The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Monday, 22 January 2018

'We think of Henry VIII and the destruction of the monasteries, but that was not the end of the destruction, it marked the beginning'

A new exhibition at Tate Britain highlights the scale of destruction to artworks in the Tudor period - a staggering amount of books and music were also destroyed

The slashed and broken medieval images displayed in the new Art Under Attack exhibition at the Tate are a reminder of what we lost in the hundred and fifty years after the Reformation. Even now there is denial about the scale of the erasing of our medieval past. The Tate estimates we lost 90% of our religious art. It was probably even more than that. The destruction was on a scale that far outstrips the modern efforts of Islamist extremists. And it was not only art we lost, but also books and music.

We think of Henry VIII and the destruction of the monasteries, but that was not the end of the destruction, it marked the beginning. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, hailed the reign of his son, the boy king Edward VI, as that of a new Josiah, destroyer of idols. After his coronation an orgy of iconoclasm was launched. In churches rood screens, tombs with their prayers for the dead, and stain glass windows, were smashed. The Elizabethan antiquarian John Stow complained, some of this Christian Taliban “judged every image to be an idol”, so that not only religious art, but even the secular thirteenth century carvings of kings in Ludgate were broken.

Books too were burned on a vast scale. Earlier this year Melvyn Bragg was on TV telling us about William Tyndale during the reign of Henry VIII, and the forces of Catholic conservatism blocking publication of his English bible with its attached Lutheran commentaries. But conservatives were not alone in wishing to suppress books that contained ideas they did not agree with. When the monasteries were suppressed, their libraries were either pillaged or destroyed. How many works as great as the Lindisfarne gospels must have been lost? Out of six hundred books in the library of Worcester Priory only six remain. Three survived the destruction of the Augustinian Friars of York out of a total of six hundred and forty six volumes. And during the reign of Edward VI it was Tyndale’s ideological heirs and supporters who reduced almost every book in the Oxford university library to ashes.

Music in church was also disapproved of. Since it was largely then recorded in manuscripts, much of our early music vanished when libraries were burned. Organs were torn out of churches, and while in Elizabeth’s royal chapel you had the wonderful music of crypto Catholics like William Byrd and Thomas Tallis, there were few opportunities for other such composers to find employment or be heard.

The civil war, and the further destruction it brought, took place two generations after England had gone through what has been described as a “cultural revolution designed to obliterate England’s memory of who and what she had been”. There was not much of that past left. In our cultural history the Reformation is nearly always depicted as a force that opened up England from a closed minded past. But it was our knowledge of that past that was closed and if one future opened to us, we will never know what might have been, not least in art.

Source: Leanda de Lisle - 8 Oct 2013

Lost Art in the years after the reformation

Ed - I have included this item as was not fully aware of the scale of the destruction. Nearly 900 religious houses were closed and destroyed between 1536 and 1541. I believe only part of reading Abbey survived and the parish church linked to Norfolk Abbey. The scale of the destruction of monasteries and works of art has been compared to the Chinese cultural revolution.

Wednesday, 3 January 2018

Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March

15 March 2016, Budapest

Salutations to you, Hungarian freedom, on this the day you are born!”

Ladies and Gentlemen, Compatriots, Hungarians around the World,

With a cockade sewn by Júlia Szendrey pinned to his chest, a volume of poems in his pocket, and the still thrilling experience of the Revolution in his head, these are the words with which the poet Sándor Petőfi welcomed the fifteenth of March in his journal. Salutations to you, Hungarian freedom, on this the day you are born! And today also, one hundred and sixty-eight years later, it is with unfettered joy, the optimism of early spring, high hopes and an elevated spirit that across the Carpathian Basin we celebrate – from Beregszász to Szabadka, from Rimaszombat to Kézdivásárhely: every Hungarian with one heart, one soul and one will.

Just as then in the decisive battles of the Freedom Fight, now also Hungarian hearts are cheered by the fact that we have with us a Polish legion. I welcome the spirited successors of General Bem: we welcome the sons of the Polish nation. As always throughout our shared thousand-year history, now, too, we are standing by you in the battle you are fighting for your country’s freedom and independence. We are with you, and we send this message to Brussels: more respect to the Polish people, more respect to Poland! Greetings to you. It is a sign of the shared fate of Poland and Hungary that another glorious revolution of ours – that of 1956 – was born between the Bem Statue and Kossuth tér in Budapest. It rose up with the unstoppable force of our glorious ancestors, and by the evening it had dragged the Soviet generalissimo out of his boots.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

By nature, Hungarians stand up for what is right when the need arises. What is more, they fight for it if needs be, but do not seek out trouble for its own sake. They know that they can often achieve more through patience than through sabre-rattling. This is why those like us are rarely given to revolutions. We have only gone down that path twice in one hundred and seventy years. When we did follow that path, we had reason to do so: we felt that our lungs would burst if we could not breathe in freedom. We threw ourselves into it, and once we had started a revolution, we did so in style. Modern European history has preserved both Hungarian revolutions among the glorious memories of the world: two blazing stars, two national uprisings bursting forth in 1848 and 1956 from Hungarian aspirations and Hungarian interests. Glory to the heroes, honour to the brave. Chroniclers have also recorded the revolution of 1918–19, but the memories of that period are not preserved on the pages of glory; indeed, not only are those memories written on different pages, but they appear in a different volume altogether. The 1918–19 revolution can be found in the volume devoted to Bolshevik anti-Hungarian subversions launched in the service of foreign interests and foreign ambitions; it features under the heading “appalling examples of intellectual and political degeneracy”. Yes, we Hungarians have two revolutionary traditions: one leads from 1848, through 1956 and the fall of communism, all the way to the Fundamental Law and the current constitutional order; the bloodline of the other tradition leads from Jacobin European ancestors, through 1919, to communism after World War II and the Soviet era in Hungary. Life in Hungary today is a creation of the spiritual heirs and offspring of the ’48 and ’56 revolutions. Today, as then, the heartbeat of this revolutionary tradition moves and guides the nation’s political, economic and spiritual life: equality before the law, responsible government, a national bank, the sharing of burdens, respect for human dignity and the unification of the nation. Today, as then, the ideals of ’48 and ’56 are the pulse driving the life force of the nation, and the intellectual and spiritual blood flow of the Hungarian people. Let us give thanks that this may be so, let us give thanks that finally the Lord of History has led us onto this path. Soli Deo gloria!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Not even the uplifting mood of a celebration day can let us forget that the tradition of 1919, too, is still with us – though fortunately its pulse is just a faint flicker. Yet at times it can make quite a noise. But without a host animal, its days are numbered. It is in need of another delivery of aid from abroad in the form of a major intellectual and political infusion; unless it receives this, then after its leaves and branches have withered, its roots will also dry up in the Hungarian motherland’s soil, which is hostile to internationalism. And this is all well and good.

A decent person who raises their children and works hard to build the course of their life does not usually end up as a revolutionary. The right-thinking person who stands on their own two feet and has control over their future knows that upheavals and the sudden upending of the ordinary course of life rarely ends well. The person of goodwill who seeks a life of serene and peaceful progress knows that trying to take two steps at once leads to you tripping over your own legs, and instead of moving forward, you will land flat on your face. And yet these right-thinking people of goodwill, these upstanding citizens of Pest instantly rallied to the call of our revolutions, marching at the front, right behind the university students. They formed the backbone of the revolutions and freedom fights, and they were to pay with their own blood for the honour of the Hungarian people. Every revolution is like the people who make it. On the committee which oversaw order during the 15 March revolution, in the shadow of the colossal figures of Petőfi and Vasvári, we find the furrier Máté Gyurkovics, and the button-maker György Molnár. Our revolutions were led by respectable citizens, military officers, lawyers, writers, doctors, engineers, honest tradespeople, farmers and workers with a sense of national duty: Hungarians who embodied the nation’s best aspects, our homeland’s very best. Hungarian revolutionaries are not warriors for hare-brained ideologies, deranged utopias or demented, unsolicited plans for world happiness; in Pest you find no traces of the illusory visions of quack philosophers or the raging resentment of failed intellectuals. The revolutionaries of 1848 did not want to salvage stones from the ruins of absolutist oppression in order to build a temple to yet another tyranny; therefore the Hungarian revolution’s songs were not written in honour of the steel blade of the guillotine or the rope of the gallows. Our songs are not sung by lynch mobs or execution-thirsty crowds; the Pest revolution is not a hymn to chaos, revenge, or butchery. The 1848 Revolution is a solemn and dignified moment in our history, when the wounds of the glorious Hungarian nation opened once again. Springing from constitutional roots, it demanded the granting and return of the rights seized from and denied to the nation. It is exhilarating, but sober; ecstatic but practical; glorious, but temperate. It is Hungarian to the core. Ladies and Gentlemen, Three weeks before his death in battle, in his last letter to János Arany, Sándor Petőfi asked the following question: “So what are you going to do?” When we, his modern descendants, read this, it is as if he is asking us the same question. So what are you going to do? How will you make use of your inheritance? Are the Hungarian people still worthy of their ancestors’ reputation? Do you know the law of the Hungarians of old – that whatever you do should not only be measured by its utility, but also by universal standards? This is because your deeds must pass the test not only here, but also in eternity.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We have our inheritance, the Hungarian people still exist, Buda still stands, we are who we were, and we shall be who we are. Our reputation travels far and wide; clever people and intelligent peoples acknowledge the Hungarians. We adhere to the ancient law, and also measure our deeds by universal standards. We teach our children that their horizon should be eternity. Whether we shall succeed, whether finally we see the building of a homeland which is free, independent, worthy and respected the world over – one which was raised high by our forebears from 1848, and for which they sacrificed their lives – we cannot yet know. We do know, however, that the current European constellation is an unstable one, and so we have some testing times ahead. The times in which we live press us with this question, which is like a hussar’s sabre held to our chest: “Shall we live in slavery or in freedom?” The destiny of the Hungarians has become intertwined with that of Europe’s nations, and has grown to be so much a part of the union that today not a single people – including the Hungarian people – can be free if Europe is not free. And today Europe is as fragile, weak and sickly as a flower being eaten away by a hidden worm. Today, one hundred and sixty-eight years after the great freedom fights of its peoples, Europe – our common home – is not free.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Europe is not free, because freedom begins with speaking the truth. In Europe today it is forbidden to speak the truth. A muzzle is a muzzle – even if it is made of silk. It is forbidden to say that today we are not witnessing the arrival of refugees, but a Europe being threatened by mass migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terrorism to our countries. It is forbidden to say that the masses of people coming from different civilisations pose a threat to our way of life, our culture, our customs, and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to say that, instead of integrating, those who arrived here earlier have built a world of their own, with their own laws and ideals, which is forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to say that this is not accidental and not a chain of unintentional consequences, but a planned, orchestrated campaign, a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are constructing schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us. It is forbidden to say that the purpose of settling these people here is to redraw the religious and cultural map of Europe and to reconfigure its ethnic foundations, thereby eliminating nation states, which are the last obstacle to the international movement. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is stealthily devouring ever more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels today many are working on a plan for a United States of Europe, for which no one has ever given authorisation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today’s enemies of freedom are cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system; they use a different set of tools to force us into submission. Today they do not imprison us, they do not transport us to camps, and they do not send in tanks to occupy countries loyal to freedom. Today the international media’s artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail are enough – or rather have been enough so far. The peoples of Europe are slowly awakening, they are regrouping, and will soon regain ground. Europe’s beams laid on the suppression of truth are creaking and cracking. The peoples of Europe may have finally understood that their future is at stake: not only are their prosperity, their comfort and their jobs at stake, but their very security and the peaceful order of their lives are in danger. The peoples of Europe, who have been slumbering in abundance and prosperity, have finally understood that the principles of life upon which we built Europe are in mortal danger. Europe is a community of Christian, free and independent nations; it is the equality of men and women, fair competition and solidarity, pride and humility, justice and mercy.

This danger is not now threatening us as wars and natural disasters do, which take the ground from under our feet in an instant. Mass migration is like a slow and steady current of water which washes away the shore. It appears in the guise of humanitarian action, but its true nature is the occupation of territory; and their gain in territory is our loss of territory. Hordes of implacable human rights warriors feel an unquenchable desire to lecture and accuse us. It is claimed that we are xenophobic and hostile, but the truth is that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion and the intertwining of cultures. Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies or as displaced persons fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who have come here with the intention of changing our country and shaping our nation in their own image, those who have come with violence and against our will, have always been met with resistance.

Ladies and Gentlemen, At first, they are only talking about a few hundred, a thousand or two thousand relocated people. But not a single responsible European leader would dare to swear under oath that this couple of thousand will not eventually increase to tens or hundreds of thousands. If we want to stop this mass migration, we must first of all curb Brussels. The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatics of internationalism. We cannot allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime, terrorism, homophobia and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass disorder or immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down our women and daughters. We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and whom we will share our country with. We know how these things go. First we allow them to tell us whom we must take in, then they force us to serve foreigners in our country. In the end we find ourselves being told to pack up and leave our own land. Therefore we reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats.

The time has come to ring the warning bell. The time has come for opposition and resistance. The time has come to gather allies to us. The time has come to raise the flag of proud nations. The time has come to prevent the destruction of Europe, and to save the future of Europe. To this end, regardless of party affiliation, we call on every citizen of Hungary to unite, and we call on every European nation to unite. The leaders and citizens of Europe must no longer live in two separate worlds. We must restore the unity of Europe. We the peoples of Europe cannot be free individually if we are not free together. If we unite our forces, we shall succeed; if we pull in different directions, we shall fail. Together we are strength, disunited we are weakness. Either together, or not at all – today this is the law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, In 1848 it was written in the book of fate that nothing could be done against the Habsburg Empire. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed and the German sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. In 1956 it was written in the book of fate that we were to remain an occupied and sovietised country until patriotism was extinguished in the very last Hungarian. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the Soviet sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. Today it is written in the book of fate that hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old and national. They will blend cultures, religions and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. And if we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed, and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe. The task which awaits the Hungarian people, the nations of Central Europe and the other European nations which have not yet lost all common sense is to defeat, rewrite and transform the fate intended for us. We Hungarians and Poles know how to do this. We have been taught that only if you are brave enough do you look danger in the face. We must therefore drag the ancient virtue of courage out from under the silt of oblivion. First of all we must put steel in our spines, and we must clearly answer the foremost, the single most important question determining our fate with a voice so loud so that it can be heard far and wide. The question upon which the future of Europe stands or falls is this: “Shall we live in slavery or in freedom?” That is the question – give your answer!

Go for it Hungary, go for it Hungarians!

(, Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister)


Friday, 8 December 2017

For Trump, an Embassy in Jerusalem Is a Political Decision, Not a Diplomatic One

By Mark Lander -  DEC. 6, 2017

When President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, one man who was probably smiling was the Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.

WASHINGTON — Ten days before Donald J. Trump took office, Sheldon G. Adelson went to Trump Tower for a private meeting. Afterward, Mr. Adelson, the casino billionaire and Republican donor, called an old friend, Morton A. Klein, to report that Mr. Trump told him that moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a major priority.

“He was very excited, as was I,” said Mr. Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, a hard-line pro-Israel group. “This is something that’s in his heart and soul.”

The two men had to wait nearly a year, but on Wednesday, Mr. Trump stood beneath a portrait of George Washington to announce that he was formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and setting in motion a plan to move the embassy to the fiercely contested Holy City.

“While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise,” he said, “they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.”

For Mr. Trump, the status of Jerusalem was always more a political imperative than a diplomatic dilemma. Faced with disappointing evangelical and pro-Israel backers like Mr. Adelson, or alarming allies and Arab leaders while jeopardizing his own peace initiative, the president sided with his key supporters.

In doing so, Mr. Trump invited opprobrium from foreign leaders, who said the move was reckless and self-defeating. He also acted against the counsel of Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who worried about anti-American blowback, not least to diplomats and troops serving overseas.

Mr. Trump conceded the provocative nature of his decision. But as he has before, whether in pulling the United States from the Paris climate accord or disavowing the Iran nuclear deal, the president on Wednesday seemed to relish playing a familiar role: the political insurgent, defying foreign policy orthodoxy on behalf of the people who elected him.

“People are waking up to the fact that the president doesn’t see grays and doesn’t like pastels,” said Christopher Ruddy, a conservative news media executive and friend of Mr. Trump’s. “He is very proud that he’s fulfilled so many campaign promises, and the embassy decision is another notch on his belt.”

Mr. Trump’s handling of the embassy question was not unlike his handling of the nuclear deal with Iran, which he reluctantly certified the first time before disavowing it the second time the issue came up.

Under a 1995 law, the president is required to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem unless, citing national security concerns, he signs a waiver, which has to be renewed every six months. The first time he faced that decision, in June, Mr. Trump grudgingly signed it.

At the time, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is leading Mr. Trump’s peace initiative, argued that to move the embassy then might strangle the effort before the administration had established relationships in the region.

Mr. Adelson and other pro-Israel backers were deeply frustrated. He pressed Mr. Trump on the issue at a private dinner in October at the White House that included his wife, Miriam, and Mr. Kushner. Mr. Adelson also vented to Stephen K. Bannon, then the president’s chief strategist, who argued internally for moving the embassy in June.

The Adelsons have long been leading donors to pro-Israel groups and causes, and have forged a close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They have used their casino fortune to push the Republican Party and its politicians to embrace that line.

Early in Mr. Trump’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he privately courted the Adelsons, seeking a meeting and asking for financial support, even as he publicly declared that he did not need or want backing from major donors.

In March 2016, Mr. Trump sought to burnish his credentials as a friend of Israel, telling the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, “We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.”

The Adelsons were persuaded and donated $20 million to a political action committee that supported Mr. Trump’s campaign, and another $1.5 million to the committee that organized the Republican convention.

Since Mr. Trump took office, Mr. Adelson has communicated with him regularly, talking by phone and visiting the White House, and has used his access to push the relocation of the embassy. But he was not the only influential advocate of the move.
Sheldon Anderson, the casino billionaire and a Republican donor
Representatives of evangelical Christian groups similarly pressed the issue with Mr. Trump during the campaign, making it clear that moving the embassy was a major priority.

“In the meetings I was in, it was clearly communicated that evangelicals and Bible-believing Christians see a special relationship with Israel,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council.

When the six-month clock expired again this month, Mr. Trump was determined to leave himself more options. On Nov. 27, he walked into a meeting of the principals’ committee of the National Security Council, as the officials were debating what to do about the embassy. His message, according to officials, was that he wanted more creative solutions.

Mr. Trump’s advisers offered him two alternatives: Sign the waiver again, or sign it but recognize Jerusalem as the capital and set in motion a plan to move the embassy. Mr. Trump mulled the decision for several days, officials said, calling foreign leaders and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. And on Wednesday he announced he was taking the more aggressive approach, again signing the waiver but making it clear he would proceed with a move.

His decision was supported by both Mr. Kushner and the president’s special envoy, Jason D. Greenblatt, who had concluded that shaking up the status quo could actually help rather than hurt their peace efforts.

While they say they recognized that it would cause an immediate uproar — including potentially driving the Palestinians away from negotiations for some time — they believed the process was resilient enough to withstand the shock.

Publicly, Mr. Tillerson has stood by the decision, while Mr. Mattis has been circumspect. Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Mr. Mattis said: “We met in the room on this. It was an open discussion, went on for some time. As always, my advice to the president, I keep confidential.”

A senior adviser to Mr. Tillerson, R. C. Hammond, told reporters that he did not oppose the move, but requested more time, when Mr. Trump’s decision was clear, to contact American diplomatic missions to determine their security needs if protests broke out.

Amid all the warnings about violence, White House officials see a number of potential benefits to the move. Recognizing Jerusalem, officials said, could soothe the right flank of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition government, stabilizing the political situation there.

Also, the Saudi royal family has sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s decision, which some officials said could help the credibility of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman among his fellow Arabs. That could mitigate perceptions that the crown prince has grown too cozy with Mr. Kushner, with whom he has cultivated a close relationship.

In his remarks at the White House, Mr. Trump did not dwell on how his decision might play out in the region. Rather, he cast it as a bold break with decades of failed policy on Jerusalem, which he said brought us “no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.”

“It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result,” Mr. Trump said.

Though he did not mention it, Mr. Trump signed the same waiver as his predecessors, Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv for now. White House officials said that was unavoidable because it would take several years to move embassy employees to a new building in Jerusalem.

In his speech, Mr. Trump pointed out that the 1995 law passed Congress with an overwhelming majority and was unanimously reaffirmed in the Senate six months ago. That may explain why the reaction to the move was comparatively muted on Capitol Hill.

For Mr. Trump, the political benefits clearly outweigh the costs. The Republican Jewish Committee bought a full-page ad in The New York Times that is to be published on Thursday, depicting Mr. Trump praying at the Western Wall.

“President Trump,” the slogan said, “You Promised. You Delivered.”

To press its case with supporters, the White House convened two calls for religious leaders, one on Tuesday night to alert them to the coming announcement and a second, more detailed call on Wednesday.

Most of the participants were from the evangelical Christian community and included Trump allies like Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition; Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor who spoke at Mr. Trump’s private inaugural prayer service; and Mike Evans, a Christian Zionist who writes commentary on Middle Eastern issues.

Among the questions they asked was how quickly the president would move the embassy. White House officials pleaded for patience. At the end of the call, according to a person who took part, a pastor and a rabbi closed with prayers.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem,” the pastor said. “And thank God we have a president who would take this step.”

NY Times - Trump Policy on Jerusalem

Saturday, 4 November 2017

[Zionist] Jews Versus Free Speech And Jeremy Bedford-Turner ex Occidental Observer

by Andrew Joyce Ph. D.

"The judiciary itself, which has for so long been the last safeguard of our liberty and honor, seems to have forgotten the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ in the general collapse of public morality and equity.”
Alphonse Toussenel [ in ] The Jews: Kings of the Epoch
When I was younger, and first learning to play chess, the part of the game I found most difficult was learning to interpret the intentions of my opponent and anticipate his course of action. Like most novices, my focus was on moving pawns out of the way in order to bring more powerful pieces into play. It was only as time progressed that I realized the importance and inherent power of the pawns themselves, and with that realization came an appreciation for my opponent’s opening strategy.
I was very recently reminded of this learning curve by the slowly unveiling strategy of one of Britain’s Jewish ‘charities,’ the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which has placed free speech in check and threatens mate at any moment. In a case that will have devastating repercussions for free speech in Britain, CAA has proven itself even more influential than the government’s Crown Prosecution Service, which has now capitulated to the Jewish group and granted a judicial review into its earlier decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner, known among colleagues as Jez Turner, for a 2015 speech.
The Historical and Political Context
Context is crucial, and it is important to note that the Turner case is the culmination of a strategy that long precedes even the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. This strategy, which in Britain can be traced back to the 1910s, concerns repeated and consistent attempts to bring about the criminalization of ‘anti-Semitism,’ or in other words, to make criticism of Jews illegal. Although the precise nature of these attempts have fluctuated slightly over time, Jews have been remarkably prominent in the introduction of laws, or influencing the interpretation of laws, that negatively impact on free speech. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. [1] However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2]
Further attempts to achieve such legislation were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed antidiscrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.[4]
Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952 when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever, introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.
In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Scholar Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986). The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and which is being used in part in the CAA's war on Jez Turner.
The Turner Case
On July 4th 2015 Jez Turner, along with fellow patriots, staged a static protest in Whitehall, opposite Downing Street, in protest at the development of the Shomrim, a Jewish ‘defense’ group that possessed all the trappings of an illegal religious police force. During the protest, it has been alleged that Turner gave a speech in which he stated that that “all politicians are nothing but a bunch of puppets dancing to a Jewish tune, and the ruling regimes in the West for the last one hundred years have danced to the same tune.” Turner is also reported as having stated that Jews played an influential role in the French Revolution and both World Wars, before concluding that England was a content and successful nation during the period of the expulsion (1290–1656), and adding that we should “free England from Jewish control.”

Gideon Falter: Head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism
Although the initial report to the police was made by the more senior Jewish organization, the Community Security Trust (CST), Gideon Falter, head of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism,[10] was the most vocal and ardent pursuer of the case. The police, in accordance with established process for ‘hate crimes,’ passed footage of the speech to the Crown Prosecution Service's counterterrorism division. It was here that Falter began to encounter difficulties, and why a further Jewish campaign to hinder free speech in Britain has acquired momentum in the last twelve months. While [ the Jew ] Leon Brittan’s inclusion of an ‘incitement to racial hatred’ clause in the 1986 Public Order Act was an important hit on free speech, it was not all-encompassing, and it did not come close to making ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service’s policy guidelines on cases involving ‘incitement’ under the 1986 Act clearly state that the language employed by a defendant must have been “threatening, abusive or insulting. These words are given their normal meaning but the courts have ruled that behavior can be annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting.”
Moreover, further comment from the CPS has made it clear that the language employed by the defendant must have been “grossly abusive or insulting” or moved beyond reasonable “criticism” of a group, for a prosecution to be valid, since “it is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence.” At some point in the aftermath of Falter’s report to the authorities, the CPS made the decision that Jez Turner hadn’t said anything illegal and ceased legal action against him.
Five months after the speech, Gideon Falter approached the Chief Crown Prosecutor for London with a view to discovering the charging decision in the case. He was informed by the CPS that Turner was entitled to free speech and hadn’t broken any laws. Falter then attempted to request a Victim’s Right to Review, a request that was declined on the basis that Turner hadn’t mentioned Falter and therefore Falter couldn’t claim victim status. Falter then used his influence to obtain meetings with both the Chief Executive of the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom informed Falter that Turner simply hadn’t broken the law. At that point Falter, who has previously boasted of “holding the government’s feet to the fire,” issued legal proceedings against the CPS in his effort to make ‘anti-Semitism’ illegal, with or without legislation.
It is with all of this in mind that we need to reconsider some other recent developments, because other pawns have been put in place just prior to the latest twist in the Turner case — the ‘test case’ for the criminalization of criticism of Jewish influence in Britain. These pawns have consisted of two major propaganda drives, both of which have been largely led or orchestrated by Falter. The first drive has been a constant media droning about a putative, but somehow mysteriously invisible, “rise in anti-Semitism” in Britain. Falter has been the chief author of this myth, writing in January 2015 of “Britain’s tsunami of anti-Semitism.” Falter’s ‘tsunami’ apparently consisted of a polling result in which 25% of British respondents replied positively to the statement: “Jews chase money more than other British people.” Falter, who evidences almost psychopathic levels of paranoia, claimed that even though this much-feared anti-Semitism was ‘invisible,’ “the Jewish population must be protected by the state. … British people must remind their Jewish countrymen that they stand with us. Anti-Semitism in Britain is not a Jewish problem, it’s a British problem.” In a masterfully Jewish false syllogism, Falter added that: “Jews are the litmus test of freedom – our fate is the fate of society.”
It is an unfortunate fact that the media and government have indulged the wanton paranoia of this individual and the group of fanatics that he leads. Falter has not only been given meetings with those at the highest levels of government and law enforcement, but has even been allowed to put forward proposals that Jews be allowed to ‘educate’ police and prosecution lawyers on who, and for what comments, they should charge. We may consider it a paradox indeed, for an allegedly poor, downtrodden, and persecuted group to “hold the feet of the government to the fire.”
It was on the back of this ‘fake news’ of a rise in anti-Semitism that Falter produced another masterstroke in pushing the British government to adopt a ludicrously vague ‘official definition’ of anti-Semitism:
Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The significance of the adoption of this nonsensical statement had less to do with the definition itself, than it had to its part in the larger effort to criminalize criticism of Jews. The adoption of the definition, in tandem with Jewish-orchestrated media propaganda about a non-existent rise in anti-Semitism, has been part of an attempt to weaken interpretations of the 1986 Public Order Act that lean towards protecting free speech. Falter has complained that “our criminal justice system is failing badly,” by which he means that the criminal justice system is not fully serving Jewish interests. The new ‘pawns’ pushed forward by Falter and his ilk are intended to convince the public, government, and the legal system that Jews, and not free speech, should be protected, and that they should be protected from criticism — because, after all, criticism is based on “a certain perception of Jews,” and is therefore anti-Semitic. The implication of this phrasing, of course, is that actual data on Jewish influence on the media or the political process (including enacting laws against free speech!) are removed from honest public discussion and debate.
With the media-invented frenzy about the ‘rise’ in anti-Semitism, and the introduction of a new definition of anti-Semitism, all that was needed for a final assault on the deficiencies of the 1986 Public Order Act was a test case in which a defendant had previously escaped prosecution under it. Jez Turner was just such a defendant, and he has been selected by Jewish activists as the fulcrum on which the fate of free speech in Britain will turn. Just days ago, in an unprecedented eventuality, the CAAs legal team forced the CPS to reconsider its decision not to prosecute Turner. Falter gloated immediately that “their surrender was unequivocal.”
The question remains for all freedom-loving Britons and for all men of the West where this warning sounds: Will you surrender? One person who won’t is Jez Turner himself. I met Jez in person a little over a year ago in Stockport, England, and found him to be an intelligent and affable gentleman. He is not given to extremes, and is often considered in his choice of words and actions. We discussed history and politics over fish and chips, and literature during one (very windy) walk along the coast. A very talented speaker and organizer, Jez has given a lot to the cause in England, and has done so during periods where others have taken a back seat. In particular, his London Forum has been the lifeblood of the movement in Britain during the last several years. All of this, of course, makes him a valuable ‘scalp’ to our opponents, and the ideal target upon which to base the broader assault on free speech.
Despite the fact that a courtroom beckons, Jez remains in good spirits. In my last correspondence with him he had this to say — clearly anticipating a courtroom battle over the extent of Jewish influence in Britain. I can think of no better way to finish:
“Our job is to get the truth out there in whatever way possible and a court room is a good a place as any.”

Friday, 7 July 2017

Isolating Trump: Merkel's G-20 Climate Alliance Is Crumbling


By Christiane Hoffmann, Peter Müller and Gerald Traufetter - 09 June 2017

The German chancellor had been hoping to isolate Donald Trump on climate issues at the upcoming G-20 summit in Hamburg. But Merkel's hoped-for alliance is crumbling, underscoring Germany's relative political weakness globally. Many countries are wary of angering the United States.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel had actually thought that Canada's young, charismatic prime minister, Justin Trudeau, could be counted among her reliable partners. Particularly when it came to climate policy. Just two weeks ago, at the G-7 summit in Sicily, he had thrown his support behind Germany. When Merkel took a confrontational approach to U.S. President Donald Trump, Trudeau was at her side.

But by Tuesday evening, things had changed. At 8 p.m., Merkel called Trudeau to talk about how to proceed following Trump's announced withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. To her surprise, the Canadian prime minister was no longer on the attack. He had switched to appeasement instead.

What would be wrong with simply striking all mentions of the Paris Agreement from the planned G-20 statement on climate, Trudeau asked. He suggested simply limiting the statement to energy issues, something that Trump would likely support as well. Trudeau had apparently changed his approach to Trump and seemed concerned about further provoking his powerful neighbor to the south.

The telephone call made it clear to Merkel that her strategy for the G-20 summit in early July might fail. The chancellor had intended to clearly isolate the United States. at the Hamburg meeting, hoping that 19 G-20 countries would underline their commitment to the Paris Agreement and make Trump a bogeyman of world history. A score of 19:1.

If even Trudeau is having doubts, though, then unity among those 19 is looking increasingly unlikely. Since then, the new formula has been to bring as many countries as possible together against one.

The first cracks began appearing on the Thursday before last. After returning from the G-7 summit in the Sicilian town of Taormina, Merkel had sent a clear signal to her team: "We have to stay together, we have to close ranks."

From the G-6 to the G-3

But even before Trump announced the American withdrawal from the Paris Agreement that evening in the White House Rose Garden, it had become clear in Berlin that they would miss their first target. Led by the Italian G-7 presidency, the plan had been for a joint reaction to Trump's withdrawal, an affirmation from the remaining six leading industrial nations: We remain loyal to Paris.

Suddenly, though, Britain and Japan no longer wanted to be part of it. British Prime Minister Theresa May didn't want to damage relations with Trump, since she would need him in the event of a hard Brexit, the Chancellery surmised last week. And given the tensions with North Korea, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe couldn't put his country's alliance with the U.S. at risk. In other words: Climate policy is great, but when it comes to national interests, it is secondary.

In the end, the Germans, French and Italians were on their own. The G-6 had become the G-3.

It is a defeat for Merkel, and not just when it comes to climate policy. It is also a setback for her claim to leadership on the global stage. Germany's geopolitical influence, the incident shows, remains limited. When it comes to power, security and interests, Germany is a not a global player, but a mid-sized power that isn't even able to keep Europe together.

The German chancellor may have become the hero of liberals and democrats around the globe, but she is unable to fulfill the expectations placed on her as the putative "leader of the free world," at least not when it comes to power politics. Even Merkel's psychological deftness in dealing with the posturing potentates of the world isn't enough to make up for the fact that Germany is not a global power when it comes to foreign and security policy.

America, it seems, will remain the world's power broker for the time being.

Unpredictable Variables

When the most powerful heads of state and government gather in Hamburg in less than a month, that fact could make things difficult for the event's German hosts, and not just when it comes to climate policy. The international situation hasn't been this unclear in a very long time and it is impossible to predict how the meeting participants will act and how the summit will unfold. There are "so many fault lines," says a source in the Chancellery: The battle for free trade and protectionism, the war in Syria, the Qatar crisis and the ongoing fighting in Ukraine all pose a threat to summit bonhomie.

In internal discussions, a list of unpredictable variables has been drawn up. At the very top is Donald Trump.

Indeed, the U.S. president's first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatens to overshadow the entire summit. Merkel had hoped that the two would organize a meeting prior to the Hamburg summit so that their encounter would not become a central issue. But now, all eyes are likely to be on the face-to-face meeting between the leaders of America and Russia, particularly given that the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Moscow is gaining steam in Washington.

In Berlin, preparations for the summit are continuing full speed ahead, with the Chancellery focusing primarily on the preparation of two documents. One is the summit's official closing communiqué, which all 20 heads of state and government are to sign. The document is to reflect Merkel's stamp on the summit, and it focuses on a broad array of issues from trade to Africa to women's rights.

Several drafts have circulated among the G-20 members in recent weeks. Of particular note: There isn't a single mention of the climate in the document. There is a decent possibility that, if the U.S. is to sign it, the closing document will remain completely silent on climate issues.

Hope Fades

In parallel, though, Merkel's advisers are working on an "Action Plan on Climate, Energy and Growth," a document that had initially been planned for the 19 in Merkel's original 19:1 calculation. But hope is fading that enough heads of state and government can be found to sign the document. Thirteen pages long, the paper asks signatories to commit themselves to "the restructuring of energy systems consistent with Paris" and to their "nationally determined contributions" to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

For the Americans, the document is an imposition. It includes a number of items in which the Paris Agreement is expressly affirmed and substantiated - the pact that Trump has just withdrawn from. "Our actions are guided by the Paris Agreement," the document states, the goal of which is that of "holding global temperature increases to well below 2 degrees." The paper also discusses the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and the $50 billion that industrialized nations have pledged to make available to help developing nations reach their targets. An array of items that, as has recently become apparent, Trump has little use for.

Officials in Brussels are cautiously optimistic. "We expect that the document will be signed by the 19 countries," says one diplomat involved in G-20 preparations. Nobody at EU headquarters, though, has any hope that the U.S. will join them.

In Berlin, the mood is less confident. There are widespread concerns that a whole list of countries might pull back out of fear of the consequences for their relations with Trump - something they aren't willing to risk over the question as to how hot it might be on the planet in 100 years. Indeed, the Chancellery has begun recalibrating its view of success, now content to settle for a situation in which no other country joins the U.S. in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

German officials believe there are several countries whose signatures to the document are by no means certain. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, could be on the search for revenge following the dispute over German parliamentarians' rights to visit German troops stationed in Incirlik. The Saudis, meanwhile, might jump ship because of the multibillion-dollar defense deal they just signed with Trump.

A Lesson from China

Moscow, meanwhile, has signaled to the Chancellery that Russian President Vladimir Putin stands behind Paris and would sign the document. But can he really be trusted? Merkel has spent a lot of time on the phone in recent days and has also been traveling. This week, she visited Argentina and Mexico, both of which are allies when it comes to climate issues.

Just how difficult it is to keep partners together on climate protection issues was on full display to Merkel last Friday in Brussels. Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang was in the EU capital and was eating dinner with European Council President Donald Tusk and Commission President Juncker just as Trump announced his withdrawal from Paris. The trio didn't bother to turn on the television since they already knew what the U.S. president was going to announce.

Indeed, they had planned to issue a joint response the next day at the EU-China summit. They had negotiated a summit declaration in which both sides would call for a significant intensification of the fight against climate change. High-ranking EU officials had already begun crowing that the statement was the response from China and Europe to Trump's effrontery.

But it never happened. It wasn't because the two sides disagreed on climate issues, but there was discord surrounding a different part of the statement dealing with trade policy. Ultimately, the disagreement could not be resolved and Juncker, Tusk and Li appeared before the press after a three-hour delay - and without a joint statement on the climate.

Indeed, trade policy is likely to be another significant sticking point at the G-20 summit in Hamburg. The Europeans got an indication of what is likely in store for them on Wednesday and Thursday of this week at the ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The U.S. declined even to support sentences that merely repeated the minimal compromise that Trump had grudgingly agreed to in Sicily. The G-7 had only been able to find common ground on a few thin statements criticizing predatory pricing or condemning overcapacity in steel production. In the closing document of the OECD meeting on globalization, there is now no mention at all of trade or climate.

The Role of Mediator

As such, the G-20 could result in something that hosts of the event normally do all they can to avoid: open discord. On the issue of climate, the decisive question will be whether the Germans are willing to seek conflict with Trump. But it currently doesn't look as though they are, with government officials eager to avoid turning the climate statement into an instrument of power politics. Instead, Merkel is likely to retreat to a role that suits her better anyway: that of mediator. As the host, officials say, Germany will focus on playing intermediary at the summit.

On the other hand, though, Merkel also isn't interested in the type of compromise proposed by Trudeau. After the G-7, she said that climate protection was too important to her to engage in compromise.

Ultimately, the end result could be that the issue is largely ignored. The G-20 isn't a climate conference, officials are saying, and the conflicts might be better suited for the next global climate summit, scheduled to take place in Bonn at the end of the year.

The German population, of course, would almost certainly prefer to see the chancellor stand up to Trump. If Merkel, who has staked a significant portion of her political legacy on climate change, were to exclude climate from the G-20 summit, she could face accusations of caving in to the U.S. president. And in a campaign year, that's not a good look. Indeed, the center-left Social Democrats are already positioning themselves to benefit. "It would of course be good if as many participants of the G-20 summit as possible were to reconfirm their adherence to the Paris climate deal," says Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel of the SPD. "Silent consent in opposition to the climate deal cannot be the message sent by the G-20."


Thursday, 20 April 2017

Why Horst Mahler is not Voluntarily Returning to Prison

19 APRIL 2017

Are you going voluntarily to prison? No!

The devil's disciples, who are doing their satanic work in the Federal Republic in very many high places, now want to strike a final blow against Horst Mahler, to accelerate his death so he dies in prison.

Mr. Mahler has therefore made the right decision - he has sort political asylum abroad.

What does it mean for us? [Should we] stop the protest against this scandal? No!

Mr. Mahler has sacrificed many years of his life for our people and is not to be allowed to live his own life in his homeland? Shall we, pay the price for seeking truth and freedom for our people in exile?

We must now increase the scale [of this struggle] and continue the fight for the freedom of our people. We must show the decent people in our country who are the agents of the devil in the judiciary, politics and the economy in order to enable them to recognize the truth and to resist.

Freedom for Horst Mahler - freedom for Germany!

Horst Mahler on April 19, 2017 - Declaration

Source:- Enderluege Blog

Saturday, 18 March 2017

Germany threatens to fine social media companies €50m for hate speech and fake news 

Wednesday 15th March 2017
by  Cara McGoogan 

Germany has threatened severe penalties for companies that fail to crack down on hate speech, illegal content and fake news.

In a crack down on social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, Germany has proposed levying fines of up to €50 million (£44m) for the failure to remove such posts.

As part of the measures, sites will have to delete offending material within a week and run 24-hour helplines for concerned users. Illegal material, such as racist language, will have have to be removed within 24 hours. 

The proposals from Heiko Maas, German justice minister, are significantly greater than previous suggestions to impose €500,000 fines on the companies. They will be part of a bill that will be put to the German Parliament in an effort to combat malicious activity and disinformation campaigns online.

At the moment Facebook removes 39 per cent of flagged content, while Twitter deletes just 1 per cent, according to research released alongside the proposals. It also showed Facebook removes 33 per cent of offending material within 24 hours, and Twitter none.  

"It is now clear that we must further increase the pressure on social networks," said Maas. "We need legal regulations to make companies even more obligated to eradicate criminal offences." 

The severe measures come amid fears that online hoaxes could influence the German federal elections later this year. 

Facebook has already introduced a tool in Germany that lets users flag suspicious content in response to claims that "fake news" on the network influenced the outcome of the US presidential election. It has also said it plans to employ 700 people in Berlin to monitor flagged material by the end of the year.

If the measures pass into law it will require social media companies to employ staff that monitor content around the clock. Individual members of staff responsible for handling complaints could also be fined up to €5 million for failing to comply with the regulations. 

Bitkom, the German digital trade association, told the Financial Times the proposals would be "utterly impossible to implement in operational terms".

[Ed: Zionists attempt to deliver the coup de grâce - they know all about fake news as they are the original and Chief Offenders]