Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" –

Category: Jewish Supremacism

ZOG Versus JOG


By Eric Thomson (2000)

Dr. Goebbels taught that good propaganda is able to sum up a major concept in a few words. Red groups never seemed to learn this lesson, and they usually called their groups things like: ‘Ad Hoc Committee for the Suppression of Rightwing Deviationism’, etc. Then they’d call their enemies such names as “running-dog lackeys of Yankee paper-tiger imperialism”, etc. In the blightwing we saw such memorable terms as “La Cesspool Grande”, used in reference to The District of Corruption. The blightwing loves to use terms which can only be understood by the unconverted with difficulty. This is one more reason why the blightwing has failed to move the existing masses of White people, which stems from basic blightwing confusion and inability to communicate very well, if at all, to those whom we would like to see on the pro-White side. The blightwing slogan of “For God, Race and Nation” would have disgusted the good doctor, as it did me, for it split our loyalties 3 ways. Strong propaganda unites; it does not divide. Hence, I coined the slogan, OUR RACE IS OUR NATION!

To achieve any objective, one must concentrate one’s forces and pursue the goal without dithering and deviating. Imagine the results if the Blitzkriegers had been confused about their routes and had paused along the way to pick posies. Rather than blow my own horn in regard to political correctness, I quote from an enemy publication, AMERICAN HERITAGE, of September 1995. In an article entitled “Home-Grown Terror”, the author who writes under the pen-name, “Philip Jenkins”, states: “The acronym ZOG has entered the vocabulary of the far right … and has helped shape extremists’ concepts of their enemy. Though the term ZOG was unknown to the Coughlinites, it exactly catches their world-view.”

“JOG” is not only confusing. It is erroneous. Here’s why: one blightwinger said that “Zionist” is a political term, not a racial term; therefore racists should not use it. He then defines “jew” as “a physical member of any race”, so “jew” becomes a political term, also. So much for blightwing confusion. “Jew” is a racial term. Anyone who doubts this needs to do some research. I suggest “The Genetics of the Jews” by A.E. Mourant et al. This is a series of articles prepared by jew hematologists, which appeared in the official British medical magazine, The Lancet, and was published by Oxford University Press in 1978. Anyone can change his religion and his politics, but no one can change his race. “Jew” is not a political term, and we should not be sloppy in using it, just when we dislike someone.

Not all jews are Zionists. I have known anti-Zionist jews such as Josef Ginsburg, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Benjamin Freedman, Jack Bernstein (author of “An American Jew in Racist-Marxist Israel) and a group of religious jews in New York City who publish newspaper ads comparing the tenets of Zionism with those of Judaism. I object to Zionism because it aims at the destruction of my race and the enslavement of all races. Any White person who supports Zionism is a race-traitor and therefore is my enemy. Any non-White who resists Zionism is a potential ally, but he is not and can never be my kinsman. Zionism is the political and the religious expression of jews who intend to destroy the White Race, using White frontmen, just as the evil aliens of THEY LIVE used sold-out Earth people to destroy humanity. Non-Whites can also serve the ZOG against the interests of their own people . In fact, anti-Zionist jews believe that Zionism is a satanic reincarnation of The Golden Calf, which captured the allegiance of Old Testament jews.

To act straight, one must think straight. Down with the ZOG!


I no longer capitalize the word, “jew”, which merely means “mongrel” at the high end of the scale. On the low end of the scale of value, “jew” means mongrel-parasite.


A Jewish International Takes Shape


By Douglas Reed

From The Controversy of Zion (1952)

This autonomous Talmudic government was called the Kahal. In its own territory the Kahal was a fully-empowered government, under Polish suzerainty. It had independent authority of taxation in the ghettoes and communities, being responsible for payment of a global sum to the Polish government. It passed laws regulating every action and transaction between man and man and had power to try, judge, convict or acquit.

This power only nominally stopped short of capital punishment: Professor Salo Baron says,

In Poland, where the Jewish court had no right to inflict capital punishment, lynching, as an extra-legal preventive, was encouraged by rabbinical authorities such as Solomon Luria”.

(This quotation reveals the inner meaning of Dr. Kastein’s frequent, but cautious, allusions to “iron discipline”, “inexorable discipline”, “discipline rigid to the point of deadliness”, and the like).

In effect, a Jewish state, Talmud-ruled, was recreated on the soil of Poland.

As Dr. Kastein says,

Such was the constitution of the Jewish state, planted on foreign soil, hemmed in by a wall of foreign laws, with a structure partly self-chosen and partly forced upon it … It had its own Jewish law, its own priesthood, its own schools, and its own social institutions, and its own representatives in the Polish government … in fact, it possessed all the elements which go to form a state”.

The achievement of this status was due “in no small measure to the co-operation of the Polish Government”.

Then, in 1772, Poland was partitioned and this great community of “Eastern Jews”, organized as a state-within-the-state, was divided by national boundaries, most of it coming under Russian rule. At that point, for the first time in more than 2500 years and less than two hundred years before our own day, the “centre” of Jewish government disappears from sight. Up to 1772 there had always been one: in Poland, Spain, Babylonia, Galilee, Judea, Babylon and Judah.

Dr. Kastein says that “the centre ceased to exist”. The suggestion is that the centralized control of Jewry at that moment ended, but the length and strength of its earlier survival, and the significant events of the ensuing century, confute that. In a later passage Dr. Kastein himself reveals the truth, when he jubilantly records that in the Nineteenth Century “a Jewish international took shape”.

Clearly “the centre” continued, but from 1772 in secret. The reason for the withdrawal into concealment may be deduced from the shape of later events. The century which followed was that of the revolutionary conspiracy, Communist and Zionist, culminating in the open appearance of these two movements, which have dominated the present century.

The Talmudic “centre” was also the centre of this conspiracy. Had it remained in the open the source of conspiracy would have been visible, and the identification of the Talmudic, Eastern Jews with it obvious.

In the event this only became clear when the revolution of 1917 produced an almost all-Jewish government in Russia; and by that time power over governments in the West was so great that the nature of this new regime was little discussed, a virtual law of heresy having come into force there.

Had the visible institution continued, the masses of the West would in time have become aware that the Talmudic government of Jewry, though it led the clamour for “emancipation”, was also organizing a revolution to destroy all that the peoples might gain from this emancipation.

The Russians, among whom this largest single community of Jews at that time dwelt, knew what had happened. Dr. Kastein says,

The Russians wondered what could possibly be the reason why the Jews did not amalgamate with the rest of the population, and came to the conclusion that in their secret Kahals they possessed a strong reserve, and that a ‘World Kahal’ existed”.

Dr. Kastein later confirms what the Russians believed, by his own allusion to the “Jewish international” of the Nineteenth Century.

In other words, the “government” continued, but in concealment, and probably in the different form suggested by Dr. Kastein’s word “international”.

The strong presumption is that the “centre” today is not located in any one country and that, although its main seat of power is evidently in the United States, it now takes the form of a directorate distributed among the nations and working in unison, over the heads of governments and peoples.

The Russians, who at the time of the disappearance of “the centre” from public view were better informed than any others about this matter, have been proved right.

The manner in which this international directorate gains and wields its power over Gentile governments is no longer quite mysterious; enough authentic, published information has come out of these last fifty years to explain that, as this book will later show.

The mystery of its agelong hold over “Jews” is more difficult to penetrate. How has a sect been able to keep people, distributed around the globe, in the clutch of a primitive tribalism during twenty-five centuries?

The US Senate Just Quietly Advanced A Free Speech Busting Anti-BDS Bill


By Whitney Webb

WASHINGTON – In an evening vote that garnered essentially no national media coverage, the U.S. Senate voted last night to advance the “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019” – sometimes called the “anti-BDS bill” for its component that would allow state and local governments to punish companies or individuals who support the non-violent Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement aimed at promoting Palestinian rights and ending Israeli apartheid and military occupation of the West Bank. The bill was, notably, numbered S.1 – the Senate’s first legislative act of its 2019-20 session.

Numerous rights groups, politicians and civil rights advocates have accused this measure of violating freedom of speech and setting a dangerous precedent for the private political activism of American citizens, all on behalf of a foreign country.

The bill was adopted by the Senate in a vote of 74 in favor to 19 against, with seven abstentions. The bill had previously been blocked by Senate Democrats by a 56-44 vote as part of their objection to acting on legislation during the government shutdown. However, many of those Democratic senators who had previously blocked the bill ultimately voted in support of the measure. In order to become law, the measure would still need to pass the Democrat-run House of Representatives. However, given the amount of support for the measure among Democrats and the power of the Israel lobby, the bill stands a considerable chance of passing the House.

Some commentators have paid particular attention to how Democratic senators considered to be 2020 hopefuls voted on the bill. Several confirmed and likely contenders for the upcoming Democratic nomination voted “No” – including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). However, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), whose private courting of the Israel lobby was the subject of a recent MintPress News report, abstained from voting. Another notable abstention was Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who had previously threatened to filibuster a key component of the bill last year, preventing its passage during the previous Congress.

Punishing organized dissent

The bill includes several measures that were promoted by the Israel lobby last year but did not make it through the previous Congress. These include the “Ileana Ros-Lehtinen United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2019” which would give a record-breaking $38 billion to Israel over the next 10 years, and which ultimately failed to pass after Sen. Paul threatened a filibuster against it. That bill also requires Congress to give at least $3.8 billion to Israel every subsequent year after the initial 10 years.

Other measures in the bill include the “Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019” – which imposes more sanctions on Syria and has been described as a “rebuttal” to President Trump’s proposed Syria troop withdrawal, which Israel also opposes – and the “The United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Extension Act,” which would also give money to Israel. Some analysts have long asserted that U.S. security assistance to Jordan and other regional countries such as Egypt is aimed at securing regional support for Israeli and American geopolitical objectives in the Middle East.

Yet, the most controversial part of the bill by far is the “Combating BDS Act of 2019,” which would authorize state and local governments to retaliate commercially against entities that support BDS, such as by halting business with or refusing to contract or hire companies or individual citizens who either actively participate in or support the movement. A previous version of the bill included possible jail time as punishment for supporting a boycott of Israel or Israeli settlements, their violation of international law notwithstanding.

Some have asserted that the current text of the bill would mean that these same retaliatory measures would apply to boycotts targeting any country considered an “ally” by the U.S. government – Saudi Arabia, for example – if that boycott was not explicitly sanctioned by Washington. Others, such as Senior Legislative Counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Kathleen Ruane, have asserted that the bill “sends a message to Americans that they will be penalized if they dare to disagree with their government.” The ACLU also argued via Twitter that “states don’t have the ‘right’ to punish individuals for participating in political boycotts the government doesn’t agree with, which this bill encourages them to do.”

Such concerns over similar laws enacted at the state level led two federal courts to rule that “anti-BDS” laws were unconstitutional for their restriction on the right to free speech. However, the bill the Senate just advanced both ignores and nullifies those court rulings by attempting to shield anti-BDS legislation at the state level from future legal challenges. However, as a recent MintPress report noted, the effort to protect anti-BDS state legislation through the passage of national legislation is unlikely to work.

A frighteningly slippery slope

The fact that the Senate just voted in favor of a bill to nullify the right of American citizens to engage in political speech that is opposed by the U.S. government should be headline news across the country. However, mention of the vote has been notably absent from American mainstream news outlets Tuesday morning. One would think that left-leaning news networks, ever eager to criticize the Republican Party, would be quick to cover how the Republican-controlled Senate just voted to restrict American political speech if it deviates from the government’s own position. Yet the fact that the bill itself has several co-sponsors from the Democratic Party, and is strongly supported by the powerful Israel lobby, has apparently helped to earn their silence.

While the bill’s relation to the BDS movement – and, by extension, the Israel/Palestine conflict – makes it a polarizing and largely partisan issue, all Americans, regardless of political affiliation or their views on Israel/Palestine, should be gravely concerned about not just the bill itself but the precedent it would set should it become law. By encouraging retaliation by the State against American citizens for making decisions about what to buy and what not to buy in their private lives, a dangerous and chilling precedent has been approved by 74 U.S. Senators in order to shield a foreign country from criticism and the consequences of grassroots activism. Under the guise of preventing “anti-Semitism,” this bill represents a fraught, Orwellian overreach by Congress into the private lives of all Americans and their right to make politically-motivated decisions.

If passed, it will not take much for the U.S. government to use this precedent to silence Americans’ political speech when it comes to domestic matters. Consider how the government would react if conservatives chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from abortion? What if anti-war activists chose to boycott or push for divestment from U.S. companies that profit from our wars abroad? This slope is as slippery as they come and the fact that a sizeable majority in the Senate has chosen to target a certain political movement should sound alarm bells for all Americans who care about free speech, regardless of their views on Israel/Palestine or their position on the political spectrum.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Jewish Racism and Intolerance


By Savitri Devi (1976)

Jewish “racism” has been much discussed. And the doctrine of the “chosen people” is often regarded as an expression of this “racism.” Yet in reality the Jews of Antiquity (I mean, of course, orthodox Jews) believed that membership in their race, that is, in the “family of Abraham,” had value only if it were combined with exclusive service to the “jealous God” Jehovah, Israel’s exclusive protector. According to the Bible, Moabites and Ammonites, though enemies of Israel, were closely connected racially to the Jews. Did not the former descend from Moab, son of Lot and his eldest daughter, and the latter from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot and his youngest daughter? (Genesis 19.36-38) Now, Lot, son of Haran, was the nephew of Abraham (Genesis 11.27). Evidently genealogical kinship did not facilitate relations between these peoples and the children of Israel. If blood joined them together, their respective cults nevertheless separated them. Chemosh, god of Moabites, and Milcom, god of the Ammonites, were in the eyes of the Jews “abominations” – as were all the gods of the earth, save their own God – and their worshippers, enemies to be exterminated.

Jewish racism, independent of religion – the attitude which consists in accepting as a Jew and treating accordingly anyone born Jewish, whatever his religious beliefs might be – is apparently a much more recent phenomenon, dating at the earliest from the eighteenth or the seventeenth century, that is, from the time when masonic lodges of Israelite inspiration began to play a role in determining the politics of Western nations. It was perhaps a product of the influence of Western rationalism on the Jews – in spite of themselves. It found its most striking expression at the end of the nineteenth century and during the twentieth in Zionism, which could be called an innovative, avant-garde Jewish nationalism. The Zionist movement does respect, certainly, the religious tradition of the Talmud and the Bible, but without in any way being identified with it. Its political faith is “national,” but could not be compared with that of modern Greece, since the latter is so inseparable from the official state religion. But I shall call Zionism a nationalism rather than a “racism,” because it implies the exaltation of the Jewish people as such, without any enthusiastic consciousness of a blood solidarity uniting all the various desert peoples customarily called “Semitic.”

Although modern in its expression, this Jewish nationalism is not in its essence different from the solidarity which, after the introduction of the Mosaic law, existed among all the children of Israel from the thirteenth century before the Christian era. The religion of Jehovah played a paramount role then. But its role consisted precisely in forming a feeling in all Jews, from the most powerful to the most humble, that they were the chosen people, the privileged people, different from other people, including those closest to them in blood, and exalted above them all. The Jews have felt that more and more in modern times, without the aid of a national religion; hence the decreasing importance of this religion among them, except in a few permanent centers of Jewish orthodoxy.

In other words, the Jews, who for centuries had been an unimportant Middle Eastern tribe among so many others, a tribe quite close to others in language and religion before Abraham and especially before the Mosaic reform, gradually became, under the influence of Moses and his successors, Joshua and Caleb, and then under the influence of the prophets, a people completely filled with the self-image they had manufactured; having nothing but contempt for men of the same race who surrounded them and, with greater reason, for people of other races; seeing only “abominations” in all their gods; even repudiating, as the prophet Ezra commanded after they returned from their long Babylonian captivity, those of their kinsmen who, having remained in Palestine, had married Canaanite women, under the pretext that the latter would loosen the link that bound them and their families to Jehovah and thus weaken their consciousness that they were a “chosen people,” a people unlike others.

They could have remained so indefinitely, isolated from the rest of the world by a national pride as incommensurable as it was unjustified, for even in Antiquity they were already rather mixed-race hybrids, if only because of their prolonged sojourn in Egypt. Had the Jews remained in their self-imposed isolation, the world would certainly have suffered no great loss – quite the contrary. But they did not, because the idea of a “single, living God” – the “true” God, in contrast to “false” gods, to local gods whose power was limited to other peoples – could only imply, sooner or later, the idea of universal truth and human community. A God who alone “lives,” while all others are merely insensate matter, at most inhabited by impure forces, can only be, logically, the true God of all possible worshippers, that is, of all men. To refuse to admit it would have required that they ascribe life, truth and benevolence to other peoples’ gods as well, in other words, that they cease seeing them only as “abominations.” And that the Jews refused to accept, after the sermons and threats of their prophets. The One God could indeed prefer a single people. But it was necessary that he be, by necessity, the God of all peoples – the one whom they, in their insane folly, were unaware of, whereas the “chosen people” alone paid him homage.

The first attitude of the Jews, as conquerors of Palestine, toward peoples who worshipped gods other than Jehovah was to hate and exterminate them. Their second attitude – after Canaanite resistance in Palestine had long ended, and especially after the Jews had lost most of what little international significance they had ever possessed, being reduced to mere subjects of Greek kings, Alexander’s successors, and later of Roman emperors – was to throw into the spiritual pasture of a declining world not only the idea of the futile emptiness of all gods (except their own), but also the false concept of “man,” independent of and distinct from peoples; of “man,” a nationless citizen of the world (and “created in the image of God”) whom Israel, the chosen people, the people of Revelation, had the mission of instructing and guiding to true “happiness.” This was the attitude of those Jews, more or less conspicuously daubed with Hellenism, who from the fourth century AD until the Arab conquest in the seventh century formed an increasingly influential proportion of the population in Alexandria, as well as in all capitals of the Hellenistic world, which would later become the Roman world. It is also the attitude of the Jews of our own era – an attitude which, precisely, makes them a people unlike others, a dangerous people: the “ferment of decomposition” of other peoples.

It is worth tracing the history of this attitude.

Its seeds, as I have suggested, already existed in the fanaticism of the servants and prophets of the “sole” and “living God,” from Samuel to the redactors of the Cabala. An important fact that should not be forgotten, if one wants to try to understand it, is that the “sole God” of the Jews is a transcendent god, but not immanent. He is outside of Nature, which he created from nothingness by an act of will, and in his essence is different from it, different not only from its sensible manifestations, but also from everything that could, in a permanent way, underlie them. He is not that Soul of the Universe in which the Greeks and all other Indo-European peoples believed, and in which Brahmanism still sees the supreme Reality. He made the world as an artisan manufactures a marvelous machine: from the outside. And he imposed upon it whatever laws he wanted, laws that could have been different, if he had wanted them different. He gave man dominion over all other creatures. And he “chose” the Jewish people from among other men not for their intrinsic value – that is clearly specified in the Bible – but arbitrarily, because of a promise made once and for all to Abraham.

From this metaphysical perspective, it was impossible to consider the gods of other peoples as “aspects” or “expressions” of the sole God, and all the less so since these gods represented, for the most part, natural forces or celestial bodies. It was also impossible to emphasize less the indeterminate variety of men and the irrefutable inequality that has always existed among the various human races and even among people more or less of the same race. “Man,” whatever that might be, had to possess, alone of created beings, an immense intrinsic value, since the Creator had formed him “in his own image” and had placed him, for that very reason, above all other living creatures. The Cabala states the matter clearly: “There exists the uncreated Being, who creates: God; the created being, who creates: man; and … the remainder: the entirety of created beings – animals, plants, minerals – which do not create.” This is the most absolute anthropocentrism, and a false philosophy from the outset, since it is obvious that “all men” are not creators (far from it!) and that some animals can in fact be creators.

But that is not all. From this new humanist perspective, not only did Jewry maintain its position as the “chosen people” – the “holy nation,” as the Bible says – destined to bear unique Revelation to the world, but everything that other peoples had produced or thought had value only insofar as it was consistent with this Revelation, or insofar as it could be interpreted in that sense. Unable to deny the enormous Greek contributions to science and philosophy, the Jews of Alexandria, Greek in culture (and sometimes with Greek names, like Aristobulus in the third century BC), did not hesitate to write that all of the most substantial products of Greek thought – the works of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle – were only due, in the final analysis, to the influence of Jewish thought, having their source in Moses and the prophets! Others, such as the famous Philo of Alexandria, whose influence on Christian apologetics was considerable, did not dare deny the obvious originality of Hellenic genius, but only retained, of the ideas they elaborated, those which they could, by altering or even by deforming them completely, bring into “concord” with the Mosaic conception of “God” and the world. Their work is that hybrid product which in the history of ideas bears the name “Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy” – an ingenious collection of interrelated concepts drawn more or less directly from Plato, though not always in the spirit of Plato, mixed together with old Jewish ideas like the transcendence of the sole God and the creation of man “in his image.” All of this was undoubtedly a superfluous scaffolding in the eyes of orthodox Jews, for whom the Mosaic Law was sufficient, but it was a marvelous instrument for seizing spiritual control over the Gentiles, in the service of Jews (orthodox or not) eager to wrest from other peoples the direction of Western (and later, global) thought.

Judeo-Alexandrian philosophy and religion, increasingly permeated with the symbolism of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia and so forth, and professed by the ever more racially debased people of the Hellenistic world, constitute the backdrop against which Christian orthodoxy gradually emerged in the writings of Paul of Tarsus and the first Christian apologists, eventually taking shape during a succession of Church Councils. As Gilbert Murray remarks of the latter: “it is a strange experience … to study these obscure assemblies, whose members, proletarians of the Levant, superstitious, dominated by charlatans and desperately ignorant, still believed that God can procreate children in the womb of mortal mothers, misunderstood ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit’ and ‘divine Wisdom’ as persons bearing those names, and transformed the notion of the soul’s immortality into the ‘resurrection of the dead,’ and then to think that it was these men who followed the main road, leading to the greatest religion of the Western world.”

In this Christianity of the first centuries, preached in Greek (the international language of the Near East) by Jewish and later by Greek missionaries to raceless urban masses – so inferior, from any point of view, to the free men of the ancient Hellenic polis – there were undoubtedly more non-Jewish elements than Jewish. What dominated was a common religious subject I dare not call “Greek” but rather “Aegean” or “Mediterranean pre-Hellenic” – or even Near Eastern pre-Hellenic, for the people of Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia all more or less exemplified it in their primeval cults. It was the myth of the young god cruelly put to death – Osiris, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus – whose flesh (wheat) and blood (grape juice) became food and drink for men, and who came back to life in glory every year in Spring. This subject had never ceased to be present in the mysteries of Greece, as much in the classical era as before. Transfigured and “spiritualized” by the allegorical meanings attached to the most primitive rites, it manifested itself in the international “salvation” religions, namely in the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and Attis, Christianity’s rivals in the Roman Empire. As Nietzsche saw so clearly, the genius of Paul of Tarsus consisted in “giving a new meaning to the ancient mysteries,” taking hold of the old prehistoric myth, revivifying it, interpreting it in such way that, in perpetuity, all those who accepted his interpretation would also accept Jewry’s prophetic role and its status as “chosen people,” bearer of unique revelation.

Historically next to nothing is known about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, so little about his origins and the first thirty years of his life that some serious authors have even doubted his existence. According to the canonical gospels, he was raised in the Jewish religion. But was he Jewish by blood? Several scriptural passages tend to make one believe that he was not. It has been said, moreover, that the Galileans formed a small island of Indo-European population within Palestine. At any rate, what is important, as the source of the historical turning point that Christianity represents, is that, Jewish or not, Jesus was presented as such, and what is more, was presented as the Jewish people’s expected Messiah, by Paul of Tarsus, the true founder of Christianity, and by all the Christian apologists who followed over the centuries. What is important is that he was, thanks to them, integrated into the Jewish tradition, forming the link between it and the old Mediterranean myth of the young vegetation god who died and rose again, a myth the Jews had never accepted. He became the Messiah, acquiring the essential attributes of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Dionysus and all the other dead gods who triumphed over Death, pushing them all into the shade for his own profit, and that of his people, with an intransigence that none of them knew, the typically Jewish intransigence of Paul of Tarsus, his teacher Gamaliel, and all the servants of the “jealous God,” Jehovah. Not only was “new meaning” given to the ancient mysteries, but this meaning was proclaimed the sole good and the sole truth, the rites and the myths of pagan antiquity, from the most remote times, having only “prepared” and “prefigured” it, just as ancient philosophy had only sensitized souls to receive the supreme revelation. And this revelation was, for Paul as for the Jews of the Judeo-Alexandrian school before him, and for all the Christian apologists that followed – Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Ireneus, Origen – given to the Jews by the God “of all mankind.”

Jewish intolerance, until then confined to a single people (and to a despised people, whom no one dreamed of imitating) extended itself, with Christianity and later with Islam – that reaction against the Hellenisation of Christian theology – to half the globe. And, moreover, it is that very intolerance that accounts for the success of the religions linked with the tradition of Israel.

I have mentioned the salvation religions, in particular the cults of Mithra and of Cybele and her lover Attis, which flourished in the Roman Empire when Christianity was still young. At first sight, each of them had as much chance of attracting to itself the restless masses for whom Roman order was not sufficient, or was no longer sufficient, and who, increasingly bastardized, felt alienated from any national cult, whatever it might be. Each of them offered to the average individual all that the religion of crucified Jesus promised, and with rites all the more able to assure his adhesion, since they were more barbarous.

Mithra the Bull-Slayer

In the third century AD, the worship of Mithra – the old Indo-European solar god, contemplated through the thousand deforming mirrors that the races and traditions of his new worshippers represented – seemed destined to become dominant … provided that no decisive factor should intervene in favor of one of his rivals. The god was popular among Roman legionaries and their officers. Emperors had believed it worthwhile to receive initiation into his mysteries, under a shower of the Bull’s hot, redemptive blood. A growing number of common people followed the movement. One can say with complete confidence that the world dominated by Rome just barely failed to become Mithraic, instead of Christian, for some twenty centuries. One can say with no less certainty that, though it did not become Mithraic, this failure was due neither to any “superiority” of the Christian doctrine of salvation over the teachings of the priests of Mithra, nor to the absence of sanguinary rites among Christians, but rather to the protection granted to the religion of the Crucified by the emperor Constantine, and not to any other factor. Indeed it was Christianity’s very intolerance – especially, perhaps even exclusively – that procured the preference of the master of the Roman world.

What the emperor wanted above all was to give to this immense world, populated by people of diverse traditions and ethnicities, the most solid unity possible, without which it would be difficult to resist for long the external pressures of the so-called barbarians. Unity of worship was certainly the only kind of unity that he could hope to impose on his empire, on condition that it could be achieved quickly. Among the popular religions of salvation, Mithraism undoubtedly counted the greatest number of faithful. But it did not seem capable of being spread rapidly enough, first and foremost because it did not claim to be the only Way and the only Truth. It risked allowing its rivals to survive, and the unity that Constantine so much desired would therefore not be accomplished – or would take centuries – whereas the interest of the empire demanded that it be done within a few decades.

One could say as much of the old cult of Cybele and Attis: its priests did not proclaim, following the example of the Jews, that they alone possessed the truth; on the contrary, they believed, as did all men of Antiquity (except the Jews), that truth has innumerable facets, and that each cult helps its faithful grasp an aspect of it. They, too, would have allowed rival religions to flourish in complete liberty.

Fourth-century Christianity, although penetrated with ideas and symbols borrowed from neo-Platonism, or from the old Aegean mystical substrate, or from still more remote forms of the eternal Tradition, had itself inherited the spirit of intolerance from Judaism. Even its most enlightened apologists, the most richly nurtured in traditional Greek culture – such as a St. Clement of Alexandria or an Origen who, far from rejecting ancient wisdom, regarded it as a preparation for that of the gospels – did not put the two wisdoms on the same plane. There was, they believed, “progress” from the former to the latter, and the Jewish “revelation” retained its priority over the distant echo of the sole God’s voice which one could detect in the pagan philosophers. As for the great mass of Christians, they dismissed as “abominations” – or “demons” – all the gods of the earth, except that One who had been revealed to men of all races through the Old Testament prophets – Jewish prophets – and through Jesus and his posthumous disciple, Paul of Tarsus, the latter entirely Jewish, the former regarded by the Church as a Jew, a “son of David,” though in fact his true origins are unknown and even his historicity could be questioned.

The profound link that attaches Christianity (and in particular the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”) to the ancient mysteries ensured its survival down to our own era. And it was, for Paul of Tarsus, a stroke of (political) genius to have given to the oldest myths of the Mediterranean world an interpretation that ensured to his own people an indefinite spiritual domination over that world and over all the peoples it was destined to influence during the centuries that followed. It was, for the emperor Constantine, a stroke of genius (also political), to have chosen to encourage a religion which would, by its rapid diffusion, give to the ethnic chaos that the Roman world then represented the only unity to which it could still aspire. And it was, for the German tribal chief Clodwig, known in French history as Clovis, again a stroke of genius (political, in his case also) to have felt that nothing would better ensure him permanent domination over his rivals, other German leaders, than his own adhesion (and that of his warriors) to Christianity, in a world then already three-quarters Christian, where bishops represented a power to be sought out as allies. Political genius, not religious – and still less philosophical – because in each case it aimed at power, personal or national, at material stability, at success, but not at truth in the full sense of the word, that is, accord with the Eternal. It involved mundane human ambitions, not a thirst for knowledge of the Laws of Being, nor a thirst for union with the Essence of all things – the Soul, at once transcendent and immanent, of the Cosmos.

For if it had been different, there would have been no reason for the religion of the Nazarene to have triumphed for so many centuries: its rivals were its equals. Christianity had only one practical “advantage” over them: its fanaticism, its infantile intolerance inherited from the Jews – a fanaticism, an intolerance, which, during the early days of the Church, cultivated Romans or Greeks could only find laughable, and which Germans, nurtured in their own beautiful religion, simultaneously cosmic and warlike, could rightly find absurd, but which would give to Christianity a militant character, which it alone possessed, since orthodox Judaism remained – and would remain – the faith of a single people.

Christianity could henceforth be combated only by another religion with equally universal pretensions, just as intolerant as it.

The preceding text is from Chapter III of Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et réflexions d’une Aryenne (Calcutta: Savitri Devi Mukherji, 1976).

The Federal Reserve is a Suicide Bomber with a Deeper Agenda


By Brandon Smith

Central bankers are sociopathic in nature and sociopathic people tend to behave like robots. When one understands the motivations of central bankers, or at the very least what their goals are, their actions become rather predictable. The question is, what truly motivates these people?

I believe according to the evidence that the central banks are motivated by ideological zealotry with the core purpose of total global centralization of economic and political power into the hands of a select group of elitists. This agenda is really just a modern “reboot” of feudalism or totalitarianism. They sometimes refer to the plan in public as the “new world order,” or the “global economic reset.” I often refer to the encompassing ideology as “globalism” for the sake of expediency.

To attain this goal, central bankers must influence mass psychology using traumatic events. Fear opens doors to centralization of power. This is simply a fact social behavior and history. The more afraid a population is, the more willing they will be to give up freedoms in exchange for safety and security. Therefore, the most effective weapon at the disposal of the globalists and their central banking counterparts is engineered economic crisis – a weapon that can, if allowed, destroy entire civilizations almost as fast as a nuclear war, while still keeping most of the expensive infrastructure intact.

Beyond that, economic crisis is also a weapon that can influence a population to embrace even greater enslavement while viewing their slave masters as saviors rather than villains.

Despite what many people assume, central bankers are not driven by a desire for profit. They print their own capital, they hardly need to make a profit. Central bankers are also not driven by a desire to keep the current system afloat. They have demonstrated time and time again their habit of deliberately sabotaging the system through the use of inflationary bubbles followed by fiscal tightening into weak economic conditions. The U.S. economy today is just as expendable as any other economy the banks have destroyed in the past. It is not special.

This fact is becoming extremely clear lately as the Federal Reserve initiates policy tightening measures into obvious economic weakness; an action which is crashing stock markets as well as destabilizing other sectors of the economy including housing markets, auto markets and credit markets.

As noted, this was highly predictable. In September of 2015 I published an article titled ‘The Real Reasons Why The Fed Will Hike Interest Rates’, predicting that the strategy the banks would use to bring about the next crisis would be interest rate hikes in the midst of financial instability. This was the same strategy they used to initiate the Great Depression. And as mentioned earlier, sociopaths act like robots – they tend to use similar tactics over and over again because these tactics have worked in the past.

At the time, the vast majority of analysts were predicting that the central banks would move towards negative interest rates. But if the goal of the banking elites is total centralization of the global economy, then keeping the U.S. system alive for another decade or longer makes little sense. They had already created the perfect financial bubble using QE and near zero interest rates to encourage debt accumulation at historic levels. It’s a veritable economic atomic bomb, why not use it?

At the beginning of this year, I published an article titled ‘New Fed Chairman Will Trigger A Historic Stock Market Crash In 2018’. In that article, I predicted that Jerome Powell would push forward with interest rate hikes and balance sheet cuts. This would put extreme pressure on highly indebted corporations and they would be forced to stop spending capital on stock buybacks, which have been propping up equities for several years.

I would point out that not only has Powell in fact done exactly what I predicted, but that he has done it consciously, knowing what the results would be. In 2012, Powell outlined the exact consequences of policy tightening in the Fed October minutes. These minutes were not made public until recently. They PROVE that the Fed is fully aware of what it is doing, not acting blindly.

In September of this year, in my article ‘The Everything Bubble: When Will It Finally Crash?‘, I predicted that stock markets would begin crashing in December of 2018, despite many skeptics arguing that a “Santa Claus rally” was guaranteed. From the article:

The Fed’s tightening policies have resulted in a severe reaction by emerging markets which are already crashing and have diverged greatly from U.S. markets. American stocks will not escape the same fate.

The Fed’s neutral rate efforts suggest a turning point in late 2018 to early 2019. Balance sheet cuts are expected to increase at this time, which would also expedite a crash in existing market assets. The only question is how long can corporations sustain stock buybacks until their own debt burdens crush their efforts? With such companies highly leveraged, interest rates will determine the length of their resolve. I believe two more hikes will be their limit.

If the Fed continues on its current path the next stock crash would begin around December 2018 into the first quarter of 2019. After that, other sectors of the economy, already highly unstable, will break down through 2019 and 2020.

Though stock buybacks had saved markets from the plunge in February, they are long gone in the final quarter as the cost of corporate debt expands. Stocks are now in near free fall in December. The crash of the “everything bubble” has begun. So far, intermittent bounces have been brief, lasting in some cases mere hours to a couple of days, then plunging into complete retraction. The trend line indicates far more pain to come.

I was able to calculate this outcome because I am willing as an analyst to accept certain realities. The most important being that at this stage the Fed DOES NOT CARE about propping up the U.S. economy, and ultimately, the Fed does not even care what happens to itself as an institution. The truth is that the Fed is working towards an ideological end game of global centralization; this means one economy, one currency and eventually one world government (a plan which has been openly admitted to by globalists in the past). It has no loyalty to the U.S. system, and it will destroy the U.S. system if it must to achieve this prize.

The concept of the “plunge protection team” has become widespread in recent years, and for good reason. It was the central banks in tandem with government agencies that have hidden honest economic data from the mainstream public as well as artificially inflated asset valuations to obscure the truth – that the US and much of the world has been suffering from systemic decline, a collapse that has been ongoing since at least 2008.

However, things change, and the plans of central banks evolve. It took a decade to create the ‘Everything Bubble’; an unprecedented bubble encompassing every facet of our economy including Treasury bonds and even the dollar. The true purpose of most financial bubbles is to engineer a crash. The “plunge protection team” is no longer a guaranteed element of US markets anymore. If they are intervening, it has only been as a steam valve to slow the current crash to more manageable levels. In other words, it’s a controlled demolition.

I don’t call them the “PPT” anymore – instead I think I’ll call them the PAC (Plunge Acceleration Commission). The PAC-men are devouring the economy piece by piece and digesting it as they go. They want a crash. In fact, they need one.

Far too many people wrongly assume that the Fed is the apex of globalist power. The Fed is nothing more than a single tentacle of a larger vampire squid. It is the branch of a franchise, not the top of the pyramid.

I would liken the Fed to a saboteur and a suicide bomber. It was sent here to America with the explicit goal of undermining the U.S. economy and the U.S. currency over the period of a century in preparation for a final destructive act which would open the path to global centralization. It was sent here in disguise, to get close to the target, to explode our economy. Its job is to do as much damage as possible, even to the point of sacrificing itself. When the dust settles, other globalist institutions plan to move in to pick up the pieces and offer the desperate citizenry a pre-designed solution.

At this time, ending the Fed is still useful as a symbolic act, but strategically it would be pointless in saving the economy. The Fed has already accomplished its mission.

This is why I don’t take the ongoing WWF wrestling match between Donald Trump and the Fed very seriously. Trump’s continued associations with banking and think tank elites suggest to me that his battle with the Fed is staged theater. Consider this: If the Fed is designed to blow up our economy and possibly itself, blame needs to be redirected away from the central banks. What better way to do this than to let conservatives think they are “winning” by pursuing a shutdown of the Fed? It’s an entity that the globalists were planning on sacrificing anyway.

Trump campaigned on the argument that the Fed was creating an artificial bubble in stocks through low interest rates. Then he took full credit for the stock market rally for the past two years. Now he is attacking the Fed for raising interest rates and causing markets to fall. It seems to me that the future mainstream narrative will read that a spoiled Trump caused the crash, blamed the “innocent” central bank that was only attempting to “normalize” the economy, and in the process made the situation even worse.

I am already seeing a stream of articles defending Jerome Powell as some kind of heroic rebel willing to raise rates in the face of establishment opposition. This idea is laughable when you consider the Fed’s long history of inflating and then imploding bubbles while banking elites siphon up hard assets and push the citizenry into further poverty and servitude. Powell isn’t a “rebel”, he’s a middle manager carrying out the same old strategy that globalists have always used: Problem – Reaction – Solution. Debt bubble, debt crisis, financial collapse, public desperation, asset absorption, centralization.

I will be elaborating on Trump’s participation in the global economic reset scheme in my next article. Needless to say, the false Trump vs. Fed paradigm was also predictable. Read my article ‘In A Battle Between Trump And The Fed, Who Really Wins?’, published in February of 2017, as well as my article ‘Trump vs The Fed: America Sacrificed At the NWO Altar’, published in July 2018, for an in-depth analysis.

Ultimately, the Fed is a proxy threat. A shadow of the greater monster that must be defeated.

Our focus now must be to determine who rebuilds the system after the crash runs its course. This means preventing global central bank hubs like the IMF or the BIS from becoming the dominant economic force in the world. It means a long and arduous struggle. It means defiant structures – localized economies and production, self-reliant people providing their own necessities and engaging in trade, and communities formed around mutual aid and security. It means a fight is coming that goes beyond the information war.

The War on Christmas! – by Dr. David Duke

The Jewish extremist war against Christmas

Planet Rothschild – Part I


The 2-volume illustrated time-line starts with the founding of ‘The House of Rothschild’ in 1763, and rolls through the next 250 years, decade by decade in that exciting “you are there” style that M S King is known for. From the days of the French Revolution, to Napoleon Bonaparte, to Andrew Jackson, to Karl Marx, to the shocking 19th century wave of Red assassinations, to the Rothschild-Communist overthrow of Russia’s Czar, to the horrible World Wars of the 20th century, to the Cold War, to the JFK assassination, to the “women’s movement” to the Global Warming Hoax, to the “fall of communism”, to the 9/11 attacks & the “War On Terror”, to the Obama disaster and beyond –  the common thread of the NEW WORLD ORDER crime gang links all of these events together.

PLANET ROTHSCHILD is a unique “blurb by blurb” chronological and photographical review that will enrich your depth of historical and economic knowledge. Reading it will give you a “Phd.” in advanced New World Order studies that you won’t get anywhere else.

Trump: US Troops Will Stay in Middle East to Protect Israel


(MEMO) — US President Donald Trump has admitted that the US only keeps its troops in the Middle East to protect Israel.

In an interview with the Washington Post yesterday, Trump explained that he would not withdraw US troops from the region because of the need to support Israel, despite the fact that other US concerns such as oil were no longer sufficient reason to remain. Trump told the Post:

Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world [the Middle East]? One reason to is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.

Trump’s comments have been interpreted as referring specifically to Saudi Arabia – one of the US’ main oil providers and increasingly an Israeli ally – with the Times of Israel suggesting the president “appear[s] to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia”.

This triangular relationship between the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia has been forefront in Trump’s decision-making in recent weeks. Last week, Trump suggested that Israel would face severe difficulties without the presence of Saudi Arabia, saying: “The fact is that Saudi Arabia is tremendously helpful in the Middle East, if we didn’t have Saudi Arabia we wouldn’t have a big base [and] Israel would be in big trouble”. Also last week, Trump thanked Saudi Arabia for lowering oil prices, stressing the US would remain a “steadfast partner” of the kingdom and not allow the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to harm US-Saudi relations or weaken Israel.

It is no secret that the US provides extensive military support to Israel. In October, the largest ever US military aid package to Israel – worth $38 billion to be delivered over a period of ten years – entered into force. US State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert explained that: “Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU], the United States will set funding for Israel at levels of $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and $500 million for cooperative programmes for missile defence over each of the next ten years”.

The implementation of the MOU was intended to reflect “the enduring and unshakable commitment of the President [Trump], this Administration, and the American people to Israel’s security,” Nauert added.

The US also regularly raises money to support the Israeli army. In the past two months the Friends of the Israel Defence Force (FIDF) held two galas to raise money for the army, raising a total of $92 million across the two evenings. The first event – held in October in New York – raised $32 million and was attended by over 1,000 US business people and philanthropists, as well as key figures from the Israeli establishment. In November, a second FIDF gala held in Beverly Hills, California raised $60 million and was attended by a host of celebrities, including Ashton Kutcher, Pharrell Williams, Gerard Butler and Katharine McPhee.

In Wake of Synagogue Shooting, Social Media Purge Continues with Removal of Gab


Renegade Editor’s Note: Please show me one shred of evidence this event even took place. It is quite a coincidence they ran an active shooter drill at a synagogue in Squirrel Hill 9 months prior, right next to Tree of Life. By the way, a gabbai is a synagogue helper.

By Whitney Webb

(MPN) — In the wake of the mass shooting at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue on Saturday, action has been taken to remove an alternative social media network on which the shooter responsible for Saturday’s massacre, Robert Bowers, had posted. The decision comes not long after a coordinated effort by Facebook and Twitter that deleted hundreds of anti-establishment accounts and pages.

Gab, a Twitter alternative that has thus far been largely dominated by “alt-right” users and those that have been “banned” or “shadow banned” on Twitter, has now been booted by both its hosting company, Joyent, and the domain registrar GoDaddy, after both companies stated that the posts Bowers had made on the social network violated their terms of service. Bowers allegedly posted just minutes before the shooting on the Gab platform, writing “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” Bowers had allegedly blamed the Jewish people for “committing genocide” against white Americans.

Upon learning of the shooter’s account on the platform, Gab deleted the account and backed up the data, which it also provided to the Department of Justice and FBI. In addition, via a statement, Gab disavowed “all acts of terrorism and violence” and said its mission is “to defend free expression and individual liberty online for all people” by offering an uncensored social networking platform.

Gab later noted that its coordination with the DOJ and FBI regarding the shooter’s account helped provide law enforcement with “concrete evidence” and a “clear motive” for the crime, adding that “more speech is always the answer.”

Nevertheless, despite the extent of the cooperation between Gab and the legal authorities, Gab subsequently posted on Twitter that it was “being forced off the internet for the disgusting actions of one man.” Notably, Robert Bowers also had accounts on other social media platforms including Twitter, but those social networks were not targeted for those accounts or any of the posts created by those accounts.

Breaking: @joyent, Gab’s new hosting provider, has just pulled our hosting service. They have given us until 9am on Monday to find a solution. Gab will likely be down for weeks because of this. Working on solutions. We will never give up on defending free speech for all people.

– (@getongab) October 28, 2018

Media reports on the shooting have noted that Gab’s minimal restrictions on user-posted content are related to the decisions from Joyent and GoDaddy to deplatform Gab. In a statement sent to Gab by GoDaddy, the domain name registrar stated that it had “discovered numerous instances of content on your site that both promotes and encourages violence against people.”

Gab’s removal from its hosting provider and domain name registrar could result in the site being down for several weeks, according to posts made by Gab on social media. Currently, the site is inaccessible for users, as the main homepage now only displays a message from Gab’s CEO, Andrew Torba.

In addition, PayPal also severed ties with Gab after the shooting, stating that the company was invoking its right to terminate an account “for any reason and at any time” contained within the PayPal user agreement. Notably, PayPal did not state that Gab had violated any terms of service. Instead, it appears that PayPal had unilaterally decided to terminate Gab’s use of the platform.

BREAKING: is now banned from Paypal “just because.”

– (@getongab) October 27, 2018

The effort to deplatform Gab followed similar threats from Microsoft levied against Gab in August. At the time, Microsoft was providing hosting services to Gab and threatened to cease those services over two anti-Semitic posts it had identified on the social network. Gab subsequently deleted the offending posts and chose Joyent as its new hosting provider.

Beyond Social-Media Pruning: Pulling out Alternative Content by the Roots

While Gab’s current user base and its uncensored approach to content are bound to result in controversial content being hosted on the site, the larger context in which its deplatforming occurred has chilling consequences for the public’s free access to information via the internet.

On October 11, Facebook deleted more than 800 pages from its platform for “inauthentic behavior,” even though it admitted that the targeted pages had produced “legitimate” content. Facebook defined “inauthentic behavior” as using “sensational political content – regardless of its political slant – to build an audience and drive traffic to their websites.” In other words, the pages were removed for publishing and promoting controversial political content.

Soon after, Twitter deleted many of the accounts of pages that had been deleted by Facebook, suggesting coordination between the two largest social networks in silencing alternative voices and perspectives. Following these events, some concerned internet users turned to Gab as an uncensored alternative to Facebook and Twitter.

However, the events that have followed the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting show that alternative platforms like Gab – even if they are committed to uncensored content – can still be silenced through pressure from hosting providers and domain name registrars. The deplatforming of Gab sets a disturbing precedent, as it shows that websites can now be targeted outside of social networks if pressure is applied via the very companies that enable a page’s presence on the internet.

Concern over these precedents will likely only grow, as establishment censors recently announced that efforts to silence voices on the internet have only just begun. Indeed, on October 15, Jamie Fly of the German Marshall Fund, a think tank funded by the U.S. government and NATO, announced, “we are just starting to push back” against alternative media and independent voices, adding that the recent Facebook/Twitter purge of users and pages was “just the beginning.”

With the deplatforming of Gab, the self-appointed censors have now shown that their ability to censor spreads far beyond censorship within the dominant social networks to the very internet presence of the sites themselves.

Israel to Form Coalition for World Internet Censorship


By Roberto Hernández
Published: 2016-02-15

According to a report on on Jan. 19, 2016 in The Times of Israel, also briefly reported in The New Observer, Gilad Erdan the Israeli Public Security Minister, is to develop legislation that would force FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter and others to take responsibility for content, that is, legislation that would enforce a kind of censorship in which the excuse that supports such extra-territorial legislation is that these social-media networks can serve to peddle incitement to terrorism.

This is specifically but not only aimed at Palestinians, said Gilad Erdan, as an example of incitement to terrorism, who allegedly posted a body chart on which are shown the best places where one can stab someone fatally – apparently a reference to the recent wave of knife attacks on Jews in Israel. Erdan also said on Sunday, that he “intended to methodically expose the Palestinian culture of incitement among relevant communities around the world.”

Apparently Erdan plans to start working on a model statute with European countries, said his spokesman, and assures that most of these countries “are very interested in this idea. The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are. Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty.”

But experts are skeptical about the proposal. This so-called Coalition poses a high level of technical problems as to how to monitor each and every post. As it is now, companies like FaceBook have difficulty monitoring and enforcing their own policies due to the volume of posts made on a given day.

However even if technically possible, there is also a mixed reaction within Israel itself. We hope that is true for the rest of the world, including those European countries which are interested in this proposal. Censorship can wear many guises and could even look appealing to some, but in the end it is a terrible game where no one gains but those who enforce it, and all liberty is in peril.