Now something I didn’t learn until later in life was that there was a reason that we used to enjoy McDonald’s then far more than me and my own children do now – in fact we rarely go there unless we absolutely have no other choice – is that McDonald’s famous signature fries used to fried in beef tallow not in seed oils.

The man who changed that was a jewish multi-millionaire named Phil Sokolof who decided – based on the famous ‘fat is bad’ nonsense claims that jews routinely promote – (1) went to war against everyone from the fast-food industry to the dairy industry over having ‘too much fat’ in their foods.

As Robert Davis puts it:

‘McDonald’s fries have been a part of the menu since the restaurant’s inception in 1948. The founders, Ray Kroc and the McDonald brothers, experimented with various cooking methods and ingredients to create the perfect fry. Initially, they used a combination of beef tallow and vegetable oil to cook their fries, but this changed in the 1990s when the company switched to a vegetable oil blend.’ (2)

Now the reason for this change – although McDonald’s has long denied it – (3) was Sokolof’s campaign of negative publicity and legal threats against them.

Since as the website ‘Eat Healthy 365’ puts it:

‘The most significant legal challenge McDonald’s faced in 1987 wasn’t a single lawsuit filed against them, but rather the beginning of a massive public pressure campaign and legal threat over the high cholesterol content of their food, specifically their french fries. This campaign was spearheaded by a self-made millionaire named Phil Sokolof, who, after a near-fatal heart attack, launched a crusade against cholesterol in fast food, directly targeting McDonald’s with full-page ads that looked like legal indictments.

This public battle, which started heating up in 1987 and culminated in the early 90s, fundamentally changed the fast-food landscape. It forced McDonald’s to abandon its signature beef tallow for cooking fries and ushered in a new era of consumer health consciousness.’ (4)

Indeed Sokolof’s obituary in the ‘Los Angeles Times’ in 2004 makes it quite clear that he credited himself (and that most people broadly agreed with his assessment) with having forced the change at McDonald’s – as well as Burger King, Dairy Queen and other chains – when they wrote:

‘Sokolof, who survived a near-fatal heart attack in 1966 at the age of 43 and took cholesterol-lowering drugs, sold his Phillips Manufacturing Co. in 1992 to devote all his time to his anti-cholesterol crusade, which he launched in 1985.

He generated national attention by buying full-page ads in newspapers around the country.

“McDonald’s, Your Hamburgers Have Too Much Fat!” one headline proclaimed. Another said: “We Can’t Continue to Deep-Fry Our Children’s Health.”

In 1995, he took out full-page ads attacking the dairy industry for labeling 2% milk “low fat.”

“Would You Let Your Child Eat 9 Strips of Bacon a Day?” the headline read. The ad depicted an overweight, smiling woman with a milk mustache and the boldfaced warning: DRINK SKIM MILK! DON’T DRINK 2% MILK!”

“The point of this campaign is to make the American public aware that 2% milk is not low-fat and it shouldn’t have that label,” Sokolof told The Times.

That campaign cost him $500,000 for ads in 40 newspapers, but his message had a residual effect: It spurred calls from major newspapers, “The Phil Donohue Show” and a live appearance on NBC’s “Today,” whose host, Bryant Gumbel, introduced the man from Omaha as “America’s No. 1 Cholesterol Fighter.”’ (5)

As well as:

‘After forming Heart Savers, Sokolof conducted the first citywide cholesterol tests in Grand Island, Neb. “We tested 8,500 people in five days and we turned people away,” he said. He later went to Capitol Hill and tested more than 10,000 congressional staff members and members of Congress.

Frustrated by not receiving answers to letters asking food manufacturers to remove highly saturated coconut oil and palm oil from their products, Sokolof launched the first in his first series of hard-to-ignore newspaper ads in 1988: “The Poisoning of America!”’ (6)

So basically, not only was Sokoloff a major figure in the war against healthy fats – of which beef tallow is a great source (7) and far superior to the seed oils that replaced it (which are extremely unhealthy) – (8) and as such may well have actually caused far more heart attacks than he ever prevented due to his blaming ‘fat’ for his 1966 heart attack – the more likely culprit is a combination of genetics, high stress, lack of exercise (Sokoloff likes to claim he was always an athlete but this is extremely doubtful) and a high salt diet – but he also ruined McDonald’s fries for future generations of children.

So in essence Sokoloff is the jew who stole the McDonald’s of your childhood and mine.

Subscribe now

References

(1) For example, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-jewish-war-on-paleo

(2) https://eatandgeek.com/what-are-mcdonalds-fries-cooked-in/

(3) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-apr-16-me-sokolof16-story.html

(4) https://eathealthy365.com/mcdonalds-1987-lawsuit-the-truth-about-the-fries/

(5) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-apr-16-me-sokolof16-story.html

(6) Idem.

(7) See for example: https://bronzecalf.com/why-paleo-and-keto-dieters-love-beef-tallow-plus-sustainable-cooks-too/ and https://www.cookingwithtallow.com/blog/beef-tallow-in-keto-and-paleo-diets-why-its-the-perfect-fat

(8) See for example: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/seed-oils-are-they-actually-toxic and https://scienceinsights.org/why-is-seed-oil-bad-what-research-actually-shows/

‘Or the boasting of the Nazi press last week, that “five million Jews have been exterminated, and there are 500,000 still to be taken care of Hungary.”’ (1)

Now for transparency this is the original article: (2)

This is the article in its original context to assuage the inevitable desperate claims that it is a ‘forgery’ and/or ‘made up’ to ‘make the jews look silly’: (3)

Now the problem with this claim is that there is no reference to the original German publication that made this statement so it could be checked and there is also no way for Fishbein to have known this information was correct. So Fishbein is simply repeating some nonsense that he heard and/or read elsewhere.

In truth there is no reference that I have ever seen - or heard of - to the Germans claiming to have ‘exterminated five million jews’ as a press announcement and/or in any other German periodical of the era. Had such an announcement actually been made then it would have been immediately presented as primary evidence at both the Nuremberg Trials and subsequently by ‘Holocaust’ historians but yet it never has!

It absolutely reeks of war propaganda rather than reality.

Ergo it is just yet another piece of ‘Remarkable Holocaust Nonsense’ that has been used to libel the German nation!

Subscribe now

References

(1) Jack Fishbein, ‘The Editor Views The News’, The Sentinel, 15^th June 1944, p. 5

(2) https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/wsmt4/nazis-forced-jew-to-drink-husbands.htm

(3) https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/cgs/1944/06/15/01/?e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7CtxTI--------------1

They write how:

‘A British venue that had deplatformed a Jewish comedian last year ostensibly over his views on Gaza has accepted that the move was discriminatory against him as a Jewish person, a British magazine reported on Monday.

Banshee Labyrinth accepted this during a hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday, the Chortle magazine on comedy reported. The hearing was on a lawsuit that the comedian, Philip Simon, filed against Banshee Labyrinth, according to the report. The venue did not reply by press time to a query by JNS on the subject.

Simon had been due to perform a solo show at the Banshee called “Shall I Compere Thee In A Funny Way,” as part of the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh, Scotland.

In a statement given during the festival in July 2025, the venue said Simon had expressed opinions on social media that “align with the rhetoric and symbology of groups associated with humanitarian violations.”

Simon said he’d been deplatformed for being Jewish.

“I have never expressed support for anything other than freeing the hostages and finding a way for peace,” Simon wrote on Facebook.

Judge Roderick Flinn said he would award damages at a later date, according to Chortle.’ (1)

Now you might say how would this would be a hoax if the ‘Banshee Labyrinth’ have ‘admitted it?’

The key is in the wording used by the JNS article which only states that the ‘Banshee Labyrinth’ has ‘accepted that the move was discriminatory’ not that it was an ‘anti-Semitic crime’. Since the reason they dropped Simon from their segment of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival was not because he was jewish but rather because ‘Simon had expressed opinions on social media that “align with the rhetoric and symbology of groups associated with humanitarian violations.”’

Put simply Simon was – in their estimation – a die-hard supporter of Israel and its crimes against the Palestinians (among others) with Simon then taking legal action against them for ‘cancelling him’ for being a Zionist leading to the ‘Banshee Labrinth’ taking the easy way out of dealing with accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ by jews in the law courts (which often attract jewish lawyers working pro bono for the complainant and jewish institutional involvement/funding): admit some kind of generalized bias, pay a small fine and get on with promoting your business.

In other words Simon being ‘cancelled’ by the ‘Banshee Labrinth’ has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘anti-Semitism’ and is thus not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ either.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.jns.org/news/world/british-venue-admits-discrimination-against-jewish-comedian; also see https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/edinburgh-fringe-venue-admits-discrimination-after-scrapping-jewish-comedians-show

They write how:

‘Newly unearthed records in a Munich archive cast doubt on Adolf Hitler’s whereabouts at the time of his niece’s suspicious 1931 death, according to news magazine Der Spiegel.

Hitler’s unusually close and controlling relationship with his niece, Geli Raubal, has long been the subject of speculation and rumor, and newspaper reports at the time suggested that Hitler may have played a role in her death.

Raubal died from a gunshot wound to the chest from a pistol belonging to Hitler, in what was officially determined to be a suicide.

According to the official account, Hitler’s personal servant, Georg Winter, discovered the 23-year-old Raubal’s body on the floor inside her locked room in Hitler’s apartment in Munich on September 19, 1931, a Saturday.

Hitler, who at the time was a prominent far-right extremist but had not yet seized power in Germany, was away in the city of Nuremberg that day, giving him what appeared to be a strong alibi.

But according to an article in Der Spiegel, historian Harald Sander recently discovered documents in archives in Munich casting doubt on that account — and raising questions about whether Nazi sympathizers in the police may have falsified records to protect Hitler.

Two death notices and an entry in an official local death registry all put the date of the discovery of Raubal’s body on September 18, a full day earlier, when Hitler was known to still have been in Munich.

Hitler’s relationship with Raubal, the daughter of his half-sister Angela Raubal, was the subject of intense speculation. Some contemporaries believed that Hitler had been abusive or had pursued a sexual relationship with his relative.

Hitler reportedly strictly controlled nearly every aspect of Raubal’s life after she moved to Munich in 1927.

She reportedly quarrelled intensely with Hitler just before her death after Hitler refused to allow her to move to Vienna.

Sandner tells the magazine that the discrepancy in the documents over the date of Raubal’s death may point towards a cover-up by the police, though there is no decisive proof.’ (1)

Now this is a typically vague presentation of what we know about Geli’s death and contains absolutely zero historical context or description of what we do actually know as well as why we know it.

The reason for the vagueness of the presentation is simply that the only way you can make Hitler responsible for the death - and/or the murderer - of Geli is by presenting a couple of commonly repeated facts – she was killed by Hitler’s gun and in Hitler’s apartment in Munich – as well as the commonly claimed (but lacking in credible supporting evidence) aspersion that Hitler had a ‘controlling jealous relationship’ with Geli. (2)

Now before we come to why the ‘Times of Israel’ is simply being dishonest here – which Harald Sander is being more careful about but tacitly endorsing sensationalism to promote his research (and we may presume his forthcoming book) – we should lay out the basic facts here.

These are:

A) Geli’s body was found with a gun shot wound to the chest from Hitler’s personal revolver by Hitler’s live-in servant/valet by Georg Winter in her locked room in Hitler’s apartment on Munich’s Prinzregentenplatz on 19^th September when Hitler was in Nuremberg having departed for his hotel room there on the afternoon/evening of 18^th September. (3)

B) Hitler had left his hotel in Nuremberg to begin his day of political and social appointments, meetings and speeches when news reached him of Geli’s death in Munich. (4)

C) Hitler immediately sped back to Munich from Nuremberg in his car and his driver was going so fast that he was (famous) issued a speeding ticket by the German police. (5)

D) Contrary to later claims by Hitler’s detractors; Geli’s nose was not broken and there were no signs of physical abuse or violence on her body other than the gun shot wound. (6)

E) Hitler was utterly distraught over Geli’s death and only recovered after visiting her grave in Vienna’s Central Cemetery on 26^th September two days after her funeral on 24^th September. (7)

F) Hitler turned Geli’s rooms in his Prinzregentenplatz apartment and Haus Wachenfeld – the original house Hitler owned in Berchtesgaden having rented it from local businessman Otto Winter’s widow from 1928 to 1933 when he bought it outright using his royalties from ‘Mein Kampf’ and which was the core around which the later Berghof was constructed – into personal shrines to Geli which endured to the end of the Second World War. (8)

G) Angela Raubal – Hitler’s half-sister and Geli’s mother (Geli’s real name was confusingly Angela Raubal as well) – later claimed to American interrogators in 1945 that Geli wanted to marry a violinist from Linz, but that she (her mother Angela) and Hitler had refused her permission to do so. (9) The later rumour that this was a ‘jewish artist whose child she was expecting’ – this is falsely repeated as true in the 2003 television miniseries ‘Hitler: The Rise of Evil’ - is almost certainly malicious gossip and not factual. (10)

H) Hitler had been in a sexual relationship with several women around this time notably Maria ‘Mimi’ Reiter from 1926 to around 1928-1930, (11) Eva Braun from 1929 to 1945 (12) and an assortment of other rumoured sexual liaisons such as with Jenny Haug (the daughter of one of his drivers), Henrietta Hoffmann (the daughter of Hitler’s photographer and friend Heinrich Hoffmann), Helene Hanfstaengl (which may be the origin of Ernst ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl’s later enmity to Hitler as Helene was his wife) and Winifred Wagner. (13) There is no evidence that Geli’s and Hitler’s relationship was sexual despite it being often claimed; (14) although we know from Geli’s voice coach Albert Vogel that Geli was obsessed with Hitler and wanted to marry him. (15)

The truth is that a lot of the salacious claims about Hitler and Geli come from later anti-Hitler sources during the Second World War (the jew Konrad Heiden, Hitler’s former friend Ernst ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl and Otto Strasser), but the original source for their claims is actually the SPD’s (16) main paper in Munich: the ‘Münchener Post’. (17)

The actual story of what occurred that night has in truth long been known. Since one of Hitler’s first post-war biographers John Toland delved deeply into Geli Raubal’s death and interviewed Hitler’s eight household staff at the time after the war.

It also explains why Hitler and the NSDAP had such an awkward time explaining Geli’s death to the public (the official NSDAP explanation that Geli was just ‘playing with Hitler’s gun’ is weak and not very plausible) (18) as well as why they covered up what happened, because had they not done so. It would have shone a light on Hitler’s carefully concealed private life which – if exposed – would not have shown him to have been the ‘sexual deviant’ or ‘homosexual’ often claimed by pop historians, but rather as a sexually virile and frequently sexually propositioned man. Who had multiple sexual affairs sometimes with more than one women at the same time and this would seriously impacted Hitler’s public image as the moral saviour of Germany since this would show him to have been – in the moral universe of the time in a still very Christian Germany – as a sexual cad.

In discussing Rosenbaum writes how:

‘Toland suggests that it was Geli’s jealousy of Hitler rather than his of her that led to her impulsive suicide. Toland interviewed many of the same members of the household staff as Detective Sauer did and found them more talkative long after the war than they had been in 1931. One of them told Toland a story about the reason for Geli’s distress when she’d run out of Hitler’s bedroom the final afternoon of her life: that she’d found in there a gushing note to Hitler from Eva Braun about an evening at the theatre she’d spent with him.’ (19)

This makes a lot of sense if you think about it, because we know Hitler had been in a sexual relationship with Eva Braun for two years at that point (having met in the autumn of 1929) while Geli – according to her voice coach Albert Vogel – was obsessed with Hitler and wanted to marry him. (20)

This then makes what happened to Geli between the evening of 18^th September and the morning of 19^th September easily explicable. Namely Geli committed suicide because of her desperate unrequited love for Hitler having accidentally discovered his sexual relationship with Eva Braun on the afternoon of 18^th September.

Kershaw’s suggestion that Geli’s suicide was likely unintentional and simply a ‘cri de coeur’ (‘cry of the heart’) gone horribly wrong – (21) which is also suggested by the fact that she was shot in the chest in her room the door of which had been locked from the inside – is to my mind almost certainly the truth of the matter and that Geli didn’t actually intend to commit suicide, but rather she intended to shoot herself – remember that Hitler’s former girlfriend Maria ‘Mimi’ Reiter had actually done the same thing sometime in 1927-1928 for the same reasons after Hitler had broken up with her (22) and which Eva Braun was to do twice with the first being in almost identical circumstances with her father’s pistol on 10^th or 11^th August 1932 (23) and the second in May 1935 when she took an overdose of sleeping pills (24) (both are believed to have cries for attention from Eva to Hitler similar to that Geli was likely engaging in and both succeeded much as Reiter’s similar suicidal gambit had several years earlier) – (25) in the chest missing any critical organs and be quickly found by Hitler’s household staff (which didn’t happen presumably because the shot wasn’t heard or was muffled for some reason) then be rushed to hospital forcing Hitler to quickly return from Nuremberg to her bedside, which is to where had travelled on the afternoon/evening of 18^th September so as to force him to ‘love her and only her’.

This in fact worked for Eva Braun in August 1932 as Geli’s accidental suicide a year earlier and the accompanying massive political scandal – massively enflamed by Hitler’s enemies on the political left in Munich and around Germany – (26) meant that Hitler had to hurriedly formally commit to Eva or risk another personal scandal, which he promptly did. (27)

Despite the fact that we have known for almost certain that Geli’s death was suicide (unintentional or otherwise) for nearly seventy years (since Toland published his biography based on primary research with Hitler’s household staff at the time); this hasn’t stopped various pop historians, the mainstream media and even the occasional Hitler biographer periodically claiming that ‘Hitler murdered Geli’ and/or ‘had sexual relationship with her’.

The supposed ‘revelations’ claimed by the ‘Times of Israel’ on the basis of the discovery of these three primary documents by Sandner is simply the latest attempt to try and make this specious (and frankly absurd) argument that doesn’t actually rely on primary evidence at all, but rather on innuendo, contemporary and/or later unsubstantiated gossip as well as on the general ignorance of what we know about what happened at Geli’s death.

The fact that three official documents list the date of Geli’s death as 18^th September 1931 not 19^th September 1931 is no argument whatsoever. Since we know Geli’s death occurred sometime after Hitler left for Nuremberg on 18^th September 1931 and her being discovered dead by Georg Winter on 19^th September 1931.

There is no exact certainty – then or now – as to whether Geli died on the evening of 18^th September 1931 or the morning 19^th September 1931, but we do know from Toland’s primary research that she was alive when Hitler left to go to Nuremberg in the afternoon/evening of 18^th September 1931.

It is also perfectly possible that was just a clerical error caused by the confusion as to whether she actually died on the 18th or 19th September, but not as to when she was found (19th September).

So, the claim that this means ‘Hitler could have killed her’ ‘because he was with her’ on 18^th September 1931 is nothing new – and has in fact long been claimed by jewish and pop historians – and while it is theoretically true and all of Hitler’s household staff could have lied at the time about it in 1931 and after the Second World War. The truth is that there is no evidence that they did (all their accounts agree about the sequence of events) and we also have no evidence that contradicts the conclusion of the Munich police force – who formally investigated Geli’s death twice under heavy left-wing and Catholic political pressure to find something to politically discredit Hitler with (it is often forgotten/deliberately ignored that the Munich police force were fighting their own political war against the NSDAP from 1919 to 1933 with later Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller starting his career trying to take down the NSDAP by getting enough solid evidence to get them banned as a political party) – (28) that Geli committed suicide sometime between the evening of 18^th September and the morning of 19^th September.

Thus, because of this uncertainty it is absolutely no surprise that different civil and police records have different death dates for Geli, because we simply don’t know on which day she actually died (although we do know exactly what date she was found), but – as we have seen – this was already a known issue and the primary evidence has already accounted for Hitler’s whereabouts when Geli died (in his hotel in Nuremberg or on the road to it with several dozen witnesses).

Ergo the ‘Times of Israel’ claim – as well as Sandner’s claim that it ‘changes’ what the evidence suggests – are simply self-serving red herrings not factual arguments or fair representations of the primary evidence that we have and nor am I the only one who has pointed this out. (29)

The only other loose end to tie up here is Angela Raubal’s – Geli’s mother and Hitler’s half-sister – post-war claim to American interrogators in 1945 that Geli ‘wanted to marry a violinist from Linz’, (30) which has often been invoked alongside the later myth that said individual was ‘jewish and had gotten Geli pregnant’. (31)

Now the key to understanding Raubal’s testimony on this point is that she is non-specific about when this occurred and – although we have every reason to trust Angela Raubal on this – it simply doesn’t fit any other primary evidence that we have concerning Hitler and Geli’s relationship. It would however make sense if Angela Raubal – who remember played relatively little role in Geli’s day-to-day life from 1928 onwards – (32) didn’t really know very much about Geli’s personal life in 1931 and just assumed that an old dalliance from Linz or her time in Vienna - who Rosenbaum styles the ‘spectral Viennese seducer’ (33) because we know next to nothing about him nor if he even actually existed – had come back into her life and caused her suicide.

Rather than being aware that at the heart of Geli’s suicide was the fact that she had fallen in love with Hitler and wanted to marry him, but Hitler didn’t return her feelings and was instead currently in a sexual relationship with Eva Braun (and had been since 1929).

Thus, we can see that despite the desperate attempts to make Adolf Hitler responsible for Geli Raubal’s death between the evening of 18^th September 1931 and the morning of 19^th September 1931; there is no case for Hitler to answer since we have known the answer for nearly seventy years.

That answer is that Geli Raubal (likely unintentionally) committed suicide in her room, because she’d just accidentally discovered Hitler’s relationship with Eva Braun on the afternoon of 18^th September 1931.

It is that simple.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/new-documents-reportedly-revive-suspicions-over-hitlers-role-in-nieces-death/

(2) This claim is almost entirely based on the claims of Otto Strasser (who wasn’t in a position to know and is a notoriously inaccurate source on Hitler), Ernst ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl (who was in a position to know, but again is notoriously inaccurate source on Hitler and was known to be such as early as 1940/1941) and Hitler’s anti-Nazi jewish wartime biographer Konrad Heiden in his 1944 ‘Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power’ (who likely heard the rumours and was simply repeating them without adding in other pertinent information like Hitler’s successful legal case against the left-wing ‘Münchener Post’ for making these claims).

(3) Ian Kershaw, 1998, ‘Hitler’, Vol. 1, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 354

(4) Idem.

(5) Idem.

(6) Ibid., p. 353

(7) Ibid., p. 354

(8) Ibid., p. 355

(9) Ibid., p. 353

(10) Idem.

(11) Ibid., p. 352

(12) Idem.

(13) Idem.

(14) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-adolf-hitler-and-geli

(15) Ron Rosenbaum, 1998, ‘Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of his Evil’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: London, p. 127

(16) The Socialist Party of Germany and the most important political party of the Weimar Republic along with the Catholic Centre Party (aka ‘Zentrum’).

(17) Kershaw, Op. Cit., pp. 353-354; Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 107-109

(18) Kershaw, Op. Cit., p.354

(19) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., p. 127

(20) Idem.

(21) Kershaw, Op. Cit., p. 354

(22) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., p. 209

(23) Heike Gortemaker, 2011, ‘Eva Braun: Life with Hitler’, 1^st Edition, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, pp. 48-51

(24) Angela Lambert, 2006, ‘The Lost Life of Eva Braun’, 1^st Edition, St. Martin’s Press: New York, p. 142

(25) Idem.; Gortemaker, Op. Cit., p. 51

(26) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 107-109

(27) Gortemaker, Op. Cit., p. 51

(28) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 107-108

(29) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/23/hitler-may-have-murdered-niece-evidence-suggests/

(30) Kershaw, Op. Cit., p. 353

(31) Idem.

(32) Rosenbaum, Op. Cit., p. 126

(33) Ibid., p. 119

To wit:

‘After almost two weeks in custody, the Petah Tikva Magistrate’s Court on Sunday ordered the release of the young woman suspected of impersonating a man and forming relationships with women, placing her under house arrest for 10 days.

Police have attributed allegations of rape and indecent acts to her, and the State Attorney’s Office is expected to soon file a serious indictment against her.

During the hearing, the suspect asked the court to release her and revealed that she had previously served as a police officer for two years.

“I have no criminal record. I was a police officer for two years. Everything I did was because I was in a low place in my life,” she said. “I want to go home. I do not intend to obstruct the investigation, I was a police officer and I know how things work.”

Following the hearing, the court ordered her release to 10 days of house arrest after she had spent roughly two weeks in custody.

According to police suspicions, the complainants’ consent to the alleged acts was obtained through deception, as they believed the person with whom they were in a relationship was a man. Police suspect that, as part of those relationships, the suspect caused some of the women to perform sexual acts on themselves.

The investigation began on July 26, after several women in their 20s arrived at a police station and provided testimony. Each woman described a similar pattern to investigators: a relationship that began online with someone who introduced himself as “Orel Hazan.”

According to police, the person behind the profile and male identity throughout the period was the same young woman.

Investigators believe the suspicions do not center on a single incident or a short period of time. Police are examining the possibility that the alleged pattern continued for years and are working to determine whether additional women had relationships with someone who presented himself as “Orel Hazan” and were harmed in a similar manner.

So far, police have collected testimony from five women. One complainant told investigators: “For months we were in a romantic relationship, until I discovered that it was a woman.”

Her attorney, Erez Bar Zvi, said after the hearing: “I am glad that with the agreement of the police, my client was released under conditions. We are confident that once the facts become clear, the case will be closed with nothing.”’ (1)

Now this is very similar to the case of Hen Alkobi in 2003 who more or less did the same thing as ‘Orel Hazan’ has now been charged with doing, (2) while more recently Rabbi Yosef Paryzer did something similar as well. Albeit with Paryzer’s case; he didn’t pretend he was a woman but rather pretended he was a secular jew when he was in fact a locally prominent (and married) ultra-Orthodox jewish rabbi who head a yeshiva in Jerusalem. (3)

These sorts of rape cases are quite common in Israel as we can see and showcases both the ‘genderfluid’ and ‘genderbending’ nature of Judaism in general (4) in addition to the fact that Judaism has relatively little problem with homosexuality per se. (5)

It just goes to show the sexually degenerate nature of jews as well as Judaism if I am completely honest.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/crime-in-israel/article-906374

(2) On the case of Hen Alkobi please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/hen-alkobi-jewish-transgender-rapist

(3) On the case of Rabbi Yosef Paryzer please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/rabbi-yosef-paryzer-jewish-love-rat

(4) For example, see: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/; https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2015/the-6-genders-of-the-talmud

(5) Louis Jacobs, 1995, ‘The Jewish Religion: A Companion’, 1^st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 252

In other words when one is assigned the tag of ‘moderate’ then it is a positive valuation since ‘moderate’ means that you are willing to work with - and promote ideological positions that are either less harmful to or in sync with those of - the system. Therefore when one is assigned the tag of ‘extremist’ then it is a negative valuation since ‘extremist’ means that they are not willing to work with - and promote ideological positions that are either harmful or out of sync with those of – the system.

Thus we can see that ‘extremist’ is simply a propagandistic synonym for ‘enemy of the system’ while ‘moderate’ translates to ‘friend of the system’.

What in general makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ in the eyes of the system is that they are unwilling to bend their ideology – be it religious, political, social and/or economic – to the ideological requirements of the system and are thus enemies of the system, because they stand in opposition to the norms and forms that it wishes to establish. Therefore what makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ is uncompromising belief in their ideology that supersedes any loyalty they have to the system and therefore places them outside the system.

They are the opposite to those with ‘slave morality’ that Nietzsche so deplored in that they are prepared to fight for what they believe in and they will not back down from a fight with the system if one is required. This is part of why ‘extremists’ tend to perform the best out of any group and while ‘extremist’ ideologies can lead to ideologically-based missteps – like Islamic State provoking the United States into a fight in Iraq and Syria based on their belief that it would trigger Allah to send them angelic reinforcements – if an ‘extremist’ ideology is based on reason and science (for example National Socialism) rather than metaphysical speculation and established ritual (for example Wahhabi Islam). Then it will not likely make such mistakes, but instead stand tall, strong and true as a revolt against the modern world.

Those who want to ‘compromise’ ideologically are the sort of people who believe – seemingly seriously – that if you are ‘nice’ to homosexuals and jews as a National Socialist then you are going to get somewhere, because they’ll be ‘fooled’ into voting for you because you are ‘not so bad’. The problem is once you start doing this then your ‘LARPing’ turns out to be serious and all of a sudden your nationalist party has become a civic nationalist group promoting gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

In other words: you have become a ‘moderate’ and reinforce the myth of political choice that the system has created as a defence mechanism to keep the average citizen fat, happy and believing they are masters of their own destiny.

The other problem is that by not being ‘extremists’ then you cede the recruiting pool of young radicals – i.e. future activist cadre – to other groups who are willing to occupy that ground.

A good example of this is the French convert to ‘radical Islam’ Michaël Chiolo who was behind the 2019 violent revolt at the Conde-sur-Sarthe high security prison. What you may not have picked up even if you saw the news concerning this event was that prior to converting to Islam and becoming an Islamic activist and proto-leader; Chiolo flirted with the French Nationalist scene (presumably that around Le Front National that has now become part of the system) and found it far too milquetoast for him without the answers he sought. So he looked into radical Islam and found his answers. Nationalism lost a potential activist and leader while Islam gained one and all because Chiolo realized that many so-called ‘nationalists’ do not truly believe in their ideals let alone act on them.

Another example is the case of US Airforce Intelligence Officer Monica Witt who became disenchanted with US foreign policy towards Iran – and rightly so – and started to look for other answers and she found them like Chiolo in Islam. She then began working as a mole for Iranian intelligence and has since fled there and taken up a new life. Yet if nationalism offered her answers she would not have converted to Islam and begun working for Iran if only nationalism was extreme enough.

That is a pathetic state of affairs: isn’t it?

Without extremism nationalism is nothing and without nationalism there is no future for the peoples of Europe.

That is why extremism is necessary and is to be applauded not deplored.

Therefore – to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels - the most extreme nationalist is today only just extreme enough.

Subscribe now

This is because cheese has been made from goat’s and sheep’s milk in the eastern Mediterranean since the bronze age and the Canaanites – from whom the Israelites probably derive according to most secular historians anyway – were among the first people known to transport such cheeses abroad as a tradeable commodity. As such then it is possible that the Canaanites were the first to invent what we’d today call feta cheese because one way to store and preserve such a cheese is by doing so in seawater (aka brine) – the distinctive element to feta - and as such it is reasonable to suppose that the Canaanites may have been doing this in the bronze age.

The problem however is that although the Israelites probably derive from the Canaanites; they are not the same in this context since King David ruled around 1,000 B.C. and although the so-called ‘Davidic Empire’ is almost certainly a later myth. David himself appears to have been a real historical person. (3) This then places the Israelites as having separated from the Canaanites and other neighboring tribes before this time and thus means that we’d have to have direct evidence of the Israelite production of feta before say 1,000 to 1,100 B.C. to potentially credit it as a ‘jewish invention’ rather than just as a Canaanite invention (aka the modern Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians broadly speaking).

As it happens however we have no direct evidence of the Canaanites trading in cheeses preserved in brine – (4) which would be something akin to feta – although Kindstedt considers it extremely likely that they were trading in such cheeses to Mesopotamia in the bronze age based on other evidence. (5)

This is educated conjecture on Kindstedt’s part although I would agree with his analysis that it is very likely to have been true. It however doesn’t impact what we can directly evidence which is that we know that the ancient Greeks were creating cheese from the milk of goats and sheep in the eighth century B.C. as well transporting them over long distances on ships which we know through Homer’s constant references to them in the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’. This per force suggests that such cheeses were known much earlier and given that the Trojan War tells the story of a Mycenean attack on a Hittite client state on the coast of Anatolia (6) circa 1,200 B.C. and Kindstedt believes the Hittites likely had something akin to feta at the time (7) while his colleagues Antifantakis and Moatsou believe that Homer was indeed referencing something akin to feta as well. (8)

We can therefore suggest that both the Hittites and Mycenaeans probably had some kind of feta-like cheese that they stored and preserved in brine, which would then suggest that the origin likely wasn’t in Canaan at all but among the Hittites and/or the Myceneans since their references to such cheese date back far earlier than any direct evidence in Canaan does and we also know of significant Hittite and Mycenaean interaction with the Canaanites (including but not limited to the partial settlement of Canaan by them).

Thus, we can see that despite jewish claims: there is no evidence whatsoever that feta cheese was a ‘jewish invention’.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://x.com/hippyygoat/status/2096849690796941438

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_cheeses

(3) On this please see Steven McKenzie, 2000, ‘King David: A Biography’, 1^st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 9-24

(4) Paul Kindstedt, 2012, ‘Cheese and Culture: A History of Cheese and its Place in Western Civilization’, 1^st Edition, Chelsea Green: White River Junction, p. 49

(5) Ibid., pp. 49-51

(6) On this please see Trevor Bryce, 2005, ‘The Kingdom of the Hittites’, 2^nd Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 357-371

(7) Kindstedt, Op. Cit., pp. 50-51

(8) Emmanuel Antifantakis, Golfo Moatsou, 2006, ‘Feta and Other Balkan Cheeses’, p. 43 in Adnan Tamime (Ed.), 2006, ‘Brined Cheeses’, 1st Edition, Blackwell: Oxford

WPLN reported on 17^th August 2026 that:

‘When the Catholic Biblical Association reached out this year to see if Amy-Jill Levine would be interested in serving as its president, she wrote someone else on the nominating committee to ask: is this a joke? Because Levine is not Catholic. She’s Jewish.

While not a Christian, the Vanderbilt professor emerita is one of the world’s premier Jesus scholars who has been preaching and teaching in Christian churches in Nashville and around the globe for most of her career – all in a lifelong effort to rewire the parts of Christianity that can lead to antisemitism.

“It’s so common for people to make Judaism look toxic to make Jesus look good,” Levine says. “The work that I do is not only to try to stop Christians from engaging in forms of Jew hatred, it’s also trying to help Jews stop engaging in forms of Christian hatred. Nobody is intending to be hateful, but the words are coming out nonetheless. And the correction here is education.”

What started on the school bus as an attempt to prove another student wrong (she had accused Levine of killing Jesus) has blossomed into decades of scholarship intended for people who sit in church pews on Sundays. Levine has written an exhaustive list of books with names like “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus.” Even in her retirement, she remains as busy as ever writing, reviewing manuscripts and speaking to Christian gatherings large and small.

And yes, she accepted the nomination to serve as president of the Catholic Biblical Association. It became official July 20.’ (1)

We can see that WPLN here have done quite a good job of explaining why Catholics – and Christians in general – would react so viscerally to Levine’s appointment. The point wasn’t actually that she was jewish – although this was seen as a problem people could somewhat live with that – but rather it was what Levine’s views were and what ‘lifelong mission’ was.

Namely – as WPLN put it – ‘a lifelong effort to rewire the parts of Christianity that can lead to antisemitism’. (2)

The Catholic website ‘Info Vaticana’ provides more extensive commentary about what precisely Levine is overtly trying to push as future Catholic orthodoxy – even though she insists that she isn’t doing this – (3) which is even demonstrated in Levine’s ‘origins story’ concerning her study of the New Testament: she wanted to neutralize Catholic anti-Semitism once and for all. (4)

‘Info Vaticana’ summarizes the first of Levine’s positions as follows:

‘Levine has previously advocated for reconsidering the full proclamation of the Passion according to Saint John on Good Friday and has held positions on the contemporary application of certain biblical texts related to homosexuality that differ in some respects from Catholic moral teaching. She now intends to collaborate with U.S. bishops on biblical guidelines for preaching and catechesis, as well as to strengthen resources for clergy and religious educators.’ (5)

As well as:

‘One of Levine’s positions most relevant to her new role concerns the Passion according to Saint John, whose proclamation forms part of the Catholic liturgy on Good Friday.

In a 2023 interview with The Christian Century, the biblical scholar addressed the treatment of “the Jews” in the Fourth Gospel and argued that some of its passages may encourage hostile interpretations toward the Jewish people. When asked about possible solutions, she advocated modifying the Good Friday lectionary.

Her proposal does not involve removing the Gospel of Saint John from the lectionary. Levine specifically suggests reconsidering the full reading of the Johannine Passion during the Good Friday celebration and turning to other possibilities, such as the seven last words of Christ taken from the four Gospels.

The Catholic Church expressly rejects any collective imputation of Christ’s death to the Jewish people. Nostra aetate teaches that what happened during the Passion “cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” The Roman liturgy, however, retains the proclamation of John 18:1–19:42 on Good Friday.’ (6)

Now for those who don’t know the ‘Passion according to St. John’ is easily the most anti-jewish version of the Passion narrative and is where many of the most famous statements attributed to Jesus regarding the jews come from, while it is also read in full every Good Friday in every Catholic Church across the world.

Levine’s entire focus here is on neutralizing one of the principal sources of ‘Catholic anti-Semitism’ and taking it as far out of the Catholic canon and liturgy as she possibly can. That the Catholic bishops in the United States are heeding her words says much about their (lack of) Catholic orthodoxy and their kowtowing to the jews (because of jewish power and influence) in a way that would make their predecessors sick.

Levine doesn’t stop there however as she is also pushing the acceptance of homosexuality within the Catholic Church – something that it has had a problem with both in recent decades (7) and also historically – (8) since:

‘Levine has also publicly developed her interpretation of biblical passages concerning homosexual relations.

In an essay published in 2022 by Outreach, she analyzed various passages from Genesis, Leviticus, the letters of Saint Paul, and Jude. Her approach does not consist simply in denying that there are biblical texts opposed to certain sexual relations between persons of the same sex. In some cases she acknowledges that such an interpretation may correspond to the historical meaning of the passage.

The difference appears when determining how those texts should be applied today. Levine maintains that establishing what a passage meant in its original context does not necessarily resolve its contemporary moral application.

“Since we do not live in the early Iron Age or the first-century Roman Empire,” she wrote, it is necessary to judge whether what was considered appropriate then continues to be so today.

The biblical scholar also considers that other elements besides the historical reconstruction of the text should be taken into account in interpreting these issues, including scientific knowledge and the experience of the persons concerned.

In the same essay she rejected as insufficient, when applied to this debate, the formula “love the sinner but hate the sin” and maintained that persons who believe they have discovered their own sexual or gender identity may feel liberated from the restrictions that certain members of the Churches seek to impose on them.’ (9)

This is a pretty clear attempt to change Catholic orthodoxy using the excuse of ‘modern scholarship’ – what she actually means is shoehorning modern values into religious orthodoxy rather than disinterested modern scholarship – and exactly what Pope Pius X was concerned about in his 1907 encyclical ‘Pascendi Dominici Gregis’ which railed against ‘modernists’ – of which Levine is openly an adherent to – and their attempts to reinterpret Catholic doctrines and scripture through the lens of modernity rather than through classic Christian exegesis. (10)

It is also what devoutly Catholic writers of the mid-twentieth century – such as Vicomte Leon de Poncins (11) and the Catholic prelate(s) we know only under the nom-de-plume ‘Maurice Pinay’ – (12) foresaw as the future destruction of Catholicism by an alliance of jews and Freemasons by Vatican II.

Predictably however the jews responded to this honest criticism by Catholics by shrieking about their ‘anti-Semitism’ with Hannah Feuer and Mira Fox in the ‘Jewish Daily Forward’ on 1^st September 2026 that:

‘When Amy-Jill Levine was elected president of the Catholic Biblical Association earlier this month, she faced vicious backlash.

Those who opposed her election couldn’t exactly point to a lack of qualifications. Levine has written dozens of books on the New Testament, taught a New Testament course at the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, served on the editorial board of Catholic Biblical Quarterly and spoken privately with Pope Francis three times.

Instead, her critics fixated on one trait they apparently consider disqualifying: She’s Jewish.

“Your Zionist ass doesn’t belong in our religion. Keep yourself to the Talmud and keep eating babies. STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY,” someone wrote in an email to Levine, which she shared with the Forward.

Levine’s Facebook page was bombarded with so much hate that she asked her daughter to moderate the comments. Online critics called Levine “anti-Christian,” denounced her as “Zionist,” and attacked her efforts to push back against antisemitic interpretations of the Bible.

On its face, a Jew at the helm of a professional association devoted to the study of Christian scripture might seem odd. After all, the Catholic Bible Association, unlike some other academic associations for the study of scripture, promotes study of the Bible “within a context of faith,” and most of the association’s presidents in its 90-year history have been priests. Levine attends an Orthodox Jewish synagogue.

Some more even-keeled critics of Levine’s presidency focused on this argument. “At some point, we have to ask: what is the word ‘Catholic’ actually doing?” Mark Lambert, co-host of the podcast Catholic Unscripted, posted to X.

Levine, meanwhile, argues that the Catholic Biblical Association is a professional society, not a church. People of all faiths are eligible for membership, as long as they hold an advanced degree in biblical studies.

“An academic society, like a hospital, museum or university, is not the same thing as being a member of the clergy,” Levine wrote in an email to the Forward.

In fact, while Levine is the first Jewish president of the Catholic Biblical Association, she is not the first non-Catholic. Several Protestants have served in the role, according to chair of the executive board Gregory Sterling.

Levine was nominated by a committee and then ran unopposed for the presidency, Sterling said. It is an unpaid, one-year position.

“She was not elected because she is Jewish, but because she is an exceptional scholar and has played a very important role in Catholic-Jewish dialogue,” Sterling and the association’s executive director, Archie Wright, wrote in a joint statement. “The vitriol of some of the comments only reinforces the need to address the problem of Anti-Semitism.”

Several Catholic clergy also wrote letters of support for Levine amid the pushback.

Levine, for her part, said she has “no interest in undermining the Church.” The 70-year-old grew up in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, in a predominantly Portuguese Roman Catholic neighborhood, where she would occasionally go to Mass with her friends.

She preferred Mass to synagogue because “there were snacks, except you got the snacks in the church during the service, and you got the snacks in synagogue after the service,” she joked in an August interview on Nashville Public Radio.

Levine recalled that when she was 7 years old, a classmate told her she had killed Jesus — an accusation the elementary schooler had picked up from her priest. Levine, confused, went to her mother, who assured her that “God was doing just fine.”

That incident inspired Levine to attend Catholic catechism classes as a child, in addition to Hebrew School.

She went on to get a PhD in religion from Duke University and teach at Vanderbilt University as a professor of both the New Testament and Jewish Studies. Much of her scholarly work revolves around the Jewish context of Jesus and dispelling what she sees as antisemitic misinterpretations of the Bible.

“We do not need to make Judaism look bad in order to make Jesus look good,” Levine posted on Facebook after she was elected.’ (13)

Now we can see how in their article Feuer and Fox engage in the usual jewish chicanery in regard to their perceived enemies in that they don’t actually engage with Levine’s critics or their criticisms, cite her ‘authority in the Catholic church’ (exactly what her critics are concerned about) and then began shrieking that anyone who criticizes her is ‘anti-Semitic’.

The truth is simply that Levine has made it clear that she wishes to subvert the Catholic Church into what amounts to a huge international ‘Judeo-Christian’ Bible Belt church complete with pro-homosexual views rather than the historic and intellectual edifice that it currently still is and historically has been.

As such then the critics of Amy-Jill Levine’s appointment to the presidency of the Catholic Biblical Association are right in that she’s not just ‘innocent scholarly appointment’ but rather an attempt by jewish and pro-jewish forces within – and without – the Catholic church to finally subvert it and turn it into a pro-jewish propaganda machine and cash cow in the same way they’ve successfully infected mainstream American Protestantism with the same virus.

The conclusion is simple.

Never ever trust a jew.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://wpln.org/post/episodes/jewish-jesus-scholar-amy-jill-levine-and-her-lifelong-quest-to-end-anti-semitism/

(2) Idem.

(3) https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/08/21/a-jewish-biblical-scholar-who-questions-the-full-reading-of-the-passion-of-st-john-will-preside-over-the-catholic-biblical-association/

(4) https://wpln.org/post/episodes/jewish-jesus-scholar-amy-jill-levine-and-her-lifelong-quest-to-end-anti-semitism/

(5) https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/08/21/a-jewish-biblical-scholar-who-questions-the-full-reading-of-the-passion-of-st-john-will-preside-over-the-catholic-biblical-association/

(6) Idem.

(7) On this please see Fr. Enrique Rueda, 1982, ‘The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy’, 1^st Edition, Devin Adair: Old Greenwich

(8) On this please see: Saint Peter Damian, Pierre Payer (Ed. And Trans.), 1982, ‘Book of Gomorrah: An Eleventh Century Treatise against Clerical Homosexual Practices’, Wilfred Laurier University Press: Waterloo

(9) https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/08/21/a-jewish-biblical-scholar-who-questions-the-full-reading-of-the-passion-of-st-john-will-preside-over-the-catholic-biblical-association/

(10) https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

(11) Leon de Poncins, 1999, [1967], ‘Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion’, 1^st Edition, Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale and Leon de Poncins, n.d., [1968], ‘Freemasonry and the Vatican: A Struggle for Recognition’, 1st Edition, A&B Publishers: New York

(12) Maurice Pinay, 2000, [1967], ‘The Plot against the Church’, 1^st Edition, Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale

(13) https://forward.com/news/847928/catholic-biblical-association-amy-jill-levine-jewish/

‘Most horrifyingly of all is the story just released from Moscow, reporting on the sadism displayed by the German and Rumanian troops, telling of a woman, who was forced, under threat of violence to her children, to gulp blood drained from her father. When the woman had drunk the blood from a cup, the Nazis tortured her to death after killing her children before her eyes.’ (1)

Now for transparency this is the original article: (2)

This is the article in its original context to assuage the inevitable desperate claims that it is a ‘forgery’ and/or ‘made up’ to ‘make the jews look silly’: (3)

Now this claim is both completely non-specific (note the woman has no name nor are why told where this happened or how Moscow’s propagandists [likely reported via the Soviet news agency TASS] ‘knew what happened’ given that the woman was subsequently ‘tortured to death’) and also implausible (why would the Germans and Romanians randomly do this?) so is almost certainly bogus.

It absolutely reeks of war propaganda rather than reality.

Ergo it is just yet another piece of ‘Remarkable Holocaust Nonsense’ that has been used to libel the German nation!

Subscribe now

References

(1) Jack Fishbein, ‘The Editor Views The News’, The Sentinel, 15^th June 1944, p. 5

(2) https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/wsmt4/nazis-forced-jew-to-drink-husbands.htm

(3) https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/cgs/1944/06/15/01/?e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7CtxTI--------------1

‘Surfside police say a couple visiting South Florida from New York was the target of an antisemitic attack on Harding Avenue.

“He charges at me, and he starts to hit me,” said the man named Abraham. He and his wife, Sophia, asked that their last name not be disclosed.

She recorded part of the encounter on her cellphone.

“He was just saying so much hate... with such hatred,” Sophia said.

The couple arrived from New York on Sunday and had just left a restaurant when they saw a man on a scooter start a confrontation. It escalated when he hurled hateful remarks about Israel and Palestine.

The man is seen throwing a punch that hits Abraham’s head. Sophia says it appeared he wanted to strike her, too.

“He came after me, but then an older gentleman happened to be passing by screaming at him in Spanish, saying ‘stop it already,’” she said.

Police arrested 35-year-old Jorden Perozo on charges of battery and harassment on Wednesday. They say detectives tracked him down to his place of employment: the Flanigan’s restaurant on Harding Avenue near where the incident happened.

“We want to tell you here in Surfside we’re not going to tolerate any of that,” said Interim Surfside Police Chief Jay Matelis. “You do any of that stuff, you’re going to jail.”

Court records indicate it’s not Perozo’s first encounter with law enforcement.

In June, he was arrested for allegedly slashing a giant, inflatable FIFA soccer ball that was on display for the World Cup in Miami Beach.’ (1)

Now it is pretty obvious from the last two sentences of Bojorquez’s article that Perozo was not the sanest of individuals and seems to have been something of a trouble starter which per force suggests that Perozo is not likely to actually be ‘motivated by anti-Semitism’, but rather just a troubled and/or aggressive individual who is indeed of either prison or psychiatric intervention or quite possibly both.

Naturally the ‘Combat Antisemitism Movement’ decided to omit this crucial detail in their coverage of this alleged ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ when they write how:

‘A man punched a Jewish visitor from New York in the head and spewed hateful remarks tied to Israel and the Middle East conflict at him and his wife during a confrontation in Surfside, Florida, on August 16, police said.

The couple, identified only as Abraham and Sophia, had just left a restaurant when the man approached on an electric scooter and the encounter escalated, police said. Video shows the man swinging and striking Abraham.

“He charges at me, and he starts to hit me,” Abraham recalled.

Sophia recorded part of the episode on her cellphone. She said the man then moved toward her, appearing to intend to strike her as well, until an older passerby shouted at him in Spanish to stop. “He was just saying so much hate… with such hatred,” she said.

Police arrested 35-year-old Jorden Perozo on charges of battery and harassment Wednesday. Detectives tracked him to his job at Flanigan’s, a restaurant on Harding Avenue near the site of the assault.

“We want to tell you here in Surfside we’re not going to tolerate any of that,” Interim Surfside Police Chief Jay Matelis said. “You do any of that stuff, you’re going to jail.”’ (2)

The reason for this deliberate – and dare I say malicious and manipulative – removal of necessary context regarding Perozo is that because the moment you realize that Perozo was doing this exact sort of thing before, but at the recent 2026 World Cup - that was also held in the United States with games being hosted in Miami to boot – with no ‘anti-Semitic’ overtones whatsoever. It indicates that the reason – despite Perozo’s alleged ‘abusive language’ – for Perozo’s confrontation with the couple is either an escalated situation – and again remember we have no evidence for what caused this incident in the first place and the jewish couple’s claims to have done ‘nothing’ are frankly unlikely albeit possible – or mental illness not ‘anti-Semitism’.

Ergo this is almost certainly not an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ at all but rather a normal street crime that should be dealt with as such not imagined into some sort of ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’ as the ‘Combat Antisemitism Movement’ would have us believed!

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/surfside-antisemitic-attack-new-york-couple/

(2) https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/jewish-visitor-from-new-york-punched-in-antisemitic-attack-in-surfside-florida/

Now immediately we were treated to a flurry of coverage from both the mainstream media and the alternative media, which probably accounts for a lot of the confusion.

However, as the day wore on it became increasingly clear both that this event was being described by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel hasbara accounts as ‘Israel’s 9/11’ – and so was being used as a fig leaf for his government’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza as well as increasingly the West Bank – (1) as well as that the claimed narrative didn’t make a whole lot of sense.

What I propose to do here is firstly to very simply lay out what the facts currently are before commenting on them in detail:

A) It was initially claimed that the pilot was a Russian and the co-pilot Ukrainian as well as that the Ukrainian co-pilot had stabbed the Russian pilot. (2)

B) This then changed to the pilot being Emirati and the co-pilot being Omani with the Omani co-pilot having stabbed the Emirati pilot. (3)

C) This then changed again to the pilot being Indian and the co-pilot being Omani with the Omani co-pilot having stabbed the Indian pilot, Smit Machchhar. (4)

D) We are told that the Omani co-pilot stabbed the Indian pilot and then said pilot put the passenger jet into a rapid near freefall descent plunging 17,400 feet in less than sixty to a hundred and twenty seconds (depending what account you read) with an Israeli plumber named Yaniv Hayoun ‘saving the day’ by storming the cockpit and then jerking the control stick up and arresting the freefall descent. (5)

E) Yaniv Hayoun had no pilot or flying experience but claims he ‘knew what to do’ because he binge watches the TV series ‘Air Crash Investigation’. (6)

F) Then two experienced pilots – who had happened be deadheading – stepped in and took the controls from Hayoun and steered the plane to safety at a nearby Saudi airport of Tabuk. (7)

G) Israeli defense minister Israel Katz referred to it as an ‘attempted jihadist attack’. (8)

H) Netanyahu and other figures in the Israeli administration immediately began claiming or heavily implying this incident was the responsibility of Iran. (9)

Now point A, B and C are reasonably explicable by the initial confusion that surrounds any incident like this – as indeed occurred on 9/11 when it was initially claimed that one of the flights that hit the twin tours was the British Airways flight from Boston Logan to Heathrow – and don’t impact the credibility of the narrative as such. Although they are worthy of note just in case they become relevant at a future date.

However, points D and E are where the pro-Israel mainstream narrative falls apart largely because it is extremely unclear what occurred beyond the Omani co-pilot allegedly stabbed the Indian pilot. Since it is claimed that the passengers only became aware of this due to the ‘rapid decrease in altitude’ of the aircraft as the ‘Jerusalem Post’ states:

‘An Israeli passenger who helped respond to the incident told the Post that passengers seated near the front rushed toward the cockpit after the attack began and the aircraft started losing altitude.’ (10)

The problem with this narrative is simply that this has the Israeli passengers (notably Hayoun) storming the cockpit via a locked armoured door primarily controlled from the cockpit (which remember all cockpit doors are post-9/11) in under 120 seconds during the plane rapidly losing 17,400 feet in altitude with Hayoun seizing the controls and averting its rapid descent. (11)

It was quickly pointed out on Twitter/X by people who know far more about aviation than I ever will; the scale of the forces involved as well as the fact that the plane would have been nigh unwalkable during such rapid descent/near freefall event.

As the passenger Adam Polo put it:

‘“The electricity, all of the multimedia system and the air conditioning in the airplane stopped working. People that were standing in the aisle or just going to the toilet, they fell, anyone that wasn’t sitting fell. So it was like the craziest roller coaster that you ever did, but multiplied by a thousand.’ (12)

Polo’s description of what occurred jives both with the commentary of others knowledgeable about aviation as well as my own experience of having travelled extensively in the air over the course of my life. Since as any seasoned air traveler knows when you hit significant turbulence (Polo is describing this but far worse) the plane heavily shakes, things dislodge, personal items as well as food and drink on trays and laps go(es) everywhere. This can be even worse when the plane suddenly drops in altitude – as happened to this author over China – due to hitting a turbulence pocket and everything goes everywhere plus people have a tendency to be injured due to their head on the fuselage or the seat in front of them let alone what happens to people standing up in the aisles.

What I am getting at here is that the extant pro-Israel mainstream narrative makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, because it has the passengers and crew in the aisles storming the armoured cockpit door during a time when the plane was in rapid descent/near freefall and they wouldn’t have realistically been able to stand easily.

This is supported by passenger video footage of the event, which shows a pristine first class/business cabin with none of the detritus that such a rapid descent/near freefall event would likely cause and passengers walking about normally without any difficulty whatsoever (when they should be heavily bracing and struggling to stand).

For example, in First Class/Business Class: (13)

And in Coach/Economy Class: (14)

This doesn’t make any sense given that rapid descents in passenger planes cause heavy turbulence and a lot of stress on the airframe as well as the interior fixtures of any aircraft due to the forces involved.

This is shown by some of the images of what occurred in a similar rapid descent that impacted Singapore Airlines’ Flight SQ321 in May 2024: (15)

As well as:

In addition to:

And finally:

The passenger video of the ‘FlyDubai’ flight shows no such interior damage nor any detritus from the passengers (think water bottles, wrappers, cups, phones, cushions, books etc.) in the aisles or the visible floors.

All we can see are immaculate passenger areas and that the in-flight entertainment systems have failed (as confirmed by the passengers later), but the emergency passenger air supply masks have oddly – it is explicable but again it is just odd given the rapid descent of the aeroplane – not deployed.

So frankly as it stands the passenger video of the event doesn’t support the pro-Israel mainstream narrative since it fails to show the results of a rapid descent/near freefall event in an aeroplane.

Further the narrative around Yaniv Hayoun makes even less sense, because he is… well… a plumber and was sitting in an aisle seat in coach/economy class (so farther back in the plane), which we know from this video still: (16)

So somehow, we are supposed to believe that Hayoun was the ‘first to react’ and the cabin crew as well as the first class/business class passengers were not. Then he got inside the cockpit through the armoured door and then took control of the plane and ‘saved the day’ because he loves to watch the TV series ‘Air Crash Investigation’. (17)

It just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever let alone explain how Hayoun got from coach/economy class to the cockpit during a rapid descent, helped subdue the Omani co-pilot and took control of the plane in near freefall in under 120 seconds.

As far as I can see – and it is an opinion I’ve seen widely expressed by many others with knowledge of aviation as well as those without – this is completely impossible and appears to be simple mythmaking.

If I might be permitted to express a educated guess; I think the problem with points D and E is that the timeline is the wrong way around in order to promote Hayoun as the ‘rescuer’ of the flight and thus create a good opportunity for Hasbara as well as good election propaganda for Netanyahu during the forthcoming Israeli elections – which he has been lagging in the polls in – (18) on 27^th October 2026 since Netanyahu’s focus is Israel’s security and a 9/11 style terror attack of this type would be exactly the kind of boost that he needs to get himself re-election in October. (19)

What would make sense of what we see in the passenger videos is if the Omani co-pilot stabbed the Indian pilot, but this didn’t in itself cause the aeroplane into the rapid descent/freefall dive as the pro-Israel mainstream narrative is claiming. This in turn would allow the cabin crew and first class/business class passengers (who would have likely heard something loud and very odd going on inside the cockpit from the outside) to have time to become alerted to the situation and to been able to intervene without flying/bouncing up and down the aisles (likely breaking bones etc.).

Getting through the armoured cockpit door from the outside is possible for the cabin crew since as one aircraft technician named Fahad Naim explained on Twitter/X:

‘People keep asking who opened the fly dubai FZ1073 cockpit door. The captain did. From inside.

On this A320 the door is controlled from the flight deck. Toggle sits on the center pedestal. UNLOCK, NORM, LOCK. Either pilot can run it.

Normal state is locked. Cabin crew hit the keypad outside, buzzer goes off in the cockpit, pilot pulls UNLOCK and holds it until the door is pushed open. That is routine access. Like a doorbell with a lock on the other side.

Emergency code is the second path. Airline sets it. If the crew does nothing, the door unlocks after a delay. That delay is adjustable, anywhere from 15 to 120 seconds, then it stays unlocked for a few seconds. Built so cabin crew can get in if both pilots are out.

If the crew does not like what they see, they select LOCK. Keypad, buzzer, and emergency access get inhibited for a preset time, 5 to 20 minutes depending on the airline.

Third way is From inside, the mechanical latch opens it. No code, no switch. Just the handle.

It is not “same on every jet.” Boeing and the regionals use the same idea, different hardware.

so you cannot just kick it in. Cockpit still decides, unless both pilots are gone and nobody has selected LOCK.’ (20)

Naim’s point here is that the cabin crew – but not the passengers – would have been able to get into the armoured cockpit using the emergency code and since both the pilot and co-pilot were… shall we say… a bit busy. This would then account for how access to the cockpit was gained from the cabin, but we can also see that – because it requires codes to be entered quickly – this would be almost impossible for the cabin crew to do in under 120 seconds in a rapid descent scenario in addition to having at least one passenger (Hayoun) make his way up to the cockpit from coach/economy class and take control of the aeroplane then ‘save the day’.

It is worth pointing out that Naim is also extremely skeptical about Hayoun’s role of ‘plumber saviour’ in the pro-Israel mainstream narrative. (21)

Now if go back to our alternative narrative a moment; this means that we have a knife fight in the cockpit between the Omani co-pilot, the stabbed Indian pilot and the cabin crew/passengers who had arrived to intervene in what was going on.

At this point with everyone busy it would make sense of why Hayoun – who was one of the passengers who’d gone to the cockpit – suddenly ‘took control’, because he either didn’t understand the autopilot was on (it usually is) or the plane was declining in altitude.

So, while everyone else was busy and the two deadheading pilots were not in the cockpit yet and/or busy with the stabbed Indian pilot and the knife-wielding Omani co-pilot; Hayoun seizes his ‘moment to be a hero’ and takes control of the aeroplane. Only to do exactly the wrong thing and send the plane into a rapid descent and near freefall dive, which immediately caused him to be thrown aside by one or both of the deadheading pilots. Who then took control of the situation (as they are trained to do), sent the distress/mayday calls out and managed with a bit of luck, good European engineering (experts familiar with aeronautics online have been surprised that the aeroplane managed not to disintegrate and/or have the airframe fail given the forces likely involved) and a good dollop of experience and skill to get the plane back under control again.

Yet we hear nothing about the two pilots – one of whom at least was British and both were very likely non-jewish (hence why we hear so little about them) – (22) apart from this suggestive statement in the British newspaper the ‘Daily Mirror’ which states (much more plausibly) that it was the unnamed British deadheading pilot not Hayoun who pulled the aircraft out of its near-fatal dive:

‘The remark was said as a relief pilot helped to land the Israel-bound jet after one pilot stabbed the other in the cockpit and allegedly tried to crash the plane. The hero, identified as a British national by fellow passengers, raced to the front of the FlyDubai Boeing 737 Max as the attacker was pinned to the ground.

He is said to have pulled the plane out of a nose-dive and stabilised it before landing it at Tabuk Airport in Saudi Arabia. Passengers said the fight broke out at the front of the plane just 90 minutes into the 1,300-mile flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv.’ (23)

Now doesn’t this make a lot more sense than an Israeli plumber who had just watched a lot of ‘Air Crash Investigation’ ‘just knew what to do’?

It does, rather: doesn’t it?

This then takes care of points D, E and F, which leaves us with points G and H which concern the Omani co-pilot and his (alleged) intentions.

Now regarding these two points it is worth remembering that we currently have no idea whatsoever what the Omani pilot’s motivation was nor what he was trying to do. Anyone trying to tell you that ‘they know that’ he was an ‘Iranian agent’, a ‘jihadist’ and anything of that ilk is simply being dishonest and trying to get you to believe something which fits their ideological and/or political agenda.

Other far more likely possibilities include pilot murder-suicide (remember Germanwings Flight 9525 in May 2015) which is a known and very real problem among pilots (24) who sometimes use their planes as the medium to do so. (25)

Another possibility is raised by the odd fact that the co-pilot was Omani and Omani pilots are not allowed to fly to Israel under the terms of the current civil aviation agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates – which ‘FlyDubai’s’ services to Israel operates under – which works as follows according to ‘FirstPost’:

‘There’s also a second question that is being asked: How was an Omani national a co-pilot on the plane to Tel Aviv? This is because flydubai, according to a Jerusalem Post report, has an agreement that states that all of its pilots must be from countries that have normalised relations with Israel, which does not include Oman.

Miri Regev, the Israeli government’s transportation minister, has called for the country’s civil aviation authority to investigate whether the United Arab Emirates has breached its aviation agreement with Israel, the Times of Israel reported. “This is a clear breach of the agreement,” a source within Israel’s transportation ministry told the Jerusalem Post — saying that Israel’s security agency “must look into this.”’ (26)

Ergo the Omani co-pilot should not have been the co-pilot in the first place, which suggests that either ‘FlyDubai’ screwed up with their scheduling in a bad way – which is perfectly possible and based on the above what Miri Regev seems to think happened – or he deliberately wrangled himself onto said flight.

We don’t have any evidence of the latter at present – which could go towards either a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘pilot murder-suicide’ motive not just the former as Hasbara types will inevitably claim – so we should charitably assume the former, but what we can say with confidence is whatever the Omani co-pilot’s motive for his actions.

The Hasbara narrative in the mainstream media that ‘Yaniv Hayoun the Israeli plumber saved the day’ and ‘piloted the plane out of its dive and thus disaster’ is almost completely and utterly false and that the real heroes of ‘FlyDubai Flight FZ1073’ were the two (presumably non-jewish) deadheading pilots who intervened to save the flight from crashing into the ground and have had their valor stolen by Benjamin Netanyahu and ‘Yaniv Hayoun the Israeli plumber’.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/40547015/pilot-israel-extremist-probe/; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/1cf705102d9b147d?msockid=0bd05bbb705e65ab279f4c33715a6444; https://www.timesnownews.com/world/middle-east/flydubai-flight-israel-9-11-style-terror-attack-smit-machchhar-omani-co-pilot-stabbed-captain-article-156256405

(2) https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/09/30/flydubai-pilots-israel-russia-ukraine/

(3) https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/2105285016011891149

(4) https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/30/world/live-news/dubai-israel-plane-flydubai-intl

(5) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flydubai-pilot-flight-plane-attack-37722436

(6) Idem.; https://www.news9live.com/world/flydubai-hero-passenger-yaniv-hayoun-tells-netanyahu-how-tv-show-helped-him-regain-flight-control-3012170

(7) https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-910217

(8) Idem.

(9) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/bibi-aide-links-flydubai-incident-to-iran-calls-for-israels-security-doctrine-to-go-up-a-level/videoshow/134597622.cms

(10) https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-910217

(11) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flydubai-pilot-flight-plane-attack-37722436

(12) https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/30/world/live-news/dubai-israel-plane-flydubai-intl

(13) https://x .com/ArutzSheva_En/status/2105309851811299697

(14) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiA0FrNliMM&t=65s

(15) https://news.sky.com/story/singapore-airlines-turbulence-images-show-damage-inside-plane-after-one-killed-13140773

(16) https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/flydubai-flight-israel-saudi-arabia-09-30?msockid=0bd05bbb705e65ab279f4c33715a6444

(17) https://www.news9live.com/world/flydubai-hero-passenger-yaniv-hayoun-tells-netanyahu-how-tv-show-helped-him-regain-flight-control-3012170; https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flydubai-pilot-flight-plane-attack-37722436

(18) https://www.jpost.com/israel-election-2026/article-909918

(19) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/netanyahu-falls-back-on-classic-security-playbook-as-election-approaches/

(20) https://x.com/Fahadnaimb/status/2105521165406204340

(21) https://x.com/Fahadnaimb/status/2105554109348954249

(22) https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16173301/British-hero-Flydubai-hijack-jet-jihadist-pilot-stabbed-fellow-crewman-tried-crash-plane.html; https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flydubai-flight-passenger-israel-attack-37720404

(23) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/flydubai-flight-passenger-israel-attack-37720404

(24) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pilots-suicide-selfharm-study-germanwings-harvard-a7475046.html

(25) https://www.airlineratings.com/articles/800-lives-lost-pilot-suicide-now-second-most-common-cause-of-air-crashes

(26) https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/flydubai-hijack-scare-omani-pilot-unanswered-questions-security-concerns-knife-attack-14049624.html

Now I have my doubts that it is Schaktman in the video, but I’ll come on to why I think this is so later. However, by way of beginning, I quote the ‘Hindustan Times’’ coverage of the incident, which states that:

‘Peter Schaktman, a rabbi from Utica in New York State, was arrested, along with seven others, in an undercover sting operation against adults seeking to engage in sexual acts on children.

According to New York State Police, Rabbi Peter Schaktman, 66, was talking to an undercover agent posing as a 14-year-old girl. The arrests took place in a New York State Police operation on August 27 and August 28. All eight suspects, including the rabbi, allegedly tried to engage in sexual contact with a girl under the age of 15.

CNY Central reported on August 31 that one of those arrested was Rabbi Schaktman. The 66-year-old was associated with Temple Emanu-El synagogue in Utica. Since his arrest, Peter Schaktman has been suspended by the Temple Emanu-El.’ (1)

This is somewhat contradicted by the JTA article on Schaktman’s arrest, which states:

‘Peter Schaktman, a rabbi at Temple Emanu-El in Utica, New York, was among eight people arrested for second-degree attempted rape in a police sting. Schaktman, 66, was allegedly caught trying to meet with someone he thought was a 14-year-old boy for sex, multiple outlets reported. Temple Emanu-El has suspended Schaktman and is conducting its own internal review, according to the synagogue. Schaktman has pleaded not guilty.’ (2)

So, the difference between the two accounts is that according to the ‘Hindustan Times’ Schaktman was trying to meet up with a 14-year-old girl, while according to JTA it was a 14-year-old boy. The question of whether it was an underage boy or girl is somewhat academic, but worth highlighting as although there is no doubt that Schaktman tried to have sex with a 14-year-old we have conflicting accounts as to whether he is heterosexual or homosexual.

Either could be true.

Schaktman was caught up in a New York State Police operation against child molesters not dissimilar to NBC’s famous ‘To Catch a Predator’ series, which also netted another rabbi in the form of David Kaye. (3)

As Syracuse’s local media outlet WSYR-TV commented by way of context that:

‘Law enforcement arrested eight men, including a Central New York rabbi, in a two-day child exploitation sting last month.

Between Aug. 27 and Aug. 28, troopers with the New York State Police’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force conducted a two-day online child exploitation sting in Onondaga County, state police said in a statement. Troopers were assisted by the FBI, the Syracuse Special Investigations Unit, the North Syracuse State Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations.

The men are accused of trying to meet up with children whom they thought were under 15. They were actually police officers. All of the men were charged with second-degree attempted rape, a class E felony.’ (4)

Now the other bit of contextual information – and also why I think Schaktman might not be the jew in the video that is claimed to be him – is that Temple Emanu-El is a Reform congregation and Schaktman a Reform rabbi, (5) while the jew in the video presented as Schaktman is wearing ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic dress complete with sidelocks and a long beard.

Schaktman’s booking in photo looks like this: (6)

While the jew in the video claimed to be Schaktman looks like this: (7)

They are clearly not the same jew, but both were arrested for trying to meet children under the age of 15 for sex apparently on the same day which is why they likely got conflated in people’s minds.

When I have the details of the second jewish child molester; he will naturally get his own article.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-rabbi-peter-schaktman-and-why-was-he-arrested-inside-shocking-undercover-operation-for-child-predators-101788452093427.html

(2) https://www.jta.org/2026/09/02/ny/upstate-rabbi-arrested-in-police-sting

(3) On Rabbi David Kaye please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/rabbi-david-kaye-jewish-child-molester

(4) https://www.localsyr.com/news/local-news/cny-rabbi-among-eight-arrested-in-two-day-child-exploitation-sting/

(5) https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/local-rabbi-will-assist-hamilton-chaplaincy

(6) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/rabbi-seven-others-charged-with-attempted-rape-in-ny-child-sex-sting-police-say/ar-AA2bmK04

(7) https://x .com/yeoakx/status/2095263678706643352

I won’t comment on whether or not the Pusher is real or not here as it is not important for my thesis. What is important is that a lot of bodies have been found in the Canal Street area of Manchester, which is part of the geographic hub for the local sodomite population and has led to hysteria within the Manchester’s degenerate community about the Pusher targeting sodomites. (4)

Given that it is quite possible that the Pusher is simply a fantasy despite the fact that quite of a few of his alleged victims have been active sodomites and that strong likelihood that many of the sodomite ‘victims’ went down to the canal-side tow paths looking to purchase drugs and/or sexual services. Then either got mugged then thrown - or were so drunk that they stumbled - into the canal. (5)

The impact has been significant since the local sodomite population actively believes that they are being ‘targeted’ by ‘hateful people’ who oppose their so-called ‘human rights’ and have taken steps to avoid the issue accordingly by taking taxis home, only leaving nightclubs in groups and never going down to the canal-side tow paths after dark. (6)

This is what Gustav le Bon pithily termed the ‘madness of crowds’ in so far as a conjecture based upon one statistic has transformed itself into a rumour that has in turned into an urban legend. The urban legend then feeds on and perpetuates itself by the process of autosuggestion.

Then on the basis of this urban legend sodomites have become fearful and modified their behaviour. If the Pusher is indeed real then they would have engaged in one of the most effective anti-sodomite activism in last two decades.

That isn’t to suggest that people should go around pushing sodomites into canals, but rather that in causing sodomites to alter their behaviour and playing on their fears, the Pusher has done something that Omar Mateen spectacularly failed to do at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida when he shot it up. Mateen going full snackbar produced only sympathy for the sodomites and enabled the media to cast the sodomites as blameless victims of a psychopathic Islamist zealot who was immediately claimed as a ‘repressed homosexual’.

Mateen’s actions didn’t work because they created martyrs and didn’t expose the goings-on inside the sodomite community nor play on their own sense of fear. What the idea of the Pusher has done is to present no clearly identifiable victims, exposed some of the degeneracy of the local sodomite community (i.e., drug addiction and sexual intercourse in a public place) to public scrutiny and played on the fears of the sodomites. This has been caused a change in sodomite behaviour in response, which Mateen’s violent actions in Orlando failed to achieve.

This is the power of the belief and autosuggestion. The more people who die from falling into Manchester’s canals. The more ‘victims’ the Pusher has and the more the local sodomite community will fear him and take increasingly drastic action to ‘avoid being a victim’.

The idea of the Pusher is in essence doing with the suggestion that violence could potentially occur what David Copeland failed to do with nail bombs. That is why actual violence against sodomites is not viable or a desirable strategy during our struggle, because it merely creates martyrs and engenders sympathy. The suggestion that something could occur to you is – like any good ghost story – much more powerful, because it has no victims, no identifiable perpetrator and commits no crime. It plays on your mind. It makes you jump at shadows and forces behaviour changes as you – in essence – psych yourself out and act like a neurotic wreck as a direct result.

That is why in the modern age there is no need to take physical action against sodomites during the struggle for power. You merely have to spread rumours and theories that there are murderous psychopaths out there targeting sodomites and the rest is done by wildfire rumour within the sodomite community itself, because they are genuinely terrified about what would happen to them in a world without the police at their beck and call.

To spread such ideas is simple enough.

You merely need to act the ‘concerned citizen’ and publicize any crimes that can be argued to have been actively targeting sodomites such as – for example – the so-called Smiley-faced Killer stalking the United States. Maybe this group of – likely fictional – serial killers are targeting homosexual men and women and perhaps this should be publicized.

After all don’t the ‘gay community’ have a right to know about killers in their midst?

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCA0IRT8rU (0 Minutes 50 Seconds)

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5tGzEyW_bs (0 Minutes 40 Seconds) ; https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-45173888

(3) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-45173888

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI (3 Minutes 20 Seconds to 5 Minutes 20 Seconds) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI

(5) See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hCA0IRT8rU and(6) https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=63FCE9bfwiI (3 Minutes 20 Seconds to 5 Minutes 20 Seconds)

Huckabee provides no detail to flesh out this claim and to be perfectly honest I’ve not found any real basis for his claim other than the fact that Israel – like most developed nations today – does produce its own facial recognition technology.

The truth is that facial recognition was first invented in the United States in 1966 by Woodrow Wilson ‘Woody’ Bledsoe with Charles Bisson and Helen Chan Wolf. (3) Neither Bledsoe or Bisson are jewish in any way, shape or form as far as I can see, while Chan Wolf is East Asian (probably of Chinese extraction).

The next major development occurred with the work of Japanese computer scientist Takeo Kanade who produced the first functional fully automated facial recognition technology in 1973, (4) while in 1991 Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland introduced the ‘Eigenfaces’ approach at MIT which further revolutionized facial recognition technology. (5) Neither Turk nor Pentland have any jewish ancestry that I can find.

The truth then is that facial recognition is most certainly not a ‘jewish invention’ whatsoever!

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://x.com/TheSaviour/status/2072215331045564440

(2) https://x.com/pfmerino/status/2092679804210589896

(3) https://arxiv.org/html/2505.24247v1; https://techhistorylab.com/history-of-facial-recognition/

(4) https://arxiv.org/html/2505.24247v1

(5) https://techhistorylab.com/history-of-facial-recognition/

In this instance he uses the classic (and moronic) jewish gambit of:

‘If the Zionists and Jews truly control the media, then why does it always look so bad for Israel? Cheesh. Wake up and smell the camel dung being hurled at you!!!

You can’t have it both ways. Either the media is controlled by Jews and Zionists and the news looks good, or else proof that that is a lie is in the bad news.’

This argument is an example of a straw man fallacy where Marc has projected a view that no anti-Semite that I am aware of holds. In that you have suggested that jews and Zionists are the same thing. Jews and Zionists maybe the same in your preferred worldview, but they are in reality not the same thing. Jews do not have to be for Israel and nor is the media particularly anti-Israel.

You see jews don’t necessarily support Israel, because as there are these jews who are called ‘self-hating jews’ - often with the further amusing allegation that they are ‘anti-Semitic’ - by Zionist jews. Therefore your argument founders, because you by your own logic cannot equate the media being run by Zionists to the media being run by jews. After all since when in being jewish - i.e., being born as such - did one have to support Israel?

It is also important to point out that the media is not actually ‘anti-Israel’. I know organisations such as ‘Honest Reporting’ and ‘MEMRI’ exist to try and prove such contentions, but the mainstream media in Europe and the United States is only opposed to Israel’s treatment of its own ethnic/racial minorities not Israel itself. The fact remains that these media outlets don’t question the right for jews to live in Palestine/Israel, the right for Israel to exist as a state and nor do they question Israel’s right to be a jewish state. What they do question however is Israel’s right to terrorise and discriminate against a subject population in the light of their own general profession to believe in either a nineteenth or late twentieth century liberalism.

Now morally and ethically as a National Socialist I have no problem with either the Israeli or Arab (i.e., the Palestinians and their racial kin across the Middle East) response, but from a western liberal point of view Israel’s actions are going to be seen as reprehensible. What jews would of course argue is that Israel receives ‘undue focus’ in the media and this arguably true: it does. However, this isn’t because the press is ‘biased against Israel’ and/or is ‘anti-Semitic’, but rather this is because Israel has over the years drawn attention to itself by its consistent grand-standing and declarations that its creation and the legitimacy of its actions were justified by the so-called ‘Holocaust’. You see these actions on the part of Israel - as well as by the Arabs own campaigning (highlighted to some extent in the anti-Zionist propaganda of the Soviet Union) - have drawn attention to Israel’s relations with the Palestinians and its use of terror, torture and military force to continually crush them in the hope they leave their homes and flee to the Islamic world or to Western Europe (as well as have seen so many cases of in the last decade).

Simply put: jews have drawn this attention and scrutiny on themselves by their consistent claiming of victim status. Let me use an analogy to explain the world’s action: if you have a social security claimant who makes a lot of fuss about his or her disability demanding constant - and often increasing payments - to support them because of it. You - as the custodian of that money being responsible for how it is spent - receive some disturbing reports that this benefits claimant is not really disabled at all but has been and is going around disabling others who have been complaining, but this benefits claimant has been threatening them with further violence if they complain. This violence further has been performed in some cases while it continues to be threatened to all. Then because of this the people the claimant has been disabling now threaten and attempt disorganised violence against the claimant who generally wins, because he is not actually disabled while many of his opponents are.

There are many more disabled claimants out there claiming disability benefits falsely, but this claimant has attracted your attention because of their actions, which have actually caused new claimants to arise. As well as that the claimant has particularly drawn attention to themselves by nosily falsely propounding the idea that their disability is some how unique and special. As well as that therefore they should get increasing payments and sympathy from you as the custodian of that benefit money.

Would you not investigate and attack such a case of benefit fraud?

If not, then jews - and Israel as a nation state - can hardly be considered morally and ethically superior and therefore you are as anti-Semites like me have described you for centuries (i.e., as immoral vulture-like creatures in human form). Thus, Marc’s argument falls flat on its face, because what I have described is what jews have been doing for the last few decades - possibly the last two centuries if you wish to be a little broader - and therefore any reasonable person has to admit that Israel has no legitimate reason to accuse the mainstream media of being ‘anti-Semitic’ - or being particularly vindictive towards Israel - because they have valid grounds for criticising Israel.

Therefore, Marc’s nonsense is just self-serving and intellectually ridiculous nonsense.

Subscribe now

In a similar claim in 1944 the jewish editor of ‘The Sentinel’ – a long-running jewish community weekly periodical in Chicago, Illinois – Jack Fishbein wrote in the edition for 15^th June 1944 that:

‘There is no such thing as a “good Nazi.” By every standard, psychologically and otherwise, they do not conduct themselves as human beings. For what human being, no matter how depraved and debauched he might be, could bring himself to stuff infants into soccer ball coverings and then kick them around the field as the Nazis did at Lvow.’ (2)

Now for transparency this is the original article: (3)

This is the article in its original context to assuage the inevitable desperate claims that it is a ‘forgery’ or a ‘made up’ claim to ‘make jews look bad’: (4)

Now obviously this is a variant of the same claim reported by JTA on 7^th October 1942, which stated:

‘A Red Army soldier now fighting on the Stalingrad front today gave an account of a horrible massacre of Jewish children which took place last July in Pogrobistohi, in the Nazi-controlled Kiev district, from where he escaped last month.

In a story in the Soviet press, the soldier, twenty-six-year-old Abraham Fivusowitsch, stated that one rainy day last July 600 Jewish families from the towns of Lipowitz, Kasotin and Slodira were driven to Pogrobistohi. There the men were ordered to the Rozhovoutsky Forest where they healed logs for four days. On the fifth day they were assembled and instructed by an Italian officer to clean the athletic stadium in Pogrobistohi “otherwise they would be hung from the logs they hauled into town.” By July 27 the stadium was cleared. That evening all the Jews – men, women and children, well or ill – were ordered to be at the stadium. The men were placed in one section and the women in another. The women, of whom there were about 500, were instructed to hold their children to their arms.

“A few minutes after we had all assembled, a group of German soldiers, dressed in athletic uniforms, entered the stadium,” Fivusowitsch relates. “The Germans snatched the infants from their mothers’ arms and used them for balls, bouncing and kicking them around the arena. In a short time, the ground was drenched with blood, and the stadium was filled with the anguished cries of the women whose children were being murdered before their eyes. I succeeded in escaping that same night and reached the Red Army lines in August. I learned, however, that many of the Jews who had been forced to witness the massacre became insane while others died of fight.”’ (5)

Clearly this is the same basic claim that has been made in 1944 about Lviv/Lvov rather than the area around Kiev with the ‘Germans and Italians’ modified to ‘Germans’ with the location changed as described and also with the added absurd detail that German troops sewed jewish infants up in soccer balls covers rather than just kicking them around as soccer balls without overings as originally claimed in 1942.

Now obviously this didn’t happen since you can’t kick an infant around as a ‘soccer ball’ without breaking your feet (likely multiple times) and they wouldn’t fill out the inside of a soccer ball anyway so it wouldn’t roll!

It is simply physically impossible not mention utterly impractical, but it sounds nice on paper as a piece of anti-German atrocity propaganda.

Ergo it is just yet another piece of ‘Remarkable Holocaust Nonsense’!

Subscribe now

References

(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/remarkable-holocaust-nonsense-88

(2) Jack Fishbein, ‘The Editor Views The News’, The Sentinel, 15^th June 1944, p. 5

(3) https://www.islam-radio.net/historia/wsmt4/nazis-forced-jew-to-drink-husbands.htm

(4) https://www.nli.org.il/en/newspapers/cgs/1944/06/15/01/?e=-------en-20--1--img-txIN%7CtxTI--------------1

(5) JTA Daily News Bulletin, 7th October 1942, p. 2; you can read this for yourself here: http://pdfs.jta.org/1942/1942-10-07_231.pdf

This time against the ‘Farmers Defense Force’ protest group where:

‘The group handed out Star of David-shaped stickers at a demonstration in the Netherlands, evoking the yellow badges Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust.

The stickers featured the letter B, the first letter of the Dutch word “boer,” meaning farmer. The group’s leader defended the move, saying it was intended to illustrate the “great injustice” being done to farmers. The Jewish organization CIDI strongly condemned the action, accusing the protesters of trivializing the Holocaust and misusing history.

Dutch media reported that the stickers were distributed last Friday during a farmers’ protest in Den Bosch. Mark van den Oever, leader of Farmers Defence Force, said the move was intended “to emphasize our position, that a very great injustice is being done to us.” He added that “as an action group you sometimes have to be able to walk on the edge.”

Van den Oever also compared the situation facing Dutch farmers to the persecution of Jews during World War II. Asked whether the comparison was inappropriate, he replied: “Withdrawing permits is also inappropriate.”

The move drew sharp criticism. During the demonstration, police asked one of the group’s activists to remove the sticker from his shirt, and he complied.

Freek Vergeer, a researcher at the Center for Information and Documentation Israel, or CIDI, said farmers have the right to protest if they believe they are being treated unfairly, but condemned the use of symbols associated with the persecution of Jews.

“This comparison has nothing to do with it and is very reprehensible,” he said. He described it as a misuse of history for personal gain and said the group’s leader had “little historical awareness.” CIDI has previously condemned similar Holocaust comparisons used in Dutch protests.

CIDI noted that the Star of David had also been used in a similar way during protests over COVID-19 restrictions. The organization urged protesters to study history and read books about World War II. “Then they will no longer get it into their heads to make such a backward comparison,” Verhoeven said.

According to CIDI, distributing the stickers was intended to shock and attract attention. “I am afraid that they have achieved their goal with that again,” the researcher said.

The protest came amid farmers’ opposition to the Dutch government’s nitrogen policy, under which farms near protected natural areas could face restrictions or closure in an effort to meet nitrogen emissions targets. Farmers Defence Force has been a prominent force in protests against Dutch nitrogen policy in recent years.

Van den Oever said the government and the province of North Brabant needed to “come to their senses.”’ (1)

For reference this was the sticker that was handed out by the ‘Farmers Defense Force’: (2)

Aside the fact that the ‘Star of David’ symbol used by the ‘Farmers Defense Force’ is rather bizarrely coloured like Scottish clan tartan (maybe it is just the light). The use of the symbol is clearly not in any way, shape or form objectionable from any kind of mainstream political viewpoint other than the implicit ‘blasphemy’ claim by the ‘Center for Information and Documentation Israel’ which basically treats the jews as the sacrificial victim, Israel as the risen Messiah, Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich as evil personified and the yellow star of the ‘Holocaust’ as the modern cross or crucifix.

The political messaging implicit in the use of the ‘Star of David’ by the ‘Farmers Defense Force’ is simply – as was common throughout the COVID lockdowns and mass vaccinations – that the Dutch farmers are like the ‘irrationally persecuted jews’ and the Dutch government ‘the Nazis’ framed in the ersatz passion play of the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ narrative.

The idea that it ‘trivializes the Holocaust’ is simply absurd because this claim relies upon the claim that the use of ‘Holocaust’ symbology by non-related causes as a metaphor for generalized governmental repression ‘reduces the Holocaust to the mundane’ and somehow ‘cheapens’ the ‘memory of the Holocaust’, but the real reason that jews like Eichner and jewish organizations like the ‘Center for Information and Documentation Israel’ talk about the ‘trivialization of the Holocaust’ is because they want – and I would also say need – jews to be the premier and outstanding victim class who then were subjected to an allegedly ‘completely unique and unprecedent industrial genocide’ during the Second World War and no other group – be it ethno-racial, religious and/or political – is allowed to be the ‘real victim’ of the Second World War and world history other than the jews.

Since without this propaganda fiction then the whole post-Nuremberg world intellectual, moral and political order that they have constructed in the years since 1945 simply falls apart and not only do non-jews start asking awkward questions about why jews claimed impossible nonsense about what happened to them between circa 1939 and 1945 but also why jewish (and Israeli) history consists only of ‘triumph and tragedy’ but no corruption or criminality.

Once non-jews begin to do that then the scales fall from their eyes and they see the leering satanic face of the race of monsters behind a good part of what has been – and continues to be – evil in the world in which we live.

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.ynetnews.com/jewish-world/article/skhsn0epml

(2) Idem.

To wit:

‘An Irish man in France told an Australian Jewish couple inside a supermarket on Tuesday that he was sorry “Hitler didn’t finish the job” before threatening to put a bullet in their heads.

Footage of the incident circulated widely across social media platforms including X/Twitter and Instagram. The Australian Jewish Association (AJA) shared the footage and said the couple were “friends of AJA,” and they had reported “to us that they had a friendly conversation with an Irishman who introduced himself as Paddy.

“The conversation took a turn when Paddy found out that they were Jewish,” the AJA said. “He told them he was sorry that Hitler didn’t finish the job.”

AJA told The Jerusalem Post that the targeted couple were Australian Jews vacationing in France. They had contacted AJA shortly after the incident occurred on Tuesday in a supermarket in Avignon.

The couple provided AJA with an account of the incident, saying that an Irishman “approached us because my husband was wearing a French football top, and he obviously heard us chatting in English, and bantered, ‘Why is an Englishman wearing a French shirt?’ My husband answered in a friendly style that he’s an Australian, but liked the shirt, and as we are traveling around France, he was happy to wear it.

“Then he introduced himself as ‘Paddy from Ireland,’ and we gave our names and shook hands. Then my husband said he wouldn’t wear an Irish shirt, and Paddy agreed that their team was crap and started running down the Irish soccer team, which we had no real knowledge of.

“I told him, ‘No, it’s not that; it’s the Irish politics where they hold such anti-Israel policies and support Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorists! His demeanor changed, and he became aggressive, informing me, ‘We all agree with that. And I’m sorry Hitler didn’t finish the job! At that point, I retrieved my phone and started videoing.”

The video footage began with filming the man inside the store aisles. In the clip, the man smiled and laughed while walking away from the camera, while the person filming repeatedly asked him to repeat his remarks, saying, “Go on, tell us again. You’re sorry Hitler didn’t finish the job. Please tell us again, Paddy.”

As the man turned back to face the camera, his expression hardened. He stopped walking and threatened the tourists, stating, “You get the f*** away from me before I put a f***ing bullet in your head, okay?”

AJA President Robert Gregory told the Post that the couple had since been in contact with a French Jewish security group.

“Australia is facing an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, but this incident is a reminder that Jews can be targeted anywhere,” he said. “Jewish travelers in Europe should exercise caution and remain vigilant. This is a wonderful couple and proud Jews who did nothing to deserve this. Our thoughts are with them.

“Every threat of antisemitic violence must be taken seriously,” he added. “We expect the authorities to investigate this matter urgently and take decisive action against those responsible.”’ (1)

There is a video – taken on a smart phone – of this encounter which has been published by ‘Australian Jewish Association’ on X/Twitter, (2) but it only features the dialogue which goes as follows:

The Jewess: ‘Go on, tell us again. You’re sorry Hitler didn’t finish the job. Please tell us again, Paddy.’

Paddy the Irishman: ‘You get the f*** away from me before I put a f***ing bullet in your head, okay?’

The problem with the ‘Australian Jewish Association’s’ narrative on this point is simply that all we actually see is the jewess haranguing Paddy about his alleged comment and Paddy angrily telling her to piss off and leave him alone, which he expressed with typical Irish aplomb and which as wannabe Australians the jews should know is just typical Irish exaggeration (a bit like them how the Irish often saying ‘I’ll kill ya’; it isn’t literal).

Paddy clearly didn’t mean it literally, but the ‘Australian Jewish Association’ insists it be taken literally as well as the jewish couple be simply ‘believed’ without any critical scrutiny because they are jews.

Indeed, the root of this confrontation at the supermarket in France seems to have been the jew being aggressive to Paddy and stating that ‘he wouldn’t wear an Irish shirt’ (meaning football shirt) because Ireland ‘hates Israel and jews as well as supports terrorists’ not because – as Paddy assumed – ‘Ireland has a crap football team’.

Essentially the male jew attacked Ireland as being ‘anti-Semitic supporters of terrorism’ expecting acquiescence and/or subservience from Paddy which – as anyone who has a knowledge of the Irish should be well aware of – he clearly took exception to his country and nation being subjected to an unprovoked slanderous attack by a jewish couple in a French supermarket so he responded in kind.

Then the jewish couple from Australia promptly tried to make an ‘anti-Semitic hate crime’ out of a situation that they had (deliberately?) provoked!

Subscribe now

References

(1) https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-905327

(2) https://x.com/AustralianJA/status/2087326866562834566

The focus - in spite of the various jewish studies ‘mission statements’ - in essence is not to critically study jews, Judaism and the interaction with the societies in which they lived and still live, but rather to find excuses as to why the jews aren’t to blame for anything that happened to; or anything that has been said about, them. Literally gallons of ink is spilled every year in the field in great tomes and numerous journal articles wondering out loud how anyone could think ill of the jews and how anyone who did - or does - is ipso facto irrational and otherwise a ‘nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-millions-jews’. (1)

Pappe is something rather different and it is refreshing to see some kind of critical attitude to the jewish role in jewish history as an active - as opposed to a passive - factor in their ‘persecution’ and why people might not like jews. What is interesting is that the Israeli ‘revisionist historians’ are not actually revisionists in the historical sense at all as revisionism is a form of historical skepticism and a demand for facts to back up bland assertions and wide interpretations. In essence then revisionism in the historical sense is the constant revision of the interpretation of history in close reference to the facts including extensive source criticism.

Israeli historical revisionism – as pointed out by one of Pappe’s jewish colleagues - (2) is actually a more sophisticated form of non-biblical literalist apologia for Israel’s existence and the jewish people in general. Rather than using the old methods of Israeli historiography backed up by a few credulous or nefarious Christian academics in the United States, which were in effect to present a wholly incredible history of the jews from the time of the final destruction of the jewish kingdom by the Emperor Hadrian to the beginning of the occupation of Palestine by the jews as the logic end of Yahweh’s plan for them. All that they needed was the Messiah to turn up and the jews would literally be ruling the world!

Israeli ‘historical revisionism’ by contrast simply does away with the old pure certainties and claims that while Zionism was desirable it has not been without problems and that it is possible that the Messiah might not turn up: such is the historical position of the ilk of Benny Morris. Who has for reasons unknown to me long been feted on the leftist side of the anti-Zionist fence, but they suddenly and violently rejected him after his vicious defamation of Pappe proving what some of us had long suspected. (3) This was that Benny Morris and his ilk were just more sophisticated proponents of the jews as the proverbial master race theory of traditional (i.e., from Labour to Revisionist) Zionist - and most schools of Israeli - historiography.

Although the Messiah does appear to be rather late (or perhaps he has just been a very naughty boy): hence why the jews in New York take the occasional trip out to the backwoods of America to con the proverbial yokels out of their hard-earned savings to ‘send more jews to Israel’ (or to be pedantic ‘make Aliyah’) so that the ‘end times’ scenario can start. Of course, Israel has its own modern day zealots who deny anything remotely science related (unless they can claim Hashem inspired a jew to create it or assist in its creation) and periodically demand that Israel start the long-awaited slaughter of the goyim (as Hashem will surely marshal his celestial armies in support). (4)

With all of what is going on in academe Pappe is something of a breath of fresh intellectual air - in spite and not because of his foetor judaicus (lit. ‘jewish stench’) - in his honesty to tackle the proverbial ‘pink elephant in the room’ in jewish studies: i.e., that the jews might just have caused much of the reaction to their own behaviour. Such a revolutionary thought is not really brought up by Pappe in his most famous book ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ (5) and neither is it really considered in his journal articles or other academic or popular books of his that I have read.

Instead, Pappe focuses on proving that the anti-gentile genocide - lets not beat around the linguistic bush, shall we? - committed by Israel during their supposed ‘War of Independence’ - perhaps more aptly named the ‘War of Western Dependence’ - were:

A) The logical result of Zionist political philosophy.

B) Systematically planned and organised before hand by major jewish figures.

With his first point I think Pappe has stayed his own hand considerably as Zionism as a political philosophy was implicitly genocidal towards gentiles from its very earliest days as the basic ideological plank that informs Zionism is the ‘chosen’ nature of the jewish people and how they are called to rule the world (as the priestly class and proverbial interface between Yahweh and the world). You can read that suggestion in both Herzl and Hess: the two intellectual fathers of Zionism. (6) You can also read that attitude among Zionism’s early major rabbinical supporters such as the Baseler Rav (7) and Rav Abraham Kook. (8)

Perhaps that just cuts too close to the bone for Pappe?

With the second point Pappe is much stronger and provides ample evidence for the existence of Plan Dalet - the plan to kill, torture and generally terrorism the native Arab population to leave so that the self-chosen could move in and steal (or rather ‘find’ halakhically speaking) everything that wasn’t nailed down - which actively included such major figures in jewish history as David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Yigael Yadin (i.e., the founding fathers of modern Israel).

Pappe notes - not incorrectly - that it is hard to argue that this coordinated activity wasn’t the centralised organised conspiracy that he evidences it to have been. Indeed, those Israeli apologists who argue that either Arab losses have been grossly exaggerated (i.e., ‘there was no Nakba’) or that there was no conspiracy, but what massacres there were merely the work of a few jewish extremists (i.e., Benny Morris and the Israeli ‘historical revisionists’) are offering utterly fanciful interpretations of Israeli history according to Pappe.

Interestingly Pappe hints that the basis of much of this assumption of general jewish innocence in Israeli history is the sentimental notion that jews like Ben Gurion, Yadin and Dayan cannot be held up to the same intellectual scrutiny as others as they are part of hero-pantheon of Israel’s national mythos (pun not intended).

In essence Pappe tells us that some jews are open to criticism from other jews - although one can imagine that there will be a lot of screeching about ‘jewish self-hatred’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ from quite a few lifelong jewish and/or Israeli apologists for Israel - but that other jews - perceived to be the ‘chosen of the chosen’ if you will - are immune from non-superficial criticism in Israeli historical circles because to criticise them would in effect mean criticising Israel and doubting Israel’s right to exist as an entity squatting on other people’s land.

According to Pappe and those jewish historians who agree with him - like Shlomo Sand - no jew should be immune from criticism and that historical research serves a higher purpose than adjunct propaganda for the Israeli state.

Now that’s a first: I agree with a jew!

Subscribe now

References

(1) Possibly the classic example of this attitude may be found in Moshe Zimmerman, 1988, ‘Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of anti-Semitism’, 1^st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, where he spends the entire somewhat detailed biography trying to invent reasons why Marr was completely irrational, was jealous of jews and otherwise invented his anti-Semitic attitudes because the jews rejected him.

(2) Cf. Shlomo Sand, 2010, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, 1^st Edition, Verso: New York

(3) For example: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16848

(4) I pointed out just an instance in my article ‘Rabbi Lazer Brody: ‘Hashem will Slaughter the Goyim’, which is available at the following address: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/rabbi-lazer-brody-hashem-will-slaughter

(5) Ilan Pappe, 2007, ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, 1^st Edition, One World: New York

(6) This is most easily found and described in Alan Clark, 2005-10, ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews’, 3 Vols., 1^st Edition, World Focus/Clarity: London, but it may be found in numerous works on the question of Israeli history and the history of Zionism.

(7) Arthur Cohn, 1972, ‘Of Israel’s Teachings and Destiny: Sermons, Studies and Essays’, 1^st Edition, Ahron Press: New York, pp. 111-113

(8) Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht, 1996, ‘To Rule Jerusalem’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 200-209

Dreyfus writes as follows:

‘Ambassador Bruzga:

I am outraged that Lithuania is investigating Jewish victims of the Holocaust. A people fighting genocide suffered immeasurable pain and its efforts to defend itself were heroic.

Stop these vile proceedings now. You are heaping infamy on yourselves, and further tarring your name by indefensible efforts against a people already unimaginably damaged by your country in the past, and now revisited in yet another century by your unforgivable bigotry and epic injustice.

Millions of my countrymen are disgusted, though only thousands of letters may be sent you and your cohort in malice and cruelty.

MDS Dreyfus

New York, NY

United States’

Dreyfus begins the letter with the declaration that he or she is ‘outraged’ that Lithuania could possibly investigate ‘victims of the holocaust’ and goes on to justify this statement with the assertion that the the jews have ‘suffered immeasurable pain’ whilst ‘fighting a genocide’ and that their efforts were de facto ‘heroic’ because they were supposedly in ‘self-defence’.

Let’s think about what Dreyfus is saying here. Dreyfus is suggesting that because the jews were subjected to the rule of law and some atrocities were supposedly committed against them – note the lack of any context such as the massive jewish involvement with communism in Lithuania and their staffing/support for Stalin’s genocidal regime there between 1940-1941 – (3) that they are not allowed to be investigated for potential atrocities they may have committed during their ‘heroic’ resistance. The jews therefore should not - in Dreyfus’ view -be investigated for anything they have supposedly done and anything they have actually done with anything that would fall under the legal charge of ‘war crimes’ to be ignored because they were supposedly ‘unjustly persecuted’.

Now hang on a minute.

Isn’t Dreyfus just simply stating that jews should not be charged with any crimes at all - irrespective of whether they committed them or not - because they are jews.

This meaning is further clarified when Dreyfus states as follows:

‘You are heaping infamy on yourselves, and further tarring your name by indefensible efforts against a people already unimaginably damaged by your country in the past, and now revisited in yet another century by your unforgivable bigotry and epic injustice.’

This directly asserts that the ‘people’ that Dreyfus refers to are in fact the jews - of which people he is also presumably a member - and that it is because of the jewish status as the ‘persecuted people’ par excellence that removes them from any responsibility from what they have actually and/or potentially done. It should be noted in this regard that Dreyfus is operating on a simple bit of logic in his or her mind at the moment in so far that the jews because of their long history of coming under the legal, judicial, military and economic censor are the victim of ‘pointless hatred’ towards themselves. In Dreyfus’ mind it seems that the jews have - in his or her words - been subject to ‘unforgivable bigotry and epic injustice’ and that they have never put a foot wrong as a people and have never deserved any of the backlash or censorship that they have received.

What Dreyfus is claiming here is essentially based on the jewish status of being the ‘Chosen’ of Hashem and therefore as the earthly representatives of Hashem and made in his image; they are unable to do anything wrong and what the nations of the world - i.e. the non-jews - see as negative jewish behaviour is them carrying out the will of Hashem. Since as jews they are above others and in direct communion with their god. So as the representatives of their god; their resistance to National Socialism - because National Socialism supposedly desired to erase them off the face of the earth - is ‘heroic’ because they allegedly ‘had no other choice’.

Does resisting an enemy give the jews license to commit ‘war crimes’ at will?

For you are always faced in a choice in war for nobody forces you to simply massacre civilians; which Arad has been investigated for potentially being involved in.

The answer is simply no; it does not.

Since although you can resist an enemy; you can choose who you kill, and you have to answer for that. The German people have been called to account for alleged, real and fictional atrocities committed by its forces and has had to answer. Other countries - such as the Soviet Union - have been - and are still being - called to account for what their forces have done during war time and have had to answer. (4) The Germans used partisans - the Werewolf units as well as the massive ‘Forest Brothers’ partisan movement in the Baltic states - who engaged in heroic resistance and did things that might seem reprehensible while the widespread Russian use of partisans is familiar to most as is the behaviour of Allied partisans in the West (for example the French Resistance).

All these powers could be argued to have been engaging in the same type of activities and on the same grounds as Dreyfus claims Arad was operating on. So, if they committed atrocities should they not be called to account; one suspects Dreyfus would be one of the first baying like a blood mad hound if a former Werewolf had been involved in the shooting of 38 jews with his partisan unit. However; he defends Arad from even mere investigation claiming that the mere investigation of these charges against a jew is ‘vile’ and ispo facto ‘sullies the name’ of Lithuania.

It should be noted that Dreyfus is not only defending Arad from the charges but also from even the investigation of them. So, are we only allowed to investigate non-jews in relation to war crimes? Are not jews also able to commit ‘war crimes’? Are not jews human like the rest of us or are they special? Do the jews not want ‘truth and memory’ when it concerns one of their own?

I would opine that Dreyfus in fact thinks that jews as special and do not have to conform to the rest of humanity’s standards since they are in Dreyfus’ mind… well… above and superior to that. Since apparently jews can’t commit ‘war crimes’ - especially not so-called ‘Holocaust Survivors’ - then what are we to do? Fall onto our knees and worship the jews as special beings; more than human and closer to the divine than us mere gentiles biologically?

I think not.

Surely - as I observed in my original article on this - if Arad was innocent of these charges he would voluntarily come forward and help the Lithuanian public prosecutor’s office with their investigation since he would surely like to clear this question mark from his good name. However, Arad has never done so; he has hidden behind accusations of a ‘anti-Semitic conspiracy’ against him and has been unconditionally support in this by the organised jewish establishment; both Israeli and in the wider jewish diaspora. Such an action is highly suspicious for if he has nothing to hide then why bother making such a hullabaloo about it when has powerful supporters behind him should they need to step in and allow a fair and impartial investigation (unlike Aribert Heim; who has no powerful supporters [if he is even still alive] and no government willing to fight for his rights)?

Does this not directly suggest that a double standard is in practice in Dreyfus’ writings - like the one that I argued existed for jews and non-jews in my article ‘The Open Double Standard’ - was in operation?

I think so!

Subscribe now

References

(1) This is available here: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-open-double-standard-aribert

(2) Although it should be noted that jews often engage in ostensibly altruistic behaviour towards the world at large this is not it would appear out of love for the world but rather for selfish and propagandistic motives. This can quickly understand by looking at their habit of announcing their generosity to the world rather than just being quietly kind without asking for anything in return or publicising it.

(3) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jews-and-communism-in-lithuania-1918

(4) Such as the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poland, the mass rapes and murders committed by its soldiers against defenceless German women and the deliberate slaughter of tens if not hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war in captivity. The destruction after the war inflicted by the Soviet Union accounting for at least two million persons if not more. For more information see James Bacque, 1989, ‘Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners of War at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War Two’, 1st Edition, Stoddart: Toronto, and 2002, ‘Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950’, 2nd Edition, Time Warner: London as well as J. Otto Pohl, 2022, ‘The Years of Great Silence: The Deportation, Special Settlement, and Mobilization into the Labor Army of Ethnic Germans in the USSR, 1941–1955’, 1st Edition, ibidem Verlag: Stuttgart