Category Archives: In The Public Interest

The Last Battle pt 1

Share

Europa – The Last Battle [PART 1]

Communism was not created by the masses to overthrow the bankers, Communism was created by the bankers to overthrow and enslave the masses. “You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians.

Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. The October Revolution was not what you call in America the “Russian Revolution.” It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people. More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.

It cannot be understated. Bolshevism was the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant of this reality is proof that the global media itself is in the hands of the perpetrators. “We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But: without Jews there would have been no Bolshevism.

For a Jew nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood maddened Jewish terrorists murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008), Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, historian and victim of Jewish Bolshevism.

Share

Who Wrote The Balfour Declaration And Why: The World War I Connection

Share

Evidence shows that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter World War I on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

By Alison Weir (L-R) Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, with Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, in Palestine, 1919. The two were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration, a British document that many feel was a critical step in the establishment of Israel. Zionists’ promise that they would get the U.S. to join Britain in “the Great War” was the enticement.

(L-R) Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, with Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice, in Palestine, 1919. The two were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration, a British document that many feel was a critical step in the establishment of Israel. Zionists’ promise that they would get the U.S. to join Britain in “the Great War” was the enticement.

Most analysts consider WWI a pointless conflict that resulted from diplomatic entanglements rather than some travesty of justice or aggression. Yet, it was catastrophic to a generation of Europeans, killing 14 million people.[i]

The United States joined this unnecessary war a few years into the hostilities, costing many American lives, even though the U.S. was not party to the alliances that had drawn other nations into the fray. This even though Americans had been strongly opposed to entering the war and Woodrow Wilson had won the presidency with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”[ii]

President Wilson changed course in 1917 and plunged the U.S. into that tragic European conflict. Approximately 320,000 Americans were killed or injured.[iii] Over 1,200 American citizens who opposed the war were rounded up and imprisoned, some for years.[iv]

A number or reasons were publicly given for Wilson‘s change of heart, including Germany‘s submarine warfare, Germany’s sinking of the British passenger ship Lusitania,[v] and a diplomatic debacle known as the Zimmerman Telegram episode.[vi] Historians also add pro-British propaganda and economic reasons to the list of causes, and most suggest that a number of factors were at play.

While Americans today are aware of many of these facts, few know that Zionism appears to have been one of those factors.  [Zionism was a political movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine. When this movement began, in the late 1800s, the population of Palestine was 96 percent Muslim and Christian. The large majority of Jews around the world were not Zionists.]

Diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

From the very beginning of their movement, Zionists realized that if they were to succeed in their goal of creating a Jewish state on land that was already inhabited by non-Jews, they needed backing from one of the “great powers.”[vii] They tried the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine at the time, but were turned down (although they were told that Jews could settle throughout other parts of the Ottoman empire and become Turkish citizens).[viii]

They then turned to Britain, which was also initially less than enthusiastic. Famous English Middle East experts such as Gertrude Bell pointed out that Palestine was Arab and that Jerusalem was sacred to all three major monotheistic faiths.[ix]

Future British Foreign Minister Lord George Curzon similarly stated that Palestine was already inhabited by half a million Arabs who would “not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter.”[x]

However, once the British were embroiled in World War I, and particularly during 1916, a disastrous year for the Allies in which there were 60,000 British casualties in one day alone,[xi]Zionists were able to play a winning card. While they previously had appealed to religious or idealistic arguments, now Zionist leaders could add a particularly powerful motivator: telling the British government that Zionists in the U.S. would push America to enter the war on the side of the British, if the British promised to support a Jewish home in Palestine afterward.[xii]

British soldiers, Battle of the Somme. British suffered 60,000 casualties in the first day of the battle.

British soldiers, Battle of the Somme. British suffered 60,000 casualties in the first day of the battle.

In 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour issued a letter to Zionist leader Lord Rothschild. Known as the Balfour Declaration, this letter promised that Britain would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”

The letter then qualified this somewhat by stating that it should be “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The “non-Jewish communities” were 92 percent of Palestine’s population at that time,[xiii] vigorous Zionist immigration efforts having slightly expanded the percentage of Jews living in Palestine by then.

The letter, while officially signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, had been in process for two years and had gone through a number of edits by British and American Zionists and British officials.[xiv] As Zionist leader Nahum Sokolow later wrote, “[e]very idea born in London was tested by the Zionist Organization in America, and every suggestion in America received the most careful attention in London.”[xv]

The Balfour Declaration pictured right, with portrait of Arthur James Balfour left.

The Balfour Declaration pictured right, with portrait of Arthur James Balfour left.

Sokolow wrote that British Zionists were helped, “above all, by American Zionists. Between London, New York, and Washington there was constant communication, either by telegraph, or by personal visit, and as a result there was perfect unity among the Zionists of both hemispheres.” Sokolow particularly praised “the beneficent personal influence of the Honourable Louis D. Brandeis, Judge of the Supreme Court.”[xvi]

The final version of the Declaration was actually written by Leopold Amery, a British official who, it came out later, was a secret and fervent Zionist.[xvii]

Horace Kallen, founder of the Parushim, taught at Princeton, University of Wisconsin, and the New School

Horace Kallen, founder of the Parushim, taught at Princeton, University of Wisconsin, and the New School

It appears that the idea for such a declaration had been originally promoted by Parushim founder Horace Kallen. [The Parushim was a secret Zionist society described by professor Sarah Schmidt and U.S. author Peter Grose; for more information and citations see Weir’s book.]

Author Peter Grose reports, “The idea had come to [the British] from an unlikely source. In November 1915, long before the United States was involved in the war, the fertile brain of Horace Kallen… had come up with the idea of an Allied statement supporting in whatever veiled way was deemed necessary, Jewish national rights in Palestine.”

Grose writes that Kallen suggested the idea to a well-connected British friend who would pass the idea along. According to Kallen, such a statement “would give a natural outlet for the spontaneous pro-English, French, and Italian sympathies of the Jewish masses.” Kallen told his friend that this would help break down America’s neutrality, which Kallen knew was the aim of British diplomacy, desperate to bring the U.S. into the war on its side.

Grose writes: “Kallen‘s idea lit a spark of interest in Whitehall.”[xviii]

While the “Balfour Declaration” was a less than ringing endorsement of Zionism, Zionists considered it a major breakthrough, because it cracked open a door that they would later force wider and wider open. In fact, many credit this as a key factor in the creation of Israel.[xix]

These Balfour-WWI negotiations are referred to in various documents.

Samuel Landman, the secretary of the World Zionist Organization, described them in detail in a 1936 article in World Jewry. He explained that a secret “gentleman’s agreement” had been made in 1916 between the British government and Zionist leaders:

After an understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and [Zionists] Weizmann and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and for support in the USA for the Allied cause, so as to bring about a radical pro-Ally tendency in the United States.[xx]

Landman wrote that once the British had agreed to help the Zionists, this information was communicated to the press, which he reported rapidly began to favor the U.S. joining the war on the side of Britain.[xxi]

Landman claimed that Zionists had fulfilled their side of the contract and that it was “Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies,” thus causing the defeat of Germany.[xxii] He went on to state that this had “rankled” in Germany ever since and “contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.”

British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish also wrote about this agreement and its result in a 1923 memorandum to the British Cabinet, stating: “The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world… [and] it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”[xxiii]

British Prime Minister Lloyd George with Leopold Amery, Jan. 1, 1918. (Amery was a secret and fervent Zionist.)

British Prime Minister Lloyd George with Leopold Amery, Jan. 1, 1918. (Amery was a secret and fervent Zionist.)

Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George similarly referred to the deal, telling a British commission in 1935: “Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”[xxiv]

Brandeis University professor and author Frank E. Manuel reported that Lloyd George had testified in 1937 “that stimulating the war effort of American Jews was one of the major motives which, during a harrowing period in the European war, actuated members of the cabinet in finally casting their votes for the Declaration.”[xxv]

American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, also described this arrangement in his book Decision on Palestine. He wrote that the Balfour declaration “…was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers [Britain’s enemies in World War I]”.[xxvi]

The official biographer of Lloyd George, author Malcolm Thomson, stated that the “determining factor” in the decision to issue the Balfour Declaration was the “scheme for engaging by some such concession the support of American Zionists for the allied cause in the first world war.”[xxvii]

Similarly, Zionist historian Naomi Cohen calls the Balfour Declaration a “wartime measure,” and writes: “Its immediate object was to capture Jewish sympathy, especially in the United States, for the Allies and to shore up England’s strategic interests in the Near East.” The Declaration was pushed, she writes, “by leading Zionists in England and by Brandeis, who intervened with President Wilson.”[xxviii] 

Finally, David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, wrote in 1939: “To a certain extent America had played a decisive role in the First World War, and American Jewry had a considerable part, knowingly or not, in the achievement of the Balfour Declaration.”[xxix]

Future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion speaking at 19th Zionist Congress, Lucerne, Switzerland, 1935. Ben-Gurion wrote: “American Jewry had a considerable part, knowingly or not, in the achievement of the Balfour Declaration.”

Future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion speaking at 19th Zionist Congress, Lucerne, Switzerland, 1935. Ben-Gurion wrote: “American Jewry had a considerable part, knowingly or not, in the achievement of the Balfour Declaration.”

[Most Jews in the U.S and elsewhere, including in Palestine itself, were not Zionists, and some strenuously opposed Zionism. See the book for more information on this.]

The influence of Brandeis and other Zionists in the U.S. had enabled Zionists to form an alliance with Britain, one of the world’s great powers, a remarkable achievement for a non-state group and a measure of Zionists’ by-then immense power. As historian Kolsky states, the Zionist movement was now “an important force in international politics.”[xxx]

American Zionists may also have played a role in preventing an early peace with the Ottoman Empire.[xxxi]

In May 1917 American Secretary of State Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were extremely weary of the war and that it might be possible to induce them to break with Germany and make a separate peace with Britain.[xxxii]

Such a peace would have helped in Britain’s effort to win the war (victory was still far from ensured), but it would have prevented Britain from acquiring Palestine and enabling a Jewish state.[xxxiii]

The State Department considered a separate Ottoman peace a long shot, but decided to send an emissary to pursue the possibility. Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau, to abandon the effort.[xxxiv]

US State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it.[xxxv] Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ “anti-Semitism.”

Top photo | Lord Balfour visits Hebrew University in Tel Aviv in April, 1925. (Photo: US Library of Congress)

Footnotes

(We suggest people read the full book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, for additional information.) 

A number of links provided in the book’s citations now seem to be broken, so we have added archived versions where possible.

[i] “Overview of World War I,” Digital History, accessed January 1, 2014, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraid=12&smtid=1.

[ii] “Woodrow Wilson.” The White House, accessed January 1, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20140102081625/https://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/woodrowwilson

[iii] Over 116,000 Americans died and about 204,000 were injured.

“Military and Civilian War Related Deaths Through the Ages,” Tom Philo, accessed January 1, 2014, http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtmlhttps://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20140214202625/http://www.pbs.org:80/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html

[iv] Wilson‘s Espionage and Sedition Acts resulted in the jailing 1,200 American citizens.

“Walter C. Matthey of Iowa was sentenced to a year in jail for applauding an anticonscription speech. Walter Heynacher of South Dakota was sentenced to five years in Leavenworth for telling a younger man that ‘it was foolishness to send our boys over there to get killed by the thousands, all for the sake of Wall Street.’…Abraham Sugarman of Sibley County, Minnesota, was sentenced to three years in Leavenworth for arguing that the draft was unconstitutional and remarking, ‘This is supposed to be a free country. Like Hell it is.’”

Bill Kauffman, Ain’t My America: the Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle American Anti-imperialism (New York: Metropolitan, 2008), 74.

One of the songs that helped recruit Americans to fight in the war, “Over There,” was written by George M. Cohan, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for it in 1940, when America was about to join another world war.

“Who’s Who – George M Cohan,” First World War, August 22, 2009, http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/cohan.htm

[v] The fact that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, a charge made by Germany at the time and since corroborated by divers going to the wreck, was largely suppressed for many years.

Few people are aware that the Lusitania was being used by the British as a high-speed munitions carrier. On her final voyage she was carrying even more contraband than usual, including eighteen cases of fuses for various caliber artillery shells and a large consignment of gun-cotton, an explosive used in the manufacture of propellant charges for big-gun shells. (“Deadly Cargo” http://www.lusitania.net/deadlycargo.htm)

Stolley, Richard B. “Lusitania: The Epic Battle over Its Biggest Mystery.” Fortune May 5 (2015): n. pag. Web. 11 May 2015. http://fortune.com/lusitania-gregg-bemis-legal-battle/http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lusitania.htmhttp://www.divernet.com/home_diving_news/156070/ordnance_found_aboard_lusitania.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20131127214325/http://www.divernet.com/home_diving_news/156070/ordnance_found_aboard_lusitania.html

Germany had warned Americans not to ride on the Lusitania. The Library of Congress reports: “The German Embassy published a warning in some newspapers to tell passengers that travel on Allied ships is “at their own risk.” The Lusitania is mentioned specifically in some of the discussion about the warning in the week leading up to its departure.” (“Topics in Chronicling America – Sinking of the Lusitania.” Sinking of the Lusitania. Library of Congress, http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/lusitania.html.

For a discussion of events leading up to the U.S. entry into the war see Windchy, Eugene G. “Chapter 12 World War I (1917 to 1918).” Twelve American Wars: Nine of Them Avoidable. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, 2014 According to Wilson’s top advisor, even after the Lusitania sinking, 90 percent of Americans were opposed to entering the war.

[vi] Some intriguing articles speculate that Zionists might have played a role in making the Zimmerman note public. While the article is speculative, the editors called it “…an original and very plausible explanation of a major event in world history for which no previous rationale has ever seemed satisfactory.”

John Cornelius, “The Balfour Declaration and the Zimmermann Note,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August-September (1997): 18-20. Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/188-1997-august-september/2646-the-balfour-declaration-and-the-zimmermann-note-.html, http://www.wrmea.org/2005-november/special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

[vii] Shlaim, The Iron Wall, 5.

[viii] John W. Mulhall, CSP, America and the Founding of Israel: an Investigation of the Morality of America’s Role (Los Angeles: Deshon, 1995), 50.

Hala Fattah, “Sultan Abdul-Hamid and the Zionist Colonization of Palestine: A Case Study,” accessed January 1, 2014,

https://web.archive.org/web/20130702022748/http://www.lahana.org/blog/Zionist%20Colonization%20of%20Palestine.htm

[ix] Paul Rich, ed., Iraq and Gertrude Bell‘s The Arab of Mesopotamia (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2008), 150.

[x]  Mulhall, America, 66.

This was a sadly deft prognosis. Writing of Jerusalem in the early 1960s, the American Consul General in Jerusalem found: “I think I can safely make the general comment that in present-day Israel… the Arabs are very much of ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’” for the dominant Israelis.

Evan M. Wilson, Jerusalem, Key to Peace (Washington: Middle East Institute, 1970), 33.

A number of other British officials also opposed Zionism. Charles Glass writes: “The only Jewish member of the British cabinet, Edwin Samuel Montagu, the secretary of state for India, argued against issuing the Declaration. Montagu called Zionism “a mischievous political creed” and wrote that, in favouring it, “the policy of His Majesty’s Government is anti-semitic.” David Alexander, president of the Board of British Jews, Claude Montefiore, president of the Anglo-Jewish Association, and most Orthodox rabbis also opposed the Zionist enterprise. They insisted that they had as much right as any Christian to live and prosper in Britain, and they did not want Weizmann, however Anglophile his tastes, telling them to settle in the Judean desert or to till the orange groves of Jaffa. The other opponents of a British protectorate for the Zionists in Palestine were George Nathaniel Curzon, leader of the Lords and a member of the war cabinet, and the senior British military commanders in the Middle East, Lieutenant-General Sir Walter Congreve and General Gilbert Clayton. The generals contended that it was unnecessary to use Palestine as a route to Iraq’s oil and thought that the establishment of the protectorate would waste imperial resources better deployed elsewhere.”

Charles Glass, “The Mandate Years: Colonialism and the Creation of Israel,” Guardian, May 31, 2001, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/may/31/londonreviewofbooks/print.

[xi] The BBC history of the Battle of the Somme reports that on the first day alone Britain sustained 60,000 casualties, of whom 20,000 were already dead by the end of the day; 60 percent of all officers involved had been killed. The battle went on for four and a half months.

“Battle of the Somme: 1 July – 13 November 1916,” BBC History, accessed January 1, 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/battle_somme.shtml

https://web.archive.org/web/20131123043116/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/battle_somme.shtml

[xii] A number of authors refer to this; see the following citations.

One was William Yale in The Near East: A Modern History (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968), 266-270.

Yale, a descendant of the founder of Yale University, was an authority on the Middle East who had worked for the State Department in a number of roles in the Middle East, including as a member of the King Crane Commission, and worked for many years as a professor of history.

“Guide to the William Yale Papers, 1916-1972,” University of New Hampshire Library, accessed on January 1, 2014, http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/william-yale.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131217122455/http://www.library.unh.edu/special/index.php/william-yale

Yale writes: “…the Zionists in England set about winning British support for Zionism. This the English Zionists successfully did by the end of 1916. It was an amazing achievement which required great skill, unfaltering energy, and determination. The methods by which the conquest of the British government was made were diverse and of necessity in some cases devious.”

He writes, “The Zionists in England well understood that British leaders would have to be approached on the basis of their interests and ideas,” and notes, “The means used were adapted admirably to the personal outlook and characteristics of the men to be influenced.”

Some were “persuaded that Zionism was a fulfillment of Old and New Testament prophesies.” Zionists also appealed to “the idealisms of many [British],” convincing them that this was a solution to anti-Semitism and could be an “atonement by Christian Europe for its long persecution of the Jews.”

Some top officials had to be persuaded “that Zionism was a noble and righteous cause of significance to the welfare of the world as well as to that of the Jewish people.”

Others were to be convinced that “by backing Zionism world-wide enthusiastic Jewish support for the allied cause could be assured.” Yale notes that in 1916 “the Allied cause was far from bright” and quotes a Zionist leader’s statements that Zionists worked to persuade British officials that “the best and perhaps the only way (which proved to be so) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret ‘gentlemen’s’ agreement of 1916…”

Yale states that once “inner circles of the British government had been captured by the Zionists,” they turned their efforts to obtain French, Italian, and American acquiescence to the Zionist program.

In 1903, Zionists retained future Prime Minister Lloyd George‘s law firm.

For a detailed discussion of the Lusitania incident and other aspects of the U.S. entry into WWI see John Cornelius, “The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2005, 44-50. Print. Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/278-2005-november/8356-special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html.

[xiii] McCarthy, Population of Palestine, 26.

[xiv] J.M.N. Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, reprint ed (London: Longman, Greens, and Co, 1939), 172.

“Drafts for it travelled back and forth, within England or over the Ocean, to be scrutinized by some two score draftsmen half-cooperating, half competing with one another…”

Jeffries also reports that American Zionist leader Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote, “The Balfour Declaration was in process of making for nearly two years.”

[xv] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 172. (Jeffries quotes Nahum Sokolow‘s History of Zionism)

[xvi] Nahum Sokolow, History of Zionism (1600-1918) with an Introduction by the Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., vol. 2 (London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919), 79-80. Online at https://archive.org/details/historyofzionism02sokouoft.

Some of those involved in drafting the text were Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Wise. See:

“Along with Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, [Rabbi Stephen] Wise helped write the Balfour Declaration of 1917.” – Boxerman, Burton A. The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. By Anne Cipriano Venzon. New York: Routledge, 2012. 800: 

Rabbi Stephen “Wise acted as an important intermediary to President Woodrow Wilson and Colonel Edward House from 1916-1919, when, with Louis D. Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, he helped formulate the text of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.” – A Finding Aid to the Stephen S. Wise Collection. 1893-1969. Manuscript Collection No. 49AmericanJewishArchives.org. The Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, http://americanjewisharchives.org/collections/ms0049/:

[xvii] “Balfour Declaration Author Was a Secret Jew, Says Prof,” JWeekly, January 15, 1999, http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/9929/balfour-declaration-author-was-a-secret-jew-says-prof/.

William D. Rubinstein, “The Secret of Leopold Amery,” History Today 49 (February 1999). Online at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/amery.html

According to his publisher, Macmillan, “William D. Rubinstein is Professor of Modern History at the University of Aberystwyth, UK and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. He has published widely on modern British history and on modern Jewish history, and was President of the Jewish Historical Society of England, 2002-2004. His works include A History of the Jews in the English-Speaking World: Great Britain (Palgrave Macmillan 1996), The Myth of Rescue (1997), and Israel, the Jews and the West: The Fall and Rise of Antisemitism (2008).”

“William D. Rubinstein,” Macmillan.com, accessed January 1, 2014, http://us.macmillan.com/authordetails.aspx?authorname=williamdrubinstein.

https://www.amazon.com/Palgrave-Dictionary-Anglo-Jewish-History/dp/1403939101

Amery, who had kept his Jewish roots secret, worked for Zionism in a number of ways. As a pro-Israel writer Daphne Anson reports:

“As assistant military secretary to the Secretary of State for War, Amery played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish Legion, consisting of three battalions of Jewish soldiers who served, under Britain’s aegis, in Palestine during the First World War and were the forerunners of the IDF. ‘I seem to have had my finger in the pie, not only of the Balfour Declaration, but of the genesis of the present Israeli Army’, he notes proudly.

“As Dominions Secretary (1925-29) he had responsibility for the Palestine Mandate, robustly supporting the growth and development of the Yishuv – Weizman recalled Amery‘s ‘unstinting encouragement and support’ and that Amery ‘realized the importance of a Jewish Palestine in the British imperial scheme of things more than anyone else. He also had much insight into the intrinsic fineness of the Zionist movement’. In 1937, shortly after testifying before the Peel Commission on the future of Palestine, Amery helped to organise a dinner in tribute to the wartime Jewish Legion at which his friend Jabotinsky was guest of honour. Amery became an increasingly vociferous critic of the British government’s dilution of its commitments to the Jews of Palestine in order to appease the Arabs, and fulminated in the Commons against the notorious White Paper of 1939, which set at 75,000 the maximum number of Jews to be admitted to Palestine over the ensuing five years. ‘I have rarely risen with a greater sense of indignation and shame or made a speech which I am more content to look back upon’, he remembered. And he became an arch-critic of Chamberlain and Appeasement.”

Daphne Anson, “The Mosque-Founder’s Nephew who drafted the Balfour Declaration – Leopold Amery, the ‘Secret Jew,’” Daphne Anson blog, November 1, 2010, http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/10/mosque-founders-nephew-who-drafted.html.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130307144246/http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/10/mosque-founders-nephew-who-drafted.html

[xviii] Grose, “Brandeis, Balfour, and a Declaration,” 39.

Historian Ronald Sanders also discusses Kallen‘s role, writing, “…in the first half of December 1915, the Foreign Office received a memorandum that had been passed along a chain of contacts by its author Horace Kallen, a prominent American Zionist and a professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin.” In it Kallen had written, according to Sanders, “…I am convinced that a statement on behalf of the Allies favoring Jewish rights in very country… and a very veiled suggestion concerning nationalization in Palestine would more than counterbalance German promises in the same direction…”

Sanders writes that a week later Lucien Wolf, a prominent British journalist and Jewish leader, also sent a letter to the Foreign Office promoting the idea of working to propagandize American Jews so that they would work to bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Britain. In his communication Wolf claimed: “That such a propaganda would be very useful is evidenced by the fact that in the United States the Jews number over 2,000,000 and their influence–political, commercial and social–is very considerable.”

Wolf emphasized that he himself was not a Zionist, but recommended that working through the American Zionist movement would be the best way to achieve this purpose: “…in any bid for Jewish sympathies today, very serious account must be taken of the Zionist movement.”

He wrote, “The Allies, of course, cannot promise to make a Jewish State of a land in which only a comparatively small minority of the inhabitants are Jews, but there is a great deal they can say which would conciliate Zionist opinion.” He suggested that British statements of sympathy “with Jewish aspirations in regard to Palestine” could be decisive, concluding, “I am confident they would sweep the whole of American Jewry into enthusiastic allegiance to their cause.”

Sanders points out that Wolf‘s statement, “coming as it did from the spokesman of the foreign policy organ of the Anglo-Jewish establishment,” seemed to the Foreign Office “as official a statement of the Jewish view of the matter as they had ever received.”

Sanders, a Jewish-American author who has written several books about both Israel and Jewish Americans, writes that while the general British belief about the power of Jews in America “was greatly exaggerated, it certainly was not groundless.” According to Sanders, in 1915 the American Jewish community was becoming one of the most “financially gifted subgroups” in the American population and notes, “Some of the country’s greatest newspapers were owned by Jews.” He also describes the importance of Brandeis, “who was to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court in January 1916, just as the Foreign Office was pondering these very questions…”

Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), 323-330.

Another person is reported to have also promoted the plan that Britain should work with American Zionists, Brandeis in particular, as a way to bring America into the war on England’s side. James Malcolm, an Armenian-Persian who was close to the British government, wrote about his role in this beginning in autumn of 1916 in a booklet published in 1944 by the British Museum, Origins of the Balfour Declaration, Dr. Weizmann‘s Contribution. Online at http://www.mailstar.net/malcolm.html.

Malcolm‘s role and others’ were discussed in a July 1949 exchange of letters to the editor in The Times of London. One of these is online at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/download/thomson-jul49.pdf.

More information on this topic is available in “The Zionism of James A. Malcolm, Armenian Patriot,” by Martin H. Halabian, a thesis submitted for a Master’s degree from the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University in May 1962.

See also footnote 78 below.

[xix] For example, Grose writes, “The promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine opened the way for the partition of Palestine, and, thereby, for Israel’s statehood.” (Grose, “Brandeis, Balfour, and a Declaration,” 39)

[xx] John and Hadawi, Palestine Diary, 72. Citation: World Jewry, March 1, 1935.

[xxi] Samuel Landman, “Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine,” New Zionist (London), 1936. Online at http://desip.igc.org/1939sLandman.htm.

Excerpts below:

“Mr. James A. Malcolm, who….. knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court) ; and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London) ; and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events ; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Goût of the Quai d’Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so. to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret ‘gentleman’s’ agreement of 1916…”

“The Balfour Declaration, in the words of Professor H. M. V. Temperley, was ‘a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry.’ The main consideration given by the Jewish people (represented at the time by the leaders of the Zionist Organisation) was their help in bringing President Wilson to the aid of the Allies.”

“…many wealthy and prominent international or semi-assimilated Jews in Europe and America were openly or tacitly opposed to it (Zionist movement)…”

“In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted.”

“The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi – minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.”

[xxii] Landman, “Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine.”

[xxiii] Lawrence Davidson, America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (Gainesville: UP of Florida, 2001), 11-12.

Lloyd George had been retained as an attorney by Zionists in 1903. While not yet a government leader, he was already a Member of Parliament.

[xxiv] Mulhall, America, 62.

[xxv] Frank E. Manuel, “Judge Brandeis and the Framing of the Balfour Declaration” in From Haven to Conquest, by Walid Khalidi (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1987), 165-172.

He also writes that, according to de Haas, “American Zionists were responsible for a final revision in the text of the declaration.” (Manuel, “Judge Brandeis,” 71)

[xxvi] Evan M. Wilson, Decision on Palestine: How the U.S. Came to Recognize Israel (Stanford: Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1979), xv.

Moshe Menuhin, scion of a distinguished Jewish family that moved to Palestine during the early days of Zionism (and father of the renowned musicians), also writes about this aspect. In addition, he states that the oft-repeated claim that the British rewarded Weizman for his “discovery of TNT” was false, quoting Weizmann‘s autobiography Trial and Error:

“For some unfathomable reason they always billed me as the inventor of TNT. It was in vain that I systematically and repeatedly denied any connection with, or interest in, TNT. No discouragement could put them off.”

Moshe Menuhin, The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969), 73-74.

[xxvii] Malcolm Thomson, “The Balfour Declaration: to the editor of the Times,” The Times(London), November 2, 1949, 5. Online at http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/thomson-nov49.png.

He also wrote about this in a July 22, 1949 letter to the editor in The Times; see earlier footnote.

[xxviii] Cohen, Americanization of Zionism, 37.

[xxix] Ben-Gurion, “We Look Towards America,” Jewish Observer and Middle East Review (January 31, 1964), 14-16. Excerpted in Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, 482.

Ben Gurion is widely lauded as Israel’s main founder. While there is no doubt that he was an extremely zealous and committed promoter of Zionism, Ben Gurion was also, according to historian Norman Kantor, “a bit of a crook.” Kantor writes that Ben Gurion “dipped into Histadrut funds for his own personal use, including trysts with his mistress in sundry European spas.” –Sacred Chain, p. 368

[xxx] Kolsky, Jews against Zionism, 12.

[xxxi] This section is taken largely from the following sources:

Henry Morgenthau and Peter Balakian, Ambassador Morgenthau‘s Story (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 2003), 370.

Grose, “Brandeis, Balfour, and a Declaration,” 37.

Yale, Near East, 241.

Jehuda Reinharz, “His Majesty’s Zionist Emissary: Chaim Weizmann‘s Mission to Gibraltar in 1917,” Journal of Contemporary History 27, no. 2 (1992): 259-277. Online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/260910.

The U.S. never declared war on the Ottoman Empire and was working as a mediator in this venture.

[xxxii] Grose, “Brandeis, Balfour, and a Declaration,” 37.

[xxxiii] Reinharz, “His Majesty’s Zionist Emissary,” 263.

[xxxiv] Morgenthau was not a Zionist, but he agreed to accept Frankfurter, then a 35-year-old Harvard law professor, as his traveling companion. (Historians speculate that Brandeis suggested Frankfurter.) Frankfurter then chose the rest of the entourage, almost all of whom were ardent Zionists. The British dispatched Zionist Chaim Weizmann (who was alerted to the mission by Brandeis and others) to meet with the Morgenthau mission in Gibraltar. Frankfurter and Weizmann persuaded Morgenthau not to move forward with the initiative.

Reinharz writes: “It is possible that Brandeis, unable to oppose the scheme himself, insisted on Weizmann as the most likely person able to derail the Morgenthau mission.” (Reinharz, “His Majesty’s Zionist Emissary,” 267)

Reinharz also states: “Obviously Felix Frankfurter also reported to Louis Brandeis that it was due to Weizmann that Morgenthau‘s mission had failed. On 8 October 1917, Brandeis cabled to Weizmann: ‘It was a great satisfaction to hear yesterday from Professor Frankfurter fully concerning your conference [at Gibraltar] and to have this further evidence of your admirable management of our affairs.’” (Reinharz, “His Majesty’s Zionist Emissary,” 273)

Charles Glass writes: “Wilson sent Morgenthau to Switzerland to meet Turkish representatives. But American Zionists opposed this move, as Thomas Bryson explained in American Diplomatic Relations with the Middle East 1784-1975 (1977). It seems that the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis knew the purpose of the Morgenthau mission and told Weizmann, who promptly alerted Balfour. According to Bryson, ‘the two agreed that the Morgenthau mission should be scotched, for an anticipated British offensive against the Turks in Palestine would do far more to assure the future of a Jewish national home. Brandeis arranged for Felix Frankfurter‘ – his clerk and later a Supreme Court justice – ‘to accompany Morgenthau to ascertain that the latter would not make an agreement compromising the Zionist goal. Acting through Balfour, the Zionists arranged for Morgenthau and Frankfurter to meet Dr Weizmann at Gibraltar, where he deterred Morgenthau from his task.’”

Glass, “The Mandate Years.”

[xxxv] Grose, “Brandeis, Balfour, and a Declaration,” 37


If Americans Knew is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

 

Source: Who Wrote The Balfour Declaration And Why: The World War I Connection

Share

Texas City Tells People No Hurricane Harvey Aid Unless They Promise Not to Boycott Israel

Share

Texas City Tells People No Hurricane Harvey Aid Unless They Promise Not to Boycott Israel

American Civil Liberties Union

The city of Dickinson, Texas, is requiring applicants for Hurricane Harvey rebuilding funds to certify in writing that they will not take part in a boycott of Israel. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the city’s condition as a violation of free speech rights.

“The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to boycott, and the government cannot condition hurricane relief or any other public benefit on a commitment to refrain from protected political expression,” said ACLU of Texas Legal Director Andre Segura. “Dickinson’s requirement is an egregious violation of the First Amendment, reminiscent of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths requiring Americans to disavow membership in the Communist party and other forms of ‘subversive’ activity.”

The city’s website says that it is accepting applications from individuals and businesses for grants from money donated for hurricane relief. The application says that by signing it, “the Applicant verifies that the Applicant:

(1) does not boycott Israel; and

(2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”

The city appears to be enforcing a recently passed Texas law that requires all state contractors to certify that they are not participating in boycotts of Israel. While the ACLU does not take a position on boycotts of foreign countries, the organization has long supported the right to participate in political boycotts and has voiced opposition to laws and bills that infringe on the right to boycott.

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that political boycotts are protected by the First Amendment, and other decisions have established that the government may not require individuals to sign a certification regarding their political expression in order to obtain employment, contracts, or other benefits.

On October 11, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Kansas law on behalf of a high school math teacher who is being required by the state to sign to certify that she won’t boycott Israel if she wants to take part in a teacher training program.

In July, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing a bill that would make it a felony to support certain boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. As a result, Senate sponsors of the bill are considering changes.

The original source of this article is American Civil Liberties Union
Copyright © American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, 2017

https://www.globalresearch.ca/texas-city-tells-people-no-hurricane-harvey-aid-unless-they-promise-not-to-boycott-israel/5614261

Share

List of Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Government

Share

[ED: List dates back to 2011 needs updating. Still, a disproportionate number of Dual Citizens with divided loyalties with Israel hold powerful positions the United States Government to this day…]

Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?

by Dan Eden

Someone wrote and asked me, “Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?”

Well, here’s my take on this. I’d also like your views and opinions.

Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be “British” but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o’clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60’s my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to “allegiance,” we were all patriotic Americans. Period.

The word “allegiance” means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology.

When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their “allegiance” exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to “any and all foreign governments.” That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.

Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of “dual citizenship,” I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.

From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!

In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic’s presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.

Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it’s OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad — most of them in the United States — will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.

Security Issues

Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.

Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

Today’s conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security — the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.

Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.

A few classic examples can be cited here.

Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the “interests of my state” ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by “my state” he meant the state of Israel.

Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:

One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a “dual citizen” of America and Israel.

Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.

Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem’s most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media.

Most recently, US Navy Petty Officer, Ariel J. Weinmann, while serving at or near Bahrain, Mexico, and Austria, “with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (Israel), [attempted] to communicate, deliver or transmit classified CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET information relating to the national defense, to a representative, officer, agent or employee of a foreign government.” Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 after being listed as “a deserter by his command,” according to the US Navy. The information he gathered was supplied to Israel.

The examples of Kahane, Mahonm, Goodman and Weinmann raise the question of when a U.S. citizen ceases to be, or should cease to be, a U.S. citizen. U.S. Law at one time clearly stated that an American citizen owed first allegiance to the United States. A U.S. citizen should not fight in a foreign army or hold high office in a foreign country without risking expatriation. What the heck happened?

The 1940 Nationality Act

Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, “shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by…voting in a political election in a foreign state.”

This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

But then something very odd happened.

In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship — right? Wrong.

After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act — the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson’s former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to “rob” Afroyim of his American citizenship!

The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown “intent” to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?

While Washington claims it has a “good neighbor” policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican — you can’t be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship.

So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes. Consider the following list that I obtained on the web:

Michael Mukasey

Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Michael Chertoff

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.

Richard Perle

One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

Paul Wolfowitz

Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

Douglas Feith

Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

Lawrence (Larry) Franklin

The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith’s deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, “to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat” and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Franklin will “remain free while the government continues with the wider case” and his “prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting” former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials.” (source: sourcewatch.com).

Edward Luttwak

Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

Henry Kissinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.

Dov Zakheim

Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went.

Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.

Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

Kenneth Adelman

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby

Vice President Dick Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

Robert Satloff

U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

Elliott Abrams

National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

Marc Grossman

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

Richard Haass

Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

Robert Zoellick

U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.

Ari Fleischer

Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

James Schlesinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

David Frum

White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

Joshua Bolten

White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

John Bolton

Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

David Wurmser

Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

Eliot Cohen

Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

Mel Sembler

President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

Steve Goldsmith

Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

Adam Goldman

White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

Joseph Gildenhorn

Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

Christopher Gersten

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

Mark Weinberger

Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

Samuel Bodman

Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

Bonnie Cohen

Under Secretary of State for Management.

Ruth Davis

Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

Daniel Kurtzer

Ambassador to Israel.

Cliff Sobel

Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Stuart Bernstein

Ambassador to Denmark.

Nancy Brinker

Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin

Ambassador to Singapore.

Ron Weiser

Ambassador to Slovakia.

Mel Sembler

Ambassador to Italy.

Martin Silverstein

Ambassador to Uruguay.

Lincoln Bloomfield

Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

Jay Lefkowitz

Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Ken Melman

White House Political Director.

Brad Blakeman

White House Director of Scheduling.

I don’t know about you, but dual citizenship is fine with me for an ordinary citizen. But if you hold an official position that demands that you put American interests above all else — if you should look transparent and fair to the rest of the world regarding your formation of Middle East foreign policies, then this is a dangerous trend. Even if there were no pro-Israeli agenda, the fact that decision makers have a bias or an allegiance to one of the parties involved in the current conflict should have raised red flags long before now.

If you think we’re being unfair here, ask yourself: How you would react to the Head of Homeland Security if he or she were a dual national with citizenship in Iran, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia? Ask yourself why you don’t feel the same about Israeli dual citizenship. Then you will understand how powerful the Israeli lobby has been in “adjusting” your acceptance of their special status.

Hey, I could be way off on this. Let’s hear from you.

UPDATE: December 4, 2007

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reports that Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz has been rewarded with a new position in the Bush administration which will allow him to oversee classified intelligence and inform policies on WMD issues.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job,” said one senior official.

Share

Declassified Government Documents Reveal Mind Control Experiments, CIA Hypnosis, Sex Abuse on American Citizens

Share

Tragic, heartbreaking mass murders in recent years have spread fear and panic among the general public. Yet some are questioning if there isn’t more than meets the eye with these cruel and bizarre events. Is it conceivable that there might be a deeper agenda here?

This essay presents verifiable, undeniable evidence that secret CIA mind control programs have created assassins out of unsuspecting citizens in support of a hidden agenda.

The astonishing excerpts below, taken verbatim from declassified CIA documents, reveal detailed mind control experiments in highly secret, government-sponsored experiments. Through hypnosis, drugs, and electric shock, CIA clinicians fractured personalities and induced multiple personality disorder (MPD) – also called dissociative identity disorder (DID).

These top secret experiments were successful in creating Manchurian Candidates or super spies programmed to carry out assassination, terrorist acts, sexual favors, and more without conscious knowledge of what they were doing. The army of Manchurian Candidates created has very likely played a key, hidden role in world politics and the manipulation of the public.

To verify this startling information, links are provided to scanned images of the original CIA documents. Instructions are also available here to order any of these documents directly from the CIA using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Though dating from the 1950s and 60s, these revealing documents were not released for decades for reasons of “national security.” The U.S. government claims mind control experiments are no longer being carried out, yet how can we know? The existence of these programs was denied for decades, and certainly any recent documents would be classified secret under the rubric of “national security.”

A trusted CIA informant I know assures me that these programs are ongoing. These disturbing methods are used by various countries in clandestine operations around the world. Many might prefer not to look at these ugly wounds to the soul of our nation and world. Yet if we avoid or ignore them, they are likely to grow and fester.

Only by having the courage to look into the shadow parts of our world can we first understand and then work to stop the hidden manipulations and begin to heal these wounds. See the What You Can Do section near the bottom of this essay for more valuable information on how you can help stop the craziness and bring this vital information to light.

With best wishes for a brighter future,
Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton

Note: If you become overwhelmed by this material, please click here for support. If you think you may have been subject to some of the things mentioned here, click here for information on getting help and support in wonderful online communities. And for lots of reliable verifiable information from videos, major media articles, and more on these secret mind control programs, click here.


CIA document and page number: 190684, pp. 1, 4
Title: Outline of Special H Cases
Date: 7 January 1953
Page 1, Page 4

In a general request for volunteers [deleted names] volunteered for H [hypnosis] experimentation and were originally tested on 21 May 1951. Both girls, at this time, were nineteen years of age. These subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H controlled state via the telephone, via some very subtle signal that cannot be detected by other persons in the room, and without the other individuals being able to note the change.

It has been shown clearly that physically individuals can be induced into H by telephone, by receiving written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words. Control of those hypnotized can be passed from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information purposes, and that they can be conditioned to a point where they believe a change in identity on their part even on the polygraph.

Note: This document shows that CIA experimenters were successful in hypnotizing young women (19 years old in this case) to do things they would not do normally without any memory afterward, sometimes even unwillingly. Though they volunteered, these women were thus programmed to be Manchurian Candidates or super spies with no knowledge of what these men were doing to them.


CIA document and page number: 17395, p. 18
Title: ESP Research
Date: Unknown
Link to view image of original: Click here

Learning models will be instituted in which the subject will be rewarded or punished for his overall performance and reinforced in various ways – by being told whether he was right, by being told what the target was, with electric shock etc. … In other cases drugs and psychological tricks will be used to modify his attitudes. The experimenters will be particularly interested in disassociative states, from the abaissement de niveau mental to multiple personality in so-called mediums, and an attempt will be made to induce a number of states of this kind, using hypnosis.

Note: This document provides proof that the CIA was was using drugs and electric shock in attempting to induce MPD (multiple personality disorder). Though this document uses the masculine “he” to describe the subject, other documents show that most of the subjects used were young women who volunteered. The subjects were not informed about the deeper aspects and implications for which they were being trained. If you view the original, you will also find interesting information on ESP experiments.


CIA document and page number: 190691, p. 1, 2
Title: Hypnotic Experimentation and Research
Date: 10 February 1954
Link to view image of original: Page 1, Page 2

A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Misses [deleted] and [deleted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state with no further suggestion. Miss [deleted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [deleted] for failing to awaken.

Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded pneumatic pistol) gun at [deleted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [deleted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept form the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.

Miss [deleted] felt reluctant about participating further since she expressed her doubt as to any useful purpose in further attendance. The Operator thereupon proceeded in full view of all other subjects to explain to Miss [deleted] that he planned to induce a deep state of hypnosis now. The reaction was as had been expected. Miss [deleted] excused herself to make a telephone call (defense mechanism?). Upon her return a very positive approach was adopted by the operator whereupon a deeper, much deeper state of hypnosis was obtained.

Immediately a posthypnotic was induced that when the operator accidently dropped a steel ball in his hand to the floor … Miss [deleted] would again go into hypnosis. Miss [deleted] then advised that she must conclude her work for the evening. She arose to adjust her hair before the mirror. The ball was dropped and she promptly slumped back into the chair and back into hypnosis. It is the opinion of the operator the Miss [deleted] if properly trained (positive approach) will continue to improve.

Note: Here we have proof that these women could be converted into unsuspecting and even unwilling assassins. They could be programmed to assassinate anyone and would do so without any conscious knowledge afterward. Note also the questionable status of “volunteer” implied. Though these women originally volunteered, unwillingness to continue could be manipulated by the men running the program. These men had nearly total control over the young women when hypnotized.


CIA document and page number: 190527, pp. 1, 2
Title: SI and H Experimentation
Date: 25 September 1951
Link to view images of original: Page 1, Page 2
Note: SI stands for sleep induction and H for hypnosis

Prior to actually beginning the more complex experiments, several simple post H were worked with both of the girls participating. The first major experiment of the evening was set up as follows without previous explanation to either [deleted] or [deleted]. Both subjects were placed in a very deep trance state and while in this state, the following instructions were given:

(A) [Deleted] was instructed that when she awakened, she was to procede to [deleted] room. She was told that while there, she would receive a telephone call from an individual whom she would know only as “Joe”. This individual would engage her in a normal telephone conversation. During this conversation, this individual would give her a code word and upon mentioning the code word, [deleted] would go into a deep SI [sleep induction] trance state, but would be “normal” in appearance with her eyes open.

[Deleted] was then told that upon the conclusion of the telephone conversation, she would procede to the ladies room where she would meet a girl who was unknown to her. She was told that she would strike up a conversation with this girl and during the conversation she would mention the code word “New York” to this other girl, who, in turn, would give her a device and further instructions which were to be carried out by [deleted]. She was told that after she carried out the instructions, she was to return to the Operations Room, sit in the sofa and go immediately into a deep sleep.

(B) [Deleted] was instructed that upon awakening, she would proceed to [deleted] room where she would wait at the desk for a telephone call. Upon receiving the call, a person known as “Jim” would engage her in normal conversation. During the course of the conversation, this individual would mention a code word to [deleted]. When she heard this code word, she would pass into a SI trance state, but would not close her eyes and remain perfectly normal and continue the telephone conversation. She was told that upon conclusion of the telephone conversation, she would then carry out the following instructions:

[Deleted] being in a complete SI state at this time, was then told to open her eyes and was shown an electric timing device. She was informed that this timing device was an incendiary bomb and was then instructed how to attach and set the device. After [deleted] had indicated that she had learned how to set and attach the device, she was told to return to a sleep state and further instructed that upon concluding the aforementioned conversation, she would take the timing device which was in a briefcase and proceed to the ladies room.

In the ladies room, she would be met by a girl whom she had never seen who would identify herself by the code word “New York.” [Deleted] was then to show this individual how to attach and set the timing device and further instructions would be given the individual by [deleted] that the timing device was to be carried in the briefcase to [deleted] room, placed in the nearest empty electric-light plug and concealed in the bottom, left-hand drawer of [deleted] desk, with the device set for 82 seconds and turned on.

[Deleted] was further instructed to tell this other girl that as soon as the device had been set and turned on, she was to take the briefcase, leave [deleted] room, go to the operations room and go to the sofa and enter a deep sleep state. [Deleted] was further instructed that after completion of instructing the other girl and the transferring to the other girl of the incendiary bomb, she was to return at once to the operations room, sit on the sofa, and go into a deep sleep state.

For a matter of record, immediately after the operation was begun it was noted that a member of the charforce was cleaning the floor in the ladies room and subsequently, both [deleted] and [deleted] had to be placed … once again in a trance state and instructions changed from the ladies room to Room 3. It should be noted that even with the change of locale in the transfer point, the experiment was carried off perfectly without any difficulty or hesitation on the part of either of the girls. Each girl acted out their part perfectly, the device was planted and set as directed and both girls returned to the operations room, sat on the sofa and entered a deep sleep state. Throughout, their movements were easy and natural.

Note: You will note the frequent use of “girls” (young women) in these programs. Do you think the men in charge, having complete hypnotic control of these women, might have at times taken advantage of them sexually? Yet this would never enter the official documentation, with the one major exception below.


CIA document and page number: 140393, p. 1
Title: [Deleted]
Date: 9 July 1951
Link to view image of original: Click here

On 2 July 1951 approximately 1:00 p.m. the instruction began with [deleted] relating to the student some of his sexual experiences. [Deleted] stated that he had constantly used hypnotism as a means of inducing young girls to engage in sexual intercourse with him. [Deleted], a performer in [deleted] orchestra, was forced to engage in sexual intercourse with [deleted] while under the influence of hypnotism. [Deleted] stated that he first put her into a hypnotic trance and then suggested to her that he was her husband and that she desired sexual intercourse with him.

Note: This document shows that an instructor being used by the CIA took advantage of his skill in hypnosis to sexually abuse young women without their having any knowledge of being abused. How many CIA hypnotists did likewise? Do you think a man involved in these programs might take advantage of a beautiful, young woman knowing she would not remember afterward? Note that for some reason this document is not available in the CIA’s three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link. See the What You Can Do section at the end of this page for suggestions on how we can stop this abuse.


CIA document and page number: 17441, p.8
Title: Continuation of Studies of Hypnosis and Suggestibility
Date: Unknown
Link to view image of original: Click here

Preliminary clinical research during 1955-56 has yielded promising leads in terms of knowledge of how hypnotizability can be influenced by pharmacological means. Experiments involving altered personality function as a result of environmental manipulation (chiefly sensory isolation) have yielded promising leads in terms of suggestibility and the production of trance-like states. There is reason to believe that environmental manipulations can affect tendencies for dissociative phenomenon to occur.

Note: “Dissociative phenomenon” refers to the ability of a person’s consciousness to leave and a new consciousness enter, thereby facilitation the creation of “alter” or multiple personalities. Besides hypnosis, drugs and electric shocks were developed as means to facilitate the creation of Manchurian Candidates.


CIA document and page number:17748, pp. 1, 2, 4, 6-9
Title: Report of Inspection of MKULTRA
Date: 26 July 1963
Link to view images of original: Page 1, Page 2, Page 4, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, Page 9.

It was deemed advisable to prepare the report of the MKULTRA program in one copy only, in view of its unusual sensitivity. The MKULTRA activity is concerned with the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operation to control human behavior. MKULTRA was authorized by then Director of Central Intelligence [DCI], Allen W. Dulles, in 1953.

The concepts involved in manipulating human behavior are found by many people both within and outside the Agency to be distasteful and unethical. Nevertheless, there have been major accomplishments both in research and operational employment. Some MKULTRA activities raise questions of legality implicit in the original charter. A final phase of testing of MKULTRA products places the rights and interests of U.S. citizens in jeopardy. Public disclosure of some aspects of MKULTRA activity could induce serious adverse reaction in U.S. public opinion. The DCI’s memorandum … exempted MKULTRA from audit.

Over the ten-year life of the program many additional avenues to the control of human behavior have been designated by the TSD management [Technical Services Division – under which MKULTRA operated] as appropriate to investigation under the MKULTRA charter, including radiation, electro-shock, various fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and materials.

TSD initiated a program for covert testing of materials on unwitting U.S. citizens in 1955. TSD has pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity of some of the projects. The lack of consistent records precluded use of routine inspection procedures and raised a variety of questions concerning management and fiscal controls.

There are just two individuals in TSD who have full substantive knowledge of the program and most of that knowledge is unrecorded. In protecting both the sensitive nature of the American intelligence capability to manipulate human behavior, they apply “need to know” doctrine to their professional associates and to their clerical assistants to a maximum degree.

Note: Why did only two people have full substantive knowledge of the program? Could it be that sex abuse and political manipulations behind the scenes were so severe that no one was to be trusted? Do you think we could trust those two individuals? CIA Director Richard Helms, upon hearing there would be a Congressional investigation, ordered the destruction of all documents from these unethical and at times illegal mind control programs in 1973. He did not realize, however, that incriminating evidence remained in the financial files of the agency, which are what you read here. We can only imagine what secrets the destroyed documents held.


CIA document and page number: 87624, p. 3, 4 (also appended to 17748, p. 32, 33)
Title: Two Extremely Sensitive Research Programs
Date: 3 April 1953
Link to view images of original: Page 3, Page 4

Approximately 6% of the projects are of such an ultra-sensitive nature that they cannot and should not be handled by means of contracts which would associate CIA or the Government with the work in question.

We intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible non-toxic aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for each individual. This material could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting information, implanting suggestion and other forms of mental control.

In a great many instances the work in field (a) must be conducted by individuals who are not and should not be aware of our interest. In all cases dealing with field (b), it is mandatory that any connections with the Agency should be known only to an absolute minimum number of people who have been specifically cleared for this purpose.

Experience has shown that qualified, competent individuals in the field of pharmacological, physiological, psychiatric and other biological sciences are most reluctant to enter into signed agreements of any sort which connect them with this activity since such a connection would jeopardize their professional reputations. Even internally in CIA, as few individuals as possible should be aware of our interest in these fields and of the identity of those who are working for us. At present, this results in ridiculous contracts, with cut-outs, which do not spell out the scope or intent of the work.

Note: In the three CD set, this document is found appended to document 17748 on pp. 30 to 37.


CIA document and page number: 190885, p. 1
Title: None Given
Date:1 January 1950
Link to view image of original: Click here

Drug Project – A project in the isolation and synthesis of pure drugs for use in effecting psychological entry and control of the individual.

Drugs and electricity – Research work on the effects of lysergic acid [LSD] on animals. Use of electric shock and the encephalograph in interrogation. Particular emphasis on the detection and prior use of electric shock and the ‘guaranteed amnesia’ resulting from electric shock.

Hypnosis – Investigation of the possibilities of hypnotic and post-hypnotic control.


CIA document and page number: 140394, pp. 2, 3 (not available in CD set, order individually here)
Title: Interview with [Deleted]
Date: 25 February 1952
Link to view full text of both pages: Click here

Q: What are your experiences in general with hypnotism?

A: I have been a professional hypnotist for at least 15 years. At present, I am employed on a very confidential basis two days a week.

Q: Can you obtain information from an individual, willing or unwilling, by hypnotism?

A: Definitely, yes. Many of the medical cases I work on are involved in obtaining personal, intimate information, and through hypnotism, I have been quite successful in obtaining this. If an individual refuses to co-operate with hypnosis, the doctors with whom I work use drugs, always sodium amytal.

Q: How far do you think individuals could be controlled by hypnosis?

A: This is a very difficult subject. Post-hypnotics will last twenty years and will be very strong if re-enforced from time to time.

Q: Have you ever had any experience with drugs?

A: Yes, many times. I have worked with doctors using sodium amytal and pentothal and have obtained hypnotic control after the drugs were used. In fact, many times drugs were used for the purpose of obtaining hypnotic control.

Q: Do you have any ideas that hypnotism could be used as a weapon?

A: Yes, I have thought about this often. It could certainly be used in obtaining information from recalcitrant people particularly with drugs. It could be used as a recruiting source for special types of work. A good hypnotist running hypnotic shows for entertainment would pick up a great many subjects, some of whom might be exceptionally good subjects for us. These subjects could easily be tabbed and put to use.

Q: Have you ever been able to produce hypnosis without an individual’s knowledge?

A: Yes, through the relaxing technique and on rare occasions [I’ve] been able to produce hypnotism against a person’s will. However, you cannot count on this and to attempt to attach an individual who did not want to be hypnotized alone would be almost an impossible task. In that type of case, I would use sodium amytal and/or sodium pentothal.

Q: How effective are post-hypnotics; over what distances and time can they be effective?

A: Properly used post-hypnotics will last twenty years. They can be made more effective by re-enforcement from time to time. Post-hypnotics are not affected at all by time or travel or distance away from the person who placed the post-hypnotic. As a rule, post-hypnotics should be 100% effective in good subjects.

Q: Can individuals be made to do things under hypnosis that they would not otherwise?

A: Individuals could be taught to do anything including murder, suicide, etc. I do believe that you could carry out acts that would be against an individual’s moral feelings if they were rightly, psychologically conditioned.

Note: Individuals can be hypnotized without their knowledge. They can be programmed to commit murder, suicide, and much more. Think about the implications. How many “suicides” of important people we’ve heard in the news were not really suicides? How many murders were committed by people who didn’t even realize they were assassins? How much has this technology been used to manipulate world politics? Think about the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., and possibly those involved with 9/11 and other major terrorist attacks. Note this document is not available in the three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link.


CIA document and page number: 140401, pp. 6, 7 (not available in CD set, order individually here)
Title: Special Research, Bluebird
Date: 1 January 1952 (approximate)
Link to view full text of both pages: Click here

Set out below are specific problems which can only be resolved by experiment, testing and research.

  • Can we obtain control of the future activities (physical and mental) of any given individual, willing or unwilling by application of SI [sleep induction] and H [hypnosis] techniques?
  • Can we create by post-H control an action contrary to an individual’s basic moral principles?
  • Can we in a matter of an hour, two hours, one day, etc., induce an H condition in an unwilling subject to such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit?
  • Could we seize a subject and in the space of an hour or two by post-H control have him crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.?
  • Can we by H and SI techniques force a subject (unwilling or otherwise) to travel long distances, commit specified acts and return to us or bring documents or materials?
  • Can we guarantee total amnesia under any and all conditions?
  • Can we “alter” a person’s personality?
  • Can we devise a system for making unwilling subjects into willing agents and then transfer that control to untrained agency agents in the field by use of codes or identifying signs?
  • Is it possible to find a gas that can be used to gain SI control from a gas pencil, odorless, colorless: one shot, etc.?
  • What are full details on “sleep-inducing machine”?
  • How can sodium A or P or any other sleep inducing agent be best concealed in a normal or commonplace item, such as candy, cigarettes, liquer, wines, coffee, tea, beer, gum water, aspirin tablets, common medicines, coke, tooth paste?
  • Can we, using SI and H extract complicated formula from scientists, engineers, etc., if unwilling?

Note: Reading all of the declassified CIA documents listed in this essay suggests that the answer to most, if not all of the questions above appears to be yes. Note that sleep inducing agents were being placed in candy, aspirin, Coke, and more. Think about the implications if even just a few of the men in these programs decided to use such things outside of the office to manipulate others for their personal benefit. It’s time that this information be made public so we can all be aware of what’s going on and work to stop the abuses. Note for some reason this document is not available in the three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link.


Science Digest Article, pp. 44 – 53 (Not a CIA document, but related to the mind control programs)
Title: Hypnosis Comes of Age
Date: April 1971
Link to view full text of article: Click here

Psychologist G. H. Estabrooks reminisces about his long career as a hypnotist. Dr. Estabrooks discusses how he “programmed” American spies with hypnosis and how he helped businessmen and students with his skills. Dr. Estabrooks is a Rhodes Scholar. He took his Doctorate at Harvard (’26), and has authored many articles and books on clinical hypnosis and human behavior.

One of the most fascinating but dangerous applications of hypnosis is its use in military intelligence. This is a field with which I am familiar through formulating guidelines for the techniques used by the United States in two world wars. I was involved in preparing many subjects for this work during World War II.

One successful case involved an Army Service Corps Captain whom we’ll call George Smith. Captain Smith had undergone months of training. He was an excellent subject but did not realize it. I had removed from him, by post-hypnotic suggestion, all recollection of ever having been hypnotized. Outside of myself, Colonel Brown was the only person who could hypnotize Captain Smith. This is “locking.” I performed it by saying to the hypnotized Captain: “Until further orders from me, only Colonel Brown and I can hypnotize you. We will use a signal phrase ‘the moon is clear.’ ” The system is virtually foolproof.

By the 1920’s, not only had they learned to apply post-hypnotic suggestion, [they] also had learned how to split certain complex individuals into multiple personalities like Jeckyl-Hydes.

During World War II, I worked this technique with a vulnerable Marine lieutenant I’ll call Jones. Under the watchful eye of Marine Intelligence, I spilt his personality into Jones A and Jones B. Jones A, once a “normal” working Marine, became entirely different. He talked communist doctrine and meant it. He was welcomed enthusiastically by communist cells, was deliberately given a dishonorable discharge by the Corps (which was in on the plot) and became a card-carrying party member.

The joker was Jones B, the second personality, formerly apparent in the conscious Marine. Under hypnosis, this Jones had been carefully coached by suggestion. Jones B was the deeper personality, knew all the thoughts of Jones A, was a loyal American, and was “imprinted” to say nothing during conscious phases. All I had to do was hypnotize the whole man, get in touch with Jones B, the loyal American, and I had a pipeline straight into the Communist camp.

Note: This article shows that in the 1920s, U.S. military intelligence had already developed the capability to cause split personalities. The created super spy or Manchurian Candidate has been a reality for nearly a century, yet very few people know anything about it. These unknowing spies could plant bombs, provide sexual favors, and even assassinate top political leaders. Consider that many countries and key powerful, elite groups have had and used this technology for many decades. Watch the movie Manchurian Candidate to see how real it is.


Brief Summary

After reading all of these revealing documents, you may now understand why there is a major part of our history which has never been written. You may better understand how the Kennedy and King assassinations, 9/11, and other terrorist acts were likely manipulated. Beautiful young women could be programmed to seduce, influence, and if necessary even poison top political leaders. And remember certain powerful, elite groups who have access to large volumes of money also have access to these technologies and often are secretly using them to battle each other. There is an entire hidden history of our world of which few are aware.

For a highly revealing documentary showing powerful evidence of child sexual abuse by powerful elites leading up the steps of Congress, see Conspiracy of Silence available here. For an astonishing, yet inspiring 10-page summary of a revealing book by a woman who once served top politicians sexually and more as a Manchurian Candidate, click here. By choosing to be aware of such matters and to spread the news on the importance of bringing all this to light, we can make a big difference. And if you are feeling overwhelmed by all this information, please click here.

For a very enlightening essay on mind control, including both the secretive aspects and how it is now being used to help heal people in most transformative ways, don’t miss the powerful lesson from the Insight Course available here. This lesson shows that the same mind control technologies that have caused murder and mayhem can also be used to powerfully transform our lives and world. You can help bring all this information to light and promote positive transformation. Please see below for how you can help, and thank you for caring.

 

Source: Mind Control Experiments, CIA Hypnosis, Sex Abuse

Share

Has The Israel Lobby Destroyed Americans’ First Amendment Rights?

Share

[ED NOTE: The American Congress is sponsoring legislation that would make it a FELONY to criticize and/or advocate Boycott of Israeli commerce. Hate Speech laws BECOME Hate Crime Laws. One goes to prison in many European Countries for even questioning the “Holocaust” Narrative…where defendants are told “The Truth is NO Defense”]

Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel Lobby has shown its power over Americans’ perceptions and ability to exercise free speech via its influence in media, entertainment and ability to block university tenure appointments, such as those of Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. Indeed, the power of the Israel Lobby is today so widely recognized and feared that editors, producers, and tenure committees anticipate the lobby’s objections in advance and avoid writers, subjects, and professors judged unacceptable to the lobby.

The latest example is The American Conservative’s firing of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47942.htm  Giraldi wrote an article for the Unz Review about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East. http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/  The article didn’t say anything that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz hadn’t said already. The editor of The American Conservative, where Giraldi had been a contrubutor for a decade and a half, was terrified that the magazine was associated with a critic of Israel and quickly terminated the relationship. Such abject cowardice as the editor of The American Conservative showed is a true measure of the power of the Israel Lobby.

Meny seasoned experts believe that without the influence of the Israel Lobby, particularly as exerted by the Jewish Neoconservatives, the United States would not have been at war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 16 years. These wars have done nothing for the US but harm, and they have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and caused extensive death and destruction in seven countries and a massive refugee flow into Europe.

For a superpower such as the United States not to be in control of its own foreign policy is a serious matter. Giraldi is correct and patriotic to raise this concern. Giraldi makes sensible recommendations for correcting Washington’s lack of control over its own policy. But instead of analysis and debate of Giraldi’s proposals, the result is Giraldi’s punishment by an editor of a conservative publication anticipating the Israel Lobby’s wishes.

Americans should think about the fact that Israel is the only country on earth that it is impermissible to criticize. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy, especially toward the Palestinians, or remarks on Israel’s influence, is branded an “anti-semite.” Even mild critics who are trying to steer Israel away from making mistakes, such as former President Jimmy Carter, are branded “anti-semites.”

The Israel Lobby’s purpose in labeling a critic an “anti-semite” is to discredit the criticism as an expression of dislike or hatred of Jews. In other words, the criticism is presented as merely an expression of the person’s aversion to Jewishness. A persistent critic is likely to be charged with trying to incite a new holocaust.

It is possible to criticize the policy of Germany, France, Spain, UK, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, China, Iran, the US, indeed, every other country without being called anti-German, Anti-French, Anti-British, Anti-American, etc., although US policy in the Middle East is so closely aligned with Israel’s that the Israel Lobby regards critics of US Middle East policy as hostile to Israel. Despite the failures of US policy, it is getting more and more difficult to criticize it without the risk of being branded “unpatriotic,” and possibly even a “Muslim sympathizer” and “anti-semite.”

The power of the Israel Lobby is seen in many places. For example, the US Congress demands that RT, a news service, register as a Russian agent, but AIPAC, before whom every year the US Congress pays its homage and submission, does not have to register as an Israeli agent.

The many anomalies in the Israel Lobby’s power pass unremarked. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) defines criticism of Israeli policies as defamation and brands critics “anti-semites.” In other words, the ADL itself is set up in the business of defamation or name-calling. The incongriuty of an organization created to oppose defamation engaging in defamation as its sole purpose passes unremarked.

Israel is very proud of its power over the United States. Israeli political leaders have a history of bragging about their power over America. But if an American complains about it, he is a Jew-hater. The only safe way for an American to call attention to the power Israel has over the US is to brag about it. It is OK to acknowledge Israel’s power if you put it in a good light, but not if you complain about it.

So, let me put it this way: Israel’s unique ability to discredit all criticism of its policies as a mere expression of anti-Jewish sentiment is the greatest public relations success in the history of PR. The stupidity of the goy is easily overcome by the more capable Jew. Hats off to Israel for outwitting the dumbshit Americans and taking over their foreign policy. Perhaps Israel should take over US domestic policy as well. Or have they already?

It has been 30 years since the Federal Reserve has had a non-Jewish Chairman, and for the past three years Stanley Fischer, the former chairman of the Central Bank of Israel, has been Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Since the Clinton regime, the Treasury Secretaries have been predominately Jewish. We can say that their financial talent makes them natural candidates for these positions, but it is disingenuous to deny the influence of this small minority in American life. This influence becomes a problem when it is used to silence free speech.

Here is Giraldi:

How I Got Fired

October 03, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Two weeks ago, I wrote for Unz.com an article entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars.” It sought to make several points concerning the consequences of Jewish political power vis-à-vis some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. It noted that some individual American Jews and organizations with close ties to Israel, whom I named and identified, are greatly disproportionately represented in the government, media, foundations, think tanks and lobbying that is part and parcel of the deliberations that lead to formulation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Inevitably, those policies are skewed to represent Israeli interests and do serious damage to genuine American equities in the region. This tilt should not necessarily surprise anyone who has been paying attention and was noted by Nathan Glazer, among others, as long ago as 1976.

The end result of Israel centric policymaking in Washington is to produce negotiators like Dennis Ross, who consistently supported Israeli positions in peace talks, so much so that he was referred to as “Israel’s lawyer.” It also can result in wars, which is of particular concern given the current level of hostility being generated by these same individuals and organizations relating to Iran.

This group of Israel advocates is as responsible as any other body in the United States for the deaths of thousands of Americans and literally millions of mostly Muslim foreigners in unnecessary wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It has also turned the U.S. into an active accomplice in the brutal suppression of the Palestinians. That they have never expressed any remorse or regret and the fact that the deaths and suffering don’t seem to matter to them are clear indictments of the sheer inhumanity of the positions they embrace.

The claims that America’s Middle Eastern wars have been fought for Israel are not an anti-Semitic delusion. Some observers, including former high government official Philip Zelikow, believe that Iraq was attacked by the U.S. in 2003 to protect Israel. On April 3rd, just as the war was starting, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz headlined “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”

It then went on to describe how “In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in [Washington]: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another.”

And the deference to a Jewish proprietary interest in Middle Eastern policy produces U.S. Ambassadors to Israel who are more comfortable explaining Israeli positions than in supporting American interests. David Friedman, the current Ambassador, spoke last week defending illegal Israeli settlements, which are contrary to official U.S. policy, arguing that they represented only 2% of the West Bank. He did not mention that the land controlled by Israel, to include a security zone, actually represents 60% of the total area.

My suggestion for countering the overrepresentation of a special interest in policy formulation was to avoid putting Jewish government officials in that position by, insofar as possible, not giving them assignments relating to policy in the Middle East.

As I noted in my article, that was, in fact, the norm regarding Ambassadors and senior foreign service assignments to Israel prior to 1995, when Bill Clinton broke precedent by appointing Australian citizen Martin Indyk to the position. I think, on balance, it is eminently sensible to avoid putting people in jobs where they will likely have conflicts of interest.

Another solution that I suggested for American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and find themselves in a position that considers policy for that country and its neighbors would be to recuse themselves from the deliberations, just as a judge who finds himself personally involved in a judicial proceeding might withdraw. It would seem to me that, depending on the official’s actual relationship with Israel, it would be a clear conflict of interest to do otherwise.

The argument that such an individual could protect American interests while also having a high level of concern for a foreign nation with contrary interests is at best questionable. As George Washington observed in his farewell address, “…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils.

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification…”

My article proved to be quite popular, particularly after former CIA officer Valerie Plame tweeted her approval of it and was viciously and repeatedly attacked, resulting in a string of abject apologies on her part. As a reasonably well-known public figure, Plame attracted a torrent of negative press, in which I, as the author of the piece being tweeted, was also identified and excoriated. In every corner of the mainstream media I was called “a well-known anti-Semite,” “a long time anti-Israel fanatic,” and, ironically, “a somewhat obscure character.”

The widespread criticism actually proved to be excellent in terms of generating real interest in my article. Many people apparently wanted to read it even though some of the attacks against me and Plame deliberately did not provide a link to it to discourage such activity.

As of this writing, it has been opened and viewed 130,000 times and commented on 1,250 times. Most of the comments were favorable. Some of my older pieces, including The Dancing Israelis and Why I Still Dislike Israel have also found a new and significant readership as a result of the furor.

One of the implications of my original article was that Jewish advocacy groups in the United States are disproportionately powerful, capable of using easy access to the media and to compliant politicians to shape policies that are driven by tribal considerations and not necessarily by the interests of most of the American people.

Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, in their groundbreaking book “The Israel Lobby”, observed how the billions of dollars given to Israel annually “cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds… {and] is due largely to the activities of the Israel lobby—a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who openly work to push U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.”

Those same powerful interests are systematically protected from criticism or reprisal by constantly renewed claims of historic and seemingly perpetual victimhood. But within the Jewish community and media, that same Jewish power is frequently exalted. It manifests itself in boasting about the many Jews who have obtained high office or who have achieved notoriety in the professions and in business.

In a recent speech, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz put it this way, “People say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, we’ve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that! We have earned the right to influence public debate, we have earned the right to be heard, we have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.”

He has also discussed punishing critics of Israel, “Anyone that does [that] has to be treated with economic consequences. We have to hit them in the pocketbook. Don’t ever, ever be embarrassed about using Jewish power. Jewish power, whether it be intellectual, academic, economic, political– in the interest of justice is the right thing to do.”

My article, in fact, began with an explanation of that one aspect of Jewish power, its ability to promote Israeli interests freely and even openly while simultaneously silencing critics. I described how any individual or “any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity.

Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again.”

With that in mind, I should have expected that there would be a move made to “silence” me. It came three days after my article appeared. The Editor of The American Conservative (TAC) magazine and website, where I have been a regular and highly rated contributor for nearly 15 years, called me and abruptly announced that even though my article had appeared on another site, it had been deemed unacceptable and TAC would have to sever its relationship with me. I called him a coward and he replied that he was not.

I do not know exactly who on the TAC board decided to go after me. Several board members who are good friends apparently were not even informed about what was going on when firing me was under consideration. I do not know whether someone coming from outside the board applied pressure in any way, but there is certainly a long history of friends of Israel being able to remove individuals who have offended against the established narrative, recently exemplified by the hounding of now-ex-Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel who had the temerity to state that “the Jewish lobby intimidates lots of people” in Washington. As Gilad Atzmon has observed one of the most notable features of Jewish power is the ability to stifle any discussion of Jewish power by gentiles.

But the defenestration by TAC, which I will survive, also contains a certain irony. The magazine was co-founded in 2002 by Pat Buchanan and the article by him that effectively launched the publication in the following year was something called “Whose War?” Buchanan’s initial paragraphs tell the tale:

“The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: ‘Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?’

Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused.

Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group.

People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these ‘Buchananites toss around neoconservative—and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen—it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’ Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a ‘key tenet of neoconservatism.’

He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush ‘sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.’ (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.)”

Pat is right on the money. He was pretty much describing the same group that I have written about and raising the same concern, i.e. that the process had led to an unnecessary war and will lead to more unless it is stopped by exposing and marginalizing those behind it. Pat was, like me, called an anti-Semite and even worse for his candor.

And guess what? The group that started the war that has since been deemed the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history is still around and they are singing the same old song.

And TAC has not always been so sensitive to certain apparently unacceptable viewpoints, even in my case. I write frequently about Israel because I believe it and its supporters to be a malign influence on the United States and a threat to national security.

In June 2008, I wrote a piece called “The Spy Who Loves Us” about Israeli espionage against the U.S. It was featured on the cover of the magazine and it included a comment about the tribal instincts of some American Jews: “In 1996, ten years after the agreement that concluded the [Jonathan] Pollard [Israeli spying] affair, the Pentagon’s Defense Investigative Service warned defense contractors that Israel had ‘espionage intentions and capabilities’ here and was aggressively trying to steal military and intelligence secrets.

It also cited a security threat posed by individuals who have ‘strong ethnic ties’ to Israel, stating that ‘Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique utilized with great success.’”

Three days later, another shoe dropped. I was supposed to speak at a panel discussion critical of Saudi Arabia on October 2nd. The organizer, the Frontiers of Freedom foundation, emailed me to say my services would no longer be required because “the conference will not be a success if we get sidetracked into debating, discussing, or defending the substance of your writings on Israel.”

Last Saturday morning, Facebook blocked access to my article for a time because it “contained a banned word.” I can safely assume that such blockages will continue and that invitations to speak at anti-war or foreign policy events will be in short supply from now on as fearful organizers avoid any possible confrontation with Israel’s many friends.

Would I do something different if I were to write my article again today? Yes. I would have made clearer that I was not writing about all or most American Jews, many of whom are active in the peace movement and, like my good friend Jeff Blankfort and Glenn Greenwald, even figure among the leading critics of Israel.

My target was the individuals and Jewish “establishment” groups I specifically named, that I consider to be the activists for war. And I refer to them as “Jews” rather than neoconservatives or Zionists as some of them don’t identify by those political labels while to blame developments on Zios or neocons is a bit of an evasion in any event. Writing “neoconservatives” suggests some kind of fringe or marginal group, but we are actually talking about nearly all major Jewish organizations and many community leaders.

Many, possibly even most, Jewish organizations in the United States openly state that they represent the interests of the state of Israel.

The crowd stoking fears of Iran is largely Jewish and is, without exception, responsive to the frequently expressed desires of the self-defined Jewish state to have the United States initiate hostilities. This often means supporting the false claim that Tehran poses a serious threat against the U.S. as a pretext for armed conflict. Shouldn’t that “Jewish” reality be on the table for consideration when one is discussing the issue of war versus peace in America?

When all is said and done the punishment that has been meted out to me and Valerie Plame proves my point. The friends of Israel rule by coercion, intimidation and through fear. If we suffer through a catastrophic war with Iran fought to placate Benjamin Netanyahu many people might begin to ask “Why?” But identifying the real cause would involve criticism of what some American Jews have been doing, which is not only fraught with consequences, but is something that also will possibly become illegal thanks to Congressional attempts to criminalize such activity.

We Americans will stand by mutely as we begin to wonder what has happened to our country. And some who are more perceptive will even begin to ask why a tiny client state has been allowed to manipulate and bring ruin on the world’s only super power.

Unfortunately, at that point, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
This article was originally published in the Unz Review.

Here you can listen to three disgusting presstitutes give Valerie Plame hell for linking to Giraldi’s “repugnant and anti-semetic article.” Scroll down:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47942.htm Continue reading Has The Israel Lobby Destroyed Americans’ First Amendment Rights?

Share

JUDAH BENJAMIN, the Confederacy and the Jewish Slave Trade

Share

“Judah P. Benjamin was known as “the brains of the Confederacy,” its “court Jew,” “the statesman of the Lost Cause,” and even “the Confederate Kissinger. As, successively, Attorney General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State in the Confederate Cabinet, he was President Jefferson Davis’ closest and most trusted adviser.”

– The New Orleans Times Picayunne / ‘The Confederate Kissinger’ / April 20, 2010

Based on Excerpts from Planet Rothchild / Volume 1

When we think of the Confederacy, the big names that automatically come to mind are the three legends carved into the side of Georgia’s Stone Mountain: PresidentJefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee and General Stonewall Jackson. Significant figures for sure, but in the grander power-scheme of things, these men, including President Davis himself, were outranked by Judah P. Benjamin. The fact that Benjamin’s name is so relatively unknown is, ironically, testament to the awesome “behind-the-scenes” power that he wielded. Unfortunately for the South (and the North), Benjamin’s influence served neither of the Americas. His loyalties were elsewhere – in Rothschild’s London!

 

http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/stonemountain2.jpg

Benjamin’s image never made it to Stone Mountain, but his ‘mug-shot’ did appear on Confederate currency and bonds!

 

Before and during the War Between the States, there is Jewish influence supporting both the cause of Northern Unionism and Southern Secession. Louisiana Senator John Slidell is not Jewish (at least not outwardly), but his family ties to elite European Jewry run deep. Slidell’s daughter is engaged to Baron Frederic Erlanger, a French Jewish financier based in Paris. Erlanger helps to fund the Confederacy, gouging the South with usurious interest rates and fees too! (here)

Erlanger’s financing of the South, as confirmed even by contemporray New York Times articles, is directly linked to the House of Rothschild(here)  Pappa-in-Law Slidell would later serve the Confederate States government as foreign diplomat to Great Britain and French Emperor Napoleon III. Now the niece of the influential Senator is married to northern financier August Belmont (Schönberg)– Rothschild’s Jewish boy and Democrat boss supporting the Northern cause, at least at first. After the war, “Confederate” Slidell will make his “Unionist” nephew-in-law Belmont his political protégé.

Also hooked up with Senator Slidell in this tangled North-South-Rothschild  knot of financial-political intrigue is fellow Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, the Jewish big-shot who goes on to become the Confederacy’s  Attorney General, then Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State. Through the shadowy fog of 150 years of elapsed history, we can now discern a pattern of divide & conquer, balance of power conspiratorial actions being played upon both sides – and with tragic consequences.

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ajhs46.jpg

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Erlanger_Frederic_Emile.jpghttp://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HD_belmontAc.jpg

Senator Slidell – His Jewish Son-in-Law Erlanger – His Jewish Northern Nephew-in-Law Belmont, and Jewish fellow Senator Benjamin form an incestuous North-South connection with direct links to the House of Rothschild.

BATTLE OF BULL RUN / SOUTH WINS; BUT FAILS TO FOLLOW-UP WITH ‘KNOCK-OUT BLOW’

If the South is to have any chance of gaining independence, it will have to win early, before the more industrialized and populated North can outlast them. The first battle of the war at Bull Run (Manassas, Virginia) is therefore critical. To make a long story short, the rebels force a Union retreat that soon turns into a full rout. The Battle of Bull Run will soon be referred to by some as “The Battle of Yankee Run”.

The Union Capital, Washington DC, is just miles away and now essentially undefended. It is the South’s for the taking. The capture of DC and other parts north would have delivered a huge psychological blow to the North. Because many northerners aren’t in favor of the war anyway; the capture of DC might very well have ended the war that same year. But instead of finishing the job, someone has decided to spare the Capital – a decision that inflames the Southern press and leads to bitter finger-pointing.

The ‘fall-guy’ for this blunder will be War Secretary Leroy Walker. But in reality, it is the ex-war hero, ex-War Secretary and current Confederate President Jefferson Davis who calls the shots, not the young Walker. But it is also known that Davis relies heavily on the advice from the man whose intelligence and gift-of-gab he is awed by – Jewish Attorney General and former Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin, referred to by critics as, “Davis’s pet Jew”. (here)

Was it Judah Benjamin, the man so admired by Solomon de Rothschild(here) who may have whispered poison in Davis’s ear, telling him not to take DC and thus blowing the chance to win the game early for the South? And after Walker has been made the scapegoat and fired; who replaces him as War Secretary? None other than Judah Benjamin!

.

1 & 2 – After Bull Run turned into a rout, Washington DC – just 30 miles away – could have been captured. Whose idea was it to halt? That of  Davis — or his trusted “adviser” Benjamin?

3 – Engraved portraits (from 1861) of the South’s chieftains depict Judah Benjamin at the very top (!) with Jefferson Davis in a bigger circle but down lower. Sleazy Slidell with the Rothschild agents for in-laws is to the left of Davis.

Could the new War Secretary Benjamin’s subsequent 1861 interference with the Generals, – acts so controversial that they would force a Congressional investigation – and his bizarre refusal to supply them as requested have been a ploy designed to prolong the war until Rothschild could bury both sides in debt, before sending the Family’s British and French hit-men to divvy up’ America into two spheres?

Establishment historians will later claim that Benjamin’s stubborn defiance of the Generals was due to a lack of supplies in the South. But given how early it was in the war, the claim that supplies were low seems like a cover story. If “lack of supplies” had been the cause of Benjamin’s decisions, Generals Stonewall Jackson and P. G. T. Beauregard would not have had reason to dislike Benjamin as they did.

Such a delaying scenario would fit perfectly with a Rothschild plan to have a longwar, one in which both sides could be indebted and weakened before the British & French can arrive.

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/615.jpghttp://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HenryWise.gif

Generals Jackson, Beauregard and Wise all hated Judah Benjamin.

That in mind, let’s take a closer look at the shady Mr. Benjamin. Outwardly, the esteemed Jefferson Davis is the ‘top dog’ of the South – the President of the Confederate States of America. But behind the scenes, Judah Benjamin, with his European connections, ‘gift of gab’ and impressive intellect is, in the grand scheme of things, more powerful than Davis. What the banking agent Alexander Hamilton had been to George Washington, the trusted Benjamin is to Davis, and then some. Like Hamilton, Benjamin was also born a British subject (West Indies)There is simply no exaggerating the influence of Judah Benjamin.

Biographer Eli Evans wrote that Benjamin:

“…achieved greater political power than any other Jew in the nineteenth century — perhaps even in all American history.” 

Historian Charles Curran, in a 1967 issue of ‘History Today” wrote:

“Judah Philip Benjamin must be bracketed with Disraeli, who was his contemporary, as the ablest Jewish politician ever born under the British flag. But his career outdid Disraeli’s in audacity. Benjamin lived three lives in one.”

Judah is a plantation owner, slave-owner and originally a Senator from Louisiana – as was the aforementioned and equally European-connected John Slidell. Although he has no military experience, Benjamin is named the South’s Secretary of War in 1861, after having served as Attorney General for several months. Many in the South will come to loath and mistrust Benjamin.  The great General  Jackson once threatened to resign over conflicts with Benjamin (here– who was commonly referred to in the South as “Mr. Davis’s pet Jew”. (here)

But certain people in Europe had a much higher opinion of Benjamin. In 1861, Salomon de Rothschild – grandson of dynasty founder Mayer Amschel Rothschild – during a visit to Louisiana describes Benjamin as: “the greatest mind in North America.” (here) That pretty much tells us all we need to know about the “southern rebel” Judah Benjamin!

In the fall of 1859,  de Rothschild, the son of Baron James de Rothschild of Paris, had come to the United States as a tourist. His travels in the North and South are recorded in a series of letters to his cousin Nathaniel in London.

Rothschild met with prominent politicians (surely with Benjamin!) and commented  on the issues of the day. His views were “pro-Confederate” and his letters urged cousin Nathan to use the family’s influence to gain the recognition of the Confederacy by the European powers.

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pes_124004.jpgNathaniel de Rothschild.PNG

Rothschilds for Dixie? – Sing it! – “Oh I wish I were in the land of Matzo…”

Solomon Rothschild (l) urged Nathan Rothschild (who resembles Judah Benjamin) to support the South. 

EXCERPT: “The European states should indeed intercede in order to avoid bloodshed which would be useless and very detrimental to their commerce…..

What is astonishing here, or rather, what is not astonishing, is the high position occupied by our co-religionists, or rather by those who were born into the faith and who, having married Christian women, and without converting, have forgotten the practices of their fathers.

Judah P. Benjamin, the Attorney General of the Confederate States, is perhaps the greatest mind on this continent. H.M. Hyams, the lieutenant governor of Louisiana, Moyse, the Secretary of the Interior, etc. And what is odd, all these men have a Jewish heart and take an interest in me,because I represent the greatest Jewish house in the world.”  (here)

 http://www.jewish-history.com/salomon/

JUDAH BENJAMIN’s EUROPEAN PLOT

In 1862, Benjamin, under intense Congressional pressure, is forced to resign as War Secretary. Jefferson Davis then appoints his beleaguered adviser as the South’s Secretary of State! In this position, Benjamin will work with Slidell and Slidell’s French Jewish son-in-Law Erlanger to secure not just financing from the Rothschild syndicate, but also to induce the direct involvement of Rothschild’s Britain & France into the war, on the side of the South.

A joint British & French entry into the war would have tipped the scales in favor of the South, and ultimately led to two American nations, both under foreign influence. Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Seward block Judah Benjamin’s scheme by turning to Russia for help.

In a clear message to his old Rothschild-funded foes from the Crimean War, Czar Alexander II stations the better part of his Pacific fleet in San Francisco, and a portion of his western fleet in New York. The British & French instigators of the Crimean War get the message and are forced to back off. Judah Benjamin and the Rothschild financiers are thus thwarted. Together, Alex and Abe have defied the London Bankers and will both pay a heavy price for it.

After the war, in recognition of, or payback for, Russia’s help in keeping Britain & France out of the war; Seward will arrange for the purchase of Alaska from Russia after the war – an act dismissed at the time as “Seward’s Folly”. But now we know the reason for the “folly”.

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/usa_welcomes_russians.jpg

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/slide_71.jpg

1- The presence of Russian fleets in San Francisco and New York kept Judah Benjamin’s British and French attack dogs at bay.  

2- Seward’s Folly was Union payback to Russia.

 

OCTOBER, 1864

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ACCUSES AUGUST BELMONT AND THE  ROTHSCHILDS OF PLOTTING AGAINST THE UNION

On 16, October 1864 on page 2, The Chicago Tribune reported,

BELMONT’S CONFEDERATE BONDS (Excerpt)

“It is perhaps somewhat flattering to our national pride to know that the Rothschilds, who hold up every despotism in Europe, have concluded that it would be cheaper to buy up one of our political parties (Democrats), and in that way secure the dissolution of the Union, than to have their agents in England and France interfere and fight us.

But Irishmen and Germans have a something, which for brevity we will all a ‘crop,’ and this fact sticks in their crop, that the oppressors of Ireland and Germany, the money kings of Europe, not daring to carry out their first pet project of breaking down this Government by the armed intervention, of England and France.

Let Belmont state over his own signature, if he can that he and Rothschilds have not, directly or indirectly, in their own name, or in that of others, operated in Confederate stocks during this rebellion. Until he can face the music in that style it matters little what tune any of the Copperhead penny whistles may be authorized to blow, as they are very seldom authorized to state anything that is true.”

ALL CONNECTED! 

DID JUDAH BENJAMIN KILL LINCOLN?

In the closing days of the American Civil War, a massive conspiracy to decapitate the U.S. government results in the assassination of President Lincoln by an actor with ties to secret societies. John Wilkes Booth shoots Lincoln in the back of the head as Lincoln and his wife watch a play at Ford’s Theatre. Booth escapes.

On the same night of Lincoln’s murder, Lewis Powell, an associate of Booth, attacks Secretary of State William Seward in his home. Seward is stabbed in the face and neck before other men in the house subdue Powell. Seward’s wife Frances dies two months later from stress caused by seeing her husband nearly killed.

Vice President Johnson and General Ulysses S Grant were also to have been killed. The “conspiracy theorists” of the day point the finger at Judah Benjamin, (here) who burns the official papers of the Confederate Secret Service right about this time. (here) Thanks to Bennie the Burner, the full story of Confederate clandestine services, and most likely the Lincoln assassination, may never be known.

1 & 2: Abe and Alex both paid with their lives for defying the Rothschilds. Judah Benjamin was suspected of engineering the Lincoln assassination.

3 – “Extremes Meet” – British Press mocks Abe and Alexander’s cooperation.

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/614QfuXZkzL._SY344_BO1204203200_.jpghttp://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/4686.jpg

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/c436fr.jpg

Lincoln’s alliance with the Rothschild family’s most hated enemy, Russia, and his printing of interest-free ‘Greenbacks” to finance the war were big “no-no’s” that got him killed. John Fazio’s ‘Decapitating the Union’ supports the belief of many during that time that Judah Benjamin was the mastermind of the plot.

BENJAMIN BUGS OUT

As the south collapses, Benjamin stays in the home of a Jewish merchant in South Carolina while final surrender negotiations drag on. Here, Benjamin abandons President Davis’s plan to fight on, telling him that the cause is hopeless. When negotiations fail, Benjamin remains part of the group around Davis that moves on with the President.

At one point, Benjamin (under suspicion for involvement in Lincoln’s assassination)tells Davis that he needs to separate from the Presidential party temporarily, and go to the Bahamas to be able to send instructions to foreign agents. He reassures Davis that he will rejoin him in Texas.  According to historian William C. Davis, “the pragmatic Secretary of State almost certainly never had any intention of returning to the South once gone”.  (here)

When he bades Postmaster Reagan goodbye, the Postmaster asks where Benjamin is going. Benjamin replies: “To the farthest place from the United States, if it takes me to the middle of China.” (here)

While other Confederate leaders, including the trusting fool Jefferson Davis, are being jailed and abused, Benjamin arrives in London before traveling to Paris – where his wife and daughter had been sent to live years before the war had even started.  Benjamin then moves back to England and will enjoy a very profitable career and “second life” as an attorney, until his death in 1884. Congressman John Wise, son of Confederate General and Virginia Governor Henry Wise, wrote a highly popular book about the South in the Civil War in 1899, The End of an Era. In it, he stated:

“(Benjamin) had more brains and less heart than any other civic leader in the South … The Confederacy and its collapse were no more to Judah P. Benjamin than last year’s bird’s nest.” (here)

Unfortunately for historians, and fortunately for the Rothschilds, Benjamin, exactly as he had done with papers pertaining to the Confederacy’s secret services in 1865, also burned his personal papers shortly before his death in 1884. 

http://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/150px-John_S._Wise.jpghttp://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/51D927WGEWL._SX331_BO1204203200_.jpghttp://redpillmedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judah-benjamin-barristerjpg-ecc88241d379efa5_medium.jpg

1 & 2 – John Wise’s ‘End of an Era’ expresses the true Southern feeling toward the fleeing scoundrel Judah Benjamin, to whom the South was like “last year’s bird’s nest.”

3 – After abandoning his Confederate colleagues and the people of the South, Benjamin the “British” Barrister went on to enjoy a hugely successful 2nd career in Rothschild’s London — where he was a contemporary of Karl Marx and Benjamin Disraeli.

Now that you know the story of “The Confederate Kissinger” — the reason his name is so little known should no longer be a mystery.

Share

Gilad Atzmon Expains the Murder of the West by Identity Politics

Share

Introduction by Paul Craig Roberts

Strange, isn’t it, that one Jew, Gilad Atzmon, understands the dire situation of the Western World far better than does the entirety of the Western intellectual class, including its large Jewish component.

Read this and if you are successful in doing so, that is, not too handicapped by the low level of education to which Western “education” has degenerated, you will understand very much.

It is likely that Identity Politics has put the Western World into a situation from which recovery is impossible. All the rest of the world need do is to wait.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/8/15/being-in-virginia-in-time

By Gilad Atzmon
In my recent book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I pointed out that the West and America in particular have been led into a disastrous Identity (ID) clash. This week in Virginia we saw a glimpse of it.

In the book I argue that the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies. While the old Left made an effort to unite us all: gays, blacks, Jews or Whites into a political struggle against capital, the New Left has managed to divide us into ID sectors. We are trained to speak ‘as a…’: ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Lesbian.’ The new left has taught us to identify with our biology, with our gender, sex orientation and our skin colour, as long as it isn’t ‘White’ of course.

In Being in Time, I noted that it was a question of time before White people would also decide to identify with their biology. And this is exactly what we saw in Virginia last weekend.

Tragically, ID politics is a vey dangerous political game. It is designed to pull people apart. It is there to introduce conflict and division. ID politics doesn’t offer a harmonious vision of society as a whole. Quite the opposite, it leads to an increasingly fractured social reality. Take, for instance, the continuous evolution of the LGBT group. It is constantly expanding to include more and more sectarian sexually oriented social subgroupings (LGBTQ, LGBTQAI and even LGBTQIAP ).

In the New Left social reality, we, the people are shoved into ID ghettos that are defined by our biology: skin colour, sexual orientation, the Jewish mother, etc.

Instead of what we need to do: fight together against big money, the bankers, the megacorporations, we fight each other, we learn to hate each other. We even drive our cars over each other.

I am opposed to all forms of ID politics, whether it is White, Black, Jewish, Gender or sex oriented. But, obviously if Jews, Gays and others are entitled to identify with their ‘biology’, white people are entitled to do the same. I think that universalism is what we used to call it when we still cared about intellectual integrity.

The problem created by ID politics is extremely grave. ID politics doesn’t offer a prospect of peace and harmony. Within the context of ID politics, we cannot envisage a peaceful resolution of the current ID clash. Can anyone foresee the LGBT community embracing KKK activists into their notion of ‘diverse society?’ The same can be said about the KKK, are they going to open their gates to cultural Marxists?

ID politics equals ID clash, an irreconcilable conflict with no end, the complete destruction of American and, to a certain extent, Western civilisation.  This may explain why George Soros and his open society are invested in this battle. As long as the working people are fighting each other, no one bothers to challenge the root cause of our current dystopia, namely the banks, global capitalism, wall street, Mammonism and so on.

The remedy is clear. America and the West must, at once, break away from all forms of ID politics. Instead of celebrating that which separates us, we must seek what unites and makes us into one people.  I am advocating a radical spiritual, ideological and metaphysical transition. Whether or not we like to admit it, these moments of unity are often invoked by waves of patriotism, nationalism and religious figures. But they could also be inspired by the spirit of justice, equality, compassion and love.  Neither the New Left or the Alt Right offers any of the above. They are equally invested in Identitarian ideologies. The electoral success of Trump, Corbyn and even Sanders or Le Pen points at a general human fatigue.  Readiness for change is in the air.

The Identitarian Shift & the Primacy of the Symptom
(Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto  pg. 49)
ID politics manifests itself as a set of group identification strategies. It subdues the ‘I’ in favour of symbolic identifiers: the ring on the appropriate ear, the nose stud, the type of skullcap, the colour of the scarf and so on.

Within the ID political cosmos, newly emerging ‘tribes’ (gays, lesbians, Jews, Blacks, Whites,vegans, etc.) are marched into the desert, led towards an appealing ‘promised land’, where the primacy of the symptom (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, skin colour etc.) is supposed to evolve into a world in itself. But this liberal utopia is in practice a sectarian and segregated amalgam of ghettos that are blind to each other. It has nothing in common with the promised universal, inclusive cosmos.

‘The personal is political,’ as the common feminists and liberal preachers have disseminated since the 1960s, is a phrase designed to disguise the obvious; the personal is actually the antithesis of the political. It is, in fact, the disparity between the personal and the political that makes humanism into an evolving exchange known as history. Within the Identitarian discourse, the so-called ‘personal’ replaces true and genuine individualism with phony group identification – it suppresses all sense of authenticity, rootedness and belonging, in favour of a symbolism and imaginary collectivism that is supported by rituals and empty soundbites.Why are we willing to subject ourselves to politics based on biology, and who wrote this new theology found in pamphlets and in the growing numbers of ID Studies textbooks? Is there a contemporaneous God? And who created the ‘pillar of cloud’ we are all to follow?

It is clear that elements within the New Left, together with Jewish progressives and liberal intelligentsia, have been at the heart of the formation of the ideological foundation of ID politics. At least traditionally, both Jewish liberals and the Left were associated with opposition to any form of exclusive political agenda based on biology or ethnicity. Yet, one may wonder why does the New Left espouse such an exclusivist, sectarian and biologically driven agenda?

Share

US Senator Warns Of A ‘Powder Keg’ And The ‘Next Charlottesville’ As More Evidence Emerges Hillary And George Soros Are Funding A ‘Domestic Terror Agenda’ To Overthrow America

Share
 

– And Remember, Hillary And Obama Funded ISIS, Too!

By Stefan Stanford – All News Pipeline – Live Free Or Die

‘Racism is a tool of the collectivist. The goal is to dismantle American society‘.

According to this August 14th story over at the Washington Free Beaconfailed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has sent at least $800,000 from her campaign funds to her new political action group according to the Federal Election Commission. Clinton announced her intent to be “part of the resistance” in May with the formation of Onward Together, a political action group that will fund a number of established “resistance” groups that can quickly counter President Trump with direct action and protests.

Soon after the election, Hillary announced her intentions to stay involved with ‘resisting’ President Trump’s agenda and as anybody paying attention to ‘real news’ knows, for many years, she was also part of the efforts being made to arm ‘anti-Assad’ rebels in Syria, many of whom turned out to be the same ISIS terrorists who are now killing people around the world, including Americans. So why would Hillary Clinton send nearly a million dollars to ‘resistance’ groups such as Antifa, a group which many, including the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security, have deemed a ‘domestic terror group’?

Antifa-1.jpg

As Susan Duclos reported on Sunday on ANP, Antifa is planning a nationwide terror attack on November 4th in an attempt to drive President Trump out of office and as with all of the recent ‘Antifa protests’, those paying attention warn we’re now witnessing an ongoing communist attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the United States. Epoch Times reported recently that there are undeniable links that show ‘Antifa’ has communist origins, including promoting a communist dictatorship in Germany on Soviet Union’s behalf, and labelled all ideologies other than communism as ‘fascism’.

Sound familiar? And while I’m quite sure I’ll be called a ‘Nazi’ or a ‘fascist’ for calling out these antifa frauds, as Dilbert cartoon strip creator and popular blogger Scott Adams recently pointed out, millions of Americans are buying into this ‘everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a fascist hysteria’. However, whether or not they should be labeled as a ‘terrorist group’ shouldn’t even be debatable as they claim in their own methods as also seen in more detail below:

We will gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country, at first many thousands declaring that this whole regime is illegitimate and that we will not stop until our single demand is met: This Nightmare Must End: the Trump/Pence Regime Must Go!

Our protest must grow day after day and night after night—thousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millions—determined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power.

According to Cornell Law School, the definition of ‘domestic terrorism’ is:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Should Antifa’s threats to use force and violence to remove President Trump be considered domestic terrorism? Over 175,000 people have signed a White House petition to have them declared domestic terrorists and in the 2nd video below, we hear the so-called ‘alt left’ chanting ‘death to America’. Case closed. If anybody had ever made such threats to remove Barack Obama, martial law would have been declared and America would have been locked down. What hypocrites reside within US politics and the mainstream media.

devious_psychopathic_murderer.jpg

We’re warned that what we’re now witnessing is the operational phase of an attempted takedown of the President Trump’s duly elected government, one that the globalists hope will lead to civil war which could very quickly end up facilitating the invasion of the US from within and without and the destruction of America.

While the mainstream media won’t utter a word about Senator John McCain’s KKK ancestry or how he helped to put neo-nazi’s in charge in the Ukraine, helping to push those screaming ‘race’ every chance they get to the breaking point, it’s becoming more and more obvious we’re watching an anti-white, anti-America and hate-driven agenda being pushed by the msm.

And as The Hill recently reported, we’re now witnessing the far left turn their hatred towards cops and the ‘thin blue line’ after many came out, allegedly to ‘peacefully protest’ according to the msm, and threw bottles of urine and stones at officers while carrying signs like the one seen below tweeted by actor James Woods. As Dinesh D’Souza recently reported over at WND, while the msm is reporting upon the rise of fascism on the right, it’s already firmly entrenched on the left as seen exemplified by one elderly woman carrying an American flag in Boston being brutalized.

dem_violence.png

And while those on the left and much of the msm recently rejoiced over the release of Steve Bannon from the White House position he held for 7+ months, such rejoicing was likely akin to those who were sitting in prime seats on the Titanic, right before it went down.

As Gateway Pundit recently reported, with Bannon no longer handcuffed by sitting in such a politically correct position within the White House, we expect with the knowledge he accumulated about ‘America’s enemies within’ that all hell is about to break loose. As Raheem Kassam recently stated, now Bannon knows who the enemies of the American people are. Calling Bannon a literal ‘killing machine’ within the GP story, if we soon see ‘heads a rolling’, we’ll know his ‘nuclear war’ against America’s ‘globalist enemies within’ had begun. As one former Breitbart employee recently said, Bannon’s ‘firing’ is the globalists worst nightmare come true.

We also pray that Steve Bannon has the Hand of God watching over him in the days, weeks and months ahead as we all remember what happened to Andrew Breitbart and it’s clear to much of America that the ‘enemies within’ which America faces now have many of the same names and faces as we faced back when Andrew Breitbart was still alive, tweeting about the likes of John Podesta.

And as anyone paying attention knows, ‘Clinton enemies’ die like flies with a body count stretching well into 2017 that has still never been adequately investigated by anybody other than the independent media and certainly not by law enforcement, some who for 8 years had their ‘commander in chief’ as none other than Bill Clinton himself.

the_killing_machine.jpg

As I stated above, while I’m sure there are some out there who will call me a ‘Nazi’ and claim that I’m against the right to protest for being against the protesting methods of Antifa, anybody who knows me knows how far that is from the truth as I firmly believe that all lawful protest must be peaceful, with Anonymous giving an excellent breakdown of the proper and lawful way to do so in this excellent video called ‘Anonymous Code of Conduct’.

Notice, PEACEFUL protest is highlighted again and again.

Yet a visit to the Facebook page of Antifa seen via screenshot below shows them espousing violence and DISCOURAGING ‘pacifism’ by specifically stating ‘your pacifism will be a liability’. Why does Facebook allow posts such as that, which specifically call for violence to be used against other human beings yet they’ll quickly ban ‘hate speech’?

And since they’re espousing violence, why are Antifa, and the ‘other terrorists’ ISIS, getting a free pass on Facebook, which deletes so-called ‘hate speech’ while allowing terrorist videos and child pornography that had been flagged to stay? Every day, Facebook, Google and YouTube more clearly show their true colors. Language warning on post below.

not_pacifists.png
.

According to this new story over at the Independent, they report that President Trump is only 6 Senate votes away from a possible impeachment by Congress, just the latest ‘pipe dream’ being pushed by the left in attempting to get President Trump out of office by any way that they can. And as we hear in the final video below featuring Amerigeddon producer Gary Heavin and Pastor Rodney Howard Brown, part of the deep state agrees with Missouri Senator Maria Chappelle-Nidal, who sickeningly recently stated that she’d like to see President Trump assassinated.

Will the ‘deep state’ attempt to ‘take out’ President Trump? Trump’s enemies are clearly a confederacy of cowards.

While according to this recent poll from Gallup, President Trump has a job approval rating of below 40%, Gallup also recently determined that Congress’s approval rating is at a ‘below dismal’ 16% proving to us that as much as some Americans dislike President Trump, more than twice as many Americans despise those within the US Congress. .

And as we read in some of the comments left upon the Independent story, if the Congress and their horrid approval rating attempts to impeach President Trump without any crimes or misdemeanors existing to do so lawfully, there will be hell to pay if they try.

With some going so far as warning ‘there’ll be people swinging off trees’, we remind you that we are only reporting what others are saying and strongly condemn unlawful acts of violence being taken by anybody. However, as Republican Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska recently stated, his constituents are angry and Sasse and many of them feel like violence is coming.

From Senator Sasse’s Facebook post.:

THE NEXT CHARLOTTESVILLE
Over the last week, many Nebraskans have told me some version of this: ‎“There are lots of us here who are ‎scared about where the country is headed. I think more violence is inevitable.”


That much seems obvious. Less expected was where some of them went next.
One of my constituents, a fairly energetic Trump supporter and a middle-aged man, told me:


**”To be clear, I think the alt-Right are a bunch of a**holes.”‎
**”And we should admit that the President has done a bad job getting us through this.”
**But “when the next rounds of violence come, I’ll bet you most of it will come from the left.”
**”And then some folks I know will respond in kind. It’s gonna be a powder-keg.”

no_crimes.PNG
will_they_try.PNG

revolution_and_lynchings.PNG
message_to_Congress_prepare_for_hell.PNG

Will the US Congress attempt to impeach President Trump, knowing that they have a much lower approval rating than him and the HUGE majority of the American people are sick of them? What we’ve been watching from Congress for many years now is the very reason term limits should be imposed as the American people have been completely sold out.

Between the lunatic left and the RINO’s, who the Intercept basically admitted are ‘one party’, and George Soros and Hillary Clinton, the American people have been sold down the river and as the very same haters attempt to hijack history, former Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan recent asked “In This Second American Civil War, Whose Side Are You On?”

While we pray it never gets to that point, there’s no doubt which side we are on, the ‘right side’ of history. Truth will always eventually conquer ‘the empire of lies’. As Steve Quayle recently said via SQnote while linking to this story, “civil war plays out before our eyes as our nation’s history, they do despise, ruled by ‘the father of lies’ and funded by George Soros, (Beelzebub?), the ‘lord of the flies'”.

 

Share

Tech companies banishing extremists after Charlottesville

Share

[Ed Note: Antifa has been named a Domestic Terrorist Group, (a George Soros production) by the Department of Homeland Security…yet the Alt-Left Media and Tech Companies, (owned by the the same suspects) have all but declared them the founding fathers of the new American Soviet!]

NEW YORK (AP) — It took bloodshed in Charlottesville to get tech companies to do what civil rights groups have been calling for for years: take a firmer stand against accounts used to promote hate and violence.

In the wake of the deadly clash at a white-nationalist rally last weekend in Virginia, major companies such as Google, Facebook and PayPal are banishing a growing cadre of extremist groups and individuals for violating service terms.

What took so long? For one thing, tech companies have long seen themselves as bastions of free expression.

But the Charlottesville rally seemed to have a sobering effect. It showed how easily technology can be used to organize and finance such events, and how extreme views online can translate into violence offline.

“There is a difference between freedom of speech and what happened in Charlottesville,” said Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, an online racial justice group. The battle of ideas is “different than people who show up with guns to terrorize communities.”

A SLOW REACTION

Tech companies are in a bind. On one hand, they want to be open to as many people as possible so they can show them ads or provide rides, apartments or financial services. On the other hand, some of these users turn out to be white supremacists, terrorists or child molesters.

Keegan Hankes, analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center’s intelligence project, said his group has been trying for more than a year to get Facebook and PayPal to shut down these accounts. Even now, he said, the two companies are taking action only in the most extreme cases.

“They have policies against violence, racism, harassment,” said Hankes, whose center monitors hate groups and extremism. “The problem is that there has been no enforcement.”

Case in point: The neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer has been around since 2013. But it wasn’t effectively kicked off the internet until it mocked the woman killed while protesting the white nationalists in Charlottesville.

SHIFTING LINE

PayPal said groups that advocate racist views have no place on its service, but added that there is a “fine line” when it comes to balancing freedom of expression with taking a stand against violent extremism.

Other companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google struggle with the same balancing act. The fine line is constantly moving and being tested.

Ahead of the rally, Airbnb barred housing rentals to people it believed were traveling to participate. Before and after Charlottesville, PayPal cut off payments to groups that promote hate and violence. GoDaddy and Google yanked the domain name for Daily Stormer following the rally. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are removing known hate groups from their services, and the music streaming service Spotify dropped what it considers hate bands.

“Companies are trying to figure out what the right thing is to do and how to do it,” said Steve Jones, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who focuses on communication technology. What happens from here is “partly going to depend on the individual leadership at these companies and company culture — and probably resources, too.”

CAT AND MOUSE

While traditional brands such as Tiki had no way of knowing that their torches were being bought for the rally, tech companies have tools to identify and ban people with extremist views.

That’s thanks to the troves of data they store on people and to their ability to easily switch off access to users. Airbnb users can link to social media profiles, and the company said it used its existing background checks and “input from the community” to identify users who didn’t align with its standards.

Yet these services also allow for anonymity, which makes their jobs more difficult. Banned people can sign up again with a different email address, something they can easily obtain anonymously.

Facebook spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja said hate groups also know the site’s policies and try to keep things just benign enough to ensure they are not in violation.

For instance, the event page for the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville looked fairly innocuous. Budhraja said there was nothing on the page that would suggest it was created by a hate organization. It has since been removed.

Facebook’s technology is designed to automatically flag posts that are on the absolute extreme and clearly violate the company’s policies. They are sometimes removed before users can even see them. What Facebook can’t leave to automation are posts, events and groups in that ever-growing gray area.

THE BROADEST REACH

The First Amendment offers hate groups a lot of speech protection, but it applies only to government and public settings. A private company is typically free to set its own standards.

Christopher Cantwell, a self-described white nationalist who has been labeled an extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center, said he was banned from Facebook, Instagram and PayPal because the companies are trying to silence him for his views.

“Everybody is going through extraordinary lengths to make sure we are not heard,” Cantwell told The Associated Press .

Even Cloudflare, a security company that prides itself on providing services regardless of their content, terminated Daily Stormer on Wednesday. This appears to be the site’s final blow.

Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin said in an email to the AP that these private companies are “de facto monopolies and oligopolies” and should be regulated as “critical infrastructure.”

The Daily Stormer and other banned groups could move to darker corners of the web, where extreme views are welcome. But this won’t help with recruitment and won’t allow them to disseminate their views as broadly as they could on Facebook or Twitter.

“These are the platforms everyone is using,” Hankes said. “They don’t want to be pushed to the margins because they want influence.”

Because of that, the industry’s efforts might just be a game of whack-a-mole, with extremist views returning, perhaps in different guises, once public outrage dies down.

Source: Tech companies banishing extremists after Charlottesville

Share

Parents Catch FBI In Plot To Force Mentally Ill Son To Be A Right Wing Terrorist

Share

By Matt Agorist

It’s become a near-weekly occurrence. Somewhere in some state, the FBI will announce that they’ve foiled yet another terrorist plot and saved lives. However, as the data shows, the majority of these cases involve psychologically diminished patsies who’ve been entirely groomed, armed, and entrapped by FBI agents. Simply put, the FBI manufactures terror threats and then takes credit for stopping them.

While many of these cases have garnered attention and been exposed in the alternative media, a recent case out of Oklahoma sets a new low for FBI and exposes how insidious these plots can be.

Through the hundreds of ‘foiled terror plots’ the FBI has ‘busted’ over the years, many of them have been focused on people of Middle Eastern descent or people associated with ISIS or Al Qaeda. This time, in the case of Jerry Drake Varnell, the 23-year-old diagnosed schizophrenic, accused of attempting to bomb a bank, the FBI fomented terror from a right wing dialogue.

In a June meeting with the agent, according to FBI documents, Varnell described himself as a believer in “Three Percenter” ideology, a right wing group claiming to be committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.

According to federal documents, Varnell drove what he believed was a stolen van containing a 1,000-pound ammonium nitrate bomb on Saturday morning to blow up an Oklahoma City bank. Vile, indeed.

However, if we backtrack just a bit, to when the FBI began grooming their would-be right wing militia terrorist, the vileness comes directly from the government.

“The FBI knew he was schizophrenic,” Varnell’s parents declared on Wednesday in an open letter bravely published by NewsOK.

Underneath his condition, he is a sweet-hearted person and we are extremely shocked that this event has happened. However, what truly has us flabbergasted is the fact that the FBI knew he was schizophrenic.The State of Oklahoma found him mentally incompetent and we, his parents have legal guardianship over him by the Court. These documents are sealed from the public, which is why no news media outlet has been able to obtain them. The FBI clearly knew that he was schizophrenic because they have gathered every ounce of information on him.

Yet they knowingly continued to groom him, despite the clear immoral implications.

When they began grooming him, according to the family, the FBI knew that Varnell was declared mentally unfit to live by himself and that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Without their criminal informant and the FBI tactics playing mind games with this vulnerable man, the idea of him committing an act of terror would have likely never materialized.

What the public should be looking at is the fact that the FBI gave our son the means to make this happen. He has no job, no money, no vehicle, and no driver’s license, due to the fact that he is schizophrenic and we; his parents do everything we can possible to keep him safe and functional…..  He has suffered through countless serious full-blown schizophrenic delusional episodes and he has been put in numerous mental hospitals since he was 16 years old. The FBI came and picked him up from our home, they gave him a vehicle, gave him a fake bomb, and every means to make this happen none of which he had access to on his own. 

The parents noted that during the setup they suspected something was going on and Jerry’s father told the informant to stay away from their son. However, according to the parents, the informant “continued to sneak onto our residence. The FBI paid him to continue this operation and I believe they have cleared his criminal record.”

Because they knew Varnell had severe mental disabilities, the FBI should have had stopped their plans to do this and immediately sought an option of hospitalization. However, they pressed on.

The FBI should have filed conspiracy on our son and had him committed to a mental institution. They should not have aided and abetted a paranoid schizophrenic to commit this act. There are many more facts that I will not make public that will support my son and the disturbing acts made by the FBI.

I realize that many will say my son could have found another person to commit this act. Yet, any person that has access to the materials and the state of mind necessary to bomb a building would not have any need for a schizophrenic who has no resources to contribute.

Clifford and Melonie Varnell, Jerry’s parents make a powerful point. No one — other than the FBI — would’ve attempted to get a schizophrenic man with nothing to contribute to do their bidding as it would most likely be a futile effort — unless you are the FBI looking for an easy patsy to keep fear alive.

David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps intelligence officer, the second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer, had this to say about these most unscrupulous operations:

Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Indeed, we’ve become a lunatic asylum.

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on TwitterSteemit, and now on Facebook. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Share

WAKE UP, people! Alt-Left and Alt-Right are run by the same forces… the goal is “divide and conquer”

Share

Image: WAKE UP, people! Alt-Left and Alt-Right are run by the same forces… the goal is “divide and conquer”

(Natural News) We’re all being played. The so-called “Alt-Left” and “Alt-Right” are all rooted in elaborate, deadly street theater being played out on the national stage with real consequences (such as killing innocents on camera).

If you have been swept up into the engineered hatred of all this, you’ve been suckered by the globalists who are running this entire show. In truth, most people in America aren’t filled with hatred for others of different skin color, races, religions or genders. Most people just want to get along. But the goal of the Alt-Left and Alt-Right movements is to divide and conquer America through hatred and media lies that push false narratives for political gain.

As evidence of all this, note that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Charlottesville event, actually worked for Obama and the Occupy movement just a few months ago. This man is a professional activist and social engineer who whips up big events on the world’s stage in order to achieve highly visible outcomes that can be seized by the mainstream media to condemn Trump supporters by labeling them all racists and “KKK.”

Much of the organized Left is funded either directly or indirectly by George Soros, the same radical left-wing operator who undercut freedom and liberty across numerous European countries. He’s the funding source behind ThinkProgress and 200+ other radical left-wing groups that constantly lie, defame and smear conservatives in order to sow hatred and division. Radical Alt-Right groups, similarly, are led by operatives who are very often working directly for the CIA and FBI. Nearly all the KKK racism you see on the news is contrived, elaborate theater carried out by these operatives. Some of the racism is real, however, as actual racists follow the “leadership” of the contrived KKK social engineers who are merely acting. (The KKK, by the way, was founded and run by Democrats.)

Case in point: Read this article: Racism RIGGED by A&E: KKK “documentary” was entirely scripted; A&E provided Nazi flags and wooden crosses to burn; actors paid cash to say “ni@@er” on camera which reminds us:

The KKK leaders who were interviewed by Variety detailed how they were wooed with promises the program would capture the truth about life in the organization; encouraged not to file taxes on cash payments for agreeing to participate in the filming; presented with pre-scripted fictional story scenarios; instructed what to say on camera; asked to misrepresent their actual identities, motivations and relationships with others, and re-enacted camera shoots repeatedly until the production team was satisfied.

The production team even paid for material and equipment to construct and burn wooden crosses and Nazi swastikas, according to multiple sources including Richard Nichols, who is one of the featured subjects of the documentary series as the Grand Dragon of a KKK cell known as the Tennessee White Knights of the Invisible Empire. He also said he was encouraged by a producer to use the epithet “nigger” in interviews.

“We were betrayed by the producers and A&E,” said Nichols. “It was all made up—pretty much everything we said and did was fake and because that is what the film people told us to do and say.”

Meanwhile, the media is using the hatred and division to try to dethrone President Trump, and Antifa is using the chaos to push for its goal to terrorize America while overthrowing the government and installing communism. This has all happened before in Mao’s communist Cultural Revolution that mass-murdered liberty-oriented Chinese citizens to install a communist dictatorship that continues to this day.

Don’t be suckered into the emotional puppetry. You are all being played by the powers that be. You are nothing more than a pawn in their script. I say #ExitTheScript and rise above the programmed hatred and media lies that are attempting to divide and conquer America.

Source: WAKE UP, people! Alt-Left and Alt-Right are run by the same forces… the goal is “divide and conquer” – NaturalNews.com

Share

Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars…

Share

– Consortium News Exclusive: The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn’t win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.

A scene from “Dr. Strangelove,” in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

Since the neocons’ emergence as big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration, they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks.

But neocons’ most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left’s disgust with President Trump.

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act,” which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump’s hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at an energy meeting on Nov. 23, 2015, in Tehran. (Russian government photo)

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda’s side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called “Shiite crescent,” anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

Many neocons are, in effect, America’s Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran’s regional allies, i.e., Syria’s secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama’s negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran’s actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving “regime change” in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED’s neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the “biggest prize” and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

Former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine “prize” by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia’s border.

When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move as a “Russian invasion.” Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin’s assistance to these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became “Russian aggression.”

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the “responsibility to protect” (or R2P) argument for the violent “regime change” in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.

But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American “peace activists” to support the “regime change” war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for “moderate” Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists’ P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets, phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn’t dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other “activists” accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel. When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said, “Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”

But all these successes in the neocons’ “perception management” operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had “hacked our democracy” was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that “incriminating evidence” contradicted Crowdstrike’s own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee’s computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump’s victory on “Russian meddling.” Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump’s victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

‘Hand-Picked’ Analysts

According to Clapper’s later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an “assessment” before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the “trust us” approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia’s RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

“When all right-thinking people in the nation’s capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality,” Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President’s hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia “meddling” in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia’s guilt is now shared by “all right-thinking people” in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

“Don’t misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I’m not excusing Trump’s behavior. His non-response to Russia’s well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous.”

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn’t cite any of those documents. Presumably, he’s referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn’t make the allegation true or “well-documented.” And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush’s Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama’s wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more “regime change” wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, “We told you so” that the U.S. government can’t be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump’s tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more “regime change” wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Source: Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars – Consortiumnews

Share

Must armed citizens enforce the law and end the tyranny of their elected representatives?

Share

What is the citizenry to do when the national government will not enforce the laws and has abandoned any intention of maintaining the rule of law and the equality of all Americans before the law?

On 3 August 2017, the media reported Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury to investigate the already debunked charge that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. In doing so, Mueller has established himself as a stinking offense to the idea of fairness and equality before the law. Mueller must have nearly a dozen conflicts of interests, any one of which should terminate his status as the special counsel. He has staffed his organization with Democratic Party-aligned attorneys, and  is reported to have coached witnesses, including James Comey and Andrew McCabe, on how to testify when the time comes. As I understand them, the statutes governing a special council’s conduct requires Mueller to immediately step down because of his personal conflicts of interest, which have turned this investigation into something of which the producers of Stalin’s show trials would be proud.

Notwithstanding this fact, both parties in Congress are working together to try to pass a piece of bipartisan legislation that will protect Mueller by giving him an appeal process if he is fired for ignoring the law pertinent to his position and/or his numerous conflicts of interest. In addition, Mueller’s empaneling of a grand jury is obviously the act of a dastardly coward, which is meant to throw another obstacle in the path of executing the law and ordering his dismissal. Mueller is a disgrace to the legal profession — if that is possible –and the almost complete lack of any criticism of Mueller from within his peers surely speaks to their inherent lawlessness and political partisanship.

Now, if the lynch mob Mueller is running was the only abuse of the law that is now apparent to the citizenry, patience might be the citizens’ best response. It could be used as yet another chance for Americans to see how resolutely the governing elite ignores the law in their pursuit of power and lucre; beneficially augment their hatred for politicians; and motivate them to go to the gun shop and purchase a few hundred additional rounds of ammunition. But the time for such patience is just about past.

Americans have been extraordinarily patient in waiting for the national government to enforce the republic’s laws. Citizens have seen the Clintons rape, lie, commit espionage, murder, and sell American interests to Russia and other foreigners for personal gain. They have seen Obama illegally divert money from Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to prop up a medical care system that was intended to fail so as to produce a medical system that would be administered by bureaucrats like those who sentenced Charlie Gard to death and gloated as he lay dying. Americans also saw Obama alter congressional legislation without the approval of Congress; indeed, without the supine Congress even effectively objecting to that impeachable act.  They also saw Obama and Eric Holder refuse to prosecute Black Panthers after they intimidated voters; fail to investigate IRS officials who used their power to obstruct the growth of the conservative political movement; and facilitate the illegal entry of aliens, criminals, and terrorists into the United States. In their spare time, Obama and Clinton passed weapons to Mexican narco-traffickers who later used one of them to kill a U.S. Border Patrol officer.

More recently, they have learned that  Obama and a still growing number of the senior officials in his administration used the power and talents of the US intelligence community to identify (unmask) their political opponents and intercept their conversations. Obama, Holder, Susan Rice — whose security clearances H.R. McMaster is said to have continued, John Brennan, Ben Rhodes, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and Samantha Power are all indictable for the manner in which they deliberately and illegally abused their power for political gain; have corrupted the U.S. political system; and have undermined the incoming Trump administration they detested. There also is the authoritarian and promoted-beyond-their competency traitors like Brennan-the-communist, Clapper-the perjurer, and the bloated buffoon Al Gore publicly encouraging a coup against a legitimately elected president, while, at the same time, the Democratic vermin who masquerade as journalists, actors, academics, and comedians call for the death of the president. Finally, there is an espionage ring of Pakistanis — who appear to have drained an ocean of security-related data from congressional computers and sold it to other nations — that was hired, overpaid, and protected by Democratic representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose apparently deliberate crimes are now being investigated by her brother.

Likewise, Americans have seen war-mongering cretins like Senators McCain and Graham work to involve the republic in other peoples’ wars, or, if none were available, to send U.S. forces to intervene in a country irrelevant to the republic’s interests and start one of their own. They also have experienced the obvious but still extraordinary fact that nearly all of our presidents, senators, and representatives have been monetarily suborned by the Israel-adoring, Jewish-American community, and the media it controls and directs, to shamelessly dance a jig to whatever tune the disloyal Israel-Firsters call. In recent months, this reality has included their extortion of $38 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars for Israel, which is a premier leach-state preying on the American treasury in the company of such other big-league leaches as NATO, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.

There also is a pending, 1st Amendment-killing, bipartisan bill in Congress that bans Americans from economically boycotting Israel or even advocating that action. If it becomes law, it will penalize those who ignore the law’s elimination of free speech with a “minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison”. (1) (NB: Readers will recall George III did not imprison Americans for boycotting British goods, as U.S. senators and representatives are now eager to do to their fellow citizens.)  Finally, the Republican establishment and its congressional contingent sat like silent and useless asses for eight years while Obama shredded the constitution, facilitated the entry of criminal aliens who murdered, raped, and otherwise assaulted U.S. citizens, and launched wars that completed the globalization of Islamist insurgency. Indeed, so stupid are the Republicans that they watched Obama, after the Russian hacking story broke, display a laser-like focus on repeatedly assuring Americans that Russia had not tampered with voting machines. He obviously did so because he and his advisers did not want a thorough examination of U.S. voting machines because the inspectors would have found a large number of them rigged for Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party and George Soros.

Patience, it is said, is a blessing, but, in this case, much more than an additional bit of patience will kill the republic. Americans have watched for far too long the lawlessness of both the bipartisan governing elite and the absolute unwillingness of their elected representatives to enforce and abide by the law. As patience runs out, the question becomes what to do?

Do Americans sit back as if they are addled and neutered cattle — like the British, French, Germans, and Canadians — and let both parties continue to do as they will, bankrupting the country; eradicating Christianity; destroying American culture, history, and nationalism; starting more wars to kill and maim their children; and deliberately create a mongrel population of peasants that is devoid of thinking, self-sufficient, liberty-loving adults and is dominated by the illiterate, non-English-speaking, and government-worshiping scum of Third World?

Or, do citizens perform their duty as Mr. Jefferson, the other founders, and their 2nd Amendment defined it, and risk all in an effort to slay the hardening tyranny and its champions, a tyranny that seems to be the overriding goal of most members of both parties, their prized, pampered, favored, and often deviant minorities, the media, the lawyers, and the academy?

Perhaps now, more than ever before, the decision of whether the republic is to survive must not be left to a corrupt, lawless, and effeminate national government and its acolytes. This decision must be grasped from them by an armed citizenry that is ready, when the time comes, to administer quick and decisive justice to those who have knowingly brought the republic to this lawless and utterly intolerable pass.

North Carolina’s James Iredell, a too-little-known member of the Founding fraternity, wrote an essay in 1775 — that is,before Jefferson’s Declaration — called “To the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Principles of an American Whig.” In the essay, Iredell stated that

government being only the means of securing freedom and happiness to the people, whenever it deviates from this end, and their freedom and happiness are in great danger of being irrevocably lost, the government is no longer entitled to their allegiance, the only consideration for which it could be justly claimed or honorably pledged being basely and tyrannically withheld.” (2)

Iredell reviewed the totality of the baseness and tyrannical intent contained in the Crown’s policies and actions toward British North Americans, and concluded that the time was fast approaching when a  rebellion by His Majesty’s subjects would be required if English liberties were to be restored. All honor to Iredell for his words and courage, but his generation of Americans did not experience anything close to the tyranny and baseness that today’s citizenry has endured for decades at the hands of their lawless bipartisan governing elite and the party establishments they have created.

What to do citizens do now?  Well, stockpile additional ammunition and give Trump a little more time and see if all of the above named enemies of the republic are indicted. While waiting, it seems not only appropriate but just, for the deplorables to begin to draft lists of those who can be properly called the “expendables”. Start with those named above — if they are not indicted — and then flesh out this list of the lawless, globalist, and corrupt with others who stand out so clearly as the enemies of the rule of law and the concept of equality before the law. We all can pray that the citizenry does not have undertake its constitutional duty of rebellion to destroy tyranny, but that prayer may not be answered without a fight.

This is fair enough. After all, God helps those who both pray and help themselves. Risking life, limb, wealth, and kin to eliminate this plague of expendables — as the Founders intended, if the government they created became a tyranny — seems a necessity based on the duties that citizens owe to those who gave them this republic; to themselves, their families, and their countrymen; and to their posterity. “The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards,” Samuel Adams wrote in late 1771,

And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it.

Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath’d to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that “if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.” It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. (3)

It is not at all surprising that words written in 1771 to motivate resistance to tyranny can be just as pertinent, inspiring, and instructive in fighting tyranny in 2017.  More evidence, I suppose, that human nature, and the politics it produces, never change for the better, and so tyranny is always just around the corner, ready to enslave those who have neither studied nor learned from history’s relentless repetitiveness.

 

Endnotes:

–1.) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720, and http://gothamist.com/2017/07/19/schumer_gillibrand_co-sponsor_senat.php

–2.) https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion-article/james-iredell-and-the-nobility-of-fighting-for-freedom/

–3.) Samuel Adams, ‘On Liberty,” Boston Gazette, 14 December 1771, http://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/samuel-adams/samuel-adams-on-liberty-essay-in-the-boston-gazette-14-october-1771

Share

Israel Uber Alles

Share

Anyone who does not understand that Israel owns the US Congress needs to read Glenn Greenwald’s article: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47480.htm

Anyone who does not understand that Israel owns the Western media needs to read “The Brutal Realities of Israel’s Iron-fisted Occupation,” by Dennis J. Bernstein and John Pilger: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47481.htm

Israel also owns the evangelical Christian churches: https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/90113/love-christians-touted-strategic-asset-israel-major-policy-conference/#llF5jLOlcuJLAYtZ.97

“The [media organization] that produces the most refined propaganda is the BBC. CNN and the others are just cruder versions. Any truth about Israel/Palestine or, more generally, the Middle East is not going to come from the mainstream media. Those of us who know this should stop beating our heads against a brick wall, asking why they don’t tell the truth. That’s not what they’re there for.” –—Documentary film-maker John Pilger

Source: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/20/israel-uber-alles/

Share

Behold, A Pale Horse: Its Rider Is Named Neocon And Hell Follows Him

Share

Glenn Greenwald finds the implications of the reunion of the Democratic Party with the neoconservatives to be “profound and long-term.” Essentially, it means more expensive wars for Americans who lack health care and pensions, leading to direct military confrontation between the US and Russia and China, which will mean the end of the world. As the Rubio, McCain, Lindsey Graham wing of the Republican Party is also united with the neoconservatives, there is no existing political force, excepting the Bernie Sanders part of the Democratic Party, to counter the neoconservative war agenda.

As Greenwald writes: “Neocons have done far more damage to the U.S., and the world, than any other single group — by a good margin. They were the architects of the invasion of Iraq and the lies that accompanied it, the worldwide torture regime instituted after 9/11, and the general political climate that equated dissent with treason.

“With the full-scale discrediting and collapse of the Bush presidency, these war-loving neocons found themselves marginalized, without any constituency in either party. They were radioactive, confined to speaking at extremist conferences and working with fringe organizations.

“All of that has changed, thanks to the eagerness of Democrats to embrace them, form alliances with them, and thus rehabilitate their reputations and resurrect their power and influence. That leading Democratic Party foreign policy officials are willing to form new Beltway advocacy groups in collaboration with Bill Kristol, Mike Rogers, and Mike Chertoff, join arms with those who caused the invasion of Iraq and tried to launch a bombing campaign against Tehran, has repercussions that will easily survive the Trump presidency.

“Perhaps the most notable fact about the current posture of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party is that one of their favorite, most beloved, and most cited pundits is the same neocon who wrote George W. Bush’s oppressive, bullying and deceitful speeches in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq and the war on terror, and who has churned out some of the most hateful, inflammatory rhetoric over the last decade about Palestinians, immigrants, and Muslims. That Bush propagandist, David Frum, is regularly feted on MSNBC’s liberal programs, has been hired by The Atlantic (where he writes warnings about authoritarianism even though he’s only qualified to write manuals for its implementation), and is treated like a wise and honored statesman by leading Democratic Party organs.”

Read Greenwald’s article here: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-continue-to-rehabilitate-and-unify-with-bush-era-neocons/

Share