The Piper Report Aug 4, 2014
MCP returns to discuss the latest Judaic bloodbath in Gaza, as well eas a fascinating read of an essay describing how Stalinism’s early aim was the destruction of Zionism.
Vladimir Putin and Russia being subjected to the same Neo-con buildup for destruction as Saddam Hussein and Iraq were back in 1991, and by the same people.
Ukraine—a weapon of mass distraction meant to occupy the attention of Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world so that an Israeli/American attack on Syria/Iran can be accomplished?
We are joined again by the irreplaceable Michael Collins Piper
The great, the one and only MCP continues with the discussion surrounding Crimea, Putin and the NeoCon agenda to destroy Russia which aims to replace the present NWO.
The great, the one and only MCP discusses a prophetic essay written in 1952 by Francis Parker Yockey discussing the struggle between international Jewry and the Soviet Government at that time and how this essay accurately predicted that Russia would inevitably rise up to oppose Zionism.
‘The Passion of Vladimir Putin’–the agenda to destroy yet another fighter against the NWO.
We are joined by the one and only Michael Collins Piper
A continuation of the discussion concerning Vladimir Putin and the manner by which the Jewish mainstream media is painting him as the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin.
The building tension with Russia over Crimea—An Obama operation aimed at delegitimizing Vladimir Putin now hijacked by Netanyahu who is pushing for all out war between the US and Russia?
We are joined by the equally-irreplaceable Mark Dankof and Michael Collins Piper.
The demonization of Vladimir Putin—What are the real reasons for organized Jewish interests comparing today’s Russian president to Stalin? Was Stalin really the dictator as portrayed by today’s Zionist mouthpieces or was he yet another leader working against the Synagogue and who paid the price for it?
It is Purim season, 2014 and Putin is this year’s Haman. Israel and Netanyahu are in full court press to see Putin–who is standing in the way of the New World Order–destroyed, even if it means war with the United States.
We are joined by the one and only Michael Collins Piper to discuss this.
MCP returns to continue his previous discussion involving the little-known anti-Zionist machinations of Joseph Stalin.
The Piper Report Aug 4, 2014
MCP returns to discuss the latest Judaic bloodbath in Gaza, as well eas a fascinating read of an essay describing how Stalinism’s early aim was the destruction of Zionism.
Rappel: Quand BHL faisait du trafic d’armesVIDEO – BHL désespère dans l’attente de voir l’Occident entrer en guerre contre le « régime d’Assad »
Nous y sommes, le monde est maintenant officiellement dominé par la Russie de Vladimir Poutine.
Israeli Defense Minister: U.S. Is Projecting ‘Weakness’ La faute d’Obama qui est pas assez « faucon » à leur goût!
U.S. says disappointed at no apology from Israeli defense chief In a lecture at Tel Aviv University, Yaalon said Israel could not rely on its main ally to take the lead in confronting Iran over its nuclear program. He also pointed at the Ukraine crisis as an example of Washington « showing weakness.
On voit que Obama ne suit pas précisément le plan des néocons fanatiques d’Israel, ça fait longtemps qu’il se les a mis à dos…
Hillary Clinton: I’m Not Comparing Putin To Hitler, I’m Just Saying He’s Acting Like Hitler MDR! Ça a toujours à voir avec Hitler. Tout le temps…
The frontrunner to become the next president of the United States is playing an old and dangerous political game — comparing a foreign leader to Adolf Hitler.
Je ne trouve pas ça du tout choquant de le comparer à Hitler. Michael Collins Piper comparerait plutôt Poutine à Titus, celui qui a mis à sac Jérusalem et qui a détruit le Temple. Quand on connaît bien Hitler, on prend ça comme un compliment de lui être comparé. Et c’est pas pour des supposées « atrocités » qu’Hillary le compare à Hitler, c’est pour avoir déployé des troupes pro-russes en Crimée. Je crois que la comparaison est pas trop exagérée. J’en comprends que l’espoir de changement et la défiance nationaliste face à l’empire mondialiste sont du côté de Poutine, comme ils ont déjà été du côté d’Hitler. Je soupçonne que l’antisémite privée Hillary Clinton est au courant du fait que sa comparaison a plusieurs niveaux, mais on peut pas savoir quelles étaient ses intentions. C’est clair qu’elle sait que l’Agenda est qu’il faut attaquer Poutine par tous les moyens possibles. Elle doit savoir que la comparaison avec Hitler, le fameux point Godwin, manque tellement de subtilité qu’elle mène au ridicule et à la perte de toute crédibilité. Une diabolisation anti-Poutine mal instrumentalisée pourrait se retourner contre son émetteur (l’arroseur arrosé) ce qui saboterait les plans anti-Poutine… Pour les juifs, Hitler c’est l’Holocauste, donc la reductio ad hitlerom doit rester la pire attaque imaginable, dans une classe à part, réservée aux cas vraiment extrêmes de « criminels contre l’humanité ». C’est pourquoi ils digèrent difficilement ces usages non-autorisés et « irresponsables » de l’arme ultime de la reductio ad hitlerom.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird began on Monday, saying on the CBC that Russia’s troop presence in Ukraine’s Crimea was akin to Hitler’s invasion of Sudetenland in 1938. Are you saying Nazis, he was asked. “When you have one country invading one of its neighbours and using this type of outrageous and ludicrous rhetoric, it’s hard not to,” Baird replied. The next day, Stephen Harper said in the House, “We haven’t seen this kind of behaviour since the Second World War.” But we have. Surprising, Hillary Clinton couldn’t be goaded into mentioning Hitler until Thursday. “Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the ’30s,” she said. “Hitler kept saying: ‘They’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.’”
Critics say new law aims to silence journalists, historians who dispute glorification of USSR actions during World War Two.
In Ukraine, Adolph Hitler is Praised as a Liberator Et ils ont raison. Il s’agit alors pour les US-Israel de récupérer ce sentiment pro-Hitler pour servir leur propre agenda impérialiste us-israélien.
Bernard-Henri Lévy désigne le nouvel Hitler« Le poutinisme est un fascisme », par Bernard-Henri Lévy
Ukraine’s Street-Fighting Rabbi Natan Khazin led a Jewish squadron of fighters in the revolution that rocked Kiev’s central square. Meet the yarmulke-wearing IDF veteran and ordained rabbi.
Russia reportedly sending mediators to Ukraine as truce falls apart
Encore un cas patent de guerre orchestrée par l’Occident pendant que la Russie, défenseur de la paix, tente d’empêcher une guerre mondiale…
Russia warns West it may shift stance on Iran Deputy Foreign Minister says Russia may retaliate against U.S. and EU due to tensions over Ukraine
The Passion of Vladimir Putin article de fond de Mark Glenn sur « Vlad the Bad »
Vadim Rabinovich 61, is the owner and co-founder of Jewish News One and co-chair of the European Jewish Parliament.
Kolomoyskyi was born in a jewish family of engineers…
Israël a refusé à un navire de guerre russe l’entrée dans un de ses ports, une démarche destinée à ne pas compliquer ses relations avec les Etats-Unis sur fond de crise en Ukraine
Lest We Forget–Neoconservatives hype a new Cold War
Lobbyists wine and dine eager Washington journalists in a campaign to undo Obama’s “reset” on RussiaNeocons Now Discussing Regime Change in RussiaPutin is making the West’s Cold Warriors look like foolsNeocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran GambitWhy Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia
Sa démission en direct était presque parfaite
(…)Le 5 mars dernier, une vingtaine de minutes avant la démission en direct de Liz Wahl, le compte Twitter du think tank Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), annonce qu’il va « se passer quelque chose de grand sur RT dans 20-25 minutes » (…)
Visiblement, le Foreign Policy Initative était au courant du projet de la journaliste. Cette structure est un think tank basé à Washington, dont font partie de célèbres néoconservateurs, tels le politologue Robert Kagan.
Le 21 mars, le think tank a rendu publique une lettre ouverte à Barack Obama, appelant à « sécuriser l’Ukraine, isoler la Russie et renforcer l’Otan ». Dans cette tribune, le FPI propose notamment d’étendre l’aide à l’Ukraine et à son armée.
POUTINE: LA MENACE DU MONDIALISME SERA VAINCUE PAR UN RENOUVEAU NATIONAL
(…) Dialogue tous azimuts, mais pas de séparatisme ethnique
Grabar : « Alors sur le plan de la démocratie là, parce que c’est un mot qui revient tout le temps dans votre bouche, du point de vue russe, évidemment, c’est pas tout à fait la même chose. La période Eltsine, malheureusement, a dévalorisé ce terme de démocratie, il y avait même un vilain jeu de mots où on faisait rimer démocratie avec diermocratsia, le mot diermo ça veut dire de la merde. La période Elstine a été une période d’effondrement du niveau de vie… »
Jacques Attali : « Je crois que la raison pour laquelle la démocratie est mal vue en Russie, c’est que la période démocratique commence en fait avec la perestroïka, avec Gorbatchev, a provoqué la fin de l’Union soviétique, c’est-à-dire le fait que justement existe l’Ukraine et que la Russie soit coupée en morceaux. Et un des grands regrets de Poutine, c’est que la brève période démocratique a conduit à la fin d’un empire. C’est pour ça qu’il faudra du temps avant que la Russie revienne… »
VIDEO – The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (50 min)
Le combat de Poutine contre les oligarques par Kerry R. Bolton
PUTIN STYMIES GLOBALISTS
THE WAY I SEE IT
By Michael Collins Piper for American Free Press
Lest anyone doubt the New World Order elite are moving further toward outright efforts to destroy Russian leader Vladimir Putin—perhaps even force a war with Russia—The Washington Post made things abundantly clear on July 22 that the push is on to pressure President Barack Obama into taking a more combative stance against Putin.
A longtime voice forwhatmany call “the foreign policy establishment,” the Post once again adopted a notably hysterical tone toward Putin (quite in contrast to the paper’s otherwise staid tradition) and in a lead editorial, bluntly titled “Russia’s barbarism,” declared “the West needs a strategy to contain the world’s newest rogue state.”
Slamming Putin for denying responsibility for the loss over Ukraine of a Malaysian airliner—the circumstances of which remain in dispute, Western media claims notwithstanding—the Post issued a virtual call for war.
“What’s needed,” roared the Post, “is a broad strategy for putting a stop toMr. Putin’s aggression and, where possible, rolling it back. . . . It’s time to treat Mr. Putin’s Russia as what it has become—a dangerous outlaw regime that needs to be contained.”
The Post’s designation of Russia as “the world’s newest rogue state” was more than a rhetorical flourish. Instead—and be assured of this—it was a serious, explosive provocation.
While there’s no formal legal definition of a “rogue state”—though one dictionary defines it as “a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations”—the phrase is a now-much-used political term of art that, in statecraft, is the practical equivalent of calling a person a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.
“Rogue states rollback”—targeting Iraq and Iran—was first enunciated on May 22, 1993 by Martin Indyk (a former Israeli government propagandist and later U.S. ambassador to Israel) in a speech reported only by AFP’s predecessor—The Spotlight —to a pro-Israel group in Washington.
However, within a year, the concept of rogue states rollback was publicly unveiled in an article, “Confronting Backlash States,” in the March/April 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York branch of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, foreign policy arm of the Rothschild banking empire, premier patrons of Israel and the world Zionist network.
Since then, the smear “rogue state” has most often been slapped on nations perceived hostile to Israel, to Jewish interests or to schemes of the international banking establishment (much of which is in the grip of the Rothschild dynasty and elements in its sphere of influence).
In that respect, it’s perhaps no coincidence the Post complained on March 24 that “Putin has long argued that Russia’s wealthy . . . should keep their money inside Russia and away from a global economy controlled by Western interests.” That was a view reflective of Putin’s now-legendary war against the handful of Jewish “oligarchs,” many of whomheld Israeli citizenship and squeezed Russia for its riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Describing Putin as being “animated by nationalist impulses and historic grievances,” the Post had a grievance of its own with Putin who—after assuming power—jailed one of Russia’s oligarchs who was a business partner of the Post’s then-publishers, the Graham family, heirs of Wall Street war profiteer Eugene Meyer—first president of the World Bank, an early member of the board of the Federal Reserve System and grandson of the grand rabbi of France.
On July 25, the Post amped up its assault on Putin. The latest shrieking attack nowdrewBarack Obama into theweb, crying “President Obama hobnobs with donors as Russia escalates its war of aggression,” bemoaning the fact Obama had taken a fundraising trip to California amidst the crisis over the Malaysian airliner.
Most revealing was that the Post noted “frustration” with what it called “Mr. Obama’s weakness” in dealing with Putin was extending to the “top ranks of the Democratic Party,” citing three Putin bashers—Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.)—who are among the Senate’s most pivotal Democratic parrots for the Zionist lobby and allies of the top Republican critics of Putin—John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.)—the Senate’s most energetic GOP advocates for Israel.
The nature of this “bipartisan” opposition to Putin—from pro-Zionist operatives—underscores thatmuch of the anti-Putin clamor comes precisely because he is considered a danger to Israel and to monied Jewish interests in the West.
On July 28—in case anyone missed the point—the Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt—a CFR member—chimed in with a signed commentary again trashing Obama for, among other things, not being tough enough on Putin.
Describing Obama’s attempts at “a cautious, modest retreat” from U.S. meddling in global affairs—which the CFRman saidwas “an experiment gone wrong” that “expose[s] the dangers of U.S. disengagement”—Hiatt asserted that while Obama “argued that America should concentrate on ‘nation-building here at home,’ ”what resulted “is a far more dangerous world.”
Hiatt sounded like New York’s Jewish Press—a Putin-bashing journal—which on June 6 called Obama “the neo-isolationist president” whose foreign policy will “diminish America’s pivotal, stabilizing role around the world.”
As far back as Feb. 25, 2013, Post commentator Jennifer Rubin—associated with American Jewish Committee circles—declared that “for all intents and purposes, [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu is now the West’s protector.”
The Post echoes Jewish internationalist, advocate for Israel and fanatical Putin critic William Kristol who gloated in the neoconservative Weekly Standard onMarch 24 that “awar-weary public can be awakened and rallied . . . . All that’s needed is the rallying. And the turnaround can be fast.”
So the Post is doing the rallying. And as a media powerhouse, which shapes the mindset of official Washington, what the Post says is influential, no matter how much grassroots America might reject what the Post has to say.–
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.
Jan 20, 2014 Edition
Putin-Style Politics Could Be What Saves the United States
• American nationalists look to purge ‘crony capitalism’
By Michael Collins Piper
The United States is going the way of Russia—but not in the way conservatives would have you think. While conservatives are busy fighting unemployment benefits for middle-class Americans out of work in themidst of a lagging economy, they ignore the fact that powerful plutocrats—money lords, media barons and other capitalist insiders—are increasing their stranglehold on the American system.
Conservatives say this is “free enterprise” and “the American way” but traditional populists, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, say otherwise.
In fact, what’s happening in America recalls what happened in Russia in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet state: A handful of greedy vultures grabbed control of the Russian economy and the political apparatus arising from the remnants of the Communist Party superstructure that dominated the USSR for some 75 years.
Hardly more than 10 in number, these so-called “oligarchs”—most of them Jewish, not ethnic Russians—became the new ruling class in Russia. Preying upon the Russian people, they looted the economy and bought control of the nation’s media, reigning supreme, cooperating with the interests, in the West, of the Rothschild dynasty.
Here in America, things are little different. Some have reflected upon this sad state of affairs and what lies behind it: In the book The Betrayal of the American Dream, Donald Barlett and James B. Steele denounced the “rapacious job-killing strategies” of those whom they correctly call “the ruling class.” You’ve heard of free trade and Mitt Romney-style “outsourcing,” haven’t you?
Ex-Rep. David Stockman (R-Mich.) has denounced the rise of “crony capitalism” which—he points out—is anything but traditional conservatism: It has saddled America with debt and fiscal collapse, accompanied by a massive rise in military spending propping up the United States (and entangling America in foolish foreign ventures) as a global policeman.
However, as Stockman notes, the advocates of these policies—who loudly proclaim their opposition to “big government”—offer no challenge to Wall Street or the military-industrial complex or to the Federal Reservewhich, he says needs “a sweeping housecleaning.”
So all those worrying about socialism in America missed the big picture, ignoring what media critics John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have called the “dollarocracy” which they contend has set in place a “money and media election complex” that is destroying America.
A handful of billionaires—liberal and conservative alike, ranging from predatory speculator George Soros on the “left” to Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his Israeli wife Miriam on the “right”—bankroll American politicians, virtually unchallenged. Unaccountable money via so-called “super PACs” floods our elections and media companies rake in billions in profits from advertising revenues generated by the PACs.
This incestuous system mirrors precisely what happened in Russia. So, yes, America has gone the way of Russia.
But there’s now a new paradigm in place in Russia: Vladimir Putin turned the tables on those rapacious oligarchs who put him in power in the first place. And while the kings of the kleptocracy still control 70% of the Russian media, Putin carefully plays a multi-level geopolitical chess game, fighting not only his opposition at home but its allies among the intriguers of New York, London and Tel Aviv.
The final outcome remains to be seen, but Americans are being told by the Zionist-controlled media that Putin is a “secret socialist” who wants to conquer the world.
The truth is that if Americans want to get back to good old-fashioned Americanism—however defined—we do need to go the way of Russia and find a leader like Putin.
—— Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has authored more than a dozen books.
.An influential figure in the global “superclass” says that the “political fault line” for the 21st century is the battle of “globalists vs. nationalists.” This is a candid admission, in no uncertain terms—echoing what American Free Press has been saying since its inception. It also echoes what Liberty Lobby, the longtime populist institution in Washington (before it was crushed by CIA agents and corrupt judges), insisted for years—that the real conflict in our world today is (and always has been) the fight by nationalists worldwide to preserve their nations’ sovereignty in face of an energetic push by super-rich cosmopolitan elitist internationalists to set in place what has commonly come to be known as the New World Order.
The tired and worn labels of “liberal” and “conservative” never meant anything of consequence, just as there is very little difference, on the major international issues, between the Democratic and Republican Party. The real battle is between the globalists and the nationalists.
This is what David Rothkopf—former managing director of Kissinger Associates, the powerful international consulting firm of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, asserts in his book, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, a volume that openly acknowledges the influence of such powerful groups as Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, even citing the work of AFP editor Jim Tucker and his book Bilderberg Diary,* which details Tucker’s many years following the intrigues of those whom Rothkopf calls “the global elite.”
Rothkopf’s book—described as a “taxonomy of the rich and powerful who shape foreign policy and business in our globalized world” and as a “masterful portrait of this century’s global elite”—acknowledges in a chapter frankly titled “Globalists vs. Nationalists” that that there is an emerging “global network of antiglobalists” who stand in opposition to the aims of the New World Order “superclass.”
What is interesting is that Rothkopf actually admits that among the foremost opponents of the agenda of the global elite are such figures as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Rothkopf wrote:
At the core of the “anti-network” is a small group of leaders, linked by many shared characteristics and attitudes though they come from widely different regions of the world. They might be characterized as “nationalists,” or opponents of the United States, or critics of Western-led globalization. . . . In their view, globalization is old Western imperialism dressed up in new clothes, and they are reacting to it much as they were trained to react to such incursions. . . .
Whether you characterize it as nationalist vs. internationalist, populist vs. globalist, or anti-neo-imperialist vs. pro-American globalization,” the fact is that the battle lines are drawn.
The fact that a genuine “insider” such as Rothkopf is now openly confirming the nature of the conflict that is now raging on the global stage is a clear sign that the global elite recognize that there are serious forces aligned against their agenda.
Unfortunately, groups such as the John Birch Society continue to promote the globalist line by attacking nationalist figures such as Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Putin, failing to recognize (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) the fact that these leaders stand in opposition to the New World Order.
Ironically, Rothkopf’s chapter reads much like the concluding chapter of this author’s recent work, The Golem,** which scores the “Israelization” of American foreign policy and asserts that the United States is now engaged in planning for global war in the name of “democracy” with targets such as Iran, Venezuela and Russia now in the gunsights of the global elite, the high priests of war.
Israeli Lobby Targeting
Putin As New ‘Enemy’ By Michael Collins Piper
America’s neoconservative elite and their collaborators in the pro-Israel lobby in Washington have fired a first shot in the opening guns of a new Cold War being launched against Russian Premier Vladimir Putin.
Although it hasn’t been reported widely in the America mass media, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (DConn.), two of the Israeli lobby’s leading congressional stalwarts, introduced a resolution in the Senate on Feb. 19, condemning Putin and urging President Bush to push for suspending Russia’s membership in the G-8 organization of industrial nations.
Latching on to the president’s emphatic declaration in his Jan. 20 inaugural address of a new global campaign by the United States for the promotion of “democracy.” Lieberman announced that “President Putin’s assault on democracy in Russia violates the spirit of the industrialized democracies and the letter of Russia’s obligations to the Group of Eight. We must openly confront anti-democratic backsliding in Russia for the sake of all those who look to the United States as a beacon for freedom.”
The resolution was designed to put Bush on the spot just as he was meeting with Putin in Slovakia on Feb. 24.
The motive for the neo-conservatives and their congressional spokesmen to undermine Putin is clear: Putin recently challenged Bush and Israel by daring to say publicly that he (Putin) does not believe that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons.
Although the burgeoning hostility against Putin by the neo-conservatives has been widely hashed over in small-circulation pro-Israel publications and American Jewish community newspapers on a regular basis, it has only been recently that mainstream publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have begun to echo those concerns about Putin. It is almost as if the big name dailies were taking the lead from the other journals. Increasingly, however, the word that “Putin is a possible enemy” is now being preached to the average American through the outlets of the mass media.
Though Russia joined the G-8, which includes Britain, Canada, Japan, France, Italy and Germany, in 2002, the companion resolutions in the Senate and the House ask the president to enlist the other G-8 countries to join with the United States in suspending Russia’s membership until such time as Bush decides that Russia is supposedly committed to so-called “democratic principles.”
This is the second time that McCain and Lieberman introduced such a measure, although their last effort, in 2003, failed in committee. At that time, two other members of Congress, California Reps. Tom Lantos — a Democrat — and Christopher Cox — a Republican — introduced a companion resolution in the House which reached the floor but was never voted upon.
Reflecting on the fact that the media was increasingly promoting hostility to Putin, American Free Press noted on Oct. 25, 2004, that the media’s primary concern about Putin stems from the fact that he has been moving against the handful of billionaire plutocrats in Russia who grabbed control of the Russian economy with the open-connivance of then- Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union. Many of these oligarchs also held Israeli citizenship.
One American hard-line pro-Israel publication, The New Republic, raised the question on Sept. 24, 2004: “Is Russia going fascist?” asserting that whether Putin personally remains in power or not, there is a growing movement “nationalist” in nature — that holds great sway among the Russian population. TNR expressed concern that “a fascist revolution” could be in the offing, meaning a movement hostile to the Israeli oligarchs, with international criminal connections, who rule the Russian economy.
Likewise, much earlier, in his 1995 book, Russia: A Return to Imperialism, Boston-University-based Israeli academic Uri Ra’anan sounded the concern that post-Soviet Russia may pose a threat to the West.
These works echo such writers as Jonathon Brent and Vladimir Naumov who, in their 2003 book, Stalin’s Last Crime, published evidence that longtime Soviet leader Josef Stalin was almost certainly murdered in 1953 after he began moves toward exorcising Zionist influence in Soviet circles of power. They concluded by saying that “Stalin is a perpetual possibility,” leaving open the theoretical proposition that Putin, or other would-be Russian leaders, may ultimately emerge as heir to Stalin’s anti-Zionist legacy.
With the American neo-conservatives, whose ideological godfathers are widely known as admitted ex-Trotskyite communists, now moving against Putin, it is as if we are seeing a rejuvenation of the war against Russian nationalism by the Trotskyites, retooled for 21st century geopolitical considerations. Now — unlike in the first half of the 20th century prior to the founding of the state of Israel — the central role of that Middle East state in the neo-conservative worldview cannot be understated, for the concern about Israel is a front-line consideration in the neo-conservative campaign against Putin.
« PUTIN PUMMELED: Because he has been working to break the back of powerful Israeli oligarchs in Russia and has refused to support U.S. efforts to undermine Iran, a roadblock in Israel’s design for Middle East dominance, Vladimir Putin is increasingly under attack by the U.S. media. Now the neo-cons are rallying to undermine him. Stay tuned. »
THE GOLEM – The Israelization of American Foreign Policy Planning for Global War in the Name of ‘Democracy’
Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, « Islamo-Fascists » Who Will be Targeted Next by The High Priests of War?
By Michael Collins Piper
(…)Aside from Iran and Syria—which have long been in the gunsights of the Zionist warhawks—three additional countries (Russia, China and Venezuela) now seem to be special targets of Bush and his neo-conservative handlers. These countries don’t seem to fall into the category of the « democracy » that Sharansky and Bush are so determined to promote on a global scheme, and even a cursory examination of the media coverage and rhetoric from the neo-conservatives concerning these nations clearly indicates that war—either « cold » or « hot »—may well be in the offing. And Americans will pay for these wars and fight them.
America’s neo-conservative Judas Goats and their collaborators in the pro-Israel lobby in Washington have already fired the opening guns of a new Cold War against Russian leader Vladimir Putin who is increasingly the subject of harsh criticism and hostile questions about his « commitment to democracy. »
Whether Putin is going to be cast as « the New Hitler » or the « New Stalin » remains to be seen, but recent indications suggest that the Zionist war against Russian nationalism has now been launched on American soil.
The big question is whether Americans will be hoodwinked and again dragged into another war that need not and should not be fought.
The truth is that the neo-conservative hostility to Putin stems precisely from the fact that Putin has not been perceived as attentive to the demands of Zionist Israel.
And for that reason Putin and the nationalists of Russia are now the targets of the international Zionist elite.
Although the burgeoning hostility against Putin by the neo-conservatives had been widely hashed over in small-circulation pro-Israel publications and American Jewish community newspapers on a regular basis, it was only later that mainstream publications such as The Weekly Standard and The New York Times, to name the most prominent, began to echo those concerns about Putin, almost as if the big name dailies were taking the lead from the other journals. Increasingly, however, the notion that « Putin is a possible enemy » was now being put forth to the average American, through the outlets of the mass media.
Another major concern about Putin stems from the fact that he moved sharply against the handful of billionaire plutocrats in Russia (many of whom also hold Israeli citizenship) who grabbed control of the Russian economy with the connivance of then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union.
Clearly, as Putin aggressively moved against the billionaire oligarchs who were looting the Russian economy (and then, in some instances, fleeing to Israel for refuge), the U.S.-based major print and broadcast media began increasingly taking shots at the Russian leader.
One American hard-line pro-Israel publication, The New Republic, raised the question on September 24, 2004: « Is Russia going fascist? »
asserting that whether Putin personally remains in power or not, there is a growing movement— »nationalist » in nature—that holds great sway among the Russian population. The New Republic expressed concern that « a fascist revolution » could be in the offing, meaning a movement hostile to the Israeli oligarchs (with international criminal connections) who have looted the Russian economy. Likewise, earlier, in his 1995 book, Russia: A Return to Imperialism, Boston-University-based Israeli academic Uri Ra’anan sounded the concern that post-Soviet Russia may pose a threat to the West (i.e. to Israel and Zionist interests in the West).
These works echoed such writers as Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov who, in their 2003 book, Stalin’s Last Crime, concluded by saying that « Stalin is a perpetual possibility, » leaving open the theoretical proposition that Putin, or other future would-be Russian leaders, may ultimately emerge as heir to Stalin’s anti-Zionist legacy.
In the not-unexpected wake of this, the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for all intents and purposes, officially declared a new « Cold War » on Russia.
The powerful New York-based branch of the London-based Royal Institute on International Affairs—which is funded by the Rothschild family, who are major patrons of Israel—the CFR was, for years, under the domination of the Rockefeller family of the United States.
In recent years, however, a major pro-Israel financier, Maurice « Hank » Greenberg, has emerged as a key figure behind the CFR. Likewise, although—in the past—the CFR was often described (in Jewish-controlled media outlets) as the foreign policy voice of the so-called White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment, the truth is that the CFR has an inordinately large membership of American Jews who are strong partisans of Israel.
In any case, regarding Putins Russia, in late 2005 the CFR announced the formation of a new « bipartisan task force » to study U.S.Russian relations.The CFR was spearheading this new unit to monitor— in fact, pressure—Russia to follow the dictates of the United States under the Bush administration’s push for global democracy, a theme enunciated by Bush’s Soviet-born (but non-Russian) intellectual mentor, Natan Sharansky.
Currently a leading figure in Israeli political affairs, Sharansky has been the guiding force behind the Bush foreign policy, having been so acknowledged as such by Bush.
Some might say it was « just a coincidence » that on Dec. 7, 2005— the momentous anniversary of Pearl Harbor—the nation’s two most influential newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post —both of which consistently feature the pronouncements of the CFR and the elite (pro-Israel) foreign policy establishment—featured heavy-handed attacks on President Vladimir Putin of Russia.
The New York Times offered its readers an op-ed piece entitled « Moscow’s Empty Red Square. » The commentary, charging that Russia under Putin was « becoming steadily less democratic, » was signed by the Democratic Party’s 2004 vice presidential candidate, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), and the Republican Party’s 1996 vice presidential candidate, Jack Kemp.This duo just happened to be sharing the chairmanship of the task force on U.S. policy toward Russia that had just then just set in place by the CFR.
In tackling Putin, Edwards and Kemp said, « Russia faces a choice between entering the mainstream of the modern world, or trapping itself in an eddy of reaction and isolation. »
The CFR spokesmen told Putin he must shelve proposed legislation that would crack down on domestic opposition. This comes at a time when many Russian legislators and opinion leaders have been speaking openly about the power of domestic Zionist groups that are viewed as troublesome for Russia, particularly because of their international ties and their links to the billionaire oligarchs and allied forces in Israel.
In amazing sync with the Dec. 7 attack by the CFR duo on Putin in The New York Times, that very same day The Washington Post—just a « coincidence, » of course—featured an editorial entitled « The Anti-Democracy Agenda » raising the question: « Is Russia a partner of the United States in the war on terrorism? »
The Post then went on to assert « You wouldn’t know it from the bitter campaign Moscow is waging to thwart President Bush’s democracy agenda in Muslim Central Asia, » referring to Putin’s support for Uzbek President Islam Karimov and what the Post called « an emerging Moscow-led bloc of dictatorships » including Belarus, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. The Post scored Putin for lending aid to the leaders of these nations and then demanded an answer to this query: « Is this the act of a partner, or an adversary? » The Post said that it was time for President Bush « to stop ducking that question. » Clearly, the Post’s answer to the question was implicit in its question.
The fact that these most potent blasts at Putin just happened to appear in tandem, on Dec. 7, struck many Russia-watchers as most interesting and symbolic, to say the least.
Several months later, the CFR report on Putin—ostensibly prepared under the direction of the aforementioned Edwards and Kemp—was released and its conclusions didn’t bode well for Putin. The Russian leader wasclearly in the gun sights of the powerful international interests often loosely described as « the New World Order. »
To nobody’s surprise, the « bipartisan task force » report from the CFR echoed and formally enunciated the same themes that Edwards and Kemp had already outlined in their Dec. 7 attack on Putin.
The CFR report insisted the Bush administration take a hard line toward Putin. The CFR asserted Putin s policies may not be in the best interests of the United States. The report said « The very idea of strategic partnership’ [between the U.S. and Russia] no longer seems realistic. » In other words, the CFR had declared a new « Cold War » against Russia.
And now on the heels of the release of this CFR report, there are rumors (from sources unknown) that Russia may have fed U.S. military secrets to the government of Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion of the now-destroyed Arabic republic. Such rumors, having received widespread attention in the major media in America, only tend to feed the anti- Putin frenzy that has already been triggered. However, before American patriots jump on the anti-Putin and anti-Russia bandwagon, they should keep an eye on precisely what forces are driving it.
Essentially, with the American neo-conservatives now moving against Putin, it is as if we are seeing a rejuvenation of the war against Russian nationalism by the Trotskyites, retooled for 21st century geopolitical considerations.
Now—unlike in the first half of the 20th century prior to the founding of the state of Israel—the central role of that Middle East state in the neoconservative worldview cannot be understated, for the concern about Israel is a front-line consideration in the neo-conservative campaign against Putin.
But Putin and the nationalist phenomenon in Russia that Putin has reenergized is not the only target of Zionism and the American war machine that is now in the hands of Israel’s neo-conservative allies.(…)
FREE EBOOK: Bolton Kerry – Stalin The enduring legacy
English › B › Bolton Kerry
Bolchevik – Communism – Jew – Russia – Second World War
Author : Bolton Kerry
Title : Stalin The enduring legacy
Year : 2012
Link download : Bolton_Kerry_-_Stalin_The_enduring_legacy.zip
Introduction. Joseph Stalin’s legacy continues to haunt geopolitical developments across the world. Stalin (‘Man of Steel’) ruled the USSR and later Soviet-Russian Empire with an iron fist from 1928 until his death in 1953. His individual resolve placed Russia on a course to national greatness by reversing the Bolshevik-Marxist psychosis that would have reduced Russia to chaos and destroyed the very soul of the Russian people. In foreign policy Stalin assured Russia’s place as a world power and maintained the national and cultural freedom of Russia by rejecting the post-1945 international policy that the USA aimed at creating a one-world government. In the arts Stalinism repudiated ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’ in favour of a Soviet culture based on a synthesis of Russian traditions. …
Le dernier livre de Kerry Bolton Stalin – The Enduring Legacy présente un côté de Staline faisant grandement penser à Poutine, voire au national-socialisme, opposé à la fois à l’internationale trotskiste et à l’internationale capitaliste du « nouvel ordre mondial ». Tant Staline que Poutine sont diabolisés par les juifs américains et la juiverie internationale, fortement influencés par la pensée trotskiste (écouter à ce sujet le fondateurs et porte-parole des « prisonniers de Sion » refuzniks, Nathan Sharansky, président de la Jewish Agency qui a grandement inspiré George W. Bush, comme le rapportait le leader néocon juif William Kristol, fils du fameux Trotskyiste Irving Kristol alias « Néo« , qui fut l’un des principaux fondateurs du néo-conservatisme).
- Paperback: 164 pages
- Publisher: Black House Publishing Ltd (September 21, 2012)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1908476427
- ISBN-13: 978-1908476425
- Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.4 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,782,993 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy considers the ‘Man of Steel’ in a manner that will outrage dogmatists of both Left and Right. Stalinist Russia is reassessed as a state that transcended Marxism, and proceeded on a nationalist and imperial path rather than as the citadel of ‘world revolution’. Stalin reversed many early Bolshevik policies re-instituting, for example, the traditional family. He abolished the Communist International, championed ‘realism’ in the arts and rejected post-1945 US plans for a ‘new world order’. Despite so-called ‘de-Stalinization’ after his death, the Soviet bloc continued to oppose globalism, as does Putin’s Russia. Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, examines the anti-Marxist character of Stalinism, the legitimacy of the Moscow Trials against the ‘Old Bolsheviks’, the origins of the Cold War, the development of Trotskyism as a tool of US foreign policy, the question of Stalin’s murder, and the relevance of Russia to the future of world power politics. ‘Dr. Bolton’s book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy is a major contribution to the proper understanding of Russian, as well as American, politics and society in the twentieth century. It brushes aside the anti-Stalinist biases of the Trotskyist American chroniclers of this historical period to reveal the unquestionable integrity of Stalin as a nationalist leader. At the same time, it highlights the vital differences between the Russian national character rooted in the soil and history of Russia, and its opposite,the rootless Jewish cosmopolitanism that Trotskyist Marxism sought to impose on the Russians – as well as on the rest of the world’. – Dr Alexander Jacob
Yockey and Russia By Dr K R Bolton
The Yockey-Thompson Campaign against Post-War Vengeance By Kerry R. Bolton
Stalin’s German-Nationalist Party By Kerry R. Bolton
Le conflit de Staline avec les juifs par Kerry Bolton
Václav Havel: The “Inner Enemy” by Kerry Bolton
Stalin: The Enduring Legacy
London: Black House Publishing, 2012
March 26, 2013 .
Stalin’s Fight Against International Communism by Kerry Bolton
This is the first chapter of Kerry Bolton’s new book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012). The chapter is being reprinted as formatted in the book. Counter-Currents will also run a review of the book, which I highly recommend.
Socialism, Revolution and Capitalist Dialectics by Kerry R Bolton, May 4, 2010
(…)Capitalism thus is an essential phase in the Marxist dialectic of historical progression towards communism. Where capitalism does not at first exist, this is seen as a hindrance rather than as a benefit to the development of socialism. The Marxist premise was that socialism must proceed from a capitalist economy.
Hence Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto:
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the modern of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish faster.
Marx further stated:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities, and renders the contrasts between workers and middle class more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.
In Marx’s own day, he saw the then dominant and newly emerging Free Trade School as part of a necessary dialectical process of history that makes more acute the antagonism between the classes, internationalizes the proletariat and indeed as “precipitating the social revolution.”
Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy for the purpose of bringing Russia, hitherto still undeveloped industrially, into the stage of industrial development required as the prerequisite for building socialism, and opened the new Soviet state to foreign capital. Today, the Chinese leadership can rationalize capitalist economic innovations on the basis that China must first develop a certain economic phase before proceeding to a fuller socialist economy. Vietnam at the moment, after having spent much of its history fighting for sovereignty against foreign domination, whether it be that of ancient China, or colonial France, or the American presence, now succumbs to the global economic development model and has entered the world economy, subjecting herself to World Bank and International Monetary Fund “guidance” and “advice”, and having 42% of its GDP serving debt, which the World Bank assures us is an acceptable debt level. Here again Vietnam’s leadership is within the Marxian dialectical framework of building its economy through capitalist structures and debt as a prelude to socialism and ultimately to communism, assuming that a state once becoming part of the international financial structure can ever remove itself.
Capitalism and Dialectics
What is not generally recognized is that capitalism also has a dialectical approach to history. In this dialectical capitalism, the synthesis that is supposed to emerge is a “Brave New World” centralized world economy controlled not by commissars and a politburo but by technocrats and boards of directors. A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term. Hence the rationale behind capitalists supporting socialist and even communist movements, as will be shown. As stated above H. G. Wells opined—approvingly—at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution that Big Business and communism are both paths to the same end—”Collectivism.” The “socialistic” orientation of certain capitalists at the apex of the world economy is exemplified by a statement by the late Nelson Rockefeller of the famous capitalist dynasty: “I’m a great believer in planning. Economic, social, political, military, total world planning.”
In terms of having backed socialism and other forms of social revolution or revolt, the dialectics of capitalism considers that a capitalist society cannot be achieved until a rural or economically anachronistic society has gone from its peasant stage into an industrial phase. In order to achieve this sudden and enforced industrialization of a peasant or rural society, certain capitalist interests have used socialism.
The capitalist dialectic in simple terms can be seen as the mirror image of the Marxist dialectic: Marxism states that socialism cannot be achieved from a rural society until it has become industrialized by capitalism; the capitalist dialectic postulates that capitalism can be more effectively achieved if a rural society is first industrialized by the dictatorial methods of socialism.
History has shown that the capitalist dialectic has been successful: certain business interests backed or at least welcomed socialist revolutions in Russia and China to overthrow traditional peasant societies. Once socialism had been used to achieve the industrialization of those societies, the next phase of the dialectic has been to introduce privatization and globalization to the economies of the former Eastern bloc; the present phase of the dialectic, while China’s economy seems to be proceeding along desired paths as part of the world economic system.(…)
Trotsky, Stalin and the Cold War: The Historic Implications and Continuing Ramifications of the Trotsky-Stalin Conflict
(Chapter 4 from STALIN: The Enduring Legacy)
by Kerry Bolton
This is the second of two chapters on the Moscow Trials that we are reprinting from Kerry Bolton’s new book Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012). The chapters are reprinted as formatted in the book. Counter-Currents will also run a review of the book, which I highly recommend.
The Moscow Trials were symptomatic of a great divide that had occurred in Bolshevism. The alliance with Stalin during World War II had formed an assumption among US internationalists that after the Axis defeat a ‘new world order’ would emerge via the United Nations Organisation. This assumption was ill-founded, and the result was the Cold War. Trotskyists emerged as avid Cold Warriors dialectically concluding that the USSR represented the primary obstacle to world socialism. This essay examines the dialectical process by which major factions of Trotskyism became, in Stalinist parlance, a ‘tool of foreign powers and of world capitalism.’
One of the major accusations against Trotsky and alleged Trotskyists during the Moscow Trials of 1936-1938 was that they were agents of foreign capital and foreign powers, including intelligence agencies, and were engaged in sabotage against the Soviet State. In particular, with the advent of Nazi Germany in 1933, Stalin sought to show that in the event of war, which he regarded as inevitable, the Trotskyist network in the USSR would serve as a fifth column for Germany.
The background of these trials has been examined in Chapter III.
Stalin Correct in Fundamental Accusations Against Trotskyites
What is significant is that Khrushchev did concede that Stalin was correct in his fundamental allegation that the Trotskyists, Bukharinites et al represented a faction that sought the ‘restoration of capitalism and capitulation to the world bourgeoisie’. (…)
Le conflit de Staline avec les Juifs
par Kerry R. Bolton
Histoire :: Europe de l’Est
Staline était-il juif ? L’arrière-petit-fils détruit le mythe de l’ascendance juive de Staline
La scission entre Trotski et Staline il y a quelque 80 ans continue à avoir des conséquences cruciales pour la politique mondiale. Certains ont vu cela comme une brouille entre criminels, certains comme rien de plus qu’une dispute tactique entre des bolcheviks qui partageaient néanmoins un but commun, certains comme une querelle familiale juive de plus.
Il y a des historiens qui pensent que Staline était un antisémite, ou qu’en fait il avait toujours été contrôlé par les Juifs. Certains pensent que Staline était lui-même juif et qu’il a apporté à l’URSS et à ses satellites autant de bienfaits juifs que l’ont fait Trotski, Bela Kun et les autres.
Parmi les auteurs non-orthodoxes et qualifiés d’« antisémites », une faction pense que le conflit de Staline avec Trotski et la purge des trotskistes et des autres Vieux Bolcheviks, juifs pour la plupart, montre que Staline suivait une voie qui n’était pas seulement opposée aux Juifs mais aussi à de nombreux égards opposée au bolchevisme.
Le bolchevisme inversé de Staline
Staline étant bien installé comme dictateur de l’URSS, il inversa beaucoup des préceptes bolcheviks. La maternité fut honorée, avec un « Ordre de la gloire maternelle » dans le style nazi . Des lois anti-avortement et anti-divorce furent passées en 1936, et l’homosexualité fut mise hors la loi. Le réalisme socialiste devint l’art officiel. Staline poursuivit des objectifs panslavistes à la place de celui de la « révolution mondiale » défendu par Trotski. L’Association des Vieux Bolcheviks fut dissoute, tout comme le Komintern. Il n’y aurait pas de « révolution mondiale », il y aurait une expansion territoriale soviétique. Les partis communistes du monde entier serviraient la politique étrangère soviétique. Dans le cas de la Chine, Staline ne reconnut pas les maoïstes avant qu’ils n’aient vraiment expulsé de Chine Tchang Kaï Tchek. Son ambassadeur resta avec les Nationalistes jusqu’à la fin. Le Département d’Etat américain fit plus que Staline pour promouvoir le communisme en Chine.(…)
Avec la montée de l’Allemagne nazie, Roosevelt maintint une politique pro-Staline, ce qui pourrait expliquer le refus des USA d’autoriser l’entrée de la dépouille de Trotski aux USA en 1940. Après la seconde guerre mondiale, les USA espéraient pouvoir créer un Nouvel Ordre Mondial (comme Wilson avait tenté de le faire après la première guerre mondiale avec la Société des Nations) à travers l’ONU et avec Staline comme partenaire subalterne.
Pour sa part, Staline anéantit ces espoirs en s’assurant que l’ONU soit rendue inutile en tant que Parlement Mondial embryonnaire sous contrôle US. Au lieu de laisser le pouvoir être investi dans l’Assemblée générale (où les votes des nations à la fois criblées de dettes et fatiguées de la guerre comme la Grande-Bretagne et des pays du Tiers Monde émergeant pouvaient être achetés), Staline maintint inflexiblement qu’il ne rejoindrait l’ONU que si le Conseil de Sécurité avait un droit de veto.
Le Plan Baruch (ainsi nommé d’après le nom du banquier international et « vieil homme d’Etat américain » Bernard Baruch) pour l’« internationalisation de l’énergie atomique » (encore une façade pour le contrôle US, comme le remarqua à juste titre l’URSS) fut également rejeté par Staline.
Le rejet par Staline de ces plans mondialistes entraîna la « guerre froide ». Certains théoriciens de la conspiration ont prétendu que cette animosité était une supercherie par laquelle toutes les nations seraient attirées dans l’orbite US ou soviétique alors que toutes deux seraient secrètement d’accord. Les USA n’étaient pas prêts pour une guerre chaude ; ils visaient à un contrôle au moyen de la dette et de la subversion (en grande partie culturelle).
Concernant cette époque, le philosophe américain Yockey écrit :
« Cela commença au début de 1947 avec le refus des Russes d’abandonner une partie de leur souveraineté aux dénommées ‘Nations Unies’ dans un but de ‘contrôle’ de l’industrie des armes atomiques. (…) Ce refus russe dérangea les plans de la direction juive (…) La politique suivante de la direction juive fut de persuader le régime de Staline, par l’encerclement et par la pression de la ‘guerre froide’, que toute résistance était sans espoir… »
(F.P. Yockey, Qu’y a-t-il derrière la pendaison des onze Juifs de Prague ?, 1952)
Les trotskistes se pressèrent sous les bannières des USA, et la CIA fonda le Congrès pour la Liberté Culturelle, une tentative pour enrôler les intellectuels et les artistes dans une offensive de propagande contre l’URSS. Les fondateurs comprenaient les dirigeants trotskistes Sidney Hook, James Burnham, Melvin Lasky, et d’éminents socialistes anti-soviétiques comme Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell et le poète Stephen Spender. L’un des patrons britanniques était Frederic Warburg de la famille de banquiers Warburg, Frederic étant propriétaire de Secker and Warburg, qui publiait des livres trotskistes et d’autres livres socialistes anti-staliniens.
Origines des néo-conservateurs actuels
Cet arrière-plan est important pour notre compréhension de la politique étrangère et militaire américaine d’aujourd’hui. Les trotskistes qui s’alignèrent avec les USA dans une croisade contre une Russie débarrassée de Trotski devinrent les mentors et les pères des néo-cons qui dirigent aujourd’hui à Washington. Irving Kristol (père de l’actuel néo-con et directeur de l’influent Weekly Standard), William Kristol, Jean Kirkpatrick (ex-ambassadeur US à l’ONU), Wolfowitz du Département de la Défense, commencèrent comme trotskistes. La stratégie militaire et diplomatique fondamentale de l’après-guerre fut conçue par des intellectuels ex-trotskistes comme James Burnham. Il fut décoré de la Médaille de la Liberté par Reagan, tout comme le vieux « menchevik », le Prof. Sidney Hook. Les politiques trotskistes de la guerre froide furent intégrées dans l’actuel programme mondialiste US et la dénommée « guerre contre le terrorisme ».
Ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui comme de la politique étrangère US est fondamentalement du trotskisme. Le président Bush déclare que les USA sont le centre d’un « mouvement démocratique mondial ». La conception US de la démocratie est considérée comme un système universellement applicable et le monde entier doit s’y conformer. Les stratèges politiques comme Michael Ledeen écrivent que les USA sont le centre d’une révolution mondiale ; que les USA ont une mission messianique de « destruction créatrice ». C’est ainsi que le trotskisme s’est transformé en doctrine actuelle des USA, et qu’il a ses origines dans la rupture Staline-Trotski.
L’origine ethnique de Staline
Quant à Staline, le mythe de ses origines juives continue. Un article de R.N. Terrall dans le numéro de mai/juin 2003 de la revue révisionniste Barnes Review tente de montrer les origines juives de Staline. Des traits supposément juifs incluent l’opposition à l’establishment, un talent pour les pamphlets et des capacités organisationnelles, et un intérêt pour les langues étrangères.
Il est aussi affirmé que Joseph est un nom typiquement juif, ce qui aurait été impensable pour un non-Juif dans la Russie tsariste. Pourtant Joseph fut baptisé dans l’Eglise orthodoxe et fut placé au séminaire par une mère dévote.
La principale affirmation concernant l’origine juive de Staline est que son nom patrilinéaire Djugachvili signifie « fils d’un Juif » en géorgien. « Dju » est supposé signifier « juif ». Pourtant, si c’est un nom juif si transparent, il n’y eut pas d’effort particulier pour le cacher, en dépit de l’adoption du pseudonyme de parti « Staline » en 1912. Les Djugachvili continuent à être bien connus en Russie et ils ne sont pas particulièrement bien disposés envers les Juifs, même aujourd’hui. En fait, le petit-fils de Staline fut candidat au Parlement russe il y a quelques années avec un programme nationaliste et anti-sioniste. Staline jouit aujourd’hui d’un regain de popularité chez les nationalistes de tendance dure qui ne sont pas bien disposés envers les sionistes et les oligarques juifs et qui seraient sûrement au courant si Djugachvili signifiait vraiment « fils d’un Juif ». L’arrière-petit-fils de Staline, Jacob Djugachvili, écrit :
« Mon père Evgueni Djugachvili fut cofondateur de l’Union des Officiers (Soyouz Officierov) et de la Société de Staline. En 2000, il fut candidat aux élections parlementaires en Russie (la Douma). Il n’appela pas à la ‘restauration du communisme’, mais à traduire en justice ceux qui envahirent la Russie en 1917, mais échappèrent à un jugement, ceux qui vendirent notre pays au sionisme mondial : Gorbatchev, Eltsine, Chevardnadze… »
(cité sur le site de Peter Myers : http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/)
Mr. Terrall dit aussi que le premier-né de Staline fut prénommé Yakov, pour sûr un nom juif, et que les trois enfants de Staline épousèrent tous des conjoints juifs, et que ses trois épouses étaient juives.
Pas d’épouses juives
L’arrière-petit-fils Jacob Djugachvili, en réponse à la question du chercheur australien Peter Myers, déclare à propos des soi-disant « trois femmes juives » de Staline :
« Oui, vous pouvez ajouter mes commentaires sur ces conneries concernant J. Staline et Rosa Kaganovitch… Je pense que vous devriez corriger et signaler que ni Ekaterine Svanidze ni Nadezhda Allilueva n’étaient juives… Avant tout, vous devez savoir que Staline fut marié deux fois : sa première femme fut Ekaterine Svanidze, une Géorgienne avec laquelle il eut un fils, Yakov. Il n’y a pas la moindre trace de sang juif. La seconde femme fut Nadezhda Allilueva, une Russe du Sud avec du sang gitan, avec laquelle il eut Svetlana et Vassili… Pour l’arbre généalogique, veuillez jeter un coup d’œil sur : www.jugashvili.com »
Lazar Kaganovtich, le bras droit de Staline qui réussit à survivre aux purges contre ses compagnons juifs, avait une sœur et une nièce toutes deux prénommées Rosa. Aucune des deux ne fut jamais la femme ou la maîtresse de Staline.
Mr. Terrall et d’autres semblent conclure trop facilement à une origine juive sur la base d’un prénom ou d’un second prénom juifs, alors que bien sûr l’utilisation de tels prénoms est une coutume chrétienne.
Signification de Djugachvili
Concernant le nom « Djugachvili » lui-même, signifiant soi-disant « fils d’un juif », d’une évidence accablante, Jacob Djugachvili écrit :
« J’espère que vous avez vu l’arbre généalogique sur mon site web, de sorte que je n’aie pas besoin d’expliquer mes origines.
Je commencerai par la fin de votre message. Avant tout, vous devez savoir que dans l’alphabet géorgien il y a deux consonnes ‘G’, un qui se prononce comme la première lettre de ‘Great’ et un autre ‘G’ qui se prononce comme le ‘R’ français, donc notre nom se prononce ‘Dju’ ‘r’ ‘achvili’. D’habitude notre nom s’écrit Dzhugashvili, parce qu’il n’y a pas de ‘J’ dans l’alphabet russe, donc les Russes utilisent deux lettres, ‘D’ et ‘ZH’ … J’ai donc décidé de l’écrire JUGASHVILI parce que l’alphabet anglais me permet d’utiliser un ‘J’ à la place des trois lettres ‘D’, ‘Z’ et ‘H’… Maintenant, la chose principale concernant l’origine du nom : il y a un village dans l’est de la Géorgie (la Kakhetia – une région vinicole, vous en avez probablement entendu parler) appelé Ju ‘r’ aani… »
Jacob Djugachvili ajoute :
« …Il n’existe pas de mot JUIF pour désigner les Juifs en langue géorgienne… Juif en géorgien se dit ‘EBRAELI’, donc la théorie du ‘fils de juif’ (qui est très tentante si l’on examine notre nom à la lumière de sa prononciation anglaise) est simplement erronée… »
La signification du nom n’est donc pas l’évident « fils de juif », mais une référence à un village de l’est de la Géorgie.
Si l’on considère le mal que Staline et les dirigeants ultérieurs se sont donné pour dissimuler les origines juives de Lénine, il semble évident que Staline aurait cherché encore plus complètement à cacher son nom de famille s’il avait vraiment sonné comme : « Hé les Russes, je suis le fils d’un Juif ! ».
Sang khevsure et ossète
L’écrivain John Jewell, qui publia pendant les années 80 un bulletin très bien informé, Direct Action, qui traitait souvent des questions russes, dit concernant les origines ethniques de Staline :
« Père – Vissarion Ivoanovitch Djugachvili : cordonnier géorgien de la féroce tribu Khevsure. Racialement de la race tauride des caucasoïdes : spécifiquement du type Mtebid, qui est transitif entre les grands Dinariques europoïdes et les petits Arménoïdes asiatiques de la région.
Mère : Ekaterina Georgievna Geladze, paysanne du village de Gambareuil. Elle avait du sang ossète, sa famille venant des proches montagnes d’Ossétie du Sud, une région chrétienne incorporée à la Géorgie. Les Ossètes sont des Indo-Européens : grands, blonds à 30%, avec des yeux clairs. Ossète vient de ‘Asas’ (« astral »), un nom tribal aryen… venant des anciens Alains, un peuple sauromate-scythe qui dominait la steppe et le Caucase du Nord… »
C’est ce sang qui coulait dans ses veines lorsque Joseph Djugachvili, un sabre à la main, accomplissait l’ancienne danse de la tribu guerrière Khevsure lors de son mariage en 1904, dans la maison du révolutionnaire nationaliste géorgien, le prince Budu Mdivani.
Purges contre les Juifs et les sionistes
Quant aux Juifs parmi les révolutionnaires, Staline rejoignit les Bolcheviks parce qu’il trouvait qu’ils comptaient moins de Juifs que les Mencheviks, et dit au révolutionnaire Razdem Arsenidze que les Mencheviks (dont Trotski fit partie jusqu’à la veille de la prise de contrôle bolchevik) n’étaient que des Juifs non-circoncis … des couards et des boutiquiers ».
S’étant débarrassé de la faction trotskiste avant la guerre, Staline put ensuite revenir à la question juive. Dans la Région Autonome Juive du Birobidjan, il ordonna une purge de la direction communiste et interdit le seul journal yiddish de l’URSS. En 1947 commença une purge contre les Juifs dans les domaines culturel et politique. Les théâtres juifs furent fermés. Le dirigeant juif, Solomon Mikhoels, renommé comme acteur et directeur, mais associé aux causes sioniste et juive, fut écrasé par un camion et son corps laissé dans la rue. En 1949, les Juifs furent purgés des postes militaires et diplomatiques. Entre 1949 et 1952, 30.000 Juifs furent déportés au Birobidjan où ils furent obligés de demeurer. Ils étaient traités de « cosmopolites sans racines ». Les purges furent conduites par Jdanov qui mourut soudainement en 1948. En 1952, une purge commença contre les Juifs dans les postes administratifs et de direction. La presse soviétique affirma que ces Juifs étaient liés au sionisme.
Staline utilisa plus tard la mort de Jdanov pour accuser des docteurs juifs de l’avoir tué – le dénommé « complot des blouses blanches » –, et de préparer le meurtre d’autres dirigeants soviétiques incluant lui-même.
En 1951, le chef du part communiste tchèque, Rudolf Slansky, fut limogé pour « activités contre l’Etat ». L’année suivante, lui et treize autres furent jugés comme trotskistes et sionistes. Onze furent pendus. Les Juifs d’outre-mer furent aussi impliqués dans une conspiration sioniste de grande ampleur avec Israël et les USA au centre – incluant « le nationaliste juif » et ministre français des Colonies, Georges Mandel  ; et Moshe Pijade, l’« idéologue juif titiste » en Yougoslavie. Slansky fut décrit par la presse stalinienne comme étant « un sioniste par sa nature même ». De telles actions dans l’appareil soviétique contre les Juifs en tant qu’agents sionistes continuèrent jusque dans les années 60, particulièrement en Tchécoslovaquie et en Pologne (Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, 1971).
En février 1953, Staline autorisa la construction de camps de concentration au Kazakhstan, en Sibérie et dans le Nord arctique. Les Juifs soviétiques devaient y être déportés. Considérant les sionistes et les USA comme étroitement liés, Staline envisageait aussi une offensive atomique contre l’Amérique.
Staline assassiné par Beria
Pourtant, en mars 1953, seulement quelques semaines avant le procès des docteurs accusés dans le « complot des blouses blanches », Staline s’effondra juste après avoir dîné avec Beria, Khrouchtchev et deux autres membres du Politburo. Sa mort fut annoncée quatre jours plus tard, comme étant due à une hémorragie du cerveau. Pourtant le rapport des docteurs, qui n’a été révélé que récemment, atteste que la cause fut une hémorragie de l’estomac, suggérant un empoisonnement.
Le chef juif de la police secrète de Staline, Beria, semble avoir été la figure centrale dans la mort de Staline. Les gardes de Staline avaient été renvoyés par l’un des hommes de Beria. Quand Staline fut finalement découvert gisant sur le plancher, Beria fut appelé et maintint que Staline était seulement endormi. Vingt-quatre heures plus tard, Khrouchtchev fit venir les docteurs. Même à ce moment, Beria avait encore peur de Staline, vomissant sa haine puis restant prostré suivant l’état de conscience de Staline. Beria resta à le veiller et quand Staline mourut quelques jours plus tard, Beria ressortit rayonnant de joie.
Sergo Beria, le fils de Lavrenti Beria, déclare dans une biographie que son père avait toujours détesté Staline. Il raconte que son père faisait allusion à un assassinat.
Beria craignait de faire partie de la prochaine purge ; un de plus dans une longue série des chefs juifs successifs de la police secrète.
Molotov rappela qu’alors que lui et Beria se tenaient sur la Place Rouge pour faire l’éloge funèbre de Staline, Beria se tourna vers Molotov et dit : « Je l’ai supprimé ».
Après la mort de Staline, Beria qui était le chef de l’énorme appareil policier tout comme celui de l’énergie atomique, préparait une prise du pouvoir. L’armée soviétique sous le commandement du maréchal Joukov l’exécuta.
Quant aux rumeurs continuelles concernant Staline, son arrière-petit-fils commente :
« …De telles histoires (il y en a beaucoup ; vous devriez regarder les journaux de la période de la ‘perestroïka’ !) furent inventées pour une raison : pour discréditer son nom et distraire l’attention du peuple loin du sujet principal : le combat de Staline contre l’invasion sioniste de la Russie et des autres nations unies à elle. »
| Sous le IIIe Reich, les mères de famille « méritantes » étaient honorées par une décoration, que l’humour populaire qualifia de « Kaninchen Order » (« Ordre du lapin »). (NDT)
 Il s’agit visiblement d’une erreur de l’auteur. Georges Mandel fut ministre des Colonies de 1938 à 1940, et était effectivement le chef de file de la tendance belliciste dans l’état français ; il fut exécuté par la Milice vichyste en 1944. Les commentaires précités de la presse soviétique peuvent avoir été faits après le Pacte germano-soviétique (août 1939). Ou bien l’auteur de cet article parle bien de l’année 1952, mais a confondu Mandel avec quelqu’un d’autre. (NDT)
Article publié dans la revue néo-zélandaise « Western Destiny », N° 36, août 2004.
VIDEO – Staline et le complot des blouses blanches (en 5 parties)
« Après la création de l’Etat d’Israël, Staline commença à associer les juifs soviétiques à la conspiration capitaliste mondiale et entama une campagne d’arrestation, de déportation et d’exécution des principaux écrivains juifs. Il préparait une campagne antisémite de plus grande ampleur encore lorsqu’il mourut, en 1953. Après la mort de Staline, le communisme prit une coloration de plus en plus ethnique, sous l’impulsion de gens qui désiraient renouer avec sa gloire passée, corrompue, selon eux, par les juifs. » (Le Monde)
Soviet Jews Saved From Stalin’s Genocidal Plans on Purim
United With Israel
By Rachel Avraham
Texe Marrs: Stalin and the Jews
« Purim, a Jewish holy day, just passed. It’s a bloody tale of intrigue by Queen Esther of Persia and Haman, her opponent. Jewish kids celebrate by eating « Hamantashen » (Haman’s flesh) cookies and the Jewish men get drunk in their synagogues. Rabbis name someone in the world as the « Haman of the Year ». In 1953, at Purim, Joseph Stalin was murdered in the Kremlin. He had become the enemy of the Jews. Stalin had signed an order two months before his death for the arrest and deportation of all Jews in Russia. »
This special interview was dedicated in loving memory of: Tzvi Yechetzkel Ben Eliezer Gordon
To view click play
If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.
—European correspondent to Common Sense (a newspaper published in the US between 1947 and 1972)
L’erreur de la plupart des anti-communistes est de croire que le coeur du complot communiste international serait en Russie et donc que la Russie « crypto-communiste » serait sur le point de ressusciter l’URSS. En fait le coeur du communisme international était aux États-Unis. Les anti-communistes croient pour la plupart que le courant conservateur américain a toujours été à l’avant-garde de l’anti-communisme. Ils ignorent que le conservatisme américain a été infiltré et instrumentalisé par des Trotskistes et que ce sont précisément ces Trotskistes (juifs pour la plupart) qui sont derrière la guerre froide, cette paranoïa et cette haine contre l’URSS et contre les Russes eux-mêmes. C’est de ce terreau trotskiste pseudo-conservateur qu’a émergé le « néo-conservatisme ». Le discours de la John Birch Society et du National Review (du demi-juif William F. Buckley) est identique à la propagande anti-Poutine et anti-Russie qu’on nous sert aujourd’hui du côté puissances sionistes et américaines-occidentales! Et le pire c’est que le camp des soi-disant patriotes anti-mondialistes est aussi infiltré par les trotskistes devenus néocons.
Faut-il souligner que nombre de ces trotskistes étaient juifs? C’est probablement ce qui explique la position pro-juive et pro-israélienne (judéo-chrétienne occidentaliste) de la JBS, qui a toujours présenté Israel comme un bastion de l’Occident et du monde libre contre les « ennemis de l’Occident » que sont les communistes (alors qu’en réalité, c’est Israel qui avait le plus grand nombre de partis communistes à l’époque!). Ivan Kalmar souligne lui aussi avec insistance l’antisémitisme du stalinisme: The Trotskys, Freuds and Woody Allens: Portrait of a Culture.
N’oublions pas que la Tchéka, ancêtre du KGB, et le Goulag n’ont pas été inventés par Staline mais par la première génération de révolutionnaires juifs bolchéviques, soit précisément ceux que Staline a fait éliminer…
L’anticommunisme, profession des sionistes, par N. Bolchakov (Novosti, 1972).
Stalin’s 1937 Counter-Revolution Against Trotskyism
Soviet general Victor Filatov summed it up as such:
Glorious 1937! In that year Stalin finally came to understand that it was Zionism, not Communism, that was being built in the USSR and he destroyed it. After 1937, Suvorov and Kutuzov, Nakhimov and Ushakov, Bogdan Khmelnitsky and the “Knight in Tiger Skin” became the national symbols. And the Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians – all those whom the Zionists had destroyed and left to rot in prisons, labeled “nationalists” or “anti-Semites – returned. General Viktor Filatov [“Glorious 1937!”, Zavtra, 9 September 1997. The Russian national heroes are: General Aleksandr Suvorov, General Mikhail Kutuzov, Admiral Pavel Nakhimov, and Admiral Fyodor Ushakov. The Knight in the Tiger’s skin is Prince Tariel of India, from the famous Georgian poem Vephkhviskhaosani.]
We shall wipe everything from the face of the Earth,
We shall extinguish the old Sun,
We shall ignite a new Sun. (p. 155)
recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern [Trotsky’s organization] is to disintegrate and subdue existing states by all means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well-being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities.
Of course Stalin’s regime was awful! But in politics it is very often necessary to choose, not between the good and the better, but between the bad and the worse. The alternatives to Stalin would have been even worse nightmares.…The entire history of the USSR may be seen as an attempt to establish a utopia, and the civil war as the rejection of the utopia by the people.… Like Mandelshtam and Ginzburg, the “children of the Arbat” had not the slightest reason to repent; nor the slightest interest in whom they destroyed…. It is a pity that Stalin did not have another 10 years of life in which to say, like Napoleon, “the revolution is over”, but we can be especially grateful that Stalin killed the revolutionary bastards, the foul-smelling fungi that accumulated on Arbat Street and that he prevented the fungus from spreading to the rest of Russia and the world.That which has gone down in history as “1937” was in fact the most brilliant and glorious event in the Stalin era. Farewell Comrade Stalin! Thank you! (Burovsky, pp. 280, 284–285)
Soviet Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionist, Leftist Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, and the New Anti-Semitism
Semites and Anti-Semites, 1986, by Bernard Lewis, Orientalist, favorite ideologue of the neocons, p.33-41 :
HERE’S THE SAME TEXT IN WRITTEN FORMAT!
The first non-Arab government after the fall of Hitler to initiate an official hate campaign-albeitslightly disguised-against Jews was that of the Soviet Union. 8 Almost from the time of the great October Revolution, the Soviet regime in dealing with its Jewish citizens had been locked in a dilemma of its own making. In almost all Western countries, apart from those with explicitly anti-Semitic regimes, the Jews were considered as a religious minority, sharing the same nationality as the majority. In English, both British and American, and in French, the word nationality is much the same as’ citizenship, denoting the state to which one owes allegiance and the label on one’s passport. Men and women of American or British or French nationality might be of different religions; this is not relevant to their nationality, i.e., their citizenship, and is not recorded on their passports or other identity documents. The Soviet Union, as an atheist, Marxist state, did not recognize religion as a category, nor enter it on any official documents. It did however recognize Jews as a distinct entity, and classified them as an ethnic nationality-in Russian,. natsional’nost:. Soviet passports and other official documents have two rubrics where Western passports have only one. One of them indicates the bearer’s grazhdanstvo, or citizenship; the second his natsional’nost’, or ethnic nationality. The first, for all who owe allegiance to the Soviet Union, is called Soviet; the second may be Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, or any of the other ethnic groups, great or small, within the Soviet Union. For those born to Jewish. parents, whatever their religious belief or unbelief, their natsional’nost’ is Jewish, and this is inscribed in all documents, at School, work, play, in the forces, even on a reader’s ticket for the library. Ethnic nationality, unlike religion, cannot be changed by an act of conversion, and a Soviet Jew recorded as such on his papers must remain so for the rest of his life-unless he manages, as some have done, to disappear and reappear in another part of the country, with forged papers.
In the early days of the Soviet regime, Jews were no worse off than other nationalities and very much better off than they had been under the czars. They were even allowed the privilege, accorded to other nationalities, of developing their own culture in their own language, deemed to be Yiddish. True, the Jewish religion was discouraged, but so were all others. Zionism was proscribed and suppressed, but so were all ideologies besides communism and all allegiances other than that owed to the Soviet state. They lived for the most part in poverty and fear, but so did most of their Soviet compatriots except for the small ruling groups-and in these Jews were well represented.
The first sign of a serious deterioration in the relative position of the Jews came with the gradual withdrawal and final disappearance of their cultural rights and privileges. They were still classed as Jews by nationality, but were systematically cut off from the sustenance of their Jewish roots. Yet even while they were being Russified in language and culture, they could not become Russians except by fraud, with all the moral and personal dangers that this involved.
The position became far worse after the German-Soviet agreement of August 1939, and the virtual alliance between the two dictators which followed it. The whole tone of the Soviet media toward Nazi Germany changed dramatically. Anti-Semitism suddenly becarne tolerable and even respectable, and Jews were looked at now -also officially-in a different way. After the, outbreak of war in 1939, when the Soviets joined with the Germans to partition Poland, Soviet authorities in the annexed Polish territories began immediate action against Zionist organizations and leaders. Two Jewish socialist leaders, unconnected with Zionism, and suspected of insufficient enthusiasm for the Soviet cause, were summarily executed. Similar repressions of Jews, Judaism, and Zionism followed in other East European territories annexed by the Soviet Union during the phase of collaboration with Nazi Germany – in the three Baltic republics which were wholly absorbed, and in Bessarabia, forcedly taken from Rumania with Nazi acquiescence. The purpose of these actions does not appear to have been to oppress the Jews as such but merely to dejudaize them, cut them off from any Jewish connections or affinities, and place them in the same uncomfortable limbo as the Jews of Russia herself.
This phase carne to an end in June 1941 when Hitler launched a devastating attack against the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany was now the enemy, and Nazism, in all its aspects, odious. Soviet Jews played their full part in the defense of the Soviet Union against the invaders and Stalin even permitted some limited revival of specifically Jewish activity. A « Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee » was formed in Moscow, with a number of Jewish writers and actors – some of them rehabilitated for the occasion. The purpose was to appeal to Jews in Britain and above all in the United States and thus help to mobilize public opinion in favor of the Soviet Union and ultimately in favor of a second front in the West.
Like so many others before and after him, Stalin greatly overestimated the effectiveness of Jewish influence, but it certainly served some purpose. This relatively benign attitude continued for a while after the end of hostilities. Soviet authorities turned a blind eye to Jewish emigration from Eastern Europe and the Soviet government for once agreed with the United States and gave its blessing to the creation of the State of Israel. Russia even permitted the satellite government of Czechoslovakia to supply the arms which saved the infant state from death in its cradle. It is difficult to believe that Stalin, who killed countless millions in his own concentration camps, was moved by compassion for the plight of Hitler’s surviving victims. A much more likely explanation is that he saw in Jewish migration to Palestine and the struggle for a Jewish state a useful way of weakening and eventually eliminating the power of Britain, then still his principal Western rival in the Middle East.
By the beginning of 1949, however, it was becoming clear that Soviet recognition of Israel was not aiding Soviet policy as expected. Stalin felt free to resume and extend the anti-Jewish attitudes which· were first discernible during the interlude of friendship with Hitler. Before and during the war this was tacit and on a small scale, and consisted principally in limiting or barring Jewish access to positions of trust and power. Many Jews still remained in the upper reaches of the communist hierarchy, but fewer and fewer were permitted to set foot on the lower rungs of the ladder.
In January 1949 Stalin inaugurated the first of what was.to be a long series of anti-Jewish campaigns. In all of these Stalin and his successors were careful-at least at the higher levels-not to identify the adversary simply as the Jews, or even as the Jewish ethnic nationality (natsional’nost’). They preferred to use transparent synonyms, and, in case anyonefailed to get the point, took care to emphasize in various ways the Jewish origins of the persons under attack. The traditional Russian practice of citing people by name and patronymic was useful in this regard. For those who had changed their names or whb–as was common among senior communists–made use of a pseudonym, the old and identifiably Jewish name was usually added in brackets-that is, where the name was cited in a negative context. Thus if G A. Fulanov received some honor or decoration, he was the good Russian G. A. Fulanov. If, on the other hand, he was accused of some crime, he became Grigori Aaronovich Fulanov (formerly Finkelstein). A famous example was that old enemy of Stalin, Leon Trotsky, now cited as « Lev Davidovich Trotsky (formerly Bronstein). »
The first postwar attack on the Jews begart with the campaign against « cosmopolitanism » in the Soviet press. Launched in Pravda in January 1949, the campaign against cosmopolitanism was at first concerned with theatrical and other artistic matters. The word was used as a term of abuse for those writers, artists, and critics who showed undue awareness of Western writing, art, and criticism. Its meaning was soon changed, widening to include political and ideological activities and offenses, and at the same time narrowed, to become a virtual synonym for Jews.
The « rootless cosmopolitan, » as he was usually called, was contrasted with the true patriot or even with the « indigenous population. » He was « an alien without a motherland » and « incapable of understanding true Russian patriotism. »9 That such charges accorded ill with communist internationalism did not trouble the increasingly chauvinistic leaders of the Russian state. The attack on Jewish culture had begun as far back as 1938, and by 1940 all Yiddish schools had been closed, as had the Yiddish sections in the Belorussian and Ukrainian academies of sciences. All teaching and research in Jewish subjects was broughtto an end. At the same time Jews were progressively. excluded from any branch of governmental or party apparatus concerned with defense and foreign affairs. In January 1948 Shlomo Mikhoels, the director of .the Yiddish language state theater and chairman of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was killed in a traffic accident later revealed to have been officially arranged. to Before long such subterfuges were no longer thought to be necessary, and in August 1952 more than twenty prominent Jewish cultural figures were executed as « spies and bourgeois nationalists. »
From Russia the campaign against cosmopolitanism was extended to the Soviet-dominated states in Eastern Europe. In November 1952 a purge and show trial in Czechoslovakia ended with the confession and execution of Rudolf Slansky, a lifelong Stalinist and secretarygeneral of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. In the course of the trial, he and his fellow accused confessed that they had been Zionists; bourgeois Jewish nationalists, traitors, and spies throughout their careers.
This was followed by the « Doctors’ Plot » in January 1953, when a group of doctors, tnost of them Jews, was accused of plotting to murder Stalin and other Soviet leaders in the interests of American intelligence and « the international Jewish bourgeoisie. » The power behind both the Doctors’ Plot and the Slansky plot, according to the accusers, was the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, a well-known charitable organization concerned with social relief and rehabilitation. The Soviet, Soviet-controlled, and Soviet-influenced media gave immense publicity to these two events, and found occasion to stress their Jewish character. Of the fourteen accused in the Czechoslovak trial, eleven were Jews; of the nine doctors, seven were Jews. While both plots were said to have been organized by American intelligence, the organizing agency was described as Jewish, and the ideological impetus as « Zionism and Jewish bourgeois nationalism. »
The charges against the Slansky group and the doctors were duly echoed by communist and fellow traveling writers in the West, in an obedient chorus of denunciation. The organizers where possible made a special point of mobilizing Jewish communists for this work. 11
Various reasons have been adduced for Stalin’s drive against the Jews in his last years. One was disappointment with the return on his support for the Jewish state at the moment of its creation. Another, perhaps more important, was concern at the electrifying impact of the emergence and early victories of Israel on Soviet Jews. The Jews, even more browbeaten and dispirited than the rest of Stalin’s subjects, responded to the birth and successes of Israel with messianic joy; in particular, the arrival of the first Israeli ambassador to Moscow was greeted by crowds of Jews with unrestrained enthusiasm. To the Soviet authorities, who tolerate no links between any section of Soviet population and any authority beyond Soviet control, this was a danger signal.
Another motive was certainly the usefulness of anti-Semitism in the troubled Soviet domains in Europe. In these countries, antiSemitism had long been a powerful factor in social, economic, and public life. In Eastern Europe, unlike Western Europe, the post-Hitler era did not bring a decline in anti-Semitism through compassion for the victims, but rather an increase, directed principally against those survivors who attempted to come home. What made matters far worse, was that so many of these survivors had come in the wake of the Soviet armies, and some played a prominent role in the first governments set up under Soviet auspices. At some stage Stalin seems to have decided that it was better to have anti-Semitism working for Soviet power than against it. Thereupon, Soviet propaganda in Eastern Europe made great efforts to identify its enemies as Jews and thus harness the widespread and deeply felt feelings of hostility to Soviet advantage.
Finally, in the system of capricious and arbitrary autocratic rule established by Stalin, the personal feelings and motivations of the dictator cannot be discounted. Among many signs of growing paranoia in Stalin’s last years, he was greatly concerned with imagined dnngers from world Jewry. Such themes would have been familiar to him from the czarist empire in which he was born and received his education.
The death of Stalin in March 1953 brought a temporary respite, if only from the more extreme forms of anti-Jewish activity. The doctors were released, and the whole case against them ascribed to a « machination. » Rudolf Slansky and his fellow accused had already been executed and could no longer benefit from this change of policy. They were, however, accorded the communist form of recompense in an afterlife by being « rehabilitated. » Khrushchev’s famous secret speech in February 1956, denouncing the evils of the Stalin era, raised new hopes among the Jews as among other elements in the Soviet population.
For the Jews at least these hopes were of brief duration. Khrushchev soon showed that while he did not share Stalin’s paranoiac fantasies, his view of the Jewish role in the Soviet realms was not vastly different from that of his predecessor. His off-the-cuff remark, during a visit to Poland, that « there are too many Abramoviches around here » was heard and understood by both the Abramoviches and their gentile neighbors. By this time few but hard-core communist Jews had remained in Poland; most of the others had left. Now even the communists realized that their time had come, and as unobtrusively as possible took their departure. The communist rulers of Poland undertook a very thorough and far-reaching campaign against « Zionism and bourgeois Jewish nationalism, » from which they hoped to gain a double advantage, by ingratiating themselves at once with their Russian masters and their Polish subjects. Khrushchev, outstanding among Soviet leaders for his frankness, explained his own views on Jewish matters to a group of French socialists who interviewed him in May 1956:
If now the Jews wanted to occupy the top jobs in our republics, they would obviously be looked upon unfavorably by the indigenous peoples. The latter would ill receive these claims, especially at a time when they consider themselves no less intelligent and no less able than the Jews. Or, for instance, in the Ukraine if a Jew is appointed to an important job and he surrounds himself with Jewish fellow workers, it is understandable that there may be hostility towards the Jews.12
In the early sixties the Soviet authorities launched a new campaign against the Jews, this time on two fronts, the religious and the economic. The attack on Judaism was part of a general campaign against religion, which for some reason the Soviet authorities again decided to regard as a threat. But the polemics against the Jewish religion were markedly different from those directed against the other two large religious groups in the Soviet Union, Christianity and Islam. The diatribes against Judaism differ not only in their violence and crudity of language but also in the projection of present problems into past events, for example in the treatment of the biblical Joshua as a Zionist expropriator and King David as an aggressive expansionist as well as a philanderer, and also in the use of anti-Semitic stereotypes such as conspiracy, greed, and the desire to dominate. The selectivity of Soviet. anti-religious propaganda is graphically illustrated in a cartoon in the Bakinskii rabochii of June 4, 1985, published in the predominantly Muslim republic of Azerbaijan. A book, marked with a shield of David, drips liquid into two bottles labelled poison and venom. Two villainous-looking characters are in the foreground, one explaining to the other: « These poisons act first of all on the brain. » Both are pointing at the book with the Jewish emblem. 1 Other books, in the background, bear a cross and a seated Buddha. There is no crescent.
Far more serious, for its victims, was the drive against what the authorities called « economic crimes. » Embezzlement, theft, bribery, currency speculation, and corruption in general have long plagued the Soviet Union. From time to time the Soviet authorities launch campaigns against such crimes, mobilizing the whole apparatus of state, party, press, and security forces for the purpose. A major campaign of this kind was conducted between 1961 and 1964, in which Jews were singled out as the main victims. While tens of thousands of men and women were accused and punished, media attention was focused on those who were Jewish, with appropriate use of antiSemitic stereotypes both in the description and in the accompanying cartoons. Thus, of eighty-four persons sentenced to death for economic crimes in 1962, forty-five were Jews, i.e., 54 percent. In the Ukrainian Republic the proportion was seventeen out of twenty-one, or 81 percent.13
It was in connection with these campaigns that Trofl.m K. Kichko published his famous book judaism without Embellishment, attacking the Jewish religion and those who professed it throughout the ages. This was so crudely anti-Semitic in content, language, and illustrations that even communist parties in the free world joined in its condemnation. The ideological commission of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union responded by condemning and withdrawing the book and dismissing Kichko from the party. A few years later he was rehabilitated. In January 1968 he was granted the certificate of honor of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukraine, and published a new book, judaism and Zionism, which appeared in Kiev in the same year. In Kichko’s perception of history, the Jewish religion teaches « thievery, betrayal, and perfidy » and a « poisonous hatred for all other peoples. » The true objective of the Jewish religion, in his judgment, is the fulfillment of God’s promise that « the whole world belongs to the Jews. » The practical aim of Zionism is to create a « world Jewish power » in Palestine for this purpose.
Kichko’s second book, which was given mass circulation, was part of a new wave of anti-Zionist propaganda, launched in July 1967, in the wake of the SiX Day War, which affected all the countries in the Soviet bloc. In Poland it led to the dismissal of even communist Jews (few others remained) from their jobs, and the more or less forced departure ofalmost all of the surviving Jewish remnant.’4
It was not only in the Soviet Union that the dramatic events of June 1967 brought a radical change of attitudes. In the past even well-wishers had been accustomed to see the Jews primarily as victims, usually helpless, and as candidates for succor, where this could be provided without endangering important national or commercial interests. By his swift and smashing victories over vastly greater and more powerful enemies, the Jew had defaulted on his stereotype as the frightened victim, to be destroyed, abandoned, pitied, or rescued at the discretion of those more fortunate than he, as circumstances might indicate. For many, this was a profoundly disturbing change. In Europe, in America, and in the Middle East, among the Jews and Arabs themselves, this sudden and total transformation of the relationship between the Jews and their adversaries started changes of attitude which have continued to the present day. To understand them it is necessary to look more closely at the peoples and ideologies involved, as well as the policies and perceptions that influenced the course of events.
HERE’S THE SAME TEXT IN WRITTEN FORMAT!
The advent of capitalism found the Jews well placed to take advantage of the new opportunities which it offered them, and in consequence exposed them to both revised and new accusations. As a community that possessed neither state nor church, neither government nor army, the whole existence of Jews, their very identity, was determined by a book; even the poorest and most backward Jewish communities had a level of literacy higher than that of most of their. neighbors. This skill, at the disposal of minds sharpened by centuries of Talmudic study, stood them in good stead in the new era. As outcasts on the fringes of society, struggling precariously for survival, they were better prepared for the rough-and-tumble of early capitalism than were the pampered upper class and cowed lower class of the old social hierarchy. As the moneyle;.ders of the old order, some of them had a skill in the handling of money which enabled them to compete with their less experienced Christian competitors. Finally, possessing neither princes nor prelates in their own ranks, they were unhampered, as were many Christians, by powerful ~ested interests in the old order. Significant numbers of Jews began to make money, sometimes. very much money, by trade and finance. With that money, they were able to buy a better education for their sons and also-to a greater extent than among the Christians-for their daughters, and to enter the learned professions as far as these were open to them. The political process, at ‘virtually all levels, was still closed to Jews in most countries. But a rising bourgeoisie will seek political expression. Though the Jews could not hold power, their money could sometimes bring them near enough to those who held it to exercise influence. For some Christians, any improvement in the previously humble and despised position of the Jews was an outrage against their Savior. For others, the increasing role of}ewish capitalists was at least a force for corruption, at worst an attempt to take over and dominate the world. The age of capitalism brought two major accusations against the Jews-one, that they had created and were maintaining it, and two, that they were trying to undermine and destroy it. The first of these accusations came in two variants, from those whose domination was threatened and ultimately ended by capitalism, and from those who themselves hoped to overthrow and replace the capitalist order. The church and the nobility were well aware of the declining power of their orders. Rightly, they ascribed this unwanted change to capitalism; mistaking symptom for cause, they attributed the rise of capitalism to the Jews. A whole literature, much of it written by churchmen and noblemen, developed this theme.
At the same time, another brand of anticapitalist anti-Semitism was beginning among the socialist movements that fl.rst rose to prominence in the early nineteenth century. While anti-Semitism was in general a minority view among articulate socialists, it was by no means unimportant. August Bebel, who founded the German Social Democratic Party in 1869, is quoted as saying that « Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools. » If so,. there were many such fools, including famous pioneers like Charles Fourier (1772-1837), Alphonse Toussenel (1803-1885), Pierre LeRoux (1797-1871), Pierre-Joseph Proudbon (1809-1865) and, in some of their writings, both Karl Marx and Friedrich Erigels. For Fourier, the Jews were « parasites, merchants, and usurers, » who devote themselves entirely to « mercantile depravities. » Fourier was strongly opposed to Jewish emancipation. « To grant the Jews citizenship was the most shameful … of all the recent vices » of contemporary society. Lepers should be segregated and kept away, and « are not the Jews the leprosy and the ruin of the body politic? » Toussenel, a pioneer of both socialism and anti-Semitism in Ftance, gave his retrospective blessing to all the anti-Semites of the past: « I understand the persecutions to which the Romans, the Christians, and the Mohammadans subjected.theJews. The universal repulsion inspired by the Jew for so long was nothing but just punishment for his implacable pride, and our contempt the legitimate reprisal for the hate which he seems to bear for the rest of mankind. » Proudhon, in a book published in 1883, gives a classical formulation of the anti-Semitism of left-wing economists:
The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a fanner nor an industrialist nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy,·by means offalsillcation, counterfeiting, and horse-trading. He knows but the rise and fall of prices, the risks of transportation, the incertitude of crops, the hazards of demand and supply. His policy in economics has always been entirely negative, entirely usurious; it is the evil principle, Satan, Ahriman, incarnated in the race of Shem.39
Proudhon, it will be noted, in his modern socialist exposition, has adopted the medieval charge of satanism, and has indeed developed it, by adding the evil spirit of the old Indo-Aryan pantheon, Ahriman. One of the pioneers of Utopian socialism, the philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814}, was also alarmed at what he saw as the Jewish danger to the West. In his book on the French Revolution, published in 1793, he sees the Jews as a major cause of the troubles of Europe and offers what may well be the first suggestion of a possible solution: « I see no other means of protecting ourselves against them than by conquering their Promised Land and sending them all there. « 40 Even Jews, or to be more precise, ex-Jews, in the socialist ranks, were influenced by the anti-Jewish ideas current in these circles, and developed their own brand of left-wing Jewish self-hate. The outstanding example of this is of course Karl Marx, the baptized grandson of a rabbi, whose famous essay « On the Jewish Question, » published in 1844, has become one of the classics of anti-Semitic propaganda. In this, Marx identified the Jew and even Judaism with all the most disagreeable characteristics of the greedy and predatory capitalist order which he was seeking to overthrow. He also provides a solution: « An organization of society which would abolish the basis of huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would render the Jew impossible. » Even when not discussing specifically Jewish questions, the remarks of Marx and Engels, especially in their journalistic writings, contained many anti-Semitic allusions and expressions. One article speaks of the Polish Jews as « that dirtiest of all races. » When a German historian remarked that in modern Poland as in ancient Egypt, Jews were increasing rapidly, Marx paraphrased this to say that « they multiplied like lice. » In Marx’s view, Jews were not only responsible for capitalism but even for sometimes strongly anti-Semitic capitalistic governments: « We find every tyrant backed by a jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the craving of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought, and a handful ofJews to ransack pockets. »41 Engels even uses the language of streetcorner anti-Semitism, mocking at Jewish names and using Jewish origins to attack political opponents like Lasalle, while Marx himself, in a letter to Engels, dated July 30, 1862, combined two different kinds of racism in a sneer at Lassalle’s alleged negroid features: « Now this union of Jewishness with Germanity on a negro basis was bound to produce an extraordinary hybrid. The importunity of the fellow is also nigger-like. »42 Later, however, Engels, though not Marx, seems to have changed, and in 1890 he published a denunciation of anti-Semitism. In Britain and North America there was far less anti-Semitism in the socialist movement than in France and Germany, though it is not entirely absent. It was, however, powerful elsewhere on the Continent, even in Russia, where from the start there was a strong antiJewish strain in the revolutionary opposition to the czars. The anarchist Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876) was a bitter anti-Semite, seeing the whole of world Jewry as constituting « one exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also across all divergences of political opinion. « 43 In Bakunin’s view, the Jew is not fit for socialism, certainly not for socialist leadership, for which he is disqualified by « that mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national character. » For Bakunin, there was no difference between Marx and Rothschild; both were from the same stock of speculators and parasites. Bakunin’s disciples in Russia were consistent. When the pogroms broke out against the Jews, far from condemning or trying to prevent them, they actively encouraged them. The attacks on the Jews, in their view, marked the beginning of the social revolution, and were therefore a positive step forward. The Jews, in the opinion of the Bakuninists, represented, in magnified form, all the « vices and ulcers » of society, so that « when anti-Jewish movements begin, one may be convinced that in them is hidden a protest against the whole [social] order, and that a much more profound movement is beginning. » 44 No doubt in this spirit, the executive committee of the Bakuninist organization issued a proclamation on September 1, 1881, calling on the masses to rise against the « Jewish czar, » the Jews, and the nobles: « Only blood will wash away the people’s afflictions. You have already begun to rebel against the Jews. You are doing well. For soon over the whole Russian land there will arise a revolt against the Czar, the lords, and the Jews. It is good that you, too, will be with us. » Such views were by no means universal in the socialist movements, neither in Russia nor elsewhere, and the majority of socialist leaders were strongly opposed to this kind of argument, whether deriving from bigotry, as with Proudhon, self-hate, as with Marx, or cold calculation, as with the Russian Bakuninist organization. But the extent to which even the socialist leadership had to take account of the strength of anti-Semitic feelings among their followers was revealed in an incident at the Congress of the Socialist International, held in Brussels in 1891. Abraham Cahan (1860-1951), a Jewish trade union leader from New York, asked the Congress to issue a statement of sympathy for Jewish workers under threat of anti-Semitism: « All Russian newspapers, » he said, « attack the Jews and say that socialist working men hate the Jews. You are asked to state that this is not true, that you are enemies of all exploiters, be theyJews or Christians, and that you have as much sympathy for Jewish workers as for Christian workers. » Some of the delegates were unwilling either to express special sympathy for Jews or unreservedly to condemn antiSemitism, and eventually a compromise resolution was adopted by which the Congress condemned « both anti-Semitic and philoSemitic incitements. » Edmund Silbemer, the historian of left-wing anti-Semitism, has remarked that « the Brussels resolution is a unique document in the annals of international socialism. To the best of our ‘knowledge, it is the only instance in which friendliness towards any oppressed nationality was ever condemned by an international socialist body. »45
Some Jews, wounded by the continuing anti-Semitism that they encountered in the socialist rank and file and even sometimes in the socialist leadership, lost hope of a solution to Jewish problems through socialist internationalism, and instead began to think in Jewish national terms. Socialist ideologies are an important strain in the development of Zionism in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A number of different forms of socialist Zionism evolved, all of which laid the main stress not so much on the creation of a sovereign Jewish st;tte, as on the social regeneration of the Jewish people by a return to productive labor.
Many Jews, however, remained in the socialist movements which, despite the presence of some anti-Semitic elements, still offered them a warmer welcome than any other political party in Europe. at the time, and virtually their only road to political power. This in tum gave rise to the second anti-Semitic interpretation of the Jewish role in capitalism-that of a radical subversive seeking to destroy it. This perception was strongly reinforced in the aftermath of World War I, when the Bolshevik regime in Russia and abortive communist revolutions. in Hungary, Bavaria, and elsewhere brought significant numbers of Jewish leaders into international prominence. White Russian anti-Soviet propaganda made the fullest use of this, both at home and in the West. Their arguments seemed to be confirmed by the prominence of such figures as Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev in the Soviet leadership.
For a while, certain Jews were indeed prominent in the Soviet leadership and exercised great power. But after the rise of Stalin, all this came to an end. In due course, Trotsky was driven into exile and later murdered, Zinoviev and Kamenev arid many other Jews were executed for crimes against the state. While these prosecutions and executions were in the first iristance ideological rather than antiSemitic, they hit a disproportionate nwnber of Jews, and prepared the way for the total exclusion of Jews from the higher Soviet leader~ ship and the initiation of a campaign against « world Jewry » which in its language as well as its content is remarkably reminiscent of the older anti-Semitism, both of the left and of the right.
HERE’S THE SAME TEXT IN WRITTEN FORMAT!
Even the frequently reiterated Arab intention of dismantling the state of Israel and « liquidating the Zionist society » is not, in itself, necessarily an expression of anti-Semitism. In the view of most Arabs, the creation of the state of Israel was an act of injustice, and its continued existence a standing aggression. To those who hold this view, the correction of that injustice and the removal of that aggression are legitimate political objectives.
The same cannot be said of the great and increasing body of Arab writing about Israel and the Jews. When Arab spokesmen, not content with denouncing the misdeeds of the Israelis, attribute these misdeeds to innate Jewish racial characteristics discernible throughout history; when furthermore, they accuse the Jewish people as a whole of practicing such monstrous crimes as ritual murder and of seeking through secret conspiracies to attain world domination; when they document these accusations with the standard fabrications of European anti-Semitic literature; when finally they devote great efforts and resources to disseminating these same fabrications all over the world-then no doubt remains that those Arabs who write and distribute these things are engaged in anti-Semitic activities, not different from those which disfigured the history of Christian Europe for many centuries. Given the scale on which all these activities are taking place, the question is no longer whether some Arab governments are pursuing anti-Semitic policies; the question is why were these policies adopted, how far have they gone, and how deep is their impact.
The Arabs are not the only group for whom opposition to Israel arises from a clash of interests. Arab hostility to Israel rests on a genuine grievance, a real conflict over mutually exclusive interests and claims. This conflict may be clouded by prejudice; it may be influenced in its expression by prejudice. It is not caused by prejudice. Much the same may be said-in varying degrees-of some other opponents of Israel. The Soviet Union, for example, has clear political reasons, both domestic and international, for its hostility toward Israel. Obviously, Soviet interests are not served by the presence in the Middle East of a powerful state which is not merely politically aligned with the United States, but is linked to the West by institutions and way of life. The Soviets know very well that strategic alliances are more effective and more secure when they are underpinned by real affinities, and not merely political choices of current leaders. It is for that reason that the Soviets are rarely content with political and strategic alliances, but rather seek to refashion societies and regimes, in the countries where they have sufficient influence, in their own image. Functioning Western-style democracies are more difficult to create, and in this respect America is at a disadvantage. They are also, however, more difficult to destroy, and their presence is a corresponding Soviet disadvantage. While the Soviets have often made some political gains by playing on Arab hostility to Israel, these have usually proved transitory.
But Soviet hostility to Israel and to Zionism may at times have other causes, unrelated to the struggle in the Middle East. Unlike the Nazis, the Russians are not committed, publicly and ideologically, to an anti-Jewish policy, and their official attitude to anti-Semitism is to denounce it. They would be perfectly capable of changing sides if they thought it desirable, and indeed, for a brief period in the late 1940s they did so. Soviet diplomacy supported Israel against Britain, and it was arms from the Eastern Bloc which enabled the infant Jewish state to withstand the onslaught of the Arab armies in 1948. Since then, however, the Soviet Union has turned the other way, and has, with its satellites and followers, pursued a policy of unrelenting hostility to both Israel and Zionism.
While this policy can be explained and, in the Soviet context, justified on political grounds, certain features are noteworthy. One of these is the violence oflanguage used both in addressing Israel and in discussing Israel, in diplomatic and scholarly utterances as well as in overt propaganda. Even by the standards of communist political vituperation, the invective used in condemning Israel and Israeli actions is remarkably strong. It has remained consistently strong over the years – far more so than the language employed against any of the other governments, regimes, movements, peoples or ideologies that have at one time or another incurred Soviet displeasure.
Perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that the Soviet Union has on two different occasions broken off diplomatic relations with Israel. This is a step which the Soviets have never taken since early times, even with their most dangerous and avowed enemies. The Soviets, for good reason, have always attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of their diplomatic and consular missions even in politically hostile territory. They were careful to maintain diplomatic relations for as long as possible with Pilsudski’s Poland, even after the murder of a Soviet ambassador in Warsaw; with fascist Italy, and with Nazi Germany, even after the Anschluss with Austria and the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Nor have they found it necessary in more recent times to break off diplomatic relations with states opposed to them or which they regard as puppets of hostile powers, in Europe, Asia, Africa, or the Americas. They were always careful to maintain relations with regimes which they denounced as imperialist or fascist, and even with fiercely anticommunist regimes, such as that of Indonesia, which suppressed communism and executed communists in great numbers. They did not break off relations with dissident communist regimes, such as those of Yugoslavia and China, despite fierce ideological and political battles. The only rupture of relations with such a regime, with Albania in 1961, came on an Albanian, not a Soviet initiative. Most of the Soviet satellites retained their diplomatic relations with Albania, and the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to restore them.
In contrast, they have twice broken off diplomatic relations with Israel. The first occasion was in 1953, at the time of the so-called Doctors’ Plot in Moscow, when a small bomb was exploded in the courtyard of the Soviet embassy in Tel Aviv. There was never the slightest suspicion that this was anything but an irresponsible private operation. Diplomatic relations were restored after a while, but were broken off again in 1967, this time by the whole Soviet bloc except Rumania.
Even the manner of breaking off diplomatic relations was distinctive. When countries break off diplomatic relations, their interests are normally entrusted to the care of another, friendly country. At the present time, this usually means in practice that each country sends some of its own diplomats, who instead of functioning in their own name act as the interests section of the embassy of the protecting power. Thus, when a number of Arab states broke off diplomatic relations with the United States after the 1967 war, most of them still had diplomatic representatives in Washington, while Washington had representatives in their various capitals, on both sides under the aegis of the protecting powers. The Soviets allowed no Israeli diplomats on Soviet soil, and to achieve this end were willing to pay the price of having none of their own people overtly present in Israel, and no formal line of communication to the Israeli government. This disparity is very striking, and leaves one wondering what peculiar characteristic of Israel, lacking in other countries, has twice required a total rupture of diplomatic relations, and the many inconveniences, practical and of late also political, which this caused to the Soviets. The vocabulary and iconography of Soviet anti-Zionism, with their covert and sometimes overt appeals to old-fashioned racial and even religious prejudice, may indicate an answer.
Besides the Arab and Soviet blocs, there are other governments that have decided, on the basis of a calculation of advantage, to support the Arabs and oppose Israel, for good practical reasons. The Soviet Union possesses immense power, and has shown willingness to use it. Some of the Arab states dispose of immense wealth, and have shown increasing skill in deploying it. Both groups own large and reliable blocs of votes, and have been able to attain a measure of control over the fora of the United Nations and its various agencies. These assets have been used at various times to persuade governments of countries with no strong interests or commitments of their own in the area to adopt anti-Israel and at times even antiJewish positions.
The adversary is no longer defined principally as Israel. Increasingly, it is defined as Zionism. As well as adverse interests, adverse ideologies may be involved, and may inspire a principled opposition to the Zionist movement and the Zionist state, without necessarily raising the question of anti-Semitism. For the communist, it is natural and indeed inevitable to oppose Zionism, since there is a fundamental ideological incompatibility between the two. Moscow has its own special reasons, of domestic and imperial policy, to oppose any movement which could affect significant numbers of Soviet citizens and which has its main focus beyond the Soviet frontiers. The Soviets have denounced, condemned, and repressed pan-Islamism, pan-Turkism, and pan-Iranism, because the Muslim, Turkish-speaking, and Iranian-speaking peoples of the Soviet Union could be affected by these movements and have their loyalties turned away from Moscow toward centers in Turkey, Iran, or the Islamic world. Zionism is, so to speak, a form of pan-Judaism, and for that reason alone would be condemned. But again, in dealing with internal opposition movements as in dealing with foreign states, there are significant differences in the degree of hostility and the manner in which it is expressed.
Communism is not the only creed which is ideologically opposed to Zionism. There are some religious believers – Christian and even Jewish as well as Muslim – who oppose Zionism on religious grounds, seeing the establishment of a Jewish state by human agency as something contrary to God’s will. This is not at the present time a majority view among either Christians or Jews, but it commands significant support.
The most vocal ideological opposition to Zionism at the present time, however, is concerned not with what Zionism believes and declares itself to be, but rather with what it is accused by others of being. This began with accusations made by propagandists for rea~ sons of expediency, but rapidly acquired a wider significance. The Arab opponents of Zionism and of Israel have usually tried to win support in the Western world by identifying Zionism with the fashionable enemy, at one time defined as bolshevism or communism. When-with growing American influence in the world-the racist became the fashionable enemy, Zionism was reclassified as racist, and a resolution at the United Nations adopted to that effect.2 The resolution, which was voted on November 10, 1975, was carried by 72 in favor, 35 against, and 32 abstentions. An ideological analysis of the votes for and against the abstentions gives interesting results. As one might expect, all the communist and Islamic states voted in favor of the resolution. Almost all the surviving liberal democracies in the world voted against the resolution. The countries of the Third World were scattered through all three categories.
In the Soviet bloc, nopolitical opinions may be publicly expressed other than those prescribed by the authorities. In the Arab world, or at least in parts of it, some public debate is possible, but on the question oflsrael, even of Jews, it is subject to severe constraints, and it is therefore difficult to judge real attitudes. In the ·Western world, however, and in some Third World countries, individuals and groups are free to adopt, promote, and argue their different points of view on this as on most other matters. In most Western countries the affairs of Israel and her neighbors receive enormous-indeed, by any reasonable measure, disproportionate-attention. The very magnitude of the debate, as well as the terms in which it is conducted, have led some observers, not all of them Jewish, to suspect that this preoccupation with Israel and Zionism has unwholesome origins, and that criticism may be an expression of hidden anti-Semitism. Clearly, there are many for whom such accusations are false and unjust. The fact must however he faced that there are others-in what proportion it would he difficult to say-for whom the Arabs are in truth nothing but a stick with which to beat the Jews.
There are various reasons, both intellectual and practical, by which the adoption of an anti-Israel position may be explained, without any imputation of prejudice. An obvious example is the honest conviction that the Arabs are right and the Israelis wrong, whether in any particular situation or in the problem as a whole. One may agree or disagree with those who hold this conviction; one cannot simply dismiss their views as prejudiced. One may equally not dismiss the possibility that the formation and expression of such a conviction may be affected by considerations other than the merits of the case.
An easily recognizable group are those who follow the fashionable leftist or progressive line. At one time, this was in general favorable to Israel, and non-Arab leftists usually adopted a pro-Israel position. Since then, the line has turned against Israel, and those who carefully conform to the length of the ideological hemline as decreed by the current arbiters of intellectural fashion have restyled their opinions accordingly. Among some who formulate and express their views in this way, there may perhaps be an element of prejudice, but it can hardly be designated as anti-Semitism, particularly in view of the very large proportion of Jews in this group.
The radical and.terrorist left, like the radical and terrorist right, is unanimously and vehemently anti-Israel, in such terms that its statements are sometimes rather difficult to distinguish from oldfashioned anti-Semitism. Thus the celebrated Ulrike Meinhof, as reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of December 15, 1972, observed, speaking of Auschwitz, « The worst thing is that all of us, Communists and others, were agreed on it. » She had since recognized that « anti-Semitism in its essence is anti-capitalist. It takes over as its own the hatred of people for their dependence on money as a medium of exchange, and their yearning for Communism. Auschwitz means th;1t six million Jews were murdered and trundled onto the garbage heaps of Europe as that which they appeared to be-as money Jews. »
Powerful ideological elements may be involved in the choice of sides. For many outsiders, the decisive factor in determining their choice is the type of regime existing on the two sides. Israel within its 1949 borders is a liberal democracy, with an open press and parliament, an elected government which for long was of social democratic complexion, and a vigorous opposition. Most of the Arab states are authoritarian, with a controlled press, no legal opposition, and an official program of radical nationalism and revolutionary socialism, blended in varying proportions. Both types of regimes evoke automatic loyalties and antagonisms, in which political and economic considerations do not always coincide. Socialists, for example, have been sharply divided. For some, Carnal Abdel Nasser’s nationaliza-. tions atoned for his repressions; for others, Israel’s freedoms atone for its partial capitalism. Support and hostility among the ideologues seems to be determined very largely by the choice of formulae, the outward aspect and external alignment of the regimes in question; they appear to be very little concerned with the real position and well-being of the people who live under their rule.
Yet another group consists of those who make their choice between the Arabs and Israel for professional or commercial reasonsa calculation of career needs by individuals in business, in the universities, in the media, and in politics. Many, for good professional, commercial, or political reasons, decide to support one side. or the other, according to circumstances. One may perhaps question the good faith of those who make their choice in this way, but prejudice, though of course always a possibility, is not a necessary component of their attitude. A public relations consultant improVing his client’s image and knocking the competition is not primarily moved by prejudice; he is motivated by the desire to get on in his business and to make money. Mutatis mutandis, the same may be said of the corporation executive safeguarding the interests of his stockholders, the politician responding to the wishes of his electors or contributors, the newspaperman obeying the directives of his editor or of his hosts, and the Middle East specialist in the universities, keenly aware of who controls access and who disposes of funds.
University departments and programs of Middle Eastern studies may be affected in more than one Way. Jews, for sentimental or religious reasons, because of a knowledge of Hebrew or a concern for Israel, are often attracted to these studies. They are not the only ones, and they have long since lost their earlier dominance to others. In the days when Mao and Maoism reigned supreme in China, Maoist-minded students were sometimes drawn to Chinese studies, and some university departments of Chinese or Far Eastern languages acquired a strong and often intolerant Maoist character. In the same way, during the vogue of the PLO as the heroes of the radical left, many students and eventually young teachers of Middle Eastern studies came to their subject with a strong prior commitment for the Arab cause and against Israel and Zionism. 3 This is not in itself anti-Semitic, but there were some also with avowed or unavowed antiJewish feelings who for that reason gravitated toward departments of Arabic studies, in which they hoped to find like-minded company and a congenial atmosphere. They are not always disappointed. Examples of this have been quoted both by Jews and by Arabs, the former often with alarm, the latter sometimes with distaste.
For all these groups, an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist position can be explained without reference to anti-Semitism. But the possibility is of course always there, and even if prejudice does not determine the nature of their opinions, it may well affect the manner in which they express them. Particularly at a time and place where anti-Semitism is considered beyond the pale of decent society, the Palestine problem and the sufferings of the Arabs may provide perfect cover for prejudices which the holders would otherwise be ashamed to reveal.
Some are easy to detect. With a few exceptions who hate Arabs and Jews even-handedly, the openly and avowedly fascist groups still active in various parts of the world are pro-Arab, and their literature makes their real sentiments and purposes abundantly clear. Such are the surviving neofascist and neo-Nazi groups in Europe, and their imitators in North and South America. Some Arabs have disdained the support of such tainted allies; others, including both governments and revolutionaries, have made good use of it; others again have done both at the same time.
In more respectable circles, it is by no means easy to distinguish between those who are pro-Arab and those who are primarily antiJewish. There are, however, some symptoms which, though not infallible, are a fairly good indication. One of the characteristics of the anti-Jew as distinct from the pro-Arab is that he shows no other sign of interest in the Arabs or sympathy for them, apart from their conflict with the Jews. He is completely unmoved by wrongs suffered by the Arabs, even Palestinians, under any but Jewish auspices, whether their own rulers or third parties. For him, the hundreds killed at Sabra and Shatila are of far greater concern than the thousands of Arabs slaughtered in Amman, at Tell zacatir, in Hama, and in the many wars, in Yemen, Lebanon, the Gulf and elsewhere, that have tormented the long-suffering Arab people. Often, he shows no interest in the history or achievements of the Arabs, no knowledge of their language or culture. On the contrary, he may speak of them in a way which is in reality profoundly disparaging. No one in his right mind would claim to be an expert on, say, France or Germany without knowing a word of French or German. The claims to expertise of many self-styled Arabists without Arabic rests on the assumption that Arabs are somehow different from-and inferior toFrenchmen and Germans, in that what they say or write in their own language can be safely disregarded. The common attempt to explain away Arab statements and actions by saying, in effect, that the Arabs are not serious, not adult, not responsible, can hardly be taken as an expression of respect or esteem.
WHAT IS BEHIND THE HANGING OF THE ELEVEN JEWS IN PRAGUE ?
by Francis P. Yockey
Published in December 1952
Race, that entity which itself is the historical creator and leader of political Bolshevism.
People-Race is widespread, and the leadership of this State-Nation-People-Race conducts its policy with its emotions rather than intellectually, subject as it is to obsessions and idées fixes.
Extrait de The Judas Goats — The Enemy Within par Michael Collins Piper (p.148-154):
On September 15, 1969, writing in the popular American nationalist newspaper, Common Sense, which had, over the years, frequently featured the works of outspoken Jewish-born American anti-Zionist spokesman Benjamin Freedman, one Morris Horton (under his pen name “Fred Farrell”) wrote a fascinating assessment of the reality of Trotskyite Communism. Horton wrote in part:Originally “Communism” was nothing but a tool of the wealthy American Jews of New York. In the United States, and in much of the rest of the world, it is still just that. Let us now address ourselves to a question important to anyone who really wants to understand Communism: “What is the difference between a Stalinist and a Trotskyite? Some people will tell you:“All Communists are alike.”
This is a dangerous piece of shallow misinformation. It is acceptable only if you are willing to substitute shallow sloganeering for real knowledge. A Stalinist represents primordial Russian nationalism. A Trotskyite represents the Jewish interests of New York City. The Jewish interests of New York suffered a terrific setback one day many years ago, when a taciturn hood planted an ax in Leon Trotsky’s skull in a villa in Mexico.
The world Communist conspiracy is not a Russian conspiracy; it is an American Jewish conspiracy. Today it is falling into great disrepute around the world. America is being blamed for supporting communism around the world.
Unhappily, the charge is true. New York is the real hub of the conspiracy. If some of our Anti-Communists would stand up four square and tell this plain truth, we might possibly yet be liberated from Jewish misrule.
Few of them ever do. Most of the Communists and many of the Anti-Communists are on the same payroll, the Jewish payroll. They carry on a sham battle with each other. The first basic rule of this sham battle is:“Never drag any real truth into the matter on either side; tell anything else you want to tell, but never tell the truth.” This is the basic background of most of the phony “experts” on Communism who have been “experting” about it for forty years and haven’t made a dent in it.Horton was particularly adamant in pointing out that the American “anti-Communist” movement was increasingly falling into the hands of very real Communists—the Trotskyites—who in the guise of “fighting Communism” were actually working to introduce it into the American system. This is a point that few anti-communists understood then and even today they find it difficult to digest. Horton wrote:These people generate the literature on Communism that is generally available to the American public. They have
no interest in providing any genuinely valid information. Their aim is to manipulate public opinion.
Therefore, they seek to divide the Gentile. They seek to make the middle class believe that the working class is allied to Red Russia; All of this is, and always was, pure hallucination, generated by Jewish intellectual quacks in order to promote a minority tyranny over the American Majority.In his essay, Horton emphasized that the age-old labels of “Right” and “Left” no longer had any real meaning—a point that even many legitimate and self-styled modern-day American “conservatives” of the 21st century have yet to realize:
There is no genuine validity in either the “Right” or “Left” positions in politics.These are artificial, Jew-invented positions. Jewish control of communications is absolutely essential to the success of this power system. Jewish political quackery would not long survive exposure.
The Right-Left Age is the Jewish Age, and it is an age which, on the world stage, is now receding into the past. If America continues to live in this Jewish past, then America has no future.Horton’s words—written nearly 50 years ago—continue to reverberate. But to drive home the point further, it is worth reviewing a translation of an analysis of Zionism published in Spanish in the November 4, 1979 edition of Granma, the official newspaper voice of the communist regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
(Similar versions of this had previously appeared in the Soviet Union, at a time when there were increasing public noises against Zionism, much to the dismay of the American Trotskyites who were then reinventing themselves as “the neo-conservatives.”)
While this analysis from the communist point of view has been superceded by the collapse of the Soviet empire as it existed when this document was first published, it contains fascinating insights into the sources of tension between Zionism and Communism.The Zionist movement, created by the Jewish big bourgeoisie at the end of the 19th century, was born with a decidedly counterrevolutionary purpose. From the founding of the World Zionist Organization in 1897 to the present, Zionism, as ideology and political practice, has opposed the world revolutionary process.
Zionism is counterrevolutionary in a global sense in that it acts the world over against the three major forces of revolution: the socialist community, the working class movement in capitalist countries and the movement for national liberation.
Zionist counterrevolution began by making inroads in the European working class movement. In the early years, when the growth of monopoly capitalism and the expansion of reactionary tendencies that accompanied the establishment of the imperialist phase of capitalism demanded the unity and solidarity of the proletariat, the Zionists focused on dividing the working class.
They propagated the thesis that all non-Jews were, and would always be, anti-Semites; asserted that the only possibility for the Jewish masses’ well-being and justice was to emigrate to the “promised land”; and defended class collaboration, thus diverting the Jewish proletariat away from the struggle for their real emancipation and dividing and weakening the working class movement. It’s not fortuitous that in czarist police archives one finds documents calling for support for the Zionist movement as a way of stemming the tide of proletarian revolution.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote at the time in his diary:“All our youth; all those who are from 20 to 30 years old, will abandon their obscure socialist tendencies and come over to me.”
However, the efforts of Zionist counter-revolution could not hold back the wheels of history.The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia ushered in a period of transition from capitalism to socialism on a world scale. The first victory of the proletariat, the premise of future victories, was a heavy blow to Zionism.
Most of the money that filled Zionist coffers came from Russia, where czarism had humiliated and oppressed the Jews for centuries. Russia provided a million immigrants for the Zionist colonization of Palestine. When the Russian Revolution liquidated the exploitation of man by man, it also destroyed the basis for Zionism in the Soviet Union.
Leninist policy on the national question toppled all Zionist myths that the Jews could not be fully incorporated, with equal rights, into society and destroyed all the racist claims on the inevitability of anti-Semitism. The Zionists never did, and never will, forgive the Soviet state and its Leninist Party, not so much for cutting off the money flow from Russia and for the loss of workers for the colonization effort, but because the Bolsheviks implemented a correct policy that incorporated the talents and efforts of the Soviet Jews into the tasks of building a new society and thus demonstrated the class origins of discrimination and anti-Semitism, breaking with the past and providing a genuine solution to the Jewish problem, a solution which was not and could never be a massive exodus to Palestine.
Zionist counterrevolution took on an anti-Soviet thrust. Before October 1917 the Zionists collaborated with Kerensky. Later they supported all the attempts at counter-revolution and enthusiastically participated in the different white “governments” set up in different parts of the country during the Civil War [in Russia].They were active in all the moves against the Soviet Union from abroad, and their powerful propaganda machine spread a spate of lies about the first workers’ and peasants’ state in the world.
Not even the Soviet victory over German fascism, which saved so many Jewish lives, made the Zionists change their anti-Soviet stand.
With the outbreak of the cold war the Zionists collaborated in all the subversive and diversionary activities against the USSR and other socialist countries. The secret services of the Zionist state of Israel coordinated their spy activities with the CIA. Zionist agents played an active role in the counter-revolutionary attempts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Today Zionism seconds the hypocritical anti-Soviet campaign on presumed violations of the human rights of Jews in the Soviet Union and does all it can to put pressure on Soviet citizens of Jewish origin so they will leave their true homeland and go to Israel.This effort by Zionist counter-revolution can only lead to new failures. And to complete the picture there is the Zionist counter-revolutionary action against the national liberation movements.
Soon after World War I, Zionist settlers penetrated into Palestinian territory, acting as the spearhead of British imperialist interests in opposition to the Arab peoples’ hopes for independence. Their role was clearly spelled out by the prominent Zionist leader Max Nordau in a statement to the British authorities:
“We know what you want from us: that we defend the Suez Canal.We must defend your route to India which passes through the Middle East.We are ready to take on that difficult task. But you must allow us to become powerful enough to carry out that task.”
And, as a matter of fact, the Zionists became a power and succeeded in establishing their own state in 1948: the Zionist state of Israel. Now their task is to defend oil routes, protect all the interests of U.S. imperialism and block the advance of the Arab revolution.
Backed by tremendous amounts of imperialist economic and military aid, the Zionists are constantly acting against national liberation movements.
At one time it was their mission to penetrate African and Asian independence movements, guarantee that the newly independent states followed paths acceptable to imperialism, that they not stray from the confines of neo-colonialism. Israel offered courses, advisers, all sorts of aid.
But the ploy wasn’t very successful. Israel’s increasing role as imperialism’s policeman in the Middle East, its racism and avowed expansionism made the young African and Asian nations see the dangers of Israeli “aid,”the treachery of Israeli foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the Zionist state took up a new role in the struggle of world reaction against progress. It went beyond the geographical confines of the Middle East, established friendly ties with all reactionary regimes and began to supply arms, equipment and advisers to those who were trying to suppress national liberation struggles.
The Israeli armaments industry specialized in designing and producing all sorts of weapons for urban and rural anti-guerrilla warfare.
The South African racist regime, the dictatorships of Guatemala and El Salvador, and the fascist Pinochet are among the best clients of the Israeli armaments industry.
Israeli arms sales in 1978 were estimated at $400 million.
One of their best clients was the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Zionist counter-revolution was present in Somoza’s Nicaragua in the form of Galil guns and Pull-push planes, but they couldn’t stop the victory of the Sandinista revolutionaries.
This is a symbol of our times: neither the machinations of Zionist counterrevolution, nor Israeli arms, can hold back the victorious march of the peoples of the world.
(END OF THE GRANMA ARTICLE)
« Le Sionisme veut dominer le monde. Il se vengera de nos succès et accomplissements. Le Sionisme international avec toute sa puissance s’efforcera à détruire notre Union de sorte que notre pays ne puisse jamais se rétablir. »
« Zionism strives for world domination. It will take revenge for all our successes and achievements. International Zionism with all its power will strive to destroy our Union, so that our country would never recover. »
— Joseph Staline (Août 1939)
Un conflit éclata entre Staline et Trotsky quant à l’avenir de l’état soviétique et du marxisme-léninisme. Staline était nationaliste et son communisme concernait la nation russe avant tout, à l’inverse du communisme de Trotsky qui était en mode international. Les trotskistes prônent la révolution mondiale, internationale. Les trotskistes américains ont vite rejoint l’empire américain contre les staliniens et l’Union soviétique. (En fait, de nombreux grands financiers favorisaient les communistes, comme par exemple le milliardaire juif Armand Hammer qui fut un grand ami de Lénine.) Au centre du complot pour assassiner Staline (tué en 1953 le jour de le fête juive de Pourim, exactement comme le légendaire ennemi des juifs, Haman, dans le Livre d’Esther*) se trouvaient des médecins juifs (voir « le complot des blouses blanches ») et des agents liés à des organisations antifascistes, que Staline avait reconnues comme étant en réalité des façades des sionistes. Dès 1939, Staline a lancé des purges anti-juives et surtout antisionistes, en raison des liens évidents entre les capitalistes et les sionistes. C’est surtout à partir de ce moment que l’Union soviétique a été dépeinte dans les médias comme l’incarnation du mal et Staline comme le plus effrayant croque-mitaine après Adolf Hitler. Voici une citation surprenante de Staline, prononcée en août 1939: « Le Sionisme veut dominer le monde. Il se vengera de nos succès et accomplissements. Le Sionisme international, avec toute sa puissance, s’efforcera à détruire notre Union de sorte que notre pays ne puisse jamais se rétablir. »(« Zionism strives for world domination. It will take revenge for all our successes and achievements. International Zionism with all its power will strive to destroy our Union, so that our country would never recover. ») Il apparaît clairement que, à l’inverse des staliniens qui ont rejeté les sionistes, les trotskistes ont rallié les sionistes et l’empire mondialiste américain qui les ont accueilli à bras ouvert d’autant plus facilement qu’ils avaient en fait jamais été très loin l’un de l’autre.
*Staline était Goy, il n’était pas juif. Je sais qu’un tas de théories circulent à ce sujet, mais elles sont fondées sur rien de solide et vérifiable. Il avait été identifié à Haman, l’antisémite éternel dans la tradition juive, et fut assassiné à l’instigation d’un « complot de médecins juifs ». Des chefs d’État mal vus par les juifs ont été assimilés par eux au mythique Haman: le Pharaon, Jésus (l’effigie de Haman est non seulement pendue et brûlée, mais parfois aussi crucifiée et identifiée à Jésus!), les chrétiens en général (arméniens, mais surtout catholiques romains), des tzars dont Alexandre II et Nicolas I, Hitler, les 10 pendus du procès de Nuremberg (« Purimfest 1946 » furent les dernières paroles de Streicher), Staline, JFK et le clan Kennedy, Arafat, Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, etc.). Le tzar Alexandre II (13 mars), le tzar Nicolas I (2 mars) et Staline (5 mars) ont été tous tués dans la période de la fête de Pourim. (Considérant que Pourim est parfois très proche de la Pâques chrétienne, le meurtre du Christ par les juifs peut être vu comme un sacrifice de Haman.) Si les Allemands ont été assimilés aux Amalécites (peuple d’Amalek) pour des raisons évidentes, de nos jours ce sont les Arabes et en particulier les Arabes musulmans voire l’Islam tout court qui est désigné comme les Amalécites du nouveau millénaire. BLOOD PASSOVER, RECKLESS RITES – intro.; Pâque sanglante de 1475: de l’histoire de Saint Simon de Trente à la pérestroïka vaticanesque) La fête de Pourim commémore le récit légendaire (pas du tout historique) du Livre d’Esther. Ce livre qui glorifie la tromperie, la haine et la vengeance raconte comment des lobbyistes juifs importants, la reine Esther (camouflée en non-juive, donc « crypto-juive ») et le roi Mardochée, ont réussi à sauver la communauté juive de Perse, alors que le ministre du roi Ahasvérus, le méchant Haman prévoyait les exterminer. Cela se termine avec le massacre de 75 000 Perses aux mains des juifs. La dépouille de Haman est pendue, de même que celle de ses dix fils afin qu’ils servent d’exemple. S’en suit une grande célébration: festin, mascarade, beuverie, débauche, et même attaques à main armée contre des non-juifs (parlez-en à la police d’Outremont, Montréal). Le récit fait de Haman un descendant d’Amalek, l’ennemi juré des juifs. Il est dit dans l’Ancien testament (Exode 17 *) que Dieu a commandé le peuple d’Abraham d’exterminer Amalek pour toujours, et que cette guerre devait durer de génération en génération… jusqu’à l’avènement du Messiequi le terrassera ! (Nombres 24, 7)
Le néo-conservateur Nathan Sharansky fait partie de ces juifs qui ont dû fuir l’Union soviétique sous Staline et qui se sont vus refuser par Staline le « droit » de plier bagage pour aller s’établir en Israël (d’où le nom de « refuzniks »). Staline avait plutôt créé le Birobijan, le premier état juif autonome, au Nord de la Chine, en 1934, bien avant la création d’Israël par l’ONU en 1948. Rappelons que Bronfman a joué un rôle de premier plan dans l’aide et le lobbying en faveur des juifs d’Union soviétique. La haine des trotskistes et des futurs néo-conservateurs vis-à-vis Staline et l’Union soviétique n’a cessé de croître depuis. Dès lors, les néo-conservateurs, ces anciens communistes trotskistes, se sont lancés dans une grande croisade contre l’Union soviétique et, hypocritement, contre le communisme. C’est la période de la guerre froide. L’influence anti-soviet de ces néo-conservateurs se fera sentir plus spécialement dans l’administration Reagan. Plus tard, les médias de Bronfman donnaient la tribune aux néoconservateurs.
Il est hautement significatif que le président George W. Bush a déjà dit que le livre sur lequel se fonde sa pensée est le livre de Nathan SharanskyThe Case for Democracy (The Power of Freedom To Overcome Tyranny and Terror). Dans ce livre, Sharansky explique que c’est la mission consacrée des États-Unis de faire la guerre aux régimes tyranniques afin de porter le flambeau de « la démocratie et la liberté » aux quatre coins de la planète. Sharansky fut en fait le mentor intellectuel et conseiller secret de Bush.
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Michael Collins Piper
The “Israelization” of America
Judas Goat Number One: George W. Bush—
Shill for Zionist Theoretician Natan Sharansky:
Planning for Global War in the Name of “Democracy”
President George W. Bush may well rank—by virtue of his high office—as perhaps America’s most insidious and most dangerous Judas Goat. His role in guiding America into the war in Iraq—not to mention his lead part in covering up the truth about the forces behind the 9-11 attack on America—has cast him as a veritable Enemy Within-in-Chief, so to speak. Now he urges America to fight another war against Iran.
However, the truth is that Bush’s messianic call for a worldwide “democratic revolution” (enunciated in his second inaugural address and sounding much like the rhetoric of the global Trotskyite Bolshevik movement) was not really of his own making. His words were written by others far more intelligent than Young Bush.And the origins of Bush’s newfound philosophy are very telling indeed. Perhaps what is most frightening is that the rhetoric of the American president—prodded by his behind-the-scenes “advisors”—points toward more and more military action around the globe in the years to come.
Although a documentary, Bush’s Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, purportedly the president’s chief political tactician, is the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear—based on solid evidence—that Soviet-born Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly “Natan” Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title. Despite the fact that he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist.
Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who—like many others in the Soviet Union—simply ran afoul of the ruling regime.
But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets—who accused him of being a CIA spy—and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of Israel’s most outspoken extremist leaders who damned even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—known as “the Israeli Caesar”—as being “too soft” on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush’s thinking is no “conspiracy theory.” Instead, disclosures from the White House itself—published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media—demonstrated that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but also that at least two of Sharansky’s key American publicists were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12, 2005—even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, 2005 The New York Times reported that “The president was given [Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him
in the Oval Office . . .Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, but to find out who actually pressed the book upon the president might be very telling indeed.
Affirming the Times’ disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22, 2005 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words,“Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.”
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neoconservative” supporters of Israel—William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatristturned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds—were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol—in particular—and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those we’ve dubbed as “the high priests of war” who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S.war against Iraq,was a measure high-up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post said helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Wehner—it happens—is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was serving as chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett himself a protégé of Kristol’s very influential father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.
So, considering Kristol’s wide-ranging input, shaping Bush’s mindset, it is really no surprise that, as the Post put it,“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.”
Meanwhile, for his own part,William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24, 2005 declaring “it’s good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky’s work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term.”
The BBC News noted on January 22, 2005 that Sharansky “has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time.”
As far back as July 2002—just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world—neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who—between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel—peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence was not widely known among grassroots Americans, it was big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say that Bush is “doing [Sharansky’s book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN.
But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, 2005, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman, noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.
The fact that Sharansky happened to be in charge of “diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet was significant indeed.The term “diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.
In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement.And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush’s worldview.
Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, South Korea’s English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky’s philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy—now being touted by Bush—as “a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy.”
The propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky upon which the president’s inaugural address was based was virtually a complete turn-about from Bush’s rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign.
This contradiction is a point that—theoretically—should have given pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.
Enthusiastically proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address laid the “groundwork for [a] global freedom mission,” The Washington Times—a leading “neo-conservative” voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel’s security demands—stated flat out that:
President Bush’s inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators—a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world’s policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America’s present commitments . . . .
For its own part, the Times’s daily “liberal” counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”—that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American nationalists or traditional conservatives.
Effectively endorsing Bush’s turnabout, the Post acknowledged.
that Bush’s pronouncement “promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world,”saying that if Bush is serious,U.S. policy “is on the verge of a historic change.”
James Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, found Bush’s emergence as the voice of globalism quite intriguing, inasmuch as it is a determined betrayal of what had been traditional Republican opposition to international meddling.
Steinberg told The New York Times on January 21, 2005 that it is “quite remarkable that one of the notions that’s been so resisted by Republicans is the idea of a deep interdependence in the world, and now [Bush has] essentially adopted the notion that tyranny anywhere threatens freedom anywhere.”
In the same vein, hard-line American-based Zionist Robert Kagan, one of the most aggressive neo-conservative media voices, echoed American Free Press (AFP) when he wrote in the Post on January 23, 2005 that Bush’s “goals are now the antithesis of conservatism.”
According to Kagan,“They are revolutionary.”
In its January 31, 2005 editorial,AFP called Bush a “revolutionary,” and this came very much to the dismay of many traditional conservatives who—inexplicably—still viewed the president as the voice of American patriotism.
These folks are evidently unaware that what is called “neo-conservatism” is anything but what Americans long viewed to be “conservative” in the traditional American nationalist sense of the word.
However, Zionist Robert Kagan understands this distinction and that’s precisely why he said that “Bush may lose the support of most oldfashioned conservatives” once they realize what his new internationalist policy is all about. In short, conservatives have been “had.”And that’s why AFP reminded its readers not to forget what Jesus said: “Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing” or, rather,“Beware the Judas Goats.”
In the meantime, however, Sharansky’s influence on American Republicanism—under George Bush and in the years ahead—remains substantial. In fact, there’s a new brand of Republicanism, at least according to Ken Mehlman, whom President George W. Bush personally hand picked, following the 2004 election, to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In a March 14, 2005 speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobby for Israel, the GOP’s national chairman candidly and enthusiastically described himself as a “Sharansky Republican.”
What was so striking is that this appeared to be the first time in American history that the chairman of one of the national parties used the name and ideology of a political leader from a foreign nation—one known as an “extremist” at that—to describe his own ideology.
In the past, there were self-described “Taft Republicans,” who supported the presidential ambitions of the nationalistic and traditionally conservative Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio—popularly known as “Mr. Republican”—who was the undisputed leader of the America First bloc in Congress from 1936 until his untimely (and some say “suspicious”) death in 1953.
Later, there were the conservative “Goldwater Republicans”who—under the leadership of Sen. Barry Goldwater (Ariz.)—set the stage for the ascendancy of the “Reagan Republicans” who came to power in 1980 under the popular two-term president, Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, in opposition to the Taft and Goldwater Republicans, there were the more liberal and internationalist-minded Republicans who rallied behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wall Street lawyer Wendell Willkie,dubbing themselves—naturally—“Dewey Republicans” and “Willkie Republicans.”
And later, of course,many of those same party leaders evolved into “Rockefeller Republicans” following New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And there were even a few folks, for a time, who called themselves “Eisenhower Republicans,” stressing their so-called “mainstream, moderate” point of view (however defined) in the spirit of America’s 35th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, however, the new GOP national chairman is not calling himself a “Reagan Republican” or even a “Bush Republican” (after the reigning GOP president who is wildly popular among grass-roots members of his party), but, instead, is hailing a foreign leader—a known extremist—as the role model for what 21st century Republicanism is all about.
And this is a direct legacy of George W. Bush who so proudly installed Sharansky as one of the GOP’s ideological dictators, betraying the historic legacy of the GOP. Sharansky’s policy of promoting “global democracy”is hardly in the American tradition, but it’s now part and parcel of what the “modern” Republican Party is all about.
Qui sont les néo-conservateurs?
Rappelons comment Wikipedia décrit le néo-conservatisme:
Le premier grand néo-conservateur à avoir adopté ce mot et qui est considéré comme le fondateur de cette idéologie est Irving Kristol, un Américain juif né dans une famille juive orthodoxe et père de William Kristol, fondateur du think-tank néo-conservateur Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol a été un militant trotskyste actif pendant sa jeunesse et a exposé ses vues néoconservatrices en 1979 dans l’article « Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.' » Les idées de Kristol sont influentes depuis les années 50 quand il a cofondé et édité le magazine Encounter. Un autre idéologue de ce mouvement était Norman Podhoretz, éditeur au magazine Commentary de 1960 à 1995. (…)
Les journaux néo-conservateurs prééminents sont Commentary et The Weekly Standard. Il existe aussi des think-tanks néo-conservateurs sur la politique étrangère dont notamment American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation et le Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).(…)
Le néo-conservatisme apparaît véritablement dans les années 1980, quoique l’on puisse trouver des éléments précoces de ce qui peut apparaître comme une école de pensée politique dans les années 1960, autour de personnalités comme Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Wilmoore Kendall, John M. Olin, James Burnham, Francis Fukuyama, ou Charles Krauthammer. (…) Ses adeptes sont souvent d’anciens démocrates, voire d’anciens trotskistes, déçus par l’évolution culturelle et intellectuelle depuis les années 1960. C’est le cas d’Irving Kristol, ou de Martin Diamond, spécialiste de la Constitution américaine. (…) Si de nombreux néoconservateurs sont de confession juive et catholique (Gerson, Mark: 1987 : 285), il serait faux de réduire cette vision politique à une approche communautaire. Il est plus juste de dire que les néoconservateurs sont le plus souvent des pro-israéliens proches du Likoud, la droite israélienne (…)
Les penseurs néo-conservateurs américains les plus influents sont donc d’anciens trotskistes juifs: le gourou Leo Strauss, les Kristol père et fils, les Podhoretz père et fils, les Kagan père et fils, Perle, Ledeen, Pipes, Krauthammer, Peretz, etc., qui ont toujours été sur la ligne dure du sionisme à la Jabotinski. La plupart d’entre nous l’ignorons pour la simple et bonne raison qu’ils ont l’habitude de mettre au pouvoir des façades non-juives (ex: Dick Cheney) qu’ils influencent à distance, en restant plus ou moins dans l’ombre.
Paul Wofowitz lors d’une conférence de l’AIPAC devant le Capitole
Le « think tank » néo-conservateur le plus connu est sans contredit le Project for the New American Century (PNAC, 1997). Sous la direction de William Kristol (éditeur du Weekly Standard, du magnat médiatique sioniste Rupert Murdoch=Fox/NewsCorp) et Robert Kagan (correspondant du Weekly Standard), le PNAC compte parmi ses membres : Paul Wolfowtiz (ancien président de la banque mondiale et secrétaire à la défense sous Reagan), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (qui ont tous les trois servi sous les administrations Reagan et Bush père), Richard Perle (un invité de Bilderberg, proche de Netanyahou, conseiller du secrétaire à la défense Wolfowitz sous Reagan et directeur du conseil de la Défense sous G.W. Bush), le rabbin Dov Zakheim (contrôleur des comptes du Pentagone quand 2.3 trillions$ ont disparu peu avant le 11 septembre, ex-PDG de System Planning Corporation qui offre des dispositifs de contrôle d’avions à distance), Lewis « Scooter » Libby (Liebowitz, ancien directeur du bureau du v-p Cheney, avocat du trafiquant d’armes israélien Marc Rich, emprisonné pour son rôle dans l’affaire Plame), Eliot Cohen, Donald Kagan (père de Robert Kagan), Jeb Bush, Max Boot (éditeur du Wall Street Journal de Murdoch), Elliott Abrams (impliqué dans le scandale Iran-contra, en charge des affaires du Proche-orient au National Security Council), Steve Rosen (un espion de l’AIPAC emprisonné), Daniel Pipes (protégé de Perle et fils du théoricien anti-Soviet Richard Pipes), Robert Zoellick (nouveau président de la banque mondiale), etc., tous pro-sionistes et co-conspirateurs (sous l’égide de Wolfowitz, Feith et Libby) de la guerre en Irak — une guerre pour les intérêts d’Israël. Parmi eux, seuls Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et Boot ne sont pas juifs. Plusieurs d’entre eux — Perle, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Kristol, Feith, Boot — ont pris part à la réunion de Bilderberg en 2004.
Perle et Cheney, tous deux membres du Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), ont été tour à tour directeur du Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), un puissant lobby sioniste similaire à l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) et tout aussi partisan de la guerre au terrorisme, de la guerre en Irak et de la prochaine guerre contre l’Iran. Perle est un ancien lobbyiste pour des vendeurs d’armes israéliens et il est très proche des juifs sionistes Michael Ledeen (le théoricien de la « destruction créatrice » du Moyen-Orient) et Elliott Abrams (le gendre du gourou belliciste néo-con Norman Podhoretz). Les liens un peu trop étroits de Perle avec Israël lui ont valu de faire l’objet d’une enquête en 1970 pour avoir passé des secrets à Israël, comme Wolfowitz l’a été en 1978.
Voici une liste un peu plus longue des principaux signataires du PNAC, tous néo-conservateurs, impliqués dans la politique américaine ou dans les médias américains. Les noms juifs sont marqués d’une astérisque.
Certes, les néo-conservateurs sont liés aux fascistes sionistes, mais quand on remonte aux théoriciens néo-conservateurs, on constate qu’ils étaient des communistes trotskistes, anti-staliniens et anti-soviet. Le fait qu’ils se proclament « anti-communistes » relève de la pure hypocrisie, voire du mensonge.
Les trotskistes étaient les champions du mouvement et de la posture « anti-fasciste ». Historiquement, nul ne conteste que « l’anti-fascisme » est né du trotskisme. Mais avant de traiter d’anti-fascisme, il faut clarifier le sens du mot « fascisme ». Alors que les trotskistes épousaient la pensée libérale et promouvait démocratie comme vecteur de révolution internationale, en réaction au libéralisme – qu’il soit communiste ou capitaliste – s’est érigé une opposition: le fascisme. Le mouvement fasciste prônait le nationalisme, le patriotisme, la religion, les valeurs morales et un État fort qui prenne en main non seulement l’État de droit mais aussi la culture et surtout l’économie. Le nationalisme fasciste se voulait un rejet brutal, d’une part, de l’internationale libérale-capitaliste, c’est-à-dire la droite, et, d’autre part, de l’internationale communiste, c’est-à-dire la gauche. Plus tard, le terme « fasciste » servira à désigner globalement l’extrême-droite et servira aux trotskistes pour salir leurs ennemis. Toujours est-il que l’anti-fascisme des trotskistes a à ce point pénétré la psyché populaire que très peu de gens se souviennent de ses origines trotskistes.
Wikipedia rappelle que les néo-conservateurs sont juifs anti-fascistes et anti-nazis à la sauce « Plus Jamais Auschwitz »: » Le néo-conservatisme se distingue du conservatisme traditionnel et du néolibéralisme. Anticommuniste et antifasciste, le néo-conservatisme est né sur le principe de « plus jamais Auschwitz ». « (Rappelons ici que cet anti-communisme était en réalité un anti-soviétisme d’inspiration trotskiste et non pas seulement capitaliste.)
Le slogan « Plus Jamais Auschwitz » et la rhétorique ostensiblement « anti-fasciste » des néocons est décelable jusque dans leurs écrits. On remarque facilement que les néocons et autres agents sionistes sont toujours en train de traiter les musulmans et les groupes identifiés comme « terroristes » d’être des nazis et des fascistes, des hitlériens, des chemises brunes, des chemises noires, etc. Ils accusent systématiquement leurs ennemis d’être des fascistes et, tout comme ils ont traité Saddam de fasciste et de tyran, dépeignant le moyen-orient en entier comme étant le terreau de « l’islamofascisme », ils accusent la Chine de devenir un « régime fasciste ». Alors que nous sommes tous témoins de la chute du prétendu « monde libre » dans la dictature et la tyrannie la plus totale (exemple: Google utilisé comme outil de censure et de collecte de renseignements personnels pour les services secrets occidentaux), un tel niveau d’hypocrisie est proprement consternant. (Faut-il en rire ou en pleurer?) Les néocons en ont particulièrement contre la « vieille Europe », associée à l’émergence du nationalisme, du nazisme et du communisme. en fait ils en veulent surtout à l’Europe pour la même raison qu’ils en veulent à l’ONU: parce que ces entités politiques ne reculent pas devant la nécessité de condamner les exactions commises par Israël contre les Palestiniens (pour plus de détails, voir la conférence de Durban, qui s’est tenue 4 jours avant le 11 septembre 2001). On peut constater cette tendance anti-fasciste dans les articles de Michael Ledeen, néo-conservateur et théoricien de la destruction créatrice: Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism, paru dans le Far Eastern Economic Review, et Black Shirts in Red China, paru dans The Wall Street Journal. Autre exemple flagrant: « China is actually the world’s first mature fascist state. It was fascism not national socialism but the kind of fascism that people like Mussolini installed in Italy in the 1920’s that we’re talking about. The economy is a mixed economy; mixed public and private economy. And there is a certain degree of private initiative that’s left in the hands of entrepreneurs and business leaders and even trade unions.« (tiré de Michael Ledeen on Fascist China, Epoch Times) Ledeen a consacré ses 15 premières années de travail à l’étude du fascisme (Michael Ledeen on Fascism & War on Terror on National Review Online).
En France, on dénombre aussi une bonne quantité de néo-conservateurs à la solde de l’atlanto-sionisme. Prenons par exemple Bernard Henri Lévy qui s’époumone à dénoncer le « fascislamisme » (voir les vidéos suivants: « Fascislamism » by Bernard-Henri Lévy et BHL contre le fascisme) C’est une constante évidente chez les néo-conservateurs: tous pro-fascistes en ce qui concerne Israël, mais anti-fascistes lorsque vient le temps de réclamer des guerres pour abattre « les bourreaux de la liberté et de la démocratie », c’est-à-dire tous ceux qui osent leur tenir tête!
And The Story Behind Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
Excerpt from Chp.14 of Michael Collins Piper’s
book « The Judas Goats » (2006)
What follows is the text (slightly annotated for purposes of clarity) of a sworn statement that De West Hooker (1918-1999) executed on September 30, 1954 outlining his findings about the role of the self-styled « American Jewish League Against Communism » and how it was manipulating then Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy’s efforts to investigate communism in high places in the American system. The affidavit reads:
« I had an astounding interview for two hours some time ago with Norman L. Marks of the American Jewish League Against Communism, Inc. As a matter of fact, I was brought along by another party, and Mr. Marks did not know anything about me (hence he really opened up because the person who took me was « trusted » by him). The AJLAC has offices at 220 West 42nd Street, New York City. Its national chairman is Alfred Kohlberg. Its executive director is Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, and its treasurer is Harry Pasternak. Listed on its national board are the following: Bern Dibner, Lawrence Fertig, Theodore Fine, Benjamin Gitlow, Hon. Walter R. Hart, Herman Kashins, Eugene Lyons, Norman L. Marks, Morris Ryskind, Rabbi David S. Savitz, Nathan D. Shapiro, George E. Sokolsky, Maurice Tishman, Rabbi Ascher M. Yager.
[DeWest Hooker, left]
I swear under oath to you that the following is as accurate as it is possible to put down from memory an hour or so later. Also, the information can be verified by the other unnamed party.
Mr. Marks, listed above and on the letterhead of the AJLAC as a member of the national board, said: « Far and away the principal financial contributor to the AJLAC is Mr. Bernard Baruch. » When questioned on this point as to what percentage he would say Mr. Baruch contributed, he answered: « About 85% or 90% of the funds. »
I said that I had thought Mr. Kohlberg was the main contributor to the AJLAC and Mr. Marks answered: « Well, he contributes some but nothing like what Baruch contributes. » I asked Mr. Marks why Baruch’s name did not appear on the letterhead. He stated that Baruch was very emphatic about NOT having his name appear on the letterhead, and that it was to be unknown that he contributed funds to it.
Mr. Marks said that the organization was entirely Jewish but that a funny thing was that many of the founders of it seemed to have « Christian » wives. He said that they used to meet every Thursday at the Ambassador Hotel for lunch and talk about the world situation. Marks said that the organization would not accept either a « Christian in it » or a « Christian dime of support » and that no Christian money had ever been accepted in the past–that it was completely a Jewish organization and financed by them.
He said there were only two purposes for its founding: That the Number One purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support Zionism. He said that: « for a while there, almost all the spies of the Communists that were turned up were Jews and that they had become concerned, and thought that something should be done to take the sting off the Jews. They wanted to show the Christian world that ALL Jews were not Communists. »
When asked just how they went about this whole project, Mr. Marks said: « It’s impossible for a Christian to get away with criticizing the Jews. Only a Jew can do that. »
He went on: « And so we got together a strong group of Jews that « were known to be anti-Communists » and started our campaign of pressure from our point of view. »
[According to Hooker’s original affidavit, Marks’ reference to those who were said to be « anti-Communists » actually meant that the Jewish leaders in question were, as Hooker put it, « meaning anti-Stalinist. »–Ed.]
Marks stated: « We were the ones that wrote the speeches for McCarthy back in West Virginia that started his build-up into the famous anti-Communist that he is today. Our pressure on the press resulted in his getting as much attention as he has. In return for this build-up he agreed not to call up or expose Jews in the Communist movement by the investigations through his sub-committee. »
Mr. Marks stated that a lot of Jews called McCarthy an anti-Semite but little did they know that « he is the best friend the Jews ever had. »
[Hooker noted of McCarthy that « Eventually they destroyed him anyway when he started calling up Jewish Communists later on. »–Ed.]
Marks went on to say that « other investigations might have turned up Jews and McCarthy had been given credit for them, but that if we traced the record back, we would find that McCarthy actually did not call up a single Jew in that period when the heat was on the Jews. » He later qualified these remarks by saying that « while McCarthy was operating as a temporary subcommittee under the Truman administration, he did not call up any Jews; that when he once got himself elected as the chairman of the permanent investigating committee, in the new administration, he then began to call witnesses « as they came. » [That is, whether the witnesses were « Jewish or not, » according to Hooker–Ed.]
Mr, Marks continued: « But that doesn’t make much difference now because he accepted our own men to work right with him. For example, he accepted as his top man next to him our man Roy Cohn, left, which was arranged through another of our men, George Sokolsky. »
If memory serves me correctly, Marks stated that Julius Kahn was also their man on the McCarthy committee, but who was now on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He definitely stated that David Schine was NOT with the AJLAC but that he was put there by « another group which I don’t know about. »
Mr. Marks went on to say that « not only is McCarthy under our control but so are Jenner and Velde, who also took our men to work right with them. Benny Mandel and Robert Morris represent us on the Jenner Committee. » He mentioned Robert Kunzig as « their man » for Velde. Marks also stated definitely that Professor Louis Budenz was under « their control » and one of « their men, » and that he was working to take the « heat » off the Jews.
[Budenz was a well-known « ex-communist » who became a leading figure in the so-called anti-communist movement, key elements of which had come under the control of the Zionist and Trotskyite elements. Hooker’s revelations explain why–Ed.]
He stated that [Alfred] Kohlberg, their national chairman, was the one who « found » Budenz when he was testifying in Washington and Kohlberg « picked him up and practically supported him for a while in order to get him started and built up to the man he is today in the anti-Communist movement. »
Marks also stated that they got « their man Robert Morris » elected recently as a judge in New York City, and that Victor Lasky was another one of their men who did a lot of « press work » for them, and « made speeches favoring their people, for example, Robert Morris. » He said, « All these people agreed to take the ‘heat’ off the Jews. »
I recall now another statement by Mr. Marks that « there is a vast pooling of information in the New York City area and throughout the country which is connected with our organization. »
I asked if J. B. Matthews and his files were in on « the deal » and he said: « Yes, we have access to all of his files. »
[J. B. Matthews was a prominent « anti-communist crusader » in the period, but, clearly, under the control of the Zionist-Trotskyites.–Ed.]
He said that they have at least « thirty Communists on our payroll who report information to us, » and that « we know everything that goes on in this field. »
Mr, Marks told all the above information as if there was nothing « wrong » with what he was saying. He even invited me and this other unnamed fellow to go to a meeting the following Tuesday night at the University Club, sponsored by Norman Lombard.
When they finally found out who I was, however, I was told by Norman Lombard and Norman Marks not to come to the meeting. I sure hope that the true patriotic American nationalists will be able to straighten out a few of these « pseudo-patriots » who are trying to lead the so-called « anti-communist » movement.
Don’t misunderstand me: I’m just as anti-Communist as any of you, but I don’t want our country to be led head-long into traps which enable these pseudo-patriots to « use » the fine instincts of the American people and the anti-Communist movement for their own diabolical ends. In other words, some of these pseudo-patriots are « anti-Communist, » meaning « anti-Stalin communism, » but are pro- as hell another form of Communism (American brand) leading to dictatorship by them in our own country and the rest of the world under Bernard Baruch and the crowd he represents.
[The « American brand » of communism to which Hooker referred, although he didn’t say it directly, was precisely the Trotskyite brand, then in its evolution, that has come today to be known as « neo-conservatism. » –Ed.]
(Signed) DeWest Hooker
INTRO TO THE BOOK THE JUDAS GOATS:
Russian-born hard-line Jewish nationalist Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky (1880-1940) — often called “The Jewish Fascist” — is revered by the Trotskyite “neoconservatives” who are the most pivotal forces in global Zionism today, exploiting U.S. military power in the drive for a planetary imperium: the New World Order. In the 1920s Jabotinsky emerged as one of the most popular and influential Zionist leaders and is today commemorated on Israeli currency (inset). Many young graduates of Jabotinsky’s militaristic Betar brigades (above) became members of the infamous Irgun, which pioneered modern-day terrorism in brutal attacks on British forces and Arab civilians in Palestine. Later, the Irgun and their allies became the foundation of the modern-day “right wing” Likud faction in Israel. Although the American media glorifies Jewish nationalism, all other forms of nationalism are vilified as a cause of war and oppression.
By Way of an Introduction:
Nationalism: The Wave of the Future —
The Prime Target of the Global Forces
of Zionism and Internationalism
. . .THE JUDAS GOATS — THE ENEMY WITHIN examines the manner in which internationalist forces have worked to take over and/or destroy legitimate, genuine, traditional nationalist movements in the United States during the 20th century. As such, it seems appropriate to begin our journey into this shadowy netherworld of spies and subversion by first defining precisely what constitutes “nationalism” in the American sense.
. . .Nationalism — in its various incarnations throughout history and all across the globe — has always been and certainly always will be a preeminent factor in dictating the course of mankind’s direction. Nationalism and the counter-force of internationalism together form the axis around which the events of our world today revolve. There is hardly any conflict anywhere on the face of the planet that does not hinge upon the struggle between nationalism and internationalism. So what then is nationalism?
. . .In America alone, the word nationalism means many different things to many different people — including those who consider themselves to be nationalists or rank themselves as part of “the nationalist movement.”
. . .The “nationalist movement” in America has always been quite internally quarrelsome, at times so philosophically disjointed that it almost seems a double misnomer to dare describe the phenomenon as either “nationalist” or as a “movement” at all.
. . .There are many (albeit naïve) classic “rock-ribbed Republicans” who would call themselves nationalists — however inappropriately — revering the “Big Stick” philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt, reveling in the idea that Uncle Sam should make his presence and his considerable military might felt ‘round the globe — America right or wrong. This, to these folks, is “nationalism”— but, of course, it isn’t, although the modern-day “neo-conservatives” who relish the thought of using America to advance the worldwide Zionist agenda have been quite ready to exploit “TR” as almost one of their own.
. . .In marked contrast to these “neo-conservatives,” there are many other Americans — who truly are nationalists in the classic sense of the word — who question the very idea that the United States should act as a world policeman, putting out brushfire wars and advancing some undefined dream of “democracy,” which has now become the rallying cry of the neo-conservative (that is, Zionist-Trotskyite) schemers.
. . .In fact, the genuine American nationalists, as opposed to the “neocons” (who truly are “cons” in every sense of that word), are the modern-day heirs of a traditional American (and, ironically, largely Republican Party-based) philosophy heralded by the late Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) when he affirmed: “Nationalism — not internationalism — is the indispensable bulwark of American independence.”
. . .In his now long-forgotten, but still quite timely, volume, The Trail of a Tradition (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1926), Vandenberg sought to define the American nationalist tradition in the context of U.S. engagement with the world at large — from the days of our Founding Fathers through the era of Woodrow Wilson and the attempt to enforce a world regime through the engine of the failed League of Nations.
. . .In the end, of course, Vandenberg himself underwent a remarkable transformation — thanks largely, it appears, to having been blackmailed and otherwise “influenced” by British intelligence operatives — and shifted into the internationalist camp — acting as an outspoken advocate of free-wheeling U.S. involvement in global affairs. However, in his early years,Vandenberg was indeed very much a part of what we might rightly call the genuine “nationalist” camp — one that occupied quite a large bit of territory in the land of American political thought.
. . .Another area where self-described “nationalists” seem to part company is on the ever-important issue of trade. There, the conflict between real nationalism and the internationalist, imperial perversion of “nationalism” is critical to the debate. Free trade versus protectionism (as advocated by traditional nationalists) presents a very real dilemma for self-styled “conservatives” within Republican Party ranks, for example, who, on the one hand, consider themselves “nationalists” and say they are for America First, but who — on the altar of free trade — are actually working to sacrifice American sovereignty to multinational trade organizations and global financial conglomerates. So there is a very basic divergence between free trade and national sovereignty.
. . .The fact is that free trade has historical ties not only to British imperialism and global super-capitalism, but also even with the great bugaboo of American conservatives: communism itself. In 1848, Karl Marx, the father of communism, advocated free trade because, he said, “it breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonisms of proletariat [workers] and bourgeoisie [small businessmen] to the uttermost point.”
. . .According to Marx, “the free trade system hastens the social revolution.” In short, modern day conservatives who support free trade are actually supporting a central tenet of Marxism. So, are these “conservatives” truly “nationalist” in the classic sense? It seems not.
. . .Which brings us to the definition of nationalism . . .
. . .The word “nationalism” — and the general knowledge of the history surrounding the concept of nationalism — raises negative images in the minds of those people — largely educated people, largely politicized people — who bother to think about the subject.
. . .For the average student (at either the high school or college level) who devotes little of his academic energies toward the realms of history or political science — the quite sensible would-be rocket scientist, architect or accountant who has no desire to dabble in political endeavor — the word “nationalism” may even conjure up the absolute, all-encompassing definition of evil as perceived by today’s society and culture and repeated endlessly in the mass media:
. . .NATIONALISM: Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, German militarism, concentration camps, six million innocent Jews — maybe as many as seven or eight million, possibly eleven million — marched off to the gas chambers, later to be incinerated in gas ovens. And don’t forget Japanese kamikaze fighter pilots — and Tojo, too.
. . .Taken right from the comics or a Hollywood drama, that in essence, sums up the common-place perception — indeed, really, the more or less “official” definition — of what constitutes “nationalism.”
. . .And this is no accident. The writing of both popular and academic history and the authority and power to define what “nationalism” was co-opted and has since been dominated — at least throughout the second half of the 20th century, and in the Anglo-American world, in particular — by persons and institutions distinctly hostile to nationalism in all its varieties and forms.
. . .This is a direct consequence of the growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of an elite few — closely connected families and financial groups — who benefit from internationalist policies. This is no “conspiracy theory,” by any means. Prominent media critic Professor Ben Bagdikian, in his book The Media Monopoly, summarizes the situation well:
. . .The [media] lords of the global village have their own political agenda. All resist economic changes that do not support their own financial interests. Together, they exert a homogenizing power over ideas, culture and commerce that affects populations larger than any in history. Neither Caesar nor Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt nor any Pope, has commanded as much power to shape the information on which so many people depend to make decisions about everything from whom to vote for to what to eat . .
. . .Monopolistic power dominates many other industries and most of them enjoy special treatment by the government. But media giants have two enormous advantages: They control the public image of national leaders who, as a result, fear and favor the media magnates’ political agendas; and they control the information and entertainment that help establish the social, political and cultural attitudes of increasingly larger populations . . .
. . .Now, in the wake of this most unfortunate phenomenon — this monopolization of the power to educate and inform — the actual nature and substance of what truly constitutes “nationalism” has been distorted. As such, more modern-day efforts to not only understand and define and advance the cause of nationalism have been relegated to what the Masters of the Media loosely call “the fringe.”
. . .During the mid-20th century, the one notable independent effort to define nationalism — at least in the American historical context — came through the work of one Willis A. Carto, the Indiana-born founder of a Washington-based institution known as Liberty Lobby, the publisher of a widely-read national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight.
. . .Although driven into bankruptcy and destroyed in 2001 by a politically- motivated lawsuit that was affirmed by a federal judge, The Spotlight emerged, during its heyday, as perhaps the largest and most effective voice for traditional American nationalism — the very reason that the maverick newspaper was targeted for evisceration.
. . .A survivor of wounds inflicted upon him by the Japanese during brutal combat in the Pacific theater during World War II, Liberty Lobby’s future founder, Carto, returned home and — unlike many veterans who believed the official propaganda — began his own personal journey of investigation, seeking the answers to the “how” and the “why” of American involvement in that genocidal world conflagration.
. . .Ultimately, Carto came to question the necessity of U.S. involvement not only in World War II but in virtually all of the wars of the 20th century. In fact, long before it became politically popular to do so — and certainly unlike many on the traditional “right” — Carto raised questions about the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, while conventional “Cold War Liberals” were still pushing for deeper American entanglement in the region, ultimately leading to the Vietnam debacle.
. . .Never considering himself anything but a nationalist, Carto made a conscious effort to draw the lines and distinctions between American “conservatism” of the Republican stripe and traditional nationalism. Rejecting what he considered to be the tired and worn and thoroughly inadequate concepts of “right” and “left,” Carto worked energetically through Liberty Lobby to develop a thriving nationalist movement, specifically focusing on the dangers of internationalism, placing nationalism as central to the overall framework of an American populist philosophy exemplified by Thomas Jefferson and an approach toward foreign relations (in particular) as laid out by George Washington in his Farewell Address.
. . .Carto’s book, Populism vs.Plutocracy:The Universal Struggle, captured the essence of Carto’s nationalist point of view, reflecting on the monumental figures of American populism and their particular contributions to nationalist thought: ranging from statesmen such as Jefferson and Jackson to progressive firebrands as Robert LaFollette and Burton Wheeler to famed radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, America First Committee spokesman Charles Lindbergh, nationalist Sen. Robert Taft, and such intellectual giants as Lawrence Dennis, undoubtedly the premier American nationalist theoretician of the 20th century.
. . .The views of these men — plus many other giants — taken together comprised a basis for the nationalist philosophy that Carto put forth in every way possible through a wide variety of media at his disposal over some 50 years of active involvement in the American public arena.
. . .Carto insisted that adherence to Washington’s words of wisdom provided not only the means to ensure America’s tranquil relations with its neighbors — near and far — but also a foundation for building a strong nation capable of ensuring its own domestic stability.
. . .Perhaps more than any other American — including Washington himself — Carto utilized the considerable media outreach at his disposal to repeat, time and time again, Washington’s warnings:
. . .So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It also leads to concessions, to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.
. . .Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.
. . .Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they acuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
. . .Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interest.
. . .The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith: — Here let us stop.
. . .It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.
. . .In the spirit of Washington, Carto contended that true nationalists — of all nations — believed in developing and strengthening their nation from within, maintaining the integrity of its cultural heritage and historic sovereign borders and placing their own nation’s interests first. Nationalists did not start wars of imperialism, he said, but respected the nationalist instincts of others.
. . .Profiteering internationalist plutocrats, Carto charged, condemned nationalism because it interfered with their goal of profit and their aim to submerge all nations in a “Global Plantation” under their domination.
. . .In Carto’s estimation, internationalism was a dream of naive idealists that the eradication of all national and racial borders will usher in world peace in which everyone will live happily ever after — a chimerical dream of poets and religious leaders for millennia.
. . .In actual application, Carto averred, internationalism could only produce mass confusion, tension, anarchy and violence. Plutocrats used internationalism to break down national boundaries and promote multiculturalism, an essential step to complete their conquest of the world and the formal erection of their world super state, the Global Plantation, often called a “New World Order”— by both the nationalists and the internationalists.
. . .Carto put it simply: the concept of a New World Order is no less than the drive for a world government directed by the plutocrats who see it as a way to capture all of the natural resources of the globe and to effectively enslave all of the people under an international bureaucracy chosen and controlled by the financial elite.
. . .In any event, Carto’s influence in shaping the philosophical foundation of the American nationalist movement was (and is) beyond question. In fact, when longtime Republican Party figure Pat Buchanan — the syndicated columnist — began emerging as a serious, high-profile critic — from a nationalist perspective — of the growing internationalist bent within Republican ranks, major media voices throughout the land acknowledged — albeit grudgingly — that it had been Carto and Liberty Lobby that helped pave the way for Buchanan’s ascension.
. . .It was Pat Buchanan — formerly a “mainstream” figure — who began echoing the rhetoric and historical foundation that had been preserved through Carto’s earlier work, and thereby brought at least a Buchanan version of “nationalism” into the American political arena as he made successive bids for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. As early as June 26, 1995, the progressive weekly, The Nation, began taking note of the new populism and nationalism that was driving the Buchanan campaign. Describing a Buchanan rally in New Hampshire, The Nation pointed out that:
When asked to cite what issue most moves them about Buchanan, a number of [them] referred to the economic nationalism of his crusades against NAFTA and GATT. Buchanan has howled about trade pacts that benefit transnational corporations at the expense of American workers and surrender U.S. sovereignty to a not-to-be-trusted international establishment, thus melding populism of the left and right.
The Nation explored Buchanan’s new emphasis further:
. . .It was in New Hampshire that Buchanan’s economic populism first stirred. When he campaigned in the state in 1992, he encountered people socked by recession.
. . .Buchanan had been propelled into that race by his far-right disgust at President Bush’s decision to sign a civil rights measure and to renege on the read-my-lips declaration [against new taxes]. But while trudging through the Granite State, Buchanan discovered economic dislocation — hardworking Americans hurled out of well-paying jobs. The fault, he concluded, lay with globalization and U.S. trade policies.
. . .Since then he has assailed the big banks and corporations that seek these jobs-exporting trade agreements and that finance a slew of lobbyists who guarantee that the trade deals slide through Congress. He is the only Republican contender to acknowledge and address the decline in real wages that has hit middle-income America.
. . .In doing so, Buchanan adds fresh troops to the social conservatives in his “Buchanan Brigades.” Mad at the Japanese? Outraged your child can’t pray in school? Buchanan is out there welding constituencies.
. . .Alone in the GOP, he attacks Washington as both the Establishment that promotes a liberal secular order and the Establishment that pushes the corporatist New World Order. Though also a fierce Catholic foot soldier in service to a conservative social and religious Establishment, Buchanan is the closest thing to a genuine populist in the 1996 race so far.
. . .The political “right” also stood up and took notice of Buchanan’s apparent shift. On November 27, 1995 the “conservative” Weekly Standard — financed by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, and edited by one William Kristol, leader of the self-styled clique of “neo-conservatives” enamored with nothing less than advancing a Zionist-dominated American imperialism — raised its own concerns about Buchanan’s nationalist broadsides against the power elite. The Standard asserted:
. . .In an increasingly conservative America, one political figure defiantly resists the historical tide. This man still denounces big banks and multinational corporations. Still unabashedly puts the interests of the American factory worker ahead of those of the so-called international trading system. Still refuses even to contemplate any cuts in the generosity of big middle-class spending programs like Medicare and Social Security. This man is Patrick J. Buchanan, America’s last leftist . . .
. . .Noting that Buchanan retained his traditional stance on social issues, The Standard then pointed out that:
. . .His campaign speeches stress arresting new themes: the imminent menace of world government, the greed of international banks, the power of tariffs to stop the deterioration in blue-collar wages, the urgency of preserving Medicare in something close to its present form.
. . .This isn’t anything remotely like the conservative Republicanism of the Reagan era. What it sounds very much like instead is the militant, resentful rhetoric roared by populist Democrats from William Jennings Bryan onward. The revulsion contemporary Democrats feel for Buchanan only exposes how far that party has drifted from its own past.
. . .The Standard charged that Buchanan had abandoned the “traditional” stands of conservative Republicans and had begun to shift (or at least attempt to shift) the Republican Party in a nationalist direction:
. . .The important question for traditional conservative Republicans is how far Mr. Buchanan should be permitted to take the party. The success of Buchanan’s 1992 campaign has already begun to redirect the Republican Party to a more restrictive position on immigration and a much harder line on affirmative action . . .
. . .Should he be welcomed or not? In 1992, many conservatives suffered excruciating difficulty in deciding . . .This time, though, the choice ought to be easier. Conservatives need to recognize that Buchanan’s politics is . . . something new: a populism formed to seize the political opportunities presented by strident multiculturalism and stagnating wages for less-skilled workers . . .
. . .As things are going, it is likely only a matter of time before Buchanan himself recognizes the rapidly mounting distance between his politics and those of mainstream conservatism. His friend and fellow columnist Sam Francis, whose ideas Mr. Buchanan has increasingly echoed, has already dropped the word “conservative” outright. The danger is not so much that Buchanan will hijack conservatism as that, even after he charges out of it on is way toward some unscouted ideological destination of his own, his statist and populist ideas will seep backward into it . . .
. . .At this juncture, the Murdoch-financed voice for internationalism formally declared war on Buchanan and read him out of the ranks of “conservative” Republicans:
. . .Buchanan has never shied from a fight, and neither should those Republicans who oppose him. Republicans who hold fast to the traditions of postwar conservatism that Buchanan is rejecting — small government and American global leadership — should make clear that they understand as well as Buchanan does the immense difference between his politics and theirs. He has turned his back on the fundamental convictions that have defined American conservatism for 40 years, and conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to say so. After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it isn’t we who have left Pat Buchanan; it is Pat Buchanan who is leaving us.
. . .In other words, Pat Buchanan, if elected president, would take the Republican Party out of the internationalist camp and that’s the last thing this “conservative” voice wanted to happen.
. . .Ultimately, of course, Buchanan left the Republican Party and opted to run — in 2000 — as the candidate of the Reform Party. However, when all was said and done, the Buchanan Movement failed — and failed badly. The American nationalist movement was dealt a harsh electoral blow with Buchanan’s devastatingly poor showing in that election. Nationalists were left holding the bag as Buchanan moved back into the world of big-time media punditry. In the meantime, the nationalist movement — the real nationalist movement — seeks not only rejuvenation, but leadership.
. . .Ironically, the greatest force standing against traditional American nationalism happens to be Zionism. Although Zionism is, in itself, defined as Jewish Nationalism, aimed at the establishment of a Jewish State, which, in fact, ultimately emerged in 1948 with the founding of Israel, the truth is that Zionism is essentially an international movement of vast scope and power with Israel serving as hardly more than its spiritual (albeit geographically specific) capital.
. . .In that regard, in this author’s previous work, The New Jerusalem, we explored the striking reality that, for all intents and purposes, the Zionist movement has essentially adopted the United States — through sheer force of financial and political power — as its primary base of operations, using the American military (generally against the wishes of the military leadership) to enforce a global imperium designed to advance the power of Israel (and the Zionist agenda) on the world stage.
. . .So it is that a relatively small group of intriguers — the so-called “neo-conservatives” (explored in detail in this author’s other previous volume, The High Priests of War) — have come to power in America and have done all in their vast reach to advance the Zionist cause.
. . .As it stands,even many of the harshest critics of Zionism and Israeli misdeeds fail to understand it, but the truth is that he conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab world is but a portion of the overall Zionist agenda which is boundless in scope: it is, you see, no coincidence that Zionist philosophy teaches that Israel — in the sense of the Jewish people—has no boundaries.
. . .It is also no coincidence that the American neo-conservatives are intellectual disciples of hard-line Zionist ideologue, Vladimir Jabotinsky — often called “The Jewish Fascist” — who candidly declared in a 1935 interview: “We want a Jewish Empire.” Although Jabotinsky died in 1940, his ideological heirs carry his torch forward, more forcefully perhaps than Jabotinsky would have ever dreamed possible.
. . .The intrigues by Zionism on American soil have been extraordinarily well-calculated,operating on multiple levels and through multiple mechanisms. In the pages of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within we will be examining the ugly history of the Zionist drive to infiltrate, undermine, subvert and/or otherwise grab control of the American nationalist movement in order to suppress and thereby destroy it.
. . .But rest assured that Americans are not standing alone in the face of this menace. There are other nationalist movements across the face of the planet that are rising up in opposition to Zionist power — from Moscow to Caracas, from Kiev to Kuala Lumpur: in every place where informed people dare to think freely and to continue to speak out.
. . .Therefore, let us note this: the enemies of nationalism might as well face one basic fact: Like it or not, both here in America and around the globe, nationalism is the wave of the future.
. . . There’s no way to stop it.
. . .Let us now move forward and examine precisely who The Judas Goats are — and have been — and how they truly are America’s Enemy Within. Prepare yourself for a very ugly — though fascinating — story.
Des révélations de la JBS sur le KGB… Le trotskisme avance à peine voilé dans le « mouvement patriote ».
Une conférence filmée circule beaucoup depuis des années dans les milieux patriotes et conspirationnistes de l’internet: VIDEO – Former KGB Agent Yuri Bezminov on Subversion and Demoralization
Cet homme Uri Bezmenov qui donne la conférence affiche un pro-américanisme béat à la BHL qui devrait alerter les « patriotes » et tout opposant au nouvel ordre mondial.
Conférencier, écrivain et militant pro-américain.
Il a toujours fait dans la désinformation médiatique, c’est un expert! Plus tard, ensuite, il s’est mis à faire dans le pro-américanisme le plus outrancier…
(…) However, Bezmenov did no real freelance writing; rather, he edited and planted propaganda materials in foreign media and accompanied delegations of Novosti’s guests from foreign countries on tours of the Soviet Union or to international conferences held in the Soviet Union.
After several months, Bezmenov was forced to be an informer while still maintaining his position as a Novosti journalist. He then used his journalistic duties to help gather information and to spread disinformation to foreign countries for the purposes of Soviet propaganda and subversion.(…)
In an interview with G. Edward Griffin, he detailed how Soviet help for inciting anger and uprising in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was the final straw in his personal decision to defect to the West. In the interview, Yuri details how USSR consulates in India were used to smuggle weapons and propaganda material to East Pakistan in a largely Soviet effort to break up the state of Pakistan, then a staunch Western and US ally.
After studying political science at the University of Toronto for two years, Bezmenov was hired by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1972, broadcasting to the Soviet Union as part of the CBC’s International Service. In 1976, the KGB compelled his departure from that position, and Bezmenov began free-lance journalism. (…)
Pro-American lecturer, writer, advocate
In 1984, he gave an interview to G. Edward Griffin, who at that time was a member of the John Birch Society, an anticommunist group. In the interview, Bezmenov explained the methods used by the KGB for the gradual subversion of the political system of the United States.
Tomas D. Schuman was associated with the World Information Network (WIN) of Westlake Village, California. (…)
Sachant que cet homme est un expert désinformateur, comment peut-on croire que ce qu’il dit maintenant n’est pas encore de la désinformation? Je ne nie pas qu’il puisse avoir raison dans un certaine mesure, et que divers moyens de manipulation mentale ont pu être étudiés et élaborés en URSS, et je ne dis pas que Bezmenov ment tout le temps, mais je demande à ceux qui font circuler ce vidéo: avez-vous déjà examiné votre source? Saviez-vous qu’il présente les méchants Soviets conspirant contre les gentils Américains? (Lire à ce sujet le résumé de wikipedia.) Supposons que cela est connu de une grande partie de ceux qui l’écoutent, alors je pose la question: avez-vous déjà examiné de près le diffuseur de ce vidéo: la John Birch Society? Vous allez être surpris de ce que vous allez apprendre au sujet de cette organisation!
Conférencier, écrivain et militant pro-américain. En 1984, il donne une entrevue1 à Edward Griffin, un membre de la John Birch Society, un groupe anticommuniste. Bezmenov explique dans cet interview les méthodes utilisées par le KGB pour pervertir secrètement le système démocratique des États-Unis.
La John Birch Society a un passé peu reluisant! Des gens douteux y ont déversé une influence des plus néfaste. La pensée internationaliste des néocons y est promulguée depuis des années! Les têtes pensantes de la JBS étaient des néocons (secrètement trotskyites). Le financement de la JBS par les Rockefeller (en lien avec la puissante industrie du sucre) est reconnu par Eustace Mullins dans son fameux livre sur le Réserve fédérale. La JBS vantait les mérites d’Israel en disant qu’Israel était un bastion de l’anti-communisme au Moyen-orient, alors qu’en réalité à la même époque les pays musulmans avaient peu de partis communistes-socialistes, alors que dans tout le M-O c’est en Israël qu’on dénombrait le plus de partis communistes! Le journal de la JBS a aussi grandement contribué à faire connaître l’ « oeuvre » d’Anthony C. Sutton, qui prétend sans preuve que Wall Street aurait financé Hitler et que le fondateur des Bilderberg était un nazi (ce qu’il n’était pas du tout, même qu’Hitler et lui se détestaient mutuellement). Le fondateur du journal National Review, William F. Buckley Jr. était très influent au sein de la JBS. C’était tout un traître! Demi-juif, sioniste, prestigieux invité de Bilderberg, membre du CFR (la succursale américaine du RIIA des Rothschild) et « ex » agent de la CIA, il a grandement influencé la ligne de pensée de la JBS. La famille Buckley est aussi liée à des intérêts israéliens dans le pétrole, intérêts qui étaient sous contrôle des Rothschild avant qu’ils soient vendus au rabbin Tibor Rosenbaum, le directeur de la banque suisse BCCI (qui est une façade de blanchiment d’argent pour le Mossad) et important financier lié au super-mafieux juif Lansky. William F. Buckley Jr était également très proche de Malachi Martin, un des plus importants traîtres envers l’Église catholique, qui supervisa en coulisse, en lien direct avec les organisations juives (B’Nai Brith, etc.), la grande subversion de l’Église qui se cristallisa dans Vatican II. Dans son livre The Judas Goats, Michael Collins Piper parle beaucoup de William F. Buckley et trouve même un lien entre lui et le fameux médecin juif Gottlieb, responsable des expériences et du développement des techniques de manipulation mentale dans le cadre du programme MK Ultra. ET ne parlons même pas de toutes les attaques de Buckley et de la JBS envers des vrais patriotes et nationalistes américains, pour antisémitisme ou même pour « anti-américanisme ».
Photo: la JBS a été financée par Robert Welch (en haut à droite) en partie grâce à du financement des Rockefeller. La JBS a fait circuler la théorie (fausse piste délibérée fabriquée vraisemblablement par James Jesus Angleton, en haut au centre) selon laquelle les communistes étaient derrière l’assassinat de JFK.
(The Judas Goats – The Enemy Within, Michael Collins Piper, 2006)
William F. Buckley Jr.—Jewish?
Although the late William F. Buckley, Jr. was widely recognized as a devout “Irish Catholic,” his Roman Catholic antecedents were not, as widely believed, from his Scotch-Irish father’s side, but, instead from his mother’s side. Although Buckley’s mother was born to a Catholic family in New Orleans named Steiner (a German name which is sometimes Jewish) the late Chicago Tribune columnist WalterTrohan privately told intimates that he had been advised that there was Jewish blood in Buckley’s mother’s family, but that they converted to Catholicism, as did many New Orleans Jewish families during the 18th and 19th centuries. In any case, Buckley was a disciple of Zionism. (Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon–Those Who Reign Supreme, 2009)
American Free Press
By Michael Collins Piper
William F. Buckley Jr. is dead. The demise of the ex-CIA man-turned-pundit sparked a shameless wave of over-the top media encomiums for the longtime publisher of National Review, a so-called “conservative” journal many suspected had been (from the beginning) no more than a stylish—if boring—CIA “front.”
The nature of the lavish media praise for Buckley was best reflected by the liberal New York Times which went so far as to claim—in all seriousness—that “people of many political stripes came to see his life as something of an art form” because—among other things—Buckley rode motorcycles.
However, despite the hagiography of Buckley in the press, the full story of his intrigue has yet to be told. Although accounts of his record were much on target—in one respect—what was not said about Buckley is more revealing.
The fact is—as The New York Times asserted—Buckley did weave “the tapestry of what became the new American conservatism” during the 1950s. Using National Review as his forum, Buckley did, as the Times said, help “define the conservative movement.”
Claiming Buckley’s “greatest achievement was making conservatism . . . respectable in liberal post-World War II America,” the Times cited a Buckley crony as declaring that, without Buckley, “there probably would be no respectable conservative movement in this country.”
What all of this means is that in the early 1950s, Buckley and a clique of associates appointed themselves the new conservative leaders—pompously calling themselves “responsible conservatives”—and loudly announced (with enthusiastic media support) that all who dared to advocate old fashioned America First nationalism or to oppose U.S. meddling in endless wars abroad were no longer even to be considered “conservative” at all.
The “Buckleyites” pronounced themselves boldly internationalist, intent on “winning” the ColdWar, even at the expense of a hot war. They had no desire to bring American troops home to protect America. Instead, they were venturing out on a global imperium, and old-style conservative concerns about big government. That socialism (big government) must be the inevitable consequence of military adventurism was pushed aside.
Buckley acknowledged on Jan. 25, 1952 when he wrote in Commonweal, a liberal journal, that he was willing to support what he called “Big Government” for “the duration [of the Cold War]” because—he said—only “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” could ensure total victory over the communist menace.
The new conservatism was not new at all. In fact, Buckley’s “contribution” to conservatism was introduction of a host of longtime Trotskyite (Marxist) communists as voices for “modern conservative thought.”
Foremost among them, James Burnham, only 20 years earlier, had been Jewish Bolshevik Leon Trotsky’s “chief spokesman” in American “intellectual” circles. Then, during World War II, Burnham worked for the Zionist- and Trotskyite-infested Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA, which later recruited Buckley while he was at Yale.
After the war, when Soviet strongman (and Trotsky foe) Josef Stalin began moving against the Zionists and the Trotskyites (who were, in most respects, one and the same) Burnham became a so-called “anticommunist
The term “anti-communist liberal”—in the Cold War—was effectively a euphemism for describing Trotskyites in America. But, led by Burnham and Buckley, the Trotskyites began transmogrifying, through the venue of National Review, into what ultimately are the now-infamous “neo-conservatives” of today.
While traditional American anti-communists wanted to contain Stalinist Russia, the Trotskyites wanted all-out war, so much so that one of Burnham’s leading critics was American historian Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, who described Burnham’s shrill calls for war as being “most dangerous and un-American.”
In fact, Burnham—this Trotskyite—was the chief theoretician for National Review for more than 20 years.
Another Buckley collaborator wasMarvin Liebman—yet another “ex-communist”—who had smuggled arms for the Irgun terrorist gang that killed Christians, Muslims and even Jews in the drive to establish a Zionist state in Palestine. While Buckley ran the “idea” end of the carefully orchestrated seizure of the conservative movement, Leibman ran the business end, assembling massive lists of conservative Americans, most of whom had no idea their movement was being manipulated by forces that were hardly “conservative” at all.
That Buckley should traffic with a figure in the Zionist underground may have involved ulterior motives: Buckley’s father—a rich oil man—was later revealed to have lucrative petroleum interests in Israel, among other places.
In addition, the late conservative Chicago Tribune columnist Walter Trojan, a highly respected name in journalism, told intimates that although Buckley was widely touted as a devout “Irish Catholic,” Buckley’s mother was from a German-Jewish family in New Orleans named Steiner that converted to Roman Catholicism, something common for many New Orleans Jewish families in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Whatever his heritage, young Buckley—enthusiastically encouraged by friendly promoters in the major media—authoritatively began to declare what was permissible for American conservatives to discuss: Anyone who raised questions about such issues as Zionism or the role of big international money in dictating the course of world affairs was a “conspiracy theorist” who was “beyond the pale” and delving into “fever swamps” from which Buckley vowed it was his singular mission to exterminate such pestilence, in particular that of “anti-Semitism.”
Considering all of this, Buckley watchers were not surprised that “WFB” was invited to join the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy making arm of the Rothschild banking empire. Many conservatives tried to explain Buckley’s CFR membership by saying Buckley would be a good counterpoint to the predominantly “liberal” point of view perceived to reign at CFR headquarters.
But when Buckley popped up in Cesme, Turkey in 1975 at the conclave of the even more powerful international Bilderberg group, established under the auspices of the Rothschild empire and its junior partners, the Rockefeller family, more people began to get the big picture.
And, when Buckley advocated legalizing marijuana and giving away the American canal in Panama, a lot of conservatives were apoplectic.
However, there were traditional conservatives who were able to withstand the Trotskyite-Zionist onslaught of the Buckley organism poisoning the conservative movement.
That’s why a particular Buckley target was the expanding populist movement surrounding Liberty Lobby, founded by Willis Carto in 1955. Buckley was incensed that Liberty Lobby was growing exponentially with grass-roots support, whereas his publication received a substantial base of its subscriptions from purchases made by U.S. government propaganda agencies such as the Voice of America and U.S. propaganda libraries around the world.
When Buckley published a 1971 smear of Carto, sworn testimony later revealed that a primary source for the smear was syndicated columnist Jack Anderson.
Along with his mentor, the late Drew Pearson, Anderson had bragged that much of the garbage they peddled came from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a known conduit for Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad.
Pearson’s own ex-mother-in-law, newspaper publisher Cissy Patterson, once called Pearson “both undercover agent and mouthpiece for the ADL.”
After Liberty Lobby launched an extended investigation of Buckley and his affairs, some details (but not all of them) were published in The Spotlight, Buckley then filed a libel suit against Liberty Lobby in 1980.
And—not coincidentally—this came not long after Buckley’s longtime friend and former colleague in the CIA station in Mexico City, E. Howard Hunt, one of the former Watergate burglars, had filed his own lawsuit against Liberty Lobby.
Not only was the CIA providing Hunt with money and attorneys, but Buckley was helping fund Hunt’s lawsuit, even as Buckley was waging his own legal assault on the populist institution.
In the end, in 1985—under the skillful defense of attorney Mark Lane—Hunt’s lawsuit was dealt a devastating defeat, as later described in Lane’s best-selling book, Plausible Denial as well as this writer’s Final Judgment.
The jury concluded—just as The Spotlight had said—that there had been CIA involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that Hunt had somehow been involved. Although Hunt denied under oath that he had any knowledge of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy, he later admitted, in a deathbed confession publicized by his own sons, that he did have foreknowledge of the impending assassination.
And, for the record, it should be noted that there were published allegations that Buckley himself may have had some role in the JFK conspiracy.
In any event, not long after Hunt’s lawsuit was scuttled, Buckley’s case against Liberty Lobby came to trial. Although Buckley sued for millions of dollars, the jury awarded Buckley only a dollar (plus $1,000 in punitive
damages). When the verdict was announced, a Buckley supporter in the courtroom burst into tears.
Buckley and his cronies may have had the last laugh, however. A CIA intriguer with ties to operations of Israel’s Mossad later orchestrated another legal case against Liberty Lobby that led to its destruction in 2001 at the hands of a federal judge (himself tied to Mossad intrigue).
One of the individuals helping fund that lawsuit was longtime Buckley associate, ex-priest and best-selling author Malachi Martin, who—when not penning articles for Buckley—was writing for the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine.
Prior to that Martin had acted as a destructive Zionist agent inside the Second Vatican Council during the early 1960s, a role exposed by such diverse writers as the late Revilo P. Oliver, Michael A. Hoffman II, and Lawrence Patterson of Criminal Politics magazine. [See Michael Collins Piper’s The Judas Goats for the entire story.—Ed.]
Buckley is gone, but his ugly legacy remains.
(Issue # 11, March 17, 2008)
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute – as long as full credit is given to American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
Michael Collins Piper, in The Judas Goats–The Enemy Within
The John Birch Society’s Beloved Judas Goat in the KKK
Delmar Dennis was a Methodist minister in Meridian, Mississippi in the early 1960s who was hailed as a loyal member of the state Ku Klux Klan. In truth he was an informant for the FBI as part of COINTELPRO, apparently paid some $15,000 over a period of time for his services. At the same time, Dennis was highly active in the John Birch Society, but there was never any evidence (or suggestion) Dennis was informing on the Birchers as he was on the KKK.
After Dennis was ultimately exposed in 1967 as an FBI “snitch” in the KKK, Dennis nonetheless went on to become a popular speaker on behalf of the John Birch Society which utilized Dennis and his rhetoric to popularize, among some naïve American patriots, the theory that the Ku Klux Klan and its “anti-Semitic” point of view was actually a “communist plot” to stir up racial turmoil in America.
Later, Dr. Edward Fields of The Thunderbolt newspaper, based in Marietta, Georgia,wrote of Dennis and his ties to the John Birch Society and its founder, Robert Welch, who had been an enthusiastic supporter of Dennis. Fields wrote:
This, of course, puts the loyalty of Robert Welch in doubt because his organization seems to have been turned into a refuge for former FBI undercover agents.We must also remember that the organization was named after a CIA agent, John Birch, who was killed while trying to get the Chinese communists to work with the Nationalists to form a coalition government. Such governments always end up going communist as we [saw] in Czechoslovakia and Laos.
Some time afterward, a “conservative” writer wrote a laudatory book about Dennis entitled Klandestine repeating the claim that the KKK was a Soviet “front.” Perhaps not surprisingly, this book was published by a firm with long-standing ties to “former” CIA officer William F. Buckley, Jr., who, as we shall see, played a major role in working to destroy grass-roots nationalist movements in America. Despite Dennis’ record as a Judas Goat, he rose in the ranks of the “conservative” American Party and in 1984 and 1988 was its presidential candidate! It is thus no surprise the American Party is long gone from the scene.
An introduction to Part III
The Rise of the
The Cold War Era Subversion of the
American Nationalist Movement
At the height of the Cold War—during the mid-1950s—there occurred in America the birth of a “new” so-called “conservative”movement whose leaders, especially one William F. Buckley, Jr., declared their movement to be boldly internationalist.They were intent on “winning” the Cold War—even at the expense of a hot war—and they had no desire to bring American troops home to protect American soil.
In reality, they were venturing out on a global imperium, to crush Communism and to crush those old-line elements in America—the traditional conservatives, nationalists, those “discredited” forces who made up the America First movement that fought U.S. intervention in the European war that became World War II—and they were loudly and proudly declaring their intention to smash any “nativist” elements that would dare raise questions about the need for American boys to be dispatched into global brush-fire wars or into conflicts in the Middle East arising from the establishment of the state of Israel.
A host of “ex-Communists”—yes, the ubiquitous Trotskyites—surrounded William F. Buckley Jr. in those halcyon days when the young Yale graduate—scion of an oilman whose father was ultimately discovered to have oil interests, in, of all places, Israel—launched his crusade.
Buckley’s National Review magazine became “the” voice for what Buckley and his colleagues came to describe as the voice of “responsible conservatism” and his “ex-Communist” writers became the intellectual vanguard of the “new” American conservatism, thanks to friendly publicity from the major (controlled) media in America.
Foremost among those promoted by Buckley was no less than James Burnham who, at one point earlier in his career,was said to have been considered Leon Trotsky’s “chief spokesman” within American “intellectual” circles.
Then, of course, when Josef Stalin began moving against the Trotskyites, Burnham evolved into a so-called “anti-communist liberal” which, effectively, in some respects,was a euphemism for the more dangerous-sounding (and perhaps more accurate) term “Trotskyite.”
In the years that followed, during World War II, Burnham worked for the Zionist- and Trotskyite-infested Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Burnham, the much-touted “intellectual,” was not just a critic of Stalinist Russia and of those American nationalists and other policy-makers who wanted to “contain” the Soviet giant.
Instead, Burnham was calling for all-out war against Russia. But notably among Burnham’s critics was eminent American nationalist historian Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, who once described one of Burnham’s shrill calls for war as being “most dangerous and un-American.”
Despite this record—or actually because of it—Burnham the Trotskyite became “Burnham the Conservative Leader” under the patronage of William F. Buckley, Jr’s National Review magazine, for which Burnham was perhaps the key theoretical writer for slightly more than two decades.Burnham himself died in 1987 but his influence remains critical in the Zionist-Trotskyite-Neo-Conservative circles today.
So it was that those whom we here call “The Buckley Gang” soon proved to be the guiding force within the “conservative” movement, even as old-line American nationalists were being pushed to the sidelines.
Today there are more than a few who say that Buckley’s National Review was a CIA propriety—a CIA “front”—from the start. At the very least it was a font for “ex” Trotskyite thinking, which was now evolving into what we call “neo-conservatism” today.And all throughout that evolution, a devotion to the Zionist Internationale remained consistent.
The bottom line was that there was indeed a new twist in the American conservative philosophy—at least as it was being dictated by Buckley—and many good Americans enticed by Buckley’s claim to “conservatism” fell into line, led to the slaughterhouse as the innocent lambs they were, guided by The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within.
In the chapters which follow, we will examine the so-called “responsible conservative” phenomenon—better described as a “subversion”—that came in the wake of Buckley.’s sudden media-promoted prominence (and power). It was the rise of Buckley and those in his sphere of influence that laid the groundwork for the modern-day emergence of the Trotskyite-Zionist “neo-conservatives” who reign supreme in the American “conservative”movement today.
In addition, we’ll see that even one “independent” conservative group that was not even in Buckley’s sphere of influence was also, for all intents and purposes, being promoted and prodded and manipulated into functioning as one of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within.
Early Zionist Corruption
of the American Nationalist and
For years, many in the “conservative” movement in the United States viewed Soldier of Fortune magazine, published by hard-fisted Robert K. Brown, as a voice of anti-communism and patriotism. As such it came to the surprise of many when Soldier of Fortune published malicious smears of Liberty Lobby, the nationalist institution in Washington.
However, the smears of Liberty Lobby by Soldier of Fortune were no real surprise to those who knew the background of the shadowy figure who has been called “Bob Brown’s mentor”—Marvin Liebman, a long-time political fund-raiser with what can most be charitably described as a remarkably checkered background. Liebman’s career is a classic case of one of the mid-20th century’s most influential Enemies Within—and a particularly eggregious one at that.
As we shall see, Liebeman’s influence on the so-called “conservative” movement was quite immense. He played a major role in working to undermine both the traditional American nationalism during the Cold War and the rise of the anti-communist movement during the 1950s and well into the 1960s.
Born in New York City in 1923 and active in the Communist Party and the young Communist League in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Liebman found his political niche just after the close of World War II. At that juncture, Liebman signed up as a volunteer for the American League for a Free Palestine (ALFP) and soon became one of its most energetic fundraisers—its “boy hero” in Leibman’s own words.
ALFP was the U.S-based fundraising arm of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, the underground Jewish terrorist group then fighting to drive both the British and the native Christian and Muslim Arabs out of Palestine.
(Just a few years previously, during World War II, Irgun members actively collaborated with Nazi Germany, supplying trucks, oil and other war materiel to the Nazis in return for the release of “selected” Jews from the Nazi-run concentration camps in Europe—a dirty little secret that modern-day supporters of Israel would prefer remain under wraps.)
The leader of the Irgun was Menachem Begin who later became Prime Minister of Israel.The violent youth group of the Irgun-ALFP was known as Betar and it is still active today, carrying out terrorist attacks against presumed critics of Israel. Irgun elements, upon the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, became the backbone of the new nation’s intelligence service, the Mossad.
(While working for the Irgun-ALFP, Liebman reported directly to one Hillel Kook, better known by his alias “Peter Bergson.” Among Bergson’s Irgun colleagues, incidentally, was the ubiquitous Hungarian-based gold-arms-and-refugee smuggler, Ernst Mantello.
It was Mantello, who in the late 1950’s, along with Louis M. Bloomfield, a leader of the pro-Israel lobby and henchman of the Bronfman family in Canada, formed a shadowy international “trading company” known as Permindex.The Permindex operation came to play a central role in the joint CIA-Israeli Mossad plot that resulted in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. For more details, see Final Judgment, by this author.)
From 1946 through the founding of Israel in 1948, Liebman and his cohorts engaged in arms smuggling for the Irgun as well as financing and arranging for the transport of Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine.These networks became the foundation for Israel’s Mossad.
Key players on the New York end of these activities included Teddy Kollek, later mayor of Jerusalem, and Meyer Lansky, boss of the American—and soon-to-be-international—crime syndicate.
Key players in the European end of the arms-and-refugee-smuggling networks were OSS man and later CIA operative, James Jesus Angleton, the Israeli loyalist who headed the CIA’s liaison desk with the Mossad, and Rabbi Tibor Rosenbaum who emerged as the first director for finance and supply for the Mossad and who—like, the aforementioned Mantello and Bloomfield—played a central part in the mysterious Permindex operation.
In 1948—after the state of Israel was established—Liebman signed on with the United Jewish Appeal in New York and, according to Liebman,“it was there that my professional fund-raising career began.” In short order Liebman went west to Hollywood where he set up the local chapter of the American Fund for Israel Institutions.
By 1951 Liebman was working for the International Rescue Committee (IRC) which Liebman described in his memoirs as “a liberal, social democratic, anti-Stalinist organization.”The IRC was not only headed by Leo Cherne, long a high-ranking figure in B’nai B’rith, but it was also actively collaborating with the CIA.
During the next two decades, Liebman emerged as one of the most successful self-described “conservative”fundraisers, organizing a bevy of letterhead organizations and individuals that dominated what Liebman and his associates frequently described, in political shorthand, as a movement of “responsible conservatives” who were, actually responsible first and foremost to the whims of the pro-Israel lobby and its allies in the international elite.
Best personifying the “responsible conservatives” in Liebman’s fund-raising sphere of influence was Liebman’s friend, William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review magazine.
(Buckley, who served as a CIA operative in Mexico under the tutelage of his CIA “godfather”E. Howard Hunt, raised eyebrows among even some of the “responsible conservatives” when he not only accepted membership in the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations, but also popped up at the secretive international Bilderberg confab in Cesme,Turkey in 1975.)
In 1961 Liebman played mentor to another now well-known operator in conservative fund-raising, Richard A.Viguerie (more about whom later). In 1962 Liebman evidently first made contact with Soldier of Fortune publisher-to-be Robert K. Brown, according to a letter written by Brown to Liebman that was discovered only a decade ago.
Young Brown, who had left the U.S. Army’s Counter-intelligence Corps, wrote Liebman and bragged of having been an undercover operative in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) and asked the New York-based fundraising whiz if Liebman had any advice on how he (Brown) might circumvent the U.S. Neutrality Act and become a mercenary abroad. (At that juncture Liebman was running the so-called American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom Fighters which has been described as yet another “CIA front group.”)
That Brown was an undercover operative—apparently for the Chicago Police Subversive Squad—in the FPCC is interesting, to say the least, inasmuch as it was none other than John F. Kennedy’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,who was the “founder” of the New Orleans branch of the FPCC just one year later.
Although there continues to be much speculation as to what precisely Oswald was doing as an FPCC organizer, there are many who believe that Oswald, too, was an undercover informant in the FPCC working for some intelligence agency of the federal government.
In any case, by this point, Liebman had already established himself as “the man to see”when it came to conservative fundraising and he was already venting his hostility toward nationalist endeavors not within his sphere of influence—Liberty Lobby, in particular.
With the establishment of Liberty Lobby in 1955, Liebman became immensely hostile to the populist institution, particularly after former New Jersey Governor Charles Edison (son of the famed American inventor, Thomas Edison) and other members of the Edison family became enthusiastic supporters and generous financial backers of Liberty Lobby. (Prior to that time Liebman’s various fund-raising gimmicks had relied extensively on Edison’s largesse.)
Liebman claimed in his memoirs that in 1962 he was the victim of a “virulent anti-Semitic campaign”waged by rivals for power in the conservative movement. “The first story,” he says, “appeared in Spotlight, the publication of the anti-Semitic and racist Liberty Lobby” which he says portrayed him as being part of a “Jew-Zionist cabal.”
But there’s a major problem with this accusation: The Spotlight did not even come into existence until 1975—thirteen years after the alleged offense.
Liebman also complained that “even my good friend [Charles] Edison’s response was disappointing.Although he really loved me,” said Liebman,“it was hard for him to disengage himself from his own beliefs about Jews.”
In his memoirs, Liebman frankly admitted that upon later learning that Governor Edison was seriously ill he kept thinking, “If he dies, I wonder what he’ll leave me.” In fact, Liebman was on hand for the reading of the will upon Edison’s death.“When my name came up,” wrote Liebman, “I listened attentively. Instead of the million, or the hundred thousand or even ten thousand, the will read that the deceased ‘forgives Marvin Leibman any debts he might have to the estate.”
Actually, Liebman was not then currently in debt to Edison. During Edison’s funeral service, according to Liebman, William F. Buckley Jr. whispered to Liebman that, in his judgment,“you sure got shafted.”
Although Liebman faded out of the limelight of the “responsible conservative” orbit after Edison’s demise, he popped back into public controversy when he went public and declared his long-time homosexuality, later penning his autobiography entitled Coming Out Conservative: A Founder of the Modern Conservative Movement Speaks Out on Personal Freedom, Homophobia and Hate Politics.
Liebman himself died several years ago, but his legacy survives in the ongoing antics of his associates and proteges such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert K. Brown and Richard Viguerie, all of whom continue to operate, in one way or another, to this day. But Buckley himself far eclipsed his mentor, Liebman, and became, in his own way, a pivotal figure in the evisceration of traditional American nationalism.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Self-Appointed “Responsible Conservative”
And Longtime Spokesman for The Enemy Within
At almost precisely the time that the FBI was enlisting high-ranking Communist Party USA official Morris Childs, as described earlier, a host of “ex-Communists” banded together under the leadership of William F. Buckley, Jr. to form the editorial bulwark of Buckley’s fortnightly magazine National Review.
In the succeeding years Buckley—in alliance with his close friend and collaborator, Zionist operative Marvin Liebman—began a heavy-handed war against hard-line American nationalists, attempting to isolate them and deny them respectability. In so doing, Buckley was actively aided and abetted by the mainstream media monopoly in America.
In The New Jerusalem, this author’s earlier work, a point about Buckley was raised that probably had never before been committed to print, and in the context of what we are about to examine, is probably worth repeating here:Although Buckley is widely recognized as an Irish Catholic and is known as a devout Catholic, his Roman Catholic antecedents are not from his Scotch-Irish father’s side, as widely believed, but, are instead from his mother’s side.
Although Buckley’s mother was born to a German Catholic family based in New Orleans named Steiner, the late Chicago Tribune columnist Walter Trohan privately told intimates that it was his understanding that the Steiner family was originally Jewish and converted to Roman Catholicism, as did many Jewish families in New Orleans during the 18th and 19th centuries.
In any case, whatever his real ethnic heritage, young Buckley—enthusiastically encouraged by his cohorts and friendly promoters in the major media—authoritatively began to “draw the lines” and determine what was “proper” and permissible for American conservatives to discuss and what was not. Buckley announced that anyone who dared raise questions about such issues as Zionism or the power of elite groups such as Bilderberg and the Council of Foreign Relations was “beyond the pale” and delving into “fever swamps.”
Buckley and his “ex-Communist” allies and their minions declared themselves to be “responsible conservatives” and actively waged war against anyone they deemed not to be.
A favorite Buckley target was the growing populist movement surrounding Liberty Lobby, founded by Willis Carto (at roughly the same time Buckley was establishing National Review) in 1955. Not only did Buckley later file a legal action against Liberty Lobby,but Buckley’s close friend and former CIA colleague, E. Howard Hunt, did likewise.
Over the years, the four major lawsuits that were filed against Liberty Lobby all had one thing in common: those responsible all had definite connections to the CIA and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the U.S.-based intelligence and propaganda arm of the CIA’s close collaborator, Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad.
• The first of these lawsuits was filed by “ex” CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, best known for his role in the Watergate burglary that led to the forced resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. (Today it is generally suspected that the Watergate affair was largely a CIA orchestration designed to lay the groundwork for a coup d’etat aimed at Nixon.)
Hunt filed his suit against Liberty Lobby shortly after The Spotlight published an explosive story in its August 14, 1978 issue in which the author, former high-ranking CIA official Victor Marchetti, charged that the CIA intended to frame Hunt for involvement in the assassination of John F.Kennedy.
Although Hunt admitted under oath that the story could be true—that his colleagues at the CIA could indeed be targeting him as a scapegoat in the crime of the century—he still persisted in pursuing his lawsuit.
When the case went to trial, Hunt won a potentially devastating $650,000 libel judgment against Liberty Lobby. However, due to errors in jury instructions by the trial judge, Liberty Lobby was able to wage a successful appeal and the case was ordered for re-trial.
During that second trial in January of 1985, famed JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane came on board as Liberty Lobby’s defense counsel. Much to Hunt’s dismay, Lane brought forth evidence that revealed, contrary to Hunt’s denials, that Hunt had been in Dallas just prior to the JFK assassination in the company of CIA-backed Cuban exiles. The jury rejected Hunt’s arguments and ruled against him—a major victory for Liberty Lobby. Then, after the trial, jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong announced publicly that she and her colleagues had concluded that Lane’s defense was on target and that the CIA had indeed been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
• During the period leading up to the final victory in the Hunt case, Liberty Lobby’s sources advised the populist institution that Hunt’s case was being actively assisted by the CIA, to the point that the CIA actually provided attorneys and others to assist Hunt. What’s more, it was discovered that Hunt’s CIA protege, millionaire dilettante, William F. Buckley, Jr.,was also providing Hunt tactical and financial assistance.
Buckley, who was Hunt’s deputy in the CIA station in Mexico City in the early 1950’s, had long harbored a grudge against Liberty Lobby’s newspaper, The Spotlight, which had quickly outpaced Buckley’s own publication, National Review, in terms of circulation and outreach.
When Buckley published a 1971 smear of Liberty Lobby, it came out in sworn testimony that a primary source for Buckley’s smear was syndicated columnist Jack Anderson. Along with his mentor, the late Drew Pearson,Anderson had bragged for years that much of the garbage that they peddled about Liberty Lobby came directly from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a known conduit for Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad. Pearson’s own ex-mother-in-law, newspaper publisher Cissy Patterson, once called Pearson “both undercover agent and mouthpiece for the ADL.”
After Liberty Lobby launched an extended investigation of Buckley and his affairs, some details (but not all) of which were published in The Spotlight, Buckley then filed his own libel suit against Liberty Lobby in 1980, almost directly on the heels of his friend Hunt’s libel suit. Again, after much expense to Liberty Lobby, the case came to trial in 1985—just months after Hunt’s case had been laid to rest.
During the trial Buckley declared that he had a “mission” to expose Liberty Lobby but despite the high expectations of Buckley and his sycophants who were on hand expecting victory, a District of Columbia jury had a big surprise for the former CIA officer.
Although Buckley had sued for millions of dollars in damages, the jury awarded Buckley only one dollar (plus $1,000 in punitive damages).
When the verdict was announced, a Buckley supporter in the courtroom burst into tears. Buckely—like his CIA mentor, Hunt—had failed to destroy Liberty Lobby.
In any case, the sordid career of the aging enfant terrible, William F. Buckley, Jr., is drawing to a close. However, his manipulations—from the 1950s and well into the early years of the 21st century—did much to lay the groundwork for the evisceration of traditional American nationalism. Buckley indeed can be ranked as one of the most destructive of the Judas Goats.
The strange circle of hangers-on, crooks and cronies, who have populated the world of “WFB” and his “responsible conservative” sphere of influence continue to carry out his treachery, as the chapters which follow will demonstrate in sad detail.
The Vatican’s Own Enemy Within:
Buckley Associate Malachi Martin’s
Secret Role as a Subversive Acting on
Behalf of Zionist Interests
The identity of an operative for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith inside the Catholic Church during the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s has been revealed: the late ex-priest-turnedbest- selling author, Malachi Martin, a longtime close associate of none other than William F. Buckley, Jr., himself an outspoken Roman Catholic. As a result of the revelations concerning Buckley’s friend Martin, some prominent Catholic traditionalist critics now call Martin a “de facto Zionist double agent” and a “priest-spy for Zionism”—labels that will come as a surprise to many good traditionalist Catholics who viewed Martin, at least in his later years, as their ally.
It now turns out that this same “double agent”—Martin—was a financial backer of a conspiratorial group that was working to destroy Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution.
It was Cincinnati-based Lawrence W. Patterson who was apparently the first-ever national publisher to unveil Martin as the so-called “priest-spy”inside the Vatican who, in Patterson’s words,was the key figure in “saving the Vatican II documents which have since been used to begin the attempted melding of Zionism and Catholicism.”
In the April 1991 issue of his magazine Criminal Politics, Patterson called Martin the magazine’s “fake conservative of the month, fronting for the Trilateral/Zionist cause,” and outlined the explosive evidence indicting Martin.
But Patterson is not the only major figure to expose Martin. Widely regarded revisionist historian Michael A.Hoffman II called Martin a “double-minded occultist”and a “20th century Judas.”(See Hoffman’s website at hoffman-info.com)
In addition, Hutton Gibson, the outspoken lay traditionalist Catholic, said of Martin on a broadcast of Radio Free America (with host Tom Valentine) that “I think Martin was kind of a Judas Goat.He was at the Second Vatican Council and one of the things he did was call in bishops who were a little obstreperous and threaten them to get in line. Malachi Martin is not my idea of a Catholic.”
The late Revilo P. Oliver, one of the great nationalist intellectuals, wrote that “if Martin did indeed play an important role in betraying the [Catholic] Church into the hands of its inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. (See Oliver’s essay, “How They Stole the Church,” at revilo-oliver.com)
Hoffman said that Martin “saved the day for the Jewish/Masonic infiltrators of the church.”In Criminal Politics, Patterson explained how Martin did just that, outlining the amazing story of Martin’s intrigue. Relying largely on an indubitably “mainstream” article, “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking” by Joseph Roddy—published in the January 25, 1966 issue of the now-defunct Look magazine—Patterson pointed out that the Look article revealed quite candidly that a priest working inside the Vatican was shuttling back and forth between Rome and New York during the Vatican II proceedings.
The priest was providing inside information about proposed Catholic Church “reforms” to not only The New York Times, but also to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee and its magazine, Commentary.
Then, as the article noted, this confidential information leaked from inside the Vatican was then used to pressure the Vatican into making major changes in church policy.
The Look author would not identify the priest by his real name, referring only to him as “Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle,” but also explained that this priest also wrote for Commentary under the name “F. E.Cartus” and had written a book, entitled The Pilgrim, under the name “Michael Serafian.”
(The Pilgrim was a 1964 book, rushed into print, according to Michael A. Hoffman II, for the very purpose of divulging efforts by traditionalists inside the Vatican to counter the proposed revolution in church teachings.)
As Lawrence Patterson’s investigation determined, when Malachi Martin (by then an internationally-known writer) released his 1974 book, The New Castle, a filler page listing “books by Malachi Martin” indicated that Martin had written the aforementioned book, The Pilgrim, “under the pseudonym, Michael Serafian.”
And as if Patterson’s revelations (based on Martin’s own published acknowledgment) are not enough evidence that he was indeed the “priest-spy” inside the Vatican, a July 31, 1999 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel obituary for Martin said that he had published The Pilgrim under the “Michael Serafian” pseudonym.
Almost immediately after completing his subversive ventures inside the Vatican, Martin left the priesthood and went to New York where he began writing for the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary (under his real name) and acting as “religious editor” for William F. Buckley, Jr.’s National Review.
In the years that followed, Martin’s novels and other works received widespread international promotion in the organs of the major media, making Martin almost certainly a multi-millionaire.
According to Michael A. Hoffman II, Martin “was the descendant of a Jewish banker who sought refuge in Ireland,” where Martin was born in 1921. Hoffman scored Martin for, as recently as 1997, comparing himself with Maimonides, whom Hoffman identifies as “the foremost interpreter of the Jewish Talmud and one of the most implacable enemies of Christ in the annals of Judaism” who once “commanded the extermination of Christians.”
This is interesting since Martin, in fact, did study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem where he concentrated on the knowledge of Jesus Christ as transmitted in Jewish sources. Soon afterward, according to London’s Independent of August 6, 1999, Martin was “marked out as a high flyer” and promoted to a post at the Vatican as a theological advisor to Cardinal Augustin Bea, who was himself, along with several other of his advisors, of Jewish descent.
It was Bea who emerged inside the Vatican as the prime mover behind the changes in church policy during Vatican II, and Martin acted as his agent in dealings with the Jewish community in New York City during that time frame. Revilo Oliver went so far as to suggest that Martin may have actually been a “courier” for vast amounts of cash bribes transferred out of New York to Rome and elsewhere during the Vatican II period.
The fact that Martin forged a close relationship with William F. Buckley, Jr.—one that lasted for decades—is noteworthy since both Buckley and his former supervisor in the CIA, E. Howard Hunt, waged extensive (albeit failed) lawsuits against The Spotlight for the purpose of demolishing the populist weekly. Thus the question remains as to whether Martin was later acting as an agent for the vengeful team of Buckley and Hunt in assisting other operatives who were working to silence The Spotlight.
The bottom line: Malachi Martin’s role in financing a conspiracy to destroy The Spotlight does point toward the origin of that conspiracy, and it is safe to say that Martin was clearly a prime example of The Enemy Within—in this case involved in the subversion of the Roman Catholic Church. The damage done to the church by the revolutionary conclave known as Vatican II may never be undone and the future will remember Malachi Martin as a treacherous Judas Goat of the worst order.
*BETTER KNOWN UNDER HIS TITLE of Pope Paul VI—under which name he implemented the controversial Vatican II “reforms” that re-directed and distorted traditional Roman Catholic doctrine—at a time when Judas Goat Malachi Martin (see accompanying chapter) was acting as an agent inside the Vatican II conference on behalf of Zionist interests. On more than one occasion Montini (above) publicly wore the Freemasonic emblem known as the “ephod,” the symbol worn by Caiaphus, the Jewish High Priest who ordered the death of Jesus Christ. Montini’s ephod can be seen (circled) at the bottom of his portrait. At right is an ephod in which Hebrew letters can clearly be seen at the top. Said to be of Jewish extraction, Montini was buried Jewish-style, in a plain wooden box, in a ceremony at the Vatican which featured not a single crucifix. Many traditionalist Catholics consider Montini a Judas Goat. Zionist interests have also forcefully infiltrated Protestant fundamentalist churches, promoting the “dispensationalist” doctrine, first cooked up by John Darby in the 1840’s and then widely promoted in the 20th century by Cyrus Scofield, whose famous “Scofield Reference Bible” was financed by the Zionist Rothschild family-funded Oxford University Press in London. Today, Rothschild-sponsored “dispensationalism” dictates the pro-Zionist stance of the so-called “Christian Right,” a major influence in the Republican Party. Thus, an alliance between Radical Judaism and Radical Christianity is responsible for the misconduct of U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of the Zionist imperium under President George W. Bush, a fervent disciple of dispensationalism surrounded by Zionist fanatics.
The John Birch Society:
A Premier Case Study of The Judas Goat
Although William F. Buckley, Jr. and his fellow “responsible conservatives” made many noises critical of the John Birch Society, founded by Massachusetts candy maker Robert Welch in 1958—therefore leading many to believe that the Birch Society and Buckley were, in some ways, at odds in their approach to dealing with the problems of the day (despite the fact that both the Buckleyites and the Birchers claimed the mantle of “anti-communism” and “conservatism”)—there are many intriguing elements surrounding the history of the John Birch Society that have largely remained ignored by many Americans who believe the Birch movement, in the balance, made a valuable contribution to the anti-communist cause.
The truth is that Buckley’s attacks on the John Birch Society—echoing much of the same rhetoric about the Society appearing in the major media in America—effectively brought massive publicity to the Birch movement that it would not have otherwise received. And the very fact that the major media gave so much attention to the society is an interesting point indeed. For the direct result of all of the attention was that the Birch Society grew exponentially and effectively “corralled” a very substantial group of American anti-communists into the ranks of an organization which—as we shall see—was very suspect indeed.
The following essay is an account by the author of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within of his own brief journey into the strange world of the John Birch Society. While highly personal in nature, the essay reflects much of the thinking of many others who had their own individual experiences as members—and ultimately former members—of the JBS.The essay—originally published in the July-August 2005 issue of The Barnes Review, the bimonthly historical magazine based in Washington—speaks for itself.The essay was originally entitled “My One-Minute Membership in the John Birch Society.”
Many questions about the John Birch Society (JBS) have passed through my own mind since I first became aware of the existence of the JBS when I was a sixteen-year-old high school student. Honestly, I’m fully aware that there will be many good people who will be utterly inflamed by my remarks, but let’s let the chips fall where they may.
My first awareness of the JBS came at a time when I was becoming embroiled (for better or worse) in political affairs. Having pretty much determined (on my own,with no input from friends or family) that I was some sort of “conservative,” I quickly began the process of trying to learn as much as I could about various “right wing” political organizations. That led me to my local libraries where I savored all the standard conservative writings that were available.However, I did not restrict my reading to literature that reflected my own point of view. Always open-minded, I was curious to see what “the other side” had to say.
As a consequence of that, I zipped through a wide variety of volumes coming from what might be described as the “liberal-left” and I continually came across references to a mysterious and controversial “John Birch Society” and its founder, Robert Welch. In my own mind, I said,“If the liberals consider the JBS and its founder to be so bad, then they must be pretty good.”
No sooner had I made up my mind to try to find the address of, and contact, the John Birch Society, than there—lo and behold—in my own local public library—I spotted a copy of the JBS publication, American Opinion, sitting right there on the shelf, alongside so-called “mainstream” publications.
With great excitement, I began leafing through the professionally-produced JBS journal, thrilled to have access to the forbidden facts and hidden information that I just knew I couldn’t get from Time or Newsweek or even in the pages of the so-called “conservative” weekly, U.S. News & World Report.
That particular issue of American Opinion had a chart that captured my attention. It was an overview—country by country—of “communist influence” (by percent, on a scale of 0 to 100) in the various countries of the world.
I knew, of course, that communists were in control of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and that they also had widespread influence throughout the West. I was acutely aware that communist influence, in one form or another, had gained a stranglehold in my own United States of America.
However, I was surprised to see that, according to the JBS, communist strength in America was far more powerful than I would have estimated. I don’t recall the exact percentage, but I recall that it was extraordinarily high.
“Thank God,” I thought, as I studied the chart,“that there are a few countries, such as Argentina and Chile, that are in the hands of anti-communist military leaders.” But when I turned to those two republics, I found that the JBS listed communist influence there to be in the range of 70 to 90 percent. I was startled, needless to say. “Maybe they know something I don’t know,” I thought. But I continued to read on.
Next I turned to the state of Israel. Based on my own earlier research I knew that Israel’s economy was based on a strictly socialist model, funded by billions in U.S. tax dollars. In addition, I was also aware of the predominant influence of Russian and Eastern European Jews in the worldwide communist movement and knew that many Jews of a Marxist bent had been involved in establishing the Jewish state. What’s more, I also knew that not only had Israel been strategically assisted, in its founding years, with arms and support from the communist bloc, but also that tiny Israel was the only nation in the Middle East with a freely-flourishing communist party.
With all of this in mind, imagine how surprised I was to learn that —at least according to the JBS in its American Opinion chart—communist influence in Israel was hardly more than 10 to 20 percent! At that moment—having only had a JBS publication in my hand for the first time ever, for less than several minutes, in fact—I realized that something was very much amiss.
Skimming the rest of the chart, I soon saw that, in the Birch worldview, Israel was probably the only serious bastion of anti-communism on the entire face of the planet. Not even the anti-communist regimes in Argentina and Chile seemed to qualify.
It was then I knew, pure and simple, that those at the highest levels of the JBS had fallen under the influence—perhaps the outright control—of the insidious force of political Zionism.That was enough for me. I knew then that the JBS was not for me. My “membership” in the JBS, if truth be told, lasted little more than a minute.
Little did I know at that time, however, that I had learned, rapidly and quite easily,what thousands of good,honest members of the JBS had to learn with much more pain over a considerably longer period of time. I had no idea that there were disillusioned former members of the JBS all over the United States who had, in one way or another, figured out what I had discovered on my own, without ever even having been a member of the JBS.
The most notable among the former Birchers,perhaps,was the late Dr.Revilo P. Oliver, an eminent classicist and former U.S. intelligence officer who, for several years, was quite active in the JBS and very much publicly identified with the group. However, Oliver quit the Birchers precisely because he knew that Birch Boss Welch was determined to carry water for the Zionist cause and Oliver wanted nothing to do with it. (Some remarkable commentary on the Birchers by Oliver, excerpted from his writings, can be found on the lively and fascinating website of John “Birdman” Bryant at the thebirdman.org).
In any case, some four years later, when I went to work in Washington for The Spotlight, I learned the full history of the Zionist infiltration and manipulation of the JBS.At The Spotlight I gained access to fascinating archives accumulated over the years, pointing to the strange origins—and directions—of the JBS. There I discovered the facts about the little-known “Rockefeller connection” to the JBS. In the August 1965 edition of Capsule News, Morris Bealle laid it bare. He wrote:
Robert Welch (and his brother Jimmy) received a tremendous pay-off from the House of Rockefeller two years ago, for organizing the John Birch Society and sitting on the Communist lid for the past seven years.The total pay-off was $10,800,000, less the value of the family candy company which is reputed to be maybe $100,000 or $200,000.
On October 1, 1963, Rockefeller’s National Biscuit Company announced the “purchase” of the James O. Welch Candy Company of Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Moody’s Manual of Industrials, and in Standard-and-Poor’s Business Index, NBC gave the alleged purchase price as “200,000 shares of National Biscuit common stock.” According to The Wall Street Journal for Oct. 1, 1963, NBC common stock was selling for $54 a share on the New York Stock Exchange.Today it is selling for $58. Thus the Welch brothers were given $10,800,000 “just like that.”
Candy people say the whole family business, with plants and five sales offices, was hardly worth $200,000. Welch will tell those dopes who will believe him that National Biscuit is not a Rockefeller concern.
Again, Moody’s Manual will trip him up. It lists as two of the directors the names of Roy E. Tomlinson and Don. G. Mitchell. [Both are] members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Further, they are a pair of Rockefeller’s ‘professional directors.’ Tomlinson is also a director of their Prudential Life and American Sugar Refining.
It was American Sugar that was directly concerned with the financing and embargoing into the hands of Communist Russia of Cuba in 1959. They made the deal with Castro which ended freedom on the island of Cuba and made possible those Havana missile bases designed to wipe out American eastern seaboard cities.
It also appears that the Rock Mob financed and promoted the organization of the John Birch Society. How else could it have gotten millions of dollars worth of newspaper publicity by the phony “attacks” on Welch that came with dramatic suddenness.
And, for the record, in more recent years, famed populist historian Eustace Mullins, author of The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, The World Order and other classics, has said publicly—more than once—that his research led him to the conclusion that the Birch Society was indeed a creation of the Rockefeller empire, based on precisely the same data that led Bealle to reach his assessment. So Bealle was not standing alone, by any means, in making these allegations.
In the matter of the privately-owned Federal Reserve banking monopoly, the JBS took some mighty peculiar positions. In the September 1964 issue of American Opinion, one of Birch’s favorite economists, Hans Sennholz, wrote an article about the Federal Reserve System. The article stated of the Fed as follows:
The control rests absolutely and undividedly in the hands of the U.S. president . . . They [the people who run the Federal Reserve System] are agents of the government, not corporate officials with the proprietorship rights and powers customarily of stockholders of corporations. The Federal Reserve System is not, nor has it ever been, a ‘private banking institution’ that is busily filling the pockets of the bankers, nor is it the evil product of an international conspiracy of foreign bankers . . . .
The late Norbert Murray, an outspoken Montana patriot who was a career journalist in the mainstream media and a former New York publicist for major business interests, succinctly described the article as a “pack of lies” that “protected the fraud of the system.”
Publication of such an article could only mislead good members of the JBS who were trying to sort out the myths—from the facts—about the nature of the privately-owned and banker-dominated Federal Reserve and of the powerful international banking houses that play such a major role in the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy.
In any case, while working for The Spotlight, I did indeed learn much more about the JBS than I would have ever imagined possible. It was at that point—in the late 1970s and early 1980s—that the JBS began actively promoting the interests of the state of Israel and hyping spokesmen for its powerful lobby in Washington, discarding any ambiguity about where the Birch Society’s controllers stood on the issue of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Much to the dismay of longtime JBS loyalists, The Spotlight’s hard-hitting senior journalist, the legendary Andrew St. George, reported at length and in devastating detail on the mysterious manueverings of one John Rees, a Britisher by birth and one with quite a murky past,who had squirreled his way into the inner circles of the JBS, establishing himself as the real “power behind the throne” during Robert Welch’s declining days. The Spotlight pinpointed Rees’ disturbing role in operating his own intelligence and spying operation which was, in many respects, quite akin to that of the Anti-Defamation League, the all-powerful American adjunct of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.
For my own part, as a student of the JFK assassination, I discovered the fact that like Robert Welch in his heyday, the John Birch Society—to this day—endorses the discredited Warren Commission fraud that “one lone nut” assassinated President Kennedy.
Morris Bealle pointed out early on (June 19, 1965) in his newsletter, Capsule News, that Robert Welch had declared Bealle’s book, The Guns of the Regressive Right—which pointed a finger in the direction of the CIA—to be “all wrong” and told his followers that it was not the CIA but Lyndon Johnson behind the JFK assassination.
According to Bealle,“We examined thoroughly all of his 1964 bulletins . . . [which] were filled with attacks on Earl Warren and curious expressions of hearty agreement with him on the myth that ‘a Communist [meaning the Decoy Man Oswald] killed Kennedy.’” In fact, as I pointed out in Final Judgment, my own book on the JFK assassination,Welch played a major part in directing conservative attention away from a possible role by the CIA in the JFK assassination and in the direction of the Soviet KGB. This was the same propaganda line of top CIA figure James J.Angelton, the CIA’s pro-Israel liaison to Israel’s Mossad.
So while the Birchers think Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone-nut communist under the direction of the Soviet KGB—the theory put forth by the Mossad loyalist Angleton—they are very careful to avoid pointing toward the culpability of the CIA and certainly never ever dare mention that—as documented in my own book—the Mossad also played a critical role in the assassination conspiracy.
On Nov. 21, 1988 the Birch Society’s New American magazine touted the Warren Commission Report, saying that “evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt” that Lee Harvey Oswald—one lone communist nut—killed JFK.
In any case, however, the JBS acceptance of the obviously dubious claim that one lone communist nut killed JFK remains in force. In 1995, I sent a copy of the second edition of my book to a vast array of individuals inviting them to debate the thesis of the book with me—on radio or in any public forum or in writing. I gave them the opportunity to refute the book in the manner they wished. One of those to whom I sent a copy of the book was Bill Jasper, senior editor of the Birch Society’s New American.To this day—more than ten years later, and following the sales of almost 50,000 copies of Final Judgment to enthusiastic readers around the world—I have yet to hear from Mr. Jasper.
My experiences with the JBS—as far as the issue of the JFK assassination is concerned—were certainly instructive. But (years before) I had already figured out that the Birch Society was somewhat dubious, based on my research and that of others and on the study of Birch publications. Certainly, there are many fine Americants who are supporters of the JBS but my “one minute membership” was enough for me.
In closing this essay on the role of the Birchers in “shifting” the philosophy of many good Americans, it seems appropriate to recall what Richard Gid Powers, in his book Not Without Honor: A History of American Anti-Communism, had to say about Robert Welch and the John Birch Society:
The John Birch Society was, if truth be told,more in the nature of a study club devoted to the reading and discussion of Welch’s literary production than a threat to the country. . . Welch’s notoriety was largely bogus, concocted by enemies on the left and within the respectable elite.
They knew from past experience that a weird figure like Welch, with his oddball turns of phrase, could be used to discredit the anticommunist right and the entire anticommunist movement. In 1961 the liberal Democrats . . . needed someone like Robert Welch.
If Robert Welch had deliberately decided to reduce everything valid anticommunists had ever said about communism to an absurdity, to turn himself into a demonstration of every ludicrous delusion that had discredited anti-communism in the past, to make all anticommunists look like dangerous fools, he could not have done a better job.
So while, on the one hand, self-styled “responsible conservative” William F. Buckley, Jr. was denouncing the Birch Society, the American “mainstream”media was providing massive publicity to the JBS and corralling many Americans into this dubious movement.
There could be much more written. However, considering even just what we have examined, can there be any real doubt that America would have been much better off if Robert Welch had stayed in the candy business and stayed out of politics?
Intelligence Agency Manipulation
of the Science of Mind Control
And Exploitation of the Cult Phenomenon:
A Very Real Tactic of The Enemy Within
In light of speculation that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was subjected at one time or another to some form of “mind control,”it is worth reviewing some of the solid evidence which demonstrates that extensive experimentation in the field of mind control has been conducted by not only the CIA and its allies in Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, but also by the Soviet KGB and other agencies.
The subject of mind control un-nerves many people who dismiss the topic as some form of “science fiction” or “conspiracy theory.”
However, the truth is that mind control—in perhaps its simplest form—is nothing more than old-fashioned hypnosis—and there are few who deny that hypnotic states can be induced.
There are several well-written and thoroughly-researched books that have examined the history of mind control experimentation and technology.
One of the earliest known “experts” in the bizarre science of mind control was George Estabrooks, chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University who came to Washington to work for the War Department in World War II. In his book Hypnosis, Estabrooks described how important mind-control could be for use in intelligence operations. ”First,” he wrote:
There is no danger of the agent selling out. More important would be the conviction of innocence which the man himself had, and this is a great aid in many situations. He would never “act guilty” and if ever accused of seeking information would be quite honestly indignant. This conviction of innocence on the part of a criminal is perhaps his greatest safeguard under questioning by authorities. Finally, it would be impossible to ‘third degree’ him and so pick up the links of a chain.
Estabrooks said that people under mind-control can be encouraged to engage in so-called “fifth column” activities. “Through them,” he wrote, “we would hope to be kept informed of the activities of their ‘friends,’ this information, of course, being obtained in the trance state.”
Following Estabrooks’ pioneering work, it was during the 1950s that the newly-formed CIA (and its allies in Israel’s Mossad)—as well as the Soviet KGB—began heavy-duty research in this field.
Perhaps the most authoritative work examining the CIA’s activity is The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, subtitled “The CIA and Mind Control:The Story of the Agency’s Secret Efforts to Control Human Behavior.” First published in 1979, the book was very rare and only recently went back into print. Certainly no “extremist tract,” the book was first published by a subdivision of no less than the prestigious New York Times. The author was John Marks, best known as the co-author, with flamboyant former high-ranking CIA official Victor Marchetti, of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, the first book ever censored prior to publication by the CIA.
(Marks’ book title was a play on the title of a famous 1958 Richard Condon novel—later a popular motion picture—The Manchurian Candidate. In Condon’s horrifying scenario, an American soldier is brainwashed by the communists during the Korean War, falsely set up as a “war hero,” and later manipulated in an assassination plot upon his return to the United States.
(It turns out that the hero’s own mother is actually a secret communist agent—despite the fact that she is one of the best known “anticommunists” in America—and is using her son as part of a communist plot to seize control of the United States in the guise of fighting communism—truly The Enemy Within.The mind-control victim never knows he is being manipulated—until it is too late.)
Marks’s book was not a novel. Instead, Marks’ study was based largely on some 16,000 pages of documents that Marks pried out of the CIA through the Freedom of Information Act.
Several years before Marks’ book came out, the first details about the CIA’s adventures in this bizarre field reached the pages of daily newspapers in the wake of a controversial series of Senate hearings conducted by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) into the activities of the CIA.
Until then, Americans believed that only the “Communists” and the “Nazis” had engaged in unpleasant experiments to study the process of manipulating human behavior.
In truth, the CIA had delved into mind control beginning just shortly after its creation in 1947.The CIA’s mind control project was initially known as “Bluebird” and then later expanded into “Artichoke” by 1953.
The overall code name for the operation became known as MK-ULTRA.
The impetus for the CIA’s mind-control operations came from Richard Helms who went on to head the CIA’s entire clandestine operations program, and then become CIA director. Helms’ idea was approved by then-CIA chief Allen Dulles who gave the go-ahead for the project. Chief of operations for the experiments was the chief of the agency’s technical services section (TSS), one Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, although he was under the supervision of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence and the Israeli Mossad’s devoted liaison at the CIA.
According to Marks, in June 1960 [Gottlieb’s] TSS officials launched an expanded program of operational experiments in hypnosis in cooperation with the CIA’s Counterintelligence [CI] staff:
Counterintelligence officials wrote that the hypnosis program could provide a ‘potential breakthrough in clandestine technology.’Their arrangement with TSS was that the MK-ULTRA men would develop the technique in the laboratory, while they took care of ‘field experimentation.’ The Counterintelligence program had three goals: (1) to induce hypnosis very rapidly in unwitting subjects; (2) to create durable amnesia; and (3) to implant durable and operationally useful posthypnotic suggestions.
Marks noted that the CIA’s prime locale for its mind-control experiments was Mexico City.The Mexican capital was, during the Cold War period, according to all accounts, the Western Hemisphere’s primary nest of international intelligence intrigue. It was in Mexico City where—as we’ve noted—E. Howard Hunt served as the CIA’s station chief and one of his CIA lieutenants was none other than future pundit, William F. Buckley, Jr., who emerged as a leading figure in the effort to bend traditional American conservatism toward internationalism. Mexico City was also a major base of operations for Israel’s Mossad.
According to formerly secret CIA documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, among the “additional avenues to the control of human behavior” that Gottlieb’s operatives found appropriate to investigate were “radiation, electro-shock, various fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances and paramilitary devices and materials.”
The New York Times reported on September 20, 1977 that “The documents show that the tests were carried out in New York City and San Francisco between 1953 and 1966, in CIA ‘safe houses,’ mainly apartments and motel rooms, that were secretly rented for the agency by an official of the old Federal Bureau of Narcotics, since supplanted by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
“Prostitutes, perhaps men as well as women, may have been employed to lure the subjects to the safe houses, where they were offered cocktails laced with various chemicals while unseen CIA officials observed, photographed and recorded their reactions.”
The CIA is also known to have conducted drug experiments with drug addicts held at a federal facility. In 1975 the CIA formally admitted that experiments were conducted at the Federal Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky, involving the administration of drugs, including hallucinogens, to prisoner volunteers.
One prisoner, James H. Childs, testified to a Senate committee of inquiry that the prisoners who participated in the CIA program were paid by the CIA in the form of addictive drugs.
Another former prisoner who testified, Edward M. Flowers, said that LSD was given to prisoners in cookies during experiments. From 1952 to 1955, he said, prisoners were allowed to take their pay for being in the programs in either drugs or time off their sentences.
One of the key figures at the CIA’s Lexington, Kentucky operation was the on-base chaplain, Rabbi Maurice Davis who, in later years, emerged as a widely-known operative of the Anti-Defamation League, the politically influential American-based intelligence and propaganda arm of Israel’s secret service, the Mossad.
Other experiments in drug-induced mind-control were conducted at the Vacaville prison facility in California. It was there,according to one witness, that Donald DeFreeze, later head of the violent terrorist group, the Symbionese Liberation Army, told another inmate that he, too, was part of the CIA’s mind-control experiments.
DeFreeze and his gang later kidnapped Patty Hearst of the Hearst publishing empire and brought her into their criminal activities. Later Miss Hearst’s attorneys said they believed she showed signs of being under the influence of drugs.
Considering all of this, it is no surprise that the CIA and the Mossad have long had a particular interest in the phenomenon of cults, which have long been in existence in virtually every culture, in one form or another. Cult members are typically very pliable and willing to do whatever their masters tell them.
And this is one reason why the CIA and the Mossad have been especially determined to gain control of cult groups at the highest levels and thereby use those cults—and their members—to advance their own agendas.
In addition, there is widespread speculation that some of the best known cults today—such as the infamous Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, to name just one—are actually outright creations of state intelligence services. In another case, a group of Zionist lawyers, largely based in California, are known to have grabbed control, at the highest levels, behind the scenes, of another well-known “religious” organization—called a “church”by its members but often described as a “cult” by its critics—and utilized the vast financial (and membership) resources of that cult for their own purposes.
Here’s how the mind control operations of the CIA and the Mossad (utilizing cult groups) work:While these intelligence agencies actually control the cults, the lower-level cult members do not know, of course, that they are now part of a highly-sophisticated intelligence-based mindcontrol operation.
While the cult members are completely subservient to their higher-ups, subject to their discipline, the cult members, naturally, are from all walks of life and some reach high positions of influence within the companies and organizations in which they work in their day-to-day life outside the cult. However they always remain loyal because of the “brainwashing” process to which they have been subjected.
Sometimes the cult members are open about their cult membership.
Other times—for strategic reasons—they do not reveal their cult affiliation, if the cult association could hinder the “black op” underway.
Whether the cult members are employed by political groups, historical revisionist research institutes, banks, insurance companies, government agencies, or even fast-food restaurants,they will always be available for deployment when their higher-ups in the cult (operating at the behest of the CIA or the Mossad) make the decision to carry out some particular intelligence operation.
For example: suppose a member of a Mossad-controlled cult is employed by a maverick, dissident political group which is considered dangerous to the Establishment. If the Mossad wishes to undermine that organization, it will utilize its control of the cult to manipulate that individual to work to wreck the organization from within.
Liberty Lobby, the populist institution that published The Spotlight until Liberty Lobby was driven into bankruptcy and destroyed by a corrupt federal judge in 2001, had its own unpleasant experiences with the operatives of one cult.
Over a period of many years, admitted, overt operatives of the cult made friendly contact with Liberty Lobby.
The cult members supplied Liberty Lobby with hard-hitting and factual information about corrupt activities within the federal government.
Behind-the-scenes, however, the cultists were working to disrupt the work of Liberty Lobby on other fronts.
A cult member named Matthew Peter Balic—who did not reveal his membership in the cult—frequently attended Liberty Lobby meetings, visited Liberty Lobby headquarters, and socialized with Liberty Lobby employees, gaining their confidence.
(This was the same modus operandi of the infamous Roy Edward Bullock, now exposed as a long-time operative of the CIA-allied, Israeli Mossad-controlled Anti-Defamation League.)
After some time, however, it became apparent that Matthew Peter Balic, ostensibly a friend of Liberty Lobby, was, in fact, trying to undermine the populist institution and its weekly newspaper in a wide variety of ways. It was not until later that Liberty Lobby’s suspicions were confirmed and Matthew Peter Balic affiliation with the cult was exposed.
Liberty Lobby learned that Matthew Peter Balic was a former alcoholic who joined the cult and then reformed. In the process, however, Matthew Peter Balic became subject to the cult’s discipline (and its controllers) and emerged as one of the cult’s key national intelligence operatives, in this case deployed against Liberty Lobby.
It was precisely at the time that Liberty Lobby learned that Matthew Peter Balic was a cult operative that the previously-friendly other members of the cult (who had openly acknowledged their affiliation) abruptly broke off all contact with Liberty Lobby.
Later, the cult played a special role in a broad-ranging conspiracy that resulted in the destruction of Liberty Lobby.
But the role of cults in the world of intelligence intrigue is something that few understand or know about.
In another case, it was revealed that a Justice Department special task force was investigating charges that a notorious cult known as “the Finders”was used by the CIA as a front group during the 1980’s.
What makes the intelligence agency’s reported link to this particular cult especially troubling is that the Finders have been accused of engaging in Satanic rituals, child abuse and pornography. Federal authorities were also trying to determine whether the CIA impeded state and local investigations of child abuse within the cult in order to protect its own intelligence operations.
The CIA, never known to own up to its own misdeeds, responded to the charges by saying, “Most days we expect our share of unusual questions, but his one is clear off the wall.Any claim that we obstructed justice in this case is nuts.”
A CIA spokesman, David Christian, admitted, however, that it had sent some of its agents to a company called Future Enterprises, Inc. for computer training. However, according to Christian, the nation’s crack intelligence agency did not know about connections between the computer company and the Finders cult.
Christian claimed that the company “was in no sense a CIA front or ever owned or operated by anyone for the CIA.”
However, the president of Future Enterprises, Joseph Marinich, admitted that his company was under contract to the CIA for computer training. Marinich admitted, further, that his tax accountant, R. Gardner Terrell,was a Finders member.
Finders cult members claimed that Terrell’s work for Future Enterprises had nothing to do with his membership in the cult.
Finally, an April 13, 1987 report by a Customs Service Agent who was investigating the Finders cult said that the CIA “admitted to owning the Finders organization as a front for a domestic computer training operation but that it had ‘gone bad.’”
(In other words, the CIA had been using the Finders as a front, but that the cult members had become engaged in activities beyond the control of the CIA and, as such, had “gone bad.’)
Clearly, the use of “mind control” in general, as well as the secret control and manipulation of cults, by the CIA and the Mossad and myriad other evil-doers has a very real (and ugly) history that many people are too eager to discredit as “science fiction” or “conspiracy theories.”
Mind control is a fact.
It is another mechanism used by The Enemy Within to wage war against political dissidents in America.The next time you hear someone claim that he has an “implant,” put in his head by the CIA, don’t dismiss what he’s saying out of hand. For it may very well be true.
How many “lone assassins,”“lone bombers,”“right-wing racist gunmen,” and other such poster boys for the media monopoly in America to exploit have been subjected to some form of mind control is a question that may never be answered, but the bottom line is this:
Mind control is for real.
Sur ce blog:
Le chaos en Ukraine coordonné sur le terrain par des agents israéliens ; le gouvernement ukrainien accusé d’avoir commis des « atrocités semblables aux nazis » ; des groupuscules « néo-nazis » militent aux côtés de juifs et d’Israéliens… On est loin de ces nazis historiques qui faisaient la vie dure aux Rothschild! Ces militants sont des idiots utiles au service de la juiverie et des puissances impériales libérales-démocratiques pro-UE qui cherchent à empêcher un rapprochement entre l’Ukraine et la Russie.
« Kerry a déclaré la guerre à Dieu! » Menaces de mort contre Kerry-Haman: c’est pas des musulmans! Les antijuifs de plus en plus décomplexés inquiètent… Mais qu’en est-il des menaces de mort à peine voilées proférées impunément par des juifs contre des hommes d’État?
Ariel Scheinermann, dit « Sharon », en enfer après plusieurs années de retard… Couvert de malédictions kabbalistiques, associé au légendaire ennemi des juifs Amalek, tout comme Kissinger et d’autres juifs américanisés… Même lui n’aura pu satisfaire les colons israéliens qui l’attaquèrent pour avoir « bloqué » l’expansion des colonies illégales
Le groupe Stern (Lehi) a tenté d’assassiner le président Truman; selon Victor Ostrovsky le Mossad a déjà tenté de tuer le président George Bush, qui disait « Je ne suis qu’un petit homme isolé qui se bat contre la puissance politique d’un millier de lobbyistes du Capitole »