War is Peace, 2+2=5

Turkish generals arrested in Syria-bound trucks case

[Photo: Syria-bound trucks operated by MİT were searched in January 2014 after prosecutors received tip-offs that they are illegally carrying arms to Syria.]

Today's Zaman, Istanbul, November 30, 2015

Two generals and a retired colonel have been arrested on charges of espionage and terrorism for their role in the interception in 2014 of trucks allegedly carrying arms to Syria.

Ankara Gendarmerie Regional Commander Maj. Gen. İbrahim Aydın, former Adana Gendarmerie Regional Commander Brig. Gen. Hamza Celepoğlu and former Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory head and retired Col. Burhanettin Cihangiroğlu were detained last Saturday and referred to an İstanbul court for arrest on Sunday.

The İstanbul Second Criminal Court of Peace ruled for the arrest pending trial of Aydın, Celepoğlu and Cihangiroğlu a little after midnight on Monday.

Maj. Gen. Aydın and retired Col. Cihangiroğlu were arrested on charges of “obtaining confidential information for purposes of political or military espionage; disclosing confidential information pertaining to state security for espionage purposes; attempting to destroy or prevent the government of the Republic of Turkey from functioning; founding or leading an armed terrorist organization.”

Brig. Gen. Celepoğlu was arrested on charges of “attempting to destroy or prevent the government of the Republic of Turkey from functioning; founding or leading an armed terrorist organization.”

Two journalists from the Cumhuriyet daily, Editor-in-Chief Can Dündar and the Ankara representative Erdem Gül were arrested last week on similar charges after publishing footage that showed the arms were carrying guns, contrary to earlier government claims that they were transporting humanitarian aid.

In January 2014, gendarmes stopped three Syria-bound trucks in the southern provinces of Adana and Hatay in two separate instances, after prosecutors received tip-offs that the vehicles were illegally carrying weapons to armed organizations in Syria.

The government said the trucks were operated by the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and dismissed claims at the time that the trucks intercepted and searched by the Turkish military by order of prosecutors in Adana had any arms. Current Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who was foreign minister at the time, asserted that the cargo was humanitarian aid destined for embattled Syrian Turkmens on the other side of the border.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the government called the 2014 investigation of the MİT trucks “treason and espionage” on the part of the prosecutors and a case was filed against those involved in the investigation.

An indictment, which was approved by the Tarsus High Criminal Court in July, seeks a life sentence for Adana Chief Public Prosecutor Süleyman Bağrıyanık, former Adana Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor Ahmet Karaca and Adana prosecutors Aziz Takçı and Özcan Şişman, as well as Gendarmerie Commander Col. Özkan Çokay, all of whom were involved in the investigation.


The German 'Land' of Hesse still has the death penalty as Article 21 of its Constitution of 1946, passed by the SPD (Socialist) and KPD (Communist Party) dominated legislature.

Key figures in the drafting of the bloodthirsty Constituution:

- Communist Oskar Müller, Labor Secretary (Arbeitsminister) of the first Hesse government, Dauchau "Holocaust Survivor" oy vey.

- Kike Communist Emil Carlebach, delegate of the first parliament, and publisher of the German jewspaper, Frankfurter Rundschau. Descended from a long line of Pharisees. "In early 1934, he was sentenced to three years in prison for spreading anti-fascist union publications. When the sentence was completed in 1937, he was sent to Dachau concentration camp and then imprisoned at Buchenwald in 1938. At Buchenwald, he was active in the illegal resistance organization. Following plans he designed, he launched "with the call to mutiny on 4 April 1945." He was to have been shot by the SS on 6 April 1945, for his efforts in the camp revolt, but was hidden by other prisoners and survived till liberation. After the liberation of the concentration camp, the prisoners from Buchenwald chose him as their spokesman; later he became the vice-president of the International Buchenwald Committee. Carlebach’s conduct towards those Buchenwald prisoners who he did not consider loyal communists was also criticized. Because of this, his former fellow prisoner, Benedikt Kautsky, accused him of being partially responsible for the death of least two Polish prisoners. After the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was banned in 1956, he fled to the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR, East Germany). There he was a staff member for the Deutscher Freiheitssender 904 (German Freedom Radio 904). After his return to the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD, West Germany) he was active in the VVN, the German Communist Party (DKP) and the Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (dju, Union of German Journalists) until his death." (Kikepedia) - Incompetent Krauts couldn't manage to kill one lousy Commie Kike in 11 years!

The 1949 Federal Grundgesetz supersedes it, on the principle of "Bundesrecht bricht Landesrecht" ('Federal law breaks state law'). So much for Holy Diversity and Respect for Multiculturalism.

A state referendum would be required to remove Article 21.


George Orwell: 'useful idiot' ignorant of Jews, nukes, Spain

By rerevisionist [Rae "Big Lies" West?] » 13 Jul 2011

Eric Blair, or 'George Orwell' (1903 - 1950) is best known for his novels Animal Farm (1944) and 1984 (1949). He lived in Burma until he was about 24; biographies are a bit low on detail until he was about 30. He became a journalist and writer; his first essays appeared about 1930. He wrote on Paris (1933), Burma (1934), and Wigan, Lancashire (1937 - he was commissioned by Victor Gollancz, a notable Jewish publisher of 'red' books). Orwell spent something like a gap year in Spain in 1937 - 'Homage to Catalonia' was published in 1938, by Secker & Warburg - where he fought, or perhaps played at fighting; then he spent some time in Morocco.

Orwell's thought was dominated by the written word, mostly the English written word, though he must have been exposed to the classics. It's important to realise how bound up Orwell's world view was with printed material; he must have read widely and promiscuously, and not particularly intelligently, when he was young. He was aware of this limitation; hence perhaps his foreign adventures, though his wartime work was in England, in propaganda. He predated television, and judging by his writings wasn't greatly interested in the cinema (film was monopolistic; and Orwell provided calculations showing that reading was better value) or radio - he was annoyed that the 'inconceivable rubbish of cross-talk comedians' was scripted in a time of paper shortage. However, he knew and was influenced by the BBC - it gave him the idea for the 'Ministry of Truth', according to Malcolm Muggeridge, although the wartime 'Ministry of Information' seems a likelier model.

When Orwell discusses books and magazines and newspapers, it's clear he has a considerable knowledge of adventure stories, school stories, detective stories, and war and action stories, and also the relation of these genres to the real world at various dates, and their obsolescence over time - see e.g. 'Boys' Weeklies' of 1940. 'Inside the Whale' (also 1940) looks at more serious literature, including poetry. His account of Dickens' work is long and detailed ('His imagination overwhelms everything, like a weed.') Orwell predated the huge expansion of University education, with its official lists of authors. Orwell admired H G Wells (probably his nom de plume was assembled with Herbert George Wells in mind), and modelled his socialist views on Wells's, at least up to the 1930s. This was not unusual, of course. What's equally usual is vagueness - Orwell gave no coherent vision of 'socialism'.

There was of course no Internet; one imagines Orwell getting his weekly fix of favourite magazines and newspapers, with occasional books. For our purposes, what's interesting is his views on propaganda. He found the Spanish Civil War, so-called, alarming because of that aspect; the really bitter and bloody stuff was not part of his experience: '... in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw ... etc. ' 'The Prevention of Literature' (1946) looks at censorship.

It's slightly curious that Orwell never doubted any of the underlying propaganda in Britain. Or if he did, he wasn't published. He never doubted that 'Fascism' (i.e. including Nazism) came before Communism; or that 'Trotskyists' was merely a slogan; or that Poland was a proper cause for war; or that Hitler wanted to invade Britain; or that 'reds' committed fewer atrocities than 'Fascists'. As far as I know he didn't take account of the fact that Churchill started civilian bombing of Germany on a pretext. Orwell had no idea that the Spanish Communists were Jewish-controlled - to this day, Jewish propaganda in Britain refights the Spanish War in an odd nostalgic way. Orwell's survey of Arthur Koestler praises him lukewarmly, as a 'European' writer - Orwell says no British writer could come up with such works as 'Darkness at Noon'. Orwell had no idea that Hungarian Jews had been behind a 'revolution' in Hungary. He seems therefore to have had no way to determine Koestler's biases, or for that matter others - though he recognises that many 'intellectuals' of the time were 'European'.

Orwell never doubted some of the tenets of Marxism. He really believed in 'revolution', not realising the misleading nuances forced onto that word by repetition. He thought 'class war' had happened, and that more of it was likely to happen. One of the rather sad aspects of his work is a characteristic of many supposed 'left wingers' down to the present day - a contempt for his own working class, but a sort of worship of other working classes. Some of his descriptions of manly but uneducated Italians and Spaniards are touching in their brotherhood-of-man aspect; but East End Londoners - who in Orwell's lifetime had been deluged with aggressive racist foreigners, and who in pre-property ownership days must have spent their entire lives paying rent - are treated rather scathingly. Orwell didn't seem to realise that many modern technical types were 'working class' for want of a better word. He accepted simplified versions of history - 'the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again.' Probably his most important vacant space was Jewish money and ownership and influence - this of course was part of his isolated English life. His 'AntiSemitism in Britain' (1945) is proof. He was aware of critics of Jews, such as Belloc, but seems never to have taken them seriously. I doubt (I may be wrong) he could read German or French fluently enough to check their anti-Jewish literature, which is (or was) more abundant than in Britain. (Added 1 Nov 2013: Orwell reviewed Mein Kampf in 1940, but his effort is in my view unimpressive and shows all his usual failings; my new review of Mein Kampf includes notes on Orwell's review).

I'm unsure (I'm not that interested) of Orwell's attitude to the Second World War. The BBC made a typically shallow programme, broadcast on his centenary (2003), which has a version of a radio 'debate'; actors playing Orwell, the pacifist Alex Comfort (later famous for The Joy of Sex), and someone called D. S. Savage, described as a poet, were shown debating, in front of radio mikes. Incidentally, this is deliberately misleading: BBC programmes were always scripted. Obviously a state propaganda outfit such as the BBC would never allow serious debate, but even so the speeches attributed to Orwell were extraordinarily weak - along the lines of pacifists being friends of my enemies.Those words were taken from a 1942 printed exchange of letters. However it seems clear enough that Orwell had no real idea of the purpose of the war.

In 1945, Orwell wrote among other things 'The Future of a Ruined Germany', which may have been prompted by rumours of the Morgenthau Plan. And he wrote, after discussing changes in weaponry - mostly in his own lifetime - 'You and the Atomic Bomb'. His main interest was the cost of so-called atomic bombs - Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a 'peace that is no peace'. Clearly Orwell had no idea either of the powers attributed to the bombs over Japan, or that the whole thing was a hoax or fraud - in spite of his nominal scepticism, and explicitly-claimed suspicion of all news reporting, he had no idea he'd been suckered by the Yanks or Jews. Or if he had suspicions, he kept quiet.

1984 was obviously based on wartime London (apart from the considerable wartime promiscuous sex, which is omitted) and I think one of the reasons for its promotion and success was the fact that the underlying cause of 'communism' was NOT mentioned. Orwell presents a fairly static set of three societies always at war, with wartime-style canteens and cinemas and austerity. This is a British view - Winston Smith in middle-class fashion has his own personal torturer, the buildings are only occasionally bombed, not devastated as happened in much of Europe, the payment system is kept out of sight and out of mind, Fabian style 'intellectuals' are supposed to rule, and working class people are only interested in the lottery and drink. (They are assumed to be white). There is no mention whatever of companies, corporations, businesses. However the motive force that led to the situation, and the oddities of it - why should there be sudden policy changes? Why the need for retrospective censorship? Why was the 'left' undemocratic? - are unexplored. The result is described, but not the reasons for it. Therefore the book was safe. It's possible there are far better novels, assuming their authors were allowed to survive, but they would not be promoted, in the same way that a book by a Russian girl starving in Stalingrad - I forget the title - gets no publicity in comparison with the Anne Frank money-making scheme. Orwell died young (assuming you consider 47-ish as 'young') soon after its publication (he died in the same year as Bernard Shaw); Bertrand Russell - also missing the point - wrote that the book didn't achieve its presumed aim '... People.. rather enjoyed the frisson that its horrors gave them and thought: 'Of course it will never be as bad as that except in Russia!' ...'

It's worth noting that all Orwell's publishers were Jews - the 'red' pseudo-socialist journals New Statesman and Tribune; Victor Gollancz commissioned and published him on northern England and on Paris & London, Secker & Warburg published Animal Farm and 1984. The novels are exactly right to usher in the fake of the 'Cold War': there is no mention of the Jewish roots of the Soviet Union, there is no mention of the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union, and all the totalitarian aspects can be attributed to foreigners. No wonder it was heavily promoted. It wouldn't surprise me if there are archival traces of unease in Orwell about this; maybe there are exchanges of letters, which have been lost or suppressed; maybe the typescript of 1984 has scribbled changes to avoid that tendency; maybe the rather odd betrayal scene at the end of 1984, which doesn't fit in, was Orwell's conscience wriggling. Poor Orwell for the first time made serious money with 1984, but died soon after; for the propaganda myth this was fortunate - he might have continued into the 1980s, for example; who knows what he might have said?

Orwell and 'Marxism'

Orwell of course opposed 'capitalism' - despite the fact that arguably state control was superseding conventional capitalism and making it obsolete. And, despite the fact that Marxism is supposed to rest on economic determinism, Orwell had little grasp of economic practicalities. To illustrate this point, consider Hilaire Belloc's book The Jews(1922):-

... The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected - the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation's survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle.

Incidentally, the wealth of these few and very wealthy Jews has been scandalously increased through the war on this very account.
There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance. There is a growing tendency to Jewish monopoly over the stage for instance, the fruit trade in London, and to a great extent the tobacco trade. There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease. One province after another falls under it and it acts as a most powerful irritant. ....

It applies, of course, to a tiny fraction of the Jewish race as a whole. One could put the Jews who control lead, nickel, mercury and the rest into one small room : nor would that room contain very pleasant specimens of their race. You could get the great Jewish bankers who control international finance round one large dinner table, and I know dinner tables which have seen nearly all of them at one time or another. These monopolists, in strategic positions of universal control are an insignificant handful of men out of the millions of Israel, just as the great fortunes we have been discussing attach to an insignificant proportion of that race. Nevertheless, this claim to an exercise of monopoly brings hatred upon the Jews as a whole.

[Belloc also discusses the press and publishing and Reuters news agency, among other issues].

The 'staggering secret' of raw materials must have been dated 1914 or so; Belloc wrote less than ten years later. Yet thirty years after the start of that war, Orwell was writing:

... A few of the big monopolies, such as the ICI, one or two leading newspapers and at least one big chain of department stores are Jewish-owned or partly Jewish-owned ..As his summary of Jews in Britain: most of them worked in small trades, thought Orwell.

[Just as a sample, at that time gold, silver, copper, mercury, platinum, aluminium, nickel, chromium, zinc, tin etc were metals mined and processed from sources around the world - for currency, photography, electricity, explosives, catalysts, alloys and so on. There were various sources of iron ore. (In Spain, RTZ - Rio Tinto Zinc - had mining interests; the 'coloured river' suggests these were not solely zinc). Sulphur (for sulphuric acid - for industry) and phosphorus (fertiliser, alloys) came from the Mediterranean. Oil came from various places, such as Persia, and Shell Oil provided some of the funding for Churchill. Rubber (Malaya), tar (Jamaica), quinine (tropical tree bark), sugar, tea, tobacco, cocoa, pineapples, bananas, citrus fruits ... there's a long list. (These are from memory; there are no doubt omissions and inaccuracies). The point is that Orwell made virtually no effort to investigate any of this, despite his allegiance to the Marxist supposed economic basis of society.]

George Orwell a 'useful idiot' ignorant of Jews & nuke bombs

By rerevisionist » 12 Jan 2012

Just a bit on Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr, which is available online, though I can't vouch for the complete accuracy of these versions which certainly contain a few typos. The book deals with the entire history of Jews in Europe, including Cromwell, the French Revolution, and of course the 'Bolshevik' revolution. Carr, judging by this book, depended on libraries, but also modern newspaper and pamphlet documentation. Here's an extract from Carr on Spain, though I've omitted the considerable alphabet salad of organisations....

The documents were given to the Echo de Paris, which published them in April 1936. The Echo de Paris article reads :


“These instructions to the heads of the Spanish Red Militia ... do not emanate from a Spanish Central Organization, but from the Technical Services in Paris, which sent them to Spain at that date. These Technical Services are those of the French Communist party, working in close cooperation with the Comintern, and its delegates in France. The document, which we are publishing, is in the hands of the government; we were not the parties who communicated it to them. We are convinced that M. Daladier, Minister of War and Defence, has given orders for preventive measures of defence, and protection, to be taken.”

The abbreviated text is as follows :

1. Reinforce shock troops and guards in barracks, and supply them with automatic pistols. These shock troops and guards are members of the Communist party serving in the permanent forces and reserves.

2. These troops will be placed in communication with the Groups who are to break into the barracks. The latter will be in uniform, and under the orders of our officers in whom we have complete confidence.

3. When the fight starts our officers will be given admittance with their groups secretly. They will contact the respective committees and carry out the pre-arranged plan of attack inside the barracks.

4. The provisional committees, in the barracks, shall renew every two days, their lists of enemies, neutrals, sympathizers, and experts. When the barracks have been taken over, those classed as enemies, including in particular all commanders and officers, shall be rapidly eliminated, and without hesitation.

5. Each member of the committees shall be provided with a list of the names of individuals who are to be murdered by himself personally.

6. After the enemies have been disposed of, neutrals shall be subjected to severe teats in order to kill in them any hesitation habitual in such undecided characters.

7. The committees handling the neutrals will make the necessary arrangements for the vigilance groups outside to enter the barracks on the pretext of assisting to put down the rebellion.

8. This has little importance.

9. Those detailed to liquidate generals on the active list shall consist of ten men with revolvers. The generals have two adjutants, and a secretary, who must be murdered in their own homes. Those detailed to perform these killings shall not withdraw in face of any obstacle or opposition, and they shall eliminate anyone who opposes them regardless of sex or age.

10. Those detailed to eliminate generals not holding command shall consist of three men groups and shall carry out their duties as outlined in preceding paragraph.

11 and 12. Details how houses and sites, in strategic positions, must be procured by Communist militants, and secretly armed and fortified in order to ambush troops who may succeed in escaping from barracks. The instructions read : “As military officers have protected cars, groups of our militants must proceed to strategic points such as cross-roads, in cars and trucks; armed with machine guns so as to prevent help reaching those inside the cities. Lorries shall carry supplies of grenades.”

13. Our militants shall quickly put on the uniform previously obtained and they shall be served with rifles.

14. When the rebellion breaks out our militant groups, wearing uniforms of the Civil Guards, and of the Assault Guard, and equipment already prepared for them, shall arrest all heads of all political parties under pretext of the necessity of doing so for their personal protection. Once in custody the procedure for the elimination of generals not holding command shall be carried out. Uniformed groups shall also arrest and detain important capitalists whose names appear in appendix "B" of Circular No. 32.

15. Violence shall not be used against these capitalists except if they resist; they shall however be forced to hand over the balance of the current accounts at the banks, and their securities. In the event of concealment they shall he completely eliminated, including their families, without exception. It is desirable that Cells shall be worked in on their staffs as domestics, or mechanics, as they can be very useful.[4]
16. Can be skipped.

17. With regard to members of the armed forces who claim to be sympathizers the same tactics shall be followed as was done in Russia. First use their services and then eliminate them as enemies. For our effort to be successful, and permanent, a neutral officer or man is better than one who has betrayed his uniform because his life was in danger. It is likely he would betray us also if provided with the opportunity.

18. Instructions to our militia regarding mobilization, movements of transportation, use of arms, and marksmanship, must be intensified.

19. Militia posted at cross roads must eliminate all defeated troops trying to escape.

20. Machine gun posts shall be located in premises which cover the front and rear of all armouries, police stations, and fire halls and all approaches to, and exits from, the cities, and if, in spite of this, the enemy are able to get out, they shall be attacked with hand-grenades.

21. Other militia shall be placed in armoured lorries in strategical positions within the cities not more than one kilometer apart, they also shall be armed with machine guns.

22. Liaison shall be by light cars, and cyclists, who shall be armed with revolvers.

23. Is of no special importance.

24. The most intimate details concerning the lives and characters of all neutrals and sympathizers must be obtained and carefully recorded, including their family requirements, and the influence which love of their children, and desire for these necessary requirements, may exercise over them. If any of our militia, or any of the neutrals, and sympathizers, show any kind of weakness, or resistance to orders, they must be denounced to the highest committee of the organization as being guilty of complicity and/or reaction.

25. Our militia must be organized to work away from their own homes and localities because experience has taught us that at the last moment, through sentimentalism, men working in their own localities, and amongst their families, and friends, have failed to carry out our plan with proper enthusiasm.

26. All owners of depots of goods and merchandise shall be regarded as important capitalists. These depots must be organized to serve the proletariat through the administrative groups.

27. Deals with the question of using STARVATION as a means of reducing opposition quickly, and confirms what has been said regarding the use of this weapon in national disputes, and international warfare. It reads : “During the first week, and until the constitution becomes normal the supply of food and drink to the bourgeois is prohibited.”

28. Reads—Stock of foods in barracks, and in the hands of our enemies, which cannot be captured, must be rendered useless by mixing paraffin or other substances with them.

Since these orders were issued the revolutionary leaders in all countries have been given special instruction to make careful plans to deal with the members of the police and fire-departments because experience has shown that the majority of these civic employees “remain loyal to their bourgeois bosses”. The action recommended is to:

1. Infiltrate into the two forces.

2. Corrupt the rank and file.

3. Party members are urged to purchase or rent properties covering the approaches to both back and front of police stations, and fire halls, so the member, can be eliminated as they change shifts.

The hour to revolt is to coincide with the time the police change shifts.

The orders which were given to the leaders of the Communist party in Spain detailed how they were to take over all public utilities and public services as well as civic administration. The objective was to obtain, in the shortest possible time, full and absolute control of all food supplies, and communication systems.

Revolutionary Orders seized at Majorca in October, 1936 were translated by Jacques Bardoux who afterward wrote “Chaos in Spain”. They were on their way to revolutionary leaders in Spain.

French newspaper, April 1936; I don't know how much of this material was translated, and appeared in English. However Orwell went to Spain in 1937; his book was published in 1938. Plenty of time to familiarise himself with the material, at least if he was in any way serious.


Kike Danny Cohen, Director of BBC television

Kike Danny Cohen, Director of BBC Talmud-Vision

Director of BBC television signs The Guardian’s pro-Israel letter

By Amena Saleem, Electronic Intifada, 29 October 2015

The BBC’s outgoing director of television has signed a letter published in The Guardian last week, pleading for Israel not to be singled out as a target for cultural boycotts.

Danny Cohen, a member of the BBC’s executive board and one of the most senior figures in the organization, joins top Israel apologists — including the chair of Conservative Friends of Israel and the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel—in putting his name to the letter.

(The BBC recently announced that Cohen was to move on from his position at the BBC after eight years, but will retain his post through the end of November.)

The letter published in The Guardian states that“Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory, and will not further peace,” and calls for “cultural engagement” in place of boycotts.

As Omar Robert Hamilton writes in Counterpunch: “When you’re dealing with the mechanized destruction of an entire people by one of the most technologically advanced and diplomatically shielded militaries in the history of mankind then talk, in 2015, of ‘cultural engagement’ is nothing more than further cover for Israel’s continuing colonization of what remains of Palestine.”

It is to this letter, and the highly politicized opinions within it, that the BBC’s director of television, whose salary is funded by license fee payers, has put his name.

In response to a query I sent, asking if Cohen is in breach of any BBC guidelines requiring employees to show impartiality regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel, the BBC Press Office sent this inconsequential reply: “Danny Cohen was expressing his view about his belief in the importance of creative freedom of expression.”

This is ridiculous.

The views expressed in the letter do not constitute a request for unfettered “creative freedom of expression” but are a plea for Israel to be protected from the consequences of its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its siege on Gaza.


The letter also declares support for a new organization called Culture for Coexistence, whose committee includes at least one Israeli, but no Palestinians, and board members of Conservative Friends of Israel, but noone from a pro-Palestinian organization. The website itself is sparse, containing only the text of the letter to The Guardian and a list of committee members.

It looks suspiciously like a front for a bigger hasbara(or propaganda) organization.

Cohen’s fellow signatories to TheGuardian letter include Eric Pickles MP, chair of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), a pro-Israel lobby group which, according to its website, “works to ensure that Israel’s case is fairly represented in Parliament.”

Another 13 members of parliament, apart from Pickles,have signed the letter. Seven of them are CFI’s parliamentary officers, five others are either members of CFI or have recently been on one of its delegations to Israel, and the 13th, Michael Dugher,is vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel — the Labour Party’s equivalent group.

There are no pro-Palestinian MPs among the signatories.

Openly pro-Israel

There are former BBC employees on the signature listas well, including George Weidenfeld, who worked for the BBC Overseas Service, and is now vice-chair of the EU-Israel Forum. Weidenfeld also founded the eponymous Weidenfeld Safe Havens Fund, whose stated aim is to “rescue” Christians from Syria. The fund has received financial support from the Jewish National Fund, an organization essential to the continued ethnic cleansing of historical Palestine.

These signatories are openly pro-Israel. Cohen’s position at the BBC, however, requires neutrality. If he supports Israel in its suppression of the Palestinian people, those views should not be allowed to affect his work at the BBC.

And yet, here he is, with others, very publicly arguing for a continuation of the status quo which favors the Israeli state against the occupied Palestinian people, employingvacuous terms such as “building bridges” to hide the fact that Israel is a serial violator of international law and Palestinian human rights, whose senior politicians openly declare that there will never be a Palestinian state.

It is a stupefying display of favoritism towards Israel from the BBC’s director of television, a man whose job supposedly demands impartiality.

Cohen’s influence within the BBC is huge. He oversees the BBC’s four main TV channels, BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Threeand BBC Four, in addition to BBC iPlayer, and online content for BBC Television. He also oversees the drama, entertainment, knowledge and comedy genres and BBC Films. Further responsibilities include the BBC Television archive and BBC Productions, Europe’s largest television production group.

And his views on Israel and the occupation are now out in the open.

Shockingly, he is not the only senior figure at the BBC known for pro-Israel sympathies.

Endemic bias

The BBC’s director of news and current affairs, James Harding, once told a conference organized by the pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle newspaper: “I am pro-Israel. I believe in the State of Israel.”

Speaking in 2011, when he was still editor of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Times, Harding added,“I would have had a real problem if I had been coming to a paper with a history of being anti-Israel. And, of course, Rupert Murdoch is pro-Israel.”

Harding is responsible for the entirety of the BBC’s news and current affairs output across BBC radio, TV and online, including its current coverage of October’s violence in Palestine and Israel. The position he holds at the BBC isdescribed by The Guardian as “arguably the most important editorial job in Britain.”

He came to the BBC in April 2013. There he joined James Purnell, who had been appointed two weeks earlier as the BBC’s director of strategy and digital. Purnell is a former Labour MP and minister who, for two years, served as chair of Labour Friends of Israel.

But the pro-Israel bias is not present only in the BBC’s current appointments. Another signatory of the letter in last week’s Guardian is Michael Grade, who served as chair of the BBC between 2004 and 2006.

Deep support for Israel

As well as calling for Israel to be protected from boycotts, Grade last week publicly complained that the BBC was too pro-Palestinian in its coverage of events in October which have seen at least 61 Palestinians killed in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, as well as 10 Israelis.

The Jewish Chronicle reported that Grade had written to the BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, accusing the BBC of failing to show stone-throwing Palestinians in its reports and creating an “equivalence between Israeli victims of terrorism and Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli security forces in the act of carrying out terror attacks.”

Ironically, as close monitoring by Palestine Solidarity Campaign has demonstrated, the BBC’s coverage in October has focused almost exclusively on Israeli stabbing victims, and its flagship radio news program Today has even attempted to fool its audiences into thinking that all those killed during October have been Israeli.

But it would seem that, whatever lengths the BBC goes to in order to present the occupying Israeli state as a victim, it can never go far enough for some who have worked at the organization.

It cannot be denied then that support for Israel runs deep through the top layers of BBC management, both past and present, and that support probably trickles down through the rest of the BBC as a matter of corporate culture.

This could explain why BBC editors failed to see the pro-Israel bias of commissioning historian Simon Schama to make a five part series for BBC Two in 2013, during which he made what he called “the moral case for Israel” and announced, in one episode, “I am a Zionist and quite unapologetic about it.”

Schama, unsurprisingly, joined Cohen in adding his name to TheGuardian letter on cultural boycotts.

Corporate culture

The same corporate culture could also explain why BBC Online’s Middle East editor, Raffi Berg, felt comfortable enough to send his colleagues an email during Israel’s November 2012 assault on Gaza asking them not to “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks.

And it may explain why Cohen feels he can sign a letter in support of Israel without fear of reprisal from his bosses for breaching impartiality requirements.

Consumers of BBC news and current affairs may often wonder why the number of Israeli spokespersonsappearing across the BBC’s output far outnumber Palestinian spokespersons, why Palestinians, when they do make a rare appearance, are constantly interrupted by BBC presenters, while Israelis such as diplomatMark Regev are given free rein to speak almost without challenge.

They may wonder why the killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers goes unreported by the BBC, while rockets fired from Gaza which cause damage to roads make headlines.


Kike Hans Litten

The Man Who Crossed Hitler (BBC)

Bringing a little-known story to life, Ian Hart (Five Daughters) and Ed Stoppard (Upstairs, Downstairs) lead an all-star cast in this revealing one-off drama that tells the true story of a Jewish [Communist] lawyer who challenged Hitler – and paid with his life [suicide at Dachau].

In the summer of 1931, with Germany on the brink of economic collapse and the city of Berlin turning into a paramilitary war zone, the audacious young prosecutor Hans Litten (Stoppard) chooses to subpoena a star witness to a trial of Nazi thugs. In spite of the risk to his own safety, and against the advice of those who love him, Litten forces rising political star Adolf Hitler (Hart) to make a rare appearance in the witness stand of Berlin's central criminal court.

Litten aimed to expose the true character of Hitler and his politics to the German public and, in a humiliating and hostile cross-examination, Hitler was forced to account for his political beliefs, his apparent contempt for the law and his desire to destroy German democracy. Hitler survived the ordeal but it was a close encounter which he never forgave and for which Litten paid a heavy price.

When East and West Germany were reunited, the lawyers association of Berlin chose to call itself the Hans Litten Bar Association.

Every two years, a lawyer is given the "Hans Litten Prize" by the German and European Democratic Lawyers Association. The Israeli lawyer, Leah Tsemel, and Kike Michael Ratner, an American lawyer and the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, have both received the award.

The federal and Berlin bar associations (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer and Rechtsanwaltskammer Berlin) have their headquarters at the Hans Litten Haus, on Listenstraße.



Kike Lombroso

The Kike Lombroso - L'antisemitismo e le scienze moderne (1894 ) PDF:

Adapted from Kikepedia:

Kike Ezechia Marco "Cesare" Lombroso (1835-1909), founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology, is often referred to as "the father of criminology".

The Lombroso rejected the established classical school, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, degeneration theory, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal" could be identified by physical (congenital) defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage or atavistic.

Lombroso was born in Verona, Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, on 6 November 1835 to a wealthy Kike family. His father was Aronne Lombroso, a tradesman from Verona, and his mother was Zeffora (or Zefira) Levi from Chieri near Turin.

He studied literature, linguistics, and archæology at the universities of Padua, Vienna, and Paris, but changed his plans and became an army surgeon in 1859. In 1866 he was appointed visiting lecturer at Pavia, and later took charge of the insane asylum at Pesaro in 1871. He became professor of forensic medicine and hygiene at Turin in 1878. That year he wrote his most important and influential work, L'uomo delinquente, which went through five editions in Italian and was published in various European languages. However, it was not until 1900 that his work was published in English. Lombroso later became professor of psychiatry (1896) and criminal anthropology (1906) at the same university. He died in Turin in 1909.

Concept of criminal atavism

Lombroso's general theory suggested that criminals are distinguished from noncriminals by multiple physical anomalies. He postulated that criminals represented a reversion to a primitive or subhuman type of man characterized by physical features reminiscent of apes, lower primates, and early man and to some extent preserved, he said, in modern "savages". The behavior of these biological "throwbacks" will inevitably be contrary to the rules and expectations of modern civilized society.

Through years of postmortem examinations and anthropometric studies of criminals, the insane, and normal individuals, Lombroso became convinced that the "born criminal" (reo nato, a term given by Ferri) could be anatomically identified by such items as a sloping forehead, ears of unusual size, asymmetry of the face, prognathism, excessive length of arms, asymmetry of the cranium, and other "physical stigmata". Specific criminals, such as thieves, rapists, and murderers, could be distinguished by specific characteristics, he believed. Lombroso also maintained that criminals had less sensibility to pain and touch; more acute sight; a lack of moral sense, including an absence of remorse; more vanity, impulsiveness, vindictiveness, and cruelty; and other manifestations, such as a special criminal argot and the excessive use of tattooing.

Besides the "born criminal", Lombroso also described "criminaloids", or occasional criminals, criminals by passion, moral imbeciles, and criminal epileptics. He recognized the diminished role of organic factors in many habitual offenders and referred to the delicate balance between predisposing factors (organic, genetic) and precipitating factors such as one's environment, opportunity, or poverty.

Lombroso's research methods were clinical and descriptive, with precise details of skull dimension and other measurements. He did not engage in rigorous statistical comparisons of criminals and non-criminals. Although he gave some recognition in his later years to psychological and sociological factors in the etiology of crime, he remained convinced of, and identified with, criminal anthropometry.

Lombroso's theories were disapproved throughout Europe, especially in schools of medicine, but not in the United States, where sociological studies of crime and the criminal predominated. His notions of physical differentiation between criminals and non-criminals were seriously challenged by Charles Goring (The English Convict, 1913), who made elaborate comparisons and found insignificant statistical differences.

Psychiatric art

Lombroso published The Man of Genius in 1889, a book which argued that artistic genius was a form of hereditary insanity. In order to support this assertion, he began assembling a large collection of "psychiatric art". He published an article on the subject in 1880 in which he isolated thirteen typical features of the "art of the insane." Although his criteria are generally regarded as outdated today, his work inspired later writers on the subject, particularly Hans Prinzhorn.


Later in his life Lombroso began investigating mediumship. Although originally skeptical, he later became a believer in spiritualism. As an atheist, Lombroso discusses his views on the paranormal and spiritualism in his book After Death – What? (1909) which he believed the existence of spirits and claimed the medium Eusapia Palladino was genuine. In the British Medical Journal on November 9, 1895 an article was published titled Exit Eusapia!. The article questioned the scientific legitimacy of the Society for Psychical Research for investigating Palladino a medium who had a reputation of being a fraud and imposture and was surprised that Lombroso had been deceived by Palladino.

The anthropologist Edward Clodd wrote "[Lombroso] swallowed the lot at a gulp, from table raps to materialisation of the departed, spirit photographs and spirit voices; every story, old or new, alike from savage and civilised sources, confirming his will to believe."Lombroso's daughter Gina Ferrero wrote that during the later years of his life Lombroso suffered from arteriosclerosis and his mental and physical health was wrecked. The skeptic Joseph McCabe wrote that because of this it was not surprising that Palladino managed to fool Lombroso into believing spiritualism by her tricks.

Literary impact

Historian Daniel Pick argues that Lombroso serves "as a curious footnote to late-ninteenth-century literary studies," due to his referencing in famous books of the time. Jacques in Emile Zola's The Beast Within is described as having a jaw that juts forward on the bottom. It is emphasized especially at the end of the book when he is overwhelmed by the desire to kill. The anarchist Karl Yundt in Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent, delivers a speech denouncing Lombroso. The assistant prosecutor in Leo Tolstoy's Resurrection uses Lombroso's theories to accuse Maslova of being a congenital criminal. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, Count Dracula is described as having a physical appearance Lombroso would describe as criminal.


1859 Ricerche sul cretinismo in Lombardia

1864 Genio e follia

1865 Studi clinici sulle mallatie mentali

1873 Sulla microcefala e sul cretinismo con applicazione alla medicina legale

1876 L'uomo delinquente

1879 Considerazioni al processo Passannante

1881 L'amore nel suicidio e nel delitto

1888 L'uomo di genio in rapporto alla psichiatria (English translation: Man of Genius, London, 1891)

1890 Sulla medicina legale del cadavere (second edition)

1891 Palimsesti del carcere

1892 Trattato della pellagra

1894 Le più recenti scoperte ed applicazioni della psichiatria ed antropologia criminale

1894 Gli anarchici

1894 L'antisemitismo e le scienze moderne

1897 Genio e degenerazione

1898 Les Conquêtes récentes de la psychiatrie

1899 Le crime; causes et remédes (English translation: Crime, its Causes and Remedies, Boston, 1911)

1900 Lezioni de medicina legale

1902 Delitti vecchi e delitti nuovi

1909 Ricerche sui fenomeni ipnotici e spiritici

In 1906, a collection of papers on Lombroso was published in Turin under the title L'opera di Cesare Lombroso nella scienza e nelle sue applicazioni.

in English translation

1888/1891 The Man of Genius, Walter Scott.

1895/1980 (with William Ferrero) The Female Offender, D. Appleton & Company. Littleton, Colorado: Fred Rothman.

Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman, Duke University Press, 2003.

1899/1911 Crime: Its Causes and Remedies, Little, Brown, and Company.

?1909/? After Death - What?, Small, Maynard & Company.

1911/1972 (with Gina Lombroso-Ferrero) Criminal Man, According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso. New York: Putnam; Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith.

2004 The Criminal Anthropological Writings of Cesare Lombroso, Edwin Mellen Press.

Selected articles

"Illustrative Studies in Criminal Anthropology," The Monist, Vol. I, No. 2, 1890.

"The Physiognomy of the Anarchists," The Monist, Vol. I, No. 3, 1890.

"Innovation and Inertia in the World of Psychology," The Monist, Vol. I, No. 3, 1890.

"The Modern Literature of Italy Since the Year 1870," The Monist, Vol. I, No. 3, 1890.

"Criminal Anthropology Applied to Pedagogy," The Monist, Vol. VI, No. 1, October 1895.

"The Heredity of Acquired Characteristics," The Forum, Vol. XXIV, 1898.

"Was Columbus Morally Irresponsible?," The Forum, Vol. XXVII, 1899.

"Why Criminals of Genius Have No Type," The International Quarterly, Vol. VI, 1902.


Arthur MacDonald, Criminology, with an Introduction by Cesare Lombroso, Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1893.

August Drahms, The Criminal, with an Introduction by Cesare Lombroso, The Macmillan Company, 1900.


Seeing a pattern: Kike+"Zionism"+Islam+Media+Politics (Communism >>> Neocon)

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz San Francisco 2013


Stephen Suleyman Schwartz (b. 1948) is an American Sufi Kike Communist journalist, columnist, and author. He has been published in a variety of media, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the founder and executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Islamic Pluralism. In 2011–2012 he was a member of Folks Magazine's Editorial Board. Schwartz's father is Horace Schwartz, a Kike bookseller. His mother was a career social services worker. Schwartz described both of his parents as "radical leftists and quite anti religious", his father a "fellow traveller", and his mother a member of the Communist Party. Schwartz was a member and officer in the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, as well as an employee of locals affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Among others, he founded a small semi-Trotskyist group FOCUS. Schwartz spent the 1990s as a staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. In 1997 he became a Muslim. In 1999 he moved to Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he lived for the next 18 months. He supported Kikemerca's wars against the Serbs. In 2005 Schwartz launched the Center for Islamic Pluralism, based in Washington, D.C., with himself as executive director. He works with Black Panther cuckold Kike David Horowitz's kike outfits, and is a big supporter of Kikestan-in-Palestine.

The Kike Schwarz's books:
  • A Sleepwalker’s Guide to San Francisco: Poems from Three Lustra, 1966–1981. San Francisco: La Santa Espina, 1983.
  • Brotherhood of the Sea: A History of the Sailors’ Union of the Pacific. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1986.
  • Spanish Marxism vs. Soviet Communism: A History of the P.O.U.M (with Victor Alba). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988.
  • A Strange Silence: The Emergence of Democracy in Nicaragua. San Francisco: ICS Press, 1992.
  • From West to East: California and the Making of the American Mind. New York: The Free Press, 1998.
  • Kosovo: Background to a War. London: Anthem Press, 2000.
  • Intellectuals and Assassins: Writings at the End of Soviet Communism. New York: Anthem Press, 2001.
  • The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror. New York: Doubleday, 2002.
  • An Activist's Guide to Arab and Muslim Campus and Community Organizations in North America Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Popular Culture, 2003.
  • Sarajevo Rose: A Balkan Jewish Notebook. London: Saqi Books, 2005.
  • Is It Good for the Jews?: The Crisis of America's Israel Lobby. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
  • The Other Islam: Sufism and the Road to Global Harmony. New York: Doubleday, 2008.



Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.