by organizedcrimedotgov


Op-ed: Creators of West’s popular culture have become fully devoted to imaginary political correctness, which bans presentation of ‘bad Arabs’ or ‘bad Muslims’ – unless they are Chechens or good people corrupted by America.

A new American television series presents a secret agent changing and losing identities. It sounds suspenseful. In the second episode, the agent is sent with a female secret agent just like him, only more beautiful, to save their homeland from the dreadful danger of chemical weapons.

In order to thwart the terrorists’ plot, the two infiltrate the heart of the deep darkness, the den of the horrible people who are planning to get their hands on the weapon of mass destruction at any cost. These are the members of the Chechen mafia.

Don’t tell me you haven’t heard about the Chechen mafia. It means you haven’t been watching US and British-made suspenseful, action and detective series. The Chechen mafia often appears in these series as the source of terrorist evil in the world. It plans mass terror attacks in population centers in New York and London, pinpoints missiles at the symbols of the Western regime like the White House and British Parliament, and sends tentacles of horror which reach at least half of the planet earth.

It’s obvious that the Chechen mafia operates and funds the Islamist groups in the Arab world: The cruel and cunning Chechens take advantage of the goodhearted Arabs’ innocence. They’re usually not alone; they have the help of conscienceless tycoons from Wall Street, from the City of London and from Moscow.

The screenwriters of the popular series are not troubled by the fact that not a single Chechen terror organization has carried out an act of terror in any Western country, and that not a single trace of such Chechen organizations has been found there. Well, who do you want the bad guys to be in these series? Islamist Arabs? God forbid. Showing an Arab terrorist on an American or British television series? Why it contradicts all principles of political correctness.

So there is no Arab-Muslim terror, and no Iranian-Muslim terror either. Only Chechen terror. I’m exaggerating; not just Chechen. These programs, as well as a series of action and espionage films, are filled with conniving characters and organizations from Serbia, from Albania, from Mongolia, and of course from North Korea – without ignoring for a minute the murderous terror of the business corporations (the fact that not a single corporation in the world has been suspected of planning and funding murderous or terrorist activities for decades doesn’t bother the creators of the films and series either). And if they already present a Pakistani, Afghan or Iranian terrorist, he is surely actually a double agent captured by the CIA.

In the past, the heroes and heroines of the counterespionage series were busy chasing America’s enemies; now they are exclusively occupied with internal struggles between governmental intelligence agencies and the government’s contractors.

The creators of the West’s popular culture have become devoted with their full heart and soul to the imaginary political correctness, which bans the presentation of “bad Arabs” or “bad Muslims” – unless they are Chechens or good people corrupted by America.

Now the boomerang is bouncing back. The enlightened public opinion in the West has been exposed to the horrors of terror organizations like ISIS and is amazed at the cruelty broadcast on the news. The public opinion is surprised; it wasn’t prepared for this. It was prepared for the cruelty of the American investigators, of greedy corporations, of special secret agencies, and of course of the notorious Chechen mafia.

That’s why the shock in light of reality is so big. That’s why the reactions are so radical. That’s why US President Barack Obama was forced, under the pressure of that shocked public opinion, to wage a war against an organization which is not threatening the United States in any way and is not really endangering its interests.

Soon, the change will likely reach television too: The Islamic State fighters will replace the other leading “bad guys” on the screens, with no connection to reality. Reality doesn’t count, after all; it’s the rules of political correctness that determine what is right and wrong in the narratives of the television and cinema culture.

We were allowed to hate the Chechens, and from now on we are allowed to hate ISIS too. The other Arab terror must not be mentioned yet.



Op-ed: As one-state idea sinks into Palestinian and international consciousness, any recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state is in Israel’s best interest.

The British Parliament made a clear pro-Israel decision last week: A symbolic recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state. The reactions to this decision in Israel were divided between the political right, which scornfully rejected it, and the political left, which saw it as a slap in the face of the government’s policy.

But the meaning of this decision cannot be found in the domain of the usual leftist-righting dispute. It belongs in the area of a different international debate, which is more important for Israel and its future: What is the essence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is it a conflict over borders between two political entities, one of which occupied significant parts of the other, or a conflict between two national communities, one of which controls the other?

The more the political world perceives the conflict as a control battle between two national communities in one land, it will increase its demand that the Jewish community in the “Greater Land of Israel” cease the apartheid against the Palestinian community and grant it full and equal civil right in order to bring about the “cancellation” of the Jewish state sooner or later, and probably sooner.

On the other hand, the approach which sees the division of the land between a Jewish state and a Palestinian state as an established fact, and requires the Jewish state to reduce its size, withdraw and make room for a durable Palestinian state – matches the Zionist message from time immemorial.

The occupation of territories can be solved with an acceptable border. The oppression of a minority can be solved by giving the minority full rights. The first solution can preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The second solution can’t, and the growing support for this solution endangers our actual existence.

The change in the approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the notorious 2001 Durban Conference in South Africa, in which Zionism was defined as an apartheid movement. Although this was not reflected in the conference’s official decisions, this perception freely dominated the discussions and statements.

The second intifada, which intensified at around the same time as the Durban Conference, was interpreted by its participants from non-governmental organizations as a Palestinian revolt against the Jews’ oppression rather than as stage in the Palestinian struggle for the establishment of an independent state.

The full withdrawal from Gaza led by late prime minister Ariel Sharon, his meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his speeches at the United Nations silenced the voices accusing Israel of apartheid for several years, but these voices of criticism resumed and grew stronger in the late 2000s.

The demand that Israel must accept the principle of territories for peace and withdraw to the 1967 borders nearly disappeared from blogs, websites and publications of the Western left and young Palestinians. It was replaced, as I mentioned earlier, by the demand to “end the apartheid” in its political meaning – by establishing a bi-national state.

At the same time, the state of mind among the Palestinian public is changing. There was no burst of joy there following the British Parliament vote. The young elite on the top and the Muslim masses on the bottom no longer see the fulfillment of the right to self-determination as the long-awaited goal.

The educated people in Ramallah and the worshippers in Gaza are pinning their hopes on other solutions. The former are hoping for a state of two people in which the Jews will become a minority, while the latter are dreaming of an Islamic kingdom from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean.

And in Israel? Here the battle over pudding prices has replaced the battle for peace. But even when the politicians are drowsy, the political clock keeps ticking. The one-state idea is spreading and sinking into the Palestinian and international consciousness. And so we should welcome any further recognition by another country of a sovereign Palestine which is separate from Israel: It means a return (not a historical one but a fundamental one) to the partition plan, under which the Zionist state called Israel was founded.

We have no reason to be concerned by the British Parliament’s decision, even if its motives are dubious. On the contrary, the more decisions the merrier. We should not fear the opening of a Palestinian embassy in London. It’s in our best interest for Palestine’s embassy to take its place near the Israeli embassy – just not in its place.




by organizedcrimedotgov


Short but revealing article…

Click here to read

puppet 2

Click here to read



Israel’s political class has largely chosen to ignore the U.K. parliament’s ringing endorsement to recognize Palestine as a state last week. It seems Israel’s leaders hope the rising wave of European determination to stop Israel’s creeping annexation of the West Bank will simply go away.

Doing so is a remarkable instance of one of humankind’s most primitive defense mechanisms: denial. In denial we simply screen off awareness of any unpleasant fact, with the tacit belief that it will go away. Israel’s political right has been quite adept in making use of this.

Its reaction to the European Union’s growing determination to no longer accept Israel’s annexation of the West Bank has shown various levels of immaturity, ranging from the mild to the truly pathological. Lieberman has reacted to EU criticism by telling it to solve its own problems before lecturing Israel – a masterpiece of diplomatic finesse, if there ever was one.

Naftali Bennett has been even more remarkable: When the EU passed a law that doesn’t allow cooperation with Israeli organizations in the occupied territories, he called for the severing of ties with the body. This is a truly fitting reaction from Israel’s economy minister, and a stunning exhibition of political and psychological immaturity, given that the EU accounts for about half of Israel’s foreign trade.

Lieberman, of course, looks longingly to his political idol, Vladimir Putin, and envies him for getting away with annexing Crimea. And Bennett seems content to see himself as a latter-day Bar Kochba – forgetting that he only brought destruction on the people of Israel. But Lieberman isn’t Putin, Bennett isn’t Bar Kochba, and Israel isn’t Russia – which is quite fortunate, as one million Russian immigrants in Israel can attest.

So let me spell out the reality in very simple terms. As far as the EU is concerned, the West Bank does not belong to Israel. The Knesset has, therefore, no mandate about whether to annex the West Bank, or to “give” the Palestinians a state, any more than it can make decisions about southern Italy.

Israel’s political right generally complains that such a position denies Israel’s right to exist. This kicking and screaming simply disregards the fact that the EU’s position is exactly the same with respect to Russia and Ukraine: Russia has no legal say over Ukraine, period. Nobody denies Russia’s right to exist, but the EU has been imposing ever-stronger sanctions on Russia because of its military involvement in Ukraine. So Israel is not even being singled out unfairly. The fact that Ukraine is already a sovereign state, whereas Palestine isn’t, makes less of a difference to Europe than Israel’s rightists would like to believe.

Sweden and Britain’s decisions to recognize a Palestinian state reflect public opinion in their countries. They are by no means outliers in the EU, and other major countries might follow them soon.

While the EU does not use language as uncivilized as Lieberman’s or Bennett’s, it will continue acting according to its values. If this requires sanctions, these will be cranked up gradually – not because the EU hates Israel or Israelis, but because the occupation is illegal. Unfortunately, ordinary Israelis will have to pay the price for the near-insanity of Israel’s political right.

Mercurial Conservative Talk Radio Host Michael Savage has made an ...

ed note (Tony)…I guess fighting endless wars for Israel is such a high honor, that there is no need to complain.

Link here



by organizedcrimedotgov

Not all is as it seems in the jewish media


Read here

gaza child in the rain

Continue Reading

Backroom Deal$ and $cheme$ all with $tolen loot. Sisi has his forty pieces of $ilver.

Backroom Deal$ and $cheme$ all with $tolen loot. Sisi has his forty pieces of $ilver.