Subscribe to our newsletter at
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website

Please send this text or the link to a friend.

Emperor's Clothes
[ ]

More Emperor's Clothes articles on antisemitism and its history, the Arab-Israeli dispute, etc.

With Internet Explorer, Best Viewed With Medium Text Size


As European Union Suppresses Report on antisemitic Violence...

What do the EU, George Bush and Malaysian PM Mahathir have in Common?

(Could it be they're all pushing the politics of antisemitism?)

By Jared Israel
[Posted 26 November 2003]


[ ]


** According to popular belief, the EU, The U.S. government and the Muslim states have three distinct positions on the hottest issues of the day, the Arab-Jewish conflict and antisemitism. But do they? Our editor argues that in hidden and open ways the public in Muslim countries and the West is being sold political antisemitism. The central idea in this political philosophy is that a supposed conspiracy of Jews dominates the world - or at least the US and Europe - causing all problems. This idea isn't new; it's all in the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf. As in the past, the goal is to leverage already existing prejudice against Jews to create movements indoctrinated in the false belief that 'The Jews' are causing world problems, thus protecting the Establishments in North America, Europe and the Muslim countries. And now we see George Bush openly fomenting hatred of Jews. **


According to the Financial Times of November 22, the European Union (EU) has suppressed a report it had commissioned on the epidemic of antisemitic violence in Europe.

If you are wondering, 'Is antisemitic violence really a problem in Europe in 2003?' the answer is unfortunately 'yes'. As Leah Vitale wrote in the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) student newspaper, regarding the situation in France:

"My flat mate described having to turn her 'Steve's Packs' (Israeli bag/luggage company) bag around, label against her body, so as to safeguard herself from assault. She also recounted that Jewish boys are unable to wear kippahs [headpiece worn by religious Jews] openly on the street without being attacked. Jews have been stabbed, and elderly women are now frisked upon entering synagogues, as a precaution. Despite nearly 400 incidents against Jews just last April alone, French President Chirac denied there is antisemitism in France." [1]

Given the widespread evidence of rampant antisemitism in Europe, why did the EU suppress its own report on this problem?

According to the Times, the report came to a conclusion that was deemed politically incorrect: that attacks on European Jews are mainly carried out by Muslims.

"The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetratorsÖ was judged inflammatory."

Notice that the word they use is 'inflammatory', not 'false'.

Such things as murdering innocent people in the street or in their places of worship because they are Jews constitute racist gangsterism.  Like every political force, racist gangsters are sensitive to public opinion.  If the media and official bodies suppress the information that it is Muslims who are carrying out violent attacks on Jews in Europe, then the gangsters donít pay a political price for their terror. Thus by suppressing the report, the European Union empowered murderers.

Based on everything I have heard and read, the upsurge in hatred towards Jews in Europe goes far beyond the Muslim population. Moreover it is escalating rapidly, and not only in Europe. It reminds me of the situation in the 1930s.

The most obvious mechanism for mobilizing hatred of Jews in the West at this time is the dissemination of fabricated horror stories about the Middle East conflict.  In earlier times, antisemitism was mobilized in the West by means of horror stories of a slightly different type, such as the nightmare tale that Jewish people murder Gentile children and use their blood in Matzos (the 'blood libel'). Unbelievable though it may seem, this 'blood libel' is widely taught in the Muslim world today. For example, I have posted the link to a video clip from a program on Al-Manar TV which operates out of Lebanon with Syrian government funding. In this program, one episode in a TV series broadcast every night, actors depicting rabbis murder a child for his blood. It is quite horrible. I imagine it is something a child would never forget.[2]

In the West, TV stations are not (yet) broadcasting programs depicting rabbis slitting Gentile children's throats. Instead, the vehicle of demonization is mainly the misrepresentation of the Middle East conflict. Up until now, when people have falsely claimed that Israel is an apartheid state, the greatest oppressor on earth, and so on, the polite fiction was that the target was Israel, not Jews as a group. But of course, it is hard to maintain that fiction in the face of the EU report.  If Muslims are not opposed to Jews *as Jews* then why are they knifing Orthodox Jews on the streets of  France? What do French Jews have to do with opposition to Israeli policies, real or imagined? Unless of course the opposition to Israel is rooted in its being a *Jewish* state and unless, in turn, the media coverage which mobilizes opposition to Israel encourages hatred of Jews everywhere.

Alongside the demonization of Israel, there is another process at work, fanning antisemitism in the West. This involves the idea that a secret cabal of Jews is dominating U.S. policy.  The 'Jews-are-in-control' myth is being pushed in the mass media and I believe deliberately encouraged by the Bush administration. While this is done in a relatively subtle way in the West, it is much more openly proclaimed in the Muslim world. A few weeks ago it was broadcast worldwide by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir. Let us consider what Mahathir said and how Western leaders responded.


Mahathir tests the waters


Six weeks ago, Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia gave a speech that was taken right out of the Protocols of Zion. In it he claimed Muslims are being humiliated everywhere. Mahathir delivered this speech at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference. 58 leaders of Muslim states were present and when Mahathir finished, he got a standing ovation. [3]

Mahathir accused Jews of having "invented democracy, communism, socialism and human rights", as if, assuming this were true, it would prove something bad about Jews. But he also said Jews constitute a conspiracy which runs the world with the express goal of humiliating certain Gentiles, namely Muslims.  

He claimed Muslims are being humiliated worldwide as part of a global attack on Islam and, to complete the imaginary picture, the culprits are 'The Jews.'

Here's Mahathir: 

"Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people? It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews." [4]

Note that Mahathir does not fault Palestinian or other suicide bombers for attacking innocent people. Why? Because in Mahathirís bizarre world, Jews are not innocent and they're really not people.  Mahathir objects to suicide bombing because he considers it an act of weakness. Muslims, he argues, must create *effective* armed forces with modern weapons and unite against the imaginary Jewish attack.  This is what he means by "defense":

"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics, etc, as giving no merit for the akhirat [i.e., the hereafter], today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defence." [5]

Notice that Mahathir does not encourage Muslims to enrich their societies by studying a broad range of ideas - e.g., democracy, socialism, communism, human rights, or even world literature.  No, just science and math, because Muslims need make bombs. Am I alone in finding this mind boggling?

Many Imams (that is, Muslim religious teachers) hold to the view that the humiliation of Islam - real or imagined - justifies jihad, which in practice means holy war. Thus by accusing Jews of humiliating Muslims worldwide, Mahathir was inciting violence against Jews, worldwide.

Two thoughts:

1) While Mahathir did talk about Israel, his target was clearly Jews *in general*. He did not attack Israel because of this or that supposed tactic of the Israeli government.  Rather he opposed Israel because it was Jewish. His only criticism of the 50 year Muslim obsession with destroying Israel was that it had not worked:

"Over the past 50 years of fighting in Palestine we have not achieved any result. We have in fact worsened our situation...[We must] think. We are up against a people who think. They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking."

You see? The man is mono-obsessed. He doesn't even bother to deny that Jews have been fiercely persecuted; rather he warns that they "survive" because they are smart,  just as one would warn of the cleverness of some vermin one wished to exterminate. 

2) By accusing Jews collectively of humiliating Muslims everywhere, Mahathir was obviously inciting hatred and Holy War against all Jews by Muslims, as well as lending credence to the antisemitism of people in the West - i.e., what is often called 'the Christian world.'  Why those people too?  Because antisemitic ideas are already planted in the minds of people in Western countries, planted there because these ideas are part of Western culture. Mahathir's accusations, which are taken right out of 'The Protocols of Zion,' will remind millions of people of prejudices they learned as children, absorbed in a hundred ways from their environment, even if they were not taught to believe these things by their own parents - indeed, even if their parents taught them *not* to believe antisemitic ideas. Moreover, as I will discuss more in a moment, what Mahathir said in a direct way is being pushed in subtle ways by the media and leaders in the West.

It is therefore most significant that the European Union issued no statement regarding Mahathir's speech.  The way it apparently happened was this: Italy, which presently presides over the EU, announced that a statement of criticism would be issued at an upcoming meeting of European heads of state. But then came the  meeting, and the criticism was reportedly "fiercely" opposed by French President Chirac.  Having gone through the motions of preparing to criticize, the EU surrendered to France: a rout. Nobody has seen anything quite like it since the French surrendered to Nazi Germany in 1940.

According to the Malaysian paper, the Strait Times, Dr. Mahathir thanked France:

"PUTRAJAYA, Sat. - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad [i.e., Mahathir] today expressed his gratitude to French President Jacques Chirac for his 'understanding' of the OIC chairman's speech at the opening of the 10th Organisation of the Islamic Conference Summit here." [6]

According to the Associated Press:

"A French diplomat, who asked not to be named, said while Chirac disagreed with Mahathir's strident views, he argued that an EU summit declaration 'would not have been appropriate.'" [7]

When Muslims burn down synagogues, one may not report it. And when Muslim leaders give a standing ovation to a Prime Minister who calls for holy war against Jews, thus empowering those who firebomb synagogues, this may be "strident" but it is "not appropriate" to criticize him.

So much for the claim by European leaders that they are motivated only by opposition to specific supposed Israeli policies, not by antisemitism. The EU's silence was of course a statement, and Muslims heard it, loud and clear. And so did ordinary people in the West! The hidden message was: 'Mahathir shouldn't have said such a thing, but of course it's true, so we will not issue even a formal criticism.'


Enter George the Indispensable [8]


Now comes George Bush, Jr. with his contribution.

After Mahathir accused 'The Jews' of humiliating Muslims, Bush says he privately rebuked Mahathir for being "divisive". Pretty mild considering that Mahathir was cheered by Muslim heads of state for  inciting holy war. By the way, Mahathir claims Bush did *not* rebuke him. Rather, claims Mahathir, Buke apologized for "having to"criticize him. [9]

Whether Mahathir is lying, or Bush, or both, the important statement was made by Bush's adviser, Condoleezza Rice. She said that although Mahathir's comments were hateful, they did not reflect the views of Muslim leaders. Sounds great, but then who gave Mahathir that standing ovation?

It is precisely because Mahathir's views *do* represent the thinking of millions of Muslims - and not only Muslims - that an entirely different kind of statement was needed, something that would challenge the thinking of people who agree with Mahathir.

a) Bush should have shown, point by point, that Mahathir's accusations come from the book, 'The Protocols of Zion.' [3]

b) He should have explained that 'The Protocols' is a work of make-believe cobbled together by the Czar's secret police from earlier works of fiction in order to justify a crackdown on Russian reformers a hundred years ago. [3B]

c) He should have explained that because the book and its ideas proved effective they have been used for 100 years to turn fear and hatred of Jews into a political force.

'The Protocols' has been used this way in the Arab world - e.g. by the Baath party in Syria and Iraq and by Nasser in Egypt - and it was used this way by the Nazis. Like Mahathir, Hitler claimed Europe and the US were controlled by a Jewish conspiracy to humiliate and destroy  (in this case) Germans. That idea was crazy, as proven by the fact that not one of the states which were supposedly controlled by Jews lifted a finger to interfere with Hitler's Final Solution.

Today 'The Protocols' is family entertainment in Arab countries. [9A]  And itís ideas are pushed in the West as well.

Could Bush, or whoever writes his speeches, have offered a serious refutation of Mahathir's arguments? If he tried he would have run into two problems. 

First problem: he would have had to discuss Nazism. This could get sticky for Bush. The Nazi rearmament of Germany was paid for largely with American money. Bush's grandfather and great grandfather played a leading role. [9B]

Bush could finesse this by avoiding German rearmament. But there's a second problem as well.


The second problem is the killer


Exposing the fictional content of Mahathir's source, 'The Protocols of Zion', [3B] and showing the absurdity [3A] of these ideas wouldn't have been hard.  Nor would it have been hard to show that 'Protocols' thinking is deadly, and not just for Jews.  After all, ninety percent of the people who died in Hitler's war (which was justified by 'The Protocols'!) were gentiles.

So why didn't Bush do it? What was the second problem?

Everything I am about to say will challenge conventional wisdom. It will challenge beliefs held by people who are worried about antisemitism and people who think it is a tempest in a teapot. It will challenge the thinking of people who consider themselves pro-Israel and of those who consider themselves pro-PLO. In upcoming articles I and others will explain how we have come to these unusual conclusions and we will post and respond to questions and disagreements about what I am about to say. Let me begin by answering this question: What is the second problem that Bush would face if he tried to refute the ideas Mahathir was presenting?

The second problem is that the US and European Establishments do not *want* to defeat Mahathir's ideas.


Because they are spreading the same ideas themselves.

Why on earth would they spread such ideas?

For an old reason: They want to direct people's anger over problems at home and abroad against 'The Jews' rather than against themselves - the Establishment of the aggressively expanding US-led empire.

How are they achieving this?

Articles in the mass media, carefully calculated actions and statements of Bush administration officials, and the statements and writings of Bush critics create a certain impression. That impression is that Jewish or pro-Jewish neoconservatives have taken control of the Bush administration and use their power supposedly to direct US foreign policy to serve evil Israeli (i.e. Jewish) ends.

By spreading the false idea that the US is dominated by Israel, or 'The Jews,' everything the US does is explained as Israel's policy: the war in Iraq, the takeover of Afghanistan, even the covert sponsorship of Islamist terror. You name it. Anything and everything.

This belief is so full of factual and logical holes it would leak in the rain. But people are not presented with the evidence that shows the absurdity of the notion that a pro-Israel cabal is running the U.S.

Consider the argument that the US invaded Iraq to help Israel.

In fact, from a geopolitical standpoint, the invasion of Iraq was terrible for Israel. Why? Because Saddam Hussein's Iraq was hostile to the leaders of both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Situated between them, it hindered both; so the destruction of Hussein's horrible Baath dictatorship has removed an obstacle to the power of the Saudi and Iranian regimes, both of which lead international Islamist movements with antisemitism as a motivating force and the destruction of Israel as a central goal. [9C]

What country fought Iran in a fierce war that lasted almost a decade? Israel? No, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

What next door neighbor threatened Saudi Arabia and challenged it for leadership of the Sunni Muslim world?  Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 

Moreover, even before the invasion there was compelling evidence that the US was working with Iran to install an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq. Karzai, the Islamic fundamentalist whom the US installed in Afghanistan, is close to the Iranian leaders and is one of the people who gave Mahathir a standing ovation at the OIC. Would an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iraq be friendlier to Jews than Karzai? If anything it would be more hostile - subservient to Iran. [9D]

Does Israel need an Iran-Iraq superstate dedicated to destroying Israel? A state which controls the Persian Gulf?

What brilliant strategists these neocons are to attack not Iran or Saudi Arabia, Israel's worst enemies, but Saddam Hussein, who hampered those enemies!

Moreover, it seems to me that the whole way in which the war in Iraq has been and is being conducted (and opposed) is suspect.  It smells of con game. I believe that certain grotesque seeming missteps were deliberately taken to foster the suspicion that Bush and Blair were being pushed into Iraq by Israel. We have seen the unprecedented phenomenon of establishment leaders, like Robin Cooke, who has discovered, late in life, that he hates government  lies, and intelligence operatives like Scott Ritter leading the fight against a US war. [9E] This creates the false sense among ordinary people of a struggle within the Establishment and lays the basis for the argument that 'valiant' people within the elite are resisting 'The Jews.'  

The slogan, 'Oppose the Empire!' comes to suggest 'Free the Establishment from Jewish domination!' This mentality is what is meant by the phrase, 'creating a mass base for Fascism.'

Having fostered the now widespread belief that 'we invaded Iraq for the Jews,' Establishment operatives can argue that:

a) Now it's payback time, i.e., 'Those Jews' have to give the Palestinians a state, which translates to the destruction of Israel because a Palestinian state would be headed by antisemitic terrorists with a genocidal ideology; and

b) We have to do something to curb the Jews in the US and other Western countries because they are dominating everything and thereby causing all sorts of problems - shades of Germany in the 1920s-'30s.

This explains why, when Mahathir expressed his hallucination, born of the Czarist secret police, that 'the Jews' run the world with a goal to destroying 1.3 billion Muslims, Bush offered the absurdly off-the-mark response that Mahathir was being "divisive". People hear this and they think, "Bush can't refute that Malaysian dude so he has to chastise him for saying what everybody knows is true. It's just that the Jews don't want anyone to hear it!"

In fact the people who really cause the problems - and these people are not 'The Jews,' but the economic-political elite which the old left used to call 'the ruling class' - in fact these people most definitely *do* want ordinary people to hear that 'the Jews' are supposedly The Problem. Blaming the Jews is music to the ruling class's ears, just as it was in previous times of crisis, in Czarist Russia, and then in Germany. 

Is the current flurry of 'Protocols of Zion'-type attacks on Jews a coincidence?

In my opinion Mahathir's speech was a calculated move, orchestrated by, or at least with the approval of, the European and US Establishments, to be followed by similarly insane remarks from other prominent figures. Statements like Mahathir's are made by this or that leader or celebrity who is then dismissed as eccentric; perhaps, as in the case of Mahathir, the media criticizes him somewhat but also points to 'positive' things about his speech.  After such statements, rebukes are issued; perhaps this or that politician is expelled from his party; Mahathir or whomever points to these rebukes, mild or severe, as confirming the vast power of 'The Jews'.

What is the effect? To create an environment in which Nazi-like antisemitic arguments come to be perceived as normal and associated with resistance to a vaguely defined New World Order. People think, "Well, nobody can refute this stuff; they just say it's ugly. But where there's smoke, there's fire. At least these people have the guts to speak out."

In this fashion, Western populations are indoctrinated in the belief that their problems are produced by the 'hidden hand of The Jews.' Once adopted, this belief becomes a filter through which events are viewed so that any event may be interpreted as confirming the prejudice.

Does what I am saying sound too horrible to believe?  We have done a lot of research to test the accuracy of this hypothesis, and as quickly as possible we will publish what we have uncovered.


'The Jews Did It!' - Take Two!


By the way, this is exactly what happened in Germany prior to the Nazi takeover.

Hitler did *not* invent the notion that the Jews were responsible for all the woes that had befallen Germany.  Rather, the notion of a secret cabal of Jews stabbing Germany in the back was inculcated for many years by much broader forces, often with the support of the Establishment.  And then, when conditions were appropriate and necessary, the Establishment swung full support over to the Nazis, who could march in as the seeming answer to a 'problem' - albeit a lie - which had already been sold to varying degrees to most ordinary people.

In other words, people who were voting for liberal, conservative or even left wing parties had been convinced to varying extents of the lies that 'The Jews' instigated World War I for profit, and/or sold out Germany in that war, and/or were behind the ruinous inflation of the twenties, and/or had polluted German culture, and or were starving Germany of credit through control of the banks and/or were pulling the strings of German Communism for the purpose of crippling Germany.

These ideas were not inculcated only by the Nazis. Indeed, for most of the period from World War I until the Nazi takeover, these ideas were not even inculcated mainly by the Nazis. Rather, these ideas were deliberately pushed by the German establishment through the media of various political currents. They became 'common knowledge,' because even fictional explanations can become common knowledge, thus laying the basis for the Nazis. From this perspective, Nazism was only the culmination of a process. It was the last part of a magic trick pulled off by the German elite.  


Bush echoes Mahathir


Mr. Bush visited the UK last week and delivered a speech about Iraq and other issues. After the speech he gave an interview to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, an Arab paper which is owned by the Saudi government and which operates out of London.  In both the speech and the interview Bush used Mahathir's language, saying that Israeli Jews supposedly "humiliate Palestinians" by stopping them at checkpoints (as if there were not a real daily danger of terrorist attacks by Arabs!). [10]

Will Ms. Rice now issue a statement assuring the world that Mr. Bush's remarks, though outrageous, do not reflect the views of other Western leaders?


Rules of the game


* It is OK for leaders such as Mahathir and Bush to accuse Jews of humiliating Muslims, thus providing ammunition for those trying to organize Muslims to attack Jews. That is not inflammatory.

* It is OK for world leaders to refuse to condemn remarks which incite antisemitic violence. That is not inflammatory.

* But when such incitement contributes to attacks on Jews, it is not OK to identify the attackers if they are Muslims. Why? Isn't it obvious? That would be inflammatory.

I've posted the Financial Times article below.

Jared Israel
Emperor's Clothes

If you wish, you may skip the FT article and go right to the  Fundraising appeal or Footnotes .


EU Body Shelves Report on Antisemitism

Financial Times Nov. 22, 2003
By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin


The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on antisemitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.

The Vienna-based European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided in February not to publish the 112-page study, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times, after clashing with its authors over their conclusions.

The news comes amid growing fears that there is an upsurge of antisemitism in European Union countries. Among many recent incidents, a Jewish school near Paris was firebombed last Saturday, the same day two Istanbul synagogues were devastated by suicide truck bombs that killed 25 and wounded 300.

Turkey, which hopes to join the EU, suffered again at the hands of what are believed to be al-Qaeda inspired terrorists on Thursday with truck bomb attacks on British targets.

Following a spate of incidents in early 2002, the EUMC commissioned a report from the Centre for Research on Antisemitism at Berlin's Technical University.

When the researchers submitted their work in October last year, however, the centre's senior staff and management board objected to their definition of antisemitism, which included some anti-Israel acts. The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators, meanwhile, was judged inflammatory.

"There is a trend towards Muslim antisemitism, while on the left there is mobilisation against Israel that is not always free of prejudice," said one person familiar with the report. "Merely saying the perpetrators are French, Belgian or Dutch does no justice to the full picture."

Some EUMC board members had also attacked part of the analysis ascribing antisemitic motives to leftwing and anti-globalisation groups, this person said. "The decision not to publish was a political decision."

The board includes 18 members - one for each member state, the European Commission, Parliament, and the council of Europe - as well as 18 deputies. One deputy, who declined to be named, confirmed the directors had seen the study as biased.

In July, Robert Wexler, a US congressman, wrote to Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, demanding the release of the study.

Ole Espersen, law professor at Copenhagen University and board member for Denmark, said the study was "unsatisfactory" and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment should be addressed too.

The EUMC, which was set in 1998, has published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the September 11 attacks in the US.

Beate Winkler, a director, said the report had been rejected because the initial time scale included in the brief - covering the period between May and June 2002 - was later judged to be unrepresentative. "There was a problem with the definition [of antisemitism] too. It was too complicated," she said.

This week, Silvan Shalom, Israel's foreign minister, proposed a joint ministerial council to fight what Israel sees as a rise in European antisemitism.

[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]


InthisGenerousSeasonPleaseRemember... Emperor's Clothes!


[To make a donation]

It is traditional during Hanukkah and Christmas to give to the needy. The New York Times runs a daily feature in December called "Remember the Neediest," featuring cases of the Deserving Poor.

There is nothing shameful about poverty; some of the best people have tried it. So we at Emperor's Clothes are not ashamed about our condition. And we are Deserving. We refuse to adjust our conclusions to fit anybody's correctness. Rather, we study and we base our analyses on the facts we uncover. When studying the Middle East led us to conclude we had been wrong about the Israel-Arab issue, some expected us to tone down our criticisms of US foreign policy. We didn't. We are stubbornly honest therefore we are poor.

Our only income comes from readers' donations. If you approve our unfashionable approach, even if you sometimes disagree with us, then as you enjoy this holiday season, think of us: poor but honest. We have several projects hindered by lack of cash. Your donation will be a great help, and much appreciated!

Our best is yet to come...

Here's how to make a donation.

* By credit card at our secure server

* Using Paypal
(Visa & Mastercard)
If you're not now a PayPal member, our Secure Server is faster.

* Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321 (USA)

* Or by phone. 1 (617) 916-1705

Thank You!

Please send this text or the link to a friend. 

Subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes newsletter!
Receive texts posted at Emperor's Clothes.


Footnotes and Further Reading


[1] November 17, 2003, Monday; Section: Column;  Headline: A Call For A Jewish State; Byline: By Leah Vitale, Massachusetts Daily Collegian; Source: U. Massachusetts-Amherst; Dateline: Amherst, Mass.

[2] You can access the Window Media clip of Al Manar TV's video which accuses Jewish people of murdering non-Jewish children for their blood (!) at

[3] To find out about "The Protocols of Zion," the book Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the Jews and also World War II, go to

[3A] Given the immense influence of "The Protocols of Zion" it is amazingly badly done. See "'The Protocols of Zion' - Illogical, Sloppy, and Incoherent..." at

[3B] Why does 'The Protocols' have appeal? The appeal stems from the two works of fiction from which its theme and texts were taken. One book was a work of anti-Jewish fear-mongering.  The other book was a very serious satire written to attack Napoleon III, the Emperor of France, a despot who used demagoguery to mobilize mass support. For more on this, see "Reader Comments: 'I am no antisemite. Why do some parts of 'The Protocols' Ring True?'

[4] Mahathir's speech is at

[5] Mahathir's speech is at

[6] New Straits Times (Malaysia); October 19, 2003, Sunday; Section: Nation; Pg. 3; Headline: Dr M expresses gratitude to Chirac for his 'understanding'

[7] Associated Press Worldstream; October 19, 2003 Sunday; Section: International News; Distribution: Asia; England; Europe; Britain; Scandinavia; Middle East; Africa; Length: 326 Words; Headline: Malaysian Leader Says France's Chirac 'Understands' His Remarks About Jews; Dateline: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

[8] With apologies to Madeleine Albright. She was first to call the U.S. the 'Indispensable Nation'.  The ancient Greeks said, 'Pride cometh before a fall..."  George is the fall.

[9] New Straits Times-Management Times; October 22, 2003 Wednesday; Headline: 'Bush Did Not Rebuke Me', New Straits Times-Management Times; Byline: Syed Nadzri

[9A] Egyptian 'Dream TV' produced a 41-episode series based on "The Protocols of Zion."  It was shown in 2002 during Ramadan, thus  guaranteeing the maximum audience: fun for the whole family. For more on that, go to "Pakistani Student Asks: Was Egyptian TV Miniseries Really about 'Protocols of Zion?'" This article includes quotes from the Egyptian Press 

[9B] Concerning the role played by George W. Bush's grandpa and great grdndpa, Prescott Bush and Herb Walker, in financing Nazism, see "Nazis in the Attic," at

Concerning US sponsorship of Muslim extremism, we've published a fair amount. We'll collect it all in one place ASAP, but meanwhile   here are three articles:

--- As you may already know, the US fomented Islamic extremism in Afghanistan in the 1980s. For a detailed account, see
"Washington's Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy," at

--- The accepted wisdom is that U.S. blundered in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not understanding it was empowering fanatical Muslim extremists. The following article is one of two we have published on Zalmay Khalilzad, now the NSA official in charge (and on the scene!) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The first half of the following article focuses on disproving the oft-stated view that Khalilzad is just an oil consultant; the second half deals with Khalilzad's involvement (along with Zbigniew Brzezinski!) in a company devoted to mobilizing Western media to portray the Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan as freedom fighters. This company was funded by Congress for the purpose of deceiving the public about the character of the Islamist terrorists whom the US and Saudi Arabia spawned in Afghanistan. If you only want to read this part, see "Zbigniew and Zalmay's Excellent Afghan Pro-Terrorist Propaganda Adventure," at

--- The official story is that the U.S. first tolerated the Taliban, then crushed them. Based on the following article, including Congressional testimony, it appears that in the middle 1990s the U.S. played a duplicitous role, tricking anti-Taliban forces so that the Taliban could slaughter them. See "Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered.  * Excerpts from a most revealing hearing * Comments by Jared Israel," at

[9C] Just for the record, in a piece written a year ago - that is, before we had direct evidence that the U.S. was quietly collaborating with Iran in preparation for the invasion of Iraq - I argued that:

[Excerpt from  earlier article starts here]

"It seems rather obvious that the US policies of a) saber rattling against and perhaps attacking Iraq, which strengthens terrorist forces, while at the same time b) pushing for a Palestinian state, can only lead to mayhem on a grand scale.

"Moreover, the saber rattling (or worse, a real war) disguises and paradoxically dovetails with the continued US/European Empire's sponsorship of Islamic Fundamentalist terror."

[Excerpt from  earlier article ends here]

 In other words, invading Iraq would not help Israel. See, "A Los Angeles Reader Asks: Are You for or Against Saddam Hussein? Are You For or Against the Proposed War?"
-- J.I.

[9D] For EC articles that provide evidence that the US and Iran have been working together in Iraq, go to 
That article deals with the issue, and if you scroll down to 'Footnotes and Further Reading' you will find a list of other such articles.

[9E] Regarding Robin Cook: As Foreign Secretary of the UK he was one of the biggest government liars during the 1999 anti-Yugoslav war, yet now we are supposed to believe he was shocked to learn that Blair lied about Iraq. In an EC article called "We've been lied to about Milosevic and the Serbs," I contrasted Cook's description of Milosevic's famous speech, delivered in Kosovo in 1989, with the actual content of the speech.
Regarding Scott Ritter: First, he has admitted that he was a marine intelligence officer whose specialty was assessing weapons capabilities until just before he became a UN weapons inspector whose job was assessing weapons capabilities, so it would certainly seem probable he never left marine intelligence. Second, his 'transformation' from Hawk to Dove occurred between 3 and 5 pm on December 16, 1998 without a word of explanation. Tom Brokaw interviewed him twice on NBC that day, asking him essentially the same questions both times about the then-current bombing of Iraq. During the first interview, Ritter said it was about time the US took strong action and it would have a good effect; during the second interview, he said the bombing was a disaster, justified by false arguments. Brokaw showed no reaction to this about-face, nor was there substantial comment in the mainstream press. Ritter simply was transformed from Hawk to Dove as if he were a character in Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland.' My hypothesis: he was following orders and his orders changed. Orders from whom?  Well, since it certainly appears likely that he never left military intelligence, it would be reasonable to posit that Ritter's orders came from military intelligence. (An article documenting Ritter's 'transformation' has been written but not yet posted.)

[10] Interview of the President by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat
The American Embassy; London, England; November 19, 2003

Emperor's Clothes
[ ]

This Website is mirrored at

We need your help...

Emperor's Clothes is where you come for *rigorously documented* information and analysis that exposes how the mainstream media deceives people about US foreign policy.

If you find us useful, then please do your part to keep us afloat with a voluntary donation. Please give as generously as you can, but of course, within your means (every penny helps):  $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000.

(If it's hard to decide how much we're worth, here's a useful comparison: for its misinformation, the New York Times charges about $50 a month.)

Our best is yet to come...

[ To donate ]