By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
May 19, 2012
On Tuesday at Manhattan’s B’nai Jeshurun Synagogue during a debate with J Street founder and President Jeremy Ben-Ami, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted that the next U.S. Secretary of State in a Romney administration would be Senator Joe Lieberman.
Although Kristol is typically wrong in his rosy predictions about the outcome of the many wars of “Muslim liberation” in which he has advocated American involvement, he is far more reliable when it comes to forecasting GOP political appointments. On June 30, 2008, Kristol confidently predicted on Fox News that Senator John McCain would select Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Kristol had discovered the then Alaska governor a year earlier, when a cruise hosted by The Weekly Standard set anchor in Juneau, and from then on relentlessly promoted her in the media and to the McCain campaign.
If Kristol’s latest prediction comes true, a Romney presidency would put U.S. foreign policy even more firmly under the control of a foreign power. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC), once said:
Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.
As for what Lieberman has done for the people he is supposed to represent, I wrote in “Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?“:
It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman. Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.
By Philip Giraldi
The Passionate Attachment
May 23, 2012
There are some strange things going on relating to US foreign policy and Israel that you will not see in the mainstream media. A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that most Americans (53%) are closer to Ron Paul on the need to get out of Afghanistan immediately than they are to the views of either Obama or Romney, who respectively prefer a long somewhat disingenuous disengagement and continuing the war until, improbably, all terrorists are dead. But in spite of their popularity, Ron Paul’s views will be invisible in November’s election.
At the same time, even though Paul is genuinely out of the running for president, his campaign has clearly built up a grassroots presence at state and local levels that will be difficult for the Republican National Committee to deny unless it resorts to extensive vote-rigging or mass exclusion of freely elected representatives. Both are quite possible and have already been employed at local levels to isolate Paul. Nearly all of the activists now entering government support Paul’s call for an end to foreign aid, which is, of course, anathema to Israel and its friends.
Meanwhile over at the Tea Parties, there is roughly a fifty-fifty split over issues like Israel. Some support the Israel connection as part of the chest-thumping desire for an assertive US response to the rest of the world (the Sarah Palin wing) while those who are serious about fiscal and government downsizing recognize that Israel is part of the problem, supporting the two Pauls. How this will play out over the next two years is anyone’s guess, but the whole issue of Israel and its relationship with the US is now on the table.
How the Israel Lobby will react to the dilemma is unclear. Neocon Cheshire cat Bill Kristol’s prediction that his buddy Joe Lieberman will become Secretary of State in a Romney administration would solve the problem as continuing aid to Israel, in one form or another, would be untouched. The aid might well be rolled into the annual Defense budget, already accomplished with the Iron Dome supplement for 2013-4, as Eric Cantor has already proposed as a permanent solution. But the Tea Party/Paul pressure on bloated budgets and foreign aid conceptually will not go away and you can be sure that AIPAC will be working hard to distinguish assistance to our good friend and faithful ally Israel from all other foreign entitlements. And also working hard to elect Romney, a foreign policy parvenu, who has surrounded himself with neocon advisers including John Bolton, Robert Kagan and Dan Senor.
Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS
• Conservatives, radicals, centrists, birthers, Zionists join to challenge president
By Michael Collins Piper
Barack Obama’s fight to win reelection just got tougher. One of his biggest critics, one of the world’s richest, most powerful women—Lady Lynn de Rothschild of New York and London—has not only endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, but she also pulled the plug on Americans Elect (AE), the proposed “centrist” third party of which she was one of the chief sponsors.
Although the establishment media loudly noted in recent reports that AE folded up shop after having spent at least $35M in Wall Street-financed organizing efforts, those reports did not mention that the primary reason AE collapsed was because Lady de Rothschild—the American-born wife of Sir Evelyn Rothschild of the international banking dynasty and a key figure in the global elite in her own right—had decided Romney was acceptable as the GOP’s nominee.
While AE postured as a “grass-roots” effort to break partisan gridlock in America, the truth is that Lady de Rothschild and a clique of elite figures from the Rothschild sphere of influence on Wall Street and in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—of which she is a member—had set AE in motion in the first place.
The intent of such a centrist party at the time was to defeat Obama and any potential GOP nominee, who did not meet the standards of the Rothschild family and its circles.
While Lady de Rothschild had backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman—a fervent internationalist—for the GOP nomination, his campaign was fading well before the first primary battle. As far back as Dec. 19—while both promoting Huntsman’s aspirations and providing pivotal support for AE’s centrist party efforts—Lady de Rothschild publicly told the popular news website the Huffington Post she would back Romney if Huntsman eventually withdrew.
Not a month later, while holding a fundraiser for Huntsman at her apartment in Manhattan, she told The Washington Post she would support Romney if he did win the GOP nomination, which, at that point, was still not assured.
On Jan. 13, the Post—owned by investors such as Warren Buffett and the Graham family who have long been closely intertwined with the Rothschilds—reported Lady de Rothschild’s endorsement of Romney, describing Lady de Rothschild as “a glamorous and die hard Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter whose antagonism toward Barack Obama has led her across the partisan aisle.”
Romney, in fact, prevailed over his challengers, and Lady de Rothschild and her allies decided to pull the plug on the centrist third party they were holding in reserve. Their big aim now is to deny Obama a second term, and Romney is clearly their chosen candidate to do it.
Lady de Rothschild had supported Mrs. Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination. She then vocally endorsed Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain over Obama, who she said was too “ideological” (that is, too liberal). This surprised many who perceived Obama as the Rothschilds’ golden boy.
As president, Obama confirmed Lady de Rothschild’s worst suspicions. As early as Feb. 28, 2010, writing on the Daily Beast, Lady de Rothschild said that “After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that . . . we already knew what kind of president he would become. . . . Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist.” Accusing Obama of being “beholden to the left,” Lady de Rothschild said he had “misled” the American people during the 2008 campaign about his “real plans for America.” She added that “his cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives.”
In the wake of her attacks on Obama, Lady de Rothschild began publicly promoting the AE centrist movement—along with a host of other influential figures, including veteran Democratic Party pollster Doug Schoen. They saw AE as both a tool to remove Obama from the White House and to prevent the rise of a serious populist and nationalist challenger from GOP ranks.
As recently as Dec. 5, the billionaire aristocrat published a screed at The Huffington Post, hailing AE, actually suggesting the new party—representing what she called “the radical center”—would “take on all the vested interests and the extremists in the political parties, in the media, in the streets and in the guts of Washington.”
Now that the power elite have thrown AE to the side, a remarkable coalition including the Rothschilds, the “birther” movement led by former Israeli Orly Taitz, white separatists joined with hardline Zionists, as well as many self-styled “patriots” and “conservatives” and others—are joining behind Romney—long seen as a “moderate” and “centrist” and even as a “liberal”—to put Obama out of the White House.
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.
• Populists concerned about Republican candidate’s rabid internationalism, unabashed love for Israel
By Michael Collins Piper
If Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) hopes to mold the Republican Party’s 2012 national campaign platform into a document of nationalism and non-interventionism, he has a tough job ahead, for the global outlook of all-but-certain GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is firmly internationalist and interventionist.
In fact, as AFP noted on Oct. 24, 2011, Romney’s first major foreign policy address delivered on Oct. 7 at the Citadel was a declaration of budget-busting, round-the-planet meddling, a promise of unending wars against an array of perceived enemies, ranging from Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and billions of Muslims across the Earth.
“Endless trillions,” concluded AFP, “will continue to go down the black holes of the military-industrial banking police state.”
A rabid call for U.S. adventurism, Romney’s speech was full of rhetoric that, on its face, had a lot of energetic fervor that appealed to many good American patriots. He declared:.
This century must be an American century. In an American century, America leads the free world and the free world leads the entire world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers. America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership,without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.
However, while the language reflects the views expressed in Romney’s campaign book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, there’s much more to it than meets the eye. And this is what is important for real patriots to understand:
The concept of an “American century”—a catchphrase of American internationalists of the Council on Foreign Relations school of thought going back to the post-World War II era—has seen its most recent incarnation in the theme of “American greatness”—also known as “American exceptionalism”—bandied about by the ex-Trotskyite hard-line pro-Israel neo-conservatives who orchestrated the United States into the no-win war in Iraq and who now push for a war against Iran.
Romney’s linguistics constitute a modern-day propaganda cover for old-fashioned Trostkyite communism: rapacious imperialism and internationalism wrapped in the American flag, but no different from the age-old dream of a world imperium—a global government—a New World Order.
The specific foreign policy aims expressed by Romney were a virtual wish list for warmongers and profit-driven plutocrats. Although none of Romney’s five sons served in uniform, their father calls for a significant—some say “muscular”—role for the U.S. military abroad. Romney said, in part:
We are at war with Islamic fundamentalism. We must fight against the most ancient of prejudices: anti-Semitism.
In my first 100 days in office, I will . . . announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from nine ships per year to 15 [ships per year].
I will begin . . . the full deployment of a multi-layered national ballistic missile defense system. I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region.
I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination . . . an Iranian nuclear weapon is unacceptable. I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America . . . free trade . . . I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our special relationship with the United Kingdom. . . .
Romney’s saber-rattling against Iran, ritually embracing the mantra that Iran is a threat to not only Israel but to the United States, has been supplemented with equally dangerous bombast.
On CNN, Romney actually described modern Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe,” charging Russia “lines up with the world’s worst actors,” and that “Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.”
That these words sound familiar is no surprise, considering those who constitute Romney’s most intimate advisors.
Notable among those whispering in Romney’s ear is Eliot A. Cohen—a longtime and foremost figure in military and geostrategic affairs, one of the most influential of the Zionist neo-conservative internationalists active today. A founding member of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century—famed for suggesting America needed a “New Pearl Harbor” in order to jump-start U.S. involvement in new global military ventures—Cohen is one of multiple “neo-cons” who populate Romney’s inner circle.
But even more so, Romney prizes, in particular, an unusually close and long-standing personal (and political) alliance—going back 36 years—with no less than Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
First openly revealed in candid detail by The New York Times on April 7—to the genuine surprise of many who were confounded by the link between the Michigan-born former Mormon missionary and the cosmopolitan Israeli-born Jew who graduated from high school in suburban Philadelphia—the Times described the relationship as “a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue.”
Emphasizing that the Romney-Netanyahu axis is additionally “strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies” the Times commented frankly that “the ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government.”
The two met in 1976 while working at the Boston Consulting Group. Remaining in close contact, they regularly advised one another after both went into government on both domestic and foreign policy, having absorbed, the Times said, “the same profoundly analytical view of the world.”
What is disturbing—at least to American nationalists—is that, as the Times noted, “Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.” Even the Times—a staunchly pro-Israel voice—noted that this was “a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation.”
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.
The Intel Hub
By Shepard Ambellas
April 8, 2012
The next presidential election is approaching as the candidates are beating each other to a pulp in the battlefield known as the political arena. So far it has been your typical down and dirty race as we are starting to see some pre positioning by certain power structures in control.
What we do know at this time is that Barrack Obama is heavily funded, signifying a clear choice by the powers that be that he will most likely be installed for a second term against the American peoples votes and wishes as voter fraud and electronic ballots have been known to sway results.
In fact Obama’s funding topped $172 million dollars back in January compared to Mitt Romney’s $72 million and some change, not counting what he had left over from the previous election.
However, it has now came out in a recent piece by the New York Times that presidential candidate Mitt Romney has ties to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dating back as far as 1976, and has recently received a personal phone call from Netanyahu.
The article details the fact that there is more to the relationship than a mere friendship and how it could raise a few eyebrows.
A New York Times article excerpt reads;
The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.
When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government.
When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with. And when Mr. Romney first ran for president, Mr. Netanyahu presciently asked him whether he thought Newt Gingrich would ever jump into the race.
The article also details how Israel would nearly have decision making capabilities if Romney was elected reading;
Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.
This is a clear indicator that Netanyahu might use Romney as a puppet if he is elected president although Obama looks as if he is set to become president via overfunding by the globalists.
By Philip Giraldi
The Passionate Attachment
April 12, 2012
One of the more outrageous articles to appear recently describes how likely Republican Party presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu enjoy a close personal relationship based on their simultaneous employment at the Boston Consulting Group in 1976. The article also explains how that relationship has continued, with Netanyahu briefing Romney on the subject of Iran before the March Super Tuesday primaries. Earlier, in December, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich over a comment about Palestinians, asserting that “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Romney is handing the exercise of US foreign policy on the Middle East over to Israel. And it also doesn’t take any particular insight to realize that if a foreign head of state is advising a presidential candidate on foreign policy in any context it is completely unacceptable interference in the domestic politics of the United States. So why isn’t the media screaming in outrage? Well, the usual reason: that Israel is untouchable.
As loathsome as Obama has been in his craven surrender to Israeli interests, there has always been to the saving grace that one knows deep down that the president despises Netanyahu even as he fears him and the power of the Israel Lobby. Not so with Mitt, who will be an enthusiastic puppet in whatever game the Israelis decide to play.
Philip Giraldi is the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a recognized authority on international security and counterterrorism issues.
War is a Jewish racket
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, we have been fed a crock of Jewish/Zionist dung-heap about the Second World War. Our governments, beholden to Jewish money and political influence, have been peddling fantasy stories as “truth”, fairy tales as “fact”, and preposterous fables as “history”, for seventy years straight. Our criminal governments have been lying to us and manipulating us into fighting senseless, catastrophic wars with the sole purpose of vanquishing the enemies of International Jewry, and thus paving the path for the Jewish takeover of the entire planet.
WWII — A Bloodbath For Jewish Benefit
It is a very difficult thing for Americans, Canadians, Brits, Australians, Frenchmen, and other Westerners, to come to terms with the fact that i) WWII was a senseless bloodbath that served no purpose other than to benefit the Jewish Power Elite in various ways, ii) that we were fighting on the wrong side, and iii) Hitler was right about everything. Call it pride, cognitive dissonance, or some combination of both — nobody likes to admit they were hoodwinked.
Despite popular belief, WWII did not start in September of 1939 with the British and French declaration of war against Germany; it actually started in 1933. In 1933, organized Jewry initiated a subversive economic war against Germany; a boycott of German goods designed to weaken and destroy Hitler’s National Socialist government. The March 24, 1933, edition of England’s Daily Express newspaper ran the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany“. The article reported: “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.”
International Jewry formally declared its “holy war” against Germany long before Hitler began restricting the rights of Germany’s Jews. Jewry’s war declaration against Germany was issued by Samuel Untermeyer of the World Jewish Federation who said, in the New York Times of 7 Aug. 1933, that it would be means of an “economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.” The Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940, quoted Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of the World Jewish Congress telling a Canadian audience that “the World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” The Jewish desire for war was admitted to by Rabbi Felix Mendelsohn in the Chicago “Sentinel” of 8 Oct. 1942 where he states: “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”
Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in “Histoire de l’Armée Allemande” by Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303) said: “For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.” In Les Nouvelles Litterairres, February 10, 1940, Schalom Asch is quoted as saying: “Even if we Jews are not physically at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you. This war is our war and you fight it with us.”
Chaim Weizmann, the late chairman of the World Zionist Organization and first president of Israel, made clear the genocidal Jewish intention to destroy Germany. In a letter to British PM Winston Churchill dated September 10, 1941, Weizmann spoke about how the Jews of the United States pulled the nation into the first World War, and he promised they could do it again, given that Britain fulfilled Zionist demands regarding Palestine. Weizmann wrote: “It has been routinely acknowledged by British statesman that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it — and may do it — again.” In a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York, Weizmann stated: “We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry… Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy’s fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory.”
The 24 July, 1942, edition of the American Hebrew Magazine made it plainly clear who brought America into the war when it declared that “whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: the real reason that boy went to his death was because Hitler’s anti-semitic movement succeeded in Germany.”
Further proof Jews were behind the push for war on both sides of the Atlantic came in the form of a diary entry made by James Forrestal, who later became U.S. Secretary of Defense in the Truman administration. In his diary of 27 Dec. 1945 Forrestal notes that he played golf with Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK), FDR’s ambassador to Britain, who told him that ex-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain “stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.” In 1949, Forrestal was fired by President Truman and within two months was murdered (ruled a “suicide”) for his opposition to Zionism and the nascent state of Israel.
Likewise, Roosevelt was guided into the war by Jews. On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in shaping American foreign policy. His secret reports said such things as:
“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …
… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe.
…the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence…
…Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press.”
Roosevelt was surrounded by Jew advisers — rabid anti-German hatemongers and warmongers of the worst sort — such as Bernard Baruch, S. I. Rosenman, Sidney Weinburg, Sidney Hillman, Henry Morgenthau Jr., and Felix Frankfurter.
As Dr. Stephen Sniegoski points out in his book review of The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State:
“Jews also played a significant role in getting the United States into World War II to destroy their Nazi nemesis. And they worked actively to undermine popular noninterventionist resistance to war. For example, the Anti-Defamation League “employed investigative agents who secretly penetrated isolationist and anti-Semitic organizations and collected potentially damaging or incriminating information” which it turned over to the FBI and other federal agencies. (p. 110) Ginsberg does not develop this point, but given the fact that the overwhelming majority of “isolationists” were not enemy agents and were simply exercising their constitutional right to oppose a policy, it is apparent that activist American Jews have been quite willing to crush the civil liberties of others in order to advance their own goals. Jews also played a critical part in turning the media toward a prowar stance. (That was quite an achievement, since the American mood in the 1930s was strongly antiwar and “isolationist.”) In Hollywood, Jewish film makers concentrated on producing anti-Nazi propaganda films to prepare the masses for a crusade against evil.”
So, as has been clearly demonstrated, WWII was provoked by Jews and the blame for this catastrophic bloodbath of sixty million human beings lays squarely at the feet of International Jewry. Hitler did not start the war nor did he want war. To the contrary, Hitler made it clear that he was opposed to such a war, having witnessed first hand the hell of the first catastrophic world war. In 1945 Hitler stated: “It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America.”
In fact, Jew lackey British PM Winston Churchill — who was a self-professed Zionist, a warmonger, a terrorist, and mass murderer – flatly rejected peace offers from Hitler in 1939, 1940 and 1941. When Hitler’s number two man, Rudolf Hess, made his miraculous flight to Britain (having to crash land in Scotland) in 1941 to make peace and end the war, Churchill had him arrested and imprisoned for life. Undeniably it was the Jews, and their puppet politicians in America, France and Britain, who wanted war, and did everything they could to instigate and then prolong it.
(…)This is a classic case of Jewish psychological projection, considering that it has always been the chief objective of the Jewish religion to rule the earth and acquire all earthly treasures and possessions; thereby making all Gentiles into subservient slaves to the Jews. It is the Jews, not the Germans, who desire world domination, as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion have made perfectly clear. Not only is Jewish world dominion elucidated in the Protocols (which have undoubtedly proven to be authentic, despite endless Jewish kvetching to the contrary) but in all ancient Judaic religious texts — the Torah, Talmud, books of the Zohar and Kaballah. Prominent Jewish rabbis from Israel are quite open about their sinister desire to murder and enslave non-Jews.
The Zionist Hand Behind Middle-East Wars
The genocidal destruction that has rained down on the middle-east for the past decade was launched at the behest of a small cadre of conniving Jewish-Zionist ideologues who call themselves “neoconservatives.” The brainchild of three Jewish Communists (“Trotskyites”) Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Leo Strauss, neoconservatism is — and has always been — a Jewish movement, led by Zionist motivations and for Zionist gain.
An article written by Gal Beckerman in the Jewish daily news magazine, The Forward, opined: “Acknowledging the Jewishness of neoconservatism has always triggered the red, flashing lights of antisemitism, especially since the start of the Iraq War (with extra points if it’s Pat Buchanan doing the acknowledging). But there is some truth to the suspicion. If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It’s a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.“
Jewish political scientist, Benjamin Ginsberg, acknowledged that neoconservatism was essentially a product of Jewish tribalism: “One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security.”
Irving Kristol, the Jewish “godfather” of the neoconservative movement let slip the Israeli-centric agenda of his nefarious ideology when, in 1973, he stated: “Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now in the interests of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.”
Fellow neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz has made similar statements about using American military prowess to protect Israel. Leo Strauss, also a Jewish Zionist and early neocon “intellectual,” advocated the perpetual deception of the public by those in power for a “greater good.” This “greater good” that he spoke of was what was good for the Jews, not the Gentiles among whom they live. Noam Chomsky has argued that Strauss’s theory is a form of Leninism, in which society should be led by a group of elite vanguards, whose job is to protect liberal society against the dangers of excessive individualism, and creating inspiring myths to make the masses believe that they are fighting against anti-democratic and anti-liberal forces. Journalists, such as Seymour Hersh, have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, “myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society.”
Jewish neocon genocidists like to speak in public about “global crusades for democracy,” but this is just a clever ruse to deceive the “Goyim” about their real agenda which is to bolster the hegemonic status of Israel in the middle-east ensemble. The Jew William Kristol (son of Irving Kristol), editor of the Weekly Standard, explained the real reason for the disingenuous rhetoric about global democracy to the Jerusalem Post (27th July 2000): “I’ve always thought it was best for Israel for the US to be generally engaged and generally strong, and then the commitment to Israel follows from a general foreign policy.”
Two of Leo Stauss’s more notable protégé’s were none other than Jewish Iraq war architect, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abram Shulsky. Shulsky was the Jewish Straussian who was appointed head of the Office of Special Plans by fellow Jewish neocon Douglas Feith (then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Pentagon). This office supplied the major portion of the fraudulent “intelligence” that was used by the Bush administration to justify the war against Iraq. It has been proven that the Zionist propaganda entity embedded within the Pentagon, the Office of Special Plans, worked closely with Israel to cook up the “Iraq WMD threat to America” hoax.
The phony “threat” of Iraq possessing or attempting to possess and wield “weapons of mass destruction” was cunningly contrived by Israel and its vast network of Jewish “sayanim” operatives in America who formed a tight conglomeration of neoconservative “think tanks”, such as the Project for a New American Century, American Enterprise Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, among many others, who were behind all of the propaganda, conjecture and lies that led to the disastrous Zionist proxy war to behead the Iraqi nation for Israel’s benefit in 2003.
Israel’s sayanim operatives had also burrowed their way into the top echelons of the Bush Administration and the Pentagon — namely Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Eliot Abrams, Abram Shulsky, Lewis Libby, Ari Fleischer, David Frum, Eliot Cohen, Joshua Bolten, Marc Grossman and many others — thus enabling these inhuman Zionist war-hawks to set US foreign policy at the drop of a dime. In fact, the Bush Administration was infested with dual Israeli-American citizens; forty-two of them to be exact. Many of these Jews had extensive links to the Jewish-Israeli lobby (AIPAC, AJC, ADL, ZOA, etc) and to the Sharon regime in Israel.
It’s not exactly a secret that the neocons are mostly Jews whose loyalty lies with the Zionist state, not America. Ari Shavit, a writer for Israel’s Haaretz Daily News Service, proudly proclaimed that:
“The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservatives, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”
It’s incredible to see some people still trying to deny this.
This lunatic Zionist agenda for mid-east destruction goes back much further than many people realize. In 1996, a militarist Israeli “thank tank” called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), authored a policy paper for the incoming Israeli Likud Prime Minister, the crazed Arab-hating war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm“. Within this damnable Zionist strategy paper we find the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Ba’athist regime being advocated as an “important Israeli strategic objective”, as well as calls for the toppling of the governments of Iran and Syria. Their grand strategy was aimed at replacing the governments of these countries with Israel-friendly stooges. Three of the authors of this warmongering paper were none other than Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser — all of whom became top ranking members of the Bush Administration in 2001 eagerly pushing for an American war with Iraq. The Clean Break paper was essentially a continuation of an earlier proposal by Zionist extremist Oded Yinon called “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” (published in 1982). Yinon wickedly suggested that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions. These cold-blooded Israeli Geo-political strategists envisioned that by weakening Israel’s external enemies they could thereby weaken Israel’s internal enemies, i.e. the native Palestinians.
The ultra-militaristic Project for a New American Century group — which many people suggest was the prime mover in shaping the post-9/11 American-led war agenda in the middle-east — was essentially an offshoot of the Israeli IASPS, and was headed by Jewish neocon heavyweights William Kristol and Robert Kagan. In one of the group’s deranged “studies” in September of 2000, PNAC released a report entitled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century”, which called for a “New Pearl Harbor” in order to galvanize the American masses behind illegal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and a broader war against the entire Arab/Muslim world. It chillingly stated, “the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic catalyzing event — like a New Pearl Harbor.” At least half the members of the PNAC group were Jewish. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the American Enterprise Institute were also instrumental in the deceptive propaganda campaign that led to the war in Iraq. Both groups were Jewish-financed and run operations.
Another important piece to this Zionist puzzle is the Jonathan Institute, a maniacal Zionist “think tank” set up in 1979 by former and current Israeli prime minister’s Menachem Begin (terrorist/mass murderer, former head of the Irgun) and Benjamin Netanyahu. This group of Israeli terror planners held a series of conferences throughout the 1980s and derived its name from Bibi Netanyahu’s late brother Jonathan Netanyahu, who was killed in the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport in Uganda in the 1970s. This coterie of Zionist crooks endeavored to promote their genocidal fantasies of a “clash of civilizations” between the West and Israel’s Arab/Islamic adversaries and also effectively publicized their desire for Western powers to adopt their espoused doctrine of “preemptive retaliation,” the Israeli policy of killing those designated as “terrorists” before they can act. Begin, Netanyahu and other international Jewish terror masters, attempted to seduce Western leaders to join their sadistic effort to fragment and destabilize the middle-east so as to make it safer for Israel and ripe for Israeli plundering.
Netanyahu published a book in 1986 entitled, Terrorism: How the West Can Win, which was a collection of essays from himself and like-minded Zionist gangsters who harbored grandiose dreams of the annihilation of Arabs and Muslims who get in the way of the Likud Party’s strategic objectives. Netanyahu’s book basically lays out the frame-work for what is now generally known as the “war on terror”, and contains all of the vocabulary and discourse that didn’t enter our lexicon until after the suspicious events of 9/11. This book is undoubtedly a key piece of evidence that the “war on terror” is a Zionist-engineered scam for global Jewish hegemony.
The Jewish Neocons — who had been lurking over capital hill like hawks for decades, running their sleazy Zionist propaganda outfit magazines and periodicals such as The Weekly Standard and The New Republic — had for years been unsuccessful in their ceaseless pursuit to drag America into another war in the middle-east, following the first Persian-Gulf war in 1991. Nobody was buying their lies that Iraq posed an imminent danger to America. But that all changed on September 11, 2001.
The catalyst for this current state of perpetual warfare between the West and Israel’s Islamic enemies was, of course, 9/11; the “new pearl harbor” event that the PNAC Zionists had been lusting for to realize their wet-dreams of endless warfare.
Pitting the West against the Islamic Middle-East in a prolonged battle was something that Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and the then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon publicly called for within an hour of the terrorist spectacle that struck America on that fateful day; a testament to the true authors of the day’s horrific events. An event that Benjamin Netanyahu mockingly proclaimed was a “good thing for Israel … will bring immediate sympathy [for Israel’s cause].” An event that genocidaire, Ariel Sharon, dubbed Israel’s “Hanukkah miracle.” An event which Israeli political analyst Ehud Sprinzak candidly described as “the most important public relations act ever committed” in favor of the Jews and Israel.
Of course, for those of us who have actually studied the subject of 9/11, we know who the real perpetrators were. The former head of Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service (Hamid Gul), the 25 year German SPD parliamentarian and author of several books on the secret operations of intelligence agencies (Andreas Von Bulow), the former President of Italy (Francesco Cossiga), as well as the former director of studies of the US Army War College (Dr. Alan Sabrosky), all unanimously concur that the Israeli Mossad conducted 9/11 as a false-flag attack to kick-start this long-planned “clash of civilizations” that Zionists had been so zealously lobbying for, for decades.
(For more information about the Jewish origins and Zionist machinations of the neoconservative movement that engineered the Iraq War, see Michael Collins Piper’s book, The High Priests of War, and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s book, The Transparent Cabal. Also recommended are the two excellent documentaries, “War By Deception” and “Missing Links“, which comprehensively expose the Zionist cabal behind 9/11 and the 9/11 wars.)
Jewish Neocons and the HoloHoax
There is an interesting connection between Jewish neoconservatism and the fictitious ‘Holocaust’ religion. The Jewish Mafia’s preposterous anti-German conspiracy theory — known to the world as The Holocaust™ — is central to neoconservative thinking.
Jewish journalist Gal Beckerman had this to say about the motivations of Jewish neoconservatives:
“It was Podhoretz, however, who gave neoconservatism its most explicitly Jewish cast. The August 1968 issue of Commentary featured Emil Fackenheim’s famous essay, “Jewish Faith and the Holocaust: A Fragment,” which included Fackenheim’s contention that after Auschwitz, Jews had a moral responsibility to defend Jewish interests so as not to hand Hitler a “posthumous vic-tory.” By February 1972, Podhoretz himself wrote a piece titled, without irony, “Is It Good for the Jews?”
Holocaust consciousness was growing in the 1970s, as was a renewed sense of threat to Jews and a feeling that, as Podhoretz put it, the postwar “statute of limitations” on anitisemitism had run out. Israel’s security, threatened in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War — both events that gave Jews existential pause — suddenly became a top American Jewish concern. Podhoretz came to identify more and more with the defense of Jews, and by the 1980s, half his articles on international affairs focused on Israel and threats to the Jewish people.”
As that article demonstrates, one of the main motivating factors behind the policies advocated by neoconservative ideologues was protecting the Jews from “another holocaust.” Of course, what this article won’t tell you is that the alleged ‘holocaust’ of Jews during WWII did not, and could not have scientifically, mathematically, possibly ever occurred. Nor did any of the dozens of other “holocausts” or “imminent holocausts” of “six million Jews” that Jewish-Zionist and Jewish-Communist propagandists had been incessantly promoting in the press dating back to the late 19th century.
Interestingly, the main Zionist architect of the savage Iraq War, Paul Wolfowitz, was heavily influenced by the fraudulent mythology of Holocaustianity. According to Shelemyahu Zacks, Paul Wolfowitz’ father, Jacob Wolfowitz, “fought … for the liberation of Soviet Jewry. He was a friend and strong supporter of the state of Israel, AIPAC member and had many friends and admirers there.” Paul Wolfowitz’s wikipedia article asserts that he was, “Strongly influenced by his father, Paul Wolfowitz became “a soft-spoken former aspiring-mathematician-turned-policymaker … [whose] world views … were forged by family history and in the halls of academia rather than in the jungles of Vietnam or the corridors of Congress … [His father] … escaped Poland after World War I. The rest of his father’s family perished in the Holocaust.” Wolfowitz may have lost some family in WWII, as did tens of millions of other people, but his relatives certainly didn’t die in a “homicidal gas chamber” because such claims are a tissue of fabrication.
Wikipedia tells us that Wolfowitz read about the HoloHoax and Hiroshima as a boy and calls them “the polar horrors”. Speaking of the influence of the HoloHoax on his views, Wolfowitz said: “That sense of what happened in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views … It’s a very bad thing when people exterminate other people [except, of course, when Jews exterminate Palestinians or when Allied troops exterminated Germans or when Jewish Communists exterminated Russians and Ukrainians or when American troops exterminate Arabs and Muslims on behalf of Israel — ZCF], and people persecute minorities. It doesn’t mean you can prevent every such incident in the world, but it’s also a mistake to dismiss that sort of concern as merely humanitarian and not related to real interest.”
Another key architect of the Iraq War, sleazeball Zionist genocidist Richard Perle, is seen in this BBC documentary titled “The War Party”, saying how the HoloHoax has shaped his worldview and is essentially the motivating factor that drives his insidious warmongering on behalf of Israel. At the 16:49 mark of the video, Perle says: “the defining moment of our history was certainly the holocaust. It was destruction, a genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don’t want that to happen again. When we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so because when we fail to do so the results are catastrophic.”
It is supremely axiomatic that the “big lie” of “Iraqi WMD” that was used to justify the war against Iraq was conjured up by, in essence, the same caliber of cunning Jew propagandists that conned the world into believing in the “big lie” of “German WMD” (the gas-chambers myth). The shared mindset of people like Perle, Wolfowitz, and other Jewish neocons, is that the HoloHoax justifies Israel’s existence, it justifies US support for Israel, and it justifies endless wars against Arab/Muslim nations for Israel’s “security.”
The Zionist-trumpeted myth of ‘Iraqi WMD’ has been dismantled and is believed by very few people today (with the possible exception of Sean Hannity). However, the myth of ‘German WMD’ (gas-chambers lie) is still very much believed by the majority of the mind-controlled Western populace, because that propaganda has been so relentless and intensively force-fed to people since a young age. Not only that, but it is actually illegal to challenge the claims of the HoloHoax in a dozen countries in Europe — no wonder so many people believe it, in many countries they are forced to by law! Europeans who bravely refuse to blindly accept and adhere to the conformist dogma of this hoax run the risk of heavy fines and even imprisonment! Truth doesn’t need laws to protect it from scrutiny, but lies do.
Once the holocaust myth is finally dismembered on a wide scale, then all of the fraudulent justifications Jewish Neocons give to generate support for Israel and global Jewry in all of their villainous endeavors, will collapse like a house of cards.
The First Gulf War, Atrocity Propaganda and the HoloHoax
There is also an interesting correlation between the first Gulf War, atrocity propaganda and the HoloHoax.
The late American-Jewish congressman Tom Lantos, a Hungarian “HoloHoax survivor” and rabid Zionist, was the mastermind behind another series of atrocity lies which led the US down the path of endless wars in the middle-east on behalf of Israel. Tom Lantos’ Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing after the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1991. Lantos’ Human Rights Caucus presented “(lie)witnesses” who spoke about alleged atrocities committed by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait. It was revealed months after this hearing successfully pushed America into the first Gulf War, that the whole thing was a scripted hoax! The entire saga was concocted with the help of the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton.
The testimony that clinched the war resolution that barely passed in the Senate in a 52-47 vote, was delivered by a young Kuwaiti girl who appeared anonymous at the hearing, known to the public only as “Nayirah”. She claimed to have witnessed Iraqi troops come into a Kuwaiti hospital with guns, who then proceeded to remove dozens of babies from their incubators — stole the incubators — and left the babies to die on the cold floor. This never happened. “Nayirah” spoke perfect American English (likely lived in the US her whole life) and turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. This disgraceful and corrupt young woman was nothing less than a paid actor, coached in the art of deception, who tearfully recited a rehearsed pro-war propaganda script prepared for her by her Zionist paymasters. This hoax atrocity story was widely publicized by mainstream media outlets and Kuwaiti officials repeated these lies at the United Nations in their campaign to elicit Western intervention in their struggle with Saddam Hussein.
The “Kuwaiti incubators hoax” essentially provided the casus belli for American intervention in the first Gulf War. Evidently, child atrocity stories are an effective pro-war propaganda tool because of their ability to garner anger from the public, which is why Jews are so fond of telling grotesque tall tales of Nazis ripping babies in half with their bare hands. Is it any surprise that Lantos (being the experienced liar that he is) was one of the highlighted stars of Steven Spielberg’s Holocaust Hoax documentary, “The Last Days”? A counter-documentary which exposes the lies of Spielberg’s hate film was released earlier this year titled “The Last Days of the Big Lie“; I encourage everyone to watch it.
It is hardly surprising that during the first Zionist-contrived Gulf War deceitful Jews laughably attempted to resurrect the WWII “homicidal gas chambers” myth and project it onto Iraq. The New York based Jewish Press, then calling itself “the largest independent Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper,” wrote on its title page on February 21, 1991: “IRAQIS HAVE GAS CHAMBERS FOR ALL JEWS” The front cover announcement of volume 12, number 1 (spring 1991), of Response, a periodical published by the Jewish Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and distributed in 381,065 copies, was: “GERMANS PRODUCE ZYKLON B IN IRAQ (Iraq’s German-made gas chamber)”
Nobody took those claims seriously, and they obviously weren’t true. But it illustrates the reckless disregard Jews have for historical truth and accuracy. Time and time again we see mendacious Jews carelessly trying to elicit sympathy from the public using lies, even resorting to resurrecting past false propaganda narratives to malign their new enemies (the Arabs and Muslims) with. It’s been over 60 years since WWII, you’d think these scoundrels would have come up with some new lies and slanders by now. It seems that any time the Jews want to demonize someone they march up to the old “attic of Jewry” where they keep all the atrocity propaganda albums and highlight reels, lift off the shelf the first ancient Aggadah fable they can find, dust it off, and use it once again. If it doesn’t work the first time, they try again and again until it finally sticks. I guess the Jews aren’t as sophisticated as some might think.
Countless times, non-Jews — mesmerized by subversive propaganda — have been duped into going to war against the Jews’ enemies. Unmistakeably, the main tool of the Jew to accomplish his sinister ends is the power of propaganda and mass persuasion through atrocity lies. The television and news-media is their greatest weapon because with those elements under their firm control they are able to shape what the public thinks and feels; thereby shaping what people do. Multitudinous millions of Gentiles have fought, killed and died in wars instigated by International Jewry, aided and abetted by Gentile pawns and stooges who sell out their own people for short-term monetary gain and political power.
Ostensibly, the Jews have attained their current position as global hegemon and world dictator through the instigation of wars and revolutions — pitting Gentiles against Gentiles. As we are busy killing each other, the Jews merrily count their shekels all the way to the bank. In the end, it is people’s innate naivety, as well as their susceptibility to be deceived and misled by emotive atrocity stories, that affords the Jews a smooth ride to world supremacy. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee before it’s too late. Either accept the truth now, and inform others about it, or face slavery!
Sur ce blog: