Murdoch: why hasn't Jerusalem, or Wall St. and the City of London saved him?

With thanks to aangirfan (blog - much better than mine - LINK here)  for making me think.

THE ZIONIST JEWS and their European, White acolytes OWN AND OPERATE THE MEDIA ACROSS the USA & MUCH OF THE WORLD. They admit so themselves.
 
Watch the video:

So one would imagine that Murdoch, had things been been flowing in their usual way, Rupert's Zionist pals in London and Washington could have pulled his fat from the fire.

But they didn't, even though they could, did they......

Further to my post, "There's something bigger with Murdoch than a few hurt feelings", here's something intersting from a Jewish author, which I hope you find useful in understanding the depth of anger felt by SOMEONE toward Murdoch for SOMETHING he has said or done.  

 

http://www.lobelog.com/pro-israel-groups-mute-on-murdoch/

Israeli Press Mum on Murdoch

July 12th, 2011

Marsha B. Cohen

On July 10, Anshel Pfeffer, a columnist for Israel’s reputedly most liberal news site,  Haaretz, wrote a straightforward, if scathing, news article about the accusations being levied against media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Pfeffer’s acerbic piece, aptly headlined “Shameful Journalism Puts Murdoch’s U.K. Empire at Risk,” like others making the front pages of newspapers and websites around the world, criticized the shady news gathering techniques engaged in by News of the World, a British division of Murdoch’s News International:

    "No one is coming out of this story looking good. Not the reporters and the editors of the News of the World newspaper, who hired a private detective to “hack” into the mobile phone messages of the subjects of their investigations – actors, celebrities, footballers, but also families who lost soldiers in wars and victims of murder. Certainly not the top brass of Rupert Murdoch’s News International, who pushed the Sunday tabloid into the murky depths of the journalism swamp, chasing down sensationalist headlines and higher sales.

    The power of the News International empire – which in Britain controls not just the tabloid with the biggest circulation, The Sun, but also “institutional” papers The Times and Sunday Times, as well as the BSkyB satellite television channels – was so extensive that, when the police caught a glimpse of the phone hacking affair more than five years ago, a decision was made that there were more important issues to investigate."

Pfeffer’s piece was yanked off the Haaretz English website after less than 24 hours, where many older pieces often linger for days, even weeks. Equally noteworthy is that  the article is now very difficult  to locate in the Haaretz archives. Querying the Haaretz website search box for “Murdoch” or “Pfeffer,” the default “sort by relevance” results bury Pfeffer’s article about Murdoch, which can be located easily only if searching by date.

Haaretz’s generally slipshod archiving of its published articles is irritating to researchers and writers, and is particularly unfortunate for a newspaper whose English language edition is published in coordination with the International Herald Tribune. The most interesting and provocative articles seem to be most difficult to find and to have the shortest shelf life, sometimes vanishing in a matter of hours. (This author learned long ago to print out any item  of interest appearing on the Haaretz site before it disappeared.)

Israel’s other English language news sites thus far have been offering no original commentary about Murdoch, and providing only reports or brief excerpts from wire service coverage. Curiously, neither Pfeffer nor the wire service reports point out that Murdoch is considered staunchly “pro-Israel.” In the past two years, Murdoch has been an honoree of at least two prominent  pro-Israel groups in the U.S. .

On March 4, 2009, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) presented Murdoch with its “National Human Relations Award.” (This author posted this detail in a reader comment to Pfeffer’s piece that Haaretz chose not to publish just prior to the article’s disappearance,  and also pointed it out in an e-mail to Pfeffer himself, to which he has not replied.) Speaking at the AJC awards dinner, Murdoch refuted the widely-believed myth that he himself  is Jewish, but took the opportunity to reiterate and endorse some other myths prevalent in the Jewish community:

    "In Europe, men and woman who bear the tattoos of concentration camps today look out on a continent where Jewish lives and Jewish property are under attack – and public debate is poisoned by an anti-Semitism we thought had been dispatched to history’s dustbin.

    In Iran, we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.

    In India, we see Islamic terrorists single out the Mumbai Jewish Center in a well-planned and well-coordinated attack that looks like it could be a test run for similar attacks in similar cities around the world."

On the first point, Murdoch ignored the inconvenient truth that the resurgence of European anti-Semitism has proceeded in tandem with European Islamophobia. Less than six months before Murdoch received his AJC award, the 2008 Pew Survey of Global Attitudes had revealed that Islamophia and anti-Semitism were both on the rise in Europe. As Ian Traynor of the Guardian noted at the time, “The survey found that suspicion of Muslims in Europe was considerably higher than hostility to Jews, but that the increase in antisemitism had taken place much more rapidly.” The rise in European anti-Semitism is a byproduct of Islamophobia at least as much as (and perhaps more than) it is a consequence of it.

Debate over whether or not Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon receives ample coverage on this blog and elsewhere, and elaboration of this issue would be a digression from the topic at hand. Suffice it to say that Murdoch (or any other speaker) could not, and would not dare to, address a Jewish group, particularly one that devotes so much of its abundant resources to anti-Iran rhetoric as AJC, without invoking “the Iranian threat.”

Murdoch’s mention of the attack on the Chabad House in Mumbai, India strongly implied  that the Jewish house of workshop had been singled out for an Islamist terrorist attack. At least 150 people were killed and hundreds more injured in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks Nov. 26-28, 2008, on a crowded train station, two luxury hotels popular with foreign tourists, a hospital and several other crowded Mumbai sites, with the Chabad House an apparent afterthought. The initial Fox News report did not even refer to the Chabad House as having been a target. Murdoch’s AJC speech also didn’t mention that Mumbai has nine synagogues attended almost exclusively by locals, which were not attacked; the only one targeted by the terrorists was the Chabad center, which was both run and frequented by foreigner visitors from Israel and Western countries.

Not to be outdone, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) chose Murdoch as the recipient of its “International Leadership Award” on Oct. 13, 2010, which was presented to him by ADL Director Abraham Foxman:

    “I have come to know the man, not his image,” Mr. Foxman said in presenting the award to Mr. Murdoch.  “I learned that he cared deeply about the safety and security of Israel.  I learned that he was as distressed as I was about efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state, to hold it to a double standard, and to seek its demise by some.”

In his acceptance speech (reproduced in full by the arch-neoconservative Weekly Standard, which Murdoch’s NewsCorp had helped to get off the ground and had run at a loss for 14 years before selling it in 2009 to Philip Anschutz), Murdoch blamed anti-Semitism on Muslims, and leftists for the “soft war” being waged against Israel, conflating criticism with armed assault:

    Now the war has entered a new phase.  This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere:  the media … multinational organizations … NGOs.

    In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

    The result is the curious situation we have today:  Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran – a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel’s destruction – pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.

Israel “ostracized” by the media? Criticism of Israel as the latest manifestation of  terrorism? Iran pursuing nuclear weapons without fear of rebuke? Murdoch ought to have spent a bit more time reading his competitors. Israeli policies and perspectives receive largely deferential treatment by western international wire services that are still dominant in global news flows — and, of course, the US new media.

Murdoch also used the occasion to take a swipe at US President Barack Obama:

    I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.”

    This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Obama’s alleged mistreatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was another myth purveyed by Murdoch-owned news media. Fox News fueled the hysteria about Obama “insulting” Netanyahu by conversing with him on the telephone on June 9, 2009 while his  legs were stretched out on his White House desk, revealing the soles of his shoes, at which an Arab might take umbrage. (Since neither Obama nor Netanyahu is Arab, it was unclear why this was considered to be of any relevance.) Accompanying the article was a photo released by the White House, showing Obama at ease while communicating with the Israeli Prime Minister.

All this has apparently earned Murdoch and his empire the unswerving loyalty of Israelis and the major institutions of the “Israel Lobby” here in the U.S. Last February, a group of 400 American rabbis objected to the Holocaust terminology used and misused by then-Fox News Channel commentator Glenn Beck. In an open letter published in the Wall Street Journal and the Forward, the rabbis appealed to Murdoch to sanction Beck and Fox News Chair Roger Ailes. The Jerusalem Post depicted  American Jews as critical of the rabbis, rather than of Beck, Ailes or Murdoch. JP quoted the  ADL’s  Foxman as saying that he found the rabbis’ public stance  against Beck and Ailes to be bizarre: “They’re not our enemy, and they are certainly not Holocaust deniers.”

A new accusation by former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown asserts the Murdoch media empire may have used known criminals to conduct  illicit surveillance activities such as hacking and wiretapping in order to obtain personal information. Heartlessly shoddy and amazingly under-handed (and illegal; not to say, immoral) journalistic practices at his news sites? Who cares, as long as he’s “good for Israel”? And if Murdoch is “good for Israel,” they’d all best shut up about him.

The story of Lord Northcliffe. The power of organized Jewery.

Sometimes truths are collated and served by less than salubrious people. This is one such case. However the saying "Where there's muck, there's Brass" is true. Hold your nose and read Mr. Strom's essay, which apparently is true.

Lord Northcliffe  was a victim of the Zionist establishment whose story deserves to be told, though it was covered up for decades. The lessons for us in his story are deep and profound.
 
by Kevin Alfred Strom (LINK to essay)

THE PRESS MAGNATE Alfred Harmsworth, later Britain’s Lord Northcliffe, once said: “News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress; the rest is just advertising.” Despite the fact that he was one of the most powerful men in what was then the British Empire, Northcliffe would eventually pay for that attitude with his life.

Northcliffe’s fall — from being one of the most powerful men in the world to being imprisoned as insane after which he quickly died — took only a few days. The trigger was his challenge to the Jewish power structure.

Northcliffe, who lived from 1865 to 1922, stood up to the political establishment of his time, damning Lord Kitchener during World War I when he was considered a war hero — and thereby engendering the hatred of millions and driving the circulation of his flagship paper down by some 80 per cent. He emerged victorious, just as he had in earlier decades when his business acumen and editorial skill had made him the outright owner of the two of the most widely read newspapers in Britain (and many other periodicals) and the majority proprietor of the then-leading newspaper in the world, The Times of London. Lord Northcliffe was possibly the earliest example of the modern press baron.

Northcliffe was a man who was a bit of a jingoistic nationalist — he took regrettable anti-German and anti-Boer positions, for example — and it is said that he would do almost anything to increase the circulation of the newspapers that he owned. Douglas Reed, in his interesting book The Controversy of Zion, writes “He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. He somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colonel Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. He could not be cowed and was a force in the land.”

Northcliffe, the son of an English barrister, was born Alfred Harmsworth near Dublin on the 15th of July 1865. With his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere) he started the magazine Answers to Correspondents in 1888, which rapidly became a success with its question-and-answer format, selling over a million copies a week. He then founded a children’s newspaper, Comic Cuts, a woman’s magazine, Forget-Me-Nots, purchased the bankrupt Evening News and made it a success by modernizing it, and founded the revolutionary Daily Mail, which pioneered low-cost production, lavish use of illustrations, the smaller tabloid paper size, terse, fact-filled writing, sports and women’s sections, serial novels, and banner headlines. By the time of the Boer war, the paper sold a million copies a day. Harmsworth took what he considered a patriotic position, stating that the Mail stood for “the power, the supremacy and the greatness of the British Empire.”

The part-Jewish publisher Joseph Pulitzer was so impressed with Harmsworth’s talents that he hired him to edit the first edition of his brand new New York World on the first day of the twentieth century, which he did — using the tabloid (meaning compressed) size which he had pioneered and named, and which later become the dominant format for British newspapers.

One failure of Northcliffe was his launching of the first daily newspaper for women, the Daily Mirror, which did eventually become a success when he made it into a picture newspaper for both sexes. He took his losses and accepted his defeat with philosophy and humor, saying “Disaster may often be changed to triumph by alteration in tactics. The faculty of knowing when you are beaten is much more valuable than the faculty of thinking you are not beaten when you are. I had for many years a theory that a daily newspaper for women was in urgent request, and I started one. The belief cost me £100,000. I found out that I was beaten. Women don’t want a daily paper of their own. It was another instance of the failures made by a mere man in diagnosing women’s needs. Some people say that a woman never really knows what she wants. It is certain she knew what she didn’t want. She didn’t want the Daily Mirror.”

It was in 1905, the same year that he purchased The Times and the Sunday Observer, that his achievements were recognized by his being made Lord Northcliffe — at 40 the youngest-ever peer of the realm. [ http://tinyurl.com/2wfla ]

The First World War was a tragedy of bloodletting, destruction, and death for millions of the best young men of our European race on every side of the conflict — a tragedy from which we have still not yet recovered. Its origins are lost in obscure and shifting alliances, commercial jealousy, and the cynical ‘balance of power’ policy favored by the British Empire at the expense of pan-European interests. Its end was a farrago of madness in which avarice, revenge, crackpot ‘liberal’ nuttiness, and Zionism dominated. It is this last item — Zionism — with which we are — and Lord Northcliffe was — concerned.

According to a defector from the Jewish power structure of the time, Benjamin Freedman, Britain was on the verge of losing that war in 1917, when the Zionist Jews made a proposal to the British government. Britain could yet win this war, the Zionists argued, if America could be brought into the conflict on Britain’s side. With their already-substantial control of the American press, and with their tight circle of ‘advisors’ around President Wilson (who was beholden to them because of indiscreet letters in their possession which he had written to a woman not his wife), the Zionists made a good case that they could deliver what they promised. But there was a price to be paid. The British Empire was at that time administering the small Middle Eastern territory of Palestine, populated mainly by Palestinian Arabs and Christians and with only a small minority of Jews. The Zionist Jews coveted that territory — which later became Israel when their land-grab came to fruition — and their price for bringing American soldiers to die in Flanders fields was a declaration from Britain that the Empire favored the establishment of a Jewish state there. The price was paid. Lord Milner and Foreign Minister Balfour drafted the Balfour Declaration — and the puppeteers pulled the strings on crackpot Wilson and America went to war to “make the world safe for democracy’ and to “end war,” proving that many Americans had had their brains turned to mush long before the advent of television.

The scholar Revilo Oliver has stated that Milner’s interest in supporting the Zionists, apart from the immediate objective of winning the war, was in removing as many Jews as possible from Britain, and giving them their own country thousands of miles away seemed as good a way of doing that as any. Similar motives animated Balfour, as I stated on this program last year:

“…Balfour’s naiveté [is] in this case, a stand-in and symbol of White naiveté in general. The Jews wanted a policy statement from the then-dominant world power, the British Empire, and they got it and used it to the hilt, not hesitating to kill Britons when it suited them, as in the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel, and while other Jews were, especially after World War II, doing everything in their power to undermine the status of the White nations including Britain. The Zionist entity has outlasted the British Empire which gave it birth, though Little Britain is still of some assistance in some projects, like the murder of Iraqis, currently being undertaken by the self-styled masters of the world. What’s really interesting about Balfour, who gave the Jews their foothold in Palestine, was that he didn’t particularly like Jews — and that he was a racialist. Like Adolf Hitler later, Balfour was enamoured of the idea of the Jews leaving Europe to found their own state elsewhere. Both men negotiated with Zionist Jews to effect that end. Hitler offered them Madagascar in 1938. In 1903, while he was Prime Minister, Balfour offered them Uganda. In debates on the Alien Act of 1905, Balfour sought to cut off Jewish immigration into Britain. Balfour openly admitted in 1914 (to leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann, no less) that he shared the extreme anti-Jewish sentiments of Cosima Wagner. Balfour [even] spoke against Jewish immigration in the House of Commons.”

After the war, Lord Northcliffe became alarmed by Zionist ambitions and Jewish power. In 1920, he publicized the book that has been banned and furiously denounced by the Jews perhaps more than any other, the famous Protocols of Zion, which purports to be notes taken at a meeting of Jews sometime during the nineteenth century, detailing a plan for world domination through intrigues, deception, and terror. I have already published my criticism of the Protocols elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that, although the book is unlikely to be what it claims to be — an actual record of an actual meeting — and though it clearly was created by a polemicist with a religious bias (witness its barbs directed at Darwin and Nietzsche, for example), its insights into the Jewish mentality and Jewish techniques are insightful and its tracing (before 1905!) of many of the paths that would be taken by the Jewish establishment in the last century are amazing.

Northcliffe probably saw the Protocols much as I see them, and decided they deserved to be seen and investigated by the British people. Accordingly he saw to it that significant parts of them were published in the most prestigious newspaper in the country, The Times, of which he was the principal owner, under the title ‘The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry.’ He did not declare the Protocols to be true, but rather called for a full investigation to discover whether or not they were true. He stated that “an impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable … are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”

In 1922, Northcliffe asked the editor of The Times, Wickham Steed, to travel to Palestine to investigate the real nature of the Zionist project there, feeling sure that Steed, once he saw how a tiny and foreign Jewish minority was determined to use every foul means to dispossess the Palestinians, would make a 180 degree turn and stop supporting Chaim Weizmann and the other Zionists as he had theretofore. In this Northcliffe miscalculated badly, for the Zionist hold on Steed (the exact nature of which deserves further investigation) was so strong that Steed openly refused to act upon any of the requests of the man who was the majority owner of the paper and who was therefore his employer! Steed would not go to Palestine; Steed would not publish an article critical of Balfour’s attitude toward Zionism when asked to do so; and, when Northcliffe himself went to Palestine, Steed would not even publish Northcliffe’s own dispatches from that troubled land. Who was protecting Steed? Who and what was motivating Steed? These questions became even more important later that year. Douglas Reed wrote:

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading articles about Palestine in England and in consultation with the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, “In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it … The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs … There will be trouble in Palestine . . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me.”

The articles by Jeffries and Northcliffe didn’t get published in The Times, but they did see the light of day in Northcliffe’s other papers, greatly alarming the Zionists, who needed the acquiescence of the British people for their land-grab to succeed.

Things started happening very fast for Lord Northcliffe soon thereafter. On February 26th, 1922, he returned from Palestine. On March 2d, he strongly criticized Steed at an editorial conference, expecting to precipitate his resignation. To Northcliffe’s amazement, Steed did not resign but decided to consult an attorney “to secure a lawyer’s opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal.” Then, Steed says, he consulted Northcliffe’s own legal advisor who supposedly stated that Lord Northcliffe was “abnormal”, “incapable of business” and, judging from his appearance, “unlikely to live long” and who therefore advised the editor “to continue in his post.” On March 31st, Steed went to see Northcliffe in France and upon returning started spreading the story — even telling a director of the paper — that Northcliffe was “going mad.”

Douglas Reed himself worked with Northcliffe a few weeks later and reports he saw nothing at all indicating illness, madness, or abnormality of any kind. Reed also states that a very sane and sober Northcliffe informed him that someone was trying to kill him. Reed tells us:

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and “was in fine form.” On May 11, 1922 he made “an excellent and effective speech” to the Empire Press Union and “most people who had thought him ‘abnormal’ believed they were mistaken.” A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instructions to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor’s resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing “abnormal” in such an instruction and was not “in the least anxious about Northcliffe’s health.” Another director, who then saw him, “considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own”: he “noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe’s manner or appearance” (May 24, 1922).

On June 11th, Steed met Northcliffe again in France and Northcliffe bluntly told him that he, Northcliffe, would now assume editorship of The Times. The next day, Steed, Northcliffe, and the entire entourage were aboard a train bound for Evian-les-Bains. Unknown to Northcliffe, a doctor (whose name has not been revealed to this day) was secreted aboard the train by Steed, and somehow Northcliffe was manipulated into his custody. When the train arrived in Switzerland another unnamed physician (described years later only as “a brilliant French nerve specialist”) was summoned and declared Northcliffe “insane.” Immediately Steed telegraphed the ‘news’ to London and ordered The Times to disregard and not to publish any communications from its primary owner. On June 13th, Steed returned to London. On June 18th, Northcliffe was back in London, too, but in custody and totally removed from all control of or communication with his far-flung enterprises. Even his telephone lines were cut. Police were posted at the offices of The Times to prevent his entering should he reach them. He never did.

On that same day, with Northcliffe out of circulation and his powerful voice of protest silenced, the League of Nations voted to reconfirm the ‘British Mandate’ in Palestine, which had mutated into a ‘mandate’ to install the Zionists in power there by violence and fraud.

On August 14th, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died, supposedly the cause of death being “ulcerative endocarditis.” None of the story of his alleged insanity or confinement was known to the public at the time. It was concealed for thirty years, eventually coming out in the Official History of The Times and, in greater detail in Reed’s The Controversy of Zion.

When Northcliffe died, he left in his will three month’s salary to each of his 6,000 employees, a total of 533,000 pounds — a huge sum in today’s inflated currency. The story of Northcliffe’s challenge to the Zionists deserves more study, as does the continuation of that challenge by Northcliffe’s brother Harold, Lord Rothermere. Rothermere eventually came to the conclusion that Jewish power needed to be defeated for the good of Europe, and that Britain’s best interest lay in support of the other European nations which had begun the fight.

Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail for the 10th of July, 1933:

I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful detractors of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call “Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

[ http://tinyurl.com/ypbsf ]

Rothermere died — some say of a broken heart — shortly after the second great Jew-instigated fratricidal European bloodbath began in 1939.

The life and death of Lord Northcliffe have left us many lessons. Chief among those lessons is this: The enemy with whom we deal has no honor and no concept whatsoever of a fair fight, whether in a shooting war or in the war of ideas. Dealing with them as we would deal with an opponent of our own race, observing the conventions of civility and fairness and an honorable contest — and expecting the same from them, will be fatal every time. What we can expect from them is a stab in the back; poisoning; paid betrayers; lies, lies, and more lies in every direction one turns, lies so thick that they multiply faster than one can respond to them; and destruction of a million innocent lives if it gets them one inch closer to their inhuman goals.

Zionists in their own words

Iranian President claims 9/11 conspiracy, and a (communistic) New World Order.

Individually the points  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes are valid, especially those critical of Zionism.

However:

When he speaks world peace, he means Peace through a world-wide Islamic peace. Only submission to Islam, for the President of Iran, means world peace.

ISLAM is the creation of the Vatican. Just another false paradigm, a plaything of the Society of Jesus through MI6/CIA/MOSSAD.