. Take Bieber’s recent video ‘Where are U now?’
Flashing inverted crosses, all-seeing eye pyramids, and the masonic square and compass among all sorts of abominations for the unsuspecting mind.
(ABOVE, BIEBER MUSIC VIDEO)
These symbols penetrate the mind and contribute to the alchemical processing of the recipients perception of reality. They are demolishing any resistance to the imposed psychodrama forced on humanity by the overlords.This movement is hardly new–glance back to the Beatles and there is the same medium-message.
‘We corrupt in order to rule’ -Giuseppe Mazzini (High-level Freemason)
Yes Drake’s mother is Jewish which makes him Jewish. He’s a rich kid from Forest Hill. His full name is Aubrey Drake Graham and he’s been famous since his youth for being an actor on the show Degrassi (I didn’t watch it growing up in Quebec)
He was chosen to redesign a Raptors uniform. ‘The Six’ loves him.
Check his Wikipedia page.
