Dave Rubin


Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
August 2007
© Copyright. 2007. Chaim Simons
In an article in the English edition of “Mishpacha” in January 2005 appeared the following:
“The Left is still loyal to the State of Israel in varying levels of faithfulness, but it hates Eretz Yisrael. The difference between these two is clear: Eretz Yisrael is a reminder of the Left’s Jewish past, which it wishes to forget. … The Left’s disconnection from the Jewish nation has reached the point where they are prepared for settlers to be killed during the evacuation effort [Gaza area and North Shomron]. Spokesmen of the Left have already announced that this will not be a war of brother against brother since ‘the settlers are not our brothers’.” (1)
(1) Rabbi Moshe Grylak, “How do they “know” it all?” Mishpacha (English edition), (Monsey, NY: Tikshoret VeChinuch Dati-Yehudi), 12 January 2005, pp.6-7.
Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. It has always been an integral part of the secular Zionist agenda. They wanted a Jewish State (according to some of them, even if it were to be in Uganda or Argentina) but it had to be administered according to their programme and perception for the “New Jew.”
During the course of this meeting Ben-Gurion spoke about the three million Jews then living in Poland and stated that:
“Palestine offered no solution for all Polish Jews. Immigration into Palestine was necessarily limited, therefore it had to and could be a selected immigration. Zionism was not a philanthropic enterprise, they really wanted here the best type of Jew to develop the Jewish National Home, but they had to be given sufficient scope to bring over people of whom the country was in need.”(5)
The question which remains is who would decide who was “the best type of Jew”? As will soon be seen, such a Jew was someone who was a secular Zionist!
It was a few years later at the 20th Zionist Congress held in Zurich in August 1937, that Weizmann spelled out more specifically what was meant by “selective Aliyah.”
“I told the members of the Royal [Peel] Commission that six million Jews want to go on Aliyah. One of the members asked me ‘ Do you think you could bring all of them to Eretz Yisrael?’ On this I answered … that two million young people… we want to save. The old people will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They have already become like dust, economic and moral dust in this cruel world.”(6)
A similar rejection of elderly Jews to go on Aliyah was made by Henry Montor, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees towards the beginning of 1940. A ship full of refugees not certified by the Zionist organisations, were on the high seas. Many of the passengers were elderly. The captain of the ship required money to bring them to Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Baruch Rabinowitz of Maryland took the matter in hand and tried to get the necessary money from Montor to pay the captain. In his long rambling letter of reply, Montor wrote about the Jewish Agency’s policy of “selectivity” –
“the choice of young men and women who are trained in Europe for productive purposes either in agriculture or industry.”
With regard to the elderly Jews on board this ship, Montor wrote:
“There could be no more deadly ammunition provided to the enemies of Zionism, whether they be in the ranks of the British Government or the Arabs, or even in the ranks of the Jewish people, if Palestine were to be flooded with very old people or with undesirables who would make impossible the conditions of life in Palestine and destroy the prospect of creating such economic circumstances as would insure a continuity of immigration.”(7)
Maybe it would have been appropriate for him to have renamed his organisation “United Jewish Appeal for Selected Refugees”! At least the donors would then have had a better idea of what they were giving money for.
The secular Zionists were not even ashamed to put out a memorandum in which they quite openly had a section “Who to save”. This memorandum (of April/May 1943) was headed that its distribution was “intended for Zionist functionaries only” and it included instructions “not to pass it on to non-Zionist groups who participate in the Working Committee.”(8) Although it came out under the name of A. [Apolinary] Hartglas, it has been suggested that in fact it was Yitzchak Gruenbaum who actually wrote it.(9) Under this section, he wrote:
“…. to my sorrow we have to say that if we are able to save only ten thousand people and we need to save fifty thousand [those chosen] should be of use in building up the land and the revival of the nation.… First and foremost one must rescue children since they are the best material for the Yishuv. One must rescue the pioneering youth, especially those who have had training and are idealistically qualified for Zionist work. One should rescue the Zionist functionaries since they deserve something from the Zionist movement for their work…. Pure philanthropic rescue, for example, saving the Jews of Germany, if carried out in an indiscriminate manner, could from a Zionist prospective only cause harm.”(10)
5) * Minutes of Interview with His Excellency the High Commissioner, 17 October 1933, pp.4-5 (Labour Archives – Lavon Institute IV-104-49-2-64. There is also a copy in Ben-Gurion Archives). At a later date Ben-Gurion wrote up these minutes (in Hebrew) in his memoirs without any suggestion that they were not what he had said at this meeting, (David Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol.1, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1971), p.672).
6) * Official Minutes of the 20th Zionist Congress, (Jerusalem: Executive of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency), pp.32-33.
7) * Montor to Rabinowitz, 1 February 1940, pp.2, 4, (Jabotinsky Archives, HT-10/16).
8) * A. Hartglas, Comments concerning assistance and rescue, (April/May 1943 – possibly 24 April 1943), p.1, (CZA S26/1306 [previous no. S26/1232]).
9) Aryeh Morgenstern, “Vaad hahatzalah hameuchad .…,” Yalkut Moreshet, (Tel Aviv: Moreshet), vol.13, June 1971, p.95 fn.67.
10) * Hartglas, op. cit., p.3.

Flan O’Brien Comments:

It is impossible to separate the chaff from the wheat because:

Ethnic “jews” are not society’s enemy, quite the contrary in terms of contribution to science and the arts.
Racially the DNA of “Jews” is relating to several populations.
Billions of Christians have been duped by the Schofield Bible and will defend “Jews” to the death.

Sources: http://themillenniumreport.com/2018/02/the-zionist-created-scofield-bible/

A better term is the Tribe – a group of people who define membership via the female line and who are psychotically, viciously and murderously set against non-members, justified by “religious” texts.
Thus, the only rational line of attack is holding up their ideology, aka religion, as psychotic and vicious; but since the Tribe control and censor all MASS communications then this is set to fail.
Attacking the monopoly ownership of banking, medicine and the mass media could work, but again, under the current ownership of mass media that would be impossible too.
Thus we are left with only one solution – the emancipation of mankind through abundant energy.


Abundant energy would cause all controlling “isms” to fall away, for every “ism” except anarchism is a means of distributing material wealth: Zionism, Judaism, socialism, communism, feminism, fascism … Why? Because abundant energy means abundant material wealth – at least in the essentials: energy, water, shelter, food and much else for all of human kind. The latest electronic gadget may be scarce of course.
When 99% of the population have levels 1 (Physiological) and 2 (Safety) of Maslows Hierachry of Needs completely satisfied, then no ‘ism’ is necessary and we have de facto anarchy.
We may find that for satisfying the next set of needs, psychological, most will wish to reclaim their birth right of land and enjoy the (proven) psychological benefits of living outside cities.
Aaron Russo, Academy Award nominated film producer and director, gave an interview before his death. As a former friend and confidant of Nick Rockefeller and a Hollywood insider, Russo was privy to a lot of inside information. He stated that GLOBALISTS HATE viscerally the idea of ABUNDANT ENERGY.
There are many schemes for abundant energy but the quickest and verified method is only 6 years away at a cost of 500 million USD – peanuts on a global scale. (see link above).
Therefore we should all ask our local puppets (politicians) why abundant energy has been suppressed for 70 years?
Ask why it is left to a developing nation to implement it thanks to philanthropic action?
Why is their no programme in the “developed” world?
Why is the “developed” world droning on about “global warming” and “sustainable development” when both can be “solved” withing 6 years using Thorcon technology?
Why is Bill Gates droning on about vaccines when energy, water, food and shelter is what the developing world needs? I doubt that he is so technologically dumb that he does not know the implications of energy technology. A suspected Tribe member? Seeding abundant energy technology for him would be 0.5% of his wealth.
So let us stop arguing philosophy, politics, sociology, “isms” – let us encourage ACTION on abundant energy to emancipate the world.