February 24, 2014

Abby Martin peddles Jewish exceptionalism, fears WW2 truth

Recently, Abby Martin, the host of “Breaking the Set” on the Russia Today network, released two segments on the subjects of the Nazis and the “holocaust,” an event which she described as “a horrific genocide that forever changed the world.” 1 One wonders why Martin – like her compatriots in the Zionist-dominated Hollywood establishment -- places exceptional status on the “holocaust” when in fact a far greater number of non-Jews -- particularly Germans, Russians and Chinese -- perished during the Second World War than even the highest exaggerations of the sacred Shoah. Why have the Western media and academia placed such an importance and focus on Jewish deaths in World War II? Are Jewish deaths more tragic than non-Jewish deaths? Are Jewish lives worth more than those of non-Jews? Does Jewish suffering trump that of non-Jewish peoples? The supremacist and racist disposition of Jewish eminence in this regard must necessarily be the viewpoint of those who promote the “holocaust” as a seminal event in history, elevating it to sacrosanct status. Whether they realize it or not, commentators who advance the primacy of Jewish suffering are enabling the Zionists’ continued genocidal subjugation of the Palestinians.
***Read full article here***
*More information here


Christopher Marlowe said...

RT has also begun pushing the fag agenda. The glove is coming off the fist.

Anonymous said...

Wait are you telling me Russia and Russia Today isn't the great defender of tradition?

But i thought Putin was fighting the jews lol.

anon said...

Was it not obvious when they took Larry King off CNN's hands? Russia has to deal with those in the PussyRiot homo jew camp as does the rest of the world.

Unknown said...

"Abby Martin peddles Jewish exceptionalism, fears WW2 truth"

I was in archive.org the other day looking at 'Al Qaeda' I found this.

In this Marshall Center Paper, Professor Michael Schmitt explores the legality of the attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the jus ad bellum, that component of international law that governs when it is that a State may resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Although States have conducted military counter-terrorist operations in the past, the scale and scope of Operation Enduring Freedom may well signal a sea change in strategies to defend against terrorism. This Paper explores the normative limit on counter-terrorist operations. Specifically, under what circumstances can a victim State react forcibly to an act of terrorism? Against whom? When? With what degree of severity? And for how long? Professor Schmitt concludes that the attacks against Al Qaeda were legitimate exercises of the rights of individual and collective defense. They were necessary and proportional, and once the Taliban refused to comply with US and United Nations demands to turn over the terrorists located in Afghanistan, it was legally appropriate for coalition forces to enter the country for the purpose of putting an end to the ongoing Al Qaeda terrorist campaign.

More bullshit being peddled here too.

Anonymous said...


This is the PressTV link to the article.