You are on page 1of 6


FACULTY Ron Paul has cleverly chosen certain figures from academia, the media and the CIA who further his totalitarian political goal. These individuals are all pieces in a puzzle that when assembled displays a swastika.

John Laughland, a British writer who is a prominent defender of the late Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. Laughland has also defended Ukraine‟s Kremlin-backed president Viktor Yanukovich whose attempt to steal the 2004 election sparked that country‟s peaceful “Orange Revolution”. He lamented the fate of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Europe‟s last dictator. The common thread is totalitarianism and its intellectual justification as in Mein Kampf.

Oxford historian Mark Almond: A trustee of a sinister and deceptively named organization, the British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), which trades on the good name of the international civil liberties monitoring organizations founded as a result of the 1975 Helsinki accords. The BHHRG was an early defender of Milosevic and Serbian behavior in the Balkans generally. The BHHRG hates gypsies just as the Nazis did.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former legal analyst for Fox News who has said that “It‟s hard for me to believe that [7 World Trade Center] came down by itself” and that the 9/11 attacks “couldn‟t possibly have been done the way the government told us.” Ron Paul is the new Hitler and he is the new Mussolini. The Nazi Willis Carto is a fan of Judge Andrew Napolitano and this appeared on his website. “Focusing on FBI claims that since 9-11 it has foiled multiple alleged terrorist plots to kill Americans, Napolitano pointed out that while there were some 20 such incidents, three were interrupted by private citizens who observed suspicious activity. But the remaining 17 that were “solved” by the feds all had a common and reprehensible thread: They were planned, plotted, controlled and carried out by the federal government itself. Not unlike the 1993 first attack on the World Trade Center, the FBI had agents or informants befriend young Muslim men by luring them into cooperation with encouragement about being “likeminded” and anti-American. Then, of course, they were arrested before any damage could be done—followed by great hoopla the next day. Napolitano also tackled Israel‟s prime role in promoting a United States war against Iran, and this may have been the final straw for those signing his paycheck. The judge‟s final guest and source of information was Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA‟s Osama bin Laden-watching unit. While Scheuer accepts the U.S. government claim that bin Laden was the architect of 9-11, a point many researchers reject, he is a courageous critic of Israel and its U.S. lobby and, as Napolitano‟s guest, pointed out that a war against Iran benefits Israel and Saudi Arabia but not the United States.”

Eric Margolis who says that “conclusive proof still lacks” connecting Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks and has speculated that the events could have been “a plot by America‟s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up.” Eric Margolis is the son of Henry Margolis, a Jewish American industrialist, and Nexhmie Zaimi, an Albanian Muslim journalist. Margolis supports the Islamic

Caucasian Emirate that perpetrated the Boston Massacre. Margolis is a supporter of terrorism and has been singled out by Al Qaeda as some who can be trusted. He characterizes Hamas and Islamic Jihad as “Palestinian resistance groups” whose sole objective is to resist Israeli occupation, not menace America. This despite the fact that Margolis is undoubtedly well aware that the stated goal of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad is the total destruction of Israel and its replacement with a radical Muslim theocracy. Under this genocidal scenario, Israeli Jews would be slaughtered and their survivors forced to live under the brutal rule of their new Islamist overlords.

Southwestern Law School professor Butler Shaffer, in an article for Rockwell‟s site titled, “9/11 Was a Conspiracy,” asks, “In light of the lies, forgeries, cover -ups, and other deceptions leading to a „war‟ in Iraq, how can any intellectually honest person categorically deny the possibility of the involvement of American political interests in 9/11?” The current practice of accusing the Iranian government of warlike intentions in order to rationalize one's own desires to attack that country is one example. Shaffer blames Israel and America for 9/11, not the Islamists. “Our wartime suffering is causally connected with the suffering we inflict upon others. If we are to understand the nature of our blood-stained world, we must abandon our self-righteous definitions of “good” and “evil” and see our problems in terms of their interconnectedness. Only fools will accept the “they hate us for our freedom and our values” rationale for this war. The reality is that others hate us for the wrongs our government has inflicted upon them; and we hate those who retaliate against us for such wrongs.

Walter Block, an neo-Confederate Jewish professor of economics and fellow at the Mises Institute. He is the mentally ill Jew who has replaced Murray Rothbard as the Jew the cryptoNazis keep around for laughs. Block is nuts and his writing makes little sense. Here he defends the rights of the Muslims to threaten the artists who did caricatures of Mohammad.

However, there is a plethora of other instances where this is not at all true. For example, suppose some cartoons were published that did not depict Muhammad in an unflattering light, but, rather, blacks with big lips shuffling along or tap dancing, Jews with long noses looking avaricious and holding bags of money, or hordes of Orientals with a "yellow menace" caption. If anything is clear, it is that in most western nations such caricatures would be deemed "hate speech" and their authors clapped into prison forthwith. The same applies to the use of such words as "nigger," "kike," "spic," "chink," "wop," "greaser," "cunt," when used in an attempt to denigrate certain favored groups of people. ("Honky" would not likely result in the same fate.) And what of holocaust denial? In many "progressive" nations denying this historical event, or making fun of it, is a violation of law. David Irving now languishes in an Austrian prison for engaging in his free speech rights on this topic. An Islamic group in Holland posted a cartoon of Hitler and Ann Frank in bed with each other; but for the present conflagration, this would have likely resulted in a jail sentence for them. An argument has been made by Kathleen Parker that there is a dis-analogy here. She says: "… the Nazis … were officially sanctioned enforcers of immoral social orders that used caricature to further degrade and dehumanize beleaguered minorities they ultimately murdered. There is no equivalence between organized murder on behalf of a malignant social system and a half-dozen nerdy artists, speaking only for themselves, lampooning a fanatical religious sect…" But David Irving is not a Nazi. He murdered no one. He merely engaged in press freedom, or free speech. The same applies to those who use the racial and sexual expletives mentioned above. Yes, great evil was perpetrated by those who used this denigrating language, and by those who sported Nazi regalia. The Nazis murdered millions (the Communists murdered tens of millions; when Prince Harry donned the swastika he was roundly condemned; had he treated the hammer and sickle in a similar manner, it would have passed unremarked, but that is another story). But it is still a logical fallacy to claim that all who adopt their regalia, mannerisms, goose-stepping, etc., are equally guilty; even that they are guilty of any crime at all. In my own opinion, just as in the case of prostitution, pornography, addictive drugs, these are not nice things; but from the libertarian perspective they are victimless crimes and should not be punished by law, or through extra-legal sanctions: rioting.

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA intelligence officer, who blames Israel for Islamism. Block and Scheuer are covered in this book.

Professor Leverett has challenged Western conventional wisdom on the Islamic Republic of Iran‟s foreign policy and internal politics, documented the historical record of previous Iranian cooperation with the United States, and presented the seminal argument in American foreign policy circles for a U.S.-Iranian “grand bargain”. His new book, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic (also co-authored with Hillary Mann Leverett), will be published in 2012. The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) was founded in 2006. Its purpose was to provide a scholarly approach to the study of contemporary and historical antiSemitism. It was attached to Yale's Institution of Social and Policy Studies. It was fully funded from private contributions. Deputy Provost and Political Science Professor Frances Rosenbluth served on the faculty committee that reviewed YIISA's performance and concluded that the university should close the center. In recent years Rosenbluth appointed Iran-regime apologists Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett to serve as senior fellows at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Last September the Leveretts brought their students to New York to hold a seminar for them with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unlike the YIISA conference, the move did not stimulate any significant controversy at the university.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson Blasts 'Politicized' U.S. Intelligence on Syria, Raises Prospect of Obama Impeachment

Austrian economist Professor Robert Higgs in a recent talk narrates of how US president Franklin D. Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking the US, that paved way for America‟s participation in World War II.