Schools Segregated, Hatred Integrated in Israel

Israel’s “Jews-Only” Marriage Laws Explained

In addition to the article below, please watch this video. 

It is one of the most commonly-used tricks of Jewish Supremacists to deny that Israel has racially-based marriage laws—but the full and final truth has finally emerged from an organization within Israel itself.

The “Freedom of Marriage World Map” is an annual report produced by the Hiddush-Freedom of Religion for Israel organization that examines and compares the status of freedom of marriage around the world.

According to that organization, the “main and original purpose of the map was to investigate Israel’s standing on freedom of marriage in comparison to world standards.”

The conclusion of that organization is that Israel “ranks among some of the most fundamentalist countries in the Islamic world on this issue.”

Hiddush has the following to say about Israel’s marriage laws:

• Only recognized religious marriage ceremonies are allowed.
• For Jews, only weddings that are held according to strict Orthodox standards are accepted.
• There is no option for civil marriage or interfaith marriage.
• 300,000 citizens are defined as ‘without religion’ and they are unable to get married in the country.
• Israeli law permits only religious marriages held by religious testimony, and does not allow civil marriages.
• Among the Jewish population, the Chief Rabbinate, which operates according to Orthodox Jewish standards, has a monopoly over marriage.
• Only those who are recognized as Jews according to Orthodox Jewish law can get married in Israel.
• Members of other religions can only marry spouses of the same religion and only by their own recognized religious authority.
• The result is that no interfaith or non-religious marriages are allowed.
• The Law of Return which allows up to second generation descendants of Jews and their spouses to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship, but prevents them from getting married.
• This also applies to individuals whose fathers or grandfathers are Jewish but their mother or grandmother is not. They are excluded due to Orthodox Jewish law which stipulates that Judaism is determined by the mother.
• There are also individuals who are Jewish according to Orthodox law, but who lose their marriage rights in certain circumstances.
• Those defined by the rabbinical authorities as illegitimate (born to a women who conceived a child with a man who is not her husband) are considered ineligible for marriage.
• Divorced women are not allowed to marry men who carry any of the traditional “Cohen” family names (denoting families who are considered to be the direct descendants of the ancient Israelite priests and who, by law, are forbidden from marrying divorcees and converts).
• The State of Israel only recognizes Jewish marriages that are officiated by recognized Orthodox rabbis.
• Marriages conducted by rabbis of any other Jewish affiliation (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal) are not recognized.
• The Law of Return recognizes converts who converted in a non-Orthodox ceremony. They are allowed to receive Israeli citizenship, but the Chief Rabbinate does not recognize them as Jews and does not consider them eligible for Jewish marriage.
• This creates a situation in which converts who joined Judaism through progressive movements and in some cases, Orthodox converts who converted by moderate Orthodox rabbis, cannot get married in Israel.
• Due to Israeli Supreme Court rulings from the 1960s, the Ministry of Interior registers and accepts civil marriages held abroad.
• The question of the validity of civil marriages that were held abroad has yet to be decided in Israel, and there are many contradicting opinions and rulings on this matter.
• Israel was the only Western country that received a grade of “0” by the Hiddush ranking, putting it in the company of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan with regard to marriage laws.

Excellent Books to Read Regarding Jewish Identity and Jewish Evolutionary Group Strategy

Before reading the books below, it might be helpful to see this, this, this, this, this and this. Also, read this and this about Zionism's rewriting of the history of the UN resolution that declared Zionism as racism.

1. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements - by Kevin MacDonald

2. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism - by Kevin MacDonald

3. Understanding Jewish Influence: Background Traits for Jewish Activism - by Kevin MacDonald

More About Jews and Eugenics -The Information The So-Called "Caring" Liberal Society Hides From You

Below is an article on the same topic that I was covering here, here, here, here, here and here. Also, see this old article with Francis Galton about Jews and Eugenics.

Just another part of good old "Happy-Face" Fascism. People have to realize that a form of slavery is still being practiced today. It is just hidden from us. The people in power realized long ago that it is in their best interest to lie and tell us that we have freedom.

Even if you don't agree with this statement, you have to acknowledge that our current "liberal", "secular" and "tolerant" society is hiding some very interesting facts from us.  That is what I am trying to show on this blog. They have set up a technocracy run by a group of rulers that think they can pretty much do whatever they want.  (See here also.)

As I have pointed out, the worst part is that the technology is not only invasive and controlling, but it can be fatal. To top it off, much of what they are doing is being funded by taxpayers under the guise of protecting people from "terrorism".

Some of them are literally financing their prosperity from taxpayers. Drug dealers, hedge funds and resource and mineral companies to name a few. This also plays into the United States foreign policy project of Africom. (Ever wonder why a resource-rich content like Africa is in the state it is?) See here for what I wrote about Cointelpro and the alternative media. 

After reading the article below, read this and this. Also, learn more about Transhumanism. (Go to the Transhumanism category of my block here. Be sure to scroll down and go through all the articles there.) It is important to point this out, because, people have to realize that Leviathan is a combination of eugenics and technology, both of which have the potential to become idol worship. It is also important to note that eugenics and our modern idea of "mental illness" in the DSM manual, (see this about the DSM manual,) both rely on the bell curve --- both which have limitations. Even worse, what is being categorized today as "mental illness" could be caused unintentionally or intentionally from technology.

========================================================================

Jewish Eugenics, by John Glad. Washington, DC: Wooden Shore Publishers, 2011; 464pp. (Downloadable here. 

John Glad begins Jewish Eugenics by noting that “much of what might be termed  ‘accepted eugenics narrative’ is in crass discordance with the historical facts” (p. 8). In other words, we are about to enter one of those academic minefields where “truth” is rigorously cleansed to make sure it is compatible with ethnic interests. Indeed, “writing books about Jews used to be a far easier undertaking than it is today, with Jewish anxieties over ‘anti-Semitism’ having been so elevated as to render dispassionate scholarly discourse nearly impossible” (p. 8).

I am not so sure that dispassionate scholarship is impossible, but it is surely the case that findings that diverge from the self-image desired by any ethnic group will surely be vigorously contested by academic activists or, more probably, consigned to oblivion. Dr. Glad assures me that in his case, it is the latter, writing of his frustration at the silence that has greeted his work. Welcome to the club.

As a university professor, Glad is quite attuned to the politics of having a good career. Critics of eugenics, like the notorious Ashley Montagu (a disciple of Franz Boas), get fat honoraria for delivering superficial, factually challenged lectures sponsored by numerous academic departments and programs. (Glad characterizes a lecture by Montagu as “an impressive demonstration of indoctrination” [p. 91].) On the other hand, those who defend eugenics “are subjected to academic shunning” (p. 91), their books are not used in classes and not purchased by academic libraries. They get no invitations to attend conferences or deliver lectures.

Broken down to its bare essentials, eugenics aims to incorporate human reason to influence the future human gene pool. Rather than let nature take its course, the idea is to plan our genetic future with the same care and rational concern as we plan the future in other areas, such as urban planning or animal husbandry. In general, eugenicists have prized traits like high IQ and behavioral restraint, seeking to maximize these traits in the population, and to minimize low IQ, genetic diseases, and psychopathology.

The logic behind eugenics is impeccable. In its classical form, it proposes that qualities such as health, intelligence, and moral character are socially valuable. Eugenicists were correct that there are strong genetic influences on these traits, and they argued that society can promote these qualities by policies such as discouraging reproduction of people with negative traits (negative eugenics) and encouraging reproduction of people with positive traits (positive eugenics). Many of those who advocated eugenics were leftist social radicals with utopian visions, including Jewish radical Emma Goldman who “was arrested on a morals charge for distributing a 4-page pamphlet in English and Yiddish entitled Why and How the Poor Should Not Have So Many Children” (p. 162). (Goldman’s extensive Wikipedia biography leaves out any mention of her advocacy of eugenics.)

In the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology—indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. “You are reading a book on a topic that supposedly not only does not exist, but one that is even inconceivable” (p. 10). Given this motivation, it is not surprising that when Glad refers to what he labels the “eugenics-bashing industry,” that he notes that the industry is “mostly Jewish” (p. 21). “Even as Russia was shaking off the mythology of Lysenkoism, the West was celebrating its betrothal to Lysenko’s heirs. An intellectual coup d’état had taken place, and many of the purge masters were Jews shoving aside other Jews” (p. 27).

Nevertheless, the reality is that Jews have been prime beneficiaries of eugenic practices. Glad’s thesis is that “for all its excesses, eugenics has been an astounding, indeed an existential success for Jews, molding them into a uniquely resourceful and intelligent people, and the current assault on eugenics by an understandably emotion-driven minority Jewish faction represents a frontal assault on the very essence of Judaism” (p. 11). This group has intimidated Jewish supporters of eugenics, at least in Western countries. As we shall see, a watered down version of eugenics is alive and well in Israel.

Surprisingly perhaps, Glad ignores the vast amount of population genetic research showing substantial genetic commonalities among widely dispersed Jewish populations, instead quoting two gynecologists to the effect that although “contemporary Jews share several chromosome markers and polymorphisms as well as genetic mutations … there is no such thing as a Jewish genome and Jews are no more likely to share sequences with fellow non-Jews than with each other” (p. 39). While it is true that there is no such thing as a Jewish genome (no one ever said there was, probably because the idea is incoherent), there is a great deal of evidence against the latter claim (see here for discussions of recent papers in Jewish population genetics).

For Glad, then, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary, Judaism is nothing but a cultural construct, albeit one with a particular eugenic dynamism. That is, according to Glad, Judaism is not about preserving an ethnic coherence but about creating a superior group with no ethnic connotations. My view is that it is both about ethnic  coherence and that eugenics was an important force in shaping modern Jewish groups, particularly the Ashkenazim.

A prime area where Jews have benefited is intelligence. Glad accepts the idea that Jews are smarter on average as a result of eugenic practices, although he doesn’t provide any detail on exactly how this happened or how much smarter they are. He rejects a purely internal model of selection for intelligence within the Jewish community such as proposed in Chapter 7 of my A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, claiming that it “would probably reduce the absolute number of high IQs. In any case, ‘marrying brains’ would be a zero sum game if practiced only within one’s own community” (p. 29).

Neither of these arguments is coherent. In traditional societies, assortative mating for intelligence resulted in a higher mean intelligence for the group as a whole because intelligent people tended to be wealthier, and wealthier people had more children.  Within-group assortative mating for high intelligence was a standard part of the eugenic argument from the beginning—nothing more than Darwinism applied to human mating. It’s the same in animals were it is common for females to select mates with desirable qualities to pass down to the offspring. Doing so is not a “zero sum game” even in small breeding populations. The important thing is that some genotypes contribute to evolutionary success more than others and are therefore passed on disproportionately.

Supporting the theory of eugenic selection within the traditional Jewish community, Glad quotes well-known Jewish anthropologist Maurice Fishberg writing in 1917 who claimed that in traditional Jewish society “wealthy persons and scholars were little concerned with the physical appearance of their future sons-in-law. Intellectual abilities were the main thing. If a bridegroom was a significant, promising scholar, even a physical defect was ignored” (p. 168). (Interestingly, Fishberg also notes that in addition to eugenic practices, traditional Jewish communities encouraged everyone to marry, even people with gross mental and physical defects. Eugenics can still work under such circumstances if the well-endowed have more children, as was the case in traditional societies.)

A standard aspect of eugenic thinking was that natural selection wasn’t doing its job anymore because of medical science and welfare benefits for low-IQ people, with the result that the average genetic potential  for IQ was declining. Lothrop Stoddard (The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man), for example, was keen on this point, and among recent exponents of eugenics, Richard Lynn and Helmuth Nyborg make the same argument.  Such arguments can easily be tied to concerns about the future of the race. For example, Stoddard argued that without eugenics the White race would gradually degenerate and be in a relatively less competitive position vis-à-vis other races. It would seem that Lynn and Nyborg are similarly concerned about the future of Europeans.

Glad proposes “infiltration theory” as an alternative to internal eugenic selection, proposing that Jewish IQ increased as a result of the infiltration of high-IQ non-Jews into Jewish groups. While there is a great deal of evidence for eugenic practices for IQ within Jewish groups as prescribed by canonical Jewish religious writing, Glad does not provide evidence for his infiltration hypothesis apart from non-Jewish Soviet citizens attempting to emigrate to Israel in order to flee the USSR.Even if true, this would not explain why higher Jewish intelligence was apparent long before the late 20th century.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Jews had a policy of admitting high-IQ non-Jews. In traditional societies — and Jewish IQ was clearly shaped well before the modern spike in intermarriage — non-Jewish representation in the Jewish gene pool was always illicit and occurred at very low rates. A substantial percentage of the genetic inflow in traditional societies may have resulted from rape, an unlikely source of eugenic benefits. It is an intriguing possibility that genetic inflow from Europeans contributed substantially to Jewish intelligence. However, I know of no data that show this.

Glad’s data suggesting a 9.1% intermarriage rate in Germany in 1875 may be correct, but this is far higher than occurred in the pre-modern era and, in any case, it is unlikely that the offspring of mixed marriages remained within the Jewish community.  Glad quotes a Jewish publication from 1845 discussing “the great evil” of marrying a non-Jew (p. 113); as a quote he provides from 1846 shows, in those days (far more than now), the intermarried couple and their children would be banned from the Jewish community, so that there could be no eugenic effect on the Jewish gene pool.

Recent studies suggest there was some admixture in founding populations but that marriage within the group was the rule after that. And in any case, there are subsets of the Jewish population that have remained completely untouched by intermarriage—particularly the Orthodox and in Israel. Indeed, the importance of retaining racial purity was a prime motivation for the racial Zionists in establishing Israel (see below). Oddly, given that Glad believes that Judaism is nothing but a culturally created eugenic group, he bemoans the high rates of intermarriage because of its effects on “uniquely Jewish genes” (p. 34).

Glad sees Jewish intelligence as entirely benign vis-à-vis the people and culture of the West. He quotes Seymour Itzkoff’s Fatal Gift: Jewish Intelligence and Western Civilization: “Had Western civilization been able to proclaim the truth that Jewish accomplishment was not part of a sinister conspiracy to take over the world, here a people apart, tainted with peculiar cultural traditions, could we have not been able to stop the insanity of ‘National Socialism’ and other pseudo-egalitarian crusades against human accomplishment?” (p. 21).

The problem with Jews is not that they are intelligent or that they are an elite. All societies necessarily have elites, and because of their high intelligence and ethnic networking, Jews have tended to be an elite throughout history. The problem has been that Jews in European societies have tended to form a hostile elite, supporting policies, such as massive non-White immigration, that are not in the interests of the great majority of the non-Jewish populations. (Glad mentions “Jewish-promoted immigration of non-Jews” [p. 111] without discussing why Jews are thus motivated.)

Indeed, Glad has a wonderful quote from German Studies scholar Sander Gilman illustrating well the hostility of Jews toward the people and culture of Germany, and showing as well that Jewish scholars often have very sharp axes to grind when they approach their academic subjects:

I will no longer hear the libel of anti-Semites within the field; I reject their claim for a ‘fair hearing’ within the profession because their fair hearing will be used, as it always has been, to vilify me, to dehumanize me and my pain. The Holocaust remains and must remain for me … the central event of modern German culture, the event toward which every text, every moment in German history and, yes, culture, moved inexorably. I am not neutral. I am not distanced, for serving as an outsider does not mean to be cool and clinical, it must mean to burn with those fires that define you as an outsider. My stereotypes of the German (and my awareness of them) lead me to examine the stereotypes that the German has of me. It is from this that I must move. For me this is not the age of ‘post-modernism,’ it is the post-Holocaust age. That is the silent marker for our present world, and our work is to understand the world of the German in the light of that moment in history. (p. 88)

It’s easy to find similar statements by important Jewish intellectuals (reviewed in The Culture of Critique). The problem is that the academic world is full of Jews like Gilman brimming with hatred because of their perceptions of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the past. Obviously one cannot expect unbiased points of view in their scholarship.

The greater problem is that people like Gilman generalize their hostility far beyond Germany and Germans to the entire people and culture of the West. And of course, these attitudes pervade not only the academic world but also Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and SPLC, as well as Jews in the media and in politics.

Glad is also a bit facile in discussing Jewish assimilation, citing sporadic claims by individual Jews to have assimilated in Germany prior to the rise of National Socialism without evaluating the evidence that the great majority of Jews retained a sense of separateness and sense of cultural alienation from Germany. (Sander Gilman is an exemplar of this attitude in the contemporary world.) This alienation is generally true now throughout the West: For example, even though Jews are in some sense assimilated to American culture and indeed have had a very large impact on American culture, in general they retain a strong sense of Jewish identity that informs their attitudes and behavior. Compared to the traditional White people of America, their attitudes are far more favorable to massive non-White immigration, and they tend to be far more hostile to traditional icons of American culture, such as Christianity in the public square. Jewish assimilation has therefore not precluded hostility toward and conflicts of interest with the traditional people and culture of America.

Glad shows that Jews were prominently involved in the assault on biology in the social sciences. He calls attention to Marx, Freud, and Boas and notes the special role of Jews in the furor over E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology (all themes ofThe Culture of Critique). He also mentions three other villains of the assault on biology discussed in The Culture of Critique:  Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. Jews also were the main force behind Lamarckianism in the USSR and in the West, at least until certain critical experiments were shown to be frauds.

Glad is particularly colorful in describing E. O. Wilson’s opponents:

Wilson’s attackers were not Bible-belt fundamentalist preachers with eighth grade educations, but his sophisticated secular Jewish colleagues at Harvard — evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin —precisely those who logically could have been expected to be his most enthusiastic supporters. … Wilson’s opponents were soon emulated by a largely Jewish cottage industry of anti-Darwinian scholars and activists who reviewed each other’s books and appointed each other to academic positions. (p. 77)

Glad is also correct when he describes the basic trajectory of the New Left: “The New Left fused with the counterculture to produce a ‘revolutionary consciousness’ with overwhelming Jewish participation and leadership” (p. 78). However, as the left identified Israel as “Kosher imperialism” after the Six Day War, “Jewish participation in leftist activities fell off, and the belief that eugenics had been the driving ideological motor triggering genocide of the Jews became accepted Holocaust narrative” (p. 78).

At the same time that Jews dominated the left in the Diaspora, Zionist Jews have always had a strong attraction to eugenics and biology (reviewed also in Chapter 5 (p. 152ff) of Separation and Its Discontents).  The following are some choice quotes from Glad:

• Proto-Zionist Moses Hess: “The Jewish race is one of the primary races of mankind that has retained its integrity, in spite of the continual change of its climatic environment, and the Jewish type has conserved its purity through the centuries” (p. 115).
• Vladimir Jabotinsky, the patron saint of the now dominant Israeli right: “The preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity, and for that purpose we are in need of a territory of our own…. If you should ask me in a sense of revolt and outrage: but surely in that case you want segregation at all costs! I would answer that one must not be afraid of words and not of the word ‘segregation’” (p. 136).
• Arthur Ruppin, a prominent early Zionist: Jewish racial pride “was passed on all the more easily thanks to the racial hatred of the Jew for the non-Jew, and its reaction — the racial hatred of the non-Jew for the Jew” (p. 139). Notice the claim that racial hatred is a fundamental, presumably biologically-based human emotion.

Glad notes that “the major Anglo-American eugenicists came out forthrightly against racial hatred” while at the same time “eugenicists were arrested, exiled, and murdered under both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention facing fierce hostility in the United States.” Nevertheless, “it is also true that antipathy toward Jews was evident among an undetermined minority of eugenicists.” Here Glad singles out Madison Grant and his views on Africans and Jews. Regarding the former, Grant claims that having Blacks adopt the accouterments of White culture does not make them into White people—a claim that is surely quite within the mainstream of the racial research of Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton. Grant expressed similar concerns about the lack of assimilability of Polish Jews “whose dwarf stature, peculiar mentality, and ruthless concentration on self-interest” (p. 62).

It is perhaps odd that Glad is eager to dismiss genetic arguments on Jewish behavior at the same time that he enthusiastically argues that Jews have in fact used eugenics to promote certain traits, particularly intelligence. It is unclear what Grant meant by the “peculiar mentality” of Eastern European Jews, but it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that the upward mobility and intense activism displayed by this group can be attributed at least partly to genetic causes. On the face of it, a strong sense of self-interest vis-à-vis outgroups would be a very advantageous trait to have in intergroup competition. I have argued that hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness are traits that distinguish Ashkenazi Jews. If, as Glad argues, intelligence is a result of Jewish eugenics, I see no reason why he should preclude the other traits as being exaggerated as a result of eugenics, producing what Grant terms a “peculiar mentality.” In fact, all of these traits show substantial heritability and thus are prime candidates for eugenic selection.

Where Glad is at his best is in discussing the Jewish politics of eugenics. He notes that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has an exhibit that states that eugenics caused the Holocaust. This mantra is also endlessly repeated in the mass media. Glad rebuts this assertion by first quoting from a Rabbi’s sermon given in 1926: “”Whether regarded hygienically, morally, or religiously, the whole purport of the Torah, the Law of Moses, is to separate Israel from the rest of mankind as a Chosen People, in order to be a noble people, a well-born race of men for their own superior happiness, as well as, by way of example, to be a blessing to the world” (p.  63). And he shows that eugenic practices are alive and well in the contemporary Jewish community, especially genetic screening for Jewish genetic diseases. Indeed, “eugenics lies at the very core of Jewish identity” (p. 64).

Glad notes that many Jewish scientists contributed to the academic journalEugenics Quarterly prior to its name change to Social Biology in 1985. In the list provided, I note Benson E. Ginsburg (a behavior geneticist, expert in wolf behavior, and my Ph.D. thesis advisor) and Nathaniel Weyl (who published on Jewish intelligence and accomplishment). But more surprisingly, the list includes Ashley Montagu and Melville Hershkovits (disciples of Franz Boas), as well as Richard Lewontin and Jerry Hirsch (both prominent opponents of behavior genetics and sociobiology); all are discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as ideological opponents of Darwinism as it applies to humans. Glad’s list would seem to show that Eugenics Quarterly published articles from a wide variety of views indeed, including some from an anti-eugenics perspective.

One element of the campaign against eugenics is the association between National Socialism and eugenics. Glad defuses this by showing that Churchill was also an advocate of eugenics, deeply concerned about the propagation of the feeble-minded and unapologetic about the conquests that Whites as a “stronger race” carried out against other races.

But Jews have been able to have their cake and eat it too:

The upshot of the situation is that a group of largely Jewish activists have so successfully undermined the very eugenic mechanism that made Jewry what it is as to pose an existential threat to Jewry. But Jewish common sense … has not only continued to hold sway in the practice of eugenics, it has even managed to surf the scientific tide of newly found genetic knowledge— all the while paying lip service to the Holocaust-from-eugenics gospel. (p. 72)

The movement against eugenics was part of a much larger picture for Jewish activists:

In 1975, the UN General Assembly … declared that Zionism is “a form of racism and racial discrimination,” essentially declaring the state of Israel to be illegitimate. As a counterbalance, Jewish groups massively funded the Holocaust Memorial Movement.  In it turn, the Holocaust Memorial Movement attacked the eugenics movement with every increasing fury.

However, the last 20 years has seen a huge upsurge of identifying eugenics as the cause of the Holocaust. Between 1945 and 1992, only one book associated the Holocaust with eugenics. Since that time, 51 books have mentioned this connection.

The supposedly causal relationship was accepted with no mention of Jewish participation in the eugenics movement, of the fact that eugenics was popular among the left and the right, of the condemnation by Anglo-American eugenicists of Germany’s National Socialist Regime, or of Jewish eugenicists who had perished in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. The eugenics-is-evil message was imprinted, almost indelibly. (pp. 79-80)

Since [the beginning of the crush of books on the Holocaust in 1968], four decades have passed, and all the while a cohort of Jewish writers continues to attack the eugenics movement, which supposedly threatens at any moment to rip out the stake driven into its vampire heart and once more stalk the planet in search of new victims. In the meantime, precisely as feared by Jewish eugenicists for over a century, the Jews are decimating their own ranks by low fertility and high intermarriage rates. [Note that Glad seems to condemn intermarriage as non-eugenic despite his theory that genetic infiltration was the cause of high Jewish IQ.] Soon there will be no need for Shabbat goy to turn out the lights on Shabbat; there won’t be any Jews left. (p. 81)

Many of these books (Glad emphasizes Daniel Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity ) were intensively promoted in the prestigious mainstream media where there is a large Jewish ownership and influence. For example, Glad notes that Kevles’ influential book was serialized in The New Yorker, at the time owned by Samuel Irving Newhouse.

Eugenics is alive and well in Israel, although the word ‘eugenic’ is typically avoided. Glad cites an expert suggesting that the first human clones will probably be in Israel; this will occur with the support of Orthodox Jews. Yael Hashioni-Dolev shows that Israeli geneticists and the Israeli public strongly favor eugenic practices. Israeli women are “heavily pressured to engage in selection of their embryos, or, in the ultra-Orthodox community, to marry according to ‘genetic compatibility.’” This can be seen as an aspect of racial Zionism that dominates contemporary Israeli political culture.

Nevertheless, these eugenic practices, while important, miss a critical aspect of classical eugenics thinking mentioned above: that steps should be taken to prevent the deterioration of IQ in modern populations resulting from the relaxation of natural selection. See, for example, Helmuth Nyborg’sdiscussionof decline in the genetic potential for IQ in the Danish population where he notes that by 2072

the damage implies that even if fertile low-IQ non-Western immigrants are the ultimate winners in the third demographic transition [i.e., when low-IQ immigration is added to internal forces lowering Danish IQ], they will conquer a lesser country. Danish average IQ will, for example, then have approached 90, or perhaps even be close to the projected mean immigrant of IQ 86.

These internal dysgenic forces must be assumed to be acting on Jewish IQ as well, since natural selection has been relaxed in Jewish groups. Indeed, the only Jewish groups that are reproducing themselves are the Orthodox and the fundamentalists, and they are likely to be less intelligent than the secular Jews who have been so upwardly mobile and so prone to intermarriage in Western societies. According to the Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, the average IQ in Israel is an unexceptional 94.

As well, Glad does not mention attempting to use eugenic practices to build a more competitive race or ethnic group. As discussed above, Glad conceives Judaism as a non-ethnically defined but eugenically vigorous group.

These two aspects of traditional eugenics de-emphasized by Glad are critical in the long run. That is, racial groups would be well advised to engineer their own future in all of the ways recommended by the classical eugenicists like Stoddard. Failure to do so means that groups that fail to plan for their genetic future will lose out to those that do. The fact that Jewish activists have dominated the anti-eugenics movement in the West and that they tend to hold hostile views toward the traditional people and culture of the West suggest that their opposition to eugenics may also have another motive lurking in the background besides their hatred for anything associated with National Socialism: facilitating the genetic decline of the West as an outgroup. Jewish promotion of massive non-White immigration may also be similarly motivated, although the negative effects of non-White immigration extend far beyond a population decline in IQ (e.g., loss of political power of Whites, less willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, increase in social strife and political alienation).

National Socialism had a strong concern about securing and preserving the racial future of Germans. It is not surprising then that Jewish hostility toward National Socialism would also extend to hostility toward the ability of Germans (and by extension, other European peoples) to take charge of their own genetic future as championed by many in the classical eugenics movement. In the  end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.

My impression in reading Glad is that he definitely sees Jews as a superior group. As noted throughout this review, he quite happily states that Jews successfully promoted anti-biological views in the social sciences, mass immigration, the 1960s counterculture, and the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth. This would presumably be enough to get him labeled a “self-hating Jew” by the ADL which is always eager to deny that Jews have any influence at all.

Glad’s acknowledgment that Jews are influential is a natural corollary to his views that Jews are superior. Unfortunately, I do not think that he adequately deals with how Jewish influence has often been to the detriment of the interests of non-Jews, particularly non-Jews of European descent.

However, Glad is to be congratulated for his work in showing that Jewish activists were able to manufacture the “truth” that eugenics caused the Holocaust out of thin air. This should not be surprising. The same has happened with the left in general in establishing the currently regnant culture of critique. The leftist social scientists reviewed by Glad — Boas, Lewontin, Kamin, Rose, Gould — managed to create a great many “truths” in the area of IQ and genetics that still remain unquestioned in the prestigious media and throughout much of the academic world. It is therefore no surprise that Jewish activists were able to accomplish truth creation with the “eugenics caused the Holocaust” myth.

Needless to say, this ability to create “truth” out of thin air is a major component of Jewish power in the West today.

Zionism Moves Against the United Nations

As an addition to the article below, see this, this, this, this and this.

The United Nations (UN) has been shelved, sidelined, consigned to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dreamers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world hegemon.

Today’s imperialists—standard bearers for an ancient philosophy hostile to all forms of nationalism other than their own—now envision the United States as the driving force to implement the New
World Order of which they have dreamed for generations. The United States is their “New Jerusalem” and they intend to use America’s military might to achieve their aims.

For nearly 50 years, the major media in America told Americans—and people around the globe—that the UN was “the last best hope for mankind.” That theme was a ritualistic mantra in American public schools. Anyone who dared criticize the UN was marginalized— damned as an “extremist” hostile to humanity itself.

However, in the 1970s, things began to change. As Third World nations emerged from their colonial status, and as Israel’s oppression of the Christian and Muslim people of Palestinian-Arab heritage
became a topic of worldwide concern, the UN took on a new complexion— at least as far as the media monopoly in America was concerned.

Suddenly, the UN was no longer considered such a wonderful thing after all. Finally, when—in 1975—the UN passed its historic resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism, the wheel turned full circle. For issuing a direct challenge to Zionism, the foundation behind the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel (as well as a spiritual capital of an impending worldwide Zionist empire), the UN was painted by the media—much of it in the hands of Zionist families and financial interests—as an unquestioned villain.

Suddenly, criticism of the UN was quite “respectable.” And in the United States, an emerging so-called “neo-conservative” movement— led by a tightly-knit clique of Jewish ex-Trotskyite communists under the tutelage of one Irving Kristol and his acolyte, Norman Podhoretz, editor of the American Jewish Committee’s highly influential monthly journal, Commentary—made the burgeoning attack on the UN a centerpiece of its agenda.

However, it was not until the ascension to power in January, 2001 of President George W. Bush’s administration that the effort to “get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.” (or variants
thereof) became part of the actual policy-making framework in official Washington.

The appropriation of the American national security establishment by a host of neo-conservatives appointed to office by Bush—every single one of them, to a man, proteges of the aforementioned
Irving Kristol and his son, William Kristol, a powerful media commentator and behind-the-scenes policy maker in his own right—assured that the campaign against the UN would be central to Bush administration policy.

In addition, of course, the anti-UN rhetoric received increasingly even more widespread support throughout the American media. For example, writing in The New York Daily News, a journal published by Mortimer Zuckerman, the former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (the governing body of the American Zionist movement), one columnist, Andrea Peyser, referred to “the anti-American, anti- Semitic rats infesting the banks of the East River.”

Should anyone still doubt that the reason for opposition to the UN stemmed from the fact that the world body stood in the way of the demands of Israel, note the revealing commentary by
Cal Thomas, a long-time associate of Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the most vociferous advocates for Israel in America today.

In a Dec. 12, 2004 column for The Washington Times, Thomas endorsed long-time criticisms of the UN which he—by his own admission—previously considered the work of “the fringe.” Thomas said that “the world would be better off without this body.”

Noting that many Americans never felt the UN would be good for America, Thomas asserted that he always felt that those who said such things were to be ignored. Here’s what Thomas wrote:

In college days, I was aware of them. They were the fringe, and beyond, those who believed Dwight Eisenhower was a closet communist; the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations were part of the drive for “one world government”; Jewish bankers ran the world economy, and the United States should get out of the United Nations.

According to Thomas: “Without buying into the paranoia and conspiracy theories, I am now a convert to the last one.” Thomas’s assertion in this regard is a candid exposition of the Zionist
lobby’s attitude toward the UN, now that the world body has very clearly fallen out of the hands of the Zionist movement and is considered, in their view, “un-manageable” or “beyond repair,” so to
speak.

In fact, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the Zionists do indeed perceive the United States as the new mechanism by which they seek to accomplish their goals, pushing the
UN to the sidelines. The grand scheme for a New World Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial” role—was imparted quite directly in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 and Winter 2004 issues of The Journal of International Security Affairs, voice of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National Security Policy (JINSA).

Previously a little-known Washington think tank, JINSA is now often publicly acknowledged as the guiding force behind Bush foreign policy today. One JINSA critic, Professor Edward Herman,
has even gone so far as to describe JINSA as “a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

The author of the JINSA paper, Alexander H. Joffe, a pro- Israel academic, has been a regularly featured writer in JINSA’s journal, certainly reflecting the high regard in which his views are
held by the Zionist elite. His two-part series was entitled, The Empire That Dared Not Speak Its Name, propounding the theme that “America is an empire,” suggesting that, yes, this is a very
good thing.

The new global regime to be established would find America as “the center of a new international system” in “a world that looks like America, and is therefore safe for all.” However, what
America “looks like” is what the Zionists want it to look like—not necessarily what the American people perceive America to be.

Joffe stated flatly that: “The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’ resolution in 1975,” (which, incidentally, has
since been repealed). The JINSA author contended that the world should be “grateful” that the UN has been “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt.” As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, wrote Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation,
to begin again.” However, he warned that even the emerging European Union (EU) is a threat to the dream of a global empire (at least, obviously, in the view of the Zionist movement).

The JINSA writer asserted that the EU is an “alternative vision for the international community,” one that, as he put it frankly, is “the authentic counter-vision to an American Empire.” According to Joffe, the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring: fascism and communism.” (A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer doesn’t seem to see the logic in his attack on other peoples’ nationalism.)

Joffe complained that although “the new European Empire is multicultural in theory … in reality it is dominated politically and culturally by France and economically by Germany.” Today, in the
EU, he said, “Driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui, the door has been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted and even legitimized a vast explosion
of unhinged thought and action, namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspiracy theories.”

In any case, what Joffe described as “the other kind of liberal internationalism” is what the Zionist movement favors. Joffe defined it as such: Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic
international system.

In the second-part of his extended essay, published in the winter 2004 issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this further, expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like America.”

Yet, in spite of his rhetoric about “democracy,” Joffe frankly talked about the United States engaging in massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—presumably after the
United States has already made havoc in the Arab countries of the Middle East: The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for intervention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to say, it would probably require American economic control to go along with political and cultural control.

Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to), and whether America has the stomach. Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his likeminded schemers. Joffe wrote of a wide-ranging global agenda—
well beyond the African continent. In the end, however, Joffe let the cat out of the bag about the real intentions of those who are using United States military power as the mechanism for a bigger agenda.

“New arrangements,” he said, “must come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.” Joffe dreams of a
United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world government, writing: Possibly, after a period of chaos and anger,
which in any event would simply intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be bludgeoned into changing. [emphasis added]

Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might—someday, somehow—
be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only group, of free, democratic states,
sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced by one. That day, however, may be decades off.
Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, note Joffe’s concluding words:

The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. Setting the stage for
global governance can only be done with American leadership and American-led institutions of the
sort schematically outlined here.

What it all comes down to is the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda altogether. Here, in the pages of a Zionist journal, we have learned precisely what the “story behind the story” actually is. It has nothing to do, even with a “strong America” or, for that matter, even with America itself.

The United States is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. Further evidence that this is indeed the view of the Zionist movement comes from no less a source than Israel’s former ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold. In his 2004 book, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Gold outlined a scenario for a new global regime—under United States diktat—pushing aside the UN. He wrote: The United States and its Western allies won the Cold War but obviously no longer have the common goal of containing Soviet expansionism as the
glue holding together a coalition. Still, a coalition of allies could start with neutralizing the greatest
threat to international peace today: global terrorism, another threat that the UN has failed to counter
effectively … the issue of terrorism relates to a number of other concerns common to all of these nations: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of sensitive military technologies, terrorist financing and money laundering, and the incitement of ethnic hatred and violence in national media as well as in educational institutions. Their commitment to curtailing these threats would lead democracies around the world to join together and take action …

Such a democratic coalition would be far more representative of the national will of each country’s citizens than the UN currently is. Oddly, by going outside the UN, these countries would be
recommitting themselves to the principles of which the UN was originally founded. They would embrace the principles laid out in the UN Charter and insist that members of the coalition fully adhere—not just give lip service—to a basic code of international conduct … in short, while Gold and his Zionist allies see global government worthy of support, they do not see the UN as the means by which to achieve it. Gold elaborated further, describing a new mechanism for achieving a New World Order: Because the UN has lost the moral clarity of its founders, the United States and its allies must take the lead. The world will follow in time. If more than one hundred nations wanted to join the Community of Democracies, the democratic ideal must be powerful.

In fact, although it was not widely noticed at the time, a so called “Community of Democracies” was inaugurated by the Clinton administration’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in June, 2000. So the mechanism is already in place. Gold concluded that the United States and it allies might ultimately “reinvigorate the UN and make the organization’s system of collective security,”
but, he added, “That day is a long way off.” In the meantime, media voices for the Israeli lobby have promoted Gold’s concept of what might be described as a “parallel” UN under the domination of the United States and its purported allies.

For example, on February 6, 2005 writing in The Washington Times, Clifford D. May raised this question: “Is it not high time at least to consider alternatives to the United Nations, to explore
possibly developing new organizations in which democratic societies would work together against common enemies and for common goals?”

However, the evidence is indisputable that this is not just the Zionist propaganda line. This philosophy directed the thinking of the Bush administration. When President George Bush made his
call for a worldwide “democratic” revolution in his second inaugural address, he was doing little more than echoing the opinions of Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, an influential figure
who is considered more hard-line than even Israel’s ruling premier, Ariel Sharon. Not only did Bush publicly and warmly endorse Sharansky, but media reports revealed that Sharansky played a major part in helping draft Bush’s inaugural address.

This is particularly relevant in the context of Sharansky’s harsh words for the UN and what he has offered in his own work, The Case for Democracy, widely touted as “the bible” of Bush foreign policy. In the closing pages of his book, Sharansky summed it up: To protect and promote democracy around the world, I believe that a new international institution, one in which only those governments who give their people the right to be heard and counted, will themselves have a right to be heard and
counted can be an enormously important force for democratic change … This community of free
nations will not emerge on its own … I am convinced that a successful effort to expand freedom
around the world must be inspired and led by the United States.

So it is once again: the concept of the United States being the force for global realignment. And although there was worldwide criticism—even from so-called “democracies”—of Bush’s call for
worldwide democratic revolution based on the Sharansky model, the American Jewish newspaper, Forward, noted on January 28, 2005 that “one world leader endorsed Bush’s approach unreservedly”— former Israeli Prime Minister (and current finance minister) Benjamin Netanyahu.

Citing a speech the Israeli leader recently gave in Florida, Forward said Netanyahu proclaimed:
President Bush called for democratization and he’s on to something very profound. Can the Arab
world be democratized? Yes—slowly, painfully. And who can democratize it? As in everywhere else in the world, in all societies, whether it’s Latin America, the former Soviet Union, or South Africa, democracy was always achieved by outside pressure. And who delivered that pressure? One country: the U.S.

To say more would belabor this simple conclusion: Although, for years, the Zionists denounced American patriots for saying that it was time to “Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of
the U.S.,” now that the Zionists have lost control of the UN—which they originally perceived as their vehicle for establishing a New World Order—the Zionists are targeting the UN precisely because
they have determined that the military and financial resources of the United States are their best bet for establishing that New World Order of which they long dreamed. The Zionists want the United States to serve as the engine for assembling a world empire under their control.

In the end, this does tell us who “The High Priests of War” are and what their agenda really is. Remaining to be seen is what the American people—and all other real patriots around the
globe—intend to do about it. The question is this: will the world finally decide that it is time to declare war against The High Priests of War?

Learning About the Origins of "Homeland Security"

Did Zionist interests have a hand in the creation of Homeland Security?  (By Zionist, I mean Jewish or Gentile individuals who think the Talmudic Jews should have a homeland.)

Even if you don't want to admit that it's origins began with Zionists, (which is very debatable when you know how important Israel is to those in power, and, how important it is that they control the narrative on what is designated as terrorism,) you would have to admit that it is part of what Homeland Security is now.  Just look at this and this to see who is getting most of the funding from Homeland Security.

Now you might ask "So. Big deal. Aren't we against terrorists? " Well, before you can even make that judgment you should learn more about the group that is most likely to be terrorists, don't you think?
To learn more about this, see here, here, here, here, here and here.

As Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."  Who is that? Israel and Jews. See here, here, here, here, here and here.

Also, see how the US and Israel rewrote the history of the UN Resolution that declared Zionism as racism. Also, see this video from Miko Peled about how Zionism is like racism.... and has to go. See here and here for what the Canadian Prime Minister is supporting, which completely goes against the values of Canada. Why does he do this? Is it because he is a racist or ethnocentric? Probably not. It is much more likely that the Zionist lobby is so powerful in Canada that he doesn't have a choice.

(Please note: in some of the examples I provide, they refer to Canada rather than the United States because I am Canadian, but, the policies in both countries are pretty much identical. To learn more about this, click here and scroll to the very bottom of the page.) As an example of this, when Michael Chertoff was head of the DHS,  he made a deal with Israel disguised as the “Maryland/Israel Homeland Security Partnership,” (see here and here,) among other things, one of the goals of this was to target critics of Israel and Zionist political power.  See here, here, here, here and here to learn more about this. On March 23 2008, Canada and Israel signed a Declaration To Cooperate On Public Safety. This Declaration included collaboration with the US Department of Homeland Security now working with Canada concerning “security issues."

In an alarming ‘Gestapo-oriented’ Report by US Homeland Security issued on April 7, 2009, entitled, Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, Department of Homeland Security specifies a new ‘threat’ to America’s security, namely, whom the Department labels: “Anti-Semitic extremists.” The Report, prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division and coordinated with the FBI, was approved by Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, who was Michael Chertoff’s successor. Here is a video Napolitano at the ADL "National Leadership" Conference. See my previous posts here, here ,here and here about the ADL and its corrupting influence on Law Enforcement.

Napolitano, describing a “home-grown threat” to national security, issued a statement on April 20, 2009, defending the Report, saying: “We must protect the country from home-grown terrorism regardless of the ideology that motivates it. The DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in extremist activity.” View Entire Report Here.

The “ideology” that Napolitano is targeting, has been specified in two entries on page 4 of the Report. And that “ideology” is “Anti-Semitism,” This is a deceptive method to destroy freedom of speech and protect a certain group of people in America. Beyond this, please see here and here for the complete list of people they are beginning to look at as "potential threats" and "home-grown terrorists"

As for Homeland Security, let's take a look at when it was set up. It was set up after the September 11, 2001,  terror attacks. In 2002, as Chairman of what was then known as the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Joe Lieberman led the fight to create the new Department known as Homeland Security.  One month after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, he introduced legislation to reorganize the federal government to better protect the American people from terrorism and natural disasters and steered a bipartisan plan through his committee.

After months of opposing the plan, the White House eventually endorsed the concept. Legislation that passed Congress in 2002 created a department incorporating key organizational elements Senator Lieberman advocated. When control of the Senate switched from Republicans to Democrats in June 2001, Lieberman became Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, with oversight responsibilities for a broad range of government activities.

But this goes back even further. IN 1998, FOUR YEARS BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Center, the extremely influential Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) drafted their CFR Commission Report on National Security.

The CFR Commission Report was done in three phases. Phase III finalized the Report in January of 2001. The Report laid out the framework of the US Homeland Security program:

* Phase I, which began in 1998, stressed that mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern. Phase I concluded in September 1999 with the publication of New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century. (Were they modern-day prophets or orchestrator's of “terrorism directed against the US?”)

* Phase II developed a strategy that would deter and defend against terrorist attacks.

* Phase III, which concluded on January 31, 2001, recommended the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.

Phase III also recommended the reforming of government structures and processes to enable the U.S. government to implement an anti-terrorism strategy that would necessitate “departing from the embedded routines of the last half-century and thus require new legislation.”

The stated need for the U.S. “departing from the embedded routines of the last half-century” refers to the final elimination of Constitutional checks and balances and individual state sovereignty. Both federal and state legislators have abrogated their legislative duties to a dictatorial executive - the President and the US Executive Office.

IN THE FINAL HOURS before Congress adjourned in 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act Of 2006. In doing so, the Constitution was violated and the principle of habeas corpus which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment was thrown to the wind. This Military Commissions Act Of 2006 gives the President absolute power to designate “enemy combatants.” Section 6 of the Military Commissions Act strips those declared an “enemy combatant” of the right to be heard in court to establish his or her innocence as guarded by the Constitutional principle of habeas corpus. This Act violates Article I, Section 9, Of The US Constitution: — “The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

Presently, the suspending of habeas corpus will be applied to “non-citizens.” But once one class of people is deprived of their rights it’s only a matter of time before other groups are also deprived. Moreover, the Act’s “enemy combatant” designation applies to both Americans & foreigners. Thus by establishing Military Tribunals for “enemy combatants” - the Military Commissions Act puts the US Military in control of American citizens.

The truth of the matter is, it is highly unlikely that they are going to come and get you. What they are going to do to you is ruin your life by slandering you, hurting and maiming you, and, potentially even killing you, your family or your animals. All of this will be done using classified technology that allows this to be done in a plausibly deniable methodology. To learn more about this, see here and here. See here for information on Electronic Warfare.

Dennis Kucinich attempted ban on space-based weapons, read more: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977. 

This new class of weapons is being used on unaware, not informed humans, who of course did not consent to such experimentation. The Nuremberg Code of Conduct for experimentation with human subjects, is part of the Customary Law and the UDHR. The Code lists ten points, which universally have been adopted after the Nuremberg trials of war criminals by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals.

The secret technologies in question are covered by military/agency secrecy orders, mostly obtained under the US Inventions Secrecy Act, 1951. The US Patriot Act, for example, protects governments and connected criminals from criticism and/or detection and prosecution. Under this act anyone whistleblowing or fighting the system on a major concern is arbitrarily deemed to be unpatriotic. They can then be listed (by a senior politician or at the request, through them, of a connected criminal) as a security risk and harassed covertly; using secret technologies. In fact a Department Of Defense Directive, Directive 5240 1-R, 1994, gives open permission for those under surveillance to be used for remote experimentation. It's no coincidence that this particularly undemocratic and evil move was followed in 1996 by a significant increase in the number of satellites deployed for the purpose of civilian surveillance and harassment.

The victims are not openly confronted as that would remove any feigned excuses and leave the perpetrators open to all manner of accusation. Instead the methods used are covert; employing high tech methods to remotely torment and deceive victims without leaving evidence. Often targets are tricked into believing they are having psychic, medical, psychiatric, religious or even alien experiences (which they are not). 

The situation is getting worse not better with more and more secretive, undemocratic legislation being sneaked past the unwary public all the time. State treachery and terrorism are behind it yet it is all hidden under the guise of "the war on terror". For example, the US government just passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, giving the President (and others) the power to target and silence anyone questioning State corruption. When this is done openly in other countries the US is the first to condemn such evil. Yet when they are guilty of the same they do it in secret and no-one dares to criticise them, lest they join the ranks of those they persecute. 

Eg. In the USA over 300,000 NSL's (National Security Letters) have already been issued. These allow the agency targeting of innocent civilians whose objections to corruption / crime in high places have been deliberately skewed or misinterpreted as a threat to powerful people. Once placed in a program people can be abused and experimented on, from a distance (using satellites /radar, high tech' etc). This effectively silences and discredits them while providing agency researchers with guinea pigs for experiments in control, brain function, dreams, health, robotics and much more. Post 9/11, $750 billion per year has been spent on satellite weapons used for human experimentation / targeting. Most of this has found it's way from government coffers to about 80 defense contractors who are also culpable for the crimes against humanity that are addressed on this site.

There is a circular / Catch 22 type problem in that governments use "classified" covers to hide criminal activity (esp. if it is an unconstitutional act) but targets can't prove any of that BECAUSE it has been classified. Executive Order 13526 section 1.7 (covering classified status allocation) specifically says that **"You cannot classify information merely to cover up a crime"**. Even if devices or procedures are classified this also applies to them and information on them when they are being used for criminal purposes. So, in theory, by misusing devices, abusing authority and so on, the administration not only commits crimes but should open up the information relating to that for public scrutiny...(Government of, by and for the people). 

Now Presidents Obama and Bush both signed executive order 13526, so if any of these hidden crimes were to be presented to the US Supreme Court, any current US leader could be impeached as having breached their oath of office...which includes upholding the constitution.

The ECHELON spying system, remote neural monitoring, the use of directed energy weapons and more are all clearly crimes against the people and humanity in general and so by classifying the devices the government and it's leaders are breaching the constitution as well. As with any crime the break in the loop between the acts, investigation, trial and incarceration is the lack of proof. "Classifying" information and calling it a matter of National Security negates the need for the criminals involved to even create excuses for their conduct. The ability of government to classify crime is what must be fought.

Also, the US military is supposed to be prohibited by law from targeting US citizens with PSYOPS within US borders under Executive Order S-1233, DOD directive S-3321.1 and National Security Directive 130. Of course there's no-one to police that especially since Psyops, by their very nature, are difficult to prove.

This is particularly so where the secret weapons discussed on this blog are employed. Also nothing stops agencies, US or allied, from doing that dirty work and hiding it under the National Security carpet. Nonetheless, public discussion of these Psyops crimes is beginning. 

The International Commitee of the Red Cross (ICRC) raised the issue of psychotronic weapons; firstly in 1994, then the 2002 Geneva Forum and then the 2009 5th Symposium on non-lethal weapons. The EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT passed a "Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy" - A4-0005/99, January 28th, 1999 which called for "An international convention introducing a global ban on ALL development and deployment of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings"..."It is our conviction that this ban can not be implemented without the global pressure of the informed general public on governments. Our major objective is to get across to the general public the real threat which these weapons represent for human rights and democracy and to apply pressure on the governments and the parliaments around the world to enact legislation which would prohibit the use of these devices to both government AND private organisations as well as individuals". (Plenary sessions / European Parliament, 1999). ]