The Hill is a purveyor of propaganda, not news

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2017-05-14 16:05


Should The Hill be running articles featuring hate-speech from questionable characters like Chabad Lubavitch rebbe Shmuley Boteach (above)? When is enough enough?

By Carolyn Yeager

THE HILL IS A LONGTIME WASHINGTON FIXTURE WHICH FIRST APPEARED AS A NEWSPAPER in 1994, published by Jerry Finkelstein, now owned by his son Jimmy Finkelstein.  Now online as well as in print, it has specialized in reporting about the doings of Congress.

Having updated its style a few times, The Hill's current control by Zionist forces has become clear as day. This is nothing out of the ordinary for the American news media, of course, but for some reason I had naively thought of The Hill as more independent. Not so, The definite anti-Trump slant has just been too obvious since Trump was actually elected as president.

But there is even more. When a news organization runs opinion pieces promoting the Holocaust for no apparent reason, written by run-of-mill holocaust-promoting rabbis, you know they have a pro-Jewish, even pro-Israel agenda.

This is the case with today's “Opinion Contribution” by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, friend and associate of the late Elie Wiesel, and of course friend of Israel. The title of the article: “Never again? The Holocaust can happen again – and it's up to us to stop it.”

Wow. Really? This is newsworthy for a publication about Congress? Shmuley's justification for this article is his recent experience at the “March of the Living” at Auschwitz, an annual event hosted by Jewish organizations as a purely propaganda event. Jewish youth and their "leaders" are transported to Auschwitz (all expenses paid) in order to march around and get photographed. Nothing of importance occurs, But the publicity-minded Boteach considers it important to relate his 'personal experience' of Auschwitz. Example: “When you visit a place like Birkenau, where the very earth you walk on is soaked in the blood of innocent men, women and children ...”. Notice the influence of Elie Wiesel in his over-the-top language about blood-soaked ground. At least he didn't say he saw the blood spurting up in geysers!

But Boteach's intention with this 'opinion piece' is far more devious than that. It is to condemn Germans – all Germans – for the alleged 'Holocaust of the Jews', just as The Hill's overall editorial intention is to condemn President Trump for everything bad happening in our nation. Listen to Boteach:

As I walked through Auschwitz and saw that all the signs said “Nazi” without mention of the word “Germany,” I felt like I was being subjected to historical revisionism of the worst kind. I felt like museum curators were inadvertently trying to load the blame of the Holocaust upon a foreign screed of devils who somehow made it onto earth. That they were a historical fluke, an exception to humanity’s rule, some sort of once-in-a-historical-lifetime aberration.

Well, that is how the Jews themselves chose to portray it -- that it was a totally unique event in history carried out by uniquely evil individuals called Nazis. Now, Boteach and a few others are making a different argument. Why? My guess: As old Nazis disappear, and new ones don't appear in any numbers remotely to be a concern, they need to come up with a new way of getting Jews to fear another holocaust – because of antisemitism and 'hate', you know.

Boteach is a bit of a rogue element when it comes to the traditional holocaust narrative, as was Elie Wiesel. Remember, it was Wiesel who said: “Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.” So Wiesel and Boteach are on the same page.

Boteach does want us to know that his "World Values Network" will soon announce the creation of a global anti-Genocide Initiative with offices in New York, Jerusalem, and Kigali, Rwanda.  But that is not the purpose of this editorial, which is pure propaganda – the kind of trash he is able to publish in highly-read news outlets online and in print that are part of the dominant Jewish-owned and managed mainstream media. Here are some more excerpts from this article (which can and should be challenged for factual accuracy):

So let’s say it as it is: the Holocaust wasn’t a crime perpetrated by just the Nazis, a political party, but one supported and therefore committed by the German people as a collective.

This is not to say that Germans today are culpable for the actions of their forbearers. Judaism has never preached vertical accountability, where children must bear the guilt of their ancestors (18 Ezekiel says most emphatically they do not). But what we do demand is horizontal accountability, where if an entire nation elects, supports and executes the orders of a murderous government like that of the Nazis — especially when they do so enthusiastically — then they must own the crime.

What Boteach and company [A Chabad Lubavich rebbe and founder of the L'Chaim Society at Oxford] want to accomplish with this little nugget is to dictate for whom free and sovereign people can vote. The Jews and other minorities (allegedly) will be judges of whether they are criminals or not!

And, of course, it certainly comes to mind how this 'horizontal accountability" applies to the murderous regimes in Israel's short history, including the one now in power.

Sure, Hitler didn't campaign on promises of a Holocaust, but as the Nuremberg Laws had shown, his outspoken hatred of the Jews and his willingness to act upon his virulent anti-Semitism was abundantly clear. Worst of all, once Hitler did begin to perpetrate unprecedented atrocities, the German people, by and large, stood fervently by his side.

This is why the German people stood by their leader? Because they loved atrocities? No. It was because they knew or believed Hitler was acting in their interests, against the hatred of Jews like Boteach who wanted to destroy them. Yet, this is the kind of hate that the editors of The Hill are willing to publish, because it comes from a Jew. The article also contains two embedded videos, both very old and outdated, about SS “death camps” – just in case you don't hate Germans enough.

There is no better evidence of Jewish Privilege, or what I call “Special Treatment for Jews'” than this page. Can you imagine a member of the Christian clergy authoring an article on how Jews have plundered the wealth of Americans especially since the 1970's, and added a couple of videos explaining how that was done? Would The Hill publish that as a Contributor's offering? No, and you know why – because it would offend the Jews!

Boycott The Hill – and continue to do so until they change their anti-White, anti-Trump policies. Let them know why. Unfortunately, they don't publish Letters online or even provide a real way to contact them. I tried to do it once, but never got a response from them. Perhaps they never even saw it. We need to encourage independent, non-partial news sites that just report the news without trying to influence how the reader/viewer thinks. Right now I don't know of a single one.


Carolyn, thanks for your viewpoint, insight and reportage on "The Hill."
Reading your article, I was trying to recall when was the last time I tapped into The Hill website and why.  I checked my emails, and realized almost every day I receive President Trump's White House Memo entitled "The 1600 Daily" and frequently, under the section known as News Reports, there is always attached a favorable article on Trump or Pence reported about them by The Hill!  
Before receiving these emails from the White House, I had never heard of The Hill.  And, honestly, I don't always read the White House Memo, especially since the attack on Syria.
However, to illustrate my point, here's an article by The Hill on Pence and announced by 1600 Daily on May 1st entitled:  "Pence christens USS Indiana attack submarine."  Here's another by The Hill on May 9th entitled:  "Trump tax plan 'will spark an economic boom."  From April 25, the 1600 Daily White House Memo announced that The Hill reported: ""Trump calls NASA astronaut to congratulate her on space record."
So, for me, it's strange that the White House Memo or what is called 1600 Daily publishes articles from The Hill when The Hill speaks favorably or neutrally about the Trump administration, but because of reading your article, I realize that it's a cherry-picking process, and the White House Memo does not regularly report what The Hill is saying about President Trump but reports on when The Hill writes something favorable to the administration.
From the White House Memo I received the impression that The Hill is a good adjunct to the White House Memo if a Trump supporter wanted to learn more about what the Trump Administration is doing.  But your article corrects and adjusts that superficial impression.

The Hill has a category called "Contributors". Maybe one out of three or four is favorable to Trump. The second title you mentioned was probably under that category.

As an example of the irrelevance of much of what they publish, The Hill runs regular stories about what MSNBC hosts of the "Morning Joe" show say about Trump, as if that is legitimate news. Here's a typical one from this morning:

Another online news outlet that I avoid ike the plague is Business Insider, which is relatively new. They're also good at headline writing and pull people in with their intriguing headlines, but they have so many planted stories. I had come across a few holocaust horror story re-runs there before I looked into who they were and quit answering to their siren call. Yes, it's a fake news jungle out there.

Carolyn, I read the snide, gossipy article from The Hill your comment linked to as to what MSNBC reported about what Kelly Conway said about President Trump, and it was really a tawdry, sensationalized, lying and snide hit piece on the President and on Conway through and through.  That article was written by John Bowden who is the "Social Media Curator" at The Hill.
I also looked up the names and reputations of several of the other writers who write for The Hill and who give neutral or positive reportage on President Trump, and out of the eight articles I researched that the White House Memo 1600 Daily links to at The Hill, only one was written by a Contributor to the Hill.  All of the other seven writers are regular writers or staff writers for the Hill and even have Linked-In profiles stating that they are currently employed at The Hill.  
Naomi Jagoda is a Tax Reporter on The Hill, and Jordan Fabian is the White House Correspondent on The Hill.  Cristina Marcos, who wrote at least one favorable article on the Trump administration for The Hill, is a Staff Reporter, and other regular writers reporting from The Hill and the White House Memo affirms are Mallory Shelbourne, Rebecca Savransky, Peter Sullivan and Scott Wong.  
The one actual Contributor I found in my random search was Thomas Donahue.  
The variance between, say, the seedy and snide article at The Hill written by John Bowden and the decent and fair-minded reportage coming from the writers I just mentioned show a kind of inconsistency or disequilibrium I've not quite recognised before in any other news forum.

i thought this fellow was a Moslem--sure looks like one.

Thanks for your continued struggle with the purveyors of the great lie.  While pretending to be seekers of justice they spread their hate as part of their own identity.   This recalls for me the article in your archives Hostility Towards Germany by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage.  Everyone should read it in order to understand the continued hatred Jews have for history and anything German.  They (Jews) feed off their own hate while accusing others of being what they themselves are, deniers of history.  And like Samson they are willing to pull the whole artifice down rather than get along and love one another.  Thus they sin against God and man bearing false witness about both.   If there is a God, a reckoning, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.