Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
Source: The Unz Review
The Total Madness of the State of Israel • 42m 
RSS
I’ve often suggested that our media functions as a powerful tool of mind-control, not too dissimilar from what might be found in the plotlines of classic science fiction. After spending weeks or months immersed in such a controlling narrative, thinking independent thoughts let alone completely breaking free becomes a very difficult undertaking. For most individuals, the whisper in the back of their skulls overwhelms their logical reasoning, while their emotional reactions are turned on or off as if by a switch.
A perfect example of this came in the infamous U.S.S. Liberty incident of 1967. While peacefully sailing in international waters, our naval vessel was attacked by the Israelis, whose air and sea forces killed or wounded more than 200 American servicemen, and only by chance failed in their effort to sink the ship with no survivors. This constituted America’s worst naval loss of life since the huge battles of World War II, and surely if any other nation in the world had been responsible, our swift and overwhelming military retaliation would have bombed its major cities to rubble and killed many thousands of its citizens, while perhaps also hunting down and executing all the enemy leaders who had ordered that unprovoked attack.
But instead our government completely covered up that incident at the time it occurred, and the only consequence was that the annual financial tribute we paid to the Jewish State steadily increased in size. Even when the facts finally came out a dozen years later, any outrage was confined to just a small sliver of our population, while the majority who heard the story vaguely assumed that since the media told them “nothing to see here” they should move on and pay no attention. Something that under normal circumstances might have been expected to provoke a major punitive war merely produced a few uncomfortable shrugs.
Given its large size and advanced weaponry, America stood as a physical colossus on the world stage of the 1960s, with no other country able to directly challenge our might. But we were still helpless before the nation that had attacked use because the small pro-Israel Jewish minority deployed its tools of media mind-control to transform us into helpless marionettes, jerked about by invisible strings.
I discussed that strange historical episode several years ago.
- American Pravda: Remembering the Liberty
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • October 18, 2021 • 11,400 Words
More than a half-century has passed since that incident, and during most of those decades the power of such media mind-control over our population has remained enormous, even steadily growing more extreme.
Just a few weeks ago, the Israeli Mossad suddenly detonated thousands of booby-trapped pagers in Lebanon, whose simultaneous explosions killed or severely maimed around 500 civilians including some children, while wounding many times that number. Not only was this an obvious war-crime but given the scale of the attack and the terrifying public impact of converting ordinary electronic devices into deadly bombs throughout an entire country, it probably constituted one of the worst terrorist attacks in the history of the world, while setting extremely dangerous precedents for future strikes against other countries, certainly including our own. If our media had portrayed the incident one way, outraged Americans would surely have demanded that the terrorist state responsible be wiped from the face of the earth; but instead the media presented a different narrative, so our citizens either merely shrugged their shoulders or sometimes even cheered.
In a recent article, one of our contributors described the reaction he encountered at a dinner with some of his conservative Catholic friends, and I think his experiences are worth quoting at length:
Shortly after the now-infamous Israeli pager, radio and solar panel attacks in southern Lebanon, I met for dinner with a group of friends and acquaintances at the home of a local Catholic priest. After we had eaten and made the obligatory small talk, the conversation naturally turned towards politics and the expanding situation in the Middle East. Having already met with the group a handful of times during the past year, I was familiar with the position held by most of the men present concerning the issues of Israel/Palestine and international Jewish power. To a man they’re of the opinion that Israel is an indispensable ally of America and a defender of those hallowed ‘Judeo-Christian’ values in an otherwise uncivilized and bestial Middle East. (Perhaps, someday, a study will be conducted examining the reasons Christians so vehemently support the people who reject their Lord and Savior and have constructed an entire theological edifice based upon that rejection, even as they murder and maim their co-believers in the Middle East.)
On that last point, those Christians are probably unaware that traditional Judaism abominates their religion, with many Jewish leaders having sworn to eradicate Christianity from the Holyland, as was suggested in this short clip from Tucker Carlson’s long interview of a Christian pastor from Bethlehem earlier this year:
That same dinner conversation then turned to the current Gaza conflict and the use of those exploding electronic devices.
The conversation started out with a flurry of the usual vacuous platitudes about Israel having a right to defend itself and to respond accordingly to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack. The wholly asymmetrical response by Israel which, according to the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, has already killed close to 200,000 Palestinians, hasn’t been sufficiently robust, at least to the mind of one of the faithful in attendance at the dinner. When the subject of the pager attacks in Lebanon arose, a few of the men, including the priest, began hootin’ and hollering their approval of the Jews’ egregious violation of international law. I began to hold forth on the immorality and far-reaching consequences of such an attack but was swiftly denounced by my willfully obtuse interlocutors who informed me that it was, in fact, a brilliant attack and quite proportionate after all, considering the mass rapes and other atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on October 7. Leaving aside the obvious irrationality of their argument, I resolved to make the case that Israeli intelligence most likely planned the operation years in advance and relied upon their deep infiltration of tech industries to rig the devices for detonation at the manufacturing level. Such penetration of key industries, I informed them, poses great risk to all people around the globe and this novel attack may very well have set a dangerous precedent. My suggestion that Israeli intelligence possesses the capability to pre-plant explosives into consumer products elicited snorts of derision, and, following a brief but equally remarkable discourse on the so-called Holocaust, the conversation moved on to more mundane matters.
Such severely skewed American reactions are hardly a new phenomenon. On December 7, 1941, the military forces of Japan launched a surprise attack against those of our own country, and I’m sure that the parents or grand-parents of the conservatives at that dinner had judged that as one of the most treacherous blows ever struck in warfare, providing permanent proof of Japanese villainy. Many Americans later regarded our nuclear annihilation of the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as just retribution for that unexpected 1941 military blow.
But one generation later, Israel did much the same thing, using a surprise 1967 attack to destroy the air forces of Egypt and Syria on the ground, thus allowing the IDF to easily win the war and seize territory from both those countries. Yet because of its media presentation, nearly all Americans at the time cheered on plucky little Israel for its brilliant military success.
In the aftermath of World War II, America and its allies established the United Nations to enforce international law and maintain the peace. Our fervently pro-Israel media has often described the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as one of the UN’s proudest early moments, with that international body giving a national homeland to the long-suffering Jewish people.
Then earlier this year, the UN General Assembly voted to admit Palestine as a member state, thereby providing a similar national homeland to the long-suffering Palestinian people, and as a consequence, Israel turned against its creator with a fierce vengeance. In a blistering address, Israel’s UN Ambassador had publicly—and literally!—shredded the UN Charter before the other members, denouncing that body as illegitimate and “antisemitic,” thereby seeming to declare his country’s bitter hostility to the entire world. I’m not sure that any similar scene had ever occurred at the UN rostrum, let alone coming from a country that owed its entire existence to the UN.
In another unprecedented development at the beginning of this month, Israel banned the UN Secretary-General from entering that country. Then, during the last week or two, the Israeli attack on the UN escalated from the symbolic to the military, with IDF forces repeatedly firing shells at the UN Peacekeeping troops in Lebanon and demanding that they leave that sovereign country, despite the longstanding Security Council resolution authorizing their presence. A couple of UN troops were wounded in these incidents and 15 were injured by what seemed to have been some sort of Israeli chemical attack.
Over the past twelve months, the Israelis have killed more then 200 UN aid workers in Gaza, and some prominent figures would like the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon to suffer a similar fate. As a Jewish former White House advisor who has lived and studied in Israel, Matthew Brodsky spent years briefing members of Congress and the executive branch on Middle Eastern issues, and he recently declared that “Israel should carpet bomb the Irish area and then drop napalm on it,” urging Israel to annihilate those UN contingents, which hardly seems the expected attitude of a former American official.
Although the UN created Israel, some surprising aspects of that legal relationship were covered in a lengthy interview a week or two ago with Col. Jacques Baud, a highly-regarded former Swiss military officer with extensive experience in the Middle East.
As Baud explained, just after Israel was established, its militants assassinated UN Peace Negotiator Count Folke Bernodotte, who had been sent to resolve the dispute with the Palestinians, a killing that prompted a vote of condemnation by the UN Security Council. Given that legacy of terrorism, Israel’s original admission to the United Nations was made contingent upon three conditions: that Israel settle its borders, that it grant a right of return to the Palestinians who had fled or been expelled, and that Jerusalem be internationalized. But since no Israeli government has ever complied with any of these conditions, Baud pointed out that from a strictly legal perspective Israel should be expelled from the UN and declared a rogue state.
Baud emphasized that from its earliest days Israel’s leaders had always dreamed of large-scale territorial expansion through the annexation of neighboring lands, and this was the reason that no Israeli government had ever been willing to settle its borders, as had been required by the United Nations.
A documentary released a few days ago by Arte, a European public service channel, seemed to confirm Baud’s claims and also indicated that such ideas of territorial aggrandizement had hardly been abandoned. In one of the interviews, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that his country’s borders should gradually move forward until they included the territories of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, all of which constituted the God-given lands of the Jewish people. Obviously, such aggressive talk was hardly conducive to a stable and peaceful Middle East.
Indeed, across the last several generations, I have never heard of any other top political leader who casually announced his intent to conquer all his various neighbors and annex their territory.
I’m sure that many brainwashed Westerners would ascribe such statements to Adolf Hitler, believing that exactly such bold public plans of conquest had justified the formation of the global alliance that defeated and destroyed Nazi Germany, but this is total nonsense. During Germany’s period of weakness, Poland had illegally gained control of the 95% German city of Danzig, and after Hitler had peacefully settled all of Germany’s other border disputes, his only remaining demand was that the city be returned to Germany, with that small spark igniting World War II. This important history was discussed at length in 1939 – The War That Had Many Fathers published in 2011 by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, a very mainstream German military expert and historian.
But even if our ignorant citizens have accepted such a totally mistaken historical narrative of the Second World War, the creation of a global alliance to destroy Nazi Germany would surely seem the perfect precedent for a similar alliance to destroy Zionist Israel. Yet the power of media mind-control prevents its victims from ever maintaining such logical consistency in their thoughts.
Although Smotrich’s declared plans to create a Greater Israel by conquering most of the Middle East might appear extreme, he seems more unusual for his public candor than for his actual beliefs. Indeed, as Prof. Shlomo Sand documented in his excellent 2012 book The Invention of the Land of Israel such notions have always represented the true goals of the Zionist movement.
Similarly, Smotrich was equally candid when he publicly declared a couple of months ago that it would be “just and moral” for Israel to totally exterminate all two million Palestinians, but that world public opinion currently prevented his government from taking that important step. Once again, his position probably represented the private views of most of his fellow members of the Israeli government.
Over the years, prominent Israelis have become notorious for periodic public statements declaring that they seek to slaughter millions of non-Jews all across the world. In 2018 I noted the dramatic statements that future prime minister Ariel Sharon had made during the early 1980s when he was interviewed at length by Amos Oz, one of Israel’s leading literary figures. Oz then published these remarks under a cloak of anonymity as a chapter in his 1983 collection of essays In the Land of Israel.
As I explained in 2018, Sharon had proudly proclaimed himself a “Judeo-Nazi.”
That he described himself in such terms was hardly an exaggeration, since he rather gleefully advocated the slaughter of millions of Israel’s enemies, and the vast expansion of Israeli territory by conquest of neighboring lands and expulsion of their populations, along with the free use of nuclear weapons if they or anyone else too strongly resisted such efforts. In his bold opinion, the Israelis and Jews in general were just too soft and meek, and needed to regain their place in the world by once again becoming a conquering people, probably hated but definitely feared. To him, the large recent massacre of Palestinian women and children at Sabra and Shatila was of no consequence whatsoever, and the most unfortunate aspect of the incident was that the killers had been Israel’s Christian Phalangist allies rather than Israeli soldiers themselves.
Now rhetorical excess is quite common among politicians and a shroud of pledged anonymity will obviously loosen many tongues. But can anyone imagine an American or other Western public figure talking in such terms, let alone someone who moves in higher political circles? These days, Donald Trump sometimes Tweets out a crude misspelled insult at 2am, and the American media is aghast in horror. But given that his administration leaks like a sieve, if he routinely boasted to his confidants about possibly slaughtering millions, we surely would have heard about it. For that matter, there seems not the slightest evidence that the original German Nazis ever spoke in such ways privately, let alone while a journalist was carefully taking notes. But the “Judeo-Nazis” of Israel are another story.
- American Pravda: Jews and Nazis
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • August 6, 2018 • 6,800 Words
Although those bloodthirsty statements by Smotrich and Sharon were generally directed towards the Muslims and Christians of the Middle East, Europeans have also certainly been the intended targets of such destruction, especially of the nuclear kind. For example, during the Second Intifada of the early 2000s, widespread suicide-bombings by Palestinian militants seeking freedom for their Occupied West Bank placed Israeli society under severe stress, and Prof. Martin van Creveld, one of the country’s most respected military historians, declared that if Israel were on the brink of falling, it would destroy all of Europe’s cities as an act of purely spiteful vengeance:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
This doctrine under which a collapsing Israel would use its nuclear arsenal to destroy most of the world is called “the Samson Option,” and was widely publicized in a 1991 bestseller of that title by renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. But although that book received a great deal of attention both at the time it was published and in the decades since then, when I read it a few years ago I discovered that one of its most surprising elements had never been discussed in any of the various reviews and summaries I had read in the media.
Like most observers, I had always assumed that Israel had developed its nuclear arsenal as a trump card that it could play against the neighboring Arab states if the latter ever seemed on the verge of gaining the upper hand in conventional military terms. Indeed, during the severe military setbacks of the 1973 war, Israel did exactly that, and its threatened nuclear annihilation of Cairo and Damascus helped coerce the Nixon Administration into providing the unprecedented flow of military equipment that allowed Tel Aviv to turn the tide of battle and emerge victorious.
But Hersh’s book devoted nearly twenty pages to the remarkable fact that during the 1980s the primary target of Israel’s nuclear and thermonuclear arsenal was actually the Soviet Union. He explained that the Israelis surreptitiously gained access to the American reconnaissance information that allowed them to effectively target Moscow, Leningrad, and the other most important Soviet cities for annihilation. This nuclear strike capability was intended to powerfully deter the USSR from providing too much support to its Arab allies that were Israel’s immediate adversaries. During those years, the Soviets were at the peak of their military power, possessing the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal, and given that Israel is so small geographically I found it quite shocking that it would have developed a serious battle plan to attack and destroy the largest country in the world.
Furthermore, according to Hersh the Israelis were also making great efforts to develop miniaturized nuclear weapons that could be packed into an ordinary suitcase, which Mossad could then easily smuggle into the USSR or any other country deemed potentially hostile, with no possible means of defense against such an unobtrusive method of delivery. Over the years, many agitated commenters across the Internet have often claimed that Israeli embassies all around the world probably contain nuclear weapons that could be detonated in a crisis, thereby destroying the capital cities of every major country, and I’d always dismissed such notions as unreasonable paranoia. But after rereading portions of Hersh’s 1991 book and considering the recent exploding pager attacks, I’m now not so sure about that.
These sorts of extremely bold or extremely foolish attitudes still seem to persist among current Israeli leaders. Enraged last year by what he regarded as insufficient Russian support after the Hamas attack, a top Israeli political figure went on RT to declare that after Israel destroyed Hamas, it would then target Russia for severe retaliation, an astonishing threat to make against the country possessing the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Although America has often had bad relations with various Latin American countries, I’ve never heard the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, or Nicaragua go on American television and threaten the U.S. with such spittle-flecked rage.
Under normal circumstances, countries whose leaders publicly proclaim their intent to conquer all of their neighbors, exterminate millions of civilians whom they regard as hostile, and perhaps eventually use their nuclear arsenal to destroy all of Europe’s cities would surely be viewed with tremendous international concern. Such concerns would obviously be magnified if those fearsome words had regularly been matched by equally fearsome deeds, including an unequaled history of assassinations over the generations, directed against both Middle Eastern and Western leaders. Most recently, the Israelis used eighty-odd 2,000 pound bunker-buster bombs to level an entire city block in Lebanon’s capital of Beirut in a successful attempt to assassinate an enemy leader, and my numerous articles of the past year have regularly summarized some of their horrific war crimes.
Indeed, the Israelis continued to generate an avalanche of gripping content for those videos. Mobs of Israeli activists regularly blocked the passage of food-trucks, and within a few weeks, senior UN officials declared that more than a million Gazans were on the verge of a deadly famine. When the desperate, starving Gazans swarmed one of those few food delivery convoys allowed through, the Israeli military shot and killed more than 100 of them in the “Flour Massacre” and this was later repeated. All these horrific scenes of death and deliberate starvation were broadcast worldwide on social media, with some of the worst examples coming from the accounts of gleeful Israeli soldiers, such as their video of the corpse of a Palestinian child being eaten by a starving dog. Another image showed the remains of a bound Palestinian prisoner who had been crushed flat while still alive by an Israeli tank. According to a European human rights organization, the Israelis had regularly used bulldozers to bury alive large numbers of Palestinians. UN officials reported finding mass graves near several hospitals, with the victims found bound and stripped, shot execution-style. As Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin has pointed out, the behavior of the Israeli Jews does not seem merely evil but “cartoonishly evil,” with all their blatant crimes seeming to be based upon the script of some over-the-top propaganda-film but instead actually taking place in real life.
Yet despite such extreme facts, until quite recently the near-total media mind-control that Israel and its local political allies deployed was sufficient to keep a large majority of Western citizens in Israel’s camp, strongly supportive of its actions.
However, such media mind-control requires a near-monopoly of the sources of information. For two or three generations that had largely been the case, with energetic pro-Israel gatekeepers ensuring that little if any contrary information reached the eyes and ears of the American public. But the rise of the Internet has sharply eroded the power of the traditional electronic media, which has been especially challenged by the effective distribution channel of social media. Major efforts have been made to bring the latter into line, but relatively uncensored platforms such as TikTok and Elon Musk’s Twitter still allow widespread dissemination of the horrific images from destroyed Gaza that have so reshaped the views of younger Americans.
Although censorship on YouTube is much stricter, it also provides a distribution channel for important content that would have been unthinkable a couple of decades ago.
Consider, for example, Al Jazeera, the global news network established by Qatar that made its international reputation during the Iraq War. A concerted blacklist by all the major cable companies later denied it access to American homes, seemingly relegating the network to becoming an obscure footnote in America’s informational landscape. However, all that changed with the rise of the Internet, eventually allowing Al Jazeera‘s powerful, professionally-produced content to compete on a near-level playing field with similar productions from CBS or FoxNews.
Meanwhile, shoe-string media operations such as the Grayzone have also effectively used YouTube to distribute their video content, and although they have sometimes been censored on that platform, fifteen or twenty years ago no one would have ever even become aware of their work.
The first anniversary of the October 7th attacks came a couple of weeks ago, and Al Jazeera and the Grayzone each released powerful documentaries on crucial aspects of the last twelve months. These were somewhat different in their focus but provided entirely complimentary aspects of that story, with almost all of that material entirely ignored by our mainstream media. Taken together these documentaries run more than two hours, and I think that watching them would have a considerable impact upon the views of anyone whose previous information had been restricted to our mainstream sources, whether broadcast or print.
The 80 minute Al Jazeera documentary focused on Israeli war-crimes and it has already attracted well over a million views on YouTube in less than two weeks and probably hundreds of thousands more views on Twitter and other platforms, so this seems like a very solid start.
Although armies have committed war crimes from time immemorial, never before have these been so thoroughly documented, with much of the evidence drawn from the social media accounts of the Israeli troops who gleefully filmed and uploaded the clips, presumably doing so to impress their friends. I doubt that any other military in the world has ever been so eager to boast of its crimes as that of Israel, probably because decades of near-total political and media impunity have raised the arrogance of its government, military, and citizens to unprecedented heights.
Al Jazeera had recruited several knowledgeable individuals to evaluate the footage, including experienced human rights officials and a retired British army general, and in their on-camera interviews, they were totally appalled by all the obvious violations of international law that they were witnessing in front of their eyes.
Captive Palestinians, most of them apparently innocent civilians, were severely abused and mistreated, illegally used as human shields or even sometimes wantonly killed. Private homes and private property were looted or destroyed, along with all the local hospitals and other civilian facilities. One military expert expressed his astonishment that the armed forces of any developed nation could behave in such a totally undisciplined manner, which almost seemed more what would be expected from a tribal militia or band of brigands than a regular modern army.
Towards the end, the documentary also included some coverage of the systemic rape and sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners, seemingly condoned by Israel’s top leadership and a policy strongly endorsed by a large majority of its Jewish population. There was also brief mention of the reports by numerous Western physicians that large numbers of Palestinian children and toddlers were being executed by Israeli snipers, killed by precisely aimed shots in the head and the chest.
Despite the very grim content of this documentary, I felt a sense of absurdity as I listened to those Western experts soberly cataloguing the very long list of Israeli illegalities and war crimes they were seeing. I imagined a Monty Python sketch in which Tamerlane and his fellow Central Asian tribesmen were happily building huge mountains of human skulls after sacking a city, only to be tut-tutted to by several international legal experts, who pointed out that such activities represented clear violations of the various numbered sections of several international statutes. I suspect that the impact of this Western criticism upon those Israeli soldiers or their top political masters would have about the same effect. For example, the ringleader of the IDF gang-rapists soon became a national hero after he was threatened with prosecution and his identity was revealed.
The Al Jazeera documentary devoted eighty minutes to the heavily documented evidence of Israeli war crimes and atrocities against helpless Palestinian civilians, with almost all of this material having been totally ignored by our mainstream media. Meanwhile, the forty minute Grayzone documentary covered the flip-side of the story, namely the massive, overwhelming Western media coverage of atrocities and war-crimes committed by Hamas, nearly all of which seem to have been propaganda-hoaxes or at least lacked any solid supporting evidence. Unfortunately, the video is restricted on YouTube and cannot be embedded.
Days after the Hamas raid, credulous Western journalists began reporting that forty Israeli babies had been beheaded by Hamas, and after that tale was debunked and retracted, equally fabricated stories of roasted babies soon took its place, later followed by tales of brutal sexual mutilations and gang-rapes. Although none of these claims had any evidentiary basis, top Western figures from President Joseph Biden on down lent their credibility to these absurd fabrications.
Unfortunately, the retractions of these various Hamas atrocity stories attracted scarcely a sliver of the attention of those original lurid headlines, and I am sure that the latter have deeply embedded themselves in memories of much of the population in America and the West. Knowledgeable people may regard “forty beheaded babies” as shorthand for ridiculous atrocity-fiction, but I suspect that five or ten times as many Americans still believe that those stories were real. And this is probably even more the case within emotionally-charged Israeli society.
Based upon some of the casual remarks made in those video documentaries, I think that a large majority of ordinary Israelis still believe those atrocity-stories, regarding the Hamas fighters as fiends in the shape of men who beheaded and roasted babies and gang-raped and mutilated girls, with the Palestinian civilians assumed to support them falling into much the same category. Thus, the apparently fictional gang-rapes of Israeli girls and women probably became a crucial factor leading Israelis to commit very real gang-rapes against their Palestinian captives as acts of vengeance, as well as all the other brutalities, tortures, and murders presented in the Al Jazeera documentary.
These grotesque Jewish claims of fictional Hamas atrocities had horrific real-life consequences, and this is a pattern I have noted in some other major historical events. In a 2018 article, I drew on the very lengthy study of historical antisemitism by Prof. Albert Lindemann to note the existence of certain cultural tendencies and their sometimes unfortunate results.
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia’s very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms…The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences
- American Pravda: The Nature of Anti-Semitism
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • July 30, 2018 • 5,500 Words
The Western media remains under tight pro-Israel control, but the West represents a small and shrinking portion of the world’s population and its economy.
One of the handful of major Western YouTube channels that provides a different perspective on these events is that of Judge Andrew Napolitano, who brings together leading American academics, national security experts, and journalists whose views are totally excluded from our mainstream media. Although they represent a wide variety of different ideological and professional perspectives, they all agree on the same basic reality of events, a reality very sharply divergent from what is presented in our media.
Among those regular guests is Prof. John Mearsheimer, an eminent political scientist, who just returned from a trip abroad to China and several other countries. In an interview last week, he emphasized that although America and the West remained under such media control, the media in the rest of the world provided a very different narrative of events, one much closer to what he and his fellow guests espoused.
A couple of decades ago, the American global media and its powerful system of mind control dominated the planet, but now its zone of influence is a rapidly shrinking slice of territory, with its extremely dishonest portrayal of the Israel/Gaza conflict severely damaging its remaining credibility.
Finally, I should note that a Turkish media company released a short, but powerfully moving video describing the year 2040, and the 16th anniversary commemoration of the genocidal massacre of Gaza’s civilian population, which occurred while nearly all of the world stood by and did nothing.
As the longtime chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson had spent many years near the top of American government, but when he was shown that clip in an interview segment, he choked up and required a few moments to regain his composure before he could continue.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment