Peak Oil, an Imperial Hoax

From the very beginning the 9/11 truth movement has been infiltrated by "Peak Oil" ideologists (or desinformers). They claim, that the false-flag attack of 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanisthan, Iraq and the possibly upcoming one in Iran, are the natural consequences of a world running out of oil.

"Peak Oilers" do not offer any hope in alternative energy sources,for as Michael Ruppert claims in "From the Wilderness":
"there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today."

Instead they paint bleak doomsday scenarios of the future like, when Colin Campbell writes that the consequences of oil depletion will be:

"war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

The implication of this is, that if we, the West, want to survive, we need to secure the Middle Eastern oil-reserves for ourselves, otherwise the Chinese or the Indians will get them.
It´s either us or they who will starve.

But once again we have fallen for a "Big Lie".

Read more

Operation Gladio on the Internet?

A few years back the German government tried through a court decision to ban the party of the ultra-right nationalists NPD for unconstitutional behavior and terroristic acts committed by party-members.

The court was very thorough, probably a bit too thorough for the taste of the government.
For the court found out, that they just couldn´t ban the NPD, because no less than half of the leadership of the party was on the pay-roll of the Verfassungsschutz (which has similar functions as the undercover units of the FBI).
So the court said, that they could not be sure wich crimes were committed spontaneously and which were instigated by possible agent provocateurs.

You might have heard about "operation gladio". Operation Gladio was some originally kind of left-behind project organized by the CIA. It´s suposed purpose was to function as a sabotage team in case the Soviets would take over western Europe.
Later on however it became a project for false-flag terrorism, whereby those terror acts were blamed on radical left-wing groups.
In Italy this covert CIA project financed in part the ultra-left Red Brigades in terror activities. Sometimes, as in the Bologna train station bombing, they also resorted to right-wing Masonic organisations like the P2 and just build up the Red Brigades as patsies.
In Italy the man organizing these murders was Michael Ledeen.

In Germany the equivalent of the Red Brigades was the Baader Meinhof group, which called itself RAF.

Former Minister Andreas von Bülow wrote, that at least the third generation of the RAF did never exist and the murders of politicians and economic leaders who were opposed to the whole sale slaughter of the east-German economy after the fall of the wall was really a covert ploy by rogue intelligence units.

But some informed people consider even the first generation of the RAF being infiltrated by intelligence units amd agemt provocateurs.
After the leadership was imprisoned, inspite of their solitary confinement, they all commited simultanious suicide - all except one.
He, Horst Mahler, like the others guilty of murder and terrorist acts, sat in for only 8 years.
When he left prison he turned to the ultra-right-wing.
Right now he is busy discrediting the 9/11 truth-movement and holocaust revisionism.
He turns up at 9/11 conferences and whenever anybody of the researchers explains his point, an interview with Horst Mahler is put next to the interview with the researcher, making the point that any 9/11 researcher is best friend and on the same political line as Horst Mahler.

He also shows up at the revisionist Ernst Zündel trial publishing hate-spewing letters against the German republic and the justice system, indirectly even threatening them with mass-murder.

I could be wrong about the connections, but I´m a conspiracy-theorist after all, and therefore I theorize.

The PNAC papers named the internet as one of the battle fields for American "full spectrum domination".
The famous investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has heard about Pentagon plans to fill the internet with false and misleading information.

I made quite a few strange experiences, when I used to post on German message boards just around the time before the beginning of the Iraq war. Although 85% of the German population was totally against this war, just as most other Europeans, the German internet message boards seemed to be filled with pro-war people.
Some of them pretended to be Germans, while their argumentation did not sound like anything we had heard other Germans us before. Others admitted to being American. Some coudl speak little German others could quote German politicians, from 30 or 40 years ago, better than any German I have heard doing, as if they had a big file of quotes. Some of them were extremely rude and aggressiv and ohters ðlayed strange mind-games. They just didn´t act like normal people just sharing their opinion. And they seemed to be online 24/7. It all had a eery feeling to it.
One guy, who had harrassed a highly frequented German message board, after one of his usually rants and personal attacks against any anti-war people, he told us a bit about himself.
True or not true, I don´t know.
He said, he had worked all over the world, was now in Germany tending the graves of American soldiers from WWII.
And he used to work as a plumber.

Well.... maybe he thought, Germans would not understand this kind of inside joke. Or maybe he just liked bragging.
Anyway, even while I was still politically very naive at that time, I had heard about the "plumbers".

So I guess retired "plumbers" now get jobs at monitoring the WWW.

Let´s come to Israel and the Zionists.
As I stated in another post, I think, they have lost the war for the public opinion.
The paper on the Lobby and Carter´s book are only two of the coffin nails. There are many.
However, they don´t think they have lost, but they sure are getting desperate.

Zionist Israel is not only protected by its military might.
Without its defense-wall of propaganda, it could not support this military.

Israel has the economy of maybe Belgium or Denmark. There is no way such an economy could support the fourth biggest military machine in the world.
Without the money from America and Germany, Israel would have been broke a long time ago.
When the propaganda wall is broken, the money-floods will dry out.

So it is not beyond imagination that some sites, with have a readership of a few thousands or a few hundred thousands might be targeted by damage control people.

In Germany American intelligence has definitely employed a crew of them.

What would be the most efficient way to discredit the anti-Zionist movement?

Let´s see, what about unpacking an old Nazi ideology from the trash-chambers of history and attaching it to the anti-Zionist movement?

How to do it best?
Well, one could of course agree with everything the anti-Zionists say about the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians and the instigation of wars against other Muslim nations by the Israel first Neocons.
And then one could blame all those war-crimes and the treason against America on the genetic make-up of the Jewish people.
And yes, I have heard this kind of argumantation quite a lot recently, and it made me think.

Of course, this Nazi ideology, that Jews are genetically doomed to be a parasite people, will scare the heck out of anybody who comes from a Jewish family.
And if this argumentation is used widely in anti-Zionist circles it would prove the Zionists right, that anti-Zionism is just a thin disguise for anti-semitism which is the believe that Jews are bad by nature and need to be contained and isolated, possibly even murdered.

I allways saw it as a bad move to call others names and imply foul play, because even if I think somebodies views are totally wrong, this person might still be sincere in his or her belief.

The trouble however is, that while I might be slightly paranoid here, many Jewish people in Israel and many outside of Israel are far more paranoid than I am.

As many Israeli and other writers with Jewish background have stated: Fear of being physically targeted for mass-murder or even extermination is deeply ingrained in Jewish culture.
This is the reason for Israel´s "Samson option". They actually believe that if
Zionist Israel falls, they as Jews will have no way of survival, so they might as well take the rest of the world with them into oblivion.

So in order to lower this fear, one has to make clear, that there is survival of Jews as individuals and even as Jewish people beyond Zionism.
And not only this, one has to make clear that Zionism per se is actually a danger to Jewish survival as individuals and as a people.

Every person of Jewish background needs to see an open door through wich he or she can leave Zionism into the safe home of the rest of humanity.

When Zionist behavior is made equivalent with Jewish genes, the door is closed.
And we´ve got the Samson option on the table.
Do we really want that?
While between 200 and 600 Israeli nukes, some of them on German gift-wrapped sub-marines, might not kill us all, they sure can give it a good try.

The Israeli leadership is insane.
The financial elitist leadership of world Zionism doesn't care one way or the other as long as the nukes won't hit them personally. They never cared for the well-being of ordinary Jews in the first place ( just look at the behavior of the world Zionist organisations during WWII), or of gentiles for that matter.
It´s all just a game for them.

We really do not need to increase insanity and paranoia at the moment by aiding a few Nazi oildrops into the explosive mixture.

We need some sanity to regain power again, even in Israel.
Yes the sane people there are a minority right now, but they are the most informed and intelligent Jewish Israelis. They might have a chance.

And in America, they do not need some extra racist craziness either. There the 9/11 truth-seekers and the anti-Zionists are the most informed and intelligent minority.
They constitute between 10 and 30 percent of the American nation and have very little political power, but they are the best shot we have for sanity to stop the mad drive into catastrophy for the whole world.

Why Racism is Self-Defeating

Zionism is a racist ideology that presupposes that Jews cannot live in peace with Gentiles.

Zionism also presupposes that the Jewish people need their own state in wich to live either all alone or have at least different laws, for the Jewish and the gentile population, i.e., the Palestinians.

Neverthelss, despite its racist underpinnings, we should never counter Zionist racism with racist anti-Jewish arguments, that blame the behavior of Zionists on Jewish genes.

Any and all racism is always anti-humanistic and it is also self-defeating in the long run and there are several reasons why:

FIRST: You deprive yourself of allies.

If you insist that your opponent is the way he is because of the genes of his collective group, then you cannot hope for dissidents or whistle-blowers from this group to work with you. Since any dissidents from the same group will have the same genes, they will therefore feel threatened by you.

Similarly, members of other groups will be very wary of you. They can´t be confident that one day you will not also turn on them, for having the wrong kind of genes.

SECOND: Racism against this group will strengthen group cohesion.

People will be too afraid to leave the group and leaving behind the only protection they might have (or at least they think they have) against violent racist attacks from others who might think like you do.

THIRD: Your racism can be used by your opponents as a convenient cover for false flag attacks and hoaxes.

Let´s take France.

After Ariel Sharon called on the French Jews to move to Israel because of a "terrible rise in anti-semitic attacks". Some highly publicized "anti-semitic" attacks happened. In many cases the culprits could not be aprehended, so nobody actually knew who was resposible. In a few cases, however, the police could prove the attacks were self-inflicted, in other words hoaxes.

Another example - in Iraq the Israeli Mossad attacked Jewish synagogues, while at the same time pamphlets with anti-jewish slogans were printed. This stampeded Iraqi Jews into Israel.

FOURTH: Racism can be made into a tool to divide and conquer.

In Rwanda the western Imperialist created an upper class of Africans on "racial" criterias, like a lighter color of skin and more caucasian facial features. This artificial "upper class", the Tutsis, was then used to rule the rest of the indigenous people, the Hutus.

After the end of the colonial rule this Tutsi upper class believed in their own superiority and did not want any democratic rule by the majority Hutu population. The civil war out of this, heavily subsidized by the CIA, resulted in the well known Rwandan genocide, with a million or more victims, both Hutu and Tutsi.

Racism can also divide anti-imperialism movements.

Arguments based on racism will discredit all other arguments made, since they now seem just a thin disguise for replacing one supremacism with another.

There is another aspect worth considering:

While it seems to some people that their racism might be based on sound scientific or historic facts, it is in reality far more based on a very selective reading of facts.

Let´s take the mutilation of womens´breast as war-crimes. They were documented in a book of Soviet atrocoties against the Germans, who were to be driven out of Eastern Europe.

One commentator on this site states that similar atrocities have been committed in ancient history by a "turanic" tribe who might have been distantly related to the Jewish commanders of the Soviet soldiers who commited those crimes.

But are those crimes therefore symptomatic for some genetic trait?

If the author of the book documenting these atrocities was not just the German equivalent of Ilya Ehrenburg (a skilled Soviet propagandist), then it is certainly a fact that terrible war-crimes have been committed against German women.

However, those crimes were not unprecedented and they were not only commited by other "turanic" tribes.

The mutilation and mass-rape of women is a tactic which has been used many times in history in order to terrorize the civilian population in the area which was conquered by invading colonialists to get the population to succumb to the invaders.

Reports from human rights activists who came to villages in Nicaragua after the American trained and financed Contras had attacked them, show very similar accounts of atrocities: Womens´ breasts had been cut off and the bellies especially of pregnant women had been slashed open.

Similar atrocities have been committed by American financed death-squads in El Salvador against local women and against female foreign aid workers.
There was a report about 4 American church women, who had been raped, mutilated and their underwear stuffed into their mouths.

Contra- and other death-squad-commanders have been trained in the "School of the Americas," where they were 'schooled' in the "art" of state-terrorism.

America has become an economic invader into many developing countries in the last century, often accompamied by either covert military acts (death-squads) or open ones, (the army, navy, air-force or the marines)

Fear is the most effective tool that can be used to keep a population from rising up against oppression and injustice.

Deception, like false flag attacks and demonisation of the opponent, is another one.

But one does not have to do the mutilating at close range with a knife.

Nowadays you just drop a bomb or shoot a missile into a civilian area and body parts get detached from women and children, all alive at the moment they are being bombed, some of them even afterwards suffering terrible agony and pain before they finally succumb to their wounds.

This tactic of utmost cruelty towards defenseless victims is NOT unique to a single tribe, nation, ethnicity or group.

Cruelty derives from a cruel philosophy: from the notion that some have the inborn right to dominate others,

Either they think they are better than those others because of their collective genes - a better more deserving race -

Or they think they are individually stronger or more intelligent- a social-darwinist view -

Or they believe that they are even spiritually more deserving - an esoteric view -

But the dehumanisation of others as belonging to a less worth-while ethnic, social or spiritual group as oneself, is what makes these atrocities possible.

These atrocities have happened in history many times before and they are happening right now - and they must be stopped before they kill every last one of us in the process

American Paranoia and the Myth of Invincibility

Armageddon around the corner, alien abductions, rays from space, shape-shifting reptile like illuminati ruling the world for thousands of years....where did this come from and why is the belief in these strange theories so much a nearly exclusive American phenomena?

There has been the science-fiction craze in popular culture, in books, movies and TV-series.

This culture has been exported to all western countries and even to other parts of the world as well.

But only in America are there a considerable number of people who cannot see the difference between science-fiction fantasy and every day reality.

One reason might also be the psychotherapy craze in America.
People who have lost faith in God, needed some other kind of guidance.
The practices in many psychotherapy sessions are often close to hypnosis or self-induced trance combined with suggestive questioning, which then breaks down the barrier between memories and fantasy.

Psychotherapy is nowhere as wide-spread as in America, but it is still somewhat common in other countries as well. So why the difference?

What comes out of psychotherapy is mostly the belief system that the patient and especially the therapist have put in it in the first place.

So how did these beliefs start?

In all likelihood and with the exception of the Christian Zionist rapture movement, they were not a deliberately created disinformation campaign, as some suggest, rather they are a consequence of the schizophrenic national security politics.

It probably started with the Manhattan Project. After WWII the secrecy and deceptions of it was taken over into other, now cold war, projects.

Military experiments and new technology was now routinely covered up and made into some top secret national security matter. This lead to the first sightings of "UFOs".

When John F. Kennedy was murdered and during the subsequent cover-up by the media, the military deceptions entered into the stage of political schizophrenia. Every informed person was pressured into believing the unbelievable.

Truth had become so twisted, that it seemed no longer to matter at all. It had become totally relative to what the "powers that be" wanted you to believe.

Now combine the culture of deception with the "duck and cover" mentality created in the 60s to enforce paranoid fear of the Soviet Union and then you get, what we have now, a paranoid fear of things that don´t exist and a near inability to confront the real problems and seek reasonable solutions.

Sure there are financial elites with agendas opposed to the common good of most nations. But those elites are neither aliens, nor are they all powerful.

They do have influence within governments and parliaments, bribing and blackmailing everyone they can.

But then, not everybody can be bribed.

They own a lot of media and can influence, hire and fire editors for their compliance or non-compliance.

But still, truth has a habit of coming out through the cracks.

National intelligence organisations are said to be instruments of the ruling financial elites.

And yes they are.

But there are still dissidents, whistle blowers and defectors, who have come forth and become agents of truth and justice.

While the paranoid American mind-set was not deliberatly created by the financial elites, it sure is now used by their agents to spread disinformation and unproven rumors in order to introduce a learned helplessness into the population.

This particualar learned helplessness tells you that whatever powers there are behind the scenes of big politic, they are invincible.

And this is the most egregious deception of them all, a myth created for the mildly paranoid, by the intensely paranoid, to keep the former distracted and helpless against the latter.

Jimmy Carter and Uncle Tom´s Cabin

I really do like the informed comments of blogger "Xymphora", when he is not busy taking aim at Christians, who he once believed were the main culprits in the sorry state of the world.
In his newest post he explains how extraordinary it is, that the mainline media discusses Jimmy Carter´s book.

Harriet Beecher Carter

The fact that Jimmy Carter is allowed to appear on the mainstream media and mention Israel and apartheid in the same sentence is something of a miracle, and represents a sea change in the representation of Israel in the United States (of course, as I’ve mentioned before, this comparison is unfair . . . to the white South Africans).

Until recently, you’d be more likely to see hard-core porn on the American mainstream media than you would be able to obtain a smidgeon of truth about Israel. Now that the American Establishment – you know, the guys Noam says rule the world – have belatedly awakened to the fact that they are on the verge of losing trillions of dollars due to American official support for the racist tribal policies of the Zionists who run Israel and have taken over the American government, the taboo on truth about Israel has been ordered to be at least partially lifted.

Will Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”, become the “Uncle Tom's Cabin” of the Palestinian people? It is commonly acknowledged now that the American Civil War was fought primarily for economic reasons, while justified on the moral grounds of eliminating slavery.

Of course Harriet Beecher Stowe´s book was a romanticized version of the ugly reality of slavery. Black civil right movements today are not overly fond of it.
In the same way is Carter´s book a sanitized version of the reality in Palestine. He expressedly denies, that Israel practices Apartheid even in Israel proper, although we know, that there are several laws discriminating Israeli Arabs besides the institutional discrimination, which exists and is not put into law.

Popular uprisings in the Middle East, caused largely by the control of the American government by Zionists (culminating in the ZOG comprising Bush and the Zionist-controlled Democrats), will cost the American Establishment much of its wealth, making it necessary to solve the Zionist problem by putting Israel in its (small) place and finally granting the Palestinians a state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip (a square inch less won’t solve the problem).

Justifying the protection of the contents of your wallet by doing the ‘right thing’ will require a new emphasis on the injustice that racist tribal Zionism is doing to the Palestinians, and to Arabs and Muslims generally.

Now you are called a ‘racist’ if you even dare to mention the obvious facts about the ZOG and its horrible effects on Arabs and Muslims around the world (in my view, criticizing anti-Zionists as racists for complaining about Israel and its American supporters is like calling critics of Nazi Germany anti-Aryan; in the long run the true anti-racists will be acknowledged as such, and the casters of aspersions which serve to protect oppressors will be known as the real racists).

It will be interesting to see whether criticisms of Zionism and Israel suddenly become fashionable in American life.

When Zionism is being recognized as what it is, a racist ethnic centric movement, coming from the same roots as the Nazi ideology - and b.t.w even from the same country,Austria - not only Palestine, but also the rest of the world will become a more peaceful place.
Of course it will be only a first step. Other anti-human ideologies must be overcome as well, for a lasting peace among the peoples of the world.

Al Sadr and the Sunni Resistance

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article from yesterday´s Tehran Times:

New approach toward Al-Sadr Bloc

"The Al-Sadr Bloc, which holds 30 of the 128 UIA seats in the legislature, has boycotted parliamentary sessions in protest at a meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Amman last November. Six ministers from the Al-Sadr Bloc have also refused to attend cabinet sessions.

The Al-Sadr Bloc’s boycott of parliament and cabinet sessions has not helped resolve Iraq’s problems and has even encouraged the Shias’ rivals, led by Hareth al-Zari, Adnan al-Dulaimi, and Saleh al-Mutlak, to gravitate toward the Al-Sadr Bloc in a strategic move meant to divide the UIA.

The fact that the Al-Sadr Bloc and the leaders of the Sunni minority are in consensus that a timetable should be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops put the two camps in a tactical alliance, but the veteran political leaders of the Shia majority repeatedly expressed concern over this unusual relationship.

In order to prevent the Shia majority from forming a government and taking steps toward democracy, some Iraqi Sunni leaders have taken a number of measures, such as organizing a conference in Istanbul to support Iraqi Sunnis and the fatwas on killing Shias issued by 38 Wahhabi leaders.

Thus, the meeting between the seven Shia political parties and Moqtada Sadr was an effective way to help balance the stances of this young Shia cleric, who is also the leader of the Mahdi Army.

Moqtada Sadr, who has a good understanding of the current political situation and the organized plots hatched by certain elements, has said that his supporters will return to parliament and cabinet sessions if a timetable is set for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

He also totally rejected the proposals to merge the Mahdi Army with Iraq’s armed forces, saying that would only be possible after the withdrawal of U.S. troops."

So Sadr had a quasi alliance with Sunni resistance leaders and needed to be pressured to get back into the fold of the Shia union. This makes it highly unlikely, that his Mahdi army was involved in the mass-murders of Sunnis.

Sadr still refuses to merge his militia with the Iraqi army, which means his people will not be fighting the Sunni resistance.

Also, interesting is that it was exclusively Wahhabi leaders who wrote those anti-Shia fatwas. Wahhabism is a Saudi-Arabian sect which originally was sponsered by British Colonialism.

Through CIA sponsered religous schools in Pakistan it was exported to Afghanistan. There also was a tiny extremist Wahhabi group in Kurdish Iraq under the leadership of the now deceased Zarqawi. They were in constant bloody conflict with the other Kurds and their facilities were destroyed at the beginning of the American invasion.

While the Afghanistan Wahhabis, the Taliban, are fighting the Americans, some of the Saudi Arabian ones under the Saudi princes are still under American control.

Some might think, that the Saudi princes with their lavish un-islamic life-style have no connection to their country´s state religion. But there is evidence to the contrary.

Wayne Madsen writes in his report from January 3, 2007


about the Saudi drug-smuggling connected to Italian intelligence and Russian oligarchs and the Bush crime family and about one of the main-actors Prince Nayif al Saud:

"According to the DEA Report, Nayif, asked by a DEA informant why he sold drugs, responded that "the world is already doomed and that he has been authorized by God to sell drugs."

In a press interview
(quoted by Rasputin on GNN in "The left Gatekeepers")
another Saudi, Prince Mahmoud bin Abdel Aziz,

remembers young Osama floundering when guests questioned him about the interpretation of religious texts.

“Finally, I had to signal with my hands for them to stop it[.]”

So here we have it: Osama bin Laden is an "amateur" in interpreting religious texts, the American allied Saudis are "experts" and according to Prince Nayif, what they believe in are endtime prophesies.

This ties them in quite fine with Christian Zionists, Jewish extremists and some esoteric nut-case religions.

This also ties Wahhabism in with the Straussian neocons, who are themselves secular, but believe that religions are instruments for control used by the rulers ("the wise men") to pit one group against another.

For the Straussians believe that humans are violent by nature and can only be controlled and united when they fight other groups, nations or religions.

How to Start a Civil War

Few westerners know that about 20% of Iraqi marriages are Sunni-Shia unions.

Just as few know that Saddam´s Baath party had a large membership of Shia as well as Sunnis and even Christians, like the vice minister.

When Saddam distributed weapons to civilians before the war, he gave them to Sunnis and Shia alike.

I watched a documentary on German TV, where a Shia woman from a poor neighbourhood in Bagdad was interviewed. She, a school teacher, wore traditional Shia clothing and in her free time she trained other religious Shia women in the use of fire arms.

At the beginning of the American occupation of Iraq, right after Bush´s "Mission accomplished", I read articles on Moqtada Sadr and his militia, and how admired he was in the poor areas of Iraq across any sectarian borders.

His people were doing the social work and ran clinics. His organisation was seen as non-corrupt similar to Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Even Sunnis had his picture on the wall, especially after he offered to join the resistance in Fallujah.

When the Shia mosque was bombed, it was Sadr who blamed the Americans for it.

It would be very much out of character if it really were Sadr´s militias who were indiscriminately mass-murdering their Sunni neighbours.

According to many Iraqis, while there was a division between Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq, there never was a division between Sunnis and Shia before the war.

And although now, the Sadr militias are blamed for the sectarian violence, a few months back there came reports out of Iraq that the violence originated from some Badr brigade units, connected to Ahmed Chalabi, the ex-CIA assassin and neo-con agent responsible for the WMD lies.

In "Crime fighting or Crime Cover-up", the German blogger "Freace" asks if the bombing of the Basra police station really was what we were told in the mainline media.

According to BBC reports, it was apparently the same police building in which last year 2 special unit Brits wearing Arab clothes and driving a car full of explosives had been detained and arrested after they had shot several policemen. The building was then stormed by British troops to free those obviously false flaggers.

This time around, more than a 1000 Brits attacked this one building with only "very few police officers" in it. Then out came those contradicting accounts on the number of prisoners supposedly freed, from 178 to 127 to 76.

Nothing was mentioned as to where the supposedly tortured prisoners were hospitalized, and instead of using the building for other purposes, like a different police unit, it just was blown up.

Could it be that this supposedly rogue police unit was not so rogue after all, but just doing its job in finding evidence and witnesses as to who really is behind the "sectarian violence"?

Whatever the truth is about the Sunni-Shia divide, and the sectarian violence, the only parties profiting from a civil war, are Israel and her Zionist supporters in the west.

The plan to divide Iraq and all the other surrounding countries along sectarian and ethnic lines has been a Zionist dream stated in several policy papers for decades now.

I totally agree with the following editorial from the Institute for Islamic Services:

Execution Video Meant to Cause Shia-Sunni Conflict

"The leaking of the videotape of hanging of Saddam and the dialogue that was exchanged between Saddam’s executioners, handpicked by Americans, and the subsequent planting of stories in mainstream media that Saddam's hanging will be seen by Shia's as a welcome sacrifice on one of the Holiest days of Islam was a deliberate act meant to create a backlash amongst Muslims and a Shia-Sunni conflict in the Muslim world.

Americans have perfected the art of movies in which actors act out the pre-scripted scenarios and dialogues. Scenarios and dialogues which will have a certain impact on the minds of the audience.

Saddam was in American custody from the moment he was caught, his trial was an American trial, and his execution was carried out under American supervision. The puppet Maliki government had no say at all in this and as all puppets do, he had to go along with whatever was dictated by the Americans

The selection of the day of Eid-ul-Adha for hanging, the videoing, the pre-scripted “taunts” by hired hangmen, and the release of the video had the goal of creating a division between Shia and Sunni, and angering the Muslim youth in Europe and elsewhere.

Americans want to get rid of Moqtada Sadr, who stands in their way of delivering Iraq’s oil to the American oil companies, and what a better way to do that then to get the Sunni resistance in Iraq to turn their guns on Moqtada Sadr, rather than fight the Americans. The actors who were given the script to shout “Moqtada, Moqtada” to Saddam during his hanging was to incite Sunni feelings against the Shia. To show that the hanging was an act of Shia vengeance against the Sunni Saddam.

The second reaction that they wanted to achieve was for Muslim youth in Europe and elsewhere to resort to acts of terror. Americans know that Muslim youth is angry and many of them will be outraged and chatter about revenge, which is exactly what the Americans need in their “war on terror”, and to keep Europeans and Americans united in the Crusade against Islam and Muslims.

Muslims must not be stupid and fall into this trap of sectarian violence and acts of revenge."

Israel Refuses Syrian Offer for Peace

Amoz Oz asks in his commentary in Times online "Why won't the Israelis give peace a chance?". His conclusion is, that Israel is doing America´s bidding in contrast to her own security needs.
Amoz Oz is the same Israeli intellectual, who inspite of being considered by some "the Israeli peace camp incorporated" fully supported the last Israeli war against Lebanon.
Only when it was clear that Israel was loosing, did he start to oppose it.
But Amos Oz is not much different from Uri Avnery, who opposed the war from the start, in his opinion that Israel is only doing the bidding of the United States and not the other way around.
My guess is, that both Oz and Avnery, and Noam Chomsky for that matter, sincerely believe this.

To accept that the Israeli government, not the US government, is deliberatly sacrificing the safety of their the Israeli Jewish population, would end their last remnant of trust in Zionism.

But historic documents, like the diarys of earlier Israeli presidents, prove that the real powers within Israel never were interested in a negotiated peace with their neighbours. They also prove, that those leaders deliberately provoked violence from Palestinians and other Arab neighbours against their own population to keep the Israeli society a militaristic one.

The real reason, why most Israelis and Diaspora Jews close their eyes befor these facts, might be the traditional unconditional loyality Jewish people show towards their community and their leaders.
Christians and Muslims, as members of universalist religions, have been taught that loyality must be formost towards God and righteous (divine) principles, loyality must be earned, it should never be given blindly no matter what.

Jews as members of a tribal religion have been taught that loyality towards ones own community transcends any principles. While criticism inside - of leaders and members of the community - is allowed, every one of them must be defended against the outside world, no matter what. And while community members might make "mistakes", they are still of more value than any outsiders.
And when the "mistakes" become so big that they become undeniable and must be admitted towards the outside world, then those admissions must be coupled with blaming outside forces.
And in spite of loosing the religious justification, secular Zionist Jews still cling to this loyality tradition, not realizing that this blind loyality might be in part to blame for historic anti-Jewish persecution.
If one doesn´t distance oneself from thugs one is identified with them.

Some Jewish communities and individuals in the tradition of Moses Mendelsson, (a German-Jewish reformer, a friend of the German playright and philosopher Lessing and the model for Lessings "Nathan, the Wise") strive to embody universal principles in their religious believes.
Those Jews oppose Zionism and support fully the rights of the Palestinians and the neighbouring countries.
But as for now, those reformers are still a minority

Iraq: Civil War or Divide and Conquer

by
SAVE THE USA

Everyday the US Corporate Media bombards America with the “huge spike in violence” that inevitably means that Iraq is descending into civil war. We’re told there are two choices, it’s a civil war, or its “al Qaeda” - but there is a third option the corporate media refuses to utter.

Read more

War on Iran: Unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East

Pravda.ru

by
Dr. Elias Akleh
USA

The American “power elite” had drawn a “Grand Plan” to control and to monopolize global oil and nuclear energy resources to assure American global hegemony. The collapse of the Soviet Union had created a power vacuum the American administration is trying to fill up.

Read more

Palestinians are the Priority

an open statement of commitment to the Palestinian Solidarity Cause

There are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create divisions by:

Read more

The Truth about Global Warming

it's the Sun that's to blame

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)
Telegraph.co.uk


Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

Read more

The Coming Collapse of Zionism

The Moral Bankruptcy of Israel's Founding Idea

By
KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Former CIA Analyst

published by
Counterpunch


Is it only observers outside the conventional mainstream who have noticed that by its murderous assault on Lebanon and simultaneously on Gaza, Israel finally exposed, for even the most deluded to see, the total bankruptcy of its very founding idea?

Read more

Message of an Ex-Marine to the Anti-War Movement

by Sam Lwin

October 9, 2006
Veterans for 9/11 Truth



9/11, Our Satyagraha; Message to the Anti-war Movement

I am Sam Lwin, an ex-Marine, a conscientious objector and an anti-war activist from the first Gulf war. I would like to say a few words about the connection between 9/11 and war.

Read more

The Truth about the Sword

By Chandra Muzaffar
Tehran Times
October 4, 2006

It was Albert Einstein who once noted that it is easier to split the atom than to crack a prejudice.

One such prejudice that is deeply entrenched in the Western psyche relates to Islam and violence. At the root of this prejudice is the erroneous belief that Islam had spread through the sword.

Read more

Education or Mind Infection?

By
Nurit Peled-Elhanan

Speech given at Connecticut College, New London, CT 09/27/06
http://www.qumsiyeh.org/nuritpeledelhanan/

I would like to dedicate these words
to all the Palestinian boys and girls,
and to all the Lebanese boys and girls,
and to all the Iraqi boys and girls
who have been massacred
by mind-infected Israeli and American soldier boys,
and who have recently joined my own little girl
in the underground kingdom of dead children,
which is growing under our feet as I speak.

Read more

The Pope's speech to the representatives from the Muslim Community

Ambassadors to the Holy See from predominantly Muslim countries and representatives of Italy's Muslim Community.



Dear Cardinal Poupard,
Your Excellencies,
Dear Muslim Friends,


I am pleased to welcome you to this gathering that I wanted to arrange in order to strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See and Muslim communities throughout the world. I thank Cardinal Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, for the words that he has just addressed to me, and I thank all of you for responding to my invitation.

Read more

God and Reason: about the lecture Pope Benedict gave at the University of Regensburg

To be quite sure, the quote of the 14.Century Emperor, which Pope Benedict used to explain his point that God works through reason was tactically not well chosen.
And yes it could lead to misunderstandings.
But if one reads the whole lecture one can be assured that it was in no way meant as a part of a "clash of civilizations".
One also has to realize in what context the lecture stood and who the audience were.
It was meant for university students and professors, most of them non-religious people in a place were reason is of the utmost importance. Many of them were probably people, who could not conceive that reason and religion could have some common ground.
Pope Benedict used to be a Professor of Theology and when he held the lecture he fell back into this role. For an academic in theology or philosophy words and quotes are not used in a tactical manner but as an invitation to analysis and dialogue.
This invitation to dialogue is what Pope Benedict mentioned in his apology towards the Muslim people. And there were Muslim theologians who understood it in exactly this way.
The whole lecture was meant as reasoning that faith in God was NOT unreasonable.
The Pope compares the early theology of the Church which was influenced by Hellenistic reason to the teachings of a certain Islamic theologian.
The New Testament written in a Greek environment was influenced in its wording by this environment, like the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word." The Greek word "logos" or "word" has also the meaning of "reason" and "logic".
So the early Church believed that God worked through reason, but according to the French scholar of Islamic religion R. Arnaldez the Islamic theologian Ibn Hazm believed that God transcends even reason and logic.
So this 13.century Emperor declared that the use of violence to spread faith was against God's reason.
And then Pope Benedict explains that in the middle ages Christian theology have strayed from these believes of reason and had become very close to the opinions of Ibn Hazm, believing that we would only know the ordained will of God, and beyond this was God's freedom where he could have done exactly the opposite of what He has done. But mostly the Church has kept to the belief that there is an analogy between the Spirit of the Creator and created reason.
The Pope explains that Christian theology and the Greek philosophies of reason did approach each other once and this is also a challenge for us today.
Then the Pope explains three phases of de-Hellenisation within Christianity. First the Reformation which strived to simplify Christian theology and cut it from its philosophical roots, then the Enlightenment, where faith and reason were put into two different compartments and then modern liberal theology which reduces itself to the simple message, denying the philosophical and mystical parts of belief in the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
Behind this third phase stands the modern form of seeing reason purely in a materialistic way, the matter in a mathematical structure.
The Pope argues that western society has put reason into a purely positivistic frame work which excludes other wider forms of reason.
And this, he argues might be dangerous even lead to pathologies, which necessarily break out, when reason is shortened in such a way, that it excludes the questions of religion and ethics. Ethical rules reasoned through evolution, psychology and sociology are just not sufficient.
And the Pope concludes that reason which is deaf to the Divine and thrusts religion into the area of subcultures is unable to a real dialogue of cultures.

The whole lecture was highly philosophical and read in context there is no way that it could have been intended in any way as a provocation towards the Muslim world.

The question is why the New York Times together with other media outlets which have done its own important share in the "clash of civilization" rhetoric chooses now to paint the Pope into a new Crusader?
Could it be that in publicizing the incidence in such a way they just want to stoke up the fires of intolerance and show the Muslim world that the Catholic Church has taken sides against Islam?
For one thing is absolutely sure: from the time of the first Gulf War the Vatican has strongly opposed wars in the Middle East and else where.
With the Vatican envoy in Palestine the Catholic Church has joined other Christian churches in calling Christian Zionism a heresy. Since Christian Zionist churches are the strongest non-Jewish support groups for Israel this comes rather close to denouncing Zionism itself.
It also seems as if the Vatican has been an outspoken critic of Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Gaza recently, although many people think he should do more.

While the Pope is definitely interested in a religious and cultural dialogue, in the building of bridges towards and a peaceful coexistence with Islam, there are powerful forces who are totally opposed to this.
I hope and pray that we Christians and Muslims together with wise clerics and theologians will not fall into the trap of hatred leading to violence and war, a trap which has been set by people who have neither faith nor even secular humanistic ethics.

The Trace from Damascus leads to Mossad

Was Israel involved in the terror attack against the US embassy in Syria?

The German left-wing newspaper „Junge Welt“ on September 14, quotes the Syrian news-agency SANA stating that the 4 „Takfiri“ fighters belonged to the group of „Jund Al Sham“ . It is unclear who is behind this obscure organisation.
„Takfiri“ in Arabic means islamic extremists who fight against ordinary Muslims. „Jund Al Sham“ means something like „soldiers of Syria“ or „soldiers of the Levante“. When this group was founded in Afghanisthan it was said to have some loose connections to Al Qaida. After Afghanistan was conquered by the US army in fall 2001 not much more was heard about this group.
But 3 years ago on August 2003 a leading member of the Lebanese Hisbollah, Ali Hussein Saleh, was blown to pieces when he started his car. Saleh was responsible for connections between Hisbollah and armed Palestinian organisations. „Jund Al Sham“ claimed responsibility for the killing. Several other Palestinian and Shia Hisbollah leaders were killed after that.
On July 21, 2004 Ghaleb Awali was killed in the same way as his predecessor Saleh. Again „Jund Al Sham“ claimed responsibility.
Shortly before the Israeli war against Lebanon this summer, however, the Lebanese security service arrested a group of Mossad agents which was definitely responsible for the murder of Ali Saleh and Ghaleb Awali and for the murder of several Palestinians living in Lebanon. For all those murders „Jund Al Sham“ had claimed responsibility.

The supposedly Islamist group has a surprising lot of common interest with Israel.

Nazism, Zionism and Insanity

updated: January 2007

When a nation can no longer recognize universally accepted values as relevant for its own conduct,because it feels too powerful, this is a sure sign of a collective national delusion.

Mental blocks are something we all have.
We all see our world slightly biased and it takes time to realize that other points of views can be as valid as our own.
But even with these mental blocks there are still certain values of "right and wrong" which are more or less universal.

When you believe in 2 totally contradictive concepts at the same time, this is called cognitive dissonance, another form of delusion.
An article by Shulamit Aloni Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel: shows, how far this goes in Israel.

Here is an excerpt:

By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night – all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order – this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not “the most moral army in the world” as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved ‘for Jews only’, on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an “ingenious proposal”.

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger.

Watching the war in Lebanon and the destruction of Gaza in the news most ordinary western people looking at the pictures agreed that Israel was acting at least disproportional. More and more ordinary people even went farther and sided with the people of Lebanon and Gaza.

The only people who could not see how ethically wrong these wars were, were Zionists around the world and also the vast, vast majority of Israelis including the majority of the Israeli peace-camp:
Ran Ha Cohen, as one of the few Israeli war opponents, writes in his article: Israeli Intellectuals Love the War:

All generalizations are wrong, except this one: Israeli liberal intellectuals are against war. They have always been against it, and they even suffered greatly for their critical views, as they stress proudly. They were against the previous war, they will be against the next war, they are against all wars. There is just one minor exception, though: the present war, every present war, which they always support. Because the present war – well, that's something totally different from all those other wars! How can you even compare?! The present war is always inevitable, and necessary, and just, and worthy of support.

Then he goes on to a collection of statements by supposedly Israeli "peacenics". One of those "peacenics" is them Amos Oz, a man I have quoted myself, and just like Ran Ha Cohen I had considered him to be:

.. "the Zionist peace camp incarnate".
Having supported PM Ehud Barak long after he started the murderous crushing of the Intifada, Oz now counts on his readers' short memory when he writes, under the Orwellian title

"Why Israeli missiles strike for peace":
"Many times in the past the Israeli peace movement criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. […] This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself[…]. The Israeli peace movement should support Israel's attempt at self-defense, pure and simple, as long as this operation targets mostly Hezbollah and spares, as much as possible, the lives of Lebanese civilians." (Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2006)

There are, of course, voices in the Zionist camp,which are even far worse than that like

Writer A. B. Yehoshua, the self-designated "man of peace," says it all in his typical, more primitive manner:

"At last we've got a just war, so we shouldn't gnaw at it too much till it becomes unjust."
Yehoshua frankly: the old "peacenik" had indeed been yearning for war for a long time. Israeli fascist leader Affe Eitam once admitted that the one thing that thrills him is "the sight of men going to war"; for Yehoshua, purification is the desired effect. Two years ago, he was dreaming of bloody Israeli operations in Gaza; his dream has now come true, though it hardly gets to the media thanks to the events in Lebanon:
"After we take out the settlements … we would use force against an entire population, use force in a total manner. … We would cut off the electricity in Gaza. We would cut off communications in Gaza. We would stop fuel supply to Gaza…. It won't be a desirable war, but definitely a purifying one."

And then we´ve got the American Zionists likeRalph Peters. He, of course, never pretended to be a "peacenic".
Mr Peters believes, that the IDF after destroying big parts of Lebanon was still not brutal enough to win the war:

Israel tried to fight humanely. Hezbollah was out to win at any cost. The result was inevitable.
On the ground in southern Lebanon, the IDF was able to muster a ten-to-one advantage around contested villages. But its leaders lacked the guts to do what needed to be done. And Hezbollah's frontline fighters survived.
Israel's politicians turned out to be even more profoundly out of touch with their people than the pols in Washington. Israelis were willing to fight. They wanted to win. The rank and file of the IDF would have done what needed to be done. And their leaders failed them.......
There will be consequences. Iran's convinced it's on a winning course. Syria got away with murder (literally). And Hezbollah will come back more determined than ever.
And the world is going to let Iran build nuclear weapons.
Get ready for Round Two.

Mr Peters is a hardline Zionist, his newest book is called "Never Quit the Fight."
Why does this remind me so much of a similar titled book in German: "Mein Kampf"?

I don´t think this purely coincidental.

I do see close similarities between the Nazi ideology and Zionism.
They are both rooted in the 19. Century romantic Nationalism movement.

Both ideologies put an emphasis on "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil)and they are both racist.

Ralph Schoenmann quotes in his "The Hidden History of Zionism the founder of Revisionist Zionism:

Jabotinsky spelled this out in his Letter on Autonomy:
It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different than his own. In order to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants.

Both Nazism and Zionism are supremacist ideologies,emphasising physical strength:

Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who had arranged the Balfour Declaration and was to become the first president of Israel, made this Zionist policy very explicit:
The hopes of Europe’s six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked: “Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?” I replied, “No.” ... From the depths of the tragedy I want to save ... young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world ... Only the branch of the young shall survive. They have to accept it.

Just like Hitler was sacrificing German´s young men on the eastern front and made German children targets for allied bombing,so little did Zionist leaders care for the life and well being of their own people:

Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative."

Nazism and Zionism are both hyper-militaristic, they have both a total disregard towards the rights and the dignity of "the other",not belonging to the priviliged race, and like Hitler, the Zionist leaders of Israel believe that a people can reach its highest potential only when it is engaged in constant military battle:

Here an excerpt from Israel´s Sacred Terrorism:

We do not need (former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Dayan said) a security pact with the U.S.: such a pact will only constitute an obstacle for us. We face no danger at all of an Arab advantage of force for the next 8-10 years. Even if they receive massive military aid from the West, we shall maintain our military superiority thanks to our infinitely greater capacity to assimilate new armaments. The security pact will only handcuff us and deny us the freedom of action which we need in the coming years. Reprisal actions which we couldn't carry out if we were tied to a security pact are our vital lymph ... they make it possible for us to maintain a high level of tension among our population and in the army. Without these actions we would have ceased to be a combative people and without the discipline of a combative people we are lost. We have to cry out that the Negev is in danger, so that young men will go there....

I do not think, that Israel’s behavior of, throwing a million cluster bomblets just before leaving Lebanon, was unprecedented as Gilad Atzmon thinks.
Instead the action of the IDF simulated the "burnt earth policies" of the German army in Eastern Europe during WWII.
The Nazi ideology like Zionism was expansionistic, trying to gain as much "Lebensraum" for the Germanic "super-race" as possible.
Like the IDF, in spicing Lebanon with cluster bombs, the German army tried, after invading and expelling their neighbours, to make it hard or impossible for the natives to come back to their lands, by burning their houses abd fields.

If you read articles by Peters or other ultra-Zionist, or if you read those above mentioned quotes from the Israeli "peace-camp", you can feel that the mentality of Zionists is totally out of touch with both reality and with the ethical principles, which most of the world accepts, even while those principles are not allways acted upon.

While other aggressors try to hide their most immoral acts from their populations, Zionists seem to be proud to have killed a thousand people in retaliation for a few killed and captured soldiers.
They use cluster bombs with a million bomblets, so the dying would not stop after the war. And when there is criticism to this heinous act of war-crimes, they call the critic anti-semite, not even realizing hat by this they are make "anti-semitism" into a moral act.
And they create unmarked "Jews only" roads and areas with non-existent signs Palestinians have to respect, while Israelis have to pretend they don´t exist and the rest of the world has to pretend not to notice.

To be incapapable of reality checking and or even recognizing other viewpoints as possible is a kind of insanity. And it is a progressing illness.

All opinion polls say that Israeli Jews are becoming more aggressively racist every year.
More and more Israelis support ever more violent measure against and finally transfer of all Palestinians from Palestine. They support wars of destruction against neighbouring countries, even the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And they feel a ever more hatred towards those they victimize.

Something like:

"Since I mistreat you, you must have deserved it. And since you are so evil that you deserve this kind of treatment, I hate you."

This is crazy of course, but then ethics are so central to human sanity, that loosing them will drive you insane.

The leaders get effected worse by this mental illness.

Look what happened in Germany:

As disaster came closer, Hitler buried himself in the unreal world of the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin, clutching at fantastic hopes that his 'secret weapons', the V-1 and V-2 rockets, would yet turn the tide of war. He gestured wildly over maps, planned and directed attacks with non-existent armies and indulged in endless, night- long monologues which reflected his growing senility, misanthropy and contempt for the 'cowardly failure' of the German people.

As the Red Army approached Berlin and the Anglo-Americans reached the Elbe, on 19 March 1945 Hitler ordered the destruction of what remained of German industry, communications and transport systems. He was resolved that, if he did not survive, Germany too should be destroyed.

Like Hitler, Zionists have many times turned on the people they supposedly loved so much.
They have sacrificed them for political purposes and endangered them unnecessarily to make them into what the Zionist perceived as a perfect people.
And the Jewish people in Israel and big parts of the Diaspora are still following suit.
However, there again we can compare Nazism in its last phase with Zionism.
In spite of all the suffering the Nazis had brought on the German people, many ordinary Germans became more crazy, ideological and deluded in the last years of the war.
Part of the reason for this was the constant barrage of propaganda, and part of it, was psychological: it was just too hard to accept that all the suffering had been in vain and for a totally false cause. So many Germans desperately held on to something, which many others already deep down recognized as being a straw.

While I don’t think it’s helpful to compete in what ideology produced the greater villains, the comparison, however, might still be good in realizing that there is no culture beyond hope of change.

German culture overcame the Nazi ideology, recognizing guilt and feeling deep shame, the Jewish people need to do the same with Zionism.

And actually, I do see a few signs of hope and change.
Recently I have read articles in German written by some people who are still rooted in the Jewish communities,people, who before had fully supported Israel. In those articles they totally and strongly condemn Israel in its aggression against Lebanon and against the Palestinians. All the facts anti-Zionists have publicized, you now can find in the accusations of former pro-Zionist Jews of the Diaspora.
And the interesting thing about it is, that those writers explain, that their attitude is rather typical for their community. However, the other members do not yet dare to speak up out of fear to be targeted for ridicule by the self-proclaimed leaders of the Jewish people.

Sure their is a difference between the attitude of Diaspora Jews in Europe and Israeli or American Jews. But like in Europe, in America and Israel there are also campaigns of Jewish people who have become more and more opposed to Zionism and Israel, a sign of growing sanity.

Of course, you never know, how long it takes for sanity to be strengthened enough to reign in the insanity.

The Israeli political class still does not want to give up its expansionist politics, is still not ready to negotiate with her Islamic neighbours, seeing itself as above them.
Most Israelis are therefore still paranoidly scared of their neighbours, but do not really trust anybody else either.
And mainly for those reasons preperations for WWIII are still on track and that is definitely scary for all of us.