Is child abuse escalating in America and around the world?

WW~Notes:  I came across these horrendous crimes against children last week on Yahoo.  Every day there are at least 5 to 10 more grizzly stories of parent’s or caregivers killing babies, toddlers and young children.  Something is causing this but it’s anybody’s guess as to what it might be, but it’s definitely not normal.  I’ve never heard of so much child abuse in my entire life.

NOTICE: My opinions of these heinous crimes against innocent children are in red.

I happened to open Yahoo News this morning just to see what kind of bullshit lies they were spewing, and right away came across some of the most horrendous stories I’ve ever heard regarding crimes against children, most notably toddlers and babies for Christ’s sake.

The first and most tragic I was alerted to was a Frederick, Maryland man who was sentenced to 40 years in prison Thursday for what the judge called the “mind-boggling,” fatal abuse of a 2-year-old boy who was whipped with a belt, kicked, shaken, slammed against kitchen cabinets and forced to brush his teeth with a steel barbecue brush.

Frederick County Circuit Judge G. Edward Dwyer cited statements from Brittle’s own adolescent son that Brittle began beating Robert Watkins weekly after the boy moved into their home in early 2013. The frequency increased to at least once a day in the month before Robert died from devastating brain injuries on Sept. 8, 2013, the boy told police.

Brittle’s wife Melissa was sentenced last week to 20 years for allowing the abuse. Both pleaded guilty last year to first-degree child abuse resulting in death, which carries a 40-year maximum penalty. Raymond Brittle also pleaded guilty to second-degree child abuse.

The boy’s mother, who considered Brittle her stepfather, had put the child in Brittle’s care. That woman’s stepmother, Jennifer Ann Ward, tearfully begged the court for the maximum sentence. Then, addressing the 6-foot-1, 260-pound Brittle, who also appeared to be crying, she said, “I pray in prison there is a bully bigger and badder than you.”

State’s Attorney J. Charles Smith said the final beating, delivered in the kitchen with the couple’s other children watching, was meant to punish the boy for refusing to eat.

Precious 2-year old Robert Watkins. This handout photo provided by the Frederick County, Md., State's Attorney's Office, taken by LeeAnn Hemsley on July, 15, 2013, shows Robert Watkins in Myersville, Md., about two months before he died. Raymond Matthew Brittle was sentenced Thursday to 40 years in prison for fatally beating 2-year-old Robert Watkins after the boy was left in his care.  (AP Photo/LeeAnn Hemsley)

Precious 2-year old Robert Watkins.
This handout photo provided by the Frederick County, Md., State’s Attorney’s Office, taken by LeeAnn Hemsley on July, 15, 2013, shows Robert Watkins in Myersville, Md., about two months before he died. Raymond Matthew Brittle was sentenced Thursday to 40 years in prison for fatally beating 2-year-old Robert Watkins after the boy was left in his care. (AP Photo/LeeAnn Hemsley)

WW~Notes: Descended from Saxon warriors in England, I am in favor of this monster being hung, drawn and quartered, then sending his rotting corpse to the four corners of America as a warning finally displaying his head on a pike at the Frederick, MD court house.  But instead what does this evil judicial system decide; send him to prison for 40 years.  He suspended another 15 years. Brittle must serve at least half his prison sentence before he’s eligible for release, followed by five years of supervised probation. All my hopes rest on the fact that most prisoners hate child killers and as was the case of Jeffrey Dahmer I hope Maryland tax-payers will not have to take care of this criminal for too long.

Then down in GADSDEN, Ala. a 49-year old grandmother, Joyce Hardin Garrard, “tortured” her granddaughter by forcing her to run until she dropped and later died should be convicted of capital murder in the girl’s death, an Alabama prosecutor told jurors Friday.

“The reason that child is dead is that she was forced to run for hours,” Assist District Attorney Carol Griffith said.

Prosecutors contend Hardin forced Savannah to run for hours as punishment for a lie, leading to her collapse and death in a hospital days later.

Griffith said Garrard killed the child intentionally by berating her and making her run around the yard picking up sticks

“She was tortured,” Griffith said.

The question of intent is crucial. Garrard could face a death sentence if convicted.

Also accused in the case is Savannah’s stepmother, Jessica Mae Hardin. She has pleaded not guilty to charges that she didn’t try to help the girl and should be held responsible for her death.

WW~Notes: This is another predator of children even though family who should be taken out back and hung on the nearest tree and left to rot.  Why should she be left in peace when she offered no peace to her own granddaughter.

The corrupt, Jewish judicial system does not allow retribution for the families of the victims. We have to be good civilized slaves and just take whatever ruling they decide.  As I’ve said life imprisonment provides perks that most people don’t have on the outside.  Three square meals a day, medical and dental care, daily exercise, and the ability to obtain a college education and loads of free time.

Here is just one state, California, reporting how much it costs to incarcerate one criminal.

Criminal Justice and Judiciary

How much does it cost
to incarcerate an inmate?

California’s Annual Costs to Incarcerate an
Inmate in Prison
Type of Expenditure Per Inmate Costs
Security $19,663
  Inmate Health Care $12,442
Medical care $8,768
Psychiatric services 1,928
Pharmaceuticals 998
Dental care 748
  Operations $7,214
Facility operations (maintenance, utilities, etc.) $4,503
Classification services 1,773
Maintenance of inmate records 660
Reception, testing, assignment 261
Transportation 18
  Administration $3,493
  Inmate Support $2,562
Food $1,475
Inmate activities 439
Inmate employment and canteen 407
Clothing 171
Religious activities 70
  Rehabilitation Programs $1,612
Academic education $944
Vocational training 354
Substance abuse programs 313
  Miscellaneous $116
     Total $47,102
  • It costs an average of about $47,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate in prison in California.
  • Over two-thirds of these costs are for security and inmate health care.
  • Since 2000-01, the average annual cost has increased by about $19,500. This includes an increase of $8,300 for inmate health care and $7,100 for security.

WW~Notes:  The monsters that murder, maim, cripple and destroy the psychological innocence of our children if they haven’t already killed them, should be eliminated, cancelled, terminated – immediately.  They have no right to live on this planet with the threat they pose to the youngest and most vulnerable members of our society.  

The last two articles are gut-wrenching in scope when the thought passes and you wonder how human beings could be so psychotically evil.



Infant boy dies alone of starvation

sarakesslerandsonSara Kessler’s baby died alone of starvation in the living room after she had an overdosed and died in the bedroom. Sara Kessler and her dead 10-month old baby boy, Casey Kessler, were discovered on Friday morning in their apartment in in Millvale, Pennsylvania. Police do not suspect any foul play but assume at this point that the mother died of an overdose a few days earlier while her baby died of starvation. An autopsy is scheduled for Saturday.

As reported by CBS Pittsburgh on March 6, Kessler’s brother Matt Knaus found the 22-year-old mother and her 10-month-old baby when he went to check on his sister. He had not heard from her for several days. Last November, Kessler’s mom had died of natural causes in the same apartment leaving her daughter and her grandson on their own.

“Officials believe the mother may have died up to two weeks ago and the child died of starvation later.”

Reportedly, needles were found all over the apartment and authorities suspect that the 22-year-old mom died of an overdose in her bedroom. Kessler was known among neighbors and family members to be a drug addict and no one understands how it is possible that a baby was left alone for weeks with a dead mother.

Kessler lived in the only occupied apartment on the second floor which might be an explanation as to why no one heard the baby’s desperate cries. However, one woman who knew Kessler and her baby commented that someone did hear the baby cry — but did not take any action.

“The girl that lived downstairs of that apartment heard that baby crying for two days,” the woman said. “Now why she didn’t alert anybody, I don’t know. That baby never had a chance.”

According to Allegheny County assistant police superintendent Jim Morton, Kessler and her baby were living alone in the apartment and it looked like the 10-month-old tried to survive after his mother’s death. “The baby was found in the living room. It looked like he was trying to get around somehow by himself for who knows how long.”

After Sara Kessler’s baby died, one of her friends wrote on Facebook that Sara was a great friend and a great mother. “Sara was the greatest friend anyone could ask for. She put everyone before herself and her son before everyone. She would never allow anything bad to happen to Casey. She was an extremely strong woman who had challenges thrown her way left and right.”


The ‘Kinderladen’ Movement: Jewish perversion and explotation of German children




Hitler’s Nightmare Come True: the ‘Kinderladen’ Movement


The revolutionary aim of the political ideology of communism, as laid out in the Communist Manifesto by the Jew Karl Marx, is to have the peasants, or working class, violently overthrow the governments of their respective nations. The manifesto, which demonized the entire middle class as exploiters—everyone from a doctor or a dentist, to a rich capitalist, down to the small business owner—concluded with the battle cry: Workers of the world, Unite!

The promise given to the impressionable peasants,—the “proletariat”—whom the Communists’ evil propaganda was directed at, was that they would live in a “worker’s paradise” after dismantling their “oppressors,” i.e., the middle class, or “bourgeiosie.” Of course, the true aim was for the Communist leaders—mostly Jews—to insert themselves into dictatorial power after the natural leadership had been forcibly overthrown by violent hordes of envious, hate-filled mobs.

Spreaders of the communist ideology believed that revolutions of this nature would take place all across Europe as people lost faith in their governments during the first World War. Much to their dismay, aside from in Russia, these revolutions did not take place, and the war caused the common people to instead become more patriotic and loyal to their countries’ leaders.

The Communists, who saw their victory as inevitable one way or the other, were undeterred by this setback. They went back to the drawing board to reformulate their revolutionary strategy and it was decided that in the West, for their revolution to take place, they would first have to weaken the foundations of civilization, which they recognized as a stronghold in the way of their agenda. The new strategy, known as Cultural Marxism, combined Marx’s theories with those of another Jew, Sigmund Freud, and was to use anti-Western propaganda to attack and tear down all traditions, sexual morality and Christianity and to deliberately break apart the nuclear family.

Many of the preeminent Cultural Marxist thinkers during the 20s and 30s were Jewish intellectuals based in Frankfurt, Germany, at the Institute of Social Research, better known as the ‘Frankfurt School.’ Instead of the ‘class warfare’ that traditional Marxism focused on, they now developed ‘critical theory,’ which attacked Western culture as being evil and oppressive toward minority groups such as Jews, non-Whites, homosexuals, and even women. This served the Communist cause of destroying White society by inciting hatred in all of these so-called minority groups while simultaneously inducing feelings of guilt in normal White people.

They also created ‘political correctness,’ where any objection to the Cultural Marxist agenda would not be met with logical debate but rather with smear terms such as “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” “sexist,” etc.

Germany, home to a daunting number of communists— upward of six million—was facing the dire threat of falling to a violent revolution, similar to what had happened in Russia in 1917. A Communist Russia and Germany would have meant certain death for all of Europe.

Hitler and other European nationalists were largely a response to this madness, which had already brutally exterminated millions of the White elite in Russia. They heroically sprang up like white blood cells to defend Europe from the Marxist cancer that was sure to destroy all of civilization if left unchecked.

Adolf Hitler recognized the Marxist doctrine for exactly what it was: essentially a war on the natural order of the world which can only lead to chaos, decay and destruction, to the temporary benefit of a few, but the eventual detriment of all. He warned of this in his book Mein Kampf, and dedicated every waking moment of his life to fighting against it.

Once Hitler came to power, the Jews were stripped of their power and the Cultural Marxists and Communist agitators were forced out of Germany or interned in concentration camps as enemies of the state. Germany, once free of this plague, quickly rose to glorious heights such as the world has never seen—possibly the pinnacle of all human civilization.

Germany was, of course, destroyed in WWII, thanks to the power that the Jews and Communists already had over the minds and governments of most of the rest of the world, whom they convinced to destroy Germany even though it was against the majority of their best interests.

And so triumphed Marxism over National Socialism, tyranny over civilization, and Jew over Aryan.


The ‘Big Lie’

Many of the Jewish Marxist enemies of Germany returned after the war with a burning, vengeful hatred and convinced the surviving Germans that they had committed a Holocaust and were responsible for WWII, that most devastating of wars that killed tens of millions of people.

The Cultural Marxists, in their quest to overthrow sexual morality in the name of a communist revolution—an openly stated goal of theirs, not a conspiracy theory of mine—convinced many of the surviving Germans that the “Holocaust” was the inevitable result of their “sexual repression.”

The sexual values of the noble White people of the Third Reich led directly to sadistic mass murder and irrational racism, so said the Jewish Marxists in their clever campaign to trick the trusting Germans into turning against their own nature.

German people were highly susceptible to this sinister subversion because of their honest nature and the Jewish ‘Big Lie Technique’ that Hitler, in his infinite wisdom, wrote about in Mein Kampf:

[The Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.

The “Antiauthoritarian” Kinderladen Movement

One of the more horrific examples of the result of Marxism winning the war was a movement called Kinderladen that cropped up in Germany in the late 1960s. Led by Jews and brainwashed, guilt-ridden Germans who had fallen for the Jewish lies about the Holocaust and the reasons for it, Kinderläden, as Dagmar Herzog wrote in her book Sex After Fascism, were “experimental antiauthoritarian daycare centers for 2- to 5-year-olds organized by New Left activists” in many of West Germany’s major cities.

The two primary inspirations for the Kinderladen movement were the theories of the Jew Wilhelm Reich (the “father of the sexual revolution) and the book The Authoritarian Personality, written by a team of Frankfurt School Jews headed by the Jew Theodor Adorno.

The Authoritarian Personality purported to be the end result of a study looking for the causes of Antisemitism (of course, Jewish behavior can have nothing to do with it), that found it was due to “authoritarian upbringing,” and “sexual repression.” Here is the Wikipedia description of the book:

The impetus of The Authoritarian Personality was the Holocaust, the attempted genocidal extinction of European Jews by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party. Adorno had been a member of the “Frankfurt School”, a predominantly Jewish group of philosophers and Marxist theorists who fled Germany when Hitler shut down their Institute for Social Research. Adorno et al. were thus motivated by a desire to identify and measure factors that were believed to contribute to antisemitic and fascist traits.

Kinderladen activists took “antiauthoritarianism” to the extreme and would not interfere with their children over anything. If a child, say, wanted to crawl around on the floor naked and eat their breakfast out of an old, dirty boot, the criminally insane parents—no matter how much it pained them—would not interject. They were psychologically paralyzed by Jewish propaganda and Holocaust guilt and wanted nothing more than to atone for the sins of their parents and prevent another “Holocaust” from ever happening again.

These activists were so extreme and radical they even shocked American New Leftists who came to visit. Herzog writes:

American New Leftists on travels in Europe remember how stunned they were in some of their first encounters with their West German counterparts. Young West German parents let their children, while covered in dirt, walk the streets and ride streetcars. They allowed their children to pummel them; they never slapped back. And when asked why they encouraged their children’s disobedience, the parents answered simply: “Because of Auschwitz.”



In February 1969, a popular West German magazine Der Stern published an article criticizing Kinderladen. According to Herzog, it referred to the children as:

“little leftists with big rights” whose environment was chaotic and filthy, whose parents engaged in wife swapping, and who were allowed to bash in each other’s heads with blocks and splatter the walls of their centers with paint.

According to pg. 150 of a paper published by the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, members of a Kinderladen council retaliated for the Der Stern hit-piece by barging into the West Berlin Press Office and smearing feces all over the walls:

They collected used diapers from the city’s Kinderladen for three days. Then children and adults carried the diapers in garbage bags back to the Press Office, entered the newly painted chambers, and smeared the walls with the diapers’ contents, to express their displeasure with those who had control of voice and opinion in the public sphere.


Child Sexuality and the Kinderladen Movement

“[T]he vociferous defense of child sexuality” Herzog writes, “was precisely the heart of early Kinderladen activism. The activists did not just permit the children to run naked and play with their own and each other’s bodies. They also applauded and publicized the most intimate details of the children’s sexual explorations.”

Herzog recounts how some of them put out pamphlets with “flagrantly excessive” details of Kinderladen activities including:

[A] detailed description of a scene of (expressly adult-encouraged) genital touching between a little boy and a little girl within the Kommune 2, and another scene in which the same little girl attempted to fit an adult penis (which, after she had asked, she had been permitted to stroke to the point of erection) into her tiny vagina (it turned out to be, as she herself “determined resignedly, ‘Too big’ ”).

This insanity was due to the influence of the theories of the Jewish, Freudian extremist Wilhelm Reich, who was absolutely obsessed with the ridiculous notion of child sexuality and the supposed social ills that resulted from suppressing it. Just open up the 1945 English translation of Reich’s book The Sexual Revolution—the foundation of the actual sexual revolution of the 60s—and you will find already on pg. 2 of the Preface the claim that

suppression of the love life of children and adolescents is the central mechanism for producing enslaved subordinates and economic serfs.

Reich originally drew his theories about child sexuality from his personal mentor, Sigmund Freud. Freud had a nonsensical theory called the “Oedipus Complex” wherein he claimed that all infant children want to have sex with their parents – boys with their mothers, in which they long to kill their fathers out of jealousy; and girls also with their mothers—until they eventually realize it is anatomically impossible, wherein they develop “penis envy” and then begin to lust after the father.

The confused parents of the Kinderladen movement, who believed this psychopathic rubbish, were at once perplexed as to why the children weren’t showing sexual attraction to them and delighted that maybe their kids had been cured of this alleged characteristic that Freud talked about. Herzog relates how they

actively debated why it was that their preschool children were not seeking direct contact with adult genitals. Could it be, they surmised with hopeful pride, that the children in their school were free of the “fixation-constellations typical in families”?

An article published by Der Spiegel called The Sexual Revolution and Children: How the Left Took Things Too Far, gives us many revelations about the Kinderladen movement, such as how “the basement was used as an “observation station” to study sexual behavior in children” and that

Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines together and pantomiming intercourse. According to the records, a “sex exercise” was conducted on Dec. 11 and a “fucking hour” on Jan. 14.

The article goes on to bring out

an account of a parents’ evening where one of the mothers said that she stripped naked in front of her son so that he could “inspect” her. In the process, the woman spread her legs to expose her private parts for his inspection. The game ended when the boy stuck a pencil into his mother’s vagina. The parents also spent a long time discussing whether it was a good idea to have sex with their own children, so as to demonstrate the “naturalness” of sexual intercourse.

Horrific stories of the sexual abuses that took place in Kinderladen schools, such as the ones above, abound, but I’ll leave it at that. I’m sure you get the picture.


Educating for Disobedience

A documentary about the Kinderladen movement titled Erziehung zum Ungehorsam (Educating for Disobedience) aired on German television in December 1969. Again, we quote Herzog:

The film included a brief scene from Stuttgart in which a little girl casually attached a cardboard penis to a cutout doll along with hair, nose, eyes and lips. It also incorporated a one minute scene of “playing doctor” in Frankfurt in which one little boy painted in watercolor on another’s erect penis while antiauthoritarian parents and educators explained the importance of not only tolerating but assertively affirming child sexuality..

(This disturbing documentary and the horrific scene described above can be viewed on YouTube—though I don’t recommend it)

51BcyBxj2QLToilet Training and the Kinderladen Movement

Drawing on more Freudian insanity-his so-called “psychosexual development”-the Kinderladen crowd even allowed their children to defecate on themselves.

Freud’s “psychosexual development” is the theory that children go through stages, beginning with birth, in which they are sexually “fixated” on different “erogenous” zones of their bodies. First is the “oral” stage, then the “anal” stage, then the “phallic” stage, etc. If a child remains “fixated” on an “erogenous” zone past when they should move on to the next stage, they will potentially develop mental disorders later in life, such as “anal” personalities.

Like “The Oedipus Complex,” the so-called “psychosexual” stages have no basis in science or empirical evidence whatsoever, but rather are nothing but figments of Freud’s deranged imagination. Why that is not apparent to everyone with two brain cells that has ever studied this insanity is a truly baffling question.

It can only be explained as proof of the power of, ironically: authority. The Jews, having weaseled their way into so many high positions of power and influence over White society, give off an air of authority to an unsuspecting public who does not recognize them for the hostile, alien people that they are, and thus they get away with pushing insane ideas.

A Kinderladen activist told a reporter from Der Stern, Herzog writes, that

not only did the parents allow the children to masturbate and play sex games but also that “many children are already toilet-trained. Now they shit in their pants again. They’re repeating the anal phase. That’s good. Did you know that most concentration camp guards had anal difficulties in their childhood?”

Herzog goes on to explain that Kinderladen members wrote a book that

placed the anal phase and the Holocaust together at the center of political theory. Punitive toilet training, the authors contended, led to authoritarian personalities with sadistic fantasies, who oppressed minorities; preoccupation with cleanliness was part and parcel of a mindset that sent people “into the oven.”

Abolition of the Family!

“[A]bove all, and most frequently,” Herzog writes, “[Kinderladen] activists railed at the institution that they felt was responsible for their own crippling: the nuclear family.”

Breaking down the traditional structure of gentile families has always been a primary aim of the Marxists. It says so rather bluntly in the Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

The solution to the problem of the nuclear family, which the Kinderladen activists, driven to insanity by their Marxist dogma, considered “rotten to the core,” was for children to be raised in communes—a “deliberate rotation of care-givers.”


Daniel Cohn-Bendit

Daniel Cohn-Bendit is a radical Marxist, Jew politician from France and Germany who was involved in the Kinderladen movement. He was nicknamed “Danny the Red” during his years as a student leader in France in the late 60s because of his radical leftist politics and inflammatory activism as a communist agitator.

In his 1975 book The Grand Bazaar, Cohn-Bendit wrote the following:

My flirtations with all children soon acquired a definitely erotic character. I could sense how young girls aged five had already learned how to get off with me…

It happened several times that some children opened my fly and began stroking me. According to the circumstances of each case, I reacted differently, but the children’s wishes posed problems for me… when they insisted, I caressed them in return.

He smugly boasted about his pedophilia with the Kinderladen children during an appearance on a French TV show in the early 80s:

Bendit1 bendit2 bendit3 bendit4 bendit5 bendit7 bendit8 bendit9 bendit10Cohn-Bendit can be seen in a video from 2011, shortly after the Oslo massacre of 77 Norwegians by anti-immigration/anti-Cultural Marxist Anders Breivik, standing in front of European Parliament (in which he served in from 1994 to 2014), hysterically claiming that multiculturalism was not the underlying cause of the mass killing, but rather anyone who would “dare” to speak out against multiculturalism (or mass immigration).

For this speech, which was essentially a call for the genocide of Europe, he received thunderous applause from the supposed “leaders’ of the West. This is what we killed Hitler for: a Cultural Marxist, dystopic nightmare where an admitted Jewish pedophile can stand in front of world leaders and call for the genocide of the White race in Europe—and he is cheered on.

Why Does This Even Matter?

The “New Left” radicals in Germany that facilitated the sexual revolution are nicknamed the “68ers” because of 1968 being their most successful year—the year that the Kinderladen movement began. The “68ers,” though relatively small in number, were not just a fringe group. Just as the “New Left” in America and other Western countries, they were the driving force behind the sexual revolution, which, as we all know, did in fact unfortunately take place.

Still one might argue, why should we even care about the Kinderladen movement? It was closed decades ago. We should care because it shows just how sickening these Jewish ideologies are to the Aryan soul. While the Kinderladen movement is admittedly an extreme example, all of the Jewish theories behind it have impacted our society as a whole in immeasurable ways.

Children are as undisciplined and unruly as ever and the nuclear family has been destroyed to the point that 50% of all marriages now end in divorce—a staggering statistic. Before the Jew-led sexual revolution of the 60s we still had large, strong, orderly families and a much healthier society.

Everyone is aware that this sexual revolution took place, but not many know who was behind it, and just how evil they and their ideologies truly were. The Kinderladen movement is a perfect microcosmic example to highlight the utter insanity of these ideologies and what they amount to in their purest form.


Child-killing sociopaths of Israel

The Israeli regime has been engaged in brutal pounding of the besieged Gaza Strip since July 8, 2014. Photo shows Gazans mourning their lost ones.

The Israeli regime has been engaged in brutal pounding of the besieged Gaza Strip since July 8, 2014. Photo shows Gazans mourning their lost ones.

What is wrong with Israelis?

Every time Israel embarks on a new round of wholesale slaughter in Gaza, polls show that more than 90% of Israelis support the butchery.

For Israelis, mass-murdering children is a spectator sport. When the IDF starts dropping cluster bombs, white phosphorous, DIME munitions and other horrendous weapons on Gaza, crowds of Israelis pack the hilltops to barbecue meat, drink alcohol and cheer as they watch Palestinian children being blown to bits.

Every day in Israel’s major cities, mobs of Israelis gather to hunt down and brutalize Arab children and teenagers. Police stand by as they beat their victims into unconsciousness. According to Israeli blogger Elizabeth Tsurkov, the mobs’ favorite chant is: “Tomorrow there’s no school in Gaza, they don’t have any children left.”

Israelis proudly tweet their desire to murder children: “Kill Arab children so there won’t be a next generation,” “Stinking Arabs may you die, amen,” and “Arabs may you be paralyzed and die with great suffering” are some representative tweets exposed by Israeli journalist David Sheen.

Israeli parliamentarian Ayelet Shaked has announced that she wants to kill not only Palestinian children, whom she calls “little snakes,” but also the Palestinian mothers who raise them. Recently Shaked openly called for the genocidal murder of every Palestinian. Instead of being sent to the Hague, prosecuted, ejected from government, or even rebuked, she was lionized by Israeli society.

Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel “Butcher of Sabra and Shatila” Sharon, agrees with Shaked. In an op-ed published in the Jerusalem Post, Sharon advocated using nuclear weapons to exterminate the Palestinians. He wrote that Israel needs to “flatten all of Gaza,” adding that “The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

While they enjoy slaughtering children and their mothers, Israelis take special relish in killing pregnant women. A T-shirt popular in the Israeli army shows a pregnant woman with a target on her belly. The legend reads: “One shot two kills.”

Killing children is the de facto official policy of the Israeli military. In his article “Gaza Diary,” Chris Hedges wrote about watching Israeli soldiers hunt Palestinian children for sport:

“Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”

An October 2004 study by British Medical Journal confirmed that this is a common practice, and never punished: “Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest – the sniper’s wound…Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.”

During its onslaught on Gaza, Israel has been systematically slaughtering children in schools, emergency shelters, and even as they play soccer on the beach. Under the headline “Israel’s offensive in Gaza has ‘killed more children than fighters,’” The London, UK Telegraph reported that Israel is “waging war on children.”

Again I ask: What is wrong with Israel? What has produced this nation of demonic child-killing monsters?

In his book Goliath, Max Blumenthal – a young Jewish American from an influential family – lays bare Israel’s genocidal mentality. Blumenthal discusses the wildly popular Israeli best-seller Torat Ha’Melech, which advocates the wholesale murder of non-Jews.

Torat Ha’Melech is not a marginalized radical screed; on the contrary, it is an authoritative guide for Israel soldiers. Its authors are two of Israel’s leading rabbis, Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur.

Blumenthal explains:

“Drawing from a hodgepodge of rabbinical texts that seemed to support their genocidal views, Shapira and Elitzur urged a policy of ruthlessness toward non-Jews, insisting that the commandment against murder ‘refers only to a Jew who kills a Jew, and not to a Jew who kills a gentile, even if that gentile is one of the righteous among nations. ‘The rabbis went on to pronounce all civilians of the enemy population ‘rodef,’ or villains who chase Jews and are therefore fair game for slaughtering.”

The Israeli child-killer personality has much in common with the psychiatric term sociopath: “A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke like a sociopath when he said that the Palestinian resistance “uses telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause.” The expression “telegenically dead” is a stunningly insensitive euphemism for the corpses of little children with their body parts blown off; and of course it was Netanyahu himself who killed them, and then tried to blame the victims for his actions.

What can be done about the sociopathic Israel?

One of America’s leading experts on sociopaths is Dr. Robert Hare, who works with the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center. Since Israel is the biggest child abductor and child serial killer on the planet, perhaps we could send the whole Zionist entity to Dr. Hare for treatment.

Unfortunately, as Dr. Hare admits, sociopaths are usually impossible to cure. The best we can do is detect them, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, and then protect ourselves from them.

A sociopathic individual can be arrested and imprisoned. A sociopathic nation poses a much bigger problem. So how can we protect Palestinian children from the Israeli serial murderers?

The international community needs to completely ostracize Israel, indict its leaders for war crimes, and use the combined diplomatic and military force of the world’s nations to peacefully dismantle the genocidal Zionist entity. But that cannot happen until the Zionists’ death-grip on the West’s media, finance and politics is broken once and for all.

In the mean time, all individuals of good will must help the Palestinians defend themselves. As Italy’s leading philosopher Gianni Vattimo recently said, Europeans and other decent people around the world “should raise money to buy Hamas better rockets.” Vattimo also urged Europeans to form international brigades to fight along with Hamas, in the same way that foreign volunteers fought Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

If there are any decent, non-sociopathic Israelis left, they too should join those brigades, just as novelist Breyten Breytenbach and other white South Africans of conscience joined the armed resistance to apartheid. Where are the Israeli equivalents of Breytenbach? There must be at least one or two human beings left in Israel; we will learn who they are when they die in martyrdom operations against their sociopathic child-killing compatriots.



WW~Notes:  Bravo to Dr. Barrett.  He has the best solution I’ve yet heard to take down Israel once and for all time.

From the Files of the Absurd & Bizarre: ‘Paedophilia is natural and normal for males’

How some British university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences

After the report into Jimmy Savile and the conviction of Rolf Harris, Britain has gone into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties

After the report into Jimmy Savile and the conviction of Rolf Harris, Britain has gone into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties.  Photo: Rex

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.

Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.

VIDEO: Miliband calls for review into missing dossier (See source link at the end of article to view this very short vid.)

Jimmy Savile exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes

A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.

With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.

The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!

The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential.

Prof Ken Plummer, left, and former PIE head Tom O’Carroll

Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”

As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of ‘child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … ‘childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”

Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing ‘bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a ‘bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation.

In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.

After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.

Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.

But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.

O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular.

Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.


Dave Hodges continues to obfuscate who the real threat is to our children!

Don’t get me wrong, I like Mr. Hodges and several of his articles carry many truths but this one has many holes.

And it’s not just the ELITE!

child-sex-rings-the-childThe opening paragraph of his recent article, The Elite Are Abducting and Murdering U.S. Children for Their Organs, claims this:

This is a story that is not about race, ethnicity or religion. Some people will make it a demographic issue in order to obfuscate the ubiquitous nature of trafficking crimes involving children. What is the crime? The crime is murdering American children for the purposes of organ theft and shipment to countries such as Israel, Turkey, India, China, et al.

It is about race and ethnicity and religion, mainly white American Christians, whom the Jews themselves have indicated in their Talmud, and The Protocols that whites and caucasians, especially Christians, are their most dangerous threat.  And most of the organs harvested in America are sent straight to Israel to help ailing, sick Jews in that country.

It is also well known that Israel holds the monopoly on sex slave trafficking and organ harvesting throughout the world and they will sell to the highest bidder unless a fellow Jew is in need of the biological material.


Here is another more extended part of this story from By NANCY SCHEPER-HUGHES:


Palestinians have feared for many years that Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and Gaza have targeted them for organ harvest.

Palestinians have feared for many years that Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and Gaza have targeted them for organ harvest.

Body Parts and Bio-Piracy

Editorial Note: Nancy Scheper-Hughes is professor of anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, where she directs the doctoral program in medicine and society. Since 1996, she has been involved in active field research on the global traffic in human organs, following the movement of bodies, body parts, transplant doctors, their patients, brokers, and kidney sellers, and the practices of organ and tissue harvesting in several countries – from Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba, to Moldova, Israel and Turkey, to India, South Africa, and the United States. She is a co-founder of Organs Watch, an independent, medical human rights, research and documentation center at UC Berkeley.

What follows is her detailed report on the tissue, skin, bone and organ harvesting conducted for many years at Israel’s L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine, a.k.a. The Abu Kabir Institute, under the aegis of its former director and current chief pathologist, Dr. Yehuda Hiss. Long before Donald Boström leveled allegations of organ-harvesting from Palestinians in the Swedish tabloid, Aftonbladet, in August 2009, causing furious accusations of “blood libel,” Dr. Scheper-Hughes had already interviewed Dr. Hiss and had on tape the interview that forms part of her report here.

Dr. Scheper-Hughes says her purpose here is to refute the controversial official statements of the Ministry of Health and the IDF that while there may have been irregularities at the National Forensic Institute, they have long since ended. To this day, she says, they have failed to acknowledge, punish, or rectify various medical human rights abuses, past and present at the National Forensic Institute. While many of the allegations are widely known, the testimony by Israeli state pathologist and IDF (reserve) Lt. Col. Chen Kugel has never been published in English and his allegations are known only within Israel. Dr. Scheper-Hughes invited Dr. Kugel to speak publicly on this topic in the U.S. on May 6, 2010.

There are three lawsuits ongoing in Israel at the present moment concerning the Forensic Institute and Dr. Hiss. Two concerns alleged abuses against the dead bodies of Israeli citizens. The third concerns Rachel Corrie, a U.S. citizen who was killed in Gaza in 2003 while protesting the demolition of houses. Transcripts of court proceedings show that Corrie’s autopsy was conducted in contravention of an Israeli court order that an official from the U.S. Embassy be present. These transcripts also show Dr. Hiss conceding that he had kept samples from Corrie’s body without her family’s knowledge. Dr. Hiss also testified that he was uncertain where these samples now are. For his part, Dr. Kugel asserts that  abuses at the Institute continue to this day.

The Scheper-Hughes article takes care to note Dr. Kugel’s description of his former mentor, Dr. Hiss, as  a man who saw himself as willing to  take great personal and professional risks “to serve a noble end… to help the war-wounded victims of terrorist attacks,”  with his actions “as something sublime, or even heroic, as a modern-day Robin Hood.” AC/JSC

In July 2009, I was identified as the “whistle-blower” in the arrest by New Jersey FBI agents of a Brooklyn organs trafficker, an orthodox rabbi, Isaac Rosenbaum,1,2 whose unorthodox business activities I had uncovered several years earlier while investigating an international network of outlaw transplant surgeons, their brokers, lawyers, kidney hunters, insurance and travel agents, safe house operators, and “baby sitters” to mind sick and anxious international “transplant tourists.” The particular criminal network, in which Rosenbaum played a bit part, originated in Israel through a “company” run by a well-known crime boss Ilan Peri, who had over the years established shady transplant deals and kidney transplant outlets and connections in Turkey, Moldova, the Ukraine, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, the Philippines, China, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Columbia, and the United States.3

The arrests, amidst gunfire in the operating rooms, of two of Ilan Peri’s transplant associates – Dr. Zaki Shapira, formerly of Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel, and his Turkish associate Dr. Yusuf Sonmez – in a private hospital in Istanbul in 20074 gave pause to the Israeli Ministry of Health which, until then, had permitted Israeli sick funds (medical insurance) to reimburse living donors overseas with transplants, many of them trafficked from the former Soviet Union countries. The kidney sellers captured in the Turkish shootout, however, were two Palestinians, Omar Abu Gaber, age 42, and Zaheda Mahammid, age 26. The organ recipients were an Israeli man of 68, Zeev Vigdor, and a younger South African man, John Richard Halford, who were filmed on Turkish TV being carried out of the operating room on stretchers and taken to another hospital before being returned home, without the transplants they had so desired.

After his release from a German prison in 2007, Peri returned to Israel, where he was investigated for tax fraud,5 detained, but released because Israel’s organ-transplant laws were murky with respect to the legality of “brokering” overseas transplants using paid donors. In 2008, two new laws were passed by the Israeli Parliament (Knesset): one that paved the way for applying brain death criteria that would satisfy the ultraorthodox, and the other that outlaws buying, selling and brokering organs for transplant.6 The Ministry of Health no longer reimburses overseas transplants unless they are legal. Peri continues to organize transplant tours, but today, he claims, using only deceased donor organs and legal pathways.

In its heyday (1997-2007), the Israeli transplant tourism/organ-trafficking network was an ingenious and extremely lucrative multimillion-dollar program that supplied a few thousand Israeli patients and diasporic Jews worldwide with the “fresh” organs and transplants they needed. With Rosenbaum’s arrest, the U.S. media were suddenly interested in the Israeli-based transplant-trafficking scheme, now that there was a proven link to hospitals in New York City.

The NYC Commissioner of Health and the FBI, whom I alerted years earlier about the Rosenbaum transplant gang, had dismissed the information as lacking credibility. How could patients and kidney sellers from two different countries be smuggled into hospitals for illegal transplants? How would they get through the red tape required for any transplant operation? It sounded like an old wives’ tale, an urban legend, or a blood libel against Jewish surgeons and their patients. And that was the worst suspicion of all.

Although the criminal justice system refused to believe the story I gave them, transplant surgeons working in hospitals in the U.S. who had been approached by Ilan Peri and his associates, including Isaac Rosenbaum, knew it to be true and knew that some of their colleagues were complicit in transplant crimes that ranged from violating the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) in the buying and selling organs, to fraud, deception, money laundering, taking bribes, participating in organized crime and human trafficking. The Rosenbaum case, still in preparation, will be the first U.S. federal prosecution of crimes related to organs trafficking.7

The Aftonbladet Story Breaks

Then, in August 2009, another organ-trafficking story broke, one that linked Rosenbaum’s U.S.-Israel organ-brokering and money-laundering schemes with much older allegations of organ-and-tissue stealing from the bodies of Palestinian “terrorists” and stone throwers’ following autopsy at Israel’s National Forensic Institute in Abu Kabir, a neighborhood of Tel Aviv. These allegations, dating back to the early 1990s, were recycled by a Swedish journalist Donald Boström in a left-leaning Swedish tabloid, Aftonbladet, on August 17, 2009.8

Headlined “Our Sons Plundered for Their Organs,” Boström’s feature story was a mix of organ-theft accusations, seemingly coincidental connections, and political rhetoric. The information was based on Boström’s research in Israel and the Occupied Territories during the first Intifada, and his award-winning book, Inshallah,9 published in 2001, where Bostrom first introduced the allegations of body tampering and organ-and-tissue theft from Palestinian dead brought for autopsy to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute. Boström’s article suggested that Palestinian bodies were being harvested as the “spoils of war.”

The Aftonbladet story, instantly translated into Hebrew and English, created a firestorm of protest that included a libel lawsuit by anti-defamation lawyers in New York City and a boycott of Swedish industries. Boström was labeled an anti-Semite, and the story he “dredged up from the sewer” was labeled a despicable “blood libel” against Israel and the world’s Jews.

I read these news reports with mounting dread. Like Boström, I was once greeted during a research visit to Israel in 2003 with an ugly headline and centerfold ( “New Blood Libel on French TV – Israel Steals Kidneys of Orphan Children in Moldova”) in Makor Rishon, a right-wing tabloid.10 The feature story reviewed an hour-long TV documentary by French filmmaker Catherine Bentellier, Kidneys Worth their Weight in Gold. I had traveled with the filmmaker to Moldova in 2001, where we interviewed people in villages that had been ravaged by organs traffickers targeting young men and trafficking them to Turkey, the Ukraine and Georgia as paid, sometimes coerced, kidney providers to Israeli transplant patients. The “blood libel” accusation featured medieval woodcuts and a blurry photo of me patting the hand of a Moldovan orphan in his crib.

With respect to the Swedish “blood libel” against the National Forensic Institute at Abu Kabir, the main issue that wasn’t raised in the avalanche of articles, editorials, and news columns published in Israel, Europe and the United States was one simple question, “Was the organ theft story true?” And were there any grounds for linking the tissue theft from the dead to the organization of illicit transplant tours for Israeli patients? Were there any grounds for linking the one story with another?

Introducing Dr Yehuda Hiss

I knew the answer. In July 2000, while studying the growth of organized transplant tours run by underworld brokers in Israel, I conducted a formal, audiotaped interview with the director of Israel’s National Forensic Institute, Dr. Yehuda Hiss, at Abu Kabir, in which he openly and freely discussed the “informal” procurement of organs and tissues from the bodies of the dead brought to the Institute for examination and autopsy. Hiss described a kind of “presumed” consent, one invented by him and shared with no one except, by example, with his medical students and residents and interns. He pursued a quiet policy of aggressive tissue, bone, skin, and organ harvesting, purportedly for the greater good of his country, a country at war, and for the good of his countryman. Professor Hiss, viewed by many Israelis and by the New York Times as a hero because of his service to the nation in handling bodies killed by terrorists and suicide bombers, deemed his behavior as patriotic. He was, in his own mind, not so much “above the law,” as representing the law, a much higher law, his law, supremely cool, rational, and scientifically and technically correct. The country was at war, blood was being spilled everyday, soldiers were being burned, and yet Israelis refused to provide tissues and organs needed. So, he would take matters into his own hands.

The taped interview was a smoking gun, but I feared the unintended consequences of making it public. The tape sat, more or less untouched, in my archives for ten years. But now it was necessary to set the record straight. But before I did so, I wanted to give professor Hiss a chance to explain, or even to correct, the things he had admitted to in the 2000 interview. Prior to leaving for a research trip in September-October 2009, accompanied by Dan Rather and his team for a news report on the criminal networks built around organ trafficking in Turkey, Moldova, and Israel, I contacted Yehuda Hiss in Israel (through one of my several Israeli research assistants) requesting a follow-up interview.

The Ministry of Health thwarted his initial acceptance. A private interview in his home was proposed, but Hiss (and his lawyers) wanted to review beforehand any questions I wished to raise. Then the Ministry of Health denied Hiss permission to speak with me at all, under any circumstances. While being interviewed about the effects of the changes in transplant laws and practices, several medical and transplant colleagues in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem often interjected disparaging references to the “despicable blood libel by the Swedish media,” even though they knew full well – and knew that I knew – that tucked inside Boström’s tabloid story was a real medical and political scandal of international proportions. I understood their nervousness about the topic, but not their denial of a known fact that was being manipulated into a global political tool of the Israeli government.

Just before returning to the United States, I met with Meira Weiss, a distinguished anthropologist and former professor at Hebrew University, and Chen Kugel, M.D., a forensic pathologist who had worked side by side with his mentor, Yehuda Hiss, at the Institute. Both Weiss and Dr. Kugel urged me to write a rebuttal to those in Israel who were “crying wolf” and using blood libel accusations to bludgeon their critics into submission. Weiss reminded me of the taped interview, done in 2000, with Dr. Hiss, as she herself had arranged the interview and was present during it, and she was as stunned as I was at the boldness and arrogance of Hiss’ revelations. Chen Kugel, a military officer (reserve) and former forensic pathologist at the Institute, agreed that the truth should be told to the global community, though perhaps not by them. Both had suffered enough. Both had been forced out of their jobs.

My interview with Yehuda Hiss at the Institute had come about in the following circumstances. In July 2000, three years into the Organs Watch project, I was given a file and a photo by an Israeli human rights lawyer, Lynda Brayer, at her organization’s headquarters in Bethlehem. The Society of St. Yves was created to provide legal assistance to Palestinian families, whose relatives had suffered the demolition of their homes, forced removals, and other abuses. The organization was then representing the family of Abdel Karim Abdel Musalmeh, who was shot in the head on November 8, 1995, by IDF snipers. The single bullet that killed Abdel is clearly indicated in the photo, which was part of the autopsy record. A military order for the demolition of Musalmeh’s home in Beit Awa, a village outside of Hebron, preceded his murder by the IDF as a “wanted person on the run.” The lawyers were arguing a case to allow the home to stand, so that Abdel’s widow and their six children would not be homeless. If murder and dispossession were not enough, Musalmeh’s body was returned to his wife in tatters. The autopsy report attributed death by rifle shot to brain. Why, then, was the body subjected to a total dissection and the removal of cornea and skin? I agreed to look into it.

When I first shared this information and the graphic photo with Meira Weiss, she reassured me at that time that there was no organ or tissue harvesting at the Institute. She had witnessed hundreds of autopsies – of Israelis, Arabs, Arab-Israelis, Russian immigrants, foreigners, and Palestinians. While bodies were opened and organs examined, they were returned to the body, except for small tissue samples as needed for forensic examination in the laboratories above the morgue. There were practices Weiss had observed that were not in compliance with international codes of ethics and internal law, the 1975 Helsinki Accords on the use of human subjects.11 There were acts of deviance by certain staff members. Tattoos, for example, were sometimes removed with a knife from the bodies of new immigrants to Israel, mostly Russian and Ukrainian, always suspect of nor being Jewish enough. Tattoos gave them away, and so they were treated with hostility. Penises might be circumcised, postmortem, without the knowledge or consent of relatives. The bodies of Jews and Muslims were treated differently. When Palestinians were brought in, following conflict, they were subjected to a complete autopsy, as required to produce information for the Palestinian Authority. On the other hand, the bodies of Israeli soldiers were respected, and autopsies were often discreet and partial.

Allegations About the Forensic Institute

The National Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir, a Tel Aviv suburb, is Israel’s national depository of dead bodies requiring identification, examination, and autopsy. It serves two purposes, on the one hand, as a scientific institute affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine (Tel Aviv University), through which it operates a state-of-the-art genetics laboratory. On the other hand, the Institute is controlled and closely supervised by the chevra kadisha – the orthodox religious organization has a virtual monopoly on all burials in Israel, except for the military. The Institute is a civil organization working under the Ministry of Health. On the other hand, it is an arm of the security police and the military.

The Institute is then both a traditional medical-legal mortuary and, off the record, Israel’s primary source of tissues, bone, and skin needed for transplantation, plastic surgery, research and medical teaching. The illicit traffic in organs, tissues, bone and the stockpiling of assorted body parts at the Institute is what anthropologists call a public secret, something that every one inside the society knows about but which is never discussed, and certainly never admitted to those outside the society. But, in fact, allegations and official investigations of organ-and-tissue trafficking at the Forensic Institute have been ongoing in Israel since 1999 up to the present day. Yehuda Hiss has been, off and on, the focus of public scrutiny. He has been sued, and he has been decorated. He has been both upbraided and rewarded, fired from his position as director of the Institute, and given a new title, senior pathologist, with a higher salary.

Allegations of Hiss’ confiscation of organs, tissues and other body parts date back to November 1999, with an investigative report in the local Tel Aviv newspaper Ha’ir, which stated that medical students under Hiss’ direction were allowed to practice on bodies sent to the Institute at Abu Kabir for autopsy, and that body parts were transferred for transplant and other medical uses without permission from the families concerned. In 2000, the newspaper Yediot Aharonot published a price list for body parts that Hiss had sold to university researchers and to medical schools. A committee of international forensic experts was appointed by the Minister of Health to investigate practices at the Institute. It took two years for the investigation to be completed, during which time, according to Hiss’ former assistant and protégé, Chen Kugel, much of the evidence was destroyed. Nonetheless, according to Kugel, Hiss still had a huge collection of body parts in his possession at Abu Kabir, when the Israeli courts ordered a search in 2002. Israel National News reported at the time, “Over the past years, heads of the Institute appear to have given thousands of organs for research without permission, while maintaining a ‘storehouse’ of organs at Abu Kabir.” Hiss was reprimanded but allowed to continue his activities, which he defended as necessary for medicine, for the defense of the Israeli state, and for the advancement of science.

In 2005, new allegations of organs trafficking at Abu Kabir surfaced, and Hiss admitted to having removed parts from 125 bodies without authorization. Following a plea bargain with the state, the attorney general decided not to press criminal charges, and Hiss was given only a reprimand, and he continues on as chief pathologist at Abu Kabir, that is, the state of Israel’s official head pathologist. Illegal harvesting of bodies was simultaneously prohibited and tolerated. Hiss was, in fact, the state’s answer to the chronic scarcity of tissues and organs. He recognized the need produced by the deep cultural reluctance of families to tamper with the bodies of the dead, which allowed him to cross a line and to do as he pleased with the bodies entrusted to him.

Interviewing Dr Hiss

When I met  professor Yehuda Hiss for the first and, as it turned out, the only time, the pathologist struck me as a formidable, frightening, and brilliant man. A Polish immigrant to Israel, with striking blue eyes, short beard, wiry body, and a tense, hypervigilant and belligerent demeanor, he commands attention. The interview took place on July 21, 2000, in Hiss’ office at the Institute, in the presence of a staff member and Meira Weiss. We were all, I think, shocked by his revelations. Hiss allowed the interview to be audiotaped, but parts of our conversation were off the record, and the tape was turned off at those moments. What follows now is a transcription of the audiotape pared down, some asides deleted.

YH: My name is Yehuda Hiss. I am a forensic specialist. Here we do forensic medicine, as well as anatomical pathology. I do both. The main issue, here, as compared to other countries, is that [in Israel] we have only one [forensic] Institute for the entire country. And it is very conveniently located in the center of Israel, so that the bulk of the population is located very near to us….There are another twenty medical centers in various places, each with its own department of pathology. But very few complete autopsies are performed in Israel.

I began my training in anatomical pathology in 1974, in Sheba (Tel Hashomer). We had only three residents, and we would perform about 850 complete autopsies [each year]. Today, there are 6-8 residents, and the hospital that trains residents in anatomical pathology is three times as big, but residents today perform only 40-50 mostly incomplete autopsies [per year]. So, this is representative of what is going on in the state of Israel. We did 800 per year 25 years ago with fewer residents, and only 40-50 per year today with many more resources. The only place where complete autopsies are conducted in Israel happens to be here.

Now, about the question of harvesting organs – it’s strange. Not only here, in Israel, but elsewhere it all depends on the personal approach of those in charge of pathology or organs harvesting. In my case, when I was a resident in Tel Hashomer – a hospital linked to the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) – we would collaborate with the army and we would provide the army with grafted (harvested) skin for burn victims, and, from time to time, they would ask us for cornea. So, I would be involved in it because I was in charge, with two others, and we would provide this.

NS-H: Why cornea to the military?

YH: For injuries perhaps. Maybe it was easier [for the military] to make this request of us, and, once we had gotten permissions to perform – and the family agreed – to the autopsy, we would take some skin and take the cornea. For autopsy, we always had to ask permission of the family, unless it was a court order [a criminal case].

NS-H: There is some resistance here, in Israel, to autopsy – both Jewish and Arab – right?

YH: Yes. We did everything off the record, highly informal. We never asked for the families’ permission.

Then we started harvesting cornea for several Israeli hospitals, initially for Tel Hashomer, because I had friends there who knew me well. I suggested this to them at various meetings. I was amazed because no one had ever come to us to ask. Why are you not coming over to us? I told them how it worked at Case Western Reserve Hospital [in Cleveland]. So, then they started to come from hospitals in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Everything was done on a friendly basis between us and our colleagues in various departments. I felt strongly that these corneas should go to public patients and not to private clinics. We were not paid for harvesting, but we weregiven some donations, equipment that we needed.

Whatever was done here was off the record, highly informal. We never asked permission of the family. But we would harvest only from bodies that the family agreed to allow an autopsy. So, we would never harvest where there were objections to the autopsy.

NS-H: The law allows this?

YH: The law demands permissions for autopsy, but not for harvesting. I read this in the law books….There was an addendum to the law in 1981, that you should ask the permission of the family – for autopsy…. We were free to take skin from the back of legs. We took cornea. We would not take cornea from those bodies where we suspected that the families might want to open the eyelids. There are some Orthodox and some Oriental [Arab] families who open the eyelids and throw sand on top of them. We knew whom to avoid. Also we only removed the cornea, not as we did in Teleshemer [hospital], the whole eyeball. And we would close and glue the eyelids, and we would cover any place where we had removed something. And, similarly, we would take [skin] only from the back of the legs. In the beginning of the 1990s, we began to take some long bones from the legs. Then we were asked for cardiac valves, and we did a few of them, because of the lack of collaboration between us and major thoracic departments. Then, beginning in 1995, we started to do it more formally. It was done according to a certain list of priorities, established by various medical centers and specific departments. It was done as a kind of semi-legal thing. At that point, we would inform the Ministry of Health. Before that time [1995], it was only between me/the Institute and the various departments and medical centers – informally. Later, we decided that it should be done through the Ministry of Health.

NS-H: Your chief is the Minister of Health, but you were free to do quite a lot without any interference from them?

YH: Yes, correct, but there are things that really should be done with some instruction and through the Ministry of Health. It was unclear for many years.

NS-H: In some countries of Latin America, the IMF [Forensic Institutes] is under the jurisdiction of the police, but in others, like Cuba, it is under the Ministry of Health. In the old South Africa, it was under the military police – and here?

YH: Independence is very important. This institution was established in 1954 under the auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Then, in the early 1970s, it came under the police department. Then, in 1975 or ’76, it came under the Ministry of Health. We are now part of the Ministry of Health, and the director-general of the ministry is our boss, but we are actually completely independent. Until a few years ago, all medical centers were under the Ministry of Health, but in the late 1990s they have become independent. There are only a few still directly under the Ministry of Health. Since then, they are more interested in what we are doing here and in our capacities [to harvest tissues], and so we now get more demands and we feel that it should be regulated. We want to be on record, too, for the various costs that are involved in the harvesting of skin and cornea, bones, pulmonary values and so forth… . But until then, this was just between us and the various hospitals that we serviced, but we wanted there to be some control over this.

NS-H: How were the prices set?

YH: In 1996, we made up a list of the various medical services that we provided, a list of hundreds or thousands of shekels – there were expenses that we wanted to recoup. We would collaborate only with public hospitals. On one occasion, about ten years ago, there was a case of a head of a department who used one or two corneas donated to the hospital from a pathology Institute – and he used them for his private patients. This is the only case known to me – where tissue donated for general use was used privately. Since 1998, because of popular pressure, there was a sharp decline in autopsies, and we were made to ask permission of all families for autopsy and for harvesting, or for dissection, or for training of military medical students. It was all because a man went to the newspapers just recently to scream that his son, who died in military service, was used for medical experimentation and medical training. And a furor resulted in the country and permissions for autopsies declined. Since then – about two years ago [1998] – we were told to ask permission for everything. [This is a reference to the late Sergeant Zeev Buzaglo of the Golani Brigade, who was killed in a training accident in April 1997. When his father, Dr. Haim Buzaglo, a pediatrician, came to see his son’s body, he saw that it had been harmed at the Institute – NS-H].

NS-H: Why [is] the military [involved in this]?

YH: There is a special relationship between the Institute and the army because of the current political situation in Israel. All Israelis feel that we all have an obligation to help out in some way, and because we all served in the army, we all have a personal stake in the army ever after. We are all linked to the army. And because of this, we took it for granted. We never asked. We thought it was part of the duty of all Israelis to cooperate.

YH [pointing out data from his files]: Look, here is the data. Since January–April we received here 705 bodies. Of these, 500 were not suitable for harvesting. Either the bodies were too decomposed, or because of infections. Only 175 were adequate for harvesting. We called all of them, and 98 refused. Twelve we could not locate the next of kin. Only 65 out of them agreed. So, I would say we have an acceptance rate of less than one-third.

When we cannot find the next of kin, we do not harvest by law. Originally, the law required only that we inform the family that harvesting is going to take place. Now, we not only inform, we have to ask them for permission. So, because of this one bad incident, the backlash is overriding the Parliament and the law of the land.

[Here NS-H explains how in some states in the U.S. there is “presumed” consent for cornea harvesting, as in California, but most people were totally unaware that it was going on. The law was more or less kept a secret.]

YH: Yes, this was our policy for many years, and then one case, one bad scandal, and it is all over for us. Now, young military medical personnel no longer can get the training they need and, when they are sent to Lebanon or to the Palestinian territories – and there are injuries, they have to intervene without proper training, so that they are actually experimenting on living soldiers. That is what all this has brought us. No previous experience, no training whatsoever with the human body. They have to practice [surgery] on dogs – but never on humans! This is an absurdity! I would not want anyone to perform a tracheotomy or colostomy on me without any previous experience or training. Would you? Today, they do virtual training on computerized bodies and so on, but it’s not the same thing.

NS-H: So, no biotech firms that want your material?

YH: In Israel, 100 per cent of the skin harvested goes to Hadassah Hospital’s skin bank – it is for military purposes only – no biotech firms have access. There is another skin bank in the south of the country, to which the Institute is not linked – but I know that if something happens – if one of the burn centers need skin for a private patient, say, they can take skin from the Hadassah skin bank, but they have to repay it. Logistically, we are only linked to Hadassah.

Since six months ago, we have a new man working with us downstairs, who is a kind of mortuary assistant, and he is harvesting skin, bones, cornea, and bones. Before him, there was only an arrangement with the army – they used to send us here every week a plastic surgeon, who would come here to harvest skin for the skin bank in Hadassah. This lasted for many years. More than 12 or 13 years he did this. Since 1987-1988, every other week, a plastic surgeon would come here to harvest skin. But now we no longer have this direct relationship with the army since this latest scandal. Now, we have our own mortuary assistant, who is paid to harvest for us all the skin, bone, cornea, etc., that is needed. He helps out in other activities as well.

NS-H: When you ask permission, do some say you can take this and not that organ?

YH: Some say do not touch the heart or the brain – some are afraid you might want to take the skin. But it is not like you are skinning a rabbit or something, and we say, no, it is not like that – it is gentle, there is no blood – we are not peeling the skin off. It is not like scalping a person. We take only a superficial layer off – from the back and the legs. And we tell them, too, that we are only taking the thin tissue [from the eye] and not the globe.

In order to fulfill both Jewish and Muslim laws about the disposal of the dead, everything is done immediately. We start working here at about 6 in the morning. By 7 a.m., we have the whole list of all the bodies that are going to be coming in that day. Only some of these are going to be autopsied. And then this person here draws up a list about what will be done to whom. And then we are on the phone.

NS-H: Are there special techniques for how to present this request to people?

Staff member: We have to know how to read people.

YH: – Yes, but this is not for me. From the very beginning, I said, “Please free me from this! I cannot possibly talk to people about these things.” I am not patient like this.

Staff member: He loves the dead. But not the living! [Laughter]

YH: Yes, I switched to forensics from clinical medicine because I wanted the patients to shut up already! So, we say that X will do it – but she is too busy – and, really, we need a social worker to do this …

NS-H: Any other body parts taken – like pituitary glands?

YH: When I was a medical resident, we would take pituitary glands. Today, we have chemical substitutes, but when I was a resident, I used to rush to the refrigerator to deposit pituitary glands in a bottle with water. I would collect them – sure, of course! Also, tiny bones from inside the ear – these are very good for some surgical procedures. We would do this about twice a year.

NS-H: Some of these small bones were used for training NASA astronauts for space travel, and its effects on balance? And what about transnational sales?

YH: You can buy cornea from Russia for $300 each, I think…. In Moscow, you can get a kidney for $20,000 and cornea for a few dollars, because they really don’t care… At  every autopsy, they take what they want, and they have a tremendous stockpile of organs that they can draw on. They have skin and cornea. In some large medical centers in Russia, you can get fresh kidney that they get from auto accidents – and in Turkey as well. So, in both places you can get transplanted organs for just $20,000 – including the kidney – because they have a stockpile of them. I know because I was part of a transplant procurement organization, and we studied this. It is very cheap. It is well done by very good surgeons there. In fact, there is a surplus of kidneys in Russia. They have surplus because fewer people there can afford transplants.

NS-H: There is some doubt about whether Russia was using the international standards for determining brain death.

YH: Yes, sometimes our surgeons would accompany our Israeli patients to Russia, and they would perform the surgery there and the kidney was from a Russian. The surgery would be performed by Israeli doctors in Russia, with Russian kidneys. Some are leading transplant surgeons from Israel…

NS-H: Yes, transplant tourism, some of this has been reported in the newspapers.

YH: Right. They would go once a month for a few days and would perform five or six surgeries there, and the patient would come back here to recuperate.

NS-H: The UCSF medical ethics board decided that if people who want to break the law and travel to China or the Philippines to be transplanted, then we will not provide you with follow-up care – you can go to a private institution.

YH: Many things in Israel are done on a personal basis and through connections… I think that in Israel everything should be as equitable as possible. One should not have to depend on connections or money. If advertising and the media would only persuade the Israeli population to donate organs from deceased victims from trauma… [ and even though there is nothing in Talmudic law against organ harvesting from the dead], a religious family will find a rabbi who will agree with them. I try to tell them how important it is to donate, and they will say, “I need to discuss this with my rabbi” – and nine times out of ten they come back with a negative answer. That is, the answer that they want….

Dr Chen Kugel, Whistleblower

As can be seen from the transcript, Hiss readily admitted to the non-consensual, informal tissue, skin, bone and organ harvesting to serve the needs of the country. Until he arrived in 1987 as chief pathologist at the Forensic Institute, there was no organ or tissue harvesting. He explained to his staff that this practice was common elsewhere in the world, in the U.S., at Case Western Reserve, where he had studied, and in other forensic Institutes he had visited. It was a “presumed consent” without the backing of the population, or the law. Although it was in violation of tissue and organs laws, Hiss thought it could be justified for a war-torn and traumatized country like Israel. Hiss admitted that the organs-and-tissue harvesting was “informal” and its legality unclear. From his perspective as a state pathologist, little harm was done by the careful removal of some organs that would never be missed by the deceased and about which the family would never have to know. Medical students in military training were brought into the morgue after Hiss and his team completed their legally mandated autopsies, to be trained in the removal of organs.

After my tape was released in Israel, on December 19, 2009, to Israeli TV’s Channel 2, government officials for the army and the Ministry of Health admitted that organs and tissues were harvested from the dead bodies of both Palestinians and Israelis throughout the 1990s, but that the practice ended in 2000. Dr. Hiss, however, publicly denied everything on tape – including his words to me. Today, he says that he denies it all – the stockpiling of body parts, the perjury, and the organ harvesting. He denies everything. He says that everything was all done in agreement with and by law, and that families consented to harvest for transplantation. No organs were taken for studies, he said, none at all.

In May 2010, Dr. Chen Kugel and Meira Weiss spoke at a special conference I organized at the University of California, before a working group of experts, including anthropologists, transplant surgeons, pathologists, detectives, prosecutors, and human rights activists.

Chen Kugel, the unheralded and original (unnamed outside of Israel) whistle-blower on the Forensic Institute, said that the situation was much worse than what Yehuda Hiss admitted in his interview with me in 2000. Kugel’s comments stand as a first-person account from a military officer and a forensic pathologist. When he returned to Israel to work at the Forensic Institute in 2000, after several years in the United States, where he was working in various hospitals and forensic programs, he says he immediately realized that something was terribly wrong. He tried to address the problems with three medical residents, and with them together to have a meeting with the director. Kugel was the spokesperson, and he told Hiss that it was wrong to harvest organs and tissues without permission, and that “giving false evidence in court is also not okay.” This went nowhere, and so the group wrote a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Health, outlining the illegalities. The Ministry of Health reacted with alacrity: they fired the three residents and punished Kugel, who, as a military officer working for the IDF, could not be fired. Then they went to the media and spilled the entire story about what exactly was going on.

Kugel: “Organs were sold to anyone”

In fact, according to Kugel, “Organs were sold to anyone; anyone that wanted organs just had to pay for them.” While skin, heart valves, bones, and corneas were removed and used for transplants, solid organs – hearts, brains, livers – “were sold for research, for presentations, for drills for medical students and surgeons.”

There was a price for these organs, low – $ 300 for a femur, for example – and should a client want all the organs from a body, that could be arranged, not the body itself, but all the organs removed and sold, Kugel said, for about $2,500.

Amid the uproar prompted by the whistle-blowers, Hiss waged his own media campaign and tried to convince the public that everything that was done was to serve a noble end, to help the war-wounded victims of terrorist attacks, and the sick. He presented his conduct, in Dr. Kugel’s descripton, “as something sublime or even heroic, as a modern-day Robin Hood. Taking from the dead and giving to the innocent victims.”

So, whom were the organs taken from? Kugel asked rhetorically. The answer was they were taken from everyone, from Jews and Muslims, from soldiers and from stone throwers, from terrorists and from the victims of terrorist suicide bombers, from tourists and from immigrants. There were only two considerations – the physical condition of the body and its organs, and the ability to conceal what they were doing.

Most of the victims of illegal organ harvesting, according to Kugel, were not even subject to autopsy, they were simply harvested. They hid the damage by putting pipes and glass eyes, and broom sticks, and toilet paper and plastic skull caps to cover the place where the brain was removed, and so on. The Institute, Kugel said, was counting on one thing: that most Israelis do not view the body after death except once, to verify that the body is the right one. The body is wrapped in a winding sheet, or might be wrapped in plastic sheets for the burial company to come for it. In that case, the staff would warn the burial employees, who were not well educated, not to open the sheet because the body was contaminated with an infectious disease. It was more difficult to take organs from soldiers because their bodies were supervised by the military, which was more difficult to fool. “But organs were taken from soldiers,” Kugel said. It was easier to take tissues and organs from the new immigrants, and, needless to say, easiest of all to take from the Palestinians. They would be going back across the border, and, “if there were any complaints coming from their families, they were the enemy and so, of course, they were lying and no one would believe them”.

What Kugel found most amazing was the uproar around the Boström article, when there was abundant detail in the Israeli press about the Institute whose affairs were discussed heatedly by commissions, finding blatant evidence of illegalities despite the attempts to destroy all the evidence. After these things were exposed, it took two years for the judge, or the head of the special inquest, to decide whether or not Hiss should be sued. Then, it took the police two years to begin a serious investigation. The end result was that Hiss was removed as director of the Institute but, as previously noted, retained as senior pathologist and given a salary increase. Kugel was dismissed from his post because, during the investigation, he spoke with one of the witnesses who had buried evidence – human body parts – and thus was seen as interfering with the trial. He was censored and blacklisted from teaching at all but one of Israel’s universities.  To Dr. Kugel the prime issue had nothing at all to do with science: it was about disrespect, about hoarding body specimens, about turning the Institute into a factory of bodies. The Institute’s conduct was motivated by money, by power, and by authoritarian paternalism of the sort that says, “We know what’s good for you, we’ll decide what happens to you, the person who doesn’t know anything. We’ll decide.” And that’s the reason why that happened, and Dr. Kugel asserts it is happening to this day.

Questions About Rachel Corrie’s Autopsy

On March 14, 2010, the Haifa District Court heard testimony in the civil law suit filed by the family of the slain U.S. citizen and Gaza peace activist, Rachel Corrie, against the State of Israel for her unlawful killing in Rafah, Gaza. Corrie, an American college student and human rights activist, was crushed to death on March 16, 2003, by a Caterpillar D9R bulldozer. During the hearing, Dr. Hiss, who conducted the autopsy of Rachel Corrie at the request of the Israeli military, admitted that he had violated an Israeli court order that required an official from the U.S. Embassy to be present as a witness. Hiss stated that it was his policy not to allow anyone who is not a physician or a biologist to observe autopsy. Hiss admitted that he had retained samples of tissues and organs from Corrie’s body for examination and testing without informing the Corrie family. Hiss was uncertain about whether the samples had been buried with other body samples from the Institute. Corrie’s parents, Cindy and Craig, were shocked by these chilling admissions and really do not know quite what to make of them or what, if anything, they should do about it. They are seeking, they told me, only the truth and symbolic damages of $1.00. The prevention of harm to others is, they say, far more important than money.

Finally, what links the story of Yehuda Hiss at the National Forensic Institute and Isaac Rosenbaum and the international network of organs traffickers in Israel? Perhaps only the same sad fact that hysteria about organs scarcities – whatever that chilling phrase evokes – have driven both the medical abuses of the dead and the medical abuses of those who were trafficked to service transplant tourists from Israel to New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, among other sites. When Dr. Zaki Shapira began putting out feelers for kidney sellers in the early 1990s to serve the needs of his transplant patients at Bellinson Hospital in Tel Aviv, he found them close at hand, Palestinian guest workers. Palestinians were, he told me in Bellagio in 1996 at a conference on organ trafficking, “pre-disposed” to sacrifice their organs. Or, perhaps, to be sacrificed. It works both ways. CP

Nancy Scheper-Hughes is the author of several books on poverty and health, including Death without Weeping: the Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil – listed by CounterPunch in its top 100 non-fiction books published in English in the 20th Century. She can be reached at:


[1].  N. Mozgovaya, US Professor is whistle blower in Rosenbaum arrest. Haaretz 26 July, 2009.

[2]. M. Daly  Anthropologist’s ‘Dick Tracy moment’ plays role in arrest of suspected kidney trafficker. New York Daily News 24 July 2009.

[3] Nancy Scheper-Hughes,2008,“Illegal Organ Trade: Global Justice and the Traffic in Human Organs” in Living Donor Organ Transplants, edited by Rainer Grussner,M.D. and Enrico Bendetti, MD. New York: McGraw-Hill; N. Scheper-Hughes,2006,“Kidney bKin: Inside the Transatlantic Kidney Trade”, Harvard International Review (winter) 62-65; “N. Scheper-Hughes, (2004) “Parts Unknown: Undercover Ethnography  in the Organ Trafficking Underworld”, Ethnography 5(1): 29-73; N. Scheper-Hughes,2000, The Global Traffic in Organs, Current Anthropology 4192): 191-224

[4] “Israeli doctor said detained in Turkey for illegal organ transplants. Three other Israelis said detained, including 2 alleged kidney donors and a recipient;15 people held.” Haaretz News Service, January 1, 2007.

[5] In several detailed email exchanges (2006-2008) from a  criminal lawyer (name withheld on request)  I learned that the government of Israel decided to pursue the international crimes of transplant surgeons and brokers operating out of Israel by means tax fraud investigations.

[6]” plant/about_adi.html “Knesset approves new organ donation law”, http//,7340,L-3523461,00.html

[7] United States District Court of New Jersey: criminal complaint: United States of America  v. Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, : Mag. No. 09-3620 a/k/a “Issac Rosenbaum”, July 2009

[8]  English translation of  Donald Bostrom’s article  can be found at:

[9]  Donald Boström, 2001.  Inshallah : konflikten mellan Israel och Palestina. Stockholm: Ordfront.

[10] Zeev Galilee, 2003.  First Source (Makor Rishon) –“Pangs of Conscience”  (Musar Klayot) New Blood Libel on French Television: Israel Steals Kidneys of Orphan Children in Moldavia, 24 October 2003.

[11] Meira Weiss, personal communication and paper read at Organs Watch conference combating traffic in organs and tissues, UCBerkeley,  May 7, 2010.

For an audio link for the Hiss interview go to nhnotes.html.

Source: Counterpunch


The Sick Promotion of Gender Identity Disorder as Hip and Cool

Actual Californian restroom sign.

Actual Californian restroom sign.

Apparently, we are not allowed to point out things which are obviously completely insane anymore.

The “conservative” media in America is incredibly weak, but one thing they seem to still be able to attack, though weakly, is the homosexualist agenda.

I was happy to see Fox News recently did a piece on the insanity of telling children they can decide which gender they wish to be.

From it:

As of January 1, students in California public schools have been able to choose whether to use the boys’ rest room or girls’ rest room, as well as the girls’ locker room or boys’ locker room, based on whether they feel female or male, not whether they are anatomically female or male.

That’s right: Governor Jerry Brown, of California, signed a bill that took effect January 1 that tells kids from kindergarten on that they should decide what they believe their gender identity is and act, accordingly.

The legislation also allows students to choose their sports teams based on whether they sense they are boys or girls, not whether they were born male or born female.

I know that other psychiatrists may well disagree, and I know that LGBT activists will criticize me, but I believe that allowing this “choice” is profoundly destructive, psychologically, to all students, including the ones who identify themselves as transgender.

The mere fact that teachers and administrators will have to explain to kindergarten and first-grade students that they might see girls in the boys’ restroom, or boys in the girls’ locker room, but that those really aren’t kids of the gender they appear to be, could (and, here, data is sorely lacking) do harm to their own developing sense of self by suggesting to them that their gender is fluid, that it well might change for them, too, and that they should be on the lookout for signs that they want to switch.

That’s correct, and I expect to continue getting death threats and calls for me to be fired from my academic teaching position for saying so (because I have endured both):  I believe that children have enough to deal with as they struggle to feel comfortable with their bodies, with the notion of privacy and with later changes involving puberty without urging them to grapple with the notion that their souls may have been born into the wrong bodies.

What’s more, I don’t believe we have definitive data (although many psychiatrists with very impressive credentials, who seem to mean well, assert that we do) that any male or female soul has ever in the history of the world been born into the wrong anatomic gender.

Let me put that more clearly:  I am not convinced by any science I can find that people with definitively male DNA and definitively male anatomy can actually be locked in a cruel joke of nature because they are actually female.

And I believe that telling third-grade or seventh-grade or tenth-grade children, adolescents or teenagers that this issue is settled to such an extent that they should feel comfortable with females walking in and seeing them urinating or pulling their pants down to change into football gear is a lie that can steal their ability to trust adults, shake their faith in any form of reality, traumatize them by shaming them and kindle waves of completely unnecessary anxiety related to whether they should be doing some sort of emotional inventory to determine whether they’re really going to turn into men, once and for all, or find out they’ve been suppressing the truth that they’re actually women.

I don’t see anything but toxicity from the notion of a person with female anatomy feeling free to use the urinal in the boys’ rest room while a boy stands next to her and uses one, too.

How exactly does a female use a urinal?

Wait, don’t tell me.  I don’t want to know.

The attack on children’s sense of gender is world-wide. These boys in France have been encouraged to wear skirts and make-up for the day. Protesters were physically attacked and called ‘fascists’.

The attack on children’s sense of gender is world-wide. These boys in France have been encouraged to wear skirts and make-up for the day. Protesters were physically attacked and called ‘fascists’.



Another Nail in the Destruction of American Morals and Values

Homosexual Jewess Admits True Purpose of Gay Agenda is to Destroy Marriage

Homosexual Jewess Masha Gessen is unable to see why having 5 different parents is impossible and would like everyone to just pretend that it is possible. For the sake of her perversion and her hatred of all that is natural.

Homosexual Jewess Masha Gessen is unable to see why having 5 different parents is impossible and would like everyone to just pretend that it is possible. For the sake of her perversion and her hatred of all that is natural.

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show last year, she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she said on the radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”



These people are so damaged that they are unable to understand the most basic principle of all life on earth.

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerous examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises the question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension of its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.


From the minds of babes

My 3 and 5 year-old grandsons built their version of the twin towers then surrounded the buildings with castle walls to protect them.  The crowning touch was the the 3 year-old’s idea to put guards around the outer walls.




Jewish Lesbians Give Sex-Changing Hormone Treatments to 11-Year-Old Adopted Gentile Son

WW~Notes:  This article is profanely disgusting about state sanctioned open child abuse in America.  How is it that parent’s can lose custody of their children if they refuse life-threatening cancer treatments or dangerous mercury laden vaccinations, but the “chosen tribe” can literally change the gender of an adopted child and no one in the government or media bats and eyelash?  Does this finally open a few eyes to what the rest of us are up against knowing what the criminal paedophilic enemy can do without impunity.  

In what is doubtlessly the most sickening and infuriating instance of this new cultural drive toward mass numbers of people mutilating themselves as a result of untreated gender identity disorder, a pair of Jewish lesbians in Berkeley have decided to give their handicapped 11-year-old White son they ‘adopted’ (read: kidnapped with state sanction) hormone treatment to prevent him from going through puberty, supposedly making it easier for him to have sex-change surgery later in life.

This is yet more outright proof that homosexual adoption is insane, and that homosexuals only seek to adopt children because they desire to abuse them.

We all remember the gay couple that bought the Russian baby so they could rape him, right? And we remember how the media celebrated it as so fantastic, these loving parents with their beautiful son, and then was so confused when it turned out they bought the baby on the black market in Russia just to rape him, prostitute him and make videos of the acts?

We’ve got the same thing happening here with two pervert Jewesses, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, raping a poor disabled child of his innocence and manipulating him into a sick and deranged mutilation of his body that there is simply no way he will ever recover from. I would also be less than shocked to find out they were sexually abusing the boy, or letting males from the California Jewish homosexual community do this.

Clearly, even if the boy was not pressured in this direction by his militant Jewish lesbian “parents” – if you imagine that he wasn’t, I’ve got a bridge you might want to make me an offer on – a boy growing up with two mentally ill mothers is going to be psychologically damaged in a horrible fashion.

The Jewesses claim that the first thing Thomas, who they now call ‘Tammy’ and refer to with female pronouns, did when he learned sign language (which is his main form of communication, due to a speech impediment) was tell them that he was a girl – well, it makes sense that this would be the case, if all he was exposed to for the year since he was adopted by the criminal perverts at age two was man-hating lesbianism, right?

They claim that at age seven he threatened to mutilate his own genitals – does that sound like something that would happen in real life, in a normal, healthy family? A seven-year-old threatening to cut off his penis because he didn’t want to be a boy? On the basis of this claim (which could either be made up or not), the Jewesses began ‘transitioning’ the boy.

A couple months ago, he began hormone treatment that will keep him from going through puberty naturally, as the Jewesses claim that this will help him with the sex change, and if they don’t do it he’ll kill himself. A “hormone suppressant” has been implanted in his arm, and will keep him from growing facial hair, keep his shoulders narrow and keep his voice from changing. It will also keep him from growing.

Before and after Thomas' full indoctrination into homosexuality by the California Jews.

Before and after Thomas’ full indoctrination into gender identity disorder by homosexual California Jews.

The Jewesses, who were married by a Rabbi in 1990, cited their religious community as being instrumental in cheering for their decision to ‘transition’ the helpless White European child. Moreno said, “‘We live in the Bay area where lots of alternative lifestyles are in place… and we belong to a religious community that was incredibly supportive. They make it a point when we’re in synagogue to come over and tell Tammy, “Oh, you look so pretty today.”‘

Here is a picture from CNN, provided by Pauline Moreno, where you can see Thomas, still a boy at the time, with a man’s arm around him:

Thomas, still a boy, looking scared, with a man's arm around him.

Thomas, still a boy, looking scared, with a man’s arm around him.

I wonder if this could be the arm of a man from the Jewish homosexual community? I wonder what sort of relationship this man had with the boy?

How is This Legal?

We must now ask: why on earth this is legal? Clearly, an eleven-year-old boy is not capable of making a decision about something as monumental and life-altering as this. Why does the state not step in?

It seems that that before the gay rights movement, there was no existing law to deal with this sort of thing because it wasn’t scientifically possible and no one had ever imagined anything as sick as this. Surely, the government cannot now question these homosexuals and their agenda, so, as there are no laws presently in existence about using hormone treatment to mutilate children, these lesbians which the state has assisted in kidnapping this boy are allowed to do anything they want to him.

In their interview with the Daily Mail, the parents repeatedly cited an alleged risk of suicide if they did not do this to the boy, and I suppose if this was taken to the corrupt, Jew-run court system of America today, they would have Jewish psychologists come in and say the same, and the mutilation of this poor kidnapped child would be given the blessing of the state.

This has to stop. Homosexuality is not simply a war against nature, it is a war against the innocence of children – and there is nothing more sickening and wrong than that.

May God help have mercy on our souls for allowing such evil to happen in our society.


Note: If you’re so inclined visit the source link because I refuse to place the jewess child abusers on my blog.