');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersGilad Atzmon Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

The Israeli media reported yesterday that the Jewish State is “actively pushing Palestinian emigration from Gaza.” A senior Israeli official confirmed that Jerusalem is looking for other countries to take in Gazans.

Times of Israel reported that “Israel is actively promoting the emigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and is working to find other countries who may be willing to absorb them.” We are basically dealing here with a systematic forced removal of the indigenous population from a given territory by a powerful settler state. In Yiddish as well as English such an act is called ethnic cleansing and is considered a crime against humanity under the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In a similar fashion to the German (Nazi) Government at the time of the Haavara agreement (1933) the Jewish State is encouraging Gazans to ‘willingly’ leave their land. The Israeli official confirmed that Israel “is ready to carry the costs of helping Gazans emigrate, and would even be willing to consider allowing them to use an Israeli air field close to Gaza to allow them to leave for their new host countries.”

I guess that Jewish State is making a real effort to redefine the notion of Jewish ‘kindness.’

According to the Israeli official “Israeli National Security Council has been spearheading the effort, with Netanyahu’s blessing, for about a year. The program has been discussed in the security cabinet several times.” However the official confirmed that despite the Israeli communication with European leaders and even countries in the region, so far, no country has agreed to participate in the Israeli crime and absorb the ethnically cleansed Gazans.

Maybe those reluctant European leaders and countries in the region are waiting to see whether Israel is willing to absorb the many suspects involved with the current Epstein’s #pedogate as this scandal is quickly unfolding into a global crime syndicate saga.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Gaza, Israel/Palestine 
🔊 Listen RSS

Following Jeffery Epstein’s alleged suicide last week we have been deluged by a tsunami of narratives that do not adhere to the shifting official reports of his death. Presumably a few of the intimate secrets of the most powerful people on this planet will be buried with Epstein. While it is rational to believe that people powerful enough to impoverish continents or launch world wars that kill tens of millions could easily arrange the death of a single registered sex criminal in a NY prison cell, anyone who advanced such a scenario, however plausible, was immediately denounced as a ‘conspiracy theorist.’

‘Conspiracy theory’ is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical musings?

The labelling of a theory as ‘conspiratorial’ is an attempt to discredit its author/authors and deny its validity. A ‘conspiracy theory’ usually involves an explanatory thesis that points to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term ‘conspiracy theory’ has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.

Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed to academic or scientific reasoning.

But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn’t just ‘conspiracy theories’ that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can’t be scientifically falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx’s ‘scientific’ predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ ‘Resisting falsification’ and “reinforced by circular reasoning,” are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only to ‘conspiracy theories.’

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as “the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event”.

The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by influential parties.

The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.

The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide is illustrative. The official narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.

The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called ‘conspiracy theories’? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be ‘free’ is threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?

In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of ‘conspiracy theories’ per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a ‘climate change denier.’ You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free to speculate about Kennedy’s assassination as long as you don’t mention the Mossad. You can even survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however, the suggestion that ‘Israel did 911’ will get you into serious trouble. Examining ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as a fictional, however prophetic, piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler’s agreement with the Zionist agency will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused of being at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .

I suspect that one is allowed to deviate from the official narrative and speculate on hidden plots on any given topic except probably the Jewish related ones.

This is where things become complicated because there are no Jewish conspiracies, all is done in the open. Israel, Zionism, Jewish institutions and individuals operate in the public eye and don’t conceal their actions. AIPAC doesn’t attempt to hide its agenda nor do America’s elected politicians make an effort to cover their shameless capitulation at AIPAC conferences. Labour Friends of Israel is acting against the Labour party and its democratically elected leader is mainstream news. The Israeli jets that attacked the USS Liberty on 8 June 1967 were decorated with Jewish symbols. Jeffery Epstein didn’t disguise his ‘Pedophile Island’. He operated in the open. I am afraid that there is not much evidence of Jewish conspiracies. But there is plenty of evidence of institutional suppression of any attempt to discuss any of this. AIPAC’s agenda is openly avowed, criticising its agenda is strictly forbidden. The same applies to other Israel Lobby activity, Israeli war crimes and even crimes committed by Jewish individuals. Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress discussion of Jewish power.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Introduction by GA: The other day I found the following comment under my Predators United article on unz.org. I am not in any position to validate or refute the explanation offered in regard to the Nobel Committee’s decision to award the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature to Bob Dylan. Whether the story offered here is truthful or not, it seems as if Jewish power (pressure, relentless lobbying, the obsession with anti-Semitism etc.) is gradually becoming a comic act.

schrub says:

I recently heard a rather revealing story about Phillip Roth.

In or 2015 or 2016 the committee that was to chose the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature came under intense pressure to award the prize to the then-ailing Roth since Nobel Prizes cannot be awarded after a recipient’s death. Besides the scheduled time had come to award a Jew the prize.

Committee members absolutely abhorred the idea of Roth getting the award. Several felt that he was merely an extremely parochial and increasingly bigoted Jewish writer rather than an American one. These committee members had so far refused to acquiesce to the pressure that had been mounting for over a decade on them from Jewish groups worldwide to award Roth the prize.

Charges then started being made that the only reason for the refusal to award Roth the prize was because of antisemitism. This charge made many the committee members panic because of the potential effect that this charge might have on their own social standing and careers. A quick solution was sought.

Committee members quickly decided that only the choice of another Jew as the prize winner could neutralize the charge made against them.

These committee members then started looking far and wide for a suitable Jewish substitute.

Initially, their efforts were unsuccessful. Some potential candidates were dismissed as either being lousy writers or too obscure. Others were dismissed because of their active or tacit support of Israeli government’s policies towards the Palestinians.

Oddly enough, others were similarly dismissed from consideration because of their often virulent opposition to Israel’s governmental policies. This was done because it was felt that such a choice could potentially start another controversy and potentially reignite the dangerous charges of antisemitism. A Nobel prize might also give the newly selected writer a platform popularize this or her “dangerous ” beliefs.

One of the committee members suddenly came up with an absolute brainstorm of a candidate in the form of Bob Dylan to be the eventual prize winner. True, he wasn’t really a writer in the conventional sense, just a songwriter. His abbreviated scribbling would never be confused with those of Shakespeare’s or even a Whitman’s.

He had two significant attributes however besides his Jewishness: he was well known and his beliefs regarding current Israeli government policies were unknown if in fact he had any at all.

In a word, he was ideal. After all, who in the younger generation even reads full-length books now. Songsand songwriters like Dylan appeal more to younger people with their increasingly short, action game driven attention spans.

The Nobel Prize committee members were nervous about their choice of Dyaln. Would the public accept their rather bizarre choice.?

It turns out they had no reason to worry.

Leonard Cohen is probably now on the shortlist for a future Nobel prize in literature/song writing.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Jews, Nobel Prize 
🔊 Listen RSS

Binary options fraud flourished in Israel for years before the industry was gradually outlawed by the Knesset which first made binary options illegal only for Israeli investors. Finally, in 2017 the Knesset managed to ban the sale of binary options altogether (with a three month grace period). The legislation followed superb investigative reporting by The Times of Israel that began with a March 2016 article entitled “The Wolves of Tel Aviv.” At its peak, thousands of Israelis were employed by hundreds of Israeli companies engaged in the fraud.

Despite the fact that an Israeli industry was defrauding Americans and Europeans, the American and European press have remained quiet about it. The US media has barely reported on the FBI’s arrest or the trial of Lee Elbaz, CEO of Yukom Communications Ltd, an Israeli company accused of defrauding American investors out of millions of dollars. Maybe it is too much for the American MSM to advertise that a state that is pumped with billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money gives little in return and ran an industry designed to separate Americans from their savings.

Apparently the Hebrew press also ignored the issue. Maybe this is because, after spring 2016, only non Israelis were being defrauded. Perhaps the Israeli press was intimidated. After breaking the story, The Times of Israel was subjected to a ‘welter of legal and illegal threats’ and intimidation some of which were delivered by Israel’s most prestigious law firms no doubt paid for by the billions scammed.

The Times of Israel once again brought to our attention the trial of Lee Elbaz that is presently before a jury in Maryland.

The Times of Israel reports that in closing arguments on August 1, prosecutor L. Rush Atkinson described Elbaz as someone who lied to investors about their chances of making money and lied about their ability to withdraw money once they had deposited it. If an investor came to understand that he had been duped or wanted his money returned for whatever reason, his money was suddenly unavailable.

A defense attorney said Elbaz did not condone the fraudulent tactics used by employees who worked under her supervision. Federal prosecutors alleged that far from being unaware of the fraud her employees were committing, Elbaz directed her sales agents to lie over the phone in addition to lying herself.

“In her own words, she was ‘a money-making machine.’ She was the center of a devastating fraud,” Atkinson said. “Her workers couldn’t remember a single client who withdrew the money they invested,” he added.

Elbaz’s defense attorney Barry Pollack displayed some pilpul* sophistry suggesting in his closing argument that being a “money-making machine” is not a crime.

Pollack is correct, some would even argue that making money is a mitzvah, yet making money by means of fraud is a crime even when the American press is too embarrassed to report about it.

Pollack argued that Elbaz had drawn that line at a place she thought was proper, based on a ‘legal opinion’ offered by David Bitton, lawyer for Yukom Communications. Bitton had opined that under Israeli law it is not illegal for a business to lie unless that lie is specifically about the product they are selling. Did Bitton affirm that lying for the cause is a kosher procedure, at least in Israel? You can sell products under fake name. You can fake your credential and even invent your past as long as you don’t lie about your (non existent) product.

Asked by her attorney whether she thought it was wrong to use a fake name when interacting with investors, Elbaz replied: “No. I saw a legal opinion that it was allowed and I was asked by the broker to do it and also not to say we are from Israel; some people don’t like it [for anti-Semitic reasons].”

For those with short memories, this is the second time we’ve learned this month that Jews should be allowed to lie about their identity and even fake their passports because of anti-Semitism. ‘Explaining’ the fake Passport found in Jeffrey Epstein’s house his defense lawyer Marc Fernich wrote: “Some Jewish-Americans were informally advised at the time to carry identification bearing a non-Jewish name when traveling internationally in case of hijacking.”

“Did you know your employees used fake names?” prosecuting attorney Henry Van Dyck asked. “We were asked by our broker not to expose Israeli names, and anti-Semitic-wise we are Jewish, working with people who don’t like it.”

“Some names are difficult to pronounce,” she added, offering this as another reason that employees used what she referred to as stage names.

“Why did Austin Smith need a fake name?” asked Van Dyck. “What about Oren Montgomery?”

“It’s hard to pronounce,” she replied.

“Harder to pronounce than Bill Shneizer?” he asked, referring to the pseudonym used by an employee named Oren Montgomery.

Prosecutor Caitlin Cottingham said that far from being harmless lies, the fake names and locations Elbaz and other used were essential to the alleged scheme, and used for a simple reason. “They used fake names because they didn’t want to get caught,” she said.

Or maybe the Israeli employees were asked to hide their Jewish names, not because their clients were potentially ‘anti-Semitic’ but because this entire operation evokes bad memories of the wolves of Wall Street.

* Pilpul – a method of Talmudic disputation among rabbinical scholars regarding the interpretation of notions, actions, rules, principles and Scriptures.

 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Fraud, Israel 
🔊 Listen RSS

In this part study I intend to delve into a deeply troublesome topic. Due to the growing sensitivity concerning ‘anti-Semitism’ and new legislation designed to restrict discussion of topics related to Jewish politics, culture and history, I have limited myself to sources that are Jewish, Israeli or mainstream news.

From Weinstein to Epstein and Beyond

“Not Just Weinstein: The Year #MeToo Rocked and Shocked the Jewish World” was the title of a 2018 Haaretz article that reviewed the large number of Jews involved in sex scandals that year. “Over the past year,” Haartez wrote, “a high number of powerful Jewish men have been accused of sexual misconduct. While it has provided fodder for anti-Semites, activists say addressing the problem is vital.”

Haaretz listed some of the prominent Jewish men accused of predatory sexual behaviour. “In addition to (Harvey) Weinstein and (Leon) Wieseltier, the list of Jewish men implicated in #MeToo over the past 12 months includes former Democratic senator Al Franken; ousted CBS chief Les Moonves; actors Dustin Hoffman, Jeffrey Tambor and Jeremy Piven; directors Woody Allen, James Toback and Brett Ratner; playwright Israel Horowitz; journalists Mark Halperin and Michael Oreskes; conductor James Levine; and radio show hosts Leonard Lopate and Jonathan Schwartz.”

Apparently someone decided to ‘clean the swamp’. Harvey Weinstein was just an early bird. In 2018 we also learned about the Nxivm sex cult and the role of Clare Bronfman at its centre. The Jewish Forward wrote that Nxivm’s leader attracted “several prominent figures to his group, including heiress Clare Bronfman, who pleaded guilty in April to credit card fraud and harbouring an undocumented immigrant who provided unpaid “labor and services.” Bronfman is the daughter of the legendary ultra Zionist billionaire Edgar Bronfman (1929 –2013) who was president of the World Jewish Congress. In his obituary, Edgar Bronfman was described by Haaretz as “prince of the Jews.” His daughter has been ordered to pay a penalty of $6 million out of her $200 million fortune, and she faces up to two years in prison.

In November 2017, genius comedian Larry David admitted on Saturday Night Live that he was uncomfortable with the fact that so many of those accused of sexual harassment in Hollywood are Jewish. David allowed he would much prefer Jews to be associated with the theory of relativity and the cure for polio.

When it seemed the Jewish universe couldn’t cope with any more scandals involving predatory sexual behaviour, the Epstein affair resurfaced. The Jeffrey Epstein spectacle is one of the biggest of its kind in the history of America ensnaring presidents and prime ministers. Some of the world’s most influential men in cultural, financial and academic fields are allegedly implicated in predatory behaviour with underage girls. And it doesn’t take a genius to observe that the Epstein drama is, unfortunately, a ‘Jewish drama.’

Bloomberg, not exactly an ‘anti-Semitic’ outlet, dug into The Complicated Orbit of Jeffrey Epstein. Zionist enthusiast Leslie Wexner was identified as Epstein’s ‘patron’. The Jewish virtual library informs us that Wexner “often support[s] .. Jewish projects. He serves as Honorary Vice Chairman of the Board of Congregation Aguda Achim… [And] established the Wexner Foundation, which runs both a Graduate Fellowship and an Israel Fellowship Program.”

Bloomberg lists the following as amongst Epstein’s ‘business partners’: Harvey Weinstein, Mort Zuckerman, Donny Deutsch, Nelson Peltz, Ehud Barak and Ponzi aficionado Steven Hoffenberg.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of notorious Zionist pension plunderer Robert Maxwell, is described by Bloomberg as Epstein’s ‘Inner Circle.’ And then there is Alan Dershowitz who has been labouring tirelessly to try to convince the American media and anyone else willing to listen that he didn’t have sex with underage girls.

Again I find myself admitting that the list of Jewish names surrounding an unsavoury character, this time Epstein, resembles my Bar Mitzvah’s guest list: a lot of Jewish names with just a few goyim at the margin.

This raises critical questions, the most elementary of which is, why? Why are so many Jewish men currently in the news in connection with sexually predatory behaviour? What is it about these rich and influential people that pushes them over the edge?

And there are deeper questions that beg attention. Why is it that with so many Jews in academia and media ordinarily so clever in explaining in a ‘professorial manner’ the psychology and sociology behind every world development and political shift, not one has volunteered to explain the cultural, ideological and spiritual continuum between Weinstein and Epstein and beyond? How is it that the academics and think tanks that are so adept in analysing ‘cultural clashes’ and, as they call it, ‘Islamofascism,’ are unwilling to analyse the roots of the cultural crisis at the core of the Epstein saga? And I must extend this inquiry just one step further, why does the Jewish solidarity industry that cares so much for Palestine, Immigrants, the Civil Rights Movement and LGBT issues remain silent when it comes to the crimes committed, and on a mass scale, against underage girls just a few blocks from JVP’s New York headquarters?

I tend to think that it is just a question of time before we see the formation of ‘Jews against Epstein’ or some other racially exclusive ‘Jews only’ group of that sort. Dominating the dissent is a Jewish survival instinct. ‘As Jews’ they will protest against Epstein, Maxwell, Barak, Weinstein and Dershowitz just to make sure that the boundaries of criticism are kept within the safety zone. If this happens, the battle against pedophilia will slowly evolve into an internal Jewish dispute. Gentiles will be assured that Jews can safely take care of their problems.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

David Mamet’s “Bitter Wheat” tackles the contemporary saga of a Hollywood sex predator at the centre of #MeToo. Barney Fein, the protagonist of Mamet’s new play, refers to himself as a ‘fat kike.’ He is as monstrous and arrogant as anyone could possibly be. And in addition to his arrogance, his thievery of creative work and his contempt for the human race he is also a disgusting sexual predator. As you have no doubt guessed, Barney Fein is a Harvey Weinstein-type character. No coincidence, Barney Fein rhymes nicely with Weinstein.

Mamet is a genius scriptwriter. He skillfully uses theatre to illustrate every trait of the Hollywood predator. The choice of John Malkovich as Barney Fein is genius. He sustains your attention and shows his character as both disgusting and amusing in equal parts. Malkovich, himself a Hollywood super star, has likely met a few Weinsteins in his career.

You’ll want to see Mamet’s Bitter Wheat not because it is a great play, because it isn’t, but because it is a true window into the sophisticated and manipulative role of Jewish humour.

Mamet skillfully gives life to his monstrous narcissist character. Barney Fein is astonishingly abrasive. He refers to himself as a Jew and displays every problematic symptom attributed to Jews by their enemies. By the end of the first half, some of the audience may harbor genuine anti-Semitic sentiments towards the main character. I assure you, these sentiments will be addressed with utmost care in the second half.

The second half begins after Barney Fein has gotten out of prison. He returns to his office to find that he is basically destroyed. Most everyone shuns him. No one will ever work with him again. If this were not bad enough, his mother has died in a ‘terror attack’ but not before she changed her will to bequeath his production company to Greenpeace and the Mossad. The second half is short and disappointing: it verges on miserable. The tension that was cleverly created in the first half evaporates as the play transforms into banal Jewish parody. Barney’s disastrous symptoms morph into comic traits. Barney is dangerous no more, he is merely an absurd satirical act, a victim of his own symptoms.

As much as Mamet is dexterous in his art form, he isn’t too original here. Owning one’s symptoms is the new Jewish American trend.

The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand pointed out that traditional Jewish humour, would be better described as ‘Yiddish humour,’ Sand noted that Albert Einstein, Kafka and Spinoza did not spend much time cracking Yiddish jokes about their surrounding human landscape. What we regard as Jewish humour is largely a Yiddish, folkish cult. It was the means by which the Ostjuden (Eastern Jews often described as ‘Yiddish People’) dealt with their ordeal. Most 19th century Yiddish jokes centered on a narrative in which the ordinary Jew outsmarted the dummkopf Goy. There are endless variations on this somewhat racially- orientated theme but always it is the Jew who wins out, leaving the poor, befuddled Goy confused by his own gullibility.

Of course this was not the reality on the ground. It was not the Gentile who was left behind but the Ostjuden. It was the Eastern Jew who was surrounded by ghetto walls and oppressed by a hostile environment.

Nineteenth century Yiddish humour allowed the Yiddish-speaking Eastern Jew to identify with the Western Ashkenazi elite and look down on his local gentile oppressors. A joke allowed an Eastern Jew to elevate himself to the rank of a Rothschild or a Warburg.

While Jewish humour is always political, in that it always conveys a social, ideological and spiritual message, 20th century American Jewish humor has radically transformed the message. Instead of ridiculing the gullible Goy, modern American Jewish humour is there to own the Jewish symptom. Woody Allen mocks the Zelig chameleon character . Larry David’s ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ ridicules the self-centred hedonist Hollywood character. Mel Brooks exaggerates Jewish symptoms ad absurdum and Sarah Silverman confessed that she “wants to kill Christ again.”

These Jewish comedians have made self-deprecation into an art form. By sarcastically mocking Jewish stereotypes, they disarm opposition to or criticism of Jewish dominance and political power. By openly owning what some regard as problematic Jewish symptoms, these entertainers manage to dismantle, or at least, suppress the dissent. When the so-called ‘anti-Semite’ accuses the Jew of being hedonistic, self-centred, a capitalist, usurious, a Christ killer, pro immigration and even a sex predator, David, Allen, Silverman Brooks and Mamet’s answer is simply: ‘Okay, now tell us something we don’t know.’

—-

To learn more about controlling dissent and the role of Jewish humour read Being in Time – A Post political Manifesto

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Harvey Weinstein, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

Dershowitz is working hard these days. He understandably desperate to clear his name. This video is a short deconstruction of Dershowitz’ recent appearance on Israeli TV.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Yesterday, prosecutors revealed that Jeffrey Epstein kept a fake Saudi passport in his home’s safe along with diamonds and piles of cash. It also emerged last week that Epstein invested millions in a deal with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak acknowledged to the Daily Beast that he, like other world leaders, visited Epstein’s Island and that he was first introduced to Epstein by Shimon Peres, former Israeli prime minister and president.

Barak’s high-tech company financed by the arch sex trafficker is called Carbyne. The Israeli enterprise develops “call-handling and identification capabilities for emergency response services,” essentially it seeks total access to your phone, its GPS system and its camera. This shouldn’t take us by surprise. By now we know that Epstein was very excited by cameras.

In a world with functioning media, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other Mainstream Media (MSM) outlet would compete mercilessly to dig out the dirt all the way from Epstein’s Island to Tel Aviv but, it seems our MSM is doing the opposite. It conceals the shame. It invests its energy into diverting attention from that which has become obvious to the wider public: Epstein wasn’t just a disgusting paedophile. It is likely that he was serving an intelligence agency and perhaps more than just one.

Four days ago one of the most courageous writers around, former CIA analyst Philip Giraldi, produced a detailed article dealing with the obvious question: was Epstein an Israeli spy? Giraldi ends his piece: “it will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum.”

I admire Giraldi and would like to think that he is correct here. In Britain, however, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, pretty much collapsed when Lord Janner, became a centre of its focus. Lord Janner was a former chairman of the BOD, a Body that claims to represent British Jews. He was also the founder of the Holocaust Memorial Trust. Some people, so it seems, are either above the law or beyond scrutiny.

We may have to admit that in a world where the Labour Party is terrorised, in the open, by a foreign lobby, in a world where Penguin press stops publishing a book because it referred to the Rothschilds a as an ‘influential Jewish family,’ in a world where the British national broadcaster is reduced into a Zionist propaganda unit, no one in proximity to power dares to look into the possibility that the intelligence agency of a close ally might have invested millions if not billions of dollars in the formation of a spectacular blackmail apparatus that abused underage children through sex trafficking.

If Epstein wasn’t a lone operator, it is time to ask what his senders had in mind when they formed such a sex trafficking operation. Did they think of the possible consequences if the network were exposed? Did Ehud Barak or Shimon Peres consider the possible implications of their association with a convicted sex offender? Did they care about the possible ramifications to world Jewry, or Israel’s reputation, or Israel’s political affairs and its relationships with the USA? Did they have a plan B? Or maybe you don’t need a plan B in a world where the political class is deeply compromised and the mainstream media as a whole does little but veil the truth.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Jeffrey Epstein, Mossad 
“The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless” says former BBC senior editor.
🔊 Listen RSS

The BBC’s Panorama channel ‘investigation’ into Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was so blatantly one sided its broadcast as ‘news’ demanded an explanation. In an attempt to grasp why the British national broadcaster fails to fulfil its core mission to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible, I interviewed a former senior editor for the BBC. The editor, a 35 year veteran of the BBC, reveals the culture that has steered the BBC into its present position as a Zionist mouthpiece.

In acting as a whistle blower, the former editor risks severe consequences. In Britain leading journalists have been locked behind bars and put under threat of extradition for reporting information whose truthfulness has not even been challenged.

Sadly, this danger is heightened under the present toxic political atmosphere in Britain, as demonstrated by its purging of a major political party and its tolerance for abuse of its judicial system to deter and punish anyone who dares to question the Zionist narrative.

Q: When did the BBC become openly biased?

A: The BBC has always been biased towards Israel, and its bias has been well documented. The reasons for this bias have long been the subject of serious academic studies, the best known of which is Greg Philo’s and Mike Berry’s More Bad News from Israel. In fact, in 2006 an independent report commissioned by the BBC’s own governing body concluded that the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”

Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?

A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time — see, for example, this http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek , these (a) http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6 , (b) http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh , and (c) http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl . Also see this http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl .

Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?

A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis and/or omission. For instance, there was Sarah Montague’s interview with Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in March 2015, Head of Statistics’ Anthony Reuben’s reflection on fatalities in Gaza ( http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4 ), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman, an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website ( http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93 ) to mention but a few.

Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?

A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, “What would the Daily Mail say about that?” Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and is supposed to “Educate, Inform and Entertain”, not propagandise on behalf of Israel.

Q: Some of the so-called Labour ‘Whistleblowers’ were exposed by Al Jazeera as Israeli Lobby assets. Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT or Al Jazeera?

A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV’s programme on Israeli infiltration of the Labour Party ( http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm ). The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.

Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change in employees’ attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?

A: I worked for the BBC’s English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism, any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one’s career, no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

It is possible that Epstein is just an ordinary paedophile, a slave to his own sick depravity. But this now seems unlikely, it leaves too many questions unresolved: why did Epstein build a sex trafficking network? Why did he seek the company of the world’s most influential characters? Why did he schlep all those royals, once and future presidents, Harvard professors and movie stars around the world in his ‘Lolita Express’? And then we get to the big question: how did he get away with it all? Back in 2007, registered sex offender Epstein was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Instead he spent a mere thirteen months in a VIP prison.

The Daily Beast reported yesterday that when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of US labor secretary by the Trump administration’s transition team, Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein affair came under scrutiny. In that interview Acosta allegedly said, “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

The more we look into this registered sex offender’s saga, the more it appears to have the characteristics of a gargantuan espionage operation. If so, then Epstein was running a multi-million intelligence apparatus set to accumulate dirt on some of the world’s most influential people. The walls of his Caribbean island palace were rigged with cameras, and likely for reasons other than his personal libidinal gratification. Epstein didn’t work alone. Press reports allege that Ghislaine Maxwell functioned as Epstein’s ‘madam.’

Multiple court filings reviewed and reported on by the Miami Herald reveal that lawyers for one of Epstein’s alleged victims claim that Maxwell helped traffic girls and women to powerful figures. The same documents report that the alleged victims were lured into the sex ring by offers of modelling, fashion, and educational opportunities.

Ghislaine is the youngest child of the flamboyant Jewish media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances in November 1991. Shortly before he died, a self-proclaimed former Mossad officer named Ari Ben-Menashe had approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell was a long-time agent for the Israeli intelligence service.

I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome spectacle.

This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect American media tends to blame the Russians. Maybe Epstein was working for the Iranians, all indications are that the Trump’s administration is desperate for a pretext for a war with Iran. Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model of 007. If the espionage conspiracy theory is correct, then the Mossad and the CIA would be the natural suspects. Yet it is difficult to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal. It is almost impossible to imagine that Acosta, acting as the federal prosecutor, would take instructions from Israel. If it was the Mossad, they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. I assume that Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s former attorney, may be able to answer some of these questions. He seems to know the details:

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Jeffrey Epstein, Mossad 
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?