‘A CLEAN BREAK’: un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

Iran – Dans l’attente du prétexte

En omettant de nommer ce document par son nom, nous évitons d’attirer l’attention du public sur les liens démontrés entre ce projet israélien officiel et les révoltes cashères (encouragées par l’Occident) du soi-disant « printemps arabe ». Plus clair que ‘Rebuilding America’s Defense’ du PNAC, plus évolué que ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties’, aucun autre document officiel, à part A Clean Break, ne décrit aussi nettement le plan de déstabilisation des pays voisins d’Israël au profit de ce dernier.


Canadian Researcher: US Targeting Syria to Change Region’s Geo-Political Reality

OTTAWA: Canadian writer and researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya said that the encirclement of Syria has long been in the works since 2001, and that permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative, adding that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. »
In an article published on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca, Nazemroaya said that the 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of Turkey and other Arab countries, in addition to creating the March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

He said that the first step towards this was the war on Iraq and its balkanization, fomenting sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a regional alliance against it.

Nazemroaya noted that the U.S. initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts, which is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc, all while the mainstream media networks controlled by Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

He also said that the city of al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory, adding that Turkish and Lebanese media said that France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria, and that the so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria, and Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria.

Nazemroaya that there are companies that have not left Syria and are actually used to siphon money out of Syria, with the goal of preventing any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to an internal implosion in Syria.

He said that, regarding Turkey, « Ankara has been playing a dirty game, » as Turkey initially pretended to be neutral during the start of NATO’s war against Libya while it was helping the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, stressing that Erdogan’s government does not care about the Syrian population but rather wants Syria to submit to Washington’s demands, adding that Turkey has been responsible for recruiting fighters against Syria.

« For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria, » Nazemroaya wrote, adding that Turkey also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

He affirmed that it’s no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran, nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus, saying that Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass.

Nazemroaya said that the U.S. leaving Iraq will cement the Resistance Bloc, dealing a major strategic blows to Israel and the U.S., stressing that Washington is working to create a new geo-political reality by eliminating Syria, in addition to activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

« For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc, » he said, noting that the U.S. sent massive arms shipments to countries in the region including Israel and started to openly discuss murdering figures, all of which constitutes a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia and China and their allies.


IASPS (israeli site):

A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing The Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ « Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. » The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, » is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, « New Middle East »—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s « peace process. » That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
  • Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, « comprehensive peace » to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
  • Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
  • Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize « land for peace »— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes « peace for peace, » « peace through strength » and self reliance: the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading « land for peace » will not secure « peace now. » Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, « peace for peace, » is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
  • striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
  • paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a « Brotherhood Agreement » in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the « supernote » — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan « comprehensive peace » and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting « land for peace » deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.
Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to « land for peace » concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its « exhaustion, » which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: « Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important–element in the history of the Middle East. » Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on « A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000: »
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University


A Clean Break

A Clean Break ‘A Clean Break’ (War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (pages 261-269/318-321 of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book):
Get your own copy of A Pretext for War Now!*

Also see video:Condoleezza Rice Lied

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The following excerpts come from pages 261-269 of Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book*:

« Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism–a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign –or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former–and future–senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. « Israel, » said the report, « can manage it’s own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past. »But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, » also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.As part of their « grand strategy » they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote, dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it’s strategic environment, they said.This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it’s Arab neighbors. From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a dangerous and provocative change in philosophy. They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Then, to gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.Another way to win American support for a pre-emptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel’s war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD–nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public.

Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose–to begin engaging Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy forces–Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel’s behalf (as Ariel Sharon had done in the 80′s)–to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin « striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in original]. »

The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war. Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United States would replace Israel:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq–an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right–as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest, and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq’s ally and Israel’s archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early 1990′s, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.

The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be specially modified « smart » missiles that would be fired at Hussein as he stood in a crowd at the funeral.

But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation. Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally had long been at the top of Israel’s wish list.

Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more daring–not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle felt their « Clean Break » recommendations were so important that he personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.

Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force’ plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.

The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in international affairs. We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001. We’re going to tilt it back toward Israel. . . .Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his hand.

Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians. The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force’s « Clean Break » report.

I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush told his newly gathered national security team. I’m going to take him at face value. We’ll work on a relationship based on how things go. Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America’s efforts in the region. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point, he said.

Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he quickly objected.

He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army, recalled Paul O’Neill, who had be sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury by Bush only hours before and seated at the table. Powell told Bush, the consequences of that could be be dire, especially for the Palestinians. But Bush just shrugged. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things, he said. Powell seemed startled, said O’Neill.

Over the following months, to the concern of Powell, the Bush-Sharon relationship became extremely tight. This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman, said Thomas Neuman, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs « JINSA » a pro-Israel advocacy group. In an article in the Washington Post titled « Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Middle East Policy, » Robert G. Kaiser noted the dramatic shift in policy.

For the First time, wrote Kaiser, a US administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier US administrations, from Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton’s, held Likud and Sharon at arm’s length, distancing the United States from Likud’s traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. Using the Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon’s political party to the new relationship between Bush and Sharon, a senior US government official told Kaiser, « The Likudniks are really in charge now. »

With America’s long struggle to bring peace to the region quickly terminated, George W. Bush could turn his attention to the prime focus of his first National Security Council meeting; ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice led off the discussion. But rather than mention anything about threats to the United States or weapons of mass destruction, she noted only that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region. The words were practically lifted from the « Clean Break » report, which had the rather imperial-sounding subtitles: « A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. »

Then Rice turned the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet, who offered a grainy overhead picture of a factory that he said « might » be a plant « that produced either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture. » There were no missiles or weapons of any kind, just some railroad tracks going to a building; truck activity; and a water tower–things that can be found in virtually any city in the US. Nor were there any human intelligence or signals intelligence reports. There was no confirming intelligence, Tenet said.

It was little more than a shell game. Other photo and charts showed US air activity over the « no fly-zone, » but Tenet offered no more intelligence. Nevertheless, in a matter of minutes the talk switched from a discussion about very speculative intelligence to which targets to begin bombing in Iraq.

By the time the meeting was over, Treasury Secretary O’Neill was convinced that « getting Hussein was now the administration’s focus, that much was already clear, » But, O’Neill believed, the real destabilizing factor in the Middle East was not Saddam Hussein but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–the issue Bush had just turned his back on. Ten years after the Gulf War, said O’Neill, « Hussein seemed caged and defanged. Clearly, there were many forces destabilizing the region, which we were now abandoning. »

The war summit must also have seemed surreal to Colin Powell, who said little during the meeting and had long believed that Iraq had not posed a threat to the United States. As he would tell German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer just a few weeks later, « What we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. . . .Containment has been a successful policy. »

In addition to the « Clean Break » recommendations, David Wurmser only weeks before the NSC meeting had further elaborated on the way the United States might go about launching a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East. America’s and Israel’s responses must be regional not local, he said. Israel and the United Staes should adopt a coordinated strategy, to regain the initiative and reverse their region-wide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the center of radicalism in the region–the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, and Gaza. That would re-establish the recognition that fighting with either the US or Israel is suicidal. Many in the Middle East will then understand the merits of being an American ally and of making peace with Israel.

In the weeks and months following the NSC meeting, Perle, Feith and Wurmser began taking their places in the Bush administration. Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defence Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney’s top Middle East expert.

With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz–both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War–the war planners were given free reign. What was needed, however, was a pretext–perhaps a major crisis. Crisis can be opportunities, wrote Wurmser im his paper calling for an American-Israeli pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East.

Seeing little reason, or intelligence justification, for war at the close of the inaugural National Security Council meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was perplexed. Who, exactly, was pushing this foreign policy? He wondered to himself. And « why Saddam, why now, and why [was] this central to US interests? »

The following excerpts come from pages 318-322 of Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book*:

« Hadley and Libby were part of another secret office that had been set up within the White House. Known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), it was established in August 2002 by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., at the same time the OSP (Office of Special Plans) was established in Feith’s office. Made up of high-level administration officials, its job was to sell the war to the general public, largely through televised addresses and by selectively leaking the intelligence to the media.

In June 2002, a leaked computer disk containing a presentation by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove revealed a White House political plan to use the war as a way to « maintain a positive issue environment. » But the real pro-war media blitz was scheduled for the fall and the start of the election season « because from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August, » said Card.

At least once a week they would gather around the blonde conference table downstairs in the Situation Room, the same place the war was born on January 30, 2001, ten days into the Bush presidency. Although real intelligence had improved very little in the intervening nineteen months, the manufacturing of it had increased tremendously. In addition to Hadley and Libby, those frequently attending the WHIG meetings included Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, communications gurus Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; and legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio.

In addition to ties between Hussein and 9/11, among the most important products the group was looking to sell as Labor Day 2002 approached were frightening images of mushroom clouds, mobile biological weapons labs, and A-bomb plants, all in the hands of a certified « madman. » A key piece of evidence that Hussein was building a nuclear weapon turned out to be the discredited Italian documents purchased on a street corner from a con man.

The WHIG began priming its audience in August when Vice President Cheney, on three occasions, sounded a shrill alarm over Saddam Hussein’s nuclear threat. There « is no doubt, » he declared, that Saddam Hussein « has weapons of mass destruction. » Again and again, he hit the same chord. « What we know now, from various sources, is that he . . . continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. » And again: « We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon. »

Facing network television cameras, Cheney warned, « We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam’s own son-in-law. » The relative was Hussein Kamel, who defected to Jordan in 1995 with a great deal of inside information on Iraq’s special weapons programs, which he managed. He was later convinced by Saddam to return to Iraq, but executed by the ruler soon after his arrival.

But what Kamel told his interrogators was the exact opposite of what Cheney was claiming he said. After numerous debriefings by officials from the United States, the UN, and Jordan, he said on August 22, 1995, that Saddam had ended all uranium-enrichment programs at the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 and never restarted them. He also made clear that « all weapons –biological, chemical, missile, nuclear–were destroyed. » Investigators were convinced that Kamel was telling the truth, since he supplied them with a great deal of stolen raw data and was later murdered by his father-in-law as a result. But that was not the story Feith’s OSP, Bush’s WHIG, or Cheney wanted the American public to hear.

At the same time that Cheney began his media blitz, Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel, as if perfectly coordinated, began issuing similar dire warnings concerning Hussein and pressing the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. Like those from Cheney, pronouncements from Sharon’s top aide, Ranaan Gissin, included frightening « evidence » — equally phony — of nuclear, as well as biological and chemical, threats.

« As evidence of Iraq’s weapons building activities,  » said an Associated Press report on the briefing, « Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin. ‘Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,’ he said. . . . Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, Gissin said. »

It was clear, based on the postwar reviews done in Israel, that Israeli intelligence had no such evidence. Instead, the « evidence » was likely cooked up in Sharon’s own Office of Special Plans unit, which was coordinating its activities with the Feith/Wurmser/Shulsky Office of Special Plans. The joint get-Saddam media blitz would also explain the many highly secret visits by the Israeli generals to Feith’s office during the summer..

« Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Minister said Friday, » the AP report continued.  » « Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage with serve no purpose,’ Gissin told the Associated Press. ‘It will only give him [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.’ »

As expected. Sharon’s callw as widely publicized and increased pressure on Congress, which often bows to Israel’s wishes, to vote in favor of the Bush war resolution. « Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack, » said a CBS News headline. « Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday, » said the report.

The story also made the news in London, where the Guardian newspaper ran the headline: « Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq. » It went on, « With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the US president’s most reliable ally. »

It was as if the Feith-Wurmser-Perle « Clean Break » plan come full circle. Their plan for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put a pro-Israel regime in his place had been rejected by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now Bush, with Sharon’s support, was about to put it into effect.

Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also contributed to the war fever by releasing a much-hyped report that reinforced the White House theme that Iraq was an imminent threat not only to the United States but also to Britain. In addition to including a reference to the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the report — later dubbed the « doggie dossier »–made another frightening claim. It warned that Iraq could launch a deadly biological or chemical attack with long-range ballistic missiles on British tourists and servicemen in Cyprus with just forty-five minute’s notice.

Only after the war would it be publicly revealed that the reference was not to a strategic weapon that could reach Cyprus, but simply to a short-range battlefield weapon that could not come anywhere close to Cyprus. And because all the missiles were disassembled, even to fire on them on the battlefield would take not forty-five minutes but days of assembly and preparation. At least three times prior to the war, Blair was warned by intelligence officials that the report was inaccurate, but he made no public mention of it.. « 

* The paperback edition of A Pretext for Warincludes new Afterword


Crimes of Zion (Blog)

(…) The real driving force behind the U.S. government’s insane hunger for war is Israel: the zionist regime itself, zionist agents inside the U.S. political system who represent Israel’s interests and work to further them via lobbying, funding and other means, [8] and those who work to realise the objectives of Israel from within the highest levels of the U.S. government and beyond, even to the extreme detriment of the U.S. itself, as American leaders and policy-makers, and as representatives of the American people. The so-called neo-conservatives are the most powerful and obvious example of the latter, and their rise to power was, in many ways, the final phase of the Israeli coup d’etat. [18] [19]

The Ziocons

The American neocons (most of them Jewish, many of them Israeli ‘dual nationals‘, and all of them ardent zionists) [20] [21] are openly loyal to Israel and their hawkish foreign policy reflects it. U.S. foreign policy under the neocons is barely distinguishable from Israeli foreign policy, because that’s basically what it is [22] [23]. Israel has long sought to weaken and destabilise its Arab neighbors as a means to improve and ensure its own security [24] while simultaneously disrupting support given to the indigenous Palestinians by Arab groups and nations sympathetic to their cause. In The Israeli Origins of Bush II’s War Stephen J. Sniegoski writes:

Because Israel’s neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:

« Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel's] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement. »[25]

It’s by no coincidence that we’re seeing the U.S. use the same modus operandi right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. Thanks to a well-established network of powerful Jewish Bush administration executives and the Israel lobby at large, the Zionist agenda has become America’s agenda, and the new preemptive war-for-Israel doctrine of post-9/11 USA has become official American policy.

The ziocons made their policy views clear well before 9/11 in the document called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [26], prepared back in 1996 for Israel’s psycho right wing Likud party, led by then prime minister Benjamin « Bibi » Netanyahu. It was authored by a group of rabidly zionist neoconservative Jews including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, on behalf of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), and proposed a hawkish plan based on military preemption, a more aggressive approach to the Palestinian ‘problem’, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and the eventual elimination of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran – the kind of ideas that only sit well in the minds of madmen and belligerent Jewish supremacists. A Clean Break stated, in part:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

There was nothing new in the Clean Break paper, it was just good old fashioned zionism: territorial expansion by force in the name of a ‘Greater Israel’. Its authors, Richard Perle (Israeli dual national), Douglas Feith (also an Israeli dual national) and David Wurmser (another zionist Jew) would all go on to hold powerful positions in the Bush administration where they’ve worked tirelessly to realise the vision they outlined for Netanyahu in the Clean Break document [27] – Feith as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Wurmser as Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Richard « The Prince of Darkness » Perle is a particularly nasty zionist. Aside from his treasonous role in the U.S. government, he’s a member of such pro-Israel think tanks as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) , the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, which is basically an offshoot organisation of AIPAC), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [28]. He’s also a director of the Jerusalem Post, a personal friend of former Israeli prime minister and arch-zionist Ariel « The Butcher » Sharon, an ex-employee of Soltam, an Israeli weapons manufacturer [29], and a spy for Israel [30] [30b].

When prominent ziocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) [31] in 1997, Perle and Feith were keen to come to the party along with a whole host of other ardent zionist neocons such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis « Scooter » Libby, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Elliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz et al [32], and the following year in 1998, the PNAC group sent Bill Clinton a letter [33] urging him to attack Iraq and oust Saddam from power, in keeping with the policy advice given to Israel by the same group years earlier in the Clean Break document. From the letter:

« Such uncertainty [about Iraqi WMDs] will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. » [34]

By « world », of course, they meant « Israel », since Saddam was never a threat to America, and PNAC knew it. In December of 1998, Clinton went ahead with PNAC’s advice and heavily bombed Iraq, citing the security of its neighbours as part of his reason for doing so:

« Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. » [35]

Clinton’s attack on Iraq left Saddam in power though, which wasn’t good enough for the PNAC ziocons. That was made Kristol clear with the September 2000 publication (just before Bush’s non-election) of their infamous 90 page long ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ (RAD) policy document [36.pdf], in which they advocated more of the same aggressive, warmongering strategy proposed earlier in the Clean Break paper. RAD was just a massively beefed up version of Israel’s Clean Break dressed up to look as though it had American interests at heart. Peter Shaenk put it this way in an article called Once a Company Man, Always a Company Man:

When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on « Clean Break ». It was entitled « Rebuilding America’s Defenses » or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more « American » look and less of an « Israeli » front group image. [37]

When Bush was not-elected in January 2001 [38], the ziocons’ time had come. No less than twelve of PNAC’s members scored prominent positions in his administration – Dick Cheney, Vice President; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon [39]; Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State; Lewis « Scooter » Libby, Chief of Staff to Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Policy Advisory Board; John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Elliot Abrams, Special Asst. to the President; Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; and James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board [40]. It was nothing short of an Israeli political takeover of the U.S. government. The pieces had been put in place to implement the ziocon vision outlined in A Clean Break and RAD, and now all that was needed was the false flag attacks of 9/11 [41] [42] [43]to kickstart and justify the neocon wet dream of endless Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East in the name of the oxymoronic « war on terror ». (…)

Préparation de l’échiquier du « choc des civilisations » : Diviser, conquérir et régner au Moyen-Orient

par Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-13

Le plan Yinon : l’ordre à partir du chaos…
Le plan Yinon, qui constitue un prolongement du stratagème britannique au Moyen-Orient, est un plan stratégique israélien visant à assurer la supériorité d’Israël dans la région. Il souligne qu’Israël doit reconfigurer son environnement géopolitique par la balkanisation des États arabes, soit la division de ceux-ci en États plus petits et plus faibles.
Les stratèges israéliens voyaient l’Irak comme l’État arabe représentant leur plus grande menace stratégique. C’est pourquoi l’Irak a été caractérisé comme la pièce maîtresse de la balkanisation du Moyen-Orient et du monde arabe. En Irak, sur la base des concepts du plan Yinon, les stratèges israéliens ont réclamé la division de l’Irak en un État kurde et deux États arabes, l’un shiite, l’autre sunnite. La première étape de ce plan était une guerre entre l’Irak et l’Iran, abordée dans le plan Yinon.
En 2006 et en 2008, les publications de l’armée étasunienne Armed Forces Journal et The Atlantic ont respectivement publié des cartes ayant circulé abondamment et lesquelles suivaient de près les grandes lignes du plan Yinon. Outre la division de l’Irak, également recommandée par le plan Biden, le plan Yinon appelle à la division du Liban, de l’Égypte et de la Syrie. La partition de l’Iran, de la Turquie, de la Somalie et du Pakistan fait également partie de cette vision. Le plan Yinon réclame par ailleurs la dissolution de l’Afrique du Nord et prévoit qu’elle débutera en Égypte et débordera au Soudan, en Libye et dans le reste de la région.
Protection du domaine : redéfinition du monde arabe…
Bien que tordu, le plan Yinon est en marche et voit le jour dans « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm » (Une nette rupture : Une nouvelle stratégie pour protéger le domaine), un document de politique israélienne écrit en 1996 par Richard Perle et le groupe d’étude sur « Une nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » pour Benjamin Netanyahou, le premier ministre d’Israël à l’époque. Perle était alors un ancien secrétaire adjoint au Pentagone pour Ronald Reagan et est devenu par la suite conseiller militaire pour George W. Bush et la Maison-Blanche. Le groupe d’étude comprenait par ailleurs James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) et Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University).
Les États-Unis réalisent à bien des égards les objectifs précisés dans le texte de politique israélienne de 1996 visant à protéger le « royaume ». Par ailleurs, le terme realm, « domaine » ou « royaume », sous-entend la mentalité stratégique des auteurs. Realm fait soit référence au territoire sur lequel règne un monarque ou aux territoires soumis à son règne mais gérés et contrôlés par des vassaux. Dans ce contexte, le terme realm, est utilisé pour signifier que le Moyen-Orient constitue le royaume de Tel-Aviv. Le fait que Perle, un homme ayant essentiellement fait carrière comme officiel du Pentagone, ait contribué à écrire le document sur Israël soulève la question de savoir si le souverain conceptualisé du royaume représente Israël, les États-Unis, ou les deux.
Protéger le royaume : L’avant-projet israélien pour déstabiliser Damas
Le document de 1996 demande de « repousser la Syrie », aux environs de l’an 2000 ou après, en poussant les Syriens hors du Liban et en déstabilisant la République arabe syrienne avec l’aide de la Jordanie et de la Turquie. Ces événements se sont respectivement produits en 2005 et en 2011. Le document indique : « Israël peut modeler son environnement stratégique en coopération avec la Turquie et la Jordanie, en affaiblissant, en endiguant et même en repoussant la Syrie. Afin de contrecarrer les ambitions régionales de la Syrie, les efforts pourraient viser à expulser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir, un objectif stratégique en soi important pour Israël [1].
Comme première étape de la création d’un « nouveau Moyen-Orient » dominé par Israël et encerclant la Syrie, le texte demande de chasser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir à Bagdad et fait même allusion à la balkanisation de l’Irak et à la formation d’une alliance stratégique régionale contre Damas qui comporterait un « Irak central » sunnite. Les auteurs écrivent : « Toutefois la Syrie entre dans ce conflit avec de potentielles faiblesses : Damas est trop préoccupé par la nouvelle donne régionale pour permettre toute distractions sur le front libanais. De plus Damas craint l’ »axe naturel » avec Israël d’un côté, l’Irak central et la Turquie de l’autre, et la Jordanie, au centre, qui exercerait une pression sur la Syrie et la détacherait de la péninsule saoudienne. Pour la Syrie, ce pourrait être le prélude à la reconfiguration de la carte du Moyen-Orient, ce qui menacerait l’intégrité territoriale du pays [2] ».

Perle et le groupe d’étude « Nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » recommande également de mener les Syriens hors du Liban et de déstabiliser la Syrie en utilisant des personnalités de l’opposition libanaise. Le document dit : « [Israël doit détourner] l’attention de la Syrie en utilisant des éléments de l’opposition libanaise pour déstabiliser le contrôle exercé par la Syrie au Liban [3]. »C’est ce qui arriverait en 2005 après l’assassinat d’Hariri ayant contribué à déclencher la soi-disant « révolution des cèdres » et à créer l’Alliance du 14 mars, un groupe farouchement anti-Syrien contrôlé par le corrompu Saïd Hariri.

Le document demande par ailleurs à Tel-Aviv de « saisir l’opportunité afin de rappeler au monde la nature du régime syrien [4] ». Cela convient parfaitement à la stratégie israélienne consistant à diaboliser ses opposants par des campagnes de relations publiques. En 2009 des médias israéliens ont ouvertement admis que, par le biais de ses ambassades et missions diplomatiques, Tel-Aviv avait lancé une campagne médiatique mondiale et organisé des manifestations devant les ambassades iraniennes pour discréditer les élections présidentielles en Iran avant même qu’elles n’aient lieu [5].
L’étude fait aussi mention de ce qui ressemble à la situation actuelle en Syrie : « Il va de soi, et c’est le plus important, qu’Israël a intérêt à appuyer diplomatiquement, militairement et opérationnellement les actions de la Turquie et de la Jordanie contre la Syrie, comme en protégeant des alliances avec des tribus arabes à travers le territoire syrien et hostiles à l’élite dirigeante syrienne [6]. Les bouleversements de 2011 en Syrie, le mouvement des insurgés et la contrebande d’armes par les frontières jordanienne et turque sont devenus des problèmes majeurs pour Damas.

Dans ce contexte, il n’est pas surprenant qu’Israël, alors dirigé par Ariel Sharon, ait dit à Washington d’attaquer la Syrie, la Libye et l’Iran après l’invasion étasunienne de l’Irak [7]. Finalement, il importe de savoir que le document de 1996 préconise également une guerre préemptive pour modeler l’environnement géostratégique d’Israël et sculpter le « nouveau Moyen-Orient » [8]. Il s’agit d’une politique que les États-Unis adopteraient aussi en 2001.(…)
The ‘Land of Israel’ Myth This rather more realistic map of the southern Levant, c.830 BC, shows the multitude of small states that actually ruled the area.
The Philistine and Phoenician city-states, the kingdoms of Aram-Damascus, Ammon, Moab and Edom all existed during the time of David and Solomon, and for a long time after, but an Israeli propaganda map always has to show the wishful thinking of an aggressive state that then, as now, invaded all its neighbours.



The Neocons… They’re Back



Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls these neocons the new crazies. But are they?

Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Michael Ledeen

AMEU – Each of the above played a prominent role in the buildup to the U.S. war in Iraq, as detailed in our Sept.-Oct. 2004 Link “Timeline for War.” Eight years later, Americans are again being told that another Middle East country is threatening us — and Israel.
Those who pushed for regime change in Iraq are now pushing for regime change in Iran by all necessary means, including force. They are commonly re- ferred to as neoconservatives, or neocons, and while our cover title proclaims they’re back, truth is, they never went away.

The Neocons Today

Between June 5 – 6, 2007, an international gathering called the Democracy & Security Conference took place in Prague, the Czech Republic.
Sponsored, in part, by the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies in Jerusalem, its List of Participants included Sheldon Adelson, the casino and hotel magnate, worth an estimated $21.5 billion, who, with his wife Miriam, recently gave $22 million to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, a campaign in which the former speaker referred to Palestinians as “an invented people.”
Other participants included: Natan Sharansky, a member of the Likud party who, in 2006, formed the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and who, in 2009, became chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the organization in charge of immigration and absorption of Jews worldwide into the Jewish state; Richard Perle, former chair of the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board during the invasion of Iraq in 2003; Jose Maria Aznar, former prime minister of Spain, who actively encouraged and supported the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq; and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, also an outspoken supporter of the Iraq invasion.
There, too, was Reza Pahlavi, identified on the List of Participants as “Opposition Leader to Clerical Regime of Iran.” He is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Iranian dictator Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi and heir to the Peacock throne, who now lives in Maryland, from where he calls for regime change in Iran. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., and the conservative Washington D.C. think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have both come out for regime change in Iran, and AIPAC has indicated its support for the return of Reza Pahlavi to the throne.
Once again the drums of war are beating to topple yet another Middle East leader. In our Sept.-Oct. 2004 Link “Timeline for War,” we traced the buildup to President Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Now, in this issue, we go back to look at the protagonists of that war—often referred to as neoconservatives or neocons—and we ask what are they up to now?

Richard N. Perle

Our 2004 Link traced Richard Perle’s pivotal role among the neocons in launching President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Dubbed “The Prince of Darkness,” he was chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board (DPB), which provided the rationale for war and coordinated public opinion both inside and outside the administration.
In 2006, Perle traveled to Libya twice to meet with Col. Qadhafi. He went as a paid senior adviser to the Monitor Group, a Boston-based consulting firm, whose project was to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi. Other prominent figures the Monitor recruited to travel to Libya were Princeton Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis and Nicholas Negroponte, the brother of John Negroponte, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and first ever director of national intelligence. The Monitor group charged the government of Libya $250,000 per month ($3-million per year), plus expenses that were not to exceed $2.5 million.
Also in 2006, Perle received a phone call from an Iranian prisoner, a 30-year-old “student” by the name of Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. From his cell in the notorious Evin prison in Iran, Fakhravar had been phoning the pro-monarchist satellite station in Los Angeles. How he came by a phone in prison is unknown. Equally astonishing is his explanation that the prison authorities, after torturing him, let him out of prison to take a university exam, expecting him to return voluntarily. Instead, he went on the lam for 10 months before showing up in Dubai, where Perle was there waiting for him.
From Dubai, Perle arranged Fakhravar’s entry into the United States, and commenced his public relations tour with a private lunch at the American Enterprise Institute, where the “opposition leader” met State Department and Pentagon officials, as well as the neoconservative hawk, Michael Ledeen.
The celebrated dissident was interviewed by Perle in a 2007 documentary, “The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom,” part of a PBS series “America at the Crossroads.” In it, Fakhravar called upon Americans to send the Marines into his country to stop the Hitler-like dictators from making nuclear bombs.
In a Jan. 20, 2007 interview with Ynet, Fakhravar predicted that, if the West did launch a military attack on Iran, “the top brass will flee immediately … many of the mid-level officials will shave off their beards, don ties, and join the (civilians) in the street.”
And in meetings with members of the U.S.- Iranian community, Fakhravar said that he respected Reza Pahlavi and would support the people of Iran if they voted for a constitutional monarchy.
Likewise, in a visit to Israel, he assured his television audience that the Iranians loved Jews.
During this time, more than one commentator observed that Richard Perle, who was promoting Amir-Abbas Fakhravar, was the same Richard Perle who had boosted the cause of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who provided much of the misinformation that had led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
These days Perle criticizes the Obama administration for not supporting Iranian dissidents in exile and anti-government protesters on the inside. Why? Because it is in America’s interest to do so. And why is that? Because, as he explained in a Feb. 18, 2011, Newsmax interview, “The Iranians are killing Americans at every opportunity in the places we are now fighting. They support terrorism around the world, and they’re headed toward nuclear weapons.”
In a Dec. 15, 2011 interview with Kurt Nimmo of Infowars.com, he put it bluntly: “I do not think there is any question about it, I am willing to accuse Iran of building nuclear weapons.”
And what if we don’t act? The Prince of Dark ness offered his own Occam’s choice in a 2004 book, “An End to Evil”: “There is no middle way for Americans,” warned Perle, “it is either victory or holocaust.”

Paul D. Wolfowitz

Four days following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gathered his national security team at Camp David for a war council. Years later, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would recall that the first person in the room to bring up going after Iraq was his deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz’s determination to topple Saddam was reinforced by an unlikely foreign national by the name of Shaha Riza. Paul and Shaha had met in 1999 and had become romantically involved, even though each at the time was married. A British national and Muslim, with family roots in Libya, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Shaha held a degree in International Relations from Oxford University, with a focus on spreading democracy in Middle Eastern countries.
After the 2000 election, Wolfowitz was on the short-list to head the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). That was until his wife of 30 years, Clare Wolfowitz, wrote a letter to president-elect George Bush telling him that her husband’s extra-marital affair with a foreigner posed a national security risk. A mutual friend of the Wolfowitzes, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, tried to dissuade Clare from sending the letter, but she sent it. And it worked. Wolfowitz’s name was removed from consideration. Again, Scooter Libby, at the time Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, intervened to have his boss recommend Wolfowitz for deputy secretary of defense under Donald Rumsfeld.
From this post Wolfowitz would emerge as the most hawkish of the administration’s Iraq policy advocates. Bringing democracy to Saddam’s dictator- ship was, he insisted, “doable;” the U.S. would be greeted as liberators; Iraqi oil would pay for the re- construction costs, and military estimates of needing several hundred thousand troops to do the job were “widely off the mark.”
By March 2005, the “doable war” in Iraq had resulted in the killing of over 1,000 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Iraqi civilians. It was at this time that President Bush promoted his deputy secretary of state by nominating him to head the World Bank. On March 31, 2005 Paul Wolfowitz was unanimously approved as the Bank’s president. Two years later, he was forced to resign.
The issue, again, was Shaha Riza. She was already employed by the World Bank when Paul took over, which presented a problem since the Bank’s ethic rules precluded sexual relationships between a manager and a staff member, even if one reports to the other indirectly through a chain of supervision. So Riza was assigned a job at the State Department under Liz Cheney, the daughter of the vice- president, with the task of promoting democracy in the Middle East. To compensate her for any potential disruption in her career prospects, Wolfowitz directed the Bank’s human resources chief to increase her salary from $132,660 to $193,590 per year, tax- exempt.
When news of this broke in the Washington Post on March 28, 2007, it sparked calls for the resignation of the Bank’s president. An investigation was launched at the Bank and Wolfowitz handed in his resignation on April 28, 2007.
Today Paul Wolfowitz works for the American Enterprise Institute, known to Washington insiders as Neocon Central.
And he continues the drumbeat for war. In a June 19, 2009 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, the intellectual godfather of the Iraq war criticized Obama for not imposing democracy in Iran, warn- ing, “It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale towards dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom.”
By this time 4,315 U.S. military had been killed in the Iraq war, along with some 1.3 million Iraqis.

Lewis “Scooter” Libby

He’s known as “Scooter “— once, when his father watched him crawling across his crib as a baby, he exclaimed, “he’s a scooter!” and the name stuck. True to his name, as Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, he paid multiple visits to the C.I.A. prior to the Iraq war in order to strong-arm its analysts into reporting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as well as links to al-Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to The New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of her front-page articles highlighting Iraq’s WMDs. And it was Libby who prodded then- Secretary of State Colin Powell to include in his Jan. 29, 2003 U.N. speech specious reports from a disreputable Iraqi source code-named Curveball about the existence of mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq.
As in the case of Paul Wolfowitz, however, what ultimately got Libby into trouble was a woman. Her name was Valarie Plame Wilson.
In February 2002, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, was asked by the C.I.A. and other agencies to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned saying the claims were false.
In a July 6, 2003 op-ed for The New York Times, Wilson faulted President Bush for saying in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material in Niger. He went on to warn that, if his report had been ignored because it didn’t fit preconceptions about Iraq, “a legitimate case can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.”
Several days later, columnist Robert Novak re- vealed that Wilson’s wife, Valarie Plame, was an undercover C.I.A. operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction.
Joseph Wilson shot back that the outing of his wife was retaliation for his article and that revealing Valarie’s cover effectively ended her career, not to mention putting in jeopardy the lives of her covert contacts.
An investigation ensued to find out who leaked the name to Novak. The New York Times produced documents that showed that Scooter Libby may have first learned of Plame’s covert identity from Vice President Cheney. Libby denied under oath he had anything to do with it.
Ultimately, Libby was found guilty on four felony counts of making false statements to the F.B.I., lying to a grand jury and obstructing a probe into the leak. He was acquitted of one count of lying to the F.B.I. On June 8, 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. Soon after, he resigned his post as Cheney’s chief of staff.
On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted his sentence but, despite strong urging from his vice president, he did not grant Scooter a presidential pardon before leaving office. On March 20, 2008, I. Lewis Libby was disbarred from the practice of law, at least until 2012.
Still he speaks out. In a Sept. 7, 2010 interview on Fox TV, he warned that he didn’t think sanctions would work, and that Iran would have the bomb within a year.

Douglas J. Feith

He graduated magna cum laude both from Harvard University and, in 1981, from Georgetown University Law Center. That year he joined President Reagan’s National Security Council (N.S.C.) as a Middle East analyst. A year later he was fired after becoming the focus of an F.B.I. inquiry into his giving classified N.S.C. information to an Israeli embassy official in Washington.
Soon after, Douglas Feith was rehired as special counsel to then-Assistant Secretary to the Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle.
In 2001, with help from Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Feith joined the Bush administration as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the third most senior official in the U. S. Department of Defense. Returning the favor, Feith then worked to have Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
During this time, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence, whose purpose was to influence policymakers by submitting biased news stories into the foreign media as a build-up to the Iraq war.
He also headed the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, a unit he and Wolfowitz created that was closely tied to a parallel intelligence unit within the Israeli prime minister’s office. Its purpose was to provide key Bush administration people with raw intelligence on Saddam’s Iraq, much of it coming from Ahmad Chalabi, the opportunistic head of the exiled Iraqi National Council.
On Aug. 27, 2004, CBS News broke the story about an F.B.I. investigation of a possible spy for Israel who was working for the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith. The spy, later identified as Lawrence Franklin, was caught passing classified presidential directives and other sensitive documents to an AIPAC lobbyist who, in turn, passed them on to Israel. Franklin pled guilty to several charges of espionage, for which he received a sentence of just under 13 years in prison— later reduced to 10 months house arrest. Two AIPAC employees were also indicted, but their cases were dismissed.
In Jan. 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that his undersecretary would be “stepping down.” Later that year, Feith joined the faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Services at Georgetown University as a Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy; the appointment created an uproar among the school’s faculty. Two years later, the school opted not to renew his contract.
In Feb. 2007, the Pentagon’s inspector general issued a report charging that Feith’s office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.”
Currently, Douglas Feith is director of the Center for National Security Strategies and a Senior Fellow at the conservative think-tank, the Hudson Institute.
Dalck Feith, Douglas’s father, was a Holocaust survivor, and a member in Betar, the militaristic, pre-Likud Zionist youth movement in Poland founded by Ze’ev (Vladmir) Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky, whose assistant was Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, declared that every Jew had the right to enter Palestine, that a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan was the only guarantee of Jewish survival, that all Arabs hate Jews, and that active retaliation and overwhelming Jewish armed force were needed to ensure that the displaced population did not fight to retake their land, a reaction he considered quite natural.
Dalck’s son Douglas has hewed to the Likud worldview—both in calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi government, and now for regime change in Iran. In a Winter 2010 inFocus article entitled “Obama’s Failure to Lead,” he argued passionately that the time for talk was past: “There is no realistic prospect that Iran’s leaders can be negotiated out of their determination to obtain nuclear weapons.”
Condoleezza Rice, it is reported, made the com ment, following one of Douglas Feith’s presenta tions to the National Security Council, “Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador.”

David Wurmser

In fact, according to a June 2, 2007 New York Times article, Condoleezza Rice, at the time secretary of state, was pressured to play down the hawkish talk circulating in Washington of a military option against Tehran. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had called those wanting to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities the “new crazies.” The Times article went on to note that such hawkish statements had been made by a former Pentagon official who was then principal deputy assistant for national security affairs to Vice President Dick Cheney.
His name was David Wurmser.
We first met David Wurmser in our “Timeline for War” Link, on July 9, 1996, when he and his wife Meyrav joined with Douglas Feith and Richard Perle to develop a foreign policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which called for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and install a pro-Israel regime in his place.
Wurmser next showed up in our July 31, 1998 entry, when he met with Israel’s U.N. representative Dore Gold in an effort to get Israel to put pressure on the U.S. Congress to approve a $10 million grant to Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, whose goal was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
In a Nov. 1, 2000 op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Wurmser, now at the American Enterprise Institute, called on the U.S. and Israel to broaden the conflict in the Middle East. The United States, he argued, needs “to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza—in order to reestablish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
Shortly after that piece, Wurmser was named by the incoming Bush administration to the post of principal deputy assistant for national security affairs in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
On Sept. 12, 2001, the day following the 9/11 attacks, Douglas Feith, now Rumsfeld’s undersecretary of defense for policy, tasked Wurmser to form a secret intelligence unit that would report directly to him; called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, its purpose was to find loose ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in order to counter C.I.A. analysts who had found no credible links between the two.
In July 2007, with the war in Iraq well underway, Wurmser left his position with Dick Cheney to found Delphi Global Analysis, a risk-assessment consulting business, with offices in Washington and Israel. While its clients include hedge fund managers and investment bankers, the firm, we are told, also handles a few “sensitive” projects in Israel.
Delphi’s co-founder is David’s wife, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. Born in Israel and a member of the Likud party, she wrote her doctoral thesis on Revisionist Zionism behind the Herut and Likud parties. She is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Insti- tute (MEMRI), which critics have accused of disseminating the most extreme, often inaccurate, views from the Arabic and Persian media. In 2008, she was listed as a member of the board of advisors of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a group that was involved in the distribution of 28 million DVDs of the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a film in which parallels are drawn between Nazi Germany and a monolithic Islam. Twenty-eight million DVDs of the film were provided to at least 70 newspapers that placed them at the doorstep of subscribers in swing states prior to the 2008 presidential election.
Also listed on Delphi’s brochure as a Visiting Scholar is Lee Smith, senior editor at the Weekly Standard. In a Feb. 23, 2012 article in The Tablet, Smith quoted David Wurmser as saying that Israel’s war against Iran’s nuclear program was well under way, with lots of money over the past decade having been spent on all sorts of anti-Iranian options, such as computer worms like Stuxnet, covert operations like the assassination of nuclear scientists, sabotage of military installations, and, possibly, commando raids and air strikes.
Yet as prepared as Israel is, according to Wurmser, it is the United States that should use its military might to topple Tehran. Why? Because Iran is America’s enemy. And how does America go about doing this? Just before he left Vice President Cheney’s office, Wurmser wrote a paper advocating that the U.S. must go to war with Iran, not to set back its nuclear program, but to achieve regime change. To establish a casus belli, the U.S. would launch airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps training camps in Iran in retaliation for their smuggling explosives into Iraq that kill and maim Americans fighting there. Iran then would retaliate, which would allow for a rapid escalation of U.S. military force. Cheney acted on Wurmser’s advice and tried to get Bush to provoke a war with Iran over Iraq. But Pentagon officials turned it down.
Now, the head of Delphi Global Analysis warns, it’s “crunch time” for Israel’s leaders. He notes a marked shift in Israel’s security establishment, the surest sign being President Shimon Peres’s warning that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and is “a real danger to humanity as a whole.” And he adds this about his personal friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu, “It’s not just about Bibi and his his- torical legacy anymore. He doesn’t need to be a leader in a Churchillian mode, because the consensus on attacking Iran is broad-based.”
In the presidential campaign of 2011-2012, candidate Newt Gingrich revealed the names of his foreign policy advisors. Among them was David Wurmser.

William Kristol

On June 18, 2007, the Holland America Line’s M.S. Oosterdam arrived in the port of Juneau. On board were three of the Weekly Standard’s top writers: Fred Barnes, the magazine’s executive editor, Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, and the magazine’s founder William Kristol.
Upon disembarking, they went straight for lunch to the newly elected governor’s mansion, a white wooden Colonial house with six two-story columns. By the time they returned to the cruise ship, the conservative pundits had fallen in love with Sarah Palin.
And no one more than William Kristol. It did not go unnoticed that the Alaskan governor displayed the flag of Israel in her office, nor that she attended Protestant evangelical churches that believe the preservation of the state of Israel is a biblical imperative, nor that she understood Israel’s fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Months before John McCain picked her for his running mate, Kristol predicted on Fox News Sunday that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin… on the ticket.” As one commentator put it: “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms… and things always work out so well when Kristol engages his pom-poms.”
Bill Kristol received his PhD from Harvard University. He is the son of Irving Kristol, long associated with the American Enterprise Institute and Commentary magazine, and considered by many the godfather of neoconservatism.
Kristol is one of three board members of Keep America Safe, a think tank co-founded by Liz Cheney, which includes former McCain campaign managers Michael Goldfarb and Aaron Harrison. Formed to counter what it considers Obama’s undercutting of America’s war on terror, it promotes the foreign policy objectives of the former vice president, including his support for enhanced interrogation techniques.
Kristol is also co-founder and board member of the Emergency Committee for Israel (E.C.I.). Launched in 2010 as the most pro-Israel of all pro-Israel groups, it was first located in the same office as the old Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose Washington, D.C., address happens to be that of Orion Strategies, a consultancy run by Randy Scheunemann—once Sarah Palin’s chief foreign policy advisor. Much of E.C.I.’s initial funding came from hedge fund managers, including $100,000 from Daniel Loeb and $50,000 from Jonathan Jacobson.
E.C.I.’s favorite tactic is publishing ads that attack politicians and political analysts who question America’s unconditional support for Israel. Its campaign to push the U.S. into war with Iran was highlighted in a recent 30-minute video that mocked President Obama’s “unshakeable” commitment to Israel’s security, particularly his record on Iran. Prior to the March 2012 meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama, E.C.I.’s Super PAC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to intimidate critics of the Israeli prime minister and his call to attack Iran sooner rather than later. This included a full-page ad in The New York Times that went after two liberal advocacy groups, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, denouncing their work as anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic, and disclosing the phone numbers of the groups’ donors.
A March 18, 2012 New York Times article cited critics who warned that hawkish voices like E.C.I.’s were indeed pushing the United States closer to military action against Iran and closer to yet another war in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol, the pundit who, 11 years ago, said that President Bush had to attack Iraq because “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight,” now tells Fox News Sunday, “It would be much better if we use force to delay the Iranian nuclear program than if Israel did.”

John R. Bolton

On May 1, 2005, the London Sunday Times published a leaked document in which the chief of Britain’s intelligence agency MI6, Richard Dearlove, advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush had decided on attacking Iraq, even though the case for WMDs was “thin.” This, according to the British intelligence head, was not a problem, because “intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy.”
Who was cooking the books?
This was a question that the House Government Reform Committee Member Rep. Henry Waxman wanted answered. Following an investigation that included “sensitive and unclassified” papers provided by the State Department, Waxman fingered John Bolton.
Bolton, known as the neocons’ neocon, was at the time the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. According to Waxman, in December 2002, Bolton arranged for false information about Iraq’s procurement of yellowcake uranium from Niger to be put in a Fact Sheet that went out to the United Nations and the media, despite the fact that the information had been assessed to be false in C.I.A. intelligence evaluations. Bolton, under oath, denied he had anything to do with the Fact Sheet, to which Waxman replied: “When you’re in charge of arms control and the biggest issue is whether we were going to war against Iraq on the issue of nuclear weapons… don’t you think you have some responsibility to know what’s going on?”
In another case involving the undersecretary of state, the May 6, 2006 issue of the Jewish publication The Forward reported that Bolton had been reprimanded for having unauthorized contacts with officials of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad without seeking “country clearance” from the State Department. And in its May 9, 2005 edition, US News and World Report carried the story that Bolton allegedly used his position as the Bush administration’s top arms control official to shield Israel from charges of violating U.S. laws that prohibit the use of U.S. arms for “non-defensive” purposes. The case involved Israel’s July 23, 2000 use of a U.S.-made F-16 bomber to drop a one-ton bomb on a house in a densely populated area of Gaza, killing 14 civilians and injuring more than 100.
In 2005, Bolton was nominated by President Bush to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations—the same institution he allegedly fed false information to. Due to a Democratic filibuster, however, Bush had to wait until congress adjourned before making a recess-appointment. Bolton resigned his U.N. post in December 2006, when the recess-appointment ran out and it was clear he would not receive Senate confirmation.
Before joining the Bush administration, Bolton was at the American Enterprise Institute, which is where he is today. He opines from time to time as a Fox News Channel commentator, and he is involved with other conservative think tanks such the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). In 2010, he contemplated running for president of the United States in 2012, but later thought better of the idea.
Meanwhile, the neocons’ neocon continues boldly on the warpath. In 2009, he suggested to a University of Chicago audience that Israel should consider a nuclear strike against Iran. And in a Feb. 22, 2012 Washington Times article, he promised that a world where Iran has nuclear weapons will be far more dangerous than a world after an Israeli military strike.

Michael A. Ledeen

If Bolton arranged for the false information to go into the Fact Sheet, who falsified the information?
Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the C.I.A., was asked in a 2005 interview if the man behind the forging of the Niger documents that President Bush used to launch a preemptive war against Iraq was Michael Ledeen, then assistant to Undersecretary of State Douglas Feith. Cannistraro replied: “You’d be very close.” Philip Giraldi, former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer, confirmed that Ledeen was the logical intermediary in coordinating the falsification of the documents. Ledeen has denied he had anything to do with it.
Michael Ledeen, a leading neo-conservative, left the American Enterprise Institute in 2008, where he had been for 20 years, to take a fellowship at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (F.D.D.). Other neocons affiliated with the F.D.D. include Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, and Douglas Feith’s father, Dalck who gave the F.D.D. $100,000. Additional donors to the F.D.D. are: Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare, whose family foundation gave over $800,000 between 2001-2004; the Seagram company heirs, Edgar and Charles Bronfman, who have given over $1 million; and Home Depot cofounder Bernard Marcus, who contributed $600,000 between 2001-2003. A 2003 investigative report in The American Conservative put F.D.D.’s annual budget at close to $3 million. In 2008, an F.D.D. spokesman, Brian Wise, confirmed that the foundation had received at least one grant from the U.S. State Department worth $487,000.
Ledeen believes that trying to negotiate with the Iranian regime is nothing short of appeasement. The U.S., he advocates, should work closely with the “Iranian people” to bring about regime change by arming opposition forces inside the country, by acts of sabotage, by targeted assassinations, by sanctions, by rallying the Iranian community in exile. The most promising ally in this last effort, according to Ledeen, is the former shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi.
The crown prince, in turn, has sought closer ties with the neocons, particularly with Ledeen. He addressed the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which Ledeen co-founded and whose members at one time or another included Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Douglas Feith. The prince had also met privately with top Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, his links to Israel go back to the early 1980s, when he had approached Ariel Sharon with a plan to overthrow the mullahs in Iran.
On May 19, 2003, at a press conference attended by Ledeen, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback announced that he would introduce a bill, the Iran Democracy Act, seeking $50 million dollars to promote democracy in Iran and to fund Iranian opposition groups. Supporters of the Iran Democracy Act included the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Commenting on this support, former AIPAC director, Morris Amitay, noted that it was natural for Jewish groups to openly back regime change in Iran.
The introduction of such a bill was significant because it would extend financial support to Iranian opposition groups, much as the congress did in the case of Ahmed Chalabi’s National Iraqi Congress. Washington, in effect, would be taking a decisive step towards making regime change in Iran official U.S. policy.
Prior to congressional action, Reza Pahlavi spoke at a private briefing on Capitol Hill organized by the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC). In it he urged Hill staffers to support the idea of funding the Iranian opposition. Later, the president of IJPAC in Los Angeles, Pooya Dayanim, observed in the The Forward: “There is a pact emerging between hawks in the administration, Jewish groups and Iranian supporters of Reza Pahlavi to push for regime change.” Jews, he added, were “in love with Pahlavi” because they saw his father’s reign as a golden era for Jews.
In the end, the bill did not pass. Enough senators apparently were able to recall America’s disastrous role in bankrolling Ahmed Chalabi. The bill did pass, however, as a non-binding Sense of the Senate Resolution, denouncing Iran’s lack of democracy. As such it achieved its main goal of hindering the State Department from exploring further dialogue with Tehran.
Most recently, Michael Ledeen was heard commenting on a March 12, 2012 60 Minutes interview with Israel’s ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in which the former spymaster urged that Iran’s dissidents be better supplied militarily, its nuclear labs sabotaged and more of its scientists targeted for assassination. Ledeen praised the interview. No one, however, noted the inconvenient fact that it was Dagan’s organization, the Mossad, that had built the shah’s hated SAVAK police apparatus—that led to the anti-shah revolution.

Security Democracy

Those two words—the words chosen for the title of that 2007 conference in Prague—are key to understanding how the Jewish state is portrayed today.
Most Americans know Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East.” And, because it is surrounded by undemocratic, despotic regimes, its security necessitates having military hegemony in the area, which includes its own arsenal of over 200 nuclear bombs, as well as the full force of the U.S. military. Americans get it when Prime Minister Netanyahu comes before them and says that he, as the leader of a sovereign state, has the duty to make sure that Iran does not get the bomb that would threaten to wipe out his small democracy.
Zionists, particularly pro-Likud Zionists, see it differently.
Israel is not a democracy. No one put this more bluntly than Ariel Sharon. Quoted in an article entitled “Democracy and the Jewish State,” in Yedioth Ahronoth, May 28, 1993, the former prime minister noted that it is no accident that the words “democracy” or “democratic” are absent from Israel’s Declaration of Independence. What did the framers of Israel’s constitution have in mind? Sharon answers: “The intention of Zionism was not to bring democracy, needless to say. It was solely motivated by the creation in Eretz-Israel of a Jewish state belonging to all the Jewish people and to the Jewish people alone. That is why any Jew of the Diaspora has the right to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen of Israel.” Eretz-Israel, by the way, here refers to the biblical land area roughly corresponding to what is known today as Palestine, Canaan, the Promised Land and the Holy Land; it includes all of the West Bank.
Israeli anthropologist Jeff Halper pointed out in our April-May 2012 Link that Israel began exercising its exclusive claim over Eretz-Israel in 1948 when, after seizing half of the partition area allocated to the Arabs, it reduced the Palestinian population living within its expanded borders from 950,000 to 154,000—a drop of 80%. Then, following the occupation of 1967, it established “facts on the ground” to foreclose any coherent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state. In fact, Israel denies even having an occupation, since it believes all Palestinian lands are part of its biblical inheritance. Those Palestinians who were living on Eretz-Israel in 1948 were caretakers, waiting for the owners to return. And those currently living in Israel or on the West Bank are there at the sufferance of the Jewish people.
So what causes the hostility of Arabs toward Israel? Again, the clearest answer comes from the Zionist militant Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the leader for whom Benjamin Netanyahu’s father worked. Jabotinsky saw the Zionist movement as a colonial project, no different from European colonialism. In his 1923 es-say “The Iron Wall,” he argued that attempts at dialogue with the Arabs are fantasy, as no nation—and he recognized the Palestinian people as such—would agree to a foreign entity being established on its lands. His conclusion: Jews must be so dominant militarily as to make it impossible for any of its neighbors to impede its colonial ambitions. Part of this strategy is keeping those neighboring regimes weak. Iraq is a case in point.
Iran is another. In April 1951, the shah of Iran, then the constitutional monarch, appointed Mohammad Mosaddegh prime minister. He turned out to be an exceptionally popular social reformer, introducing unemployment compensation, health-care benefits, land reform laws, and public works projects. He also strengthened democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy’s powers, cutting the shah’s personal budget, and transferring royal lands back to the state.
He also called for the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. On May 1, 1951, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later known as British Petroleum or BP, which was the pillar of Britain’s economy and its influence in the Middle East. In response, the British government announced a blockade of all Iranian oil, reducing Tehran’s income to near zero.
The prime minister also severed all relations with Israel. The shah had welcomed the Jewish state as a “little America” in the heart of the Middle East, and he pursued a policy of friendship in order to keep in good with the Zionist lobby in the U.S., which he saw as wielding great influence in the congress and in the media. Mosaddegh, on the other hand, saw Israel as the tool of Anglo-American hegemony in the Middle East. His popularity rose.
In August 1953, the shah, who opposed many of his prime minister’s reforms, including his nationalization of AIOC, dismissed him. Mosaddeqh refused to go, his followers rioted, and the shah fled to Rome.
Winston Churchill called his war-time friend, now U.S. president, Dwight Eisenhower and suggested that Mosaddegh, despite his disgust with socialism and all his democratic reforms, was, or would become, dependent on the Soviet Union. Eisenhower agreed that the Iranian prime minister should go. Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior C.I.A. officer, the C.I.A. and British intelligence funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the shah.
The plot, called “Operation Ajax,” hinged on orders signed by the shah to dismiss the prime minister and replace him with Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans. Mosaddegh was deposed and on August 22, 1953, the shah returned in triumph. A few weeks later, the U.S. government granted Iran a $45-million emergency loan. Two months after that, Iran resumed diplomatic relations with Great Britain. On August 5, 1954, a new compact was made with the AIOC, and the oil company was compensated for its seized property. The following year the Iranian government and American oil interests in Iran concluded an agreement for an unprecedented 25-75 percent division of profits in favor of Iran.
With the monarchy restored, relations with Israel strengthened. In July 1960, Iran recognized the Jewish state. Israelis, in turn, used their influence in Washington to convince congress to continue the sale of American military equipment to Tehran, while, at the same time, the shah, using his vast oil revenues, purchased up to $500,000,000 worth of arms and police equipment from Israel in an arrangement called “Project Flowers.”
And the shah was buying something else. In 1957, he enlisted Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, and the C.I.A., to create SAVAK, the dreaded secret police force, whose personnel was trained by Mossad to suppress all opposition to the shah, with no limits on the use of torture tools to break dissenters. Over the years SAVAK killed and tortured thousands of Iranians.
It took some 27 years before an exiled cleric, who had been smuggling anti-shah, anti-U.S., anti-Zionist audiocassette sermons into Iran—the precursor of today’s social media uprisings—returned in triumph to establish an Islamic republic.
In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed her regret that Mosaddegh had been ousted, admitting that “the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.”
Following the shah into exile was his son Reza Pahlavi, born October 31, 1960, who, upon his father’s death in 1980, became heir apparent to the Peacock throne. This is the man, now 51 years old, who participated in the pro-Likud sponsored conference in Prague. Beginning in 2003, the heir began ad- dressing the Iranian community via the internet and satellite television, earning him the sobriquet “The Internet Prince.”
The activism of the exiled, pro-Israel shah-in-waiting did not go unnoticed by the neoconservatives.

Back to the Future

In our Link “Timeline” article, it was on Oct. 1, 2002 that the C.I.A. delivered to the White House its National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) on the case for war with Iraq. This was a classified report reflecting the consensus of analysts from 16 agencies, and we now know that in it the C.I.A. hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, admitting it wasn’t sure he had them.
Three days later, C.I.A. director George Tenet issued an unclassified white paper, with 79 of the original 93 pages whitened out. This report concluded that Baghdad in fact had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program.
Over the next two weeks, a joint resolution authorizing the use of force was passed by both houses of congress.
We now come to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran released in 2010. In it the analysts found credible evidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 at the direction of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who issued a fatwa—recently reaffirmed—against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to a March 18, 2012 front-page article in The New York Times, “American intelligence analysts still believe that the Iranians have not gotten the go-ahead from Ayatollah Khamenei to revive the program.”
Israeli intelligence experts also warn against attacking Iran. In April of this year, Yuval Diskin, recently retired chief of Shin Bet, Israel’s FBI, accused the Netanyahu government of “misleading the public” about the likely effectiveness of an aerial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such a strike, warned Diskin, would dramatically accelerate Iran’s nuclear program.
Even the present head of the Israel Defense
Forces, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, concluded in an April 25, 2012, interview with Haaretz that he did not think Iran’s top leadership would risk building a nuclear weapon.
Not to be deterred, Netanyahu sounds the alarms of war at every opportunity. At an AIPAC gathering on March 12, 2012, the Israeli prime minister warned that “time was running out to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and diplomacy wasn’t working.” And his recently formed unity government with Shaul Mofaz, the Iranian-born head of Kadima, the nation’s largest opposition party, has heightened fears of an Israeli attack on Iran. On May 11, 2012, Israel’s TV Channel 10 reported that authorities in Washington, D.C., were worried that the Netanyahu/Mofaz alliance brought together two influential party leaders who would both favor an attack on Iran.
Meanwhile, the neocons here at home issue their own dire warnings.
John Bolton has dismissed the N.I.E. assessment as “famously distorted.” In a March 28, 2012 posting on GerardDirect.com, he wrote that diplomacy and sanctions were not working and that the only real alternative left to a nuclear Iran was “a pre-emptive military force.”
And Douglas Feith, writing in the February 12, 2012 National Review Online, concluded: “There is no realistic prospect that Iran’s leaders can be negotiated out of the determination to obtain nuclear weapons.”
William Kristol continues to chide President Obama for putting off action against Iran. In an Oct. 24, 2011 issue of the Weekly Standard, he declared: “It’s long since time for the United States to speak to this [Iranian] regime in the language it understands, force… We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back. And lest the administration hesitate to act out of fear of lack of support at home, congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops… and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls these neocons the new crazies. But are they? They are well educated, most with post-graduate degrees, many from ivy-league colleges. They are passionately dedicated to advancing the best interests of Israel; Sheldon Adelson, one of the few neocons to have served in the U.S. military, regrets that the uniform he wore was not an Israeli uniform. They have vast sums of money to spend on think-tanks, media outlets—and politicians.
And, despite their championing of a calamitous war in Iraq, and notwithstanding the most recent N.I.E. report, and even assessments from Israeli intelligence agencies, they believe they can convince Americans, and certainly most members of congress, that the United States should send its young men and women yet again into another Middle East war.
Truth is, they are not the crazies.
Source: Americans for Middle East Understanding

The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear




Israel’s Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area from Egypt to Iraq

by John Mitchell Henshaw
Nearly 34 years ago, an America-firster used The American Mercury magazine to warn of the danger posed by Zionism and its rule of Washington and the Mideast. John Henshaw wrote this article shortly after Israel laid claim to the annexed land  during 1967 Arab-Israeli war. This article first appeared in the spring of 1968.
The metamorphosis of tiny Israel from a midget to a giant is in the making. The grand design of Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile.
In defining the aims of Zionism, Hebrew scholar Levnoch Osman recently said: « In our eternal Book of Books (the Torah), the lofty ethical teachings of which are cherished by all mankind, the land of Israel is described not as a long, narrow strip of land with wavy, crooked borders, but as a state with broad natural borders. God has promised to Patriarch Abraham the following:


« I give unto them the land where they have sown their seed, from the river of Egypt unto the great river of Euphrates’ (Genesis 15:18). And so, in order to realize the words of this prophecy, the Israeli state had to continue, not in the borders it has today but within its broad historical boundaries. »
And as far back as 1952 Moshe Dayan, the present Israeli defense minister, declared:


« Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire. »
The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who served as an adviser on Near Eastern affairs to the British delegation at the Versailles Conference, in a newspaper article published in June last year stated the Zionist aims in these words:
We are Jews, the living representatives of Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel that conquered most of Palestine in the 13th century B.C. We held Judah’s share of the conquered territory for seven centuries, till we were deported by Nebuchadnezzer in 587 B.C. We were back again within less than half a century, and we then held Judea, once more, for the next 773 years, till we were evicted by the Romans in A.D. 135. We have never renounced our claim to the land of Israel. We have always hoped, believed, and proclaimed that we shall get this land back again. It is our land, we contend.
After another 1,883 years we did recover a foothold there in 1918, and during the half-century since then, by devoted hard work, ability and military valor, we have built up our present national State of Israel, and have inflicted three smashing defeats on the Arabs, who have been trying to evict us again.
We want to have a country of our own again, like other peoples and like our own ancestors. We also need to have a country of our own, because, since the conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity in the fourth century A.D., we have been penalized and persecuted by the Western Christian majority among whom we have had to live.
The persecution has culminated in the unprecedented crime of genocide, which has been committed against us in our lifetime by a Western people, the Germans, in Europe. We are not going to let the Arabs commit the same crime of genocide against us here, in our own land of Israel.
Genocide in Six-day War


Apologist Toynbee omitted mentioning the fact that the Jews themselves are currently engaged in genocide. During the Sis-Day War last summer, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ordered Brig. Gen. Yesha’ahu Gavish, the Israeli commander of the Sinai campaign, to ruthlessly drive the hapless Egyptian troops into the Sinai Desert to die of thirst, hunger and heat. Temperature on the arid Sinai rise to more than 100 degrees during the day. For over two weeks thousand of wretched Egyptian stragglers wandered over the swirling wastes finally drop dead in their tracks.
U.S. reconnaissance planes flying on the perimeter of the Sinai Desert took hundreds of pictures of the stragglers and reported there were 50,000 Egyptians dead or dying on the desert at the time. The U.S. Air Force loaded 60,000 gallons of water in five-gallon jerry-cans on pallets and prepared to drop them in the area where stragglers were observed. However, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the projected mission of mercy halted after he received phone calls from White House foreign policy-planner Walt Rostow and UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg.
This flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war amounted to genocide, designed to destroy a whole nation.
Newspaper reporters visiting the war zones in Syria and Jordan, reported that if one sniper in a village fired on Israeli troops, the whole village was destroyed including the women and children. Napalm is frequently used.
This systematic extermination is an ideological doctrine of Zionism. The leading exponent of genocide is the chauvinist Moshe Dayan, whom the Zionists have proclaimed a Biblical « messiah » on a white horse. Arrogant, boastful Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, chief of the Israeli General Staff, who plotted and executed the Six-Day blitzkrieg last June, is in direct charge of the projected expansionist program from the Euphrates to the Nile.
The scope of this ambitious scheme of territorial seizures and exploitation has been recognized by at least a few of our American military strategists for years. This writer recalls that a dozen years ago an Army lieutenant colonel, who was a student at the War College, confined that some of his instructors believed the Zionist expansionist policy would provide the spark to ignite World War III.
(Incidentally, the then lieutenant colonel is now one of the top commanding generals in Vietnam.)
By guile, treachery and bloodletting, the Zionists plot to annex all of Jordan, virtually all of Syria, half of Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia and all of the rich cotton lands of the Nile Valley. It would be a simpler matter then to grab Yemen, Aden, Muscat, Qatar and Oman with their rich oil development. Israel is already well advanced in the development of its first nuclear warhead.
According to the Zionists’ schedule of operations, within a decade the Israeli empire be the master of the Middle East and take its place as a nuclear superpower on equal footing with the Soviet Union and the United States. David Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company will pay its royalties to the Israeli military usurpers instead of the Arab sheiks.
Fabulous Oil Reserves
The stakes are high in this traditionally British-protected region. The Persian Gulf and adjacent countries hold 70 percent of the non-communist world’s oil reserves and produce half of its oil output. British with-drawl from Aden creates a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled by Israel and the Soviet Union.
The British have expressed the pious hope that their withdrawal would galvanize the Arab rulers into dropping their feuds and really unite in a mutual defense pact. However, the spreading oil boom is intensifying the territorial ambitions of rival kingdoms, sultanates and sheikdoms. Iran is selling oil to Israel, another aggravating factor in Mideast tensions.
Like the tentacles of an octopus the Israeli armed forces struck out in all directions into Jordan, Syria and Egypt in Israel’s Six-Day aggression. Last June. Even when encountering no resistance, the Israeli armored forces abruptly halted at predetermined strategic terrain points; they had accomplished their mission in the first phase of the Zionist Grand Design of imperialistic conquest. It was time to stop and consolidate their gains rather than risk spreading their forces too thin.
Israeli leader Menachem Begin says:

« The return of even one bit of earth to the Arab would be a betrayal of the nation. »


The grandiose idea of an Israeli empire controlling the Middle East is now for the first time arousing great popular enthusiasm among Jews everywhere in the world.
Officially Israel is continuing the pretense of keeping the door open to negotiations that might result in return of the conquered territory, in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel and peace treaty.
Jordan’s King Hussein has reportedly already made a secret and desperate offer to Israel: In exchange for the return of the West Bank of the Jordan River, Hussein agreed to demilitarize it, negotiate border adjustments and even waive his insistence upon regaining the Old City of Jerusalem. Israel rejected the offer. Israeli Minister of Labor Yigal Allon bluntly stated:

« The natural border of the country is the Jordan River – a border that would be established only if Israel kept the West Bank areas it took from Jordan. »


Gen. Aluf Ezer Weizmann, second highest-ranking officer in the Israeli army, is even more adamant: « We shall stay where we are and bring in Jews. We now have the unusual opportunity to consolidate the state for the Jewish people and help prevent future wars. »
« If there is a fourth war, » Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gloats, « we are in a position to win more decisively than ever. »
And he warned that in the « fourth war » the great cities of Cairo, Damascus and Amman will be annihilated. This is in conformity with the genocidal plan.


Israel's Grand Design - Zionists' Dream of Greater Israel
Zionist have their eyes set on all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. The plan for a « Greater Israel » is as old as Zionism itself.











Israelis bitterly complain that along with the occupied territory that is three times the size of Israel, they have inherited its population of 1,330,000 Arabs. (…)

Netanyahu: No ‘Lebanon’ will be on the map
At a news conference in Switzerland, on the occasion of the building an Israeli railway there, the German newspaper Die Zeit interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“Congratulations Mr. Netanyahu, my first question is that does the beginning of the large train line’s construction confirm the announcement of the dissident Syrian Intelligence Office that you will strike Lebanon?”
In reply, Netanyahu stated:
“Yes, and it is not a secret that it will happen with U.S.-Gulf support and that is why they have been warned, but before you ask, you have a look at the new map of the world and see that there is no nation with this name.”
Given that the UN Security Council has listed 388 Israeli airspace violations by Israel against Lebanon, there is no doubt what Israel is planning regarding Lebanon.


Dear Mr. President: Letters from Israel partisans that took America to war

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
March 14, 2012

According to its June 3, 1997 Statement of Principles, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was created to advance a “Reaganite foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity,” a policy PNAC co-founders, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had advocated the previous year in Foreign Affairs to counter what they construed as the American public’s short-sighted indifference to foreign “commitments.” Calling for a significant increase in “defense spending,” PNAC exhorted the United States “to meet threats before they become dire.”
The Wolfowitz Doctrine
The idea of preemptive war also known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine—subsequently dubbed the “Bush Doctrine” by PNAC signatory Charles Krauthammer—can be traced as far back as Paul Wolfowitz’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East,” which was based on “a raft of top-secret documents” his influential mentor, Cold War nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, somehow “got his hands on” during a post-Six Day War trip to Israel. The “top-secret” Israeli documents supposedly showed that Egypt was planning to divert a Johnson administration proposal for regional civilian nuclear energy into a weapons program. Among those who signed PNAC’s Statement of Principles were Wohlstetter protégés Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Wolfowitz, who despite having been investigated for passing a classified document to an Israeli government official through an AIPAC intermediary in 1978 would be appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, where he would be the first to suggest attacking Iraq four days after 9/11; Wolfowitz protégé I. Lewis Libby, who later “hand-picked” Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff mainly from pro-Israel think tanks; Elliott Abrams, who would go on to serve as Bush’s senior director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs, his mother-in-law, Midge Decter, and her husband, Norman Podhoretz; and Eliot A. Cohen, who would later smear Walt and Mearsheimer’s research on the Israel lobby’s role in skewing U.S. foreign policy as “anti-Semitic.”
On January 26, 1998, PNAC wrote the first of its many open letters to U.S. presidents and Congressional leaders, in which they enjoined President Clinton that “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power […] now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” Failure to eliminate “the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use” its non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the letter cautioned, would put at risk “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” An additional signatory this time was another Wohlstetter protégé, Richard Perle, a widely suspected Israeli agent of influence whose hawkish foreign policy views were shaped when Hollywood High School classmate and girlfriend, Joan Wohlstetter, invited him for a swim in her family’s swimming pool and her father handed Perle his 1958 RAND paper, “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” thought to be an inspiration for Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.
Having helped sow the seeds of the Iraq War five years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, PNAC wrote a second letter to Clinton later that year. Joining with the International Crisis Group, and the short-lived Balkan Action Council and Coalition for International Justice, they took out an advertisement in the New York Times headlined “Mr. President, Milosevic is the Problem.” Expressing “deep concern for the plight of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo,” the letter declared that “[t]here can be no peace and stability in the Balkans so long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in power.” It urged the United States to lead an international effort which should demand a unilateral ceasefire by Serbian forces, put massive pressure on Milosevic to agree on “a new political status for Kosovo,” increase funding for Serbia’s “democratic opposition,” tighten economic sanctions in order to hasten regime change, cease diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise, and support the Hague tribunal’s investigation of Milosevic as a war criminal. Now that “the world’s newest state” (prior to Israel’s successful division of Sudan) is run by a “mafia-like” organization involved in trafficking weapons, drugs and human organs, there appears to be much less concern for the plight of the ethnic Serbian population of Kosovo.

Continue reading…


Making Sense of a Rightwing Israeli Institute’s Ambivalent View of Arab Democracy

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
June 19, 2012

In the Autumn 2006 issue of its journal, Azure, the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center published an essay by Israeli academic Uriya Shavit entitled “The Road to Democracy in the Arab World.” Sketching the outlines of a new “American” doctrine for democracy promotion in the Middle East, Shavit wrote:

By far the most crucial adjustment the new doctrine must make, however, is the unequivocal public acknowledgment of the possibility that free elections may bring to power forces antagonistic to the West. Without such an acknowledgment, the Arab world will never take the American democratization initiative at face value. Referring to the war in Iraq, many Arab intellectuals have expressed the concern that if the United States has to choose between a tyranny led by a pro-Western leader or an Islamic democracy, it will choose the former. This view is based, for example, on events in Algeria in the early 1990s: The Algerian government cancelled the parliamentary elections in which a victory by the militant Islamic Salvation Front was imminent, with tacit American approval.

Were most Arab countries to hold free elections, Islamist parties would consistently win the majority of votes. This is the expected outcome in both Egypt and Jordan, should free elections be held, and in Syria the Muslim Brotherhood would almost certainly become the largest party, even if it did not win an absolute majority. (emphasis added)

By Autumn 2011, with a number of Arab countries apparently on the road to the Islamist democracy he had predicted, Shavit appears to have changed his views somewhat. In another essay in Azure entitled “Islamotopia: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Idea of Democracy,” he argues that “liberty can’t withstand the political rule of the Koran.” Shavit’s advice for the West:

At the very least, however, it must make plain what it holds to be the essence of democracy, why the political ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood are incompatible with it, and, thus, why it cannot offer economic or diplomatic support to Arab states that follow the path of political Islam. (emphasis added)


Was this the outcome Natan Sharansky, then director of the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and current head of the Jewish Agency, hoped for when he organized a “Democracy and Security” conference in Prague? One year after the publication of Shavit’s doctrine for democracy promotion in the Middle East, Sharansky brought together

right wing Israelis; their American neoconservative sympathizers, with their favourite Middle Eastern dissidents in tow—most notably, Richard Perle’s Israel-admiring Syrian protégé Farid Ghadry; and the newly-installed Eastern European democrats swept to power in the wake of a wave of neocon-backed “color revolutions,” the latter group presumably serving to inspire the Arab and Iranian participants to emulate them.

Among the participants was Peter Ackerman, then chairman of Freedom House, who would go on to play a key role in preparing the ground for the Arab uprisings of 2011. As the New York Times reported on February 16 last year:

When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. [Gene] Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to “protest disrobing” to “disclosing identities of secret agents.”

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist who attended the workshop and later organized similar sessions on her own, said trainees were active in both the Tunisia and Egypt revolts. She said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp’s work into Arabic, and that his message of “attacking weaknesses of dictators” stuck with them.

Peter Ackerman, a onetime student of Mr. Sharp who founded the nonviolence center and ran the Cairo workshop, cites his former mentor as proof that “ideas have power.”

No doubt his fellow revolutionaries at the Shalem Center would agree.


Israel’s Sinai catastrophe Three decades after signing Egypt treaty, Israel finds itself without Sinai, and without peace
(Nous savons bien qu’ils veulent le reprendre ce Sinai, ça fait partie de leur Grand Israel).


TUT Pod-Broadcast June 20, 2967

Former Mossad chief ‘predicts’ that the Arab spring will not hit Jordan? HOW THE FREAK DOES HE KNOW, unless of course if the ‘Arab Spring’ is a manufactured phenomenon, which it is.

Also–Israel moving tanks into the Sinai in violation of the ’79 peace treaty–a prelude to a repeat of the Six Day War in 1967

Download Here


A Clean Break

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a clean break.
Here’s a nice little quote from a recent article based on the work of the most excellent Grant Smith of IRmep.
Red highlights are mine:
Material obtained under FOIA by IRmep reveals that during the same time period Jonathan Pollard was active; American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) officials obtained and used stolen classified US confidential business information passed by an Israeli diplomat. Although industry groups such as the US Bromine Alliance filed formal complaints and the FBI investigated, no action was ever taken. Israeli spy-master Rafael Eitan—mentioned in the DIA video— earlier infiltrated the NUMEC facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania at the invitation of its owner Zalman Shapiro. Although FBI investigators obtained eyewitness affidavits of the mass diversion of weapons-grade uranium from the site, presumably into the Israeli nuclear weapons program, a 1978 GAO report concluded no bona fide effort was ever made to properly prosecute Israel’s US based operatives. Victims of NUMEC toxic pollution are currently filing hundreds of millions in health claims as the US Army Corps of Engineers struggles to manage a toxic cleanup that could cost taxpayers up to half a billion dollars.
Israeli espionage against the United States is long-standing, wide-spread, deeply penetrated into both the public and private sector and inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States. This espionage activity is often discovered and then covered up.  That espionage includes Israel’s getting its hands on nuclear weapons materials to include, but not limited to, uranium – weapons-grade uranium.
Add to that the Lavon Affair and the attack on the USS Liberty and you have not only espionage and theft of nuclear technology but actual military and terrorist attacks.
If Mike Piper is right, you can add to that Israeli participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
And lately a very steady and fact-based researcher and writer has been expressing views on at least a couple of interviews he has done recently that Israeli might have had just a bit more than just some foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.  If this person is starting to go in that direction, well, I just find that quite interesting.
Now let’s also add to this witch’s brew the fact of the Israeli lobby’s virtual death grip on both houses of Congress and both parties and its deep infiltration of the executive branch at the very highest levels.
Fortunately, the major media outlets, Hollywood and the US financial sector are controlled by Salafists. Imagine if the same elements who have done and continue to do all of the things mentioned above – imagine if they exercised overwhelming control of our media, entertainment and financial industries. We’d really be fucked the, wouldn’t we?
Now as many of you are aware, IRmep has just obtained a Defense Intelligence Agency video about the threat Jonathan Pollard represented to the interests of the United States. That video is on youtube and on the IRmep site and you ought to give it a listen.  However, it is 15 minutes long, so I don’t expect most of you to watch it.
But here is that video for you if you want to take the time.
Here is another quote from a recent Smith article that in my view shows you exactly how pernicious Israeli infiltration into the Obama administration is.  Red highlighting is mine.
Less widely known is that Israeli front company Telogy was caught in the summer of 2010 illegally shipping nuclear weapons components out of California to Israel.  When such crimes occurred in the past — such as in the case of MILCO smuggling nuclear triggers out of California to Israel — the US at least criminally investigated Israel’s US operatives even while carefully steering around the true masterminds such as Arnon Milchan and high Israeli intelligence officials.  In the case of Telogy, the Obama administration simply leaked tidbits of the export violations to friendly press, helpfully allowing Telogy to quickly roll up its illegal US operations. 
I find it more than a little interesting that the article that the above quote is taken from is entitled “Why Obama Will Free Jonathan Pollard.”
It’s all about Pollard.
Last November I linked to the Amazon page of this book.
Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice
Here, Keith Johnson, working for AFP, interviews the author of that book, Ronald J. Olive, who describes Pollard as having stolen more secrets than any spy in US history. It’s a good short read and ends with a powerful quote by Mr. Oliver who was a key player in the investigation into Pollard’s crimes. Speaking about the many Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate who support Pollard, he says:
“They don’t know what the true story is,” said Olive. “I wrote my book to tell the story from the inside. It tells them everything they need to know. It’s the true story—not just what Jonathan Pollard is saying now. It’s who he really is, what he really did and the devastation that he caused.”
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a clean break.


The Madness of Western Civilization
In the immediate hours and days after the September 11 attacks, propagandist chiefs Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, all appeared on television to put out their twisted narrative that Islamic extremists were responsible for the tragedy, without providing any evidence for their assertions.

JINSA Proposes Iraq War on 9/13/2001
JINSA DEFECTIONS: After canning a longtime staffer, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs lost several of its most prominent advisory board members, including former CIA chief James Woolsey and former Pentagon official Richard Perle.

The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America’s Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper

À lire:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

« De la dictature à la démocratie

L’American Jewish Committee derrière les mensonges humanitaires qui ont rendu possible la guerre en Libye

L’American Jewish Committee derrière l’ « intervention humanitaire » en Libye

L’actuel président du National Endowment for Democracy, le marionnettiste du « printemps arabe », serait un ancien de l’ADL

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

>Après la Libye, la Syrie?

Révolutions arabes? ou balkanisation-remodelage du « Grand Moyen-Orient »?

McCain et Lieberman: « bombardez la Libye! »

Louis Farrakhan: la nation libyenne massacrée par les démocraties, les plus grands hypocrites que la Terre ait porté…

Le messager BHL informe Netanyahou que les rebelles libyens vont reconnaître Israël ; Netanyahou remercie Sarkozy d’être intervenu en Lybie

Pourim 2011 et l’attaque atlanto-sioniste contre la Libye

L’inventeur du concept d’ « Axe du Mal » veut y inclure le Pakistan

« Révolutions arabes »ou déstabilisations-remodelage (sionistes) du Moyen-Orient?

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur et la guerre en Irak

Les fauteurs de guerres

James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d’espionnage à l’AIPAC

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

Non-ingérence / non-interventionnisme

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d’avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Rick Santorum, le nouveau candidat sioniste le plus en vue aux États-Unis, représente un grave danger pour la liberté d’expression

The Piper Report Jan 4, 2012

Rick Santorum as–SURPRISE SURPRISE–a paid and willing agent of Jewish interests out to destroy American freedoms.
Download Here

Santorum: ‘There Is No Palestine’

Submitted by Douglas Bloomfield on Mon, 01/02/2012 – 07:29
GOP Presidential contender Rick Santorum, who appears likely to come from far behind to finish in the top 3 in Tuesday’s Iowa Caucuses, is trying to out-do his former Congressional colleague Newt Gingrich when it comes to insulting Palestinians.
Gingrich called the Palestinians an « invented » people who didn’t exist until sometime in the 20th century. Santorum criticized Gingrich’s widely-reported remarks as “provocative,” but his own more extreme views got little attention at the time because he was considered a hopeless back-of-the-pack candidate and not being taken very seriously.
But now that he is rising rapidly in the polls, his comments deserve a second look.
As far as Santorum is concerned, Palestinians don’t exist.
“There are no Palestinians,” he told a questioner at a campaign event in Iowa. You can see the video here.
« All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land, » the former Pennsylvania senator said.
« The West Bank is part of Israel, » which won it as « part of an aggressive attack by Jordan and others » in 1967. Israel doesn’t have to give it back any more than the United States has to give New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, which were gotten « through a war, » he said.

Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’

Rick Santorum’s Islamophobia Problem

Santorum: ‘There Is No Palestine’

VIDEO – Rick Santorum Owned on Palestine

Bachmann ends her campaign, Perry stays in

Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry had been courting support from evangelical Christians. Bachmann’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race could help boost Santorum, who finished second in Iowa, just eight votes away from front-runner Mitt Romney.

Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims

Professional Islamophobes such as Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Walid Phares and the rest have the ear of American and Western politicians. The story below concerning the lunatic Santorum is perfect proof of this. ‘Eurabia’ is a DISTINCTLY ISRAELI idea introduced and promoted by a professional Israeli Islamophobe Bat Ye’or who works closely with Israeli intelligence in providing additional fuel for this bonfire that benefits ONLY ONE entity–THE JEWISH STATE.

It is for this reason that we at TUT urge all people of reason and fairness to make a special point of exposing these agents of destruction for what they are–enemies not only of Muslims but of the entire planet.


For the past two weeks, the entire mainstream American media homed in on newsletters published by Republican Rep. Ron Paul, an anti-imperialist, conservative libertarian who finished third in last night’s Iowa caucuses. Mostly ghostwritten by libertarian activist Llewelyn “Lew” Rockwell and a committee of far-right cranks, the newsletters contained indisputably racist diatribes, including ominous warnings about the “coming race war.” At no point did Paul denounce the authors of the extreme manifestoes nor did he take responsibility for the content.

The disturbing content of Paul’s newsletters was a worthy campaign outrage, and one he should have been called to account for, but why did it gain mainstream traction when the reactionary views of the other candidates stayed under the radar? One reason is that Paul threatened the Republican establishment by attacking America’s neo-imperial foreign policy and demanding an end to the US-Israel special relationship.

Those who pushed the newsletters story the hardest were neoconservatives terrified by the prospect of Paul edging into the mainstream with his call for a total cut-off of US aid to Israel. In fact, the history of the newsletters was introduced to the American public back in early 2008 by Jamie Kirchick, a card-carrying neocon who has said that Muslims “act like savages” and once wrote that I possessed “a visceral hatred of my Jewish heritage.” Having declared former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their favorite wooden marionette, the neocons had a clear ideological interest in resuscitating the newsletters story once Paul emerged this year as a presidential frontrunner.

Though Romney won Iowa, he succeeded by a mere 8 votes over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. The mainstream press is now fixated on Santorum, praising him for his “authenticity” and predicting he will continue to win over “gritty Catholics,” as MSNBC host Chris Matthews said today. But now that Santorum is in the limelight, he is also going to be thoroughly vetted. So the question is whether the media will devote anywhere near the same level of attention it gave to Ron Paul’s newsletters as it will to Santorum’s record of hysterically Islamophobic statements and anti-Muslim activism. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that it will.

In 2007, a few months after Santorum was ousted from the Senate in a landslide defeat, he accepted an invitation from right-wing provocateur David Horowitz to speak at “Islamo-Fascism Campus Awareness Week.” As I documented in my video report on Horowitz’s appearance at Columbia University that year, “Islamo-Fascism” week was a naked ploy to generate publicity for the frenetically self-promoting Horowitz while demonizing Muslim-Americans as a dangerous fifth column who required constant government monitoring and possibly worse. The event was so extreme that even Jewish groups like Hillel known for promoting Zionism on campus rejected it.

There is no video documentation or transcript of Santorum’s speech at Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event. However, I was able to find a transcript of a speech Santorum delivered at Horowitz’s invitation in March 2007. During his address, the ex-Senator declared the need to “define the enemy,” but he made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two.

Here are a few of the remarkable statements Santorum made at Horowitz’s event:

“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”

“Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium — Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future…Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight.”

We should “talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them.”

“…the Shia brand of Islamist extremists [is] even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world.”

“The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war.”

The Islamophobic rant Santorum delivered at an event organized by a known bigot was no less extreme than anything contained in Ron Paul’s newsletters. But don’t wait for the American mainstream press to discuss Santorum’s disturbing views on Muslims as anything other than proof of his “authenticity.”

Résultats du Caucus de l’Iowa, pour les Nuls

1. Va-t-en-guerre Pro-Israël
2. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
3. Ron Paul
4. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
5. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
6. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
7. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël


Mercredi 4 janvier 2012

L’Iowa a donné le coup d’envoi de la primaire républicaine hier soir, 3 janvier 2012. Un processus qui s’étalera jusqu’à la Convention républicaine qui aura lieu à Tampa, en Floride du 27 au 30 août et pendant laquelle sera désigné le candidat qui affrontera Barack Obama à l’élection présidentielle.

Avec 15 % des intentions de vote dans l’Iowa, le catholique Rick Santorum, fils d’un immigré italien, est apparu brusquement samedi 31 décembre comme la nouvelle surprise de la primaire républicaine pour l’élection présidentielle américaine de 2012.

Dans de récents sondages Rick Santorum s’approchait du mormon Mitt Romney et devançait les autres candidats cherchant à rassembler l’électorat chrétien fondamentaliste protestant, Michele Bachmann, évangélique luthérienne, et Rick Perry, gouverneur du Texas, anciens favoris des sondages, dont les campagnes se sont effondrées ces derniers mois. Les chrétiens conservateurs des multiples églises protestantes américaines (luthérienne, méthodiste, baptiste et mennonite), ainsi que les catholiques, comme M. Santorum, représentaient une des clés du scrutin dans l’Iowa. En rassemblant cet électorat sous son nom, M. Santorum espèrait s’imposer comme un concurrent viable à l’échelle nationale.
Pari réussi puisque Rick Santorum qui selon un sondage publié samedi 31 décembre par le Des Moines Register, se plaçait en troisième position derrière M. Romney (24 %) et Ron Paul (22 %), enregistrant « la plus forte hausse d’intentions de vote », est arrivé en deuxième position aux primaires républicaines d’hier soir à seulement huit voix de Mitt Romney.
La victoire du favori Mitt Romney , pro-IVG (depuis 2005), lui confère une position confortable pour le prochain scrutin, le 10 janvier dans le New Hampshire. Le vainqueur et son dauphin ont chacun réuni 25 % des suffrages. Ron Paul, libertarien isolationniste violemment opposé à toute emprise de l’État fédéral sur la société et l’économie, qui remonte aux origines de la Constitution américaine, termine à la troisième place, avec 21 % des voix. Newt Gingrich, ancien président de la chambre des représentants, a attiré 13 % des bulletins, devant le Texan Rick Perry (10 %) et Michele Bachmann (5 %).
Le 7 février 2088, devant la Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney avait déclaré craindre un destin européen pour l’Amérique : « L’Europe affronte un désastre démographique qui est le produit d’une foi affaiblie dans le Créateur, de familles en faillite, d’une absence de respect pour la sainteté de la vie et d’une morale érodée (…). Si nous ne changeons pas de politique, nous deviendrons la France du XXIe siècle. Encore un grand pays, mais pas le leader mondial, la superpuissance » (« Mitt Romney laisse la voie libre à John McCain chez les républicains », Le Monde, 8 février 2008.)

Sans moyens, longtemps resté cantonné dans la queue de «la classe» des candidats en lice, Santorum a gagné sa place dans ce doublé de tête en sillonnant l’Iowa à l’ancienne, se rendant patiemment et systématiquement dans ses 99 comtés pour y défendre sa vision d’une Amérique renouant avec ses valeurs traditionnelles chrétiennes.
L’effondrement progressif des autres candidats chrétiens conservateurs a fini par jeter sous les feux de la rampe ce père de sept enfants, passionné, plutôt bon orateur, qui parle «de reconstruire l’Amérique du bas vers le haut». Santorum affiche des positions très va-t-en-guerre sur l’Iran, pour éliminer son potentiel nucléaire. Il nie le réchauffement climatique et défend la pratique du waterboarding, la torture de la baignoire, utilisée par la CIA à Guantanamo.
Si Rick Santorum est connu pour être un fervent opposant à l’avortement (même en cas de viol), à la contraception et au « mariage » homosexuel, il s’est récemment distingué en déclarant être prêt à frapper les installations nucléaires iraniennes s’il était élu président. Sa haine de l’Iran s’inscrit dans une ligne sioniste pro-israélienne parfaitement néo-mondialiste compatible.
Un blog en langue anglaise nous donne un indice, et indique qu’il y a six ans, malgré que Rick Santorum soit contre l’avortement, il a soutenu un sénateur juif, franc-maçon 33e degré, pro-avortement, Arlen Specter, contre Pat Toomey, candidat anti-avortement (!) : ce soutien est « inexplicable ». Specter est connu pour son hostilité à toute tentative de revenir sur la décision judiciaire Roe vs. Wade ayant abouti à la légalisation de l’avortement. Pat Toomey aurait participé à des évènements dans des localités maçonniques.

53 ans, ancien jeune loup du camp républicain, trois fois élu à la Chambre des représentants puis au Sénat, Rick Santorum a disparu de la scène nationale depuis la perte de son mandat de sénateur de Pennsylvanie, en 2006. Il a survécu politiquement comme éditorialiste sur la chaîne ultra-conservatrice Fox News.

Les Américains redécouvrent aujourd’hui ce père de famille, au look rétro dans ses inamovibles pulls sans manche. Ils s’amusent de le voir représenté sur Google (en deuxième et troisième résultat de recherche pour le mot-clé « Santorum ») par une blague de mauvais goût, par laquelle des activistes avaient cherché à le ridiculiser en 2003, après qu’il eût comparé l’homosexualité à la polygamie et à l’inceste.

Si la rapidité du retour en gloire de M. Santorum fait ainsi apparaître quelques vieilles casseroles, elle l’a également protégé, en Iowa, des attaques de ses adversaires. Rick Santorum a été épargné par le flot de spots publicitaires hostiles, financés par les supporteurs « indépendants » des candidats, qui déferle actuellement sur les chaînes locales de l’Iowa, et dont son rival Newt Gingrich a fait les frais.

«Les conservateurs sont à la recherche d’un candidat anti-Romney, ils ne veulent pas répéter l’expérience de 2008 quand ils avaient dû se ranger derrière le modéré John McCain. Ils sont persuadés que c’est ce qui les a fait perdre face à Obama, explique le politologue Dennis Goldford. Avec Santorum, ils ont peut-être trouvé leur homme.»

L’une des questions est de savoir si les autres prétendants conservateurs, comme Newt Gingrich (13%), Rick Perry (10%) ou Michelle Bachmann (5%), accepteront de jeter l’éponge pour se rallier rapidement à Santorum.

La quasi-égalité de Santorum avec Romney est-elle un simple feu de paille, comme cela avait été le cas pour l’ancien gouverneur social conservateur de l’Arkansas Mike Huckabee, sorti vainqueur dans l’Iowa en 2008, mais très vite marginalisé par la suite? C’est ce que va plaider le candidat Mitt Romney pour en tirer un maximum de profit pour les primaires à venir, et notamment celle toute proche du New Hampshire, le 9 janvier.

- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-nouvelle-surprise-des-primaires-republicaines_1624715_829254.html#ens_id=1550858
- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/live/2012/01/04/elections-americaines-le-caucus-de-l-iowa_1625332_829254.html
- http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/01/04/01003-20120104ARTFIG00253-rick-santorum-cree-la-surprise-au-caucus-de-l-iowa.php
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

The Real Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum for president buttons

While senator, he had plan to end free speech on college campuses

By Michael Collins Piper

In 2003, then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) cut a back-room deal with high-powered lobbyists to introduce legislation to limit freedom of speech on American college campuses.

Proposing to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include what was called “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite, Santorum’s intent was to cut federal funding for American universities that allowed professors, students and student organizations to criticize Israel in class or in other open campus forums.

A major recipient of campaign money from pro-Israel sources, Santorum said criticizing Israel was “anti-Semitism.”

Initial details surrounding the senator’s Orwellian proposal came in an article of April 15, 2003 in a fanatically pro-Israel conservative daily, The New York Sun.

The website of the pro-Israel student group, Hillel, also favorably reported the origins of Santorum’s plan.

Hillel said Santorum invited Jewish organizations to a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about criticism of Israel on college campuses. Joining Hillel were the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee.

The Sun summarized Santorum’s conclave with the influential lobby groups: “By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent—or . . . where ‘ideological diversity’ is lacking.”

Hillel’s Wayne Firestone said: “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.” However, the truth is that—outside the Jewish community—few knew of Santorum’s initiative, until AMERICAN FREE PRESS reported the story, which concerned academics circulated widely on the Internet.

Forced into a defensive mode, the Jewish lobby claimed AFP’s story was a lie—a “rumor . . . sweeping Arab and left-wing media,” as New York’s Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003.

In a story titled “Diversity Disinformation,” Jewish Week asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst,” adding falsely that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” This was a lie to save Santorum from public opprobrium for his scheme to gut the First Amendment.

Today Santorum seems to be getting his reward. Pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch, head of the influential Fox News empire, has endorsed Santorum’s presidential ambitions.

Santorum Linked to Unsavory Warmongers

By Michael Collins Piper

The behind-the-scenes connections of the new conservative icon in the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign—former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.)—explain why Santorum is such a fanatical warmonger and promoter of the interests of Israel. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson summarized it well, writing on Jan. 7: With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates have competed to see who can be most hawkish on Iran’s nuclear program. Santorum wins, hands down. He has said flatly that, unless Iran agrees to open its nuclear facilities to inspection and begins to dismantle them, as president he would order military strikes. In fact, Iran is already under nuclear inspection, but Santorum seems not to care. He has said he believes an attack by Israel or the United States is probably inevitable.
Santorum—who gave a speech inWashington in 2007, in which he openly spoke of the need to “eradicate”Muslims in a “long war”—has also claimed there is no such people as “Palestinians,” echoing an outrageous lie more prominently told by his GOP challenger Newt Gingrich.
Not surprisingly, over the past several years, Santorum’s principal political activity has been acting as the official in-house “Muslim basher” and advocate for Israel at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, further pandering to those elements that provided hima great deal of funding through pro-Israeli political action committees during the 12 years he served in the Senate.
Although both Mitt Romney and Gingrich have surrounded themselves with—and have been funded by—hard-line supporters of Israel, Santorum has some very unsavory connections in that same realm.
One of Santorum’s longtime political intimates is Barbara Ledeen, who is associated with a propaganda organization known as the Israel Project. And it is no coincidence that Mrs. Ledeen’s husband, Michael Ledeen, is one of themost notorious longtime operatives engaged in high-level intrigues in Washington and around the globe on behalf of that foreign nation.
Remembered for his role in the infamous Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan years—an arms-smuggling venture inwhich Israel played a central role—Ledeen popped up once again during the George W. Bush administration where he was, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, one of the key figures promoting the propaganda myth that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had obtained nuclear material (known as “yellowcake”) from Niger.
Ledeen has also been linked to the shadowy Rome-based Propaganda Due organization, a high-powered Masonic lodge long active in subversive activities throughout Italy and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s.
Most indicative of Ledeen’s tendencies is his role as one of the founders of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, aWashington-based operation whose associates have been repeatedly linked—in the course of multiple FBI investigations—to corruption and espionage on behalf of Israel. Such figures include neo-con lobbyist for Israeli arms dealers, Richard Perle, and his protégé, the late Stephen J. Bryen, and former Defense Department officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
During that period when there was a fierce debate within the Israeli lobby as to whether the United States should first target Iraq or Iran, Ledeen was a leader of the “Iran first” faction. And while today Ledeen ostensibly warns of the dangers of engaging Iran militarily, he does say that it ultimately may become necessary.
Like Santorum’s urging that the United States “eradicate” the Muslims, Ledeen has called for “creative destruction” of the Arab world. Such violence, he claims, is “entirely in keeping with . . . American tradition.”
AFP first pointed out in 2003—and reiterated in its Jan. 16 issue—that Santorumis such a hard-core devotee of the Israeli lobby agenda that he actually conspiredwith the lobby to introduce legislation to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses by cutting federal funds to universities found to be permitting professors and students to openly criticize Israel. AFP’s expose of Santorum was pivotal in killing that plan—for now.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

The Plot Against
Free Speech

By Michael Collins Piper

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is an appealing candidate to many conservatives, but he has does have a dark side. Although he fervently declared in 2006 that “the American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom,” just a few years earlier Santorum planned a war against a traditional American liberty — freedom of speech.
In 2003, Santorum planned to introduce “ideological diversity” legislation that would cut federal funding for American universities found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel. Santorum considered criticism of Israel to be “anti-Semitism.”
Santorum wanted to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite for federal funding. Joining Santorum was another pro-Israel ideologue, then-Sen. Sam Brownback (RKan.), who had his own scheme to institute a federal commission — critics called it a “tribunal” — to be established under Title IX to “investigate” anti-Semitism on American campuses.
Although the average student or academic had not heard of the scheme, Wayne Firestone, director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, said that “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.”
It was Hillel — a national network of pro-Israel student- manned “campus police” — that first leaked word of Santorum’s scheme. Further details appeared onApril 15, 2003 in The New York Sun, a pro-Israel daily published by a clique of billionaire financiers.
Hillel told supporters that Santorum and several GOP senators — including Brownback (now governor of Kansas) — had invited representatives of a number of Jewish organizations to attend a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about growing criticism of Israel on campuses.
At the meeting were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee and Hillel.
In the meantime, word of the Santorum initiative was spreading as a result of an exposé by AMERICAN FREE PRESS (AFP). Widely circulated on the Internet, the AFP report arrived in the emails of educators across the United States and around the globe. As a consequence of growing concern about the scheme, the pro-Israel lobby began denying Santorum had proposed such legislation, claiming the AFP story was a lie.
Ultimately, the New York-based Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003 that the State Department had contacted senators to advise them that Palestinian newspapers were carrying the story about Santorum and asking if the story was true.
Jewish Week’s story — titled “Diversity Disinformation”— declared a “rumor of pending legislation barring campus criticism of Israel [was] sweeping Arab and left-wing media.” The article asserted that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” Obviously, this was a lie, since AFP’s report was based on a story in a pro-Israel newspaper.
Despite this, Jewish Week said the story “has become an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles,” and asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.”
The article in the pro-Israel Sun stated flatly, in discussing the Capitol Hill meeting where the scheme originated:

By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent — or more generally, where “ideological diversity” is lacking.

Yet, now that the story had been unveiled, Jewish Week contradicted the Sun and claimed that “No such legislation has been introduced or even contemplated.”
According to an un-named source, cited by Jewish Week, the Capitol Hill meeting featured “many presentations from different groups,” failing to mention that the “different” groups were all pro-Israel organizations.
The “new” version of events, as outlined by Jewish Week, never mentioned that Santorum’s colleague, Brownback, had urged formation of a federal commission to “investigate” so-called anti-Semitism on campus.
So, if the story was an “urban legend,” why did a pro- Israel newspaper publish the story in the first place?
As a candidate for president, Santorum should be forced to address the controversy surrounding this matter.

Congress Acts to Censor Academics Who Criticize Government Policy

Assault on free speech, thought ignored by mainstream

By Michael Collins Piper

The current House legislation is a disguised reincarnation of an even earlier pernicious proposal by two White-House-hungry Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.), who were clearly pandering to the Israeli lobby (and pro-Israel campaign contributors) by promoting such measures.

After AFP learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called “ideological diversity” legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP’s reportage saying AFP’s revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was “a dangerous urban legend, deliberate disinformation at worst” concocted by “several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists,” which had become “an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles.”

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, (which later spawned the House measures) was first mentioned in the April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel “neo-conservative” daily. The Sun revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organization at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

In any event, the Santorum-Brownback proposal has — like the proverbial “bad penny” — popped up again, in new guise, and is now before Congress.

Thought Police Back in School

Dangerous College Censorship Bill Returns Under New Guise

By Michael Collins Piper


Note, too, that one of the cosponsors is Hoekstra, who was the sponsor of the similarly intended H.R 3077, a bill initially inspired by an even earlier proposal by two Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan).

After American Free Press learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called « ideological diversity » legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP’s reportage, saying AFP’s revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was « a dangerous urban legend; deliberate disinformation at worst, » concocted by « several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust Revisionists, » which had become « an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles. »

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, which later spawned H.R. 3077 and now H.R. 509, was first mentioned on April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel « neo-conservative » daily published in Manhattan. That report revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organizations at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Those who are concerned about freedom of speech on the campus would be wise to contact their representatives in Congress and urge that Tiberi’s H.R. 509 be put to rest once and for all.

The U.S. Congress switchboard can be reached at: (202) 224-3121. Operators will be able to connect callers to their own representatives.

Hagee Worships Israel in D.C.

ON JULY 21, REPORTERS AND EDITORS from AMERICAN FREE PRESS, while covering the annual Christians United for Israel’s 2010 summit put on by the multimillionaire preacher for profit Pastor John Hagee, couldn’t help but do some demonstrating in front of Washington’s convention center. The conference drew some of the most powerful pro-Israeli figures in the United States. This included rabidly pro-Israel legislators like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), as well as neo-conservative mouthpieces Frank Gaffney and Michael Medved. Billionaire publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, one of the wealthiest Jews in America, was also in attendance.

Confronting the Cult of
‘the Corpulent Con Man’

Veteran Christian nationalist Willis Carto scares
arch-Zionist preacher John Hagee half to death

By Michael Collins Piper

Others who lent their prestige to Hagee’s cult were: Jonathan P. Falwell, son of the late evangelist Jerry Falwell; and neo-conservative pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propagandists Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Clifford May, Robert Satloff and Dennis Prager. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)—defeated for reelection and angling for a comeback—and country singer Randy Travis also popped up.
Last, but far from least, joining the festivities were the Bilderberg group’s William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, and Kristol’s close friend and collaborator Gary Bauer, touted as a defender of “family values” in Republican circles.


We didn’t invite Ron Paul because, well, it’ll be obvious pretty soon.
Anyway, here’s how the interview, led by yours truly, went down:
(Note to Shas Party members, this is satire. Red highlights are not only mine, but they are the only actual quotes.)
MT: Mr. Santorum, let’s begin with you. Lots of older voters voted for you in Iowa yet you favor cuts in social security by raising the retirement age to something like 105 and for turning part of the system over to a bunch of crooks in the private sector. Once people in their late 50′s and early 60′s figure this out, do you think you have a Herman Cain’s chance in a NOW convention of getting elected?
Santorum – Right now the single most important thing this country can do is put aside more money for Israel. My program will allow us to give Israel three or four times as much each year for the development of its military and to consolidate the emerging Israeli cities in Judea and Samaria. As you know All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”
MT: Mr. Gingrich, perhaps you could answer the question about social security. What is the future of this fund that so many Americans have paid so much into?
Gingrich: Rick Santorum is a traitor to the state of Israel. My program will allow us to directly transfer social security taxes to holocaust survivors in Israel while allowing us to give Israel 5 to 6 times the current aid Israel officially gets from the United States. “The Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story,” “These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools.” I say fuck’em.
MT: Ah, Mr. Cain, we weren’t expecting you to show up for this. Since you are here, perhaps you could address the question of the future of social security.
Cain: Social security, that’s uh, that’s uh, well it has social in it so that must mean its socialistic or something. I’ll get back to you once my biographers tell me what to say. “I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak.” I say let’s just clean out the whole area and if a bunch of these so-called Palestinians die, well that’s just tough shit. Oh, and my program to wipe out social security completely now and forever will allow us to give Israel each year 10 times what it is getting now. By the way, I really like Jewish pussy.
MT: Ms. Bachmann, perhaps you could bring some sanity to this discussion, but I digress. Anyway, please let our aging population know how a Bachmann administration would swallow, handle, the social security issue.
Bachmann: My plan is to simultaneously move the US embassy to Jerusalem and transfer the entire social security trust fund to the Jewish Agency my first day in office. If a bunch of old-fart anti-semites don’t like it, well we’ll just have the military arrest them as terrorists and toss their asses into Gitmo for ever. Hahahahahaha. God, I’m funny. I am the only candidate here who really is an Israeli. I’ve worked on a kibbutz. When I was there We worked on the kibbutz from 4 am to noon. We were always accompanied by soldiers with machine guns. While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines. I really learned a lot in Israel.” “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.” See, my heritage is Jewish, which means I am Jewish pussy. Keep your hands off of me Herman, you schvartse. Jesus fucking Christ, the last thing we need is another dumb schvartse in the White House. See, I really am Jewish. Anyway, under my plan, the US could give Israel 20 to 30 times what it is giving now. Oh, did I mention that I am the only candidate who made an entire video dedicated to Israel, you can go here to see it on youtube.
MT: Mr. Gingrich, uh, what is it you are listening to right now on your Ipod? I need you to talk about social security and other issues of critical importance to the average American.
Gingrich: I’m listening to this incredible broadcast about me damn near getting arrested by the FBI back in the 90′s for a huge bribe scheme involving a bunch of Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews. It’s by Mike Piper, never heard of the guy, but man he has basically proven my devotion to the state of Israel – unlike all these anti-semitic candidates you’ve gathered here. Look, social security has the half-life of one of my marriages. Forget it you bunch of pathetic losers. No one gives a rat’s ass about your stupid little social security checks. What you all need to do is support my program to wipe out the Palestinians – not that they even exist – but I digress. Let me finish listening to this thing. You know, you should make his website your featured website on your next post.
MT: Mr. Romney, you are immensely wealthy to a degree that is obscene really. How do you feel about helping out little old ladies living on social security?
Romney: First of all Israel is our only ally in the Middle East and I need to correct the anti-semitic statements of my colleagues here. ” I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable.” And as soon as I get to Israel I will get on my knees on the tarmac and give Netanyahu a blow job. Furthermore, I will pay not just to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, but I’ll also move the goddamn US Congress there too, this will cut down on the need for all those congressional trips to Israel. And I’ve decided to give all of my wealth to the Jewish National Fund and I will probably have Camp David moved into Kiryat Arba. In my first Defense Authorization Act, I will see to it that Israel gets 40 times as much money from the US as it does now and I’ll have anyone who objects to this treated as a terrorist, arrested by the military and sent to Gitmo forever. Now what was your question?
MT: Mr. Perry, any comments on the future of social security? Can any of you mother fuckers even spell social security?
Perry: First of all, I have already given Netanyahu a blow job. Second I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal, from my perspective, and I support them.” In fact, I think they should build even more settlement’s, after all “it’s their land.” When I become president Strategic defensive aid, strategic aid in all forms, will increase to Israel,” because Israel will be “the cornerstone of my larger global strategy.” I mean, who gives a fuck about the United States being a cornerstone of US policy? You’d have to be fucking nuts. Israel yesterday, today and forever. Jesus loves you and he wants you to kill the Palestinians, the Iranians, in fact, pretty much everybody. Praise Jesus. Oh, and I’ll see to it that Israel gets 666 times the money it presently gets from the American taxpayers.
MT: Mr. Santorum, back in the 1960′s manufacturing accounted for 25% of the GDP in these United States. Today, manufacturing is about 10% of US GDP. What can you do to re-invigorate this once vital sector of the US economy which provided good jobs for average Americans?
Santorum: Well, look at it like this. Iran is Israel’s enemy, therefore Iran is our number one enemy and we need to put an end to Iranian hegemony in, well, in Iran to start with. You know those Shi’ites have nukes up to their assholes, so I say we start a great big fucking war with Iran. This will put Americans back to work and will probably also kill quite a few of these useless eaters off. I have a long history of advocating wars for Israel – you can see this 2006 interview where I basically just made up everything I said out of thin air and you can see me foaming at the mouth during this very recent interview where I note that Israel is setting the standard for what the US should be doing in Iran in terms of perpetrating acts of international terrorism. And, speaking of Mike Piper, Gingrich is full of shit when he says that Piper shows that Gingrich is the ideal bitch for Israel. Right here in this latest podcast of Piper’s he shows that I am da bitch when it comes to bending over forward and backward for Israel. And yeah, you need to feature his website.
MT: Okay, one last question and since all you people care about is Israel, I’ll ask about that. How many more people must die for the state of Israel? Let’s start with you Herman.
Cain: It’s not about dying, just like General Eisenhower said. Hmmmm, I think it was Eisenhower, you know, the guy who they made that movie about. Anyway, maybe it was General Marshal, or Custer, can’t remember. Oh Lee, that’s who it was. Anyway, it’s not about dying for our country Israel, it’s about killing for Israel. Let’s bring on that shit!
MT: Mr. Perry, you’ve been pretty silent. How many more people must die for Israel?
Perry: Not sure, but why even ask? Anyone who dies fighting for Israel goes straight to heaven so I say let’s send all of our poor people over to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and England to achieve martyrdom. Then we won’t have to pay them shit. No social security, no nothing. And if we give a few pieces of tin as medals to some of them, they’ll be willing to die some more. Fuck, and you people think I’m a stupid son of bitch! I am, of course, but you fuckers vote for me and people like me, you get what you deserve.

Racisme, guerre secrète, assassinat et torture au programme de la politique étrangère des candidats républicains

Réseau Voltaire

À l’approche de l’ouverture des primaires, les sept candidats en lice pour l’investiture républicaine se livrent à une surenchère néoconservatrice en matière de politique internationale. État des lieux.

Mitt Romney, numéro deux selon les sondages et considéré comme l’un des plus modérés des candidats, a appelé à « passer aux actions secrètes à l’intérieur de la Syrie pour obtenir un changement de régime ».

Rick Santorum, ancien sénateur de Pensylvanie, a estimé que la récente explosion d’un dépôt de missiles iranien était l’œuvre de Washington et averti qu’il poursuivrait dans cette voie s’il s’installe à la Maison-Blanche, avant de plaider pour des assassinats ciblés : « Tout savant étranger travaillant en Iran pour le programme nucléaire sera considéré comme un combattant ennemi et sera promis, (…) tout comme Oussama ben Laden, à l’ élimination. Des savants ont été retrouvés morts en Russie et en Iran. Il y a eu des virus informatiques. Il y a des problèmes dans ces installations. J’espère que les États-Unis sont impliqués », a-t-il dit.

L’égérie du Tea Party, Michele Bachman, a quant à elle jugé que la pratique de la simulation de noyade devait être reprise. Le président Obama avait mis fin à cette forme de torture à son arrivée au pouvoir début 2009.

Le gouverneur du Texas Rick Perry a déclaré devant la Republican Jewish Coalition que « toutes nos lois émanaient de la Torah » et a estimé que les États-Unis devraient aider Israël à attaquer l’Iran.

La palme de la rhétorique néoconservatrice revient sans conteste à l’actuel favori des sondages, Newt Gingrich. Ce dernier a confirmé ses positions après ses commentaires controversés sur les Palestiniens, qualifiant ce peuple « inventé » de « terroriste » lors d’un débat à Des Moines.

Il a promis de financer « tous les groupes dissidents en Iran » et de saboter la plus grande raffinerie du pays.

Il a aussi reproché au département d’État actuel de « procéder au désarmement moral de la tradition judéo-chrétienne » tout en promettant la nomination du néo-conservateur John Bolton à sa tête, à la place de Hilary Clinton.

L’ancien président de la Chambre des représentants déclare que s’il devenait président des États-Unis, il envisagerait d’être très proche, « de plusieurs façons », de Benyamin Nétanyahou, l’actuel Premier ministre israélien. « Bibi est un dur à cuire. Il place la sécurité d’Israël en premier », dit-il.

Enfin, M. Gingrich veut demander au Congrès de redonner leur « liberté » aux services de renseignement étasuniens, suggérant ainsi de revenir sur l’interdiction actuelle d’assassiner les dirigeants en exercice des États qui s’opposent à la politique impériale.

Au-delà de l’habituelle rhétorique sioniste et anti-iranienne qui vise à s’attirer les faveurs du puissant lobby pro-israélien, ce qui ressort de ces déclarations c’est que désormais les candidats à la Maison-Blanche assument ouvertement la dimension criminelle de la politique étrangère des États-unis d’Amérique.

À lire:

Un « troisième » parti soutenu par Rothschild en voie d’émergence aux États-Unis

Michele Bachmann est comme Sarah Palin: plus sioniste que les sionistes

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: « Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s’en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous »


« Dear Vlad, The #ArabSpring is coming to a neighborhood near you, » McCain tweeted.

(5 Dec 2011)



« Révolution blanche », drapeaux rouges et forces de l’ombre

« Les » Russes contre Poutine ? Une « révolution blanche » (ou orange) ? Un « printemps russe », à l’image du « printemps arabe », contre un « système verrouillé », voire « la dictature » poutinienne ? L’imminence redoutable du « retour de l’URSS » ?

AFP Was Right: U.S. Funding Arab Uprisings

VIDEO – Putin dubs McCain ‘nuts’, says US drones killed Gaddafi

TUT Podcast Dec 29, 2011

The “Arab Spring” coming to a resource-rich/nuclear-armed Russia–the US and Israel are playing with a type of fire that could eventually consume the entire world.
We are joined by the ever-brilliant Keith Johnson of http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com to discuss this and other items of equal importance.

Download Here

Regime Change Inc.’s ‘two-pronged strategy’ against Putin

Israel insiders ‘deeply embarrassed’ by Foreign Minister’s praise of Russian election Israeli officials squirmed in embarrassment on Friday over Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s ringing endorsement of Russia’s contested parliamentary elections as “free and democratic.”

McCain promoter of the Egypt « Arab Spring » and western subversive NGOs

Entre chaos afghan et « révolutions » : Une hirondelle arabe ne fera pas le printemps russe

Le Grand Sanhédrin du Show Biz emet une Fatwa contre Vladimir Poutine

How the Arab Spring pushed Russia into Israel’s lap


Voir aussi:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

« De la dictature à la démocratie »

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Larry SILVERSTEIN et David YERUSHALMI (gourou de l’anti-Islam aux USA), anciens patrons de l’épouse du candidat présidentiel Newt Gingrich

Le couple Newt et Marianne Gingrich, prostitués pour Israël… et sous investigation par le FBI dans les années 90!

… lu dans le Washington Post!

Tout comme Rothschild et Bronfman sont les parrains du sénateur et candidat présidentiel John McCain (2008), Sheldon Adelson, « le juif le plus riche du monde » qui vient de donner 25 millions$ au Mémorial de l’Holocauste de Yad Vashem, est le parrain du candidat présidentiel et président de la Chambre des représentants Newt Gingrich. Adelson et Bronfman contribuent à financer Birthright Israel, une organisation sioniste internationale qui fait la promotion de l’immigration juive en Israël. Adelson et Bronfman ont accumulé leur fortune grâce à leurs activités dans le crime organisé. Les sionistes Gingrich et Adelson sont deux puissants alliés du PM israélien Netanyahou. Gingrich a déclaré récemment que l’Iran cachait des armes de destruction massives sous des mosquées! Il manque à ce point de subtilité que cela inquiète certains propagandistes juifs.

Marianne Gingrich a travaillé pour IEDC, qui est sous le contrôle de Larry Silverstein — un milliardaire juif sioniste, ancien président du United Jewish Appeal, proche ami de Netanyahou et Barak, qui a pris le contrôle du bail du WTC peu de temps avant les attaques du 9/11. (Voir Lienaussi Madoff = Silverstein = Mossad)

Mais son patron à elle au sein de la compagnie était nul autre que David Yerushalmi — le gourou américain juif hassidique de l’anti-Islam! (Dont les opérations sont financées en partie par le politicien sioniste Frank Gaffney.)

Newt's Big Bribe


by Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press

In 1997, hardworking FBI agents in Miami were on the verge (they thought) of snaring then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his second wife, Marianne, in a $10 million bribery scandal involving multiple ties to key elements of the Israeli lobby in Washington. However, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh stepped in, and the impending sting was called off.

This revelation appeared on page A-2 of The Washington Post on Dec. 15, but it has not been mentioned in The New York Times or been given any play in the major broadcast media.

While the Post downplayed the Israeli connection, a limited rendition of the story in one brief UPI report—published in only a few newspapers—never mentioned the underlying pivotal, in-depth role of Israeli-linked intermediaries in the matter.

Instead, the reports focused on international arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian’s ties to the affair, leading many readers to think Gingrich was involved in arms trafficking. In reality, it was the arms dealer, a longtime FBI informant, who was acting on behalf of the FBI in the effort to nab Gingrich.

The Post story was based on a far more detailed and revealing exposition of some 6,400 words by veteran intelligence correspondent Joe Trento, published on his website at dcbureau.org. The entire scenario is complex, reflecting events taking place over several years time. But the bottom line is that Gingrich and his wife were allegedly attempting to shake down Soghanalian for a $10 million bribe and that, from the beginning, operatives for Israel were on the scene, acting as middlemen for the Gingrich duo.

Mrs. Gingrich firstmade a connection to Soghanalian through her position as a former paid pitch-woman for the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC)—a front for a group of Jewish billionaires eager to promote Israeli exports into the United States. Behind IEDC were such big names as Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center at the time of the 9-11 attacks; Sy Syms of the SYMS clothing chain; and Lawrence Tisch, who controls the CBS media empire.

Soghanalian said he was first approached by Morty Bennett of Miami, who told the arms dealer he had a business associate who had an “in” with Mrs. Gingrich and that it might be possible to use that connection on Soghanalian’s behalf.

Knowing U.S. sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were preventing the arms dealer from collecting a legal debt of $54million owed to him by Iraq, Bennett told Soghanalian that Mrs. Gingrich could help arrange—through her husband, then the speaker of the House—the lifting of the U.S. embargo so the arms dealer could secure his debt.

Bennett’s associate, Howard Ash—who had worked with Mrs. Gingrich at IEDC—was a major fundraiser for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a Jerusalem-based think tank headed by Robert Loewenberg, who Mrs. Gingrich has described as a “friend.” IASPS also included another close Gingrich friend, former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), among its “trustees”—a relationship Weber now formally denies.

Following the contact from Bennett, Soghanalian—a longtime FBI informant who had worked closely with Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami—reported the overtures from Mrs. Gingrich’s IEDC-IASPS associates to the FBI. The FBI expressed interest, urging Soghanalian to maintain contact with the group.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Gingrich visited Paris—under the auspices of IEDC and at the urging of Loewenberg—in the company of Bennett and Ash, where she met Soghanalian.

Mrs. Gingrich now claims she was soliciting a donation to IEDC from Soghanalian. However, Soghanalian told the FBI that Mrs. Gingrich told him in Paris that she could use her husband’s influence to get the Iraqi embargo lifted in return for “an understanding.”

Sometime later, Bennett came back to the arms dealer, saying Mrs. Gingrich wanted $10million to get the job done.

Soghanalian was told $5 million was for Mrs. Gingrich; another $1 million was for Bennett. The recipients of the remaining $4 million were not named, but those who know how Capitol Hill bribery works presume this money would be used to help “grease the wheels” among other members of Congress who would help Gingrich expedite the operation.

Soghanalian told the FBI he was instructed the bribe was to be paid to the Washington office of IASPS, which would, in turn, launder the money to the Gingriches.

The IEDC-IASPS connection recurs throughout the scenario. Not only did another IEDC associate of Mrs. Gingrich, attorney David Yerushalmi, serve as counsel for both IEDC and IASPS, but both organizations also shared a number of employees and mutual funding sources.*
The FBI insisted it was vital that Soghanalian seal the deal directly with Mrs. Gingrich or her husband. This would clinch the criminal case against them.

As directed by the FBI, Soghanalian insisted he would not make the “donation” to the IASPS—the bribe intended for Gingrich—until he could meet Gingrich and his wife in private.
Pressured by Soghanalian, Ash told the arms dealer the House speaker would send “his own man” to Miami to meet with Soghanalian to facilitate arrangements for the meeting.

Gingrich’s “own man” was Ben Waldman. Closely tied to Netanyahu circles in Israel, Waldman—an associate of both televangelist Pat Robertson and the infamously corrupt pro-Israel Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff—had been Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. But at the time of the bribery conspiracy, Waldman was chief fundraiser for the IASPS.

Finally, with everything in place, the FBI set the trap for Gingrich. A lavish reception was scheduled for June 8, 1997 in Miami at a luxury home, which had actually been rented by the FBI for the sting.

Soghanalian was supposed to meet Gingrich there and solidify the deal under FBI electronic surveillance.

However, at the last minute, FBI Director Louis Freeh sent down the order that Soghanalian was not to attend the event—which Gingrich did attend—and the two-year-long investigation was brought to an abrupt end just when the FBI might have caught Gingrich agreeing to accept the payoff.

Journalist Trento quoted one FBI agent, who said: “We got so close, and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

In fact, both assistant U.S. attorney in Miami Richard Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami attorney, Martin King, had wanted to pursue the investigation to the end, only to be frustrated by the FBI director.

Soghanalian has since died. Bennett, Ash and Waldman—and Mrs. Gingrich—all dismiss the reported events as a tissue of lies. Gingrich has yet to comment. FBI officials now assert there was never any evidence Gingrich was aware a bribery conspiracy was under way.

* Considering the revelations fromthe Gingrich bribery allegations, it does not seema coincidence that longtime Gingrich associate Yerushalmi is today the driving force behind the ongoing, well-financed national Muslim-bashing campaign focusing on the danger Islamic law—sharia—supposedly poses to America. In fact, The New York Times reported on Dec. 21 that “long before he announced his presidential run . . . Newt Gingrich had become themost prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that sharia, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave [as], or graver than, terrorism.” The Times, however, did not mention the bribery scandal, its links to IEDC and IASPS, or even Yerushalmi, although it did point out that Gingrich and his ex-mistress—now his third wife—have produced a Muslim-bashing film.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

The Piper Report Dec 20, 2011

Media ‘ignores’ Jewish angle to Newt Gingrich bribery Scandal…

Among other important items dealing with the destruction of our world.

Download Here

The Piper Report Dec 26, 2011

All new revelations on the Gingrich/Israeli corruption scandal. A MUST HEAR PROGRAM.

Please make sure to spread this broadcast far and wide.

Download Here

Note to those who have been inquiring about purchasing the new book by MCP entitled “Confessions of an Anti-Semite”–

There are multiple ways for people to buy the book, which is $28 per copy.

(However, please note that a signed, numbered, dated copy is $50). Foreign purchasers (including Canada) should add a minimum $15 postage.

Firstly, they can send a check, cash or money order (or credit card information, including card number and expiration date) to:

Michael Collins Piper

PO Box 15728

Washington, DC 20003

or, write to

American Free Press Newspaper

645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE #100

Washington, DC 20003

or they can buy online with paypal

OR they can call 1-888-699-6397 and order by phone

FBI considered a sting aimed at Newt Gingrich in 1997

Washington Post
By James V. Grimaldi, Published: December 15

It is a curious case in the annals of the FBI: The bureau considered a sting operation against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich after sifting through allegations from a notorious arms dealer that a $10 million bribe might get Congress to lift the Iraqi arms embargo.

The FBI ended up calling off the operation in June 1997. It decided there was no evidence that Gingrich knew anything about the conversations the arms dealer was secretly recording with a man who said he was acting on behalf of Gingrich’s then-wife, Marianne, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

But details of the case, which became public this week in an article and documents posted online by a nonprofit journalist, show how a series of second- and third-hand conversations alleging that the top man in Congress might be for sale caught the attention of federal investigators.

“There are so many falsehoods,” Marianne Gingrich said Thursday. “The FBI, they should have been protecting me, not going after me. This is scary stuff.”

Her lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said: “There was no basis whatsoever for an investigation. These were people puffing, which means they were making up access to a high-level goverment person.”

Gingrich’s presidential campaign did not provide immediate comment when asked for response Thursday.

The investigation began after the arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, told federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami that Marianne Gingrich said during a meeting in Paris in 1995 that she could provide legislative favors through her husband. The case progressed to the point that it was deemed a major investigation requiring approval in Washington.

Soghanalian, a convicted felon who is now dead, said he wanted the speaker’s help in getting the arms embargo lifted so he could collect an $80 million debt from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to an FBI document filed to obtain continuing wiretap authorization for the case. The facts in the document were “developed through a cooperating witness,” whom The Washington Post has confirmed was Soghanalian.

Soghanalian said Marianne Gingrich assured him “she would be able to do anything [Soghanalian] requested of her ‘as long as they had an understanding,’ ” the document states.

Several months after the meeting in Paris, a man who had been on the trip with Gingrich and Soghanalian told the arms dealer that the embargo could be lifted for the right price. In conversations recorded by Soghanalian, the man, a Miami car salesman named Morty Bennett, stated that Marianne “wanted 10 million dollars to get the job done, five million of which would go directly to Marianne Gingrich,” the document states.

Bennett said in an interview Thursday, “I knew somebody and introduced them to somebody and that was it. Thank you for calling, and don’t call me back.”

The document and the existence of the aborted sting was first revealed this week in a 6,400-word story by Joseph Trento, who operates a Web site called DC Bureau (www.dcbureau.org). Trento interviewed Soghanalian several times before his death in October at 82.

The investigation foundered because there was no evidence against Newt Gingrich to establish “predication” — a basis to believe the target was engaging in or about to engage in criminal activity — according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. FBI policy requires predication before significant undercover operations are initiated.

“There wasn’t any direct evidence that he knew anything,” said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The rules are you just can’t go in there and do an integrity check on someone.”

Bruce Udolph, the former chief federal corruption prosecutor in Miami, said he could not confirm the existence of the investigation but added, “With respect to Speaker Gingrich, I am not aware of any direct, credible evidence linking him to any conspiracy to receive a bribe from anyone.”

The Justice Department referred calls to the FBI, which declined to comment on the case.

The Armenian-born Soghanalian was a high-volume arms dealer nicknamed “the Merchant of Death” who was indicted by federal authorities in South Florida for conspiring to sell U.S. helicopters to Iraq in violation of a U.S. ban. His 61/2-year sentence was reduced to two years in 1993 because of his cooperation with federal authorities.

He was already a federal informant when he met with Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Also in attendance at those meetings were Bennett and Howard Ash, who had earlier worked with Marianne Gingrich at the Israel Export Development Corp., a company that advocated for a free-trade zone in the Gaza Strip.

Marianne Gingrich, who had left her position as vice president of marketing at IEDC, said she went to Paris at the request of her former boss to help get an investment from Soghanalian in IEDC.

The FBI document states that Soghanalian, Marianne Gingrich, Ash and Bennett spent several days together in Paris. Gingrich said “her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience,” the document states. “She told [Soghanalian] that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his ‘skeletons.’ ”

“She also told [Soghanalian], ‘It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy,” the document says.

In January 1996, the document states, Soghanalian said he received a call from Bennett, who said he was acting on behalf of Marianne Gingrich and asked for $10 million to get the embargo lifted. Bennett wanted more than $1 million in advance, $300,000 in cash. The rest of the money was to be wired into Bennett’s bank account so that it could be transferred to the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli-based think tank with offices in Washington where Ash was a fundraiser, according to the document.

“Bennett stated that the way they had the deal structured nobody would ever be able to prove it was anything illegal,” the document states. “Bennett stated that it would be handled like a campaign payment and ensured the source that [Marianne] Gingrich knew what she was doing. Bennett stated that the money was for Gingrich and her husband and that they needed buffers to protect them.”

Marianne Gingrich said Thursday, “All that’s hogwash.”

Soghanalian asked for a telephone call with Marianne. Bennett said that “would spook Gingrich” but that he would try to arrange it “for small talk about their Paris trip,” the document states.

But Bennett never produced Marianne Gingrich. He reestablished contact with Soghanalian in February 1997, and the FBI asked for approval from headquarters to keep recording the conversations “to develop evidence of possible Hobbs Act, Conspiracy, and Bribery violations by Bennett, Ash, Marianne Gingrich, and as yet unidentified federal officials,” the document states. Ash did not return calls seeking comment.

In June 1997, Soghanalian was planning to meet Gingrich and his wife at a fundraiser in Miami arranged by Ben Waldman, a Reagan administration official who later was lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s business partner in the controversial purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida. Waldman did not return calls for comment.

FBI agents began preparing to bug the meeting, but Neil Gallagher, then deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, ordered the investigation closed prior to the fundraiser, people familar with the case said. They said local agents were upset by Gallagher’s move.

“I’d have to refer any comment back to the FBI,” Gallagher said Thursday.

The FBI special agent in charge in Miami at the time, Paul Philip, who signed the document, said he could not recall the case. After reviewing the document, he said he could understand why the case did not progress.

“When you’re dealing with elected officials, you have to be real careful,” he said. “Not that they can do anything to us. But their reputations are so fragile, if you don’t really, truly try to do the right thing, you could really shaft somebody.”

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.


Marianne Gingrich Denies Israel Job Is a « Political Payoff »

By Nathan Jones

Marianne Gingrich, wife of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been hired by the Israel Export Development Co., Ltd (IEDC) as its vice president for business development. Mrs. Gingrich’s interest in Israel’s proposed free-trade zone, designed to attract foreign investment to Israel, was said to have begun during an eight-day trip to Israel she and her husband made in August 1994 at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s Washington, DC lobby. « If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making, » said Mrs. Gingrich, who has no experience in the field. Her salary, which she has drawn since August, is $2,500 per month, « plus commissions. » Neither she nor her employers would disclose the size of the commissions. Speaker Gingrich told the Baltimore Sun, which broke the story in February, that his wife previously had her « own business. » IEDC President Larry Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of congressmembers who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal.


Gingrich’s Wife Hired to Recruit Business for Trade Zone in Israel

February 04, 1995
Susan Baer

The Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s wife, who has no previous experience in trade promotion, has been hired at an undisclosed salary to help recruit businesses for a free-trade zone in Israel. For the past few months, Marianne Gingrich has been quietly working as vice president for business development of the Israel Export Development Co. Ltd., whose investors include a number of American businessmen, such as CBS president Laurence A. Tisch, clothing magnate Sy Syms and real estate developer Robert V. Tishman.

Mrs. Gingrich, 43, is to make her first company trip to Israel on Wednesday. She declined to make any public comment about her job. The IEDC is trying to win Israeli government approval to run the new free-trade zone, a private, high-tech business park where companies will be able to operate free of most taxes and government bureaucracy. Her appointment seems likely to raise questions about whether the Speaker’s wife is being used to help the company gain the favor of the Israeli government, which is heavily dependent on U.S. foreign aid. Since September, 1994, Mrs. Gingrich has been paid a full-time salary by IEDC–neither she nor the company will disclose the amount–and she is also to earn commissions on any business she recruits for the company. Mrs. Gingrich, who is employed by the company’s U.S.-based marketing unit, is IEDC’s only employee in Washington; the company maintains U.S. offices in New York and Miami. « We were looking for someone with her kind of experience and her excitement, » said David Yerushalmi, chairman and CEO of the 2-year-old development company, which is based in Jerusalem and incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.


Few Israelis have ever heard of Likit, the site of what may soon become the country’s first « free processing zone »–a tax-free enclave for foreign trade. Likit lies 10 kilometers northeast of Beer Sheeba, in what is now desert. The government decided the zone should be located in the Negev, the most underdeveloped part of the country. But supporters believe that within two years, the 283-hectare tract will see a boom.

The idea is to eliminate red tape for foreign investors. Israeli Finance Minister Avraham Shohat overruled experts from his own ministry who opposed the proposal on grounds that the zone would not contribute much to the economy. But since Likit is backed by some of the Jewish state’s biggest American supporters, Shohat could hardly refuse.

On June 20, 1994, the Knesset passed the Free Processing Zone Law. It states that within the zone there will be no corporate tax, no value-added tax, and no import or export duties. Businesses operating there will pay only a 15% tax on distributed profits. In addition to tax incentives, companies will have the benefit of deregulated utilities, including phones, and will be exempt from foreign currency rules and import and export restrictions.

The zone was first proposed in 1992. Lobbying was spearheaded by Israel Export Development Co. (IEDC), owned by such prominent Americans as Laurence A. Tisch, CBS chairman and CEO; Michael Steinhardt of Steinhardt Partners; Morton L. Mandel, chairman and CEO of Premier Industrial Corp.; and Robert Tishman, chairman of Tishman Speyer Properties.

Backers claim the zone will create thousands of jobs for immigrants from the former Soviet Union and for recently discharged soldiers. They also predict that dozens of multinational companies, which have stayed out of Israel for political reasons, will set up shop.

In late March, the Israeli government plans to issue a tender for building and operating the zone and expects to announce the winner within 90 days. « We’re looking for someone who will bring the best companies possible into the zone, » says Boaz Raday, senior adviser to Shohat.

The leading contender for constructing the project is IEDC itself, which has already spent nearly $7 million planning the proposed zone and marketing it to potential clients. The Finance Ministry’s Raday concedes that IEDC is the only firm entrant but says he has talked with other groups that have expressed interest in joining the bidding.

THREE TIMES. In the meantime, IEDC continues to market the zone aggressively. « We’ve got over 50 letters of intent from medium-to-large American, British, and German multinationals, » says David Yerushalmi, IEDC chairman. All are in high tech, with a predominance of information processing outfits.

IEDC has already signed an agreement with Sprint International for phone service. Under this deal, calls from the zone to the U.S. will cost only 30 cents a minute. Israel’s state-owned Bezeq Telecommunications Co. charges three times as much.

Without doubt, IEDC’s highest-profile employee is Marianne Gingrich, wife of Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her weeklong visit to Israel in mid-February sparked a good deal of publicity.

Gingrich was hired by Yerushalmi in September as vice-president for business development. Her compensation: $2,500 a month, plus commissions. After the appointment, questions were raised about her qualifications for the job. In addition to tart comments in the U.S. media, it was suggested that her real function might be to help IEDC gain favor with the Israeli government.

Speaker Gingrich has come out in strong defense of his wife, insisting that there is no ethical problem with her new job. « She works for a private company, » he said. « She does no lobbying of the U.S. government of any kind. And it seems to me that since no taxpayer funds are involved and it’s an entirely private business, that she ought to be let alone. »

« At the end of the day, companies are going to look at the benefits of the zone, and political pull is not going to sway them, » says Yerushalmi. But with the Gingrich appointment, IEDC seems to be covering all bases.

Extrait de l’EXCELLENT article LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND 9/11, du blog Crimes of Zion:

Silverstein has investments in Israel. In fact, in 1992 he co-founded the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC) which sought to facilitate safer investment in Israel. This article by Michael Collins Piper states that Newt Gingrich’s wife was on IEDC’s payroll in 1995:
In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”

That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel.

Marianne Gingrich was hired in ’95 as Vice President for Business Development by Silverstein’s IEDC, the same year her husband became speaker of the house. It was around that time that Newt Gingrich’s foreign policy views became staunchly pro-Israel and opposed to Israel’s perceived enemies, even to the point where he publicly called for the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government, as referred to by Piper in his article. That was well before 9/11, and his views haven’t changed. His wife had no experience in international trade, and before that appointment she was an image consultant for BeautiControl Cosmetics (source), but of course, she denied it was a political payoff. From this Dec 1995 article:

According to an article by Connie Bruck in the New Yorker of Oct. 9, « IEDC is trying to win approval from the Israeli government to manage a free-trade zone, and the Israeli government is highly dependent on United States aid—something that Gingrich is in a position to affect. » It is no coincidence that despite drastic budget-cutting this year, Congress has left aid to Israel intact.

Bruck Describes the IEDC as an offshoot of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a hawkish arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

The IEDC is indeed an offshoot organisation of the IASPS. This connects Silverstein to the think tank which produced the Clean Break policy document, authored for the Israeli government by neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser.

Marianne Gingrich works closely with its president, Robert J. Loewenberg, who is also chairman of the board of the Koret Israel Economic Development Fund, which assigns interns to key congressional offices. According to Bruck, Loewenberg writes lengthy diatribes in the IASPS newsletter attacking the peace process, return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and « left-wing politicos and bureaucrats. » He supports the immediate move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which Gingrich is asking Congress to endorse.

So Gingrich was staunchly supporting Silverstein’s IEDC and its agenda, and the state of Israel in general, but his beauty consultant wife’s employment as Vice President for Business Development was not a payoff, even though Silverstein told the Wall Street Journal that Newt Gingrich was one of several members of congress who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal. We’ll call it a favor then.

Extrait de l’Article de Michael Collins Piper « Elite Says: America Needs Third Party »

A hint that there were high-level forces pulling the rug out from under Obama and laying the groundwork for even more substantial political convulsions on the national level came when David S. Broder opined in The Washington Post on Jan. 21 that the election of Republican Scott Brown to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate race was “a vote of no confidence” for the president and “Democratic controlled Washington.” Broder concluded by saying that “Obama may recover . . . but it will take a significant change of direction to turn things around.”
While most Americans have never heard of Broder (a longtime member of the CFR), it is no exaggeration to say that, “When David Broder speaks, people listen.” Broder’s Post column is considered “must” reading among establishment insiders in Washington. He is regularly hailed as the “dean” of America’s political pundits.
While publicly identified as being the fiefdom of the Meyer-Graham publishing enterprise, the Washington Post Company, which is perceived to be a tightly held family concern, is actually an American extension — like the CFR — of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Rothschild-connected holding companies and, in particular, longtime Rothschild family associate, Nebraska-based billionaire Warren Buffett, have a considerably greater stake in the Post Company than even the Meyer-Graham family.
All of this having been said, it is critical to understand that the Post, as one of the foremost media powers on American soil, has been in the forefront of propagating the theme that some sort of “centrist” challenge to the two-party system as now constituted is in order.
For example, on Feb. 25, the Rothschild-dominated Post featured a prominently placed item entitled “Washington rancor angers bipartisan town.” The article proclaimed that even in Newtown, Pa.—one of the famed well-to-do “Mainline” suburbs of Philadelphia where so-called middle-of-the-road or centrist Democrats and Republicans alike have always competed on an even level in local, state and federal elections—disgust with partisan gridlock in Washington is growing steadily.
The Post asserted that the situation in Newtown is reflected all across the country in like-minded communities said by the Post to reflect “what political strategists consider the disaffected middle.”
What this means, effectively, in the carefully crafted code words utilized by the Post, is that many people consider both the Democrats and the Republicans to be “too extreme”—the Democrats perceived to be “too left wing” and the Republicans to be “too right wing.”
Putting aside the argument as to what constitutes either “left” or “right” politically, the point is that the Post is suggesting, as it has repeatedly in recent months, joined by The NewYork Times, that Americans are looking for a “middle ground” or “centrist” alternative.
On May 2, the Post — which heretofore never had anything good to say about relatively larger-scale “independent” or “third party” efforts, ranging from those of George Wallace, Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader — featured a lead item in its much-read Sunday opinion section raising the question: “Should the two party system be challenged?”
That the Post would even open up the question for discussion is very telling. While opinions, both pro- and con-, were presented, the words of one commentator in particular, Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, reflected precisely the tone of recent and notably repetitive Washington Post commentary and reportage regarding the issue.
While Schnur says that the emergence of a third party is unlikely “anytime soon,” he suggests that “angry centrists” have “the best opportunity they’ve had in many, many years” over the next six months to begin laying the foundation for “the need for a new, centrist political entity that will free the country from the grip of liberal and conservative extremists.” He points out that a bevy of “besieged middle-of-the-road political figures could conceivably remake the American political landscape.”
As examples, Schnur cites such figures as longtime liberal Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is now actually being seriously challenged for renomination by a candidate perceived to be even more liberal than even Lincoln herself; Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who gave up running for renomination in the GOP primary facing a serious conservative challenge only to find his reelection endangered by a fight for renomination in the Democratic Party; and Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, who, failing badly in his bid for the GOP Senate nomination against a conservative challenger, has now, to great fanfare in the “mainstream” media, announced his campaign as an independent.
And it’s probably no coincidence that Schnur should be one echoing the Post’s propaganda line in so many respects. In 2008, Schnur was the communications director for vaunted “maverick” Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee that year, who, just four years before, was being touted as a possible partyjumping running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
Perhaps not surprisingly,considering his own conflicts over the years with more “conservative” elements in his own party, McCain himself faces a renomination challenge—from the “right”—from former Rep. J. C. Hayward.
What is particularly interesting in that another featured commentator in the Post’s give-and-take on the issue was former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said that a third party challenge was “not a path America should follow.”
What Gingrich did not say, however, was something that Washington insiders do know: the fact that Gingrich has been privately “mentioning” to figures in the capital city’s power elite that he is considering picking retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (who — like Gingrich — is another member of the CFR) as his running mate if he (Gingrich) manages to procure the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. This is apparently the “Gingrich Solution” to partisan gridlock, some sort of “bipartisan, middle-of-the-road” approach.

Gingrich: Front Man for Shady, Shadowy Interests

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is still considerably influential in high-level political circles in no small part because of the fact that his substantial political and public relations enterprises have been bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, an international gambling tycoon.

Known for his devotion to the interests of Israel, Adelson, said to be the third-richest American, has been described by the web site of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise as “the world’s richest Jew.”

It should also be noted that Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected intrigues of his second wife, Marianne, whom he divorced some years ago, and who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which was promoting the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.

The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of theWorld Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the trade center’s Building 7 which was deliberately imploded, a point that 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

PICTURED: Sheldon Adelson and Larry Silverstein are two powerful Zionist figures who have bankrolled the intrigues of GOP kingpin Newt Gingrich

Iran Policy Part of Long-Term Plan
Michael Collins Piper

. . .In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”
. . .That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel. (…)

Newt Gingrich, Marianne and the Arms Dealer:
A Buried FBI Investigation

By , on December 13th, 2011

National Security News Service

Newt Gingrich and second wife Marianne Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich and second wife Marianne Gingrich.

On October 5, Sarkis Soghanalian, once the world’s largest private arms dealer, died at 82. He had sold weapons to scores of dictators including Saddam Hussein, and he took many secrets with him to his grave. But one secret he did not take involves Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. DCBureau has learned that Gingrich was at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation in the late 1990s for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.
Soghanalian was an FBI informant and was responsible for launching one of the most sensitive and secret investigations in FBI history involving the former Speaker and his second wife. According to Marianne Gingrich, it took the direct intervention of then FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to “get the investigation called off.” Freeh did not return emails and telephone calls for comment.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh

A convicted felon with a long history of working with United States intelligence, Soghanalian cooperated with the FBI in the two-year investigation which included secretly taping emissaries with connections to Newt and Marianne Gingrich. The cast of characters include personalities no Hollywood screenwriter could invent. One participant was involved in the Florida SunCruz scandal that resulted in the gangland-style killing of one of the cruise lines owners. Another was a used Rolls Royce salesman who pretended to be part of the international arms trade. A third was a penny stock promoter.

For several years, FBI agents instructed Soghanalian to get beyond the men who claimed to have ties to Gingrich and insist upon meeting with Gingrich and his former wife directly to prove that they could deliver the Speaker. But just before Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his former wife at a private Miami Beach fundraiser on June 8, 1997, arranged by one of these men, FBI headquarters called off the investigation. Washington ordered the FBI in Miami not to secretly tape record the fundraiser and to stop Soghanalian from attending. Marianne Gingrich, in a series of telephone interviews from her homes in Georgia and Florida, acknowledges meeting the arms dealer in Paris but insists her participation was to solicit an investment from Soghanalian for her former employer, the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). She says the company was running short on cash and her meetings with the arms dealer had nothing to do with Iraq and arms dealing. Newt Gingrich did not return repeated telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian said in a series of interviews before his death that men associated with Marianne Gingrich convinced him that Speaker Gingrich would use his influence to lift the embargo and allow Soghanalian to collect the millions of dollars owed to him by Iraq “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates.” Soghanalian was to pay the money – not to the Gingriches directly – but through a think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), which has offices in the United States and Israel.

Saddam Hussein’s government owed Soghanalian for arms he had delivered – all with the permission and knowledge of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, but he could not be paid because Iraq was under a U.S. and United Nations embargoes. After his release from prison in the mid-1990s, Soghanalian settled in Paris and started rebuilding his arms business. In the United States he faced a $54 million IRS tax lien for profits he had never received from the Iraq arms sales. He told associates that he was trying to figure out a way to collect the monies owed to him. One of those friends was a London-based Kurdish Iraqi who had close contacts with Israeli intelligence and a car salesman from Miami named Morty Bennett.

Bennett saw Soghanalian’s money problems as an opportunity. He says he passed the information from his Kurdish friend to Howard Ash, a friend from the Rolls Royce dealership in Miami where Bennett worked. Ash was a fundraiser for the IASPS, the think tank, and had worked at the IEDC with Marianne Gingrich.

In May 1995, while visiting his wife, Shirley, and his grandchildren in Palm Springs, California, Soghanalian got a phone call from Bennett. Soghanalian had never heard of him before, but Bennett says he used the name of their mutual acquaintance in London who had experience in the Kurdish arms trade to get Soghanalian to talk to him. Soghanalian said before his death, “My ears perked up when he said he had an arms deal for me in Ecuador. There are a lot of pretenders in the business, but he seemed interesting, and I always need new information for my FBI friends, so I met with him.”

That May 1995 phone call from Bennett to Soghanalian resulted in a two-year FBI investigation so sensitive that details have never before been made public. The goal of the investigation, according to a Justice Department official, “…was to see if Gingrich, through his then wife, was involved in an attempt by political associates to solicit bribes.” One of the team of FBI agents involved in the case says, “The investigation was called off before we were permitted to finish making a case.” Another agent says it was just “too politically sensitive. We got so close and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

According to Bennett, the entire scheme to solicit $10 million dollars from the arms dealer was Howard Ash’s idea. Ash did not return repeated calls for comment left on his answering machine or with a woman who identified herself as his employee.

Soghanalian said of when he and Bennett met, “Bennett claimed that he and a partner named Howard Ash had an ‘in’ with Speaker Newt Gingrich on behalf of the Israelis…They asked me if I would invest with them in the deal.” The “in” that Bennett and Ash had was Gingrich’s then wife Marianne. In addition to being a fundraiser for the IASPS, Ash was also Marianne Gingrich’s boss at the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me they just hired her before Newt was made the Speaker.” In early 1995, Marianne Gingrich says, she was promoted above Ash to Vice President of Marketing. “He resented my promotion,” she says.

Robert Loewenberg, Head of the IASPS.
Robert Loewenberg, Head of the IASPS.
Marianne Gingrich says her boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, called and asked her to make the trip to Paris. Yerushalmi served as counsel to both the IEDC and the IASPS. She says that by this time the IEDC was running out of money and she was no longer on the payroll. “David told me that Howard Ash and his wife had been at the Parc Monceau Hotel in Paris for days and still did not have an answer from this arms dealer and that Ash said he needed me to come to get an answer. He paid for my expenses and even though it was at an inconvenient time, I made the trip.” She says she thought the meeting was to win Soghanalian over as an investor in the IEDC. When asked why she would be willing to meet Soghanalian, a convicted felon, when she was no longer being paid by the IEDC, she says because her friend, Robert J. Loewenberg, the head of the IASPS, and her former boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, “wanted me to meet with the arms dealer in Paris as a potential investor. …I believed that Robert Loewenberg had good ideas about free trade in Israel and this would help keep it going.”

David Yerushalmi
David Yerushalmi
Marianne Gingrich says she did not have a good relationship with Ash after she was promoted over him. She says, “He (Ash) really wanted me in Paris, and I thought that was a little strange. He just never had been very nice to me…but he was nice in Paris.” David Yerushalmi, who says he hired both Mrs. Gingrich and Ash, disputes Mrs. Gingrich’s allegation that there was tension between them.

As Marianne Gingrich tells it, she did not expect her job back at the IEDC if Soghanalian made the $10 million investment because she was already too busy “working with Newt on his book projects. I let him attend a meeting by himself on one of the book deals, and he left more money in that meeting than I would have made in a year working at the export zone. I decided then and there Newt needed me to handle these things.”

Mrs. Gingrich made clear that throughout their marriage money was an issue. “We were so pressed he could not even set aside money for congressional retirement until 1991. Living on his paycheck was very, very hard… Newt was like a child when it came to handling money,” she says.

Morty Bennett says he was also in Paris for the meetings with Soghanalian, Mrs. Gingrich, Howard Ash and his wife. As Bennett tells it, he began to “feel uncomfortable with what Ash was trying to do with Sarkis. My antennae should have been sharper.”

Hotel Mermoz, Paris
Hotel Mermoz, Paris
Bennett stayed at the Hotel Mermoz, which is around the corner from the Israeli Embassy in Paris and was a few blocks from Soghanalian’s luxury apartment on one of the most fashionable residential areas in Paris, not far from the Elysees Palace, home of the French president.

Bennett says that while he was at the hotel between meetings with Soghanalian, the Mermoz manager called him saying a man was asking whether Mrs. Gingrich was staying in his room. “I got on the phone and the man was Newt Gingrich. I explained to him she was not staying at my hotel.”

According to Mrs. Gingrich, her interest in Israel began on an eight day trip to Israel she and her then husband took in August 1994, paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s largest Washington, D.C. lobbying organization. Mrs. Gingrich says Robert Loewenberg, the president of IASPS, was impressed with “my knowledge of planning and asked me to attend some meetings in Israel regarding the free trade zone.” She says that led to her being offered the position with IEDC. “Robert Loewenberg was telling me about some of the problems with the Knesset. The head of the Israeli central bank was opposing the free trade zone. I looked on the itinerary, and I went with him to a meeting and asked some good questions and the banker changed his mind. It had nothing to do with Newt. I went to the meeting. The guy kept calling me. He didn’t care about Newt. At one point he asked me to make a trip to Israel with some business people.” After the meetings in Israel with Loewenberg, the IEDC hired Mrs. Gingrich. She says that one of the reasons she took the job was “we did not have enough money. Money was always an issue with Newt…”

According to David Yerushalmi, there was no connection between IASPS, the think tank, and IEDC, the organization working for a free trade zone in Israel. But Mrs. Gingrich tells a different story. She says, “The same American Jewish funders supported both organizations and Howard Ash raised money for IASPS while he worked for the IEDC.”

A group of very wealthy Americans provided the funding for IASPS and IEDC. Both organizations shared some employees. David Yerushalmi, who represented both organizations as general counsel, wrote in an article:

“In June of 1992, a group of leading U.S. Jewish businessmen formed a company that was to become the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC). The founders of IEDC, men like Robert Tishman, Larry Tisch, Sy Syms and Larry Silverstein, were ardent supporters of the State of Israel. But like many Americans, they were leery of investing directly in Israel. However, it was their fears that made them ready to support the rather grandiose proposal embodied in IEDC’s mandate… To contemplate a real direct investment in Israel was not in the cards. The reason was simple: Israel didn’t play by any fixed rules…It was a land without any real legal protections or level playing fields. The horror stories by these men and their friends about ‘doing business’ in Israel were legion. Until IEDC came along, this was a nasty truth better kept under wraps and avoided. Philanthropy – yes; entrepreneurship – no.”

Sarkis Soghanalian and assistant Veronique Paquier the Paris air show.
Sarkis Soghanalian and assistant Veronique Paquier the Paris air show.

In Paris, Soghanalian openly and frequently talked about finding a way to get the Iraq embargo lifted. He said he had been approached by “people connected to Newt Gingrich who were setting up a meeting with his wife to talk about what could be done for me.” Tony Khater, who was Soghanalian’s majordomo, confirmed the plans for the meeting with the Speaker’s wife.

Soghanalian said Howard Ash had brought up Mrs. Gingrich’s name “to convince me they were serious.” Soghanalian said he called a number of people to try to find out if the IEDC was a legitimate operation.

New York developer Larry Silverstein, who is best known as the main lease holder on the World Trade Center complex in New York, backed both the IASPS and IEDC. When word got out in 1995 that the IEDC had hired Mrs. Gingrich, Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that her husband was one of several members of Congress heavily lobbied to support the Israeli free trade zone proposal. Mrs. Gingrich, who had no experience in international trade, said at the time, “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making.” She said her salary in August 1994 was $2,500 per month, “plus commissions.” Then Speaker Gingrich told The Baltimore Sun, which broke the story of Marianne’s employment, that his wife had previously owned her “own business.”

In a recent interview, Marianne Gingrich says she got the job at the IEDC because she had impressed her bosses. “I was able to contact a lot of business people, and I started calling them, especially Jewish people. I went to the head of Home Depot, for example. I tried to identify them and say, ‘Here are opportunities.’ The Jewish community is an incredible community…I thought it was a good idea…I thought it would help Israel.”

Calls to Larry Silverstein’s office for comment on this story were not returned.

No one involved with the IASPS or IEDC knew that after that first telephone call from Morty Bennett to Soghanalian, the arms dealer stopped by the Miami FBI office to see his old friend, Richard Gregorie, an assistant U.S. attorney. Gregorie, a veteran public corruption prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office, had used Soghanalian as a source for years.

Sarkis Soghanalian and Tony Khater in a helicopter over Iraq, 1984.
Sarkis Soghanalian and Tony Khater in a helicopter over Iraq, 1984.
At the time, Soghanalian had been helping the FBI with several investigations that were unrelated to this one. Soghanalian told Gregorie and several FBI agents that he had a “bad feeling” about why he had been approached. The agents advised him “to make arrangements for another meeting and to keep track of all the details.” Tony Khater, Soghanalian’s top aide, says, “The FBI was aware of every contact Sarkis had with these people. The FBI told Sarkis to push for meetings with Gingrich and his wife. The FBI instructed Sarkis to attend the meetings, if they could be arranged.”

Morty Bennett and Soghanalian met with Howard Ash and Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Soghanalian was extremely busy with business generated by the recent Paris Air Show, but he tape recorded the conversations with Bennett and Ash and provided copies of those tapes to the FBI.

Mrs. Gingrich says Loewenberg and Yerushalmi sent her on the trip to meet Soghanalian because “Howard Ash has been over there for weeks. His wife is over there. Can we wait it out, can we work it? The company needed money to last. They called me up and asked me to go over there. I didn’t get paid to go to Paris. They paid for my expenses, but the trip came at a bad time for me. I had to rush over for the weekend and come back because my nephew was coming to visit.”

Soghanalian said, “Marianne came one weekend with Ash and met me and Bennett. I took her to clubs and we had several dinners and luncheons.” In interviews in Paris in 1995, Soghanalian said that he was “making arrangements to get the arms embargo lifted” and that is why he was meeting with Mrs. Gingrich.

A frustrated Marianne Gingrich says it became clear to her from her initial conversations with Soghanalian in Paris that he was not interested in investing in the IEDC. “…Howard Ash and his wife had been there a long time, and my bosses wanted an answer from him. My job was to get him to say, ‘Yes,’ or, ‘No,’ and that was not easy.”

Soghanalian, a popular figure in Paris, took Mrs. Gingrich and her associates to legendary places like Regine’s and several famous restaurants where they posed for photographs with the arms dealer. Finally, Mrs. Gingrich got an answer. “The last night all of us went somewhere till two or three in the morning…It was final. He said, ‘No.’ I caught the first flight out in the morning.”

Soghanalian had a different version of events. He said that he told Ash and Mrs. Gingrich that he would talk to the Iraqis about making an investment in the free trade operation but that he would not personally invest. “I told them this may be a way of getting my money out of Iraq and doing something good for Israel…I also told Marianne I wanted to meet her husband so we could discuss a high speed train opportunity in Florida.”

Around this same time in 1995, Bennett and Ash were involved in a bizarre penny stock scheme. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel, their connection to the IEDC was used to drive up investor interest in a penny stock being promoted by a couple who called themselves Eisenhowers and held themselves out to be relatives of former President Dwight Eisenhower. Bennett, the car salesman, was described to the business press and potential investors as an Israeli consultant while Ash verified claims that the penny-stock company, Triangle Technology, had a deal to build in the IEDC’s free trade zone in Israel a $40 million dollar factory to revolutionize military aircraft x-ray inspections. Marianne Gingrich’s – as well as the very rich businessmen like Larry Silverstein’s – involvement in the IEDC was also used to reassure potential investors in the penny stock scheme. These claims and associations caused the penny stock to soar before the entire venture collapsed and many investors were left with worthless stock.

Because of changes in Israeli tax law, the free trade zone effort lost its investment appeal and the IEDC shut down. But, Morty Bennett says, “Ash still wanted me to push Sarkis. He told me to call him again.”

As Bennett tells it, on January 23, 1996, Ash instructed him to call Soghanalian at his Miami horse farm with a surprising bit of news. Bennett said to the arms dealer that Marianne Gingrich had told him the Iraq embargo could now be lifted. According to the FBI memo, “Bennett stated that it would cost the source [Soghanalian] ten million dollars to get the job done.” Bennett confirms that the FBI memo is an accurate description of what he told Soghanalian. Bennett says that Howard Ash promised him $400,000 if Sarkis made the $10 million payment.

According to Tony Khater, that is when the FBI sting operation went into high gear. That week Miami agents began officially taping conversations between Soghanalian and Bennett. The Miami office received approval for the wiretaps from the Justice Department in Washington. In its memo on the case, the FBI says: “…This matter may relate to a member of Congress and is, therefore, a sensitive investigation… [that] requires Department of Justice (DOJ) notification.”

The first official FBI tape captured Bennett telling Soghanalian that “Gingrich wanted ten million dollars to get the job done.” The split would be “$5 million for her, $4 million for unexplained purposes and $1 million for Mr. Bennett,” according to the FBI memo. Bennett asked Soghanalian for $550,000 in advance.

Bennett says, “I was operating under explicit instructions from Howard Ash. He told me exactly what to tell Sarkis in my conversations with him.”

Soghanalian became even more suspicious when Bennett asked him to deposit $250,000 into his bank account as a tax-deductible donation to the IASPS. “I began to think they were getting me involved in some Israeli intelligence operation,” Soghanalian said. He told the FBI that Bennett asked for an additional $300,000 fee, “preferably… in cash.”

Vin Weber
Vin Weber

The IASPS was founded in 1984, according to its website, and has strong ties to conservative politicians in Israel and the United States. It is connected to the Likud Party in Israel in much the same way the Heritage Foundation associates with the GOP in the United States. According to Mrs. Gingrich, Robert Loewenberg, who runs IASPS, recommended her for her job at the IEDC. Howard Ash worked with Mrs. Gingrich at the IEDC and as a fundraiser for the IASPS. Washington lobbyist and former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber was one of Newt Gingrich’s closest associates in Congress and personal friends at the time of some of these events. Weber was a trustee of IASPS, according to IRS 990s, and was mentioned in IASPS newsletters. Weber says his relationship with IASPS ended “many years ago. I never knew I was a trustee.”

Soghanalian, a consummate actor, developed a clever and ironic response to their overtures, with the approval of his FBI contacts. He told Bennett that he would talk to the Iraqi government about financing the entire deal. At the suggestion of the FBI, Soghanalian asked to speak to Mrs. Gingrich in person. Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me not until a week after the deposit was made…It was funny because Bennett said Mrs. Gingrich was very concerned about being caught on tape.”

Bennett says, “Everything I told Sarkis was done under the instructions of Howard Ash. He gave me the words.”

In early February 1996, Bennett told Soghanalian he could not arrange a meeting with Mrs. Gingrich for at least three or four weeks. A few days later Bennett called Soghanalian and asked for another $500,000 to be wired directly into Ash’s account at the IASPS.

Under FBI agents’ instructions, on February 12, 1996, Soghanalian demanded to talk to Mrs. Gingrich. “Bennett was nervous. He said it would scare her, and I should only make small talk and, if I brought up the payments, she would hang up,” Soghanalian said. “Bennett kept putting me off. He told me she had not called him back but he had a better idea. He would get me with both of them once I gave him the deposit. Bennett said that this Institute would hold a fundraiser where we could meet confidentially with Gingrich and his wife.” According to the FBI memo, Soghanalian told Bennett he would not pay $10 million without first talking to Mrs. Gingrich directly “to receive assurances regarding the specifics of this deal.” Another year passed before Bennett called him back.

Marianne Gingrich, 2012
Marianne Gingrich, 2012

According to Tony Khater, in January 1997, Bennett started calling Soghanalian again at the Miami horse farm. Soghanalian told the FBI, and the Miami field office asked Washington headquarters for an extension of the wiretap, since authorization to continue recording had run out. Section Chief Paul Philip signed the memo along with several other FBI agents. Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. Attorney, was a key supporter of the probe. The memo said that Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami lawyer, Martin King, both favored moving ahead with the Gingrich-Bennett investigation. Gregorie, the memo said, “sees no entrapment issues.”

The request was approved and the investigation continued. The FBI recorded the February 2, 1997, conversation between Soghanalian and Bennett. Officials involved in the case, Soghanalian and Khater all confirm that Soghanalian also contacted Ash at the request of the Bureau. “Ash said I should work through him and not Bennett to get to both Gingriches. They were competing for the money,” the arms dealer said. Ash reassured Soghanalian “that Gingrich would send his own man down to Miami to meet with me.”

That man was Ben Waldman, a longtime Republican operative with strong ties to the Christian conservative movement. He was not unknown to the FBI. “His name coming up in the investigation got our attention,” says an official close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Waldman’s name had surfaced in an earlier federal investigation of bribery and kickbacks during the Reagan administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that resulted in the indictment and subsequent plea bargain of former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt and other top officials – but not Waldman.

What worried Soghanalian about Waldman were not his connections to the Christian Right, but his connections to the Likud Party in Israel. “My friends in Israel told me there was an effort by the Christian Right to join with right-wing political parties around the world,” Soghanalian said. “Reagan’s people had started this in the 1980s. They even tried to use me to make contact with the Baath Party in Iraq in 1983.”

At the time of the FBI probe, Waldman was listed as the chief fundraiser for IASPS, where Ash, through Bennett, had instructed Soghanalian to send the $10 million. David Yerushalmi, who was the IASPS lawyer, confirms that both Waldman and Ash had fundraising roles at the Institute at the time. When Waldman met with Soghanalian, he said he was a Vice President of the Institute.

For the meeting between Waldman and Soghanalian, the FBI rented a luxury, waterfront home on a canal not far from the posh commercial section of downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Tony Khater says, “The meeting would be a luncheon. I had to order in an Orthodox catered lunch for Waldman.”

On cue from the FBI, Soghanalian opened the front door of the luxurious one-story house. Waldman admired the home and asked Soghanalian about the yacht docked at the backyard pier. “As we ate the lunch, Waldman asked me to donate $20,000 to this institute of his. It was the same place that Bennett wanted me to use to pay him off. I kept trying to talk about other things, like the Iraqi arms embargo,” Soghanalian said. “I asked him could Gingrich get the sanctions lifted if I paid that man the money.”

Ben Waldman
Ben Waldman

The man Howard Ash picked to replace Morty Bennett as the man to separate Sarkis Soghanalian from his millions was a former Reagan White House aide with a long history in conservative Republican and Israeli politics. Though Waldman looks like an aging boy scout, by the time he met Soghanalian for a kosher lunch, all arranged by the FBI, he had accumulated an impressive dossier of business and political associates. Waldman was among the young Republicans who grew close during the Reagan administration – men like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan. He was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. He also raised funds for the Institute. In an interview in the 1990s, Waldman identified himself to National Public Radio as a Vice President for IASPS.

Waldman played a key role in bringing Jewish conservative voters into the Republican Party as an aide in the Pat Roberson 1988 presidential campaign and as executive director of the National Jewish Coalition, now the Republican Jewish Coalition. He had close business and personal ties to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. By 2000, Waldman was president and part owner of SunCruz Casinos, a controversial offshore gaming company with organized crime connections. Another owner, Gus Boulis, was battling Abramoff for control of the company. Boulis was shot dead in his car a year later.

Reached for comment, Waldman refused to go on the record, but, prior to that, he did acknowledge he had worked with Howard Ash at the IASPS. When asked specific questions about his meeting with Soghanalian, he says, “First of all, I am not going to go on the record and, second, this happened so long ago, anything I am going to tell you is going to be clouded by my poor memory and lack of specificity. I am not in that business anymore. It is not the right thing to talk about.”

Khater, Soghanalian, and the FBI tapes reveal that at the luncheon Soghanalian insisted to Waldman that he would donate to IASPS only on the condition he could meet with Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich in private. After the luncheon, prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami were convinced that the case should be aggressively pursued.

Working with Ash, Waldman planned a fundraiser for the Institute in Miami for June 8, 1997. Waldman later confirmed to the FBI that it was Ash who gave him Soghanalian’s name as a potential donor. The reception was to feature Marianne Gingrich and “a surprise guest.” FBI agents made plans to bug the fundraiser. In mid-May, the FBI’s Miami field office once again requested permission to tape record the meeting.

According to sources inside the FBI, Neil Gallagher, then the deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, after seeking the advice of a half dozen other FBI and Justice Department officials – but not Attorney General Janet Reno – ordered the investigation closed. The Miami field office and prosecutors were dumbfounded. They said Gallagher shut down the investigation just when Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his wife at Ben Waldman’s fundraiser.

After his retirement from the FBI, Gallagher said: “We can’t go around encouraging people to offer bribes to elected officials – we don’t do that…” When called recently for comment about the case at his home in Davidson, North Carolina, Gallagher says, “I can’t talk about this. You have to call the Justice Department.”

Another senior FBI official does not believe Gallagher’s explanation: “Do you remember the Abscam case? That is where FBI agents posing as rich Arabs bribed members of Congress. Gallagher did not object then. The truth is the Bureau thought Clinton was through because of the impeachment [proceedings] and they saw Gingrich as the most powerful man in America.”

In one recent interview Mrs. Gingrich says that she was unaware that Soghanalian had been invited to the fundraiser that was held in a private condominium in Miami Beach. She says that Joe Gaylord, her former husband’s political aide, would have handled such events. Gaylord did not return repeated phone calls for comment. A Miami Herald article puts Gingrich in Miami on this date. The fundraiser took place as planned on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Soghanalian, under orders from the FBI, did not attend. Twenty-five guests enjoyed a reception with Marianne Gingrich at an upscale oceanfront condominium in Miami. Her “surprise guest” that morning, her husband, Speaker Newt Gingrich, spoke about and urged support for free-market reform in Israel.

In a later conversation about the event Mrs. Gingrich confirms she and her husband attended the IASPS fundraiser with “about fifty other guests…We stayed about an hour and Newt was a surprise guest.”

After their meetings in Paris in 1995, Marianne Gingrich says she did not hear Soghanalian’s name again for several years. “It was in October of the last election year, 1998, and I get a call from Victoria (Toensing), and I was in Ohio and just found out I had MS, and I had to go into treatment. I was on heavy steroids; I am in the middle of a medical mess, high as a kite on steroids. I had to go to the Cleveland Clinic.” Marianne Gingrich was traveling with her assistant to speak to a conservative group in Ohio. She had scheduled a side trip to see a MS specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. “I get told I have to immediately get treatment. His nurse had MS, and she had the treatments available. Then you have to take pills to come off of it…. I am in the middle of that. I get a call from Victoria, and I said, ‘Just handle it.’ I am drugged up and high as a kite and I was bloating…I wasn’t supposed to be under stress,” she says.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, the entire controversy caught her by surprise. “No hint of this until Victoria called me….to tell me I was being investigated for arms dealing,” she says.

Victoria Toensing, Mrs. Gingrich's private attorney and former Reagan administrative official.
Victoria Toensing, Mrs. Gingrich’s private attorney and former Reagan administrative official.

Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan administration official, was Mrs. Gingrich’s private attorney. She and her husband, former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, were one of the most prominent political couples in Washington in the 1990s. Mrs. Gingrich says, “She told me the Justice Department suspected I was involved in arms dealing.” Ms. Toensing confirmed to the media in 2002 that her client did meet with Soghanalian in Paris, but she said that Mrs. Gingrich went only to help “Mr. Ash secure funding from Mr. Soghanalian…The only information she was given … was that he was a Mid-Eastern investor.” Toensing said Mrs. Gingrich knew nothing about the arms dealer’s background despite the fact that Soghanalian had been well known in Republican circles for years in Washington and Florida and had attended several Republican fundraisers that the Gingriches had also attended. In addition, Soghanalian had appeared on 60 Minutes and Nightline prior to the meeting in Paris.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, Toensing told the FBI that her client’s conversations with Soghanalian were “limited to obtaining funding for IEDC and trivial social conversation. Nothing more.” In a prepared statement for the media in 2002 Toensing wrote: “Mr. Soghanalian decided not to invest, and Ms. Gingrich never saw or talked with him again.” Mrs. Gingrich says that Toensing’s efforts to kill the investigation went all the way up to FBI Director Louis Freeh, who made the final decision. Toensing did not return several telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian’s recollection was far different. He said that after Paris “they (Ash and Bennett) were calling me every day to see how I got along with Marianne.”

Soghanalian told the FBI that he said to Mrs. Gingrich “that Iraq owed me $54 million, and I asked her whether she, with the help of her husband, could get the United Nations embargo against Iraq lifted so I could be paid.” Soghanalian said he also asked her if her husband could help him win congressional backing for a scheme to build a high-speed train through Florida. “Ash had told me this is one of the deals I could invest in – she could help us through Newt,” Soghanalian said. The FBI 302s confirm Soghanalian’s account of this part of the conversation. Soghanalian said Mrs. Gingrich told him “that she could get congressional support for the train, but her organization needed money for investment.”

Marianne Gingrich says, “I was just trying to keep the conversation going about his potential investment. I may have been polite, but I don’t remember ever discussing the arms embargo…I would have never suggested he invest in high speed rail. It was something I knew about, and it was impractical and a poor investment.”

This statement contradicts an earlier account by Victoria Toensing, who said in the 2002 statement, “Neither Iraqi sanctions nor a Florida bullet train … were ever brought up.” The lawyer went on: “It is not unusual for con artists to make false claims about well-known people.”

In a recent interview Mrs. Gingrich did recall the discussion about the possible bullet train deal. “I was humoring him, making small talk,” she says. Despite what is on the FBI tapes, Waldman denied in interviews at the time that there was ever a direct discussion of Speaker Gingrich assisting Soghanalian in getting the UN Iraq embargo lifted in return for money. Waldman claimed he was simply trying to humor Soghanalian, since he was a potential donor to the Institute. Newt Gingrich told the FBI that he “only vaguely” recalled Waldman’s name. He said, “To the best of my knowledge, I never sent anyone anywhere on behalf of the Institute.” The investigation took place while Gingrich was under other unrelated congressional ethics investigations and in the middle of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.
Newt Gingrigh and third wife Callista.
Newt Gingrigh and third wife Callista.

A short time later, Newt and Marianne Gingrich separated and went through a contentious divorce. Gingrich resigned as House Speaker and from Congress in January 1999 and married a congressional aide with whom he was having an affair.

On the night of February 6, 2001, Gus Boulis – who had sold most of his interest in the SunCruz gambling ship venture to Adam Kidan, Jack Abramoff and Ben Waldman – was driving home from work when he was gunned down. It was a classic mob hit. Adam Kidan, whom Jack Abramoff had brought into the company with Waldman, had ties to two organized crime families and became an instant suspect. (He denies knowing anything about the death.) While Kidan and Abramoff served prison sentences connected to the SunCruz case, the Miami U.S. Attorney’s office did not bring charges against Waldman, who owned 10 percent of the company. Today he lives in suburban Washington and sells dental equipment. As Abramoff tells it in interviews about his new book, congressional corruption is commonplace. In the book’s acknowledgements, he thanks his “lifelong friend and partner Ben Waldman.”

Howard Ash is still active in penny stock investments and charitable organizations from Miami to South Africa to Croatia. He is involved with a long list of ever-changing companies from a Miami Beach house at 4233 Sheridan Avenue, including Claridge Management, Ashtine Holding Group, Associated Medical Billing, Biocard Corporation, Biorecord Corporation, CMM Consulting Medical Industries, Judaica International, Shesha Holdings Inc. and many others.

On the website Dealmakers, he is described as “a seasoned international businessman with experience in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. In 1990, Howard co-founded Abrams, Ash & Associates, a Merchant Bank, and sold his shares in 1992. Since 1992 Howard has served as CEO, COO and CFO to a variety of high-profile, international companies, including Israel Export Development Corporation, CITA Americas, BioCard, Inc., and several publicly traded companies. Howard’s leadership provided development of business documents and corporate identity packages, business planning, strategy formation, web presence, operations and implementation, investment banking liaisons, and investor relations. Howard, a silent partner in Tudog Creative Business Consulting, leverages his extensive network of international contacts and international consulting firms to provide clients with the broadest and most effective services available.”

Morty Bennett says he is retired and loves living in West Virginia.

FBI Gingrich Investigation

Just Two Degrees of Separation

Posted by Guest at 4:52 pm

By Jane Kaddouri

Newt Gingrich

A new story is making the media rounds, reporting on a proposed 1997 FBI sting targeting GOP candidate Newt Gingrich. According to author Joseph Trento, Newt’s then-wife Marianne was soliciting bribes from an infamous arms dealer in exchange for Gingrich’s lifting of the U.S. embargo of Iraq.

The report details Marianne’s 1995 Paris meetings with arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian—meetings also attended by Howard Ash, who had worked with Marianne at the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC).

While Marianne says she was meeting with Soghanalian not to negotiate a bribe for House Speaker Gingrich, but at the behest of her former boss at IEDC, who was seeking a donation from Soghanalian. The arms dealer, on the other hand, says he met Marianne through Miami car dealer Morty Bennett (also in attendance at the Paris meeting), who told him that Newt Gingrich could lift the Iraqi embargo “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates…[at] The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS)”—where the same Howard Ash also served as a fundraiser.

And this is where it gets really interesting for us. Because you have to ask what kind of person would solicit a donation from a known arms dealer (he was profiled on “60 Minutes” the night before the Paris meeting). And we’re here to tell you. The CEO of IEDC at the time—and the Board Chair of IASPS—was none other than David Yerushalmi, the man behind the Islamophobia movement; the man who wanted turn adherence to Sharia into a felony crime.

The 2011 publication Fear, Inc., profiles Yerushalmi’s hatemongering in terrifying detail— from referring to African Americans as “the most murderous of people,” to his authorship of anti-Sharia legislation that’s being used as a model around the country.

Back in 2006, Yerushalmi wasn’t happy with Newt Gingrich—for the simple reason that Newt just wasn’t tough enough on Islam. Newt said that there were 5 challenges America had to meet in order to win the future, the first of which was “confronting a world in which America’s enemies, including the irreconcilable wing of Islam and rogue dictatorships, could acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons.” Yerushalmi’s response was to ask if Newt was “articulating a future for America or for the ‘middle wing’ of the Republican Party and for control of Congress and the White House?” Either way, he concluded, Newt was just not his guy. “As much as I admired Newt Gingrich in 1994, and I had a special relationship with him through his former wife Marianne, I fear he is not the leader we await.”

Now that Newt is vying for control of the White House, he seems to be taking a page from Yerushalmi’s book of horrors. Far from the days of being a friend to the Muslim community, he’s now espousing legislation to combat the “spread of Sharia law.” He’s insisting that all Palestinians are terrorists. He mirrored Yerushalmi’s stance on Park 51. The new Newt seems a lot like the same old Yerushalmi—a similarity that’s becoming frighteningly clear.

New World Order Lobby Promoting Gingrich

Newt and Callista Gingrich

By Michael Collins Piper -

Even though there was no evidence of it, the elite media announced that the presidential campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was picking up steam and gave his ambitions a critical boost. This was no surprise to those who know Gingrich has longstanding ties to powerful circles outside the realm of the grassroots voters.

In 1968, when conservatives were backing Richard Nixon or then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich was a Southern campaign coordinator for liberal internationalist Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York.

Although Gingrich now touts himself as a conservative, he remains a fervent New World Order globalist and a longtime advocate of U.S.military adventurism abroad and destructive so-called free trade policies. In fact, it was Gingrich who helped railroad the discredited North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress.

A member of the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy apparatus of the Rothschild banking empire, Gingrich is particularly close to hard-line pro-Israeli forces on American soil.

One of his chief foreign policy advisors is Ilan Berman, editor of the journal of the Jewish Institute for National SecurityAffairs (JINSA), the U.S.-based operation said by Prof. Edward Hermann of the University of Pennsylvania to be a “virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

Best known for its front-line role through its assets in the George W. Bush administration in misdirecting the United States into the debacle in Iraq and now continuing to clamor for war against Iran, JINSA has had several of its key figures—including JINSA’s founder, Stephen Bryen, and his close associates Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz—investigated by the FBI on suspicion of conducting espionage for Israel.

Gingrich—who has overseen a network of political enterprises that have brought an estimated $100 million into his coffers since he left Congress—has been favored by one donor in particular: Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson, a devoted supporter of Israel, who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” This modern incarnation of crime boss Meyer Lansky bankrolled Gingrich to the tune of at least $6 million.

While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the activities of his (second) wife, Marianne, then on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), promoting the importation of Israeli products into the United States—even as Gingrich used his influence in Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.

IEDCO was the brainchild of Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for urging, “pull it”—in reference to the trade center’s Building 7, which was deliberately imploded—as 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

Silverstein even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number in Congress who lobbied to support Silverstein’s ventures. This happened at a time when Gingrich’s wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

Mrs. Gingrich’s IDECO deal was cut in 1994 after she and Newt traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel.

Although she took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” Mrs. Gingrich refused to disclose the size of those commissions. The sums she received are of the level seen in many bribery scandals.

On Jan. 25, 1985, a front-page story in The Spotlight unmasked Gingrich—then a little-known junior House member and the leader of a clique of Republicans, the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS)—as the driving force behind a scheme to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance on foreign policy.

The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich and several other COS members—including then-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.)— had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, at which Gingrich and the COS agreed to use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp. In return, the Post’s power-wielders promised to give Gingrich and his collaborators wide and favorable publicity. Until then, the media had relegated Gingrich and company to backbench status, painted as extremists.

Gingrich told the Post the COS would—and they did—call for sanctions against white-ruled South Africa, a reversal of the traditional conservative stand, a move that helped bring down that government and which resulted in South Africa turning its nuclear arsenal over to Israel—a little-known secret then and now.

Soon—as promised—the Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich, one of many future puff pieces.

Then, Gingrich’s colleague, Weber, authored a Post column openly calling for the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.”

The Spotlight was shouted down by conservatives hoodwinked by the big media into following Gingrich’s brand of “leadership.” Ultimately, however, the secret Post-Gingrich meeting was confirmed by the Post—but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory”—as some called it— proved to be a conspiracy fact.

On Sept. 3, 1995 the Post pointed out that “for the ultra-right, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said “anyone who glances at The Spotlight . . . knows . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is [subverting] it.”

According to the Post: “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire eastern establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the UN.”

More than a decade later, that sarcastic assessment of Gingrich stands perhaps more true than ever.

Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant, The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and The Confessions of an Anti-Semite. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202- 547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H; fees.

.American Free Press
.Vol XI .#13 March 21, 2011 americanfreepress.net

Page 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * March 28, 2011 *

9-11 Links,
Big Money Swirl
Around Newt

By Michael Collins Piper


.Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who left office under a cloud in 1999 — has pivotal political backing in elite global financial and corporate circles and can count on friendly support from the controlled media in pursuing his aspirations for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Despite his efforts to portray himself as a “conservative” alternative to politics-as-usual, Gingrich is an unabashed New World Order internationalist and a long-standing advocate of destructive “free trade” policies and American military adventurism abroad.
As such, it is no coincidence Gingrich is a longtime member of the Rockefeller family-financed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy- making apparatus of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty that is intricately intertwined with those predatory plutocrats on American soil who dominate the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, the privately owned money monopoly Ron Paul has worked to bring into line. These facts about Gingrich point to where his real loyalties lie.

On Feb. 26 The Washington Post reported Gingrich has assembled a multi-level, wide-ranging political conglomerate of his own, described as “a financial empire that could prove crucial” in advancing Gingrich’s presidential ambitions. He has already raised more money than possible GOP primary opponents including Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney.
In addition, Gingrich controls an operation known as American Solutions for Winning the Future — a virtual private money machine that Gingrich uses to promote himself. The Post says this Gingrich venture has raised “more money than any other organization of its kind nationwide,” to the tune of more than $50 million, “much of it as large donations from casino, energy and banking interests.”
By far the most generous backer of Gingrich is Las Vegas-based casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson — a hardline supporter of Israel who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” Adelson has given Gingrich some $6 million over the last four years.
Gingrich also has an unusual connection to Larry Silverstein, a controversial figure whose name has been in the forefront of the circumstances surrounding the cover-up of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.
While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected activities of his then-second wife, Marianne, who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which promoted the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.
The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the Trade Center’s Building 7. That skyscraper was deliberately imploded, a point 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.
Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IEDCO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel. Although Mrs. Gingrich took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” she refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.” And while Mrs. Gingrich responded to criticisms of her sweet deal that “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making,” the fact is that the sums she received are precisely of the level often seen linked to political payoffs.
IEDCO’s Silverstein once even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who was lobbied to support Silverstein’s company’s proposals — when his wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

Going back as far as 25 years, evidence was emerging that suggested that Gingrich was not the kind of Republican that could be considered “traditional.” A front-page exclusive published in the Jan. 28, 1985 issue of The Spotlight revealed that, while he was then a little known junior member of the House of Representatives, Gingrich was the brains behind a clique of internationalist Republicans who were working to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance in foreign policy making. Unfortunately, this honest effort to expose Gingrich’s internationalist bent was greeted with a mixture of outrage and scorn by many conservatives, who were hoodwinked by the mainstream media into following the Georgia congressman’s peculiar brand of “leadership.” Gingrich and his fellow GOP lawmakers dubbed themselves the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS).
The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich, along with several other House Republicans, including Reps. Vin Weber (Minn.), Connie Mack (Fla.), and Robert Walker (Pa.), had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, and Meg Greenfield, the Post’s editorial page editor. At that meeting Gingrich and his colleagues effectively agreed to work to revamp the so-called “conservative wing” of the Republican Party and use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp.
In return, the liberal Post’s power-wielders agreed to give Gingrich and his colleagues widespread favorable publicity in the pages of their influential daily. Until that time Gingrich and company had been relegated to “backbench” status by the media, sometimes painted as “extremists” and “troublemakers.”
Gingrich and his colleagues told the Post that they would come out swinging in favor of economic sanctions against the anti-communist, pro-American regime in South Africa. This was a 180-degree reversal of the traditional “conservative” stand in support of South Africa and in opposition to sanctions. In no short time they did, in fact, call for sanctions, causing syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan to comment that Gingrich and company were “turncoat[s]” who were guilty of “stabbing South Africa in the back.” By adopting the new position, Gingrich and his COS clique had signed on with the liberal internationalists in Congress who had been waging war against South Africa for decades.
Soon — as promised — The Washington Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich. This set the stage for many future such puff-pieces promoting Gingrich and placing him in line for his ultimate election as House minority whip and then as House speaker. Then, to the outrage of nationalist-minded Republicans, Gingrich’s COS colleague, Weber, authored a prominently placed op-ed column in the Post (never permitted as a forum for GOP conservatives) which called upon the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.” Ultimately, The Spotlight’s world exclusive on the secret meeting between Gingrich and the Post was confirmed by the Post itself — but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. In short, The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory” — as some called it — proved to be a fact.
None of this surprised long-time Gingrich watchers. In 1968 when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were vying for “conservative” support in their respective bids for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich opted instead to sign on as the southeast regional coordinator for their opponent, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Later, Gingrich taught at the Rockefeller-funded Emory University in Atlanta.
What he represents is reflected in the critical role played by Gingrich in railroading the sovereignty-robbing, job-exporting North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress. He rallied enough GOP votes to enable enactment, a major victory for fellow CFR-member, then-President Bill Clinton. Gingrich, in fact, was almost single-handedly responsible for ensuring NAFTA’s passage.
On Sept. 3, 1995 The Washington Post assured its readers that Gingrich was “okay” despite criticism of Gingrich by some liberal critics. The Post rushed to this defense and pointed out in a headline that “For the ultraright, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said that “anyone who glances at The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper of the far-right Liberty Lobby . . . knows that . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is actively working to subvert it.” However, the Post was careful not to mention that it was The Spotlight that first blew the whistle on the secret deal between Gingrich and the Post.
According to the sarcastic and less than factual commentary by the Post, “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire Eastern Establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the United Nations.”
The Post smeared patriots, saying: “It is important for national opinion-makers to understand the chasm between most House Republicans and the loony right. Gingrich and his GOP revolution may be controversial and provocative, but they are not the source of violent extremism.”

Another point to keep in mind: As AFP has reported exclusively, there is evidence Gingrich may be cooperating with a high-level scheme to launch an ostensibly “independent” political movement in the 2012 election, a so-called “centrist” third party that will be used to corral grassroots opposition to the New World Order establishment.
So even if Gingrich does not ultimately wind up as the GOP presidential nominee, he may have other options in the 2012 election arena.

* * * * * * *

. . ..Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel’s Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #13, March 28, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)

.American Free Press
Volume VI. #6. February 6, 2006..americanfreepress.net


P. 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * February 6, 2006 Behind the Headlines
with Michael Collins Piper

Media Promotes ‘Reformers’
In Wake of Abramoff Scandal

By Michael Collins Piper

In the wake of the growing scandal surrounding the sleazy activities of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a longtime Republican Party activist and promoter of Israel’s interests, the major media has been touting two unlikely Republican advocates for “reform”: former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

However, a careful review of the records of both Gingrich and McCain indicates that they can hardly be counted upon to bring genuine reform to curtail the domination of Congress by special interest lobbies.

Take the case of the former House speaker. While serving in Congress and talking about cost-cutting, he once declared that U.S. foreign aid to Israel was one of the areas that no cost-cutting was possible and that, quite the contrary, required additional funding from tax-burdened Americans.

IT GOES BOTH WAYS: Democrats from the House and Senate listen to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) during a press conference unveiling the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress January 18, 2006, in Washington. Democrats proposed the legislation in reaction to the corruption and scandals involving some GOP lawmakers and lobbyists. Democrat or Republican, the truth is congressmen (and women) routinely do “favors” for lavish gifts.

In addition, while Gingrich was busy on Capitol Hill carrying water for Israeli interests, his then-wife Marianne was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IDECO), which was promoting the financial interests of Israel vis-à-vis lucrative trade agreements with the U.S.

Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IDECO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is the foreign lobby for Israel that, even as this is written, has been embarrassed by the criminal indictment of two of its top lobbyists on charges of suspected espionage on behalf of Israel.

At the time it was first revealed that Mrs. Gingrich was taking home a monthly stipend of $2,500 plus “commissions” from the Israeli corporate operation. However, Mrs. Gingrich has refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.”

Mrs. Gingrich has responded to criticisms of her sweet deal by saying “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making. » However, the fact is, the yearly figure of $30,000 is precisely the kind of figures often seen linked to political payoffs. And what is interesting is that IEDCO president Larry Silverstein admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal.

Mrs. Gingrich’s Israeli connection was obviously an egregious conflict of interest for Gingrich, but the congressman’s friends in high places saw no problem — since “our ally Israel” was involved. Imagine the ruckus if Mrs. Gingrich had been working for Arab interests.

As for so-called “reformer” John McCain, his track record is not so much more attractive. Following the 2002 elections, when campaign finance reform legislation — shepherded into law by McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) — went into effect, the New York-based weekly newspaper Forward, the most influential voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, bragged in its first post-election edition that “Jewish interest groups may be the big winners” under the vaunted McCain- Feingold campaign finance measures. Forward asserted flatly:

Political hands say groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and its counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council, not-for-profits unaffected by the ban on “soft money” for political campaigns, are poised to be big beneficiaries of the new [campaign finance legislation] regime.

In fact, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” measure, the new strength in organized Jewish political power would come at the expense of corporations, labor unions and other interest groups — and wealthy individuals, too — who were previously exempt from regular limits on campaign contributions if their funds were donated directly to national party organizations for “party building,” voter drives and issues advertisements.

Under the new law only so-called “issues” groups such as the aforementioned Jewish organizations would not be subject to limits. Forward pointed out:

As long as the groups are independent of the parties and candidates do not “coordinate” their activities with them, their contributions remain unrestricted.

What this means is that a wide-ranging number of political action committees focused on Israel interests can now spend unlimited amounts of money working to elect or defeat candidates.

Although top Jewish organizations such as the Anti- Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and AIPAC target offending politicians for destruction, these organizations do not formally involve themselves in election campaigns or donate money to political figures.

However, it is an “open secret” that dozens of other Jewish political organizations rely on “a wink and a nod” from the ADL and AIPAC to determine whom they should support or oppose financially.

Anyone familiar with the history and record of McCain would not be surprised that McCain should be the one responsible for enacting such unfair and biased legislation
designed to benefit the political power of the pro-Israel lobby. In fact, McCain owes his entire career to the indirect sponsorship of the powerful organized-crime-enriched family of billionaire Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress. McCain’s chief backer in Arizona politics, Kemper Marley, was a front man for the Bronfman family, and McCain’s own family beer distribution fortune came through this connection.

In addition, much of McCain’s own campaign money has come from a clique of groups and individuals all of whom have close ties to the Israeli lobby, including: organized crime-linked gambling interests in Las Vegas, international bankers such as Goldman Sachs and Hollywood figures such as the late mob-linked Lew Wasserman.

It will also be remembered that McCain’s father, the late Adm. John McCain, was a key player in the official U.S. government cover-up of Israel’s murder of 34 American sailors aboard the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967.

. . ..A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, The Judas Goats, and Dirty Secrets, all available from America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #7, February 6, 2006, American Free Press)

Newt Gingrich ou la voix de son maître sioniste – Sheldon Adelson: Les poches profondes qui sont derrière Newt Gingrich

par Eli Clifton, Think Progress (USA) le 21 décembre 2011 traduit de l’anglais par Djazaïri

Le financement qui est derrière Newt Gingrich etAmerican Solutions for Winning the Future, son comité politique indépendant, est l’occasion d’une plongée fascinante dans les profondeurs des poches qui soutiennent la candidature de Gingrich. Cette semaine, McClatchy a révélé qu’American Solutions avait réglé la note de 8 millions de dollars de location de jets privés à l’époque où Gingrich réfléchissait à son entrée dans les compétitions présidentielles de 2008 et 2012.

Le milliardaire des jeux de casino Sheldon Adelson était le plus important financier d’American Solutions avec une contribution de 7,65 millions de dollars, la rumeur étant qu’il avait engagé 20 millions de dollars en faveur d’un super PAC (comité d’action politique) pro-Gingrich, rumeur démentie par un porte parole d’Adelson. Quoi qu’il en soit, les faits montrent de manière de plus en plus nette que le patron de casion milliardaire est une pièce centrale de la carrière politique de Newt Gingrich.

L’entreprise Sands Corporation dirigée par Sheldon Adelson est basée à Las Vegas mais a des intérêts politiques et commerciaux à Macao, en Chine et en Israël. En Israël, l’importance d’Adelson tient à sa relation d’amitié proche avec le premier ministre Israélien Benjamin Netanyahou et au journal gratuit Israel Hayom dont il est le propriétaire et qui soutient le parti du Likoud. Pour en revenir aux Etats Unis, Adelson siège au conseil d’administration de la Republican Jewish Coalition et ne cache pas ses vues sur le conflit israélo-palestinien. Pendant la présidence de George W. Bush, Adelson s’était opposé aux efforts de relance des discussions de paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens et était même allé à l’encontre de l’influent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) quand cette organisation avait soutenu les discussions de paix. « Je ne continue pas à soutenir des organisations qui aident des amis à se suicider simplement parce qu’ils disent qu’ils veulent faire le grand saut, » avait déclaré Adelson à la Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Gingrich, qui a qualifié le 10 décembre les Palestiniens de “terroristes” pendant un débat du parti Républicain et a déclaré à Jewish Channel que les palestiniens sont un peuple « inventé », semble faire écho à la ligne dure adoptée avant lui par son bienfaiteur plein aux as.

“Sheldon a toujours aimé Newt. Il est resté avec lui tout le temps, » a déclaré Fred Zeidman, un ami d’Adelson et un membre important de la communauté juive américaine qui soutient Mitt Romney, à Aram Roston du Daily Beast. « Il est resté avec lui quand il était dans l’ornière. Newt, je pense, reflète bien l’état d’esprit de Sheldon. Particulièrement au sujet d’Israël.”

Si Adelson et Gingrich semblent partager le même agenda de droite pour le Moyen Orient, les affaires du magnat des casinos en Chine se sont avérées politiquement gênantes au pays. Adelson aurait aidé à faire échouer au Congrès une mesure d’opposition à la candidature de Pékin aux jeux olympiques proposée par des Républicains de la chambre des Représentants. «La proposition d eloi ne verra jamais le jour, M. le maire. Ne vous inquiétez pas pour ça, » aurait-il dit au maire de Pékin et 2001 après avoir téléphoné à Tom Delay, le chef de la majorité à la Chambre des Représentants. Par la suite, Sands Corporation obtint une lucrative licence de casino par le gouvernement chinois, ce qui lui permit de commencer un développement massif dans la Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR).

Réagissant à l’étroitesse des relations d’affaires d’Adelson avec le gouvernement chinois, le président de la Christian Coalition of Alabama, le Dr Randy Brinson, avait dénoncé Adelson qui « ne partage pas nos valeurs. » « Les endroits où Sheldon Adelson a placé son argent dit clairement où son cœur balance : vers le jeu d’argent et le soutien au régime chinois qui persécute les Chrétiens, » avait-il dit.

Gingrich va se retrouver devant ses propres difficultés à persuader les Chrétiens évangéliques troublés par ses multiples mariages et liaisons extraconjugales, de soutenir sa candidatLienure. Mais la présence affichée de Sheldon Adelson dans le camp de Gingrich pourrait s’avérer être un obstacle de plus dans la conquête de le très importante droite chrétienne.

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Allemagne occupée par le sionisme (ZOG) : David Duke brièvement emprisonné pour délit d’opinion


New David Duke Podcast: Why I was arrested in Cologne

Listen to the new podcast by David Duke about his arrest in Cologne and the struggle for both free speech and the very survival of the European and American people.
—How the human rights of the European people are being lost
—How the media distorts my message and the message of our people
—Why European patriots must learn from the failure of violent White resistance in the South, and always keep the moral high ground
—What we must do now


Dr. David Duke speaks about his recent travails in his efforts for our freedom and heritage!

On my recent imprisonment and the fight for free speech and the heritage of our people!
– Composed in a moving Car! by Dr. David Duke
And to think there are politicians in the Western World who criticize the lack of freedom of speech in Iran or China!
My Dear Friends,

I am free now, but a desperate fight is ahead of me for my rights and the rights of the people of Europe to hear me. They truly do want to hear me and they need to hear me and my message. Today videos of talks and appearances are reaching tens of millions of people.
I think by now that you know my spirit, that I simply cannot back down from aiding our brothers and sisters efforts for their heritage in our ancient homelands of Europe any more than I could cease the fight for America. This a global effort to destroy our people, and it requires a global effort on our part to win it. We in America and Canada, Australia, across Europe and even across Russia must help awaken each other and aid each other.
I won’t go into to many details of my arrest at this moment as a court case is yet to be fought, but I was imprisoned by a gross twisting of travel laws in a blatant attempt by the government to prevent a private and peaceful gathering of about a 100 German citizens eager to hear my message of heritage and freedom. My arrest and imprisonment was meant to silence my message and demoralize the people who came to hear it.
For hours before my scheduled presentation at a private event, Police under orders from the politicians stopped all of our cars, including a couple over 90 years old who had driven over 75 kilometers to hear me. They demanded ID from all, delaying them for a long time on the street, and they told the people specifically that the meeting was cancelled. There at the police checkpoint, after a number of people had gone on to the private meeting site, they arrested me. Of course, the claim that the meeting was cancelled was a huge lie. The meeting was not cancelled. The owner of the hall honored the contract with the group, and in fact the meeting went on without me, thanks to the brave people who withstood all the intimidation, and who still persevered and made their way to the hall. (more…)

What Would Happen If Jesse Jackson Were Arrested in Europe?

Mainstream Media Ignores the Arrest of Dr. David Duke in Germany.

by James Buchanan

Dr. David Duke was invited by German patriots to give a speech in the city of Cologne. He was arrested before he could say one word and has been held in isolation since Friday (but is now free) pending resolution of charges in court at a later date.
Now let’s alter this scenario a little bit. Instead of a pro-White activist, let’s say a pro-Black activist, Jesse Jackson had been visiting Europe to organize the many recent African immigrants in Europe into a voting block. Let’s say Jackson stepped off an airplane in Cologne and before he could give a scheduled speech, he was surrounded by submachine-gun-toting policemen and hauled off to a prison as if he were a serious criminal, who had been robbing banks.
To make matters worse, let’s say the German police held Jackson with little -if any- communication with his friends and family. Under those circumstances, the mainstream media would let out howls of rage over the brutal police state tactics and the lack of freedom in the so-called “Republic” of Germany. The US government would similarly react in outrage and begin threatening Germany with sanctions if they failed to immediately release the US citizen or if they ever repeated such tyrannical actions against a US citizen in the future. (more…)

Free David Duke!

David Duke Kidnapped by German Government

EDITORS’ NOTE: “Jewish control and policing of the Infotainment Industry, and enforcing thought control…” who gets whacked for doing what.
David Duke, is an easy messenger for many to shoot, but they will find the facts a bit harder to kill and bury. Truth does not lie dead very long, nor does it rest long in the grave, no matter how deep they dig it.
Likudist extremist elements within the German government set an ambush for Mr. Duke who was en route to a speaking engagement when he was forcibly detained and arrested.

Germany arrests former US presidential candidate « We all have a responsibility to ensure that extreme-right, nationalistic and anti-Semitic groups and networks are not able to again come together, » says Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, according to the Associated Press.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was arrested as he was about to speak at a neo-Nazi event in Germany.

Sur ce blog:

Le plus beau dans nos chères démocraties, c’est qu’on n’a pas à s’inquiéter pour sa liberté d’opinion et d’expression…. N’EST-CE PAS?

L’histoire contemporaine: une fable convenue

Le lobby juif poursuit une organisation musulmane shiite canadienne pour avoir posté un vidéo de David Duke

Qui contrôle les États-Unis?

David Duke: les maîtres sionistes ont enseigné la torture aux forces états-uniennes

Le message de paix de David Duke contre les guerres sionistes

David Duke: retour sur Pourim

David Duke: Terrorisme israélien contre les États-Unis

Esclavage et génocides

L’AUTRE MONDE – Les médias et les politiques sous l’influence du lobby qui n’existe pas

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Alan Dershowitz contre Gilad Atzmon

Dershowitz: Israel Has Legal Right to Attack Iran

The Warped Morality of a Warmonger: Why Alan Dershowitz is Wrong on Israel’s ‘Rights’

Sur ce blog:

Gilad Atzmon: Il n’est pas de business plus juteux que le Shoah Business

Gilad Atzmon: le sionisme contrôle la Grande-Bretagne

Gilad Atzmon: pas casher

Israël n’est pas « un projet colonial comme les autres »

Gilad Atzmon: Qu’est-ce que le judaïsme (autodéification shoatique)

L’anti Durban 2 : BHL, Dershowitz, etc.

L’avocat de la torture Alan Dershowitz

Professeur de torture: Dershowitz à la défense du « waterboarding »

Lev Leviev, Alan Dershowitz et les diamants de l’apartheid

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

La démolition de l’édifice WTC 7 et le rôle central des sionistes dans le 11 septembre

Daily Mail ‘proves’ fire brought down WTC7

Original article by takeourworldback.com

Overwhelming evidence that Israel masterminded 9/11 is further corroborated by the identity of those engaged in the cover-up.

The Daily Mail’s WTC7 propaganda debunked

Britain’s Daily Mail carries an article on its website purporting to « finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim ». The newspaper’s ‘evidence’ to support its bold assertion consists of a two-minute video, which shows fires burning on a couple of isolated floors in WTC7.

The footage has already been analyzed and described in detail in the 2008 NIST report on WTC7: NIST NCSTAR 1-9. The NIST report shows a number of frames taken from the footage. For example, Figure 5-143 is a frame from the video showing a close-up of fires burning on the 8th floor on the NE corner. It was taken within a few minutes of 4:00 on the afternoon of 9/11/01, about 1 hour 20 minutes before the building collapsed, and nearly an hour before the BBC reported that it had collapsed. NIST has adjusted the intensities.


Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Final Report released November 2008

The above frame occurs around 1:43 on the LiveLeak video embedded on the Daily Mail page.


Source: LiveLeak

And Figure 5-138 corresponds to a frame around 0:15 in the video. The flame height extends a little above the bottom of the window. NIST, in referring to this image, describes the flames as « small flames burning on the window frames ».


Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Final Report released November 2008

The Mail reporter has concocted a ‘theory’ of how the fires were supposed to have brought down the building – the « exterior metal beams » were « overheated » and began to « buckle », which « led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse ». The article asserts that « you can even see the metal bars of the exterior buckling ». However, those « exterior metal beams » or « bars » are simply aluminum window frames, and have nothing to do with holding up the steel-framed building or the floors. The exterior columns were fireproofed 14-inch W-shapes (W14) fabricated from ASTM A36 steel. There were 58 exterior columns (counting « 14A ») and 24 core columns.

Even NIST did not try to pretend that columns heated significantly. They ran simulations, which they termed « Case A », « Case B », and « Case C ». In Case B they increased Case A temperatures by 10%, and in Case C they decreased Case A temperatures by 10%.

From 10.4 in their report:

The following is a list of findings common to the three Cases:
  • In none of the Cases did any of the columns, all of which were insulated, reach temperatures sufficiently high for significant loss of strength or stiffness.
    • The temperatures of Columns 79, 80, and 81 stayed below 200 °C on all of the floors.
    • Only on Floors 12 and 13 did any of the exterior column temperatures exceed 150 °C.
    • On these floors, the temperatures on the east and south exterior columns reached 300 °C.


Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Final Report released November 2008

The video shows fires burning on the 8th floor, and NIST admits that the exterior columns on that floor did not exceed 150 °C. A temperature of 150 °C is not going to induce buckling in steel columns.

Early Google captures confirm that the Mail’s article originally included the reporter’s name, Meghan Keneally. After the article came in for a lot of stick, being variously condemned in the earlier comments as « rubbish », « utterly pathetic », « disappointing », « official propaganda », and « the stupidest article of dis-information », and elsewhere described as looking « like it was written by a child for a school essay« , the attribution was hastily deleted and revised to « DAILY MAIL REPORTER ».


It can also been seen that the unsustainable lie about the video being « unseen » footage was changed to « rare » footage. Yeah, right. Rare enough for multiple frames extracted from it to be all over the NIST report and seen by millions of people over the past three years.

Ms. Keneally is an American-born freelance journalist and dual U.S. – British citizen who alternates between Manhattan and London. Her bio and résumé show that she received a « Master’s degree at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism » – a « Master of Science », inter alia. Thus, Ms. Keneally is not simply too gormless and scientifically illiterate to understand how the fact that various elements have various melting points, along with forensic evidence that indicates the temperatures attained in some particular incident, especially when corroborated by the presence of accelerants that will produce such temperatures, tells us whether or not accelerants were employed by criminals with access to the buildings involved in the incident in question. In this case, it was to ensure that the buildings collapsed to provide the casus belli they required for their wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly Iran.

However, years of brainwashing that induces an inverted world-view in which conspiracy facts are perceived as conspiracy theories and vice versa, along with a clear understanding that a failure to support the official line on events like 9/11 would be career suicide, leads to otherwise intelligent journalists posting « rubbish » and « dis-information » that « comes across like it was written by a child for a school essay ». And to be fair, journalists have deadlines to meet, and do not have the luxury of being able to spend weeks on an article after having already researched the subject in their spare time over most of the previous decade.

There is irrefutable evidence showing that conspiracy theories such as « the Arabs did 9/11″ and « Hani Hanjour flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon » are nothing more than a legend fabricated to go with a false-flag terror operation that was conceived and orchestrated for political and business purposes, and touted for public consumption by the true perpetrators and their agents. As to why some people choose to live in denial and cling to such theories despite their implausibility, this question is best answered by psychologists such as those featured on the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth video 9/11: Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out, or by Laurie Manwell at the Toronto Hearings.

It took NIST until 2008 to come up with their « thermal expansion » theory of collapse. That was after early attempts at implicating diesel fuel came apart at the seams, when it was found that the evidence against the diesel fuel hypothesis was too overwhelming for it to be advocated even by government scientists. But the « thermal expansion » theory not only fails to account for the presence of active thermitic material and evidence of extremely high temperatures; it even fails to account for collapse of the building.

At 400 °C, the temperature required to retain rigidity, thermal expansion of a 52-ft floor beam would have been 3.3 inches; less than the required 5.5 inches for the connection to « walk off » its seat. Even at 600 °C, the expansion of the beam would be no more than 0.000014 x (600 – 25) x (52 x 12) = 5.0 inches.

Combustibles at any given location would be fully consumed within about twenty minutes, so it is unrealistic to imagine that a beam insulated with Monokote MK-5 would be heated to 600 °C along the whole of its length at any given time. In any case, even NIST admitted in 2004 that the fire on Floor 12, below the girder between columns 79 and 44 under Floor 13 that was supposed to have failed at 5:20 p.m. initiating a total collapse, was burned out by 4:45 p.m. In fact, the east end fire there had burned out before 4:00 p.m. And it is ludicrous to suppose that failure of a single column in a high-rise would be so catastrophic an event as to induce global collapse of the building in the manner of a controlled demolition, with the symmetrical failure of 400 steel connections per second. Buildings of 47 or 110 stories are over-engineered to ensure they don’t collapse from office fires or from a single column failure.

Moreover, the explicit testimony of Barry Jennings, an eyewitness who told of how he was trapped in WTC7 by early explosions prior to the collapse of either Tower, directly contradicts the official theory as touted by NIST that fires in WTC7 led to its collapse after being ignited during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Sadly, Mr. Jennings died on August 19, 2008, just two days before NIST released the draft version of its WTC7 report. The ‘coincidental’ timing of NIST’s draft release is consistent with NIST delaying publication until receiving confirmation of the death.

NIST postulating its « thermal expansion » collapse theory is analogous to a corrupt policeman who dismisses bullets and bullet wounds found in a corpse, pretends they are not there, and reports that the death was a result of being hit on the head by a piece of paper.

Apart from Meghan Keneally’s apparent blunder in confusing window panes with exterior columns, and attempt to outdo NIST in proposing a collapse theory in seven minutes when it took them seven years to do the same, she has advanced one of the biggest straw man arguments of all time. No one claims that there were never any fires burning in WTC7. There has always been evidence of office fires at WTC1, 2 and 7, and a confirmation of that is not news and will not cause anyone to change their mind.

The problem is that « office fires » don’t bring down steel-framed high-rises, they don’t produce an orange-yellow flow of tons of molten material pouring out of the windows that is indicative of an iron-rich melt and totally at odds with the « office fires » scenario, they don’t create dust containing tons of unreacted nano-thermite and 5.87% iron spherules by mass, and they don’t leave tons of molten iron and steel in a pile of debris. « Office fires » don’t leave heavily sulfidated, partly evaporated steel members with a Swiss cheese appearance, especially from a building such as WTC7 where there was no plane to dislodge the fireproofing. Neither do underground fires that have been smothered with tens of thousands of tons of concrete dust, hosed with three million gallons of water and exposed to another million gallons of rain all within the first ten days, and sprayed with thousands of gallons of the fire retardant foaming agent Pyrocool FEF. When such fires are subjected to « a nearly constant jet of water » sprayed on them that effectively creates a « giant lake », they should not mysteriously continue to burn for more than three months. It took a mere twelve-and-a-half minutes using 500 gallons of Pyrocool FEF to extinguish the Nassia oil tanker fire near Instanbul, Turkey.

Analysis of dust samples obtained from the vicinity of the World Trade Center, one of them from the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge « about ten minutes after the fall of the North Tower » and thereby eliminating any possibility of contamination from the clean-up, showed that active thermitic material was ubiquitous in the dense dust that settled over Manhattan following the collapses of the Twin Towers. The dust contained an abundance of iron spheres and distinctive red-gray chips comprised of 40 nm-thick aluminum plates and 100 nm iron oxide grains embedded in a silicon-carbon matrix. Tests using a differential scanning calorimeter determined that the energy release of the red-gray chips was up to 7 kJ/g. Although reality deniers unable to handle the truth and others attempting to cover for the 9/11 perpetrators lied by claiming that the material was « primer paint », that is robustly refuted by the facts. Unlike primer paint, these chips did not dissolve after 55 hours in MEK paint solvent with agitation, had a low electrical resistance of ~ 10 ohms per meter, contained no zinc, magnesium or chromium, and ignited at ~ 430 C to form iron-rich spherules, indicative of a thermitic reaction yielding a molten iron product.

Source: YouTube

In contrast to the « office fires » hypothesis, the existence of tons of active thermitic material capable of yielding iron- or steel-melting temperatures in a reaction that generates its own source of pure oxygen from the reduction of iron oxide, with some of the material nano-sized and igniting at around 430 °C, could account for the collapses and the observed phenomena before and after collapse. Thermitic material has a lower calorific value than combustibles such as kerosene or wood, but those produce much lower temperatures when burning in air because oxygen is inextricably mixed with at least 3.77 times as much nitrogen and argon, which must be heated in the reaction before heat can be transmitted to the surroundings, e.g. to steel members. The transmission of energy away from the hot gases lowers the flame temperature from its adiabatic value, commensurate with the proportion of energy that is transmitted. In the WTC fires some 40% (one-third to one-half according to FEMA) of the energy released was vented out to drive the smoke plume. Oxides of nitrogen are not formed at the temperatures found in office fires, and in any case, most nitrogen oxides have a positive heat of formation (compared to zero for the elements such as N2), which means that oxidation of nitrogen is not an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. If it were, the world would be a very dangerous place indeed.

The evidence for molten and even vaporized metals is the Achilles heel of the official story.

Although the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal paper on active thermitic material was peer-reviewed – notwithstanding fallacious lies by scientifically illiterate so-called « debunkers », NIST amusingly shies away from peer-review of its own work. NIST refuses to provide details of the input parameters for its computer models of the WTC7 fires, on the grounds that such release would « jeopardize public safety« .

The Mail article says that a failure to believe the official line of « Al Qaeda terrorists » carrying out the 9/11 attacks amounts to « wild claims ». However, « wild claims » rarely gain the support of structural engineers, architects, physicists, mechanical engineers, metallurgical engineering graduates, PhD scientists, fire protection engineers, fire-fighters, electrical design engineers, explosives technicians, psychologists, international judges, etc. There is one exception: in the case of a carefully-planned operation to brainwash the public by a global crime syndicate that has taken control of the mainstream media, banking, and has political leaders under its thumb. Then, almost everyone will initially believe the Stalinesque revision of events, but over the ensuing years an ever-increasing group of people will realise that they’ve been lied to. Those who take the longest to learn do so not necessarily because they are stupid, but because they tend to work for government or government agencies, or they are very trusting of government. They perceive it as a benevolent institution, and they refuse to believe that presidents and prime ministers could be psychopathic puppets in the hands of an evil Mafia. Such people have a crippled epistemology, since they obtain their information from a limited range of sources (e.g. the mainstream media), and their prejudices prevent them from conducting a critical analysis of multiple sources.

Here’s the comment that the writer originally submitted to the Mail’s page:

Electron microprobe (WDS) analysis of solidified slag found in the WTC debris pile determined an abundance of iron but very little aluminum. Analysis of the WTC dust found it to contain 5.87% iron spheres by mass – which is 150 times higher than in dust samples from typical office buildings – and red-gray chips. A study of these chips, described in an April 2009 25-page peer-reviewed paper that has never been refuted, concluded they were a nano-engineered, unreacted thermitic material comprised of 40 nm-thick aluminum plates and 100 nm iron oxide grains embedded in a silicon-carbon matrix. Unlike primer paint, these chips did not dissolve after 55 hours in MEK paint solvent with agitation, had a low electrical resistance of ~ 10 ohms per meter, contained no zinc, magnesium or chromium, and ignited at ~ 430 C to form iron-rich spherules, indicative of a thermitic reaction yielding a molten iron product. Fireproofed steel members from WTC7 were found to have partially evaporated.

The form field indicates that postings of up to a 1,000 character limit are accepted, and this is confirmed by comments that have appeared and are very close to this limit. There is also a statement that « the comments below have not been moderated ».


Source: DailyMail.co.uk

After submission the post did not appear, so the next attempt involved splitting it up into two, and changing « solidified slag » to « previously molten metal » in case their computer thought « slag » was an abusive reference to a woman. Following that second attempt, the comments did show up. After a poster using the name « sara goldstein » declared that « conspiracy theorists are sooo stupid » and claimed that the heat of a « bonfire » would be « clearly hot enough to collapse an [sic] building », another post was prepared and broken up into three parts, such that each was well within the character limit:

For those who complain that opponents of the official 9/11 story just « cry about melted steel and stuff », I’ll explain the significance. The laws of probability, thermodynamics and thermochemistry dictate that military-grade unreacted nano-thermite does not form spontaneously, and office fires of hydrocarbons burning in air of up to 21% oxygen cannot melt iron or steel. The time evolution of a spontaneous process will be in the direction of increasing entropy; thus, a sophisticated, highly energetic, nano-engineered accelerant comprising 40 nm-thick aluminum plates and 100 nm iron oxide grains requires a ‘creator’ – e.g., the U.S. or Israeli military.

It’s all very well saying fires are « hot », but an exothermic reaction (combustion) only releases energy equal to the difference in heats of formation of the reactants and the products. Office fires must heat the 79% nitrogen inherent in air, which is intimately part of the mix. Heat does not flow from cooler to warmer zones unless work is performed by an external agent, e.g. as in a refrigerator. Thus, the heat released of 13.1 kJ/g of oxygen consumed – or less in a fuel-rich, oxygen-depleted, black smoke-generating office fire – produces gas temperatures below the melting points of iron and steel after heat is transmitted from the gaseous product to the environment such as steel members. These can approach, but never reach or exceed, the gas temperatures.

On the other hand, the thermitic reaction produces iron-melting temperatures of ~ 2,500 C because the aluminum burns with pure oxygen that has been taken from the iron oxide. Molten elemental iron is actually one of the products. This is why the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (19.2.4, 2001 Edition) points out that melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants such as thermite. Reams and literally tons of multiple, corroborating evidence proves beyond doubt that WTC1, 2 and 7 were taken down in controlled demolitions and, by extension, the Arabs were 9/11 patsies not perpetrators.

The first attempt at posting the first section was unsuccessful. Hours later, in a second attempt, the suspected sources for the nano-thermite were revised from « the U.S. or Israeli military » to « the U.S. military ». Pass! The comment was accepted this time. So apparently the Mail’s computer deems « Israeli » to be a dirty word – at least, in any discussion about 9/11.

The second part did not appear. In case they had set their filter to censor discussion of « Israeli agents », the word « agent » was changed to « device » and resubmitted, but to no avail.

It’s no surprise that the Mail’s Managing Director (since 1994) is Guy Zitter, a « British » Jew with a BSc in commerce, who was a senior Finance Officer for the Seychelles government and used to run a nightclub there.



As will be demonstrated below, newspapers run by Zionist Jews have a powerful motive to mislead the public regarding the events of 9/11/01. Given that Daily Mail writers include Zionist Jew Melanie Phillips who peddles the official story about « al Qaeda » and even posted speculative nonsense about Iranian involvement in 9/11 now that Zionist warmongers have set their sights on Iran, and the rabidly Zionist Richard Littlejohn who draws readers in with his ‘humor’ and then sells them a bunch of bull about a « war [that] the Islamonazis have declared on our civilisation », the evidence points towards Guy Zitter being a Zionist Jew.

Proof of Israel’s central role in 9/11

It is proven beyond the slightest shadow of doubt that Israeli agents had foreknowledge of 9/11, and together with scientific forensic proof of controlled demolitions of WTC1, 2 and 7 along with the sheer implausibility of many elements of the official account such as Hani Hanjour flying a Boeing 757 into the first floor of the Pentagon at 530 mph with the engines clearing the lawn by a couple of feet, this wasn’t simply a case of LIHOP. It wasn’t merely a question of Zionists who were aware of a Muslim aircraft hijacking plot yet purposely let it happen. It was MIHOP: criminal Zionist Jews planned and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. They made it happen on purpose and made damn sure that the Twin Towers collapsed killing thousands of people, so that Israel’s so-called « allies » would be sufficiently outraged to wage war on Israel’s foes. See The « Dancing Israelis » FBI Report – Debunked for full analysis and links to sources.

In late September 2001, a large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International found Mexico to be more opposed to the Afghanistan war than almost any other – if not any other – nation, with 94% of Mexicans favoring a legal response in the form of extradition and trial, rather than military action. A couple weeks later, Mossad agent Salvador Guersson Smecke and Israeli illegal immigrant Saur Ben Zvi were caught red-handed and arrested inside the Mexican Congress chamber in possession of guns, grenades, dynamite, detonators and wiring while posing as « press photographers ». That failed false-flag operation, on October 10, 2001, was aimed at boosting Mexican support for the war, a mere three days into the invasion.

The very first people arrested on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks turned out to be five Israeli Jews: Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg (Sivan’s brother), Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Omer Marmari. Their white Urban Moving Systems van was stopped and they were arrested within hours of the attacks, on the afternoon of 9/11/01. Sivan Kurzberg, Ellner and Shmuel had been observed by several eyewitnesses at the rear parking lot of the Doric apartment complex in Union City, New Jersey. They were seen atop the van with cameras, high-fiving, smiling, joking with cries of joy and mockery, hugging each other, and taking photographs and video of the Twin Towers within a few minutes of the first plane impact.


Source: KURZBERG, SIVAN ET AL (FBI report), Section 5

In fact, they were seen filming atop the van before the local news radio station 1010 WINS had even broken the news of the first plane crash. The station actually had one of its sales team account executives on her cell phone to its newsroom before the first plane crashed after she noticed it was too low and was going to crash, and so were quickly able to patch her on air to provide a live report. When seen, Ellner was kneeling at the back of the van facing New York City with his camera and Kurzberg and Shmuel were facing him. After their film was developed and processed by the FBI, the photographs depicted all three Israelis visibly smiling. In one photo, Kurzberg could be seen flicking a lighter like he was at a rock concert as the North Tower burned in the background. This jovial celebration was taking place before the second impact, when innocent bystanders believed the incident was merely a tragic accident.

When arrested, the Israelis – dubbed the « High-Fivers » by the FBI – were found to have airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide, and tie-ins to 9/11.


Original source: The Record (Bergen County)

Early reports said that these « tie-ins » were « maps of the city » with « certain places highlighted » linking the Israelis to the « bombing plot ». Carl Cameron’s subsequent Fox News report of 12/12/01 told of a « highly placed investigator » who admitted that there were tie-ins, but refused to provide details. The investigator stated, « Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified, I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information. » In other words, there is evidence linking them, but the investigator can’t confirm the early reports regarding maps because Israel is too high in the pecking order.

Marc Perelman of New York’s Jewish weekly The Forward reported on March 15, 2002 that the FBI had concluded that at least two of the Israelis were agents working for the Mossad, and their employer Urban Moving Systems Incorporated was a suspected intelligence front. On September 14, 2001, Urban’s owner Dominick Suter fled the U.S. for Israel. Perelman also tells on video of how he was able to confirm that, according to the FBI, two of the five Israelis were « Mossad agents ». Christopher Ketcham says the transcripts of the Carl Cameron report were later removed from the Fox News website following pressure from Abe Foxman of the ADL, and replaced with the rather Orwellian message: « This story no longer exists ».

The FBI documents on the five Israelis were heavily redacted before release, with the more politically sensitive parts blanked out and classified until 2030 or 2035. Nevertheless, the information retained shows that Paul Kurzberg worked for the Jewish Agency, and his brother Sivan’s job in Israel had involved hunting Arabs of whom the Zionist regime did not approve. The FBI documents also show how the NS-2C Unit of its « National Security Division » from FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C., in a communication dated 09/24/2001, ordered FBI-Newark to call off its investigation of the Israelis and to « assist US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in any INS proceedings for the five Israeli Nationals in detention at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York ». Dual US-Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, who co-authored the USA Patriot Act » and headed the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in the aftermath of 9/11, is a prime suspect for pulling strings to get the Israelis released and sent home.

All three Israelis lied, providing conflicting alibis of how they came to be seen at the Doric parking lot within such a short time of the first plane crash. Their alibis were physically impossible, given the time available for one of them to receive a telephone call from a friend alerting him to the news of a plane crash, then to read about the event on the Israeli news site YNET.co.il and the U.S. site CNN.com on two of their moving company’s sixteen computers, then for the three of them to make the bizarre decision that it would be worth leaving their workplace – and risk the wrath of their boss who was « tight with money » and normally did not let his employees take his vans for personal use – to « document » for « history » a simple plane crash that no innocent person could have known would turn out to be the defining event of the turn of the century, to gather up their cameras which they luckily had with them at work that day and run out to their employer’s van, to drive through rush hour traffic on what is normally a four to five-minute journey as they thought of a suitable location on the fly, make a left turn into an apartment block and drive around to the rear parking lot, get out and climb onto the roof of the van with their cameras, ending up at a location where one of them (Sivan Kurzberg) had been sighted the previous day posing as a « construction worker », all of this having to occur within a few minutes before the local news radio station had broken the news of the first plane crash. In their first alibis, Shmuel claimed they were on the West Side Highway in New York City at the time of the « incident », Kurzberg said they first climbed onto the Urban Moving Systems roof and were then stuck in heavy traffic before arriving at Doric, and Ellner claimed they stopped at a Gulf gas station on the way to Doric after hearing of the first plane crash. Ellner’s new, improved alibi was the variation in which he received a telephone call from a friend alerting him to the first plane crash, and two of the Israelis then spent « a few minutes » reading about the event on CNN.com and YNET.co.il before setting off to Doric.

In the real world, as opposed to some fantasy dreamed up by tinfoil conspiracy kooks or concocted by inveterate liars about nineteen Arabs with box cutters, events occur in a certain well-defined order that all observers can agree on, unless they are traveling at relativistic velocities or someone has invented a way of bending the local space-time manifold. Websites such as CNN.com did not carry the news until after 8:49:34, and the first reports were of a fire, not a plane crash. Traffic to news sites was so heavy that many servers collapsed. CNN.com and the Israeli news site YNET.co.il did not have news posted about the first plane crash at a time such that several Israelis could browse the internet and read about it on Urban Moving’s computers for a « few minutes » (which would imply that there was already so much detail about the event on news sites that it must have been long after the first impact), then go on a four or five-minute journey through rush-hour traffic, make a left turn and drive around to a parking lot at the back of an apartment complex, jump out and climb onto the top of the van and turn on their cameras, all before the local AM news radio station 1010 WINS was able to broadcast its breaking news report from a WINS account executive who was on scene and actually on her cell phone to the WINS newsroom before the first plane crashed. And all in the time it takes for a Doric apartment resident to be prompted to look out of the window by the sound of the impact or explosion as the first plane slammed into the North Tower at approximately 8:46:30 a.m., to scan the area for a minute or two before observing the smoke from the WTC, then to « immediately » telephone her friend, and for her friend to grab her binoculars and look out of the window and see the three Israelis atop the van. No browsing the internet, leaving work to go on a drive through rush-hour traffic, or climbing onto the roof of a van required. And all in the time it takes another eyewitness at Doric to notice the disaster, to walk along to an apartment to inform his colleague within five minutes of the first impact, and for the colleague to stand up from painting the baseboard and look out of the window to see the three Israelis atop the van.

The Doric location afforded an excellent view of both the North and South Towers across the Hudson River in New York City, and was an ideal location for recording video footage of planes approaching each Tower – one from the north and one from the south. In contrast, the Urban Moving Systems office and warehouse was north of the World Trade Center, and although it provided a view of the top of the North Tower, it would have been a lousy choice for anyone planning to « document » an event that included a plane approaching from the south to crash into the South Tower. Moreover, the Israelis quickly left the parking lot after the second plane crash, which would be puzzling behavior for wannabe journalists who’d just seen two plane crashes and were not to know there wouldn’t be a third. At the time they were seen celebrating the first plane crash they were not out on a delivery or collection as part of their job. Oded Ellner later said on Israeli TV that their purpose was to « document the event ».

No evidence for the « nineteen Arabs with box cutters » tinfoil conspiracy theory

There is no credible evidence that Arab « hijackers » were on any of the four 9/11 planes. Mossad agents posing as « art students » – agents of the true 9/11 perpetrators – had been concentrated around the Hollywood, Florida area, which is where 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were living in June 2001.

A memorandum by Gerald Shea features a document known as the DEA report, which describes how more than a hundred Israelis were in the U.S. posing as « art students » between January 2000 and September 2001, and attempting to penetrate U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) offices and other federal buildings including 36 sensitive Department of Defense (DoD) sites. Shea writes:

A third principal was Hanan Serfaty (or Sarfati), a team leader residing in Hollywood, Florida. When questioned by the DEA in Tampa, Florida, on March 1, 2001, he had in his possession bank deposit slips amounting to more than $100,000 from December 2000 through the first quarter of 2001, and withdrawal slips for slightly less than that amount during the period. Mr. Serfaty served in the Israeli military between the ages of 18 and 21, but refused to disclose to the DEA his activities between the ages of 21 and 24, including his activities since his U.S. arrival at age 23 in 2000.14 Another was Peer Segalovitz of Tamarac, Florida (about 20 miles west of Hollywood—see MAP 1), an active officer in an Israeli special forces battalion who commanded 80 men in the Golan Heights. He was detained in Orlando on May 3, 2001.

Shea continues:

…in June 2001, just two or three months before the September 11 hijackings, 15 of the 19 future hijackers were also living in Hollywood, nine in the town itself and six in surrounding towns (see Exhibit B and MAPS 1 and 2). Hollywood, for months, had been and would continue to be the staging ground for the hijacking of the World Trade Center Planes and the Pennsylvania Plane. Among the Israeli groups, more than 30 lived in the Hollywood area, 10 in Hollywood itself.

Map 1 in the memorandum covers the Hollywood, Florida area.


Source: The Gerald Shea memorandum on the DEA Report

Anyone believing the official version of events should have been asking what the hell were so many Israeli spies doing in the U.S., supposedly an « ally » of Israel, which is a country the size of New Jersey. After all, Israel’s enemies are supposed to be the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. Any Palestinian « terrorist » who wanted to blow up Israelis would simply go ahead and do so, not go traveling around the globe and training for months or years to become a pilot. And if the Mossad were so hot on tracking Arab terrorists and there really had been an « Arab » plot to crash planes into the World Trade Center, then they should have provided a public warning so that everyone could have been evacuated. Of course, the Mossad did warn some people. The two hours’ advance warning of an attack on the WTC transmitted through Odigo, the Israeli instant messaging company with offices in Herzliya and New York, was probably sent to some individuals at the level of vice-president or above. Larry Silverstein was well aware that he and his children could not turn up for work at the WTC on the morning of 9/11.

An important part of these Mossad agents’ job was to craft the « Arabs did 9/11″ legend by stealing passports and finding Arabs to frame, for example by carefully observing the movements of Saudi Airlines flight engineers who’d been sent to Florida for pilot training because the airline was eliminating flight engineers from its three-member crews. The program had ended for some of the engineers shortly before 9/11, which is why they were leaving the Vero Beach, Florida area around that time. Problem was, it meant that many of the « dead hijackers » would turn up alive and indignant, probably in Saudi Arabia, and those pushing the legend would have to resort to claiming it was just lots of cases of mistaken identity. A good exposition of the frame-up and the evolving list of hijackers’ names can be found in Paul Zarembka’s The Hidden History of 9-11.


Source: Paul Zarembka The Hidden History of 9-11

If Satam al-Suqami, Waleed al-Shehri and Wail al-Shehri had been on the flight manifests, the authorities would not have initially claimed Adnan Bukhari, Ameer Bukhari and Amer Kamfar as hijackers in their place. Adnan was found to be alive and living in Florida. Ameer died in a small plane crash on September 11, 2000 – exactly one year too early. On September 14, 2001, Kamfar was reported as being possibly alive and « armed with an AK-47« , and then he turned out to be alive and innocent and living in Mecca: one of those flight engineer / pilots who’d been recalled from Vero Beach to Saudi Arabia. And given that Ameer Bukhari had been dead for a year and Adnan Bukhari was not a hijacker, the claim that their names were on paperwork relating to a rented 2001 silver-blue Nissan Altima found at Portland International Jetport, Maine, was a lie. The alternative is a story that makes no sense: that Atta rented a Mitsubishi sedan in his real name, then bizarrely abandoned the Mitsubishi at Boston’s Logan Airport and inexplicably rented a Nissan using identities stolen from the Bukharis to travel to Portland with Alomari on a journey that meant they would risk missing their connecting flight with the consequent failure of their mission.

Of course, the Portland diversion was a necessary part of the legend because this was the only video footage the authorities had of any of the « hijackers » at an airport within days of 9/11. The grainy « surveillance video » that lacked a time stamp, purportedly of « hijackers » at Washington Dulles, was not released until July 2004. And they also had images of Atta and Alomari at a Portland ATM in which their faces were clear enough for a positive identification. The Portland narrative provided the opportunity for Atta’s baggage to be ‘found’ with lots of incriminating ‘evidence’ after the baggage supposedly missed Atta’s final flight, as if a suicide pilot would choose to take their last will and testament with them on a plane that they were planning to crash into a skyscraper, rather than leave it some place where it would certainly be found (or destroy it instead, if they didn’t want it to be found).

For anyone in need of « Saudi suicide pilots » to frame as patsies, the deceased pilot Ameer Bukhari, a Saudi Arabian national of Vero Beach, Florida, would have been an ideal choice provided they could keep the lid on the fact that he had died in the « wrong » year. The « Alomari » hijacker was originally Abdul Rahman Alomari, a pilot, friend and neighbor of Adnan Bukhari. When Alomari was found to be alive, as was Adnan Bukhari, the hijacker was claimed to be Abdulaziz Alomari. Problem is, he turned up alive too, although his name and birth date matched that of the FBI’s « terrorist ». And he’s never been a pilot. His passport was stolen when his apartment in Denver, Colorado, was burgled in 1995.

Daniel Mark Lewin, an Israeli- »American » Zionist Jew who was briefly a billionaire at the height of the dot-com boom in 1999, is said to have been on Flight 11. Lewin, in common with Benjamin Netanyahu who declared on separate occasions that 9/11 was « very good » and beneficial for Israel, served in the clandestine IDF special forces unit Sayeret Matkal, is an alumnus of MIT, and was part raised in the U.S. and part raised in Jerusalem. Sayeret Matkal was a part of Aman (military intelligence « unit 154″), and many of its members were originally Aman « mista’arvim » – experts at disguising themselves as Arabs. In an interesting ‘coincidence’, Lewin and Abdulaziz Alomari were both claimed to have been on Flight 11, and Lewin was a native of Denver, which is where one of the « wrong » Alomaris had his passport stolen.

Another remarkable ‘coincidence’ is that one alleged hijacker – Ziad al-Jarrah – was the cousin of Ali al-Jarrah, who happened to have been working from 1983 to 2008 as an Israeli intelligence asset. Ali’s brother Yusuf is also understood to have helped Ali betray his compatriots by spying for Israel. Ali al-Jarrah received more than $300,000 for his « work » from Israel. The New York Times claimed that the two cousins did not « appear » to have known each other « well », a tacit admission that they did know each other. The most likely explanation for this ‘coincidence’ is that Ziad al-Jarrah was also an Israeli intelligence asset who had been recruited by his older cousin.

There is multiple corroborating evidence that Muslims did not do 9/11, and that Israel played a central role, aided by corrupt elements of the Bush administration. This is reinforced by Zionist Jews’ role in the cover-up: Jerome Hauer’s appearance on TV within hours of the attacks peddling the official story about « Osama bin Laden » and buildings that collapsed because of plane impacts and intense fires, the Herzliya-based Don Radlauer’s publication of a report detailing the flight paths of the alleged four hijacked planes that suggested hijacking and steering the planes would have been an easy task, Eddie Guigui Shalev’s claim that Hani Hanjour was a « good » pilot, and Bernard Kerik’s receipt of more than $236,000 (as « rent ») from Steven C. Witkoff along with a $250,000 « loan » originating from Eitan Wertheimer, after Kerik had traveled to Israel two weeks prior to 9/11/01 where he met Wertheimer, and then claimed on 9/16/01 that a « hijacker’s passport » had been « discovered » – implying that it had miraculously got separated from the « hijacker’s » clothing or baggage and another hundred tons of aircraft debris, survived the Flight 11 fireball, and floated down to the ground in almost pristine condition despite being soaked with jet fuel.

Wertheimer – whose father Stef helped to make weapons for Jewish terrorists before 1948, and whose family was listed by Forbes magazine as fourth-richest in Israel as of March 2011 with a net worth of $4 billion – was reading the infamous Popular Mechanics at the age of 4. In its March 2005 edition, Popular Mechanics ran a dishonest piece purporting to be « debunking the myths » of « 9/11 conspiracy theories ». They did not even make a half-hearted attempt to ‘explain’ forensic evidence such as molten steel at the WTC by, for example, pretending it was aluminum or lead. They just totally ignored it, dodging the issue with the non sequitur that the « steel frames didn’t need to melt » in order for the buildings to collapse, and then attacked straw man claims, e.g. about video ‘evidence’ of a « pod » on Flight 175.

Others attempting to cover for their crooked co-religionists include Cass Sunstein and David Aaronovitch, the former trying to counter 9/11 truth by infiltration, and the latter by mixing in lots of straw men, denying evidence that he finds inconvenient and bringing out the old chestnut about how it would have needed a lot of conspirators. In other words, Aaronovitch and Popular Mechanics employ a similar sophistry.

Ironically, journalists who attempt to defend the official 9/11 legend are actually benefitting the truth movement when they bring attention to Building 7, or when their shaky assertions serve to highlight the inadequacies of the legend. Of course, Meghan Keneally’s article could have been designed to help 9/11 truth whilst duping the Mail’s bosses into thinking it was anti-truth.

Given that a mainstream journalist attempting to submit unequivocally pro-truth articles would risk being fired and would not expect to see their work published, journalists should research 9/11 privately, and then discuss it with like-minded colleagues until an overwhelming majority have learnt the truth and are in a position to stand up to their crooked bosses. Otherwise, how can any objective, unbiased reporting be expected from the mainstream media on a matter as important as 9/11, as long as it is run by Asiatic Mongoloid war-loving, money-grubbing, truth-hating, amoral Neanderthals, chancers, hedonists and infiltrators whose loyalty is to none other than atheistic self-styled « Jews » and the Mishpucka?

Why those who say 9/11 was a Zionist job are not « anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists »

Those who are relatively new to the issues of false-flag terrorism, Zionism and the New World Order may be asking themselves if suggestions that Israel did 9/11 is a « conspiracy theory » or is « anti-Semitic ». That disinformation has been disseminated by the 9/11 perpetrators, who love to exploit it as a means of deflecting attention from themselves, their crimes and deceptions. Any hypothesis about a crime committed by two or more people is a conspiracy theory. However, the 9/11 conspiracy theory of « nineteen Arabs with box cutters » is (almost) the most ridiculous of all conspiracy theories, since the evidence totally refutes it. The perpetrators deliberately float even crazier theories such as « aluminum planes could not have penetrated the WTC » and « WTC was hit by hologram missiles that look like planes ». They are aware that the official legend will look quite reasonable in comparison, and 9/11 truth will be tarnished by association with garbage such as « no planes at the WTC », « space beam weapons destroyed the WTC », and « nukes destroyed the WTC« .

The ‘evidence’ that is supposed to support the official conspiracy theory is planted, fake evidence, such as a « hijacker’s passport » that was « discovered », or an « Osama confession » video that was conveniently « found » amongst all the buildings in Jalalabad (population estimated at roughly 250,000 as of 1999) in occupied Afghanistan within 5 weeks of it allegedly having been made, in which the only similarities between the « confessor » and OBL are that both of them wore a turban and sported a beard. Or « Osama » audiotapes, when they found it too embarrassing to bring out the same old photo each time. And that was long after the real Osama bin Laden had denied responsibility for the attacks. Twice, that is, even helpfully suggesting some possible suspects the second time. The evidence proving the official theory to be false is conspiracy fact, including ten years of hard science in which the material evidence now includes not only molten iron and evidence of extremely high temperatures (the « smoking gun »), but also active thermitic material (the « loaded gun »). Israelis with proven foreknowledge, a top Zionist Jew with access to the best Flight Termination System for electronically hijacking aircraft via a Command Transmitter System, an Israeli Instant Messaging service through which two hours’ advance knowledge of an attack on the World Trade Center was transmitted, and Jews who were friends with four Israeli prime ministers and who took control of the WTC lease, and insured the buildings against terror attacks for billions of dollars, six weeks before the buildings were destroyed in terror attacks, not forgetting to insert a clause stating that in the event of a terrorist attack the partners could not only collect the insured value of the property, but would also be released from all of their obligations under the 99-year lease. See 9/11 For Reality Deniers for more.

As for accusations of anti-Semitism, it just so happens that Jewish criminals are at the top of the food chain, and all the credible evidence – as opposed to fake evidence such as planted passports and Korans, phony videos and « confessions » extracted following waterboarding – demonstrates that Jews, not Muslims, masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Jews comprise nearly 0.2% of the world population. The North American Jewish Data Bank provides details of a study that places the total Jewish population at 13,428,300 at the beginning of 2010. The Jewish Virtual Library has a more concise presentation with a useful set of tables that shows population by country. These sources state that the total human population was 6.900 billion as of 2010. So the probability of any given individual being Jewish is about 1 in 514. As of September 2011, the population of Israel was 7,797,400, and of those some 5,874,300 were Jewish. The world population was almost 7 billion by then, and so Israelis constitute 1 in 898 of the population, with Israeli Jews making up a 1 in 1,192 proportion. As will be shown below, those behind 9/11 were not only Jews and were not only Zionist Jews, they were rabidly Zionist Jews and so part of a much smaller group.

So we have the five Israeli Jews arrested on the afternoon of 9/11 after three of them were seen filming and celebrating almost immediately after the first plane impact. The FBI concluded that two of the five – most likely Paul and Sivan Kurzberg – were Mossad agents. Even allowing for many thousands of sayanim, these agents are part of a much smaller set than Israeli Jews.

Then we have Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who as the former CEO of SPC International had access to world-leading aircraft remote control technology incorporating a « Flight Termination System » capable of simultaneously taking over a number of in-flight aircraft and issuing commands via a « Command Transmitter System« . Zakheim was at SPC on October 31, 1999, around the time when the 9/11 planners would have wanted to carry out a trial run of electronically hijacking a Boeing aircraft. On that date, EgyptAir Flight 990 (a Boeing 767) plunged into the Atlantic, killing all 217 on board including 33 Egyptian army officers. No mechanical cause for the crash was ever found, and it was blamed on a « suicidal Muslim » co-pilot, a claim that was publicised by the New York Times, which had been under Jewish ownership since 1896. In September 2000 Zakheim was co-signatory to Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a report published by The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which wrote of the advantages of a « new Pearl Harbor« , i.e. a false-flag terrorist act such as the electronic hijacking of several aircraft with corresponding controlled demolitions of several high-rises that would serve as casus belli for war. In February 2001 Zakheim was nominated by George W. Bush to serve as Comptroller at the Pentagon and Under Secretary of Defense. Zakheim was sworn in as Pentagon Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4. On March 3, 2000, it had been reported that the Pentagon’s finances were « in disarray », and that in 1999 the Defense Department’s accountants had needed to make almost $7 trillion in « adjustments » to try to reconcile bookkeeping discrepancies. They could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those corrections. There were hundreds of computer systems running various military accounts, but these were not integrated, and the financial records were not up to accounting standards or capable of even facing an audit.

Thus, at the time Dov Zakheim was nominated for the position as Comptroller in charge of the Pentagon accounts, it was well known to potential fraudsters intent on stealing hundreds of billions of dollars that a terrorist strike targeting the Pentagon’s bookkeeping section, destroying computers and documents, and killing dozens of accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts, would destroy any money trail leading back to them. On March 11, 2002, exactly six months after the Pentagon’s bookkeeping section was targeted in a terrorist strike, Rabbi Dov Zakheim delivered a commemorative sermon on the Pentagon lawn to hundreds of co-religionists from 40 countries. Chabad Lubavitch rabbis had gathered ostensibly to launch the centenary commemoration of their spiritual leader, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson aka The Rebbe, yet the rabbis sang « Oseh Shalom » at 9:38 a.m. at the crash site, exactly six months after the Pentagon had been attacked. The Rebbe was born April 5, not March 11, in 1902.

Prior to 9/11/01, Israel already had a well-deserved reputation for staging false-flag terrorism and a known capability for doing so. On September 10, 2001, the Washington Times published details of a study by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), which had this to say of Israel’s Mossad: « Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act. »

Towards the end of July, 2001, two billionaire Jewish real estate developers who were friends with four Israeli prime ministers (excluding Yitzhak Rabin who was assassinated in 1995) took control of the World Trade Center (WTC) lease, and insured the buildings against terror attacks for billions of dollars, with a clause stating that in the event of a terrorist attack, the partners could not only collect the insured value of the property, but would also be released from all of their obligations under the 99-year lease. Larry Silverstein was a friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak. Frank Lowy, who fought « in the Jewish underground », was a friend and business partner of Ehud Olmert. On September 4, 2001, one week prior to the 9/11 attacks, the Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moved out of the WTC, transferring their HQ to Norfolk, Virginia. Six weeks after the new controllers had taken over the lease, the WTC was destroyed in terror attacks. Uncharacteristically, Silverstein did not breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors of the North Tower that day, and his two children were also spared as they also did not turn up for work at Silverstein Properties. The explanation provided was that Silverstein coincidently had a « dermatologist’s appointment » on the morning of 9/11/01, and his children were « running late« .

How many people are friends with three Israeli premiers? Even if six or seven thousand, such an exclusive group would be 1 in a million. And Larry Silverstein, the front man who took over the WTC lease six weeks before 9/11/01, and didn’t go to the Windows on the World restaurant on the morning of 9/11/01 although he had done so every other morning since July 26, 2001, happened to be from such a group.

When two hours’ advance warning of an attack on the WTC was transmitted via an instant messaging company, Odigo, that had an office in New York, the company happened to be Israeli. The Israeli population is the 1 in 898 group. However, Odigo’s Israeli research and development office just happened to be in Herzliya, the location of the Mossad’s headquarters and of Don Radlauer who was working to promote the « Arabs did 9/11″ legend as early as September 13, 2001, with a claim that hijacking, steering and navigating Boeing aircraft would have been an « easy » task for hijackers. The population of Herzliya was 87,000 at the end of 2009, making this group 1 in 79,300 of the world population.

The ex-Sayeret Matkal Zionist Jew Daniel Lewin was reputedly on Flight 11, as mentioned above. The elite commando unit is clearly a very exclusive group.

The ex-Sayeret Matkal Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu wrote in 1995 about « militant Islam » bringing down the World Trade Center, twenty years after he earned a B.Sc. degree in architecture from MIT – where he used the surname Nitay, also having gained an M.Sc. in business management there, in which his thesis was on the impact of computers in the newspaper industry and how they could enhance newspapers’ political power.

As for the London 7/7 bombings, Efraim Halevy, the London-born director of the Mossad from 1998 – 2002, inadvertently gave away his intimate knowledge of the operation by revealing in an article he wrote for the July 7 edition of the Jerusalem Post that he knew the bombings were simultaneous. The British authorities spent the next two days claiming that the three Tube explosions were spread over a period of 26 minutes from 08:51 to 09:17, before revising the story to simultaneous explosions.



The official tale of « Muslim suicide bombers » was physically impossible, given the actual train times of the day following problems with the overhead lines in the Mill Hill area, and the official scenario of exploding backpacks was contradicted by eyewitness reports and photos indicating that the explosions originated underneath the carriages. The Israeli company Verint Systems, a subsidiary of Israel’s Comverse Technology, handled video security at the London Underground.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Rudy Giuliani were both located in London on the morning of the 7/7 bombings. Netanyahu, obviously having foreknowledge of the terror operation, did not turn up for his scheduled speech at the 4th annual Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) Investors Conference in the Great Eastern Hotel. In an attempt at explanation, it was claimed that Scotland Yard had provided a warning. However, Scotland Yard refused to play along with the Israelis. It was later admitted via the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag that Mossad agents in London had advance knowledge, although the Mossad inserted a false, wildly unrealistic claim that they did not know until six minutes prior to the first explosion.

Giuliani, who was the boss and very good friend of former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and the godfather of his young children, can be placed in Yorkshire the day before 7/7/05. Miraculously, rather like the « discovery » (announced by Kerik) of a passport bearing the name Satan al-Suqami, a till receipt obtained from a garden center at Tulip Retail Park in Leeds, Yorkshire was « found » to have survived one of the deadly Tube train blasts, and cited as ‘evidence’ for the official version of events.

Zionist control of the mainstream media

Jewish plutocrats have taken control of the central banks, international banking and the mainstream media.



Source: Dr. Alan Sabrosky

As for the British media, Jews are also heavily represented.


Source: Wikipedia, list of British Jews

The Daily Mail’s Managing Director Guy Zitter no doubt shies away from any independent, unbiased investigation into WTC7 and other impossibilities, improbabilities and anomalies associated with the official 9/11 narrative because he is aware, suspects or fears « that any evidentiary trail would lead directly or indirectly to Israel and its US support base », as Dr. Alan Sabrosky sagely observes.

As mentioned above, the Mail’s writers include the Zionist Jew Melanie Phillips and the Zionist Richard Littlejohn, so the evidence points to Zitter being a Zionist Jew. And the Mail’s editor Paul Dacre is Zionist, otherwise Phillips and Littlejohn would be fired and replaced by those with the honesty to tell it like it is.

Some attacks on Dacre have gone too far, such as statements that he must « die ». However, Dacre is apparently a bully whose morning editorial meetings have become known as the « Vagina Monologues » because of how he calls everyone a « cunt ». His successful career as editor of the Mail with its 2 million circulation is an unfortunate testament to the aphorism that nice guys finish last.

There is an argument that those such as Zitter and Dacre should stand trial for aiding and abetting terrorism and as accessories to mass murder, given their role in protecting Criminal Zionism through their rigid adherence to the official 9/11 narrative. However, this argument will strengthen if they continue to promote 9/11 lies as those who support the nineteen Arabs story are increasingly seen as retards and fruitcakes who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Newspaper bosses will use the defense that there is no « Jewish conspiracy », they are merely continuing to go with the consensus (of the false narrative) because they believe (albeit probably incorrectly) it would be bad for business to do otherwise. And in many cases, this is probably true.

A man like Guy Zitter is clearly preoccupied with growth and circulation figures, and there is no need to postulate that most newspaper directors or editors necessarily receive telephone calls from Tel Aviv or from Abe Foxman, instructing them on how to prop up the official 9/11 legend. However, it does happen. As mentioned above, Christopher Ketcham revealed that Foxman called Fox News and succeeded in getting them to remove the transcripts of the Carl Cameron report from their website.

Apart from protecting Israel and Zionist interests, Zitter has another motive for working to delay the demise of the « Arab hijackers with box cutters » legend. Zitter’s newspaper career started in ad sales, and a significant portion of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday‘s advertising revenue is generated from cruise operators. In a similar vein, the Norwegian billionaire Petter Olsen of the shipping family behind the Fred Olsen brand of cruise ships is the principal sponsor of the floundering British Shakespeare Company, which was founded by Robert J. Williamson, who nowadays is reduced to posting inane comments using the handle WillShakespeare2007, e.g. on YouTube, in defense of the Arab hijackers conspiracy theory. Guess who benefits from a continuing scare about « al Qaeda » terrorists who keep attempting to blow up aircraft worldwide, yet inexplicably leave cruise ships for the occasional band of Somali pirates.

Guy Zitter is described as the « best-looking » of the Northcliffe Golfing Society’s Team Captains. The Northcliffe Golfing Society was founded in 1910 as the Carmelite Golfing Society, but changed its title following the death of its first president, Lord Northcliffe, in 1923. The Daily Mail and General Trust head office is currently located at Northcliffe House in Kensington; the company was at New Carmelite House in Fleet Street for nearly 100 years until 1988.

Lord Northcliffe, born in Ireland as Alfred Harmsworth, was a latter-day Rupert Murdoch. Northcliffe bought the London Evening News in 1894, started publishing London’s Daily Mail in 1896, founded the Daily Mirror in 1903, and bought The Times of London in 1908. On July 14, 1908, The New York Times reported that Lord Northcliffe had a controlling interest in the London Times; the other partners were Lord Rothschild and Lord Cromer. In light of the mainstream media’s subsequent deception and promotion of government lies, Lord Northcliffe had an intriguing job title during WWI: the « Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries« .

Rupert Murdoch, a long-time friend of twice-serving Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, was sponsored by the Rothschilds, the Bronfmans and the Oppenheimers. Lord (Jacob) Rothschild and Murdoch are currently business partners in a scheme to « tap the world’s substantial oil shale deposits which could transform the future prospects of Israel, the Middle East » and Rothschild assets around the world.

Now that 9/11 truth is increasingly part of the mainstream, with structural engineers, architects, physicists, mechanical engineers, metallurgical engineering graduates, PhD scientists, fire protection engineers, fire-fighters, electrical design engineers, explosives technicians, psychologists and international judges having voiced their support, it will become increasingly hard for news media bosses such as Zitter and Dacre to continue to play the part of ignorant « idiots » who are too stupid to understand what really happened on September 11, 2001. Should they continue to assist in the cover-up, they will be effectively admitting that they are merely puppets of Zionist billionaires such as the Rothschilds. If they do decide to change their ways, they might be pleasantly surprised by the effect on circulation and ratings.

Zionist occupied government (ZOG)

The Western – more accurately termed Rothschildian – so-called « democracies » are a farce, since Jewish plutocrats have the leaders of the incumbent and opposition parties under their thumbs. The U.S. president is supposed to be the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, yet he is obliged to « deal with » the Israeli prime minister « every day », and French president Nicolas Sarkozy has confirmed that Benjamin Netanyahu is a « liar » whom he cannot « bear ». In other words, the Zionist Mafia issue daily orders to their biggest puppet via their man in occupied Palestine, rather than having to employ middlemen such as David Axelrod or Rahm Emmanuel on a day-to-day basis. And the Mafia’s poodles, who similarly receive their instructions albeit less frequently, also hate having to deal with their superiors. The monkeys grudgingly dance to the organ grinder’s tune, under the clear understanding that were they to rebel, they would soon be out on their ears with the loss of their privileges and (relatively limited) power.

There were 31 Jews in key positions in the Bush administration, and Obama has 21 Jews in « his » administration. In reality, Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) states are little more than client states of Israel and the Zionist Mafia, and the nominal « leaders » of these states are initially installed by Jewish power brokers, whereupon they find that it’s payback time. The Zionist lobby dominates, without yet enjoying total control. However, when their man is a psychopath who will do anything to further his career, they can generally realize major foreign policy aims such as wars on a false prospectus, even though the « leader » may appear a little weird and – in Britain – can appear to have developed a « presidential » style.

For example, the suitably psychopathic and career-oriented Tony Blair was set up as Prime Minister by Lord (Michael) Levy and Zionist media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Levy, described by The Jerusalem Post as « undoubtedly the notional leader of British Jewry », was officially designated Blair’s « special envoy to the Middle East », and was also his tennis partner. This arrangement enabled Levy to serve as intermediary between the Zionist Mafia and their puppet Tony Blair. Alleged attempts to secure peace were never more than a sham, since successive Israeli governments recognized that peace would be damaging to Israel’s national interest.

More recently, Blair has secured the farcical position as « Middle East peace envoy ». It’s not surprising that he is « of no use at all » as a peace broker; Blair and the Zionists desire peace like they desire a hole in the head, which is why such people ensure that peace initiatives fail.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was selected as Conservative party leader over his rival David Davis, the previous hot favorite who would have done a much better job of representing the British people. Cameron, who was elected by party members after being lauded in the mainstream media as the « bright young hope of the Tory cause » and after having made a speech that misrepresented his true intentions, is the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William IV and the fifth cousin twice-removed of Queen Elizabeth II. One of Cameron’s financial backers in the 2005 leadership race was Michael Spencer, a billionaire as of 2008, who was Conservative Treasurer for three years until a scandal in which he left his wife for one of the Queen’s cousins. Cameron’s family has a tradition of making money in finance. One of his great-great-grandfathers, Emile Levita from a Jewish family sometimes described as Sephardic but more likely Ashkenazi, became a director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which had offices in London and profited from the opium trade. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Another great-great-grandfather was Sir Ewen Cameron, who worked for the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and helped the Rothschilds to sell war bonds during the Russo-Japanese war. David Cameron’s paternal grandmother, Enid Levita, was the Jewish great-great-great-granddaughter of King William IV.

The illegal, immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did not benefit the U.K. or the U.S. at a national level, although they certainly served as a highly inefficient redistribution of public (i.e., taxpayers’) money and looted money to the private bank accounts of a few liars, profiteers and war criminals. However, Israel, by having its enemies vanquished at no cost to itself in blood or cash, benefited to the tune of, at the very least, hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims, thousands of troops dead and tens of thousands injured, and a cost to the U.S. alone of well over a trillion dollars when all is taken into account.

The Zionist crime lords attempt to protect themselves by hiding behind the Jewish religion and playing the anti-Semitism card whenever someone goes after them. The idea that one should « hate » an entire race or religion because of an extremist minority, a crooked, rich elite, and government crimes such as warmongering or state-sponsored terrorism, is as ridiculous as the idea that Iraqis should hate all Americans or Britons because the U.S. and British governments waged war against their country. Many citizens of the attacking countries opposed the war in Iraq. A crescendo of opposition to the impending invasion culminated with an estimated six to thirty million people demonstrating worldwide on Saturday, February 15, 2003.

Jews who believe in justice

The anti-Judaics may go too far and say that most, or even all, Jews are the problem. They sometimes unfairly accuse anti-Zionist Jews, such as the allegation that Dr. Hannah Kasher is a « racist, homicidal maniac ». In fact, Dr. Kasher, a philosophy lecturer who once wrote about how Biblical calls for collective punishment of « the Amalek » had been justified over the ages whilst making clear that « there is no obligation to blot out Amalek today« , is an anti-Zionist Jew who has signed a petition calling on her students to refuse to serve in the Israeli military as a protest against the occupation of the Palestinian Territories. There is no evidence that Dr. Kasher condones the killing of Palestinians any more than a Christian teacher who teaches about the Crusades supports the conquering of lands and murder and torture of civilians. If she did, she would hardly risk retaliation by signing an anti-Zionist petition.

Another anti-Zionist Jew, Anat Kam, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years for the selfless act of leaking documents that exposed the Israeli Defence Forces’ policy of « assassinating » – i.e., premeditated murder of – Palestinians and then pretending they’d been killed in an exchange of fire. Ms. Kam helped to show that there is a problem with Jewish supremacists and paranoid, trigger-happy, Israeli soldiers. Appallingly, the hawks are now attempting to increase the sentence for the ‘crime’ of whistle-blowing to « up to 15 years« , citing grounds of « national security ». In other words, because of the opinion of some paranoid conspiracy nut who acts as judge, jury and executioner and thinks certain Palestinians might attack Israelis, they must be murdered first to prevent this hypothetical act, by agents of a cash-rich regime that has received more than $100 billion of « aid » from the U.S., and carried out a sustained air and naval attack on the USS Liberty for over an hour in 1967, employing torpedoes, machine guns and napalm rockets, even to the extent of machine-gunning lifeboats launched to save the most seriously wounded.

Mordechai Vanunu is another hero, a prisoner of conscience who exposed Israel’s clandestine nuclear weapons program and the fact that by 1986 it already had an arsenal of 100 to 200 advanced fission bombs, and possibly some thermonuclear devices. In the early 1990s, the Mossad predicted that Iran would be capable of targeting Israel with a nuclear missile by 2000, and exploited the claim so that Israel obtained three diesel-electric Dolphin-class submarines from Germany that are capable of firing cruise missiles with a 900 to 1,200-mile range. The missiles are intended to be equipped with nuclear warheads. In May of 2000, Israel carried out its first test launch of the missile from a submarine in the Indian Ocean, hitting a target 900 miles away. When the Mossad’s « Iranian nukes in 2000″ prediction was proven to be false, the estimate was revived to 2002. More recently, former Mossad head Meir Dagan has said it could take until 2015, whereas Ehud Barak claims 2012.

Those who maintain the problem is essentially Jewish rather than Zionist will cite the fact that anti-Zionist Jews are quite a small minority. And it is obvious from any investigation of false-flag terrorism and the international operations of the Mossad that there is at least a criminal minority of Jews who are very much part of the problem, with some of them bent on bringing about a « Jewish Utopia ». But what of the middle group – those who are not avowedly anti-Zionist but are not sadistic killers or hate-filled supremacists?

From an examination of Jews and Israelis commenting on the internet, it is quite apparent that many of them are sincere but grotesquely misinformed and brainwashed. They are generally very ignorant of the facts regarding 9/11 and have a misplaced trust in government and in Zionism. Jews in this group regard themselves as Zionists because they imagine that Zionism represents them and the Israeli government protects them. This is belied by the fact that even Zionist Jews regard Israel as a « country that experiences terror daily« , and prior to the beginning of the First Aliyah around 1881-82 when the first Zionist settlers purchased land from absentee Arab owners, dispossessing the peasants who had cultivated it, there was little conflict between the Jewish minority and the Arab population in Palestine. After the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War which resulted in around 750,000 Palestinians fleeing or being expelled from their homes, with the Zionists then blaming the Arab victims for resisting their dispossession, Israeli Jews are subjected to random acts of terror because the Zionist regime refuses to compensate for Arab losses and to accept Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state.


Source: Jews for Justice in the Middle East

Today, Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists and anyone else live together peacefully in the Diaspora. The Zionist Mafia are not concerned with improving the lives of Jews in general; they are only interested in their pursuit of power and profit. The Zionist Mafia benefits from encouraging Jewish paranoia, since they can then offer themselves as the « solution » – as « protectors » of Jews. In Israel, the Zionist regime guarantees terror attacks against Jews with its anti-peace policies. Elsewhere, the Zionists have to try to perpetuate the myth that everyone hates Jews, in case people notice that Jews are less safe in Israel and start to suspect that Zionism might be the problem. So they have sayanim faking phony « hate crimes » against themselves, such as vandalising their own cars or graves, or poisoning their dogs and defacing their houses with swastikas, or cutting their clothes and drawing swastikas on their stomachs. « Come to Israel, where we can protect you from those nasty anti-Semites! »

So here’s how Zionism works:

  • Pretend that Zionism is simply about establishing a homeland for the Jews that will serve as a sanctuary where they may live peacefully out of the reach of « anti-Semites »
  • Claim to be « God’s Chosen People« , and trick the world’s nations into letting you seize another people’s land on a false prospectus
  • Dispossess the indigenous population of their homes and land, and be sure to treat them with such contempt that they resist the occupation with random acts of terror
  • Ensure that any peace talks fail by continuing to oppress the dispossessed and setting impossible conditions; blame it on your opponents’ intransigence
  • Develop nuclear weapons for your very own sovereign state
  • Kill any U.S. president who opposes your plans to become a nuclear power; blame it on a « lone assassin »
  • Get the U.S. to provide you with conventional arms and billions of dollars of « foreign aid » annually
  • Have some sayanim phony up « hate crimes » against themselves in the rest of the world
  • Recruit brainwashed Jews into your foreign intelligence agency; convince them that they must steal passports, carry out assassinations and stage false-flag terrorism in order to « save Jews » worldwide from the « anti-Semites »
  • Strengthen your ability to use nuclear blackmail as a bargaining chip by obtaining submarines capable of firing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with a 900-mile range
  • Exploit your false-flag terrorism attacks for all they are worth: have your agents go on TV within hours to peddle the official narrative; whip up sufficient outrage, e.g. by ensuring the collapse of several skyscrapers, that your « allies » will sacrifice thousands of their troops and waste vast sums fighting your enemies in order to convert them into Rothschildian ‘democracies’, at no cost to you
  • Carry on until there is a Rothschild central bank in every nation

Thus, there can be considered to be three groups of Jews: the anti-Zionists, the « misinformed » Zionists, and a minority of criminal Zionists such as those who orchestrated 9/11. This third group of rabid Zionists are only too pleased to exploit Zionism for criminal purposes: the pursuit of power and wealth at the expense of others. And of course, there is no shortage of non-Jewish criminal Zionists, from the former Bush administration, for example. However, Bush and Cheney could not have pulled off 9/11; Nixon couldn’t even get away with Watergate. If it had simply been a matter of a rogue government perpetrating 9/11, the mainstream media and the opposition party would have had a feeding frenzy. It was necessary for the cancer to have taken hold to the point of a Rothschildian ‘democracy’, in which the incumbent and the opposition are protégé-puppets of the organ grinders, and the media is run by individuals whose priority is Zionism rather than truth.

The second group – the « misinformed » Zionist Jews – will sway the balance. Some will say that they are guilty for supporting Zionism, even if they are misinformed as to its true nature. But people are innocent until proven guilty, and any innocent human being deserves the right to peace and security irrespective of race or religion. If these Jews sincerely wish to live in peace and their support of Zionism is not for nefarious purposes, then they are « innocent » by most measures. Reasonable people would not want to see them harmed. However, in any revolution, the mob will not stop to consider which Jews are « innocent » and which are « guilty ». This is why all well-meaning Jews should distance themselves from Zionism – as many already have, and understand that it is time for non-criminals of all races and religions to unite in fighting the criminals that are found in all races and religions.

As Michael Collins Piper concludes in his book The New Babylon, the Jews must now choose between joining the community of mankind or continuing to claim to be God’s Chosen People and working to achieve a Jewish Utopia, at risk of a devastating defeat. It remains to be seen whether or not the supremacists’ program for world domination will collapse, allowing peace to prevail.

There is no doubt that some Jews have a conscience, aren’t hate-filled supremacists, care about others such as the Palestinians, and would be appalled at the idea that non-Jews should be murdered before they have done anything because it might save Jews at some future time. Encouragingly, there are young Jews who want to embrace « all people- including Palestinians–as equals« . You can’t get fairer than that.

Although Zionists would say that government provides the solution – by « protecting » people against evil « Islamic » terrorists, State terrorism goes back at least to the 7th century BC. Governments have killed far more people than privately-run groups ever could. Governments were a necessary facilitator of 9/11. Government is not the solution, it is the problem!

The cancer of Zionism

There is ample data in the public domain to prove that the 9/11 attacks were planned and perpetrated by a group of Zionist Jews. A better description might be rabidly Zionist Jews or even rabid Zionists, since most Jews still perceive themselves as Zionist. It may also be concluded that if there were no such thing as Zionism, there would have been no 9/11, no wars in Afghanistan and Iraq launched on a false prospectus resulting in a minimum of hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, no impending threat of war with Iran, no oppression of Palestinians in the form of shooting, jailing, and demolishing of homes, no threat of random terror to Jews living in the Middle East, no clowns such as Tony Blair pretending to be working for peace whilst predictably never achieving anything apart from increasing their bank balance, and no requirement for the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize war, oppression, and a diminished quality of life for millions of people.

And as for Jewish supremacism, whatever its true extent, Jewish supremacists would be cut down to size without a racist state such as Israel through which to express their hatred and psychopathy. Stripped of their helicopter gunships, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, shells, rifles, and nuclear bombs, Jewish supremacists would be like any other supremacists: bigots who are at best a public nuisance and at worst a threat to public safety, but without the potential to bring about World War Three. Zionism is the political force that Jewish supremacists require in order to pursue their program of world domination.

Zionism is a cancer on humankind and must be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

takeourworldback.com : Ground Zero fires could have heated the steel by up to 4 °F: An abundance of forensic evidence proves the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is scientifically and physically impossible. If the official theory were true, the laws of thermodynamics and thermochemistry would need to be rewritten and people would survive months of burial in sand. Air flow through the Ground Zero pile is found to be more than three orders of magnitude short of that required to sustain smoldering combustion except for within voids, and sufficient to raise the temperature of the steel by 2.2 °C in five months. The maximum sustainable heat release rate is equivalent to one burning cigarette every 32 square feet. Steel that was heated to cherry-red would have cooled within hours. Single-wall carbon nanotubes (CNT), found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of people exposed to the dust, are used in explosive mixtures capable of producing average shock waves of 6.8 km/s and temperatures of 1,500 to 2,000 °C. The active thermitic material found in the WTC dust was manufactured with 40 nm-thick aluminum plates, which happens to be the optimum size for aluminum particles in explosive nano-thermite mixtures, since any decrease in size below this critical value does not provide any further increase in reaction speed. Research was being carried out as early as 1995 into molybdenum trioxide-based aluminothermic nano-composites, which are known to have a combustion velocity of 990 m/s. A molybdenum spherule, indicating a previously molten state, was found in the WTC dust. The official conspiracy theory of nineteen Arabs with box cutters is easily refuted with a few short steps that evaluate the physics and the physical evidence. The death blow has already been dealt by combining 1) and 2) with 4) or 5) below, and several further points are provided for diehard reality deniers. A standalone set of evidence described in 8) is more than capable of rebutting the « Arabs did 9/11″ thesis, and the same could be said of 6). Part 3) is necessarily lengthy, in order to dispel an aspect of the legend that is much misunderstood and has taken on a quasi-religious tone. Those who prefer to sidestep the (elementary) math can go on to part 4). Or go to the index to review a topic of interest.(…)

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Contre le ZOG (« Zionist-Occupied Government »): À quand un mouvement « Un-Occupy »? Que les forces d’occupation se retirent

Un Lobby enraciné dans une idéologie suprémaciste, dénoncé par des objecteurs de conscience juifs.

Birthright Israel, une fondation de la puissante famille juive sioniste Bronfman, est un de ces lobbys juifs dont la raison d’être est de promouvoir les unions non-mixtes au sein du judaïsme — autrement dit, la ségrégation raciale et la consanguinité.

Les manifestants dénoncent aussi Veolia, une autre compagnie de la famille Bronfman. Ces derniers encouragent le sionisme sous toutes ses formes, financièrement, militairement, médiatiquement, mafieusement etc., et ce depuis la naissance de l’État juif — et même avant cela.

~ ~ ~

Notons l’astuce dans le titre: non pas Occupy (« occuper »), mais UN-Occupy (« dés-occuper »). Voilà qui se rapproche encore davantage des préoccupations véritables de la société civile et de sa blogosphère.

Pourquoi un tel mouvement « Un-Occupy! » ne prendrait-il pas le relais de tous ces mouvements « Occupy » à travers le monde, qui commencent franchement à s’essouffler?

Il est grand temps de mettre les choses au clair et d’expliquer à ces déviants que nous ne tolérons pas une seconde de plus l’occupation de notre pays, qu’ils ne sont plus les bienvenus parmi nous, sur nos terres. En français, on pourrait dire: « Dé-campez de [insérer ici le nom de votre ville/pays]! » Rien ne sert d’occuper quoi que ce soit, ça ne durera pas. C’est à eux de décamper sans délai.

Mais ne nous réjouissons pas trop vite: il y a un siècle encore, la populace savait pertinemment QUI EST-CE qui constitue ce fameux 1%! Alors qu’en 2011, on entend toutes sortes de sottises telles: « c’est les lucifériens », « c’est les élites »; ou encore des truismes tels: « c’est les banques centrales », « c’est l’argent fractionnel », etc.



À ces questions troublantes, le mouvement Occupy préfère ne pas répondre. Espérons que le mouvement Un-Occupy, s’il se maintient, ira jusqu’au bout de sa logique.

Jews Who Say What Dr. David Duke Says!

Here is a video produced by young Jews who dare to say the same things in their own Jewish community that Dr. Duke says. Watch this incredibly powerful video! A small group of young Jews invade as Jewish organization called Birthright Israel. The B I organization is funded by some of the richest Jews in the world and its purpose is to prevent Jews from marrying Gentiles and to get Jews to actively support the Zionist Racial Supremacist State of Israel. It sponsors free trips to Israel with heavy doses of Jewish supremacist propaganda aimed young Jews in hopes that they will marry only Jews and support the crimes of Israel. Here’s a quote from Dr. Duke’s book, Jewish Supremacism, showing how the organization promotes policies and language which would not be tolerated from any non-Jewish organization.
Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel,” an organization specifically committed to preventing intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, expressed the need to preserve the Jewish genetic character as expressed in the Jewish DNA.
Bronfman is brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress. He said,
“…you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”

Imagine for a moment if former President George Bush would speak to a group of White college students and tell them how great it is for them know that others in the world share their White DNA, and that they should not lose it by intermarrying with other races. Bush could live to 100 years old and still never live down a remark like that!
During his campaign for President in 2000, Bush spoke before dozens of Jewish organizations and Synagogues that oppose intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. The media only had praise for those appearances. In contrast, Bush faced universal criticism by the Jewish media by simply speaking at a conservative Christian university (Bob Jones University) that quietly opposes racial intermarriage. After the media unleashed a storm of criticism, Bush had to quickly apologize and then passionately condemn Bob Jones University for its position. Of course, within a few days, Bush was again speaking before many Jewish groups that stridently oppose intermarriage, yet no one in the media dared object to these appearances, or to even point out this blatant double standard.
–Dr. David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, ch. 2, “The Roots of Jewish Supremacism.”
These young Jewish demonstrators, a tiny percentage of Jews, dare to expose this obvious hypocrisy of the Jewish Bankers of Wall Street boasting of their economic control of America and how they support the occupy Wall Street Movement and the deposing of the Jewish extremists who control the Jewish community, control the International banks and who occupy both Wall Street, American Politics through AIPAC and Jewish money, and Palestine. Occupy Wall Street they chant and un-occupy Palestine!
Obviously, as these young Jewish demonstrators being opposed to Jewish extremist power in America is not anti-Semitic, it is simply opposing the Zionist criminals, as any decent Jew or any decent Gentile should do. Unfortunately, these Jews who demonstrate against Jewish racial supremacism are a tiny minority of Jews. But, they are a minority who is absolutely correct. Good luck to them!

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are contributing an additional $5 million to Birthright Israel, which the organization says will move 2,000 applicants from waitlisted to traveling this winter.
Qui est Sheldon Adelson, qui prétend être « le juif le plus riche du monde »?

Professor Alan Dershowitz trying discredit the Anti Israel End the Fed crowd as anti semitic

Newt Gingrich thinks the Occupy Wall Street movement are ANTI-SEMITIC!

Wall Street ‘Mob’ Bankrolls Powerful Rep. Eric Cantor

Rep. Eric Cantor
By Michael Collins Piper -
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) captured media attention with his vocal declaration that participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement were nothing more than “mobs.” His word choice was interesting since the public record indicates that Cantor does indeed know much about mobs—the Wall Street mob, in particular. If there’s any one single member of Congress who can be reckoned a voice for Wall Street, it is Cantor.
Even the most cursory review of Cantor’s campaign financing demonstrates that a literal handful of billionaires in the global financial plutocracy—all intimately tied to the London-based Rothschild family—have been key forces underwriting Cantor’s career, a point (especially in light of his immense power) that cannot be taken lightly.
The truth is that Cantor is one of the very few in Congress— 535 members strong—who has some of the richest and most powerful people in the world bankrolling his political endeavors.
It is for good reason that wags say Cantor is now “the cantor of the House”—a play on words. A cantor is the person in a synagogue who leads chants and prayers along with the rabbi, a major religious role.
The fast-rising young congressman is unique among House members: While most rely on campaign contributions mainly from their own congressional districts, Cantor has an unusually expansive array of contributions pouring in from across the country.
During the last election cycle, Cantor’s election filings show he received 146 contributions from New York donors. Contrast that to only 36 donations from New York that went to Rep. John Boehner (Ohio), ostensibly Cantor’s senior partner in the Republican takeover of the House. Although Boehner had been a top-ranking GOP figure for years and was senior to Cantor in terms of congressional longevity, not even Boehner could rival Cantor in the number of out-of-state cash contributions received.
A brief sampling of Cantor’s New York state contributors demonstrates the real clout of these big Wall Street names—with wide-ranging ties to the international plutocratic elite—who are bankrolling this influential congressional power broker:
• Kenneth Bialkin, a longtime crime syndicate legal mouthpiece, former national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and now chairman of the America-Israel Friendship League. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American offshoot of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild banking empire and its Wall Street satellites.
• Gary Cohn, president and chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, the infamous Wall Street investment bank whose financial schemes are well known to many Americans who’ve seen their pensions plundered.
• Steven Drucker of Charmer-Sunbelt, a massive liquor conglomerate that has grabbed control of various facets of the U.S. spirits industry.
• Lewis M. Eisenberg who, as a former Goldman Sachs partner, is perhaps best known for serving as chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from 1995 to the pivotal year of 2001. That was when the authority turned World Trade Center (WTC) ownership over to international wheeler-dealer Larry Silverstein, who had the WTC twin towers well insured and conveniently made billions from the 9-11 attacks.
• Henry Kravis, a member of both the CFR and the Rothschild-controlled Bilderberg group, who was one of the famous junk bond kings of the 1980s through his Kohlberg-Kravis-Roberts partnership.
• Ronald Perelman, as billionaire head of the Revlon cosmetics empire, he also heads a far-reaching network of radio and television stations. At one point he was said to have been the richest man in America.
• James Tisch, who bought control of CBS in the 1980s, is another CFR member and a scion of the billionaire Tisch family.
These are just a few of the powerful New Yorkers who’ve been channeling funds to Cantor’s political enterprises. Three of Cantor’s other notable national contributors are:
• Jeffrey Epstein of California, chief financial officer and executive vice president of the Oracle Corporation, the fiefdom of Larry Ellison, who rose to fame in the 1970s working on a database for the CIA (named “Oracle”). After 9-11, Ellison offered to donate software to the U.S. government to help establish an identification database from which national ID cards for American citizens would be issued.
• Neil Livingstone of Washington, D.C., a shadowy figure from the world of intelligence, known for longtime close ties to Israel’s Mossad.
• Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas-based casino tycoon and self-described richest Jew in the world who, in many respects, is the modern-day incarnation of the late Meyer Lansky, longtime chief of the Jewish crime syndicate which cemented its influence with the rise of legalized casino gambling in Las Vegas.
It is likewise no coincidence that the American-based political action committee of the Union Bank of Switzerland— perhaps the biggest name in Swiss banking—has also been a munificent contributor to Cantor’s political war chest.
Cantor’s particular influence stems from his control—along with another pro-Israeli hardliner, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)—of a secretive and well-funded political action committee, the American Action Network (AAN), run by Cantor’s close advisor and former chief of staff, Rob Collins.
Cantor’s AAN operation generated up to $25 million in 2010 and spent at least $16 million on behalf of Cantor-and Wall Street-approved GOP candidates. Through AAN, Cantor played a central role in orchestrating the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010, bankrolled by well-heeled contributors whose names are not required to be revealed to the Federal Election Commission.
It is no coincidence that two other similar fundraising ventures, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS— both run by former George W. Bush operative Karl Rove—share offices with Cantor’s AAN.
In short, the Washington political arena—as perhaps it has never been before—is now a fiefdom of a certain brand of mob, and the rise to power of one of its most energetic voices, Cantor, makes it evermore so.
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant, The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and The Confessions of an Anti-Semite. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202- 547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H; fees.

Left-Right Unite

OWS 10/17/2011 Dave Gahary
By Michael Collins Piper -
The Second American Revolution has begun. Both Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Tea Party represent growing dissatisfaction on the part of grassroots Americans with the powers-that-be: The plutocratic interests that dominate both major political parties.
The big money interests that reign supreme dictate the course of America’s economy through their domination of the Federal Reserve System and the allied families and financial groups who control the mass print and broadcast media in America. Through their greedy influence they profit at the expense of the American people, manipulating U.S. policies—both foreign and domestic—in pursuit of their ultimate dream of a New World Order.
They are looting the American economy even as they redirect American industry abroad, resulting in increasing unemployment and deprivation at home and the institution of a slave labor system in lands abroad.
In addition, they are responsible for the wars of imperial domination in the Middle East and worldwide, further bankrupting the U.S. treasury, even as Americans—at home—are told to surrender their traditional reliance on government programs—safety nets—that ensure decent healthcare and reasonable standards of living for the poor and the working middle class.
All the while, the Wall Street money kings—such as Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of international banking giant, Goldman Sachs, who pulls down over $100 million per year in cash and bonuses—have lined their own pockets while squeezing every last cent they can from the pension funds of working Americans who suffer as a consequence.
These pirates operate through shadowy power blocs such as the Bilderberg meetings, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and through taxfree foundations and think tanks. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are central to their global mechanism of control.
And while these plutocratic plunderers use their considerable resources to direct the course of public debate— attempting to infiltrate and subvert dissident political movements—there is a very real undercurrent of anger rising against their intrigues. Although the plutocrat-controlled media seeks to pit OWS and the Tea Party against one another, the two groups have much in common: The spiraling popular dissent is a remarkable convergence of the traditional “left” and “right” that—combined—makes a mighty force to quash the ruling elite.
This weekly newspaper, AMERICAN FREE PRESS, stands with the American people who are making their voices heard. Consider AMERICAN FREE PRESS your voice: A tribune representing the vanguard of those standing united for populism versus plutocracy—the universal struggle.
Get in touch with AMERICAN FREE PRESS—your weekly force for the American people and a growing power to restore freedom. Call toll free 1-888-699-6397 and subscribe for as little as $5 per month.

Sur ce blog:

Qui occupe les États-Unis?

Les grandes fortunes familiales qui contrôlent la finance et les affaires

Histoire de l’empire Rothschild et de la finance internationale

Affaire Vivendi: Edgar Bronfman Jr évite de peu la prison

Extrait de :
The New Babylon – Those Who Reign Supreme, by Michael Collins Piper

Chicago’s famed mobster Al Capone (above) was nothing more than a front man for the Jewish crime syndicate which included the late Sam Bronfman (left) founder of the World Jewish Congress, and Bronfman’s son, Edgar (right), who is now head of the Bronfman family which is a key American cog in the global Rothschild Empire.


The Bronfman Gang:

The Royal Family of American Jewry—

“Godfathers” to Al Capone and John McCain

Once described as “the Rothschilds of the New World,” the family Bronfman—although officially based in Canada—certainly constitutes the proverbial “royal family” of the American Jewish establishment, inasmuch as the family’s influence is solidly entrenched in the United States, reaching from NewYork to Hollywood and everything in between. Proteges—directly and indirectly—of the Bronfman syndicate have included multiple powerful and well-known personages ranging from Al Capone to U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Although best known for their control of the Seagram liquor empire, this legendary—and quite sinister—family controls much,much more.

In some respects they personify “the ultimate Jewish success story.” They represent virtually everything that is truly bad—in the classic sense—about Jewish power and influence in America. And while they may not technically be the wealthiest Jewish family in America, per se—there are others that are much,much richer—the Bronfmans have a certain level of clout and prominence that few other families can claim. After all, of course, Edgar Bronfman—reigning patriarch of the family—was the longtime head of the World Jewish Congress.And that’s a title with clout.

As far back as 1978, Bronfman family biographer Peter Newman, writing in The Bronfman Dynasty, estimated that the aggregate assets held by the various branches of the family totaled some $7 billion. He cited Fortune magazine which declared—at the time—“The Bronfman fortune rivals that of all but a small number of North American families, including some that gathered their strength in the 19th century when taxes had no more impact on wealth than poor boxes.”

Since then, of course, the Bronfmans have increasingly compounded their wealth and their influence has grown proportionally.

Originally,we have been told, the Bronfman clan came as immigrants to Canada under the sponsorship—like many others—of the various Jewish charities under the thumb of Europe’s Rothschild family, the great financial house that has ruled from behind the scenes for generations.

However, the Bronfman empire as we know it today was founded by buccaneering, sharp-nosed businessman Sam Bronfman who—with his brothers—made millions in the liquor business—and many millions more by shipping their liquor into the United States where it was illegally consumed during Prohibition. Thus, the family forged early links with the U.S. crime syndicate headed jointly by Russian-born, New York-based Jew, Meyer Lansky, and his Italian partners, Charles “Lucky” Luciano and Frank Costello.

In fact—and this is probably a dirty little secret better left unmentioned—there is hardly a border town in the northern regions of the United States—from Maine to Washington state—where one could not find tidy family fortunes accumulated by locals (not always Jewish, but many who are) who were part of the Bronfman-Lansky liquor smuggling network.

And in the big cities, a “connection” with the Lansky-Bronfman network was a “must” for anyone who wanted to succeed. The truth is that even Chicago’s Italian-American crime prince,Al Capone, owed his rise to power to his Bronfman connection—another little-known fact that has been largely suppressed by the media in the United States.

Despite all the hoopla over Capone’s purported “rule” over Chicago, at no time ever did Capone control more than one-fourth of the rackets in the Windy City. And what’s more, as famed independent crime writer Hank Messick has pointed out in his classic study, Secret File (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1969), Capone—powerful though he was—never held a title higher than “capo” (or “captain”)—head of a crew of ten men—in the ranks of the formally organized Italian-American “Mafia” crime network in Chicago.

Another point often forgotten in the legend of “the Mafia” is that Capone,in fact,was only permitted to become a formal member of the Mafia after Italian-American crime bosses in Chicago relaxed Mafia membership rules to permit certain selected non-Sicilians such as Capone (who was born in Naples on mainland Italy) to join

If fact, the truth is that Capone was ultimately answering to much bigger, more secretive bosses behind the scenes,who were based“back east”—part of the “elite” group surrounding the aforementioned infamous New York-based Jewish crime chief Meyer Lansky (who ultimately switched his operations to Miami and, for a brief period—many years later—to Israel).

It was the Lansky group—including Lansky’s Jewish partner Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel and his Italian-born partners, Costello and Luciano—that sent Capone (a distant Luciano cousin) to Chicago in the first place.

In their notable Lansky biography, Meyer Lansky: Mogul of the Mob (Paddington Press, 1979), written in cooperation with Lansky, Israeli writers Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau fill in some of the missing elements left out by Capone’s biographers.

Lansky himself told his Israeli biographers that “It was Bugsy Siegel who knew him well when Capone lived and worked on the Lower East side . . . [He was a] close enough friend of Capone’s to hide him out with one of his aunts”when Capone got in trouble on a murder charge.”

To get him out of the line of law enforcement fire, Lansky sent Capone to Chicago to act as a tough in the gang of JohnnyTorrio, a NewYorker who had“gone west”and was moving to unseat his own uncle, old-time gangster “Big Jim” Colosimo, as boss of the Italian-American Mafia in Chicago.

Essentially, Torrio had been Lansky’s Chicago pointman and Capone quickly moved up the ranks and became Torrio’s right-hand man.

Organized crime writer Messick noted that Capone’s positioning “delighted” the Lansky crowd “because Capone was very much their man. Although Capone eventually became his own master in Chicago, running
scores of rackets . . . his loyalty to his New York friends was so firm that Lansky and [Luciano] knew they could always count on him.”

And it is worth pointing out that Capone’s immediate“boss” in Chicago, Torrio,was also the Chicago contact for the liquor interests of the Canadianbased Bronfman liquor empire which was shipping its legally produced products over the border for illegal consumption by Prohibition-era American drinkers. Sam Bronfman and his family worked closely with the Lansky syndicate from the beginning. Therefore, the Torrio-Capone link brought the connection full circle.

Meanwhile, Chicago’s ruling boss, Colosimo, was doing nothing to endear himself to either Bronfman or Lansky and Siegel whom he was known to refer to as “dirty Jews.”

Colosimo proclaimed that he couldn’t understand why Luciano dealt so closely with Lansky and Siegel, saying “I sometimes have a suspicion that he must have some Jewish blood in his veins,” a suspicion that—in light of Luciano’s subsequent fate, as we shall see—is highly unlikely.

In addition, Colosimo asserted there was “no future in bootlegging” and showed little interest in patronizing the Bronfman liquor supply. Colosimo wanted to focus on drugs, prostitution and loan-sharking. His boycott of Bronfman was cutting into the Lansky syndicate’s profits.

Needless to say,when the time was ripe, Lansky (viaTorrio and Capone) moved against Colosimo who was gunned down by a NewYork Jewish gangster sent in to do the job.The biggest wreath at Colosimo’s lavish funeral featured a card that read: “From the sorrowing Jew boys of New York.” Soon enough, the Bronfman liquor came flowing into Chicago, courtesy of Lansky’s henchman Torrio and his right-hand man, Capone, soon to emerge as the media’s favorite “Mafia” figure.

So when we look at the forces behind even the most notorious Italian-American gangster of the 20th century,we find his roots buried deep within the Bronfman (and Zionist) camp.And that is news in itself.

As noted, the current head of the Bronfman family is Edgar Bronfman who—aside from his extensive international business dealings—also served as the longtime president of theWorld Jewish Congress, from which position he exerted considerable political clout.

Bronfman, of course, was the key player in the recent (and ongoing) effort to extort billions of dollars from Swiss banks for their alleged involvement in laundering of “Jewish gold” said to be stolen by the Nazis, and for having confiscated the wealth of certain Jewish persons from Europe who hid their vast wealth in Swiss banks prior to World War II.

The question as to how this vast wealth was actually accumulated has never been explained by the media, although the involvement of the Bronfman family in the controversy may provide a key to it in part.

It is known that the Bronfmans achieved much of their own initial wealth prior to World War II in the illegal liquor trade, in concert with American crime syndicate figure Meyer Lansky whose operations ranged far and wide,well beyond American shores.

It is also known that Lansky was one of the prime movers, for the crime syndicate, behind the use of Swiss bank accounts for the laundering of criminal proceeds.Thus, it is certain that some of those who were taken into custody by the Third Reich and whose bank accounts were confiscated were actually agents of the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate and thus engaged in illegal activity.The “persecuted” Jews—in these cases—were common criminals.

Bronfman’s son, Edgar Jr., is perhaps as equally powerful as his father, although from another venue. The younger Bronfman assumed control of Universal Studios and all of the related entertainment subsidiaries now under the control of the Bronfman empire.A major player in Hollywood and in the music and film production area, Edgar Jr. reportedly bungled a major family investment when he entered the family into partnership with the French-based Vivendi corporation, but no members of the Bronfman family have been seen panhandling on the streets of New York, Beverly Hills or Montreal as of this writing.

Edgar’s lesser-known son, Matthew, is highly active in Jewish affairs and serves as chairman of the program committee and chairman of the Bronfman Center for Jewish Life Committee.In 2007 he was elected as chairman of the governing board of theWorld Jewish Congress, long headed by his father and he is also chairman of theWorld Jewish Congress Budget and Finance Commission and is also a member of its steering committee.

He is the head of a NewYork-based investment company,BHB Holdings, and likewise is a controlling shareholder of one of Israel’s largest banks, Israel Discount Bank and a controlling shareholder in SuperSal, the largest supermarket chain in Israel.Another of his enterprises is control of the IKEA franchise in Israel, where he also has substantial real estate holdings, aside from those he maintains in the United States.

Among other things, Mathew Bronfman was chairman and CEO of Candle Acquisitions Company, a specialty candle manufacturer, and chairman of Sterling Cellular Holdings, a cellular telephone firm.In his early years he was involved in other Bronfman holdings. He was also employed at the Goldman Sachs international banking firm, demonstrating, again, the interlock among the global Jewish forces in the Rothschild Empire.

The Seagrams company is regularly among the largest political contributors to both of the major American political parties. This is interesting in itself for when, during the 1996 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton was attacking his GOP opponent Bob Dole for accepting contributions from the tobacco industry, the fact that both major parties were taking sizable contributions from the alcohol industry—in particular the Bronfman empire—seems to have gone largely unmentioned.

As distinguished an “American” institution as Du Pont, for example, fell under Bronfman control. In 1981, Du Pont, then the seventh largest corporation in the United States,was targeted for takeover by the Bronfman family.

Actually, at that point, the Bronfmans already owned 20 percent of Du Pont—a substantial holding in itself, for in the corporate world, even as little as 3 percent ownership of a corporation’s stock gives the owner effective control of a corporation.

Although the traditional American name of “Du Pont” continued to appear on the corporate papers and on Du Pont products sold to American consumers, the real power behind the scenes was the Bronfman empire.

In truth, the Du Pont family—although still quite wealthy, having accumulated their financial resources over several generations—had little influence within the corporation that bore the family name. Ultimately, the Bronfmans officially divested their holdings in Du Pont, but used their resources to expand their wealth and tentacles elsewhere.

Today the Bronfmans are very much a recognized part of not only the plutocratic establishment in the United States, but throughout the world.

Among other Bronfman holdings over the years were such traditionally “American” companies as: Campbell Soup, Schlitz Brewing, Colgate-Palmolive, Kellogg, Nabisco, Norton Simon, Quaker Oats, Paramount Pictures and Warrington Products (maker of Kodiak boots and Hush Puppies shoes.)

In addition, the Bronfmans also had an interest in the Ernest W. Hahn Company (which then operated 27 regional shopping centers in California and had plans for another 29); and theTrizec Corp., one of the biggest property development companies in North America.

The Bronfmans also hold considerable assets in some “unexpected” and “out of the way” places. For example, the Bronfman controlled Cadillac Fairview corporation—which develops commercial rental properties—developed a shopping center in Hickory, North Carolina and (in 1978) was in the process of setting up two others.Another Bronfman enterprise is the Shannon Mall in Atlanta and the Galleria in Westchester, New York.

In addition, a Bronfman subsidiary held options on a shopping center development in Mississippi and for yet another in Connecticut. Bronfman companies also controlled industrial parks in and near Los Angeles, office towers in Denver and in San Francisco, and housing developments in Nevada, California and Florida. The Bronfmans also bought control of the share capital of Houston-based General Homes Consolidated Cos. Inc., building houses and developing land with operations reaching as far as Mississippi and Alabama.

For many years the family—although this was not well known—controlled vast tracts of land in the outer reaches of the Virginia suburbs surrounding Washington, D.C., lucrative land that the family, in recent years, has been relinquishing at great profit.

And as a reminder: the various United States holdings of the Bronfman family listed here do not constitute anything resembling a complete overview of their portfolio.And none of this covers the Bronfman holdings in Canada alone, for example, and elsewhere.

All of this financial clout, taken together, also constitutes significant political power in the various states and locales where the Bronfman influence has taken root.

Of particular interest in that regard is the hidden influence of the Bronfman family in the state of Arizona—an outpost viewed in the minds of most Americans as somehow a paradise of cowboys, cactus and wide-open spaces, a conservative stronghold seemingly independent of the corruption and intrigue found in the big cities like New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles. In fact,Arizona ranks alongside the great crime capitals.This dubious distinction can be traced directly to the influence in Arizona of the Bronfman family.

Bronfman family influence in Arizona is so strong that it can be rightly said that the Bronfmans are no less than the “godfathers” behind the political career of America’s best known “reformer”—Arizona Senator John McCain. Here’s the story:

In 1976 a crusading Phoenix reporter, Don Bolles, was murdered by a car-bomb after writing a series of stories exposing the organized crime connections of a wide-ranging number of well-known figures in Arizona who were closely associated with a character named Jim Hensley.

Five years later“Honest John”McCain arrived in Arizona as the new husband of Hensley’s daughter, Cindy. “From the moment McCain landed in Phoenix,” according to Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity,“ the Hensleys were key sponsors of his political career.” But the fact is, the people behind the Hensley fortune are even more interesting and controversial.

While it is well-known McCain’s father-in-law was the owner of the biggest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorships in Arizona—one of the largest beer distributors in the nation—the mainstream media has had nothing to say about the origins of the Hensley fortune that financed McCain’s rise to power.The Hensley fortune is no more than a regional offshoot of the vast bootlegging and rackets empire of the Bronfman dynasty who, in turn, were major players—as noted before—in the crime syndicate ruled by Meyer Lansky and his partners, both in the United States and abroad.

McCain’s father-in-law got his start as a top henchman of one Kemper Marley who, for some forty years until his death in 1990 at age 84,was the undisputed behind-the-scenes political boss of Arizona. But Marley was much more than a machine politician. In fact, he was also the Lansky crime syndicate’s top man in Arizona, the protege of Lansky lieutenant, Phoenix gambler Gus Greenbaum, who, in 1941, set up a national wire for bookmakers. After Lansky ordered a hit on his own longtime partner,“Bugsy” Siegel, who was stealing money from the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas — which was financed in part by loans from an Arizona bank chaired by Marley — Greenbaum turned operations of the wire over to Marley while Greenbaum took Siegel’s place in tending to Lansky’s interests in Las Vegas.

In 1948 Greenbaum was murdered in a mob“hit” that set off a series of gang wars in Phoenix,but Marley survived and prospered as did Jim Hensley, who sponsored McCain’s rise to power.

During this time Marley was building up a liquor distribution monopoly in Arizona.According to Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, it was the Bronfman family that set Marley up in the liquor business. McCain’s father-in-law was the top lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate’s chief Arizona operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family—key players in the Lansky syndicate.

During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied—and thus controlled—the “spigot” of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago. After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley’s longtime public relations man,Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was, in fact, the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business in the first place.

In 1948, 52 of Marley’s employees (including Jim Hensley, the manager of Marley’s company) were prosecuted for federal liquor violations. Hensley got a six-month suspended sentence and his brother Eugene went to prison for a year.

In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William Rehnquist acted as their “mouthpiece” (as mob attorneys are known) and the two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme Court and presided over the “fix” that made GeorgeW. Bush president in a rightly disputed election.

Arizona insiders say Hensley “took the fall” for Marley in 1948 and Marley paid back Hensley by setting him up in his own beer distribution business. Although, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Newsweek implied Hensley’s company was a “mom and pop” operation that became a big success, the real story goes to the heart of the history of organized crime at the highest levels.

McCain’s father-in-law also dabbled in dog racing and expanded his fortune by selling his track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacobs family, key Prohibition-era cogs in the Lansky network as distributors of Bronfman liquor.

Expanding over the years, buying up race tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, Jacobs enterprises were described as being probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s money-laundering in the United States.

In 1976, Hensley’s mentor—Marley (at the height of his power)—was the key suspect behind the aforementioned contract murder of journalist Don Bolles who was investigating the mob in Arizona, but Marley was never prosecuted.

While John McCain himself cannot be held personally responsible for the sins of his late father-in-law—whose fortune was passed on to his daughter, Cindy McCain, John’s wife—the fact is that “reformer” McCain owes his political and financial fortunes to the good graces of the biggest names in organized crime. Perhaps it is no wonder that, today, the Las Vegas gambling industry is among McCain’s primary financial benefactors.

This overview is really just the tip of the iceberg but it does say much about McCain and the political milieu that spawned him, particularly in light of McCain’s front-line position as one of Israel’s leading U.S. supporters.

Ironically, though, as noted earlier, in the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain was endorsed by an American member of the Rothschild family and had a fundraiser held on his behalf by the Rothschilds in London, Edgar Bronfman chose to publicly endorse Barack Obama over McCain, evidently “turned off” by McCain’s Christian fanatic running mate, Sarah Palin.

And this, too, should be noted for the historical record regarding the Bronfman family: In light of this author’s own rather widely-distributed work on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the book, Final Judgment—which contends that Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, played a major role alongside the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy, precisely because of JFK’s obstinate opposition to Israel’s drive to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction—that the fingerprints of Sam Bronfman are found all over the JFK assassination conspiracy. Not only was Bronfman’s longtime henchman, Louis Bloomfield, chairman of the Mossad-sponsored Permindex corporation (which included among its directors no less than New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw, who was indicted by former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for involvement in the JFK assassination), but new evidence indicates that Dallas mob figure Jack Ruby was actually on the Bronfman payroll.

In addition, while another Bronfman associate in Dallas, oilman Jack Crichton, hovered around Lee Harvey Oswald’s widow after the JFK assassination, another Bronfman functionary—“super lawyer” John McCloy—served on the Warren Commission. McCloy was a director—and Crichton served as vice president—of the Empire Trust, a financial combine controlled in part by the Bronfman family.

And although Sam Bronfman is best known for his Seagrams liquor empire, what many JFK researchers who point their fingers at the “Texas oil barons” have failed to note is that Sam Bronfman was a Texas oil baron himself, having purchased Texas Pacific Oil in 1963. As far back as 1949, Allen Dulles, later the CIA director fired by JFK and also a Warren Commission member, served as an attorney involved in the private ventures of Bronfman’s daughter Phyllis.

For those interested in the entire story, they should refer to Final Judgment, which is now in its 768-page sixth edition, thoroughly documented. The bottom line is that the JFK assassination is unquestionably, beyond any doubt, the one pivotal event that helped bring covert Jewish influence to all-new heights in the American power structure.

The Bronfmans,by any measure,do constitute the“first family”—indeed we say “the royal family”—of the American Jewish and Zionist establishments, but certainly secondary to the “Kings of Kings”: The Rothschilds.

In many respects, though, it might be said that, in terms of old-fashioned gutter-level organized crime—as opposed to the “high level” operations of the Rothschild Empire—the Bronfmans are certainly the Royal Family of the Jewish Crime Syndicate, by virtue of their newfound respectability, having risen to wealth and glamour from their early years as partners of the “nonrespectable » Meyer Lansky.

And revolving, as satellites, around the Bronfman dynasty are a wideranging array of other powerful families which—in turn—have their own satellite families and financial interests. They constitute the New Pharisees working to bring the Talmudic dream of the NewWorld Order into being.

In the chapters which follow we will meet the biggest names and families among the New Pharisees whose vast fortunes bankroll and corrupt American politicians (and those worldwide) who do the bidding of the Rothschild Empire in their drive for a Jewish Utopia.

While they fancy themselves to be aristocrats, noblemen and ladies, modern-day knights, princes and princesses all, the truth is that many of them are—as David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of Israel, frankly described many Holocaust survivors—“hard, evil and selfish people.” So let us meet these would-be global rulers.


The Truth About Anti-Semitism . . .

This 19th Century caricature of Jewish plutocrats outside the “Monopoly Building” demonstrates that opposition to Jews often comes as a consequence of public recognition of their history of seeking absolute power. Even famed historian Albert Lindemann in Esau’s Tears candidly asserted:
The tendency to dismiss anti-Semitism as a bizarre hallucination, a fantasy of diseased minds, is undoubtedly justified in some instances but has also often been overdone and has thus hindered understanding, for Jews have been disliked for many reasons by a very wide variety of normal people, many of whom were neither emotionally unstable nor intellectually unsophisticated, and a few of whom were . . . of great ability (Wagner, Barres, or T. S. Eliot, for example). It is far too easy, indeed, too reassuring, to describe anti-Semites as mentally deranged or morally flawed in all regards. The extent to which anti-Semitism was“normal” requires . . . a more serious and open-minded investigation. . . . Not all hostility to Jews, individually or collectively, has been based on fantastic or chimerical visions of them, or on projections unrelated to any palpable reality.
Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

L’ancien responsable de l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA estime que l’Islam radical est une menace imaginaire.

Jeudi 10 Novembre 2011
Michael Scheuer : l'islam radical est un ennemi imaginaire
Dans un entretien accordé à Gayane Chichakyan et diffusé le 9 novembre 2011 par Russia Today, l’ex-responsable de l’Unité de recherche d’Oussama Ben Laden à la CIA, Michael Scheuer déclare que l’ennemi des États-Unis, l’islam radical opposé à la démocratie et à l’égalité des sexes, n’existe pas et n’a jamais existé. Les attaques dont les États-Unis font l’objet ne répondent pas à son mode de vie, mais à sa politique proche-orientale et à son soutien à Israël et à l’Arabie saoudite.
Le célèbre analyste dénonce la croyance des élites US, héritée du trotskisme, en la supériorité d’un modèle politique et la possibilité de l’instaurer partout. À ce sujet, il observe que, jusqu’à ce que le gouvernement syrien le rappelle à l’ordre, l’ambassadeur US à Damas parcourait le pays pour encourager divers groupe à renverser le régime, ce qu’aucun autre ambassadeur se serait permis de faire.
Michael Scheuer est l’auteur anonyme de deux livres : Through Our Enemies’ Eyes : Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America et Imperial Hubris : Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Il a récemment publié sous son nom : Marching Toward Hell : America and Islam After Iraq.
Après avoir été contraint à la démission pour manquement au devoir de réserve et avoir quitté la CIA, en 2004, il travailla comme analyste à la Jamestown Foundation (une agence de presse issue de l’Agence de renseignement). Il en fut licencié en 2008 pour avoir critiqué l’influence, selon lui démesurée, du lobby pro-israélien sur la politique états-unienne.

« Washington’s enemy ‘doesn’t exist’ », entretien de Michael Scheuer avec Gayane Chichakyan, Russia Today, 9 novembre 2011.


by Justin Raimondo
There’s always a Looming Danger, an Ominous Threat lurking somewhere – that’s the War Party’s bread-and-butter. Back in the day, it was the Germans, who were going to cross the Atlantic and meet their Japanese allies somewhere near the Mississippi. Then it was the Commies, who were not only in the process of swallowing Asia but supposedly had their Fifth Column right here in the US, ready willing and able to take the Capitol at a signal from the Kremlin. After that there was some hesitation in deciding just who or what would take the place of the Red Threat, but that was decided on September 11, 2001, when Osama bin Laden’s Global Caliphate emerged as the Bogeyman of the moment. It turned into quite a long moment, as we have seen, one that still lingers to this day, even after bin Laden’s death and the crushing of al-Qaeda: Americans, being sentimentalists, hang on to their villains long after their shelf life has expired.
That’s because these dark eminences are alluring, in their way: the narratives we construct tell us a story we can be proud of, a tale of derring-do in which the American people are made of Heroic Stuff, holding aloft the Torch of Freedom lest it be extinguished by rampaging hordes of Orcs, sacrificing their pelf, their liberty – and, often, their lives – in the name of Saving the World.
The Threat has great value to our rulers: they cling to this narrative because it justifies their power, and their insatiable desire for more. President Barack Obama started out his recent state of the union address by invoking the Threat and holding up the military’s response to it as a shining example:
“These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s armed forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”
Yes, just imagine if civil society was organized along military lines, with all of us taking orders from our commander-in-chief – what a glorious time it would be!
Our rulers invoke these militaristic metaphors as exhortations to get us in line: we hear much about “unity,” “unselfishness,” glorification of “the mission” (whose mission?). These are the bromides uttered by tyrants and would-be tyrants, who would love to turn society into a civilian army. Their vision of the future is of a collective marching in lockstep down the road to whatever hellish fate they have in store for us.
These days, however, they are having a harder time convincing us of the reality of the Threat. This is true for a number of reasons, but the main source of our skepticism is the overwhelming certainty that the Threat is coming not from without but from within. No, not in the presence of those Mooslims, in spite of the Israel Lobby‘s best efforts: no, not from the long-gone Commie Conspiracy or the “militias” that were the favored bogeyman of the Clinton era. Instead, the Threat springs from something deeper, a force connected to the way our society works and has been working since the inauguration of the modern era: it is the looming threat of national bankruptcy.
We look at Greece in default, at failing France, at Italy in arrears, and see our future: on the left and the right, the voices of panic are rising. Listen to what George Soros has to say:
“’At times like these, survival is the most important thing,’ he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of ‘evil.’ Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.”
“A period of ‘evil’” – that’s what’s in store for us, says the man who broke the Bank of England and is one of the richest men on earth, an apocalyptic vision that will sweep away all we have known, and loved:
“As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. ‘Yes, yes, yes,’ he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. ‘It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.’”
On the other side of the political spectrum, we hear similar prophecies of doom, although there is nothing gleeful about Rep. Ron Paul’s reaction to his own dark vision of the future:
“There’s going to be anger, and there’s going to be riots in the streets as well. But this is all a consequence of the fact that — why and how do governments spend like this? It’s because they don’t have sound money. When we run up deficits, we tax, but never enough. We can’t tax, it would ruin the economy. Then we borrow, and we get away with that for a long time. But we rely on the printing presses from the Federal Reserve to create the money, and that’s where the problem is.
The Pentagon agrees with the Soros-Paul scenario: the threat of an economic collapse has been in their sights since the crash of ’08. The most recent threat assessment points to “economic instability” as our rulers’ chief worry. The Army recently conducted a year-long war game dubbed “Unified Quest 2011,” centered around how to deal with a “large scale economic breakdownin this country.
The “threats” of the past sixty years have receded: America’s military might is unchallenged. Yet a new Threat is rising, not from without but from within – an economic cancer eating away at the very heart of our society. We had a taste of it in ’08, and in spite of the Obama-bots’ Pollyannaish predictions of “recovery,” ordinary people see nothing but trouble on the horizon. This is a real threat, unlike the others, one that cannot be fought by our matchless military, or even negotiated with – and it is coming.
American’s national security is in danger, but to listen to our politicians (Paul excepted), you’d think we had nothing to worry about: it’s business as usual. Yet as dark clouds gather on the horizon, and lightning splits the sky, we shiver in our homes and wonder when and how the storm will break.

Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims

ed note–over the years, we at TUT have made plain our EXTREME disdain for Muslims haters, Islamophobes and as well–THOSE IN THE ‘MOVEMENT’ WHO PROMOTE THEM.

The reasons for this were several–first and foremost was that the entire Islamophobia industry is dishonest and by extension, inherently unfair. Moreover, it has resulted in REAL LIFE suffering for innocent people, including American Muslims who are subjected to a genuine campaign of terrorism, against both them as individuals and also against their families and communities, to say nothing of the present wars taking place in Muslim countries being waged by the West.

HOWEVER, THE MOST DANGEROUS ASPECT TO IT has been the fact that these lies are the FUEL for wars that WILL DESTROY THE PLANET IF NOT STOPPED. These lies serve as the kindling, fuel and oxygen for an inferno that threatens to destroy everything.

HOW? SIMPLE–Professional Islamophobes such as Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Walid Phares and the rest have the ear of American and Western politicians. The story below concerning the lunatic Santorum is perfect proof of this. ‘Eurabia’ is a DISTINCTLY ISRAELI idea introduced and promoted by a professional Israeli Islamophobe Bat Ye’or who works closely with Israeli intelligence in providing additional fuel for this bonfire that benefits ONLY ONE entity–THE JEWISH STATE.

It is for this reason that we at TUT urge all people of reason and fairness to make a special point of exposing these agents of destruction for what they are–enemies not only of Muslims but of the entire planet.


For the past two weeks, the entire mainstream American media homed in on newsletters published by Republican Rep. Ron Paul, an anti-imperialist, conservative libertarian who finished third in last night’s Iowa caucuses. Mostly ghostwritten by libertarian activist Llewelyn “Lew” Rockwell and a committee of far-right cranks, the newsletters contained indisputably racist diatribes, including ominous warnings about the “coming race war.” At no point did Paul denounce the authors of the extreme manifestoes nor did he take responsibility for the content.

The disturbing content of Paul’s newsletters was a worthy campaign outrage, and one he should have been called to account for, but why did it gain mainstream traction when the reactionary views of the other candidates stayed under the radar? One reason is that Paul threatened the Republican establishment by attacking America’s neo-imperial foreign policy and demanding an end to the US-Israel special relationship.

Those who pushed the newsletters story the hardest were neoconservatives terrified by the prospect of Paul edging into the mainstream with his call for a total cut-off of US aid to Israel. In fact, the history of the newsletters was introduced to the American public back in early 2008 by Jamie Kirchick, a card-carrying neocon who has said that Muslims “act like savages” and once wrote that I possessed “a visceral hatred of my Jewish heritage.” Having declared former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their favorite wooden marionette, the neocons had a clear ideological interest in resuscitating the newsletters story once Paul emerged this year as a presidential frontrunner.

Though Romney won Iowa, he succeeded by a mere 8 votes over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. The mainstream press is now fixated on Santorum, praising him for his “authenticity” and predicting he will continue to win over “gritty Catholics,” as MSNBC host Chris Matthews said today. But now that Santorum is in the limelight, he is also going to be thoroughly vetted. So the question is whether the media will devote anywhere near the same level of attention it gave to Ron Paul’s newsletters as it will to Santorum’s record of hysterically Islamophobic statements and anti-Muslim activism. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that it will.

In 2007, a few months after Santorum was ousted from the Senate in a landslide defeat, he accepted an invitation from right-wing provocateur David Horowitz to speak at “Islamo-Fascism Campus Awareness Week.” As I documented in my video report on Horowitz’s appearance at Columbia University that year, “Islamo-Fascism” week was a naked ploy to generate publicity for the frenetically self-promoting Horowitz while demonizing Muslim-Americans as a dangerous fifth column who required constant government monitoring and possibly worse. The event was so extreme that even Jewish groups like Hillel known for promoting Zionism on campus rejected it.

There is no video documentation or transcript of Santorum’s speech at Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event. However, I was able to find a transcript of a speech Santorum delivered at Horowitz’s invitation in March 2007. During his address, the ex-Senator declared the need to “define the enemy,” but he made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two.

Here are a few of the remarkable statements Santorum made at Horowitz’s event:

“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”

“Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium — Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future…Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight.”

We should “talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them.”

“…the Shia brand of Islamist extremists [is] even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world.”

“The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war.”

The Islamophobic rant Santorum delivered at an event organized by a known bigot was no less extreme than anything contained in Ron Paul’s newsletters. But don’t wait for the American mainstream press to discuss Santorum’s disturbing views on Muslims as anything other than proof of his “authenticity.”

Michael Collins Piper
Chapter Sixteen:
The Cold War and the Early Origins of
the Trotskyite “Neo-Conservatives”
As the Zionist Vanguard of The Enemy Within
It is no coincidence that what in effect was the FBI’s takeover of the Communist Party USA came at precisely the time when a group of “ex-communists”were taking control of the “conservative”movement in the United States.
The method by which Hoover and the FBI “turned” high-ranking Communist Party USA official Morris Childs into a secret agent for the FBI points toward the little-understood “family fight” between the anti-Zionist Stalinist elements in Soviet Russia and their Trotskyite foes,many of whom are now in control of the so-called “neo-conservative” movement in America.
In his book The Secret History of the FBI, Ronald Kessler reported that the FBI convinced Childs to turn informant by claiming that Soviet boss Josef Stalin (who had recently died) had abandoned Marxist ideals.
In fact, the FBI’s argument is one of the arguments used against Stalin by the political heirs and disciples of Stalin’s hated rival, Leon Trotsky, who was killed in exile in Mexico at Stalin’s direction in 1928.
That the FBI adopted Trotskyite rhetoric to influence Childs adds substance to long-held and growing suspicion that certain “anti-communist” elements in the American “conservative” movement were, in fact, effectively deep-cover Trotskyites working to “turn” the anti-communist conservative movement from within.
Although, in the period in question (the mid-1950s), the rising “anti-communist” leader was “former” CIA operative William F. Buckley, Jr., future elements rising within the Buckley sphere of influence came to prominence in U.S. policy-making circles.And, as we shall see later in this chapter, and in subsequent chapters, those in Buckley’s sphere of influence played a major part in ushering today’s so-called “neo-conservatives” into power.
Ultimately, the so-called neo-conservative elites solidified under the leadership of a ubiquitous father-and-son team, Irving and William Kristol, who have established a far-reaching and influential network in official Washington.The senior Kristol, an “ex-Trotskyite” and a veteran of the CIA-financed International Committee for Cultural Freedom, began to infiltrate and remake the “conservative”movement, first in the mid-1950s under the patronage of Buckley, Jr.and then more openly during the Ronald Reagan era of flourishing Republican conservatism.
In fact, many of the problems that America is facing today are a direct consequence of what happened during the era of Ronald Reagan’s presidency when the neo-conservatives became increasingly prominent and were placed in positions of influence in official Washington through the efforts of the Kristol-sponsored Zionist “neoconservative” syndicate.
A noteworthy example: The infamous Iran-Contra affair, in which the United States, allied with Israel, engaged in global arms trafficking and in the trade of illicit drugs in order to prop up its foreign policies in both Central America and the Middle East.
This Iran-contra matter—which critics said should have been more forthrightly described as the “Israel-Iran-contra”affair—established a network of corrupt businesses and bought-and-paid-for politicians (including Bill and Hillary Clinton in Arkansas), along with high-level intriguers in Washington (notably the much-heralded Lt. Col. Oliver North) in league with Israeli arms dealers and Latin American drug lords, all of whom conspired to enrich themselves at the same time they effectively advanced the foreign policy aims of the Zionist elite. One simply cannot examine Ronald Reagan’s “Iran-contra” legacy without acknowledging this central fact.
However, somehow, in most accounts, the role of Israel and its American enablers always seems to be ignored.And it was this Iran-contra network which, in many respects, laid the groundwork for the clique of “neo-conservative” conspirators who—during the years that followed—made their way into positions of influence with the Reagan Republican policy-making establishment in Washington and later solidified their influence in the administration of the figure who was hailed as “the new Ronald Reagan”: George W. Bush.
The same can be said about the other Reagan-era Republican scandal—less well known, but equally significant—often referred to as “Iraqgate,” the arming of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.The same Reagan-era cabal that helped arm Saddam, having likewise helped arm his enemy, Iran, added massive fuel to the fire of the Middle East, creating a framework upon which Israel was able to expand its influence at the cost of millions of lives and horrible destruction that laid the groundwork for future geopolitical tensions in that region.And an examination of “Iraqgate” also finds the same forces—and personalities (including the Clintons and, again, Oliver North)—very much in play.
Finally, of course, Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly by Americans, not so much because of his policies, but because of his cheerful personality and his patriotic image. But the operative word here is “image”—not reality.The ugly fact is that during the Reagan era, a clique of very real Judas Goats spread their influence felt and the consequences remain with us today, more damaging than ever, particularly during the era of George W. Bush.
It is William Kristol, the son of the aforementioned neo-conservative “godfather,”Irving Kristol who perhaps best personifies the evil face of the neo-conservatives today.A media darling who is a member of the powerful Bilderberg group, Kristol is publisher and editor of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, using that forum to call for imperialistic U.S. intervention abroad, particularly as a means to advance the interests of the state of Israel.
Kristol’s chief financial angel,Murdoch, is a long-time front man for the combined forces of the Rothschild, Bronfman and Oppenheimer families who, with Murdoch, are often described as “The Billionaire Gang of Four.”This clique of billionaires are tied together not only by a mutual association in international financial wheeling and dealing but also by ethnic ties and a devotion to promoting the interests of the state of Israel. They are also widening their control and influence over the American media with Murdoch’s operations being perhaps the most visible.
(Later in these pages we will examine Murdoch in further detail.)
Kristol-sponsored neo-conservative fellow-travelers have been represented in policy-making circles in the current George W. Bush administration by such figures as longtime Israeli loyalist Richard Perle, once chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Perle’s longtime ally, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank), and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. All were among the key figures beating the drum for war against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and any other nation deemed dangerous to the survival of Israel.
Although Libby was criminally indicted for some of his misdeeds and the rest of the neo-conservatives have been exposed Hellish serial liars of the worst sort, these Zionist Trotskyites still hold great sway in Washington.In some respects,it might be said, the Trotskyites triumphed in America where, quite in contrast, they failed in Russia.
For the whole sordid history of the neo-conservatives—in far greater detail—see The High Priests of War, by the present author. It is not a pretty story, but one that needs to be told, for it helps explain the insidious nature of The Enemy Within.
However, long before the neo-conservatives came to the prominence and power that they hold today, during the 21st century, there arose an influential group of self-styled “responsible conservatives” who laid the groundwork for the rise of the neo-cons. These “responsible” conservatives moved within the sphere of a character named William F.Buckley, Jr.,who—along with his closest cronies—we will dissect in the pages that follow.

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts

King: Time to investigate Muslims, again

The Madness of Western Civilization
In the immediate hours and days after the September 11 attacks, propagandist chiefs Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, all appeared on television to put out their twisted narrative that Islamic extremists were responsible for the tragedy, without providing any evidence for their assertions.

Sur ce blog:

Les réseaux sionistes et leur campagne de propagande anti-Islam

La tragédie d’Oslo éclaire les liens entre les nationalistes européens et juifs unis dans la haine de l’Islam

La main des services secrets sionistes et occidentaux derrière les affrontements entre chrétiens et musulmans en Égypte

Analyse du rapport du FBI sur les « Israéliens dansants »

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

MAFIA JUIVE – L’éditeur en chef du Jewish Chronicle: « Pourquoi j’aime Rupert Murdoch »

Le clan Murdoch comparé à la mafia

VIDEO – James Murdoch ‘Mafia Boss’

‘You are the first Mafia boss in history to not know he was running a criminal enterprise’

Petit aperçu de la destruction de la démocratie par un groupe de presse

AUDIO – L’AUTRE MONDE – Les médias et les politiques sous l’influence du lobby qui n’existe pas + arrestation de David Duke, etc.

Sur ce blog:

Rupert Murdoch dénonce la « guerre contre les juifs »


by Michael Collins Piper

Chapter Forty
The Fox News Phenomenon:
How Zionist Plutocrats Created a “Media Alternative”
To the Garbage of the Established Liberal Media
In the opening pages of this volume, we met a handful of quite notorious Judas Goats whose names and faces are familiar to millions of Americans: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Anne Coulter and—last but far from least—Bill O’Reilly.
All are tried-and-true (and high-salaried) water-carriers for the Zionist cause—and apparently enthusiastic ones at that. Neo-conservatives of the first (and worst) order, this crew (for want of a better term to describe them) owe much of their fame and fortune to the constant promotion that they, and their views, or rather the views of their masters and handlers receive through the medium of Fox News.
While Fox is the actual sponsor of the televised rantings of Hannity and O’Reilly, the other Judas Goats are also regularly hyped by Fox which, for all intents and purposes, has become the foremost popular mass media voice for the Zionist “neo-conservative” propaganda line.
For this reason, it’s quite worthwhile examining Fox News and the manner in which this network has become a Judas Goat in and of itself.
Beyond question, Fox has emerged—perhaps even more so than the three “liberal” networks—ABC, CBS, and NBC—as one of the most dangerous and divisive forces operating in our world today.
Fox, of course, is the broadcast network owned by the far-flung News Corporation, the media empire of Australian-born Rupert Murdoch. Let’s take a quick look at just what this formidable media empire constitutes:
• The Weekly Standard magazine, run for Murdoch by “neo-conservative” William Kristol, son of the “ex-Trotskyite” neo-conservative godfather, Irving Kristol. (This magazine is one of the most loudly—notquietly—influential publications in America today, the virtual foreign policy bible of the “Dubya”Bush administration, and the one publication that can truly claim credit for laying the propaganda groundwork for the American debacle in Iraq.);
• 175 different newspapers including News of the World, The Sun, The Sunday Times, and The Times, published in Britain, and, perhaps most notably,The New York Post, the latter being one of the foremost voices for the Zionist cause in America;
• Twentieth Century Fox motion picture studios;
• Fox Television stations, in major metropolitan markets including:
Washington, D.C., Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Minneapolis, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, Orlando, Cleveland, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Memphis, Greensboro (North Carolina),Austin, and Ocala (Florida);
• Direct broadcast satellite television, spanning five continents—notably Foxtel;
• Fox News (cable) Channel and other cable outlets, reaching 300 million subscribers;
• Major publishing houses, such as HarperCollins Publishers (which now controls such renowned publishing companies as William Morrow & Company,Avon Books, Amistad Press and Fourth Estate) as well as ReganBooks, and Zondervan.
Clearly, this is a major media empire. How it emerged to have such power and influence, even dictating American affairs, is an instructive story, and quite illustrative of the machinations of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within. In order to review the Fox phenomenon, we must go back to the mid-to-late 1960s.
During that time frame,many Americans began to perceive a determined and deliberate “liberal” slant in news coverage by the three major television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) with CBS and its anchorman of-long-standing, Walter Cronkite, often considered to be the most “liberal” of the three.
Americans detected much liberal propagandizing in the content of daily television programming, with blatant political messages bring broadcast in the content of television dramas, situation comedies and made-for-television movies.
What’s more, the content of the programming began to focus on what can best be described as “sleaze”—and that’s putting it lightly.
Traditional American values became the target of vulgar bathroom humor and the Christian faith was constantly upheld as somehow being a virtual form of evil, responsible for the tragedies of the past. America’s Founding Fathers were painted as evil and counter-culture figures were held up as role models for American youth.The list of very valid complaints about the three major networks, their “news” coverage and their programming could go on and on.
As Americans became more and more aware of the filth and the “liberal” propagandizing, many people—but not enough, sad to say—began to take a closer look at the “who”—rather than the “what”—of the three major networks.That is,Americans began to recognize that the three major networks were tightly-controlled mega-corporations held in the hands of a tiny clique of interlocking families and financial groups who were largely of Jewish origin.
What’s more, the Jewish influence in the editorial and management levels in the “news” divisions of the three major networks was also becoming increasingly more obvious. In short, people began to recognize that the “liberal” networks were effectively the media voices of a Jewish elite whose values—and interests—did not, in any way, shape or form, represent those of the vast majority of the American people. As a consequence of this, there began to emerge a distinct dissatisfaction not only with the three major networks, but a growing talk in the heartlands about “Jewish control of the media.” To be sure, many folks were not so vocal about discussing the Jewish aspect of the problem with the networks, but this remained a constant (if only quietly spoken) phenomenon.
And on occasion, some big names in American life—ranging from former Vice President Spiro Agnew to General George Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even Hollywood giants such as Robert Mitchum and Marlon Brando and famed author Truman Capote—actually dared to say publicly that there was an inordinate Jewish influence upon (or control of) the major media outlets in America.
In the end, this disillusionment with the broadcast industry and its machinations actually set the stage, in many respects, for the rise of Ronald Reagan and his election to the presidency in 1980. Americans were looking for a change and while Reagan promised a “new conservatism,” in the end it proved to be something entirely different. But Americans were eager for an alternative to the “liberal” media—and along came Rupert Murdoch to the “rescue”—or so it seemed.
Americans who were fed up with the “liberal” media now had a self-appointed savior, a colorful foreign-born media tycoon who seemed to share their dissatisfaction and who seemed to be willing to provide a real “alternative.” But that “alternative” is not what most Americans were really looking for, and many folks don’t seem understand that they’ve been conned—in fact, conned big-time.
Although already well-established in Australia as a growing media power on his own, Murdoch quietly received the international sponsorship and financial backing of some of the world’s most wealthy and powerful Jewish families: the Rothschilds of Europe, the Bronfmans of Canada and the Oppenheimers of South Africa.With their firm support, he began expanding his empire into Britain and around the planet.
In short order, Rupert Murdoch became the “hottest” item in the global media, and soon was on his way to achieving vast wealth beyond his wildest dreams and immense political power through the rise of his News Corporation empire and the lucrative advertising industry. It is thus no wonder that Murdoch himself came to be counted, along with the Rothschilds, Bronfmans and Oppenheimers, as part of a group quite correctly described as “The Billionaire Gang of Four.”
Today, now well established, Murdoch’s media voices, particularly Fox News, press the “hot button” issues—such as abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools—that stir up animosities between so-called “Christian Right”organizations and the groups and institutions to which they stand in opposition.
Meanwhile, ironically, other Murdoch media outlets, such as Fox Television, are responsible for promoting some of the worst garbage ever to appear on American television screens.Yet, for some reason, the Christian Right folks who revel in Fox News’“conservative” slant seem to miss the point that Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate is raking in advertising billions by selling sleaze.
All the while, of course, the Murdoch media is busy promoting the interests of the Zionist movement.And that, above all, is the most important point that needs to be recognized.
Although Murdoch and his media play the game of providing an “alternative,” they are, in fact, providing a “controlled opposition,” keeping the “conservative” and “traditional” American ranks in line, touting the Zionist cause as an “American” one, a cause that is fully in line with not just “making America great again” (in the imagery of Ronald Reaganesque rhetoric) but, in reality making America an empire—and one that is ruled by the Zionist elite.
In other words, Fox News is loudly—and proudly—promoting the theme that America is the world’s voice for sanity and democracy and that it is, quite simply,America’s job to rule the world.
And that is precisely—as we documented in our earlier work, The New Jerusalem—the Zionist agenda today: America’s capital and resources, its military men and women, its massive arsenal, are to be used for the establishment of a global imperium to advance the agenda of the well-heeled Zionist plutocrats and their international network of allied corporate interests and ideological soulmates.
While there are many good Americans who believe the Fox News (that is, Zionist) propaganda line that America must use its power ‘for good,”—even at the sacrifice of the thousands of lives of Americans and others—there are many more Americans (and others worldwide) who don’t share that philosophy.
However, Fox News—and other elements in the Zionist propaganda network—have begun to advance the theme that anyone who stands in the way of this global agenda is somehow “anti-American” and certainly “anti-Semitic” (and also, even,“anti-Christian”).
Legislation such as the so-called Patriot Act and other mechanisms of control are being put into place in order to suppress dissent against the Zionist agenda.And Fox News is on the frontlines promoting these Orwellian schemes.
We need say nothing more in this regard, other than to warn sincere American patriots that Fox News is not their friend. Sincere Americans need to be wary of Fox News and its talking heads.
Americans must surrender to the winds the idea that “well, Fox says many good things,” and to abandon the rationale that such voices from the Fox stable (or should we say “gutter”?) as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and others are “often right.” Fox and its adherents are dangers to America and they are dangers to the world.
Fox News certainly ranks as among the most dangerous of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within.
Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

La montée du pouvoir financier juif Rothschild

Loi « Pompidou-Rothschild » : polémique entre Le Monde et Etienne Chouard

[...] Etienne Chouard répond point par point aux objections du Monde :
* la critique de la privatisation du pouvoir de création monétaire existait bien avant les récentes discussions sur les blogs ; Etienne Chouard y travaille depuis 2006 ; avant lui, de très grands économistes ont traité le sujet (André-Jacques Holbecq, Philippe Derudder, Maurice Allais) ; les premiers écrits de Maurice Allais contre le pouvoir de création monétaire des banques privées datent de…1946, dans Économie et Intérêt (p 273 et s. par ex.).
* la loi de 1973 ne fait que parachever une longue évolution, en accordant enfin le monopole de la création monétaire aux banques privées (par la confiscation totale à l’État de ce droit pour son propre usage).
* « Un livre écrit par un auteur devenu antisémite n’est pas automatiquement antisémite. En l’occurrence, le livre de Mullins n’est pas antisémite, pas du tout : c’est le travail d’une vie de recherche, autour d’un enjeu sociétal crucial, avec des preuves innombrables des faits allégués… »
* « L’affirmation que le Président de la République Pompidou a été préalablement le Directeur de la banque Rothschild correspond à UN FAIT, parfaitement incontestable. »
* « L’affirmation que cette mesure est contraire à l’intérêt général (puisque tous les emprunts d’État sont devenus mécaniquement coûteux) et favorable à l’intérêt des banques privées (qui perçoivent précisément ces intérêts, et dont fait partie, à plus d’un titre, la banque Rothschild elle-même) est encore UN FAIT, parfaitement incontestable. »
* « La constatation que la dette publique française s’est progressivement envolée depuis cette année 1973, et que la charge de cette dette s’est envolée dans le même mouvement, cette constatation est encore UN FAIT, parfaitement incontestable. »
* L’article 25 de la loi de 1973, bien que formellement abrogé, a été repris presque mot à mot à l’article 104 du traité de Maastricht ; ce remplacement a aggravé la situation en gravant le texte scélérat dans le marbre des traités et en empêchant le peuple français de l’abroger aisément, comme on peut abroger toute loi.

Source: Chapitres 1 (extrait) et 4 à 9 de The New Babylon(Michael Collins Piper, 2009)…

This period cartoon illustrates the crowned heads of Europe — the ostensible rulers of the day — bowing before Lionel Rothschild on his throne of mortgages, loans and cash. In fact, this was the reality of the day, the effective fruition of the age-old Jewish dream of a New World Order — a Jewish Utopia — in which all other peoples of the planet would bow down and worship the Jewish people, the new rulers of the Earth. For good reason, indeed, Rothschild was known as the « king of kings. »

(…) we find that — through the ages — there was a long-standing Jewish dream for the establishment of a global order — a new imperium — a New World Order, if you will. And at the top of that New World Order pyramid we find the name Rothschild. The House of Rothschild and its empire are the foundation for that New World Order.
There were many Jewish bankers and Jewish usurers in those many years that preceded the rise of the Rothschild Empire at the end of the 18th Century, but it was not until the rise of the Rothschild dynasty that this International Money Power emerged as the force that it did evolve to be.
There were Jewish bankers and usurers, active in many places throughout Western Civilization and reaching into the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America — but it was not until the rise of the Rothschild dynasty that this power achieved a unity it had never seen before.
And, in fact, it might be said — quite correctly — that the rise of the Rothschilds set in place a “royal family” of international Jewry, indeed a royal family of international finance.
And in the years, decades, centuries that followed, the Rothschild fortune, popularly known in Europe as “The Fortune,” did become a central force in the international conduct of monetary policy and, as a consequence, in the conduct of the international policies of the various nation states, the various royal families and even indeed the various “democracies” that were in place and which evolved during that time frame in which the Rothschild Empire remained a constant, ever-present force operating, not just behind the scenes, but quite overtly in its influence upon the governments and peoples, not only in the “civilized” world, but, ultimately, throughout the entire world as the British Empire — in particular — reached across the globe with, in many respects, the British Foreign Office a virtual arm of the Rothschild dynasty.
Likewise in other European nations — rivals to Britain — they began to extend their reach onto other continents. The various branches of the Rothschild family in Vienna, Paris, Frankfurt, Naples, along with satellite influences in Hong Kong, Shanghai, even in Australia, began to flex their power.
Thus, in this respect, the term “the Jews” has often been applied to the International Money Power and this International Money Power, for a combination of reasons — religious, philosophical, economic, all combined together in a geopolitical force — did indeed lay the groundwork for what is popularly known today as “The NewWorld Order.”
This New World Order — which revolves around the operations of the Rothschild Empire as it has instituted itself as a predatory force within the affairs of the nations, most especially today the United States — has, in fact, been intertwined with long-standing Jewish philosophy going back to the days of the Babylonian Talmud which is the guiding force behind Jewish religious thinking today. So in this respect we do have before us a New Babylon.
Ultimately it is not a coincidence that the charge of “anti-Semitism” is leveled at individuals and institutions that have dared to raise criticisms of the role of the International Money Power in world affairs, even those that have not specifically referenced its Jewish influences and antecedents. This has been a common phenomenon over the centuries.
In more recent times those who have dared, for example, to criticize the privately-owned and controlled money monopoly known as the Federal Reserve System — which, in fact, as we shall see, was a creation of Rothschild-connected international banking forces operating on American soil — have, at the very least, been “suspected” of anti-Semitism or perceived to be “potential” anti-Semites, by daring even to raise the issue of the propriety of the existence of this system. Any discussion of the International Money Power, any discussion of what is referred to as “the New World Order,” is considered “anti-Semitism” or potential “anti-Semitism” precisely because any discussion of or research into these topics, if carried out to its ultimate conclusion, would point in the direction of the Rothschild family, the princes of the Jewish world elite.
In 1777, Maria Theresa, the Empress of Austria, said, “I know of no more troublesome pest to the State than that nation which brings people to a state of poverty by fraud, usury and financial contracts, and which carries out all kinds of evil practices which an honorable man would abominate.”
The nature of this plutocratic edifice, its predatory structure, was pinpointed in a provocative and detailed report issued by the German government in 1940, a study which focused on the Rothschild (and before that, primarily Jewish) financial stranglehold over the British Empire. Entitled How Jewry Turned England into a Plutocratic State,” the study asserted:

By plutocracy one understands a form of government in which the election of its members rest upon their possessing wealth. The word plutocracy is derived from the Greek roots = riches and kratein = to rule. Plutocracy therefore means: the rule of moneypower, or more freely expressed: the government of Jewish gold.
The historical example of a state ruled by riches and possession is Carthage, in which the Jewish element was also represented. It was governed by the rich merchants, who were represented by a kind of “lower house” named “the Council of the Three Hundred” and a “upper house” named “the Council of the Thirty”. The people were barred from exercising any influence on the government.
For Jewry plutocracy is the most suitable form of government. Through plutocracy the immense Jewish capitalism, without respect to the number of Jews represented, of necessity procures a governing, political position, for a plutocratic state, as history teaches us, a small Jewish clique can dictate to a great state, if it is in possession of the necessary amount of capital.

The recognition of this plutocracy, in many respects, came to be what many critics referred to as “the Jewish Problem,” resulting in the rise of anti- Jewish feelings that even many Jewish writers themselves, in turn, likewise referred to as “the Jewish Problem.” And it is a problem that remains to this day — as even Jewish writers have repeatedly acknowledged.
Pope Clement VIII (who reigned from 1592 to 1605) said, in no uncertain
terms, “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially farmers [and] working class people. . . .”
In regard to this plutocratic domination, the words of German Jewish industrialist and political figure Walter Rathenau (1867-1922) will be recalled. Writing in 1909 in Vienna’s Neue Freie Presse, Rathenau said: “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, guide the economic destinies of the continent and seek their successors among their followers.”
Although apologists have claimed that in this provocative statement Rathenau did not suggest that those 300 were Jews or that they ruled over the heads of the national governments, nonetheless he did say what he said. Theodore Fritsch, the German writer who was well known for his criticisms of Jewish power and who was the author of the best-selling work, Handbook of the Jewish Question, reflected upon Rathenau’s remarks. Fritsch noted in his 1922 essay, « The Desperate Act of a Desperate People” (which, in fact, was written upon the assassination of Rathenau) that Rathenau’s words were “a remarkable avowal” that had not been fully understand in all of its consequences. Fritsch assessed the matter:

From the consequences in which it was said, it was clear that [Rathenau] was not talking about ruling princes and statesmen but rather a power group standing outside government which possesses the means to enforce its will upon the world, including the governments. Furthermore, since he spoke of the naming of successors, it is obvious that there is a firmly structured organization operating according to definite principles and a division of offices and systematically pursuing its goals.

This, said Fritsch,“substantiates nothing less than the fact that a closed society, a shadow government or a super government, has existed for a long time and that it directs economic and political events over the heads of nations and governments.”
What was the source of this shadow government, asked Fritsch? He provided the answer: “Jewish high finance and its paid lackeys, allied and spread throughout the entire world.”
Fritsch pointed out that many people failed to draw proper conclusions from the facts put forth by Rathenau. Reflecting upon the destructive tragedy ofWorld War I, Fritsch said:

If the 300 men of the secret world government directed the destiny of the world, what was [that] world war all about? Would the 300 have been unable to prevent it? Since they did not prevent [the war] they must have wanted it. If the 300 money powers made world policy for decades, they therefore also made the world war. Perhaps [they did so] in order finally to erect their mastery in the open and to drive out the princes.

“It is time,” wrote Fritsch, “that the nations finally recognize this and bring the guilty to account.” He noted that the works of Henry Ford, published in The International Jew, delivered “exhaustive proof” as to how the Jewish financial interests set the first world war in motion. Of the Jewish plutocrats, Fritsch wrote that “He who boasts even secretly that he directs the destiny of the world ought now to possess the courage and decency to take the responsibility for the political events of the world.”
Ironically, Fritsch died in 1933, just at the time when his native land of Germany began working to dismantle the power of the Rothschild Empire on European soil, even as the groundwork was in place for the rise of the Zionist state in the years that followed World War II, not long afterward.
In fact, the plutocratic elite — the Jewish aristocracy in the whirl of the Rothschild dynasty — in fact, the Rothschilds most especially — made the rise of political Zionism possible. Zionism was an outgrowth of the global Imperialism that arose in the swath of expanding plutocratic wealth and power across the planet.
The late Palestinian-American philosopher Edward Said noted the synchronicity between Zionism and Imperialism, writing that: “When we talk about Zionism and Imperialism, we are talking about a family of ideas, belonging to the same dynasty, springing out of the same seed.” Said referred to the Zionist-Imperialist construct (in the context of the Zionist occupation of Palestine) as “a whole system of confinement, dispossession, exploitation and oppression that still holds us down and denies us our inalienable rights as human beings,” and yet the truth is that Zionist occupation of Palestine is only but a microcosm, to speak, reflecting the Zionist occupation of the entire globe — the establishment of the Jewish Power Elite as the would-be arbiters of the course of world affairs, bar none.(…)


Shown above, a period caricature of Jewish plutocrats at the London Stock Exchange receiving news that would impact upon their financial manipulations. Jewish financial power was on the rise throughout all of the capitals of Europe during the 19th Century, but London became, in many respects, “the capital of Jewish capital.” Although there were many independent and significantly wealthy Jewish financial wheeler-dealers operating in Britain and elsewhere, the rise of the House of Rothschild in Britain (and across Europe) ultimately brought these other money barons into the Rothschild sphere of influence. The rise of the International Jewish Money Power led to increasingly open discussion—at all levels—regarding this remarkable phenomenon and its impact on world affairs.

The Rise of the International Jewish Money Power
It is absolutely impossible to discuss the New World Order without addressing the incredible totality of wealth (and consequently political power) that the Jewish people have assembled. Beginning with Jewish banking families in Britain and on the European continent, Jewish wealth reached an extraordinary level. And as we shall see, the rise of the Rothschild Dynasty was its final culmination, leading ultimately to the political and economic state of affairs that has made the construction of the mechanism for a New World Order possible.

Although it is politically incorrect to quote Adolf Hitler—perhaps history’s most infamous critic of the Jews—in the context of any discussion whatsoever, Hitler—writing in Mein Kampf—assessed the nature of Jewish financial power and its consequences. So precisely because Hitler is such a controversial figure (one whose role in global affairs continues to reverberate today), it is important to consider what he had to say:

Jews first enter communities as importers and exporters. They then become middlemen for internal production. They tend to monopolize trade and finance. They become bankers to the monarchy. They lure monarchs into extravagances in order to make them dependent on Jewish money lenders. They seek popularity by a show of philanthropy and political liberalism. They promote the development of joint stock companies, stock speculation and trade unions. By control of the press they create turmoil. Both international finance and international communism are Jewish tricks to weaken the national spirit.

Lest anyone dismiss this as “Nazi propaganda” note the similar nature of what Leon Poliakov, the famed Jewish historian, once wrote:

With the start of modern history, Jews found that a reverence for money [was] a source of all life. Increasingly, each action in the Jews’ daily life was subject to the payment of a tax. He must pay to come and go, pay for the right to pray with his co-religionists, pay to marry, pay for the birth of his child, even pay for taking a corpse to the cemetery.

Without money, Jewry was inevitably doomed to extinction. Thus, the rabbis henceforth viewed financial oppressions, for example, the moratorium on repayment of debts to Jews . . . as on a par with massacres and expulsions,seeing in them a divine curse, a merited punishment from on high.

Shown above, an 1889 French campaign poster for Adolphe-Leon Willette, a French painter and lithographer who ran as an openly “anti-Semitic” candidate in a local election in Paris. His poster declared, among other things, that “the Jews are a different race, hostile to ours . . . Judaism is the enemy.” French Christian workers, artisans and others are shown triumphing over and beheading the Jewish Money Power, represented by a crowned cow. At their feet is found the Talmud, long recognized as the driving force behind Jewish intrigues in Europe and worldwide.

As early as September 27, 1712, London’s Spectator wrote of the Jews:

They are so disseminated throughout all the trading parts of the world that they have become the Instruments by which the most distant Nations converse with one another and by which mankind are knit together in a general correspondence.

In The Jews and Modern Capitalism, Werner Sombart wrote that exclusion from public life was of benefit to not only the economic position of the Jews but also their political situation:

It freed the Jews from political partisanship. Their attitude toward the state and the particular government of the day was wholly unprejudiced. Thanks to this, their capacity to become the standard bearers of the international capitalistic system was superior to that of other people, for they supplied the different states with money, and national conflicts were among the chief sources from which Jews derived their profit. Moreover, the political colorlessness of their position made it possible for them to serve successive dynasties or governments in countries which, like France,were subjected to many political changes. The history of the Rothschilds illustrates this point.

In his provocatively titled 1982 book, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality, published by Ticknor and Fields, American Jewish author Gerald Krefetz said forthrightly:

The acquisition of money [by Jews] has become a reflexive action instinctive as blinking when a hand menaces the eye and as sure a response as the flight of an antelope on the Serengeti plain. For the Jew, money does not represent security, for he seems constitutionally insecure,nor is it a form of camouflage, [for] Jews often choose to stand aside and stand out.

For the Jew, money is safety, a tool of survival. Over the years, the manipulation, the earning, creation, and saving of money has been raised to a fine art—the result of defensive social conduct which has passed from generation to generation.

Describing the Jews as “a wonderful example” for the new science of ethology—which Krefetz noted is the biological study of paradigms, patterns and gestures as a clue to understanding character, in other words, the study of animal behavior—Krefetz said, in candor, that “Any review of the social evolution of Jews in recent times must concentrate on the mightiest defense mechanism—the acquisition of money—since it is so central to their existence and survival.”

Referring to Werner Sombart’s aforementioned The Jews and Modern Capitalism, Krefetz noted that Sombart had concluded that Judaism was a religion favorable to capitalistic development: “Not only was Judaism a stimulant to economic growth,in some areas, Jews were originators of neccesary first steps, indeed, they made capitalism possible. He credited Jews with a significant role in international trade.” Sombart said that the Jews were “the first to place on the world’s markets the staples of modern commerce.”

Jewish traders specialized in luxury items such as precious stones and bullion and were especially pivotal in the colonization of Latin America.

Sombart also noted some of the economic institutions that Jews had been instrumental in creating, including stock exchanges, negotiable instruments, public bonds and bank notes.In addition, Jews were active in promoting free trade, advertising and competition. These were all factors new in the world of what has come to be called “capitalism.”


[Click to see larger picture]

Sombart traced Jewish traditions in these realms of capitalism back to the Pentateuch and the Talmud (and other Jewish religious sources) which featured commentaries on interest, usury, commercial law, legal transactions and property. Sombart asserted that this “Jewish genius” for capitalism transpired from the Jewish “contract with God”—a bilateral covenant.

In exploring the history of “Jews and Money” in his book by that title, Gerald Krefetz acknowledges with candor that “Historically, Jews have shown remarkable talent for manipulating money. Over the years this proclivity has led them to the world of banking and finance and nowhere have they so brilliantly exercised their financial talents as in America. Free enterprise and political emancipation allowed them to exercise and sharpen these skills—skills that have been evolving for a thousand years.”

For most of those thousand years, Krefetz noted, Jews were not bankers in the modern sense. They were, he wrote, “money lenders more akin to pawn brokers and foreign exchange dealers.” Krefetz described the evolution of the the Jews into the modern day kings of finance leading to the rise of the Rothschild Empire as the foremost force among them:

At first they lent money when no one else could or would, because either of a lack of liquid funds or injunctions [by the church] against [Christians] lending money at interest.

Later, when money became more plentiful and Christian prohibitions were ignored by some, lending became popular and Jewish money lenders were left with only poor clients. By then Jews were restricted from almost every livelihood that had any appeal to Gentiles. The injunctions were enforced by either deportation or by restriction to ghettoes.

A few Jews who became rich and powerful as adjuncts or administrators for rulers—the Court Jews—were precursors to modern financiers. Their jobs included raising revenues by tax farming, negotiating loans, and supplying the military as one-man quartermaster corps.

Modern banking started in the 19th Century with the rise of the House of Rothschild. They were not the only important Jewish bankers in Europe: indeed a surprising number of continental banks were founded by Jews.

The old Court Jew had primarily raised money for local rulers to cover his expenses, his personal diplomacy and his extravagances. The new bankers floated state loans to finance emerging industries and railroads.

Prior to the modern Jewish banks in the Rothschild sphere, there was also a considerable Jewish presence in the world of money. The Economic History of the Jews noted:

Medieval princes used the commercial and financial services of individual Jews.However, as an institution,the Court Jew is a feature of the Absolutist State, especially in Central Europe, from the end of the 16th Century onward.

Trying as far as possible to extend his power over the whole of his territory, the ruler set up a centralized administration as part of his court, which at the same time became the power center, presenting a lavish display of luxury. Economically, a Jew could be of great service to such a ruler.

In Poland many landed estates were administered by Jews and a large part of the trade in agricultural products was in their hands.

This, combined with the emergence of early Jewish capitalist commercial activity by Sephardim in the Netherlands, with their connections with Levantine trade through Jews in the Ottoman Empire, made the Jew in central Europe particularly suited to be an agent for provisioning armies with grain, timber and cattle, as well as a supplier of diamonds and other goods for conspicuous consumption.

As tax collecting and enlargement of the scope of taxation often lagged considerably behind the growing expenditure of court, army and bureaucracy, this type of regime developed an almost chronic financial deficit.

Here the Jews with their organizational skill and their far-reaching connections could help, through the frequent supply of commercial credit or ready cash, as also through the supply of food stuffs, cloth, and weapons for the army, the most important instrument of the prince’s power.

All of this laid the groundwork for the rise of banking families such as, most notably, the Rothschilds:

In all their varied activities, the Court Jews played a remarkable part in the development of international credit facilities, especially in the central European states, and to some degree in northern Europe also, from the mid-17th to the late 18th Centuries.

Generally, they were agents who arranged transfers of credit rather than possessors of vast capital in their own right; through their far-reaching commercial relationships and their organizing skill, they were able to provide funds more swiftly than most Christian bankers.

Because of their specialization in the money business, they were able to furnish the silver for the mints more easily, and could more easily act as army purveyors, once more because of their ability to organize and their network of family relationships.With their entrepreneurial spirit, they contributed in part to the process of industrialization within the frame of mercantilist policies.

There is no doubt that they were instrumental in the growth of the modern absolute state, and at the end of the era there emerged a group of several important Jewish private bankers who exemplify the transition to modern methods of economy and government, primarily the Rothschilds, the Goldsmids, the Oppenheimers, and the Seligmans.

The authors added, almost as an afterthought, “However, it should not be forgotten that the courts had their Christian bankers, entrepreneurs and army agents, too, who also played a part in this development.” How kind of these Judeo-centric authors, writing for a Judeo-centric publishing house, to give credit to the Christians!

Great Britain’s emergence—as the preeminent center of Jewish finance—is vital for us to consider. During the early years of World War II, Germany’s news agency,World-Service, assessed this little-known history.

Jewry’s rise to power in England took place in three sharply defined stages, which are separated by intervals of about 100 years.

Under Cromwell’s rule and during the first half of the Revolution period, under Charles II, the Jews, after having been banned from England for a period of more than 350 years, again swarmed into England.

Cromwell’s rule is characterized by an outspoken British imperial policy. With regard to his financial as well as his political policy Cromwell depended upon the Jews to be the backbone of his colonial expansion. Jewish agents carried on economic and political espionage for Cromwell, availing themselves of the Jewish business houses in foreign countries.

In Cromwell’s time, exactly as 100 and 200 years later, a small ruling Jewish clique was formed, at whose head one Jew appeared as the backbone of the new colonial economic policy. In Cromwell’s time it was the enormously rich Sephardic Jew Antony Fernandez Carvajal who occupied this position.

A hundred years later the second stage of the Jew’s rise to power in England commences. The Jewish clique in England was then led by the exceedingly rich Sephardic Jew, Sampson Gideon, who also greatly influenced the English cabinet ministers. At that time the influence of the Jews on finance-capital in England was already so great, that without exaggeration one may say, that English Jews were controlling the English money market.

Under the leading of Sampson Gideon the Jews sought to break down the barrier-erected by the time-approved laws against the influx of foreign Jews. The English nation, aroused to anger, strenuously opposed this Jewish effort. The Jews therefore could accomplish nothing by constitutional means, but already their power was so great, and by working from behind the scenes the influential English Jews saw to it, that these time-approved laws were evaded and set at nought.

Again, a hundred years later, in the 19th Century, we encountered the last and most decisive period, during which the Jews attempted their emancipation. Jewish personalities such as Rothschild, Montefiore, Bernal, Montagu, Ricardo and Disraeli at the beginning of theVictorian age, fought for and gained equal rights for Jewry within English law.

Once the Jews had been received at court and had been granted citizenship, the English nobility no longer felt degraded by intermarriage with Jews. Uninterrupted, the penetration and disintegration of the English nobility by Jewry now continued. Uninterrupted, the Jewish invasion of the ruling class, whose national opposition was broken down,was now continued on a broad basis.After Jewry had in this way succeeded in worming its way into the nobility, it could from this strong position carry on its campaign against the English nation.

It now began the third stage of its conquest of England. In a period of about 100 years it had accomplished this. In the reign of Queen Victoria the last resistance of the English nation was broken down. Judah had conquered England. Jewish-English Plutocracy was stabilized by the Jews and by sections of the ruling class,which was connected with it by ties of blood, and which was to be still further extended in the 20th Century. Jewish interest and the interest of the Jewish-English aristocracy were now identical.

Through this plutocratic system of government Jewish and British Imperialism were firmly welded together.The strong hands by which the Jews had bound the English nobility to themselves were those of blood relationship and finance-capital. Jewish gold now became the undeniable ruler of England. Jewish unscrupulousness and aggressiveness, shady Jewish avarice and greed from now on become the characteristics and the stamp of the ruling classes, now to be counted in with the Jews.

These were the cornerstones that were used in building up the British Empire in its present form.These are the foundations upon which it rests.

While the Rothschild family held sway through their banks in London, Paris, Frankfurt,Vienna and Naples,there were also such big names in Jewish finance as Bleichroder in Berlin, Warburg in Hamburg, Oppenheim in Cologne and Speyer in Frankfurt who were also emerging as powerful lords of money who worked in conjunction with one another and with the Rothschilds, competing often to be sure, but all tied together by their Jewish heritage and traditions. There were also the Hambros of London, the Sassoons of Bombay and the Guinzberg house in St. Petersburg.

Although these banking empires were equivalent to what are called “merchant banks” or “investment banks” today, there was also a significant Jewish role in setting up so-called “commercial” banks (more akin to the “average” bank with which the average commoner would deal for financial services) such as the Deutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank—two of Germany’s “Big Three,” Credit Mobilier and the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas in France, along with Banca Commerciale Italiana and Credito Italiano in Italy, and Creditanstalt-Bankverein and Banque de Bruxelles, among others.

In the United States, there were Jewish bankers rising: Haim Solomon of Revolutionary War fame (although there are those who dispute the claim that Solomon was “The Jewish Patriot Who Financed the American Revolution”) and Isaac Moses who—along with Alexander Hamilton—founded the Bank of NewYork in 1784.

Krefetz cited such Jewish banking houses that rose in America from the period of 1840 onward: Bache, Goldman, Sachs, J.W. Seligman, Kuhn Loeb, Ladenburg, Thalmann, Lazard Freres, Lehman Brothers, Speyer, and Wertheim. And Krefetz notes that these American-based Jewish banking houses had a tendency to intermarry and often acted in concert and thus projected “an image of concentrated power.”

And needless to say, in the midst of this, the Rothschilds were indeed already operating on American soil through their American agent, August Belmont, who worked with many of these other Jewish capitalist forces.

What is interesting is that Krefetz suggested that these Jewish banks were unable to compete with what he calls “Protestant” banks among which Morgan, Drexel, Gould, Fiske, Harriman and Hill were the most prominent. But, as we shall see later in these pages, many of these elements were, in fact, under the sway of Rothschild and other Jewish influence.

For the record, Krefetz added, that, in his opinion, there is no real evidence of an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers, but that“some Jews in banking have conspired.”

The money game, he said,“holds a fascination for Jews that some might say is equivalent to sex to the French, food to the Chinese, and power to the politician. And since the Diaspora [the scattering of Jewish communities], their financial concerns have always had an international flavor.”

As early as 1879, the anti-Jewish German essayistWilhelm Marr said candidly that Jewish Money Power had assembled a predominant influence, in Germany in particular, but he recognized that this money power was international in scope. Marr described his own writings as “less a polemic against Jewry than confirmation of a cultural and historical fact.” He said that any intemperate language he may have used “must be understood as no more than a cry of pain from one of the oppressed.”

By the “oppressed,” Marr was referring to the rest of the many Europeans and peoples worldwide who were, as one English writer put it, some years later, “under the heel of the Jew,”—referring, indeed, to the Jewish Money Power.

Pointing out that many people had written unpleasant things about Jews and the organized Jewish community, Marr noted that, nonetheless, “our self conceit still keeps us from the open and honest admission that Israel has become a world power of the very first rank.”

He emphasized that there was no religious prejudice in his writings. He was, he noted, simply enabling his readers to peer into what he called “the mirror” of cultural and historical facts. He advised readers of his pessimistic works to not blame him if that mirror showed those readers to be slaves.

“Without a shred of irony,” he wrote,“I publicly proclaim the world-historical triumph of Jewry, the news of a lost battle, the victory of the enemy without a single excuse for the stricken army.” He referred to his stark (and dark) conclusions as nothing more than “candor.”

Marr noted that “throughout history the Jews have been hated by all peoples without exception.” He emphasized that much of this hatred and enmity did not come as a consequence of the Jewish religion and its teachings (particularly its disdain for non-Jews)—although he acknowledged this did play some part—but rather, Marr said, the Jewish people had been able to adapt themselves to what Marr called the “idolatry of other peoples.”

Of the historical conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, Marr noted that “When one people subjugates another, one of two situations usually [occurs]: either the conquerer merges into the culture of the conquered and loses its special nature or the conquerer succeeds in impressing his special nature on the conquered.” Marr cited the Mongols who conquered China under Genghis Khan and then became Chinese. He wrote:

As imposing as these two possible phenomena might be, they lose significance when confronted by the cultural history of Jewry, for in this case a wholly new force enters.A completely Semitic race has been torn loose from its homeland in Palestine, led into captivity, and finally scattered.

As far as the Babylonian captivity is concerned,it seems that the Babylonians soon wearied of their Jewish captives, for they were let loose again. The bulk of the Jews returned to Palestine, but the bankers and the wealthy stayed in Babylon, despite the angry thundering of the ancient Jewish prophets.

In some respects, Marr showed great sympathy toward the Jewish situation. He pointed out that “the Jews let themselves be used by the great ones of the land so that they [could] conduct their money transactions at the cost of the common people.” Marr added: “Highly gifted, highly talented in this direction, the Jews dominated the wholesale trade and the retail trade in the Middle Ages. They soon outstripped those who earned their bread by the sweat of their brow.”

What was interesting, said Marr, were the dynamics of the situation. Although the common people saw that because of religious differences the Jews did not share the ethical considerations of the non-Jews, the Jews, so long as they made money, tolerated anything: “Oppressed from above according to official policy, the Jews could carry on below with impunity. The people,” however, he said,“were not permitted to grumble about their exploitation by the powerful and their agents—the Jews.”

As a consequence of this, Marr pointed out,there was an introduction of religion into the equation by those who were angry at being exploited by the Jews and those for whom the Jews acted as agents.And so there were occasional pogroms. However, amazingly, the Jews did not demand their own emancipation since they feared that it might interfere with their money dealings. Although the Jews “were ridiculed by the educated, mishandled by the mob, persecuted by the zealots of the medieval church,” the Jews nonetheless “conquered the world with [their] Jewish spirit,” Marr said.

Another German critic of Jewish financial power, Adolf Stoecker, was not content with simply pinpointing the problems. He put forth a number of solutions that he hoped would be utilized:

The social maladies that Jewry brought with it must be cured by wise legislation. It will not be easy to place Jewish capital under the necessary limitations.
Only organic legislation can achieve this.Abolition of the mortgage system in real estate . . . a change in the credit system that frees the businessman from the arbitrary power of big capital; change in the stock market system; . . . limitation of the appointment of Jewish judges to their proportion of the total population.

Addressing the International Money Power of the Rothschild Empire, in particular,Henry Ford, the great industrialist, said Rothschild power as it was once known, “had been so broadened by the entry of other banking families into governmental finance, that it must now be known not by the name of one family of Jews, but by the name of the race.” Thus, Ford said, this combine was now being called “International Jewish Finance.” He wrote:

Much of the veil of secrecy which contributed so greatly to the Rothschild power has been stripped away; war finance has been labeled for all time as“blood money”; and the mysterious magic surrounding large transactions between governments and individuals, by which individual controllers of large wealth remain the real rulers of people, has been largely stripped away and the plain facts disclosed. The Rothschild method still holds good, however, in that Jewish institutions are affiliated with their racial institutions in all foreign countries.

Thus, having reviewed the rise of the Jews as the kings of global finance, we will now dissect the history of the greatest of all names in the International Jewish Money Power: the House of Rothschild, indisputably the preeminent force in the drive for a New World Order . . .


Meyer Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild Empire, is shown—simian-like—lording over the planet with his hungry vultures about to be unleashed on the bankrupt peoples of the earth. At bottom is the original Rothschild family home in Frankfurt, Germany from which Rothschild launched his infamous predatory dynasty.

The Reign of the House of Rothschild:
The Framework for a Global Jewish Imperium
The great American iconoclast, the poet Ezra Pound,was, as we’ve noted previously, very much concerned with the power of International Jewish Finance and its treacherous and devastating policy of usury, the tactics that brought governments and peoples—economies across the planet—under the sway of the Jewish elite.

Pound emphasized that it was foolish for people to preach anti-Semitism without specifically addressing—and seeking to curtail—the financial construct through which the Jews had risen to reign supreme.Writing in Gold and Work, published in 1944, he put it bluntly: “It is, of course, useless to indulge in anti-Semitism, leaving intact the Hebraic monetary system which is their most tremendous instrument of usury.”

In fact, in the end, after centuries, it was the House of Rothschild that had come to dominate this global “Hebraic monetary system” of which Pound was writing and lecturing about so fearlessly and relentlessly.

The Economic History of the Jews, by Jewish writers Salo W. Baron, Arcadius Kahan and others (issued by Schocken Books, a Jewish–oriented publisher, in 1975), summarized the early history of the Rothschild family during the time frame in which they emerged as the predominant Jewish banking empire. Although family founder Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) had been in business as a money lender as far back as 1763, it was in the early 1800s that the Rothschild empire—now in the hands of his five sons—consolidated its position as the preeminent force in International Jewish Finance. Here is the capsule assessment of the rise of the Rothschilds in Schocken’s Economic History of the Jews:

Jewish banking begins in the 19th Century with the rise of the House of Rothschild in Frankfurt, a city which became the new banking center of Europe as a result of the political upheaval caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

The founder of the house, which became the symbol of the 19th Century type of merchant banking, Meyer Amschel Rothschild, started as a banker to the Elector of Hesse-Kassel. His sons rose to prominence as major European bankers: Amschel Meyer in Frankfurt, Salomon Meyer in Vienna, Karl Meyer in Naples, James Meyer in Paris, and Nathan Meyer in London.

After the death of Abraham Goldsmid and Francis Baring in 1810, Nathan Rothschild became the dominant figure in the London money market. The majority of the English financial dealings with the continent went through the Rothschilds’ offices.

After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Rothschilds extended their business into most European states, specializing in the liquidation of inflated paper currencies and in the foundation of floating public debts.

In 1818 they made loans to European governments, beginning with Prussia, and following with issues to England, Austria, Naples, Russia and other states, partly in collaboration with Baring, Reid, Irving & Company.

Between 1815 and 1828 the total capital of the Rothschilds rose from 3,332,000 to 118,400,000 francs.

Chaim Bermant’s monumental study, The Cousinhood: A Vivid Account of the English-Jewish Aristocracy—an aristocracy whom he referred to as “the Cohens, Rothschilds, Goldsmids, Montefiores, Samuels and Sassoons”—and which was published in 1971 by MacMillan, noted that the founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Meyer (sometimes rendered as “Maier” and as “Mayer”) Rothschild,was trained as a rabbi and that Meyer “cherished every Jewish tradition.” His wife, Guttele, was the classic Jewish matriarch of legend, as all accounts of the Rothschild family attest.

And as we noted at the outset—and which bears repeating—an early admiring Rothschild biographer, said of Rothschild that he was “a zealous believer in the Talmud and chose it alone as the guiding principle of all his actions. Likewise, Chaim Bermant was quick to assert that the interplay between Jewish religious, social, academic—and economic—life was a longstanding aspect of the Jewish life that so enveloped the Rothschild family and other great Jewish banking families, indeed all Jews.

And this is important to recognize in considering the role that the Talmudic religious philosophy, going back to the glory days of Jewish life in Babylon, played in shaping the rise of the House of Rothschild and its role in advancing what we now call the NewWorld Order. Bermant wrote:

A synagogue is neither a temple nor a Jewish church. It evolved as an institution in Babylon, in the marketplace, where Jews, having assembled for trade, were encouraged to remain for prayer. In the ghettoes of Europe it was the meeting point of the community where they could gather to pray, chant, study, talk, pass the time of day, mourn the sad times, celebrate the glad ones.

Of the“Cousinhood”—the elite Jewish families based in Britain but with tentacles all across the globe—Bermant wrote that “The Cousinhood were not merely a cluster of relatives. In many ways they functioned as an organic unit and while their own rights [as Jews] were not yet wholly assured, they threw in their wealth and influence on behalf of persecuted co-religionists in other parts of the world. Wherever Jews were oppressed, emissaries hurried to England, to the Rothschilds, to Montefiore, to the Cousinhood.” These elite Jews were those who reigned supreme.

Ironically, in his personal physical appearance, Nathan Rothschild—leader of the British branch of the House of Rothschild—was hardly the image of a global titan. An American traveler in Britain in 1835 said Rothschild was “a very common looking person, with heavy features, flabby pendant lips and projected fish eye. His figure, which was stout, awkward and ungainly,was enveloped in the loose folds of an ample surtout.”

However, the American added,“there was something commanding in his air and manner, and the deferential respect which seems voluntarily rendered him showed that he was no ordinary person.‘Who is that?’ was the natural question.‘The King of the Jews,’was the reply.”

This ungainly King of the Jews and his family proceeded in the century that followed to accumulate a mighty empire that was unrivaled then as it remains unrivaled today.

In 1878, Major Osman Bey wrote “an historical and ethnical essay” entitled The Conquest of the World By the Jews.The work examined how what he called “the Principle of Material Interests” enslaved the people of the world by financial oppression. He described this “Principle of Material Interests” as a “secret power” that the Jewish people, as a united force, discovered. He focused on the concept of Jewish solidarity, suggesting that if one attacked a Jew in one place, all of the Jews of the five continents arose as one man against the attacker. This concept of Jewish solidarity was at the foundation of his writings in this realm.

He said that the petty medieval usurers had changed into modern bankers or stock-brokers. “ThoseWandering Jews of long ago,” he said, “have become crafty speculators and the old clothes men and peddlers have opened elegant warehouses and industrial halls.” However, he added a critical point that must be understood:

There was a time still lacking the crown of the edifice; that is, the embodiment of the mode of principle and a concrete and tangible power, which is inborn in every human enterprise; for, as the ecclesiastical or raw military rule ultimately incorporated into a pope or an emperor, thus the Jewish money supremacy must necessarily induce the formation of a dynasty, which derived its origin and its permanent justification from the Principle of Material Interests.

Osman was referring, of course, to the Rothschild Empire.

It was Rothschild, he said,who rose“more by the force of circumstances than by the consequences of his own exertions, to the high and powerful position of a visible head of the Jewish supremacy.” Osman noted:

All the Jews bowed down before this new ruler and do so bow down ever since his rule has been recognized from one end of the world to the other.

As the king of finances, Rothschild commands the rolling masses of the Jewish capital as completely as the German or Russian emperor commands the moveable masses of his armies.

The power of this “self-constituted ruler of all the Jews,” Osman said, was “not to be calculated by the thousands of millions which he can call his own, but by that far greater, and really fabulous, mass of gold, the circulation whereof is dependent upon the orders issued by his cabinet.”

Osman was clear to note that the “rolling masses of the Jewish capital” were international in scope:

Each Jewish millionaire who carries on financial operations in Paris,Vienna, Berlin or in the United States [and note his 1878 reference to the United States—Ed.] is insofar a lieutenant general of Rothschild as it were, always governing his actions by the indications of that financial barometer.

He noted that the wealth of three branches of the Rothschild family were estimated at about 3,000 millions of dollars and he pointed out that “this is pretty nearly the amount which the French government was at some trouble to raise for [a] war indemnity.” So, he concluded,“one family is as wealthy as a whole nation.” He added: “When one reflects that this immense wealth is the fruit of the labor of millions of unfortunates, one might doubt one’s sanity.” Osman summarized it all:

So long as the world existed, such an unnatural state of things has never before been known. The head of the Rothschild family is therefore a potentate, a ruler within the full meaning of the word, and his subjects are the millions of human beings who incessantly labor to support his power and his splendor.

The Rothschilds possess a dozen of castles, truly royal residences, situated in the most magnificent and cultured countries. There these rulers unfold a gorgeous splendor and receive the adulations of the magnates of this earth, not excluding emperors and kings, and yet the head of the Rothschild family places little value in being called a king. His Jewish majesty is evidently content with being a king and enjoying the power which immense riches procure for him. But in all other respects Rothschild plays literally the role of a ruler and does not neglect the duties which his royal dignity imposes upon him.

It is he who represents the Jewish people with splendor as other rulers represent the power of their respective nations. The Jewish ruler, for instance, never shrinks from taking part in all subscriptions which fashion or report has invested with a certain importance [that is, the Jews insert their money and influence in highly public—one might say “flashy”—ways in order to make their presence and names well known and “respected”—Ed.].

Rothschild always takes care when visiting a particular locality to leave a memento of his presence, either by founding some philanthropic institution or by a princely donation.

Besides this, the Rothschilds, as the visible head of the Jewish nationality, have in recent times made it their duty to lay the cornerstone whenever some benevolent institution, devoted exclusively to the Jews, is to be erected. The power of this Jewish autocrat is so immeasurable and unlimited that it far outshines the power of all other kings and emperors.

When, but a few years ago, two great empires—France and Prussia—carried on a bloody war, each country putting forth many hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it was nevertheless necessary to call in a third potentate to establish quiet in Europe.

This third potentate was called Rothschild—that “King by the Grace of God”—whose signature was indispensible for the definite conclusion of [the war].

Although some modern-day writers, largely Rothschild publicists, have tried to diminish the role of the Rothschild influence on American soil, Osman wrote that in the United States,“their power in the United States is well known and felt.”

It was stated on good authority, he pointed out, that the demonetizing of the American silver dollar in 1873 was achieved by an agent of the Rothschilds named Earnest Seagel who went to Washington for that purpose and who was believed “by corrupt means” to have effected that change as so desired by the Rothschild Empire. “So cleverly was the matter done,” he noted, “that it was some time before the change was generally known.”

Osman noted, too, that the Rothschild forces “longed also for a monopoly of the liberal arts and sciences which are open only to the higher ranks of society. Knowing well that they could acquire honor, regard and political power only by those means, they engaged in literature, medicine and public education and flooded the professions of law and journalism.

“Jewish newspaper writers form in every state,” he added, “a closely connected and all powerful combination composed of minds as clever and industrious as they are unscrupulous and that having in a certain way appropriated a right of intervention in all [form of] affairs in order to levy tribute on the credulity of the public.

“This combination,” he said, “having such means at its disposal, far more powerful than church or feudal state is in possession of a vast and terrible power in the hands of which we are nothing but abject slaves.”

Of the Jewish power plays in the political arena, he wrote:

There are two fundamental principles: that the Jews as an organized group have endeavored to concentrate their influence, scattered as it is all over the world at any given moment, at the point to be conquered in the most effective manner in order to suppress all local opposition tendencies. They endeavor at all times to derive advantage from the disunion of others.

In order to achieve that, they place their money power at the disposal [of both parties which may be in dispute with one another] while they take care, at the same time, to have representatives in every part.

Thanks to this policy, the Jews are always on hand to turn every party victory to their advantage.

Such a distribution of power is like a good hand of cards, wherein all four colors are represented so that some points are always sure, no matter which color is turned up.

As an example, he noted:

For instance, we see in France: Imperialistic, Republican, even Socialistic Jews. If Imperialism gains a day, [Jewish finance] would be there to represent the Jewish interest.

If, on the other hand, the Republic or even the Commune chances to be victorious [Jewish Socialists are] at hand to change into the trump color, as it were, of the Jewish hand of cards.

“In short,” he said, “the Jews preserve their prestige independently of all changes of government and approach their ultimate object—the conquest of the world—an approach, more and more as time goes by their ultimate object—no matter how circumstances may change. They have discovered the secret of winning with all parties and losing with none.”

The Rothschilds and their satellites likewise played this game on the international stage.“All nations,” he wrote, “are manipulated as necessary as part of this grand international game.”

Osman wrote of how the Jewish money power was able to manipulate the press.He said there were three classes of journals: journals in the pay of the Jews; journals bearing the banner of a specific nationality or ideology, but, in fact, being fronts for Jewish interests; and thirdly, journals openly bearing the Jewish banner.

The first class, those in the pay of the Jews, were those that had been essentially bought off.The second class of journals were those he described as the proverbial“wolves in sheep’s clothing”—pretending to represent the interests of other groups but, in fact, were “serving an excellent purpose under their mask by effecting changes in public opinion since their readers rarely perceived that the articles appearing in them . . . [lead the public to believe] that these papers reflect the drift of public opinion in [the country in which they are published] and yet they mirror only the reflection of the Jewish devil who tries to lead us astray at his pleasure and bewitches us with the doctrines and sophisms of the modern school.”

(In the United States today, of course, we find the journals of what we might call “Kosher Liberals” and “Kosher Conservatives” who—while angrily disagreeing on all other issues—still nonetheless fall into place in endorsing Jewish interests and the concerns of the state of Israel.)

Then,of course,Osman noted there were those journals that were openly proclaiming themselves as reflecting the interests of the Jewish community and geared toward the Jews themselves, designed, wrote Osman,“to lead Israel [the Jewish people] in its aggressive movement upon the wealth of the heathens”—that is, the non-Jews of the planet.

“This press utters the war cry,” he said,“and directs and leads the Jews onward. Without these journals, the Jewish movement would not form a whole and its activity would necessarily lack inner force.”

Osman described all of this as evidence of “the existence of a secret but fearful power.” This combination,he said,“forms an appalling battery, to fight against which appears next to impossible.”

Referring to independent journals outside the Rothschild (and Jewish) sphere of influence, Osman said,“The Jews have ready at all times a bullet shower of scoff and calumny vomited forth from the lying mouths of hundreds of journalists: every person who does not allow himself to be plundered by the Jews is a ‘reactionary’ and if he takes a cowhide in his hand [for self defense against Jewish attacks] he is a ‘barbarian.’”

Osman concluded—so long ago in 1878—that the conquest of the world by the Jews was henceforth what he called“a fixed fact that could not be disputed.”

What assisted in the conquest of the world was usury, what he described as a “pernicious habit of issuing bonds, not just the issuance of bonds by nations, but municipalities which thereby mortgaged the wealth of nations and communities all over the world.”The interest on those bonds “went on continuously by day as well as by night” he noted. “Its course sweeps like a tornado over fair fields, destroying everything in its path.”

What Osman called“the secret power of accumulative interest”enslaved mankind, he said, and became the “primary weapon” by the Jewish interests for setting in place what we today call a New World Order. The only answer was for nations and individuals to keep out of debt and he said that this would break the back of the International Money Power as soon as all debts were liquidated on a basis that was both just and equitable.

The irony of it all, Osman said,was that while people considered themselves “free” and boasted of high culture within their natures, no one yet dared to rise against those who had effected their conquest of the world only by means of cheating and usury:

The only way to restore social equilibrium is to take hold of the tree by the root and direct the attacks against the cause of this cosmopolitan and fundamental evil. That way and only then could true statesmen succeed in freeing mankind from the greatest plague from which it ever suffered.

And the source of that plague was indeed the global construct of International Jewish Finance dominated by the Rothschild Dynasty.

In 1913 Professor Roland G. Usher, writing in his book Pan-Germanism, reflected on the worldwide tentacles of the Rothschilds:

Russia,Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan and South America are probably owned, so far as any vast nation can be owned, in London or Paris. Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers.

And, of course, those “English and French bankers” were the Rothschilds. Usher added that:

In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world’s enterprises dictated by their financial heads.

In short, he was saying that the financial heads of England and France—that is, the Rothschilds and those in their sphere of influence—were, in fact, those who controlled the substantial portion of the stocks and industrial securities of the planet itself.

“The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute,” wrote Usher. “It actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital and occupies its days in making the money to pay them interest, which is to make them still wealthier.”

The vast growth of the Rothschild Empire was extraordinary. The Annual Encyclopedia of 1868 noted that Jacob Rothschild in Paris, launched by his father, Maier Rothschild with a capital of $200,000, died in 1868 with a fortune which was, by that time, worth over $300,000,000 in American dollars [at that time]. His yearly income alone was about $40,000,000.

Writing in 1913 in his book, The Romance of the Rothschilds, Ignatius Balla pointed out that, at that time, there was no fortune inAmerica at all that equaled one year’s income of that of Jacob Rothschild. In 1913, according to Balla, the Rothschild fortune was worth over $2,000,000,000.

Then, of course, we have to consider that the various branches of the Rothschild Empire in the great cities of Europe found a way to maintain their influence through the intermarriage of their progeny with other members of their own extended family. For example, Jacob Rothschild married the daughter of his brother, Baron Salomon Rothschild of Vienna.

The further institutionalization of the Rothschild Empire involved the intermarriage of Rothschild family members with members of other Jewish banking dynasties such as the Montefiores of England and the Sassoons who, in particular, built their own gigantic fortune in Asia. Originally opium traders from Baghdad, the Sassoons later entered into banking, and they had extraordinary influence in China, Japan and throughout the entire Orient—even including Australia.

The international loans to the nations of the world by the Rothschild dynasty were a live factor then—when American author E. C. Knuth was writing in the early 1940s—as they are today. Knuth described the oft-documented intrigues of the Rothschilds saying that “one of the most effective devices employed by the House of Rothschild through the years to destroy their competitors and to discipline recalcitrant statesmen has been that of artificially creating an over-extended inflation by extended speculation, then to cash in and let others hold the bag.” This trick,he said,was worked by the Rothschilds at intervals throughout the years.

The Rothschilds had a global grip: Belgium, Egypt, Portugal, among many,many other nations. In Chile, the Rothschilds controlled nitrates. Brazil was so weighted down with loans from the Rothschilds that one writer said that this Latin colossus might have been described as “a Rothschild state.”

Rothschild influence extended into Asia through their ties with the Sassoon family, into Australia through the Montefiores, and into South Africa through Rothschild control over diamonds and gold, an influence extended through Cecil Rhodes and through the Oppenheimer family which dominated the diamond industry.

Reaching into the modern day, the Rothschilds, the Oppenheimers, the Bronfmans of the Americas, and the late Armand Hammer whose intrigues reached into the Soviet Union, were known by insiders as “The Billionaire Gang of Four” and they were the patrons responsible for the international media empire of Australian-born Rupert Murdoch who is part Jewish (through at least one line of descent) on his mother’s side.

Later, prior to the collapse of the Soviet regime, following the years after the death of Josef Stalin—who was working to break Jewish influence inside Russia—these Rothschild influences saw fit to begin maneuvering to maintain a grip inside Russia as it veered toward its ultimate collapse.

Although one might be inclined to think of the Rothschild Empire as being one primarily concerned with finance, the truth is that their billions were invested in many industries.

The Rothschilds controlled mercury, through gathering up mercury mines in Spain and through their manipulation of political affairs in Spain. Likewise in the realm of nickel, which is used for hardening steel and for which there was no known substitute.

The Rothschilds gained control of nickel resources in Canada, New Caledonia and Norway. The Rothschilds’ nickel interests also ensured that they were also major players in arms manufacturing because of the fact that the famed Krupp firm of Germany was inter-connected through its representatives with the French Rothschild concern, Le Nickel.

The copper industry was also a source of Rothschild wealth: they held shares in the Rio Tinto mines in Spain, which also produced sulphur. Likewise with lead and oil. Although one associates the name “Rockefeller” with oil, in the Caucasian region, site of the famed Baku oil reserves, the Rothschilds held control of vast oil deposits.

It should be noted that as part of the Rothschild interest in oil, this led to hostility by the Rothschilds toward the Czars of Russia who were the only European royals who consistently resisted the intrigues of the Rothschilds. And thus it is no coincidence that Rothschild interests ultimately played the pivotal role in financing the Jewish-led Bolshevik Revolution that destroyed the House of Romanov.

Although it is well known that the Rothschilds controlled the diamond industry in South Africa, they were likewise preeminent in South Africa’s lucrative gold-mining enterprises.

All gold bullion passed through the hands of three Jewish firms which controlled the price of gold: Mocatta and Goldsmid, Samuel Montagu & Company, and, of course, N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

It was President Henrik Krueger of South Africa who said, famously,“If it were possible to eject the Jew monopolists from this country, neck and crop, without incurring war with Great Britain, then the problem of everlasting peace would be solved.”

(Ironically, Krueger is memorialized on the famous South African gold coin known as the Kruegerrand.)

English writer Arnold Leese said that there was a definite moral to the events surrounding the history of the Rothschild dynasty.He said it was this:

Only a minority of men and women in any community of any race and of any rank and of any religion are strong enough to stand absolutely the influence exercised upon them by those who wield money power which becomes without much effort the real ruler of “democratic” governments. When that Money Power is wielded by Jews it follows that democracy is condemned by its very nature to rule by alien Jews of the country which adopts it.

Leese said that “The influence of money is generally exerted in a far more subtle manner than that of raw bribery. Even good men and women, if they are not also strong, find it difficult to resist favors given under circumstances which make refusal difficult. . . .” He described some of the means by which this subtle form of bribery is accomplished:

Tips as to the likely future fluctuations in stocks and shares, introductions to influential people afforded by the rich to the needy, residential accommodations supplied at a cost considerably below that which is usual for such accommodation, early news to politicians, etc.

Leese pointed out that “Under such influences people who could not be bribed by any direct means find themselves placed sooner or later in circumstances where it is no longer possible for them to refuse some sort of return of the favors, a return which perhaps the official position of the individual concerned affords them the opportunity to make.”

Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, writing in Tragedy and Hope, referred to the influence of the Jewish banking houses in Europe. He noted that often times the Rothschilds and other Jewish banks collaborated with non-Jewish interests and that they “frequently cooperated together even when their groups as a whole were in competition.”

In France, during the 19th Century, Quigley noted, “a largely Jewish group” that was allied with Protestant banking interests, such as those exercised by the Mirabaud group.

(It is interesting, here, as a digression, to point out that this distinguished Georgetown University professor—who was, by former President Bill Clinton’s own public acknowledgement, an admired intellectual mentor to Clinton—would, in his premier work, actually distinguish between “Jewish” and “Protestant” banking interests. The average American has been assured that it is quite politically incorrect and absolutely beyond the pale, thoroughly unacceptable, to broach the matter of one’s religion outside the direct discussion of religion itself. That is, to specify someone’s religious persuasion, is—at its worst—bigotry. At the least, it is impolite and improper.

So despite that which has been pawned off on the average American, in an attempt to scare him away from discussing Jewish power and influence, the fact that Dr. Quigley dares to casually and candidly refer to Jewish banking interests should be instructive to those average Americans.

However, according to Dr. Quigley, the Mirabaud and Rothschild interests “together dominated the whole financial system, being richer and more powerful than all other private banks combined.”

In 1902, English liberal, J.A. Hobson, in his famous Imperialism: A Study noted the power of the Rothschild dynasty in its stark political context:

Does anyone seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European state, or a great state loan subscribed, if the House of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it? Every great political act, involving a new flow of capital, or a large fluctuation in the values of existing investments, must receive the sanction and the practical aid of this little group of financial kings. . . . Finance manipulates the patriotic forces which politicians, soldiers, philanthropists, and traders generate. . .The financial interest has those qualities of concentration and clear-sighted calculation which are needed to set Imperialism to work.

An ambitious statesman, a frontier soldier, an over-zealous missionary, a pushing trader, may suggest or even initiate a step of imperial expansion,may assist in educating patriotic public opinion to the urgent need of some fresh advance, but the final determination rests with the financial power.

The direct influence exercised by great financial houses in “high politics” is supported by the control which they exercise over the body of public opinion through the Press, which, in every “civilized” country is becoming more and more their obedient instrument. . . .

In 1911, Werner Sombart, writing in his famous, previously-cited work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, said: “The name Rothschild meant more than the firm which bears the name.” He referred to all of the Jews who were involved in international finance and pointed out that: “For only with their help were the Rothschilds able to achieve that position of supreme power; indeed, one can justly say the sole mastery of the bond market—which we see them possessing for half a century.” He added:

It is certainly no exaggeration that one used to be able to say that . . . a finance minister, who alienated this world house and refused to cooperate with it, more or less had to shut his office up. . . [Not] only in quantitative terms but also in qualitative terms, the modern bourse [stock exchange] is Rothschildian (and thus Jewish).

There was an infamous novel entitled L’argent, written by Emil Zola. In that novel there was a character—one Gundermann—who was a Jewish banker (modeled, of course, after no less than the French Rothschild). Gundermann was described by Zola:

The banker king, the master of the bourse and of the world . . .the man who knew [all] secrets, who made at his beck and call the markets rise and fall as God makes the thunder . . . the king of gold . . . Gundermann was the true master, the all-powerful king, feared and obeyed by Paris and the world . . .One could already see that in Paris that Gundermann reigned on a more solid and more respected throne than the emperor.

Another character in Zola’s book, one Saccard—an anti-Semite—was forced to seek Gundermann’s help, and, at the same time, foresaw “the final conquest of all the peoples by the Jews.” Saccard referred to the Jews as:

That accursed race which no longer has its own country, no longer has its own prince, which lives parasitically in the home of nations, feigning to obey the law, but in reality only obeying its god of theft, of blood, of anger . . . fulfilling everywhere its mission of ferocious conquest, to lie in wait for its prey, to suck the blood out of everyone [and] grow fat on the life of others.

Sensitive folks, politically aware and politically correct, were no doubt shocked to read these remarks about Jewish people and Jewish financial interests coming from the pen of Emile Zola, for, of course, he was best known (and is remembered today) for his defense of the French Jew, Alfred Dreyfuss, accused—falsely, it is said—of treason.

And then, there was French financier Paul Eugene Bontoux, who referred to “La Banque Juive”—that is, “The Jewish Bank”—which he said was “not content with the billions which had come into its coffers for fifty years . . . not content with the monopoly which it exercises on nine-tenths, at least, of all Europe’s financial affairs.”

Bontoux knew whereof he spoke. He had been head of the Union General bank and blamed “Jewish finance and its ally, governmental Freemasonry” for the collapse of the firm. And needless to say, the Rothschilds were at the center of the Union General affair.

In his famous 1899 book, The Jews Against France, the great essayist Edouard Drumont wrote:“The God Rothschild is the real master of France. Neither emperor nor czar nor king nor sultan nor president of the republic . . . he has none of the responsibilities of power and all of the advantages; he disposes over all the governmental forces all the resources of France for his private purposes.”

Even Britain’s Labor Leader newspaper denounced the Rothschilds as “the bloodsucking screw [which] has been the cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between states which ought never to have quarreled.Wherever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumors of wars circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games, somewhere near the region of the disturbance.”

Ezra Pound, writing in Gold and Work, published in 1944, declared: “War is the highest form of sabotage, the most atrocious form of sabotage. Usurers provoke wars to impose monopolies in their own interests so they can get the world by the throat. Usurers provoke wars to create debts, so that they can extort the interest and rake in the profits resulting from changes in the values of monetary units.”

British liberal writer J.A.Hobson referred to the BoerWar as having been “engineered by a small group of international financiers, chiefly German in origin and Jewish in race.” He said they were “prepared to fasten on any . . .spot on the globe . . . taking their gains not out of the genuine fruits and industry, even the industry of others, but out of the construction, promotion, and financial manipulations of companies.”

While it has been remarked that Hobson avoided “an anti-Semitic line” of argument in advancing a socialist-oriented argument against capitalism, his critics contended that Hobson laid the groundwork for much of the thinking among many who were considered “anti-Semitic.”

In regard to anti-Semitism, Meyer Karl Rothschild himself said in 1875, in a conversation with Otto von Bismarck, “As for anti-Semitic feeling, the Jews themselves are to blame and the present agitation must be ascribed to their arrogance and vanity and unspeakable insolence.”

Upon the death of Lord Nathan Rothschild in 1915, the Western Morning News of Britain said:

The death of Lord Rothschild is an event that not even the war can overshadow. This prince of financiers and friend of King Edward probably knew more of the inner history of European wars and diplomacy in general than the greatest statesmen we have ever had. Every great stroke of policy by the nation in the last half century has been preceded by the brief but all-significant announcement: “Lord Rothschild visited the prime minister yesterday.” It was one of the signs which those behind the scenes looked when big decisions were pending.

It is one of the great myths of history that the European Rothschilds were not touched by the rise and expansion of National Socialist Germany. Rothschild property was confiscated in Austria and France and in Germany. Many Rothschilds left German-occupied Europe, obviously able to do so. Yet, many American “patriot” writers and Internet commentators continue to promote the falsehood that “Hitler never touched the Rothschilds.” Not true. But a lot of these “patriots” don’t mind ignoring the facts.

As early as 1841, Alexandre Weill, wrote an essay entitled “Rothschild and the Finances of Europe.” He said:

There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild. His satellites are a dozen other banking firms; his soldiers, squires, all respectable men of business and merchants, and his sword is speculation. Rothschild is a consequence that was bound to appear; and, if it had not been Rothschild, it would have been someone else. He is, however, by no means an accidental consequence, but a primary consequence, called into existence by the principles which have guided the European states since 1815. Rothschild had need of the states to become a Rothschild, while the states on their side required Rothschild. Now, however, he no longer needs the State, but the State still has want of him.

Freidrich von Scherb, a German author, in his History of the House of Rothschild, published in 1893, wrote:“The House of Rothschild has arisen from the quarrels between states, has become great and mighty from wars [and] the misfortune of states and peoples has been its fortune.”

Even the great figures of Europe were entangled with the Rothschilds—including, not incidentally, the Grand Duke Metternich whose name today is synonymous with international intrigue and power politics.

Metternich was interwoven with the Rothschild Empire, using their private courier service for his personal correspondence and putting his finances in the hands of Salomon Rothschild. In regard to this, modern-day Rothschild-supported biographer Niall Ferguson wrote: “The evidence that the Rothschilds established a network of private financial relationships with key public figures in restoration Europe is compelling.” However, Ferguson explained, as if to dismiss it:

Yet, the conspiracy theorists of this and later periods misunderstood the role of such relationships when they portrayed them as the key to Rothschild power. The image of the Rothschilds at the center of a web of “corruption”would become a current one in the years after 1830.

However, it was not, in reality, the bribes, the loans and other favors they bestowed on men like Metternich which made them the dominant force in international finance after 1815. No, it was the sheer scale—and sophistication—of their operations.

Although aristocrats and business leaders eagerly accepted invitations to Rothschild galas, known for what Niall Ferguson described as their “sheer extravagance,” it could not be said that the Rothschild brothers were liked. For example, Nathan Rothschild was, he said, “found by many to be coarse to the point of downright rudeness in manner.”

The fact that the Rothschilds were so powerful caused many to comment on their brute force. Ludwig Borne said, “Rothschild is the high priest of fear, the [god] on whose altar liberty, patriotism, and honor and all civic virtues are sacrificed.” A Jewish convert to Christianity, Borne wrote:

Would it not be a good thing for the world if the crowns were placed on [the Rothschilds’] heads, instead of lying at their feet as they do now? . . . Although the Rothschilds do not yet occupy thrones, they are, at all events, asked their advice as to the choice of the ruler when the throne falls vacant.

Would it not be a great blessing for the world if all the kings were dismissed and the Rothschild family put on their thrones? Think of the advantages. The new dynasty would never contract a loan, as it would know better than anybody how dear such things are, and on this account alone the burden on their subjects would be alleviated by several millions a year.

Heinrich Heine, the poet and journalist—also a Jewish convert to Christianity—maintained a relationship with the Rothschild family. He said what he called “the Rothschild system” was revolutionary in and of itself.

The system, he said, possessed “the moral force or power which religion has lost, it can act as a surrogate for religion—indeed, it is a new religion—and when the old religion finally goes under it will provide substitutes for its practical blessings. “Strangely enough,” Heine added,“it is once again the Jews who invented this new religion . . . .”

Heine said: “No one does more to further the revolution than the Rothschilds themselves . . . And, though it may sound even more strange, these Rothschilds, the bankers of kings, these princely pursestring-holders, whose existence might be placed in the gravest danger by the collapse of the European state system, nevertheless carry in their minds the consciousness of their revolutionary mission.”

What of this revolutionary mission? Heine described Rothschild as “one of the greatest revolutionaries”—to have founded modern democracy. Along with Robespierre and Richelieu, Heine said that Rothschild was among “terroristic names” that signified “the gradual annihilation of the old aristocracy.” They were, he said,“Europe’s three most fearful levellers.” Heine wrote:

Richelieu destroyed the sovereignty of the feudal nobility and subjected it to that royal despotism that either relegated it to court service or let it rot in bumpkin-like inactivity in the provinces.

Robespierre decapitated this subjugated and idle nobility but the land remained and its new master, the new landowner, became another aristocrat just like his predecessor whose pretensions he continued under another name.

Then came Rothschild [who] destroyed the predominance of land, by raising the system of state bonds to supreme power, thereby mobilizing property and income and at the same time endowing money with the previous privileges of the land.

Here thereby [came] a new aristocracy, it is true, but this, resting as it does on the most unreliable of elements, on money, can never play as enduringly regressive a role as the former aristocracy which was rooted in the land, in the earth itself.

For money is more fluid than water, more elusive than the air, and one can gladly forgive the impertinences of the new nobility in consideration of its ephemerality. In the twinkling of an eye, it will dissolve and evaporate.

Heine concluded—all too correctly: “Money is the God of our Time, and Rothschild is his Prophet.”

Prince Albert and Queen Victoria—like Metternich before them—relied on the Rothschilds’ private courier service as their own postal service. Niall Ferguson said that this meant that the Rothschilds were able to provide a “unique” news service to the European elite. Major political events and confidential information could be relayed well ahead of information passing through official channels.

What this meant, also, although Ferguson didn’t say it, was that the Rothschilds were thus privy to all “secret” communications from the British royals and any other European power brokers who permitted the Rothschilds to be the official—although officially unofficial—channels through which they communicated.

Nathan Rothschild’s famous early news about the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo (the defeat of Napoleon) was just one example of the proficiency of their private courier service—and that is the stuff of legend.All of this permitted the Rothschilds to be well versed in world affairs.

James Rothschild said in 1834,“As far as I’m concerned, Russia can go to the Devil and we can do quite happily without them.” He told his brother, “Don’t give [the Russian Czar] another opportunity to embarrass you.” The Rothschilds apparently felt that they were not being accorded the respect due “the bankers of kings.”

“Do you ever think,” James asked his brother,“that we will ever be on friendly terms with Russia?” In friendly Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson’s assessment: “He evidently felt not.”

In regard to the Rothschild contretemps with Russia under the Czar, Ferguson commented that “it [is] hard to find a better illustration of the limits of Rothschild financial power.” Thus, although Ferguson doesn’t say this, it should be no surprise, of course, that the Rothschilds and their agents played such a major part in destroying the House of Romanov in Russia.

Although, as we’ve noted, it is certainly politically incorrect to quote Adolf Hitler, it is nonetheless appropriate to do so, particularly when examining the fact that the nations of Germany and Russia, which were hurled against one another in two world wars, were, in fact, two nations in which Jewish influence reigned supreme (at least during the period between those two world wars).

In a speech on April 13, 1923 Hitler said that Jewry “hated above all others the two states, Germany and Russia, that until 1914 foiled the realization of its goal: world domination.” In these two countries, said Hitler, the Jews were denied what he asserted had already fallen to Jewish hands in the Western democracies:

They were not yet the sole rulers in intellectual and economic life. Neither were the parliaments yet the exclusive instruments of Jewish capital and will. The German man and the genuine Russian had maintained a certain distance from the Jew. [Emphasis in the original]

“There still lived in both people the healthy instinct of scorn for the Jews. And it was still possible that in these monarchies there could arise once again a Frederick the Great or a William I, who might send democracy and parliamentary chicanery to the devil.

Thus, the Jews became revolutionaries! The republic was supposed to lead them to enrichment and power.They disguised this objective [with this rhetoric]: “Down with the monarchies! Empowerment of “the sovereign people”!

Hitler added: “Thus Germany and Russia had to be brought down in order that the old prophecy be fulfilled. Thus the whole world was turned upside down. Thus the lies and propaganda were brutally employed against the state with the last remaining idealists—Germany! [Emphasis in the original] And thus Judah won the world war [i.e.World War I]!

“Or will you maintain,” he asked,“that the French, English or American ‘people’ won the war? All of us,” he concluded, “victors and vanquished, are the defeated. One stands over all others: the world stock market, which has become lord of the nations,” he said. [Emphasis in the original]

Thomas Raikes, an English diarist of note, observed that the Rothschilds had become what he called “the metallic sovereigns of Europe” and that: “They have obtained the control over the European exchanges which no party before could accomplish and they now seem to hold the strings of the public purse. No Sovereign without their assistance now could raise a loan.”

Friendly Rothschild biographer Niall Ferguson said that if there was indeed a single “secret” of Rothschild success, it was the system of cooperation between the five brothers’ houses of finance, when taken together, the largest bank in the world, while still they spread their influence, individually, through five major financial centers spread across Europe.This multinational system was governed by contractual agreements that were periodically revised and which, according to Ferguson, was effectively “the constitution of a financial federation.”

According to Ferguson,“The rate of growth and size of their capital in the period before 1850 were unprecedented in banking history.” In 1818, the grand total of combined Rothschild capital (among the five houses) was 500,000 pounds. By 1828, it was 4,330,333 pounds—14 times the size of their nearest longtime close competitor, Barings. Ferguson said that “the sheer scale of the Rothschild’s resources can hardly be over emphasized.”

So while Ferguson, a financial writer, is comfortable throwing around such gigantic figures,the actual numbers today—so many years later—are so staggering they would craze the mind of the average person to even begin to consider the depth and breadth of the Rothschilds’ accumulated wealth.

In that period, it appears that James Rothschild was apparently the richest man in France, whereas Amschel, Salomon and Karl were ahead of their continental rivals; thus, together—between the brothers—according to Ferguson,“the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world.”

And this was before 1840. Imagine the accumulation of interest that has piled upon interest since that time.

Ferguson noted that,“by the mid-1830s each of the five Rothschild houses had secured itself as a preeminent force in the public finances of its respective base country.”

Although the Rothschilds were identified, in a national sense, with each of the countries in which they held sway, Ferguson noted, “such national identifications did not greatly matter if peace prevailed in Europe.” However, “when the interests of the great powers clashed, as they periodically did, it was less and less easy for the Rothschilds to remain neutral.”

He added, though, that “there were few regions of the world in which the European powers had no interests, and no regions in which their interests coincided perfectly.” In four areas—Iberia, America, the Low Countries, and the Near East—the Rothschilds faced the challenge of coming up with policies that were in the collective interest of the five houses of the five brothers and their respective heirs, even when “the national interests of their local governments” were in conflict, noted Ferguson.

So the Rothschilds were indeed “international”—with no loyalty to any nation but Judah of whom they were the princes.

The aforementioned Niall Ferguson, has candidly written of how “international tension” could be “beneficial to the Rothschilds.” He noted that:

The Rothschilds had consistently used their financial power to promote peace throughout the 1830s, but when the great powers had been completely restrained in their foreign policies . . . the stream of new loan business had begun to dry up.

In contrast, when they embarked on policies of re-armament, as they did from 1840 onwards, this was not necessarily detrimental to Rothschild interests.

The Rothschilds entered into a partnership with the Bank of the United States in roughly 1837. As a consequence they found themselves, according to Ferguson, on the receiving end of large quantities of American state bonds, from not only New York but also newer states such as Indiana, Alabama, Missouri and Michigan, as well as shares in a number of new banks and even a canal company. And in a forthcoming chapter we will explore the little-known role of the Rothschild family in American affairs in much further detail. We will confirm, beyond any question, that the claim that the Rothschilds played very little—if any role—in the United States is simply not true. In fact, they—and their satellites—rule America today. It is the primary enterprise in the drive for a New World Order.

So today do the Rothschilds have a modern equivalent?

Their friendly biographer Ferguson says “no.”

Ferguson proclaims that “not even the Saudi royal family has a comparable share of the world’s resources in its possession today.Nor can even the richest businessmen in the world claim without qualification to be as rich in relative terms as Nathan Rothschild was when he died at the height of his fortune.” Not even Bill Gates, apparently, is as wealthy as Rothschild.

Georgetown University’s Professor Carroll Quigley referred to the names of the banking families: Baring, Lazard, Erlanger,Warburg, Schroeder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and, in his turn of phrase, “above all” the Rothschilds and the Morgans. Quigley wrote:

Even after these banking families became fully involved in domestic industry, by the emergence of financial capitalism, they remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways.

1) They were cosmopolitan and international;

2) They were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts, including foreign government debts, even in areas which seemed at first glance, poor risks, like Egypt, Persia, Ottoman Turkey, Imperial China, and Latin America;

3) Their interests were almost exclusively in bonds and very rarely in goods, since they admired liquidity, and regarded commitments in commodities or even in real estate as the first step toward bankruptcy;

4) They were, accordingly, fanatical devotees of deflation (which they called “sound money” from its close associations with high interest rates and high value of money) and of the gold standard, which in their eyes symbolized and ensured these values;

5) They were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life.

These bankers came to be called “international bankers,” and were more particularly known as “merchant bankers” in England, “private bankers” in France, and “investment bankers” in the U.S.

In all countries they carried on various kinds of banking and exchange activities, but everywhere they were sharply distinguishable from other, more obvious, kinds of banks such as savings banks or commercial banks.

“The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it,” Quigley said,“was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two axioms of its own ideology.” Of these two axioms of the ideology of the International Money Power, Quigley wrote:

Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of money. To do this, it was necessary to conceal or even to mislead, both governments and people, about the nature of money and its methods of operation.

In a little-known work, A World Problem, first published in Poland and then in the United States in English in 1920, Stephanie Laudyn referred to International Jewish Finance as “a nation of traders and speculators” who held “a deep and exalated faith in their royal mission, which is to make them lords over all the nations.”

The profound force of Laudyn’s elegant writing is so pertinent it must be memorialized here for the historical record, particularly since in the 88 years that have passed since Laudyn first put these thoughts in print, the power of the Rothschild Empire has expanded beyond comprehension. Laudyn declared:

The gold they garner so greedily is but a palpable means to the attainment of their fantastic aspirations. Concealed under its cover is the burning desire to subject the world and to wrest the moral dominion over humanity. They follow it out logically and are conscious of every step they take.

Have they not made an enormous headway in this regard? Have they not reached a high round of the huge ladder which is to lead them to the aggression they have dreamt of in the clouded regions of their historic soul? Have they not taken control of the world’s press today? Do they not infuse their spirit into the thought and the moral atmosphere of the time? . . .

This ancient race, which had given birth to priests and prophets and had ever been imbued with a sad mysticism and high aspirations, is not ignorant of the vanities of commercial pursuits—gold and money. Their ambitions reach higher, indefinitely higher.

In ancient times, Jews themselves held in scorn the Phoenicians—the first traders in the world—because they gave themselves up to commerce, and—today? Have not the blackest annals been associated with Jewish traders? Does not their golden calf stand in threatening posture, stretching forth his black wings of shame, the one, usury, the other—white slavery?

Terrible indeed! Will there be enough clear water in the Euphrates to wash out the blood stains from their pitiless and greedcrazy hands? Can the rust be taken off their soul by some regenerating strength. . . .

They never tilled the soil they occupied, nor shed their blood in its defense.The spiritual, cultural, and intellectual progress of the people among which they lived was no part of their care and labor. On the contrary, they only bartered and traded, enhancing even mankind’s highest ideals for gold, in order to increase capital and upbuild the autocracy of the Jews. Although scattered over the entire world, they formed, nevertheless, a united body of middlemen who manipulated the products of other nations. . . .

Through long centuries a new worldly Nameless power has gradually been arising, and its roots are striking into every crevice of human effort and today, it rules the enterprise of every nation.

However mysterious, this power is real, merciless in its action and detrimental to the welfare and the ideals of any people in whose midst it develops. Herder, in his work on The Ideals of the History of Mankind, brands the Jews as a “nation of parasites and middlemen,” depraving the world by their usury.

Even Kant condemned their practices, and Bismarck spoke with horror of the rural population’s misery, which was exploited most unmercifully by the Jews. Voltaire, Goethe, Schiller all branded them as destroyers. Martin Luther, Schopenhaur and Napoleon warned the people against them.

While the altars of force and abuse have fallen and the gods of tyranny and slavery are lying in the dust, Israel has arisen, and with an added power, dominates the affairs of the world. It leads a servile army of anarchism, and its influence reaches even the leaders of the world’s greatest democracies.

The upper classes in the nations—the diplomats, the learned, the writers, the legislators, the people of thought and reflection—protect the Jews and submit to the hypnotism of the Jewish spirit.

But the plain people—the very life and brawn of the nation—the masses that cannot argue, but feel upon their backs the burdensome iniquities [and] arise more and more in despondent revolt.They undertake their own retribution . . . .

That the intrigues of the Rothschild Empire have contributed immensely to the rising global phenomenon of anti-Semitism is undoubted. Famed French writer Edouard Drumont, author of La France Juive, one of the foremost 19th Century analyses of Jewish financial power, said satirically that he was going to write a book entitled The Victory of the Jews, recalling an earlier work by another writer on the French Revolution entitled The Victory of the Jacobins. Drumont said:

We are dealing here with nothing less than a conquest, by a tiny but cohesive minority. . . .This is the characteristic of this conquest: a whole people is working for another, a people who appropriates, by a vast system of financial exploitation, the benefits of others’ labor.The immense Jewish fortunes, the castles, the mansions, are not the fruit of real labor, or any production. They are the tribute taken by a dominant race from an enslaved one.

It is certain that the Rothschild family, which in its French branch alone is worth three billion francs, did not have this money when they came to France. This family has made no great inventions, discovered no mines, plowed no earth.

They have simply taken three billion from the French without giving anything in return.

Some of their businesses,whose stocks are worthless today, and which can only have been launched by fraud, are pure and simple swindles. This enormous embezzlement of the money accumulated by the workers is accomplished without anyone’s lifting a finger to stop it. . . .

Today, thanks to the Jews, money, which the Christian world in the past attached little importance to, has now become all-powerful.

The power of capital,concentrated in the hand of a few, governs the economic lives of whole populations, enslaves the workers, and feeds upon evil gains acquired without work….

Now, since almost all the newspapers and all the organs of publicity in France belong to Jews, either directly or indirectly, it is not surprising that they carefully hid from us the significance and extent of the immense antisemitic movement which is beginning to rise up all over.

In any case it has seemed useful to me to describe the successive phases of the Jewish conquest and to show how, bit by bit, because of the Jews, the old France is falling apart, how this highprincipled happy and loving people has become hate-filled, goldmad and is gradually being starved to death. Everyone has the premonition that the end is near. . . .

What no one is talking about is the part played by the Jewish element in the death agony of this generous nation, the role in the destruction of France of the introduction of this foreign body into an organism which up to now was in perfect health.

But France was not the only nation falling into the hands of the Rothschild Dynasty. The tentacles of these “Kings of Kings” reached worldwide. And the key to understanding the growth of Rothschild power is to recognize the particular role of the Rothschild family in nurturing the British Empire. In fact, Rothschild dominance in Britain—the British royal family notwithstanding—is something which has been long recognized.

As recently as June 2008, Iranian television broadcast a documentary series entitled Armageddon Secret featuring Iranian scholars who asserted that the Jews were striving for global rule by destroying all other nations on the planet. An Iranian university professor in the documentary, Ali-Reza Karimi, charged that Israel’s goal is to “take over the world and hold its central position” and that “the Jews aspire to rule the world. They encourage destruction and ruin, and we can witness such actions around us.”

Karimi asserted the Jews not only believe in the promise to rule from the Nile to the Euphrates, but also that “God gave them the entire world.” The documentary cited the Rothschild family directing what was described as a “secret political cult” which “over hundreds of years distributed a secret network throughout the world.”

The documentary noted that the Rothschild family “implanted in the minds of the Jewish wealthy the idea that Palestine is the Promised Land,” noting that “The British government, controlled by the Zionist empire headed by the Rothschild family,was committed to realize the Zionist goal.”

Should anyone dismiss this as a “conspiracy theory by Muslim fanatics,” note that in 1896 American populist leader Mary Ellen Lease said frankly: « Redemption money and interest-bearing bonds are the curse of civilization. We are paying tribute to the Rothschilds of England, who are but the agentof the Jews. » She was not the only voice making such charges.

Another influential American populist,William “Coin” Harvey wrote a then-popular work, A Tale of Two Nations, the story of a wealthy London banker, Baron Rothe—a thinly veiled character based on Rothschild—who engineered a plot to grab control of the American economic system.

In our forthcoming chapter we will examine the historic role of Jewish finance and the rise of the Rothschild Empire as the primary force in guiding the fortunes of what is called the “British” Empire, but which some wags refer to as the “Yiddish” Empire.Whatever the case, the record shows that a “Rothschild” empire is what Britain truly is.

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.

The “City of London”
The Jewel of Rothschild’s Imperial Crown
In 1944, an American engineer, E. C. Knuth of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, published an intriguing volume, now largely forgotten, entitled The Empire of “The City”: The World Super State. Knuth wrote of what he called“the five ideologies of space and power.” They were as follows:

1.) The “OneWorld” Ideology;
2) The Pan-Slavic Ideology;
3) “Asia for the Asiatics”;
4) Pan-Germanism; and
5) Pan-American Isolationism.

That “One World” ideology of which Knuth wrote was, according to Knuth, what he described as “the secret ideology of international finance” which was working to establish world rule by “a closely knit and well-disciplined group of special privilege.” Knuth noted that most Americans were unaware of this, but most Europeans, in contrast, had a fair conception of its existence and workings.

Knuth’s concept of Pan-Americanism—an ideology he said was “America for the Americans”—was expressed in the famed Monroe Doctrine.This was, he pointed out correctly, the established foreign policy of the United States from 1823 to its abandonment by the adherence by the United States to the ideology of world rule by international finance. He said that the United States had indeed abandoned its own traditions to align its policy with that secret ideology of international finance, the purpose of which, ultimately, was to crush the Pan-Slavic Ideology (of Russia), of “Asia for the Asiatics” (the Japanese ideology) and, of course, Pan-Germanism.

And, in fact, in World War I we saw the United States move against Germany and in World War II we saw the war against Germany again (and this time Japan). Yet, despite the previous temporary alliance by the United States with Russia in World War II, we saw the emergence of the Cold War.

Now, in our modern day,we see a new Russia—under Vladimir Putin—which moved to break the chains of international Jewish oligarchs, now facing the enmity of that secret ideology of international finance which is firmly in control of the United States. Yet, at the same time, as Knuth pointed out, there has been this interlocking power between the British Empire—the so-called “Empire of ‘The City’” with the United States now, however, many years after Knuth wrote, being a major base of operations (at least militarily, in any case) of the secret ideology of international finance.

In fact, when Knuth was writing—even before the end of World War II—he predicted a conflict between the secret ideology of international finance and the ideology of Russia.He pointed out that this impending possible duel to the death would come as a consequence of those whom he referred to as “such subjugated peoples as [each force] could wheedle or compel to joinits forces.” Such a duel, he said, seemed inevitable in view of the deep animosities and explosive economic pressures that were already existing at the time he was writing.

Knuth pointed out that the American partners of the international money forces surrounding “The City of London” who had entered into the “new secret ideology” were renouncing and abandoning the long-standing established isolationism of “America for the Americans.”

At the same time, of course, there were those in the United States who recognized the dangers of this new ideology. The Rev. Henry Van Dyke—a well-known name in his era—said, so eloquently and so appropriately (particularly in our modern era of American ventures in “globalism”):

If Americans do not thirst for garrison duty in the tropics, they must be bought or compelled to serve. To wilfully increase our need of military force by an immense and unnecessary extension of our frontier of danger is to bind a heavy burden and lay it on the unconscious backs of future generations of toiling men.If we go in among them,we must fight when they blow the trumpet.

We should say, up front, that the term “The City of London” does not refer to the geographic city of London, the capital of England. Rather, as the better informed know, the term “The City of London” refers to a specific section of the British capital city (that is, a particular part of town) wherein the major national and international banking houses are located.

The “City” was—and today still is—an area of some 677 acres which, although part of metropolitan London, is not even under the jurisdiction of the official police department of the actual geographic city of London. Instead, it had its own private police force of some 2,000 men. Here, of course, is the headquarters of the Bank of England which, like the Federal Reserve System in the United States, is, despite its name, a privately-owned institution. In England, the Bank of England is not even subject to regulation by the British parliament (!) and has always been therefore, for all intents and purposes, a sovereign world power on its own.

Within “The City” are also located the stock exchange and other institutions of global scope—all, of course, under the domination, if not the direct control, of the Rothschild Empire. And this “City” is, in fact, the public face of the heart of the Rothschild Dynasty, if not worldwide, at least certainly inasmuch as it is the center of what we commonly referred to as “The British Empire,” for the truth is that the “British” Empire was no more than the geographic base of the International Money Power: the Rothschild Empire.

The Money Power—the “Sixth Great Power of Europe” as they once called it—was indeed the power of the Rothschild family or, as the Rothschild’s assembly of power was known: “The Fortune.”

The public face of “The Fortune” was “The City” and Knuth said that it was probably “the most arbitrary and most absolute form of government in the world.” He pointed out that so many people living under the control of the British Empire—some 80% of whom were “colored people”—were “the voiceless subjects” of the international financial oligarchy of “The City.”

And, pointedly, he noted, “The City” used the allegory of the British “Crown”—the royal family—as its symbol of power, but, in fact, the financial oligarchy had then—as it still does today—its headquarters in the ancient financial center of London: that is, “The City.”

American industrialist Andrew Carnegie (born in Scotland) once pointed out in reflecting upon the power of“The City”(with which his own operations were connected) that, as a consequence of its power, “six or seven men can plunge the nation into war” or “commit it to entangling alliances without consulting parliament at all.”

Carnegie said that this was “the most pernicious palpable effect flowing from the monarchical theory” since these power brokers carried out these policies “in the king’s name,” but, he said, although the king was still a real monarch,“in reality [he was] only a convenient puppet to be used by the cabinet to suit their own ends.”

The amazing words of Andrew Carnegie were echoed years later, in some respects, by the German information agency, World-Service, which pointed out that the “English” government hardly represented the interests of the average Englishman:

The English government is only the British facade for the Jew in the background. The English statesmen are the well-paid dummies of the Jewish-English finance-capitalism.

The British Empire is the highest capitalistic concern which exists. It is an enormous corporation, whose principal shareholders are Jews.The aim of this company is the exploitation of the people who live within the British Empire and in the states under British hegemony, and the ever-increasing accumulation of untold wealth, which only benefits, and is enjoyed by, the ruling Jewish-English plutocratic clique.

In England we therefore find on the one hand excessive riches and on the other hand dire poverty and destitution of millions of the English people. The Jewish-English capitalism, the Jewish-English plutocracy is not satisfied with merely exploiting the inhabitants of the colonies in the most shameless way; in its insatiable greed it in no way shows a sense of responsibility towards its own nation.Because the British government is only the deputy of Jewish-English finance-capital, therefore British interests are the interests of the English ruling classes to-day in England are identical; but neither of them in any way is identical with the interest of the English nation.On the contrary: their interest is directly against those of the English nation.

Great Britain, the richest country in the world, presents a picture of the greatest and most powerful poverty in the midst of enormous wealth. A state—whose government tests every matter from the standpoint of “Is it advantageous for finance, or not?”—has therefore brought a sixth of its population so low that they live in hovels unfit for human habitation.

[In] England,13 million people, that means a quarter of the total population, suffer from malnutrition. Before the outbreak of the present war England had 2 million unemployed. At present there are still one million unemployed.

Tens of thousands of people yearly migrate from the country to the towns, there to eke out a meager proletarian life or go under. Yearly thousands of acres of farmland are withdrawn from cultivation. Yearly increasing numbers of cotton mills close down and throw their workers on the streets.

All this happens because it is in the interest of finance, for the enormous profits of the Jewish-English plutocratic clique are only to a limited degree the results of the productive powers of the English worker.

The profits result principally from the sweat of the poorly paid natives of the Far East; they result from the continual stream of imported Argentine meat and foreign foodstuffs, while every English farmer must battle to save his farm from bankruptcy. While British workers from the shoe and leather factories are walking the streets of Northampton and Leicester in search of employment, millions of pairs of shoes are being imported from overseas.

While in Yorkshire and Lancaster the factories are being closed down, millions of yards of cotton goods and material are being imported from the Far East and the enormous shortage of material for export is made up by the creation of similar industries in the colonies and by the rigorous exploitation of natives in the Far East, to the detriment of the mother-industry and thereby to the detriment of the English nation, which becomes more and more improvised and is more and more thrown into unemployment.

While the farmer is faced with absolute ruin, millions of tons of foreign meat, vegetables,and fruit are thrown on the English market and all this only because the Jewish-English plutocratic clique receives bigger profits. In this way international “robber”economics is carried out at the expense of the English nation.

This is the curse of plutocracy. In this Jewish-English plutocratic swamp all manner of corruption naturally flourishes.

It was the late Cecil Rhodes who dreamed of a planet ruled by Britain, with the former American colonies reunited as an integral part of that empire: in many respects, quite parallel to the concept of a Jewish Utopia.

While Rhodes talked of Anglo-Saxon domination of the globe, he was referring to the power elite of the British Empire but we do know well now that the British Empire was hardly in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon people of England. Rather, it was held firmly in the grip of the Rothschild Empire.

And Cecil Rhodes himself was, in reality, only a very highly influential and well-paid asset and agent of the Rothschild interests.

While Rhodes is recalled today as the eminence grise of the British imperial dream, British historian Niall Ferguson’s book The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker 1849-1999 provides the reader with the specific data that demonstrates, beyond any question, that, as Ferguson put it, the Rothschilds had “a substantial financial hold over Rhodes,” who was indubitably a creature of their making.

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, in his mammoth Tragedy & Hope, and more directly, in his subsequent work, The Anglo-American Establishment, focused on Rhodes’ ties to Britain’s non-Jewish elite, but he ignored the Rothshild dynasty’s dominance over Rhodes.

Ferguson’s book delineates the Rothschild predominance in the world of Cecil Rhodes and that elite, perhaps suggesting that the use of the term “Anglo” is not strictly accurate from an ethnic sense of the word, not only because the Rothschilds were Jewish by faith and culture, but also because their influence was international in scope.

In regard to the “British” elite, it should be noted again, at this juncture, that—in fact—many of the ancient aristocratic families of Britain had increasingly begun to mix with members of the Jewish banking elite. As English writer Hillaire Belloc noted:

Marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the traditions those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they traveled to countries where the gentry had not yet [intermarried with Jews].

But matters went much deeper than familial relationships.

Jewish—and, of course, most especially Rothschild Empire influence—was well-entrenched even in the great global corporate institutions that were synonymous with the “British” Empire, quite notably even the famed British East India Company.

American author L. B.Woolfolk, in his classic (but today little-known) work, The Great Red Dragon, published in 1890, described the fall of the East India Company into the hands of International Jewish Finance:

In 1764, the British East India Company was the grandest and richest corporation in the world.

It was the only corporation which ruled a territorial empire. It was enriched by traffic, by the extension of its trade through the conquest of the trading stations of its Continental rivals and by the wholesale plunder of India.

It had been from the first the best investment of capital to be found in the British Islands. Its stock was eagerly taken by all who had the means.

The mercantile class took as much stock as they could afford; but, as we know, merchants usually have little more capital than they need for their regular business.

The British Landed Aristocracy had large incomes from their estates; and being under a necessity of seeking the best investments, in order to portion their younger children, they made large investments in the East India Company.

But the great Capitalists of that age were the Jews. They were the money holders.

They subscribed largely to the stock;and as, in each generation, the stock of the Aristocracy was sold to portion younger children, the Jews—always economical, always full of money, and always in search of the best investments— bought the stock thrown upon the market.

Thus it came to pass that the greater part of the stock of the East India Company, and of the other companies afterwards organized out of the dividends of that great company, fell into the hands of the Jews. The Jews became the great Money Kings of the world.

In any case, as E.C. Knuth pointed out, this grand dream of what we now refer to as the NewWorld Order had one problem: its advocates failed to see that there were going to be gigantic wars of the future stemming from what he called“the opposition of powerful races who would decline to recognize a fantastic doctrine of the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon [people] and of its preordained destiny to rule all the races of the earth.”

In fact, this doctrine was an integral part of the “secret ideology of international finance.” But, if truth be told, this secret ideology—masked in some ways by Rhodes’s dream of Anglo-Saxon rule—was, of course, the age-old Talmudic dream of a global imperium.

In this instance, the agenda of achieving The Jewish Utopia was hiding behind the image of Anglo-Saxon England which, by the time of the 20th Century, was an integral (perhaps the central) mechanism by which the Rothschild Empire (as the royal house of the ruling Jewish elite) was working through the City of London to establish its New World Order. Of these operations, the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers—a former governor of the Bank of England and a major arms manufacturer in whose company the Rothschilds held a major share—wrote:

Financiers took upon themselves perhaps not the responsibility but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another involving international friendships or mistrusts.

Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by The City of London with no thought whatsoever of [those] nations’ welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which The City thrives and grows rich.

This national—and mainly international—dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render democratic government a mere nickname.

Today we see through a glass darkly, for there is so much which “it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”

E. C. Knuth pointed out that the power of the financial oligarchy lay in what he called its “ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents, those who,” as Knuth put it, “have attempted to curb this monstrosity,” that is, those populist and nationalist politicians who saw the dangers of the International Money Power.

Those critics of this powerful force, Knuth noted, had all been defeated because they had been obliged by those who supported their efforts “to show action and results in too short a span of years.”

Those real patriots who opposed the International Money Power had been “outwitted and out-waited, deluged with irritants and difficulties, eventually obliged to temporize and retreat.”

Those in the United States and Britain who dared to take on international finance, said Knuth, often came to what he called “a disgraceful end.”

Quite in contrast, those who had served well the forces of big money had profited immensely.

The Rothschild-controlled Bank of England, Knuth reminds us, was, in effect, a sovereign world power not subject to regulation or control, in the slightest degree, by the British parliament.

This institution—in the hands of the Rothschild Empire—acted, according to Knuth, as “the great balance wheel of the credit of the world, able to expand or contract credit at will,” subject only to the orders of “The City”—in short, the Rothschild dynasty.

Knuth was not the first writer to recognize the Rothschild grip on Britain. Of the special relationship which existed between the International Money Power of the Rothschild dynasty and the British Empire, Major Osman Bey, writing in 1878 in The Conquest of the World by the Jews, (cited earlier) described it as a consequence of mutual concessions:

A sort of friendly understanding has been arrived at on the basis of common interest between these two commercial powers, by virtue of which the British Empire lends its political influence and material assistance to Judaism while the latter places its financial influence at the disposal of England and supports British commerce. The English and the Jews both derive advantage from this tacit understanding, the former since it enables them to make use of the immense Jewish capital in disposing of their articles of commerce by means of Jewish middle men.

The American critic of Jewish finance, Ezra Pound, writing in Gold and Work, published in 1944, put it succinctly: “After the assassination of President Lincoln, no serious measures against the usurocracy were attempted until the formation of the Berlin-Rome Axis.”

(In the following chapter we will examine Lincoln’s conflict with the Rothschild Empire as it made its advances on American soil.)

It is thus no accident that in 1940, the German government, as part of itsWorld-Service publicity division, candidly put forth the proposition, in no uncertain terms, that it was precisely because of the Jewish domination of Britain, through the plutocratic forces of the Rothschild Empire, that the English people were hurled into war against National Socialist Germany, which, as Ezra Pound said, had attempted “serious measures” against the International Money Power.World-Service wrote:

In the plutocratic system of government in England we find the real reason for England having today declared war against National-Socialist, anti-Jewish Germany.

The English government did not declare war against Germany in the interest of the English people, nor to eventually protect British subjects from possible German acts of aggression, but she declared war solely in the interest of the Jews who control England and in the interest of Jewish-English finance-capital which was looking for the first opportunity to break lose, both of which are the acknowledged enemies of every form of national Socialism.

England cannot wage any war in the interest of the English nation, for the English government cannot be considered the representative of its own people, nor does it possess the confidence of the nation.

On the contrary, it merely fulfills the task of protecting the immense wealth, which is in the hands of the small circle: the Jewish-English ruling class; it further guarantees the small Jewish-English clique shall increase its enormous capital unhindered.

To-day the Jews, as well as the English press, wish to make us believe, that the Jewish-English alliance only came into being during the present war, and that it finds its natural cause in the Jewish persecution in Germany and that, the anti-Jewish laws of the Third Reich, forcibly drove the Jews to side with England in this war. This, as we have seen, is not true.

The Jewish-English alliance originated solely and simply through the inseparable bond between Jewish Imperialism and British Imperialism, and in the fact that Jewish finance-capital is identical with British finance-capital.

It has its origin solely and simply in the blood-ties between the Jews and the English nobility and the fact that the Jews succeeded in turning England into a plutocratic state.

The Jews did not come into the war as allies of England because Germany had persecuted them, but England declared war against Germany because the English government is the blind obedient servant of Jewish commands,exactly as England is the sworn enemy of all anti-Jewish states and, according to its plutocratic structure, of necessity must be.

The English government declared war against Germany because it is a Jew-controlled government and as such represents the Sword of Judah against anti-Judaism and against any form of National Socialism.

The English government declared war against Germany because Englishmen are not the rulers of England, but because Jewish finance-capital rules and because England is a plutocratic state.

Although there have been many books written on the topic of international finance generally over the years, there has been little public understanding or recognition of the bigger picture.

However, as E. C. Knuth noted, going through those many volumes that have touched on these subjects, there are to be found what he called “amazing nuggets of information” coming to light which, put together,“unfold the stunning history and the legal structure of a sovereign world state.” This world state, of course, is governed by “The City” of London which, Knuth said,“operates as a super government of the world and no incident occurs in any part of the world without its participation in some form.”

“The grand plan of this ‘one world’ order decrees that it is necessary,” wrote Knuth, “to limit the political and territorial expansion of Russia promptly and peremptorily.”

And that, of course, is what Knuth was writing in the closing days of WorldWar II, while the United States and Britain were still allied with Russia, but it was soon after the war that the so-called ColdWar emerged and now, in the opening years of the 21st Century a “Second ColdWar”—a “New Cold War”—is being constructed against Russia in its new incarnation as a nationalist state which has challenged the international Jewish money interests.

Today, the great colossus known as Russia—free of the grip of Communism and Capitalism, two heads of the same dragon—stands in the way of the New World Order.

Even as this is written, in 2009,we see agitation for confrontation with Russia arising in the Rothschild-connected spheres of influence in the West, particularly in the United States, with the Zionist “neo-conservatives” effectively banging the drum for war against Russia. (This author’s works, The Golem and The Judas Goats, explore this phenomenon in some detail.)

Knuth asked, sarcastically, whether it was in the public interest to expose the grand plan of what he called the “one world camarilla” (that is, a conspiratorial group) when they were so close to achieving their goal of establishing a global imperium. How many more lives would have to be sacrificed, he asked, for the creation of “the great dream . . . of a world ruled by a benevolent despotic intelligentsia and so to create ‘peace for all eternity.’”?

Knuth reflected on the control of the mass media by this internationalist power elite, raising these questions:

How has it been possible to erect this Internationalistic structure of misrepresentation and deception in our midst and to protect it from exposure for nearly [then] half a century?Why have not our professors of history, our college presidents and educators or our crusading newspapers exposed this monstrosity?

He said that there were “some evident and very practical reasons” for the fact that those responsible for informing and educating the public had not done so in regard to the International Money Power, and one of the primary reasons, was that “our newspapers are absolutely dependent for their existence on the advertising of great business interests” and, he added, a bit cynically, that “the principal function of college presidents is to collect the funds upon which the existence of their institutions depends, to be on the right terms with the right people.”

Those who have made attempts to expose the Rothschild Empire and the NewWorld Order and its Talmudic origins—or even simply portions of the big story—have met with little success for, as Knuth acknowledged, works of this type have received little recognition and “because they are considered ‘controversial’ [are] treated with the contempt of silence.”

Quite in contrast,pointed out Knuth, note the massive,multi-million dollar circulations of what Knuth described as “the highly acclaimed and widely publicized products of the proponents of Internationalism; with the complete domination of the radio [and now, today, television] by Internationalist propagandists. . . .”

So the influence of the Rothschild Empire had captured imperial Britain—long ago—infiltrating its aristocratic families and financial institutions and Rothschild influence reached worldwide.

In the meantime, across the Atlantic, the Rothschild Dynasty was already moving forward to capture control of the New World and ensure that the new United States was firmly in its grip.

In the chapters which follow we will begin our examination of the role of the Rothschild Empire in American affairs, culminating—ultimately—in the emergence of the United States in the 20th Century as the engine of Imperial Power in the hands of the Rothschild Dynasty.

August Belmont, Jacob Schiff, Joseph Seligman and Paul Warburg (left to right) were among the foremost figures representing the interests of the Rothschild Dynasty and International Jewish Finance on American soil, although there were many non-Jewish Americans who were Rothschild partners and front men in various aspects of U.S. finance and industry, the Rockefeller family being the most notable example.
Harry Truman on Jewish Power . . . Although President Harry Truman is hailed as the American president who recognized the new-born State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish world reeled in horror on July 11, 2003 when The Washington Post published excerpts from Truman’s unpublished private diary in which Truman reflected quite candidly on Jewish attitudes and Jewish power. One entry on July 21, 1947 was particularly harsh and read as follows: “The Jews have no sense of proportion,nor do they have any judgment on world affairs.The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns,Poles,Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as [postwar] Displaced Persons as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power—physical, financial or political—neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. ”
Remember: these were not the ravings of Adolf Hitler nor of some anti-Semitic right-wing street agitator. These words were not penned by a “Jew-baiting conspiracy theorist” or by a “Muslim terrorist.” They were not the mutterings of a bitter misanthrope.They were the private musings of a beloved American president, the down-to-earth “Man from Independence,” none other than “Give ‘Em Hell Harry.” Was he wrong?
The Rothschilds and America:
First a Colony, Then the Engine of Imperial Power
Ezra Pound, writing in Gold andWork, published in 1944, reflected on the role of International Jewish Finance—the Rothschild Empire—in dictating the economic affairs of the nations of the planet. An early and vocal critic of the Rothschild-controlled Federal Reserve System on American soil (more about which later), Pound commented on the loss of liberty that so many had suffered as a consequence of the rise of plutocratic capitalism and its usurious domination of global money:

No one is such a fool as to let someone else have the run of his own private bank account;yet nations,individuals,industrialists, and businessmen have all been quite prepared—almost eager—to leave the control of their national currencies, and of international money, in the hands of the most stinking dregs of humanity.

The American author E. C. Knuth (writing in the closing days of World War II) recognized that the American system had now become part of the Rothschild web. Assessing the fashion in which the global money power had—during the 20th Century—been intertwined with the American system, he concluded—with dismay—that what had occurred was that the United States had become “a subject of the laws of England.”

In short, the United States had fallen into the hands of the Rothschild Dynasty—the primary force behind the “British” Empire.

And despite the fact that during the closing decades of the 19th Century—and then in the earliest years of the 20th Century—the matters of money and finance, gold and silver, the issues of debt,war and imperialism, were subjects of common discussion in American political affairs, Americans, however, remained largely ignorant of the existence of the Rothschild Empire.

While there was—as we noted in the previous chapter—some recognition of the role of the Rothschild Dynasty and their predatory practices of international finance capitalism, Knuth wrote:

To a large extent,most of theAmerican public knew little of the Rothschilds, at any given time in history. The Rothschilds were generally considered in a class of myth or legend.

However, he said, and this is certainly an understatement: “It should be quite obvious that the gigantic fortune of this family is still a very formidable factor in the affairs of the world.” And that fortune has grown since. In fact, as we shall see, as we explore further, the rise of Rothschild influence in the United States was not a 20th Century phenomenon as many tend to believe. Rather, Rothschild intrigues on American soil reached back well into the early years of the 19th Century.

The Economic History of the Jews, by Salo W. Baron, Arcadius Kahan and others (published by Schocken Books in 1975), summarized the early rise of International Jewish Finance in the United States:

It was not until the middle of the 19th Century, however, with the arrival in America of the large German Jewish immigration, that Jewish banking houses on the European model came to exist in the United States . . . .

All of these firms functioned essentially as investment bankers—the more established field of commercial banking offered relatively few opportunities to the German Jewish immigrant—a capacity in which they helped to finance large numbers of American utilities and corporations whose rapid growth throughout the latter half of the 19th Century created an insatiable demand for capital.

To raise such funds, these Jewish houses not only utilized their widespread European connections, particularly in France, England, and Germany, but created a chain of interlocking associations and directorates among themselves which enabled them quickly to mobilize sums many times larger than their individual holdings and
to compete successfully with Gentile firms several times their size.

Not only was it common for the children and relatives of a given firm to marry each other, but marital alliances frequently occurred as well among different Jewish banking families, as was the case with the Kuhns, the Loebs, the Schiffs, and the Warburgs.

Frequently, too, the children of such families married into families of large German Jewish companies in a variety of other fields and the latter would then proceed to raise capital through the banking houses which they had joined.

Socially, the result of such commercial and kinship ties was the creation of a German Jewish banking and business aristocracy based in New York City, whose descendants continued for over a century to play a dominant role in the financial, cultural, and political life of the American Jewish community, and to a lesser extent, of the nation at large.

The contribution of such Jewish banking houses to the process of capital formation in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th Century was considerable by any standard.

Students of American history are familiar—or should be—with the historic battles of President Andrew Jackson and other American nationalists with the intrigues of the financial interests who were determined to set up a “central bank” on American shores.

And although, during this time—in the first decades of the 19th Century—the Rothschilds themselves were not formally ensconced in the United States (although they were certainly, by this point, the preeminent finance force in Europe), there were American bankers and their political allies—notably Alexander Hamilton (who was perhaps,although it is not certain, of partial Jewish descent) who were effectively advancing the interests of the Rothschild Dynasty insofar as the Rothschilds sought to expand their tentacles into the financial affairs of the new republic.

While the First Bank of the United States (established in 1791) and then the subsequent Second Bank of the United States (established in 1816) were ostensibly “American” institutions, history shows that critics of the bank were frequently heard to express their concerns that “British” bankers—in particular—were meddling in American affairs through their investments in—and dealings with—these financial institutions.

So although an eminent non-Jewish American such as Nicholas Biddle—founder of one of the “Great American Families”—served as president of the Second Bank of the United States,he was, for all intents and purposes, acting as an agent of the foreign—that is,“British” (actually, that is, Rothschild)—financial interests operating behind the scenes. And it has likewise been noted by Eustace Mullins, writing in his pivotal work, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, that another Rothschild—James of Paris—was a key figure profiting from the machinations of the Second Bank of the United States. In short, the Rothschild presence in America was a very real phenomenon, even in those earliest years of our history.

In regard to the rise of Rothschild influence on American soil, we are indebted to the late Arnold Spencer Leese, a self-trained, independent-minded English historian and advocate of English nationalism—a veterinarian, a self-dubbed “camel doctor” by training (in fact, it is said, one of the best known authorities on the health of camels)—who produced one of the most forthright monographs on the intrigues of the Rothschilds. It was entitled Gentile Folly: The Rothschilds and published in 1940.

The assessment by Leese of Rothschild influence in the United States, contrary to many “standard” works, confirms that the Rothschilds were, in fact, long influential in American affairs. Leese noted that as far as our recorded history is concerned, the Rothschilds sent an agent by the name of Schoenberg to New York in 1837, but Schoenberg changed his name to August Belmont and put himself forth as a disciple of the Christian faith, although he—like the Rothschilds—was a Jew. Belmont cut his teeth in finance in the Frankfurt and Naples branches of the House of Rothschild. In that regard, American historian Stephen Birmingham, writing in his famous society chronicle,Our Crowd:The Great Jewish Families of New York:

The first thing New York society noticed about August Belmont was that he had lots of money. It was Rothschild money, to be sure, but he used it lavishly.

As a financier with the funds of the world’s largest private bank at his fingertips, he was immediately important not only to American companies but to the United States government which was always running out of cash and whose credit needed constant infusions from bankers.

When there was a great panic in 1837, Rothschild agent Belmont negotiated large loans from the Rothschilds on behalf of the U.S. debtor banks.“ In other words” according to Birmingham, “he was able, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System.” (And this long before the official establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913!) (*)
(*) During this period that there was extensive emigration by Roman Catholics into the United States—particularly from Ireland—and the truth is that well-settled Jewish interests saw this as a danger. In fact, one of the leading bigots inAmerica leading the fight against immigration into the United States—particularly Irish Catholic immigration—was a prominent Jewish American, Lewis Charles Levin. Although history often tells us that the “Know Nothing” movement—the Native American Party—was “led by Protestants” and “aimed at Catholics and Jews,” the truth is that Levin—a Jew—was not only one of the party’s founders but also an editor of its national organ and one of the first Know Nothing members elected to Congress! In fact, Levin was the first Jew elected to the U.S. Congress.Yet, Jewish literature today never mentions Levin’s preeminent role in the anti-Catholic agitation of America’s early years. Born in 1808 in Charleston, South Carolina, which—as students of the Jewishcontrolled slave trade know—was the Jewish population center of the United States for many years, long before NewYork City emerged as such, Levin later moved north, as an attorney, to Philadelphia where he published and edited the Philadelphia Daily Sun. In 1844 he was elected to Congress from Pennsylvania on the American (“Know Nothing”ticket) and held that post for three terms until defeated for re-election in 1850. Levin died ten years later. The fact that Levin was one of the pioneering anti-Catholic agitators on American soil is interesting, to say the least, since history books have been careful to “edit” the record as far as Levin’s role in the Know Nothing movement is concerned. Levin’s career has been consigned to the Orwellian “Memory Hole.” Instead we always hear how both “the Protestants” and “the Catholics” have been so hostile to “the poor Jewish immigrants fleeing persecution.”


And after establishing himself in the United States as the premier Rothschild agent—although there would be many more other Rothschild assets in place as time went by—he ended up, through the influence of Salomon Rothschild, being appointed by the American government to serve from 1844 to 1850 to be the Austrian consul general in New York City!
Three years later this German Jew and Rothschild agent was appointed American Ambassador to the Netherlands. In 1860 this Rothschild agent became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.And he took as his bride the daughter of famed Commodore Matthew Perry who “opened up” Japan to the West, which, in fact, as modern-day Japanese nationalists note, was an early manifestation of “American” imperialism, but, as we know all too well, it was, in reality, no more than Rothschild imperialism, part of the drive for a NewWorld Order as first outlined in the Talmud.

During the time that Belmont was consolidating the Rothschild Empire’s place on American soil, the Rothschilds were establishing offices throughout the American South for the purpose of wool purchases that were then shipped on to France and marketed. Likewise, the Rothschild family were buying up tobacco harvests. Rothschild-controlled ships carried enormous cargoes between the United States and France.

And, not surprisingly, Rothschild interests were deeply involved in the behind-the-scenes intrigues in finance and politics that led to the American Civil War. America’s famed poet Ezra Pound noted:

Nations are shoved into wars in order to destroy themselves, to break up their structure, to destroy their social order, to destroy their populations. And no more flaming and flagrant case appears in history than our own American CivilWar, said to be an Occidental record for size of armies employed and only surpassed by the more recent triumphs of [the Rothschild Empire:] the wars of 1914 and the present one [World War II].

Arnold Leese wrote that the Rothschilds were then in conflict with Napoleon III of France who had designs on the Americas—as did the Rothschilds. Napoleon III had dreams of expanding his power by seizing control of Mexico and portions of the southern United States and he wanted Britain to join him by compelling the North to abandon its blockade of the Southern ports. However, the Confederate States, seeking to assuage Napoleon,offered him some territory, specifically Louisiana and Texas. It was a very real possibility that the British and the French were about to intervene in the American CivilWar on behalf of the Confederacy.

However, Czar Alexander of Russia —who had consistently stood against the efforts of the Rothschilds to interfere in the affairs of the Russian Empire—sent his fleet across the Atlantic and put it at President Lincoln’s disposal in the event Rothschild intrigues were able to push the British and the French forces into the war on behalf of the Confederacy. And this is not something that the Rothschilds would forget.

Ultimately what did the Rothschilds want? Long-time Rothschild ally Benjamin Disraeli, later prime minister of England, wrote of the future of the United States after the Civil War. It would, he said, be an America “of armies, of diplomacy, of rival states and maneuvering cabinets, of frequent turbulence and probably of frequent wars.” In short, as Arnold Leese said, “The Rothschilds wished to reproduce in America the chaotic conditions in Europe whereby they ruled all states. A united America would be too powerful for them. It must be split and now was the time to do it.”

However, Napoleon of France would not work with them. What were the Rothschilds to do? Their response was to support both the North and the South and work to prevent an outright win by either side and so force apart the two regions, with the possibility that the British Empire—controlled by the Rothschilds—could annex the Northern states to Canada, a British dominion. In practice this meant helping the weak South rather than the more powerful North and that is precisely what the British did.

In spite of much English sentiment in favor of the North,which opposed slavery, the Rothschild-directed British government followed polices supporting the South. The British recognized the Confederacy and allowed Southern ships to be built, manned and serviced in British ports, although, ironically, in New York, the Rothschild agent, August Belmont, ostensibly supported the Northern cause. But this, of course,was all part of the Rothschild purpose of putting the North in full aggression against the South in order to force the divisive war that did indeed come about.

However, it should be noted that Lionel Rothschild felt the North would win and exerted his influence on financiers in England and France in support of the North. So, as Leese said, the Rothschild Empire ultimately had material interests on both sides.

The evidence is also very clear that August Belmont was closely collaborating with Judah Benjamin, the Jewish attorney general, then secretary of war and then, finally, secretary of state for the Confederacy. Belmont’s wife, a Gentile, was the niece of John Slidell, one of Benjamin’s law partners. Slidell’s own daughter married Baron Frederick Emil d’Erlanger, head of a major Jewish banking firm in Paris, whose father, Baron Rafael d’Erlanger of Frankfurt, had been a confidential representative of the Rothschilds!

Meanwhile, President Abraham Lincoln had his own intentions vis-a-vis the International Money Power and sought to introduce state loans to free the American people from the Rothschild Empire. It was, of course, no surprise that Belmont had strongly opposed Lincoln’s nomination and election as president in 1860. Lincoln circumvented the Rothschild’s intrigues during the Civil War by financing the war on state credit, thereby working to avoid dependence upon the Jewish banking houses under the thumb of the Rothschild Empire.

It is thus no coincidence that when John Wilkes Booth’s conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln was taking place that there was also an attempt on the life of Secretary of State William Seward who, in fact, had extended the invitation to the Czar of Russia, Alexander II, to send his fleet to come to the United States in an effort to stop the Rothschild’s effort to partition the United States. In 1881 the Czar himself was assassinated.

In 2004 author Charles Higham (who is otherwise a fervent promoter of Jewish concerns) published his book, Murdering Mr. Lincoln,which actually outlines in some detail the role of the Rothschild interests (and those of allied secret societies in the Rothschild sphere of influence) in the assassination of President Lincoln—a point that almost officially, it seems, goes unmentioned by the vast number of “mainstream” writers who have devoted millions of words to the murder of the 16th president.

(And, considering the fact that President James Garfield, who came to office in 1881, was likewise assassinated, it is probably no coincidence that Garfield was an outspoken critic of the International Money Power and its American assets seeking to control American credit.)

In those years following the Civil War, Belmont and other Rothschild agents supplied the United States with 3.2 million ounces of gold in exchange for bonds carrying four percent interest and at a price far below the then-current market price of such securities. However, this proved unpopular within the United States for the reason that the relief to the nation’s finances was of only ten months duration and the nation’s economy became far worse. But the United States floated a loan selling its bonds to the American public and brought relief to the citizenry.

Belmont himself became the boss of the famed Tammany Society—popularly known as Tammany Hall—which ran the political machine in the city of New York which emerged, of course, as the seat of Rothschild finance in America. Arnold Leese described Tammany Hall as “a sort of Gentile front for the Jewish Kehillah”—that is, the Jewish secret government.

Although Belmont died in 1890, his sons Perry and August carried on for the interests of the Rothschild Empire. August’s son, Morgan, and then Morgan’s son, John Mason, carried on for the Rothschilds until his death.

August Belmont was aligned with J. P. Morgan who, according to author Stephen Birmingham, joined with the Rothschilds in “an axis of financial power,” that even the great Seligman banking house had difficulty contending with. Ultimately, though, the Seligmans joined with the Rothschilds in what was described by Birmingham as “the most powerful combination in the history of banking . . . The Seligman-Belmont-Morgan-Rothschild alliance was so successful that [within a decade] there were complaints on Wall Street that ‘London [and] Germany-based bankers’ had a monopoly on the sale of United States bonds in Europe—which they virtually did.”

The Seligman family, it will be recalled,were at the center of the first and still famous scandal surrounding “anti-Semitism in America” involving a family member having been barred from the Grand Union Hotel due to his Jewish background. However, interestingly, according to Birmingham, rather than extinguishing anti-Semitism, the incident actually kindled it.

The Seligmans were once said to be the richest Jewish family in America and for good reason they were thus known as “The American Rothschilds.” However, there were other great Jewish banking families emerging during this period—all satellites of the Rothschild Dynasty.

According to Stephen Birmingham, writing in Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of NewYork: “If Joseph Seligman had virtually invented international banking in America, it was Jacob Schiff who took the invention, refined it, and made it an art . . .” In his heyday, Schiff “would tower above every financial figure in Wall Street.”

Schiff—who in 1875 married a daughter of one of the founders of the Kuhn-Loeb banking house—soon assumed control of the powerful empire. Schiff’s marriage made him part of an elite that was not only economically intertwined, but maritally intertwined as well. As one wag commented, referring to the Warburg banking family—another of the “Our Crowd” group of Jewish banking families: “The Warburgs weren’t anybody until they married into the Schiffs, and Schiff wasn’t anybody until he married into the Loebs.”

Today, this combine includes the family of former Vice President Al Gore whose daughter, Karenna,married Drew Schiff, a scion of the Schiff family. So although, at the 2000 Democratic National Convention which nominated him for president, Gore declared, “I’m my own man,” the fact of his relationship with the Schiff clan—and thus to the Rothschild Empire—suggests otherwise.

By 1881,noted Birmingham, “American finance had entered the great Age of Schiff.” However, the Schiff family, on its own, had far-reaching connections into previous generations linking them with the Rothschilds. According to Birmingham:

In the 18th Century, the Schiffs and Rothschilds shared a double house . . . until one of the Schiffs, already prosperous enough to move to London, sold the balance of the house to the first rich Rothschild. If pressed, Schiffs usually admitted that, though not so collectively wealthy as the Rothschilds, theirs was the more august family.The Rothschilds were known only as big money bankers.

The Schiff family tree contained not only successful bankers but distinguished scholars and members of the rabbinate. There was, for instance, the seventeenth-century Meir ben Jacob Schiff, composer of notable commentaries on the Talmud, and David Tevele Schiff,who in the late 18th century became chief rabbi of the Great Synagogue of England.

The Schiffs can also demonstrate that they are a much older family than the upstart Rothschilds. The Schiff pedigree, carefully worked out in the Jewish Encyclopedia, shows the longest continuous record of any Jewish family in exi s tence, with Schiffs in Frankfurt going back to the fourteenth century.

Jacob Schiff actually traced his ancestry even further back than that—to the 10th Century BC no less—and to none other than . . . King Solomon and, thence, to David and Bathsheba, where he chose to stop tracing. Jacob Schiff took his descent from the King of Israel seriously. . . .

American industrialist Henry Ford, for his part, noted that Schiff—in his early years—had actually passed his apprenticeship in the office of his father who was an agent of the Rothschilds. As Ford noted, Schiff became “one of the principal channels through which German-Jewish capital flowed into American undertakings, and his agency in these matters gave him a place in many important departments of American business, especially railroads, banks, insurance companies, and telegraph companies.”

Writing in Truth magazine on Dec. 16, 1912, George R. Conroy revealed that the Rothschild-Schiff connection extended into the 20th century:

Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., which represents the Rothschild interests on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil [which, of course, was publicly identified with the Rockefeller family].He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world of America.

Actually, in 1912, there was a Senate committee, known as the Pujo Committee, after its chairman, which investigated the monetary trusts of the time. The committee disclosed that Kuhn, Loeb—despite its alliance with J. P. Morgan—had been primarily allied with the Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank.However, Jacob Schiff had still likewise long been a director of this Rockefeller entity, and that therefore Schiff was involved in bothmajor financial blocs operating on American soil which were thus not so “independent” as the public might otherwise have thought. There were indeed “Jewish” interests involved in both influences.

According to Stephen Birmingham, the Pujo Committee discovered Jacob Schiff was steering both of the major financial interests: “The Morgan-Baker-First National Bank group and the Rockefeller-Stillman-National City Bank group formed the inner circle.The powers were steel and oil,each with its massive bank. Contrary to what everyone had supposed, there was no ‘rivalry’ revealed between these [factions]. Kuhn, Loeb, the committee decided, somewhat vaguely, was ‘qualifiedly allied only with the inner group.’ While some people wondered what [that] meant, others, particularly some members of the press took it to mean that Jacob Schiff had an inside track to both of the leading powers of Wall Street [and] even [Schiff] admitted that he did.”

So the old legend, among many American “patriot” writers that there was a “struggle” between the Rockefellers and the Jewish banking elite, falls flat. The Rockefellers, for all intents and purposes, were hardly more than well-paid henchmen, satellites, of the Rothschild Empire!

As far as the Rockefeller family is concerned, it should be noted that there is no solid information in the public arena indicating that they are of Jewish extraction, although there has been much speculation for over a century. Contrary to widespread perception, the often-touted “proof” that “the Rockefellers are Jewish” is not proof at all.

The rumor about the Rockefellers being Jewish largely stems from the fact that the aforementioned Stephen Birmingham—in his 1971 Harper & Row book, The Grandees, a profile of the history of America’s Sephardic Jewish elite (descended from Spanish and Portugese Jewish families)—mentioned that the name “Rockefeller” can be found in a rare 1960 genealogical study, Americans of Jewish Descent by Malcolm H. Stern.

While some jumped on that information and began circulating the story that this was “proof” that “the Rockefellers are Jewish,” a careful reading of the entire book demonstrates that—as far as is documented in that book—the Rockefellers who do have Jewish blood stem from the line of Godfrey Rockefeller who married one Helen Gratz, who was Jewish. Their childrenb and heirs were raised in the Episcopal Church and have had little—if anything—to do with Jewish or Israeli affairs.

Godfrey Rockefeller, in fact,was from a separate line of the Rockefeller family, descended from one of the brothers of John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and was a second cousin to the famed Rockefeller brothers—Nelson, David, Laurence, and John D. III. Thus, the famous story about the Rockefellers being Jewish—at least this one so often cited—is based on a misreading of what actually appeared in Birmingham’s much-cited book.

It is no great pleasure to sink the popular myth that “the Rockefellers are Jewish” that has been circulated by many well-meaning people, but the facts about the origin of this rumor speak for themselves. This, of course, is not to suggest that there is not any Jewish blood in the veins of the Rockefeller family (going back generations), but any charges to that effect should be based on facts, not misinterpretation of a passing reference in a book.

Yet, in spite of these facts—which can be found by referring to Birmingham’s book, from which the most recent version of the rumor that “The Rockefellers Are Jewish” emerged—few people actually check out the book themselves and prefer, instead, to pass on the legend.

But there have been many eminent American families who are not Jewish (so far as is known) who have become intertwined with the New Pharisees of the Rothschild Empire on American shores.

Considering,as mentioned earlier,that formerVice PresidentAl Gore’s own family had long close ties to Armand Hammer, the American Jewish industrialist known for his dealings with the Bolshevik elite—and who was the son of a founding father of the Communist Party USA—it is fitting that Gore’s in-laws, the Schiff family (and their associates, the Rothschilds), played a major part in financing the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. Initially, according to Prof. Albert S. Lindemann,writing in Esau’s Tears:

A most tenacious enemy of Czarist Russia was Jacob H.Schiff [who] played a crucial role not only in denying the Russians the bonds they sought in the international market to finance the [Russo-Japanese war] but also even more decisively in providing financial support for Japan, which then so humiliatingly defeated Russia . . . Schiff delighted in the way that he and other Jews had been able to contribute to the humbling of the great Russian Empire. He boasted that after its humiliation in the Russo-Japanese war, Russia had come to understand that “international Jewry is a power after all.”

Later—in concert with the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking interests—Schiff personally bankrolled the Bolshevik takeover of Christian Russia and the murder of millions of Christians, funding Leon Trotsky and the other butchers who seized power and established themselves in the Kremlin.

The full story of the Schiff role in this tragedy that helped set the stage for World War II, Korea,Vietnam and all the other crises that arose from the so-called “Cold War” is known only to a handful, but it is part of the legend of the Rothschild Empire and its role in manipulating global affairs. In the end, although the Schiff Dynasty has been a major force on its own, the fact is that they have been part of the Rothschild Empire.

At this juncture—having considered the role of the Rothschild Empire’s intrigue in America—it is vital to recognize the Rothschild role in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in the United States.

While there has been much written on the Federal Reserve and the reality of what it constitutes—a privately-owned and privately-controlled money monopoly in the hands of banking institutions—the fact that the Rothschild family was, ultimately, the primary force behind the establishment of the system on American soil, is not something that is fully understood.

For example, because there were no people named “Rothschild” at the famous meeting off the coast of Georgia at Jekyll Island where the framework for the Federal Reserve was established, there are those who would divorce the Rothschild family altogether from the circumstances. However, the fine hand of Rothschild was indeed on the scene, represented by Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Company which, as we’ve noted,was under the control of longtime Rothschild associate Jacob Schiff.

Scion of another great German Jewish banking family, Warburg was the principal architect of the Federal Reserve System, brought into being in 1913, which consolidated control over the American monetary system by the Rothschild Empire and International Jewish Finance.

Henry Ford’s discussion of what he called “the Jewish Idea of a Central Bank for America” addressed the Federal Reserve. Ford wrote:

What the people of the United States do not understand and never have understood is that while the Federal Reserve Act was governmental, the whole Federal Reserve System is private. It is an officially-created private banking system.

Examine the first 1000 people you meet on the street, and 999 of them will tell you that the Federal Reserve System is a device whereby the United States government went into the banking business for the benefit of the people. They have an idea that like the Post Office and the Custom House the Federal Reserve is part of the government’s official machinery. . . .

Take up the standard encyclopedias and while you will find no misstatements of fact in them, you will find no statement that the Federal Reserve System is a private banking system; the impression carried away by the lay reader is that it is a part of the Government.

The Federal Reserve System is a system of private banks, the creation of a banking aristocracy within an already existing system of aristocracy, whereby a great proportion of banking independence was lost,and whereby it was made possible for speculative financiers to centralize great sums of money for their own purposes, beneficial [to the people of the United States] or not.

Discussing the matter of the Federal Reserve’s interlocking ties with what Ford referred to as “the Economic Plans of International Jews,” Ford asserted, quite correctly: “The strength of Jewish Money is in its internationalism.

It stretches a chain of banks and centers of financial control across the world and plays them on the side of the game that favors Judah.”

Ford said that single Jewish banking houses in any given country would be no menace.As mere bankers in their own countries they would not, Ford said, occasion alarm. Ford noted that in conventional commercial banking, the Jews had not predominated and that traditional deposit banks were hardly a part of the Jewish financial network.

“The Rothschilds,”said Ford,“were never bankers in a proper sense; they were money lenders to nations whose representatives they had corrupted to seek the loans. They did business precisely on the plain of the money lender on the side street who seduces the rich man’s son to borrow a large sum, knowing that the father will pay. That is scarcely banking. Brains of that sort may ‘get’ money but will not ‘make’ money.”

Thus, said Ford, it was necessary to look at the international scope of Jewish banking power. This system, he said, did not require that a Jewish banking house be the most important financial power in any particular country. It was not the wealth and importance of any single such banking house, but, instead, he said, the wealth and importance of the world chain of the various Jewish banking houses that gave the strength to the International Money Power.

For example, Ford cited the aforementioned Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb & Company who was a prime mover behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in the United States. Warburg’s enterprise was far from being the most powerful bank in the United States, but because of its international connections—which were, as Ford said, “all Jewish”—it took on a new aspect in terms of its impact on American life.

The record shows that it was indeed the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 that set in place the framework for further expansion of Rothschild control over American finance and industry.

Americans, of course, had little understanding of all of this. American author E. C.Knuth noted that in 1945 in his work, The Empire of “The City” that Senator Edward Hall Moore of Oklahoma had made public the fact that “the British government” owned vast holdings in 80 of the largest American industrial corporations, including General Motors and Standard Oil of Indiana. That Standard should be among them might come as a surprise to those naive Americans who have long believed that the Rockefeller family, which appeared to dominate Standard Oil,were somehow a“royal” family in American terms, when, in fact, the Rothschild influence extended even here into the ranks of such a famous “American” corporation.

In fact, the Rockefeller empire, in more respects than many ever realized, has always effectively been a subsidiary of the Rothschild Empire, wealthy and powerful on its own to be sure, but a Rothschild subsidiary nonetheless. And as we shall see later in these pages, many institutions traditionally perceived to be in the “Rockefeller” sphere of influence are now, today, falling firmly into the hands of agents of the Rothschild Empire.

Knuth put it correctly: “The American public was blindly led to the slaughter then like so many sheep being driven up the ramp at the abattoir, with endless years of ruin and fear to follow for the millions.” He referred to the fact that “the smart money of Europe” had, in fact, ruthlessly engineered the Great Crash of the stock market in 1929 and through that process had gained absolute power over the American economy.

But the American people did have some nationalist leaders who stood up in opposition. For example, James J. Hill, the great American railroad builder, warned of increasing national debt, of the dangers of the nation falling into the hands of the usurers:

I need not remind you that public credit, though vast, is not inexhaustable. . . . Of all of resources, this one should be guarded with most jealous care; first, because we can never know in advance where exhaustion begins.

The earth and its products tell us plainly about what we may expect of them in the future, but credit is apparently unlimited at one moment and in collapse at the next.

The only safe rule is to place no burdens upon it that may be avoided; to save it for days of dire need.

Hill issued a warning to his fellow Americans: “Search history and see what has been the fate of every nation that has abused its credit. . . It will profit us nothing to conserve what we have remaining of the great national resources that were the dower of this continent unless we preserve the national credit as more precious than them all. When it shall be exhausted, the heart of the nation will cease to beat.”

During the years preceding World War II—and in the early days of the war that followed—there were others who did speak out.However, most of those nationalist leaders were ultimately forced out of office or otherwise silenced. As Knuth put it: “the lot of the transgressor against the plans of the ‘one-worlders’ [had] been a hard and unhappy one since then.”

With the new international system that was imposed after WorldWar II through theWorld Bank and the International Monetary Fund—all projects of the International Money Power of the Rothschild Empire—Knuth said, the United States had been “tricked into a position of boundless peril and foreign nations [would] continue to take advantage of its fallacious position by shameless and insolent demands for huge subsidies in the guise of loans, actually little more than blackmail of American power politicians certain to lose their voice in world politics [as did] Woodrow Wilson after WorldWar I unless they continue to give.”

Of course, in his writings, Knuth pointed out that the American system, ostensibly independent as a consequence of the American Revolution, was, in fact, dominated from afar since so many American fortunes were intertwined with those of the Rothschilds and their confreres in the International Money Power swirling around “The City” of London. Knuth said:

Men of millions [in the United States] sway the destiny and the life or death of their fellow citizens with an organization which is subversive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has ever heard.

The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of “The City,” citadel of international finance. Not only do these men collectively exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they operate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie.

And as we have noted, Rhodes was an instrument of the Rothschild Empire from his very entree into the world of global finance and industry. And the same can be said for Carnegie, titanic figure though he was.

The “organization” to which Knuth specifically referred, in this particular instance, was the so-called Pilgrim Society which promoted British-American fellowship. The Pilgrim Society was founded in London in 1902 four months after the death of Cecil Rhodes and, of course, as noted, the Rhodes concept was to return the United States to the direct and open control of the British Empire. And there were many Americans of wealth and influence who were active in this organization.

The New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (which interlocked closely with the Pilgrim Society) was, as we’ve pointed out before, nothing more than an American off-shoot, a junior cousin, so to speak, of the Londonbased Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), itself the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild Empire which used the RIIA as its base of operations for directing the official foreign ventures of the “British” Empire. And the RIIA was based in “The City” of London.

Pointing out that “British” [read Jewish, read Rothschild] capital had played a major part in instigating the Great Crash of 1929 and noting that the extended inflation that brought on the crash could have been controlled and halted at any point in its rise by what Knuth referred to as that “great balance wheel of the world’s credit” dominated by the Rothschilds, Knuth described the consequences:

That the immense crash and loss of American securities served not only to damage and cripple Britain’s then-greatest competitor but also to discipline a recalcitrant and unfriendly administration seems beyond question. That billions of dollars in foreign gold was moved out of the United States in the election year of 1932 to bring further discredit to the Hoover administration and thus to influence that election is also beyond question.

Likewise that a similar massive amount in foreign gold, totaling $1,139,672,000,was moved into the United States in 1935 in order to influence [the forthcoming 1936] election and recreate “confidence” and to prepare the American investor for a further milking in 1937 also seemed beyond question.

In summary, the fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, IS beyond question.

In sum, as one of the Rothschild henchmen, Viscount Reginald Esher said, “The Rothschilds’ position, vis-a-vis the world’s affairs, the affairs of countries worldwide, is indispensible to them all, not responsible to any.”

Looking at all of this from an American perspective, examining the way in which the International Money Power affected the course of world affairs, Knuth said of the Americans:

Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation, is actually controlled against the will of its people in its foreign affairs is a clear indication that there must be a very powerful and well-financed secret organization which plans and directs American foreign affairs, and, for lack of a more specific identification, this suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as “the International Financiers.”

But, of course, as Knuth made it abundantly clear, these “International Financiers” were, in fact, the members of the Rothschild family and their carefully-placed agents throughout Europe and elsewhere and, indeed, on American soil.And as Rothschild influence rose across the planet,there were growing numbers of patriots who recognized the dangers that their nations faced in the hands of these predatory plutocratic vultures.

Georgetown University’s Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope of what he considered the desirability of the international financial interests to dominate American political life. He said candidly:

The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two [parties in Congress] more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps,of the right, and the other of the left, is a foolish idea except only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

Quigley said that the policies of the international elite that he considered“ vital and necessary for America”were no longer a subject of significant disagreement, but that they were “disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.” He wrote glowingly of internationalist policies and says that “these things any national American party hoping to win a presidential election must accept.”

However, he added, “either party in office becomes, in time, corrupt, tired, un-enterprising, and vigorless.Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary,by the other party, which will be none of these things but which will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Clearly, with the rise of the Rothschild Empire as a major power in American affairs, elected officials in the United States soon became largely nothing more than tools of these predatory interests. Democrats and Republicans alike fell into place, advocating policies that advanced the agenda of the global elite—pushing further the goal of a NewWorld Order.

The advent of the rise of Adolf Hitler in Europe, challenging the Rothschilds and International Jewish Finance, set the stage for what became World War II, and in the United States there emerged Franklin Delano Roosevelt who worked relentlessly to bring the United States into war against Germany. Suffice it to say,FDR’s role in that tragedy has been the subject of numerous formidable works by such eminent revisionist historians as Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, Charles Callan Tansill and others.

No honest student of that era can help but conclude that World War II was a war America need not and should not have fought.And that it was a war that did not bring “good” to the planet or to America. Instead, it laid the groundwork for future wars and set in place a post-war framework upon which the drive for a New World Order was advanced to a greater degree than ever before.

As far as the Roosevelt family is concerned, there has been widely published information suggesting that the Roosevelt family did have Jewish forebears, that the original family name was “Rossocampo,” a name borne by Sephardic Jews who were among those expelled from Spain in 1620. The name, it is said, was ultimately changed as various family branches settled elsewhere in Europe. But there is no firm evidence proving this oft-cited story to be absolute fact.

We do know that descendants of the Dutch-based members of the family — evidently named Rosenvelt — emigrated to the United States and ultimately the name evolved into the name“Roosevelt”that we know today. And there are those who say that the Rosenvelts were originally Jewish, whether of Sephardic origin of not.

In the meantime,we do know that within several generations, there was intermarriage by the Roosevelts with others who were most definitely not Jewish and by the time Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt—cousins later to become husband and wife—were wealthy young members of the American elite they were not known to be engaged in Jewish religious practices.

During the Roosevelt era, a Roosevelt family genealogical chart, which was circulated both in Europe and the United States, charged that another Jewish family strain—namely that of the “Samuels” line—was introduced into the ensuing Roosevelt bloodline.

However exciting this information may have been at the time to FDR’s critics, the provenance of this information is murky at best. However much many may have wanted to believe it, the name “Samuels” is often a Jewish name, but we do not know for a fact that they were Jewish.

Yet, for perhaps a more immediate source of data in regard to possible Jewish heritage in the Roosevelt family — according to a Jewish source — we may turn to the February 5, 1982 issue of The London Jewish Chronicle which featured an article entitled “FDR ‘had Jewish great-grandmother.’” The article, by Leon Hadar, read as follows:

The late American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a Jewish great-grandmother, it was stated last week by Mr. Philip Slomovitz, the editor of The Detroit Jewish News, who released a letter sent to him 45 years ago by the late Rabbi Dr. Steven Wise, a former chairman of the World Jewish Congress.

In his letter, RabbiWise described a luncheon his wife had with Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, the late president’s wife (and a distant cousin of his) who said: “Often cousin Alice and I say that the brains in the Roosevelt family come from our Jewish great-grandmother,” whose name was Esther Levy.

The letter added that Mrs. Roosevelt had told [Mrs.Wise] that “whenever mention is made of our Jewish great-grandmother by cousin Alice or myself, Franklin’s mother gets very angry and says, “You know that is not so. Why do you say it?” According to Rabbi Wise, Mrs. Roosevelt also told his wife,“You must make no use of this. I think it is best to let the matter lie down now.”

In a separate letter to Mr. Slomovitz, Franklin Roosevelt, the hundredth anniversary of whose birth is being celebrated this year, wrote that his ancestors “may have been Jews, Catholics or Protestants.”Rabbi Wise, who was very close to President Roosevelt, marked his letter to Mr. Slomovitz “strictly private and confidential.”

Ironically, it should be pointed out that both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were known to make private anti-Jewish utterances even though they were perhaps of Jewish extraction. Despite this, both became icons in the Jewish world view. However, this phenomenon has seemed to fade during the last years of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st as aggressive Jewish writers are now contending that FDR — despite his bloody worldwide war against Hitler — “didn’t do enough to stop the Holocaust.”

In any case, it should be noted for the record that this author does recall reading, many years ago, in American Heritage magazine that a researcher had found information demonstrating that FDR’s maternal forebears in the Delano family were of Jewish origin, an interesting detail considering that FDR’s mother herself was known to make anti-Jewish remarks.

So whether FDR was Jewish (or part Jewish) is largely irrelevant in the bigger picture.The fact remains that many,many American non-Jewish politicians were—or now are—advocates for the Jewish agenda, furthering the push for a NewWorld Order, the Jewish Utopia.

The bottom line is this: During the 20th Century the United States of America emerged as the foremost mechanism of control in the hands of the Rothschild Empire. American blood and treasure became the means whereby which the NewWorld Order moved fastforward.

Jewish control of the mass media—and virtually all forms of education and communication—expanded exponentially and this brought further political control of American affairs into the hands of the Rothschilds and the modern-day Jewish dynasties operating in their sphere of influence.

In the chapters that follow,we will examine the nature of Jewish power in America, reviewing its parameters, and unveiling the names and the intrigues of the New Pharisees who are advancing the Rothschild agenda: the establishment of a global Jewish Imperium.

Above: This 19th Century caricature of “the Monopoly News Delivery”—suggesting the control of the American press by an elite few—remains even more representative of the situation in the American media today, with a handful of Jewish families and financial interests in the Rothschild sphere of influence in control of the major media outlets, their influence supplemented by an extraordinary number of Jewish editors and journalists in place in the broadcast and publishing industries. Further, a wide range of Jewish-controlled “think tanks” and pressure groups add further power to the Rothschild Empire’s media stranglehold.

The anti-Jewish image (left)—“Such a Bisiness”—mocking Jewish business acumen, could rightly be applied to the modern-day media industry as well as to the corruption-ridden predatory intrigues of Jewish elements on Wall Street who have brought America’s once-great economy to the brink of destruction.

Yes, the Jews Do Control the Media:
Rothschild’s Mechanism for Political Domination
Ultimately, we cannot talk about the course of modern affairs, domestic or internationally, without recognizing the preeminent role of the modern-day (Rothschild-influenced) media in dictating public policy and in determining the selection of American presidents and popularly-elected politicians at all levels.And to accurately address that question of media power, correctly and accurately, we have to recognize the fact that there is substantial Jewish control of the mass media, particularly in America.This is a critical fact that cannot be denied.

Writing in 1993 in Tribes, Jewish author Joel Kotkin asserted that although, in his position, Jews were“not in control of the media and the arts, as some anti-Semites suggest” the fact was that:

Jews clearly possess a disproportionate influence in movies, publishing, advertising and theater. In the media, according to one survey in the 1970s, one quarter of the leading figures were Jewish, more than ten times their percentage in the general population.

Jewish writer Dr. Norman Cantor, writing in The Sacred Chain, put it thus, regarding Jewish media influence in the United States:

As in Berlin and Vienna before Hitler, the Jewish role in publishing was an important one. By 1950 Jewish families owned two of the three most influential newspapers in the United States, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Furthermore, both families were directly involved in the daily operation of the papers and in setting their editorial policies.

J. J. Goldberg—yet another Jewish writer—in his 1996 book, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, acknowledged:

It is true that Jews are represented in the media business in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population. Studies have shown that while Jews make up little more than 5 percent of the working press nationwide—hardly more than their share of the population—they make up one fourth or more of the writers, editors, and producers in America’s “elite media,” including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies and the four leading daily papers (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal).

In the fast-evolving world of media megacorporations, Jews are even more numerous. In an October 1994 Vanity Fair feature profiling the kingpins of the new media elite, titled “The New Establishment,” just under half of the two dozen entrepreneurs profiled were Jews.

In the view of the magazine’s editors, these are America’s true power elite,“men and women from the entertainment, communications and computer industries, whose ambitions and influence have made America the one true superpower of the Information Age.”

And in a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation.

“If there is Jewish power, it’s the power of the word, the power of Jewish columnists and Jewish opinion makers,” says Eugene Fisher, director of Catholic-Jewish relations at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and one of the Jewish community’s staunchest defenders in religious Christian circles. “The Jewish community is a very literate community, and it has a lot to say.And if you can shape opinion, you can shape events.”

Goldberg adds further:

The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. . . .

But the same could be said, to a much greater degree, of other industries with significant concentrations of Jews:Wall Street, New York real estate, or the garment industry.

In each of those industries, Jews make up a significant bloc—an important minority on Wall Street, near majorities in clothing and commercial real estate—and have translated their clout into a visible presence on the political scene.

Jewish writer Steven Silbiger, writing in 2000 in his book, The Jewish Phenomenon, which is a virtual catalogue of Jewish clout, said:

The Jewish influence is just as pronounced in television as it is in the movies. On the TV news desk, Jews have been very visible in front of the camera. As journalists, their personal religious and cultural beliefs are not made an issue in their reporting, but their power is significant because they influence how we as Americans view the world and shape our opinions. . . . Even more influential than reporters are the television news producers, since they decide which stories will go on air, in which order and how long they will run.A disproportionate number of these are Jewish as well. . . .

At one point in the 1980s, the executive producers of all three evening news shows were Jewish.

Furthermore, as Jewish Power [by J. J. Goldberg, cited elsewhere—Ed.] points out, while Jews make up “5% of the working press nationwide—hardly more than their share of the population—they make up one-fourth of the writers, editors and producers in America’s ‘elite media,’ including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies and the four leading papers.”

The remarkably high percentage of Jewish people in television has lasted for generations, perhaps because it is a relatively small and close-knit community.

In a poll of TV’s creative leaders, 59 percent said they were raised in the Jewish faith, while 38 percent [of that group] still identified themselves as Jews.

In his work, The Sacred Chain, Jewish writer Dr. Norman Kantor has also noted the predominance of Jewish influence in the lucrative world of professional sports.Although Cantor doesn’t enunciate the point per se, the fact is that Jewish control of the sports arena relates directly to Jewish media power, inasmuch as sports broadcasting has become an integral part of the mass media, leading in great part—due to the American obsession with sports— to Americans being misdirected and thereby unable to focus on the real issues that face them:

Jewish billionaires in the 1990s demonstrated that they had arrived at the pinnacle of social prowess and cultural importance by buying professional sports teams, hitherto the proud preserve of WASP and Irish magnates. By 1993 the New York football Giants—the most honored name in professional sports—two other National Football League teams, and two of the major league baseball franchises were in Jewish hands.

One of these Jewish owners carried so much weight with the other owners that he engineered the firing of the baseball commissioner and took over as acting commissioner, representing the owners before a congressional committee.

In the 1930s American Jews had thought they were doing well when they produced a couple of boxing champions.

The Jews did not have to show their sweaty bodies anymore; they owned the teams.

Jewish writer Charles Silberman, writing in 1985 in A Certain People, enunciated his own assessment of Jewish media power, particularly in journalism and news management in both print and broadcast media:

All told, the once-scruffy vocation [of journalism] has become an intellectually exciting, reasonably well-paid, prestigious profession in which Jews play an increasingly important role.

In 1982, for example, Jews made up a little less than 6 percent of the national press corps as a whole but 25 to 30 percent of the “media elite”—those working for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal; for Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report; and for the news divisions of CBS, NBC, ABC, and the Public Broadcasting System and its leading stations. (A 1971 study put the number of Jews in the media elite at 25 percent.) When one looks at the key decision-making positions, the Jewish role appears to be even larger.

Jews are equally influential, if less well known, in the management of television news. It is the network correspondents, of course, who have become household names, among them Jews . . .

The greatest concentration of Jews, however, is at the producer level—and it is the producers who decide which stories will go on the air, and how long, and in what order they will run.

In 1982, before a shift in assignments, the executive producers of all three evening newscasts were Jewish, as were the executive producers of CBS’s 60 Minutes and ABC’s 20/20.

And Jews are almost equally prominent at the “senior producer” and “broadcast producer” levels as well as in senior management.

And yet another Jewish writer, Barry Rubin,writing in Assimilation and Its Discontents, noted just one example of how Jewish-oriented “news” and “information” is constantly being featured in the mainstream press:

[The October 18, 1992 reviews section of The Washington Post] is full of books by or about Jews: on sports and the American Jewish experience; a biography of Bill Graham, a Holocaust survivor and leading rock & roll impresario; the story of an upper-class New York family infected by antisemitism; a South African woman’s group portrait of her set of Jewish friends; a Jewish couple’s volume on foreign investments in America, analyzing problems of multiple loyalties and foreign influence parallel issues in assimilation; and a Jewish author’s book on politics in higher education, discussing multiculturalism in terms drawn from the integration of Jews into American society.

All of this is not to mention the amazing array of Jewish (usually virulently pro-Israel) editors and writers contributing to a vast array of “independent” journals of various political stripes—ranging from the “conservative” Weekly Standard to the ostensibly “liberal” New Republic—along with a wide range of other publications in between, all of which fall into line as far as promoting the global demands of the Rothschild Empire and its drive for a New World Order. Likewise with the Internet, such influence hardly needs mentioning.The truth of Jewish media influence cannot be denied.

To republish a list of so many names and publications would belabor the point, but the fact remains that those journalists and publications that seek to challenge the International Jewish Money Power and attempt to throw roadblocks in the path of the intended Jewish Utopia are marginalized and forced to seek independent means to challenge this looming disaster.

Fortunately, there are publications such as American Free Press (americanfreepress. net) and The Barnes Review (barnesreview.com), along with independent Internet-based broadcasting outlets such as Republic Broadcasting (found at republicbroadcasting.org)—along with a host of other resources—but they are dwarfed (sadly) in influence alongside the media cacaphony directed from the highest ranks of the Rothschild Empire.

What is amazing to recognize in considering this tremendous Jewish influence on the media is the fact this is not just a 20th Century phenomenon, not something that came with the rise of the big national (and now international) broadcast companies or the big weekly newsmagazines.

As we have seen repeatedly in these pages, the fact is, as recorded history shows, Jewish influence in the mass media in the nations of the West has been a major factor behind criticisms of “the Jews” and those who did rise up in criticism of Jewish power over the media were singularly pointing in the direction of the International Money Power as personified by the Rothschild Empire in Europe in all of the great capitals.

So the problem of the media has been longstanding. The Washington-based American Free Press has candidly asserted that “The Media Is The Enemy.” It is a problem that cannot be addressed without acknowledging the substantial Jewish influence upon that media.

And as we continue in our examination of the influence of the Rothschild Empire on American shores,we will see that this power expands far beyond just the media itself. In so many ways, America truly has become the engine of the Rothschild Empire and its drive for a Jewish Imperium—The Jewish Utopia—the New World Order.

This grand celebration in 19th Century New York of the pivotal Jewish holiday of Purim commemorates the Old Testament’s Book of Esther which hails the genocide of 75,000 Persians—ancestors of today’s Iranians (who are again a target of the Jewish Utopia). No other Jewish holiday—all of which celebrate the defeat and destruction of non-Jews—better exemplifies the dream of the New World Order than does Purim. Non-Jews know little of the horrific teachings underlying Judaism.
The “New Establishment”—JEWISH
If you think that the United States is run by a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) elite—as some still insist—think again. The reality is very much otherwise, according to an old-line American magazine that did, indeed, once rank as a voice of the so-called“WASP” establishment.

Vanity Fair—the stylish monthly now owned by the billionaire Zionist Newhouse family—publishes an annual list of the 100 most powerful people in America, what Vanity Fair calls “the New Establishment.”

What this amazing list (as published for the year 2007) revealed is a reality that many will find hard to accept: America’s“New Establishment”is overwhelmingly dominated by Jewish figures or those who are on the payroll of or dependent upon Jewish families and financial interests that bankroll the powerful Israeli lobby in America. That conclusion—however “offensive” or “controversial” in the eyes of some people—is inescapable.

Vanity Fair’s 2007 list goes from 1-100, but there are actually 108 names on the entire list, with eight instances where there are two names listed (sometimes one or both names being Jewish, in other cases not).

So on that basis, although there are 62 individuals out of the total 108 listed who are Jewish (meaning that 57% of those listed are Jewish), the actual total of Jewish names actually occupy 62% of the power positions based on the list on a 1-100 basis.

And because there are at least four individuals who may be Jewish, according to some sources (not necessarily reliable, it should be noted),we could extrapolate and say the possible grand total of Jewish names on the list is actually 66—out of 108—meaning that 61% of those on the list are Jewish, occupying 65% of the power slots (on the basis of 1-100).

There are also rumors about Jewish ancestry on the part of at least one of the individuals appearing on the list, but because there is no proof one way or the other,we have not listed that individual as being Jewish.And this means, of course, that if that person is of Jewish descent that the percentage of Jewish names and influence (vis-a-vis that list) would thus increase.

In any event, considering the solid information that is available—rumors and allegations notwithstanding—no matter how one calculates there is absolutely no question that the most powerful members of “the New Establishment”—as perceived by Vanity Fair—are Jewish.

And it should be noted that Vanity Fair’s assessment of who constitutes “the New Establishment” is one critics would be hard-pressed to dispute. This magazine has never been accused of promoting “conspiracy theories” or “anti-Jewish hatemongering” in any way, shape or form. In fact, the magazine is very much considered to be “in” and a “must” read among people who want to be fashionable!

The fact that a Jewish-owned publication has published the names of these Jewish power brokers (without specifically citing their ethnic and religious heritage) is interesting, especially since Israel’s prestigious newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, on Oct. 11, 2007, heralded publication of the list, saying in a headline that “Jewish power dominates [at the] Vanity Fair [list].“ The reporter for the Post, Nathan Burstein, noted:

It’s a list of “the world’s most powerful people,” 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It’s an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power. More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish.

It’s a list, in other words, that would have made earlier generations of Jews jump out of their skins, calling attention, as it does, to their disproportionate influence in finance and the media.

Making matters worse, in the eyes of many,would no doubt be the identity of the group behind the list—not a pack of fringe anti-Semites but one of the most mainstream,glamorous publications on the newsstands. The list would seem to conform to all the traditional stereotypes about areas of Jewish over-representation.

Although the “mainstream”media in the United States failed to note the Jewish prominance on the list— which can correctly be called predominance, since Jewish people are said to be less than even 3% of the American population—the news about the list was widely commented upon in American Jewish community publications.

Joseph Aaron, editor of The Chicago Jewish News, said that his readers should “feel very, very good about” the news that their co-religionists are so powerful in America. In the Vanity Fair list, reproduced here and annotated with factual details regarding those names on the list, the Jewish names appear in italics. And although it is possible that there are other Jewish names on the list, there is no solid research available confirming it.

Also, note, for example, that media baron Rupert Murdoch—who appears at number one on the list—is listed here as being Jewish even though he “officially” is not.

This bears a word of explanation. It is often said that Murdoch traces his Jewish roots through his mother, whose maiden name was Green. Those who say that Murdoch is Jewish cite her family name as“proof”of her Jewish antecedents since the name Green is often Jewish. However, this author’s own source on the matter of Murdoch’s Jewish ancestry—an international businessmen who previously had close ties to Murdoch—has advised that Murdoch’s Jewish ancestry does come from his mother’s side, but that the Jewish blood is not from the Green name itself (as so many believe).

No matter. Whatever his ethnic antecedents, Murdoch has been a frontline supporter of Israel and the global Zionist cause,no surprise considering the fact that his primary financial backers in his rise to power were the powerful Rothschild, Bronfman and Oppenheimer families whom are all very definitely Jewish.(An account of the rise of Murdoch and his media intrigues appears in this author’s earlier work, The Judas Goats.)

Since the release of the list, several Internet sources have alleged that several other names on the list (that are not indicated here as being Jewish) are Jewish; however, our research does not indicate that this is so.The bottom line is that the preponderance of the names are indisputably Jewish, whether the disputed names are or are not.

Also significant is that the roughly 45-50% of the names on the list that are not definitely known to be Jewish or that are clearly non-Jewish are the names of individuals who are directly beholden to Jewish families and financial interests for their own power and privilege. Rupert Murdoch is perhaps the most prominent among this group.

Secondly, in this realm, is Warren Buffett—listed at No. 6. Although not Jewish, he has long been in partnership with the Rothschild Empire and is a primary force in the powerful Washington Post-Newsweek media combine. While the Post is best known as the fiefdom of the American-based Jewish Meyer-Graham family, the evidence indicates that primary behindthe-scenes investors bankrolling the influential Post empire have always operated in the sphere of Rothschild-connected banking interests operating on American soil. The Meyer/Grahams, themselves, are related to the San Francisco-based billionaire Jewish heirs of the Levi Strauss clothing kingdom, which, in turn, is a major force in global advertising revenues.

Seventeen of those listed are either actors, entertainers and television and news media personalities who—while now wealthy as a consequence of their fame—owe their fame (and wealth) to the patronage of the owners of the mass media which made these 17 figures household names: for example, individuals such as Fox News agitator Bill O’Reilly and Steven Colbert, among others.

Three listed—Pinault, listed at 29, and Gagosian and Pigosi—listed at 84 and 86—are figures in the art world, which is known to be dominated by Jewish interests.

Eight others, such as Bernard Arnault (listed at 8), Giorgio Armani (listed at 37), Miuccia Prada (at 44), Karl Lagerfeld (at 52), Martha Stewart (at 54), Oscar de la Renta (at 53) Diego Della Valle (at 63) and Donatella Versace (at 81) are figures in the fashion and perfume industries—both of which are totally dependent on garment manufacturing (dominated almost exclusively by Jewish families and financial interests) and on department store distribution and the advertising industry, both of which are likewise dominated by the same elements.

Two of those listed—Bill Clinton and his former vice president Al Gore—are only politicians—note the clarification “only”—both of whom were installed in their positions of power through the patronage of Zionist financial interests. Note, by the way, that Gore’s daughter, Karenna, has married the great-great grandson of Jewish plutocrat Jacob Schiff, a satellite of the powerful Rothschild family. Informed students of history know that Schiff was instrumental in financing the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

Several others are officers of media giants dominated by Jewish financial interests, acting as well-paid “fronts” for the controllers behind the scenes.

For example, Richard Parsons,an African-American, is listed at 18th place,but he is no more than a front man at Time-Warner.

And as those who know the history of Time-Warner are well aware, that media empire has been dominated since at least the late 1960s, by elements linked to the organized crime syndicate of Jewish gangster, Meyer Lansky (who worked closely with Israel’s Mossad) and to the Lansky-connected liquor empire of Sam Bronfman,longtime chief of theWorld Jewish Congress (WJC),and his son,Edgar Bronfman,who recently retired as head of the WJC. It has been widely asserted that the idea that Jewish families and financial interests were very powerful was “an old wives’ tale,” a “ridiculous anti-Semitic canard with no basis in reality,” said to be the product of a “discredited czarist forgery.”However, the new Vanity Fair assessment suggests otherwise
and reinforces the theme of this author’s earlier work, The New Jerusalem, which had already documented in detail what Vanity Fair has now confirmed:“Zionist power in America.”

In the list from Vanity Fair that follows, those known to be of Jewish extraction are listed in italics.The names of three individuals whose origins are unknown—but who have been said to be Jewish by some sources on the Internet that adopted this list for their use—are in boldface.Those who are definitely not known to be Jewish or of Jewish extraction are in regular type.

The descriptions of the individuals did not originally appear in the Vanity Fair list, but are, instead, annotations by this author, Michael Collins Piper.The list of the individuals follows.

1. Rupert Murdoch, billionaire global media baron financed by the Rothschild, Bronfman and Oppenheimer empires. (The controversy surrounding Murdoch’s apparent Jewish roots was examined earlier.)

2. Steve Jobs, chief executive officer of the worldwide Apple computer conglomerate.
3. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, the Internet giant.
4. Stephen Schwarzman and Pete Peterson, founders of the Blackstone Group, a financial investment giant, representing shadowy cliques of plutocratic predators.
5. Warren Buffett, a longtime U.S. satellite of the European Rothschild family and one of the owners of the Washington Post publishing group.
6. Bill Clinton, former president of the United States.
7. Steven Spielberg, Hollywood producer and director, perhaps the most powerful man in the movie industry.
8. Bernard Arnault, French industrialist whose growing empire produces such luxury label items as Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Dom Perignon, among others.
9. Michael Bloomberg, billionaire New York mayor and possible presidential candidate who made his fortune in the financial news information industry.
10. Bill and Melinda Gates, the husband-and-wife team who are the rulers of the Microsoft computer colossus.
11. Carlos Slim Helú, Fortune magazine says this Mexican billionaire of Lebanese descent is the world’s richest man,controlling 200 companies that account for 7% of Mexico’s gross domestic product.
12. H. Lee Scott, president and chief executive of Wal-Mart. (Note:some Internet versions of this list have suggested Scott is Jewish, but we have not found definitive proof of this, so we err on the side of caution by NOT listing him as Jewish.)
13. Ralph Lauren, fashion industry tycoon.
14. OprahWinfrey, widely promoted television personality.
15. Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg (husband and wife). Diller is a Hollywood figure who is now a major player in the television home shopping business. His wife is a major fashion designer.
16. David Geffen, Hollywood business partner of aforementioned Steven Spielberg and a major movie industry figure in his own right.
17. Howard Stringer, chief executive of the Sony corporation.
18. Richard Parsons, African-American front man was chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors for the Zionist rulers of the Time-Warner media empire. (Recently stepped down.)
19. Al Gore, former vice president of the United States and father-in-law of an heir to the Schiff international banking fortune that financed the Bolshevik Revolution.
20. Larry Ellison, chief executive officer of Oracle, the database software giant known for his patronage of Israeli causes.
21. Herb Allen, head of the influential privately owned investment house of Allen & Co; he convenes an annual conclave of elite industrialists at Sun Valley, Idaho.
22. Jeff Bewkes, recently became CEO at the Time-Warner media empire (which has long been under the influence of the Bronfman family and other Zionist elements).
23. Jeff Bezos, the founder of the Amazon.com book and video Internet powerhouse.
24. Peter Chernin, runs Fox News for Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch’s behind-the-scenes sponsors.
25. Leslie Moonves, head of CBS, the fiefdom of the Sarnoff family.
26. Jerry Bruckheimer, Hollywood producer— major films and weekly television.
27. George Clooney, film star and supporter of liberal causes.
28. Bono, rock star and global poverty activist.
29. François Pinault, luxury brands king/art collector
30. Roman Abramovich, Russian oilman and financial wheeler dealer.
31. Ronald Perelman, billionaire cigar monopoly kingpin and head of the Revlon cosmetics giant.
32. Tom Hanks, actor/producer
33. Jacob Rothschild, global banking tycoon of the famed Zionist family and major behind-the-scenes influence in the United States through such associates as non-JewishWarren Buffett.
34. Robert DeNiro, actor/producer whose mother is Jewish.
35. Howard Schultz, founder of the Starbucks coffee shop chain.
36. Robert Iger, head of the Walt Disney media conglomerate.
37. Giorgio Armani, fashion designer and clothing tycoon.
38. Jeffrey Katzenberg, partner of aforementioned Spielberg and Geffen.
39. Ronald Lauder and Leonard Lauder, rulers of the Estee Lauder cosmetics empire; major figures in theWorld Jewish Congress.
40. George Lucas, Hollywood producer (best known for the Star Wars films and marketing gimmickry empire).
41. Harvey Weinstein and Bob Weinstein, major Hollywood producers.
42. Diane Sawyer and Mike Nichols (husband and wife). Sawyer is a television “news”figure; Nichols, an influential Hollywood producer-director.
43. Bruce Wasserstein, chief of the powerful Zionist investment house of Lazard and owner of NewYork magazine.
44. Miuccia Prada, famed fashion icon and handbag designer.
45. Steven Cohen, hedge fund manager at SAC Capital Advisers.
46.Tom Cruise, actor/producer. (It has been rumored Cruise has some Jewish blood but we do not include him here.)
47. Jay-Z, rapper/entrepreneur
48. Ron Meyer, chief of Universal Studios, now under Bronfman family
empire control.
49. Frank Gehry, architect.
50. Arnold Schwarzenegger, actor-turned-governor of California, closely associated with Rothschild family associateWarren Buffett (see above).
51. Henry Kravis, leveraged buy-out king at Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts; his wife is a major player in the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York-based adjunct of the Rothschild family’s London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs.
52. Karl Lagerfeld, head of the Chanel perfume empire.
53. Oscar and Annette de la Renta, fashion designers.
54. Martha Stewart, popular television personality and home products tycoon.
55. Mickey Drexler, chief of the J. Crew fashion company.
56. Michael Moritz, financier previously associated with Google and former journalist who was San Francisco bureau chief for Bronfman-controlled Time magazine. Holds an interest in Pay Pal and in Yahoo.
57. Brian Roberts, heads Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and second-largest Internet provider.
58. Roger Ailes, runs Fox News channel for Murdoch and associates.
59. Vivi Nevo, Israeli-born international investment tycoon who holds large stakes in Time-Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft. (One of his principal associates is Israeli arms dealer, Arnon Milchan, a major backer of Israel’s secret nuclear weapons development program.)
60. Mick Jagger, rock star.
61. Jeff Skoll, film producer.
62.Vinod Khosla, Indian-born,American-based major investor in “green” technologies such as solar, clean coal, fuel cells and cellulosic ethanol.
63. Diego Della Valle, major figure in the luxury accessories fashion industry, notably the Tod’s shoe company.
64. Stacey Snider, co-chief of DreamWorks, the Spielberg-Geffen-Katzenberg combine in Hollywood.
65. Brian Grazer and Ron Howard, major Hollywood producers.
66. John Lasseter, Disney-Pixar studios.
67. George Soros, infamous international wheeler-dealer.
68. Philippe Dauman,runsViacom media giant for Zionist mogul Sumner Redstone (who also controls CBS).
69. John Malone, runs Liberty Media (Discovery Channel, USA network etc); formerly associated with Jerrold Electronics, founded by Milton Shapp, a devout Zionist who served two terms as governor of Pennsylvania.
70. Sumner Redstone, owner of the Viacom/CBS media giant.
71. Paul Allen, head of Vulcan investment house and co-founder, with Bill Gates (see above) of the Microsoft empire.
72. Eddie Lampert, money manager for major figures in the global elite; member of the secret Skull & Bones fraternity at Yale.
73. Leon Black, major investor with controlling influence at Telemundo, Spanish-language broadcasting, Harrah’s casino empire, and Realogy, which controls real-estate companies such as Coldwell Banker and Century 21.
74. Jann Wenner, owner of Rolling Stone magazine
75. Eric Fellner and Tim Bevan Working Title Films, London. (Note: some Internet versions of this list have suggested Bevan is Jewish, so we err on the side of caution by NOT listing him as Jewish.)
76. Jerry Weintraub, Hollywood producer.
77. Donatella Versace, fashion empire head.
78. Thomas L. Friedman, NewYork Times columnist.
79. Tim Russert, NBC news commentator (now deceased).
80. Charlie Rose, PBS television news commentator and talk show host.
81. Joel Silver, Hollywood film producer.
82. Frank Rich, NewYork Times commentator/ author
83. Jonathan Ive, designer of the iPod, iMac and Iphone. (Note: some have suggested Ive is Jewish, but we have not found definitive proof of this, so we err on the side of caution by NOT listing him as Jewish.)
84. Larry Gagosian, owner of art galleries in NewYork, London and Los Angeles,closely associated with Zionist billionaires such as David Geffen and
S. I. Newhouse Jr., etc.
85. Charles Saatchi, owner of the famed Saatchi Gallery and longtime major figure in the public relations industry.
86. Jean Pigozzi, art collector and longtime close associate of the Rothschild family.
87. Stephen Colbert, television-based political satirist/host.
88. Bill O’Reilly, Fox television conservative talk show host.
89. Jon Stewart, TV personality and pundit.
90. Steve Bing, film producer.
91. Eli Broad, billionaire investor and patron of Zionist causes.
92. Michael Milken, Wall Street predator, ex-convict, and devoted supporter of Israel.
93. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., owner of the New York Times media empire.
94. Ron Burkle, supermarket and media magnate (including Motor Trend and Soap Opera Digest).
95. Scott Rudin, Hollywood producer
96. Jimmy Buffett, singer and musician, branching into investments.

97. Steven Rattner, private equity and hedge fund investor, former reporter for The NewYork Times.
98. Arianna Huffington, writer and television personality.
99. Doug Morris, runs Universal Music for its owners, the Zionist Bronfman family and its wide-ranging empire.
100. Jimmy Iovine, head of Interscope Records and closely associated with aforementioned Zionist music tycoon David Geffen. (Note: multiple Internet sources suggest Iovine is Jewish. However, there is an Italian crime network, the Iovine family. Because of the ambiguities here we have again chosen to err on the side of caution and not include Iovine as Jewish. The fact remains, though, that he is closely associated with Jewish tycoon David Geffen and, of course, it is possible Iovine is of partial Jewish extraction.)

For the record: a version of this list as originally annotated by the author, Michael Collins Piper, has been published in various places on the Internet, but versions of that list have included a number of errors.

This version, as appearing in these pages, should be considered the author’s definitive work on this topic.

Any errors here are mine and mine alone.

And it should also be noted that a subsequent version of the Vanity Fair list of“the New Establishment”—for the year 2008—was notably different in tone. Some “new” names were added—including at least one rich Muslim Arab—and others were removed.

It was apparent that Vanity Fair was clearly trying to take away the “sting” after the preponderance of definitively Jewish names appearing on the 2007 list (described above) was noted by critics of Jewish power—perhaps too often—on the Internet.

But the Vanity Fair list is—in the end—by no means absolute proof of Jewish power operating in the sphere of the Rothschild family. Rather, the totality of all of the other firm evidence of Jewish money and influence that comes from a wide variety of sources—most of them Jewish—confirms precisely the basic conclusions that could be drawn from the “fun” list compiled by the stylish monthly magazine.

America truly has emerged as the New Babylon and is the vehicle by which the dream of a Jewish Utopia—the New World Order—is being utilized to accomplish the fulfillment of that Talmudic agenda by our modern-day Pharisees. (…)

[cliquez pour agrandir l'image - click to see larger picture]

The rare French lithograph from the mid-1880s portrays the Jew as standing at the top of the French social, political and economic pyramid, outranking the king, the nobility, the clergy, the military, the beggars and the peasantry. (Lithograph from the private collection of Michael Collins Piper.)

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Les grandes fortunes familiales qui contrôlent la finance et les affaires

Chapitres XI et XII de The New Babylon (Michael Collins Piper, 2009)…


The “Dukes and Duchesses”
of Rothschild’s American Court:

The Thirty Most Powerful Jewish Families

What follows—in alphabetical order—is our estimation of the 30 most powerful individuals (all of them Jewish but one and virtually all U.S. based) who constitute—along with the Bronfman family—the highest level of those operating as key forces on behalf of the Rothschild Empire. They truly constitute the New Pharisees.

SHELDON ADELSON, although advanced in age, has recently risen to the fore as one of the great leaders of Jewish wealth. Boston-born, he is now a major figure in the Jewish-dominated casino industry in Las Vegas. Although he originally was engaged in the computer trade show industry, he purchased, with partners, the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas in 1988 and now has expanded his holdings to Macao in the People’s Republic of China, a gambling city that had been a Portugese colony until the end of 1999. He is also developing a casino in Singapore. Said to be the third richest person in the United States, worth as much as $26.5 billion, he is a devoted friend of Israel and in 2006 he established a newspaper in Israel, from which he later divested. However, he has since set up a new daily publication in Israel—a free newspaper—entitled HaYom. Reflecting his immense interest in Israel, he also made an unsuccessful attempt to buy a controlling interest in Israel’s prominent Maariv newspaper. Likewise, Adelson is another major financier behind Birthright Israel which provides for young persons of the Jewish faith to travel to occupied Palestine. Adelson’s political inclinations are also reflected by the fact that he has funded a group called Freedom’s Watch which supports the hard-line neo-conservative stands pursued by the corrupt administration of George W. Bush.

ISRAEL HOWARD “IZZY” ASPER, who died in 2003,was the founder of CanWest Global Communications Corporation, which is now in the hands of his children, Leonard, Gail, and David. Born to a Jewish family in Manitoba, Canada, Asper was involved in the Liberal Party and was known—despite the party’s name—for his “conservative” leanings, which are probably reflective of the fact that Asper, a hard-line Zionist, was an admirer of famed “Jewish Nazi” Vladimir Jabotinsky whose philosophy guides the thinking of the Likud Party in Israel (and the like-minded “rival” party, Kadima).Although initially an attorney by profession, Asper went into the media business in 1975 when he assumed ownership of CKND Television in Winnepeg, but within the next 25 years,Asper’s CanWest took control of the daily National Post, as well as more than 60 other Canadian newspapers, along with the Global Television Network. This committed Zionist family extended their influence into the United States when they purchased control of the famed New Republic magazine from Martin Peretz, another hard-line Zionist known for his particularly and unusually close longtime personal relationship with former Vice President Al Gore (who was a student of Peretz when Peretz taught at Harvard). Gore, as we’ve noted in these pages, is now related to the powerful Schiff banking family (a key cog in the Rothschild Empire) through the marriage of Gore’s daughter, Karenna, to an heir to the Schiff fortune.

SAMUEL BELZBERG, the founder of another wealthy Jewish business empire based in Canada, operating alongside the better-known (and more influential) Bronfman family (who were described in considerable detail in the preceding chapter), established and is the chairman and chief executive officer of First City Financial Corporation, Ltd., a full-service financial institution, and he is now president of the Gilbralt Capital Corporation, a private investment company. One of his daughters, Lisa, is married to Matthew Bronfman, son of Edgar Bronfman, and she is reputed to have been a sometime mistress of former President Bill Clinton. Another daughter, Wendy, is married to media entrepreneur Strauss Zelnick. Sam Belzberg has been one of the primary funders of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which has emerged as a major player in worldwide Jewish propaganda and intelligence operations under the guise of “fighting hate.”

ELI BROAD (pronounced as in “road,” incidentally), born in Detroit and now living in Los Angeles,was chief executive officer of Sun America, a real estate empire,and he is ranked as the 42nd richest person in America, worth $5.8 billion. He and his wife Edith,who are strong supporters of Israel, have plowed much of their wealth into educational institutions and are, as a consequence, major figures in directing the course of American education. They are also major players in the world of art, which, institutionally, has long been controlled by Jewish interests.

WARREN BUFFETT, said by Forbes to have been the richest person in the world as of March 5, 2008—worth a staggering $62 billion—is not Jewish, but he is one of the Rothschild Empire’s chief (and obviously wellpaid) henchmen. He is a particularly good friend of London’s Lord Jacob Rothschild. He is a perfect “front” for the Rothschilds, with his Nebraska heritage, his homespun style, and his identification with Berkshire Hathaway shirts, known for its colorful advertising, featuring male models (often celebrities) wearing eyepatches and Berkshire Hathaway shirts. Although Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is identified with its shirts, the company is now a massive holding company for a vast array of assets under the control of this major figure in the American and global stock markets, representing Rothschild interests. And although many people identify the powerful Washington Post newspaper as the family fiefdom of the Meyer-Graham dynasty in Washington, the fact is that Buffett (along with other financial institutions with Rothschild connections) has a substantial interest in the Washington Post Company,publisher of the Washington Post and also (until late 2010) publisher of Newsweek magazine and owner, in addition, of multiple newspaper and broadcasting interests across America. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the Meyer family publishing empire was established by Eugene Meyer, World War I-era war profiteer who later was appointed chairman of the board of governors of the Rothschild-controlled Federal Reserve System and later—appropriately—head of the World Bank. His purchase of the Washington Post at firesale prices in 1933 was almost an afterthought, although a critical one at that, one which firmly ensconced Rothschild influence in official Washington. Meyer was a relative, incidentally, of the Haas family (heirs to the gigantic San Francisco-based Levi-Strauss garment manufacturing empire) and of the grand rabbi of France. (For more on the Meyer-Graham story, see The New Jerusalem by this author, Michael Collins Piper.) In any case, Warren Buffett also holds 7 percent of the Coca-Cola Company, quite a lucrative investment in itself. And what many likewise do not know is that Coca-Cola (despite its identification as a soda manufacturer) has also been deeply engaged in wide-ranging international political intrigue of the highest (and lowest) order, as documented in the hard-to-find work, The Cola Wars, by J. C. Louis and Harvey Z. Yazijian. So there’s even more to the “American” tradition of “Coke” than many realize—and Rothschild asset Warren Buffett is in the midst of it all. Buffett is now transferring many of his assets to the foundation of Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates who many believe is of Jewish heritage but who does not acknowledge it.

RONALD BURKLE. This Los Angeles-based Jewish operator, worth more than $3.5 billion, is a close friend of Bill Clinton (whom he has helped enrich) and, despite his young age (born in 1952), he is one of the primary investors in the retail, manufacturing and distribution industries. He is a board member of Occidental Petroleum which was the oil concern of the late Armand Hammer, the son of a prominent Jewish figure in the Jewish-dominated Communist Party in the United States in the early years of the 20th Century. Hammer later emerged as a preeminent figure in promotion of Soviet interests in the United States, even during the Cold War. (Hammer was also a close friend of the family of former Vice President Al Gore whose daughter, Karenna, as we’ve noted, is married into the family of Jacob Schiff, the New York-based satellite of the Rothschild Empire, who financed the Bolshevik Revolution.) Burkle has also been chairman of the board and a controlling shareholder in Alliance Entertainment, Golden State Food, Dominics, Fred Meyer, Ralph’s and Food4Less. He’s also a member of the board of Yahoo, the Internet empire.

LESTER CROWN, the primary heir to Chicago-based Jewish financier Henry Crown, who died in 1990, is in charge of the family’s enterprises which were based on the fortune of the General Dynamics arms manufacturing company, of which Henry Crown assumed control in 1959. The Crown family now controls Maytag, Hilton Hotels, Alltel, Aspen Skiiing Company, and New York’s Rockefeller Center—yes, even that jewel in the Rockefeller crown. (For more on the truth about who really runs the Rockefeller empire, see MAURICE GREENBERG.) Crown also controls the Chicago Bulls basketball team and has a stake in the New York Yankees baseball team. A major benefactor of the American Jewish community in general, Crown also serves on the board of governors of Tel Aviv University and is a member of the American Committee of the [Israel-based] Weizmann Institute of Science. He has also been a director of TransWorld Airlines and Continental Illinois Bank. In the 1950s the Crown family had a controlling interest in New York’s Empire State Building. A daughter, Susan Crown, is chair of the Shoah Foundation, a Holocaust industry enterprise. The family is altogether worth more than $4 billion and they are especially influential in Israel because they have funded Israel’s nuclear weapons development program. Lester Crown has also chaired the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, an offshoot of the NewYork-based Council on Foreign Relations, the official American affiliate of the Rothschild Empire’s London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs.The Crown family—along with another Chicago based Jewish family, the Pritzkers (See NICHOLAS J.PRITZKER)—are among those described as part of the “inner circle” of the Chicago-based politician, Barack Obama, chosen as U.S. president in the election of 2008. The Crowns and the Pritzkers are key figures in what author Gus Russo candidly described in his book Supermob as a national Jewish crime syndicate.

LARRY ELLISON, in the year 2000,was the richest man in the world. By 2005, with a net worth of $18.4 billion, he was only the ninth richest man in the world. Although his name is not well known, he is nonetheless a major world player as the founder and chief executive of a major software company known as the Oracle Corporation. What is interesting is that prior to his rise to power, Ellison worked in the 1970s for the AMPEX Corporation and during that time frame, one of his projects was a database for the Central Intelligence Agency which he named Oracle. It should be noted that, according to Forbes, Ellison was worth $26 billion in 2007, up rather substantially from his net worth of 2005. Known for a flamboyant lifestyle, Ellison owns the fifth largest yacht in the world, many exotic cars and many private planes, including fighter jets! It is interesting to note that this former operative involved in CIA database operations, at one point following the September 11 terrorist tragedy, offered to donate software to the U.S. government that would build and maintain a national identification database from which national identification cards would be released, a mechanism for Rothschild Empire monitoring and control of the American population.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, whose name is little known to the American public, is one of the richest men in America, and despite the fact that he is now only in his mid-50s, he is very influential in the Rothschild sphere of influence. His company, initially called J. Epstein & Company, later called Financial Trust Company, handles the financial affairs of Jewish billionaires. The New York Times reported on July 1, 2008 that Epstein’s business is “something of a mystery. He says he manages money for billionaires, but the only client he is willing to discuss is Leslie H.Wexner, the founder of Limited Brands . . . . As Mr. Epstein explains it, he provides a specialized form of superelite financial advice. He counsels people on everything from taxes and trusts to prenuptial agreements and paternity suits, and even provides interior decorating tips for private jets. Industry sources say he charges flat annual fees ranging from $25 million to more than $100 million.” Evidently one of young Epstein’s roles in the Rothschild Empire is—like other rising names in Jewish financial circles—to govern institutions long associated with the Rockefeller family name. Epstein is a member of the board of Rockefeller University and he has also been a member of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller,and of the Council on Foreign Relations, widely-known as a “Rockefeller” institution, but which, as we’ve noted repeatedly, is actually an offshoot of the London-based Rothschild entity known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

A primary interest of Epstein’s seems to be the realm of science. In that regard, Epstein has been a benefactor of a number of high profile scientists, many of whom are themselves Jewish. Epstein’s money has gone toward research in physics, research in South Africa and India, and experimentation in microbiology in Bangladesh. One of Epstein’s close friends is Ghislaine Maxwell, herself the daughter of the late corrupt Czech-born Jewish intriguer who came to world prominence under the name “Robert Maxwell” in Britain where he was a major media power, during which time he was engaged in the world of high-level espionage for both Israel’s Mossad and the Soviet KGB. Epstein has also been a close friend, in recent years, of former President Bill Clinton. This seems appropriate, in some respects: Epstein recently pled guilty in Florida state criminal court for inappropriate behavior with several young women. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Among Epstein’s attorneys in his imbroglio were famed Jewish advocate Alan Dershowitz, one of the most outspoken Judeo-supremacists today, and Kenneth Starr, who bears the distinction of having been the chief tormentor of Epstein’s friend, Bill Clinton. Despite this setback Epstein remains powerful and will soon return to the center of the global Jewish elite.

STEPHEN FEINBERG. Described by Israel’s Ha’aretz as “a New York Jew with a golden touch,” Feinberg controls the New York-based holding company Cerberus Global Investments,which, in 2006,purchased the Israeli government’s interest in Bank Leumi, the second largest bank in Israel. The Israeli newspaper said that proceeds from Feinberg’s purchase will go toward “paying off Israel’s high national debt.” In fact, Epstein’s Cerberus venture is quite substantial. The Oct. 3, 2005 issue of Business Week described Cerberus as being “bigger” than even such well known business giants as McDonald’s, 3M, Coca-Cola and Cisco Systems and noting that Cerberus controls some 226 Burger King restaurants, the National and Alamo car rental chains, building products maker Formica Corp. and the old Warner Hollywood Studios (which, incidentally, has been passed back and forth between various Jewish interests—primarily elements of outright organized crime—for several generations). Another major player in Feinberg’s operations is New York-based Jewish financier Michael Steinhardt (See MICHAEL STEINHARDT). And what is of particular interest is that two powerful American political figures are closely associated with Feinberg’s operations: former Vice President Dan Quayle and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Quayle is Feinberg’s front man, serving as chairman of the board of Cerberus,and,according to Ha’aretz, Feinberg is a “shy wunderkind” who “makes himself scarce around photographers and sends underlings like Cerberus chair Dan Quayle to sign his deals.” As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, what should disturb Americans is that Rumsfeld (while serving as defense secretary) was an investor in Epstein’s Cerberus as far back as 2001—well before the American invasion of Iraq (of which Rumsfeld was a foremost advocate), after which time Cerberus profited from setting up military base camps in Iraq.

MAURICE GREENBERG. Although the famed name “Rockefeller” has come to represent, in America (and worldwide), since the late 19th Century, vast wealth and influence, the fact is that, as the generations of the Rockefellers have passed onward, the family’s wealth has substantially diminished as it has been distributed among the younger generations. In addition, what is not generally known is that a New York-based Jewish billionaire, Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, has essentially emerged as the real prime mover behind the remnants of the Rockefeller Empire in a variety of spheres, along with his son Jeffrey Greenberg, former chairman and CEO of the Marsh & McClennan Company, and his other son, Evan G. Greenberg, president and CEO of Ace Limited. These firms, together with their father’s company, American International Group (once said to be the world’s largest insurance and financial services corporation), in fact, control a major portion of the insurance industry.

What is interesting is that Greenberg, Sr.,who serves as an honorary director and as vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—long viewed as the primary Rockefeller-sponsored foreign policy arm—is, in fact, the prime power within the CFR today, although, of course, David Rockefeller, now well advanced in years, still remains a nominal figurehead at the CFR. In addition, Greenberg is also active in theTrilateral Commission, another foreign policy pressure bloc, founded by David Rockefeller. Greenberg is a longtime close associate of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger whose rise to prominence came at the patronage of David Rockefeller and the circles surrounding the CFR which, as noted earlier, is no more than a New York-based “junior cousin” of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild Empire, through which the Rothschild Dynasty issued directives to the British Foreign Office for the advancement of Rothschild interests across the globe.

The relationship between Greenberg and Kissinger was so close, in fact, that, at one point, Kissinger was chairman of AIG’s international advisory board. Not surprisingly, this immensely powerful Jewish prince, Greenberg, was a past chairman, deputy chairman and director of the Federal Reserve Bank of NewYork, and, accordingly,he has also been involved at high levels in several institutions founded by the Rockefeller family including the Asia Society, Rockefeller University, and the Museum of Modern Art. Greenberg is currently chairman of C.V. Starr & Company and it is interesting to note that Greenberg was forced to resign from his post as chairman and CEO of AIG as a consequence of criminal charges filed against him by no less than then-New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Later, of course, Spitzer was elected governor of New York largely on the basis of his reputation as a “giant killer,” but, of course, in the spring of 2008 he was “watergated” out of office, after which even the prestigious Jewish newspaper, Forward, commented that— despite his Jewish heritage—Spitzer had never really identified himself with Jewish concerns and was considered distant by the Jewish community at large, perhaps explaining, in part,why this powerful Jewish public figure was ceremonially “executed.” In any case, while Spitzer fell, Greenberg remains one of the most powerful Jews on the face of the planet, perhaps, in some ways,one to be described as the Rothschild Empire’s chief administrator of the American circles and spheres of influence surrounding the remnants of the Rockefeller family’s operations. In the fall of 2008—just prior to the U.S. presidential election—Greenberg’s intrigues once came into public scrutiny. His longtime fiefdom, AIG, was central to the gigantic (largely Jewish-connected) financial scandals that shattered the American economy, threatening to bring collapse to yet another Western outpost—the United States—recalling Jewish philosopher and historian Max Dimont’s provocative suggestion that the Jewish people have a history of surviving the collapse of civilizations and that they will ultimately come to reign supreme over the planet. In this respect, then, some might wonder if the collapse ofWall Street—under Jewish domination— is not then part of the final chapter, a deliberate scheme to, in some way, further the aim of establishing The Jewish Utopia.

THE HAAS FAMILY are the heirs to the Levi-Strauss garment fortune and cumulatively the members of the family are certainly among the wealthiest in the United States. They are also related to the Meyer family who are primary figures in the Washington Post Company along with non-Jewish Rothschild family front man,Warren Buffett. (See WARREN BUFFETT.) The Haas family are relatively low-key but quite powerful as a result of their combined wealth which dwarfs that of so many other non-Jewish Americans.

HENRY R.KRAVIS and GEORGE R.ROBERTS. Kravis, the son of a Jewish oil engineer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and his cousin, Roberts, teamed up with Jerome Kohlberg, Jr. in New York City to set up Kohlberg, Kravis & Roberts and Company from which they became internationally known for their involvement in leveraged buyouts. They were known as “the kings of the junk bonds.” Kohlberg left the firm but Kravis and Roberts continue to be primary figures in the institution.They were known for their leveraged buyout of the RJR Nabisco Company which became the subject of a book and film, Barbarians at the Gate. Among the companies that Kravis has been ssociated with over the years, buying and selling them, are: First Data Inc., Toys R Us, Duracell Batteries, Safeway, Beatrice Foods, Playtex,Texaco, and HCA Inc., the health care provider. Kravis’ wife, Marie-Josee, was a Canadian columnist and television personality, who, along with her husband, has been active in the “neo-conservative” (that is, hard-line Zionist) Hudson Institute in the United States and known for their involvement in Republican Party affairs. Both Mr. and Mrs. Kravis are active members of the Council on Foreign Relations and have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group, which meets annually, sponsored by the Rothschild Empire and its satellites in the Rockefeller family. Kravis himself is a vice chairman of Rockefeller University, placing him among that group of Jews who have supplanted the Rockefellers within numerous institutions initially sponsored by that family.

RONALD LAUDER is said to be worth $3 billion. He and his brother, Leonard, are the heirs to the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune. Lauder has long been connected to Republican Party affairs, having served during the Reagan administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy at the Pentagon. Later, President Reagan appointed Lauder as U.S.Ambassador to Austria. At one point, he made a failed bid to become mayor of New York City, only to lose to no less than a leading voice for the Jewish interests, non-Jewish Rudy Giuliani, in the GOP mayoral primary. Particularly involved in Jewish intrigues, Lauder runs the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation that focuses on Jewish affairs in Eastern and Central Europe. He also has investments in the Eastern European media and in Israeli television. He is involved in multiple Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Theological Seminary and in 2007 he was elected president of the World Jewish Congress. It is also worth noting that Lauder’s daughter, Jane, is married to Kevin Warsh, a member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System.

S. I. NEWHOUSE and his brother DONALD NEWHOUSE are the heirs to the publishing fortune established by their late father. As of 2007, Forbes ranked Newhouse and his brother to be the 37th richest Americans, with their wealth estimated to be as much as $8 billion. Their late father Sam Newhouse had long-standing ties to organized crime. The Newhouse media holdings are so expansive that they bear listing:


• The Birmingham News
• The Mobile Press
• The Mobile Press Register
• The Mobile Register


• The New Orleans Times-Picayune


• The Ann Arbor News
• The Flint Times
• The Grand Rapids Press
• The Kalamazoo Gazette
• The Saginaw News
• The Times (Bay City)


• The Mississippi Press (Pascagoula)
• The Mississippi Press Register (Pascagoula)

New Jersey

• The Jersey Journal (Jersey City)
• The Star-Ledger (Newark)
• The Times (Trenton)

New York

• The Herald-American (Syracuse)

• The Plain-Dealer (Cleveland)

• The Oregonian

• The Patriot-News (Harrisburg)
• The Juniata Sentinel
• The Perry County Times
• The Duncannon Record
• The News-Sun (Perry County)


• Allure
• American City Business Journals
(28 local weekly business newspapers)
• Architectural Digest
• Bon Apetit
• Bride’s
• Conde Nast Traveler
• Details
• Gentlemen’s Quarterly
• Glamour
• Gourmet
• Mademoiselle
• Parade magazine (the famous Sunday supplement)
• The New Yorker
• Vanity Fair
• Vogue

RONALD PERELMAN. Probably best known as the head of the Revlon cosmetics empire, Perelman was actually said, at one point, to be the richest man in America. As of 2007, however, Forbes magazine demoted him to the status of being only the 28th richest American (and the 87th richest person in the world),worth somewhere in the range of $9 billion. His primary front operation is MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings (no relation, apparently, to the aforementioned Forbes publishing company). This, of course, sounds like a very staid old-line White Anglo Saxon Protestant investment firm but it is anything but that. Perelman is a very devout Jew with tendencies in the Orthodox realm and is a strong supporter of numerous Jewish charities. He spends three hours every Jewish sabbath in prayer and even keeps a kosher home. One of his favorite charities is the Chabad Lubavich group,one of the more hard-line Jewish sects.What is remarkable about Perelman is the wide range of his investments. He came from a relatively well-to-do family in the first place. His father’s family controlled the American Paper Products corporation and later bought Belmont Iron Works, a manufacturer of structural steel, a corporation in which Perelman learned the business of business. He later majored in business and received a master’s degree in business from the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton School. Businessman that he is, Perelman has branched out into many fields. He has purchased television stations and entertainment companies such as Genesis Entertainment.He has also purchased major amounts of stock in the famous Sunbeam corporation, although that company later filed for bankruptcy. He was also a major owner of Consolidated Cigars, a holding company which owns numerous cigar brands. Perelman is also said to have made between $600 million and $1.2 billion by diving into the savings and loan crisis and buying a number of insolvent operations and then restructuring them for his own profit. Among other things, Perelman is the owner of the Marvel Entertainment Group which produces comic books and all of the inter-related marketing gimmicks stemming from them. He has also purchased the companies, Skybox International and the Fleer Corporation which are in the baseball card business, as well as the Italian sticker manufacturer, the Panini group, which produces sports-related items. And while one does not normally think about this, the fact is the comic book industry provides a major outlet for political propagandizing. So Perelman, in his own fashion, is a major force in the Rothschild sphere of influence.

NICHOLAS J. PRITZKER is today the head of the Chicago-based Pritzker family fortune (long tied to Jewish organized crime) and is chairman of his family’s Hyatt Development Corporation, the hotel chain. The family also controls the Trans-Union Credit Bureau (a major source of “inside” data on millions of people for use by the Rothschild Empire) and Caribbean Cruise Lines. Their fortune is tremendous and, although the subject of nasty legal disputes among the family, remains one of the powerful fortunes in the global Jewish elite. The Pritzkers—along with the aforementioned Crown family of Chicago (See LESTER CROWN)—are among those described as being part of the “inner circle” of newly-elected U.S. President Barack Obama.

SUMNER REDSTONE, born in Boston,was the son of Michael Redstein, owner of the Northeast Theater Corporation, which later became National Amusements.Although Redstone initially practiced law and worked for the U.S. Department of Justice in San Francisco, he opted to go into his father’s company,where he began making investments in such film production companies and studios as Columbia Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Orion Pictures, and Paramount Pictures. Ultimately Redstone assumed control of Viacom International, which had been a spin-off of CBS. Later, through Viacom, Redstone actually assumed control of the aforementioned film companies, and today Viacom is one of the largest media companies on the face of the earth.Among its holdings are Blockbuster Entertainment and now CBS itself,which Redstone acquired in 2000. Redstone is said to be the 86th richest person in the world and worth $9 billion.

SAMUEL REICHMANN, a Jewish immigrant from Hungary, was the founder of another legendary Canadian-based Jewish fortune which has been particularly influential in North American affairs. Based in Montreal, home base of the Bronfman family (see previous chapter for more on that family). Reichmann’s heirs include his sons Paul, Ralph, Albert, Louis and Edward (who emigrated to Israel and who is now deceased) and daughter Eva. The primary source of Reichmann wealth was construction and property development. They were responsible for the construction of First Canadian Place, which was Canada’s tallest building and their holdings reached abroad, including New York and Tokyo and at one point they were the biggest developers in the world. Although their Olympia & York empire ultimately went into bankruptcy, the Reichmanns are very wealthy and remain influential in global affairs. They are known for their immense devotion to their Orthodox Jewish heritage, so much so that even in the midst of their development of buildings and other real estate projects, construction would stop on the Jewish holy days.They have been associated in international partnerships with such Jewish wheeler-dealers as George Soros and Laurence Tisch, among others (See GEORGE SOROS and LAURENCETISCH).

HAIM SABAN, worth more than $3 billion, is an Egyptian-born Jew whose family emigrated to Israel in 1956—and who now resides in Beverly Hills and Israel—was said by Forbes to be the 102nd richest person in America. Starting out as a television producer, Saban partnered with Rothschild front-man Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and sold Fox Family Worldwide to the Walt Disney Company. The sale of this network, since renamed the ABC Family Channel,was the largest transaction in history between a company and an individual and Saban made a profit of $1.6 billion as a result. He is currently a leader of the investment group which took control of Univision, the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States making this Egyptian-born dual U.S.-Israeli citizen a primary figure in directing the course of the increasingly important Spanish-language media in the United States and thus having major political clout over the Spanish-speaking population which Jewish groups and their spokesmen have often indicated could prove a threat to Jewish interests (primarily because of their historic ties to the Roman Catholic faith). Saban funds the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Saban once admitted candidly to the New York Times: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”

SASSOON FAMILY. Another of the Babylonian Jewish families, and later intermarried with the Rothschilds, an early leader of the Sassoon dynasty was the banker for the provincial governor of Baghdad and later his son went on to Bombay, India. At that time the Sassoons branched out to Burma, Malaya and East Asia. It is said that in each branch of the Sassoon banking houses, which intertwined with the opium trade, there was maintained a rabbi. The Sassoons also extended into China with offices in Hong Kong and Shanghai and it should be noted that the Chinese nationalist figure, Chang Kai Shek was married to the daughter of T.V. Soong who was an official of a Sassoon family bank. The Sassoons are a critical extension of the Rothschild Empire throughout Asia.

WALTER SHORENSTEIN might be referred to as“The Jewish King of San Francisco.” A real estate tycoon said to be worth about $1 billion, Shorenstein was the largest operator of commercial real estate in San Francisco for many years and is believed to control about 25% of the city’s downtown, where real estate prices have skyrocketed. Today, in his 80s, Shorenstein’s empire is now being run by his son Douglas. Shorenstein has been well known nationally in the sense that he has been a major financial donor to the Democratic Party, although, obviously grass-roots Democrats in America’s small towns and rural communities have never heard of this Jewish maven. A major propaganda initiative by Shorenstein to influence public affairs is the funding of an outfit (named after his deceased daughter) called the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F.Kennedy School of Government. So Shorenstein has long been a major player in a major city where Jewish money has long been supreme. It is no accident that Roy Bullock—the Anti-Defamation League’s longtime chief undercover operative, targeting American dissidents who challenged Israeli influence and Jewish power—operated out of San Francisco. (For a study of the ADL and a personal account by author Michael Collins Piper of his own encounters with Bullock, see The Judas Goats.)

GEORGE SOROS, the Hungarian born stock speculator and predator, in recent years, has put himself forth as a “liberal” figure in American political affairs. Ranked by Forbes as the 80th richest person in the entire world, worth an estimated $8.5 billion, he has served on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York outpost of the Rothschild Empire. His international money rackets have rightly led him to be attacked by many influential nationalists around the world, in particular, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Dr.Mahathir Mohamad.Nationalists in Thailand called Soros “an economic war criminal who siphoned the blood from the people.” One major Soros project has been to “spread democracy” in Eastern Europe and he has also attempted to interfere in the political affairs of Russia during the time when Russia’s nationalist premier Vladimir Putin was challenging the intrigues of the Rothschild Empire and its tentacles among the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (many of whom hold dual Russian-Israeli citizenship). Soros has been a “critic of Israel” and has expressed concerns about “anti- Semitism,” acknowledging that worldwide concerns about Jewish power stem from disenchantment with Israel’s treatment of Christian and Muslim Palestinian Arabs. He has openly acknowledged that U.S. support for Israel has contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism and that individuals such as himself who are involved in the global financial community have been the subject of “anti-Semitic” rhetoric. By virtue of his substantial funding for a number of “liberal” organizations that challenged George W. Bush’s administration, Soros has effectively sought to co-opt those institutions and individuals in an effort to redirect attention away from Jewish intrigues by playing the role of “Jewish critic” of “the neo-conservatives.”

MICHAEL H.STEINHARDT, born in Brooklyn, emerged as one of the first prominent figures in the hedge fund financial business. Steinhardt has admitted that he launched his early career with funding from his father, Sol Frank “Red” Steinhardt, who was the number one “fence” of stolen jewelry in New York City, closely associated with Jewish crime syndicate chief Meyer Lansky. Steinhardt said that his father would give him envelopes stuffed with $10,000 in cash—something that the average working middle-class American has never seen. Steinhardt has even implied that his own education at the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania may have also been funded by his father’s organized crime activities. In any event, Steinhardt is now an immensely wealthy man who is known for his devotion to Jewish causes, perhaps best exemplified by his funding of the hard-line pro-Israel daily, The New York Sun, which is “neoconservative” in its outlook.This scion of crime is also a board member of the Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies, which he has actively funded. This is the project of Clifford May, an ex-journalist-turned-profes- sional propagandist for the global Jewish agenda. Steinhardt is also past chairman of the so-called “centrist” Democratic Leadership Council. He has also chaired his own Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life and also Taglit Birthright Israel, which funds travel to Israel by young Jewish Americans. Today Steinhardt is chairman of Wisdom Tree Investments which manages some $5 billion and was said to be growing by some 10 percent a month.

ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER, JR. Born in 1951, Sulzberger is the publisher of the New York Times and chairman of The New York Times Company, heir to the Sulzberger family which made the Times the foremost daily newspaper in America. Traditionally liberal, the Times is likewise the premier voice—perhaps in the world—for the interests of Jews in general and of the Rothschild Empire and its global concerns. To say more about the influence of this newspaper empire and its family would belabor matters.

LAURENCE TISCH AND PRESTON TISCH, the founders of the modern dynasty, were part owners of the Loew’s Entertainment Corporation. Preston was actually postmaster general of the United States from 1986 to 1988. The Tisch brothers were also key figures in the CBS entertainment empire and their heirs remain prominent players in global Jewish affairs.

SANFORD I.WEILL is not a household name but he is one of the major Jewish financiers. At one point he served as chairman and CEO of City Group, Inc. which are American satellites of the Rothschild-controlled banking institutions in “The City” of London. (See elsewhere in these pages for a detailed analysis of “The City.”) Those American banking groups with the preface “City” in their names were always extensions of Rothschild banks in London.Weill rose to power in the mid-1960s and 1970s when he merged his own firm with other firms to establish Shearson-Loeb-Rhodes, a modern incarnation of the old German-Jewish (so-called “Our Crowd”) New Yorkbased Loeb banking enterprise (not to be confused, incidentally, with Kuhn- Loeb, another of the “Our Crowd” network). In the early 1980s,Weill sold Shearson-Loeb-Rhodes to American Express but in 1993 he reacquired his old company, now known as Shearson-Lehman (and Lehman, of course,was the name of yet another New York-based “Our Crowd” banking institution in the sphere of the Rothschild Empire). In 1997 he assumed control of Salomon Inc., the parent company of the famed Jewish banking Salomon Brothers firm. Weill called his new company Shearson-Lehman-The Travelers Group which then merged with CitiCorp, which is how Weill came to assume management of that concern. Weill, said to be worth $1.9 billion, was also named a“Class A”director of the Federal Reserve Bank of NewYork City. He is, beyond question, a key administrator of the Rothschild Empire.

SAMUEL ZELL, said to be worth $6 billion and the 52nd richest American began his rise to influence in real estate. At one point, his company Equity Residential was the largest owner of apartments in the United States; a related company was the largest owner of office space in the nation. He also was a major player in the mobile home industry, through his corporation, Manufactured Home Communities. This son of Jewish immigrants from Poland has also moved into media and he is now a key player in Anixter International which is the world’s largest distributor of communications products and electronic wire and cable.What is most notable is that, in 2007,Zell grabbed control of theTribune Company, publisher of such august American newspapers as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and New York’s Newsday. He also owns the Chicago Cubs baseball team (which is owned by the Tribune Company). The foul-mouthed Zell has been described by the distinguished Jewish weekly, Forward, as a “committed Zionist” and he has made many multimillion dollar donations to Israeli academic institutions and has been funding the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress which is considered to be “right wing.” Not surprisingly, Zell has also been a financial backer of the hardline right wing American Jewish Committee and he has been known for a tendency toward making political donations to Republican Party interests. However, like all Jewish power brokers, he is open to making donations to the Democratic Party as well. Recently it was announced that Zell was taking the Tribune Company into bankruptcy, having devastated that American institution. His employees apparently will face the loss of much of their pension funds.

KHEDORI ZILKHA was, for many years, the modern-day patriarch of this family of Jews who trace their origins back to Babylon.They were among the Jewish princes who reigned in Babylon and remained there after the end of their exile there. Zilkha was described by the Judeo-centric New York Sun newspaper (owned in part by Jewish crime syndicate heir, Michael Steinhardt—See MICHAEL STEINHARDT) as being “a towering figure who bestrode the financial landscape of the Middle East, Europe, America and Asia and became an important player in international banking.” Yet, how many Americans have ever heard of the Zilkha family? The dynasty is ruled today by Ezra Zilkha who said, “My family were proud members of the Jewish community that Nebuchadnezzar established. When the Babylonian captivity ended and many Jews returned to Jerusalem, my ancestors stayed behind. I am always conscious of history. My sensibilities are rooted in antiquity.” This family are among those most powerful and wealthy forces within the Rothschild Empire, loyal to their Talmudic roots and the Talmud’s dream of worldwide Jewish domination. The New York Sun has even described Ezra Zilkha himself as “a living legend.”

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN. This character, a key figure in the Jewish power network, has risen to supreme influence by virtue of his position as a former president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. That alone makes him a significant power, not only within the “Zionist” movement, but within the entire Jewish community in the United States and, consequently, in the whole world. However, he has extended his role and influence through his involvement in the mass media in America. Zuckerman, of course, is best known as the publisher of US News & World Report, one of the venerable and once-traditionally conservative voices in the American press, long considered the “conservative alternative” to the liberal Time and Newsweek, although many honest media critics would raise the question as to how truly “liberal” Time and Newsweek really ever were. In any case, under Zuckerman’s influence, US News & World Report, particularly in the commentaries by Zuckerman that appear in its pages, has become a hardline voice for Israel and its international aims. Zuckerman began as a builder and real estate operator in Boston in early partnership with elements circling in the sphere of the Bronfman family of Canada and it was through this that he accumulated his initial fortune. Today Zuckerman controls such other American institutions as the New York Daily News and he did, until recently,own the Atlantic. Zuckerman has been ranked as the 188th wealthiest American. He has been active in the “NewYork office” of the Rothschild Empire’s Royal Institute of International Affairs known as the Council on Foreign Relations and in the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. True to the tradition of the Rothschild Empire, Zuckerman has helped seed other Jewish fortunes, most notably that of his special protege, Daniel Snyder, best known as owner of the Washington Redskins football team. Snyder is a remarkable case study. Backed by Zuckerman and through his Snyder Communications, a small family enterprise, young Snyder set up “boiler room” operations all over the United States gathering the names of Spanish-surnamed Americans (legal and illegal), compiling lists of those names, and then marketing calling cards, longdistance programs, mortgages, car loans and credit card offers to them.This was probably the first-ever such name-gathering operation of its kind, vis-a-vis the burgeoning Latino population in the U.S. and it not only enriched Snyder (making him a billionaire!) and the Rothschild Empire but also set in place a special degree of influence over this demographic entity which is increasingly powerful by virtue of its numbers.This is not something widely known, not even to the Latinos, but something they do need to know. So these are the “Dukes and Duchesses”—the highest ranks—of the Rothschild Court. Let us now examine the“third”tier—the“lords and ladies” who are part of the Rothschild dynasty’s royal court.


[cliquez pour agrandir l'image - click to see larger picture]

The rare French lithograph from the mid-1880s portrays the Jew as standing at the top of the French social, political and economic pyramid, outranking the king, the nobility, the clergy, the military, the beggars and the peasantry. (Lithograph from the private collection of Michael Collins Piper.)


The “Lords and Ladies”
of the American Jewish Aristocracy:

The Third Tier of the Rothschild Court Families

The information that follows is based largely on profiles of roughly 180 specifically named (and many of them inter-connected) Jewish families that appeared in a “special tribute issue” (dated 1997-1998, Vol. 21, No. 10) of the NewYork-based Avenue magazine—a“society” journal with little circulation outside the realm of those who thrive on reading about the fashions and foibles of the power elite.

That special issue, titled “Portraits of Family Achievement in the American Jewish Community,” highlighted the names and ventures of American Jewish families, focusing on those who have been active in the Jewish community and its multiple philanthropic and political enterprises. Now, please note that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of Jewish community organizations and other entities, both local and national. Although there are a handful of Jewish groups such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith that frequently appear in the mainstream media, largely in the context of “political”news, there are many more such entities that are rarely ever mentioned except in Jewish community newspapers which, of course, are not “everyday” reading for the average American.

And as far as the term “philanthropic”—as used here—is concerned, the term is used quite loosely, for many—if not most—of the Jewish families are largely philanthropic only toward specifically Jewish charities, although there are exceptions.

The Avenue list—as rendered here—does not reference many of the multiple charities, both here in the United States (both Jewish and non-Jewish in orientation) and in Israel, that the named families have funded to much acclaim. Only where one particular family is closely associated with a particular “cause” have we included that information.

Note, too, that most of the named families seem—based on the Avenue report—to have established one closely held family foundation or another, utilizing those foundations to support a variety of causes. Most—but not all—of those causes are Jewish in nature and, quite often, connected to the state of Israel and various agencies and institutions in that country. And a few of the names—it might be noted—have already been referenced, in fact, in the summary list in the previous chapter.

Thus, needless to say–with perhaps only a handful of exceptions—the names listed here constitute the “wealthiest of the wealthy” (and therefore most powerful) among the American Jewish elite, but this is not to suggest that the names that appear here do indeed constitute a formal list of “the richest Jews in America.” Far from it! In fact, there are many other quite well-to-do enterprisers, so to speak, of Jewish origin who do not make the headlines.There are many wealthy Jewish crime figures, for example, who prefer a low profile and do not seek to publicize themselves or their donations to Jewish philanthropies. And, in that regard, it’s unlikely that Avenue magazine would be prepared to laud the “accomplishments” of a Jewish crime figure. So the Avenue list is incomplete in that regard.

Now, in regard to the list, note that you will not find Henry Kissinger, for example, on the list. Certainly wealthy and powerful, Kissinger’s wealth and power has always come as a result of his having moved in the sphere of wealthy and powerful people. Kissinger is a political figure and, as such, is nothing more than a well-paid functionary of the Rothschild Dynasty. Kissinger’s fame and “accomplishments” are a creation of the Jewish controlled media, in many respects, but unlike many who do appear on the Avenue list, he is not one of the media’s owners, per se. And that may be just enough of a distinction for Kissinger not to be included. Although Kissinger serves on many corporate boards—including media entities—he has always been more of a public figure (who happens to be Jewish) who acts as a facilitator for the powers behind the scenes rather than a genuine “mover and shaker” on his own.Without the patronage of powerful sponsors, Kissinger would be nothing more than just another colorful Jewish academic. In addition, for the reader’s consideration, there’s another factor that might be noted: Henry Kissinger’s rise to fame came in the immediate sphere of the Rockefeller family which has always essentially been operating as a satellite of the Rothschild Empire, despite occasionally having independent interests of its own at stake.

And in all fairness to the numerous American Jewish millionaires—and perhaps billionaires—who have not been honored by Avenue’s list of “family achievement,”and who are not necessarily involved in criminal misdeeds, it should be noted that many of those achievers have accumulated a great deal of wealth but have not sought public acclaim, recognition in society magazines or honors from their own Jewish community.


So, there are certainly many more Jewish fortunes that have gone unmentioned in the list compiled by Avenue. But the list that Avenue did compile is extensive indeed and certainly as far as being a record of the major players—finance-wise—in Jewish “high society” the Avenue list is a valuable record. (This author, frankly, has never seen anything so complete.) It is probably safe to say that although Jewish names make up a considerable portion of the annual Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest families in America, a secondary list of what one might call “the Forbes 800”—that is, a list of the next group of 400 wealthy families following the initial 400— would undoubtedly include virtually all of the names that appear on the Avenue list summarized here. In short, although there is a great deal of Jewish wealth accumulated at the very top, there is an even greater accumulation in the much wider “middle ground” of wealthy American families. All of this having been said, let us review the “lords and ladies” of the Jewish aristocracy—the “third tier” (so to speak) of the Rothschild Court:

ABESS. Miami, Florida. Control the City National Bank of Florida. Members include Leonard Abess and Allan Abess, Jr.

ALTHEIM. New York City. Philip and Barbara Altheim control Forest Electric, a subsidiary of EMCOR and the largest electric construction company in the world. Sons and daughters include Marc, Jill and Gary.

ANNENBERG. Philadelphia. Long headed by the late Walter Annenberg, who served as US Ambassador to England, appointed by Richard Nixon. Triangle Publications empire. Published TV Guide and Philadelphia Inquirer.

ARISON. Miami. Israeli-born Theodore “Ted” Arison founded the Carnival Cruise Lines. Ted’s son Micky now controls the family empire which includes the cruise line, hotels, resorts and Miami Heat basketball team. Ted Arison returned to Israel.

ARNOW-WEILER. Boston. Russian-born Jack Weiler partnered with Benjamin Swig in commercial development, grabbing more than seven million square feet. Daughter Joan and husband Robert Arnow and their son David now rule the empire.They have a son, Noah.

BARNETT. Fort Worth, Texas. Operated Hilton Hotels in Israel. Louis Barnett and his wife Madlyn (nee Brachman.See BRACHMAN) have son Eliot who is involved in shopping center development. Family also involved in real estate, pharmaceuticals and oil. Family funds Barnett Institute of Biotechnology at Northeastern University.

BELFER. New York. Refugees from Poland, Arthur and Rochelle Belfer founded the family now headed by Robert Belfer and daughters Selma Ruben and Anita Saltz. Arthur Belfer was involved in oil and natural gas which later evolved into the infamous Enron corporation. [For more on Enron’s “Jewish Connection” see The New Jerusalem by Michael Collins Piper.] Son Robert was on Enron executive committee but escaped media attention.

BELZ. Memphis. Belz Enterprises and the Peabody Hotel (Memphis) Group are part of the family’s holdings established by Philip Belz who dabbled in real estate and management. His son Jack Belz and wife Marilyn maintain the family’s affairs. Their daughter Jan, married to Andrew Groveman, is coming into her own, active in Soviet Jewish emigration.

BELZBERG. Canada-New York-Israel. Sam Belzberg heads Gibralter Capital corporation.Wife: Frances. Daughter Wendy (an editor at the influential Jewish newspaper, Forward, is married to Strauss Zelnick, head of BMG Records. Daughter Lisa is married to Matthew Bronfman (See BRONFMAN). The family are original financial backers of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Their former rabbi, Marvin Heir, left Canada to go to Los Angeles where Heir set up the Center.

BENARD-CUTLER. Boston. Along with his partners—Sheldon Adelson, Irwin Chafetz and Dr. Jordan Shapiro—Ted Benard-Cutler runs the Interface Group, developer of Comdex, a global trade show for computers and communications industries. Comdex was sold to the Japanese Softbank Corporation in 1995. Benard-Cutler and Chafetz now are heading GWV International which sets up tour packages for New England. Benard-Cutler and his wife Joan have sons Joel and Robert and daughter Ellen Colmas.

BERNHEIM. New York. Stockbroker Leonard Bernheim was outshone socially by his wife Elinor Kridel Bernheim who was active in New York Jewish affairs as are their sons Charles and Leonard.

BINSWANGER. Philadelphia. Isidore Binswanger was founder of Maimonides College, the first rabbinical college on American shores. Son Frank established a giant international real estate company with 20 offices throughout the U.S. and Canada.Also active in Japan and elsewhere in Asia and Europe. Frank Jr. and John Binswanger are active in the family company. Son Robert heads the graduate school of education at Dartmouth.

BLACK. New York. Leon Black is a former managing director of Drexel Burnham Lambert and now president of Apollo Advisors LP and its affiliate Lion Advisor, LP.Wife Debra is prominent in Jewish affairs.

BLAUSTEIN. Baltimore. Louis Blaustein started off as a kerosene peddler, branching out to found American Oil Company (AMOCO). Son and heir Jacob was once called “the titular head of the American Jewish community” and was a major player in the early years of the United Nations. Sisters Fanny Thalheimer and Ruth Rosenberg. Other family members include David Hirschhorn, Barbara Hirschhorn, Mary Jane Blaustein, Arthur Roswell, Elizabeth Roswell, Jeanne Blaustein Borko, Susan Blaustein Berlow.

BLOCK. New York. Alexander Block founded Block Drugs that came to manufacture Polident, Nytol and Sensodyne. His son Leonard, grandson Thomas, and granddaughter Peggy Danziger (wife of Richard Danziger) are active in the family’s corporation.

BLOOMBERG. New York. Elected mayor of New York City in 2001, Michael Bloomberg started out at Salomon Brothers and went on to establish a multimedia empire providing stories to newspapers and a 24-hour direct satellite television network.

BLUMENTHAL.Charlotte,North Carolina. Herman Blumenthal heads the Radiator Speciality Company than produces some 4,000 automotive products. With wife Anita, has three sons Alan, Philip and Samuel who are active in family’s corporate and “philanthropic” affairs.

BRACHMAN. Fort Worth. Family founder Leon Brachman launched chemical manufacturing business and branched out to set up Computerized Business Systems, designing programs for small businesses. Son Marshall is associated with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington. Daughter Wendy lives in Israel. Family member Madlyn married into Barnett family of Ft.Worth (See BARNETT).

BRAMAN. Miami. Norman Braman started off in Philadelphia where he established the Keystone Discount Stores (38 locations). He and wife Irma retired to Miami where he operates a chain of automobile dealerships.A former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles team.

BROAD. Los Angeles. Eli Broad founded SunAmerica, Inc., a financial services firm. A co-owner of the Sacramento Kings and well known as a collector of contemporary art.

BUTTENWIESER. New York. The late Benjamin Buttenwieser was a partner in the Kuhn-Loeb banking empire and served as assistant U.S. high commissioner in Germany following World War II. His wife, Helen, was a member of the Lehman Brothers banking family. Their son Lawrence is a partner at the New York law firm of Rosenman & Colin. Son Peter was a high school principal in Philadelphia and is connected to the activities of the (non-Jewish) Ford and Danforth foundations. Son Paul is a psychiatrist and novelist in Belmont, Massachusetts.

CARDIN.The wealth of Israeli-born Shoshana Cardin’s late husband, real estate tycoon Jerome Cardin, made it possible for her to rise in the Jewish community as the first female president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and as chair of the United Israel Appeal. Daughter Nina is one of the first women admitted as a Conservative rabbi. Son Sandy runs the Schusterman Foundation in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

CARTER.Victor Carter is said to have “specialized in the turnaround of ailing companies” but is best known for heading the United Way, City of Hope and Israel Bonds.His wife Andrea has been involved in—of all things—the Country Music Commission.

CHANIN. New York. Irwin and Henry Chanin, brothers,were major real estate developers in early 20th century New York. Irwin’s son, Marcy, and wife Leona Feifer Chanin (senior vice president of the American Jewish Congress) have children: two of whom are attorneys, James Chanin of Oakland California and Ann Glazer of Los Angeles. Another daughter, Nancy Sneider, resides in Boca Raton, Florida. Irwin’s son, Paul Chanin, is based in Aspen, Colorado, where the family foundation operates. He runs the famous Pinon’s restaurant as a sideline.

COHEN. New Orleans. Rosalie Cohen, daughter of Universal Furniture founder Leon Palter, is a major player in the powerful Jewish community in the Crescent City.

CONE.A large Southern Jewish family (descended from 13 original children of Herman Cone) which gained its wealth through the Cone Mills, the largest manufacturer of denim in the world.

CORWIN. Los Angeles. Bruce C. Corwin is president of the Metropolitan Theatres Corporation which owns movie theaters and popcorn concessions. Funders of “conservative” Pepperdine University in Malibu.

CROWN. Chicago. The late Henry Crown was closely connected to organized crime in Chicago and built up a major real estate empire based in the Material Service Corp. a building supply firm. In 1959 the family gained control of major defense contractor General Dynamics. The Crown family were major players in helping finance Israel’s secret nuclear arms development program. Son Lester now heads the family. Son Dan operates Crown theaters.

CUMMINGS. Chicago. Nathan Cummings founded the food production conglomerate best known for “Sara Lee” products. His three children and ten grandchildren are maintaining the family foundation.

DAVIDSON. Detroit. William Davidson took over his uncle’s windshield business which evolved into Guardian Industries, the fifth largest glass manufacturer in the world. Owner of the Detroit Pistons team. The Davidson-funded William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan’s School of Business Administration has been interfering in the newly developing economies of Eastern Europe.

DEUTSCH. Santa Monica. Carl Deutsch operates the family’s real estate and management services.

DURST. NewYork. Joseph Durst and his three sons, Seymour, David and Royal, and grandchildren Douglas, Robert, Jonathan and Joshua have developed large areas of Third Avenue and New York’s West Side.

EISNER. Los Angeles. Michael Eisner engineered the merger between Capital Cities, owner of ABC and other properties. Took over Walt Disney Company in 1984.The grandson of the co-founder of the American Safety Razor Co.

EPPLER. Cleveland-Palm Beach. German-born Heinz Eppler took over Miller-Whol and expanded the company to 420 women’s apparel stores sold in 1984 to Petrie Stores Corporation. Son David is based in Washington,D.C.

EVERETT. Described as “successful private investors,” Henry and Edith Everett are active in a variety of Jewish philanthropies. Son David is also active in Jewish affairs.

FEINBERG. Chicago. Rueben Feinberg is president of Jefferson State Bank in Chicago.

FELDBERG. Boston. Sumner and Stanley Feinberg, cousins, founded the T.J. Maxx stores (than 500 outlets), Hit or Miss stores (with 500 outlets) and the Chadwick’s catalog operation.

FELDMAN. Dallas. The late Jacob “Jake” Feldman founded Commercial Metals, a major NewYork stock exchange company. His son and heir Robert has been active in the Dallas Jewish community.

FEUERSTEIN. Westport, Connecticut-Newport Beach, California-Los Angeles-New York City. Heirs of Aaron Feurstein of the Malden Mills textile empire which produced Polartec fabric from the recycling of plastic bottles. Aaron’s brother, Moses, was a leading figure in U.S. Orthodox Judaism. Moses’s son, Morty, leads the Orthodox community in Vancouver, Canada.

FISHER. New York. Founded by Zachary and Lawrence Fisher, this is a major NewYork real estate development family.

MAX FISHER. Detroit. A major oil industrialist and top-level player in Republican Party affairs, Max Fisher maintained long-standing business ties to Israel and to Israeli intelligence. Once described by the National Police Gazette (December 1974) as one of the powerful “mystery men” who told Michigan-based Republican politician Gerald Ford (later U.S. president) “what to do and when to do it.” (In Final Judgment, this author’s study of the JFK assassination conspiracy,we outlined the Ford-Fisher connection— and Fisher’s ties to Israeli intelligence—in light of Ford’s role on theWarren Commission which ostensibly “investigated” the JFK assassination,but which effectively functioned as a cover-up of the long-secret Israeli link to the president’s murder.)

FRIEDMAN. Mill Valley, California. Eleanor Friedman—one of several heirs to the Levi Strauss billions—and her husband, Jonathan Cohen, are founders of the New Israel Fund, which is considered one of the “liberal” foundations advancing left-wing causes in Israel, including women’s rights, religious pluralism and better relations with native Palestinian Christians and Muslims.

GERBER. Chicago. Max Gerber established the Gerber Plumbing Fixtures Company which is now controlled by daughter Harriet Gerber Lewis and her children,Alan and Ila.

GIDWITZ. Chicago. Gerald Gidwitz chairs Helene Curtis, the personal care products company. His son Ronald is president of the firm, which was acquired by Unilever in 1996. The family also owns Continental Materials Corporation, producers of heating and cooling equipment.

GODCHAUX. New Orleans. Heirs to Godchaux Sugar, once Louisiana’s largest sugar producer, and to the famous Godchaux’s department store of New Orleans. Family members are spread throughout the United States.

GOLD. Los Angeles. Stanley Gold heads Shamrock Holdings, a diversified investment company associated with the Disney heirs.A major investor in Koor Industries, Israel’s largest industrial company.Gold has son Charles and daughter Jennifer.

GOLDSMITH. New York. Several children of stock broker Horace Goldsmith’s wife Grace—James,William and Thomas Slaughter—control the foundation established with Goldsmith’s largess. Richard and Robert Menschel—both Goldman Sachs bankers who are cousins—are also involved in the family’s enterprises.

GOLDENBERG. Philadelphia. Heirs to confectionery and candy bar fortune which produces the Goldenberg Peanut Chew—the firm’s only product. Family members include Carl and Ed and David.

GOTTSTEIN. Alaska. Barney Gottstein. Heads Anchorage-based Carr Gottstein Foods, the largest Alaska-based company, involved in supermarkets, wholesale groceries and real estate. Served as national vice president of the Israeli lobby group,AIPAC, and on the Democratic National Committee. Son Robert has been working closely with pro-Israel Christian evangelist Pat Robertson in promoting Jewish causes.

GRASS. Scranton, Pennsylvania. Alex Grass took the Thrift Discount Center of small Keystone City state big time and established more than 2,700 Rite Aid Pharmacies in 23 states, with subsidiaries including Auto Palace auto parts, Concord Custom Cleaners, Encore Books and Sera-Tec Biologicals. Served as chairman of Israel’s Hebrew University. Children include sons Martin and Roger.

ALAN GREENBERG. New York. Alan “Ace” Greenberg chaired Bear Stearns and has been active in numerous Jewish causes.