Definition of Anti-Semitism

COMMENTARY: The Manipulation Of The Definition Of Anti-Semitism

“Before there was any mention of a so-called “Holocaust,” and while America was still neutral, American Zionists, with the approval of the media, produced the most mass genocidal book in history: Theodore N. Kaufman in “Germany Must Perish” (Argyle Press, Newark, 1941) literally urged the sterilization of 48,000,000 German men and women of childbearing age, so that, he explained, Germanism will be extirpated in two generations,” Source: Institute for Historical Review

We see that throughout history, these so-called “Jews” have been the initiators of all wars for the purpose of not only collecting profits from their destruction but to slowly impose their evil power over humanity.

Definition of Anti-Semitism
“The Manipulation of the Definition of Anti-Semitism,” Source:

The manipulation of the definition of anti-semitism & exploitation of the concept of anti-semitism is a sinister trend. The international Zionist cabal & network are cunningly trying to change the notion of anti-semitism to stop any criticism of Israel and its litany of war crimes.

The manipulation of the definition of anti-semitism, and along with it the exploitation of the concept of anti-semitism, is a sinister trend that has been accelerating lately. Historically, anti-semitism used to actually mean something (i.e. the hatred of Jews just because they were Jewish). Nowadays, the international Zionist cabal and network are cunningly trying to change the definition of anti-semitism to stop any criticism of Israel. Such criticism of Israel may be entirely legitimate, justified and based on the actions of the Israeli Government, and thus have nothing to do with “Jews”, “Jewishness” or “Judaism” itself. However, the Zionist plan is to catch all such criticism in the anti-semitism/hate speech dragnet so that the Israeli Government can continue unimpeded on its merry genocidal way. The definition of anti-semitism is being changed for one simple reason: censorship.

Zionist-backed South Carolina Law Changing the Definition of Anti-Semitism in the US

Just take a look at recent bills and laws on the books inside of the United States. In April 2018, South Carolina passed a law with a new definition of anti-semitism which significantly broadened the meaning of the term. The effects are far-reaching. This piece of legislation requires the state’s colleges to use this new definition when determining whether an action is “discriminatory” (and thus banned). Essentially, in many areas related to Zionism, it forbids factual and true statements which are critical of Israel by codifying them as anti-semitic! Seems the terms post-truth world and post-fact world are spot on.

Take a look at pg. 81 of the 278-page document:

(B) For purposes of this proviso, the term “definition of anti-Semitism” includes:
(1) a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
(2) calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews;
(3) making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective;
(4) accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
(5) accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
(6) accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
(7) using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
(8) drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
(9) blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
(10) applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
(11) multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations; and
(12) denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

(1) is the true and historical definition, and I can fully understand why this (as with any other form of racism) is a problem, just as (2) and (4) are. As a libertarian, I don’t believe it is the government’s job to force people into being kind (you can’t legislate morality), although the civil rights movement did a lot for people who suffered from a lack of rights and freedom. Obviously I can see how a government would be concerned about public safety with (2) and (4). However, most of the following points are a gross expansion of the original definition of anti-semitism into something so broad that it stifles free speech, critical thinking and the ability to investigate and discuss openly many aspects of the worldwide conspiracy. So, if you live in South Carolina, it is now illegal to:

(3) – make reference to the obvious fact that concentrated Jewish power exists and dominates certain industries such as the media (MSM, Hollywood), politics or the high-tech sector (the Talpiot Program);

(5) – investigate, draw your own conclusions from a historical event (the Holocaust) and announce those conclusions if they differ from the official story. In fact, even if you merely say the number of Jewish deaths is wrong (i.e. not 6 million), you are not a historian or researcher, but rather an anti-semite, because you are stating that the Jews or Israel are “exaggerating” the Holocaust – which happens to be the truth, since the Holocaust has been seized and capitalized upon for political gain, as many Jews such as Norman Finkelstein point out;

(6) – claim that some dual Israel-US citizens may be more loyal to Israel than the US. Wow! Ever looked at the 9/11 cast of characters and conspirators? They are full of Neocons and Zionists! There are so many examples of Israeli collusion on 9/11, helped on by PNAC Zionists like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Dov Zakheim and many more;

(8) – point out the obvious hypocrisy of the Zionist regime which runs Gaza like an open-air concentration camp, just as the Nazis did with the Jews and other minorities. Israel rations food, water, electricity and other supplies to the Palestinians, controls their freedom of movement, tests out its new weaponry on unsuspecting Arabs there, as well as slaughters anyone it wants too with impunity, by falsely claiming that it is “only defending itself” and that all Palestinian protestors including women and children are automatically from Hamas (yes, the very same Hamas that Israel supported and helped to create);

(11) – demand that peace and human rights organizations focus on Israel, when, demonstrably, Israel has been the main aggressor in the region ever since its inception, including starting the 6-Day War against Egypt then Syria, attacking the USS Liberty, stealing land from its neighbors and invading Lebanon in 1982.


Changing the definition of anti-semitism: the game is up.

Also, with (10), what exactly are people expecting of Israel and not expecting of any other nation? That it stops its discriminatory apartheid policies that values Jewish citizens over all other citizens? It is equally demanded in all Western democracies that all people are treated equal regardless of race and religion (even though it doesn’t happen in practice). Likewise, with (9), it is undeniable that Israel’s power is massively disproportionate and large compared to its tiny population and geographical area. It has a history of provoking the countries around it into war by being the aggressor. Number (12) makes the point that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic” yet this is just a lip-service glossover. The whole point of this bill is to crush criticism of Israel! This proviso reminds of the proviso in the Balfour Declaration where it states that the UK approves of Israel building settlements in Palestine as long as the indigenous people living there are not disadvantaged. Well, that worked well. The whole existence of Israel, since even before 1948, is been nothing but a pushing back, stealing and genocide.

Federal Bill Also to Change Definition of Anti-Semitism

On May 23rd 2018, a federal bill was also introduced called the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018. The goals are the same: silence criticism of Israel, gut the First Amendment and cancel free speech – despite the fact that anti-semitic harassment is already illegal under federal law. This is just part of a larger pattern whereby the pervasive Zionist influence throughout the halls of Western Government clamps down on any anti-Zionist perspectives – in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other places. The ACLU writes:

“Campaigns aimed at excluding critics of Israel from participating in public events are mounting, often with support of publicly funded institutions. A Chicago-area public library temporarily cancelled a talk about a book titled “The Battle for Justice in Palestine,” before reconsidering its decision. The Missouri History Museum cancelled a community event titled “From Ferguson to Ayotzinapa to Palestine,” after organizers refused to remove Palestinian panelists.”


Manufactured Anti-Semitism

The must-watch documentary Defamation, made by Israeli Jew film director Yoav Shamir, does an excellent job exposing how modern anti-semitism is largely invented out of thin air. Yes, anti-semites, White supremacists, and other Jew-haters exist, but as a tiny minority, shunned by the majority of people who are not racist. Yet, so much Jewish identity and sympathy for Zionism and Israel depends on anti-semitism being alive, so organizations like the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) exist essentially to fan the flames and concoct sham reports, which then get passed along to the MSM and FBI, who dutifully to the Zionist line and declare falsities like “anti-semitism is on the rise.”

definition of anti-semitism restrict criticism Israel smoloko

Final Thoughts

We live in a world where our cherished freedom of speech is under constant attack, especially by PC (political correctness). Zionism is at the apex of the PC pyramid; it’s the tyrant-king who has learned how to name-call and throw mud par excellence. It has everyone scared, especially politicians and celebrities, of saying anything even slightly offensive. It harnesses its massive network to make the name “anti-semite” stick, even if there’s no truth to it.

The modification of the definition of anti-semitism is a crude attempt to exploit the real suffering of Jews 85+ years ago at the hands of the Nazis. This agenda is even targeted at (the now many) Jews who oppose Zionism themselves! It has nothing to so with real historical meaning of anti-semitism, but rather operates purely to suppress criticism of Israel. Historian David Irving spoke of an organized international network that would target him when he reported historical facts. Whether it’s the CAA in England, or AIPAC, the ADL and the SPLC in the US, the goal is the same.

Remember what former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni admitted:

“Well, it’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe someone criticizes Israel, then we bring out the Holocaust. When in this country (USA) when they criticize Israel, they are anti-semitic … it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli Government … that justifies everything we do to the Palestinians.”

Clever people will see through this ruse of anti-semitism – and brave people will rise above it.

VIDEO: There Is NO Free Speech

This video, produced by Johnny Gat, masterfully describes the current state of affairs regarding the ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) & free speech.

Please lend your support, and subscribe to his YouTube channel:


EXCLUSIVE on SYRIA: British Media Publish Hoaxes

The Guardian article from February 6, 2018, titled “Biggest airstrikes in a year hit Syria after rebels shoot down Russian jet” claims that “Russian and Syrian jets have bombed up to 18 towns across north-west Syria, devastating civilian areas and forcing fresh waves of refugees to flee”. According to the journalists Martin Chulov and Kareem Shahee, a series of devastating airstrikes have been carried out in the northwest of Idlib province. “Nine people were treated for symptoms of chlorine exposure after a bomb was dropped on the town of Saraqeb by a helicopter”, they claim.
Inside Syria Media Center has tried to get to the bottom of the adequacy of this information and determine whether it is credible.

Fake No.1 Mission Impossible

According to The Guardian journalists, “as many as 150 airstrikes beginning on Sunday were recorded in 18 towns of Idlib province by Monday”. Trying to imagine the number of attacks carried out without interruption for 12 hours we came to the conclusion that Idlib Governorate, in the view of The Guardian, has suffered a saturation bombing. In fact, if these figures were accurate at least eight aircraft would have flown mission and dropped about 60 bombs at every town – based on an average maximum loading of eight FAB-500 general purpose bombs per one Su-25 jet.
At the same time, Business Insider reports that “the most recent satellite images of the Russian-operated Hmeimim air base in Syria show Moscow has 10 types of aircraft in the war-torn country, 33 jets in total and a smaller number of fixed-wing aircraft.” So, all the Russian aircraft are supposed to have taken off and landed 4 times, refueled, loaded weapons and once again set course for Idlib for the 12 hours.
If it really did happen, this military operation could be compared to the one-night air raid on London during WW2, which caused over, 500 deaths a night. But this has nothing in common with the casualties reported by The Guardian.
Besides, The Guardian’s figures vary substantially with those from other sources. Thus, The Washington Post referring to ВВС channel reported 25 airstrikes on 15 towns. It also claimed that about 20 militants in the area died in bombardment while The Guardian cited 300 people killed, mostly women and children.
Have analyzed Turkish mass media, we do not consider the Guardian’s ‘facts’ to be authentic. For example, Anadolu Agency reported on civilian casualties referring to White Helmets director in Idlib, Mustafa Haj Yusuf. This organization has already been involved in staging fake videos. Moreover, Turkish media claimed the only tragic case had happened in Masaran village with eight locals killed and about 40 wounded from Feb. 4 to Feb. 5, 2018. It was also reported that three mosques and a hospital had been destroyed in Maarat al-Numan without quoting the number of killed. So Guardian’s data on 300 civilians killed is also looking different.

Fake No.2 Has Termala actually been?

Covering the situation around Termala, The Guardian’s reporters refer to some monitoring groups. In our opinion, the source of this false information is the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Surprisingly, we have not found any photos or videos which could prove this airstrike. The Observatory’s representatives said Russian airstrikes had killed three people targeting the village of Termala in Idlib on February 6. This information was widely disseminated by the influential Western media like Anadolu and NYP. However, their data slightly varies. Some report three civilians deaths while others report five deaths.

Fake No.3 “Chemical explosion”

There is a particular interest in a new case of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. According to The Guardian, “nine people were treated for symptoms of chlorine exposure after a bomb was dropped on the town of Saraqeb by a helicopter.” However, some American sources like Business Insider say there were two bombs and 11 wounded. The Guardian’s journalists refer to the unnamed ‘medics’. This alleged fact causes major doubts because of several reasons.
First, we’ve analyzed the craters formed, according to locals, by the barrel bomb with chlorine gas dropped on Saraqeb.

Location of the bomb dropped on Saraqeb

The result of the barrel bomb drop in Hama Governorate

The dispersion of soil fragments in craters doesn’t match with the barrel bomb drop. This is called a fragmentation effect. The detonating wave converts the shell and sends its fragments/splinters flying with high velocity in roughly three separate directions when the projectile reaches the surface and the explosive filler blows up.
The aperture of the craters formed and the amount of the splinters in them mostly depend on the shape and body of the shell, and also on the explosive filler inside. The directions of the splinters are affected by the velocity and the speed of rotation at the moment when the projectile explodes. Usually, the majority of the splinters are in the side cones (roughly 80 % of the splinters), and with the shells fired by cannons and howitzers, which have cylindrical projectiles, the aperture of the cone is usually between 40 – 50 degrees. The shells fired by mortars, are usually drop-shaped, giving the side cone an aperture of over 50 degrees. Below is the scheme of the dispersion of soil fragments.

The scheme shows that an artillery and mortar shell unlike a barrel bomb has a parabolic trajectory and coming in a shallow or a steep angle. At the same time, a vertically dropped barrel bomb has practically the similar dispersion of soil fragments in all the directions. The ammunition of different type and function can’t leave the same traces on the ground.
On these videos,

We can see the craters of that kind which are equal to many others formed as a result of artillery or mortar shell. So, the video shows the mortar crater, not the barrel one. The crater is most likely to have been created due to the militant attack.
Second, Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) found out the location of the alleged attack.

The supposed impact point of the two barrel bombs

However, thoroughly looking at the older Google-maps pictures dated 01/10/16 we can assume that the craters had been formed long ago.

The screenshot of Google-maps dated 01/10/16

It is worth paying special attention to the use of chlorine effects radius. We can use the following formula to describe the process.
R = 2,52 √ Q/d,
Q=spread over materials (tons),
d= density (tons m-3).
The density can be measured on the basis of the bomb’s form appeared in the video. The bomb of such type was allegedly dropped on Saraqeb. We identified that the chemical warheads for this barrel bomb do not exceed 10 kilos. Consequently, two barrel bombs’ mass is less than 20 kilos.

The screenshot of the barrel bomb allegedly dropped on Saraqeb

The chloride density is d=0,001557 tons m-3. We can calculate the radius of possible damage using the formula: R =2,52*√0,02/0,001557=9 meters.
Thus, only the people standing around the epicenter could be wounded. The nearby houses couldn’t be ruined.
Besides, the pictures of the bomb were taken in the different locations and not in the direct placement of the explosion. This fact can also confirm the falsification of The Guardian’s information.

The photos of the chlorine bomb taken not in the place of the explosion

The only house that could be affected is inhabited and half-constructed without roof and window-frames.

The photo of the house

The peak chlorine effects radius is laid down upon the map below.

The peak chlorine effects radius of the two bombs

Moreover, the puddle of water inside the crater emerged after the rain. It gave us an idea to see weather forecasts in Saraqeb where the bomb had been allegedly dropped.

The picture of the crater with the puddle of water in Saraqeb dated 02/04/2018

It turned out that a week before the video was posted on February 4, 2018, there had been no precipitations in Saraqeb. This proves that the video was made much earlier – for example, during the last rainfall on January 27, 2018.

The weather forecast in Saraqeb dated 02/04/2018

The article was written by Syrians for Truth & Justice special report group allegedly provides evidence of a chemical attack and contains the statements by the supervisors of the so-called Aviation Observatory which monitors the movement of warplanes in Saraqeb skies. The officer said that a helicopter with a designation “Alpha 253” had taken off from al-Manjazrat School, located in Hama countryside at 9:00 pm on February 4, 2018, and headed towards the north of Syria.
That day the sun went down at 17:03 pm, so it was very dark at 9:00 pm, and according to the weather forecast, the sky was cloudy.
It is curious to find out how the representative of the so-called Aviation Observatory could see a helicopter and its designation.
Another issue concerns the reasonability of dropping two barrels of poisonous gas. What military task the Syrian president (if it was him) could seek to solve by giving an order to drop two barrel bombs of chlorine from the helicopter?
Chemical weapons are considered as weapons of mass destruction. Its use implies a massive loss of human life. Thus, in 1988, the using of chemical weapons in Halabja (Iraqi Kurdistan city) led to the death of five thousand people.
We value every single life. However, taking into account only 11 victims, it cannot be called massive death.
So why the Syrian government needs to use chemical weapons if its amount cannot even kill? This quite differs from the narrative of the Western media that tries to present Assad as a bloodthirsty murderer.
By acting like this, the Syrian Arab Army would never drive ISIS out of the country or gain an advantage over the opposition. Such measures are ineffective but are good for a provocative act.
Shortly after this, the United States declared once again to the world community that it “would keep the right to launch attacks against Syria if it becomes necessary to prevent or stop the use of chemical weapons.” All this reminds of Khan Shaykhun incident and the U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase.
In addition, it’s worth noting that we’ve never heard about the use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops against ISIS.

Fake No.4 “Destroyed Hospitals”

The Guardian also mentions Ahmad al-Dbis, the director of safety and security at the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM). He often makes public statements to The Guardian, The Telegraph, Reuters, Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, etc. His words are based on the statements of the White Helmets. Nevertheless, we’ve found some more contradictions.
One is “the fact” of an airstrike on the hospital in Kafr Nabl.
The analysis of the video of SMART opposition channel allows telling that the footages were taken at specially prepared places and from different angles as if the cameramen knew about the impending airstrikes and pre-selected positions for recording.
Here are the links to the videos:

In addition, the hospital’s exterior questions the very fact of the medical personnel recently working in there. It looks like the hospital has been out of operation for a long time (since May 28, 2014.)

The footage of the destroyed Kafr Nabl Hospital

We have also found out that the hospital received most of the damage much earlier. In the course of the investigation, the media center stumbled upon other videos of hospital attacks in Kafr Nabl previously.
In the video of the Syrian opposition YouTube channel Qasioun News Agency on March 25, 2017, you can see White Helmets volunteers putting out one of the single-story buildings on the territory of the hospital.

Photo of the fire on the hospital’s territory dated March 25, 2017

Near the building, we have found a burned diesel generator which previously supplied the hospital with electricity. The generator was destroyed by fire on March 25, 2017. The following video shows that the generator is out of order. Hence the hospital is out of operation since March 2017.

The territory of the hospital dated March 25, 2017.

Diesel generator destroyed by fire dated March 25, 2017.

Apparently, the medical personnel left the building much earlier. The latest evidence that the hospital operates for its intended purpose is a video dated May 17, 2014.

Video of the working hospital dated May 17, 2014.

On May 25, 2014, the hospital was attacked and partially destroyed.
After that, it seems that it was occupied by militia groups that used the hospital building as their base. The video shows a special mound (1) that covers the windows; there are no windows in the entire building (2); there are grills (3) installed at the entrance and indoor; the defensive positions are based on the second floor (4).

Photo of the destroyed hospital in Kafr-Nabl in the province of Idlib

The hospital current state shows that there was a serious fight for the building, perhaps between local opposition groups. The walls have multiple bullets holes.

Photos of bullet holes

There are other burned buildings nearby that rather look like fortified positions of militants. Some of those buildings were seriously hit by artillery shells. Here is a small structure that has also been converted into a fire position after being partially destroyed.

A small structure in the territory of the medical center

The mentioned facts point out that Kafr Nabl hospital was already out of operation as of February 5, 2018.
Another curious detail is that an ambulance parked in front of the building has exactly the same location in each video dating from September 19, 2017.

The same ambulance is always parked in the same place in the video posted on September 19, 2017, and in the one dated February 5, 2018

Moreover, there is no fragment of glass around or in the vehicle which means that the ambulance, with no equipment inside the cabin, by the way, was more likely to have been damaged long before the strike cited by the Guardian.

The ambulance cabin in the video dated February 5, 2018

Here’s another odd: rescuers are carrying out only two injured persons with no trace of dust on them. It means that these patients had been moved there to make a staged video about the aftermath of “an airstrike” on the hospital in February 2018. The footage doesn’t show a real rescue operation through the hospital allegedly treats up to 200, 000 patients a year!

Staged video with two hospitals “patients”

Thus, the claims about the hospital bombing are clearly a hoax.  Speaking of the Maarat al-Numan hospital we can say that its interior also looks doubtful as there’s no wall damage while the hospital rooms and halls don’t seem to be used for treatment: many of them are full with trash and lack medical equipment.


Rooms and halls in Maaret al-Numan hospital

Besides, one shot demonstrating the so-called bombing aftermath shows no material damage, dust or any other effect from an alleged air strike. And then, in other shots (2 min 12 sec) with the very same hospital after an “air strike”, the doors are pulled off and the building is damaged.

Medical equipment keep operating after an air strike

All this raises doubts about the veracity of information sourced from the director of safety and security at the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations Ahmad al-Dbis and the activist Hassan Mukhtar cited by the Guardian. For instance, Hassan Mukhtar claims there are 300 civilian deaths in two cities without mentioning his sources. But the most unbelievable is that how “the activist” could get information on “600,000 refugees trying to find a safe haven towards the Turkish border” in such short period of time.

We’ve found out the following inconsistent facts, which are more likely to be concocted:
– The number of air strikes launched from Feb. 4 to Feb. 5, 2018, and the number of towns in Idlib province allegedly damaged due to the raids
– Information about civilian deaths in the village of Termala
– Data about a chemical attack on the town of Saraqeb
– Information about air strikes on the hospitals in Kafr Nabl and Maarat al-Numan
– The craters created by bombs
– Lack of warhead fragments in the craters
Based on the investigation, it comes clear that the largest Western media, like the Guardian, tried to cover a new provocative initiative concocted by the Syrian opposition and the White Helmets backed by the U.S. special services and their allies who seek to discredit the Assad government, Syria’s and Russia’s Air Forces

Sophie Mangal is an American Patriot, 27, is a special investigative writer and contributor for Her Hindu surname “Mangal” derives from the Sanskrit “mangala,” meaning “auspicious.” Sophie Mangal – a woman with a genuine passion for Syria, for the church, and for justice. After attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a media and journalism major, Mangal monitored the refugee crisis in Europe, drawing parallels between the Syrian conflict and the Balkan problem, and has visited Syria on several occasions. She can be reached at


VIDEO: ADL Suppression of Free Speech – “The Online Hate Index”

“The Online Hate Index (OHI), a joint initiative of ADL’s Center for Technology and Society and UC Berkeley’s D-Lab, is designed to transform human understanding of hate speech via machine learning into a scalable tool that can be deployed on Internet content to discover the scope and spread of online hate speech.”

For more information click here:

VIDEO: Summary & Update – Zionist Whistleblower Brendon O’Connell Imprisoned

This is the latest update from Activist-News regarding Brendon O’Connell — please subscribe to his channel and spread the word about Brendon to everyone you know!! There is no time to waste! Please reference Activist News’s channel for links about BOC’s case.

Activist-News’s YouTube Channel

Laurent Louis

“Holocaust Denier’s Sentence: Visit 5 Ex-Nazi Camps, And Write About It”

When someone speaks the truth, they are ridiculed and sentenced by the tribe. This is insane and the world should stand up to this INJUSTICE. Since when is it a crime to deny a proven lie? Why aren’t Israel’s atrocious crimes being exposed? Why don’t we see movies about the Bolshevik Revolution? No one can deny that the Jews are controlling the world. This incident is one of many and it should serve as proof! The lack of free speech and the distortion of history MUST BE STOPPED. These people must be stopped and the world should react against them. 

Laurent Louis
“Holocaust Denier’s Sentence: Visit 5 Ex-Nazi Camps, and Write About It,” Source:
A former lawmaker in Belgium convicted of Holocaust denial in 2015 was handed an unusual sentence this week: The Brussels Court of Appeal ordered him to visit one Nazi concentration camp a year for the next five years and write about his experiences, according to the former lawmaker and local news reports.
The politician, Laurent Louis, is a far-right gadfly known for making inflammatory statements about Jews. He once called former Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo, the first gay man to hold the post, a pedophile. Mr. Louis left Parliament in 2014.
Mr. Laurent was given a six-month suspended jail sentence and fined over $20,000 at his 2015 trial, which centered on online statements he made that questioned the number of Jews killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust. After that sentence was changed on Wednesday, he celebrated on Facebook and apologized “to anyone who may have been hurt by my remarks.”
“All that is left for me to do is to go and report in the death camps,” he wrote in a statement. “No doubt, the Court has recognized my talents as a writer.”
Mr. Louis is a marginal figure in Belgium, but political observers said his case illustrated growing worries about anti-Semitism as well as the different approaches that the United States and Europe have taken in response to the expression of far-right views.
Vocal support for Nazism and denial or expressions of doubt about the Holocaust are criminal offenses in more than a dozen European countries, including France, Germany, Belgium, and Poland, according to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Israel. The type of punishment handed down to Mr. Louis is rare but has happened at least once before, in Hungary in 2013.
That is in sharp contrast to the United States, where the right to express far-right views, including neo-Nazi beliefs and white supremacy, is protected by the First Amendment.
In his statement on Wednesday, Mr. Louis said he would obey the ruling and “repent every year in a death camp.” In addition to being “very educational and very powerful on a human level,” he said the experience would also be a chance to “denounce current genocides.” That is the language he has used in the past to refer to Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip.
“Laurent Louis is generally considered as a baffoon,” said Dave Sinardet, a professor of political science at the Free University of Brussels. “He unites Belgian politicians all across the board in the sense that none of them take him seriously.”
But Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of history at Emory University in Atlanta, said even fringe figures should be taken seriously. She called his sentence “unusual.”
“Don’t see this as one crazy guy who happens to be a Holocaust denier,” said Ms. Lipstadt, who opposes the criminalization of Holocaust denial. She is an expert on the subject: The Holocaust denier David Irving unsuccessfully sued her for libel in 1996, a trial that served as the basis for the 2016 film “Denial.”
Mr. Sinardet said Mr. Louis’s election to Parliament in 2010 was “an accident” caused in part by the complexity of Belgium’s byzantine political system, which divides power between the country’s French- and Dutch-speaking communities.
Mr. Louis joined and left or was expelled from several parties during his time in Parliament, often because of his “borderline racist declarations,” Mr. Sinardet said.

Among them was a 2014 speech in defense of Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, a French comedian who has been tried repeatedly for anti-Semitic statements. He also created the quenelle, a hand gesture that resembles a Nazi salute.

In the speech, Mr. Louis said Zionism was “worse” than Nazism and falsely claimed that the Talmud compared non-Jews to monkeys and that it “authorizes” Jews to rape non-Jewish children, according to a video of the speech posted to YouTube. Defending Mr. Dieudonné, he said the Holocaust was “one of the only historical facts that cannot be called into question.”


At trial in 2015, online statements Mr. Louis made in support of the French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen were found to have violated a law against the minimization, justification or approval of the Holocaust.

“To summarize, I have invited the people who follow me to ask about Jean-Marie Le Pen’s condemnation of his remarks with regard to the gas chambers, which he considered to be a ‘detail’ of the Second World War,”

Mr. Louis wrote in an email on Wednesday night. He said he had never denied the existence of the Holocaust, “but I have questioned the essential role of the gas chambers in this extermination and this questioning is prohibited by Belgian law.”

Ms. Lipstadt said that defense was common among Holocaust deniers and others on the far right who “market” their beliefs by posing as reasonable people who are simply asking hard questions.

“You could have someone who says, ‘Look I know the Holocaust happened, I don’t believe in that, but I think maybe it wasn’t as bad, maybe it was exaggerated,’” she said. And she worried that Mr. Louis could use his sentence to make more inflammatory claims.

“When he said, ‘The court has recognized my talents as a writer?’ Give me a break,” she said. “Can he write, ‘Well, I went and I didn’t see anybody being killed’ or, ‘These gas chambers were incapable of killing someone?’”

VIDEO: The Dailystormer Takedown – An Assault on Free Speech

The commentary below is from :

“The takedown of the Daily Stormer is a moment of epochal significance, rich in implications for the future of the internet and the future of liberty itself. Whether you like or agree with the Daily Stormer, in whole or in part, is beside the point. This is a fundamental test case for freedom of expression. Extraordinary efforts have been made to take this site down. Things without precedent have been done. Think about that. There are sites where jihadis post videos of themselves raping and snuffing their victims; sites where they even offer captured sex slaves for sale. The Powers That Be allow them to stay up. But a satirical website has to be taken down for telling a joke about a fat girl being killed by a car? As I’ve often observed, almost everyone says they support free speech and almost no one really does. It is in cases like this that commitment to principles is tested and, almost invariably, found wanting. I thought I’d try and keep a record of those who passed the test, normies who disagree with or even despise the Daily Stormer but nonetheless defend its right to exist and its publisher Andrew Anglin’s right to free expression. If you know of any other examples of Normies defending the Stormer, please link to them in the comments section. Have the Counterjewhad sites said anything about this?”

Putin - US

COMMENTARY: How The Kremlin And The Media Ended Up In Bed Together

When one reads this article, one cannot help but think about America and where it is heading with this ‘censorship’ law that Congress wants to pass, where those who criticize Israel’s crimes will not escape punishment. This is already happening in Europe, and it is the evil work of the Jewish tribe. They hijacked Russia in 1917, later infiltrated every aspect of our society and have slowly extended its slimy tentacles to the rest of the world. Today we are beginning to feel how they are starting to strangle us. The communist propaganda machine seems unbeatable, but we must keep in mind that its worse enemy is an educated world. We need real journalists and academics with principles, courage, determination and that stick together in strong unity.

Putin - US

“How the Kremlin and the Media Ended Up in Bed Together,” Source:

Editor’s note: This is the longest text ever published by The Moscow Times. We’ve decided to publish it because it describes in detail a key Russian narrative, of how the Kremlin rules the country with the help of the controlled media. It is a bitter story of how the Russian media, with very few exceptions, have abandoned, sometimes through coercion, but mostly voluntarily and even eagerly, their mission of informing the public and have turned into creators of the Matrix-like artificial reality where imaginary heroes and villains battle tooth and nail in Russia’s Armageddon.

After enjoying a brief interval of freedom, it seems that Russian media are now returning to the conditions of the late 1980s when editors stood outside the door of the censorship office waiting for approval to go to press.

However, the “new censorship” that has emerged in Russia is not merely a tool for controlling the media from the outside. The new censorship is like a cancerous tumor that attacks the not-so-healthy body of the media from the inside and supplants everything of value or vitality with diseased tissue.

Like communist propaganda, the principles of this new censorship draw on the Orwellian concept of “doublethink,” form the basis of state policy and, by definition, completely reject the idea of democracy.  

The president and senior officials now use the media as a tool for forming public opinion, forcing citizens to accept a false agenda in place of the real one.

The degradation of Russian media is evidenced by the fact that they implicitly agree to compromise themselves in this way. Many corporate or private media entities simply agree to these terms as a matter of survival, but a surprising number not only agree to the state’s manipulations but go one step further by offering creative ideas for advancing the Kremlin’s official line.

The new censorship significantly expands on the classic, encyclopedic definition of the term by permeating not only news and information services, but since the mid-2000s, actively interfering in the arts and academia as well.

Another important feature of Russian censorship is that it is not all-embracing, but permits alternative points of view and even criticisms of itself. However, any journalist or media outlet taking advantage of that opportunity is walking on a minefield.

The Censorship Toolkit

The most important tool of the new censorship is the state budget as a resource for determining which media thrive or survive.

Access to federal budgetary funds remains a key tool for creating a system whereby the authorities can manage media content and media outlets themselves. Those publications and individual journalists for whom survival or personal enrichment is of primary importance are vulnerable to manipulation by the granting or denial of state subsidies, benefits, increases or decreases in financing for state-controlled media and access to capital provided by oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin and Putin.

Managing the agenda. These practices include both “political briefings” in which chief editors of various media are called into the presidential administration, and telephone “hotlines” that directly connect the chief editors of key media outlets with the Kremlin. The presidential administration can make use of such methods as directly substituting material produced by its own staff for journalistic reports and manipulating the underlying fears of the masses or otherwise manipulating the emotions of media consumers.

The effective (for the media or their owners) building of a pseudo-reality. Whoever fashions the news agenda also receives the profit, financial or political.

The introduction of “plants” or “observers” from media outlet owners and directly from the presidential administration and other key government structures such as the FSB, the Investigative Committee, and even the Federal Drug Control Service. A degradation of editorial integrity is the inevitable byproduct of this practice.

The effective use of networks of staff informers. At the heart of the new censorship is a network of paid and voluntary informants. This “new” network — that arose on the basis of the new, post-party loyalty of key editors and journalists — is maintained with access to illicit money connected with journalism for bribes. Without exception, all of these “cooperative” (from the viewpoint of the Kremlin) editors and journalists involved in the scandalous practice of publishing outside material as their own editorial comments have, at the very least, aroused the suspicions of their colleagues.

Turning all news into a show. Those who understood the creation and reporting of news as “one more ratings-based entertainment product” played a role in creating and disseminating the government’s “false agenda,” and those who contributed most to its “artificial” content received rewards and encouragement.

In this way, leaders ensure that the Russian audience sees and hears — down to the smallest detail — only the picture of the world that the Kremlin wants it to see and hear.

The real issues have not disappeared, but it is forbidden to show that reality to the Russian people.

Centrality of Putin

The essence of the new censorship can be described as follows:

Russia — as Putin and his loyal (for now) lieutenants understand it — does not need an agenda based on real information.

To the contrary, the only necessary tool for managing Russia’s imperfect society is an artificially constructed agenda that is “imprinted” on society by television channels that are fully controlled by the state. Not only news and analytical programs serve as tools for applying this pressure, but also broadcasts of the arts and even entertainment.

A key element in this artificial agenda is an exaggerated role for the central character in Russia’s information milieu — the president of the Russian Federation.

For example, when Putin was once again experiencing strained relations with Moscow protestors in late May 2013, the main weekly program on Channel One, “Vremya,” ran 11 pieces on Putin’s various activities and only two covering other recent events. What’s more, every mention or depiction of Putin was not only positive but slavishly complimentary.

The new censorship does not only exclude real events from the agenda but replaces them with false messages designed to make viewers feel dependent on the main hero of the stories — Vladimir Putin.

That model did not change during the Ukrainian crisis.

Those broadcasts focused on the idea of “fascist Banderovite” Ukrainians and how they were teaming up with those who had “spawned” them in order to attack Russia or its interests. In any case, the propaganda had to assert that such a war had already almost begun.

This manufactured agenda reached a peak in early summer when Russia’s state-controlled television channels began portraying pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Girkin (aka Igor Strelkov) as “the savior of the Donbass Russians” and falsely reported that Ukrainian forces had crucified a young boy in Slavyansk.

These distortions of reality were no mere improvisations by presidential administration staff who were instructed to manage the news on Channel One or the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (VGTRK). Senior officials undoubtedly issued clear instructions in this regard and much of the text broadcast on the Vesti television channel and “Vremya” news show and their websites have been introduced from above without any input from editors.

The primary characteristic of the new censorship is that it motivates so-called “journalists” to not only serve the Kremlin agenda but to creatively advance it.

The “crucified boy in Slavyansk” is just the most superficial example of that. A far more insidious and potentially dangerous phenomenon is the frequent and barely perceptible distortions to reports from previously neutral programs and writers.

For example, by simply inserting promo shorts for the forthcoming “Vremya” news show during the vastly popular primetime women’s talk show “Pust govoryat” (“Let Them Speak”), viewers without intention to watch the newscast are gradually infected and become carriers of the virus of lies and aggressiveness.

In this way, masses of television viewers become not only victims of deliberate manipulation, but also strong supporters of a policy of hatred directed toward Ukrainians whom they know only through state-controlled television reports.

This is a world that has been constructed especially for their consumption. It contains enemies and the one person who can effectively oppose them: Vladimir Putin. The greater their hatred for the enemy, the deeper is their love for Putin, and vice versa.

With this false agenda filling the airwaves so thoroughly and constantly, the average Russian cannot but respond to surveys with the conviction that Putin is the mainstay of his life.

That Bittersweet Word  — Freedom

Soviet media was first freed from censorship in August 1990 when printing houses stopped requiring publishers to present a stamp of approval from the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press.

That launched a brief period in which the media enjoyed nearly total freedom. Society began a sober examination of its ideological heritage, retrieved important documents previously classified by the authorities and resurrected episodes from Russian history that censors had previously either ignored or eliminated.

The relative ease of the transition from a totalitarian media model to the new Russian model is due to the fact that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of “glasnost” greatly undermined the status and capabilities of the Communist Party Central Committee with regard to political and ideological censorship.

In addition, Alexander Yakovlev, one of the architects of perestroika, headed the ideological department of the central committee for several years, and it was his support that made possible the appearance of the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper with its more progressive civil and political reporting.

Party leadership of the media practically ceased in 1991, and it was the disappearance of that control during the final months of the Soviet Union — first in the Baltic states and later in the Caucasus — that made it possible for the republics to rapidly separate and form their own political class.

The journalistic community was caught up in the euphoria of freedom of the press, the freedom to express political views and the freedom to criticize the ruling authorities.

Because the number of “free” media outlets was continually growing, the leaders of the anti-democratic putsch of Aug. 19, 1991, suspended the publication of all newspapers and effectively instituted a wartime censorship regime on television and radio.

However, the ban did not work: A number of printers released the “Obshchaya Gazeta” on Aug. 21, and by the morning of Aug. 23 when the putsch collapsed, both formal and informal structures of party control over the media no longer existed.

When they were first freed from party control, most media had no idea how to view themselves as separate entities with the duty of reporting the truth to the people and earning money at the same time.

The events of August 1991 were probably not only the final chord in the activities of the Communist Party as a political organization but also the final stage in the existence of the Soviet media in their classical form.

Most editors and journalists had no market understanding of the economics of the media. The situation was easier for television and radio as both received funding from the Finance Ministry.

The economic problems of the transition period affected the entire system of Soviet media: Newspapers and other print publications faced runaway inflation — the money collected in early 1991 from subscriptions ran out long before those subscriptions had ended.

Retail sales were very high, but Soyuzpechat, the state’s monopolistic distributor of newspapers and magazines, began suffering from problems caused by inflation and failed to make timely payments for the publications it delivered to its vast network of newsstands.

At that time, no advertising or sales professionals existed.

Many publications declared their “independence” in the belief that they could earn a great deal of money in the emerging market economy.

However, that turned out to be an illusion. The deregulation of prices and the flourishing barter economy, along with the freeing up of foreign trade from state controls led to an acute shortage of money and newsprint.

Faced with economic hardship, the former Soviet newspapers rushed to ask for help from President Boris Yeltsin and the government that they had been mercilessly criticizing — some for its lack of radical reforms, and others for its infatuation with liberal policies.

As the “stewards of perestroika,” Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Trud, Argumenty i Fakty and other publications argued that the state had “an obligation to support freedom of speech,” they also demanded that leaders “pay for the support” those publications had given them during the dramatic events of those years.

Many of those editors, along with a number of their journalists, were State Duma deputies, and the Yeltsin administration agreed to extend assistance to them, in some case by providing free premises for their publications.

Those premises were not only a lifesaver during the economic turmoil of the early 1990s, but also a source of rental income in later periods, as well as a reason that some oligarchs considered the publications attractive investment opportunities.

And despite the market-oriented reforms the state was adopting, in 1993 it decided to subsidize postal fees for Russia’s press and provide tax breaks for media.

The state also funded television. The federal budget paid, albeit only modestly, to transform the Soviet Union’s State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting into several separate companies — primarily Ostankino, that later became Channel One, and to establish and develop VGTRK. The management of those new channels also made use of the spacious, Soviet-era buildings housing their operations to rent out retail space and to engage in free, often unregulated business activities.

Another significant event deserves attention here. The election of the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989 — that opened the last stage of the Soviet Union — brought a large number of editors and journalists into the ranks of first the legislative, and later the executive branches of government.

That process was fast but short-lived: As early as 1993, not a single prominent media name remained among Duma deputies, and only the rare controversial figure appeared on party lists — individuals such as Alexander Nevzorov from St. Petersburg television, or later, Alexander Khinshtein from the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper.

However, that initial “integration” into the halls of power established ongoing back room ties between a number of media outlets and Yeltsin-era government institutions.

Those connections will play a significant role later in this story, but for now, it is enough to point out that the groundwork for the future adverse changes in the Russian media was already laid during the early years of “free Russia.”

The state subsidies for media and their “long working relationship” with government agencies that began during the very first years of the modern Russian state subsequently became one of the cornerstones of the new censorship.

A Loud Bell Opens the First Act

The winter of 1995 was a very difficult time for the Russian authorities. The main problem was the extremely low voter approval ratings held by the aging Yeltsin.

The unrestrained political debate in the media was also damaging for Yeltsin and his government: Newspapers and television channels criticized the country’s leadership for everything they did or did not do, sometimes for no reason at all.

Newspapers and television stations managed to somehow adapt to life under free market conditions. Advertising appeared, and the barter economy was replaced by first illicit and later ordinary contracts.

Bankers and the country’s few industrialists took an interest in the media. They saw their ability to influence newspapers as an opportunity to help friendly government officials or to intimidate competitors. Despite the fact that by 1991, media outlets that published criticisms were no longer subjected to organized repression and criminal charges as they had been under the Soviet system, the fear of publicly expressing criticism continued.

It is important to understand that once the Russian media broke free from their organizational, economic and political fetters in the 1990s, they set out to become independent players in the public sphere — that is, to occupy the same position as media do in democratic and liberal societies. Russian editors and journalists learned from their Western colleagues.

The Chechen War from 1994-96 began with journalists enjoying almost complete freedom. As someone who covered the storming of Grozny in the winter of 1994-95 and many other events of those years, I saw that the only problems journalists and film crews faced were actually reaching the conflict zone and trying to stay alive once they were there. But by the fall of 1995, the army brass, and especially the Federal Security Service units attached to the military forces, began to actively oppose the independent activities of the journalists in Chechnya and the surrounding area.

Russian television channels were divided between those assigned to “ride on an armor” with military units (primarily RTR, and occasionally Channel One and ORT), and those that preferred to work independently of the military (NTV, TV-6 and others).

Journalists unwittingly played a significant role in one of the first major terrorist attacks in modern Russia: the seizure of a hospital in Budyonnovsk in 1995 by Chechen commander Shamil Basayev.

As Basayev and his militants left the hospital, they replaced hostages with journalists, taking them onto the buses that they used to escape the scene as live shields. It was those journalists who witnessed firsthand how badly the Russian special forces performed and how Basayev and his men managed to escape with minimal losses.

However, that situation changed when it was decided to help Yeltsin win re-election in 1996.

When the most powerful Russian oligarchs supported the idea of a second term for Yeltsin, it meant that not only would NTV, owned by Vladimir Gusinsky, and ORT, controlled by Boris Berezovsky, come on board, but that a whole group of publications receiving funding in one way or another from these and other oligarchs would have to get involved in the campaign.

Although the goal of keeping power in the hands of Yeltsin’s inner circle was originally an organizational and political task, it now shifted into the hands of the media. It was decided to actively use informational pressure, manipulation of the agenda and informational priming to convince the Russian people to re-elect their first president.

Thus, the presidential administration held “media planning meetings” every Friday starting in the summer of 1996.

As former Deputy Chief of the Presidential Administration Sergei Zverev recalls, they were “political meetings where we discussed the agenda for the coming week and developed proposals on how to cover those topics in the media, primarily on television.”

Following those meetings, either the chief of the administration or authorized deputies would deliver “assignments from the authorities” to the heads of the main television channels.

It was during those months that government public relations people began playing a direct role in how information was presented to the public. Television channel editors and chiefs were generally willing to play their part. For example, TV-6 founder and VGTRK head Eduard Sagalayev was even a member of Yeltsin’s campaign staff.

Longtime Kremlin spin doctor Gleb Pavlovsky claims that his Foundation for Effective Politics first proposed the concept of “media management” back in 1996, and not as a short-term measure to help win the elections, but as a permanent policy model of the presidential administration.

After those elections, spin doctors became regular participants in formulating and implementing the government’s “official line.”

Dollar, the Censor

A handful of financial and industrial groups controlled most of Russia’s mass media in the 1990s and into the early 2000s.

Vladimir Gusinsky’s Media-Most, with NTV at its center, also held popular newspapers, magazines, publishing houses and film companies.

Boris Berezovsky controlled not only ORT (Channel One), but also owned a number of primarily “independent” newspapers through a complex ownership structure.

Other major players such as Lukoil, the Unified Energy System of Russia (RAO UES), Vladimir Potanin’s Interros and Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Menatap all had their own media holdings as well.

For its part, Gazprom lent money for the Media-Most project.

After the election miracle of 1996, when the concerted use of political and media resources helped reinstate the unpopular Yeltsin, it became clear to the major financial and political players in Russia that the creation of a pseudo-reality for the public’s consumption does yield fruit.

Those who build the media construct reap the profits — whether commercial or political.

It was in the period from 1996 to 2000 that the second element formed that would later transform into the new censorship under the rule of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the features of the current model of media and media communications in Russia is that the manner and extent to which editorial boards are controlled depends on who owns the particular media outlet, their ties to this or that political group and whether the government has levers by which it can directly influence those owners.

Despite the fact that some media were relatively successful commercially, almost no one viewed the media as a business per se. What made certain media assets attractive was their ability to influence politics and the state’s regulatory stance toward specific sectors, as well as their usefulness as a tool for defending against competitors or taking action against them.

Media owners preferred to appoint obedient and servile chief editors whom they could easily circumvent whenever they needed to take matters into their own hands.

The oligarchs who owned various media were the first to install “plants” on their staffs, individuals who had the “authority” from the owner to not only control the editorial process but also to influence overall content.

These “plants” were originally charged with security-related tasks such as ensuring that “articles for hire” did not embarrass the owner and his business partners or, conversely, to explain the best methods for targeted mud-slinging on behalf of the owner. However, later, their job duties became heavily politicized.

Even the Kremlin loyalist publisher Aram Gabrelyanov has had to deal with such “plants.” In the following interview from in May 2012, he describes such an incident at Izvestia.

“A man was standing there when I arrived at the newspaper office. I will not give his name because he happens to be sick now. He approached me holding out a business card and said: ‘I was appointed here by the presidential administration. Aram Ashotovich, after you have read the material submitted for publication, you will give it to me.’ I said, ‘You must be joking — or crazy.’ He said, ‘Have you looked at the business card?’ I said, ‘You’re fired, dismissed.’ He told me, ‘Do you even understand who appointed me to this job?’ I said, ‘I don’t give a damn who appointed you.’ I really did fire him.”

Interestingly, some of the “old” media that changed ownership between the late Yeltsin and early Putin years, had at that time already begun to show signs of readiness for their owners to censor the publications for political and thematic content.

For example, the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper gained it’s unprecedented, Guinness Book of World Records-breaking circulation of 33.5 million copies in 1990 after emerging from the perestroika process as an ultra-liberal and progressive publication headed by its founder and chief editor Vladislav Starkov.

After Starkov sold his controlling stake to the PromSvyazKapital group, Argumenty i Fakty began conforming to the views of its new owners, the Ananyev brothers. Alexei and Dmitry Ananyev are Russian Orthodox and openly declare it, but they do not require the same from the editors of the media they own.

However, within only a few months after the change of ownership, editors at the newspaper — who had previously been strictly atheistic and critical of the Church — became pro-Orthodox and began inviting writers whom the owners found “pleasing,” including the influential priest Tikhon Shevkunov, often referred to as Vladimir Putin’s spiritual father.

Cooperative and Not-So-Cooperative

Denis Grishkin / Vedomosti

Alexei Grom

First deputy head of the Presidential Administration

Alexei Gromov is a career diplomat who left his post as an ambassador back in the 1990s to work at the Kremlin. He first headed the Kremlin press service and created the “presidential pool.” He became Vladimir Putin’s press secretary in 1999 and a deputy head of the presidential administration in 2008.

Gromov is a key manager of public policy for mass media. In addition to serving as a member of the board of directors for Channel One, he regularly holds “briefings” with the heads of state-controlled media and determines the public agenda as well as the political and personal guidelines for acceptable content. Gromov is primarily responsible for television and traditional print media. Since 2012, Chief of Presidential Administration Sergei Ivanov has enlisted another deputy head, Vyacheslav Volodin, to oversee the Internet. Volodin and Gromov regularly lock horns over the scope of their authority.

Gromov functions as a personal liaison between Putin and Russia’s largest media outlets. To a great extent, his personal connections and knowledge of the “ins and outs” of the work of journalists and editors ensure their loyalty and the government’s control over the industry.

Soviet-era censorship was the outward manifestation of the Communist Party’s more basic policy of filtering and controlling its membership and bureaucratic elite.

Political loyalty ensured party control over editorial boards and the “cooperativeness” of their chiefs, who were only very rarely true professionals. In the final years of the Soviet Union, the chief editors of the largest newspapers were, almost without exception, former secretaries of regional or city party committees or else former heads of the party’s ideological department. They might have had some form of specialized education or even no education at all.

For example, in 1983 Pavel Gusev left the position of secretary of the Moscow Krasnaya Presnya District Party Committee to head Moskovsky Komsomolets. And after serving as deputy head of the ideological department of the central committee and overseeing the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press, Alexander Potapov served as chief editor of the Trud newspaper in the 1990s. These weren’t rare examples — it was a common practice.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin’s arrival in the Kremlin in the summer of 1999 required another mobilization of media resources. Yeltsin’s chosen successor and former FSB chief was not a public politician and began his leadership as a virtual unknown.

At the same time, the worsening situation in the North Caucasus and the apartment bombings in 1999 in Moscow, Volgodonsk, and Buynaksk once again raised the question of how much media coverage was permissible for such tragedies.

In 1999, Alexei Gromov became Putin’s press secretary and Mikhail Lesin became Communications and Press Minister.

The combination of these two officials in one form or another would come to dominate the eventual emergence of the new censorship.

In addition to “political planning meetings” every Friday, media bosses now also met regularly with Vladislav Surkov, the deputy head of the presidential administration responsible for domestic policy.

While the meetings with Gromov set the official agenda and determined which television channels would have responsibility for which part of it, the latter briefings with Surkov formulated the specific content of the message.

Over time, the Gromov meetings increasingly took on the format of a “situation room” in which the heads of the federal television channels helped formulate the message of the new Russian leader and the tactics needed for dealing with the resources of the “opposition.”

The term “opposition” primarily meant Vladimir Gusinsky and his NTV channel, which had taken an openly critical stance toward Putin’s appointment.

After the “taming” of NTV in 2001, the channel’s new chiefs were invited to the Friday briefings, and by 2006, the attendees included Russia Today director Margarita Simonyan and the heads of Ren-TV and TV Center.

At the heart of the new censorship lies a specific type of post-party loyalty on the part of editors, key journalists, and professional groups. A “cooperative” editor is one who puts the interests of the Kremlin and relations with the authorities above the interests of his audience. The Communist Party achieved exactly the same thing by making the editor dependent on the party “vertical,” and not on the whether the publication succeeded with audiences.

Version Number Six

The story of how the authorities cracked down on Vladimir Gusinsky’s Media-Most is definitely a key event in the development of the new censorship. It demonstrated how the new Russian authorities would ensure — if not enforce — media neutrality toward the government.

Gusinsky’s primary dispute with the authorities evolved around certain business interests and, of course, around the right to set the information agenda independently.

The attack against Media-Most undoubtedly also had the goal of excluding topics and events, individuals and opinions from the mass media agenda that ran counter to the interests of the Kremlin groups.

By distancing ourselves from the events of the last 14 years, we can say with reasonable certainty that the establishment of control over NTV became the main turning point that led toward the emergence of the new censorship.

Whether they planned it or not, those who organized and carried out the attack on NTV’s “unique journalistic team” on April 14, 2001 suddenly found themselves with something new: the scary example they could hold up to intimidate other “uncooperative media.”

The authorities then blacklisted anyone who chose the path of resistance and criticism, barring them from senior positions as journalists and managers or from working as the “public face” of media outlets owned by the state or with close ties to the Kremlin.

In late April 2000, Kommersant Vlast newspaper political department head Veronika Kutsyllo came into the possession of a document later called “Version Number Six.” The source for this was never identified, but nobody ever challenged its authenticity as one of the new ruling administration’s “political documents.”

Sergei Porter / Vedomosti

Mikhail Lesin

Served as chairman of the board of Gazprom-Media until January 2015

Mikhail Lesin was one of the key figures in Russia’s media policy in the mid-1990s. A civil engineer by training, Lesin began his career producing comedy programs featuring student performances. He was the co-founder of Video International, Russia’s first advertising company. Together with fellow co-founder Yury Zapol, Lesin played a key role in forming the Russian advertising market. This laid the groundwork for his extensive media contacts and influence, especially in television and radio.

Seeing a use for his connections and abilities, the Kremlin appointed Lesin head of the Office of Public Affairs for the administration, where he served in 1996-97. He provided information support during former President Boris Yeltsin’s successful election bid and the difficult subsequent period of his heart surgery and recovery.

After briefly heading the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Lesin became the Communications and Press Minister in 1999. During his five years in that post, he earned the nickname “Minister of Sorrow” (sorrow, or “pechal” in Russian, sounds like press, or “pechat”) in part because of his role in establishing control over the NTV media holding owned by Vladimir Gusinsky.

Mikhail Lesin “withdrew into the shadows” after 2004, serving as an adviser to the Russian president and becoming one of the most influential people in the media market. Largely due to his advice, the National Media Group holding held by the Putin’s friends, the Kovalchuk brothers, was purchased. Lesin arranged the appointments of many of the current directors of state-controlled media.

Lesin was dismissed from his post in the fall of 2009 with the scandalously worded verdict of “systematic disciplinary violations and failure to comply with the rules of civil service and the ethical behavior of civil servants.” The industry interpreted his “fall” as a victory for then-President Dmitry Medvedev’s inner circle as it sought to establish its own relations with media heads.

Alexei Gromov was responsible for Lesin’s return to Russia’s top echelons of media power in 2013 as the new head of Gazprom-Media. Gromov, who at that time was locked in a heated confrontation with Vyacheslav Volodin, needed a strong, competent and cynical “market player” such as Mikhail Lesin was then and still remains. Lesin managed to again reshape the Russian advertising market and to re-establish Gromov’s influence at RIA Novosti after the dismissal of Svetlana Mironyuk.

Mikhail Lesin was repeatedly implicated in various scandalous moves to consolidate Russian media that are fully or partially controlled by the state. Also, in 2014 U.S. Senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into possible money laundering in connection with several multimillion-dollar homes that Lesin purchased in Beverly Hills, California.

“Version Number Six” suggested that Putin’s future administration would have to make a division between “open” and “secret” policy.

In particular, the policy paper openly calls for the presidential administration to act as a “two-faced Janus.” The anonymous authors directly state that, on the one hand, leaders should outwardly adhere to a strictly liberal, law-abiding and constitutional approach, but that, on the other hand, their policy should also contain a “secret component” that, by remaining secret, could and should be used as needed in order to consolidate and retain power.

Among the “secret” tasks that the document lists is the need to establish control over the media and journalists. For example, as part of the presidential administration’s policy on political management, it recommends that the authorities:

– Influence the activity of media at the federal, regional and local levels through the collection and use of specific information on the commercial and political activity of each media, its personnel, and management, sources of financing, its financial, economic, material and technical resources.

– Influence the work of journalists at the federal, regional and local levels through the collection and use of specific information concerning the commercial and political activity of professional journalists, their sources of financing, their places of employment (at which media outlet they work) … financial and personal partnerships, etc.

The two mechanisms the paper recommends for working with the media are even bolder.

According to the authors, the first mechanism involves monitoring, collecting and processing the information obtained and then “throwing it back” into society, now cast in “the proper light.”

The second proposed mechanism involves “taking control of various media by using specific information gathered for that purpose, including information of a compromising nature. Also, by driving opposition media and media sympathetic to the opposition into financial crisis by revoking their licenses and certifications and by creating conditions under which the activities of each individual opposition media outlet become either controlled or impossible to continue.”

Only a few months later and as a result of the legal crackdown, the presidential administration took control over NTV and other Media-Most assets, pushed Boris Berezovsky out of ORT and gradually moved closer to fully implementing the system described by the anonymous authors of “Version Number Six.”

Terrorism, Extremism and Voluntary Castration

A second wave of terrorism struck Russia in 2002-04 when Chechen militants, hard hit by Russian military and police operations in that republic, took a page from the al-Qaida playbook by shifting part of its war to target civilians in enemy cities.

The tragic terrorist seizures of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow in 2002 and the school in Beslan in 2004 led to the placement of another foundation stone in the new censorship — the idea that information organizations would voluntarily practice self-restraint and even self-censorship.

A new “player” appeared on the scene during the Dubrovka Theater siege. Social networks and blogs provided eyewitness accounts and commentary in addition to traditional media reports.

The main such resource was social networking service Live Journal, where several accounts functioned together as a sort of news agency, collecting and distributing as much information as possible — though often of inferior quality, accuracy, and relevance.

The Dubrovka terrorists made direct use of the media as a way to communicate their demands, ideas, and threats as live television cameras surrounded the site of the tragedy. This was similar to the way Basayev had taken a busload of journalists hostage in Budyonnovsk. However, it is one thing to carry out an attack in a remote town with bad roads and limited communications, and quite another to do it in the center of Moscow.

It was impossible to bar journalists from capturing the most important footage — but that does not mean the Kremlin did not want to do so.

It was at this point that the presidential administration took another step toward creating its new censorship, clearly installing individuals loyal to Alexei Gromov in key positions in all of the major media — VGTRK, Channel One, NTV and various news agencies.

Sergei Goryachev, who began his career with the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press, acted as the symbolic chief of news broadcasting for Channel One in 2000-04. His successor in that duty, if not in job description, was Andrei Pisarev, who served as both deputy director of social and political programs for the channel and as head of the political department for the Central Executive Committee of United Russia, the ruling party then led by Putin.

Oleg Dobrodeyev was given responsibility for keeping VGTRK within the “power vertical.” He not only attended briefings with Gromov, but also met directly with Putin.

The only thing lacking in this new system was one element found in the “old” system — ideology.

Putin’s first presidential term was decidedly non-ideological and purely pragmatic. Now in hindsight, that was clearly no accident.

Although Putin’s think tank at that time, the Center for Strategic Research, led then by German Gref, had formulated long-term plans for reforming Russia, those plans were not based on any ideology. They were a classic example of “institutional economics” that sought to create standard and universal conditions for growth and development.

The purpose of the country’s existence, an ideological description of the future and other elements necessary to a genuine strategic plan were either lacking or, after 2000, assigned to Vladislav Surkov for development.

Surkov launched an ambitious ideological search, and in addition to his wealth of ideas, countless hordes of “political consultants” and “political centers” serving the Kremlin made their contribution as well.

While Alexei Gromov and Mikhail Lesin were charged with controlling and managing the media, Vladislav Surkov and his associates from numerous “political centers” were tasked with creating a second important component of the system: an “alternate reality” in which the authorities could fully immerse the country.

The Last Traces of Freedom

The system for controlling the media stabilized by 2005 and has continued almost unchanged until the present. At the same time, it has undergone an inevitable evolution: Having taken firm hold on control over the media, the authorities ventured even further and began manipulating the structure of the public discourse.

Having achieved certain results in managing the public agenda, along with the desired shift in public opinion that resulted, the Kremlin decided to expand its zone of influence beyond traditional media into “new media” — from the broadcasting sector into interactive media, and from manipulating the domestic agenda into influencing the international agenda.

The “new system” is based on new principles. As the Soviet past recedes, today’s leaders have stripped the Leninist and Stalinist propaganda of its ideology and improved it with techniques that produce even better results.

Of course, many similarities between the Soviet and the new Russian system remain, but in the absence of the Communist Party and the many privileges and “persuasions” it could employ, the ruling authorities must now rely on other sticks and carrots such as property, money — primarily budgetary funds — job postings, government “plants” to control operations and so on.

The authorities are forced to operate in a situation in which, at least on paper, censorship is forbidden.

Maxim Stulov / Vedomosti

Vladislav Surkov

Currently serves as presidential aide responsible for relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Surkov began his career as a public relations specialist with the Menatep bank, which was created by Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Over the past 20 years, Surkov has held almost every post in the hierarchy of the Putin administration.

Surkov did his most significant work in developing the “new censorship” when he served as deputy head of the presidential administration from 1999 to 2008.

He played a leading role in shaping domestic policy and the structure of the Russian political system while also continually experimenting with social initiatives and movements that would provide support for the ruling regime — organizations such as Walking Together, Nashi and the Young Guard of United Russia.

It is Surkov who probably created the concept of “sovereign democracy,” used to describe how Russia’s democracy differs from democracy in the West and how the West should not intervene in Russia’s domestic affairs. The concept served as the political underpinning of Vladimir Putin’s first two terms as president. It was apparently during the process of formulating that concept that he also created his “theories of how the world works” that state-controlled media have since imposed on the Russian people with the illusory and fanciful agenda that dominates today’s media environment.

The new “system” is primarily designed to make the media effective in publicly presenting the agenda — whether real or imagined — which, in turn, helps the president govern the country.

Over time, everything that does not help achieve this goal is considered an “obstacle” or “inimical” to the plan.

The task of the new censorship is to produce an agenda for the public discourse that the greater part of society will support, regardless of what it thought yesterday about those ideas or of how it feels now about more personally pressing issues concerning the local situation, jobs, and social conditions.

Yellow Telephone and Other Links in the Infernal Chain

When Vladimir Putin was triumphantly elected to a second term in 2004, the basic features of the new system were already in place: The state held organizational control over the three major television broadcasters — Channel One, VGTRK and NTV — and could use various mechanisms to, if not dictate, then at least “adjust” the news agenda.

The situation with print media was problematic: Many publications retained a high degree of editorial sovereignty, sympathized with the opposition and sought to provide objective coverage of events within Russia.

Following 2005, the system for managing the media succeeded primarily in producing a stable image of Putin and his messages. Television channels and other media controlled by the state gave a “green light” to Vladislav Surkov and his active efforts to “consolidate” various groups such as Nashi, Young Guards and others around President Putin and United Russia. However, at that time at least, those media viewed their support as a form of “payment” in return for the right to continue operations.

Meanwhile, preparations for the second phase of the new censorship began during this period of 2005-08.

In 2004 Mikhail Lesin left his post as Communications and Press Minister to become an adviser to President Putin and, after forming a close alliance with Alexei Gromov, begin working on a system for creating and controlling the public agenda.

Svetlana Mironyuk, who served as chief editor of the RIA Novosti state-owned news agency from 2003 to 2013, explained how that new format worked and how the authorities “tightened the screws” during her final years at that post. In her opinion, officials had no need to systematically intimidate editors, much less the media owners.

Relations between the authorities and media changed gradually, step by step, in roundabout ways and, most frequently, in connection with specific individuals.

According to Mironyuk, beginning in the early 2000s the authorities divided the media into three categories. (Gromov and Lesin began the task, and later they were joined by first Surkov, and then his replacement: Vyacheslav Volodin.) The three categories are:

– “Outsiders,” or those with views alien to the official line. These include Vedomosti newspaper, Forbes magazine, Novaya Gazeta newspaper, the website (until March 2014) and several others such as Dozhd television. As with Western media, the authorities either have strictly business relations with them or no relationship at all. They cannot be bought, sold or manipulated.

– “Our guys.” These are primarily state media. Since the mid-2000s, this group included the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper, and the group of publications and media owned by Aram Gabrelyanov — Zhizn, and Izvestia. According to Mironyuk, this category primarily includes editors with whom Alexei Gromov has long had good personal relations, and with whom he can strike “deals” for informational barter: The Kremlin organizes exclusive interviews for the publications but expects certain “services” in return.

– “In-betweeners.” These are either semi-outsiders or semi-locals with whom the authorities can sometimes strike deals, but not always. Radio station Ekho Moskvy and news agency Interfax are the most notable examples.

Of course, one important tool for manipulating the public agenda is the “media hotline” that the authorities created in the mid-2000s. This is a system of direct communication between Kremlin “handlers” and chief editors at state-controlled media. Later, special yellow telephones were installed on the desks of their news editors that linked them directly to the Kremlin.

Alexander Orlov, who served as deputy editor-in-chief of the Rossia-24 television channel from 2008 to 2012 explained that VGTRK Deputy Chairman Dmitry Mednikov and Rossia-24 chief editor Yevgeny Bekasov frequently take calls on their yellow phones — not so much to receive their latest orders as to consult with Kremlin staff on how best to present this or that news story.

For example, Orlov recalls that during the economic crisis of 2008, the caller on the yellow phone prohibited VGTRK channels from using the word “crisis” in their broadcasts, even while simultaneously requiring that they report on the crisis.

Restricting the Agenda

The existence of the new censorship has been an open secret for the last five years already.

Although Dmitry Medvedev acted as president from 2008 to 2012, Alexei Gromov remained in charge of state-controlled media exactly as before.

The economic crisis of 2008-2010 dealt a major blow to Russia media.

Although a media market ostensibly continued to exist, government subsidies — especially in the form of contracts for “information services” — became increasingly important for any firm’s continued existence. Originally used by governors as a way to control the local media, the practice gradually spread to the capital.

Of course, the main innovation of the new censorship in recent years is the unofficial but complete ban on state-controlled media from formulating their own news agenda.

State-controlled television and radio news stations are now highly dependent on their “yellow phones” and federal funding. And newspapers were compelled to follow the agenda presented on television. Otherwise, they would find themselves at odds not only with Kremlin handlers but also with their audiences, who get most of their news from television.

Information agencies were an exception, enjoying some — and, at times, complete — freedom in setting their own news agendas, even during the mass protests from winter 2011 to spring 2012.

However, the restructuring of RIA Novosti in 2013-14 put an end to that relative freedom.


COMMENTARY: Are America’s Wars Just And Moral?

What the author of this article fails to expose, as most do, is the fact that these wars are Israel’s wars. Jewish Communist Wars. Until those in the media start educating the people with the facts, these wars will continue, until America is completely drained and China takes over. We are seeing this happening right now. Why blame others when we all know who has absolute influence and control over The United States Government? If we do not expose this, no one else will. At least do it for those who do not have a voice! 

Israel Wars

Are America’s Wars Just and Moral?,”

“One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies,” writes columnist David Ignatius.

Given that Syria’s prewar population was not 10 percent of ours, this is the equivalent of a million dead and wounded Americans. What justifies America’s participation in this slaughter?

Columnist Eric Margolis summarizes the successes of the six-year civil war to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

“The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. … 11 million Syrians … driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

“Two of Syria’s greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful, relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics.”

Realizing the futility of U.S. policy, President Trump is cutting aid to the rebels. And the War Party is beside itself. Says The Wall Street Journal:

“The only way to reach an acceptable diplomatic solution is if Iran and Russia feel they are paying too high a price for their Syria sojourn. This means more support for Mr. Assad’s enemies, not cutting them off without notice. And it means building up a Middle East coalition willing to fight Islamic State and resist Iran. The U.S. should also consider enforcing ‘safe zones’ in Syria for anti-Assad forces.”

Yet, fighting ISIS and al-Qaida in Syria, while bleeding the Assad-Iran-Russia-Hezbollah victors, is a formula for endless war and unending terrors visited upon the Syrian people.

What injury did the Assad regime, in power for half a century and having never attacked us, inflict to justify what we have helped to do to that country?

Is this war moral by our own standards?

We overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Moammar Gadhafi in 2012. Yet, the fighting, killing and dying in both countries have not ceased. Estimates of the Iraq civilian and military dead run into the hundreds of thousands.

Still, the worst humanitarian disaster may be unfolding in Yemen.

After the Houthis overthrew the Saudi-backed regime and took over the country, the Saudis in 2015 persuaded the United States to support its air strikes, invasion and blockade.

By January 2016, the U.N. estimated a Yemeni civilian death toll of 10,000, with 40,000 wounded. However, the blockade of Yemen, which imports 90 percent of its food, has caused a crisis of malnutrition and impending famine that threatens millions of the poorest people in the Arab world with starvation.

No matter how objectionable we found these dictators, what vital interests of ours were so imperiled by the continued rule of Saddam, Assad, Gadhafi, and the Houthis that they would justify what we have done to the peoples of those countries?

“They make a desert and call it peace,” Calgacus said of the Romans he fought in the first century. Will that be our epitaph?

Among the principles for a just war, it must be waged as a last resort, to address a wrong suffered, and by a legitimate authority. Deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The wars in Syria, Libya, and Yemen were never authorized by Congress. The civilian dead, wounded and uprooted in Syria, and the malnourished millions in Yemen, represent a moral cost that seems far beyond any proportional moral gain from those conflicts.

In which of the countries we have attacked or invaded in this century — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen — are the people better off than they were before we came?

And we wonder why they hate us.

“Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return,” wrote W. H. Auden in “September 1, 1939.” As the peoples of Syria and the other broken and bleeding countries of the Middle East flee to Europe and America, will not some come with revenge on their minds and hatred in their hearts?

Meanwhile, as the Americans bomb across the Middle East, China rises. She began the century with a GDP smaller than Italy’s and now has an economy that rivals our own.

She has become the world’s first manufacturing power, laid claim to the islands of the East and South China seas, and told America to keep her warships out of the Taiwan Strait.

Xi Jinping has launched a “One Belt, One Road” policy to finance trade ports and depots alongside the military and naval bases being established in Central and South Asia.

Meanwhile, the Americans, $20 trillion in debt, running $800 billion trade deficits, unable to fix their health care system, reform their tax code or fund an infrastructure program, prepare to fight new Middle East war.

Whom the Gods would destroy…


ADL, Nat’l Assoc Of Jewish Legislators Call For Special Envoy Who Monitors Criticism Of Israel

These snakes are strangling our freedoms and if we do not stop them, they will continue until there is no Goyim left on the face of this universe. Their fight is a fight for supremacism, a racial fight, so destructive that is killing the freedoms that made this country the desired place to live for all those who were running from slavery. These are egotistic and destructive people with a so-called ‘religion’ made by them for them that only fits their interests. Americans MUST see that was is being pushed is against the US Constitution and that they are trying to terrorize those who support Palestine. 



“ADL, Nat’l Assoc of Jewish Legislators call for Special Envoy who monitors criticism of Israel,” Source:

ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt initiated a petition calling for a new ‘antisemitism envoy.’ In June Greenblatt tweeted this photo of himself in Israel, saying he was glad to be back for the anniversary of the Six Day War. The war, initiated by Israel, began Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights.

The National Association of Jewish Legislators and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are demanding that President Donald Trump appoint a special envoy in the State Department “to monitor and combat” antisemitism that actually often focuses on activism supportive of Palestinian human rights.

A previous envoy redefined antisemitism to include criticism of Israel. As a result, much of what the envoy’s office works to combat are actions in support of Palestinian rights.

The Trump administration says it may not fill the position as part of its cost-cutting measures. Currently, seven special envoy positions out of 13 are unfilled. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also said an antisemitism envoy is unnecessary since such work is already being accomplished by other State Department offices.

According to Yeshiva World : “New York State Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein has joined over 60 of her Jewish legislator colleagues, demanding President Donald Trump fill vacancies in the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.”

NAJL website, July 19, 2017.

The article reports that the campaign is organized by the National Association of Jewish Legislators (NAJL). One of NAJL’s major focuses is support for Israel.

ADL article and petition

The Anti-Defamation League, which advocates for Israel and considers criticism of Israel “antisemitic,” delivered a petition to the White House urging trump to appoint a Special Envoy immediately.

ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt joined two previous antisemitism envoys in a Washington Post column endorsing the antisemitism envoy. The piece noted  that the position often focuses on protecting Israel from criticism:

“Perhaps most importantly, the special envoy’s office successfully urged our democratic allies and other nations to adopt a working definition of anti-Semitism. Significantly, the definition singled out as anti-Semitic the demonization of Israel and creating a double standard for Israel…”

On his June trip to Israel, Greenblatt met with the Kantor Center on Anti-Semitism and Dina Porat, who helped create and disseminate the new, Israel-centric definition of antisemitism.

The new definition originated with a formulation by an Israeli minister that was taken up by a European agency (which later abandoned it), and then adopted by Antisemitism Envoy Hannah Rosenthal for the US State Department. The next antisemitism envoy, Ira Forman, worked to disseminate it internationally. Forman had worked for AIPAC, the Israel lobbying organization (see details here).

Tadalafil without prescription
buy tadacip