By Ryan Dawson
Forewarned is Forearmed!
Audio was taken from Ryan on Warski live
Animation by Drake
According to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump is continuing to push top military advisers to accept a plan for a “sweeping” military strike against the Syrian government. They say he is “unhappy” with the Pentagon’s offers so far, feeling they don’t go far enough.
Defense Secretary James Mattis has been openly hesitant about a strike on Syria, saying he is concerned about it leading to a direct US war with Russia. Trump, however, is said to want Mattis to “push the limits a little bit more.”
Indeed, Trump wants the strike not only to hit the Syrian government, but to “exact a price” from both the Iranian and Russian forces inside Syria. This is in keeping with Trump saying just two days ago that Russia should “get ready” for US missiles.
This isn’t the first time President Trump was said to be unhappy with the options given to him by th4e military. A few months ago, before diplomacy in North Korea started happening, Trump was very keen on getting more and more options for attacking Pyongyang.
With Syria, Trump was already in the process of assembling a coalition and telling Russia to “get ready” before serious push-back began on the war. Which isn’t to say that Trump is the most hawkish in his administration on Syria.
That would have to be John Bolton, his National Security Adviser, who is said to be pushing for something vastly bigger than the 2017 attack. The Wall Street Journal said he favors a “ruinous” attack against Syria, that would cripple the government and national infrastructure of the country.
James Mattis has long tried to be a voice of reason in cabinet meetings, but with the sacking of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Mattis now finds himself alone on the side of caution, and risking being drown out by a cacophony of calls from hawks to attack.
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs. In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO’S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.).
A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. You can email Dr. Alan Sabrosky at: email@example.com
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
[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)
(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.shtml. https://www.pbs.org/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.htm, 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,
[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
[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.
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. 49. AmericanJewishArchives.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.
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.
[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.
“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.
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
[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.
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:
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.
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.
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.
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.
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 . 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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.
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.
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.
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.
Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.
Under Secretary of State for Management.
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).
Ambassador to Israel.
Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Ambassador to Denmark.
Ambassador to Hungary
Ambassador to Singapore.
Ambassador to Slovakia.
Ambassador to Italy.
Ambassador to Uruguay.
Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
White House Political Director.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.