By M.K. Styllinski
“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist … There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
– Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
– Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
Zionists and apologists for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians believe that Arabs have no rights on the land before it was stamped “Israel” and that there was no indigenous Arab population there in the first place. This may serve to buffer crimes against Palestinians and the continuing spread of illegal Jewish settlements but it has no place in objective fact.
According to the latest in cultural, anthropological and genetic research the Palestinian people are: “the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.” The evidence further shows that: “Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of the Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core reaches back to prehistoric times.” And where: “a study of high-resolution haplotypes [DNA sequences] demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70 per cent) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82 per cent) belong to the same chromosome pool.” 
The outrageous irony in the face of all this carnage is that Palestinians and Jews are drawn from the same genes – they have the same Semitic origins. The ancestors of modern-day Palestinians have been present in Palestine for thousands of years. The idea that Palestinians migrated there in the last couple of centuries is a persistent myth which has been comprehensively debunked by many academics who haven’t been intimidated by Zionist threats . The evidence also suggests that many of the most vociferous Zionists may not be from what we perceive as traditional Jewish origins at all, but descended from the Khazars but that’s for another post.
Perhaps the most convincing is Norman Finkelstein’s Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995) which presents and open-and-shut case of the true history of Israeli-Palestinian origins and conflict and why these myths seem so intractable.  (His latest book: Old Wine, Broken Bottle addresses the toxic influences of Zionism and is a valuable companion). In truth, regardless of historical fictions, it should be obvious to anyone that what happened over two thousand years ago takes on less relevance when ethnic cleansing, dispossession, human rights abuses and an apartheid environment for modern Palestinians is any way to behave, most especially given Jewish history?
We have taken a very brief look at the myths and propaganda that underpin the Zionist cause. While personally, I certainly have a problem with organised religion as a whole – including Judaism – it is important to reiterate that many Ultra-Orthodox and non-practicing Jews alike do not support Zionism. There are many forms of Zionism including Revisionist, General, Religious, Labour, and Green. The form of Zionism referred to on this blog includes religious and revisionist. It is these forms which are most closely tied to the intelligence apparatus, messianic cults and the Anglo-American establishment and therefore of most interest.
The overriding and common theme of all strains of Zionism is a claim to the land of Israel as a national, self-determined homeland for Jewish people based on the interpretation of religious tradition. These interpretations were riddled with historical inaccuracies at their inception both intentional and belief-based, along with empire-driven, fallacious arguments to justify the expulsion of Palestinians. The result is the Arab-Israeli conflict and the geo-political strategies that have intermingled with Jewish determinism ever since.
There is also the question of Israel as a democracy, which given its record of human rights and religious intolerance falls very short of being the only democratic country in the Middle East. Zionists like to sabre-rattle the importance of maintaining their security against Arab nations while sowing enormous seeds of destabilisation in the world. Israel does not confirm or deny obtaining nuclear weapons but is widely believed to possess them (Ask Israeli whistleblower Mordechi Vanunu 
It also harbours chemical and biological weapons which, as we will see, have been routinely used against Palestinian and Arabic peoples despite the international ban on their usage. This is all packaged within the buffer-zone of righteous indignation and moral certitude of Holocaust victimhood. Accusations of anti-Semitism allow Zionists to justify and enforce an apartheid state and the continuance of Palestinian oppression. But we must go back in time a little further to remind ourselves exactly why Zionism is such an important and influential tool of political ponerology in the 21st century.
The aim of the early 19th century Zionist movements was to colonise Palestine hand in hand with the imperial and corporate interests of the German, American, French, Russian interests. The British and Ottoman empires were perhaps the most important parties vying for control. But Revisionist Zionism was growing teeth by returning to Old Testament values and Leninist strategies to make it all happen. After ALL, emancipation meant integration and assimilation which could never be allowed under the old Mosaic Law of separatism.
With the Amaleks in mind, the objectives behind Zionism saw nothing less than the tools of ethnic cleansing and gradual genocide to achieve their aims. Even the Labour branch of Zionism with its “socialist” tint to invasion sought out: “… every tree and every bush to be planted by Jewish ’pioneers’ ” and “… to hire Jews and only Jews” thus helping to break the spirit and the long disenfranchisement and disconnection of Palestine to their land. 
Socialism became inverted as it rooted out undesirable workers. Haifa, Gaza, Jaffa, Nablus, Acre, Jericho, Ramle, Hebron, Jerusalem, and Nazareth were successful towns integrating Jews into a culturally diverse society. Foundation builders of modern Zionism such as the Hovevei, or Hibbat Zion (“Those who are Lovers of Zion”) had already established 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897. By the late 19th century tolerance turned to fear and resistance to both the Feudalist Ottoman Empire, Turkish dominance and the encroaching colonisation of Jewish settlers. By 1905 the World Zionist Congress had formerly acknowledged this resistance to Zionist designs.
By the time the first Congress was held in Vienna, 1897, the rich Talmudic communities of Zionists in Russia ensured Dr. Theodore Herzl had embarked on a PR exercise that would span the globe bringing Zionism to fruition as an organized political force. By this time the Kabbalah was already doing its work by offering up a mysticism that appealed to the fizzling romantic aspirations of the British Establishment and glitterati. No better indication of the nature of this political movement would be understood than from a passage in Herzl’s diaries: “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews become worse, this will assist in realization of our plans. I have an excellent idea. I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends.” 
Herzl was used and summarily cast aside after suggesting Jewish emancipation for those in Russia.
Although the source of eventual support, there was initially strong resistance to revisionist Zionism in England where many rank and file Jews had no interest in moving from their respective homes. In 1915, as World War I progressed Jews came down firmly against the Zionist cause seeing it for what it was: an “enemy movement that did not have the vast majority of Jews’ best interests at heart:
“… the Anglo-Jewish Association, through its Conjoint Committee, declared that ‘the Zionists do not consider civil and political emancipation as a sufficiently important factor for victory over the persecution and oppression of Jews and think that such a victory can only be achieved by establishing a legally secured home for the Jewish people. The Conjoint Committee considers as dangerous and provoking anti-Semitism the ‘national’ postulate of the Zionists, as well as special privileges for Jews in Palestine. The Committee could not discuss the question of a British Protectorate with an international organization which included different, even enemy elements.’ ” 
By 1917, Zionists had cut a deal with German imperialist interests in the region which fit perfectly with the game-changing 1917 Balfour Declaration form the British who were rubbing their hands with glee. There is no question that Britain wanted the gateway into the Ottoman Empire and Africa which Israel could provide. Of equal importance was the part played by American and English Religious movement of millennialism or dispensationalists who saw the creation of Israel as integral to the manifestation of Biblical prophecy.
Author Gershom Gorenberg writes:
“On November 2, 1917, two days after General Edmund Allenby’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force took Beersheba from the Ottoman Turks and prepared to march north toward Jerusalem, the British government announced an entirely different rationale for the campaign: Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to British Zionist leader Lord Rothschild, informing him that the cabinet had approved “a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations: His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…
Five weeks later, Allenby’s army took Jerusalem. For two days after the actual conquest, the general’s arrival was meticulously planned. … Christian armies were returning to the city for the first time since the Crusades. Allenby arrived at Jaffa Gate riding a white horse, with the pomp of a king. Then, before he entered the Old City, he dismounted and walked. A standard account of the general’s reason: His Savior had entered this city on foot, and so would he. 
A pomp and ceremony fusion of freemasonry and “End Times” fervour was fizzing away amid the imperialist desires. Or as Gorenberg observed: “Conquering Jerusalem had to not only be considered strategically, it had to be accomplished ‘according to prophecy.’ ” Which is why the Jewish people and Zionists have much to be suspicious about when it comes to so called Christian Zionists presently involved in smoothing the path to the promised land. Though many English politicians and strategists were not caught up in Christian Dominionism enough passengers were aboard this particular juggernaut of mutual interest who cared little about the occasional jostle in beliefs. There was money to be made whether or not souls were destined to be damned or saved.
A future president of the World Zionist Organisation had this comment to make regarding British involvement: “We can reasonably say that should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out there, perhaps more; they would develop the country, bring back civilization to it and form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal.”  British and US and banking interests aligned against Germany as well the aforementioned seeding of occult-romanticism harboured by the Establishment ensured that Arthur Balfour delivered a blueprint for Arab exclusion. Despite platitudes and placatory noises sent forth to shocked Arab nations, Balfour’s true sentiments were summed up in the following missive: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad is rooted in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires of the 700,000-plus Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” 
This has been the raison d’être for British foreign policy ever since.
In the 1920s, Zionism grew into its more militantly “Mosaic” expression with Vladimir Jabotinsky as leader and founder of the revisionist branch. As a thuggish spellbinder his oratory and unyielding declaration of an “Iron Wall” created a new directive to wrest Palestine from its Arab owners “by force or not at all.” Inspired by Benito Mussolini, Jabotinsky’s vision appropriated the Nazi symbolism of steel and iron to forge an aggressive and pro-active form of Zionism which appealed to the more pugnacious and brutal proponents of the movement from Likud to the present-day Zio-Conservatives. Jabotinsky brought forth the undercurrents of Jewish fascism and its obsession with racial purity to stir the blood of the new invaders where he claimed:
“The source of national feeling … lies in a man’s blood …in his racio-physico type and in that alone. … A man’s spiritual outlook is primarily determined by his physical structure. For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood can become adapted to the spiritual outlook of a German or a Frenchman. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid, but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish.” 
True to the tried and tested British Empire policy of breaking nations that continues to this day, the economic destabilisation of the indigenous Palestinian economy began in earnest, where Jewish investment and capital took precedence, effectively handing over the economic infrastructure to Jewish settlers. The settler community needed not only to displace and remove Palestinians but to extinguish their existence from Greater Israel and indeed from any map at all and the British helped them do it.
A serious uprising by indigenous Palestinians lasted from 1936 – 1939 with brutal attempts by the British military to quell it. Mass demolitions of homes ensued with the inevitable shadow of martial law following in its wake. Zionism in fact, sought to eradicate the farming, artisan and town communities of Palestinians and forcibly replace it with an entirely new workforce composed of the settler population. It was to be an ethnic cleansing based on Old Testament/Torah teachings. And true to form, much propaganda began to re-write history in favour of Jewish pre-eminence with Revisionist Zionism acting as the crusading sword.
By 1938, many thousands of Palestinians were assassinated, imprisoned, almost 150 executed and thousands of homes demolished and burned. Haganah was the name given to Zionist forces integrated with British intelligence and Jabotinsky’s National Military Organization or the Irgun. This pseudo-police force effectively acted as a mercenary unit in the pay of British interests, much like the private security firms trained by the CIA, MOSSAD and MI6 in what is now left of Iraq. 
After the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947 and by the end of the Arab-Israeli war of the following year, the first Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion showed the impetus behind the creation of the State and ambitions of Zionists as he addressed his General Staff prior to the last offensive: “Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” 
This was merely a military realisation of his aspirations expressed on a number of occasions to the Zionist faithful, one of which was voiced back in 1938 where he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv: “The boundaries of Zionist aspiration include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.” 
Zionists have been using governments to slice up Palestine and the world ever since.
“… it has become an open secret in our world today that there is a 300 pound gorilla in the room—the role of the Organized Jewish Community—generally, though not always correctly, known as “the Zionist movement”—that is a preeminent power in our modern society, not only in the United States but in most of the West and elsewhere across the planet.”
– Michael Collins Piper
The Yesha Rabbinical Counsel made an announcement in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna, Lebanon, in 2006: “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such thing as ‘innocence’ among the enemy.” 
Such cold hatred is nothing new.
In 1947, when the United Nations partitioned Palestine, and May 15, 1948, when the State was formally proclaimed, the Zionist army and militia had seized 75 per cent of Palestine, forcing 780,000 Palestinians out of the country. By the time the Israeli-Arab war of 48’ had finished, several notorious massacres had reached international attention though they were not the only ones. The Zionist terror groups in the shape of IZL, the Irgun and the Lehi or Lohamei Herut (otherwise known as the Stern Gang) descended on the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, murdering over 100 men, women and children. 
Labour Zionist Israeli army and Israel Defence Forces or ZAHAL carried out a massacre at Dueima in the same year, an account of which by a soldier and participant in the atrocity was published in Davar, the official Hebrew daily newspaper:
… They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they [soldiers] fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them.
One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up … Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered “good guys” … became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. 
In the 1950s massacres were part of the program of total expulsion and eradication of Palestinians from their land and continued in isolated pockets and larger scale attacks throughout the refugee camps and villages of Gaza. Once such massacre was carried out at the village of Kibya in October 1953 where once again, men women and children were murdered this time under the command of Ariel Sharon. The massacre at Kafr Qasim followed the same pattern in October 1956. There were even massacres that were lauded as especially valuable in strategic terms becoming part of the Israeli folklore of ethnic cleansing: “I have always said that if the deepest and profoundest hope symbolizing redemption is the rebuilding of the [Jewish] Temple … then it is obvious that those mosques [al-Haram al-Sharif and al-Aqsa] will have, one way or another, to disappear one of these days … Had it not been for Deir Yassin, half a million Arabs would be living in the state of Israel [in 1948]. The state of Israel would not have existed.” 
In the 1960s the true agenda was beginning to reach the press. David Ben Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs expressed his desire to: “… reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters,  and by the 1970s, when an Israeli government memorandum entitled “The Koenig report” was leaked by Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar it laid bare the policy of systemic expulsion of Palestinian people though somewhat euphemistically expressed. Regarding the Palestinian minority the only thing needed was the: “…objective thought that ensures the long-term Jewish national interests”… while stressing the examination of “… the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentrations.” 
Indeed, the same Zionist policies and principles have expanded and developed under Jewish fundamentalism and extremist cults presently focused within the United States government. It is worth repeating the fact that many of the original Zionist settlers did not agree with this policy of expulsion and were not adverse to the idea of living with their Palestinian neighbours. It is this principle of Judaism that is also rising up to resist pathological takeover of those who have right human relations at heart, regardless of their religious or ideological affiliations. It is here that the hope for Israeli-Arab destiny lies. 
In the 1980s on the American television show 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace interviewed the late Meir Kahane, the controversial Brooklyn rabbi and Israeli Knesset member. This Rabbi was an advocate for the expulsion of all Arabs from all of Palestine which included “Israeli Arabs” and Arabs living in the occupied territories:
Wallace : “You proposed a law for the Knesset to pass against Arabs that’s really astonishingly identical to the Nuremberg laws of the Nazis under Adolf Hitler.”
Kahane: “Mr. Wallace, one of the problems of Jews is that they wouldn’t know a Jewish concept if they tripped over one. I merely quoted from the Talmud. Most Jews think Judaism is Thomas Jefferson. It’s not.” 
And Kahane is correct. There are those Jewish men and women who call themselves Zionist yet appear to know nothing of its history and its true nature. Rather, they prefer to see Arabs as the cause of all their ills past and present thus rationalising and condoning the atrocious conditions that Palestinians live under every day of their lives. A lost generation of children suffering deprivation, abuse and poverty is the result of this acquiescence and support of oppression. Only further embitterment and anger can result.
A major player in the economic and ideological expansion of Zionism was Wall Street Banking cartels overseen by the Rothschilds dynasty. By the late 19th century, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region making the Rothschilds the richest family in the world, their five international banking houses comprising “one of the first multinational corporations.” Indeed, as author Herbert Loffman mentions in Return of the Rothschilds, they: “… had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.” 
With the monopoly on oil supply to Europe and the Far East established there was only one problem: another transportation route was needed in order to cope with the volume and the demand for oil. The Suez Canal proved more than economically viable and made Palestine vital to the Rothschilds and their corporate expansionism. Having enormous power in International banking and principle shareholders in most of the important banks of the time, it was easy to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company.
Edmond James de Rothschild began to push for a Jewish homeland in Palestine for two reasons:
1) to take the heat of the growing socialist dispensation in reaction to the Czar Nicholas II, who had instituted anti-Semitic pogroms against Jews, prompting a huge emigration of Jews Russia into Western Europe. The Rothschild’s oil interests were threatened by Russian Jewish émigrés’ strikes and disruptions to Russian business and thus Rothschilds’ profits. By channelling the political passion towards emigration to the new homeland this acted to release the pressure on their business interests until such time it would be safe to openly resume activate corporate ties in Russia.
2) His enthusiastic push to promote and fund the new Jewish State served to kill two birds with one stone: a new economic venture and leverage for the dynasty and offering further clout and manoeuvrability for short and long-term British interests.
It was preceding the war that a group of prominent Zionists wrote a letter to Hitler detailing their belief that there was no need for any disagreements between the Zionist-revisionists and the Nazis. After all, they only wished to be left alone to set up a “nationalist and totalitarian state” for the Jewish people, in the same way Hitler was busy creating the same for the German people. 
Why would the 1933 World Zionist Organization Congress defeat a resolution calling for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43? In fact, the principle distributor of goods to the Nazi regime was the World Zionist Organization throughout the Middle East and Northern Europe. With the help of Wall Street finance, Ha’avara Bank was established in Palestine in order to cater for the wealthy elite of industrialists in Germany, Britain and the US. An indication of this ideological and business relationship between Nazis and Zionists was never more apparent than when Baron Von Mildenstein of the S.S. Security Service was invited to Palestine for a six-month visit:
This visit led to a twelve-part report by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, in Der Angriff (The Assault) in 1934 praising Zionism. Goebbels ordered a medallion struck with the Swastika on one side, and on the other, the Zionist Star of David. In May 1935, Reinhardt Heydrich, the chief of the S.S. Security Service, wrote an article in which he separated Jews into ‘two categories.’ The Jews he favored were the Zionists: ‘Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.’ In 1937, the Labor ‘socialist’ Zionist militia, the Haganah (founded by Jabotinsky) sent an agent (Feivel Polkes) to Berlin offering to spy for the S.S. Security Service in exchange for the release of Jewish wealth for Zionist colonization. Adolf Eichmann was invited to Palestine as the guest of the Haganah. 
Wall Street paved the way for Hitler by heavily investing in the Germany economy, building up a cartel system as part of an overall long term strategy for international banking control. Germany was key stage in this process and allowed the crucial directives of The Dawes Plan and The Young Plan to be implemented. Author Anthony C. Sutton describes the background deals which took place:
The Treaty of Versailles after World War I imposed a heavy reparations burden on defeated Germany. This financial burden — a real cause of the German discontent that led to acceptance of Hitlerism — was utilized by the international bankers for their own benefit. The opportunity to float profitable loans for German cartels in the United States was presented by the Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan. Both plans were engineered by these central bankers, who manned the committees for their own pecuniary advantages, and although technically the committees were not appointed by the U.S. Government, the plans were in fact approved and sponsored by the Government. 
The German cartel system proved vital in manipulating politicians and their idea of economics whilst allowing Hitler and the Nazis to gain power:
“American financiers were directly represented on the boards of two of these three German cartels. This American assistance to German cartels has been described by James Martin as follows: ‘These loans for reconstruction became a vehicle for arrangements that did more to promote World War II than to establish peace after World War I.’” 
Zionism had an extraordinary influence on geo-politics during this tumultuous period. Jewish thought and Zionist lobbying exerted pressure not just on governments but through the media and social networking of the day. Indeed, as noted psychology professor at the California State University Kevin Macdonald mentions in his 2001 book: Culture of Critique:
During World War II they engaged in “loud diplomacy”…organizing thousands of rallies, dinners with celebrity speakers (including prominent roles for sympathetic non-Jews), letter campaigns, meetings, lobbying, threats to newspapers for publishing unfavorable items, insertion of propaganda as news items in newspapers, giving money to politicians and non-Jewish celebrities like Will Rogers in return for their support. By 1944, “thousands of non-Jewish associations would pass pro-Zionist resolutions” … In 1944 both Republican and Democratic platforms included strong pro-Zionist planks even though the creation of a Jewish state was strongly opposed by the Departments of State and War. […]
Jews not only had a prominent position in the U.S. media, they had seized the intellectual and moral high ground via their control of the intellectual and political movements… Not only were Jewish interests beyond the bounds of civilized political discussion, assertions of European ethnic interest became impermissible as well. Such assertions conflicted with the Boasian dogma that genetic differences between peoples were trivial and irrelevant; they conflicted with the Marxist belief in the equality of all peoples and the Marxist belief that nationalism and assertions of ethnic interests were reactionary; such assertions were deemed a sure sign of psychopathology within the frameworks of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School;and they would soon be regarded as the babblings of country bumpkins by the New York Intellectuals and by the Neo-Conservatives who spouted variants of all of these ideologies from the most prestigious academic and media institutions in the society.  [Emphasis mine]
MacDonald emphasises there are obviously other forces that “relegated the nativist mind-set to the political and intellectual fringe…” as well as the “… liberal Protestantism and the rise of the managerial state, but it is impossible to understand the effectiveness of either of these influences in the absence of the Jewish movements …”  Moreover, how ironic and revealing – especially from the bastions of psychoanalysis – that psychopathy should be used as a bludgeoning tool against those that question ethnic preeminence and political control. Such ideology has produced innumerable instances of psychologically compromised individuals at the fulcrum of many Zionist-inspired operations.
Palestinian Loss of Land 1946-2008 / Source: “The Maps Tell the True Story” from What Really Happened
The very nature of ethnic diversity means that there are necessarily differences which shouldn’t automatically present a problem. However, MacDonald reiterates the contention that the presence of a comprehensive Jewish ethnocentricity in intellectual and political life has ensured the rise of a “de-ethnicized non-Jewish elite … “… interwoven with a critical mass of ethnically conscious Jews and other ethnic minorities … unique to European and European derived societies.” This activism has concentrated primarily on the social sciences and humanities, politics with a policy focus on immigration and ethnic and mass media. To that end, a paradox is seen in that while advocating separatism and superiority of the Jewish race, certain Jewish intellectual groupings of power established by Zionism within America sought to limit the Social Darwinism of the Anglo-American mind-set and promote the idea of the United States: “… as a set of abstract principles rather than an ethnocultural civilization.” He states further: “At the level of politics, Jewish organizations spearheaded the drive to open up immigration to all of the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations also played a key role in furthering the interests of other racial and ethnic minorities, and they led the legal and legislative effort to remove Christianity from public places.” 
But there were other reasons for this move, or it devolved into something entirely different under the general ponerogenesis of American culture. Either way, the Establishment was on the move and the domination of East coast Elite, European fascism and the emerging American Zionists were moving forward in their respective fields but largely aligned to the dream of a “New World Order” which had a distinctly homogenous undertow to its principles; a hybrid blend of collectivist and capitalist perceptions that advocate One World, One religion, a global army and global governance underpinned by a global financial architecture.
In point of fact, post-war history alone shows us that the rise of Jewish power has ensured that such principles hold sway to ensure a particularly Zionist flavour to this emerging Order, or, as MacDonald states:
“Since the 1960s a hostile, adversary elite has emerged to dominate intellectual and political debate. It is an elite that almost instinctively loathes the traditional institutions of European-American culture: its religion, its customs, its manners, and its sexual attitudes. […] This “hostile elite” is fundamentally a Jewish-dominated elite…. The emergence of this hostile elite is an aspect of ethnic competition between Jews and non-Jews and its effect will be a long-term decline in the hegemony of European peoples in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.” 
And this hegemony is characterised by a particular cross fertilisation with Jewish Cultural Marxism and the Liberal Establishment programming of Fabian-led collectivism. The professor paints a vivid picture of Judeo-centric preoccupations as fertile ground for ponerisation. It is through inherent qualities missing from Judaism though present in European culture which he explains as “individualism, a lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral universalism.”  The intellectual and political movements initiated by Jewish culture and Zionism thus exposed a weakness in the cultural and ethnic integrity of the West which allowed a minority to override it. This is not a problem for Jewish people as a whole when integrating into a new society in its pluralistic sense and without the dictates of Zionism to underpin it. Yet, sadly this is not the case.
To reiterate, MacDonald’s primary reasoning for this state of affairs derives from the idea that:
Europeans are relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to this discussion—Jewish groups. …The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive, cooperating groups is obvious… This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to individualism. […] Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few in groups …Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.
Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than typical Western societies…. I suggest that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. 
So, from this monotheistic and separative background while turning European culture and values on their heads by claiming the opposite, this means that according to MacDonald: “America had entered into an era when it had become morally unacceptable to discuss Jewish interests at all. We are still in that era.” 
Whether criticising the undue influence of Zionism in national or international politics, pushing for US involvement in the Second World War, the creation of a Jewish State or the invasion of Iraq, Libya or Syria – the truth seldom matters when it comes to Zionist interests.
Moshe Gil,’the fact that at the time of the Arab conquest, the population of Palestine was mainly Christian, and that during the Crusaders’ conquest some four hundred years later, it was mainly Muslim. As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders’ conquest.’ Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099 Cambridge University Press, 1983 pp.222-3.
 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict By Norman Finkelstein. Published by 1995.
 See: ‘The Case of Mordechai Vannunu – Preeminent Hero of the Nuclear Age’ by Mark Gaffney. Counterpunch, January 21 2003: “In September 1986, Mordechai Vanunu was illegally abducted by agents of the Mossad for revealing to the world press information that confirmed the existence of Israel’s often-denied plutonium separation plant. The plant is buried eighty feet below ground in the Negev desert, and had long escaped detection. Since the 1960s it has been used to recover plutonium from spent fuel rods from the Dimona nuclear reactor, located nearby. The plant continues to be an integral part of Israel’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. Israel is believed to possess at least 200 nukes.
Then Prime Minister Shimon Peres ordered Vanunu’ s abduction to silence the whistleblower, and to bring him to trial for allegedly jeopardizing the securi ty of the state of Israel. But Vanunu’s real ‘crime’ was speaking the truth. And for that he was made to suffer a fate worse than death: eleven years and five months in solitary confinement. Isolation in a tiny cell is a well-known form of torture, and one that can cause deep emotional scars and mental impairment. During this period Vanunu was subjected to constant harassments and humiliations: an obvious attempt by the Mossad to ‘break’ his will, or drive him over the edge. Amnesty International described the conditions of his ordeal as “cruel, inhuman, and degrading.”
Yet, the prisoner held firm as a rock. Nor has Vanunu since wavered from the position of principle he articulated in the very beginning: that the only sane path is full disclosure and abolition of nuclear weapons. From his prison cell Mordechai wrote: “It is a dangerous illusion to believe they [nuclear weapons] can be defensive….Only peace between states can promise security.” / See also: ‘Israel’s Nuclear Programme’ BBC News, December 22, 2003: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency recently urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and surrender its nuclear weapons in order to further peace in the Middle East.”
 History of Zionism By Walter Laqueur, London, 1972. “Later that year, he was jailed for 18 years after a trial for treason that was held in secret. Viewed as a traitor and a spy by most Israelis, Vanunu remains in prison to this day and has spent most of his sentence in solitary confinement. Israel’s former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, widely regarded as the architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme, testified at the trial that Vanunu had done serious damage to Israel’s security. Mr Peres subsequently said: ‘A certain amount of secrecy must be maintained in some fields. The suspicion and fog surrounding this question are constructive, because they strengthen our deterrent.’”
 Part I, pp. 16; The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl Volume 1 Published by Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960 – 1961. Raphael Patai (editor) Translated by Harry Zohn.
 p.267; The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed (1956) New edition published by Veritas Publishing Co Pty Ltd. 2004 | ISBN-10: 0958760225
 op. cit Gorenberg (p.84)
 Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim Weizmann Published by Harpers, 1949. (p.149).
 p.96; The King Crane Commission: An American Inquiry in the Middle East by Harry N. Howard Kayhat, University of Michegan 1963 | Digitized August 2007.
 First published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, November 4, 1923. Published in English in Jewish Herald (South Africa), 26 November 1937. Transcribed & revised by Lenni Brenner.
 p.29; Jabotinsky’s Letter on Autonomy, 1904. Cited in Brenner, The Iron Wall.
 p.96; The 1936-1939 Revolt in Palestine by Ghassan Kanafani (New York, Committee for a Democratic Palestine). Published by Tricontinental Society., 1980.
 Ben-Gurion: A Biography by Michael Bar Zohar. Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1978.
 David Ben Gurion, Report to the World Council of Poale Zion (the forerunner of the Labor Party), Tel Aviv, 1938. Cited by Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1981.
 The Palestinian Fascist leader Haj Hussein Al Ameini, the Grand Mufti visited Germany and was on friendly terms with Hitler. Thus we had the perfect seeds of a ponerogenesis that would see fascist leaders on both sides courting the principle destroyer. It would be this foundation of hatred that would propel the social fires burning. However, the power ratio was clearly with Zionst sympathisers and operatives working in Russia, America, England and Israel itself and which would gradually end up brutally suppressing a whole nation.
 The exact figure is not known but there is a consensus that it was not below 100. “On the evening of April 9th, the Irgun leader publicly exaggerated the death toll in order to terrorize Arabs in Palestine. This was near the end of the British Mandate as Arab-Jewish fighting escalated. The 254 figure is almost certainly an exaggeration, but not an Arab exaggeration.” – Deir Yasin remembered: deiryassin.org. Rather wholly peaceful civilians there was also armed resistance.
 Davar, June 9, 1979. Davar, the official Hebrew daily newspaper of the Labor-Zionist-run Histadrut General Federation of Workers.
 Cited in Israel: An Apartheid State, Zed Books, London 1987. By Peter Myers, November 22, 2000; update May 3, 2003.p.8.
 The Arabs in Israel by Sabri Jiryis, New York Monthly Review Press, 1976.
 The Koenig report – a confidential and internal Israeli government document authored in April 1976 by Yisrael Koenig, a member of the Alignment (then the ruling party), who served as the Northern District Commissioner of the Ministry of the Interior for 26 years.
 This small Jewish resistance movement to Zionism continues today. But one example is Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon, from his essay: “Not In My Name: An Analysis of Jewish Righteousness” sees Zionism as “… racist, it is nationalist, and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism. Only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities.” June 13, 2004. http://www.gilad.co.uk/
 60 Minutes CBS Mike Wallace interviews Meir Kahane 1983.
 ‘Rabbinic Council Says Dead Lebanon Kids Not Innocent’ By Rev. Ted Pike, August 8, 2006.
 Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, A Reappraisal, By Lenni Brenner published by Lawrence Hill & Co.; Revised edition edition Dec 1983 | ISBN-10: 1556520778.
 pp 21-22; Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East By Patricia Goldstone, Published by Harcourt Trade, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0151011699
 p.81; Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries, Herbert R. Lottman I.B. Tauris, 1995 | ISBN-10: 1850439141
 p.23; Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony J. Sutton, published by ’76 press California, 1976 / New edition by Clairview Press, 2010 | ISBN-10: 1905570279
 Ibid. (p.28)
 op.cit; MacDonald (pp.16-19)
 Ibid. (p.19)
 Ibid. (p.21)
 Ibid. (p.22)
 Ibid. (p.25)
 Ibid. (p.16)