We Have No Friends--the Upcoming Pogroms against the Jews
Moss David Posner M.D.
November 13, 2008
Christmas and national elections have one thing in common—everybody gets silly and slobbers over themselves and each other with affirmations of Brotherly Love and flat-out psychological denial of what they knew just the day before.
Just yesterday Barak Obama said he is solidly behind the "Two-state solution" of "The Jewish-Palestinian" Issue/Question/Issue/Conflict/Differences…take your pick, one size fits all.
We had a similar problem in this country one hundred fifty-odd years ago. You may have read about it: It was called "The Civil War." Well, at least that´s what they called it in the North. In the South it was called the "War Between the States," because that´s what it was.
Similar notions: The nasty bigoted Southerners and the Loving Humanitarian Northerners. Oh, there were a few minor differences. For example, the South and the North were part of one country. For another, the South wanted to be its own country. But wait! Didn´t we want the one country of Viet Nam to be two countries? I think I´m getting a headache.
Anyway, Mr. Obama wants to create an additional country—out of one that already exists, one in which all citizens have the same rights and protections, Jew and Moslem alike. This other—new--country could have created itself years ago, had the Arabs wanted that to be the case. Unfortunately, that would have required that that "new" country stop publicly refusing the right of the "other" country to exist. Come to think of it, that has not changed.
So how on earth (or elsewhere) could this occur, even if it were moral? Simple: Move in a foreign force to enforce rules on all parties, thus reducing one, exiting, country to the state of a "protectorate," and elevating the other group with absolutely no commitment on their members´ parts to the status of a "state."
A "state." Interesting use of terms. No one is suggesting that this new entity become a "country." That would require solid commitments and responsibility and autonomy in the family of nations.
But wait—I´m being too judgmental and cynical. Why would I not at least wait until Mr. Obama takes some actions? After all, he did appoint Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a history of allegedly strong support for Israel and opposition to terrorists.
I´ll tell you why: because it´s too pat. It would make more sense for him to put someone in who does not have such a unilateral support for one party.
Think about it. And while you´re thinking about it, consider the fate of Alan Greenspan:
Greenspan was the consummate free-market Capitalist [1], and what was the result? The very moment he was hired on as Chief of the Fed, he turned right around and betrayed everything that he previously espoused, and then—get this—when things went south, all Congress, the janitor, the cat, and everybody else--actually blamed him for his free-market views, all of which he had betrayed at the request of his handlers during his tenure as Chief of the Fed.
In other words, they hired him on to betray his previous principles, precisely because he made such a good case for them and was therefore a total threat; and when he did what they wanted, they labeled his behavior as "Capitalism" for good measure, so as to drive the final coffin nail into anything that resembled Capitalism.
Are you getting the picture?
Remember the old saw? "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is." That´s not paranoia; that´s discernment.
Remember 9-11? On the second day, we were told that our intelligence agencies just "happened to" discover the existence of a vast organization of terrorist cells throughout the world, called "Al Quaeda." Amazing! Never heard a whisper about it before in history.
This was followed the very next day by the startling revelation that the passport of one of the "hijackers" was discovered—are you ready?—"in the rubble."
A paper passport. In the rubble of the demolition of two enormous skyscrapers. You may choose to believe that. I´ll tell you something easier to believe: that the death of some ten-odd hijackers came as a shock to their families, as well as to those very same "hijackers," who were alive and well, working in IT industry in Saudi Arabia. Up until that moment, no one had told them that they were dead.
You see, at that time, similar to your understandable acceptance of the Rahm Emanuel appointment, I really did believe the official story when it first came out. After all, who wouldn´t believe it? There was no reason to be that paranoid and mistrustful—until our leaders regaled us with the incredible revelations that followed, a couple of which I have just described.
We´re really not that different, you and I. At my age, I can say I´ve seen more history first-hand and therefore have more to add to the repository of experience from which to draw in evaluating the present, than I did, say fifty years ago.
It doesn´t make me more cynical. I still have an abounding faith in America´s youth and in that élan vital that is America. I just have more information to work with to make the future happen the way we all want it to happen.
In "The California Department of Corrections and the Coming Pogrom against the Jews," the following appears:
"Yes, pogroms against the Jews--again, as was predicted by Jack Ruby while in his jail cell in Dallas Texas, where he was detained for shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, the patsy accused of shooting John F. Kennedy. During his brief incarceration, Ruby was visited by the Warren Commission, and when asked what was his part in the events that day in Dallas, he kept saying, over and over, "pogroms against the Jews...there will be pogroms against the Jews." He was party to the assassination and knew only too well what was the Grand Plan."
The handlers of our country know full well how to influence public opinion—through numerous ways, including Neuro-linguistic Programming methods, manipulation of external events, and full-out mind control. Right now, it´s hot for the Neocons. So it´s time for an (apparent) change, like playing a fish. Works with people too.
Time to appear to back off. Time to focus somewhere else, for a while.
Far-fetched, you say? Not when you consider that George Dubya Bush´s grandfather, Prescott Bush, together with Fritz Thuyssen put Hitler into power.
But wait. What´s that got to do with Barak Obama?
I´ll tell you what it has to do with him; and you´re not going to like it one bit, so prepare yourselves:
Years ago I was a Research Fellow in Cancer and Hematology at the University of Southern California. One of our responsibilities was to look at bone marrow cells under a microscope and to figure out what kind of cells were some that were questionable, even suspicious of being cancerous.
There was a practice that we followed that hinted at the truth: we judged—or suspected—cells "by the company that they keep." This was critical: On our decisions could—and did—rest the fate of the diagnosis and treatment of people, many of whom had little to no suspicious symptoms….
except for those suspicious cells, the "company that they kept."
We had a healthy fear and respect for the fact that we could be wrong. Do we decide that this person has near fatal cancer and in so doing choose to treat them with some terribly toxic drugs, or do we decide that we are reading too much into what we saw, and run the risk of missing a critical diagnosis, the treatment of which might add years to a patient´s life?
Unfortunately, the analogy is very apt. I had a parallel concern when working as a doctor in the California Department of Corrections. In this case, however, I could do something about the potential "cancer:"
I always made it a point to speak with those inmates who were going to be released. I told them that they got "sick" in large part by the company they kept, and that their actions as well as the judgment of those in law enforcement would in large part be influenced "by the company they keep."
Consider the company that our President-elect keeps. His minister is an admitted out-and-out racist; and Obama himself had to be influenced in his formative years by the "company that he kept" in a Madrassa—in exactly the same as Rahm Emanuel is influenced by the decisions and the company he keeps—unless he is pressured to choose otherwise.
Does this mean that we judge our President by the actions he takes even before he takes them, let alone giving his reasons for taking them? Certainly not; but at the same time we are not honor-bound to ignore the other influences and other interpretations of the possible meanings of actions as well as words that he speaks. When it comes to the welfare of his constituency, he is "on probation," as he should be, regardless of his stated positions on various issues.
At this point, you might ask why do I carry my concern to the extreme of a palpable fear for the future of the Jewish People. The reason is that I see signs and portents in blogs and other places. I see events unfolding identical to those that unfolded seventy years ago to the day:
Tonight, Daniel Hope, a British concert violinist is giving a concert in memory of the 91 Jews who died and the destruction of over a thousand synagogues and over 7500 businesses in "Kristallnacht," or the "night of the broken glass."[3]
"Night." Singular. Did you catch that? Two days and one night. That was 1938. Hitler invaded Poland the next year. The US didn´t get involved until four years later. It wasn´t the distance to Berlin that stopped our State Department; it was politics.
The worst part of this is that there was absolutely nothing planned to commemorate the loss—let along the responsibility—of Jewish (read "German") lives and property, that is, until Daniel Hope decided to draw attention to history.
Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." If unconditional "eternal" vigilance is paranoia, so be it.
The silence can be deafening. Be prepared to make some noise.
1] "The Nostalgia of Betrayal."
2] "The California Department of Corrections and the Coming Pogrom against the Jews."
3] "Concert to mark 70th anniversary of Nazi pogrom"
Just yesterday Barak Obama said he is solidly behind the "Two-state solution" of "The Jewish-Palestinian" Issue/Question/Issue/Conflict/Differences…take your pick, one size fits all.
We had a similar problem in this country one hundred fifty-odd years ago. You may have read about it: It was called "The Civil War." Well, at least that´s what they called it in the North. In the South it was called the "War Between the States," because that´s what it was.
Similar notions: The nasty bigoted Southerners and the Loving Humanitarian Northerners. Oh, there were a few minor differences. For example, the South and the North were part of one country. For another, the South wanted to be its own country. But wait! Didn´t we want the one country of Viet Nam to be two countries? I think I´m getting a headache.
Anyway, Mr. Obama wants to create an additional country—out of one that already exists, one in which all citizens have the same rights and protections, Jew and Moslem alike. This other—new--country could have created itself years ago, had the Arabs wanted that to be the case. Unfortunately, that would have required that that "new" country stop publicly refusing the right of the "other" country to exist. Come to think of it, that has not changed.
So how on earth (or elsewhere) could this occur, even if it were moral? Simple: Move in a foreign force to enforce rules on all parties, thus reducing one, exiting, country to the state of a "protectorate," and elevating the other group with absolutely no commitment on their members´ parts to the status of a "state."
A "state." Interesting use of terms. No one is suggesting that this new entity become a "country." That would require solid commitments and responsibility and autonomy in the family of nations.
But wait—I´m being too judgmental and cynical. Why would I not at least wait until Mr. Obama takes some actions? After all, he did appoint Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a history of allegedly strong support for Israel and opposition to terrorists.
I´ll tell you why: because it´s too pat. It would make more sense for him to put someone in who does not have such a unilateral support for one party.
Think about it. And while you´re thinking about it, consider the fate of Alan Greenspan:
Greenspan was the consummate free-market Capitalist [1], and what was the result? The very moment he was hired on as Chief of the Fed, he turned right around and betrayed everything that he previously espoused, and then—get this—when things went south, all Congress, the janitor, the cat, and everybody else--actually blamed him for his free-market views, all of which he had betrayed at the request of his handlers during his tenure as Chief of the Fed.
In other words, they hired him on to betray his previous principles, precisely because he made such a good case for them and was therefore a total threat; and when he did what they wanted, they labeled his behavior as "Capitalism" for good measure, so as to drive the final coffin nail into anything that resembled Capitalism.
Are you getting the picture?
Remember the old saw? "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is." That´s not paranoia; that´s discernment.
Remember 9-11? On the second day, we were told that our intelligence agencies just "happened to" discover the existence of a vast organization of terrorist cells throughout the world, called "Al Quaeda." Amazing! Never heard a whisper about it before in history.
This was followed the very next day by the startling revelation that the passport of one of the "hijackers" was discovered—are you ready?—"in the rubble."
A paper passport. In the rubble of the demolition of two enormous skyscrapers. You may choose to believe that. I´ll tell you something easier to believe: that the death of some ten-odd hijackers came as a shock to their families, as well as to those very same "hijackers," who were alive and well, working in IT industry in Saudi Arabia. Up until that moment, no one had told them that they were dead.
You see, at that time, similar to your understandable acceptance of the Rahm Emanuel appointment, I really did believe the official story when it first came out. After all, who wouldn´t believe it? There was no reason to be that paranoid and mistrustful—until our leaders regaled us with the incredible revelations that followed, a couple of which I have just described.
We´re really not that different, you and I. At my age, I can say I´ve seen more history first-hand and therefore have more to add to the repository of experience from which to draw in evaluating the present, than I did, say fifty years ago.
It doesn´t make me more cynical. I still have an abounding faith in America´s youth and in that élan vital that is America. I just have more information to work with to make the future happen the way we all want it to happen.
In "The California Department of Corrections and the Coming Pogrom against the Jews," the following appears:
"Yes, pogroms against the Jews--again, as was predicted by Jack Ruby while in his jail cell in Dallas Texas, where he was detained for shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, the patsy accused of shooting John F. Kennedy. During his brief incarceration, Ruby was visited by the Warren Commission, and when asked what was his part in the events that day in Dallas, he kept saying, over and over, "pogroms against the Jews...there will be pogroms against the Jews." He was party to the assassination and knew only too well what was the Grand Plan."
The handlers of our country know full well how to influence public opinion—through numerous ways, including Neuro-linguistic Programming methods, manipulation of external events, and full-out mind control. Right now, it´s hot for the Neocons. So it´s time for an (apparent) change, like playing a fish. Works with people too.
Time to appear to back off. Time to focus somewhere else, for a while.
Far-fetched, you say? Not when you consider that George Dubya Bush´s grandfather, Prescott Bush, together with Fritz Thuyssen put Hitler into power.
But wait. What´s that got to do with Barak Obama?
I´ll tell you what it has to do with him; and you´re not going to like it one bit, so prepare yourselves:
Years ago I was a Research Fellow in Cancer and Hematology at the University of Southern California. One of our responsibilities was to look at bone marrow cells under a microscope and to figure out what kind of cells were some that were questionable, even suspicious of being cancerous.
There was a practice that we followed that hinted at the truth: we judged—or suspected—cells "by the company that they keep." This was critical: On our decisions could—and did—rest the fate of the diagnosis and treatment of people, many of whom had little to no suspicious symptoms….
except for those suspicious cells, the "company that they kept."
We had a healthy fear and respect for the fact that we could be wrong. Do we decide that this person has near fatal cancer and in so doing choose to treat them with some terribly toxic drugs, or do we decide that we are reading too much into what we saw, and run the risk of missing a critical diagnosis, the treatment of which might add years to a patient´s life?
Unfortunately, the analogy is very apt. I had a parallel concern when working as a doctor in the California Department of Corrections. In this case, however, I could do something about the potential "cancer:"
I always made it a point to speak with those inmates who were going to be released. I told them that they got "sick" in large part by the company they kept, and that their actions as well as the judgment of those in law enforcement would in large part be influenced "by the company they keep."
Consider the company that our President-elect keeps. His minister is an admitted out-and-out racist; and Obama himself had to be influenced in his formative years by the "company that he kept" in a Madrassa—in exactly the same as Rahm Emanuel is influenced by the decisions and the company he keeps—unless he is pressured to choose otherwise.
Does this mean that we judge our President by the actions he takes even before he takes them, let alone giving his reasons for taking them? Certainly not; but at the same time we are not honor-bound to ignore the other influences and other interpretations of the possible meanings of actions as well as words that he speaks. When it comes to the welfare of his constituency, he is "on probation," as he should be, regardless of his stated positions on various issues.
At this point, you might ask why do I carry my concern to the extreme of a palpable fear for the future of the Jewish People. The reason is that I see signs and portents in blogs and other places. I see events unfolding identical to those that unfolded seventy years ago to the day:
Tonight, Daniel Hope, a British concert violinist is giving a concert in memory of the 91 Jews who died and the destruction of over a thousand synagogues and over 7500 businesses in "Kristallnacht," or the "night of the broken glass."[3]
"Night." Singular. Did you catch that? Two days and one night. That was 1938. Hitler invaded Poland the next year. The US didn´t get involved until four years later. It wasn´t the distance to Berlin that stopped our State Department; it was politics.
The worst part of this is that there was absolutely nothing planned to commemorate the loss—let along the responsibility—of Jewish (read "German") lives and property, that is, until Daniel Hope decided to draw attention to history.
Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." If unconditional "eternal" vigilance is paranoia, so be it.
The silence can be deafening. Be prepared to make some noise.
1] "The Nostalgia of Betrayal."
2] "The California Department of Corrections and the Coming Pogrom against the Jews."
3] "Concert to mark 70th anniversary of Nazi pogrom"
Print
Email
