Kevin Barrett

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews… examples include, but are not limited to:

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of… (the Holocaust);
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations;
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor;
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation…;
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis…” – IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

During World War II, the United States of America rounded up citizens of Japanese ancestry and locked them up in concentration camps. It did so at the instigation of mostly-Jewish gangsters, who bribed politicians and courts and stole billions of dollars worth of confiscated Japanese-American property. As Ron Unz writes in his article “American Pravda: The Power of Organized Crime,”

This vast transfer of wealth in the early postwar years from the plundered Nisei gave all these mobbed-up Chicago newcomers the financial wherewithal to soon gain substantial control of California’s money-based political system.

While throwing Americans into race-based concentration camps at the behest of the Kosher Nostra, the US dropped firebombs and nuclear weapons on Japanese cities, intentionally murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians. These policies were driven by racist propaganda every bit as vitriolic as that of the Nazis: American caricatures of the “evil buck-toothed Jap” match Nazi caricatures of the “evil hook-nosed Jew.”

Yes, World War II featured racist concentration camps and racist mass murders of civilians — by the United States of America. As for the biggest World War II holocaust, it was committed not by the US or Germany, but by Great Britain. As Australian Jewish scientist and avoidable mortality expert Gideon Polya writes, “In the 1942–1945 Bengali Holocaust (Bengal Famine) the British deliberately starved 6–7 million Indians to death.”

History, that rotten tissue of lies and distortions, is written by the victors. That is why the monstrous war crimes of the World War II allies have been largely forgotten. Today few in the West care about, or even remember, the Bengali Holocaust or the firebombings of German and Japanese civilians. Few know that the United States and its allies deliberately murdered ten million Germans during the postwar occupation, or that Eisenhower deliberately starved a million German prisoners of war to death.

Instead of repenting and atoning for their shameful World War II atrocities, the US and its allies commit holocaust denial in the full sense of that loaded expression. They hide their own shame by relentlessly hyperbolizing Nazi Germany’s racist mistreatment of Jews, demonizing the losers while mendaciously glorifying the victors (that is, themselves). The institutionalized memory of “the Holocaust” — the other guy’s holocaust, not ours — has become a sacred cow whose main purpose is to obscure and legitimize “our” crimes against “them.” Above all, it minimizes and legitimizes the Zionist genocide of the Palestinians and the American slaughter of 27 million Muslims in the 9/11 wars — a shocking figure cited by Dr. Gideon Polya that has yet to be convincingly refuted.

The Zionists have enshrined their propaganda version of World War II, and their one-sided, completely unexamined, utterly uncritical account of the countless conflicts between Jewish and gentile communities throughout history, in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition seems to have been crafted with one overriding objective: to demonize anyone who opposes the Zionist genocide of Colonized Palestine. How ironic that Nazi Germany’s genocidal crimes against Jews have been weaponized in service to another genocide!

The racist, pro-Zionist-genocide IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was nominally adopted in a vote by the 31 IHRA member countries, 24 of them EU countries, upon its publication in 2016. But it had no force of law anywhere until a few nations began enshrining it in their national and regional codes. The first to do so was “Great” Britain, which formally adopted the IHRA definition in December 2016. Since then the ever-scheming Zionists have used it as a club to bash Jeremy Corbyn and the left wing of the Labor Party, the only significant political faction in Britain that fails to offer wholehearted support for the murderous ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

In June 2019 the Canadian government formally adopted the IHRA definition, which it incorporated into a strategy document for combating racism. Will the Canadian police begin arresting people for agreeing with the Jewish founder of Holocaust Studies Raul Hilberg that the “six million” holocaust figure is exaggerated? Will they prosecute scholars and journalists who analyze the fanatical single-loyalty Zionist lobbies that dominate the Mideast policy of Western nations — meaning that Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, or James Petras’s The Power of Israel in the United States or al-Jazeera’s documentary The Lobby would be illegal? Will they arrest the millions of Canadians who know full well that the Zionist settler colony occupying Palestine is obviously “a racist endeavor” many of whose policies are indeed comparable to those of Nazi Germany?

While it seems unlikely that mass arrests of Canadian critics of Israel will happen any time soon, the IHRA definition is already being used to muzzle free speech on university campuses. In the wake of the University of Winnipeg’s February 2018 conference on Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Occupied al-Quds, single-loyalty Zionist fanatics successfully pressured the university into apologizing for the event and declaring that statements made by speakers —including reference to the genocide of the Palestinians, and to Zionist settlers — were violations of the University’s policy against harassment! Following the same logic, anyone blaming Nazi Germany for committing genocide against Jews would be guilty of “harassment” of Germans. Or anyone who spoke of European “settlers” in colonial-era Rhodesia, South Africa, Kenya, or Algeria would be guilty of “harassing” the British, Afrikaaners, and French sponsors of those settler colonies!

Even before Canada adopted the IHRA definition this year, the US Department of Education was busy with IHRA-definition-influenced investigations of alleged anti-Semitism on American campuses including Duke, Rutgers, NYU, the University of North Carolina, and Williams College. If Donald Trump’s Department of Education finds that these or other universities harbor “anti-Semitism” (that is, criticism of Israel) on their campuses, the universities could be sanctioned and deprived of millions of dollars in federal funding.

American politicians, a major portion of whose “all about the Benjamins” campaign money comes from rich Jewish Zionists (that is simply a fact, not a slur!) have begun quashing free speech by attacking universities whose students and faculty support pro-Palestine activism. In October 2018, Rep. Brad Sherman wrote a letter to UCLA claiming that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) should be barred from campus. Why? Because anyone who supports justice in Palestine is necessarily guilty of violating the IHRA definition of “anti-Semitism”! Rep. Sherman wrote that SJP is “anti-Semitic” by “claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” imposing “double standards” on Israel by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

In fact, the Zionist settler colony squatting in Palestine is obviously “a racist endeavor” that bears comparison to Nazi Germany. The Zionist colony defines itself as a “Jewish State,” that is, a state of, by, and for “Jews,” a racial category. Within the borders of that so-called state, people are divided into superior and inferior racial categories: racially-defined Jews are the ubermenschen who enjoy all sorts of special privileges, including automatic citizenship regardless of where they were born, while racially-defined Arabs are the despised untermenschen who are barred from the best roads, housing, government services, and other privileges, and who are systematically denied full citizenship and either murdered or expelled, simply for the crime of being born Arab in Palestine.

All democratic nations in today’s world are expected to provide equal treatment to all citizens regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. The Zionist settler colony is the only entity on earth that pretends to be a Western democratic nation, while systematically denying more than half of its rightful citizens various basic rights on the basis of their race (it now rationalizes its overt racism with the oxymoronic term “ethno-democracy”). So far from “requiring of (the Zionist entity) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” pro-Palestine activists are simply demanding that the Zionists follow the standard practices of all other democratic nations. The Orwellian IHRA definition of anti-Semitism turns this reality inside-out, demonizing anti-racists as “racists” in order to disguise the very real racism of the Zionists.

 

Kevin Barrett

9/11/2001, the Biggest Lie of the 21st Century

By: S. Nawabzadeh

September 11 has again dawned to remind us of so far the Biggest Lie of the 21st century around which the official narratives of the successive US Administration have revolved for the past 17 years in an attempt to mislead the American public and the gullible around the world whose minds are held hostage by the Zionist-controlled western media.

Recently, the U.S. monthly Reader’s Digest carried an article titled: "10 Myths About the U.S. Constitution Most Americans Believe.”

Among the myths of the U.S. Constitution listed by the prestigious journal were "All Men Are Equal”, and "The United States of America is a Democracy”. 

It discussed and dismissed these two and other myths. The writer sought to prove that neither all citizens (let alone all men) are equal in the eyes of the various U.S. government departments nor the U.S.A. is a functioning democracy.

This is clear by the violation of human rights both at home and abroad by the U.S. Administration, the genocide to exterminate the native Amerindians, the discrimination against the Black and Hispanic people, censorship of the press to suppress facts but spread fake news, the entire process of elections that normally propel to power idiotic and dangerous persons like Bush Junior and Donald Trump, the support for dictatorial, tyrannical and unelected regimes around the world, the coups, wars, and sanctions to undermine and overthrow democratic systems of other countries, and so on. 

To these glaring examples of hypocrisy and diabolism of the U.S. government should be added the Biggest Lie of the 21st century, that is, terrorists living in a remote corner of a backward country sent technology-savvy agents to Boston to hijack aircraft and ram them in New York’s landmark 110-storied Twin-Tower World Trade Center on September 11.

Nothing could be far from the truth, as investigative journalists and respected researchers in the West – not to mention the 9/11 Truthers in the U.S. – have proved to be an inside job, done by the F.B.I. in collaboration with Israel’s Mossad.

It means, the official narrative of hitherto unidentified Arab hijackers, as well as the 3000 people killed as the twin towers collapsed, is nothing but a preposterous lie.

Facts have since emerged that in addition to the several hundred American Jews who did not turn up for work at the World Trade Center on Monday September 11 (not a Sabbath Day) and the abrupt cancellation of the official visit to the U.S. by Zionist premier Ariel Sharon (the Butcher of Baghdad who was eventually struck by divine wrath and died a painful death years later), so far only 1,642 persons have been identified and confirmed as killed on that particular day. In other words, figure of 3,000 dead is a conjecture.

If analysts note that the WTC affair was pre-planned to provide a pretext for the U.S. to invade and occupy Afghanistan – one of the weakest but strategically placed Muslim countries – scientists point out that the way the huge building collapsed on its foundations indicated implosion and controlled demolition from within that was timed with the two unmanned small aircraft that simply flew through. 

If the collapse was the result of the impact of the aircraft or explosives on board to blow the building, then the towers should have fallen in the opposite direction with the debris covering a wide area. But quite remarkably, the adjoining buildings didn’t suffer.

Moreover, of the security and relief personnel deployed to rescue survivors, hundreds have died over the past 17 years and all struck by lung cancer, which means dangerous toxics were used by the destroyers in the basement of the WTC.

Truth cannot be suppressed for long. Neither the factors behind the WTC collapse nor the creation of the Takfiri terrorists by the U.S. in collaboration with Saudi Arabia and the illegal Zionist entity. 

Whatever theatrics Donald Trump and his team of psychopaths may try, they cannot escape realities and the fate Divine Providence has decreed for such hoodlums, who lie glibly and are total strangers to truth.
Only the naïve and the knaves who are traitors to their own homelands belief in the official U.S. version, which is indeed the myth of the century – as the holocaust was of the previous century.

What if there were no official narratives?

By Caitlin Johnstone

One of the weirdest things about the post-Iraq invasion world is how the mass media has actually gotten less accountable instead of more accountable for its reporting since that time.

Right now in the UK there’s an amazingly viral smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn running across all mainstream outlets, which consists entirely of narrative spin and no actual evidence. More and more we are seeing narratives about cyber-threats being used to advance reports of “attacks” and “acts of war” being perpetrated which, as far as the public is concerned, consist of nothing other than the authoritative assertions of confident-sounding media pundits. There was a recent NBC exclusive which was co-authored by Ken Dilanian, who is an actual, literal CIA asset, about the threat of hackers working for the Iranian government. The alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is now routinely compared to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, despite no hard, verifiable evidence that that interference even took place ever being presented to the public.

After the mass media’s complicity in selling the Iraq invasion to the western world, we should have seen scores of people fired and changes put in place to prevent such unforgivable complicity from ever occurring again. Instead, no changes whatsoever were made to ensure that news media outlets never facilitate another disaster at the hands of secretive government agencies, and now these same outlets are allowed to promote world-shaping narratives on no evidentiary basis beyond “It’s true because we said so.”

There’s a consensus, agreed-upon narrative about what’s going on in the world that is advanced by all mass media outlets regardless of what political sector those outlets market themselves to. Exactly what should be done about individual events and situations might vary a bit from pundit to pundit and outlet to outlet, but the overall “how it is” narrative about what’s happening is the same across the board. This is the official narrative, and the plutocrat-owned media/political class has full control over it.

We all know the official narratives, right? The US and its allies are good, the latest Official Bad Guy is bad. You live in a democracy where your vote counts and your government is accountable to you and your countrymen, just like they taught you in school. The two political parties are totally different and their opposition is totally real. The news man on TV never reports any falsehoods because if he did he’d lose his job, which means that the Russian hacking thing, the Syria thing, the 9/11 thing, all happened exactly as the government told us they happened.

Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario, though. Let’s imagine a world where there were no official narratives. About anything. At all.

What if there was no dominating elite class telling the public how they were meant to interpret events and situations? What if there was only the raw, publicly available information about what’s going on in the world, and people individually interpreted that information for themselves? And what if they came to differing conclusions, and that was allowed to be okay? What if there was no elite class telling everyone that whoever doesn’t believe X, Y and Z is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, a raving lunatic, and/or a Kremlin propagandist who needs to be shunned and silenced? What if all that were solely determined by the collective, without the control or oversight of any powerful, dominating class? What would that be like?

You may find that your results in this thought experiment depend largely on where you place your trust. If you trust the dominating class more than you trust people as a collective, you probably find this idea terrifying. What if everyone starts thinking wrong thoughts and believing wrong beliefs? What if everyone decides that humans can fly when they leap from rooftops and running with scissors is safe? What if everyone decides the Holocaust never happened and says “Hell, that means we get a freebie!"

If, however, you trust humanity as a collective more than you trust a small group of sociopathic, omnicidal, ecocidal oligarchs who killed over a million people in Iraq, you might suspect that whatever happened would surely be better than what happens in the current paradigm.

Without an elite class manipulating the way people think and vote into alignment with plutocratic interests, people would still be able to take actions in response to their best guess about what’s going on in the world. The narrative of anthropogenic climate change for example would have a much better fighting chance of winning out in the marketplace of ideas if it were permitted to stand on the merit of the raw supporting data, rather than the manipulations of big oil on one hand and an elite faux liberal class convincing everyone that climate chaos can be averted by banning straws and buying a Prius on the other, and the collective would be able to democratically mobilize to avert catastrophe far more effectively than it can now.

Now let’s consider another hypothetical scenario: what if one day, everyone gets tired of official narratives? What if something happens and everyone gets fed up with being told how they have to think about the world by a thoroughly discredited media and political class? What if the public decides to seize the means of narrative production?

This might look like the increasingly distrusted propaganda machine of a failing empire pushing an increasingly oppressed populace too far and too hard at some point, maybe in the direction of war, mass censorship or austerity, and losing control of the narrative in a nonviolent populist information rebellion. Instead of the elites being lined up for guillotines, the mass media outlets and talking heads on TV are simply seen for the discredited voices that they are, and people begin creating their own narratives about situations and events. The most popular narratives rise to the top and determine the direction that society takes itself, rather than the narratives forcefully promulgated by media-owning plutocrats. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The world is better off being controlled by the collective will of the people rather than the will of a few sociopathic oligarchs, and we absolutely have the ability to take that control by force whenever we want to. All we have to do is shift value and credibility from plutocrat-generated narratives to popular collective narratives, and cultivate an aggressive disgust for all attempts by the powerful to manipulate the public dialogue.

Once the way people think, act and vote is no longer manipulated by an elite class which does not represent the interests of humanity, our species will have a fighting chance at moving society out of its patterns of exploitation, war and ecocide and into a direction of health, harmony and thriving.

That was a feature authored by Caitlin Johnstone. She is a journalist who writes articles on various issues.