51 Documents : Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis (L. Brenner, 1983). Un des rares livres sérieux pour comprendre de manière juste l’histoire réelle des relations entre sionistes et nazis, selon Michael Collins Piper. Relations qui ont pris fin dès 1936, rappelons-le.

Du même auteur, voir aussi :

PDF – Zionism in the Age of Dictators

Plus près de notre point de vue, ne pas manquer:

PDF – The Transfer Agreement and the Boycott Fever 1933

et

Pour des explications en français:

Du mythe des « nazis pro-Israël » et de ceux qui voient des complots partout…

 

Voici la traduction française d’un extrait du chapitre 3 (« Zionism is Judaism: The Foundation for a Global Jewish Imperium ») du livre de Michael Collins Piper THE NEW BABYLON: Those Who Reign Supreme, dans lequel il identifie les deux livres de Brenner comme des références sérieuses sur le sujet (contrairement au sensationnalisme tellement répandu sur internet):

Pour le moment, cependant, nous devons faire une digression critique, en explorant la relation largement discutée entre l’Allemagne nazie et le mouvement sioniste. Cela a fait l’objet d’une telle quantité de mésinformation et de désinformation délibérée, propagée la plupart du temps par des gens bien intentionnés qui n’ont rien saisi de l’ « image d’ensemble ».
Tandis que certains ont souligné à juste titre que—pendant les premières années du régime nazi d’Adolf Hitler à tout le moins—le gouvernement allemand a collaboré avec des éléments du mouvement sioniste en Allemagne et ailleurs, ce point reste très mal compris, mal interprété.
Certaines personnes plus naïves et impressionnables ont déclaré que c’était la preuve que « Hitler était un sioniste » et que l’objectif central derrière la création du Troisième Reich était de conduire à la Shoah, pour qu’ensuite l’état sioniste puisse naître des cendres des morts. C’est une thèse bien vivante, mais qui résulte surtout d’une forte imagination couplée à un engrenage fantastique et fantaisiste d’une grande variété de forces et d’événements, pas nécessairement reliés entre eux, tombant en place l’un après l’autre pour réaliser l’objectif final: un État sioniste.
Bien qu’effectivement le régime national-socialiste en Allemagne ait d’abord formé des liens de collaboration ténus avec les sionistes en Europe et en Palestine, voyant cela comme un moyen idéal pour convaincre et pousser les Juifs à quitter l’Europe, ces liens se sont généralement désintégrés, pendant que les Allemands se rendaient à l’évidence, en temps de guerre, que la collaboration avec les Arabes antisionistes en Afrique du Nord et au Moyen-Orient était beaucoup plus productive et profitable aux objectifs allemands. Alors, bien qu’il soit vrai que les Allemands ont collaboré avec les sionistes, cette affaire a été largement exagérée par des gens qui ne veulent pas ou qui sont tout simplement incapables de voir l’image géopolitique d’ensemble—autrement plus importante.
Remarquons également que nombre de ceux qui ont adopté la position selon laquelle « Hitler était un sioniste » ont souvent tendance à être des individus—aussi bien intentionnés qu’ils soient—qui évoquent cet argument afin de « prouver » qu’ils ne sont pas « antisémite », comme pour dire « Eh bien, même si je suis un critique d’Israël, je ne suis pas « comme Hitler », puisque, après tout, c’est Hitler qui a contribué à créer l’État d’Israël. »
Ceux qui disent cela ne parviennent pas à comprendre que l’élite du pouvoir juif et le mouvement sioniste se moquent de cette prise de position et considèrent toute personne qui ne ferait même que flirter avec cette théorie comme étant tout aussi mauvaise que ceux et celles qui sont des critiques ouverts, purs et simples, d’Israël, du sionisme et de l’agenda juif.
Les études les plus responsables sur la collaboration allemande-sioniste se trouvent dans les ouvrages de Lenni Brenner, un marxiste américain né juif orthodoxe, dont les ouvrages Zionism in the Age of Dictators et son plus tardif 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis, remettent correctement la question dans son contexte. Cela n’a pas empêché les sensationnalistes de tordre la vérité.
Il y a aussi la légende selon laquelle « les banquiers juifs » ou « les banquiers sionistes » (expressions souvent utilisées interchangeablement) auraient financé Hitler. Cela n’est pas vrai.
James Pool, dans son ouvrage faisant autorité Who Financed Hitler? démontre le contraire.
Certes, un financier juif en Allemagne a donné de l’argent au parti nazi—avant la montée au pouvoir d’Adolf Hitler—mais ces fonds étaient destinés à aider l’opposition anti-Hitler à l’intérieur du parti, afin de stopper Hitler. Mais en dépit de ce fait, certains «patriotes» prétendent encore que « les Juifs ont soutenu Hitler ».
Plusieurs parmi ceux qui croient en de tels non-sens citent un document qui est un fraude flagrante d’origine obscure intitulé Hitler’s Secret Backers, soi-disant écrit par un certain « Sidney Warburg », l’un de ces « banquiers juifs. » Mais ce document, comme nous l’avons dit, est une fraude.
Le livre Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler, de feu Dr. Antony Sutton, fait la promotion de cette théorie basée en partie sur le canular Warburg, et contribué à établir ce mythe durablement—au plus grand mépris de la vérité.
Des banques et des sociétés américaines ont effectivement travaillé avec le régime hitlérien, le plus souvent dans la suite des arrangements financiers remontant à des décennies, mais il cela ne faisait partie d’aucune conspiration pour mettre Hitler au pouvoir. L’affirmation selon laquelle la famille Bush aurait contribué à la montée d’Hitler est un autre mythe.
Kevin Phillips—nullement un admirateur de la dynastie des Bush—examine les circonstances réelles entourant le scénario Bush-Hitler dans son livre, Americain Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, And The Politics of Deceit In The House Of Bush, et les met en perspective.
Une autre affirmation insensée—selon laquelle Hitler et la plupart des dirigeants nazis étaient en fait Juifs ou en partie juifs—a son origine principale dans un travail quasi impénétrable et tout à fait bizarre intitulé Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel.
Malheureusement, à l’âge de l’Internet, ce volume, dont la plupart de ceux qui le citent ne l’ont jamais réellement lu, a été largement vanté, même par une poignée d’âmes autrement responsables qui veulent croire, semble-t-il, que Hitler faisait partie du « complot juif. »
Un écrivain de talent américain, Martin Kerr, a produit une étude faisant autorité, « Le mythe du grand-père juif d’Hitler », disponible sur Internet, qui examine toutes les théories et les méandres sur ce sujet et démolit complètement cette théorie. Mais, encore une fois, cela n’empêche pas les sensationnalistes de dire « ça doit être vrai: Hitler était un Juif et un sioniste. »
Bien que tout ceci ait été une digression saillante, elle était nécessaire, précisément parce qu’il circule énormément de mésinformation et de désinformation délibérée, sur Internet et dans des ouvrages divers parus au cours du dernier demi-siècle, au sujet des relations entre les nazis d’Adolf Hitler et l’agenda sioniste et juif.
Alors, malheureusement, afin de remettre l’histoire en accord avec les faits, il est essentiel de répondre à toutes ces sornettes.
Pour mémoire—reprenons le cours de notre analyse du sionisme et du judaïsme (en lien avec ce que nous connaissons aujourd’hui comme le Nouvel Ordre Mondial). On notera d’abord ceci: la vérité est que, au fil des années, il y a eu de nombreuses personnes—dont certaines ouvertement anti-juives—qui ont vu une certaine sagesse dans le sionisme en général.
Autrement dit, ils ont vu le départ des Juifs hors de leur pays et la concentration de la population juive dans un état appartenant à tous les Juifs (mais pas nécessairement en terre palestinienne arabe) comme un moyen de résoudre enfin le conflit séculaire entre les Juifs et tous les autres.
En 1922, Théodore Fritsch, un écrivain allemand anti-juif bien connu, reconnaissait son admiration pour l’idéologie sioniste:

Nous considérons toujours les sionistes comme les plus honnêtes des Juifs, parce qu’ils admettent. . . qu’il ne peut y avoir de mélange avec les populations non-juives, que les diverses races se dérangent mutuellement dans leur développement et leur culture. Nous demandons donc avec les sionistes « une séparation claire » et la fondation d’un dominion exclusivement juif. . . .
Dans la même veine, en 1921, l’auteur français Georges Batault a écrit dans Le problème juif:

Si le peuple juif reconstitué souhaite se classer en tant que nation parmi les nations, alors il est du devoir et de l’intérêt de chacun de l’aider à le faire. S’il envisage, au contraire, de s’organiser au niveau international afin de ruiner et de dominer les nations, alors il est du devoir de ces dernières de se lever et de l’en interdire.
Toutefois, Batault reconnaissait que, en définitive, les enseignements juifs professent que les Juifs en viendront à gouverner la terre dans son intégralité:

Et quant au résultat final de la révolution messianique, il sera toujours le même; Dieu renversera les rois et fera triompher Israël et son roi; les nations seront converties au judaïsme et obéiront à la loi, ou bien seront détruites et les Juifs seront maîtres du monde.
En France, durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il y avait une vaste opposition à l’influence juive, non seulement dans le régime de Vichy dans le sud de la France, un régime indépendant qui a collaboré avec l’Allemagne nazie, mais également même dans la zone occupée par les Allemands dans le Nord de la France.
(Parenthèse intéressante: beaucoup de gens aujourd’hui, en particulier des Américains mal informés, voient la France de Vichy comme les « méchants » qui étaient « antisémites » et la France occupée par les Allemands comme les « bons gars » qui « détestaient les nazis et s’opposaient à leurs vues antisémites », cependant la vérité est que l’opposition au pouvoir juif et à l’influence juive était très répandue dans toute la France et cela malgré toutes les légendes de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.)
En tout état de cause, un écrivain a parlé de ces préoccupations chez les Français, c’est Gabriel Malglaive, dont le livre Juif ou Français? publié en 1942, explique quelles ont été les mesures prises dans la France de Vichy afin de limiter le pouvoir juif. Il dit que ces mesures visaient quatre objectifs principaux:

1. Résolument exclure les Juifs du gouvernement. . . . Ce fut la première tâche et relativement la plus simple, car cela ne concernait seulement qu’un petit nombre. . . ;
2. Combattre leur influence intellectuelle, combattre tout appui à leur intrusion dans l’État et toute extension de celle-ci, et les exclure à cette fin des professions libérales, de l’enseignement, de la presse, etc;
3. Éliminer leur suprématie « économique et financière », leur prépondérance dans tous les domaines de l’industrie, du commerce, du marché boursier et des banques, c’est-à-dire déjudaïser ce domaine qui avait été le leur. Agir de telle manière à ce qu’ils ne tiennent plus le pouvoir de l’argent, le plus redoutable, car s’ils l’avaient gardé, ils auraient conservé en pratique tous les autres pouvoirs;
4. Finalement éliminer leur pouvoir occulte en les tenant éloignés des corporations et sociétés, en purgeant. . . la presse et les agences à travers lesquelles ils ont établi une propagande rusée et [leur] censure de facto. . .
En fin de compte, écrit-il, ce que lui et tant d’autres ont considéré comme « le problème juif » appelle à une « solution juive. » Ironie du sort, dit Malglaive, à l’avenir les grandes puissances du monde, y compris même le peuple juif, seront forcés de reconnaître « l’existence de la nation juive », et par conséquent de délimiter un territoire qui serait remis à la nation juive.
Ceci, bien sûr, correspond en fait à ce que nous connaissons aujourd’hui comme « le sionisme ». Le résultat serait, dit Malglaive, que dès lors, « tous les Juifs du monde posséderont légalement et officiellement la nationalité juive que leurs cœurs ont toujours secrètement réclamé. » La question, conclu-t-il, est de savoir « si souhaitant régler le problème humainement nous voulons cesser d’être provoqués par les Juifs, ou si, en continuant ainsi à prendre des demi-mesures, nous nous résignons à un règlement partiel et donc malheureux de cette question ». (LIRE LE RESTE…)
VERSION ORIGINALE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE. Chapter 3 (« Zionism is Judaism: The Foundation for a Global Jewish Imperium ») from the book THE NEW BABYLON: Those Who Reign Supreme, by Michael Collins Piper:

« For the moment, however, we must make a critical digression, to explore the much-discussed relationship between Nazi Germany and the Zionist movement. This has been the subject of so much misinformation and deliberate disinformation, much of it spread by well-meaning folks who don’t understand the “big picture.”

While there are those who have correctly pointed out that—during the early years of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler—the German government actually collaborated with elements of the Zionist movement in Germany and elsewhere, this point has been largely misunderstood and misconstrued.

Some more naive and excitable folks have declared this to be proof that “Hitler was a Zionist”and that the entire purpose of the creation of the Third Reich was setting in place the Holocaust so that a Zionist state could emerge from the ashes of the dead. This is quite a lively thesis, but one which essentially relies on a lot of imagination coupled with a fantastic and fanciful dependence upon a wide variety of forces and events—not necessarily connected—falling into place in order to achieve the final goal: a Zionist state.

While the National Socialist regime in Germany did initially form some loose collaborative efforts with Zionists in Europe and Palestine, seeing this as an ideal way to convince and persuade Jews to leave Europe, these ties generally disintegrated as the Germans recognized, during wartime, that collaboration with the anti-Zionist Arabs in North Africa and the Middle East was far more productive for German goals. So while there is truth that the Germans did collaborate with the Zionists, the matter has been largely overstated by persons who are unwilling or simply incapable of looking at the much-larger—and far more important—geopolitical picture.

Let it also be said that many of those who have adopted the stance that “Hitler was a Zionist” often tend to be individuals—however well-meaning they may be—who use that term to “prove” that they aren’t “anti-Semitic,” as if to say “Well, even though I’m a critic of Israel, I’m not ‘like Hitler’ since, after all, it was Hitler who helped bring about the state of Israel.”

Those who tout this line fail to understand that the Jewish Power Elite and the Zionist movement scoff at this stance and consider anyone who even flirts with this theory to be just as bad as those others who are outright, open critics of Israel, Zionism and the Jewish agenda.

The most responsible studies of German-Zionist collaboration can be found in the work of Lenni Brenner, an Orthodox Jewish-born American Marxist, whose Zionism in the Age of the Dictators and his later volume, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, correctly put the matter in context. This has not stopped sensationalists from twisting the truth.

There is also the legend that “The Jewish bankers” or “The Zionist bankers” (used often interchangeably) financed Hitler. Not true.

James Pool, in his authoritative work, Who Financed Hitler? demonstrates quite the contrary.

In one instance a Jewish financier in Germany did give money to the Nazi Party—prior to the rise to power of Adolf Hitler—but those funds were designed to help Hitler’s intra-party opposition, to stop Hitler. But despite this fact, some “patriots” still say that “The Jews backed Hitler.”

Many of those who worship at the altar of this nonsense cite a flagrantly-fraudulent document of shadowy origins entitled Hitler’s Secret Backers, ostensibly written by one “Sidney Warburg,” one of those “Jewish bankers.” But this document, as we’ve said, is a fraud.
The late Dr. Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler has promoted this theory, based in part on the Warburg travesty and has given further institutionalization to this mythology—the truth be damned.

American banks and corporations did work with the Hitler regime, usually a continuation of previous financial arrangements going back decades, but this was not part of any grand conspiracy to bring Hitler to power. The claim that the Bush family was integral to the rise of Hitler is another myth.

Kevin Phillips—no admirer of the Bush dynasty—examines the actual circumstances surrounding the Bush-Hitler scenario in his book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush and puts the facts in proper perspective.

Another nonsensical claim—that Hitler and most of the top Nazis were actually Jews or part Jewish—has its primary origin in a virtually impenetrable and quite bizarre work entitled Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel.

Sadly, in the age of the Internet, this volume, which most of those who quote it have never actually read, has been widely touted, even by a handful of otherwise responsible souls who want to believe, it appears, that Hitler was part of “the Jewish conspiracy.”

A talented American writer, Martin Kerr, has written an authoritative study,“The Myth of Hitler’s Jewish Grandfather,” which can be found on the Internet, which examines all of the theories and meanderings on this topic and lays the theory to rest. But, again, that doesn’t stop the sensationalists from saying “it must be true: Hitler was a Jew and a Zionist.”

While all of this has been a distinct digression, it’s been a necessary one, precisely because there is so much misinformation and deliberate disinformation regarding the relationship between Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and the Zionist and Jewish agenda that has littered the Internet and published works throughout the last half century.

So, unfortunately, in order to bring history into accord with the facts, it is critical to address the nonsense.

For the record, let us return to our course of analysis—the issue of Zionism and Judaism (vis-a-vis what we know today as the New World Order). And we shall note this: the truth is that, over the years, there have been many people—admittedly anti-Jewish—who saw some wisdom in Zionism generally.

That is, they saw the departure of Jews from their lands and the concentration of the Jewish population in a state all the Jews own (although not necessarily in Arab Palestine) as a means of finally resolving the age-old conflict between the Jews and all others.

In 1922, Theodore Fritsch, a well known German anti-Jewish writer, actually acknowledged his admiration for Zionist ideology:

We still consider the Zionists as the most honest of Jews, because they admit that . . . there be no amalgamation with the non-Jewish people, that the diverse races moreover mutually disturb each other in their development and culture. We therefore demand together with the Zionists “a clean separation” and the settlement of a Jews-only dominion. . . .

In a similar vein, in 1921, French author Georges Batault wrote in The Jewish Problem:

If the reconstituted Jewish people wishes to rank itself as a nation among the nations, then it is the duty and the interest of each one to help it to do so. If it contemplates, on the contrary, organizing itself internationally in order to ruin and dominate the nations, then it is the duty of the latter to rise up and forbid it.

However, Batault recognized that, ultimately, Jewish teachings taught that the Jews would come to rule the earth in its entirety:

As for the final result of the Messianic revolution, it will always be the same; God will overthrow the kings and will cause Israel and its king to triumph; the nations will be converted to Judaism, and will obey the law or else they will be destroyed and the Jews will be the masters of the world.

In France, during World War II, there was widespread opposition to Jewish influence, not only in the Vichy Regime in Southern France, an independent regime which collaborated with Nazi Germany, but likewise even in the German occupied area of Northern France.

(Note this interesting aside: Many people today, especially un-learned Americans, perceive Vichy France to be the “bad guys” who were “anti-Semitic” and German Occupied France to be the “good guys” who “hated the Nazis and opposed their anti-Semitic point of view” but the truth is that opposition to Jewish power and influence was widespread throughout all of France, the legends of World War II notwithstanding.)

In any event, one writer who spoke about these concerns among the French was Gabriel Malglaive, whose book Jewish or French? published in 1942, discussed measures taken in Vichy France designed to curtail Jewish power. He said there were four principal aims underlying these measures:

  1. Resolutely to separate the Jews from the government . . . . That was the first task and relatively the simplest, because it envisaged only a small number. . . ;
    2. To combat their intellectual influence,support and extensionof their intrusion into the state; to separate them, to this end, from the liberal professions, from teaching, from the press, etc;
    3. To eliminate their “economic and financial” supremacy, their preponderance in all branches of industry, commerce, the stock market and the banks, that is, to de-Judaize this realm which had been theirs. To act in such a manner that they would no longer retain the power of money, the most fearful one, for if they had kept it, they would have, in practice, conserved all the others;
    4. To eliminate, finally, their occult power by keeping them away from corporations, by purifying . . . the press and agencies through which they established a cunning ropaganda and [their] de facto censorship . . . .

In the end, he wrote, that what he and so many others considered “the Jewish Problem” would have to be given what he called a “Jewish Solution.” Ironically, Malglaive said, in the future the great powers of the world, even including the Jewish people,would be forced to recognize “the existence of the Jewish nation” and therefore assign a territory which would be turned over to the Jewish nation.

This, of course, is, in fact, what we today know of as “Zionism.” The result would be, said Malglaive, that from then on, “all of the Jews of the world will possess legally, officially, the Jewish nationality which their hearts have always secretly chosen.” The issue, he concluded, was “whether wishing to settle the problem humanely we want to cease being provoked by the Jews, or whether, continuing to apply half-measures,we resign ourselves to a partial and thus poor settlement of this Question.” (READ THE REST…)

 

Bush, Rockefeller, Rothschild et Hitler

Par Michael Collins Piper,  pour American Free Press. 28 janvier 2013

Certains lecteurs de American Free Press ont été choqués par les deux premiers articles de cette série proposant une réflexion sur la prolifération des mythes, de documents bidons et de « citations » frauduleuses venant troubler les recherches sérieuses sur les grandes questions de l’heure et les événements du passé. Or, le travail de l’AFP est de rapporter les faits.

Cette semaine, nous jetterons un coup d’oeil sur un mythe particulièrement répandu—ou plutôt une combinaison de mythes—qui en a enthousiasmé plusieurs: il s’agit d’une variété d’allégations à l’effet que les familles Bush, Rockefeller et Rothschild et une foule de « banquiers juifs »—ensemble ou séparément—auraient contribué à financer la montée au pouvoir d’Hitler.

La source la plus citée en ce qui concerne l’histoire des banquiers juifs ayant aidé Hitler est Hitler’s Secret Backers, soi-disant par un banquier juif du nom de Sidney Warburg.

Tout d’abord, Sidney Warburg n’a jamais existé. Mais ceux qui ont vraiment lu ce livre d’origine douteuse qui relève clairement de la fumisterie (et la plupart de ceux qui le citent ne l’ont pas lu) savent que l’auteur inconnu dit—contrairement à ce que les gens croient qu’il dit—que les banquiers juifs n’ont pas financé Hitler. Au lieu de cela, le livre prétend que quelques vilains banquiers non-juifs l’ont fait.

Mais cela aussi n’est pas vrai. Une évaluation précise par James Pool dans Who Financed Hitler?  réfute absolument la légende voulant que de gros intérêts bancaires ou industriels aient joué un rôle important dans le financement d’Hitler. La plupart de l’argent du parti nazi provenait de petites contributions et des ventes de littérature.

Aucun Rothschild n’a soutenu Hitler. C’est un mythe. Un banquier, chrétien pratiquant avec un quart de sang juif, a—selon une source, qui relayait une rumeur—donné de l’argent à Hitler. Et c’est tout. Le seul banquier juif connu pour avoir donné de l’argent à un quelconque nazi l’a donné à des éléments au sein du parti nazi—les frères Strasser—qui tentaient de stopper Hitler.

Et Hitler ne descendait pas de quelque famille Rothschild ou Frankenberger. S’il avait du sang juif, cela n’a jamais été retracé de manière concluante.

Un promoteur de l’allégation selon laquelle Hitler était juif cite La Vienne d’Hitler de Brigitte Hamann comme preuve, en soulignant que le livre relate des histoires sur l’héritage juif d’Hitler. En fait, Hamann dissèque ces contrevérités, les réfutant en détail. Des spécialistes tels que Carolyn Yeager (carolynyeager.net) et Veronica Clark, dans la série Warwolves of the Iron Cross, ont également démoli ces rumeurs.

Certains disent qu’Hitler était pro-sioniste. Ils ont tort. Pendant une brève période Hitler a encouragé certains sionistes dans leurs efforts visant à promouvoir l’immigration des juifs d’Allemagne vers la Palestine, tel que décrit dans le livre de Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement. Toutefois, au même moment, d’autres forces sionistes en appelaient dès 1933 à la guerre contre Hitler.

La légendaire « collaboration nazi-sioniste » ne fut qu’un petit aparté sans conséquence géopolitique réelle. Mais elle a quand même fournit l’occasion pour de mémorables débats sur Internet.

D’autres s’agitent hystériquement autour du fait que des banques et des sociétés américaines ont collaboré avec le régime nazi, et pourtant—malgré la frénésie—ce n’est ni une révélation majeure ni un fait extraordinaire. Ce sont des ententes bien connues, qui remontaient parfois à plusieurs décennies et qui étaient conclues avec le gouvernement allemand au pouvoir quel qu’il fût. (Lire la suite…)

 

ARTICLE ORIGINAL EN LANGUE ANGLAISE:

 

Bush, Rockefeller, Rothschild and Hitler

By Michael Collins Piper. Jan 18, 2013 Issue of American Free Press

Some AMERICAN FREE PRESS readers were upset by the first two articles in this series reflecting on the proliferation of myths, phony documents and fraudulent “quotations” muddying serious research into big issues of the day and events of the past. However, AFP’s job is to report the facts.

This week, we take a look at one particularly ubiquitous myth—a combination of myths—which has excited many: A variety of claims the Bush, Rockefeller and Rothschild families and a host of “Jewish bankers”—together or independently—helped finance Hitler’s rise to power.

The most cited source for the story Jewish bankers paved the way for Hitler is Hitler’s Secret Backers, supposedly by a Jewish banker named Sidney Warburg.

First of all, there was no Sidney Warburg. But those who actually read the spurious book (and most who cite it haven’t read it) will find the unknown author says—in contrast to what people think he said—that Jewish bankers didn’t finance Hitler. Instead, the book claims some naughty non-Jewish bankers did so.

But even that isn’t true. An accurate assessment by James Pool in Who Financed Hitler absolutely refutes the legend big banking or industrial interests played a substantial role funding Hitler. Most of the Nazi Party’s money came from small contributions and sales of literature.

No Rothschilds backed Hitler. That’s a myth. One banker, a practicing Christian of one-quarter Jewish descent, was said—by one source, passing on a rumor—to have donated money to Hitler. And that’s it. The one Jewish banker known to have given money to any Nazis gave it to elements in the Nazi party—the Strasser brothers—who were trying to stop Hitler.

And Hitler wasn’t descended from any Rothschilds or Frankenbergers. If he had any Jewish blood, it has never been authoritatively traced.

One proponent of the claim Hitler was Jewish cites Brigitte Hamann’s Hitler’s Vienna as proof, pointing out the book describes stories of Hitler’s Jewish heritage. In fact, Hamann dissects the legends, refuting them in detail. Scholars such as Carolyn Yeager and Veronica Clark, in Warwolves of the Iron Cross, have also demolished the rumors.

Some claim Hitler was pro-Zionist. They are wrong. For a brief period Hitler did encourage some Zionists in efforts to promote Jewish immigration from Germany to Palestine, as described in Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement. However, at the same time, other Zionist forces were calling for war against Hitler as early as 1933.

The legendary “Nazi-Zionist collaboration” was a tiny blip of no geopolitical consequence. But it makes for great Internet chatter.

Others are hysterical over the fact American banks and corporations worked with the Nazi regime, yet—despite the frenzy—this is neither a major revelation nor is it extraordinary.

These were well-known arrangements, sometimes going back decades, with whatever German government was in power. (Read the rest…)

 

VIDEO – Michael Collins Piper – How Disinformation Becomes History

AUDIO – MP3 Jim Condit Jr, partisan of the « Hitler Zionist agent » theory, confronted regarrding his video « The Final Solution ot Adolf Hitler ».

VIDEO – Spingola – The Transfer Agreement Boycott Fever of 1933

VIDEO – L’influence britannique (pas allemande!) derrière le sionisme

VIDEO – La déclaration Balfour promise en échange que les juifs poussent les USA dans la Première Guerre mondiale

 

Du mythe « Hitler sioniste fondateur d’Israël »:

« Une partie de sa race se reconnaît ouvertement pour un peuple étranger, non sans d’ailleurs commettre un nouveau mensonge. (…) Ils  [les sionistes] n’ont pas du tout l’intention d’édifier en Palestine un État juif pour aller s’y fixer ; ils ont simplement en vue d’y établir l’organisation centrale de leur entreprise charlatanesque d’internationalisme universel ; elle serait ainsi douée de droits de souveraineté et soustraite à l’intervention des autres États ; elle serait un lieu d’asile pour tous les gredins démasqués et une école supérieure pour les futurs bateleurs. » (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)

 

« Notre point de vue sur la question juive est la suivante : la prise de position de l’Amérique et de l’Angleterre quant aux juifs ne nous intéresse d’aucune façon. Ce qui est clair, c’est que nous ne voulons pas les avoir en Allemagne et dans le domaine de vie allemand en raison des décennies d’expérience après la [première] guerre mondiale et que nous n’engagerons aucune discussion à ce sujet. Si l’Amérique veut les prendre, nous nous en féliciterons. Mais il doit être exclu, et là-dessus une garantie devra nous être donnée, que les juifs que nous laisserons sortir par la Suisse puissent jamais être refoulés vers la Palestine. Nous savons que les Arabes, tout autant que nous Allemands le faisons, refusent les juifs et nous ne voulons pas nous prêter à une indécence telle que d’envoyer de nouveaux juifs à ce pauvre peuple martyrisé par les juifs.” (18.1.1945 MF/Bn. Heinrich Himmler; Document de l’US-Document-Center Berlin. Photographie dans Werner Maser, Nürnberg, Tribunal der Sieger, Droemer Knauer, München-Zürich, 1979, p. 262-263)

Discours du Führer devant le Reichstag, 28 avril 1939:

« Mais je dois aussi attirer l’attention de M. Roosevelt sur une ou deux erreurs dans l’histoire. Il mentionne l’Irlande, par exemple, et demande une déclaration à l’effet que l’Allemagne n’attaquera pas l’Irlande. Maintenant, je viens de lire un discours prononcé par M. de Valera, le Premier ministre Irlandais, où curieusement, et contrairement à l’opinion de M. Roosevelt, il n’accuse pas l’Allemagne d’opprimer l’Irlande, mais reproche à l’Angleterre de soumettre l’Irlande à une agression continue.
Avec tout le respect dû à M. Roosevelt et à sa compréhension des besoins et des soucis des autres pays, on peut néanmoins supposer que le Premier ministre irlandais connaît mieux que le président des États-Unis quels sont les dangers qui menacent son propre pays.
De même, le fait a évidemment échappé à l’attention de M. Roosevelt que la Palestine est actuellement occupée non par les troupes allemandes, mais par les Anglais, et que le pays voit sa liberté restreinte par le recours à la force la plus brutale, est dépouillé de son indépendance et souffre des mauvais traitements les plus cruels au profit des intrus juifs. (…)
Les Arabes vivant dans ce pays ne se seraient donc certainement pas plaints à M. Roosevelt de l’agression allemande, mais ils expriment devant le monde un appel constant, déplorant les méthodes barbares par lesquelles l’Angleterre tente de réprimer un peuple qui aime sa liberté et ne fait simplement que la défendre.
Cela, aussi, est peut-être un problème qui, de l’avis du président américain, devrait être résolu à la table de conférence, c’est-à-dire, devant un juge juste, et non par la force physique ou des méthodes militaires, par des exécutions de masse, en brûlant des villages, en faisant sauter des maisons et ainsi de suite.
Car un fait est sûrement certain. Dans ce cas-ci, l’Angleterre n’est en train de se défendre contre la menace d’une attaque arabe, mais comme un intrus qui n’a pas été invité, elle tente d’établir son pouvoir sur un territoire étranger qui ne lui appartient pas « (…)

Version anglaise:  « But I must also draw Mr. Roosevelt’s attention to one or two mistakes in history. He mentions Ireland, for instance, and asks for a statement to the effect that Germany will not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech delivered by Mr. de Valera, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), in which strangely enough, and contrary to Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion, he does not charge Germany with oppressing Ireland, but reproaches England with subjecting Ireland to continuous aggression.
With all due respect to Mr. Roosevelt’s insight into the needs and cares of other countries, it may nevertheless be assumed that the Irish Taoiseach would be more familiar with the dangers which threaten his country than would the President of the United States.
Similarly the fact has obviously escaped Mr. Roosevelt’s notice that Palestine is at present occupied not by German troops but by the English; and that the country is undergoing restriction of its liberty by the most brutal resort to force, is being robbed of its independence and is suffering the cruelest maltreatment for the benefit of Jewish interlopers. (…)
The Arabs living in that country would therefore certainly not have complained to Mr. Roosevelt of German aggression, but they are voicing a constant appeal to the world, deploring the barbarous methods with which England is attempting to suppress a people which loves its freedom and is merely defending it.
This, too, is perhaps a problem which in the American President’s view should be solved at the conference table, that is, before a just judge, and not by physical force or military methods, by mass executions, burning down villages, blowing up houses and so on.
For one fact is surely certain. In this case England is not defending herself against a threatened Arab attack, but as an uninvited interloper, is endeavoring to establish her power in a foreign territory which does not belong to her » (…)

Sur ce blog:

Posted in Non classé | Commentaires fermés sur 51 Documents : Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis (L. Brenner, 1983). Un des rares livres sérieux pour comprendre de manière juste l’histoire réelle des relations entre sionistes et nazis, selon Michael Collins Piper. Relations qui ont pris fin dès 1936, rappelons-le.

Le rôle central mais ignoré du Mossad et de l’Anti-Defamation League (ADL) dans les attentats sous faux drapeau d’Oklahoma City (19 avril 1995). La connexion nazie est un leurre: Straussmeir travaillait pour les services secrets comme infiltré dans l’entourage de McVeigh. Le Mossad a laissé des fausses pistes suggérant une connexion arabe irakienne, afin d’entraîner les États-Unis en guerre contre l’Irak de Saddam Hussein. Oklahoma City aurait dû être instrumentalisé comme le 11 septembre, mais l’administration Clinton a fait effacer les fausses pistes irakiennes par la police fédérale. Ce à quoi les néocons ont répliqué en révélant publiquement l’affaire Lewinsky dans les médias du néocon en chef Bill Kristol.


Michael Collins Piper on the Oklahoma City Bombing (2010)
UN ENTRETIEN AUDIO À NE PAS MANQUER

@ 32:09: L’ADL a averti les autorités fédérales que McVeigh avait publié des annonces classées dans le journal The Spotlight. Information révélée dans un article du Washington Post, mais qui a été retirée par la suite à la demande de l’ADL (puisque cela démontrait hors de tout doute que l’ADL surveillait de près les activités de McVeigh, via des informateurs tels que Strassmeir). Cette annonce devait servir à compromettre le journal The Spotlight. (Voir le texte plus bas tiré du livre de Piper « FALSE FLAGS« .)
@ 39:37: Notez que, comme le faux journaliste désinformateur Chris Bollyn qui a vécu sur un kibboutz et qui a marié une agente du Shin Bet (drôle d’antisioniste qui permet à une agente israélienne d’obtenir la citoyenneté américaine!), l’agent allemand (pour le SPLC) infiltré dans l’entourage de McVeigh—Andreas Strassmeir—parlait hébreu et avait une amie de coeur dans l’armée israélienne… (Drôle de nazi!)
@ 1:07:30 : L’organisation de croissance personnelle que Piper ne veut pas nommer (pour éviter un procès) est l’Église de Scientologie. La mise en scène exigeait de faire acheter à McVeigh une carte d’appel vendue par une compagnie qui annonçait dans le journal The Spotlight. Fait des plus intéressants: cette compagnie de carte d’appels s’est révélée, plus tard, être une propriété de l’Église de Scientologie! (Depuis sa subversion par des avocats juifs financés vraisemblablement par le parrain de la mafia et milliardaire juif Bronfman, cette organisation est sous le contrôle du Mossad et collabore de près avec l’ADL. Ces mêmes avocats juifs qui ont pris le contrôle de l’Église sous la direction de Lawrence Heller, avaient tenté de ruiner Liberty Lobby en leur intentant une poursuite. Ce fut l’avocat juif anti-sioniste Mark Lane qui fit remporter à Liberty Lobby la bataille judiciaire.)

Pour plus de détails en français, lire:


Oklahoma City: la connexion israélienne serait plus significative qu’on croit
et
La main de la Ligue antidiffamation dans la tragédie d’Oklahoma City

Sur l’obsession des néocons, qui voient des complots irakiens partout, lire et écouter:

Sur le néoconservatisme derrière la guerre en Irak:
Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Judas_Goats/JudasGoats-13.5-PhotoSection.html
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Judas_Goats/JudasGoats-13.6-PhotoSection.html

Source: The Judas Goats – The Enemy Within

Piper explique la connexion israélienne dans l’attentat d’Oklahoma City dans les chapitres 11 à 15 de son dernier livre, « FALSE FLAGS« .

Michael Collins Piper (2013)

FALSE FLAGS: TEMPLATE FOR TERROR

An analytical critique of the covert model utilized by the conspirators who orchestred 9-11, the Oklahoma bombing, the JFK assassination, Sandy Hook and Boston. The « how » and « why » as never explained before…

 CHAPTER ELEVEN:

Yes, the Mossad Was Behind the Oklahoma City Bombing . . .

 If there is one thing about the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995 that is absolutely certain, it is this: undercover informants for both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies were surrounding accused bomber Timothy McVeigh, clearly tuned in to (and involved with and even directing) his most clandestine ventures.

Such private groups as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—along with government agencies such as the CIA, the FBI and the BATF—were closely monitoring (and directing) the activities of at least a handful of individuals implicated in the Oklahoma bombing and the circumstances leading to that tragedy.

And in view of the ADL’s central role in the affair—demonstrated in greater detail later in these pages—it is also accurate to say the ADL’s foreign principal, Israel’s Mossad, was definitely a key behind the scenes player in the events in Oklahoma City.

In fact, it is our contention here that it was the Mossad that was the prime mover behind the Oklahoma bombing, manipulating individuals and agencies on American soil, for the ultimate purpose of bringing about the tragedy; that the Mossad’s intent was for the tragedy to be linked to the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and that this “false flag” could be used to force then-President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq and bring down Saddam, Israel’s hated enemy.

There is unquestionably no doubt that links to the Mossad (and Mossad assets on American soil) can be found all over the Oklahoma bombing, and although there is a wealth of information that has continued to emerge surrounding the official Justice Department and FBI cover-up of the facts about the bombing, one particularly sad fact is this: even many of those who have been quite forward in publicly discussing aspects of this cover-up have been afraid to venture so far as to suggest the likelihood of involvement by Israel’s Mossad.

Nevertheless, there is solid evidence pointing toward the role of some pivotal undercover informants in the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and, as we shall see, the involvement one of those informants in particular points directly toward the Mossad.

So with these considerations in mind, we must now begin dissecting the web of conspiracy surrounding the events in Okahoma and taking a close look at the information that underscores our thesis.

And right up front we will say that the best place to begin is by introducing an individual named Andreas Strassmeir, a young former German army intelligence officer who was illegally in the United States (having overstayed his visa) and actively (if not somewhat prominently) involved in the sometimes murky affairs of what is variously referred to as “the white separatist” or “white nationalist”movement and which is occasionally reckoned to be “neo-Nazi” in orientation.

On May 12, 1997, writing about the Oklahoma affair, syndicated columnist Sam Francis (since deceased) raised questions about Strassmeir whom Francis described as “perhaps the single biggest anomaly in the whole case” surrounding the bombing. And the fact that Francis had dared to suggest that Strassmeir was such a mysterious figure sent shock waves through the aforementioned “white separatist” movement, inasmuch as Francis, in many respects, was quite highly regarded by key figures in that movement.

Now, however, Francis was openly suggesting that there might be much more to Strassmeir than many in the white separatist movement believed.And that opened up a lot of uncomfortable possibilities.

But up until the time that Francis went public with his concerns, only The Spotlight and a handful of independent publications had questioned whether Strassmeir may have had some connection to the tragic events and dared to suggest that Strassmeir was actually something more than the hard-driving white separatist he purported to be.

However, on Oct. 20, 1997, The Washington Post rocked the otherwise complacent world of those who decry “conspiracy theories” by publishing a column by syndicated commentator Robert Novak that suggested that undercover government informants—specifically Strassmeir—may have been moving in Timothy McVeigh’s circle prior to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Novak focused on what he called “grave and disturbing questions” raised in a book by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the longtime Washington correspondent for The Daily Telegraph of London.The book, entitled The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, opened with 108 pages of facts about the bombing unearthed by Evans-Pritchard.

Novak advised his readers that the English writer was “no conspiracy-theory lunatic” but instead “was known in Washington for accuracy, industry and courage.” Evans-Pritchard had “offered leads to discovering a pattern of lies and deception after Oklahoma City that, if verified, would approach Vietnam and Watergate in undermining American citizens’confidence in their government.”

In particular, Novak described Evans-Pritchard’s inquiries into the strange activities of Strassmeir. Evans-Pritchard says he is “certain” Strassmeir was “under federal protection.”

The English investigator also examined the activities of another individual, Dennis Mahon, who was closely associated with Strassmeir prior to the bombing.

According to Evans-Pritchard,Mahon was convinced that Strassmeir was actually a federal undercover informant reporting back to either the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)—or both— on the activities of so-called right-wing extremists.

Novak’s report (based on Evans-Pritchard) echoed what The Spotlight reported (as follows) on June 16, 1997:

Americans relying on the major networks and on wire service reports about the McVeigh trial were told little—if anything—about proposed testimony by former paid BATF informant Carol Howe whose information could have shed light on not only:

• Foreknowledge by federal authorities of a plot to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma City; but also

•The possibility that a federal undercover agent was actively encouraging such activity. . .

On May 28, 1997, The Denver Post also gave its readers an account of Howe’s allegations saying her testimony could have been “one of the biggest wild cards in Timothy McVeigh’s trial.” Miss Howe charged that German immigrant Andreas Strassmeir had talked about bombing federal buildings.

The Denver Post also reported that “although the FBI and federal prosecutors repeatedly denied that either Strassmeir or Mahon were suspects in the bombing, documents turned over to the defense prove that they were and that Howe was extensively interviewed by federal agents two days after the bombing.” The Post also reported that “the government has refused to talk about Howe.”

Then, the judge in the McVeigh trial, Richard Matsch, ruled in what The Rocky Mountain News described on May 28, as a “closed door session” that Howe’s testimony was “irrelevant” and would not be permitted.
Despite the successful effort to block Miss Howe’s testimony, investigators who have been examining all of the evidence have repeatedly focused—in particular—on the role of the enigmatic Strassmeir.

The role of Strassmeir’s close friend and attorney, Kirk Lyons, who popped up some years ago in the “right wing,” is also drawing attention, inasmuch as it was Lyons who played a key role in spiriting Strassmeir out of the country and out of the hands of the McVeigh defense. (In fact, McVeigh is known to have actually called Lyons’ office just prior to the bombing.)

This has led to speculation that Lyons was actually functioning as Strassmeir’s “handler” for the federal government, which, of course, wanted to keep any evidence of its foreknowledge of any bombing conspiracies out of the reach of the McVeigh jury—particularly since its own reputed informant was perhaps acting as an instigator.*

Evans-Pritchard’s new book also contained intriguing information about the likely identity of the now-infamous “John Doe No. 2.” The English writer suggested that Doe No. 2 is actually a Pennsylvania man, Michael Brescia,who was seen with McVeigh and Strassmeir on at least one occasion.However, in the end, it is likely that there were many other “Does” involved as well.

* NOTE [p. 132]: In my book The Confessions of an Anti-Semite, I outlined in some detail how, over a period of years—well before the Oklahoma bombing—I had come to conclude that, although Kirk Lyons was much-admired in the white separatist movement, Lyons was almost certainly some sort of government informant. And as we now know for certain—particularly in the wake of the Oklahomba bombing—although Lyons postured as a “white separatist,” he and his associate, Dave Holloway (also known as D. Michael Holloway) a former CIA pilot, (and their friend Strassmeir) were deep in the world of intrigue, betraying many good people who believed in them.
It is my personal speculation that Lyons (for whatever reason) had been coopted by the federal government at some time in his career and allowed to express what may (or may not) have been his personal views on racial matters—perhaps akin to the manner in which the FBI permitted its informant, Bill Wilkinson—a leader of one influential faction of the Ku Klux Klan—to vent against Blacks (but not against Jews)—even as he (Lyons) was acting as an intelligence asset inside the white separatist movement.
Although, theoretically (and legally) nothing that any of Lyons’ clients had said to him could be used against them in any potential criminal cases, due to the standard of attorney-client privilege, that did not exempt or deny Lyons the opportunity to forage for any details about his clients’ associates and their activities and to later provide such data to the ADL, the Southern Poverty Law Center or to any number of law enforcement agencies. And that is what I believe that Kirk Lyons was doing for many, many years. And I don’t think Lyons will dare to sue me for saying so, because he—if anybody—knows that I am right on target.

According to Kirk Lyons, Strassmeir came to the United States because of his (Strassmeir’s) interest in Civil War reenactments. Sounds innocent enough.However, in light of Strassmeir’s involvement in “Civil War reenactments,” it is worth noting, according to John Hurley—the longtime head of the Confederate Memorial Hall (CMA) in Washington, D.C.—that the CIA has frequently used Civil War reenactment activities as a front for their own covert operations. Hurley is knowledgeable on these subjects, having tangled with the CIA when it used front men in an attempt to seize control of the CMA and use it for its “black ops.” In any event, British writer Evans-Pritchard commented:

It is assumed that Strassmeir could not have been a CIA asset because he was operating on U.S. soil.
But this is not necessarily the case. He could have been reporting to the domestic services section of the CIA, which has offices all over the country. Under usual procedures, his reports would be passed through them to the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. Or alternatively, he could have been an FBI operative working under CIA auspices.
My own conjecture, for what it is worth, is that Strassmeir was a shared asset, on loan to the U.S. government, but ultimately answering to German intelligence.

Evans-Pritchard also pointed out that the federal prosecutors portrayed McVeigh as “an anti-government radical set on avenging Waco” but have “downplayed” McVeigh’s links to the circles in which Strassmeir was operating. And, he added, “the U.S. press has followed suit. The question is why. Why deflect attention from the white supremacist movement?”

But it gets murkier. The June 8, 2001 issue of the Times of London featured a revealing story about Strassmeir, in which the authors concluded that Strassmeir probably was an undercover operative. The Times reported: “The syringe that executes McVeigh will also drain Strassmeir of significance; giving him the status of a footnote.”

In other words, it would eliminate the one person who could finger Strassmeir.

The newspaper noted Strassmeir could read Hebrew—Israel’s state language—as a consequence, it was said, of having had a girlfriend who served in the Israeli army, “not exactly the typical choice of a neo-Nazi,” the Times added.

In addition, the Times pointed out that when Strassmeir first arrived in the United States, he “found friends easily—retired Army officers, CIA veterans, history buffs—and became part of a network”which the Times said “is powerful in the U.S., a web of influence that stretches into the Pentagon and the federal agencies, in churches and boardrooms, on the oil rigs and building sites.”

This is hardly the profile of your average “neo-Nazi extremist” but certainly that of an intelligence operative.

Additional evidence brought forth by independent investigator J.D. Cash strongly suggests Strassmeir was the undercover informant who tipped off his federal handlers (who in turn then tipped off the German authorities) that Gary Lauck, a Nebraska-based publisher of so-called “holocaust denial” literature was making a trip to Denmark.

During that trip, Lauck was taken into custody and then deported to Germany to be tried, convicted and jailed under Germany’s “thought control” laws for his role in distributing literature (printed in the United States) that is illegal in Germany.

Although Timothy McVeigh’s first attorney, Stephen Jones, and later, his final attorneys prior to his execution—Rob Nigh, Richard Burr, Nathan Chambers and Christopher Tritico—all charged that Strassmeir was a key player in the Oklahoma bombing scenario, the U.S.media kept that information under wraps.

When McVeigh’s attorneys appealed to block McVeigh’s execution, they cited newly-released FBI documents which suggested that “there was . . . evidence, withheld by the government, that another person could well have been the mastermind behind the bombing.”

The attorneys named Strassmeir and his friend, Dennis Mahon, as possible co-conspirators, charging the FBI engaged in a “scheme to suppress evidence” of their roles, alleging that information in the FBI documents “suggested that one of the other participants in the bombing was an informant for federal law enforcement officers.”

In fact, in time, solid evidence began to emerge which most definitely pointed toward Strassmeir as an undercover informant.

The aforementioned independent investigator, J.D.Cash, and his colleague, ex-Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles, pinpointed evidence, taken from a declassified FBI document, proving that Andreas Strassmeir was an informant working under cover (posing as a “neo-Nazi”) on behalf of Morris Dees and his Birmingham, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a private intelligence operation.

The document, an electronic four-page Teletype message, dated Jan. 4, 1996, was sent by then-FBI Director Louis Freeh to FBI offices involved in the Oklahoma bombing investigation. The existence of this document was first exposed by Cash and Charles in the Dec. 14, 2003, issue of Oklahoma’s The McCurtain Daily Gazette.

Although heavily redacted, the document confirmed what The Spotlight reported about Strassmeir and his close friend and attorney Kirk Lyons. Within the document, the FBI director makes a reference to an SPLC informant being in place at the Elohim City “extremist” compound, on the Arkansas-Oklahoma border and confirms a telephone call was made to that informant on April 17 two days before the bombing.

Although the names of the caller and the person being called were blacked out by FBI censors, it had been documented that, around that time, Timothy McVeigh made a telephone call to Elohim City seeking to contact Strassmeir, who was reportedly unavailable to take the call.

The FBI memo further indicated that a person at Elohim City had “a lengthy relationship with one of the two indicted [bombing] conspirators” (McVeigh and Nichols).

Multiple independent investigators have documented that Strassmeir was with McVeigh on several occasions over an extended period, prior to the bombing.

The FBI, Lyons and others—including the SPLC—have insisted that this did not prove Strassmeir was involved in the bombing. However, it is now clear—based on separate information, coupled with revelations in Freeh’s memorandum—that the SPLC informant was indeed Strassmeir.

Cash and Charles concluded that “references to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raise serious questions as to what the SPLC might know about McVeigh’s activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City—but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly.”

Both investigators reported that when Dees of the SPLC was pressed to explain what his informant was doing at Elohim City, he offered the following explanation: “If I told you what we were doing there, I would have to kill you.”

Dees claimed that the SPLC didn’t have McVeigh on its “radar screen” until after he was arrested. However, that conflicts with evidence McVeigh was being closely monitored by the SPLC-allied Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as much as a year before the bombing. The ADL and the SPLC regularly trade spy data gleaned from informants.

Although the FBI said Strassmeir was expected to flee into Mexico “in the near future,”Cash and Charles point out that “none of the offices that received this FBI director’s memo [was in] Texas, where Strassmeir had just arrived and [from which he] was expected to make an escape across the Mexican border.” In addition, the FBI made no effort to visit Lyon’s office in North Carolina, where Strassmeir apparently hid out before fleeing to Mexico.

According to the Gazette, “Although Strassmeir was wanted for questioning in the Oklahoma bombing at the time of his escape and was illegally in the United States, those facts were known to attorney, Kirk Lyons . . . who has never been charged with harboring a fugitive, obstructing justice or disciplined by the [bar association] for his admitted role in assisting a client to elude federal authorities.”

The totality of the evidence, including the FBI memo, suggests Strassmeir was protected by the FBI, even before the bombing. Initially, the office of the BATF in Tulsa, Okla., had sought an arrest warrant for Strassmeir after one of its informants, Carol Howe, announced Strassmeir’s reported plans to bomb a U.S. federal building. That was in February 1995—two months prior to the Oklahoma bombing.

The Gazette alleged that Bob Ricks, special agent in charge of the Oklahoma City FBI office, enlisted the U.S. attorney in Tulsa, Steve Lawrence, to prevent Strassmeir’s arrest and a planned raid on Elohim City where Strassmeir was living.

In preparation for McVeigh’s trial, his attorney, Stephen Jones, requested FBI documents relating to its surveillance of Elohim City. However, the FBI claimed it had no information linking McVeigh to anyone there, and that is now clearly shown to have been a lie.

So although Strassmeir spent seven years in the United States, including time after his visa had expired, he was never interviewed by the FBI, despite the fact he was associating with neo-Nazis under investigation, including several linked to a nationwide bank-robbing spree.

The FBI never needed to speak directly to Strassmeir because his handlers such as Kirk Lyons and the SPLC acted as conduits for Strassmeir and passed his information on to the agency.That has been a long-standing strategy employed by the SPLC and the ADL in the handling of intelligence from informants and the conveyance of that data to the FBI and other law enforcement bodies.

Thus, it is no surprise that Dees and the SPLC and the ADL have worked to suppress the role of Strassmeir in the bombing and quick to dismiss the charges about Strassmeir made by BATF informant Howe.

The attacks on Howe echo the same language used by Strassmeir’s friend Kirk Lyons who, from the beginning, joined Dees and the ADL, along with all of the elite media trying to suppress the Strassmeir link.

That the ADL and Dees are adamant in discounting the involvement of a purported“neo-Nazi” in the Oklahoma scenario raises the question: “Why?” After all, the ADL and Dees have always reveled in finding “neo-Nazi” connections to any and all tragedies.The only explanation for the ADL-SPLC reticence to “linking” this particular “neo-Nazi” to a major act of terrorism is that Strassmeir was a “snitch” all along.

Now, in the pages that follow, we will explore the Strassmeir connection further and find, indeed, that the Mossad itself can be linked to his intrigues. And we’ll also learn further that there is evidence pointing toward even Timothy McVeigh’s ultimate understanding that he, like Lee Harvey Oswald before him, was but another “false flag”—another patsy—being manipulated in a frightening template for terror.

 

CHAPTER TWELVE:
Andreas Strassmeir:
The Mossad’s Man in Place
in the Oklahoma Bombing

The Oklahoma City bombing was was followed by years of independent inquiries by diligent researchers convinced (and rightly so) that the U.S. government covered up what really happened in America’s heartland. After the bombing, there was a big cover-up going on—the patriot investigators were right about that—but they didn’t understand “why.”

Although dissident assessments of the Oklahoma bombing did receive widespread attention in the “patriot”movement in America one thing about those critiques of the official government version of events was consistent: While all of those patriot-based critiques had distinctly differing theories—some blamed“the FBI”and some“the BATF”and others fingered “Bill Clinton and the New World Order,” or a combination thereof—none mention the possibility that the Oklahoma bombing conspiracy was ultimately manipulated by Israel’s Mossad.

Most researchers avoided this data.and continue to do so. It was easier and less controversial to say: “The U.S. government orchestrated the bombing to pave the way for setting up a police state,” than to point one’s finger in the direction of the Mossad.

But you’ll notice that no police state emerged in the wake of the bombing, although the truth is that there were elements at work—linked, by the way, to the Israeli lobby—who did do their damnedest to bring police-state style legislation into place.

Our thesis here is that Israel orchestrated OKC trying to frame Saddam Hussein for the crime so as to force Bill Clinton to wage war against Iraq. In fact, energetic efforts were made to link Timothy McVeigh to Iraqi Arabs in Oklahoma City who were said to be agents of Saddam. And in a subsequent chapter,we’ll explore that further.

But—to his credit—Clinton wouldn’t go along with the program. Clinton wouldn’t buy into the Mossad-sponsored theme that the bombing originated with Saddam or from some element (perhaps even Osama bin Laden) in the Arab or Muslim world.

As such, Clinton ordered the FBI to opt for a “lone nut”explanation. The FBI purposely ignored or otherwise covered up leads “linking” McVeigh to Arab operatives and limited the inquiry to McVeigh (and his friend Terry Nichols) and cut off all investigations which extended into sensitive areas and individuals involved in the web of conspiracy manipulating McVeigh prior to the bombing. And we refer here, primarily, to the enigmatic Andreas Strassmeir whose bizarre history and we’ve already examined and more about whom we will learn in this chapter.

And to the extent that McVeigh did have any connections to Arabs prior to the bombing, those operatives were clearly assets of Israel’s Mossad, although McVeigh,most assuredly, did not know that.

So what happened was that the Clinton administration refused to follow Israel’s lead and instead covered up the “evidence” and “links” that Israel’s Mossad laid in place with the intent of convincing the public that there was a “Middle East connection” to the bombing.

This intended “false flag” planted in place by Israel was hauled down by Clinton and company and Timothy McVeigh ended up being the primary patsy. And Israel failed to get its war against Saddam—at least then, anyway.

Next time, though, with 9-11, Israel achieved its goal and the United States went full force into the Middle East, fighting Israel’s wars of survival, launching an all-out offensive against “Muslim terrorism.”

There was indeed, let it be said, a Middle East connection to the Oklahoma bombing, but it was the Israeli connection—not an Arab or Muslim connection.

And although the now-defunct Spotlight largely stood alone in trying to demonstrate to independent-minded people of the point that Andreas Strassmeir and his associates were clear links to an Israeli connection to the Oklahoma bombing, a new book, entitled Oklahoma City: What the Investigation Missedand Why It Still Matters, comes probably as close as any from a mainstream publisher ever will to hinting the Mossad had a link to the events in Oklahoma City.

The authors—Andrew Gumbel, a distinguished British journalist, and former Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles—will probably cringe if they read this assessment of their findings, but it is on the mark.

Charles is interesting:A producer on some of ABC’s OKC coverage, he also worked with the late independent OKC investigator John Cash and with McVeigh’s defense team. He and Cash separately visited The Spotlight newspaper to find out what our team knew about the mysterious German, Andreas Strassmeir, whose murky activities linked to McVeigh are—as the book makes clear—a key to understanding OKC.

And please note this carefully: McVeigh himself told his cell-mate in federal prison—only to be revealed after McVeigh’s execution—that The Spotlight’s reporting on Strassmeir was on target.

While the book will disappoint many who devoted study to Oklahoma City,churning over minutiae perceived as“evidence”of a conspiracy, the book is “must” reading exactly because it explodes myths many patriots think are “gotcha” items proving a cover-up.

As in the JFK assassination and in 9-11, there are a lot of popular (now legendary) theories founded in misunderstanding, then passed along by word of mouth and from one book to another, and which are now carved in stone in conspiracy lore.

Many well-meaning sleuths contributed to this state of affairs, and in the realm of the circumstances surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing, the authors of this book do a service setting the record straight.

They will upset some folks, but the truth counts, no matter whose feelings are hurt.

However, the book does prove there was a lot of outright cover-up and corruption—and incompetence—that led to the outrageously falsified U.S. government explanation of OKC.

The authors only go so far as to suggest that still-hidden strands of the OKC conspiracy connect to a gang of “white racist” bank robbers—linked to Andreas Strassmeir—who claimed to be  motivated by their goal of a “white revolution.”

But it’s obvious the U.S. government was and continues to be determined to suppress all of this since its tentacles could lead toward a realm the government prefers to avoid.

In short, while the authors don’t say it, the truth is—as The Spotlight demonstrated in its ground-breaking OKC coverage—pursuing the “white racist” connection would lead directly to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and the Southern Poverty Law Center, both of which were in control of (or monitoring) individuals surrounding Timothy McVeigh.

And one of them was the aforementioned Strassmeir who postured as a “white separatist” but who was, Gumbel and Charles make clear, an intelligence informant protected at the highest levels.

The government did not pursue Strassmeir precisely because he was a direct link to Israeli intelligence, of which the ADL is an American conduit and which often operates on a strategic level with the SPLC. And the evidence indicates that the SPLC was utilizing Strassmeir as one of its agents.The authors outlined Strassmeir’s Israeli connections:

There were things about Andreas Strassmeir that his friends in the revolutionary Patriot Movement did not know and would have been intrigued, or appalled, to find out. Despite his pedigree as the grandson of a Nazi, he was fascinated by Israel and spent three summers on a kibbutz in the Jezreel Valley, near the Golan Heights. He had enrolled in Hebrew classes as a teenager in Berlin, and spoke the language fluently.

During his second stint at the kibbutz, he was given an Uzi and put on security detail; during his third, he was sent on patrol on the Green Line between Israel and the West Bank, a job usually reserved for the military. When he was asked in an interview if he had worn an Israeli Defense Force uniform, Strassmeir’s expression changed noticeably and he broke into an embarrassed smile before insisting he had gone out in jeans.

Strassmeir acknowledged that he “bumped into” General Rafael Eitan, the architect of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon—an encounter captured in a photograph of them at Golan Beach, near Lake Galilee.

And he did not explicitly deny that he had contact with Mossad, the Israeli security service . . . .

Strassmeir was a German army officer by then, and his career took an interesting turn when he returned home: he was seconded to intelligence work. . . . [His] infantry battalion nowused him to sniff out East Germany informants and spies. At some stage, Strassmeir was asked to fill in as the head of the battalion’s intelligence unit, which gave him access to the army’s internal reports.

This history strongly suggests that Strassmeir was not the radical right-winger he appeared to be, and might even have been a government agent of some sort, spying on extremists in the United States. . . .

Who might he have worked for? The Germans were certainly interested in intelligence on American radicals, because they worried that money and propaganda materials from the United States were fueling neo-Nazi violence at home. The Israelis were interested, too.

Despite all this—perhaps litigation conscious—the authors court the good will of Strassmeir’s close friend and attorney, Kirk Lyons, wrapping up their eye-opening account of Strassmeir’s Israeli ventures by parroting Lyons’ claim that “Andi” was just a lazy kid they called “Sofameir,” because he was always “sacked out.” Yet one of Lyon’s backers came up with an overnight express of $6,000 cash to help Lyons spirit Strassmeir out of the country when government investigators initially looked in his direction. What do you think?

In fact, as we now know, it was the now-defunct Spotlight—whose reporters went on to found American Free Press—which was the one newspaper that wrote articles about the Oklahoma bombing that Timothy McVeigh privately said “hit very close to home,” and specifically in reference to the activities of Andreas Strassmeir.

Our coverage in The Spotlight was unique (and obviously of interest to McVeigh) in that it focused on the “big picture,” conveying evidence McVeigh was a small cog in a wide-ranging conspiracy involving multiple intelligence agencies and informants working with McVeigh and his inner circle and manipulating their actions. And that, ultimately, to be found in the background, was Israel’s Mossad.

Now much of what The Spotlight first wrote has finally been confirmed for the first time.Although McVeigh publicly claimed he was a “lone bomber,” privately he said The Spotlight was aiming in the right direction, even thwarting his effort to claim a singular role in history.

Two of McVeigh’s friends from death row at the federal prison in Indiana published a book telling the“inside”story of the bombing, based largely on what McVeigh told them really happened. Secrets Worth Dying For, by David Paul Hammer and Jeffrey William Paul, probably comes much closer to the truth than any other book on the subject.

And although McVeigh publicly proclaimed himself as a “lone bomber”—even dismissing the role of his friend, Terry Nichols—McVeigh told a far different version to his friends in prison. As such, what Secrets reported is far more credible than what is found in “mainstream” media books.

The Hammer-Paul book contends that McVeigh was recruited (while still in the military) by one of his superiors to immerse himself in the rhetoric and lifestyle of the American “militia” and “patriot” movements, traveling from gun show to gun show, reporting back his findings. In short,McVeigh was a federal “snitch.”

However, although unusual from a psychological standpoint, McVeigh evidently shared the views of those he was informing on.

Eventually, McVeigh was ordered to organize a team of “extremists” to carry out a terrorist bombing in the United States in order to give the federal authorities the opportunity to crack down on political dissidents in this country. McVeigh did orchestrate a bombing conspiracy (the details of which he reported back to his superiors) and that conspiracy included at least one other undercover informant, the now-notorious Andreas Strassmeir.

McVeigh himself sent a letter to this author, Michael Collins Piper,from his cell on death row at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. Inside the envelope was a print-out of an article about an individual named Cary Gagan who claimed to have inside knowledge about the Oklahoma bombing. In his own handwriting on the print-out, McVeigh wrote,“One lie too many smokes out a con artist,” evidently suggesting that Gagan was a liar.

But what made this note from McVeigh interesting was the fact that never once had I written anything about Gagan. Instead,my writing for The Spotlight focused almost exclusively on the Strassmeir connection.

My immediate reaction to receiving this note from McVeigh was to make the deduction that McVeigh was indirectly communicating to me (through a round-about, indirect means) was that what I actually had written was on the mark.

And now, of course, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I was very much on target, much to the dismay of Andreas Strassmeir, Kirk Lyons and all of their allies and handlers (both here on American soil and in Israel and elsewhere) in the murky world of covert action.

Another odd item that should be mentioned for the historical record—and this is a point that has been widely forgotten, even among the most thorough of the independent Oklahoma City researchers—the existence of another mysterious McVeigh associate: the guy with the red sports car, first brought to attention by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and later publicized by The Spotlight.

Catina Lawson, a young lady in Kansas who came to know McVeigh circa 1992 (when McVeigh was tooling about the country mixing it up the militia groups, white separatists, and Andreas Strassmeir) described the mystery man: « It was weird that summer. There was always this elder gentleman with Tim, mid 40-ish, with a red sports car. He seemed out of place, but he was always around. »

Other witnesses report seeing McVeigh with this same character in Kansas during that same time frame. Yet of all of the players in the Oklahoma affair who have been identified, to one degree or another (however incorrectly, in some cases,we might add), no one—including British journalist Evans-Pritchard who discovered him—seems to have been able to place a name on this chap.

In fact, however, we do know the identity of a close friend (and client) of Kirk Lyons—just like Andreas Strassmeir—who was then (and remains today) active—in a markedly influential but still notably “behind the scenes” fashion—in the white separatist movement. And it just so happens that this individual (at that time) was “mid-40-ish” and known to drive a hot red Fiero sports car.

And it is also known that—at the very time when The Spotlight was publicizing and seeking to identify McVeigh’s friend with the red sports car—the Lyons client in question put his own sports car up for sale, after having painted it over with gold, a process that automotive paint experts say is not only difficult but expensive.

The editorial staff of The Spotlight came to conclude—based on the Lyons-Strassmeir connection to McVeigh and the Oklahoma affair—that this red sports car driving individual was indeed Lyons’ other friend and client, but never reported the name due to certain legal considerations, too complicated to explain here.

But suffice it to say that, long after the Oklahoma bombing, on July 12, 2002, a major Philippine government, The Manila Times, published an odd article which said in part:

United States intelligence officials have released the names of 25 international terrorist suspects believed to have slipped in and out of the Philippines in the last four years . . .

Little is known about the names on the list. American sources said the individuals on the list come from different organizations and additional information could jeopardize ongoing investigations.

But at least one man, the German Andreas Strassmeir, has been linked to the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

The Philippine newspaper published the list of the 25 names (most of which names were unknown to those of us who had monitored the matter.) However, the name of the Lyons associate—whom we believed to be McVeigh’s friend with the red sports car associated—was on that list, along with Strassmeir.

In some respects the fact that this particular individual popped up in this way was no surprise, inasmuch as we had long ago concluded that this individual was, in fact, someone with some rather unusual connections in what might be called the highest (and lowest) realms. However, at the same time, it was a disturbing (even eerie) underscoring of our suspicions.

And considering the fact this individual’s name had never before been linked publicly to Strassmeir or to published data relating to Oklahoma bombing, it was remarkable, to say the very least, that his name appeared (linked to terrorism) in a Filipino newspaper.

Our international efforts—via the resources of American Free Press (successor to The Spotlight)—to track down the author of the Manila Times article were unsuccessful.

And the red sports car suspect in question seemed to express genuine surprise (when contacted) when he learned that his name had been published in the Filipino journal. He denied ever having traveled to the Philippines, but was, naturally, unable to actually deny with certainty that his identity had ever been used in some way by someone else involved in some international intrigues.

The mystery of the individual with the red sports car will probably never be resolved,but it points further to the global web of intrigue connected to Andreas Strassmeir, his friend and attorney Kirk Lyons and groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League—not to mention the Mossad—that have swirled around dissident political movements in America.

Then, as now, they were using their considerable resources and influence to manipulate individuals and organizations and on April 19, 1993 all of it came together in Oklahoma City.

There is much, much more to the ugly “story behind the story” of the Oklahoma City bombing and in the pages that follow we will explore all of this further.

In his book Others Unknown McVeigh’s defense lawyer, Stephen Jones, noted that, at the very beginning,when he met with Susan Otto—the public defender who initially handled McVeigh’s case before Jones came aboard—she had told him to prepare himself, saying, “When you know everything I know, Stephen, and you will soon enough, you will never think of the United States of America again in the same way.”

And for this own part, Jones said, “the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy may not merely be the crime itself but also the systematic, deliberate attempt of our federal government to prevent all of us from finding out what exactly happened on that terrible April morning.”

All of those are strong words from two different lawyers who have no reason to make such extraordinary pronouncements. One of them actually worked for the federal government at the time and Jones had a long and distinguished career moving in high government circles, even including service as a ranking staffer on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Neither of these attorneys can be considered “anti-government extremists,” but they certainly had considerable doubts about the U.S. government’s role in the circumstances surrounding the investigation—or rather, the cover-up—of the Oklahoma bombing.

Moving forward, however, we will see that the template for terror that was set in place and which led to the Oklahoma tragedy was clearly not strictly American in origin, but, in many ways, cruelly manipulated and mislead many Americans—including even good people in government service—in a variety of insidious ways.

In some respects, it may not even be too far off to conclude that the American government—for whatever its reasons—may have actually done the American people a service in covering up at least certain aspects of the Oklahoma bombing conspiracy, for, in so doing, they may have helped us avoid a foolish and unnecessary foreign war in the Middle East. If only that had been the case after the subsequent false flag provocation remembered as 9-11.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN:
Timothy McVeigh and the ADL:
A Clear-Cut Demonstration of
Long-Time Mossad Monitoring
of the Oklahoma City “Patsy”

Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, The Spotlight inadvertently—and by a surprising means—came upon solid evidence that the accused bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was in close and probably sustained contact with an agent of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, and that the ADL had McVeigh under regular surveillance for some time.

Whether that informant was the ubiquitous Andreas Strassmeir, whose own sordid record we’ve already examined, or someone else, we’ll probably never know. But here are the facts which prove that McVeigh and his activities were under the close scrutiny of the ADL.

On April 21,1995, in an early-morning edition, The Washington Post reported—to the surprise of those of us on the staff of The Spotlight—that, in the fall of 1993, McVeigh—using the name “T.Tuttle”—had taken out a classified advertisement which had run for four weekly issues in The Spotlight, beginning on Aug. 9, 1993.

According to the Post, the source of this information was an ADL press release. Needless to say, we at The Spotlight were surprised to learn of this story. So when alerted to this allegation our staff underwent a time-consuming effort to locate the advertisement and the related inhouse paperwork relating to the advertisement.

However, we soon learned from a friendly source with high-level U.S. and international intelligence contacts—namely former high-ranking CIA official Victor Marchetti (author of the famous work, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence)—that the reason why the ADL knew McVeigh had advertised in The Spotlight was because, according to Marchetti’s sources, the ADL had an « inside source » in McVeigh’s circle.

In the meantime, later that afternoon, The Spotlight staff was astounded when the Post published a late-morning edition of its April 21, 1995, issue and, in reprinting the quite lengthy article about McVeigh, deleted only the reference to the ADL’s data on McVeigh.

(Now, years later, according to investigators, the first version of that Post article seems to have conveniently disappeared from even the official Post archives altogether—highly unusual, so they say!)

However, as we began to review the records of The Spotlight’s advertising department,we soon came to understand why the Post had come to the ADL’s rescue, covering up the ADL’s intimate knowledge about McVeigh when republishing the story.

Although McVeigh had indeed contracted to run the same advertisement in four consecutive issues of The Spotlight, the ad did not run the first week (Aug. 9, 1993) it was scheduled.The ad did not actually run until one week later, in the Aug. 16, 1993 issue. Yet, when the ADL had scurried to tip off The Washington Post, the ADL reported that the ad had first run in the August 9 issue.

In short, although the ADL knew (through McVeigh or a source close to McVeigh) that McVeigh had contracted to run ads in The Spotlight and put that data in its record, the ADL did not know that an in-house scheduling conflict at The Spotlight prevented the ad from appearing when it was first scheduled.

Ironically, The Spotlight’s editor ultimately pulled the ad (which was for a flare gun) because, as he put it, something seemed « suspicious. » Consequently the ad never ran as many times as the ADL expected and first noted in its surveillance file on McVeigh!

As a consequence, after the bombing, over a year later, when the ADL rushed to The Washington Post with “news” about McVeigh’s “link” to The Spotlight, they mistakenly cited the first scheduled date for the advertisement. However, the ADL obviously quickly discovered (as did The Spotlight) that the ADL’s data was incorrect and hastily arranged to have the Post re-write its initial story. Obviously, the ADL’s mistake did point toward its intimate knowledge of McVeigh’s advertising deals.

Since the ADL is known to report its findings to agencies such as the FBI, the BATF, the CIA, and Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, is it unreasonable to ask whether any of these agencies also had knowledge of McVeigh’s activities—and his intentions?

There is a final point that needs to be mentioned in relation to the interest of the ADL in the affairs of Timothy McVeigh.

Keeping in mind that there had been conflicting reports about the exact time of Timothy McVeigh’s arrival in Oklahoma City prior to the bombing—a point the government was eager to suppress—this lends some credence to the theory that there may have actually been a “Tim McVeigh No. 2” (that is, someone masquerading as McVeigh) as part of a wide-ranging conspiracy of which McVeigh was possibly unaware.

Here’s one possible answer as to who may have been masquerading as McVeigh:Ten days after the bombing, a “right wing” Israeli terrorist—28-year-old Sharon Svi Toval (also known as Zvi Sharon) —was arrested in NewYork by U.S. authorities.Then, under escort and airtight security, Toval was deported to Israel.

The one published photograph of Toval that appeared in The New York Daily News, on May 3, 1995, shows a young man who—without beard, mustache and yarmulke—could be mistaken by a stranger for either accused Oklahoma bomber Tim McVeigh or for the person shown in the famous “John Doe No. 1” sketch that authorities released immediately after the bombing and which was used to identify McVeigh.

In light of reports in 1995 that McVeigh’s attorneys were looking into the possibility that “right wing terrorists” from Israel—or even Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad itself—had a hand in the bombing, Toval’s specter is intriguing.

Couple that with the obvious “inside” knowledge about McVeigh’s activities by the Mossad-connected ADL and a whole new light is shed on the possibility that this young Israel was acting as a “second McVeigh” (much as there were convincing stories of a“second” or even “third” Lee Harvey Oswald circulating prior to the JFK assassination).

It’s probably no coincidence Toval’s name also appeared on a list of 25 names—published by the Philippine-based Manila Times newspaper on July 12, 2002—of reputed terrorists who had been traveling between the United States and the Philippines over a four year period.

That list—referenced earlier in Chapter Twelve—also included not only the name of the Mossad-connected German-born intriguer, Andreas Strassmeir, a foremost figure in the Oklahoma affair,but also the name of another American who was (like Strassmeir) a close friend and client of the ubiquitous white separatist attorney Kirk Lyons.

And there’s one other point worth noting: Although, before his execution, Timothy McVeigh said that he acted alone in delivering a bomb to the Murrah Building on April 19, 1995, McVeigh never revealed the name of the person in Oklahoma City who—on April 17, two days before the bombing—mailed The Spotlight what can only be described as a “warning” of the impending bombing.

The existence of this warning laid myth to McVeigh’s claim that no one else—other than Terry Nichols and their friends, Michael and Lori Fortier—knew of the bomb plot.

It also raises two pertinent questions:

1) Did the the ADL—which was clearly monitoring McVeigh—have a hand in putting forth this “warning” or have knowledge of who was responsible for sending it? and

2) Why has the FBI refused to comment publicly about what—if anything—the bureau did to identify the person (or persons) who mailed this warning to The Spotlight?

Here’s the story only The Spotlight and New York’s Village Voice (in its Oct.1, 1997 issue)—and later American Free Press—dared to report.

On April 20, 1995—the day after the OKC bombing—The Spotlight’s mail room opened an envelope postmarked “Oklahoma City.” The envelope had been mailed to The Spotlight on April 17—two days  before the bombing. It was hand-addressed in script, but we now know that the writing is very clearly not McVeigh’s.

Inside the envelope was a postcard featuring a Depression-era photograph depicting a dust storm over Oklahoma.This famous picture is ominously entitled “Black Sunday” (which, incidentally, was also the name of a Hollywood film about terrorism).The postcard also bears the printed legend,“Dust StormApproaching at 60 mi. per hr. April 14,‘35.”

Also enclosed alongside the postcard was a photocopy of a twelve year-old article from The Spotlight about the government murder of IRS and Federal Reserve critic Gordon Kahl.There was no name or return address anywhere on the envelope or on any of the contents.

When the staff of The Spotlight saw this postcard (just one day after the bombing) they knew something was up and called in The Spotlight’s attorney, Mark Lane, who immediately turned the original card and envelope over to Attorney General Janet Reno and the FBI.

Although this strange postcard strongly points to foreknowledge (by somebody) about the impending bombing, the FBI subsequently told Lane that they had “lost” the postcard! Fortunately, however, The Spotlight had made a copy.

After, during a telephone conversation, I advised James Ridgeway, the well-known columnist for The Village Voice, about the postcard, Ridgeway contacted the FBI in April of 1997, but all an FBI spokesman would say was this: “We have not stated anything in regards [sic] to that.” (The bad grammar was that of the FBI spokesman.)

Several questions arise:

Why has the FBI “not stated anything in regards to that”?

Whose handwriting is on the envelope?

Are we to conclude it was simply a bizarre coincidence that such an ominous postcard was mailed from Oklahoma City just two days before the bombing?

Or, in the alternative, is it possible that McVeigh himself had no knowledge that this postcard was being mailed to The Spotlight and had no part in so doing—that a third party orchestrated the mailing as part of some covert plot to implicate The Spotlight in the bombing? (And this, of course, seems likely.)

Had The Spotlight thrown the postcard away or if our attorney had not turned the material over to the FBI, there’s no doubt what would have happened: The FBI would have been told about the postcard from a “source” and FBI agents would have stormed The Spotlight’s offices, accusing the staff of “obstructing justice” by destroying evidence, etc.

There’s no question that somebody other than Timothy McVeigh addressed this suspicious envelope and mailed the material within to The Spotlight—two days before the bombing.That person had advance knowledge of the impending bombing and, by enclosing The Spotlight article, was implicitly linking the death of Gordon Kahl (and The Spotlight’s account of his tragic story) to the bombing.

The mystery surrounding this postcard demonstrates, beyond any question, that there’s much more to the Oklahoma City bombing than either McVeigh or the FBI is willing to admit.

What motivated McVeigh in not telling the entire story is open to speculation.

By the same token, that the FBI is refusing to talk about this postcard only adds fuel to the continuing doubts about what really happened in Oklahoma City.

The bottom line is that the FBI and the ADL knew much more about the Oklahoma City bombing than they would admit, and no doubt for very good reason:

Exposure of the truth would demonstrate, beyond any question, that the ADL’s foreign principal—the Mossad—was ultimately responsible for what happened in Oklahoma City on the tragic day.

 
CHAPTER FOURTEEN:
“The Arabs Did It”—
Neo-Conservative Zionist Propaganda
Regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing

 

In the spring of 2004—supported by major pro-Zionist elements in the media monopoly—high-level figures from the pro-Israel neo-conservative network began promoting a book claiming Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been behind the Oklahoma bombing and that reputed Islamic terrorist Ramzi Yousef—a purported operative of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden—was a key player in the affair.

The theory that the two Arab leaders, Saddam and bin Laden, were involved in a highly unlikely alliance to blow up the Murrah Building and blame it on American “lily white”patsies came at precisely the time when the neo-conservatives were struggling to explain the utter failure of the U.S.war in Iraq. The “Saddam Bombed Oklahoma City” crowd touted this theory as another justification for a war that, as most Americans now know,was based on a patchwork of horrendous lies.

The neo-conservative promotion of The Third Terrorist, by former Oklahoma City television journalist Jayna Davis, was an after-the-fact means to justify the misdeeds and misinformation by the neo-conservatives and their allies in Israel who helped bring the war about.

Former CIA Director JamesWoolsey and Frank Gaffney (a longtime colleague of neo-conservative intriguer Richard Perle, once investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Israel) were just two of the neoconservatives who lent their names to promoting the new book.

In the meantime, U.S. News and World Report, published by pro-Israel ideologue Mort Zuckerman, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, along with Fox News (owned by pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch) also joined the chorus promoting the book.

For its part, The Wall Street Journal not only hyped Davis’s claim of Saddam’s involvement in the Oklahoma affair but even conjoined it with the conspiracy theory concocted by neo-conservative Laurie Mylroie who asserts Saddam was also behind the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

In addition, Vanity Fair—published by pro-Israel media titan S. I. Newhouse—offered a friendly profile of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz noting that a “longtime friend” of Wolfowitz (probably the aforementioned Perle) says Wolfowitz has long believed Saddam was behind the Oklahoma tragedy.

Of particular interest is the background of the chief sponsor of The Third Terrorist: WND Books, an enterprise of Joseph Farah, editor of Internet-based World Net Daily. Not only has Farah long operated in the sphere of billionaire Richard Scaife—whose CIA-connected intrigues go back decades—but in 2003 Farah was honored as “journalist of the year” by the Zionist Organization of America, one of the most vociferous advocates of the war against Saddam. Although an Arab-American, Farah is a fervent supporter of Israel and hardly an unbiased source.

Now about the book . . .

Jayna Davis presented a convincing case that Tim McVeigh was traveling with at least one—and likely more—Iraqi nationals (based in Oklahoma City) in the minutes, days, weeks and months leading up to the disaster.

And—although she never mentions it—it was the now-defunct Spotlight that most consistently gave attention to Davis’ investigation, even while “mainstream” news sources studiously ignored her work.

However, obviously, as we have seen, that changed.

But to those who carefully reviewed The Spotlight’s reportage on Davis, none of this comes as any surprise, for—as The Spotlight said early on—so-called evidence of “Iraqi” involvement actually pointed elsewhere: that is, toward the likelihood that elements operating inside the U.S. (and manipulating McVeigh)—and we do mean the Mossad—were setting the stage for a terrorist attack that could be falsely blamed on Saddam for the purpose of stoking up a war against the Iraqi strongman—a war that finally came in the spring of 2003 (but, of course, only in the aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy).

Although Davis does seem to believe there was a Middle East connection—of Arab or Muslim origin—behind the bombing, there were many serious problems with her book. First of all,Davis completely disregarded the following critical evidence:

• Eyewitness testimony by bombing survivor Jane Graham, who—a day or so prior to the bombing—spotted a group of mysterious figures engaged in activity which suggests they were placing explosives inside the Murrah Building; these men were not Arabs, but white Americans and definitely neither McVeigh nor his co-conspirator Terry Nichols;

•Testimony by multiple survivors who insist there was a major blast inside the Murrah Building following the explosion of the “McVeigh truck bomb” outside on the street;

• Seismographic data indicating more than one blast at the time of the disaster; and

• While multiple news reports—from a wide array of sources—indicated other unexploded bombs had been found inside the Murrah Building after the explosion, Davis stated flatly that these bomb scares “proved innocuous.” Certainly no other bombs exploded, but their existence hardly makes them “innocuous.”

• Although Davis referenced the heroics of Oklahoma City policeman Terrence Yeakey—almost gratuitously—she never mentioned that Yeakey’s purported suicide is deemed “murder” by his friends and family who believe, based onYeakey’s remarks at the time, that he witnessed  something either before or after the bombing that led him to believe the authorities were covering up the truth about what really happened.

• Most notably, Davis never once referenced the intrigues of Hebrew-speaking Mossad-connected former German military intelligence officer Andreas Strassmeir whose checkered background—and that description might be termed “innocuous,” to say the least—points toward directions that Davis (and those promoting her book) would certainly prefer not to go.

So, although, of course, it was not Davis’ intent to explore all of the mysteries surrounding the bombing, it was disconcerting that she ignored some of the more notable questions that arose in its wake. Her focus was the purported “Iraqi connection” but even in that regard she actually left more questions unanswered than answered.

In fact, Davis’s book was simply looking at a small part of a much larger picture and ignoring relevant details that—taken together in their entirety—point in another direction entirely and that is the role of the Mossad in orchestrating the Oklahoma bombing tragedy.

Davis never adequately explained why the FBI—under either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush—would be so eager to suppress evidence that Saddam Hussein and/or “Islamic”or “Arabic”militants working with Saddam or in his sphere of influence had been involved in the Oklahoma tragedy.

Her best—albeit quite lame—explanation was the excuse that the Democratic Clinton administration (in power at the time of the bombing) did not want to admit that it ignored “warnings” of a possible attack put forth by a Republican Party-associated operative on Capitol Hill, Israeli-born “terrorism expert” Yosef Bodansky, who just happened to be one of Davis’s key sources.

Davis made the assertion that Democrats in the Clinton administration would have been inclined to dismiss Bodansky’s warnings as “Zionist propaganda.”

In fact, in one respect, there may be some grain of truth to this, but in a quite different way than Davis suggested.

There is no question that—as Davis herself admitted—Israeli operatives landed in Oklahoma City immediately after the bombing and began promoting the theory that, as one of Davis’s Israeli sources put it, “the bomb which destroyed the Murrah Building was constructed by Arab terrorists or people trained by Arab terrorists.”

But what Davis never explored (or never mentioned, for it would not fit with her theory) is the possibility that the Clinton administration had no desire to crank up a war against Saddam, recognizing that the Israeli propaganda claim that Saddam was behind the bombing was part of the long-standing Zionist drive to topple the Iraqi leader.

In one instance Davis pointed out that a Senate staffer told her she was known as “the baby with the loaded gun.”The fear was,he said, that “they don’t know where you are going to point it next.”

Although Davis evidently never considered it, one could read into this remark that Davis’s dogged inquiries were going a bit too far. In other words, if Davis started digging too deeply into the “Iraqi connection” she could discover something quite the opposite: That the Iraqi connection was another Israeli “false flag” designed to shift the blame for a covert operation carried out by Israeli intelligence.

So although Davis painted a fairly convincing picture that an Iraqi immigrant, Hussain Al-Hussaini, was in league with McVeigh in the Oklahoma bombing, her book is unclear in explaining whether she believes it was Saddam’s sworn enemy, Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden or Iraq’s secular Arab ruler Saddam (who actively suppressed Islamic fundamentalists) who was the ultimate sponsor of Al-Hussaini.

Instead, Davis weaved a tangled story that links Osama and Saddam in an unlikely scenario that never precisely pinpoints the finger of blame—a rather important detail missed by those eager to accept her thesis. A discerning reader will note this immediately, but most readers are not that discerning, a point arguing in favor of the likelihood that many will—regrettably—take Davis’s book seriously. (“Arab plots” are popular in the media these days.)

At one point, she does state that “it really is a foreign conspiracy masterminded and funded by Osama bin Laden, according to my intelligence sources,” but this flat-out charge is refuted by other claims she made elsewhere regarding Al-Hussaini having “possibly” (her word) been “a devoted member of Saddam Hussein’s prized military unit, the Republican Guard,” (and therefore an agent of Saddam—not bin Laden).

When Davis begins to explore the purported link of the mysterious Ramzi Yousef to the Oklahoma affair is when her theory really begins to unravel. For here, she is treading on shaky ground, attempting to tie an alleged Islamic fundamentalist (ostensibly under the discipline of bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network) to an agent of Saddam Hussein—the Iraqi leader whom bin Laden himself had vowed to destroy.

And there are real questions about just whomYousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (said to be Al-Qaeda’s chief of operations) were really working for.

And as we shall see later, in more detail, in these pages, evidence first published by Jewish-American journalist Robert I. Friedman in New York’s Village Voice indicates Yousef was working closely with an Israeli mole inside the conspiracy behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC), forerunner of the September 11, 2001 tragedy.

So when Davis asserted that“the terrorist who engineered the delivery of a Ryder truck packed with a powerful fertilizer-fuel oil bomb to America’s financial district likely orchestrated a similarly executed bombing in Oklahoma City,” she was suggesting—unwittingly, to be sure—that the Mossad also had a hand in Oklahoma as it did in the 1993 WTC attack! But don’t expect Davis or her promoters to say that.

All of this is not to suggest Davis was deliberately purveying lies. However, driven by a desire to bring her story to the fore—a story based on deliberate false flag disinformation that was planted for the very purpose of being brought to Davis’s attention in the first place—Davis was being manipulated and that she did not understand the more subtle intricacies of the world of intrigue that were surrounding her.

However, other forces were also promoting the theme that there was a “Middle East connection” to the bombing—that Tim McVeigh was being handled by “the Arabs” or “the Muslims” and that ultimately, Saddam Hussein and/or Osama bin Laden were behind the bombing. In fact, elements in what is known as “the patriot movement” were promoting this Zionist propaganda and continue to do so to this day.

Some of those “patriots” hyping the alleged “Middle East connection” were on the payroll of Media Bypass, a magazine that popped up shortly before the bombing and which so quickly achieved such a gigantic circulation boost—50,000 readers virtually overnight—that it was generally assumed by informed observers that somebody somewhere was subsidizing Media Bypass for the purpose of directing (or, rather, misdirecting) the patriot movement.

Not coincidentally, a key figure at Media Bypass was a shadowy figure—calling himself “Lawrence Myers”—known to have long-standing high-level intelligence connections.Then when its handlers were done utilizing Media Bypass for their own purposes, they pulled the plug and sold the magazine (which quickly folded without the previous big money backing). However, some of the original operatives from Media Bypass still engage in intrigues inside the patriot movement today.

To sum it up:There were many efforts to redirect attention toward “false flags” set in place by the real conspirators behind the Oklahoma bombing. And in our next chapter,we’ll put it all in place and examine how those false flags fit into the template for terror that we first saw in the JFK assassination and which Israel utilized again in Oklahoma.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN:
What Really Happened in Oklahoma City?
A Familiar Template for Terror and
a Scenario That Does Make Sense

Let us note, at the outset, that what follows in this chapter is obviously speculative in nature. However, it is based upon a long-term review of a wide variety of published information put together by many different independent Oklahoma City bombing investigators, not to mention an assortment of facts and statements put forth by official investigators.

 And it should be added that even within the ranks of those who have been investigating the OKC bombing, there is a great range of differing opinion as to precisely what happened on that tragic day.

 While most of the varying theories intersect at many points, and, in the end, are hardly different, it must be noted here—and this is no surprise—that many of the supposedly “independent” investigators deliberately ignore uncomfortable facts that would suggest the conspiracy led in directions they would prefer to avoid following.

 And we do mean, of course, the possibility of an Israeli connection to the Oklahoma City tragedy.

 And even many of those who have been heard to mutter about a “Middle East connection” (meaning, of course, that “the Arabs” or “the Muslims” were behind the Oklahoma) are never prepared to acknowledge the likelihood that those Arabs on the ground on Oklahoma City who have been linked to the conspiracy may, in fact, have been acting as “false flags” for Israel’s Mossad.

 So what of the various theories? Let’s review them and attempt to delineate, as simply as possible, the main points of each…

 Some hold that it was a “U.S. government operation” deliberately designed to destroy the Murrah Building and place blame upon “right wing militias” for the purpose of setting in place police-state measures ultimately designed to impose martial law on the United States and thereby dissolve our Constitutional republic.

 Many promoters of this scenario suggest that the orders“came from the top”—that is, that President Bill Clinton and his top advisors were “in on it,” acting perhaps as proxies for favorite villains such as “the Illuminati” or the Council on Foreign Relations or some other shadowy international power bloc.This is the simplistic version that disregards some of the more down to earth details that we’ll explore shortly.

 While some contend that McVeigh was simply a “patsy”—perhaps brainwashed and under mind control—others suggest that McVeigh was a knowing agent of higher-ranking behind-the-scenes conspirators, that he was part of a secret government team staging acts of terrorism.

 Others contend McVeigh was “for real”—that he was actively conspiring to blow up the federal building on his own (along with a handful of other extremists, known and unknown) and that government authorities allowed the conspiracy to go forward, again for the purpose of clamping down on the militias and setting in place a police state as part of a grand design for a New World Order.

 In contrast, there are those who say that while the government was aware of McVeigh’s plans, a federal sting operation (perhaps by the BATF) designed to stop—and expose—McVeigh and his collaborators went awry; that the bomb went off and destroyed the Murrah Building and that the government agents who failed to prevent the tragedy from happening were thus forced into a cover-up mode.

 This thesis is based on the theme that the BATF was smarting under public scrutiny as a result of the debacle at Waco with the Branch Davidian church and that the BATF was trying to show how valuable its efforts were in fighting “extremism” of the type of which McVeigh was found guilty. However, of course, according to this theory, the BATF bungled and the bombing took place.

 Generally, this thesis contends that McVeigh was “for real,” so to speak,but that government bungling allowed the tragedy to happen and that the cover-up by the government was necessary to keep the truth about government incompetence from reaching the public.

 That’s a “comfortable” scenario for many,many people.

 Another variation on one or more of the above versions of “what happened” is that McVeigh and his co-conspirators were planning to set off a bomb in front of the Murrah Building, but that others—generally said to be“government agents”—also put bombs inside the building and made sure there was a massive loss of life and major destruction. This thesis is founded on the reasonable contention that only government agents would have the kind of access to the Murrah Building (a federal facility) in order to make such a scenario possible.

 And then, of course, there are those who say that either Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden (or both working together) were responsible for what happened in Oklahoma City. This scenario, obviously, is the least likely but it is this thesis that has received the most widespread publicity (from the pro-Zionist media in America) other than that accorded the official claim that McVeigh was effectively, a “lone nut” (with the exception of peripheral involvement by Terry Nichols, and possible foreknowledge by his friends Michael and Lori Fortier).

 In the end, however, there is one scenario which, in its entirety, ties many of these threads together in a way that does make sense.And that is the scenario—the template for terror—we outline here.

 Our Oklahoma City bombing scenario follows: Timothy McVeigh was a young man—an ex-Army combat veteran—with leanings toward the philosophy of the “right wing” and the militia movement. And as we noted earlier, McVeigh’s former federal prison associate, David Paul Hammer has said that McVeigh told Hammer that he had been recruited into a secret intelligence unit to infiltrate the militias and report back on their activities, although McVeigh was indeed sympathetic to the philosophy of the militia groups he was monitoring.

 McVeigh himself—if sympathetic to the militias, as many believe, based on what are purported to be McVeigh’s own writings and statements—was probably told that he was acting on behalf of higher-ups in the government or in the military who were sympathetic to the militias, seeing them as a possible ally in some ultimate fight against the dreaded “New World Order.”

 In this part of the scenario, McVeigh may have believed, as a consequence, that he was not acting as a “rat” or as an informant but was, instead, working to help the militia movement by acting as a liaison between the movement and its purported sympathizers inside the federal military or law enforcement apparatus.

 There is also the possibility that as an aspect of his recruitment and training, as part of some clandestine operation, McVeigh was subjected—even at this early stage—to some form of programming or mind control of which he may not have been aware.

 However, it is entirely possible that the unit (or entity) that recruited McVeigh was not an officially-sanctioned U.S. government operation per se, and was, instead, a “rogue” operation under the thumb of a genuine militia sympathizer within U.S.military and intelligence circles.

 But there is another possibility and that is that this operation (which had enough earmarks to convince McVeigh it was U.S.-government sponsored) may not have even been a U.S. government operation at all. Instead, it could have been a totally spurious operation, set up on American shores by Israel’s Mossad.

 This Mossad operation could have been utilizing home-grown American assets who were—either knowingly or unknowingly—working on behalf of Israeli intelligence.

 In other words, if the unit was U.S.-government sponsored (or even if it was some sort of “rogue” operation under the control of very real militia sympathizers with military and intelligence connections) McVeigh’s immediate supervisors may have been hoodwinked by the Mossad and may have never suspected it; that is, this secret unit may have been actually created by—or was otherwise co-opted by—the Mossad and was being used to recruit McVeigh and other individuals.

 In recent years we have learned that even the otherwise pro-Israel GeorgeW. Bush administration was outraged to learn that Mossad operatives had masqueraded at various times in various places as agents of the FBI and the CIA (and presumably other U.S. agencies) in order to carry out ventures that were exclusively part of the Israeli agenda.

 So the possibility that the Mossad did set up some phony intelligence unit on American shores (or otherwise directed—or misdirected and manipulated—a genuine such operation) is not beyond the pale.

 Although we’re talking about layer upon layer of intrigue, it is all actually rather simple in its set-up, reflecting a template that if fully in line with the Mossad’s classic use of “false flags” and false identities in pursuit of its historically insidious games of intrigue.

 McVeigh’s assignment to infiltrate the militias was part of a calculated effort to place McVeigh in the position of being—in the public perception—precisely the type of “right wing militia” activist that he (McVeigh) believed he was monitoring for his superiors (who had a covert agenda kept well hidden from McVeigh).

 With all of this in place,Timothy McVeigh began moving in militia circles, making contact with seemingly like-minded individuals. And in short order, as we have seen, McVeigh’s activities were clearly being monitored, at least in part, by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a most efficient arm of the Mossad.

 And, needless to say, all of this recalls intrigues (described earlier) that surrounded Lee Harvey Oswald preceding the JFK assassination: Namely, Mossad manipulation of both anti-Castro Cuban elements and intelligence operations within the CIA itself, utilizing knowing assets (such as high-ranking CIA official James Angleton) as well as figures such as E.Howard Hunt, for example,who appears to have been caught in the middle, not knowing that an assassination was in the offing.

It was in the course of his assignment that McVeigh found among his new associates an enigmatic individual by the name of Andreas Strassmeir, who, as we have seen had quite stellar military and intelligence connections here and abroad—including to Israel’s Mossad.

All of this is hardly,as we’ve noted, the profile of your run-of-the-mill “neo-Nazi” or “white separatist” agitator.

There was obviously much more to Strassmeir and his close friend and attorney, Kirk Lyons—as well Lyons’ associate, Dave Holloway, a former CIA pilot—than they would have us believe.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Strassmeir was, in fact, an outright asset of Israel’s Mossad being deployed by the Mossad into the ranks of the American intelligence community through his contacts in German intelligence. Things do work that way.

In any case, as we know, Strassmeir and the denizens of Elohim City—the now-infamous “Christian Identity” compound—were under surveillance by at least one division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, that office which utilized Carol Howe as an informant.

Miss Howe was reporting to her BATF handlers, describing talk by Strassmeir of attacking U.S. federal buildings. However, in the end, of course, the U.S. government did all in its power to dismiss Miss Howe’s claims regarding Strassmeir despite the fact the record is clear she had made her claims about Strassmeir well before the bombing took place. 

Thus, it seems, one hand of the U.S. government intelligence apparatus (that directing Miss Howe) was perhaps unaware of the other hand directing the activities of Strassmeir (and McVeigh).

This would not be the first time that such a thing happened. At the very time one division of the CIA was utilizing and funding informants inside the anti-Vietnam War movement, other CIA divisions and the FBI were spending millions of dollars to combat the anti-war movement.

For his part—citing his own “very reliable source” whom British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard believed to be Strassmeir himself—Strassmeir told Evans-Pritchard: “The different agencies weren’t cooperating. In fact, they were working against each other.You even had a situation where one branch of the FBI was investigating and not sharing anything with another branch of the FBI.”

And all of this does not preclude the possibility—the likelihood—that some domestic government elements involved in manipulating McVeigh were also working hand-in-glove (knowingly or unknowingly) with a foreign intelligence network, namely that of Israel.

And here, again, of course, we come back to Strassmeir who was almost certainly a witting asset of the Mossad,whatever his relationship to any specific government agency or to a “private” intelligence operation such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

As we noted earlier, longtime ADL informant Roy Bullock variously worked for the ADL along with the FBI and the Indianapolis Police Department—not to mention, at one point, the intelligence agency of the apartheid regime of South Africa. So the possibility Strassmeir was wearing various hats—and some of them perhaps unknown to elements inside the U.S. government—is not beyond the realm of possibility.

And while there are many foreign intelligence agencies that do monitor and infiltrate domestic American “right wing” circles, Israel, of course, is that one foreign nation with a distinct special interest, so to speak, in the particular circles (often anti-Jewish or otherwise anti-Zionist) in which Strassmeir and his handler, Kirk Lyons and, of course, Timothy McVeigh were operating.

And, for the record,of course, since Strassmeir was a German national—with longtime involvement in German military and intelligence circles—we would be remiss in not pointing out that the modern-day German government, likewise, has long had an interest in monitoring American “right wing” circles, particularly those with perceived sympathy for the long-gone Third Reich.

But even when Strassmeir was involved with German intelligence, as we have seen, he was also working with the Israelis, to the point that he even had an Israeli girlfriend and learned to speak Hebrew.

In the meantime we must add to this already complex mix the evidence indicating that there were also foreign-born Arabs—at least one, and maybe more—involved with McVeigh in the weeks prior to the bombing.And, as we’ve seen, this “Arab connection” does point toward the likelihood of Mossad involvement.

Based upon a wide variety of information coming from multiple sources, it seems likely that Timothy McVeigh was quite cognizant of a plan—and participated in a venture—that involved the placement of a truck bomb outside the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

Whether McVeigh actually exploded that bomb himself or even thought that the bomb would actually be exploded is something that we can never really be certain about.

McVeigh’s public claims—to his official biographers—don’t jibe, in many respects,with what he privately told his friends in prison or even with a lot of the evidence uncovered by his own attorneys. So McVeigh is more than a mystery, in and of himself.

For his part, citing his own aforementioned “very reliable source,” Andreas Strassmeir told British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard that “McVeigh knew he was delivering a bomb,but he had no idea what was in that truck. . . .The bomb was never meant to explode.They were going to arrest McVeigh at the site with the bomb in hand,but he didn’t come at the right time.”

But other conspirators—skilled experts—had already rigged the Murrah Building with explosives inside the structure that were guaranteed to do much more damage than the truck bomb which McVeigh placed outside the building. Some information suggests McVeigh may have known of the explosives inside the building.

And while there appear to have been elements inside the U.S. intelligence agencies (specifically the BATF) who may have attempted to thwart McVeigh’s plans—or, in the alternative,who were actually utilizing McVeigh (and/or his associates) in what has been called “a bungled sting operation”—they clearly failed.

Andreas Strassmeir—who obviously had inside knowledge of what did happen—told Evans-Pritchard that the BATF “had something going with McVeigh.They were watching him—of course they were.

“What they should have done,” said Strassmeir, “is make an arrest while the bomb was still being made instead of waiting till the last moment for a publicity stunt.”

Strassmeir insisted to Evans-Pritchard that it was“obvious that it was a government ‘op’ that went wrong.”

But was it?

The failure to stop the bombing could have been the consequence of classic government incompetence.

However, based on the entirety of what we do know about all of the circumstances surrounding the bombing (and the players involved), it is our contention here that—in a more sinister and more likely scenario—those who might have stopped the bombing failed to do so, precisely because they themselves were thwarted by colleagues who were witting (or unwitting accomplices) of “higher forces”—and I do mean the Mossad—that were monitoring these domestic agencies and piggy-backing on their intended “sting” to bring about a very real bombing.

This scenario, of course, recalls the “dummy assassination” in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 that became “the real thing.”

As we’ve seen, however, there is enough evidence to suggest that the so-called “international connections” to the Oklahoma City bombing do not point toward Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, either working together or independently.

Instead, all of the evidence points to Israel.

Ultimately, of course, the Mossad hoped to use the bombing to “wake up the American people” to the “dangers” posed by Saddam Hussein and force the Clinton administration to wage war against Iraq—and the rest of the Muslim world. But, as we know, Clinton chose to go in another direction.

And,what’s more, as a consequence of the fact that myriad U.S. government agencies—including the BATF, the FBI, the CIA and probably others—had been tuned in to McVeigh’s activities (and also those of Andreas Strassmeir) long before the bombing, this put the government in a critically necessary cover-up mode that led to the ultimate “lone bomber” scenario that became the official U.S. government line.

What is outlined here regarding the Oklahoma City tragedy is the most likely over-all scenario of how the bombing conspiracy unfolded, a conspiracy that employed almost precisely the same model used in the public execution of John F. Kennedy.

The bottom line is this: The Oklahoma bombing can ultimately be attributed to Israel. There is nothing—absolutely nothing (other than hysterical screams of “anti-Semitism”)—to refute this scenario of Israeli involvement in the Oklahoma bombing.

The fact remains that most honest independent investigators now concede that Andreas Strassmeir was, at the very least, an undercover informant for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and that American law enforcement officials were aware of this.

Other independent investigators are even willing to concede Strassmeir may have even been working for the CIA or a foreign intelligence agency—that of the German government. However, very few “patriot” investigators will explore Strassmeir’s Mossad connections.

This remains despite—or perhaps precisely because of—the fact that it is common knowledge Israeli intelligence has long had considerable influence at wide-ranging levels inside American law enforcement and intelligence, and has effectively utilized as its assets such domestic spying operations as the ADL and the SPLC.

As such, the independent investigators prefer to avoid the Israeli connection altogether. At best, they’ll declaim against the SouthernPoverty Law Center as being a “liberal”organization.

In the end, the irony about the fact so many of these investigators are terrified of mentioning even the possibility of an Israeli connection to the bombing is that by just putting forth “alternative” theories of “what really happened” they’ve already put themselves in the position of being“monitored”by theADL, the SPLC, the FBI, the BATF, the CIA and every entity that keeps an eye on those who dare to question the official U.S. government scenario about Oklahoma City or anything relating to other controversial events such as the JFK assassination and 9-11.

Despite repeated efforts—from the beginning—to lay a trail of evidence linking the Oklahoma City tragedy to Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden—all of this the work of Israel and those in its  sphere of influence—there was enough resistance inside the U.S. government such that the result  was that this Israeli scheme to spark a U.S.military reaction was stopped dead in its tracks.

However, on September 11, 2001—we believe—Israel accomplished (on a far grander scale) what it had previously tried, and failed, in Oklahoma City: Orchestrating a shocking terrorist event on American soil, blaming it on“the Arabs” and setting the stage for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. We will now review that scenario.(…)

Sur la haine des Likoudniks contre les Clinton:

Daily Kickoff: Recap of Frontline’s ‘Netanyahu at War’ documentary Memorable quotes:  Erekat: “It was 4:00am, I hear shouting, real shouting – screaming 4:00am in the morning. President Clinton shouting from the depths of his stomach, and head, and ears, and eyes, and nose, and mouth and legs at Bibi Netanyahu.”  Indyk: “When Bibi gets upset, he starts screaming and pounding the table.” (Watch Excerpts)

Netanyahu Documentary Producer: March Speech Revealed Bibi’s Character, Upbringing Erekat recounts hearing President Clinton shouting and screaming “from the depths of his stomach” at Bibi at 4 o’clock in the morning during the Wye River Plantation peace talks. “It was 4:00am, I hear shouting, real shouting – screaming 4:00am in the morning. President Clinton shouting from the depths of his stomach, and head, and ears, and eyes, and nose, and mouth and legs at Bibi Netanyahu.”

‘Netanyahu at War’ on PBS was dreadful but not without interest

She won’t hesistate to yell at Netanyahu

Hillary Clinton: I Was The « Designated Yeller » At Israel As Secretary of State

Hilllary Clinton on Netanyahu: ‘F***ing Bibi’

‘Very rough’ talk with Netanyahu referenced in new Clinton email dump But transcript of phone call is blacked out; other releases from presidential contender’s emails relate to Barak, Livni

Wikileaks: Israel Fears Clinton Administration’s Mideast Peace Policy  Jerusalem is concerned that a Clinton presidency ‘will be a Saban Forum for four years,’ a senior official, probably Ambassador Ron Dermer, told her campaign staff, Wikileaks cables reveal.

Wikileaks reveals Israeli concerns over future Clinton camp A close aid to Democratic presidential candidate Hiillary Clinton can be seen offering advice on a multitude of complicated topics concerning Netanyahu and the challenges Israel faces.

WIKILEAKS : Israel Ambassador to the Clinton Camp : Israel Will Portray American College Students As Terrorists

‘Senior Israeli official’ told Clinton campaign they fear Clinton Presidency would be ‘4-year Saban forum’

Attack, attack, attack’ — Leaked emails show panicked Netanyahu rallying Clinton and US Jews against BDS

Israël a peur des politiques étrangères d’Hillary Clinton concernant le Moyen-orient , selon wikileaks. Les révélations de Wikileaks ignorées, enterrées par la couverture médiatique tonitruante du débat électoral…

Clinton Campaign Chairman Refutes Claims She Will Be ‘Worse Than Obama’ on Israel In leaked email correspondence with his daughter, John Podesta reassures that the Democratic candidate is ‘totally committed to Israeli security.’

Podesta knows audience for HRC’s speech @ Saban Forum. Cuts reminder of how « Israel is treating the Palestinians »

Israeli billionaire Haim Saban urged Clinton to do more to get Jewish votes

Wikileak révèle des mails du clan Clinton: « Israël est déprimant’ »

La relation entre les Etats-Unis et Israël au menu des derniers emails piratés de John Podesta

 

Sur ce blog:

Posted in Non classé | Commentaires fermés sur Le rôle central mais ignoré du Mossad et de l’Anti-Defamation League (ADL) dans les attentats sous faux drapeau d’Oklahoma City (19 avril 1995). La connexion nazie est un leurre: Straussmeir travaillait pour les services secrets comme infiltré dans l’entourage de McVeigh. Le Mossad a laissé des fausses pistes suggérant une connexion arabe irakienne, afin d’entraîner les États-Unis en guerre contre l’Irak de Saddam Hussein. Oklahoma City aurait dû être instrumentalisé comme le 11 septembre, mais l’administration Clinton a fait effacer les fausses pistes irakiennes par la police fédérale. Ce à quoi les néocons ont répliqué en révélant publiquement l’affaire Lewinsky dans les médias du néocon en chef Bill Kristol.

Churchill, Rothschild et les juifs: l’histoire d’une obsession

Un reportage basé sur le livre Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship de Martin Gilbert, le biographe officiel de Winston Churchill et des fortunés Rothschild.

Version française:

Churchill et le peuple juif, une discrète amitié via ARCHIVE.ORG

 

 

 

Version originale anglaise:

http://www.visiontv.ca/videos/an-unlikely-obsession-churchill-and-the-jews-part-1/
An Unlikely Obsession: Churchill and The Jews – Part 1

http://www.visiontv.ca/videos/an-unlikely-obsession-churchill-and-the-jews-part-2/
An Unlikely Obsession: Churchill and The Jews – Part 2

From Director Barry Avrich (The Last Mogul, Unauthorized: The Harvey Weinstein Project) comes a powerful new documentary film based on the acclaimed Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert‘s book that  examines a  neglected aspect of one of world history’s most renown leaders; Winston Churchill‘s relationship to Jews and Jewish issues. Drawing on a treasure trove of interviews featuring Churchill family members, Lord Conrad Black, Sir Martin Gilbert, Alan Dershowitz, The 11th Duke of Marlborough and others, Avrich shows how Churchill grew beyond the kind of friendship with individual British Jews to an unlikely obsession in becoming a supporter of Jewish causesmost notably being responsible for determining the future status of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. As a war leader and peacetime prime minister, this film examines the origins, implications, and results of Churchill’s commitment to Jews.

 

Summary (EVPL): He was unarguably one of world history most provocative and powerful political leaders. He was also obsessed with preserving one race that always seemed to be on the verge of annihilation. His obsession was wildly unpopular and almost cost him his career and his legacy. The man was Winston Churchill and his obsession was the Jews. This is the extraordinary story of how Winston Churchill devoted his life and times to protecting the Jewish faith from political, sociological and maniacal destruction. From his early days in Manchester to his early political career and then his defining era during World War II, Churchill’s almost compulsive agenda was to study the Jewish faith, learn from it and defy public opinion that called for the end of his career and his ostracized friends

Autres comptes-rendus:

Churchill, sioniste convaincu

Churchill: the greatest Jewish ally?

Documentary hails Churchill as Zionists’ greatest ally  Millions of people credit Winston Churchill, Britain’s inspiring wartime prime minister during its darkest hours, with saving the world from Hitler. By Martin Knelman Entertainment Columnist Tues., Jan. 11, 2011 (…) His next project: a documentary about veteran comedian David Steinberg, featuring a concert performance.  The proposal to make the Churchill film had come from Michael Levine, the Toronto entertainment lawyer, agent and occasional producer. Gilbert, a renowned British scholar and author, was one of Levine’s clients.  Gilbert had spent 20 years writing the official 10-volume biography of Churchill. He had also written many books on Jewish subjects. In his book about Churchill and the Jews, Gilbert argued that it was largely thanks to decades of support from Churchill (going back to World War I) that the state of Israel was born in 1948. One of Churchill’s old friends described him as being “too fond of Jews.” And it has also been said that Sir Winston’s strong support for creating a Jewish homeland did not always win him friends.  But is Alan Dershowitz, the celebrated Harvard law professor, exaggerating a tad when he claims that there really ought to be a huge statue of Sir Winston in Jerusalem? If he’s right, then Churchill ought to loom as large in the story of Israel’s birth as those legendary Zionist prophets Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann. Dershowitz is one of many intellectual celebrities who appear on screen. Yes, it’s a talking heads film of the traditional variety, but what an array of heads! Among those who pop in and out of the frame, offering insights into Churchill’s and his obsession with the Jewish dream of establishing a homeland, are fallen media tycoon Conrad Black (doing his first TV interview since being released from jail), historian Margaret MacMillan (author of Paris 1919); and, of course, Sir Martin Gilbert. The off-screen narrator is that man with the golden voice, Gordon Pinsent. The starry commentators tell the story of how at a time of casual anti-Semitism at the highest social and political levels of post-Victorian British society, Churchill took inspiration from Old Testament tales, aspiring to become a latter-day Moses. Denouncing pogroms in Russia even while British voters wondered what events so far away had to do with them, Churchill hobnobbed with influential Jewish leaders and articulated the view that the foundations of modern civilization and ethics came out of Jewish history — for which he felt the rest of the world should show its gratitude. Not all historians agree with Gilbert. Some claim Churchill’s main motive was to extend the power of the British Empire, and that at some points he sacrificed Jewish interests in an effort to protect access to Arab oil.  “Churchill’s support for a Jewish homeland may have wavered now and then over the years,” Avrich says. “But mostly he was giving the cause huge support when no other world leader was doing so. Not Franklin Roosevelt in the U.S. and certainly not William Lyon Mackenzie King in Canada.”

Irving on Churchill. Dismantling Churchillian Mythology  

by Theodore J. O’Keefe

World-class historian David Irving is no stranger to readers of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review. His address to the 1983 International Revisionist Conference, which appeared in the Winter 1984 Journal of Historical Review (« On Contemporary History and Historiography »), was something of a primer on Irving’s revisionist historiographical method. It was spiced as well with tantalizing hints of new directions in Irving’s research and new book possibilities arising from them.

Not the least among Irving’s revelations were those that touched on Winston Churchill, descendant of one of England’s greatest families and leader of his nation and its empire (as he still thought it) at what many of his countrymen and many abroad still regard as Britain’s « finest hour. » Readers will recall that Irving exposed several instances of Churchill’s venality, cowardice and hypocrisy, including Churchill’s poltroonish posturing at the time of the German air raid against Coventry and the facts of Churchill and his cronies’ secret subvention by the Czech government.

It will also be recalled that in his lecture Irving spoke of his projected book on Winston Churchill, which at the time was to be published in the U.S. by Doubleday and in Great Britain by MacMillan, two great firms entirely worthy of an author who has been churning out meticulously researched historical bestsellers for a quarter of a century. As has been pointed out in recent issues of the IHR Newsletter, Irving’s challenges to the reigning orthodoxy have become so unbearable to the Establishment that both these major houses refused to print the books as written. The task has now been undertaken by a revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion is the first volume of Irving’s new book Churchill’s War.

Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia, South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century, with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of mordant new facts and insights on the life and career of Winston Churchill.

At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton), recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy (The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War lI, had stated that Irving’s Churchill book would « not be published by his company, over his dead body. » Clearly Lord Stockton’s recent demise didn’t alter things at MacMillan, however.

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won’t even find them published in Churchill’s own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany. »

Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn’t give permission to Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill’s memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, « The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies. » This is the way Churchill put it.

Irving went on us describe several sources of secret financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during the « wilderness years » between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.

Irving on the Focus:

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word « other governments » advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill’s secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill’s dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you’re going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That’s where you look. And when you’re looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you’re not going to look in his files. Again, you’re going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill’s financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill’s financial rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving’s words, emerged « out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution. » When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill’s debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

Irving dealt with Churchill’s performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain’s First Lord of the Admiralty and then as Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill’s « great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered and pioneered, » and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill’s staff at the time, that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.  Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

In May 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn’t a victory. It wasn’t a triumph. Nothing for the British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you’re given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted. And you think, at first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, « Withdraw, fall back, » or as Churchill put it, « Advance to the coast. » That was Churchill’s wording. « And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring allies that you are pulling out. The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.

I think it’s the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud’s widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister’s files in the French National Archives in Paris. And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we’re not allowed to see in London. and there we know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill. He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because the British Empire would have been preserved. We would, by now, have been the most powerful race — can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on Earth.

Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler’s peace offers in 1939, 1940, and 1941. (Irving supports the thesis that Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background:

The crucial moment when he managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July 1940. If we look at the one date, July the 20th, this I think was something of a watershed between the old era of peace, the greatness of the British Empire and the new era, the new era of nuclear deterrent and the holocaust, the nuclear holocaust. July 20, 1940: Mr. Churchill is lying in bed that Sunday out in Chequers, when he gets a strange message. It’s an intercept of a German ambassador’s telegram in Washington to Berlin. It’s only just been revealed, of course, that we were reading all of the German codes — not only the German Army, Air Force and Navy Codes, but also the German embassy codes. And if you’re silly enough to believe everything that’s written in the official history of British Intelligence, you will understand that the only reason that they released half of the stories is to prevent us from trying to find out the other half. And what matters is that we are reading the German diplomatic codes as well. On July 20th, the German ambassador in Washington sent a message to Berlin saying that the British ambassador in Washington had asked him very quietly, very confidentially, just what the German peace terms were. This, of course, was the one thing that Churchill could never allow to happen, that the British find out what Hitler’s peace terms are. He sends an immediate message to the foreign office, to Lord Halifax, saying, « Your ambassador in Washington is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German ambassador, even indirectly. » They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.

Now, on the same day, Churchill sent a telegram to Washington ordering Lord Lothian, the British ambassador in Washington, to have nothing to do with the German ambassador. And the same day, he takes a third move to ensure that the peace moves in Britain are finally strangled at birth. He orders Sir Charles Portal to visit him at Chequers, the country residence of British prime ministers. Sir Charles Portal was Commander in Chief of Bomber Command. Now what is the significance? Well, the significance is this. Up to July 1940, not one single German bomb has fallen on British towns. Hitler had given orders that no British towns are to be bombed and, above all, bombing of London is completely forbidden and embargoed. Churchill knows this, because he’s reading the German code. He’s reading the German Air Force signals, which I can now read in the German files. Churchill is reading the signals, and he knows that Hitler is not doing him the favor.

Hitler is still hoping that this madman in England will see reason or that he will be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues. So he’s not doing Churchill the favor of bombing any English towns. Churchill is frantic because he thinks he’s being outsmarted by Hitler. On July the 20th he sends for Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Bomber Command, and he says to Sir Charles Portal, as we know from records from Command to the Air Ministry, « When is the earliest that you could launch a vicious air attack on Berlin? » Sir Charles Portal replies to Winston, « I’m afraid we can’t do it now, not until September because the nights aren’t long enough to fly from England to Berlin and back in the hours of darkness. September, perhaps, and in September we will have the first hundred of the new Sterling bombers … » But he also says, « I warn you, if you do that, the Germans will retaliate. At present they’re not bombing English targets, they’re not bombing civilian targets at all and you know why. And if you bomb Berlin, then Hitler will retaliate against English civilian targets. » And Churchill just twinkles when he gets this reply, because he knows what he wants.

We know what he wants because he’s told Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador – Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late President – « I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the Americans into the war when they see the Nazis’ frightfulness, and above all it will put an end to this awkward and inconvenient peace movement that’s afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population. » I’ve opened Kennedy’s diary. I’ve also read Kennedy’s telegrams back to the State Department in Washington. They’re buried among the files. You can’t find them easily, but they are worth reading, and you see in detail what Churchill was telling him. What cynicism. Churchill deliberately provoking the bombing of his own capital in order to kill the peace movement. He’s been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler doesn’t do him the favor.

Irving then gave a detailed account of the cynical manoeuvrings of Churchill to escalate the aerial campaign against Germany’s civilian population to the point at which Hitler was driven to strike back against Britain’s cities, supplying the spurious justification for the R.A.F.’s (and later the U.S. Army Air Force’s) monstrous terror attacks against centuries-old citadels of culture and their helpless inhabitants.  The British historian further expanded on a theme he had touched on in his address to the IHR’s 1983 conference: Churchill the drunkard. Irving substantiated his accusation with numerous citations from diaries and journals, the originals of which often differ from heavily laundered published editions. He concluded his address with an anecdote of a ludicrous incident which found Churchill pleading with William Lyon Mackenzie King, wartime prime minister of Canada, to shift production in his country’s distilleries from raw materials for the war effort to whiskey and gin, twenty-five thousand cases of it. According to Mackenzie King’s private diary, the Canadian prime minister tore up Churchill’s memorandum on the subject at precisely twenty-five minutes to eight on August 25, 1943, and Sir Winston had to soldier on through the war with liquid sustenance from other lands and climes. As Irving emphasized, Churchill’s drunken rantings, often during cabinet meetings, disgusted many of his generals, as when, at a meeting on July 6, 1944, the prime minister told his commanders to prepare to drop two million lethal anthrax bombs on German cities. Of this meeting Britain’s Flrst Sea Lord, Admiral Cunningham, wrote, according the Irving: « There’s no doubt that P.M. is in no state to discuss anything, too tired, and too much alcohol. »  Irving’s demolition of the Churchill myth, based on a wealth of documentary evidence, most of which has been studiously avoided by the keepers of the Churchill flame, may constitute his most important service to Revisionism. The legendary V-for-victory- waggling, cigar-puffing « Winnie » is for many of a centrist or conservative bent the symbol and guarantee that Britain and America fought and « won » the Second World War for traditional Western values, rather than to bleed Europe white and secure an enormous geopolitical base for Communism.  Irving’s Churchill biography promises to make trash of such authorized studies as that of Martin Gilbert (which has already been described in private by one Establishment historian as « footnotes to Churchill’s war memoirs »). The publication of the first volume of Churchill’s War later this year should be an historiographical event of the first importance.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 498 ff. 

 

See also:

Focus on Winston Churchill

Douglas Sued for Libeling Churchill and Jew

Winston Churchill Discreetly Veiled, Part 1, By Ralph Raico

Christians United for Israel calls Netanyahu’s speech a ‘Churchill moment’

Jerusalem unveils bust of Sir Winston Churchill

Blood, Sweat and Booze: Churchill’s Debts and the Moguls Who Saved Him Churchill liked the company and money of Jewish millionaires, too. One of them, Austrian-born Sir Henry Strakosch, rescued him from two major crises. On June 18, 1940, just one day after 4,000 British soldiers, sailors and civilians were killed when the Germans sank the RMS Lancastria, Strakosch wrote a check for 5,000 pounds. In today’s terms, that’s 250,000 pounds, or 1.25 million shekels ($332,000). (…) The evidence of donations from wealthy Jews could serve as fodder for hatemongers, who often claim that the Jews controlled the British leader. Lough is aware of this and stresses that Churchill never gave wealthy Jews anything in return for their money. He found no connection between Jewish money and Churchill’s efforts against Nazi Germany before the war. (LOL!!)

Churchill’s « Jewish mother » by David Burbridge (« David B. ») Sa mère n’était pas juive, en tout cas il n’existe pas la moindre preuve permettant d’affirmer que sa mère était juive. Cet article montre que ceux qui affirment que Churchill avait une mère juive réfèrent tous au même article du JPost, or cet article du JPost ne présente aucun élément de preuve ni le moindre petit indice. Il ne fait que déclarer la chose comme étant un « fait » et c’est tout.

 

 

 

Le sioniste fanatique Churchill se révèle comme l’un des pères fondateurs non-juifs d’Israël… Parler de père fondateur d’Israël n’est même pas exagéré dans le cas de Churchill, même si certains préfèreront encore dire que c’est Hitler le vrai père fondateur d’Israël ! En tout cas c’est incomparablement plus évident et vérifiable dans le cas de Churchill que dans celui d’Hitler ! Les faits abondent et sont là pour le prouver.

VIDEO – Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgment  @46:25: Explications détaillées sur le lien secret entre la Première Guerre mondiale et la création d’Israël…

La Palestine compte ouvrir le dossier des crimes historiques de l’occupation contre le peuple palestinien
Palestine Urges Arab League to help Sue Britain over 1917 Balfour Declaration which Established A “Homeland for the Jewish people.”
Les Palestiniens veulent porter plainte contre Londres pour la déclaration de Balfour en 1917
Le Royaume-Uni bientôt poursuivi en justice pour la création d’Israël?
How the Balfour Declaration Continues to Haunt Britain This week the Palestinian leadership threatened to sue the U.K .for the Balfour Declaration, ahead of its centenary. The threat was later commuted to a request for an apology. It’s a symbolic move – but also a cry of despair.
Palestine: Britain Should Apologise for the Balfour Declaration, Not ‘Celebrate’ ItLe président palestinien veut poursuivre le Royaume-Uni pour la déclaration Balfour

This World War II-era illustration pinpointed the role of the Rothschild-controlled British Empire dominating the peoples of the planet.

Right, Winston Churchill, long in the pay of Jewish interests: a Rothschild gunman.  “John Bull”—symbol of Britain—is shown (correctly) on the leash of Jewish plutocrats.

  • Author : The Barnes Review
  • Title : Volume 20 Number 1
  • Year : 2014

Table of contents. (…) Even before he was prime minister, Winston Churchill concocted a plan with Josef Stalin to allow the USSR to invade and occupy Finland if the Soviet leader would permit France and England to seize the rest of Scandinavia. Churchill even had plans to intern the Swedish and Norwegian military.  …

 

 

À ceux et celles qui seraient amourachés du candidat démocrate Bernie Sanders en raison de sa sympathie affichée pour le pro-palestinisme et de son alignement sur la gauche juive newyorkaise pro-droits civiques et pro-communiste. J’ai le regret de vous informer que l’autre côté de la médaille n’est pas très reluisant: sur la question du « changement de régime » et du rôle interventionniste guerrier des États-Unis, Sanders prend pour modèle non pas un JFK ou un Obama mais bien Winston CHURCHILL, cet épouvantable fauteur de guerres, responsable de la course aux armes de destruction massive (particulièrement la course aux armes biologiques)!

Voir le reportage complet ici

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18859/bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger-winston-churchill-hillary-clinton-debate
February 12, 2016

Bernie Sanders Was Right To Condemn Henry Kissinger. But Why Did He Praise Winston Churchill?  

The former prime minister was, indeed, a “fan of regime change,” among other things.

BY Branko Marcetic

Foreign policy has always been something of a sore spot for the Democratic Party. While less eager for war than the GOP, Democrats feel they have to look “tough” and “credible” on foreign policy, typically done by proving they’re just as ready to fight America’s supposed enemies when push comes to shove. That’s exactly what the Democratic candidates spent much of last night’s debate doing.

With some important exceptions, such as the issue of regime change, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foreign policies were largely on the same page, as they have been throughout the campaign. Sanders joined in with Clinton over the prevailing fear of Russia, praising NATO’s recent provocative amassing of troops along Russia’s border, its largest deployment since the Cold War. The candidates then went on to separately embrace two of history’s worst war mongers.

It’s puzzling as to why, of all people, Sanders chose a figure with a record this bloody to cite as an influence, particularly after having denounced Kissinger so vehemently earlier in the debate.
Clinton went first. After Sanders criticized her earlier embrace of her predecessor Henry Kissinger, calling him “one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country,” Clinton doubled down, arguing that whatever complaints one may have of Kissinger, “his opening up of China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship.”
Clinton’s earlier mention of Kissinger wasn’t just name-dropping. She appears to genuinely view him as a role model while serving as Secretary of State. In a 2014 review of his latest book, she called him a “friend.” Her praise has raised eyebrows among liberals, given Kissinger’s well-documented record of war crimes, including the illegal bombing of Cambodia that killed tens of thousands of civilians and brought the genocidal Khmer Rouge to power.
In this context, Sanders’ avowal that “Henry Kissinger is not my friend” played well. It was a good moment for him, forcing Clinton to publicly defend Kissinger—a reviled figure among older Democrats and the Left as a whole—while calling attention to the establishment ties he’s tried to hammer her on throughout the campaign.
And then he mentioned Winston Churchill.
Asked by a Facebook user which foreign leader the candidates took inspiration from when it came to foreign policy, Sanders cited the former British Prime Minister.
“He was kind of a conservative guy in many respects,” said Sanders. “But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut, and rallied them, and eventually won an extraordinary victory.”
Churchill is undoubtedly famed for his wartime speeches, which have become the stuff of folk history, and his image is virtually synonymous with the fight against Hitler. But for a candidate denouncing Kissinger and his record of atrocities, Churchill is an odd choice as an “influence,” to say the least.
Where to start? Churchill’s contribution to the war effort cheered by Sanders helped contribute to the 1943 Bengal famine, which Churchill later callously exacerbated, leading to the fatal starvation of around 3 million people. According to author Madhusree Mukerjee, during World War II, Churchill exported huge amounts of food from India to Britain and various war theaters, despite being repeatedly warned that continued exhaustion of India’s food supplies would lead to famine.
He continued to demand more rice even as India starved, declined offers of wheat from the United States and Canada, and had Australian ships carrying wheat bypass India and travel straight to Europe. Leopold Amery, then the Secretary of State for India, recorded in his diary Churchill saying that “the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks.”
While leading the UK in the 1950s, Churchill was responsible for other crimes. One of these was the CIA- and MI6-engineered coup in Iran, which saw the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadeq overthrown in 1953 after he nationalized British oil holdings in the country. Churchill had approved the plan and later told the main agent in the plot that he “would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture.” (Incidentally, this was the same coup that Sanders denounced earlier in the debate as an example of how the United States should not act on the world stage.)
In the same decade, Churchill also presided over the brutal suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, which saw at least 11,000 killed and many thousands more tortured. Rebels, including President Barack Obama’s grandfather, were rounded up in concentration camps that make Abu Ghraib look like Disneyworld. Those strong of stomach can read accounts of what the British did to the prisoners for themselves.
Churchill was also not above using chemical weapons against his enemies. In 1919, he pushed for and executed a chemical attack on the Russian Bolsheviks using the so-called “M Device,” an explosive shell that released a poisonous gas that caused victims to cough up blood and vomit uncontrollably. Churchill also wanted to use the weapon against the northern Indian tribes rebelling against British rule, and was frustrated by his colleagues’ hesitancy to do so, saying: “Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?”
Later, during World War II, at the same time that he was rallying the British public with the inspirational speeches cited by Senator Sanders, Churchill produced a secret memorandum that made clear his desire to “drench” German cities with poison gas so that “most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention.” “I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by the particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across,” he explained.
Churchill didn’t get his wish, but he did get to play a hand in another World War Two atrocity that would arguably come to be most associated with his name: the carpet bombing of Germany. Churchill’s bombing of German cities, part of the “extraordinary victory” celebrated by Sanders, deliberately made no distinction between combatants and civilians and killed around 400,000 civilians.
Dresden has become the most notorious instance of this, though by no means is it the only one. As World War II drew to a close, Britain indiscriminately bombarded the city with more than 4,500 tons of explosives, reducing the city to smoldering rubble and ash and killing between 18-25,000 people. The bombing turned the city streets into bubbling, molten tar and created a fiery vortex that sucked in everything around it.
It’s puzzling as to why, of all people, Sanders chose a figure with a record this bloody to cite as an influence, particularly after having denounced Kissinger so vehemently earlier in the debate. Even Clinton went with the safe choice of Nelson Mandela in her response. Maybe Churchill was just the first name that came to the Vermont Senator’s mind. But it’s also true that Churchill has come to stand as a symbol for military competence and far-sightedness, easy shorthand for politicians attempting to shore up an image of strength. It’s no surprise that George W. Bush elected to keep a bust of Churchill loaned to him by the British government in the Oval Office throughout his presidency.
Sanders’ choice of Churchill may be symbolic, but it’s a pointed symbol. While he has staked out differences with Clinton on certain aspects of foreign policy throughout the campaign, he’s been far less willing to break with establishment foreign policy thinking than his counterpart in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn’s opposition to intervention in Syria, his general anti-war stance and his criticism of the UK’s Trident nuclear program have caused the bulk of the conflict over his leadership, with one British general warning of “mutiny” among the armed forces if Corbyn put some of his ideas into place. Other than some mocking of his lack of knowledge of foreign policy, Sanders has received no such pushback in the United States.
The Sanders campaign, however, is built on the idea that political expediency has no place in his presidency. It’s disappointing, to say the least, that this principle doesn’t seem to apply to his views on foreign policy.
Branko Marcetic is a regular contributor to In These Times. He hails from Auckland, New Zealand, where he received his Masters in American history, a fact that continues to puzzle everyone who meets him. You can follow him on Twitter at @BMarchetich or email him at [email protected]

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/12/10979266/bernie-sanders-churchill

Bernie Sanders has a Winston Churchill problem

Updated by Amanda Taub on February 12, 2016, 12:37 p.m. ET @amandataub [email protected]
« The world has seen many great leaders in history. Can you name two leaders, one American and one foreign, who would influence your foreign policy decisions? »
As primary debate questions go, that one is a gimme — the sort of thing that is so commonly asked it practically orders candidates to recite a prepared snippet of hagiography, in the manner of a beauty pageant contestant or a child competing for a school prize.
And, indeed, when that question was posed during last night’s Democratic debate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders started strong. He selected Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the American leader who had influenced him, smoothly sidestepping the question of foreign policy and moving straight into praising the New Deal for reducing unemployment and FDR for uniting the country in the face of a great crisis — both points firmly on-message for the Sanders campaign.
But then it was time to select a foreign leader. There was a momentary pause, the slightest flicker of panic across Sanders’s face as he cast about for an answer. I watched with eager curiosity, wondering whom he would pick. A deposed Cold War leftist like Chile’s Salvador Allende? Or perhaps a freedom fighter like South Africa’s Nelson Mandela?
Nope.
Winston Churchill’s politics were not my politics. He was kind of a conservative guy in many respects. But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory.
To be sure, Churchill led Britain through its long, heroic, and ultimately successful fight against the Nazis. He did rally the British people during a time of national catastrophe, and mounted the effort to fight Hitler’s gruesome fascism.
But that’s not all he did. Any fair evaluation of Churchill’s record as an influential leader in foreign policy must also consider his policies toward countries outside of Europe. His commitment to fighting tyranny in Europe doesn’t look quite as principled when contrasted with his commitment to maintaining it elsewhere.
On its own, this gaffe isn’t disqualifying. Sanders presumably thinks of Churchill as a friendly ally against fascism, and did not know that the British leader was also a chemical weapons enthusiast and unreconstructed racist who cut a swath of suffering and death across three continents.
But it is very worrying. Thus far, Sanders’s foreign policy appears to be composed of one vote against the Iraq War and a handful of lessons from the early Cold War. That wouldn’t be a problem if it were just an artifact of a campaign more focused on domestic issues than foreign ones. But Sanders’s choice of Churchill as a « great leader » who has influenced his thinking on foreign policy suggests he’s not doing much thinking on foreign policy at all. That is a big problem.

Churchill on the Indian famine that killed up to 3 million: « If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet? »

In 1943, famine broke out in the Indian region of Bengal, precipitated by the Japanese occupation of Burma, which reduced the availability of rice. India was then a British colony and so was subject to British rule on matters of grain imports and exports, which meant it was at Churchill’s mercy when it came to famine relief.
That mercy turned out to be limited. Churchill’s government insisted that India continue exporting grain even as Bengal was collapsing into starvation, shipping out 260,000 tons of rice in the fiscal year 1942-’43. Grain imports that could have eased the devastation were diverted elsewhere, to feed Britain and create stockpiles that could be used to feed Europeans in the event they were liberated from Nazi rule.
Some historians contend that Churchill could not have done more to ease the starvation in Bengal because his options were limited by the harsh realities of World War II. But they are being far more charitable to Churchill than he ever was to the people of India. Time and time again, he dismissed their humanity with a grim, thuggish racism, mocking the plight of starving people and blaming them for their own destruction.
« I hate Indians, » Churchill told his secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery. « They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. » Amery accused Churchill of having a « Hitler-like attitude » toward Indians, but Churchill was unmoved.
When Amery and the British viceroy in India begged him to release more food to prevent mass starvation, Churchill responded with a telegram asking, « If food is so scarce, why hasn’t Gandhi died yet? »
In Churchill’s opinion, Indians were simply inferior, and their starvation was unimportant when compared with the plight of Europeans. « The starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis is less serious, » he told Amery, « than that of sturdy Greeks. »
He even seemed to view the catastrophic famine as a reasonable punishment for India’s high birthrate, telling his war cabinet that the famine was Indians’ own fault for « breeding like rabbits. »
Approximately 3 million Indians died in the famine.

Churchill’s « inspiring » foreign policy also included torture, chemical weapons, and violent oppression

Nor was the Indian famine some sort of wartime aberration from an otherwise reasonable record. In 1919, Churchill declared that he was « strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes, » and enthusiastically supported its use against « Bolshies » in Russia.
(The British did use chemical weapons against Russia; the Guardian reports that « Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious. »)
In the 1920s, as the British secretary of state for war, Churchill created the notorious « Black and Tans, » in Ireland, a paramilitary militia that he recruited to maintain British control and suppress the IRA. That strategy backfired: The Black and Tans were so violent toward Irish civilians that they provoked popular anger and likely ended up increasing support for independence.
When Churchill returned as prime minister in postwar Britain, he presided over the brutal suppression of Kenya’s anti-colonial Mau Mau rebellion, in which Britain herded thousands of people into concentration camps that the Harvard historian Catherine Elkins has described as « Britain’s gulags. »
Although official British estimates were that 80,000 members of Kenya’s Kikuyu ethnic group were detained, Elkins believes the true figures were closer to twice that — and that up to 100,000 Kikuyu died as a result. Those imprisoned in the camps were subjected to torture, including sexual violence like castration and rape.
Colonial records show that Churchill’s government was well aware of what was happening but failed to stop it, even as it received reports of detainees being burned alive during interrogations.

Sanders presumably didn’t know about Churchill’s record — but that’s not great, either

There is no reason to believe that Sanders was aware of Churchill’s horrifying human rights record when he identified him as a hero. It seems most likely, particularly given that Sanders had just selected FDR as a great American leader, that Sanders had World War II on his mind and simply reached for a US ally who would play into his message about FDR’s greatness.
But even if Sanders didn’t actually intend to praise the trail of destruction and discrimination that Churchill carved through the 20th century, his ignorance is still concerning.
Sanders has been notably unwilling to engage seriously with foreign policy during his campaign. As I have written previously, his position is more about what America should be than about what actual policies it should pursue abroad. That is understandable for the campaign trail, and thus far it seems to have been quite effective.
But the implicit promise of that campaign style is that Sanders will be able to handle foreign policy when the time comes — that he is not incompetent in that area but merely focused on other things at present, and his ideals will ultimately carry him through.
His stated admiration of Churchill undermines that argument, because it suggests a very limited view of history and a worrying lack of understanding of how that history continues to shape the world today.
The legacy of colonialism is not a matter of the distant past, but rather an ongoing and in many cases hugely important issue in much of the world.
Countries such as Kenya and India are still dealing with the economic and political burdens of British rule. And so is the UK: In the past five years, the British government has been forced to pay millions of pounds in compensation to survivors of its Kenyan gulags, and thousands more cases still continue.
To be fair, Sanders was not alone last night in praising one of history’s monsters: Clinton also defended her relationship with Henry Kissinger, who, Sanders rightly pointed out, has his own record of atrocities. Clinton’s ongoing relationship with Kissinger is in many ways more worrying than Sanders’s praise of a long-dead British prime minister.
But Clinton also has significant foreign policy experience and has given detailed information about her advisers and worldview, so her relationship with Kissinger is just one small part of her overall record. Sanders, by contrast, has offered so little information about his foreign policy beliefs that even small details like calling Churchill « great » end up taking on outsize importance.
Ironically, on the rare occasions Sanders has engaged substantively with foreign policy, he has rooted his arguments in history, citing the United States’ role in overthrowing leftist governments like that of Allende in Chile and Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran as evidence of the folly of regime change.
Although limited, those discussions seemed to hint at a genuine worldview resting on a comprehensive understanding of world history. But Sanders’s praise for Churchill suggests that might be a mirage — that his beliefs might just be leftover Cold War–era grievances masquerading as a doctrine.
It was just one offhand moment in one debate, and it would be unfair to write off Sanders based on that alone, but the dissonance with his stated ideals is still concerning, particularly how frequently vague he has been on foreign policy.
If Sanders wants to be a serious candidate for president, he is going to need to do better than that.

Sur ce blog:

Posted in Non classé | Commentaires fermés sur Churchill, Rothschild et les juifs: l’histoire d’une obsession