Mise au point sur les chèvres de Judas: des relations très éclairantes de Malachi Martin, agent sioniste dans les coulisses de Vatican 2, avec les ennemis de Michael Collins Piper et de Willis Carto (Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight, l’ancien IHR, etc.). Malachi Martin était un ami mutuel et un collaborateur des agents de la CIA William F. Buckley et E. Howard Hunt. Malachi Martin a combattu les opérations de Carto en finançant les multiples procès de Hunt et de l’IHR sous contrôle de Weber (un proche ami des agents de la CIA Andrew E. Allen et Jared Taylor) contre Liberty Lobby et The Spotlight

En fouillant la liste d’ouvrages publiés par la maison d’édition fondée par Gyuénot il y a longtemps, la maison d’édition Exergue, une maison d’édition à saveur fortement nouvelâgeuse et présentant des titres hautement suspects (dans les pires cas faisant la promotion d’idées carrément dangereuses comme les enfants Indigo, la drogue DMT, etc.), nous avons été frappés de trouver dans la liste un ouvrage du détestable Malachi Martin. Nous n’accusons pas Gyuénot de croire en l’honnêteté de Malachi Martin, qui fut sans conteste le pire agent sioniste infiltré dans l’Église catholique au 20e siècle, en partie responsable des machinations sionistes en coulisse qui ont engendré les réformes de Vatican II, mais il faut se poser de sérieuses questions quant aux compétences et à la valeur de la parole de cet homme. Car là où l’on fait la promotion de l’oeuvre de Malachi Martin, il y a lieu de suspecter que nous avons affaire à une véritable opération de désinformation, de pollution de la droite nationaliste traditionaliste et religieuse, sinon à tout le moins à une incompétence crasse et hautement dangereuse.

Nous n’aborderons pas ici le caractère putassier (est putassier ce qui dit aux autres exactement ce qu’ils veulent entendre) des travaux de Gyuénot, dont la méthode consiste grosso modo à se faire le porte-voix (intelligent et articulé certes) des dernières idées à la mode et à propager la toute dernière vidéo, à claironner la toute dernère rumeur, de la manière la plus racoleuse possible, et cela même si ces idées à la mode ne méritent pas du tout qu’on s’y attarde tant elles sont spécieuses et fondées sur rien du tout. Son critère est « qu’elle soit vraie ou pas », tout idée qui paraît intéressante mérite toute notre attention. On est à des lieux d’un authentique travail de recherche sérieuse, en tout cas très en-deçà du minimum requis par le sérieux journalistique. S’il fallait vraiment passer notre temps à investiguer chacune des moindres idées et théories qui paraissent intéressantes à prime abord, on ne viendra jamais à bout de nos recherches, on n’aboutira jamais à rien de sérieux mais seulement au dilettantisme d’un travail d’amateur touche-à-tout.

Il est déjà connu que Gyuénot est un disciple de James Fetzer (qu’il prend pour « le plus fin chercheur ») et un allié de cette centrale de désinformation qu’est devenue Veterans Today, ce site (qui ne dit certes pas que des conneries mais qui en dit quand même beaucoup trop!) mené par le désinformateur auto-proclamé (il admet lui-même dans un vidéo que ses textes « relaient 40% de désinfo sinon il se ferait tuer« !) et fou à lier Gordon Duff (un pauvre monsieur dont la santé mentale fragile l’amène à invoquer des « sources haut placées au Mossad » et dans l’establishment pour se donner une autorité indue).

Mais laissons de côté le cas Gyuénot, revenons plutôt au problème posé par Malachi Martin. Son cas est absolument fascinant. Ce qui le rend si fascinant c’est moins son oeuvre et son message que ses connexions extrêmement louches avec des personnalités, souvent très respectées dans les milieux nationalistes, et même avec des agents de la CIA! Ce qui a amené des nationalistes tels que Michael Collins Piper et Revilo P. Oliver à le décrire comme « un des pires agents sionistes », rien de moins.

Nous colligeons ici quantité de textes rassemblés autour des thèmes suivants, tous reliés de près ou de loin aux connexions hautement suspectes de Malachi Martin, ce qui permettra au lecteur de mieux apprécier l’ampleur et l’influence de telles connexions :

Cette compilation de textes est divisée en 7 thèmes généraux, tous reliés entre d’eux de différentes façons:

1. Le combat commun des prétendus chercheurs antisionistes Mark Weber et Chris Bollyn contre les regrettés Mark Lane et Liberty Lobby (notamment feu Willis Carto et Michael Collins Piper).

2. Le coup d’État mené par Mark Weber et l’agent de la CIA Andrew E. Allen pour le compte de la Scientologie, du Mossad et de la CIA, visant à expulser de l’Institute for Historical Review (IHR) son fondateur (Carto) et à l’instrumentaliser pour ensuite détruire Liberty Lobby. (Voir le document censuré de Michael Collins Piper « COUP D’ÉTAT« ).

3. L’étrange amitié entre le prétendu révisionniste antisioniste Mark Weber et le suprématiste blanc anti-islam et sioniste ultra, Jared Taylor, qui sent très fort la CIA, le Mossad, l’Anti-Defamation League… et même le néoconservatisme (Frank Gaffney).

4. Les liens financiers de Malachi Martin avec l’IHR sous contrôle de Mark Weber dans le but de détruire Liberty Lobby.

5. Les liens d’amitié de Malachi Martin avec l’agent de la CIA William F. Buckley Jr. (cheval de troie néoconservateur chez les nationalistes), ennemi déclaré de Liberty Lobby et de l’IHR de Carto.

6. Les liens d’amitié de Malachi Martin avec l’agent de la CIA et E. Howard Hunt (ami de Buckley) et le procès de ce dernier contre Liberty Lobby (Carto, Piper, etc.) représenté par l’avocat Mark Lane.

7. L’agent sioniste Malachi Martin derrière Vatican II.

Rappelons tout d’abord que cette série d’article est motivée par la volonté de rendre justice au nom, injustement sali de Michael Collins Piper, qui fut l’un des auteurs antijuifs les plus prolifiques du 20e et du début du 21e siècle, sinon le plus prolifique d’entre tous. En plus de ses milliers d’articles et ses nombreux feuillets, on lui doit une douzaine d’ouvrages, dont le classique Final Judgment qui a résolu une fois pour toute l’énigme de l’assassinat de JFK par Israël. Il avait une émission de radio internet depuis 2006, d’abord sur les ondes de RBN et par la suite sur le site web The Ugly Truth de Mark Glenn. Peu de temps avant de mourir, dans une de ses dernières émissions (disponibles ici gratuitement), Piper se disait sûr de ne plus en avoir pour longtemps, non seulement à cause de ses problèmes de santé importants, mais surtout à cause de ses révélations, révélations qu’il pouvait enfin livrer crûment au public, puisque depuis sa perte d’emploi (il fut éjecté d’American Free Press en raison de son opposition farouche vis-à-vis certaines mauvaises influences internes) il pouvait enfin dire toute la vérité sur un tas de choses dont il ne pouvait pas parler lorsqu’il était encore employé d’AFP.
Piper avertissait ses auditeurs qu’il pourrait très bien être retrouvé mort dans peu de temps, peut-être assassiné par le Mossad, ou par la Scientologie. Car la Scientologie, qui est sous contrôle du Mossad depuis le début des années 1980, n’hésite pas, rappelait-il (le 14 mai 2015), à éliminer physiquement ses ennemis! (On sait toutefois de façon assez sûre que la mort de Piper est due à ses problèmes de santé.) Piper avait souvent expliqué que la Scientologie, avec tout son arsenal de techniques de manipulation mentale mis à profit sur son armée de serviles agents, est sous le contrôle du Mossad depuis qu’une équipe d’avocats juifs menée par le juif scientologue Lawrence Heller (et vraisemblement financée par le riche juif et parrain d’Israël, Edgar Bronfman) en a pris le contrôle au début des années 1980 après la mort du fondateur de la Scientologie.
Ce n’est pas dans un esprit borné, « antisecte », que Piper s’est fait des ennemis du côté de la Scientologie. Cela vient plutôt du fait que depuis que la Scientologie a conclu un pacte avec la CIA au début des années 1980, en vertu duquel elle n’a plus à payer d’impôt, en échange de quoi elle doit travailler conjointement avec la CIA dans le cadre d’opérations de collecte de renseignement et d’infiltration-sabotage du mouvement nationaliste et révisionniste aux États-Unis. Ainsi de nombreux agents de la Scientologie ont infiltré et noyauté le mouvement révisionniste et nationaliste américain, comme le sait déjà tout chercheur sérieux de la question révisionniste aux États-Unis. L’organisation Liberty Lobby, qui publiait à l’époque le journal de l’Institute for Historical Review ainsi que le renommé journal d’enquête The Spotlight, ne pouvait donc y échapper. Ce fut le début d’une longue saga opposant les nationalistes et les révisionnistes éclairés aux infiltrateurs-agents de la Scientologie. Or ces derniers ont finalement gagné et ont pris le contrôle de l’IHR. C’est ainsi que Mark Weber, cet escroc prétendument révisionniste qui dirigeait cette équipe d’infiltrés pour le compte de la Scientologie et de la CIA, a pris le contrôle de l’IHR, mettant ainsi la main personnellement sur des millions de dollars. C’est ainsi que l’IHR devint l’équivalent des Trusts soviétiques d’autrefois: une opposition contrôlée, destinée à collecter les noms des dissidents et à maintenir la dissidence sous contrôle et sous étroite surveillance. Piper a écrit en 2005 un long dossier (retiré de son livre The Judas Goats, mais maintenant disponible sous le titre « Coup d’Etat ») sur la prise de contrôle de l’IHR par des éléments liés à la Scientologie (Mossad), l’Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (Mossad) et la CIA.
Piper s’est frotté de près à des escrocs et des saboteurs du mouvement révisionnistes qui ont éviscéré l’Institute for Historical Review, tels que Mark Weber, qui travaillait pour Andrew Evered Allen, un homme relié à la CIA et au Mossad. (Il faut savoir qu’Allen a admis en cour de justice avoir travaillé à entraîner les moudjahidines et avoir travaillé pour une ONG appartenant à George Soros en Birmanie!). Ces événements entourant la chute de Liberty Lobby et de l’IHR ont ouvert les yeux de Piper sur l’utilisation par le Mossad de certains membres de la secte de la Scientologie (rachetée par Bronfman et donc sous contrôle du Mossad), de concert avec l’Anti-Defamation League et la CIA, dans le cadre d’opérations secrètes, en particulier contre les nationalistes et les révisionnistes aux États-Unis. Piper avait également identifié un ami de Weber, le nationaliste blanc anti-arabe et anti-islam Jared Taylor, comme un nationaliste des plus dangereux de par son sionisme et son philosémitisme.
L’escroc Mark Weber (le « Von Stauffenberg » de l’IHR!) a tout vendu le stock de livres de l’IHR (d’une valeur de 3 millions$) pour des cacahuètes… Aujourd’hui, Carto dirige l’American Free Press et The Barnes Review, deux excellentes sources. Hufschmid s’est arrangé pour que son coéquipier Daryl Smith fasse dire à Eustace Mullins que Willis Carto était « suspect », etc. Eustace a été embobiné et il juge aujourd’hui avoir été utilisé par Smith-Hufschmid pour détruire la réputation de Carto.
Willis Carto, le fondateur de Liberty Lobby, des journaux The Spotlight et American Free Press et du bimensuel The Barnes Review fut pendant longtemps un grand ami de Michael Collins Piper. Il a fait publier des milliers d’ouvrages à l’époque où il dirigeait l’Institute for Historical Review et Liberty Lobby. Bref, Willis Carto est un brave type, un éditeur de matériel révisionniste, mais il est victime depuis longtemps d’une campagne de sabotage et diffamation par l’ennemi traditionnel… Mis à part les dernières années de la vie de Piper durant lesquelles le couple Carto lui a fait la vie dure (car Willis était presque sénile et littéralement dominé par sa folle épouse qui détestait Piper) et où il regrettait d’avoir pris un emploi au Spotlight au lieu de rester un auteur prolifique 100% indépendant, Piper et Carto se sont toujours épaulés dans l’adversité.

1. Le combat commun des prétendus chercheurs antisionistes Mark Weber et Chris Bollyn contre les regrettés Mark Lane et Liberty Lobby (notamment feu Willis Carto et feu Michael Collins Piper, etc.).

En fait toute notre enquête pourrait s’arrêter ici-même en soulevant un seul et unique point, révélation unique de l’état mental absolument incroyable de ce Chris Bollyn. Pour tout dire, Bollyn soutient que Piper n’a peut-être jamais existé, dans ses propres mots (puisque je n’invente rien) Bollyn « questionne l’idée-même qu’un homme du nom de Michael Collins Piper écrive des livres’. ainsi peut-on lire de sa plume sur son site: « I question whether a man named Michael Collins Piper [real name Michael Bernard Piper] actually wrote « books » per se. » ( » Je remets en question l’idée qu’un homme nommé Michael Collins Piper [de son nom Michael Bernard Piper] écrive en tant que tel des « livres ». »)

Pour une personne sensée et rigoureuse dans ses démarches, cette seule affirmation frisant la folie discréditerait d’entrée de jeu un interlocuteur tel que Bollyn. Mais il faut aller plus loin pour mettre en lumière l’étendue de la fraude et de la corruption morale de Bollyn.

Bollyn prend au sérieux les accusations de Mark Weber contre Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight, American Free Press, et en particulier leurs éditeurs le couple Carto et l’un de leurs anciens auteurs principaux Michael Collins Piper.

Bollyn.com:
Mark Weber wrote about Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby in August 1998:

Although Liberty Lobby claims to reveal the hidden forces that secretly control the world, it never discloses just who runs this self-described « populist institution, » or how. Even the name is deceitful. Liberty Lobby does almost no lobbying. In fact, Liberty Lobby is essentially a fraud. Although it claims to be directed by its « Board of Policy, » it is actually run from behind the scenes by Willis A. Carto — a shadowy 72-year-old whom a California court has found to be a crook and a liar.

Bollyn attaque AFP en disant que la distribution était pitoyable, mais il a défendu plus haut Weber qui est responsable d’avoir poursuivi et en partie ruiné Liberty Lobby, qui publiait The Spotlight.

Bollyn.com:

It always bothered me that the distribution of the paper was very poor. The paper was not easily available even in downtown Washington, D.C. It was not even sold in the newspaper shop across the street from the Liberty Lobby. There was clearly a problem with the way the paper was being run.

Un document censuré (« COUP D’ÉTAT« ) écrit par Piper lève le voile sur les machinations auxquelles ont participé Weber et ses complices de la scientologie travaillant avec les amis d’Israel et de l’Anti-Defamation League pour infiltrer et saboter l’IHR. Mais Bollyn, lui, continue de citer Weber, nous permettant de voir que Weber aussi n’apprécie pas du tout l’impact de Lane et de Liberty Lobby et leur souhaite carrément du mal.

Bollyn.com:

Mark Weber was correct in his analysis of 1998:

   Carto has few personal friends, but perhaps his closest is Mark Lane, an East coast Jewish attorney who often represents Carto and Liberty Lobby in court. Lane has a long record of support for liberal and leftist figures, including Martin Luther King and Jim Jones (of Jonestown fame). According to legal documents filed by Liberty Lobby in May 1998, Liberty Lobby pays Lane an annual retainer of $92,500.

   In spite of the millions of dollars it’s controlled over the years, Liberty Lobby has no measurable impact on the political life of the nation’s capitol. This is hardly surprising, however. Given the unethical way it’s run, Liberty Lobby is inherently incapable of achieving its stated goals, not least because it cannot hold the support of persons of integrity and discernment.

   Willis Carto has been bilking well-meaning but credulous Americans for decades, and doubtless many naive people on his « sucker list » will continue to respond generously to urgent appeals for money signed by Ryan or other stooges. Still, and as ever more people learn the facts about how Liberty Lobby really works, and of Carto’s long record of scams, the day of reckoning for him and his empire may be coming at last.

 

 

2. Le coup d’État mené par Mark Weber et Andrew E. Allen pour le compte de la Scientologie, du Mossad et de la CIA, visant à expulser de l’Institute for Historical Review (IHR) son fondateur (Carto) et à l’instrumentaliser pour ensuite détruire Liberty Lobby. (Voir le document censuré de Michael Collins Piper « COUP D’ÉTAT« ). 

La prise de contrôle de l’IHR par le duo Mark Weber et Andrew E Allen, expliquée brièvement par le site takeourworldback.com (en version originale):

Un fait intéressant à propos de Lawrence E. Heller est qu’il est un avocat de l’Église de Scientologie, une «organisation de croissance personnelle» (« self-help organization« ) subvertie par des avocats juifs et décrite avec justesse comme «une école pour les psychopathes». Le pseudo-révisionniste et scientologue Tom Marcellus et l’avocat Andrew Evered Allen ont pris le contrôle de l’IHR en octobre 1993, après avoir arraché son contrôle à Willis Carto à la faveur d’un coup d’Etat interne. Allen, un millionnaire de Californie soupçonné d’être un agent infiltrateur pour le compte de l’Anti-Defamation League, a été impliqué dans les complots de la CIA et du Mossad en Afghanistan et en Birmanie. Après le coup de l’IHR, l’Anti-Defamation League a pu présenter le tout comme une scission au sein d’un groupe de «  bigots en guerre les uns contre les autres« . (…)

La Legion for the Survival of Freedom Inc (LSF) a été fondée en 1952 par un groupe de patriotes au Texas. Elle était sur le bord de la faillite en 1966, quand Willis Carto a repris le contrôle de la corporation et de son magazine The American Mercury. Lorsque Carto a fondée l’IHR en 1979, cela fut créé comme une filiale de la LSF. En 1993, l’IHR avait environ 12 000 abonnés, deux grands entrepôts remplis de livres, et un historique de publication presque ininterrompu du Journal for Historical Review. Il y avait quelques personnes âgées pas très en santé qui siégeaient au conseil d’administration de la LSF et qui avaient déjà des problèmes financiers. Les rebelles à l’origine de la mutinerie de l’IHR leur ont dit que Willis Carto «opérait illégalement» et qu’ils pourraient par conséquent avoir des problèmes avec le fisc et même finir en prison – à moins qu’ils ne démissionnent du conseil pour permettre à des «gens biens» de prendre la relève. C’était un tissu de mensonges, mais malheureusement ce plan a fonctionné.

À peine quelques années après que Carto ait été chassé, l’IHR est retombé à quelque 500 abonnés et seulement une dizaine de magazines ont été publiés. Mark Weber, dont la soeur a vécu dans un kibboutz en Israël, est devenu le nouveau représentant de l’IHR. Mais c’est une autre histoire, le fait est que des avocats juifs ont travaillé pendant des années pour mettre la main sur des millions de dollars qui étaient supposés être allés à Willis Carto et à des causes populistes.

Et dans cet autre excellent article de takeourworldback.com intitulé La connexion Bollyn-Hufschmid-Murdoch

La League for the Survival of Freedom a été fondée par un groupe de patriotes du Texas en 1952. Elle était sur le bord de la faillite en 1966, quand Willis Carto a racheté le contrôle de la société et de son magazine American Mercury. Lorsque Carto a fondé l’Institute for Historical Review en 1979, il a été fondé comme une filiale de la LSF. En 1993, l’IHR avait environ 12 000 abonnés, deux grands entrepôts plein de livres, et un historique de publication presque ininterrompu du Journal for Historical Review. Il y avait un couple de personnes âgées siégeant au conseil d’administration de la LSF qui n’étaient pas en bonne santé, et avaient déjà quelques problèmes financiers. Les rebelles de l’IHR ont commencé en leur disant que Willis Carto « opérait illégalement », qu’ils pourraient faire face à des problèmes fiscaux, et pourrait même finir en prison – à moins qu’ils démissionnent du conseil et permettent aux «bonnes personnes» de prendre le relais. C’était un ramassis de mensonges, mais malheureusement cela a fonctionné pour les rebelles.

Les quelques années après que Carto se soit fait évincer, l’IHR est tombé à quelque 500 abonnés et seulement une dizaine de magazines ont été publiés. Le nouveau porte-parole de l’IHR devint Mark Weber, dont la sœur a vécu dans un kibboutz en Israël. Quant à une « opération attrape-mouches », il y a une forte possibilité que l’IHR post-Carto soit une façade du Mossad et un «trust» du style KBG opérant dans le but de recueillir des noms et de surveiller les activités des membres du mouvement révisionniste. Si oui, il y aurait ironiquement un élément de vérité aux allégations de Bollyn, en ce que les anciens actifs de Willis Carto sont dirigés comme moyen de fournir au gouvernement et aux organisations sionistes des informations sur les patriotes. Mais les gens faussement accusés par Bollyn – tels que Willis Carto, Mike Piper, et Mark Lane – n’ont jamais participé à tout cela.

L’allégation de Bollyn selon laquelle Lane ait repris les actifs de Liberty Lobby en 1993 et qu’il « possède » et «contrôle» maintenant American Free Press comme une « opération attrape-mouches », en plus d’être fausse, implique nécessairement que Willis Carto et Mike Piper d’AFP ont été volontairement au service d’agents sionistes et de laquais du gouvernement pendant au mois dix-sept ans. Carto et Piper ont un long passé de lutte contre le sionisme et l’internationalisme sur une période de plusieurs décennies.

 

Pour plus de détails, voici des extraits plus long des mêmes articles, qui décrivent les mensonges et les attaques vicieuses de Bollyn visant Lane et Piper: 

Traduction française: http://www.takeourworldback.com/fr/bollynhender_fr.htm
Version originale anglaise: http://www.takeourworldback.com/bollynhender.htm

Mise à jour: Les déclarations de Bollyn qualifiant Mark Lane de « Juif Sioniste » démolies par un livre de 1983.

 

 

Pour vérifier cela, allez sur Google Books à http://books.google.com et cherchez les mots « Steven J Rosen » + « The Campaign To Discredit Israel ». Sélectionnez le livre The Campaign To Discredit Israel, puis cherchez les mots « Mark Lane » en utilisant la fonction « Cherchez dans ce livre ». Le co-auteur Steven J. Rosen était un haut responsable de l’AIPAC pour 23 ans à partir de juillet 1982, et a été inculpé sous des chefs d’accusations d’espionnage avec Larry Franklin en août 2005. Dans une intéressante tournure d’événements, voir ici, plus bas, nous apprenons que Bollyn a épousé une agente des renseignements militaires israéliens en 1983, la même année que le livre The Campaign To Discredit Israel a été publié (1er janvier, 1983). Donc, lorsque la première édition était publiée, Bollyn vivait et voyageait sur le continent américain en compagnie d’une agente du renseignement militaire israélien de Herzliya. (Écoutez-le en parler ici.) Lui et sa deuxième femme se trouvent avoir visité les bureaux de Liberty Lobby l’année même où le livre Final Judgment a été publié.(…)

Tout d’abord, Mark Lane a toujours été antisioniste, et non pas un Sioniste. Cela a été en grande partie expliqué à l’émission de Piper du 6 octobre. En tant qu’avocat, Lane a représenté l’OLP et Yasser Arafat, et aussi les antisionistes de Neturei Karta (en anglais, connus sous le nom de « Juifs unis contre le sionisme ») de Jérusalem, par exemple, en obligeant Menachem Begin à libérer le fils du rabbin Hirsch après qu’il ait été capturé par l’IDF. Neturei Karta est catalogué par la Ligue Anti Diffamation (Anti-Defamation League) comme étant des «extrémistes»; ses membres refusent de reconnaître l’Etat d’Israël et refusent de servir dans ses forces armées. Certains d’entre eux refusent de payer des taxes à Israël. Un théoricien de la conspiration endurcis pourrait spéculer que les différences entre Neturei Karta et les sionistes sont «truquées», et que Lane est « vraiment » un agent Sioniste posant comme un «antisioniste», de sorte que les Sionistes puissent contrôler les résultats de batailles juridiques importantes. Mais les Juifs ne forment pas un «ensemble uni». Beaucoup de victimes du fraudeur Bernie Madoff étaient aussi des Juifs. Plus récemment, Nicholas « Beano » Levene, un autre escroc juif qui a essayé de singer Madoff, a volé à d’autres Juifs plus de 100 millions de dollars. Une partie de l’argent a servi à payer une villa à Herzliya décoré d’oeuvre d’art précieuses, des maisons pour les membres de sa famille ainsi qu’une loge privée à l’hippodrome d’Ascot. Jetez aussi un œil à l’affaire de Mel Mermelstein contre l’Institute for Historical Review (IHR).

L’IHR a été fondé par Willis Carto en 1979 et resta sous son contrôle jusqu’en octobre 1993, lorsqu’il fut renversé par un coup d’Etat interne. En 1981, le « survivant de l’Holocauste » auto-proclamé et homme d’affaire du sud de la Californie Mel Mermelstein a réussi à obtenir une lettre d’excuses et 90 000 dollars dans un règlement hors cour de l’IHR. Ce règlement faisait suite à une poursuite de 17 millions $ par Mermelstein contre l’IHR, après qu’il eut revendiqué l’offre de récompense de 50 000 $ que l’IHR devait donner à la première personne pouvant prouver que les Juifs ont été «gazés» à Auschwitz. Sans surprise, l’IHR ne pouvait accepter le témoignage du témoin et parti comme une «preuve».
Encouragé par son succès, Mermelstein a déposé une autre poursuite pour 11 millions de dollars contre quatre accusés: la Legion for the Survival of Freedom (une société sans but lucratif à travers laquelle l’IHR opérait); Liberty Lobby, une institution-lobby nationaliste-populiste basée à Washington DC; Willis Carto, fondateur à la fois de l’IHR et de Liberty Lobby; et un cabinet d’avocats du sud de la Californie qui avait défendu Liberty Lobby et déposé une poursuite contre Mermelstein. Le procureur de Liberty Lobby était Mark Lane, décrit par Théodore J. O’Keefe (qui était rédacteur en chef du Journal for Historical Review de l’IHR) comme un « Juif antisioniste » qui « fut le principal avocat des accusés ». Le théoricien de la conspiration pourrait rétorquer que O’Keefe faisait partie d’un complot couvrant plusieurs décennies dont le but était de dépeindre le «crypto-sioniste» Mark Lane comme un antisioniste, de sorte que Lane soit exposé plus de vingt ans plus tard par les « authentiques rapporteurs de vérité » et « chercheurs » Christopher Bollyn et Eric Hufschmid.  Lors du procès, Mermelstein a affirmé avoir donné seulement le même nombre de conférences que «les doigts de mes mains». Toutefois, O’Keefe a trouvé une déposition de 1985, dans laquelle Mermelstein a dit qu’il avait donné depuis 1967 en moyenne vingt conférences par an sur Auschwitz. Dans la salle d’audience, Lane a pris un crayon et un carnet pour calculer 18 x 20 = 360, et a demandé Mermelstein s’il ne venait pas juste de dire au tribunal qu’il avait donné pas plus de conférences qu’il y a de doigts sur ses mains. Avec humour, un Mermelstein vexé a alors lancé: «Je voulais dire les doigts de mes mains et mes pieds! » (Le lecteur peut tenter une recherche Google des expressions « mathématiques juives » (« jewish mathematics ») et « six millions » lorsque ça lui plaira. Cependant, les Juifs ne recourent pas tous au mensonge et à la tromperie. Mark Lane est Juif, mais il désapprouve la guerre et le racisme. Stephen Lachs, le juge du procès dans cette affaire, est juif, mais il réussit à demeurer impartial.)
Après six jours de procédure qui ont démontré le manque de fiabilité de Mermelstein comme témoin, Mermelstein et ses avocats ont déjanté. L’avocat principal de Mermelstein était Lawrence E. Heller, et Peter Bersin était un avocat débutant. Lane a été dire à ses clients que l’affaire était en fait déjà gagné, et Heller a répondu en disant qu’il était « certain » qu’il y aurait davantage de preuves. À cela Lane a répliqué: «Nous sommes moins intéressés par les prédictions que par les preuves», Heller s’écria: « Va te faire $*!# ». Cela a été répété par Bersin, qui commença à mettre Lane au défi « d’aller à l’extérieur pour régler ça maintenant». Heller s’était vanté à l’extérieur de la salle d’audience de ses aptitudes en arts martiaux, et le jeune et athlétique Bersin était bien conscient que Lane, qui était alors âgé de 64 ans, avait subi une intervention chirurgicale à coeur ouvert plusieurs années auparavant. Le 19 septembre 1991, le septième jour de la procédure, l’équipe de Mermelstein a finalement jeté l’éponge après que Lane ait déclaré à la cour qu’un partisan de l’IHR avait entendu Mermelstein murmurer à son avocat après avoir quitté la salle d’audience: «Je ne veux plus de cette cause». Le juge Stephen Lachs a déclaré: «La cause est donc, dans son intégralité, rejetée».
Un fait intéressant à propos de Lawrence E. Heller est qu’il est l’avocat d’une certaine «organisation de croissance personnelle» (« self-help organization« ) laquelle, tel qu’indiqué ci-dessous, a financé Christopher Bollyn. L’Eglise de Scientologie, décrit avec justesse comme «une école pour les psychopathes», a été subvertie par des avocats juifs. Le pseudo-révisionniste et scientologue Tom Marcellus et l’avocat Andrew Evered Allen ont pris le contrôle de l’IHR en octobre 1993, après avoir arraché son contrôle à Willis Carto à la faveur d’un coup d’Etat interne. Allen, un millionnaire de Californie soupçonné d’être un agent de l’Anti-Defamation League travaillant sous infiltration, a été impliqué dans les intrigues de la CIA et du Mossad en Afghanistan et en Birmanie. Après le coup de l’IHR, l’Anti-Defamation League a été en mesure de le présenter comme une scission entre « des bigots en guerre les uns contre les autres« .
Mark Lane s’est associé avec des antisionistes, pas avec des Sionistes. Par exemple, Lane a été rédacteur en chef adjoint du bulletin d’info Zionist Watch, plus tard intitulé New American View. Son co-rédacteur était l’ancien officiel de la CIA Victor Marchetti. L’entrée de Wikipedia sur Marchetti le décrit comme un «éminent critique paléoconservateur de la communauté du renseignement des États-Unis et du lobby israélien aux Etats-Unis ».
«Eh bien», le théoricien de la conspiration pourrait rétorquer, présentant encore plus de postulats ad hoc spéculatifs, «peut-être Marchetti et Lane sont tous deux des crypto-Sionistes se faisant passer pour des antisionistes, et l’auteur de Wikipédia est aussi dans le complot, ou a été trompé par Marchetti et Lane. Alors que Christopher Bollyn, ce journaliste d’investigation exceptionnel et vrai patriote, a été en mesure de voir à travers leur tromperie ». Le théoricien de la conspiration ne fait pas qu’imaginer des choses pour lesquelles il n’existe aucune preuve et « oublie » commodément comment Mark Lane a contribué à sauver de la banqueroute l’IHR de Willis Carto, mais aussi comment Lane a gagné la cause du Liberty Lobby de Carto versus l’ancien agent de la CIA et cambrioleur de l’affaire du Watergate, E. Howard Hunt. En 1981, Hunt a remporté $ 650 000 dans un procès en diffamation contre le Liberty Lobby concernant un article publié en 1978 dans The Spotlight liant Hunt à l’assassinat de JFK. Dans un second procès en 1985, Lane a défendu avec succès Liberty Lobby, renversant la sentence de libelle initiale.
Lane, qui a même été décrit comme un négationniste de l' »Holocauste » par la propagandiste sioniste et androgyne bizarroïde Deborah Lipstadt, a également été associée avec le regretté Schieber Haviv, ancien maire de Ber Sheeba, Israël. Schieber est devenu un célèbre antisioniste, converti au christianisme, et se trouve dans la liste Victims of Zion du Zundelsite aux côtés d’autres comme Fredrick Toben, Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, professeur Arthur Butz, François Duprat, Fred Leuchter, David Irving, Walter Lüftl, John Demjanjuk, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Rieger, David Cole, Jürgen Graf, Ingrid Rimland, etc. Aucune personne saine d’esprit n’estimerait que ce sont des Sionistes, mais le duo de désinformation de Hufschmid et Bollyn prétendrait sans doute que M. Faurisson est probablement le seul sur cette liste à ne pas être un agent sioniste, ce qui revient à prétendre qu’ils sont sains d’esprit alors que tout le monde en dehors de l’asile est fou. C’est Haviv Schieber qui a présenté Mark Lane à Willis Carto.
Pendant la guerre du Vietnam, Lane a conseillé Jane Fonda sur ses positions en opposition à la guerre. Lane a dit à Piper qu’à la fin des années 1970 et au début des années 1980, il a essayé de faire en sorte que Jane Fonda se joigne à lui dans sa critique d’Israël et l’exprime publiquement, mais elle ne voulait pas. Bollyn omet aussi de mentionner qu’il voulait Mark Lane, son soi-disant «Juif Sioniste», pour le représenter dans sa bataille contre le Département de police de Hoffman Estates qu’il accusait de faire partie d’un vaste complot des Juifs sionistes destiné à lui mettre le grappin dessus. Lane s’était initialement préparé à représenter Bollyn dans cette affaire, jusqu’à ce qu’il apprenne que l’ami intime de Bollyn Eric Hufschmid remettait en question l’intégrité de Lane.
Deuxièmement, Mark Lane, n’a jamais reçu « 5 millions d’euros » comme Bollyn le prétend, pour acheter les actifs de Liberty Lobby. Mike Piper souligne dans ses émissions du 6 et du 7 octobre que Lane, à titre d’avocat de la compagnie, était payé environ 90 000$ par an pendant environ dix à quinze ans, plus quelques bonus. Il n’y a jamais eu aucun frais légaux cachés destinés à Mark Lane. Lorsque Liberty Lobby a rempli une demande de faillite, Lane a continué de recevoir son salaire régulier. Après que Liberty Lobby ait disparu, Lane a fourni des conseils aux employés Liberty Lobby sur comment mettre sur pied une nouvelle compagnie, mais a déclaré qu’il ne pourrait être procureur pour American Free Press, car il se trouverait en situation de conflit d’intérêt. AFP serait une corporation entièrement nouvelle, et lui, Lane, continuerait à représenter Willis Carto et Liberty Lobby. Mark Lane a écrit plusieurs commentaires pour l’AFP, mais il est venu dans les bureau de l’AFP à seulement cinq ou six occasions – encore moins que Christopher Bollyn.
Liberty Lobby n’a pas fait faillite en 1993, et il n’y a aucune preuve comme quoi Lane aurait pris « possession des actifs », ni en 1993, ni en 2001 ni à tout autre moment. En 2001, les opérations de Liberty Lobby ont pris fin à Washington DC. Le 2 août 2002, tous les droits et actifs de Liberty Lobby ont été assignés à la Legion for the Survival of Freedom Inc (LSF). Donc, la théorie du complot de Bollyn exige que Mark Lane ait repris les actifs de Liberty Lobby, alors qu’en fait il ne les a pas pris, l’idée que Lane était dans une sorte de complot avec les nouveaux contrôleurs de la LSF et l’IHR, qu’ils avaient convenu avec Lane qu’ils lui paierait « ses » actifs inexistants, et qu’ils auraient gardé leur part du contrat en remettant les actifs que Lane n’a jamais eu. C’est aussi plausible que la Lune soit faite en fromage.
La LSF a été fondée en 1952 par un groupe de patriotes au Texas. Elle était sur le bord de la faillite en 1966, quand Willis Carto a acheté le contrôle de la corporation et son magazine The American Mercury. Lorsque Carto a fondée l’IHR en 1979, cela fut créé comme une filiale de la LSF. En 1993, l’IHR avait environ 12 000 abonnés, deux grands entrepôts remplis de livres, et un historique de publication presque ininterrompu du Journal for Historical Review. Il y avait quelques personnes âgées pas très en santé qui siégeaient au conseil d’administration de la LSF et qui avaient déjà des problèmes financiers. Les rebelles à l’origine de la mutinerie de l’IHR ont commencé à leur dire que Willis Carto «opérait illégalement», qu’ils pourraient faire face à des problèmes avec l’impôt, et pourraient même finir en prison – à moins qu’ils ne démissionnent du conseil pour permettre à des « gens biens » de prendre la relève. C’était un tissu de mensonges, mais malheureusement ce plan de rébellion a fonctionné.
À peine quelques années après que Carto ait été chassé, l’IHR est retombé à quelque 500 abonnés et seulement une dizaine de magazines ont été publiés. Mark Weber, dont la soeur a vécu dans un kibboutz en Israël, est devenu le nouveau représentant de l’IHR. Mais c’est une autre histoire, le fait est que des avocats juifs ont travaillé pendant des années pour mettre la main sur des millions de dollars qui étaient supposés être allés à Willis Carto et à des causes populistes. Bizarrement, un certain « anti-judaïque » d’Australie-Occidentale a déjà publié sur le forum NOLAJBS que sa sœur a déjà travaillé dans un kibboutz en Israël, mais ses déclarations ne sont pas plus fiables que celles des Bollyn …
Troisièmement, les déclarations de Bollyn voulant que Lane a repris les actifs de Liberty Lobby en 1993 et qu’il «possède» et «contrôle» American Free Press comme une opération « attrape-mouches » implique nécessairement que Willis Carto et Michael Piper d’AFP ont servi volontairement en tant qu’agents sionistes et agents du gouvernement pendant au moins seize ans. Carto et Piper, ont une longue expérience (des décennies) de lutte contre le sionisme et contre l’internationalisme. Bien que Carto soit considéré comme « controversé », parfois même « effrayant », sa mise en place et sa gestion d’organisations pro-liberté, pro-nationalistes et pro-vérité — telles que la LSF, Liberty Lobby, l’IHR, etc — a combattu les mensonges des médias et des gouvernements ne laisse aucun doute quant à sa sincérité et son dévouement à la cause qu’il défend. Il est connu que lors d’un dîner organisé par la famille Bronfman, les participants discutaient si oui ou non ils doivent « se débarrasser de » Carto. Un rapport de 1994 du Centre Simon Wiesenthal décrit Carto comme «l’antisémite professionnels les plus influents aux États-Unis». Selon l’Anti-Defamation League, Carto est « l’un des propagandistes antisémites américains les plus influents de ces 50 dernières années« . Piper a écrit de nombreux livres percutants tels que Final Judgment sur le rôle du Mossad dans l’assassinat de JFK; il a écrit pour The Spotlight et collabore aujourd’hui à l’American Free Press; il tient un forum radiophonique The Piper Report et participe à des conférences internationales. Il a acquis la réputation (chez les ignorants qui gobent la propagande) d’avoir des «positions haineuses» et «des liens professionnels de longue date avec des gens abominables» et des « néo-nazis ».
En 1984, l’IHR et le bureau de Noontide Press (de Willis Carto) ont été incendiés et réduits à néant par des agents de la LDJ travaillant en liaison avec des agents du Mossad basés en Israël. Les dommages ont été estimés à $400 000. Les attaques terroristes sionistes contre l’IHR et les révisionnistes arrivaient fréquemment. Incapables de gagner le débat parce que la vérité n’est pas de leur côté, les Sionistes ont réalisé qu’il leur est nécessaire d’employer la force.
Compte tenu de leurs antécédents, si Carto et Piper avaient un jour constaté qu’ils travaillaient pour une organisation sioniste, ils auraient sûrement quitté le bateau pour fonder leur propre éditeur de publications. Le théoricien de la conspiration délirant et supporteur de Bollyn pourrait dire que Carto et Piper étaient déjà « des agents sionistes » travaillant avec la LDJ et le Mossad en 1984, et que la bombe incendiaire faisait partie du complot visant à les présenter comme de vrais «antisionistes», afin qu’ils puissent être démasqués en tant que « fraudes » par Hufschmid et Bollyn vingt-cinq ans plus tard. L’observateur éclairé (informé) rejettera les adeptes de Bollyn comme étant des imbéciles, des menteurs ou des agents. Contrairement à Carto, Piper et Lane, Bollyn n’a jamais écrit ou publié aucun livre. Mais il a édité un livre, une seule fois, pour un Scientologue.
Quatrièmement, à l’émission de Hender, Bollyn a prétendu connaître Michael Piper, Mark Lane, Willis Carto, et Chris Petherick, et qu’il a «travaillé étroitement avec eux pendant six ans et demi ». Non, il ne les connaît pas et n’a pas travaillé avec pendant 6 ans et demi. Piper indique que Bollyn a probablement fait une dizaine d’apparitions à peine à Washington à l’intérieur de plusieurs années. Bollyn ne s’est pas impliqué dans les opérations quotidiennes d’AFP, tels que le publipostage pour promouvoir AFP et RBN. Et fait, AFP voulait que Bollyn s’installe plus près de Washington pour qu’il puisse mener des enquêtes aux États-Unis, mais il était souvent parti en voyage ailleurs dans le monde, particulièrement en Europe, pour différents projets non reliés à AFP. Bollyn demandait des remboursement pour beaucoup de déplacements mystérieux qui, souvent, n’avaient pas été assignés par AFP, et c’est pourquoi ses remboursements ont été coupées.
Si Mark Lane venait faire un tour au bureau une fois par an et que Bollyn le faisait environ deux fois par an, en présumant qu’il y a environ 250 jours de travail par an, les chances que Lane puisse rencontrer Bollyn au bureau d’AFP est de l’ordre d’environ 1/125 par an. Il y aurait environ 124 fois plus de « jours sans Bollyn » que de « jours avec Bollyn ».
Et les écrits de Bollyn produits peu après qu’il ait été congédié en octobre 2006 sont en totale contradiction avec sa version racontée à Hender comme quoi il a «travaillé étroitement avec eux». Il a écrit:

Bollyn: Je suis désolé, mais contrairement à ce que dit l’AFP, je suis un étranger et je ne peux me porter garant de l’intégrité et de la crédibilité de chaque personne travaillant pour l’AFP. Comme je l’ai dit plus haut, il y a des personnages très suspects et douteux dans les plus hauts niveaux d’American Free Press, dont Michael Piper, Scott Makufka et Lisa Guliani.

Comment pourrais-je faire une déclaration et généraliser en disant qu’AFP n’est pas compromis quand je ne sais tout simplement pas qui sont vraiment ces gens ou envers qui sont-ils loyaux?

Cinquièmement, Bollyn a déclaré qu’il s’était fait couper son salaire parce qu’il « s’était trop approché de la vérité ». En fait, d’autres à AFP ont vu leur salaire réduit eux aussi. Le salaire de Piper a été réduit – à deux reprises. En fait, à un moment donné, Piper a pensé qu’il serait incapable de se permettre de continuer à vivre à Washington. Les coupures étaient dues à la dure réalité du marché économique, et non pas à quelque sinistre « complot Sioniste » visant à évincer Bollyn. A titre d’exemple d’avoir « été trop près de la vérité », Bollyn cite ses conclusions selon lesquelles l’Afghanistan a été envahi parce que le Mossad voulait contrôler un oléoduc. Cependant, la théorie de l’oléoduc a été proposée dès octobre 2001 par des gens comme John Pilger, et a ensuite été amplement développée, par exemple par Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. En postulant une telle connexion au « Mossad » sans fournir de preuve à l’appui des allégations, Bollyn a servi de parfait homme de paille « théoricien de la conspiration antisémite », livrant ainsi des arguments supplémentaires aux adversaires de la vérité. Curieusement, d’autres — par exemple en Australie occidentale — présentent le même modus operandi.
Il aurait été beaucoup mieux de démontrer un motif d’invasion de l’Afghanistan pour lequel il existe une abondance de preuves: la CIA/Mossad avaient un motif pour empêcher les Talibans de continuer à décimer le commerce d’opium afghan. Et il n’est même pas nécessaire de proposer que les services secrets tirent profit du trafic illicite (bien qu’il aurait été surprenant que des éléments voyous ne le fassent pas!). Osama Ben Laden a suggéré, le 28 septembre 2001, que les services secrets américains ne voulaient pas que le trafic de stupéfiants soit décimé (comme les Talibans l’ont fait en 2001) puisque la puissance et le financement des agences de renseignements aurait été diminuée, ce qui leur donne un motif pour renverser le régime. Cela s’inscrit parfaitement dans la ligne du temps des auteurs du 11 septembre.
Sixièmement, Bollyn a affirmé qu’American Free Press avait gardé l’argent recueilli pour son fonds de défense juridique. Une partie des fonds a été versée à Bollyn, mais il ne l’a pas mentionné. AFP soupçonne que l’argent qu’il a reçu n’a pas été utilisé pour les frais juridiques, mais pour publier un livre pour enfants sur lequel lui et sa femme avaient travaillé pendant un long moment. Cependant, il y a eu encore des fonds qui ont été recueillis. AFP a envoyé une lettre à chaque contributeur pouvant être retracé, en expliquant les circonstances pour lesquelles ils ont dû se séparer de Bollyn, notamment le fait qu’il avait choisi de s’aligner avec Eric Hufschmid qui menait une campagne de peur et de diffamation contre AFP. Les contributeurs ont été informés que leur argent leur serait retourné sur demande, ou, s’ils le souhaitent, que l’argent serait fusionné dans le compte général d’AFP. Certains ont répondu en disant de garder le montant d’argent, d’autres ont demandé que l’argent leur soit retourné. Il y avait seulement une dame Ecossaise qui n’avait pas laissé d’adresse, mais AFP a obtenu l’adresse et lui a éventuellement retourné son argent. Quelqu’un a appelé à l’émission de Piper pour confirmer qu’il avait reçu une lettre concernant son don pour le fonds de défense juridique de Bollyn.
Non seulement les accusations de Bollyn ne sont fondées sur aucune vérité, mais de plus les preuves accumulées au cours des trois dernières années indiquent que Bollyn est lui-même un agent infiltré travaillant pour les services secrets, une opposition contrôlée et une opération « attrape-mouches ». Comme nous le verrons plus loin, on peut retracer les liens de Bollyn avec la famille royale britannique, la famille Bush, Rupert Murdoch, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, les banquiers juifs internationaux, le renseignement militaire israélien, etc. Quant à savoir pourquoi Robert J. Hender promeut et soutient un agent des services de renseignements, le fait qu’il s’associe à une personne soupçonnée d’être un paravent de la Scientologie et qu’il participe à une organisation de chasseurs d’OVNIS donne un bref aperçu de son approche pour le moins peu objective.
Robert J. Hender a reçu Ann Blake Tracy comme invitée à son émission. Le « Ph.D. » douteux de Tracy lui a été accordée à partir d’un moulin à diplômes d’«expériences de vie», plus spécifiquement pour son livre Prozac: panacée ou boîte de Pandore? qui est criblé de fautes orthographiques, de ponctuation, sans parler des nombreuses phrases incomplètes. Ann Blake Tracy et son organisation Coalition for Drug Awareness (Coalition internationale pour la sensibilisation aux drogues) sont soupçonnées d’être une façade pour une « organisation de développement personnel« , une «Église» qui a été subvertie par des avocats juifs et, à son tour, est devenu une façade pour le Mossad israélien. Bollyn a lui-même trahit le fait que Tracy l’a financé pendant plus d’un an après qu’il a été congédié par l’American Free Press, lorsqu’il a admis que Tracy l’a engagé pour l' »édition » de son livre. Dans les archives RBN de l’émission d’Hender:

MARDI, 7 JUILLET 2009
Fichiers MP3: 1re heure, 2e heure
Fichiers jouables: PLS M3U

Entretien avec Ann Blake Tracy drugawareness.org 1-800-280-0730 Prozac: panacée ou boîte de Pandore … Le Prozac est du LSC et le Ritalin est de la meth (methamphétamine) Ces compagnies de produits chimiques mènent une guerre contre les familles américaines – même Michael Jackson est mort d’un Syndrome de sérotonine. Même le Mountain Dew cause des psychoses …

Robert J. Hender a travaillé sur K-Talk Radio (KTKK, 630 AM Radio) à partir de 1998 jusqu’à environ 2001 ou 2002. L’adresse de KTKK n’est qu’à environ trois miles ou six minutes de voiture du lieu de résidence d’Ann Blake Tracy à West Jordan, UT.
Le lieu de résidence de Hender est aussi dans la région de Salt Lake City. Il a utilisé l’adresse de South Jordan de K-Talk, mais à compter de novembre 2001 il a également utilisé une boîte postale à Riverton, qui est à environ six miles au sud de la résidence d’Ann Blake Tracy à West Jordan, UT. Hender dit en novembre 2001:

« Je fais de la radio depuis 17 ans, et j’ai été l’hôte d’une émission de variété à K-Talk pendant 3 ans … »

(…)Il n’y a pas de preuve d’une quelconque intention malveillante de la part de R.J. Hender, qui pouvait tout simplement ignorer le fait que Michael Piper et d’autres hôtes de RBN travaillent à l’AFP. La plupart du temps, Bollyn parlait de Mark Lane et d’AFP plutôt que de Piper. Piper a dit durant son émission qu’il avait reçu un très joli e-mail d’excuse de la part d’Hender. Les auditeurs seront probablement intéressés de voir ce qui arrivera lorsque Bollyn sera à nouveau invité à l’émission de RJ Hender, le premier mardi de novembre.
Il est de plus en plus évident qu’il y a lieu d’avoir de sérieux doutes sur la véracité des déclarations de Bollyn suite à un incident survenu en août 2006, au cours duquel Bollyn a appelé la police pour qu’elle vienne à son domicile avant de devenir belliqueux à leur arrivée (comme preuve, sa petite fille l’a averti: « Papa, ils pourraient t’arrêter! « ); puis il s’est dirigé vers la maison en criant qu’il allait chercher des renforts. Bollyn a affirmé avoir été «surpris» lorsque la police s’est présentée à son domicile (après avoir composé le 9-1-1 à partir d’une boutique de vins pour demander à la police de venir à son domicile!!!), et il était «surpris» lorsqu’il a été abordé, « tasé » puis arrêté. Bollyn écrit:

« J’avais terminé tous mes appels et regardé la première partie de l’émission de nouvelles de Lou Dobb sur CNN et j’étais en chemin vers le magasin, lorsque je suis sorti sur le perron et que j’ai vu tout à coup cette voiture menaçante de couleur sombre, pleine d’individus ressemblant à des agents. J’ai immédiatement averti ma femme et mes enfants et j’enfourchai mon vélo pour aller au magasin. Quelque chose ne va pas, me suis-je dit, et je me suis arrêté au magasin de vin du coin en demandant d’utiliser le téléphone. J’ai appelé le 9-1-1 et je leur a dit qu’une voiture étrange avec des hommes armés arpente les rues de mon quartier sans raison apparente. On m’a dit qu’une voiture de police viendrait me rencontrer chez moi, dans 20 minutes. J’étais dans ma maison depuis quelques minutes lorsque la même voiture suspecte s’arrêta devant ma maison et trois hommes vêtus de veste pare-balle ont envahi mon entrée de garage. Je venais juste de raccrocher le téléphone après avoir parlé au service de police. J’étais encore plus surpris de voir ces voyous habillés d’une veste pare-balle dans mon entrée. Mon épouse et ma fille de 8 ans étaient déjà là et j’ai demandé à ces hommes de s’identifier et pourquoi ils rôdaient dans ma rue. « 

Notez que Bollyn avait déjà posté un article sur les pistolets paralysants (…) le 9 avril 2006, quatre mois avant son appel au 9-1-1 au « marchand de vin du coin » (commerçant d’alcool) le 15 août 2006 pour faire venir la police à son domicile avant de devenir belliqueux et de leur dire qu’il allait à l’intérieur pour « chercher des renforts » dans le but de se faire « taser » et arrêter pour ensuite se présenter comme un « martyr » devant les vrais croyants pendant que l’Anti-Defamation League pourrait facilement l’identifier comme un fou et un « théoricien de la conspiration » paranoïaque. De même, certains projets de loi du Patriot Act avaient été enregistrés avant les événements du 11 septembre.
Bollyn se mit à prétendre qu’il y avait eu une conspiration pour «le coincer» impliquant l’Anti-Defamation League, le Department of Homeland Security (Ministère de la Sécurité Intérieure), l’ensemble des forces de police de Hoffman Estates, le service d’ambulance, les services d’incendie, la « totalité de l’appareillage municipal d’Hoffman Estates » (voir la transcription de l’émission d’Hender ci-dessous), des procureurs juifs, des juges juifs, différentes personnes liées à American Free Press, etc. S’il y avait vraiment eu un grand complot pour «coincer» Bollyn comme il le prétend, ils auraient eu besoin de perfectionner le contrôle d’esprit au point d’être en mesure de pousser Bollyn à appeler le 9-1-1 pour faire venir la police, lui fournissant ainsi le prétexte dont ils avaient besoin pour lui rendre visite à son domicile. Si Bollyn s’était vraiment senti menacé, il n’aurait pas abandonné sa femme et ses enfants à la maison pour aller à la rencontre des « voyous vêtus de veste pare-balle », et il n’aurait pas pédalé plusieurs miles pour aller au magasin de vins, se rendant ainsi vulnérable aux agresseurs potentiels qui arpentaient les mêmes rues dans une voiture «suspecte» qui ont pu ainsi facilement mettre en scène un «accident». S’il y avait une conspiration pour coincer Bollyn, il aurait été « suicidé » ou aurait trouvé la mort dans des circonstances étranges.

(…)

En août 2007, Bollyn a ostensiblement rompu les liens avec Eric Hufschmid, l’accusant de « propager des fausses nouvelles » et faire des «allégations sans fondement contre autrui» – ce qui, bien entendu, est exactement ce que Hufschmid a fait, et continue de faire. Bollyn a donné le prétexte que Hufschmid prônait la violence. Pourtant Bollyn lui-même avait déjà été condamné pour voies de fait – et vol – avant même ses démêlés avec la justice en août 2006! De plus, le fait que Bollyn régurgite les déclarations fausses de Hufschmid telles que « Mark Lane est un sioniste » a montré que la « séparation » de Bollyn-Hufschmid était un trompe-l’oeil et que Bollyn n’avait aucun scrupule à utiliser la désinformation d’Hufschmid si cela lui convient. Il y a un article publié sous le nom de Bollyn, qui prétend « prouver » que Mark Lane est un «agent sioniste». Toutefois, quiconque est familier avec l’écriture de Hufschmid se rendra compte qu’Hufschmid en est l’auteur. Des expressions telles que « personnes suspectes », des « événements suspects », et des « comportements suspects » sont des plus Hufschmidesques. Hufschmid espérait sûrement tirer profit de l’ancienne réputation de chercheur de vérité dont jouissait Bollyn.
En 1983, Bollyn a épousé une espionne israélienne qui a travaillé dans le renseignement militaire israélien à Herzliya, en Israël. L’espionne avait besoin d’épouser un Américain pour avoir accès aux États-Unis. Bollyn a ouvertement admis dans une interview avec David Duke que le mariage, qui a duré deux ans, était un «mariage de convenance». Pour entendre un extrait audio de trois minutes dans lequel Christopher Bollyn parle de sa première femme Bosmat, cliquez ici. L’Israélienne est maintenant associée avec une société juive d’affacturage financier détenue par Eyal Levy, qui se spécialise dans le « financement et la restructuration de transactions non conventionnelles dans le monde entier et a travaillé pendant plus de 25 ans pour des contrats du gouvernement et des organismes, y compris des contrats de financement des gouvernements, des contrats d’analyses de crédit et de ventes pour les forces armées américaines, la NASA, le FBI et la CIA. » La compagnie de Levy, Platinum Funding Group, est financée par JPMorgan Chase et NM Rothschild and Sons.(…)
Bollyn été engagé au journal The Spotlight dans des circonstances bizarres. Lorsque Bollyn et sa femme Helje Kaskel ont rencontré Michael Piper pour la première fois « officiellement » en mai 2000, cela faisait suite à cette histoire peu convaincante (qui relève plutôt d’une couverture) selon laquelle il s’est buté à de l’opposition de la part d’intérêts juifs lorsqu’il a demandé à sa bibliothèque locale à Schaumburg, Illinois, de prendre dans leur réserve le livre de Piper Final Judgment.
Jerry Myers, qui se décrit comme Khazar, avait travaillé à Liberty Lobby il y a longtemps, dans les années 1960. Il avait la réputation d’être un fauteur de troubles, un conteur de balivernes, et était considéré un peu étrange mais sincère et largement inoffensif. Myers a été congédié de Liberty Lobby, mais personne ne pouvait se rappeler de ce pourquoi il avait été congédié. Il est réapparu à la fin des années 1990, en disant qu’il aimerait être bénévole. Alors Carto a accepté. À l’été 2000, Myers est allé à une conférence dans l’Indiana sur les fraudes électorales, et c’est là que Bollyn l’aurait apparemment rencontré. Myers est retourné à Washington et a commencé à dire à tout le monde que « Bollyn! Bollyn vient travailler pour Liberty Lobby! » Myers a dit que Willis Carto l’avait envoyé à la conférence pour « embaucher Bollyn ». Mais Piper savait que Carto n’at jamais fait cela.
Incidemment, durant la conférence, Myers s’est présenté à Jim Condit comme un Khazar. Condit a pensé: «Qu’est-ce que Liberty Lobby fait avec un Khazar comme employé? » On pourrait dire la même chose de Bollyn, avec la distinction importante qu’il a non seulement gobé sans discernement tout ce que Myers lui a dit, mais il a agi de plus comme un pantin entre les mains de Myers — au point même de renoncer à son emploi chez IBM Global Network Services (réseau global de service IBM), alors que les sionistes avaient justement besoin de quelques « journalistes » contrôlés pour leurs imminents attentats terroristes sous faux pavillon.
Bollyn est arrivé à Washington pour une entrevue, et Piper avait l’impression que Bollyn a été un peu déconcerté par la situation et ne savait pas trop ce qui se passait. Carto a demandé Piper, « C’est quoi cette histoire avec ce gars Bollyn? » Piper a expliqué que « Jerry est fou de lui », et Bollyn est l’homme qui s’est engagé dans la controverse de la bibliothèque de Schaumburg. Carto demandé: « Est-ce qu’il souhaite avoir un emploi ici? » Alors Carto eu une entrevue avec Bollyn et l’a engagé.
Peu de temps après, en novembre de l’année 2000, Christopher Bollyn a prétendu avoir reçu des menaces de mort d’un gentilhomme russe concernant les articles de Bollyn au sujet des nouvelles machines de vote électroniques et de la fraude électorale. Le 13 octobre 2006, six jours après avoir été congédié de l’American Free Press, Bollyn a prétendu avoir reçu des menaces de mort d’un «insider de l’American Free Press et ami de longue date de Willis A. Carto». Il a dit avoir été averti que s’il révélait ce qu’il sait vraiment sur American Free Press, il serait tué. Il n’y a aucune preuve que Bollyn ait reçu des menaces de mort de quelqu’un, et il est encore bien vivant et en santé à ce jour.(…)
Dans son forum radiophonique The Piper Report du 8 mars 2007, disponible ici, Piper a des choses intéressantes à dire sur une petite enquête menée par un patriote qui est aussi un grand détective privé, qui a été dépêché par l’AFP pour fouiller le passé de leur ancien employé. Dans cet extrait de 5 minutes, Piper dit que l’enquête a montré que Bollyn « recevait de l’argent de l’étranger » et « a apparemment été visité régulièrement par un ou des individus portant des plaques d’immatriculation ne pouvant être retracées ». Dans sa note préliminaire, l’enquêteur a déclaré qu’il était « risqué d’enquêter sur Christopher Bollyn » puisque « j’ai découvert la réelle possibilité de participation des services de renseignements de niveau supérieur ». Il a conclu que « la cible (Bollyn), dépense plus d’argent qu’elle n’est capable de gagner ». Dans ce clip plus long, Piper révèle aussi que l’AFP a été informée par une source très fiable qui Bollyn était un «hors la loi de l’impôt» qui ne fait pas de déclaration fédérale de revenus. Ainsi, bien que Bollyn ait prétendu être une « cible » de l’élite au pouvoir, il était effectivement protégé. Piper suggère que l’emploi de Bollyn, plutôt que de rapporter les faits sur le 11 septembre, consistait à cumuler des renseignements sur les chercheurs de vérité du 11 septembre en posant comme un « journaliste » pour mieux infiltrer les milieux de recherche de vérité.
L’assertion selon laquelle Bollyn serait protégé « au plus haut niveau » est entièrement compatible avec l’assertion selon laquelle Bollyn aurait des contacts « au plus haut niveau ». La preuve de liens potentiels avec des gens au plus haut niveau est corroborée par les preuves de liens réels à des gens du plus haut niveau. Et cela est doublement corroboré par les actions de Bollyn comme agent provocateur, agent de désinformation et homme de paille. Compte tenu de tous les éléments de preuve contre lui, sa constante sollicitation pour des «dons» est également susceptible d’être une opération attrape-mouche servant à compiler des noms et des adresses pour les services de renseignements et le gouvernement. Son site est probablement utilisé pour noter les adresses IP, y compris lorsque les membres de son équipe de soutien collent ses articles sur des forums Internet, incluant délibérément des images tirées du site web de Bollyn.(…)

 

Extrait long de l’article de takeourworldback.com The Bollyn-Hufschmid-Murdoch Connection 

(…)Certains des mensonges les plus effrontés de Bollyn incluent « Mark Lane travaille pour la CIA« , « Liberty Lobby«  (éditeur de The Spotlight et précurseur de American Free Press) « est réellement détenu et contrôlé par un Juif sioniste nommé Mark Lane« , et Michael Piper s’est mis à « attaquer » Bollyn « dès décembre 2001″. Ainsi, en plus de son «travail» de sabotage de la vérité du 11 septembre en gâchant les preuves de démolitions contrôlées en propageant des théories du complot servant d’hommes de paille pouvant facilement être réfutées, il aidait l’opération COINTELPRO d’Eric Hufschmid destinée à semer la méfiance et la division en salissant la réputation de véritables activistes en les accusant d’être des agents.
Source: Bollyn.com

 

Christopher J. Petherick, un sataniste avoué, était le rédacteur en chef d‘American Free Press et de l’ancien Spotlight, des publications de Liberty Lobby de Washington DC. Cela ne fait aucun sens qu’un sataniste soit rédacteur en chef d’un journal qui est prétendument écrit pour des chrétiens américains patriotiques, à moins qu’on comprenne que le Liberty Lobby est réellement détenu et contrôlée par un Juif sioniste nommé Mark Lane. Le journal est une opposition contrôlée qui agit comme attrape-mouches pour créer une liste de patriotes actifs pour l’organisation des renseignements juive pour laquelle Lane travaille.

Petherick m’a congédié après qu’une équipe de trois hommes lourdement armés de la police secrète m’aient cassé le bras et infligé des décharges de Taser sous les yeux de ma famille, mais seulement après avoir recueilli plusieurs milliers de dollars des lecteurs pour le « fonds de défense juridique de Bollyn », qui ont été conservés par le soi-disant journal à propriété partagée entre employés. J’ai découvert plus tard que le journal et l’organisation derrière elle, Liberty Lobby, sont en fait détenus par l’avocat juif de gauche, Mark Lane, et qu’ils le sont depuis le début des années 1990 lorsqu’il a acheté les actifs de Liberty Lobby avec quelque 5 millions de dollars qui avaient été payés par Willis Carto A. en frais juridiques.

 

Les allégations à l’effet que Mark Lane serait un « sioniste » et agent de la « CIA« , comme avec le canular du « Global Hawk«  de Sam Danner, ont été propagées conjointement par les partenaires en tromperie Eric Hufschmid et Christopher Bollyn. Le court article Mark Lane: A Zionist Lawyer in control of patriot groups, en date du 4 janvier 2007, indique Bollyn comme auteur, et pourtant ceux qui sont familiers avec l’écriture des deux Bollyn et Hufschmid verront que l’article a de toute évidence été écrit par Hufschmid. Un des éléments de «preuves» de Hufschmid et Bollyn pour ces allégation est que Mark Lane a été une fois dans un avion avec Jane Fonda en 1970. Pendant la guerre du Vietnam, Lane a conseillé Jane Fonda sur son point de vue anti-guerre. Plus tard, à la fin des années 1970 / début 1980, il a essayé de convaincre Jane Fonda de se joindre à lui publiquement dans sa critique d’Israël, mais elle n’a pas voulu. Fonda n’est ni juive, ni sioniste. Hufschmid et Bollyn citent également le fait que Mark Lane était dans le renseignement militaire pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Lane est le 24 février 1927, et la Seconde Guerre mondiale a pris fin en 1945, alors que Lane n’avait que 18 ans, l’âge minimum pour un officier du renseignement. En 1949, il était dans sa deuxième année à l’école de droit. Ainsi, dans le scénario de Bollyn, la carrière de ce « sioniste » dans le renseignement aurait été précoce, d’abord assez brève, mais couvrant finalement 65 ans.

Mark Lane avait déjà une réputation de Juif antisioniste dès 1982. Il a été décrit comme tel dans la publication de l’AIPAC The Campaign to Discredit Israel, par Amy Kaufman Goott et Steven J. Rosen, publié le premier janvier 1983.

 

 
Une publicité pour cette conférence qui est apparue dans le Third World News était signée par Elmer Berger, un ancien ambassadeur au Qatar et le président de l’American Educational Trust Andrew Killgore, et un autre juif antisioniste Mark Lane. (37) Tous excepté Killgore ont prononcé une allocution à la conférence; le porte-parole du banquet était Clovis Maksoud, l’Observateur de la ligue arabe à l’Onu (…)

Pour vérifier cela, allez dans Google Books à http://books.google.com et faites cette recherche « Steven Rosen J » + « The Campaign to Discredit Israel ». Select the book (sélectionnez le livre) The Campaign To Discredit Israel, puis recherchez « Mark Lane » en utilisant la fonction de recherche « From Inside the book » (de l’intérieur du livre).

Ecoutez ce clip de trois minutes de l’émission The Piper Report du 29 octobre 2010 pour entendre parler Ralph Forbes au sujet de si oui ou non Mark Lane est un «sioniste» qui «contrôle» American Free Press. Ralph Forbes, qui se décrit comme un « activiste pro-blanc », était lieutenant dans le Parti nazi américain et directeur de campagne de David Duke au cours de sa candidature de 1988 à la présidence sur le ticket Populiste. Piper dit que l’activiste noir Dick Gregory a soulevé des questions sur le 11 septembre, et qu’il allait faire une grève de la faim jusqu’à ce que la vérité sorte (Gregory a annoncé cela le 10 septembre 2010). Et Gregory était étroitement associé à Martin Luther King, et s’est retrouvé par là à devenir un ami très proche de Mark Lane, un avocat de longue date de Liberty Lobby. Gregory et Lane ont écrit un livre sur l’assassinat du Dr King, et Lane a été le colistier de Gregory dans certains états quand il s’est présenté à la présidence sur le ticket du Freedom and Peace Party en 1968. Piper dit qu’il ne pense pas que Dick Gregory, un critique virulent de la CIA, ou le regretté Jim Garrison, un autre critique important de la CIA, aurait été amis avec Mark Lane s’il avaient pensé que Lane était un « agent de la CIA ». Ralph Forbes affirme que Mark Lane n’est «absolument pas en contrôle» d’American Free Press (contrairement aux allégations de Bollyn), et que Lane est « très antisioniste ».

L’article de Bollyn intitulé Pourquoi sommes-nous incapables de résister? – Mettant en vedette ses allégations extraordinaires contre American Free Press – a été publié à la fin de septembre 2009. À l’émission de RJ Hender du mardi 6 octobre 2009, diffusée par Republic Broadcasting Network, Bollyn a repris ces affirmations sans fondement, telles que le «sioniste Juif» Mark Lane travaille pour une «organisation du renseignement juif» et «propriétaire» d’AFP, AFP est une « opposition contrôlée », une «opération attrape-mouches», «un loup déguisé en brebis, vêtu comme un agneau», un «traître au mouvement patriote américain », et a gardé des « dizaines de milliers de dollars » du fonds de défense juridique de Bollyn, .Voir ici pour une transcription partielle de Bollyn à l’émission de Hender, et une analyse plus poussée. Les allégations ont été examinées en détail par Michael Collins Piper sur sa propre émission des 6-7-8 octobre.

L’émission du 6 octobre a traité de plusieurs preuves indiquant que Mark Lane a toujours été antisioniste, et non sioniste, et qu’il s’associe avec des antisionistes, et non des sionistes. Par exemple, Lane a été rédacteur en chef adjoint du bulletin Zionist Watch, plus tard intitulé Nouvelle Vue Américaine. Son co-rédacteur dans ce travail était l’ancien fonctionnaire de la CIA Victor Marchetti. L’entrée de Wikipedia sur Marchetti le décrit comme un « éminent paleoconservateur critique de la communauté du renseignement étatsunienne et le lobby pro-israélien aux Etats-Unis ».

En tant qu’avocat, Lane a représenté l’OLP et Yasser Arafat, et aussi les antisionistes Neturei Karta (en anglais Jews Against Zionism, en français Juifs Unis contre le sionisme) pour leur groupe de Jérusalem, par exemple, forçant Menachem Begin à libérer le fils du rabbin Hirsch après qu’il ait été capturé par l’armée israélienne. Neturei Karta est classée par l’Anti Defamation League (ADL) comme «extrémistes»; ses membres refusent de reconnaître l’Etat d’Israël et refusent de servir dans son armée. Certains d’entre eux refusent de payer des taxes à l’État d’Israël.

Mark Lane, qui a même été décrit comme un « négationniste de l’Holocauste » par la propagandiste sioniste et androgyne bizarre Deborah Lipstadt, a également été associée à feu Schieber Haviv, ancien maire de Ber Sheeba, Israël. Schieber est devenu un célèbre antisioniste, converti au christianisme, et se retrouve dans la liste des Victimes of Zion sur une page du Zundelsite aux côtés de Dr. Fredrick Töben, Paul Rassinier, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Professor Arthur Butz, François Duprat, Fred Leuchter, David Irving, Walter Lüftl, John Demjanjuk, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Rieger, David Cole, Jürgen Graf, Ingrid Rimland, etc. Mis à part le fou confirmé Eric Hufschmid, personne ne songerait à considérer ces gens comme faisant partie d’un « réseau criminel sioniste ». C’est Haviv Schieber qui a introduit Mark Lane à Willis Carto, fondateur du Liberty Lobby qui a été décrit comme «sans doute la figure la plus influente américaine à l’extrême droite dans l’ère post-Deuxième Guerre mondiale».

Dans l’étrange réalité tordue que Bollyn tente de colporter, Piper, Forbes, Duke, Lane, King, Gregory, Garrison, Marchetti, Hirsch, Schieber, Carto, etc., sont tous des «agents sionistes/CIA» ou des gens trompés par des agents, ces agents faisant en plus partie d’un complot qui remonte à la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ainsi, 65 ans plus tard, après la venue du Grand Bollyn qui n’était même pas né quand Lane était dans les renseignements militaires, les conspirateurs auraient pu utiliser Lane pour qu’il dirige American Free Press comme une opposition contrôlée et une « opération attrape-mouches » pour fournir au gouvernement et aux Juifs les noms et adresses des patriotes. Ils pourraient avoir des gens tels que Carto et Piper se faisant passer pour les opposants au contrôle juif de l’Amérique, alors qu’ils travailleraient secrètement comme agents de la CIA ou de la juiverie internationale. Et la description que fait Mark Lane de Menachem Begin comme étant un «ancien terroriste» ou encore d’Israël comme un « Etat terroriste » dont « l’occupation » de la Palestine est «illégale», tout cela aurait fait partie de ses 65 ans de tromperie. Dans cet univers parallèle, Steven Rosen et Amy Kaufman Goott auraient également été dans le complot, feignaient d’être dupés par Lane faisant semblant d’être un antisioniste, qu’ils l’ont même décrit comme un «antisioniste Juif» dans leur livre en 1983.

Ceux qui ont embarqué dans le culte Hufschmidesque de Bollyn, lorsque confrontés à des phénomènes tels que Mark Lane ayant représenté le fils du Rabbi Moshe Hirsch dans une tentative réussie pour obtenir sa libération des autorités israéliennes, pourrait en tous les cas faire valoir que le rabbin Hirsch, qui est décédé le 2 mai 2010, faisait tout simplement semblant d’être antisioniste depuis des décennies. Son leadership du groupe antisioniste Neturei Karta, diraient-ils, faisait partie de la tromperie, l’attaque à l’acide qu’il a subie à la mi-1990 et dans laquelle il a perdu un oeil a été truquée, son œil de verre était un faux outrancier, et le New York Times a trempé dans le complot en le décrivant comme un « adversaire d’Israël ». Ou peut-être ne feraient-ils qu’ignorer, tout simplement, les faits désagréables au sujet de leur héro, préférant « vivre le rêve ».

Le promoteur de l’ « Holocauste » Mel Mermelstein a intenté un procès pour 11 millions de dollars contre quatre accusés: la Legion for the Survival of Freedom (une société sans but lucratif à travers laquelle IHR a fonctionné); Liberty Lobby, une institution de lobbying nationaliste et populiste basée à Washington, DC; Willis Carto, fondateur à la fois de l’IHR et de Liberty Lobby, et une firme légale du sud californien qui avait défendu Liberty Lobby et avait déposé une plainte contre Mermelstein. Mark Lane était l’avocat de Liberty Lobby. Lors du procès, Mermelstein a prétendu avoir donné autant de conférences que « les doigts de mes mains ». Toutefois, Ted O’Keefe, éditeur du Journal of Historical Review de l’IHR, avait trouvé une déposition de 1985, dans laquelle Mermelstein avait déclaré avoir donné une moyenne de vingt conférences par an sur Auschwitz depuis 1967. Dans la salle d’audience, Lane a utilisé un crayon et papier pour calculer 18 x 20 = 360, et a demandé à Mermelstein s’il ne venait pas tout juste de dire au tribunal qu’il avait donné à peine autant de conférences qu’il y a de doigts sur ses mains. De manière amusante, un Mermelstein vexé s’est alors exclamé: « Je voulais dire les doigts de mes mains et mes pieds! » Lane avait réussi à ce que la cause soit rejetée.

Lane a également gagné la cause de Liberty Lobby (de Willis Carto) contre l’ancien agent de la CIA et cambrioleur du Watergate, E. Howard Hunt. En 1981, Hunt a gagné 650 000 $ dans un procès en diffamation contre Liberty Lobby relativement à un article de 1978 publié dans The Spotlight qui reliait Hunt à l’assassinat de JFK. Dans un second procès en 1985, Lane a défendu avec succès Liberty Lobby, renversant le jugement initial de libelle diffamatoire. 

 

À l’émission de RJ Hender du 6 octobre 2009, Bollyn dit à propos de Mark Lane, American Free Press et Liberty Lobby:

Et j’ai appris, vous savez, au cours de la période de six ans, que American Free Press est en réalité la propriété de Mark Lane. Il est l’avocat juif qui détient les actifs. Il a repris les actifs d’American Free Press en 1993, quand le Liberty Lobby a fait faillite. Et il travaillait, après la guerre, il était dans l’OSS, il était dans les renseignements de l’armée en Allemagne, qui est devenue la CIA. Et, euh, voilà comment tout cela est arrivé, vous voyez. […] J’ai travaillé à ce journal pendant six ans et demi. Je connais personnellement les gens dont je parle. Je connais Michael Piper. Je connais Mark Lane. Je connais Willis Carto. Je connais Chris Petherick. Je connais ces gens. J’ai travaillé avec eux intimement pendant six ans et demi ans. J’ai, vous le savez, on m’a dit dès le début, quand j’ai rejoint American Free Press par le biais du gars qui m’a amené à travailler pour la compagnie, nous marchions sur Independence Avenue, il a pointé du doigt une maison qui autrefois … où, où Mark Lane avait un bureau ou vivait, juste à côté de notre bureau, il dit que Liberty Lobby a donné à Mark Lane cinq millions de dollars en frais juridiques parce que, vous le savez, c’est justement de ça qu’il en ressort – il est propriétaire du journal, il a repris le journal, il contrôle le journal …

La source de Bollyn pour ces allégations – « le gars qui [l’]a amené dans la compagnie » – est le Khazar auto-proclamé Jerry Myers, reconnu pour raconter des histoires invraisemblables. Bollyn est censé être assez brillant pour comprendre qu’Israël et la mafia juive ou Mishpucka étaient derrière le 11 septembre, et pourtant dans le même temps, il est censé être assez stupide pour tomber dans les tromperies de Myers. (Voir la section Les manigances de Bollyn pour en savoir plus sur la manière dont Bollyn a été intégré à l’équipe de The Spotlight en 2000 par Myers, alors que le 11 septembre était imminent.) Mike Piper souligne à ses émissions du 6 et 7 octobre que Lane, en tant qu’avocat de la compagnie, a été payé autour de $ 90.000 par an pour environ dix à quinze ans, plus quelques bonus. Il n’a jamais reçu le moindre « 5 $ millions ». Il n’y avait jamais aucun frais de retour légal pour Mark Lane. Lorsque Liberty Lobby s’est mis en faillite, Lane a continué à recevoir son salaire régulier. Après que Liberty Lobby a dû fermer, Lane a conseillé aux employés de Liberty Lobby de fonder une nouvelle compagnie, mais a dit qu’il ne pouvait servir d’avocat pour American Free Press, car il serait en conflit d’intérêts. AFP serait une société entièrement nouvelle, et lui, Lane, allait continuer à représenter Willis Carto et Liberty Lobby. Mark Lane a écrit plusieurs commentaires de l’AFP, mais il était seulement dans le bureau d’AFP à cinq ou six reprises – encore moins que Christopher Bollyn. 

Liberty Lobby n’a pas fait faillite en 1993, et il n’y a aucune preuve de la « récupération des actifs » par Lane que ce soit en 1993, en 2001 ou à tout autre moment. En 2001, les opérations de Liberty Lobby ont pris fin à Washington, DC. Le 2 août 2002, tous les droits et actifs de Liberty Lobby ont été affectés à la Legion for the Survival of Freedom, Inc (LSF). Ainsi la théorie du complot de Bollyn exige que Mark Lane ait repris les actifs de Liberty Lobby, ce qu’il n’a en fait jamais fait, que Lane était de mèche en quelque sorte avec les nouveaux contrôleurs de la LSF et de l’IHR, qu’ils avaient convenu avec Lane qu’ils lui repaieraient « ses » actifs inexistants, et ils ont gardé leur part du contrat et remis les actifs que Lane n’a jamais eu. C’est presque aussi vraisemblable que la Lune soit faite de fromage.

La LSF a été fondée par un groupe de patriotes du Texas en 1952. Elle était sur le bord de la faillite en 1966, quand Willis Carto a racheté le contrôle de la société et de son magazine American Mercury. Lorsque Carto a fondé l’IHR en 1979, il a été fondé comme une filiale de la LSF. En 1993, l’IHR avait environ 12 000 abonnés, deux grands entrepôts plein de livres, et un historique de publication
presque ininterrompu du Journal for Historical Review. Il y avait un couple de personnes âgées siégeant au conseil d’administration de la LSF qui n’étaient pas en bonne santé, et avaient déjà quelques problèmes financiers. Les rebelles de l’IHR ont commencé en leur disant que Willis Carto « opérait illégalement », qu’ils pourraient faire face à des problèmes fiscaux, et pourrait même finir en prison – à moins qu’ils démissionnent du conseil et permettent aux «bonnes personnes» de prendre le relais. C’était un ramassis de mensonges, mais malheureusement cela a fonctionné pour les rebelles.

Les quelques années après que Carto se soit fait évincer, l’IHR est tombé à quelque 500 abonnés et seulement une dizaine de magazines ont été publiés. Le nouveau porte-parole de l’IHR devint Mark Weber, dont la sœur a vécu dans un kibboutz en Israël. Quant à une « opération attrape-mouches », il y a une forte possibilité que l’IHR post-Carto soit une façade du Mossad et un «trust» du style KBG opérant dans le but de recueillir des noms et de surveiller les activités des membres du mouvement révisionniste. Si oui, il y aurait ironiquement un élément de vérité aux allégations de Bollyn, en ce que les anciens actifs de Willis Carto sont dirigés comme moyen de fournir au gouvernement et aux organisations sionistes des informations sur les patriotes. Mais les gens faussement accusés par Bollyn – tels que Willis Carto, Mike Piper, et Mark Lane – n’ont jamais participé à tout cela.

L’allégation de Bollyn selon laquelle Lane ait repris les actifs de Liberty Lobby en 1993 et qu’il « possède » et «contrôle» maintenant American Free Press comme une « opération attrape-mouches », en plus d’être fausse, implique nécessairement que Willis Carto et Mike Piper d’AFP ont été volontairement au service d’agents sionistes et de laquais du gouvernement pendant au moins dix-sept ans. Carto et Piper ont un long passé de lutte contre le sionisme et l’internationalisme sur une période de plusieurs décennies. Bien que Carto soit considéré comme « controversé », parfois même « effrayant », sa mise en place et sa gestion d’organisations pro-liberté, pro-nationalistes et pro-vérité — telles que la LSF, Liberty Lobby, l’IHR, etc. — a combattu les mensonges des médias et des gouvernements ne laisse aucun doute quant à sa sincérité et son dévouement à la cause qu’il défend. Il est connu que lors d’un dîner organisé par la famille Bronfman, les participants discutaient si oui ou non ils doivent « se débarrasser de » Carto. Un rapport de 1994 du Centre Simon Wiesenthal décrit Carto comme «l’antisémite professionnels les plus influents aux États-Unis». Selon l’Anti-Defamation League, Carto est « l’un des propagandistes antisémites américains les plus influents de ces 50 dernières années« . Piper a écrit de nombreux livres percutants tels que Final Judgment sur le rôle du Mossad dans l’assassinat de JFK; il a écrit pour The Spotlight et collabore aujourd’hui à l’American Free Press; il tient un forum radiophonique The Piper Report et participe à des conférences internationales. Il a acquis la réputation (chez les ignorants qui gobent la propagande) d’avoir des «vues haineuses» et «des liens professionnels de longue date avec des gens abominables» et des « néo-nazis ».

En 1984, l’IHR et le bureau de Noontide Press (de Willis Carto) ont été incendiés et réduits à néant par des agents de la LDJ travaillant en liaison avec des agents du Mossad basés en Israël. Les dommages ont été estimés à $400 000. Les attaques terroristes sionistes contre l’IHR et les révisionnistes arrivaient fréquemment. Incapables de gagner le débat parce que la vérité n’est pas de leur côté, les Sionistes ont réalisé qu’il leur est nécessaire d’employer la force.

Compte tenu de leurs antécédents, si Carto et Piper avaient un jour constaté qu’ils travaillaient pour une organisation sioniste, ils auraient sûrement quitté le bateau pour fonder leur propre maison de publication. Le théoricien de la conspiration délirant et supporteur de Bollyn pourrait dire que Carto et Piper étaient déjà « des agents sionistes » travaillant avec la LDJ et le Mossad en 1984, et que la bombe incendiaire faisait partie du complot visant à les présenter comme de vrais «antisionistes», afin qu’ils puissent être démasqués comme étant des « imposteurs » par Hufschmid et Bollyn vingt-cinq ans plus tard. L’observateur avisé rejettera les adeptes de Bollyn comme étant des imbéciles, des menteurs ou des agents. Contrairement à Carto, Piper et Lane, Bollyn n’a jamais écrit ou publié aucun livre. Mais il a édité un livre, une seule fois, pour une personne soupçonnée d’être Scientologue.
À l’émission de Hender, Bollyn a prétendu connaître Michael Piper, Mark Lane, Willis Carto, et Chris Petherick, et qu’il a «travaillé étroitement avec eux pendant six ans et demi ». Non, il ne les connaît pas et n’a pas travaillé avec eux pendant 6 ans et demi. Piper indique que Bollyn a probablement fait une dizaine d’apparitions à peine à Washington à l’intérieur de plusieurs années. (Mark Lane est passé au bureau à cinq ou six occasions.) Bollyn ne s’est pas impliqué dans les opérations quotidiennes d’AFP, tels que le publipostage pour promouvoir AFP et RBN. Et fait, AFP voulait que Bollyn s’installe plus près de Washington pour qu’il puisse mener des enquêtes aux États-Unis, mais il était souvent parti en voyage ailleurs dans le monde – particulièrement en Europe – pour différents projets. Bollyn demandait des remboursement pour beaucoup de déplacements mystérieux, ostensiblement liées à son travail « journalistique ». Toutefois, la plupart du temps, ces projets n’étaient pas assignés par AFP. Éventuellement, AFP a décidé qu’il fallait couper dans les dépenses, après qu’ils aient trouvé qu’il prenait ses articles sur le Web et récupérait ses frais de dépenses pour financer d’autres activités.
Si Mark Lane venait faire un tour au bureau une fois par an et que Bollyn le faisait environ deux fois par an, en présumant qu’il y a environ 250 jours de travail par an, les chances que Lane puisse renconter Bollyn au bureau d’AFP est de l’ordre d’environ 1/125 par an. Il y aurait environ 124 fois plus de « jours sans Bollyn » que de « jours avec Bollyn ». Ainsi, considérant la moyenne de Lane d’un jour par an au bureau, la probabilité que Bollyn soit là le même jour que Lane est de une sur 125. Même sur une période de six ans, il serait plus probable qu’ils ne se soient jamais rencontrés, et même s’ils s’étaient rencontrés. Les allégations de Bollyn à l’effet qu’il a travaillé « intimement » avec Lane ne pourrait pas être plus éloignées de la vérité.
Et les écrits de Bollyn produits peu après qu’il ait été congédié en octobre 2006 sont en totale contradiction avec la version qu’il a racontée à Hender comme quoi il a «travaillé intimement avec eux». Il a écrit:

Bollyn: Je suis désolé, mais contrairement à ce que dit l’AFP, je suis un étranger et je ne peux me porter garant de l’intégrité et de la crédibilité de chaque personne travaillant pour l’AFP. Comme je l’ai dit plus haut, il y a des personnages très suspects et douteux dans les plus hauts niveaux d’American Free Press, dont Michael Piper, Scott Makufka et Lisa Guliani.

Comment pourrais-je faire une déclaration et généraliser en disant qu’AFP n’est pas compromis quand je ne sais tout simplement pas qui sont vraiment ces gens ou envers qui sont-ils loyaux?

Bollyn a déclaré qu’il s’était fait couper son salaire parce qu’il « s’était trop approché de la vérité ». En fait, d’autres à AFP ont vu leur salaire réduit eux aussi. Le salaire de Piper a été réduit – à deux reprises. En fait, à un moment donné, Piper a pensé qu’il serait incapable de se permettre de continuer à vivre à Washington. Les coupures étaient dues à la dure réalité du marché économique, et non pas à quelque sinistre « complot Sioniste » visant à évincer Bollyn. Sur plus de six ans entre 2000 et 2006, Bollyn a réclamé environ 60 000$ de dépenses à AFP / Liberty Lobby, en plus d’être payé 266 000$ – un total de 300 000$ tel que révélé par Mike Piper à son émission du 6 avril 2007 [4:26] .

Comme exemple d’avoir « été trop près de la vérité », Bollyn cite ses conclusions selon lesquelles l’Afghanistan a été envahi parce que le Mossad voulait contrôler un oléoduc. Cependant, la théorie de l’oléoduc a été proposée dès octobre 2001 par des gens comme John Pilger, et a ensuite été amplement développée, par exemple par Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. En postulant une telle connexion au « Mossad » sans fournir de preuve à l’appui des allégations, Bollyn a servi de parfait homme de paille « théoricien de la conspiration antisémite », livrant ainsi des arguments supplémentaires aux adversaires de la vérité. Curieusement, d’autres — par exemple en Australie occidentale — présentent le même modus operandi.

L’affirmation selon laquelle Michael Piper a commencé à « attaquer » Bollyn « dès décembre 2001 » et tente de l’empêcher de s’exprimer, est facilement démontré comme un vulgaire mensonge si l’on jette un coup d’oeil à l’historique. Dans les archives de 2006 de The Piper Report, on peut voir que durant la majeure partie de cette année, Piper et Bollyn étaient en bons termes. Piper a reçu Bollyn comme invité à son émission à plusieurs reprises, et a même permis à Bollyn de le remplacer à au moins treize reprises en juin lorsque Piper a fait un voyage en Malaisie. Les invités de Bollyn incluent Eric Hufschmid, Helje Kaskel, et le « Dr » Ann Blake Tracy (deux fois).

Le « Ph.D. » douteux de Tracy lui a été accordé à partir d’un moulin à diplômes d’«expériences de vie», plus spécifiquement pour son livre Prozac: panacée ou boîte de Pandore? qui est criblé de fautes orthographiques, de ponctuation, et de nombreuses phrases incomplètes. Ann Blake Tracy et son organisation Coalition for Drug Awareness (Coalition internationale pour la sensibilisation aux drogues) sont soupçonnées d’être une façade pour une « organisation de développement personnel« , une «Église» qui a été subvertie par des avocats juifs et, à son tour, est devenu une façade pour le Mossad israélien. Après que Bollyn ait été congédié d’AFP en octobre 2006, il a accepté la charge d’éditer le livre de Tracy sur le Prozac, ce qui éveille le soupçon comme quoi Bollyn aurait été financée par la Scientologie, et donc le Mossad. Bollyn prétend qu’il n’a jamais été payé pour son travail d’édition sur le livre de Tracy. Toutefois, Bollyn est plutôt économe avec la vérité, et il cite en réalité des « travaux d’édition » comme une de ses sources de revenus sur lesquelles ils devait s’appuyer après avoir été congédié d’AFP. Donc, s’il n’a jamais été payé pour l’édition de Tracy Prozac livre, quels autres « travaux d’édition » a-t-il fait?

Lawrence E. Heller est l’un des avocats de l’Église de Scientologie, qui a été décrite avec justesse comme «une école pour les psychopathes». Heller fut l’avocat du « survivant de l’Holocauste » Mel Mermelstein lorsque ce dernier a intenté une poursuite infructueuse pour 11 millions $ contre quatre entités incluant Liberty Lobby, Willis Carto et Mark Lane – celui que Bollyn accuse d’être un « sioniste » et « opérateur de la CIA » – qui est l’avocat de Liberty Lobby, tel que mentionné ci-dessus. Le pseudo-révisionniste et scientologue Tom Marcellus et l’avocat Andrew Evered Allen ont pris le contrôle de l’IHR en octobre 1993, après avoir arraché son contrôle à Willis Carto à la faveur d’un coup d’Etat interne. Allen, un millionnaire californien soupçonné d’être un agent de l’Anti-Defamation League travaillant sous infiltration, a été impliqué dans des magouilles de la CIA et du Mossad en Afghanistan et en Birmanie. Après le coup de l’IHR, l’Anti-Defamation League a été en mesure de le présenter comme une scission entre « des bigots en guerre les uns contre les autres« . (…)

Les manigances de Bollyn
 
Autour de 1981, Christopher Bollyn vivait en Californie. Il a eu deux condamnations pour vol en Californie, et une accusation d’agression. En 1983, Bollyn a épousé une espionne israélienne qui a travaillé dans le renseignement militaire israélien à Herzliya, en Israël. Il a été confirmé par Jay, le frère de Christopher, que Bosmat voulait épouser un Américain pour pouvoir vivre aux Etats-Unis, à Los Angeles (et obtenir la citoyenneté américaine). Une recherche du nom de jeune fille montre que Merimsky était associée à une adresse de Santa Monica, à moins de trois milles de Rand Corporation, et à moins d’un mille d’une synagogue Chabad Lubavitch. Le mariage a duré deux ans et Bollyn l’a décrit dans une interview avec David Duke comme un «mariage de convenance». Pour entendre un extrait audio de trois minutes dans lequel Christopher Bollyn parle de sa première femme Bosmat, cliquez ici. Et dans ce clip d’une minute et demie tiré de l’émission de RJ Hender du 6 avril 2010, Bollyn a dit qu’elle était «secrétaire». Oui, et les hommes ont été décrits comme des « diplomates » ou des « attachés militaires« . Ils l’ont d’abord rencontrée quand elle avait seulement 16 ou 17 ans (à la fin des années 1970, quand Bollyn a travaillé comme sauveteur dans un kibboutz). Bollyn dit que même qu’avant qu’elle soit entré dans l’armée, le Mossad est venu au kibboutz où il vivait dans la vallée du Jourdain pour faire des vérifications d’antécédents sur elle pour en savoir plus sur Bollyn, son petit ami américain. Dans ce clip d’une minute et demie, Bollyn dit que quand Bosmat est venue en Amérique et a commencé à s’associer avec d’autres Israéliens, il a vu que leurs pratiques d’affaires étaient «à la limite du légal», les opérations frauduleuses qui étaient parfois légales, parfois même illégales. Donc il se serait dit « Je ne peux pas être impliqué avec des gens comme ça », et ceci fut sa raison pour le divorce.
Tel qu’indiqué sur son acte d’accusation sous des chefs d’espionnage en aout 2005 avec Larry Franklin et Keith Weissman, co-auteur de The Campaign To Discredit Israel, Steven J. Rosen était un « chercheur en sciences sociales » à la Rand Corporation à Santa Monica, où il avait obtenu le droit d’accès sécuritaire aux contrats de la CIA, avant d’être embauché par l’AIPAC autour de juillet 1982. Ainsi, Israël avait un agent – ou des agents – au Rand, au moins jusqu’à la mi-1982. De 1982 à 1983, il est donc possible que d’autres agents d’Israël aient déjà eu accès à des documents classifiés entre ces murs ou tentaient d’y accéder. L’adresse de la Rand Corporation est 1776, rue Main, à Santa Monica en Californie.
Ainsi, en 1983, quand Israël avait probablement des agents à la Rand Corporation ou cherchait à remplacer Rosen, Bollyn a aidé un espion israélien à obtenir sa citoyenneté américaine et à s’installer à peine quelques miles près de la Rand Corporation.
Dans une tournure intéressante des événements, alors que la première édition de The Campaign To Discredit Israel venait d’être publié (1er janvier 1983), décrivant Mark Lane comme un « antisioniste Juif », Bollyn vivait et voyageait à travers le continent américain avec un officier du renseignement militaire israélien de Herzliya qu’il allait ensuite épouser plus tard cette année. Plus de 25 ans plus tard, Bollyn allait prétendre que Mark Lane est un «sioniste Juif».
La première femme israélienne de Bollyn est maintenant associée avec une société juive d’affacturage financier détenue par Eyal Levy, qui se spécialise dans le « financement et la restructuration de transactions non conventionnelles dans le monde entier et a travaillé pendant plus de 25 ans pour des contrats du gouvernement et des organismes, y compris des contrats de financement des gouvernements, des contrats d’analyses de crédit et de ventes pour les forces armées américaines, la NASA, le FBI et la CIA. » La compagnie de Levy, Platinum Funding Group, est financée par JPMorgan Chase et NM Rothschild and Sons. Platinum Funding Group a été créé en 1992, et a son siège social à la Tour de Bush, Manhattan, depuis 2002. Lorsque Bosmat Merimsky, son partenaire de Jacob « Cobi » Babchuk et Eyal Levy est allé sur un récent voyage en Asie, Levy a fait une impression assez bien d’un loup hurlant montrant ses dents. Et Merimsky et Babchuk sont récemment allés en vacances à Césarée, la seule ville en Israël à être gérée par une entreprise, la Edmond Benjamin de Rothschild Caesarea Development Corporation, qui a fait don de plus de 100 millions de shekels au cours des dernières années à des organisations comme le Centre interdisciplinaire d’Herzliya. Deux des résidents de Césarée les plus notables sont Eitan Wertheimer et Benjamin Netanyahou.
Christopher Bollyn a épousé sa seconde femme, Helje Kaskel, une ancienne actrice et modèle de nu, en 1995. Dans les années 1990, Bollyn et Kaskel travaillaient de toute évidence comme une équipe d’agents du renseignement, filant l’auteur nationaliste et antisioniste Michael Collins Piper. Cela remonte au moins à juillet 1994, soit peu de temps après la première publication de Final Judgment au début de 1994. La preuve documentée a fait surface en 2009 alors que Anne Cronin, qui avait travaillé à Liberty Lobby depuis 1964 avant le lancement de The Spotlight, est tombée sur des informations intéressantes en feuilletant les vieux livres d’or. En date du 11 juillet 11 1994, il y avait juste deux visiteurs au bureau de Liberty Lobby, à Washington DC qui avaient inscrit leur nom dans le livre correspondant à cette date, avec les noms précédents et suivants tombant en date du 13 juin et du 18 juillet respectivement. Le premier nom du 11 juillet 1994 était Christopher Bollyn, 220 Kingman Lane, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60194. Et directement en-dessous, sur la ligne suivante se trouvait Helje Kaskel, Estonie. Toutefois, lorsque Bollyn est venu travailler pour The Spotlight et par la suite pour American Free Press, il n’a jamais mentionné une seule fois qu’il avait déjà mis les pieds à l’intérieur du bâtiment.
Bollyn a révélé en 2004 que son travail à IBM Global Network Services était dans le département de l’ « accès à distance ».
Un réseau non sécurisé est tout réseau qui peut être atteint de l’extérieur.
Quand nos machines à voter dans le comté de Cook peuvent être contactées par quiconque connaît l’adresse de protocole Internet (IP) pour n’importe quelle machine du réseau, c’est un réseau non sécurisé. (J’avais l’habitude de travailler dans le département d’accès à distance d’IBM Global Network Services. A l’époque, c’était le meilleur et le plus sûr fournisseur d’internet de l’Amérique.)

 

Charles C. Palmer, Directeur de l’Institut d’IBM pour la sécurité avancée et un membre du comité consultatif sur l’intégrité et la confidentialité des données pour la Homeland Security, a travaillé avec IBM Global Services pour démarrer leur soi-disant « pratique de piratage éthique« . Un candidat au Pirate Certifié Éthique (CEH) n’a qu’à signer un accord préalable à sa formation, s’engageant à ne pas utiliser ses compétences pour des attaques illégales ou malveillantes.
IBM Global Services a également employé des « hackers éthiques » dans une autre capacité, afin de prouver aux clients d’IBM qu’ils avaient besoin de resserrer leur sécurité afin de prévenir que des personnages sans scrupules ne puissent copier ou voler des documents et entrer dans la salle des serveurs informatiques. Plutôt que d’accéder à distance à des ordinateurs, les pirates auraient un accès physique aux bâtiments de bureaux en posant comme un membre du personnel ou en tant que visiteur légitime, par exemple un technicien. Le faux «confrère de travail» ou «technicien» emploierait des accessoires comme un casque, une combinaison ou un presse-papiers, mais une capacité à suivre le script était une qualification importante. Un « hacker éthique » du nom de Paul, qui a effectué ce travail pour la branche britannique de IBM Global Services avant le 11 septembre, a décrit comment il avait développé un talent pour le jeu de rôle, et a souvent travaillé avec un partenaire pour que la ruse ait l’air authentique.
Donc, nous avons Christopher Bollyn et un partenaire en visite au bureau de Liberty Lobby en 1994; le père de Bollyn Elbert, qui se trouve être un acteur accompli durant ses temps libres qui était président de la guilde de théâtre de Hoffman Estates et avait fréquemment joué dans leurs productions; la rencontre de Bollyn avec les Murdoch vers 1988; Bollyn qui travaille pour IBM Global Network Services au département de l’ « accès à distance » et son intérêt pour la fraude électorale et la possibilité de piratage des machines à voter, les « pirates éthiques » de IBM Global Services qui auraient accès à distance à des ordinateurs ou blufferaient leur chemin dans le bureau local (dans les années 1990); le fait que les sionistes comme Murdoch auraient aimé voler des données telles que des listes de diffusion à partir d’une organisation populiste, pro-nationaliste, antisioniste telle que Liberty Lobby avec une vision du monde prétendument antisémite, le fait que Bollyn n’avait aucune raison de ne pas mentionner sa visite de 1994 dans les bureaux de Liberty Lobby, après qu’il en soit venu à travailler pour eux en 2000 si la visite de 1994 avait été entièrement innocente, le scandale d’écoute électronique de l’empire médiatique Murdoch qui remonterait présumémment à 2001 au moins étant donné que le FBI prend au sérieux les allégations selon lesquelles les téléphones des victimes du 11 septembre auraient été piratés, et les publications de Murdoch donnant des pot-de-vin à la police afin d’obtenir des informations pour leurs scoops. Bollyn et Kaskel n’auraient pas pris la peine de signer avec de faux noms en 1994, car ils n’auraient pas pu savoir alors que Bollyn viendrait travailler pour Liberty Lobby six ans plus tard. La tendance se maintient…

(…)

Bollyn a été pris comme employé au journal The Spotlight dans des circonstances étranges au cours de l’année précédant le 11 septembre. En janvier 200, Christopher Bollyn s’implique dans un conflit avec sa bibliothèque locale lorsque celle-ci refuse de mettre sur ses tablettes le livre « Final Judgment » de Michael Collins Piper. Il affirmait avoir entendu parler du livre de Piper sur l’Internet, et la controverse lui fournit un prétexte pour quitter son emploi au réseau IBM Global Services, pour rencontrer Piper et s’implique dans le journal The Spotlight, un journal critique vis-à-vis d’Israël et du sionisme. Bollyn et sa première épouse Helje ont rencontré Michael Piper « officiellement » quelques mois plus tard, en mai 2000. 

Jerry Myers, qui se décrit comme Khazar, avait travaillé à Liberty Lobby il y a longtemps, dans les années 1960. Il avait la réputation d’être un fauteur de troubles, un conteur de balivernes, et était considéré un peu étrange mais sincère et largement inoffensif. Myers a été congédié de Liberty Lobby, mais personne ne pouvait se rappeler de ce pourquoi il avait été congédié. Il est réapparu à la fin des années 1990, en disant qu’il aimerait être bénévole. Alors Carto a accepté. À l’été 2000, Myers est allé à une conférence dans l’Indiana sur les fraudes électorales, et c’est là que Bollyn l’aurait apparemment rencontré. Myers est retourné à Washington et a commencé à dire à tout le monde que « Bollyn! Bollyn vient travailler pour Liberty Lobby! » Myers a dit que Willis Carto l’avait envoyé à la conférence pour « embaucher Bollyn ». Mais Piper savait que Carto n’at jamais fait cela.

Incidemment, durant la conférence, Myers s’est présenté à Jim Condit comme un Khazar. Condit a pensé: «Qu’est-ce que Liberty Lobby fait avec un Khazar comme employé? » On pourrait dire la même chose de Bollyn, avec la distinction importante qu’il a non seulement gobé sans discernement tout ce que Myers lui a dit, mais il a agi de plus comme un pantin entre les mains de Myers — au point même de renoncer à son emploi chez IBM Global Network Services (réseau global de service IBM), alors que les sionistes avaient justement besoin de quelques « journalistes » contrôlés pour leurs imminents attentats terroristes sous faux pavillon.
Bollyn est arrivé à Washington pour une entrevue, et Piper avait l’impression que Bollyn était un peu déconcerté par la situation et ne savait pas trop ce qui se passait. Carto a demandé Piper, « C’est quoi cette histoire avec ce gars Bollyn? » Piper a expliqué que « Jerry est fou de lui », et Bollyn est l’homme qui s’est engagé dans la controverse de la bibliothèque de Schaumburg. Carto demandé: « Est-ce qu’il souhaite avoir un emploi ici? » Alors Carto eu une entrevue avec Bollyn et l’a engagé.

Par conséquent, les événements de 2000 expliquent l’intérêt de Bollyn pour Mike Piper et Liberty Lobby remontant à 1994, soit trois ans après que des responsables de sécurité israéliens aient inspecté le garage de
Zim American Israeli Shipping au World Trade Center, et a conclu que le garage du WTC était vulnérable à une voiture piégée. 1994 était également une année après que le garage du WTC ait été atteint par un attentat à la voiture piégée qui a tué six personnes et en blessant plus d’un millier dans les incendies qui suivirent après que le plan consistant à substituer de la poudre inoffensive à la place de l’explosif ait été annulé par un superviseur du FBI, et un an avant que Benjamin Netanyahou écrive sur « l’islam militant » faisant tomber le World Trade Center. Netanyahou prétend qu’il s’agit d’une prédiction faite par son père Benzion au début des années 1990, et que son père a aussi prédit l’«Holocauste» en 1937.Avant que la preuve ait émergé que Christopher Bollyn et Helje Kaskel avaient rendu visite à Liberty Lobby à Washington, DC, en 1994, plus de deux mois avant la mort de l’époux d’alors de Helje, Urmas Alender, Mike Piper a laissé entendre le 30 septembre 2008 pourquoi il croit que Christopher Bollyn « fait partie d’une opération de renseignement de longue date ». Cliquez ici pour écouter le clip 2:09 minutes.

J’espère que certains d’entre vous auront eu la chance d’écouter l’émission que j’ai faite avec Daryl Bradford Smith sur iamthewitness.com. L’émission bien sûr a été enregistrée samedi et était disponible sur le site la dernière fois que j’ai regardé. Incidemment, vous savez, au départ, ça n’était pas dans l’émission elle-même, mais quand Daryl et moi avons eu la chance de discuter hors d’ondes, j’ai dit à Daryl certaines choses dont je n’avais jamais parlé à l’antenne. Eh bien, je dois dire que j’en ai parlé en ondes mais sans donner de noms. J’en ai en fait parlé sur cette émission à un moment donné sans mentionner aucun nom.

Mais inutile de dire que je dis à Daryl que je référais en fait à Christopher Bollyn, le célèbre Christopher Bollyn. Et Daryl et moi comparions quelques notes sur Bollyn, et nous sommes parvenus à des conclusions très semblables sur Bollyn et ses antécédents pour ainsi dire. Quoi qu’il en soit, un moment donné je vais raconter l’histoire en détail sur les ondes. Deux ou trois histoires plutôt révélatrice indiquant que Christopher Bollyn m’avait ciblé personnellement il y a très, très longtemps avant qu’il ne surgisse sur l’écran radar d’American Free Press. Que toute son approche visant à se rapprocher de moi en promouvant mon livre Final Judgment et en militant publiquement pour celui-ci faisait partie d’une opération de renseignement de longue date puisque, étant donné que tous ces événements qui sont arrivés, et en regardant certaines connexions de Bollyn et certains de ses activités, je peux comprendre maintenant, vous savez, c’est drôle quand vous êtes en plein milieu de quelque chose vous ne le comprenez pas tout à fait ou ne reconnaissez pas tous les détails à l’oeuvre, mais quand vous pouvez prendre du recul et de regarder la grande image vous comprenez. Eh bien, j’en ai assez dit sur le caractère répréhensible de Bollyn.

Bollyn avait ciblé Piper, afin que Bollyn puisse établir sa réputation d’ « antisioniste / journaliste du 11 septembre », et plus tard poignarder dans le dos Piper. Ainsi, Bollyn établirait son propre culte de chercheurs de vérité du Web, en introduisant en même temps de la désinformation / homme de paille destinée à endommager la réputation du mouvement pour la vérité telle que perçue par les étrangers. Ceci est similaire à la tactique de Hufschmid de s’accrocher à Daryl Bradford Smith pour un certain temps afin de renforcer la réputation de Hufschmid au détriment de Smith. La différence dans le cas de Hufschmid est qu’il a été mis en place comme l’un des premiers leaders du mouvement de vérité du 11 septembre en étant muni d’un livre et d’un vidéo qui ont été produits par un comité. L’association avec Smith a permis à Hufschmid de prolonger sa durée de vie de deux ou trois années supplémentaires. Une tâche commune à Bollyn et Hufschmid aura été de diviser le mouvement, de manière à provoquer des affrontements entre ceux qui auront pu voir à travers leurs mensonges et ceux qui auront avalé l’hameçon, la ligne et le plomb.

En novembre 2000, quelques mois après avoir commencé à écrire pour The Spotlight, Bollyn a prétendu avoir reçu une menace de mort d’un monsieur russe, Alex Kantarovich de la Vikont Corporation située en Illinois, suite à l’article de Bollyn sur les nouvelles machines de vote électronique et la fraude électorale. Et le 13 octobre 2006, six jours après avoir été congédié d’American Free Press, Bollyn a prétendu avoir reçu une menace de mort de la part d’un «homme d’American Free Press et ami de longue date de Willis A. Carto ». Il prétend qu’on lui aurait dit qu’il serait tué s’il révélait ce qu’il sait à propos d’American Free Press. Il n’existe aucune preuve que Bollyn ait reçu la moindre menace de mort de quelqu’un, et il est toujours vivant et bien portant à ce jour.

Une autre personne qui prétend avoir été « menacée » est le milliardaire Jimmy Walter, un promoteur de la désinfo « les avions du WTC ont été truqués ». En mai-juin 2005, Walter, Hufschmid et Bollyn était en tournée de conférences en Europe pour promouvoir la vérité sur le 11 septembre, grâce au financement de Walter. La réunion de Londres a mis en vedette un autre imposteur, David « fils de Dieu » Shayler.

Bollyn prétend avoir rencontré Helje à Oslo. Dans une petite coïncidence intéressante, Helje Kaskel est né et a été éduqué en Estonie, et la femme de Rupert Murdoch à l’époque (de 1967 à 1999), Anna Torv, maintenant Anna Maria Torv Murdoch Mann, est aussi d’origine estonienne. Anna Murdoch Mann est née en fait en Ecosse dans un village près de Glasgow. Sa mère Sylvia Braida est écossaise, mais son père marins marchand ingénieur Jacob Torv vient d’Estonie. Également de la famille estonienne Torv, on retrouve l’actrice australienne Anna Torv (né en 1978), dont le père Hans Torv est d’origine estonienne. L’actrice est née à Stirling, en Écosse, et Anna Murdoch Mann est sa tante paternelle. James et Lachlan Murdoch sont les enfants d’Anna Murdoch Mann, ce qui fait d’eux des 1/4 estoniens via Jacob, leur père. La population féminine estonienne en 1960, en supposant que le partenaire de longue date le plus probable de Christopher Bollyn serait un peu plus jeune que lui, cela donne 682 000. La population mondiale était d’un peu plus de 3 milliards. (Le lien précédent pourrait avoir besoin d’être rafraîchi pour que le tableau s’affiche.) Ainsi, en supposant 1,5 milliards pour la population féminine mondiale en 1960, les femmes estoniennes représentaient environ 1 sur 2200 du total. Bien sûr, les Murdoch auraient beaucoup de contacts à part des Estoniens. Mais étant donné que Bollyn a rencontré les Murdoch en 1988 et a rencontré Helje Kaskel autour de 1994 (ou éventuellement plus tôt), il y a une forte possibilité qu’un membre de la famille Murdoch a présenté Helje Kaskel à Christopher Bollyn. 

La famille de Christopher Bollyn a des liens de parenté avec Sir Thomas Boleyn, le père d’Anne Boleyn, qui était la reine d’Angleterre comme la seconde épouse du roi Henry VIII. Anne Boleyn était aussi la mère de la reine Elizabeth I qui a gouverné l’Angleterre ainsi qu’une portion variable de l’Irlande pendant plus de 44 ans. L’arbre généalogique de la famille Tudor du côté d’Henry VIII se termine avec Elizabeth I, mais la reine Elizabeth II descend de la sœur d’Henry VIII Margaret Tudor.

La mère de Christopher Bollyn, Charlotte, née le 6 février 1919, a été gouvernante pour la famille Farish et a pris soin du jeune William Timbres Farish III, né le 17 mars 1939, Houston, TX, qui était ambassadeur américain au Royaume-Uni en date du 11 septembre 2001. La fortune de la famille Farish provient de Humble Oil, qui a été progressivement absorbée par la Standard Oil et éventuellement rebaptisée Exxon. John D. Rockefeller a été fondateur et président de la Standard Oil. Humble Oil a été co-fondé par le grand-père de Farish III, William Stamps Farish II, le petit-neveu de Jefferson Davis.

William S. Farish III est:

* Un proche ami de George H.W. Bush (depuis plus de 50 ans); il a offert aux Bush leur épagneul spinger Millie, tient une partie de chasse à la caille pour Bush chaque année dans son ranch, et a géré au début des années 80 les actifs du vice-président d’alors en bénéficiant d’une confiance aveugle.
* doté d’ « une foule de contacts exotiques chevauchant le monde du renseignement et le monde des finances – en particulier en Grande-Bretagne ».
* Un bon ami de la reine Elizabeth II, qui a été un invité au moins quatre fois au ranch Farish dans le Kentucky et dont plusieurs de ses chevaux sont entraînés par Farish.
* Un membre de la Pilgrim Society, comme le sont tous les membres supérieurs de la famille royale britannique; d’autres Pilgrims passés et présents incluent Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill, Otto Kahn de Kuhn Loeb and Co, Henry S. Morgan de Morgan Stanley, J . Pierpoint Morgan de JR Morgan, David Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, Edmond de Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, Paul Volcker, etc.

Les rangs des Pilgrims sont remplis de membres de l’Église épiscopale, dans laquelle Chris Bollyn été un enfant de choeur et a remporté le prix God and Country. IBM et la famille Watson sont fortement représentés dans la société Pilgrim. Bollyn travaillé pour le réseau global de services d’IBM (IBM Global Network Services) jusqu’en 2000 lorsque, suite à l’intervention d’un Khazar bizarre tel que décrit ci-dessus, il commença à travailler pour The Spotlight. Il a aussi admis avoir habité avec une Comtesse suédoise. Parmi les membres de la Pilgrim liés à l’Illinois, on compte George Wildman Ball, David Waddell Barr, William Averell Harriman (connecté à George Herbert Walker et son gendre, Prescott Bush), Lillian Craig Harris (un instructeur d’anglais et de journalisme au Wheaton [Illinois] College, 1966-68, qui s’est également rendu à Beyrouth, au Caire, etc.), Robert Louis Payton, James Robert Peterson, Sturgis Lee Riddle, Robert Armstrong Robinson, etc.

La soeur de Christopher Bollyn, Karin, a épousé un Juif, Michael Epstein, et élève sa fille Ivy Charlotte dans la foi juive. Les grands-parents maternels d’Ivy Charlotte étaient feu Charlotte et Elbert Bollyn, les parents de Karin et Christopher Bollyn. Une preuve supplémentaire de l’association entre les familles Bollyn et Epstein est démontrée par le fait que « Epstein, Karin Bollyn », « Bollyn, Christopher Lee » et d’autres sont nommés comme bénéficiaires sur une concession de pétrole et de gaz. Michael et Karin Epstein et Karin sont étroitement associés à la synagogue Temple Solel de Paradise Valley, Arizona, dont la mission comprend « promouvoir l’amour d’Israël« . En mai 2001, Karin Epstein a été installé comme l’un des fiduciaires de la synagogue.
Alors, un peu comme Eric Hufschmid qui était supposé être un adversaire des tromperies du Nouvel Ordre Mondial (NOM) telles que le « réchauffement global » au même moment que sa soeur Kathryn fait de son mieux pour promouvoir cela pour la Clinton Climate Initiative, nous avons aussi le spectacle de Christopher Bollyn l’«opposant» d’Israël et le frère de Karin dont le travail comprend «la promotion de l’amour d’Israël».En juin 2010 le bulletin d’information de Temple de Solel annonçait l’anniversaire de mariage de Michael et Karin Epstein en indiquant que celui-ci célébrait 27 ans de vie commune, sous la rubrique « anniversaires de juin ». Le bulletin de juin 2009 montrait 26 ans sous la rubrique « anniversaires de mai ». Ils se sont donc mariés en 1983, soit la même année que Christopher Bollyn a épousé un officier des renseignements militaires israéliens, Bosmat Merimsky, à Porto Rico.Le goût de la famille Bollyn pour le judaïsme et Israël proviendrait au moins partiellement du Beth Tikvah Temple, qui a été mis en place en 1957 et est rapidement devenu une force puissante à Hoffman Estates, sous la direction de Rabbi Hillel Gamoran. Le site Internet de Beth Tikvah énonce:

Depuis plus de 50 ans, Beth Tikvah a accueilli des individus et des familles dans notre communauté juive réformée à Hoffman Estates, Illinois, situé au cœur de la banlieue nord-ouest de Chicago.

La Congrégation Beth Tikvah est dédiée aux idéaux juifs de Avoda (Culte), à la Torah du Talmud (Apprentissage d’Une Vie), et Tikkun Olam (Action Sociale), le tout dans l’optique de construire un monde meilleur.

Les activités locales de la mère de Bollyn Charlotte incluaient la prise en charge de la « Blue Wrens » / Groupe Bluebird durant les événements du Camp Fire Girls, et elle a été active dans le groupe des femmes de l’église épiscopale Holy Innocents. Le rabbin Gamoran a été l’hôte de certains des événements du Camp Fire Girls au Beth Tikvah Temple, a donné les bénédicités aux scouts, et a dirigé un «programme de musique inter-religieuse », qui a rapproché Beth Tikvah et d’autres congrégations, comme l’église épiscopale Holy Innocents.

Le 14 novembre 1959, Charlotte Bollyn a été photographiée au bazar du groupe des femmes de Holy Innocents. En janvier 1964, Charlotte a amené deux invités au festin de Camp Fire Girls qui s’est tenu au Temple Beth Tikvah le 15e jour du même mois. Le Daily Herald de Chicago daté du 19 mars 1964 a rapporté l’événement le dimanche 15 mars.

 

Un « programme de musique inter-religieuse » a été parrainé par le comité aux relations humaines de Hoffman-Schaumburg. Les remerciements ont été prononcés par le rabbin Hillel Gamoran du Temple Beth Tikvah, président des projets du comité. Le but de la rencontre a été expliqué plus en détails par le révérend Raymond Dalton de l’église épiscopale Holy Innocents …

 

Le 19 février 1966, le rabbin Gamoran a prononcé la bénédicité lors du dîner-potluck Blue and Gold du Cub Scout Pack 193, qui comprenait 37 louveteaux et leurs familles à Fairview School, Hoffman Estates. Des années plus tard, à l’âge de 15 ans, Christopher Bollyn était un Eagle Scout (« éclaireur »).
Christopher Bollyn, anciennement d’Hoffman Estates près de Schaumburg, travaillait auparavant pour IBM Global Network Services, où il a été amené à écrire pour The Spotlight. (…)
Le 23 janvier 2007, Christopher Bollyn a été interviewé par Deborah Feyerick à la Bibliothèque de district du canton de Schaumburg pour l’émission de CNN Paula Zahn Now. L’émission correspondante a été diffusée une semaine plus tard, quand son rôle consistant à faire passer les chercheurs du 11 septembre conscients du sionisme pour des « antisémites » a été confirmé. Après que Bollyn a nié être un antisémite, cela a ouvert la voie à CNN pour faire intervenir Deborah Lauter de l’Anti-Defamation League disant: « C’est une technique très courante chez les antisémites. Ils tordent les choses. Je ne suis pas un anti-sémite. Je crois seulement XYZ. » Et Mark Potok du Southern Poverty Law Center a dit, « Je pense que les théories du complot en général ont vraiment tendance à fonctionner un peu comme un jeu de téléphone. Elles sont dites et redites et ont tendance à aller de plus en plus loin dans le récit. » Bollyn acceptant d’être interviewé a fourni à CNN le matériel qu’il leur fallait pour mener à bien leur tromperie, tout en échouant d’obtenir une quelconque contrepartie pour le mouvement pour la vérité telle que la révélation généralisée des preuves du rôle central d’Israël dans le 11 septembre.
Écoutez ce clip de deux minutes et demie extrait de l’entrevue inédite, dans laquelle Bollyn est interrogé sur qui était derrière le 11 septembre. Il répond: « J’aimerais bien savoir qui l’a fait ». Au cours des deux prochaines minutes, bien qu’il ait eu toutes les chances et les encouragements incluant des questions telles « Qui avait le plus à gagner? » et « Qui a eu les ressources nécessaires pour réaliser cela? », il refuse obstinément de parler d’Israël, mais il parle d’un « nouveau Pearl Harbor » et d’ « agences de renseignement parrainées par l’État » et d’ «acteurs étatiques». Il mentionne «notre gouvernement», et Bush et Cheney, mais ne parvient pas à mentioner Larry Silverstein, Frank Lowy, Benjamin Netanyahu, le rabbin Dov Zakheim, les «Israéliens dansants» ou quelque autre acteur juif dans cette affaire que plus tard dans l’entrevue, après avoir été interrogé spécifiquement à propos de ses écrits sur l’implication sioniste et israélienne.
Dans le talk-show The Piper Report du 8 mars 2007, disponible ici, il a des choses intéressantes à dire sur une enquête menée par un patriote qui est un détective privé, qui a été engagé par AFP pour examiner de plus près leur ancien employé. Dans cet extrait de 5 minutes, Piper dit que l’enquête a révélé que Bollyn avait « reçu de l’argent de l’étranger » et « a apparemment été régulièrement visités par un ou des individu(s) dont les plaques d’immatriculation ne peuvent être retracées ». Dans sa note préliminaire, l’enquêteur a déclaré qu’il était « risqué d’enquêter sur Christopher Bollyn » puisque « j’ai découvert la possibilité distincte de l’implication de personnes liées aux renseignements d’un ordre supérieur ». Il a constaté que « la cible (Bollyn) dépense plus d’argent que ce qu’elle est capable de gagner ». Dans ce clip plus long, Piper révèle également que l’AFP a été informé par une source très fiable que Bollyn ne « payait pas ses taxes » et ne déposait aucune déclaration de revenus fédérale. Ainsi, bien que Bollyn ait prétendu être une cible de l’élite au pouvoir, il est en fait protégé au plus haut niveau. Piper suggère que le travail de Bollyn, plutôt que d’enquêter sur le 11 septembre, était de produire des rapports à ses manipulateurs sur le mouvement de vérité du 11 septembre, en posant comme un «journaliste» afin de pouvoir infiltrer les milieux de recherche de vérité.
Bollyn a tendance à visiter la Suisse, conduisant à des soupçons selon quoi une partie de son travail serait de servir de courrier pour des clients de banques suisses. Cela pourrait expliquer la source de son « argent de l’étranger » – avant de fuir les Etats-Unis après sa condamnation pour délit. Par exemple, Bollyn a quitté la conférence Axis for Peace du 17-18 novembre 2005, à Bruxelles (les participants qui comprenait David « fils de Dieu » Shayler, Thierry Meyssan et Phil Berg) pour rendre visite à Daryl Bradford Smith au centre de la France le jour de Thanksgiving, le 24 novembre 2005. La maison de Smith est considérée comme étant à l’Ouest plutôt qu’à l’Est de la France centrale, bien que l’emplacement n’ait pas été médiatisé. Toutefois, Bollyn a voyagé via Genève, fournissant une faible «explication» selon quoi il avait un laissez-passer de 30 $ pour voyager sur les trains allemands. Son histoire ne tient pas la route, car il avait encore à conduire vers l’ouest à travers les montagnes. La route la plus directe aurait été de conduire en direction sud-ouest vers Paris (seulement 315 km ou 196 miles de Bruxelles), puis continuer au sud-sud-ouest vers sa destination, un voyage d’environ 698 km (434 miles) au total. Bruxelles et Genève sont séparées par 793 km par la route la plus courte via le Luxembourg et la France – ou plus via l’Allemagne, puis Bollyn eu à voyager vers l’ouest plus de 500 km.
Bollyn était en Suisse le dimanche 19 janvier 2003, juste avant qu’il poste un article « Chemtrails over Switzerland » (« Des tracés chimiques dans le ciel de Suisse »), se décrivant comme un « journaliste américain basé en Europe ». Bollyn dit que ses ancêtres sont venus en Amérique en provenance de Suisse, et qu’il s’agit par conséquent d’une partie importante de son histoire familiale. Effectivement, la famille Brand étaient suisse, et les documents d’archives montrent que la plupart d’entre eux ont été baptisés. Et Jean Bartholoman Patt Sr. est né en Suisse en 1842. Eric Hufschmid, le compère imposteur et saboteur de Bollyn, tous deux protégés de Murdoch, est également d’origine suisse de par son père, Edward. La première banque mondiale Rothschild, la Banque des règlements internationaux (BRI), a été établie à Bâle dans la célèbre Suisse «neutre» en 1930. Bâle a été le théâtre de six des sept premiers Congrès sionistes du tournant du siècle. Tout comme William S. Farish III et les membres de la famille Watson (IBM), l’agent des Rothschild Charles G. Dawes, le fondateur de la BRI, était un membre de la Pilgrims Society.
Ecoutez ce clip de douze minutes de l’émission The Piper Report du 19 avril 2010, sur comment un sosie de Christopher Bollyn s’est retrouvé à une conférence d’American Free Press en 2006, autour du moment où Bollyn a commencé à rompre avec AFP. Piper était présent à la conférence, mais Bollyn n’y a pas assisté. Un monsieur à la conférence de Washington est venu voir Piper et lui a dit qu’il avait parlé à Bollyn. Piper dit que dans les cas où les agences de renseignement utilisent des sosies, les deux d’entre eux savent généralement qu’ils sont des agents de renseignement, mais ne sont pas au courant de leurs sosies. Plus tard, le sosie a approché Piper et a commencé à parler avec lui. Il avait une ressemblance remarquable avec le vrai Bollyn, et ceux qui ne connaissaient pas personnellement Christopher Bollyn auraient pensé que c’était vraiment la même personne. Il avait le même teint de la peau, les mêmes cheveux / coiffure, les mêmes tics et la même voix. Lorsque Piper a fait remarquer au sosie qu’il ressemblait à Bollyn, le sosie a ri et a indiqué qu’il ne savait pas vraiment qui était Bollyn.
La protection de Bollyn « au plus haut niveau » est une donnée entièrement compatible avec les contacts « au plus haut niveau » de Bollyn. Les preuves de liens possibles avec des gens au plus haut niveau est corroborée par des preuves de liens réels avec des personnes au plus haut niveau. Et cela est doublement corroborées par des actions de Bollyn comme agent provocateur, agent de désinformation et homme de paille. Compte tenu de toutes les preuves contre lui, sa constante sollicitation pour qu’on lui envoie des « dons » est également susceptible d’être une opération attrape-mouches destinée à compiler les noms et adresses pour les services de renseignements et le gouvernement. (Lire le reste dans l’article de la semaine dernière…)

Ne manquez pas le document COUP D’ÉTAT, censuré du livre The Judas Goats à la suite d’un poursuite intentée par Weber contre Piper:

[CENSORED] Piper Michael Collins – Coup d’Etat: The Bizarre Inside Story of How an Intelligence Operative tied to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad Orchestrated the Take-Over of the Institute for Historical Review and Set in Motion the Ultimate Destruction of Liberty Lobby.

Author : Piper Michael Collins Title : Coup d’Etat : The bizarre inside story of how an intelligence operative tied to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad Orchestrated the take-over of the Institute for Historical Review and Set in Motion the Ultimate destruction of Liberty Lobby. How the IHR now operates as a classic Soviet-style « trust » name-gathering operation – a « controlled opposition »

Continue reading

Coup d’etat : The Illegal Seizure of the Institute for Historical Review And the Opening Guns of the Campaign to Destroy Liberty Lobby.

On October 15, 1993 a shocking and quite violent row erupted at the longtime headquarters, in Costa Mesa, California, of the Institute for Historical Review, a historical revisionist research institute originally established by Willis Carto and his wife Elisabeth in 1978. The events that took place that day set in motion, over the next decade that followed, a chain of circumstances that left the IHR virtually moribund and in 2001 brought about the total destruction of Liberty Lobby, the Washington, D. C.based populist institution (first founded by the same aforementioned Willis Carto in 1955). A detailed examination of the personalities and events involved in this sordid affair demonstrates-beyond any question-that the IHR affair and the subsequent evisceration of Liberty Lobby, longtime publisher of the once-vibrant national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, were the consequences of a long-planned and carefully calculated conspiracy by Judas Goats acting on behalf of The Enemy Within. First of all, in exploring this amazing story, it is important to delineate the differences between the IHR and Liberty Lobby, which had always been entirely separate institutions, despite the fact that both had been founded by Carto. …

 

Il fallait contacter Michael Collins Piper pour recevoir par la poste, gratuitement, les 140 pages qu’il n’a pu inclure dans son livre THE JUDAS GOATS suite aux poursuites intentées contre lui par l’escroc Mark Weber. Ces révélations concernent la trahison du mouvement populiste et révisionniste américain par des infiltrés au service de l’ennemi. Mark Weber est l’un des principaux malfrats dénoncés dans ces pages censurées. Ces pages décrivent le coup d’État du Mossad et de la CIA (aidé de scientologues, de faux révisionnistes, etc.) pour subvertir, éviscérer et anéantir l’Institute for Historical Review. L’IHR est aujourd’hui dirigé par un des leaders de la mutinerie, Mark Weber, manipulé par Andrew Allen qui est connecté au Mossad. Weber a fait des millions en vendant les livres de l’IHR – il s’est départi de toute leur collection. Et même s’il gagne des millions à se faire passer pour un révisionniste, l’IHR n’est plus rien qu’un site web. L’IHR n’a plus de revue. Plus aucune conférences. Weber n’écrit même plus, c’est un escroc millionnaire, le plus riche des prétendus « révisionnistes ».

Carto a fait publier des milliers d’ouvrages à l’époque où il dirigeait l’Institute for Historical Review et Liberty Lobby. Aujourd’hui l’agent saboteur Mark Weber (le « Von Stauffenberg » de l’IHR ) a tout vendu ce stock de livres (valeur de 3 millions$) pour des cacahuètes…

 

 

Mark Weber, directeur de l’Institute for Historical Review (IHR), croit à l’Holocauste, et croit aux gazages de juifs à Sobibor, Treblinka et Belzec!

 

Un membre de la clique de Mark Weber (probablement Ted O’Keefe) a déjà dit, pour justifier que l’IHR abandonne la diffusion des écrits de Léon Degrelle, que ce dernier n’est qu’ « un éléphant avec un gros svastika peint sur le ventre ».
Aussi, Weber fait partie des promoteurs de certaines théories douteuses concernant les nazis: par exemple que leur plus grand exploit était purement économique (alors que c’est d’abord et avant tout par leur opposition au pouvoir juif dans tous les domaines qu’ils se démarquèrent radicalement, comme Arnold Leese le souligne dans The Jewish War of Survival ), ou encore, comme on l’entend malheureusement de plus en plus, que le nazisme et le sionisme sont similaires et étroitement liés (Kevin MacDonald va jusqu’à dire que le nazisme est « un reflet-miroir à l’image du judaïsme »!), voire que les dignitaires nazis étaient à ce point étroitement liés aux dignitaires sionistes, qu’on peut dire des nazis qu’ils étaient véritablement des sionistes et vice versa. D’autres, voudraient faire croire, par exemple, que le mot « Nazi » viendrait de « National Sioniste » alors qu’il vient clairement de « NAtional-soCIaliste », tout comme « Sozi » qui vient de « SOCIaliste »! (C’est le cas de feu Eustace Mullins, qui avait, surtout vers la fin de sa vie, tendance à dire ce que les gens veulent entendre et qui endossait les foutaises d’Eric Jon Phelps, auteur de Vatican Assassins, sur le « complot jésuite-illuminati ».) Le traître faux révisionniste Mark Weber a contribué à cette tendance dans certains articles qui reprennent, entre autre chose, le mythe entourant une pièce de collection  commémorant le voyage d’un dignitaire nazi en Palestine pour rencontrer des dignitaires juifs sionistes (une extrapolation clairement abusive démasquée dans l’article « A coin with two sides »). Weber admet toutefois que les relations entre nazis et sionistes ont été très limitées dans le temps et en envergure, mais il donne encore insidieusement quantité de grain à moudre aux tenants de la théorie du « complot nazi-sioniste ». Jim Condit admet avoir emprunté à « Ratisbone » (un Polonais catholique anti-nazi du nom de Dr Paul Reznowski) plus de 95% de ce qu’il dit dans son vidéo sur Hitler et Israël. Or cette pièce de collection n’est qu’une publicité pour un article de journal, et le politicien nazi qui a fait ce voyage a vu son étoile décliner rapidement. (Dans ce MP3, Condit Jr est confronté à un détracteur de sa vidéo « The Final Solution ot Adolf Hitler ».) Quant à l’Accord de Transfert, qui fait l’objet d’un traitement des plus sensationnaliste, les comptes-rendus les plus honnêtes sont ceux de Lenni Brenner, de Udo Walendy et Ingrid Weckert (mentionnée à cette émission de Spingola Speaks avec Veronica Clark). L’accord a pris fin en 1936, trois ans avant le début de la guerre, et cela a mis un terme définitif aux rapports entre les entités sionistes et les nazis. Les fausses représentations éructées par des gens tels Edwin Black et Jim Condit concernant l’accord de transfert sont démontées ici. Pour plus de détails sérieux sur ce que fut vraiment l’accord du Haavara.

Weber fut au centre d’un complot contre Willis Carto, alors responsable de Liberty Lobby et de The Spotlight, aujourd’hui éditeur d’American Free Press et The Barnes Review.

Weber et sa clique ont tout fait pour retirer l’oeuvre de Degrelle du catalogue de l’IHR et supprimer son projet d’écriture d’une série de 14 ouvrages sur Hitler. Hitler Democrat devrait être le premier de la série.


Piper Michael Collins – Leon Degrelle : warrior for the West


Author : Piper Michael Collins

Title : Leon Degrelle : warrior for the West

Year : 2012

***

Do you know the sad but true story of the infiltration, coup d’état and sabotage of the IHR by faux revisionist Mark Weber with the help of his mossad-connected handler Andrew Allen? If you read Michael Collins Piper book The Judas Goats, you’ll learn a great lot about the Mossad-CIA-ADL operation of infiltration of the IHR and subsequent coup d’état/sabotage. Mark Weber, his mossad handler Andrew Allen, and Tom Marcellus (Scientologist) were all playing a part in this scheme.

You have to know that Weber tried to sell the IHR subscription list to … the Anti-Defamation League! You have to know that Weber got rid of the magnificient library of the IHR for almost nothing! You have to know that he refused to publish Leon Degrelle’s memoirs, claiming it was nazi apology! He produded almost nothing since he been director at the IHR, and the IHR was a real big organisation with thousands of subscribers before he destroyed it and made it nothing more than a small news clipping website.

Guess who said that Weber conspired against Willis Carto to destroy Liberty Lobby and subvert the IHR? None other than Ed Fields. Yes, the devoted revisionist Ed Fields.

He got his hand on millions of dollars when he subverted IHR!

The facts are out, Mark Weber has been a disaster for the IHR. Every revisionist, even those who supported Weber, have now turned against him. You can’t keep the truth hidden forever, and the truth is now out. The only people who now support Weber are the stooges of the IHR Board, who as a group, should hang their heads in shame as the information below shows:

For said years, the IHR/Mark Weber took in the following in « Contributions, Gifts, Grants, And Similar Amounts Received: Direct Public Support. »

Tax Year 2000–$346, 572

Tax Year 2001—$209, 229

Tax Year 2002—$610, 152

Tax Year 2003–$210, 363

Tax Year 2005–$409, 477

Tax Year 2006–$299, 623
Now, this adds up to be $2,085,416. That is to say, the IHR/Mark Weber took in $2,085,416 in donations from the Revisionist/patriot community for these six tax years. Have we, in turn, received a good return on our money????

I say, Hell no!!! Mark Weber destroyed the Journal of Historical Review, the yearly IHR conferences, the IHR’s book publishing arm, and the IHR newsletter. He even refuses to sponsor a weekly Radio talk show!

What does Mark Weber/IHR do to deserve $2,085,416 from the Revisionist/patriot community???? Well, he sends out newspaper clippings to one thousand people or less. He sells a bunch of old books and DVDs, many of which are decades old. He attempts to market the works of others like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan–books that can be obtained cheaper elsewhere. And finally, every once in a great while Weber writes a short essay or gives a short speech.

Why Weber? Why don’t you quit right now?

Michael Collins Piper has revealed some important facts:

* Andrew E. Allen is a directly connected to the Burma Foundation (financed by George Soros) in California and testified under oath that he actually trained Mudjahidins in Afghanistan. (Ostrovsky tells us that it was all a Mossad operation funded with CIA money. Allen has direct connections to intelligence (CIA and Mossad) agents and is responsible for the IHR coup (putting Weber in power).

* Here are some of the most famous revisionists who say that Mark Weber must quit the HR right away:

-Fritz Berg,

-Arthur Butz,

-Robert Faurisson,

-Paul Grubach,

-Ted O’Keefe,

-William Pierce (who said that Weber tried to sabotage NatAll) and many others beside Piper and Carto asked for Weber‘s resignation.

-Bradley Smith,

-Frederick Toben,

-Ernst Zundel,

-Ingrid Rimland Zundel, etc., etc.

* Ted O’Keefe and Eric Owens both heard Weber talking about putting his hand on the IHR subscription list in order to sell it to the Anti-Defamation League, for the money! Even wikipedia mentions the incident that Eric Owens witnessed, where Greg Raven and Mark Weber were talking about selling the mailing list to the Anti-Defamation League:

« In 2001, Eric Owens, a former employee, alleged that Mark Weber and Greg Raven from the IHR’s staff had been planning to sell their mailing lists to either the Anti-Defamation League or the Church of Scientology.[24] »

Wikipedia provides this book as a source on this incident: [24] Michael, George. Confronting right-wing extremism and terrorism in the USA, Routledge, 2003, p. 89 and p. 231, footnote 192
Thank you to all truth seekers DO NOT SEND ANY MONEY TO THE IHR OR MARK WEBER!!!

Mark Weber doit démissionner de l’Institute for Historical Review, par Robert Faurisson

Details on Mark Weber’s fraudulent activities: markwebermustgo.blogspot.com

Robert Faurisson finally went public against Mark Weber in a letter that he wrote in 2003: Reply to Mark Weber

Other sources: Holocaust Revisionism and Mark Weber!

Craven Doubletalk from Mark Weber at the IHR

Has Weber Been Fired ?

Revisionist Paul Grubach Slams Mark Weber

Ingrid Rimland Zundel Adds Her Voice to the Weber Debate

Is Mark Weber Giving People Value For Their Money?

Weber: gas chambers exposed wouldn’t change anything

IHR and the Mark Weber controversy

Revisionist’s time to take a stand (Weber on internet radio)

Smith Report on Mark Weber and the IHR

Weber’s use of Goebbels for partial holocaust

New IHR Catalogue features ZERO Holocaust-revisionist titles

Holocaust Revisionism and Mark Weber!

Mark Weber is a Con Man

The rank and file of the Revisionist movement have « gotten wise » to Mark Weber. Your laziness and incompetence have done enormous damage to the IHR, and it is now plain for everyone to see. Your « work » at the IHR is simply a « retirment hobby, » a con game in which you acquire a weekly pay check to help make your child support payments. In fact, you have betrayed and conned the entire Revisionist movement. In my opinion, years ago it was a mistake of mamouth proportions when you conned us all to back you during the height of the Carto-IHR conflict. Thank God you failed to acquire the millions of dollars from the Farrell Bequest–you would have wasted it all away. Your enemy Willlis Carto is not perfect, but the fact of the matter remains is that Carto produces: Carto gets things done: Carto builds effective organizations. Just compare Carto’s record to yours.
Paul Grubach

Posted by Admin at 13.7.10

 

Reply to Weber from Arhur Butz (author of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century)
Smith Report Issue #158 | February 2009

Mark Weber and IHR
Are Not Relevant to Revisionism

By Arthur R. Butz
Last August, in postings that related to a conference he had recently attended, Mark Weber made it clear that he was not a revisionist.* However one had to read, rather than just skim, Weber‘s August articles to see this. In particular, his article « A Zionist Smear: The Anti-Defamation League Attacks an Islamic Peace Conference » (http://www.ihr.org/news/aug08adl.html) endorsed, by implication but clearly, a remark in a speech by Malaysia president Mahathir Mohammed: « The Europeans killed six million Jews out of twelve million. » Though Robert Faurisson and I, and a few others, immediately saw the point, the article had little impact on the community of revisionists, perhaps because its title related to a commonplace ADL activity that the author was protesting.

In September there was activity directed to bringing this important matter to the revisionist community generally, but I suppose that activity was suspended on account of the pressure of other matters, e.g. the Fredrick Töben affair. Incidentally, on Sept. 30 I drove Töben to the airport for that ill-fated flight to London, and I mentioned Mark Weber‘s revealing article to him.

On Dec. 2 Faurisson directed the following two questions to Weber:

1. Do you believe that the Germans decided on and planned a physical destruction of the European Jews? (“the specific crime”)

2. Do you believe in the existence and the use by the Germans of homicidal gas chambers or gas vans? (“the specific weapons of the specific crime”)

As I write this Faurisson has gotten no reply. Those two questions relate fundamentally to the historic mission of IHR and were asked of the Director of IHR by a key former associate of the IHR, under circumstances wherein the Director’s adherence to the mission was obviously in question. Weber was ethically obligated to answer.

Arthur Butz wrote:

I suspect that Mark Weber‘s new article « How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism? » was Weber‘s way of responding to the pressures being brought by Faurisson. To those of us who have been concerned with this problem since this past summer, the new article reveals perhaps only one new thing that I shall explain below. To others, it reveals that Mark Weber is not a revisionist. Only because the title of the new article is provocative is it now widely recognized by the revisionist community that Mark Weber is not one of us.

The fact that Weber is not a revisionist is important, and its treatment here required only a few words. Mark Weber‘s thoughts on the question that the title of his new article raises are less important but require more words. I shall comment on those thoughts anyway.

Weber‘s title commits a common sin, namely, challenging or asserting the relevance of something without specifying what the relevance is supposed to apply to. It is obvious nonsense to ask « When will the train reach? » It has to be something like « When will the train reach Detroit? » Therefore I shall try to determine what Mark Weber thinks revisionism is irrelevant to, and frankly the answer is unimportant. If revisionism’s central claims are wrong then it ought to be abandoned. Why wonder about its relevance to anything? For example, I concede that revisionism is irrelevant to baking pies, but that doesn’t make me a non-revisionist. What, then, does Mark Weber think revisionism is irrelevant to?

About half-way through his paper he seems to answer the question begged by his title, by making a curious assumption. He writes

« But despite a discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power. »

His relevance, then, would appear to be in terms of fighting Israel. I doubt that I know even one revisionist whose revisionism is so motivated. On the other hand, we tend to note that implication as an observation. I suppose all of us agree that the success of revisionism would be bad for Israel, and we understand that much of the persecution we suffer is based on that fact. We do not wish Israel well.

I wrote many years ago, in the Foreword to my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, that my historical investigations were motivated by my « Noting the obvious ways in which this legend is exploited in contemporary politics, notably in connection with the completely illogical support that the U.S. extends to Israel ». That political judgment of mine didn’t make me a revisionist; the investigations that were thereby motivated made me a revisionist. I found rubbish.

Serious revisionists promote revisionism because it is historically correct, not because it’s bad for Israel. I would be a revisionist even if it were good for Israel. I suppose one could find people who think we help Israel in some devious or backhanded way.

Mark Weber‘s presumption, that we should be motivated to harm Israel, says more about his motivations than ours, and something about his concept of IHR’s mission.

However that is not the worst of it. After seeming to have explained, mid-way through the article, what revisionism is allegedly not relevant to, Weber upsets the whole cart. He notes that in recent years « the Holocaust assumed an important role in the social-cultural life of America and western Europe, » but he also claims that in today’s political context the « Holocaust imagery [is] less relevant. »

It is difficult for me to deal with these less important aspects of Mark Weber‘s recent article because of this confusion regarding what revisionism is supposedly irrelevant to and the nature of the current political-cultural scene. The last is, we are asked to believe, characterized by both Holocaust obsession and an irrelevance of the Holocaust legend to contemporary problems.

That is confusing, but unimportant. I think the Holocaust obsession is a contemporary problem, and a big one that sheds light on many other problems.

Others may wish to parse Mark Weber‘s thoughts more carefully, but I have no patience for that. It is a waste of time. As I noted earlier, I would be a revisionist even if it were helpful to Israel. Mark Weber is not a revisionist, evidently because he no longer sees revisionism as an effective weapon against Israel. That suggests that in the past his adherence to revisionism was to gain a propaganda tool against Israel. That evaluation of him is new, at least for me.

Jan. 11, 2009

*Here I use the term « revisionist » only in the sense of « Holocaust revisionist » =  » Holocaust denier », though I am aware that some comrades dislike the last label.

Continued in the January 2009 issue of Smith’s Report 157.
(http://www.smithsreport.com)

(…) read the rest here: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF031222.html

 

Now Ingrid Rimland Zundel has now attacked Mark Weber for « driving the IHR into the ground ». Ernst is also not happy with Weber‘s mismanagement of the Institute. This is in her new written report. Can somebody transcribe it here?

Michael Collins Piper Reports on this here:

Ingrid Rimland Zundel wrote:

I told Ernst I would not get into the frey in a major way, but inside I am seething. I always liked Mark for his outstanding memory of important facts and his impeccable courteous manners, and I intensely disliked him for having run the IHR right into the ground, hogging the limelight as if the IHR existed first last and always to owe him a living at the expense of other activists. Ernst and I have long felt that the revisionist ground work was finished and we had to move on, stopping the bean counting, and employing other means of reaching the masses, but please proactively. Never for a moment did we think, must less assert, in a submissive way that the result of all the work of decades, all the research, all the sacrifices of so many decent and committed people would end up being described by (Mark Weber) as nothing but a « Hindrance ».
[…]
Regarding what Ted O’Keefe said about Weber, Ingrid Rimland said: … »Ted O’Keefe speaks to my heart », She quotes Weber on a radio show saying « of course the IHR believes in the holocaust « . He called Ingrid Zundel, said he was concerned about what Ernst Zundel would think of him. She must confess « it was his obvious remorse for saying something that dum, touched me, and I told him, « we all say dum things under ambush, but I have never forgotten this admission by Mark Weber, I will bite my tounge and keep to myself what Ernst, still languishing in prison for a lifetime of commitment to revisionism thinks of Mark Weber now. » (…)

Ne ratez pas cete série de cinq émissions (podcasts) à ne pas manquer sur le coup d’État sioniste, impliquant des éléments du Mossad, de la CIA, de la Scientologie et de l’Anti-Defamation League, visant à détruire l’Institute for Historical Review et Liberty Lobby (créés par le vétéran nationaliste Willis Carto, patron de Michael Collins Piper).

Podcasts de Michael Collins Piper:

Ne pas manquer les révélations de feu Michael Collins Piper sur la destruction de l’IHR par les forces de la CIA-Mossad qui ont favorisé le coup d’État mené par Mark Weber avec l’aide d’Andrew E. Allen:

AUDIOS – The IHR files Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5

 

 

February 21st, 2011 · No Comments

By Popular Demand: The inside story of Mark Weber and the CIA-Mossad role in the coup d’etat at the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and the subsequent destruction of Liberty Lobby and The Spotlight.
Presented here are links to the following five consecutive programs by Michael Collins Piper over the Republic Broadcasting Network (RBN) on February 2-6, 2009 outlining the entire history of these events.

Please give this link widespread distribution.

Mark Weber has yet to publicly respond to any of the allegations and many good Revisionists continue to donate to the Institute for Historical Review, unaware of this ugly history.
Even many of Weber‘s defenders are loathe to admit that Weber—who has since renounced Holocaust Revisionism as a viable means of bringing forth historical truth—was acting in concert in the effective destruction of the IHR itself with San Francisco real estate millionaire Andrew E. Allen who admitted—under oath—that he was involved in two separate political/covert operations that were very clearly under the direction of the CIA and Israel’s Mossad (all of which is described in these interviews).
Sadly, many of those who continue to defend Weber have been known to have received funds from the aforementioned Allen and continue to insist that Piper’s documentation is a « crazy conspiracy theory. » Listeners can decide for themselves if this is all just Piper’s « wild imagination » or « vicious lies concocted to smear a decent historian such as Mark Weber. »
Listeners should also note that just before Michael Collins Piper left RBN he announced that Allen‘s aunt (his father’s sister) Beth Allen Straus, had recently died. Mrs. Straus was married into the famous Jewish-Zionist Straus banking-and-Macy’s Department Store empire in New York City (best known for the fact that Isidor and Ida Straus were much-heralded victims of the sinking of the Titanic).
Note, too, that there have been other allegations that the Allen family is also related (either by blood or by marriage) to the Zionist-Jewish Haas family of San Francisco who are the billionaire heirs to the Levy-Strauss garment empire; however, Michael Collins Piper has been unable to document this to his own satisfaction.
Although Allen‘s claim to fame as a « revisionist » is that he served as an attorney fighting « war crimes » allegations against a Mr. Bartesch who was falsely accused of such by the infamous Office of Special Investigations, Allen himself (perhaps unwittingly) revealed in an article on the matter (which can still be found on the Internet) that the OSI had bungled the matter from the beginning. In short, it was an « easy as cake » legal endeavor that, in Michael Collins Piper’s opinion, may well have been served up to Allen in the first place in order to establish his « revisionist » bona fides.
The Bartesch family continues to praise Allen, but they perhaps do not understand the bigger picture, having been concerned, and rightly so, first and foremost, with the safety of their father who was under siege from the Jewish Holocaust Industry and its agents inside the U.S. government.
Listeners who can find errors of fact or distortions or misdirection in anything presented by Piper are free to post their comments on michaelcollinspiper.podbean.
Mark Weber, in particular, is invited to participate!
But will he?
Most likely, Weber will adopt the traditional stance of the Anti-Defamation League and say: « I don’t debate these people. »
Here also is the text of a letter Michael Collins Piper sent to Weber on December 1, 2004 outlining precisely how much Weber reaped financially from his conspiracy to destroy and thus take over the assets of Liberty Lobby. Readers will find this interesting.

Dear Mark:
I am writing this letter to you both as a personal courtesy and at the advice of my attorney who, it should be noted, has no relationship whatsoever with Willis Carto or any organizations or publications with which Willis has been associated.
Please forgive me for my delay in responding, but what with my two week trip in August to Malaysia and then a one week trip, of more recent date, to Japan, in conjunction with the release of my books, FINAL JUDGMENT and THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR in those countries, I have been, needless to say, quite busy, during the last few months.
First of all, please note that this is a letter from Michael Collins Piper alone. It represents my personal opinion and should not be perceived as an indirect communication from Willis and/or Elisabeth Carto or any organization or publication with which either of them are associated.
Neither Willis nor Elisabeth will have seen this letter before it is dispatched, although, needless to say, I did advise both of them that I would be writing this letter and both of them provided me bits and pieces of information that I have incorporated in this letter. However, all of the material utilized is that of my own choosing and, in fact, I chose to reject much of what they provided me.
In any case, I am not—repeat NOT—acting as their agent in any way. This letter strictly represents my personal point of view.
In addition, for the record, it should be noted that my involvement with both American Free Press and The Barnes Review is largely peripheral and I have very little, if anything, to do with the day-to-day operations of either of these publications, popular misperception notwithstanding. I have neither an office nor a desk on the premises. I have absolutely no ownership or proprietary rights in either publication and I have no employee benefits of any kind whatsoever.
As such, it was somewhat comical and, actually, ironic, that you included me—of all people—as a co-defendant in your baseless suit against American Free Press which, of course, you subsequently withdrew . . . and wisely, for your own sake, I might add.
In any event, with that having been said, permit me to continue.
This letter is stimulated, of course, by your communication (both hard copy and by e-mail) addressed to me in care of the office of American Free Press and via an email address for me which appears on the website of American Free Press. Your letter was a follow-up to a brief discussion between us during the Labor Day weekend conference sponsored by David Irving in Cincinnati, Ohio. For the record, it should be noted that I was attending the Irving conference at the invitation of Mr. Irving who made the invitation directly to me, without first mentioning the subject to Willis Carto. I was not attending the conference as an agent or spokesman for Willis Carto, although, of course, I did distribute copies of The Barnes Review and American Free Press.
My purpose at the conference, at Mr. Irving’s invitation, was to speak about Willis Carto’s history in the Revisionist movement and, only in passing, about the Farrel legacy. The only part that Mr. Carto played in the preparation of my remarks was to provide, at my request, a list of the books and magazines and journals that he had published or republished.
In our discussion at the Irving conference you told me that you (and presumably the controllers of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, whomever they may be) wanted to enter into some form of settlement agreement with Willis Carto regarding the ongoing litigation and other conflicts stemming from the dispute over what I shall refer to as “the Farrel legacy.”
During our brief conversation, you noted that, previously, you had made a public statement (to an audience at the Irving conference) indicating that you would like to reach a settlement with Willis, and, in fact, a number of persons who were attending the conference confirmed that you had made such an offer.
Parenthetically, I would note that you made your public pronouncement after, earlier that day, I had told the audience in attendance at my lecture that the Legion for the Survival of Freedom had received some $1.7 million in total from two estates—those of Adelaide Allen and Bob Keifer—that had originally been earmarked for Liberty Lobby.
This information came as a surprise to many people, including several stalwart Revisionists who later informed me that, just hours prior to that, you had, in one gentleman’s words, “been poor-mouthing” and saying that the IHR was in dire financial straits, largely, you said, as a consequence “of Carto.”
(Funny thing, but the IHR was never in dire financial straits when Willis Carto was in charge, but that’s another story altogether. And nor was Liberty Lobby ever insolvent until the massive judgment you and certain parties orchestrated against Liberty Lobby, but that’s also another story altogether.)
Briefly, you suggested that Willis Carto should “return” all of the remaining funds from the Farrel legacy and drop any existing lawsuits against you and the Legion and that the Legion would also drop any further claims. The remaining funds, you suggested, would be placed in a trust fund to be administered by independent parties and distributed for the good works of Revisionists worldwide. I think that is a fair assessment of your comments at that time, or at least as I understood them. If there is any minor misunderstanding, and I don’t think there is, I stand corrected. However, for the purposes of this letter from me to you, that offer, as you shall see, is largely moot, as we shall see.
In any case, Mark, after you mentioned your desire to make a settlement “with Carto,” I suggested that you put the offer in writing. Further, I suggested, that you consult with an attorney in preparing the settlement offer and then direct the letter to Willis and/or one of the attorneys who has been representing his and/or Liberty Lobby’s interests in the related cases stemming from the circumstances surrounding the conflict over the Farrel legacy.
Upon returning to Washington from the Irving affair, I advised Willis of the rough parameters of the proposed settlement and indicated to him that you had told me that you would put the offer to him in writing.
Well, needless to say, I was quite surprised to subsequently receive your hard-copy letter and your e-mail (the two items being identical), both addressed to me, rather than to Willis or to any attorney representing him or Liberty Lobby. I also had the distinct impression—although I could be wrong about this—that you had written the letter on your own without benefit of legal counsel.
In addition, that part of the letter which was not a rehash of the rulings of Judge Runston Maino but which purported to contain the framework of a “settlement” was actually rather difficult to understand, and I say this as someone who is, at the least, semi-literate and who also had one year of legal training supplemented by some twenty years of working closely with attorneys and legal documents of all kinds, in addition to having been (at least at one time) fairly well versed in the details surrounding the Farrel legacy and the legal bloodbath that followed.
Legal documents, by their very nature, often tend toward the abstruse and opaque, but, in my humble opinion, your “settlement offer” was so unclear that no serious legal negotiations could emerge from it.
Your offer should have been framed in very specific language and, even more importantly—as I’ve already said—sent directly to Willis Carto.
To be honest, Mark, I felt as though your letter was simply what one might call a “jiffy job” and that it was a production designed to have the “look and feel” of a settlement offer, something that might be flashed in front of the naïve and unknowing as “evidence” of your good faith—somewhat along the lines of “Here’s the settlement offer I made to Carto, but he refuses to negotiate.”
The truth is that the letter was NOT a settlement offer and it was NOT made to Willis Carto.
Regarding the actual amounts received by both Liberty Lobby and the Legion from the Farrel legacy, let us first of all consider what Liberty Lobby actually did receive. And note, too, that the monies received by Liberty Lobby were ALWAYS in the form of LOANS, not grants. All of these loans were earmarked to be REPAID BY LIBERTY LOBBY TO THE CORPORATE ENTITY ESTABLISHED TO ADMINISTER THE FARREL FUNDS!
That is something that is hardly known by most Revisionists.
In addition, the fact remains that the money loaned from the Farrel legacy to Liberty Lobby had not even come due at the time the Legion was wrested from the control of Willis Carto. The amount received by Liberty Lobby constituted UN-REPAYED LOANS that were not yet even yet due!
Judge Maino ruled that Liberty Lobby “owed” the Legion (vis-à-vis the Farrel legacy) some $2,650,000, based on the fact that this amount, essentially, had been lent to Liberty Lobby. And had Liberty Lobby been able to continue functioning, not hampered by the lawsuits initiated by you and the Legion, these funds would ultimately have been repaid. So this, again, is something that is not widely known.
The system of loans set up by Willis Carto (at the encouragement of then-Legion attorney Bill Hulsy) were designed to protect both the Farrel legacy and Liberty Lobby from the Mel Mermelstein lawsuit that was in litigation at the time the Farrel affair was settled. It was a good business move and it made good legal sense. It only became “embezzlement” when you and your associates seized control of the Legion and used that as a springboard to launch the assault on Liberty Lobby. That is the cold, hard truth, Mark and you know it.
All of the funds advanced to Liberty Lobby were accounted for in detailed bank records, including wire transfers from Switzerland to Liberty Lobby and thence from Liberty Lobby to the Sun Radio Network which, in actuality, was the prime beneficiary of the loans, channeled through Liberty Lobby.
I personally sat in with Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby’s controller Blayne Hutzel and our attorney, Mark Lane, when the records were put together for presentation to your attorneys in the process of preparing for the trial before Judge Maino in Los Angeles. I know this for a fact. I saw these records. I saw the totals, Mark. I know that these records were provided to the court and to your attorneys. And that is why I was astounded when you repeatedly said to me, to my face, at the David Irving meeting, that Liberty Lobby had “never provided an accounting of the Farrel funds that it received.” Frankly, Mark, I was so shocked at your audacity in making this claim—which I knew to be patently false—that I was hard pressed to respond. I couldn’t believe that you would sit there and tell me that I had not seen what I saw. In fact, it was on the basis of these very records that Judge Maino made his ruling, at least in part, insofar as Liberty Lobby was concerned.
Needless to say, Mark, I have told many people—including some very respected Revisionists—that I think you and your associates were quite shocked to find out that the Farrel funds advanced to Liberty Lobby were no longer extant, that they had actually been expended. It is my belief that you believed that Liberty Lobby was somehow “sitting” on this money when, in fact, it had already gone to the Sun Radio Network! This must have been a very real shock to you, but it is a fact that you cannot dispute. The records prove it. Judge Maino made his judgment based on these records.
And, as I said, these funds would ultimately have been repaid. This is the TRUE story of the money received by Liberty Lobby from the Farrel legacy.
And it should be added that the original charter of the Legion—prior to the time that you and your associates re-wrote that charter, which went back to the original founding of the Legion in the 1950s, very specifically cited radio outreach as one of the ways of communication that the Legion hoped to advance its message.
And as an aside, here’s another point that many Revisionists also are unaware of; that is the fact that the IHR was always a subsidiary of the Legion, just as was the Noontide Press. Historical Revisionism—Holocaust or otherwise—was never, repeat never, the primary or sole purpose of the Legion. It was one of many missions in the realm of free expression to which the Legion was committed.
Your constant claim that the Farrel legacy was earmarked exclusively for Revisionism, specifically Holocaust Revionism, could not be further from the truth. This is a point that even Willis Carto often failed to mention when he became bogged down in fighting off the Legion’s assault, but it is a fact that cannot be denied.
Now regarding the funds received by the Legion itself from the Farrel legacy (specifically the bank account in Switzerland) it is important to note that, contrary to what Judge Maino ruled in court, there is some real dispute about how much was actually received by the Legion.
And I hasten to add that while you claim that the Legion only received $100,000 from the Farrel legacy, there are numerous financial records in existence which suggest that this figure is far less than the actual reality.
For example:

• In September of 1991, Legion received $100,000 from the Farrel funds.
• In March of 1992, Legion received $200,000 from the Farrel funds.
• In September of 1992, Legion received $150,000 from the Farrel funds.
• In October of 1992, Legion received $100,000 from the Farrel funds.
• In addition, beginning on February 11, 1991, many invoices from printers and authors who were billing the Legion were paid from the Farrel funds totaling some $100,000.
• Also, employee benefits and salaries at Legion, totaling another $98,000 were paid over a period of 15 months.
By my accounting, based on the above information, that is at least $748,000—some $648,000 more than the amount you have stated in court that Legion received from the Farrel funds!
According to Elisabeth Carto, the total that she can reconcile from the materials she has available is slightly higher: $755,927 paid to the Legion. However, Elisabeth says, she is certain that the figure is closer to about $900,000.
So even granting the lesser amount of $748,000, that is a much higher level of funds that Legion did receive and of which there are existing bank records from the now-depleted bank account in Switzerland that held the Farrel legacy.
These are facts that are not known to most Revisionists, even those who have followed the case closely!
One final point regarding the Farrel legacy. You have constantly made a point, even in swearing out a search warrant for the Carto home and property in Escondido, that there may have been some amounts in uncut gems from the Farrel legacy that somehow were in the hands of Willis and Elisabeth Carto. This is a myth.
As you certainly know, when the Farrel legacy was placed in the hands of Roland Rochat, a Swiss notary given the assignment by both sides in the dispute over the Farrel legacy, Rochat was charged with liquidating these diamonds. These diamonds were sold by Rochat as part of the liquidation of the legacy and placed into the entire amount for distribution between Willis Carto and the Legion and Joan Althaus, with whom the Farrel legacy was in dispute.
In short, Mark, ALL of the funds that Willis Carto assumed control of from the Farrel legacy were either distributed to Liberty Lobby or to the IHR or to other parties (including attorneys, accountants, etc) who were involved in the procurement of the estate. No funds remain from the Farrel legacy.
Now here is something else that MUST be considered if an actual settlement offer is made in good faith. I note, Mark, that the Lennon company of Costa Mesa, which acted as a receiver for Liberty Lobby in its bankruptcy, collecting sums on behalf of the Legion, issued a report dated September 24, 2004, detailing the fact that between 1998 and 2004, some $1,031,780.32 had been collected from Liberty Lobby directly or from letters containing money and checks that had been sent to Liberty Lobby during this time frame.
This amount also included a number of substantial payments made directly by Liberty Lobby as part of the bankruptcy settlement—including sums as high as $200,000 on at least one given occasion—until the bankruptcy court effectively voided the settlement after the Legion charged Liberty Lobby with violating the agreement, the circumstances of which are beyond the purview of this letter.
(The sum also includes the amount of money taken from personal accounts of Willis and Elisabeth Carto and the residue of funds left over from the sale of their home which was seized by the Legion.)
Nonetheless, the fact remains that Liberty Lobby did, in fact, give the Legion $1,031,780.32 under these circumstances—a point that many prominent Revisionists, to this day, are unaware.
Many persons remain under the illusion—should I say delusion—that Liberty Lobby paid little, if any, to the Legion following the institution of the bankruptcy settlement agreement.
So it is that this $1,031,780.32 is a substantial amount indeed and, in fact, quite a large chunk of the actual funds advanced, via loan, from the Farrel funds in the bank account in Switzerland.
Add this amount of $1,031,780.32 to the $748,000 given directly to the Legion from the Farrel legacy funds in Switzerland, this is a total of

$1,779,780.32

This is the actual amount of money that the Legion had already received, directly from the Farrel legacy and from the money taken from Liberty Lobby.
Then, Mark, please add to this the $1.7 million that the Legion has now received from the Adelaide Allen and Bob Kiefer estates. This brings the total to:

$3,479,780.32

Quite a substantial amount indeed. And this is far more than the $2,650,000 that Judge Maino ruled that Liberty Lobby owed the Legion.
Dare I say, Mark, noting the current reported desperate financial straits of the Legion that you described to persons at the David Irving conference, one might logically ask: WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?
And, of course, the fact remains that this is a substantial chunk of the Farrel legacy that Willis Carto assumed responsibility for at the time of signing the settlement agreement with the attorneys for Joan Althaus in 1990.
And, again, this does not include all of the money paid out to attorneys, accountants, expeditors and others who were involved in the procurement of the Farrel legacy, including, I recall, some $650,000 paid to Swiss banker Francois Genoud, a longtime friend of the Revisionist movement, who played a key role in securing the legacy.
I have been told that you denounced Genoud as a “Nazi,” a point that will surprise many Revisionists who worked closely with Genoud over the years, prior to his untimely death in, I believe, 1991.
And at this juncture another little understood matter should be pointed out for the benefit of those who may not be in tune with all of the seemingly peripheral details surrounding the Farrel legacy and the Liberty Lobby bankruptcy. And this is very important! Many of the funds listed in the previously mentioned total of money ($1,031,780.32) seized by the Lennon Company included payments for books, videos and other materials, including SPOTLIGHT subscriptions, that people sent to Liberty Lobby AFTER Liberty Lobby had actually gone out of business and was denied the opportunity to continue functioning.
Unfortunately, however, those who sent these payments never received the books they ordered or the subscriptions. Instead, your receiver, the Lennon Company, took the money and checks out of the mail addressed to Liberty Lobby and directed the funds to the Legion and presumably itself and your attorneys.
I personally received numerous letters from individuals who had ordered copies of my book, FINAL JUDGMENT, but never received them. I was forced to write them letters explaining that the Legion was taking the money they sent to Liberty Lobby and not attempting to satisfy the orders or return the money in any way, shape or form. God only knows how many good patriots and Revisionists across America, really from around the world, were cheated out of their money.
For my own part, I attempted to provide gratis copies from my own extra supply of copies of FINAL JUDGMENT to those who bothered to write, but one can only imagine how many people did not know how to reach me or how to reach the former staff of Liberty Lobby.
In one instance an elderly woman in the Mid-West returned to Liberty Lobby’s address what I recall to be $1600 in silver that she had purchased from Liberty Lobby some years before. She hoped to redeem the value of the silver and had Liberty Lobby still been operating, she would have received that money.
Instead, the Lennon company took the silver and never gave the woman the $16,000. She has since died, I understand, and is unable to pursue any legal action on her own, although it is conceivable, of course, that her heirs may choose to do so, and this would be a legal difficulty for the Legion, not to mention an utter PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER.
Imagine the headlines: “Revisionist Group Sued by Elderly Woman’s Estate.”
All of this is not to mention the untold thousands of unfulfilled SPOTLIGHT subscriptions and Board of Policy memberships that were left hanging.
What follows are the number of SPOTLIGHT subscribers and the members of Liberty Lobby’s Board of Policy and the total count at the time of the last issue of The SPOTLIGHT. The dollar amounts listed are the values of the remaining subscriptions.
Subscribers: 45,732

$1,818,302.99
BOP 7,527
$154,233.14
Total: $1,972,536.13
This means that at least 53,259 total patriots and Revisionists were left wanting. To my knowledge, although the Legion effectively assumed “ownership” of Liberty Lobby and its assets—including forthcoming estates earmarked in wills and trusts for Liberty Lobby—the Legion never made any effort whatsoever to satisfy any of these outstanding subscriptions and memberships.
Considering the fact that the Legion was receiving in excess of $1 million in Liberty Lobby funds, issued directly by Liberty Lobby and seized from its mail, it seems that the honorable and rightful thing to do would have been to at least write these good folks a letter and offer them a free book or back issue of The JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW. This would have not only been good “public relations” for the Legion, but it might have won over potential new contributors and subscribers in a show of good faith. But no such show of good faith ever materialized.
Frankly, Mark, if you had done your job in making some effort in this regard, you might have literally conjured up another “Jean Farrel” out there in SPOTLIGHT Subscriber Land who—in the end—might have left another fortune to the “new” Legion and the Institute for Historical Review.
Now, of course, Jim Floyd, the outspoken Alabama Revisionist, has been spearheading efforts to organize these, shall we say “disenfranchised” SPOTLIGHT subscribers and Jim puts it bluntly: “Anyone who would open up the letter of a good patriot or Revisionist and take his money and then consciously refuse to send him what he’s ordered or even return the money if his order couldn’t be filled cannot and will not ever classify as an honest man in my book.”
And, Mark, I’m sorry to say, this problem is one that is going to hang over your head and that of the Legion as long as all of these people are left in the lurch. Frankly, your credibility and integrity as at stake.
Even if your Jewish lawyer and your collection agency, the Lennon Company, chose to operate in this underhanded fashion, you could have personally made some effort to resolve this matter. But you did not.
So this is really a matter that—for the good of all concerned, especially those who have lost out—must be considered in the matter of a “global” settlement of this most unfortunate affair surrounding the Farrel legacy. NO REVISIONIST, NO PATRIOT should be cheated of his money.
Only good can come if you make some effort to resolve this and make it a factor in any settlement proposal. I’m confident the names of those who lost out—or at least many of them—are probably available, even at this late date. How about it, Mark? Why not try to make good on this matter.
And regarding the Liberty Lobby mailing list. Here’s a point that should be noted. Although your failed lawsuit against American Free Press failed precisely because of the fact that, contrary to the claims you made, American Free Press had NOT run off with the Liberty Lobby mailing list, the fact is that your agents who came to Liberty Lobby’s headquarters in Washington never took the list with them when our then-controller Blayne Hutzel made the entire list (subscribers and Board of Policy members) available when these individuals came to our office on Capitol Hill, along with, I might add, all of Liberty Lobby’s financial records. (If I recall correctly, those acting as your agents were local members of the Church of Scientology who volunteered their services, a point that is interesting, especially regarding your constant denial that this Church played any part whatsoever in the circumstances surrounding the demise of Liberty Lobby.)
It was the fault of YOUR agents and your agents alone that the Liberty Lobby mailing list (quite a valuable asset) was never secured. And perhaps, in the end, that is for the best, considering quite convincing stories that you and your associate Greg Raven discussed selling the list to either the Anti-Defamation League or the Church of Scientology—a point I have heard that you have disputed, but not convincingly, in my humble estimation.
There is probably much more that could be said, but I have touched on the relevant highlights that you MUST acknowledge and consider when you make a genuine, formal settlement offer—not a letter to Michael Collins Piper.
Your letter indicated that copies were being sent to members of the board of directors of the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, although no individual names of said directors were listed.
As I do not have their e-mail addresses nor do I even know the names of the board, I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this letter to you to a number of prominent Revisionists so that I can be certain that my comments, at least, will be on the record, inasmuch as you involved me in this matter by addressing your initial letter to me.
In addition, inasmuch as this matter certainly does involve other Revisionists, by the very nature of the loose framework of a “settlement” that you have been discussing, I feel it is all the more appropriate that these Revisionists have the opportunity to consider all aspects of the affair, at least as much as I can provide any insights thereon.
In summary: there is NOTHING left of the Farrel legacy, other than (1) the money that was taken from Liberty Lobby by your receiver, the Lennon company, and (2) that money that was earmarked for Liberty Lobby in the Allen and Kiefer estates (and which would have ultimately been repaid by Liberty Lobby, over the long term to the Farrel account in Switzerland).
As a parting note, in the spirit of your initial suggestion, I would comment that I personally will certainly encourage Willis Carto to use the egis of both American Free Press and The Barnes Review to perhaps join with the IHR itself—whatever the IHR constitutes, and it doesn’t seem to constitute much more than an Internet website at this point—to issue a hard-hitting fund-raising mailing to raise money to set up a trust fund to be accessed by responsible Revisionists.
Further, I would be pleased to offer, gratis, my own modest talents as a fund-raising letter writer—and I had largely written, by far, virtually all of Liberty Lobby and The Barnes Review’s fundraising and subscription letters over a 20 year period (no small accomplishment)—in furtherance of such a project. I would be proud to do it.
However, Mark, your dream of procuring some “hidden” or “remaining” Farrel funds is a pipe dream. It will never happen. Your legal hounds have managed to grab back all of the funds—and more—that Liberty Lobby received and the Legion itself received a substantial amount of the Farrel funds, directly and through payment of Legion bills, from the very beginning. These are facts that cannot be denied. You must consider all of this when making a formal settlement offer, and I hope you will.
In closing, I hope that this letter—an honest effort by yours truly to lay out some little-known but highly relevant facts concerning the Farrel legacy—will contribute to the settlement of this matter.
Please, Mark: do not write me in response to this letter.
Instead, sit down with your attorneys and your board of directors—maybe consult with some respected Revisionists such as Fredrick Toben, Jurgen Graf, Germar Rudolf, Michael A. Hoffman II, David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ingrid Rimland, Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith, Robert Countess, Michael Santomauro, Mark Farrell—the list goes on and on—and get some good solid input and come up with a very real and very solid and reasonable settlement offer. Then, finally, all of this can be resolved. The Revisionist movement is much bigger than Mark Weber or Willis Carto or even the IHR and The Barnes Review. Remember that, Mark. No, better yet—as Mel Mermelstein’s father would say: “Never Forget.”

Constructively,
MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER

Jewish and CIA Involvement in the IHR Coup

from The SPOTLIGHT

with a postscript

IHR Update [On the Takeover Coup of the IHR]

From The SPOTLIGHT, March 22, 1999, p 22-3 – The Update is dated March 11

IHR UPDATE is a temporary and irregular feature for SPOTLIGHT readers interested in facts surrounding the on-going controversy resulting from the bizarre takeover of the Institute for Historical Review.

Only the politically naive reject the facts pointing toward behind-the-scenes conspiratorial involvement in the events that led to the destruction of the California-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and the subsequent effort to destroy The SPOTLIGHT. There is no question that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, played the primary behind-the-scenes role in the IHR affair.

IHR Update can now state conclusively that the primary Mossad operative behind the IHR upheaval was a high-priced Los Angeles attorney, Lawrence Heller.

Until recently, Heller was best known as the attorney who, in 1991, unsuccessfully represented self-styled « Holocaust survivor » Mel Mermelstein in the final stages of Mermelstein’s decade-long quest to eviscerate the IHR and Liberty Lobby. IHR Update has determined that Heller had other, more interesting behind-the-scenes connections.

Five years before Heller publicly surfaced as Mermelstein’s attorney, it turns out that Heller was part of a small clique that secretly grabbed control of the Church of Scientology upon the disappearance of church founder L Ron Hubbard.

Unknown to even many devout Scientologists, Heller and his clique control a shadowy body known as the « Church of Spiritual Technology » which has a lock on the church’s vast worldwide financial assets. [It has been said that paranormal research scientists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, veterans of the Stanford Research Institute/US Army Remote Viewing Project, are involved with the CST. -Birdman]

As IHR Update noted in a detailed special report on Oct. 26, 1998, upon Hubbard’s disappearance (and reported death in 1986) coupled with the overview of Hubbard’s widow as the leading figure within the church, Scientology fell victim to a coup d’etat orchestrated by outside forces with an interest in gaining control of Scientology, its vast wealth and its wide-ranging global power network.

Former high-ranking American diplomat Stephen Koczak (who had been stationed in Israel) told The SPOTLIGHT in 1994 that, according to his sources, it was the Mossad, in conjunction with elements of the CIA, that had seized control of Scientology. Thus, Heller and his group were fronting for the Mossad in the takeover of Scientology. David Miscavige was set up to take the place of L. Ron Hubbard who founded the cult.

The Scientology link to the IHR conspiracy revealed itself on Oct. 1, 1993. On that date, two things happened:

1) First, under the political influence of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL of B’nai B’rith, itself an arm of Israel’s Mossad), the Internal Revenue Service finally granted a highly lucrative tax exemption to the Church of Scientology;; This was something that the IRS had refused to do for over 30 years, particularly when Scientology was under the independent control of church founder L. Ron Hubbard.

2) On the same date, in accordance with a conspiratorial agreement with the ADL/Mossad, longtime Scientologist Tom Marcellus unveiled the secret year-long conspiracy to take over the IHR. Marcellus, the trusted veteran IHR staff director, sent a letter to IHR founder Willis Carto telling Carto that his relationship with the IHR had been ‘terminated. »

This was the first time that Carto learned of the conspiracy. It wasn’t until numerous discoveries were made that the theretofore secret role of Scientology was determined. And it was not until even much later that the full truth about Scientology being a controlled front for the Mossad was uncovered.

For those concerned with detail, it should perhaps be noted that the IRS commissioner who set in motion the groundwork for Scientology’s tax exemption was Fred Goldberg, a law partner of longtime ADL national chairman Kenneth Bialkin.

In fact, Goldberg fixed things for Scientology only one month after Scientology’s Mossad controller, attorney Lawrence Heller, was forced to surrender to the IHR and Liberty Lobby in the aforementioned Mermelstein case.

Having failed through very public means (the Mermelstein lawsuit) to destroy the IHR and Liberty Lobby, Scientology’s Mossad controllers decided, at that juncture, to utilize their « secret weapon » inside the IHR — Tom Marcellus. First and foremost among the « insiders » at the IHR who manipulated events that led to the coup were two members of the Church of Scientology: Marcellus and one Greg Raven.

Marcellus was an open Scientologist and was steadily moving up in the ranks in return for making major financial contributions to Scientology affiliates. In fact, Marcellus today maintains a web site on the Internet which focuses exclusively on his devotion to Scientology.

Raven, on the other hand, denies his association with Scientology although, quite recently, Raven was seen in attendance at a Scientology-sponsored function in Los Angeles.

The gun-toting Raven is a member of Scientology’s Guardian Office, which was disbanded by a federal judge in 1982 but continued under the name « Division 20 » or « The Office of Special Services. » This clandestine section of the huge Scientology organization has responsibility for « cleaning up the rotten spots of society in order to create a safer and saner environment for Scientology expansion and for all mankind. » Translated, that means that agents in Department 20 are assigned highly confidential tasks, and taking over other organizations or businesses is a long-standing strategy of Scientology.

Raven was deployed into IHR by Scientology’s Mossad controllers in late 1992. His mission was to organize the coup. Working in tandem with Marcellus, Raven began manipulating the two other IHR employees (Mark Weber and Theodore O’Keefe) who were utilized in the IHR take-over.

At this juncture, another player popped up. His name was Andrew Evered Allen, a resident of exclusive Tiburon, California (just outside San Francisco).

The scion of a wealthy family with reputed ties to the Levi Strauss garment empire, Allen had moved in the periphery of the IHR for some years, his most notable contribution being the financial backer of one David McCalden, who waged a longtime smear campaign against the IHR, using the research materials given him by a known CIA asset, Elliot Carter, and by his homosexual friend, Roy Bullock, a paid ADL spy. McCalden has since died of AIDS.

While living off his family’s wealth, Allen has also dabbled in intelligence intrigue, including « running » (Allen‘s words) what Allen called « supplies » to the Mujahideen rebels in the Middle East — a CIA project that former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky says was dominated by the Mossad.

Allen also had a hand in Far Eastern affairs in a sphere of direct interest to the Mossad: he operated the Burma Foundation which has played a part in the ongoing effort by the CIA and the Mossad to topple the nationalist military government of Burma (now known as Myanmar).

Portraying himself to IHR staff members Weber and O’Keefe as a « loyal revisionist » (his known record notwithstanding), Allen joined in the effort to subvert the IHR from within.

Along with Mossad asset Andrew Allen, Scientologists Marcellus and Raven convinced employees Weber and O’Keefe — who became willing participants in the conspiracy — that they would become very wealthy and the de facto leaders of the worldwide revisionist movement by collaborating in the conspiracy to grab what they (wrongly) believed was a $40 or $80 million inheritance left by a relative of populist Thomas Edison.

O’Keefe, who ultimately left the IHR following a mental breakdown, appears to have been more of a foolish pawn than anything. Despite O’Keefe‘s treachery, many revisionists still express sympathy for O’Keefe’s demise and say: « The poor fellow was being used and he didn’t even know it. »

The case of Weber is another matter altogether. While Weber (possibly) may not initially have known that the Mossad was ultimately the primary mover behind the IHR coup, Weber’s continuing involvement in prolonging the ongoing attack on Liberty Lobby demonstrates conclusively that Weber is definitely « bought and paid for » and a complete shill for his controllers.

(There does remain, however, the question of whether Weber himself has Mossad or CIA connections, dating to his days in Africa where Weber, ostensibly a « racist, » was « teaching English » at an all-black high school in Ghana, one of the Mossad’s major outposts in Africa.)

In any event, Weber continues to publicly front for the Mossad attack on Liberty Lobby which is being financed lock-stock-and-barrel by the deep pockets of the Church of Scientology (which, in turn, is controlled by Mossad asset Lawrence Heller and his associates.)

After The SPOTLIGHT and other news outlets exposed Scientology’s role in the IHR affair, David Miscavige ordered Marcellus to resign his post at the IHR in order to deflect attention from Scientology. Raven, however, remained in place and although Raven had no involvement in IHR affairs until a few months before the coup he directed, he is now « president » of IHR.

Raven’s sole purpose is to continue to perpetuate the IHR’s existence long enough to use the IHR’s lawsuit against Liberty Lobby to destroy the Washington-based populist Institution.

Although Mossad asset Andrew Allen (who says he is not a Mossad asset) has since officially withdrawn from the IHR’s affairs (his job having been accomplished) and Scientology front man Tom Marcellus has gone on to greener pastures, rising further in the ranks of his cult, the Mossad has two valuable assets in place: Scientologist Raven and his willing patsy, Mark Weber.

Liberty Lobby Beats the Odds Again

SPOTLIGHT March 20, 2000 – 21

On March 22, 1995-five years ago — a multi-jurisdictional SWAT feam staged an early-morning raid on the West Coast office of Liberty Lobby, the Washington-bused populist lnstitution that publishes The SPOTLIGHT.

As a helicopter buzzed overhead and will, snipers in place, some 100 armed officers from the San Diego County’s sheriff’s office and the Costa Mesa, Calif., police department accompanied by agents from several federal agencies including the FBI, the BATF and the IRS — attacked in force.

They maced the Carto’s dog, broke the gate and ransacked the Carto home. Mrs. Carto was brutalized and two young visitors were handcuffed and held captive with her. No one was permitted to use the phone. Mr. Carto was in Washington, D.C., at the time. Then they moved on to The SPOTLIGHT office, adjacent to the house, and turned it upside down, taking away a total of 14 cartons of papers and files.

Tire raid was instigated by Tom Marcellus, Mark Weber and Greg Raven, treacherous employees of the Costa Mesa-based Institute for Historical Review (IHR), a revisionist research group also founded by Carto.

The employees lied to Costa Mesa police investigator Larry Rooker – a friend of their lawyer, William Hulsy and claimed Carto had « embezzled » funds from the IHR. This was part of a carefully coordinated scheme to discredit Mr. Carto and take control of the IHR. At that juncture Rooker made contact with San Diego County Deputy Sheriff Tim Carroll, the longtime liaison between the San Diego sheriff’s office and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an arm of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. The ADL liaison and Rooker crafted a fraudulent request for a search warrant which Rooker turned over to an Orange County judge, Suzanne Shaw, who gave the go-ahead for the raid without properly questioning the integrity of their « evidence. » (Not surprisingly, Shaw was later brought up on ethics charges involving improper judicial conduct, although the charges were not related to her behavior in the Liberty Lobby case.)

The violent raid thus took place. Marcellus, Weber and Raven repeatedly claimed that charges would be filed against Mr. Carte, based upon « evidence » uncovered in the raid. No evidence was found. No charges were ever filed.

They also tried to get Carto indicted by the California attorney general, the U.S. Justice Department and even Swiss authorities. To do the latter, they worked with the ADL’s branch in Switzerland. All to no avail.

Mr. Carto and his wife filed a civil suit against the law enforcement authorities charging their civil rights had been violated. Preferring to keep the case from going public and revealing the forces behind the raid, the officials opted for an out-ofcourt settlement to cover up the malfeasance by the ADL-influenced law enforcement officers in collusion with the corrupt IHR employees.

Actually, Marcellus, Weber and Raven were acting as mere tools for powerful behind-the-scenes manipulators of the events that led up to the raid – which was part of a long-standing scheme to destroy the IHR from within.

Weber, who was on a « power trip » and saw the conspiracy as a « get rich quick » scheme, was probably unaware (at first) that he was a foolish pawn in a much bigger game, but he was nonetheless an eager and willing participant.

Webers « handler » was Andrew Allen, a San Francisco Bay socialite who-by his own admission under oath — dabbled in intrigue in two regions (Burma and Afghanistan) where the CIA and its allied intelligence agency, Israel’s Mossad (the foreign sponsor of the ADL) were involved in longtime joint covert operations. Allen‘s mission was the destruction of the IHR. The Mossad was interested in destroying the IHR because the research group had done so much to delve into secrets of history that would-if widely disseminated — threaten the annual multi-billion-dollar U.S. taxpayer subsidies to Israel. Marcellus and Raven were under the discipline of the Church of Scientology, of which they were thoroughly inculcated followers totally devoted to the instructions of their leaders.

Although ostensibly led by David Miscavige, the truth is that in the mid-1980s a secret clique – including Los Angeles attorney Lawrence Heller — seized control of Scietology from its founder, L. Ron Hubbard and his wife and set up a new regime. Miscavige has been only the front man.

Stephen J. Koczak, a veteran U.S. State Department officer (who served in Israel), told The SPOTLIGHT that the Heller group that seized control of Scientology was a Mossad unit. The Mossad was interested in Scientology’s massive financial assets and Scientology’s legendary « mind control » techniques developed by Hubbard. For nearly a century, intelligence agencies have dabbled in mind control.

Thus, when Israel’s Mossad decided to move against the IHR, Scientology zombie Marcellus was already in place. Acting under Miscavige’s instructions, Marcellus then brought another Scientologist, Greg Raven, into the IHR to assist the planned coup. Weber, and a fourth employee, Ted O’Keefe meanwhile, were being manipulated by the Mossad-linked Andrew Allen and William Hulsy, a lawyer who would do anything for money.

The scheme to take over the IHR was unveiled on Oct. 1, 1993. By pre-arrangement on that date the IRS also granted the tax exemption to Scientology that it had tried to get for three decades.

However, after the Heller group was firmly in charge of Scientology, then-IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg (a law partner of ADL chairman Kenneth Bialkin) set in motion the process that resulted in the Heller group getting the exemption a major financial boon to the Mossad controllers of Scientology.

In return for the tax exemption, the deceitful Scientology agents pulled off a coup inside the IHR. In events reminiscent of the ouster of the Hubbards from Scientology itself, the Mossad-sponsored conspirators seized physical control of the IHR and announced the « termination » of IHR founder Willis Carto.

When Mr. and Mrs. Carto attempted to regain control of the IHR office and an inventory of hard-to-find books worth more than $1 million, the Cartos were violently beaten and Scientologist Raven pointed a loaded, cocked 9mm handgun in Mrs. Carto’s face. Following these events, the conspirators orchestrated a well-funded series of lawsuits against the Cartos and ultimately against Liberty Lobby. One of the lawsuits resulted in a multi-million dollar judgement against Liberty Lobby, forcing our populist Institution to file for bankruptcy.

The bright conclusion to this dismal story is that on this fifth anniversary of the raid on Liberty Lobby’s West Coast office, your populist Institution has survived. The bankruptcy has been resolved by a settlement. We are still moving forward. Without the support of our Board of Policy and other patriots, Liberty Lobby and The SPOTLIGHT would now be history.

David Cole le traître s’en prend aux révisionnistes depuis des années, incluant même Zündel avec qui il a déjà prétendu être en bons termes. Ce qu’on découvre maintenant, à la lumière de son nouveau livre, c’est qu’il était encore pire qu’on croyait.

Tout ce que Cole a révélé était déjà connu auparavant. Son seul apport fut l’entrevue avec Francizek Piper. Pour le reste c’est un pur fouteur de merde, doublé d’un néocon hautement dangereux.


Hoffman on “Republican Party Animal” Review

Ici, Michael Hoffman reste très diplomate dans son compte-rendu critique du livre de Cole, mais connaissant Hoffman, cet ancie journaliste de l’Associated Press, on présume qu’il use de diplomatie dans l’idée que son texte va ainsi beaucoup plus circuler et réussir beaucoup mieux à influencer les lecteurs que s’il paraît haineux ou antijuif.

Faurisson: David Cole est de retour David Cole a changé de nom pour David Stein, pour devenir un petit con de néocon travaillant au sein du parti Républicain, mais il a été démasqué récemment et a décidé, cet esprit faible et malade, de diffamer tous les révisionnistes, à part ces semi-révisionnistes qui croient aux chambres à gaz (par ex: l’homme brisé David Irving et le mercenaire-traître connecté à la Scientologie-Mossad et aux services secrets Mark Weber). On ignorait à quel point Cole était un vrai fouteur de merde! Il s’est agrippé à Mark Weber qui lui a ouvert des portes et c’est grâce à lui qu’il est redevenu une vedette. Il vient de sortir un livre sur son passage chez les révisionnistes et son virage politique pro-Républicain et carrément Néocon. David Irving s’est fait tordre le bras pour qu’il cautionne certains témoignages sur l’existence de certaines chambres à gaz, mais il faut savoir qu’il a fini par dire cela après des années de harcèlement et même d’emprisonnement. Irving reconnaît maintenant la mort de millions de juifs en lien avec les politiques hitlériennes. Il a fini par céder, mais pensait-il que ses déclarations allaient ensuite servir à mousser la popularité de crapules telles que Weber et Cole? Il existe des raisons objectives de critiquer les révisionnistes sur certains points, mais pas comme le fait Cole.

Weber est un type dangereux lié à notre ennemi traditionnel (via Andrew E. Allen, pseudo révisionniste qui a travaillé comme Weber en Afrique pour les compte des services secrets. Weber c’était au Ghana et Allen c’était en Birmanie, pour une fondation de Soros, ni plus ni moins!) Weber a fait du site IHR un simple site antisioniste– ce qui est tout de même étrange quand on pense qu’il est très proche de Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), qui est tout le contraire de lui: anti-Islam, anti-nazi, pro-juif, ami de rabbins et même d’agents de l’Anti-Defamation League… Le pire c’est que Don Black de Stormfront est ami-ami avec ces connards… Sachant toutes ces connexions étranges, c’est à se demander si le site Stormfront (malgré la relative liberté d’expression qui y règne) sert à cette bande de traîtres pour collecter des noms et influencer et orienter les nationalistes blancs dans une certaine direction?

 

EVIDENCE OF SUBVERSION:

STRANGE FACTS ABOUT THE ‘NEW’

INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW

-AND THE STRANGE PEOPLE IN CHARGE!

By Dr. James K. Warner

FACT: There is hard evidence that the Anti-Defamation League is in possession of the mailing list of the Noontide Press, the IHR’s affiliate. The list was turned over to the ADL even before the IHR coup. This suggests that a staffer at the IHR was collaborating with the ADL prior to the coup. Here are the details: The San Francisco Police Department advised a New Jersey man that his name was in a file confiscated from a San Francisco police officer who collaborated with ADL operative Roy Bullock. Although the file contained only the man’s name and address, beside the legend « organization » appears the designation « Noontide Press. » The individual had never attended any IHR or Noontide function. He had, however, ordered books from Noontide—prior to the IHR coup. This is significant, proving that the ADL had obtained the Noontide list even before the IHR coup. The ADL could only have obtained the Noontide list from within the IHR office or from someone who obtained the list from an IHR employee. The ADL had no idea that evidence of the purloined list would be exposed. Otherwise the theft of the list would have remained a secret.

FACT: Mark Weber has invited Jewish « intellectual » Michael Shermer, editor and publisher of Skeptic magazine to speak at the upcoming IHR conference, even though Shermer describes revisionism as « pseudohistory. » Serving on Shermer’s advisory committee is TV personality Steve Allen who has, for years, raised money for the ADL and has been honored by the ADL for his efforts. Shermer’s magazine praised Weber when it reported that « Not all Holocaust revisionists are conspiracy theorists. Mark Weber, in fact, is redirecting the IHR away from both conspiratorial thinking and overt anti-Semitic leanings, in an effort to lead the movement into the mainstream of historical scholarship. In this process they must also distance themselves from some of the more extreme revisionists. » In other words, Shermer and his ADL associates are happy with the « new » IHR under Weber‘s control. Weber and company will be « expelling » revisionists who are « more extreme » from the revisionist movement under the ADL’s direction, just as the John Birch Society expelled anyone thought to be knowledgeable about the Jewish conspiracy.

FACT: In an interview published in the Jewish-controlled Skeptic magazine young Jewish « revisionist » David Cole called German-born Canadian revisionist Ernst Zundel a « fascist » and described him as « not the person I would like to see recognized as the world’s leading Holocaust revisionist. » Cole told Skeptic he is concerned that « the likes of Ernst Zundel » are prominent in the revisionist movement. French revisionist historian Robert Faurrison has described Cole as « that little Jew » and has pointed out that Cole’s video of Auschwitz museum director Franciszek Piper admitting that the Auschwitz gas chambers were reconstructed after the war is nothing new. In fact, Faurrison himself had documented that fact long before. Now, however, Cole is using his « new » finding to insinuate himself into a leadership position in the revisionist movement. Revisionists have long been skeptical of Cole’s motives.

FACT: in the same issue of Skeptic magazine attacking revisionism and praising Mark Weber for « redirecting » revisionism, the Jewish editors also published an article attacking not only Christian Identity, but they also smeared Christian fundamentalist Dale Crowley, Jr. and Lutheran traditionalist Herman Otten, a prominent revisionist. The article also attacked « Racisim, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy. » Rev. Crowley has upset the Jews by attacking the anti-Christian film entitled Anti-Semitism that is shown at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. In a review, Skeptic also praised Holocaust « historian » Deborah Lipstadt for her book, Denying the Holocaust, saying that revisionists « will have to work hard to get around Lipstadt’s indictment. »

FACT: Mark Weber recently wrote a letter to an anti-Christian journal called The Humanist in which he said that Willis Carto’s connection with the IHR was « rather tenuous. » As anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the history of the IHR knows, Willis Carto was the founder of the IHR and the driving force behind its record of accomplishment. How can anything that Weber says be trusted in light of this single lie alone?

FACT: IHR Journal Editor Mark Weber‘s sister is a convert to Judaism and now lives in Israel with her Jewish husband. Is it possible that the Israeli Mossad has somehow used Weber‘s family connection to manipulate Weber? Weber is also known to be in contact with a former self-styled « Nazi » named Grayson–a native of Australia—who has now converted to Judaism and is now engaged in smearing populist and nationalist Christian patriots Down Under. Weber is a self-described « former Marxist » who then became active in white racialist and National Socialist politics. What’s next? Is Weber now going to convert to Judaism and bring his new co-religionists the good news that the Holocaust wasn’t as bad as reported?

FACT: Mark Weber lived at the expense of a wealthy Nebraska revisionist, the late William Curry, for ten years, ostensibly writing a book that would be the « final word » on the Holocaust. No such book has ever materialized even though it was Curry’s dying wish that the book be published. With the resources of the IHR at his command, Weber could have his book published almost overnight. Does this book exist or was Weber exploiting Mr. Curry?

FACT: IHR editor Ted O’Keefe, who once wrote a glowing introduction to Belgian General Leon Degrelle’s book, Hitler: Born at Versailles, recently wrote that Degrelle’s manuscripts were « stridently, embarrassingly pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler. » O’Keefe accused Degrelle of « a fundamental lack of historical objectivity. » This inflammatory language sounds like something out of the ADL propaganda mill. Does O’Keefe expect Degrelle, whom Hitler once described as the kind of son he would like to have, to have written an anti-Hitler book? In a sworn statement O’Keefe said Degrelle’s manuscripts were « stridently, uncritically pro-Hitler » and that the manuscripts, in fact, were « unwanted. » (presumably by him and his colleagues, but certainly not by revisionists). According to O’Keefe the manuscripts were worthless, or, in his words, a « half a million dollar white elephant with a swastika painted on its side. » O’Keefe is not an ADL agent, but he is very clearly being manipulated by someone who is. Those who know O’Keefe say that although he is guilty of treachery and duplicity in his role in the IHR coup, he had to have been influenced by someone else to have allowed his name to be used in the attack on Degrelle. Most believe that the key agent-in-place, manipulating O’Keefe, is Tom Marcellus whose own connections are interesting.

FACT: IHR director Tom Marcellus is a « Field Staff Member » of an anti-Christian cult, the « Church » of Scientology, that practices mind control. The Scientologists recently purchased ADL-style newspaper advertising attacking the German people and echoeing the lie that the Nazis gassed six million people. Marcellus has admitted in writing that he donates a substantial portion of his salary to Scientology. According to Jewish « revisionist » David Cole, there would be « jobs aplenty » for Marcellus at Scientology if the IHR folded. Marcellus called General Leon Degrelle’s writings « flagrantly pro-Hitler. » The Scientologists are also concerned about so-called « Nazi war criminals » being on the loose. The Scientology obsession with « Nazi war criminals » is interesting. It will be recalled that the Zionists sought to have General Degrelle prosecuted as a « Nazi war criminal. » There have been allegations that L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology (and also a disciple of the Satanist, Aleister Crowley), was a CIA or OSS operative. (All pictures of Hubbard show he looked VERY Jewish. It is known that at least one person involved in the CIA’s infamous mind control experiments worked closely with Hubbard. The CIA’s mind control experiments were under the direction of a Jewish scientist, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, a lieutenant of James J. Angleton, the notorious Mossad collaborator at the CIA. There are those who believe that Scientology is nothing more than a broad-ranging joint CIA-Mossad mind control operation using the members essentially as « robots » to spy on the companies and organizations they work for. Recently the IRS gave Scientology a tax exemption worth potentially billions to the cult. This could not have happened without the support of the Jewish lobby in Washington. The tax exemption came on October 1, 1993—precisely the day that Tom Marcellus put the IHR coup into motion. Is this coincidence or conspiracy? You be the judge.

FACT: Andrew Allen, a San Francisco area lawyer, who has been appointed by Tom Marcellus and Mark Weber to the bogus IHR « board of directors » was banned from previous IHR conferences because he was known to be associating with the late David McCalden. It is a known fact that during the time McCalden was working to undermine the IHR that he was in close, sustained contact with San Francisco-based ADL undercover operative Roy Bullock. The evidence suggests that Allen is a deep-cover ADL operative deployed into action as a consequence of the public exposure of Bullock who had posed as a « loyal revisionist » and attended IHR conferences.

FACT: Mark Weber and his colleagues have attacked writer William Grimstad as a « Nazi propagandist. » This is the same William Grimstad whose two popular works, The Six Million Reconsidered, and Anti-Zion, are two of the best-researched and among the most widely-hailed books available on the Jewish question and the facts about the Holocaust. Incredibly enough, these books have been on the IHR and Noontide Press booklist for years. The last time this writer saw such an attack on Grimstad was in a report put out by the ADL.

FACT: Mark Weber maintains regular contact with a « researcher » named Evelyn Rich, despite the fact that she infiltrated David Duke’s U.S. Senate campaign and taped Duke’s private conversations which were later broadcast by the Zionist-controlled networks. She also worked with a journalist who recently published a vicious smear of not only Duke, but this writer, and the IHR (mis-stating the facts about the IHR’s victory over Mel Mermelstein). Ted O’Keefe himself told people that once when he was visiting her home, Miss Rich received a phone call from none other than Irwin Suall, chief of the ADL’s spy apparatus.

CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHO REALLY IS IN CONTROL AT THE ‘NEW INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW?

In THE JUDAS GOATS, Michael Collins Piper denounces the role of a certain « Mr M » (late Matthew Peter Balic, named in the book) :

MCP wrote:

Matthew Peter Balic, a sports agent who is a longtime Scientologist. This was the same Mr. « M »—who is actually mentioned by name in THE JUDAS GOATS, in the chapter describing my last face-to-face encounter with Roy Bullock, who asked me what I knew about Balic.

(…) I was talking about a certain Matthew Peter Balic, who has been running around for years in the periphery of Liberty Lobby, Arab-American groups,and he actively pinned himself to the USS Liberty issue and the survivors, and he also was friendly with Jim Traficant who, I am told by a mutual acquaintance, later started to suspect that Balic was a « Mossad » operative (although Balic is not Jewish to my knowledge but instead of Croatian heritage). It was Balic who called Phil Tourney and drummed up Weber as a guest on the (now-canceled) Liberty Hour podcast by Mark Glenn and Phil. (I refer to the podcast that followed the regular Liberty Hour broadcast canceled by RBN).
I’ve said that BOLLYN was being handled by a « front » for Scientology: namely this character, this woman from Utah, « Dr » Ann Blake Tracy. She runs some group that opposes psychiatric drugs (a good thing) and she had Bollyn on her payroll (by his own admission, in passing, on his website or somewhere in some of his writings) for at least a year and a half. He was « editing, » which he is constitutionally or intellectually incapable of doing, by the way, and getting paid for it. The woman in question was a guest on MY program on RBN while Bollyn was sitting in for me during my three and half weeks in Malaysia in 2004. I think her name will appear in the RBN archives there.

Now, on the other hand, WEBER was very much tied in to Scientology through one OPEN Scientologist, Tom Marcellus, one SECRET Scientologist (secret, that is, to Willis Carto, until later), Greg Raven, and then the chief honcho of Scientology (or, that is, one of the Jewish lawyers who took over Scientology: Lawrence Heller).

Mark Weber IHR ally Andrew Allen loses his auntie

by John de Nugent on December 13, 2010

IHR REVELATION

Michael Collins Piper just called and sent me the shocking information about Andrew Allen, ally of Mark Weber, that follows.

Some background first:

The Institute for Historical Review, founded by Willis Carto three decades ago, was ONCE the leading organization worldwide debunking the fraudulent Jewish Holocaust of WWII. In the 1990s, a key employee, Mark Weber, was the titular leader of a revolt against Carto’s control. In the end, Carto lost control of the IHR and suffered huge losses in a lawsuit a decade ago. He always maintained that dark forces were behind Weber’s action, specifically the “religion” called Scientology and the mysterious wealthy individual Andrew Allen, whom Carto insisted was a CIA asset.
In January 2009, Weber outraged revisionists worldwide — many of whom have gone to prison for their beliefs, such as my French friend Vincent Reynouard and my Spanish friend Pedro Varela, who entered prison TODAY for at least one year and four months — by stating that the Jewish Holocaust did happen after all. (In fact, Weber had refused to attend the Holocaust revisionist conference of December 2007 in Teheran, Iran.)
(…)

Mark Weber has strong neanderthal features. His sister lived on a kibbuz in Israel. His benefactor Allen’s father was a wealthy real estate developer whose sister married a Straus of the Macy’s fortune…. Andrew Allen said under oath he spent ten years “running arms” to the Afghani mujahideen (AKA the Taliban), which was, though conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski, run at the tactical level as a Mossad op.
And now to Mike Piper’s revelation.
* * *
Send Sympathies to “Andy” Allen
From:

Michael Collins Piper

To: toben@toben.biz
Cc: john_denugent@yahoo.com

Fredrick, thought this confirmation regarding Andrew Allen’s “Jewish” connection might interest you. I sent it first to Bradley Smith who famously vowed to “eat [his] shorts” on the steps of Liberty Lobby if we ever had any confirmation about the WeberAllen intel connection.
Of course, I don’t want Brad to eat his shorts.
That could cause heartburn, and I can tell you that I developed heart burn gulping down my lunch so I could get to the phone and call Willis and tell him that we finally had the goods on Allen’s Jewish connection.
Allen’s father, Howard Allen, is the brother of the late Beth Allen Straus, now of the great “Our Crowd” Jewish family of New York.
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Michael Collins Piper
To: mail_to@codoh.info
Cc: michaelcollinspiper@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, December 13, 2010 2:08:20 PM
Subject: Send Sympathies to “Andy” Allen

Bradley, Some sad news.
Andrew Allen’s aunt, Beth Straus—wife of Donald Straus, grandson of Isidor and Ida Straus, the great Jewish philanthropists who quite famously went down together on the Titanic—died at age 94 in Maine.
Beth’s obituary appeared in the New York Times the other day, I think it was the 12th. She looks very Jewish herself, but she certainly married into a well-off Jewish family.
[LINK] I just about choked on my taco (I was reading the paper in a Mexican restaurant that I eat in almost daily) when I read the obituary and saw that Beth was the sister of Howard Allen of Belvedere, California.
Yep, that’s Andy’s daddy!
JdN: Excerpt from the NYT obit:
Elizabeth Allen was born in San Francisco on Nov. 23, 1916, the daughter of Harry Allen, a successful real estate developer, and Winifred Bridge, an accomplished gardener.
Funny thing is, when Willis [Carto] had “Andy” Allen checked out, there was some evidence of a link to a “Straus” family trust. However, when “Andy” was questioned under oath, he denied any knowledge of or connections to anybody named Straus.
I wonder why? His aunt was married into one of the most respected and distinguished Zionist Jewish families in America. The Straus’s—Isidor and Ida—are virtual American (and Jewish) icons, the stuff of song and story, their tales told in all the lore of the Titanic. Hell, I knew about the Straus/Titanic story when I was about 7 years old.
But it apparently slipped Andy’s mind when he was being questioned under oath.
Bradley: Andy Allen is a perjurer. Too bad the statute of limitations has run out on this character.
Plus, Andy Allen worked for the CIA (and the Mossad—more directly the Mossad) running guns in Afghanistan. He admitted that under oath, without mentioning the CIA or the Mossad. But do you think, Bradley—and you are a smart fellow—that “Andy” was just over there for fun, just kind of a lone wolf on a joy ride to Afghanistan.
No, Bradley, Andy Allen, who ran the take-over of the IHR, was an intelligence operative on a mission.
JdN: Piper told me that Allen admitted he organized the whole coup against Willis Carto at a beachside meeting with various IHR employees. He also made a huge loan to the IHR in the early days of the Weber revolt to keep it afloat.
 
Andy Allen was directly tied up with the CIA/Mossad/George Soros-financed operations against Burma/Myanmar. Andy Allen was never a revisionist. He was an ENEMY of revisionism. “Andy” manipulated Mark Weber—who, if truth be told, probably has some intel connections on his own (another story for another time).
And you can quote me on this: if I ever learn I have six months to live, I’m going to track down Andy and Mark and have lots of fun before it’s all over.
* * *

(…)


Mark Weber says millions of Jews lost their lives because of Nazi policies

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2012-05-16 19:53
By Carolyn Yeager

Mark Weber, director of the Institute of Historical Review (IHR), ended his radio show The Mark Weber Report on April 25, 2012 by saying that “it cannot be disputed” that “millions [of Jews] were forced from their homes, millions lost their lives.”

How many millions? Weber doesn’t say. How many were forced from their homes?… many, but not millions. Lost their lives? … no.

The only references Weber gives for this is some lines from the purported diary of Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Propaganda Minister under Adolf Hitler, and an editorial written by Goebbels in 1941 titled “The Jews are Guilty.” To this he adds an internal memo or “information bulletin” circulated among “high-level government officials” on Oct. 9, 1942 which he describes as including this line: “A full expulsion and removal of Jews in the European Economic Sphere is a pressing demand, and it is in the nature of the problem that it can only be carried out with ruthless severity.” Weber explained that “this means, in practice, that many many Jews were killed, mainly by shooting on the Eastern Front.” What does removal of Jews in the economic sphere have to do with shooting Jews in Russia? Weber is also inaccurate in saying the memo went to government officials; it states very plainly in the Nuremberg Judgement that this bulletin was sent to all Gauleiters and Kriesleiters, who were NS Party officials, not government officials.

On the 9th October, 1942, a confidential information bulletin was sent to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters entitled « Preparatory Measures for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe. Rumours concerning the Conditions of the Jews in the East. » This bulletin stated that rumours were being started by returning soldiers concerning the conditions of Jews in the East which some Germans might not understand, and outlined in detail the official explanation to be given. This bulletin contained no explicit statement that the Jews were being exterminated, but it did indicate they were going to labour camps, and spoke of their complete segregation and elimination and the necessity of ruthless severity. …from Section “The Leadership Core of the Nazi Party” under Judgement: The Accused Organizations

Is Mark Weber implying that the Jews who were removed from the economic sphere in Europe were taken to places on the Eastern Front and shot? Millions of them? « Segregation and elimination » from German and European nations is what is meant here. Weber says only « expulsion and removal » but focuses on the word « ruthless. » He backs this up with quotes from Goebbels’ Diary, the authenticity of which he describes as “uncontestable.”

Weber ignores that the National Socialists often used the word “ruthless” in this context to emphasize that a natural reluctance among Germans to treat people in a hard manner had to be overcome or it would interfere with or sabotage the expulsion of the Jews, which was an important goal of the Nazis. Because Germans are not naturally ruthless, the Party leadership was often bolstered by being reminded that “we must be ruthless” in order to carry the policy out to the end. Even Goebbels had to keep reminding himself that ruthlessness was necessary. The German idea of ruthlessness is not the same as the Jewish idea of it. So I don’t think this bulletin is proof of the murder of millions at all.

It’s hard to know where Weber stands on the Jews since it’s not something he will talk about, but it seems that he has grown to be increasingly on their side. He said that during the Nazi domination of Europe, “millions of Jews suffered a great catastrophe” and that “no serious person, no informed person disputes this.” Surely it was a great catastrophe from the point of view of the Jews, but how great a catastrophe it was from the point of view of history is another matter. Weber also used the word “genocide” in reference to the treatment of Europe’s Jews, something the Jews themselves say.

Mark Weber the historian

Mark Weber calls himself an historian and an author—although he has never written a book and I just don’t know how one can be considered an historian without at least one book on history to one’s credit. I have argued before that Weber is a writer, and should not call himself an author. Does Mark Weber consider himself a scholar?

A scholar is one who has developed a thesis within his field of scholarship, something which Mark Weber has never done. That’s why he can’t write a book—he doesn’t have the courage to come forth with ideas of his own. At best, he is a ‘popularizer’ or presenter of other people’s points of view, and one with a talent for organizing these views into an easy-to-assimilate product. For this reason, Mark Weber is an asset to historical revisionism and his many articles, and some speeches and podcasts, are a valuable resource to students of 20th Century European history.

Long time holocaust revisionist Friedrich Paul Berg has asked Mark Weber to engage in a debate on a radio program format on the topic of gassing of Jews, but Weber has declined. Weber does not want to answer questions about his stated position that up to a million Jews died in gas chambers in Poland. He says he considers himself a holocaust revisionist, but if that is true he only represents “revisionism-lite,” or better, revisionism-ultra lite.


BRONFMAN ENNEMI DE L’HISTOIRE, DÉFENSEUR DE LA MÉMOIRE DE L’HOLOCAUSTE

Bronfman a financé la récupération de la Scientologie par des avocats juifs liés au Mossad (sous la direction de Lawrence Heller) afin de s’en servir, en collaboration avec l’Anti-Defamation League et la CIA, pour infiltrer, subvertir et détruire des organisations nationalistes et révisionnistes comme celles de Willis Carto: Liberty Lobby, The Institute for Historical Review (son directeur actuel Mark Weber étant un escroc lié aux services secrets), The Spotlight, etc.

« Le nombre grandissant des révisionnistes ne peut être ignoré. Nous devons user de toutes les ressources disponibles afin d’arrêter le révisionnisme dès maintenant, avant que ce ne soit trop tard .» – Edgar Bronfman

Edgar Bronfman Sr, déboursait aussi, avec Spielberg, les frais judiciaires de la pourfendeuse de négationnistes Deborah Lipstadt.

David Irving comments: Billionaire Edgar Bronfman (right) is stated in the Jewish press to have been one of the major financial contributors to Deborah Lipstadt, paying the millions of dollars that were used to finance her neutral expert witnesses to testify as they did in Mr Irving’s libel action against her.

Murder Discussed at High-Level Bronfman Meeting

In 2005 New York magazine noted Edgar Bronfman “belongs to one of the world’s most exclusive clubs, an impossibly elite gathering known as the ‘Mega Group.’ It consists of about a dozen inconceivably rich Jews who get together several times a year, often in either Bronfman’s or [CBS owner] Larry Tisch’s apartment. . . .”
In 1990, an unexpected source advised Andrew St. George—chief correspondent for The Spotlight (forerunner of AFP)—there had been a high-level meeting at Bronfman’s New York apartment attended by top financial patrons and leaders of the Zionist movement. (This was the “Mega Group” although its name was not then known.) Devoted to combating the purported “rise of anti-Semitism,” the meeting’s participants included financier Felix Rohatyn and Jacques Torczyner, president of the Zionist Organization of America.
Andrew’s source told him Torczyner said, in words to these effect: “It’s time that we put a stop to Willis Carto and his newspaper, The Spotlight.” Torczyner said specifically that Carto and his associates should be “hunted and shot like quail.”
Torczyner’s candor disturbed at least some of his fellow power brokers who responded, “We can’t use the tactics of our enemies.”
In fact, it was the aforementioned Rohatyn who told St. George about the meeting. A longtime newsman, St. George knew many people, Rohatyn among them.
St. George took the story to Carto and Mark Lane, The Spotlight’s anti-Zionist Jewish attorney, who wrote a letter to Torczyner warning him against making further threats. Still, a continuing campaign to destroy The Spotlight culminated with the populist weekly driven out of business in 2001. Thank goodness, AFP picked up The Spotlight’s fallen torch.
Carto had reason to be concerned: Bronfman fingerprints were all over the JFK assassination conspiracy. For the tip of that iceberg, see the Dec. 9 and 16, 2013 issue of AFP.

Michael Collins Piper. American Free Press, Jan 6 and 13, 2014

« The growing numbers of revisionist supporters cannot be ignored. We must use every resource to stop revisionism before it’s too late »
–Edgar Bronfman Sr

3. L’étrange amitié entre le prétendu révisionniste antisioniste Mark Weber et le suprématiste blanc anti-islam et sioniste ultra, Jared Taylor. Ça sent fort la CIA, le Mossad, l’Anti-Defamation League… et même les néocons comme Frank Gaffney.

Le « nationaliste blanc » Jared Taylor est considéré par plusieurs comme étant un agent de la CIA. En tout cas, il est lié à des informateurs de la ligue anti-diffamation et à des juifs sionistes, incluant des rabbins (Meyer Schiller). Il combat les « antisémites » et les « nazis » et croit qu’il faut s’allier aux groupes juifs et sionistes afin de « défendre la race blanche » contre les Noirs et les Arabes et les ennemis de l’Occident tels que les musulmans. Son plus proche allié est, surprenamment, Mark Weber, faux révisionniste et soi-disant antisioniste. Derrière Mark Weber, il y a Andrew E. Allen, qui saupoudre son argent (lié à la fortune juive Strauss de New York) un peu partout dans le mouvement patriote, en finançant ceux qui attaquent les vrais nationalistes. Autrement dit, il finance un révisionnisme faux et un nationalisme fantôme, complètement sous contrôle, devant prendre la place du vrai mouvement.
La juiverie sioniste cherche une source de légitimation du côté de certains nationalistes blancs comme Jared Taylor. Le magazine de l’American Jewish Committee, Commentary, a écrit une critique favorable du livre de Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions.

 

Michael Collins Piper écrit dans The High Priests of War, p.88-90.Amazon.Ebook.:

THE STRANGE CASE OF JARED TAYLOR

On a far lower level and on assuredly a less widely-publicized scale, certain elements have joined the ranks of the “neo-conservative” elite in promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred.While many Americans of the so-called “extreme right”—not to be confused with the “neo-conservative” movement surrounding Richard Perle and William Kristol and their allies such as Steven Emerson and Bernard Lewis—are strongly anti-Zionist or outright anti-Jewish, there are a handful of other so-called “rightist” organizations that share the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab fanaticism of the Jewish neo-conservatives.

For example, there is one rather prominent individual who—while often described by the media as a “racist”—has nonetheless actively avoided criticizing Israel and who is an outspoken enemy of Arab and Muslim immigrants into America. His name is Jared Taylor.

Editor of a publication known as American Renaissance, Jared Taylor is widely believed by many of his critics to be an asset of the CIA.

Critics note not only that he is a graduate of Yale, a long-time CIA recruiting ground, but that he has been active and successful in business and finance in the Far East. In addition, a book Taylor wrote—Paved With Good Intentions—alleging that black Americans are inferior to whites, was praised in Commentary, the neo-conservative voice of the American Jewish Committee, edited by Norman Podhoretz who, himself, was connected to CIA-financed activities as far back as the 1950s.

So Taylor’s connections to the “neo-conservative” network and the New York elite are firm indeed.

And considering the impact that Taylor has in certain American “right wing” circles that are seemingly independent of the “neo-conservative” elite—such as a so-called “Council of Conservative Citizens” of which he is director—it is clear that Taylor’s voice is being heard and having an impact. At one juncture, Taylor’s Council of Conservative Citizens featured an item attacking “Dirty Rotten Arabs and Muslims” on its website.

The record shows Taylor has a long history of attacking Arabs and Muslims. As far back as November 1993—nearly a decade ago, long before the widespread anti-Muslim tendencies in America, stoked by the major broadcast media, particularly in the wake of the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks, Taylor’s American Renaissance magazine featured an article entitled “The Rise of Islam in America,” which asserted that “Islam lies at a dangerous intersection between race and immigration,” and which declared:

Islam, in its various forms, lies at the intersection of America’s two most dogma-laden and self-destructive policies: immigration and race relations. It was the purest idiocy to have imported crowds of swarthy fanatics who are prepared to kill each other—and us—over obscure conflicts in the Levant. Had no one noticed that Middle Easterners fight out their unsettled feuds not only in their own countries but in Europe as well? To have imported fanatics who worship the same god as the Black Muslims was idiocy on stilts.(124)

A Muslim-bashing hate festival sponsored by Taylor in the Washington, D.C. area over the Feb. 22, 2002 weekend set off alarm bells about Taylor’s covert agenda. American Free Press, based in Washington, D.C., reported as follows:

Had you walked into Jared Taylor’s recent American Renaissance conference, you might have thought you were at a pro-Israel rally: the anti-Muslim rhetoric was that pervasive. Taylor’s self-styled “uptown” approach echoes the ongoing Israeli propaganda theme that the Islamic religion is the root cause of the Sept. 11 tragedy—not the pro-Israel U.S. Middle East policy.

One who attended the meeting—young Bill White—described Taylor’s meeting at his (White’s) overthrow.com website. While finding the event interesting, White—an outspoken anti-Zionist—says what disturbed him the most was “the decided anti-Black and anti-Muslim tilt of the conference.”

The “entire focus,” said White, “was on Islam and blacks and how bad and threatening they are, with nary a word about Jews and their influence in politics.

All of the speakers either didn’t address the Zionist-Israeli issue, or did so in philo-Semitic, flattering, untrue and ridiculous terms.” Every speaker at Taylor’s conference except one was anti-black and anti-Muslim, according to White.(125)

Perhaps in keeping with his decidedly anti-Muslim stance, Taylor previously featured a hard-line pro-Zionist New York-based Rabbi, Meyer Schiller, as the keynote speaker at a previous conference.

The Forward newspaper, a prominent American Jewish publication, has said that Schiller reports that his influence with Taylor has helped bring about positive feelings for the American Jewish cause on Taylor’s part, and thereby helped stimulate other Americans who follow Taylor’s teachings to think likewise.

Although—after being widely criticized by many of his associates—Taylor has since made some motions to suggest that U.S. policy toward Israel and the Arab world may have stimulated the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Taylor does not relent in his attacks on Muslim immigrants, effectively playing into the hands of the Zionist cause.

Ironically, although Taylor has spent a great deal of energy in Muslim-bashing, his closest friend and long-time political fellow-traveler, one Mark Weber, has assiduously courted the Muslim world while posturing as an “anti-Zionist,” causing some persons to wonder just what the Taylor-Weber agenda really may be.

Weber is best known today as one of a small group who—working under the direction of a known long-time CIA operative Andrew E. Allenorchestrated the destruction of The Spotlight newspaper, in its time the one independent American newspaper that regularly and forcefully raised questions about the imbalanced U.S. policy toward Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Taylor and his ilk are thus part and parcel of a malicious and wide-ranging effort to defame the Arab and Muslim peoples, and the truth is that their impact is being felt at a critical time when the Zionist lobby finds it vital to have its “agents” inside even the smallest—but still mildly influential—groups in America.

Individuals such as these use their outreach (however minimal it may be) to bend Americans and others in the West in favor of Israel through attacks on Arabs and Muslims, and this proves critical to Israel’s imperial goals, in league with the neo-conservative manipulators now dominating American foreign policy.
[END OF CHAPTER]

Michael Collins Piper écrit dans The Judas Goats:

Chapter Forty-Four
“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .”
Jared Taylor and the New “Zionist-Friendly Nationalism”
As the Zionist Internationale—using the United States military as its imperial mechanism—faces increasing opposition from the American people, who are hesitant to commit more of their young people to foreign wars on behalf of Israel, it is critical to the Zionist cause to generate more anger among Americans toward the Muslim world. In the wake of this, the Zionist movement has energized its efforts to further infiltrate and manipulate the American nationalist movement.
As such, in recent years, one leader of what has been described as the “white nationalist movement” (that is, the element of the nationalist movement focusing on the issue of race) has come under increasing scrutiny because of his unusual stand toward Zionist influence in America.We refer to one Jared Taylor, a Yale-educated figure who heads his own American Renaissance organization. Taylor has emerged as a major critic of the Muslim world and of Muslim immigrants in America, sounding much like the Trotskyite neo-conservatives.
Taylor is best known for his book, Paved With Good Intentions, which says that blacks are inferior to whites. Remarkably, this book was published by a “mainstream” New York firm responsible for Harrison Livingstone’s series of peculiar books—New York Times best-sellers—that insist the CIA had no part in the JFK assassination.
So altough Taylor’s work might be “controversial” due to its racial slant, the book was promoted by a “mainstream” publishing house. But even more intriguing is the fact that Taylor’s book was also favorably mentioned in the February 1993 issue of Commentary, the journal of the American Jewish Committee, edited for many years by CIA-connected Trotskyite “neo-conservative” Norman Podhoretz.
That a book with a so-called “racist” slant would get a boost from Podhoretz and Commentary is interesting in and of itself. But that Taylor should get a friendly nod from these Zionist Trotskyites is not really so extraordinary if Taylor’s record is considered in context.
Although the Anti-Defamation League has criticized Taylor for some of his views, and Taylor, in turn, has sent gentle barbs in the ADL’s direction for chiding him on the race question, the totality of the record that we will review here suggests that Taylor is effectively lending support to the Zionist movement. And that’s precisely what makes Taylor’s new “Zionist-Friendly Nationalism” so valuable to the Zionist lobby.
Widely promoted as one of the “intellectuals” of the American “racialist” movement, Taylor has insinuated himself into a leadership position in the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) and from that post he has emerged as a critic of those who take positions in opposition to Zionism. In some respects, this recalls the old days of COINTELPRO when—as Dr. Edward Fields has reported—the FBI told its infiltrators in the Ku Klux Klan that they were free to publicly make anti-black remarks in public speeches and in their publications, but, at all costs, to avoid criticizing Jews or Israel.
Many have noted that Taylor seems to revel in surrounding himself with a variety of Jewish “intellectual”who have been waggishly (if insensitively) dubbed “Jared’s Jews.” Taylor iss particularly close ties to one Rabbi Meyer Schiller, a New York-based Zionist who has publicly bragged that his friendship with Taylor has helped diminish anti-Zionism within the ranks of Taylor’s followers. (An interesting point indeed.)
This same Rabbi Schiller—a leader of a Jewish community known as New Square—also endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton in her 1992 campaign for the U.S. Senate from New York, hardly something that might be expected from an ally of Jared Taylor, of all people.
The truth is that Taylor plays a valuable role on behalf of Zionist interests by stoking up opposition to Arab and Muslim immigration into America, adding fuel to the ever-building fire in America against Arabs and Muslims. And all of this comes at a time that—the record shows—Taylor has worked to scrub anti-Zionist attitudes from the nationalist circles in which he operates. In fact, on March 3, 2006, the influential Jewish newspaper, Forward, reported that Taylor said, in Forward’s words, that he wanted to “de-Nazify [the] white nationalist movement.”
Forward wrote that Taylor said that “Ultimately, for all the things I care about to happen, Jews must be part of the movement,” because, he noted, Jews are widely seen as being “the conscience of our society.” But while Taylor has been quite friendly to the likes of Rabbi Schiller, he has adopted quite a different stance to those who have taken on Israel.
For example, when prominent Louisiana maverick David Duke and the aforementioned Dr. Edward Fields—both of whom have been known for their opposition to Zionism—spoke at a forum attended by CofCC supporters in the Washington, D.C. area, Taylor boycotted the meeting (doing so quite vocally) and told others not to attend.
Similarly, prior to that, on December 12,1998, Taylor boycotted another meeting of the National Capital Region branch of the CofCC precisely because the featured speaker was yours truly, Michael Collins Piper, discussing the JFK assassination study, Final Judgment, which focuses on the role of Israel’s Mossad in the murder of President Kennedy.Taylor instructed his disciples not to attend this meeting.
Noting Taylor’s conduct, critics have pointed out that the woman who became Taylor’s wife, Evelyn Rich, actively worked to sabotage David Duke’s 1990 campaign for the U.S. Senate. Miss Rich released an audio tape to the national media that she had secretly recorded of Duke’s private conversation with a supporter. The tape (taken entirely out of context) was used to “prove” that Duke was a “Nazi.”
In fact, evidence demonstrates that Taylor does seem to have some sort of friendly behind-the-scenes entente cordiale with the ADL. According to one American revisionist, whose name is well known to revisionists worldwide, Taylor’s wife-to-be, Miss Rich, received a phone call at the home she shared with Taylor from no less than Irwin Suall, the now-deceased longtime chief of the ADL’s “fact finding division.” According to the source (who was visiting Taylor’s home at the time), Taylor answered the phone, then handed it to Miss Rich saying, “It’s Irwin Suall,” after which Miss Rich conversed with the ADL spymaster.
[Note: due to a court-issued gag order on the publisher of this book, the name of the individual who witnessed Taylor’s call from the ADL cannot be mentioned. However, the name of that person was published some years ago in the now-defunct Spotlight newspaper. NEW NOTE: Both Ted O’Keefe and Eric Owens heard that.]
There is a great irony here. Although the ADL claims it opposes “racism,” the fact is Taylor’s views on affirmative action and race quotas are quite similar to those of the ADL and the American Jewish Committee whose magazine, as noted, favorably reviewed Taylor’s book. So perhaps the ADL-Taylor link is not really so surprising.
The inimitable Dr. Robert L. Brock, a longtime Black nationalist who has been a no-holds-barred critic of the Israeli lobby, has summarized Taylor’s stance: “Mr. Taylor talks about how Black folks commit crime and how we’re not as smart as Whites but Mr. Taylor never mentions Zionist power in America.”
In May 2006, writing in his American Renaissance magazine, Taylor lashed out at his critics whom he says advocate the theory of what he calls “a Jewish conspiracy,” never addressing the role of Zionist power in America.With such a tone, he implicitly dismisses criticism of Zionist intrigue and makes it clear he is not about to be re-directed despite the growing criticism of his position on this issue.
Considering all of this, particularly Taylor’s opposition to discussion of Zionism and its role in American affairs, it’s probably worth pointing out that Taylor—a graduate of Yale, a longtime recruiting ground for the CIA—just happened to be wandering around in Ghana during the early 1970s when that West African country was a major focus of interest to the CIA and its allies in Israel’s Mossad.
Israeli historian Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi has written that “if Burma was the great Israeli [geopolitical] success story in Asia, Ghana was the equivalent in Africa.” Beit-Hallahmi writes that Israel’s outpost in Ghana “turned out to be a stepping stone to the rest of Black Africa” but that things went sour, much to Israel’s dismay. Beit Hallahmi points out that the Mossad was riding high in Ghana for years:

The first Israeli ambassador in Africa was Ehud Avriel, stationed in Ghana in 1957, and widely believed to be a Mossad operative. Avriel was active in recruiting individuals for “special missions” all over Africa. Cooperation with Ghana took many forms, marked by mutual enthusiasm . . .
Hundreds of Ghanian trainees went to Israel, and hundreds of Israeli experts came to Ghana. There was also military and intelligence cooperation: Ghana’s air force was supplied with reconditioned military aircraft and training and intelligence training was given by the Mossad.
Israel was described as “Ghana’s closest friend in the early years.” Nevertheless, [Ghana’s leader] Kwame Nkrumah always demonstrated some reservations about Israel . . . While Israel established close ties with . . . the Ghanian leadership even before formal independence in 1956, the special relationship . . . was over by 1967. Formal relations ended on October 28, 1973.

Quite significantly, Taylor’s Ghanian venture took place during the very critical time frame when Israel’s ties with Ghana were dissolving. Beit-Hallahmi (writing in 1987) added:

Elements in the Ghanian secret service are said to have kept contacts with the Mossad even while their countries did not have diplomatic relations, but relations with Ghana [have] worsened since the coup led by Lt. Jerry Rawlings. The Ghanian government accused Israel of being involved in a planned coup attempt [with the CIA and Liberia]. Relations with the U.S. have deteriorated since then, with mutual accusations of spying . . . .

Although we can only speculate as to what young Yale man Taylor was doing in Ghana in the midst of intense CIA and Mossad intrigue in that small country, the bottom line is that Taylor’s actions in America today—more than 30 years later—suggest that Taylor (for whatever reason) has become an asset (in a most unusual way) for advancing one aspect of the Zionist cause within the American nationalist movement.
And let us close our study of The Judas Goats with that . . .

[END OF CHAPTER FORTY-FOUR]

 

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Final_Judgment/FJ-14-PhotoSection.11.html

 

The website of the Anti-Defamation League says about Jared Taylor (American Renaissance):

 » Taylor eschews anti-Semitism. Seeing Jews as white, greatly influential and the “conscience of society,” Taylor rather seeks to partner with Jews who share his views on race and racial diversity. Four out of the 10 speakers at the initial American Renaissance conference in 1994 were Jews, including Michael Levin, a racist professor at the City University of New York and author of Why Race Matters, and Rabbi Mayer Shiller, then head of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys in New York. Jews have been speakers and/or participants at all eight American Renaissance conferences.
During the 2006 American Renaissance conference David Duke, who was not a scheduled presenter, accused Jews of being a “power… that has led to the internal destruction of our will and spirit” during a question-and-answer session. Taylor attempted to “clear the air” regarding Jewish participation in American Renaissance conferences with a piece in the May 2006 edition of the American Renaissance journal in which he wrote, “Jews have, from the outset, been equal participants in our efforts.” However, he also compared the question of “the roles of Jews in society” to questions over homosexuality, foreign policy, and abortion and said that these issues should be openly debated in a “free society.”  »
http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/jar … tem=taylor

La chaine Fox News de Rupert Murdoch a grandement contribué à faire de la publicité pour l’organisation de traîtres de Jared Taylor en la faisant passer non seulement pour une organisation anti-immigration mais aussi pour une organisation antisémite, ce qu’elle n’est surtout pas! (Jared Taylor est, disons-le, un grand amoureux du judaïsme. Un philosémite comme on en rencontre peu de nos jours. )
The Bell Curve a été co-écrit par le juif Richard J. Herrnstein (décédé avant la parution) et le non-juif Charles Murray. Murray est évolutionniste, mais reste religieusement philosémite (il soutient que son livre apporte la preuve définitive que les juifs sont « le peuple élu de Dieu »). Il a gagné le prix Irving Kristol, en l’honneur du néocon juif Irving Kristol.
The Bell Curve a été publié en 1994 par The Free Press, fondé par les juifs Jeremiah Kaplan et Charles Liebman. The Free Press est lié à la prestigieuse maison d’édition Simon & Schuster, qui était en 1994 propriété de Viacom (Sumner Redstone/Rothstein) et depuis 2006 propriété de CBS (de la riche famille juive Tisch).
La publication en 1994 de The Bell Curve a reçu une attention médiatique des plus enviable, ainsi que d’excellentes critiques dans certains des plus prestigieux journaux tels que The New York Times (fondé par la riche famille juive Ochs Sulzberger), The New York Times Magazine et The New York Times Book Review, Newsweek, The New Republic, Time, ForbesThe Wall Street Journal, The National Review, et les émissions télé Nightline, PrimeTime Live, Think Tank, All Things Considered, etc.
Tel qu’indiqué plus haut, The Bell Curve a reçu un accueil enthousiaste de la part des Identitaires les plus en vue, tels Jared Taylor (qui selon les révélations du révisionniste Ted O’Keefe, serait lié par sa femme à l’Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, via Irwin Suall, ainsi qu’à de prestigieux rabbins). La revue juive néoconservatrice Commentary, revue officielle de l’American Jewish Committee, a non seulement louangé la sortie de The Bell Curve ainsi que l’oeuvre de Murray, elle a également salué l’ouvrage de Jared Taylor Paved With Good Intentions. Taylor dit des juifs qu’ils sont « la conscience de la société ». Sans commentaire.

Plus d’info sur le séparatisme suprématiste juif derrière The Bell Curve et les idiots utiles identitaires qui en font la promotion:

AUDIO – Protected: The Piper Report May 6, 2015
Posted by MG editor in Michael Collins Piper archives on 05/05/2015

Michael Collins Piper addresses the question–Are the Jews a ‘superior’ race of people as they incessantly claim?[AUDIO]
This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

 

Jared Taylor’s concubine exposing the horrid Nazis on Frontline (PBS series) in 1992; SPLC covers the case

UPDATED –TAYLOR RESPONDS; I offer $150 for the 1992 Frontline episode “Who is David Duke” showing Jared Taylor’s Jewish concubine Evelyn Rich attacking white nationalists Piper disait, dans The High Priests of War et The Judas Goats, que Jared Taylor est connecté aux juifs et ce fièrement. Sa femme et lui sont fièrement amis avec des rabbins (ex: Meyer Schiller) et des gens reliés à l’ADL… Point intéressant: la femme de Taylor était/est une militante anti-nationaliste blanc-européen et elle a même passé à la télé sur PBS (Frontline) pour parler de ses recherches.

 

Goldnadel serait-il un jared-taylorien?

Goldnadel : réflexions sereines sur l’affaire Morano « (…) Pour se convaincre du bien-fondé de ma thèse habituelle sur la naissance du «politiquement correct» moderne à partir du choc traumatique de la Shoah, on pourra se persuader de la concordance de la proscription verbale du mot contesté avec le génocide nazi en se référant au texte du «Courrier de l’Unesco» rédigé en 1950, qui au lendemain donc de la seconde guerre mondiale, proposait d’abandonner le vocable honni au profit du, paraît-il , plus correct «groupe ethnique», celui-ci prenant en compte l’élément culturel cher à Lévi-Strauss. Le politiquement correct était né. Du traumatisme suprême. Avec de bonnes intentions. Dont l’enfer serait pavé.(…)La réponse évidente à cette question est unique : l’obsession xénophile issue du choc médiatique de la Shoah est passée au milieu. »
(Goldnadel a compris depuis longtemps que l’endoctrinement shoatique n’aide pas vraiment les sionistes! Goldnadel accuse l’endoctrinement-sensibilisation shoatique d’être à la source de la xénophilie sur laquelle s’est fondée la rectitude politique « pavée de bonnes intentions »…)
Le faux nationaliste blanc Jared Taylor est un ami intime du faux révisionniste de l’Holocauste Mark Weber, qui a mis les millions de Liberty Lobby dans ses poches en vendant toutes la librairie de l’Institute for Historical Review, qu’il dirige depuis plusieurs années (à la faveur d’un coup d’État mené par des agents de la scientologie, de l’Anti-Defamation League et de la CIA, sous la tutelle des services secrets israéliens). Depuis le début de l’année 2009, ce directeur de l’institut révisionniste le plus en vue aux USA affirme que l’Holocauste a bel et bien eu lieu.
Le néocon américain Frank Gaffney a fait une entrevue très cordiale avec leader nationaliste blanc et fondateur d’AmRen Jared Taylor, dont les liens étroits (mais peu connus) avec des rabbins et avec l’Anti-Defamation League laissent songeurs. Taylor est cité comme source d’inspiration dans le manifeste du tireur de Charleston (été 2015). Rappelons que Gaffney est cité 7 fois comme autorité dans le manifeste de Breivik, le tireur d’Oslo… Mais surtout pas d’amalgame! Car notre bon « néo-nationaliste » Finkielkraut est lui aussi cité comme autorité dans ce manifeste, et le pauvre il n’y est pour rien! (MDR!)

Qui est Frank Gaffney, le conseiller “anti-musulmans” de Donald Trump ? A la faveur des dernières saillies de Donald Trump sur les musulmans, un conseiller politique extrémiste revient sur le devant de la scène.(…)  Des liens avec suprémacistes blancs:  Gaffney a son propre talk show radio, à l’audience confidentielle. En septembre, il invite Jared Taylor, un white nationalist [nationaliste blanc] à la tête du Council of Conservative Citizens, un groupuscule que le meurtrier de l’église de Charleston a cité comme source d’inspiration dans son manifeste.

Meet Frank Gaffney, Donald Trump’s Expert on Muslim Conspiracies On Monday evening, presidential candidate Donald Trump announced that Muslims, including US citizens, should be banned from entering the United States. In his statement he linked to a poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), an organization founded by the notorious anti-Muslim extremist Frank Gaffney. (…)Gaffney’s campaign against Syrian refugees has prompted him to seek out more radical allies. In September, Gaffney invited white nationalist Jared Taylor on his radio show to discuss the Syrian refugee crisis. Taylor is one of the most outspoken white nationalists in America today. Following the murder of nine African Americans in Charleston this summer, Taylor was appointed spokesperson by the white nationalist group Council of Conservative Citizens, the group alleged perpetrator Dylann Roof cited as his gateway into white nationalism. In 2005 for example, after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Taylor wrote, “When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears.” During the interview, Gaffney called Taylor’s vile American Renaissance website « wonderful, » and asked, “Is it the death of Europe what we’re seeing at the moment in terms of this migration, this invasion?” After a number of watchdog groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote about Taylor’s appearance on Secure Freedom Radio, Gaffney backtracked, and attempted to bury the evidence by scrubbing the Taylor interview from his site and claimed he was “unfamiliar” with Taylor’s views before inviting him on.

GOP Candidates’ Favorite Anti-Muslim Activist Interviews Prominent White Nationalist [Jared Taylor]

CAIR Islamophobia Watch: Islamophobe Frank Gaffney Hosts ‘White Supremacist’ Jared Taylor

Anti-Muslim Activist Frank Gaffney Interviews White Nationalist Jared Taylor on His Radio Show Sharing the Stage: Islamophobe Frank Gaffney invites white nationalist Jared Taylor to appear on his radio show.

Don’t Be Fooled By Frank Gaffney’s Backtracking About White Nationalist Jared Taylor

Frank Gaffney regrets speaking to white nationalist Jared Taylor. Why you shouldn’t believe him.

« Wonderful »: Wash. Times Columnist Frank Gaffney Lavishes Praise On White Nationalist Leader [Jared Taylor]

Jared Taylor est cité de nombreuses fois dans le manifeste du tireur fou de Charleston (été 2015), comme source d’inspiration de son manifeste.

4. Les liens financiers de Malachi Martin avec l’IHR sous contrôle de Mark Weber, dans le but de détruire Liberty Lobby.


AUDIO – Michael Collins Piper Interviews Jim Condit Jr. – Zionist Infiltration of the Vatican

“The special guest on the January 18 edition of Michael Collins Piper’s nightly forum on the Republic Broadcasting Network at RepublicBroadcasting.org was veteran political activist and Traditionalist Catholic James Condit Jr.. Condit joined Piper to discuss the outrageous intrigues of the late Father Malachi Martin who was the subject of a chapter in Piper’s new book THE JUDAS GOATS which analyzes Zionist infiltration of the American nationalist movement and which detailed (based on Condit’s research and that of others) the little-known story of how Father Martin a priest working high up in the Vatican acted as an agent of Zionist interests during the Vatican II “reform” conference of the early 1960s bending the doctrines of the Catholic Church to accord with the demands of the Zionist interests. Amazingly, Martin later was anointed by the Zionist-controlled mass media as a”critic” of the very so-called “reforms” that he had helped bring about at the direction of his Zionist handlers. Piper and Condit pointed out that the first evidence of Zionist infiltration of the Vatican came in a LOOK magazine article in 1966 entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.” However LOOK did not identify Martin as the Zionist agent. It did mention though that the Zionist agent had written a book under a pseudonym Michael Serafian.It was some years later that that pseudonym was revealed to be a pen-name for none other than Malachi Martin. So there is no question that Martin was a Zionist agent. Just recently Condit pointed out the depraved pro-Zionist Southern Poverty Law Center of Morris Dees which acts as an adjunct of the Zionist Anti-Defamation League had published a broadside attacking traditionalist Catholic organizations that have been critical of Zionism and of its role in warping traditional/historic/ancient original Catholic Church doctrine. In other Piper noted that Father Martin, during his final days, was active in financing an organization The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) that had itself been infiltrated from within and then used to destroy Liberty Lobby the longtime Washington populist Institution that published The SPOTLIGHT newspaper for which Piper wrote for many years. Piper himself learned of Martin’s financial support for the IHR from a press release issued by Mark Weber of the IHR following Martin’s death in which Weber bragged of Martin’s secret backing of the IHR during the time that it was being used to attack Liberty Lobby. Later Weber pulled that information about Martin’s backing of the IHR from the IHR website apparently after having been tipped off that Piper was preparing to blow the whistle on Martin’s Zionist connections based on material published by Lawrence T. Patterson of CRIMINAL POLITICS magazine. In fact it was Piper’s guest James Condit Jr.who had been involved in preparing the expose of Martin’s role as a “priest-spy for Zionism” inside the Vatican. Piper noted also that Martin’s close friend pro-Zionist former CIA agent William F. Buckley Jr. and Buckley’s own former CIA colleague E. Howard Hunt had waged two unsuccessful lawsuits to destroy Liberty Lobby only to have their efforts derailed by outspoken anti-Zionist attorney Mark Lane. Later the intriguers regrouped and under the direction of yet another CIA figure Andrew Allen took over the IHR and used it to destroy Liberty Lobby in yet another lawsuit that succeeded in bankrupting Liberty Lobby. So it was a known Zionist agent Malachi Martin who was collaborating with those who destroyed Liberty Lobby. In any case Piper’s guest Condit pointed that the story of how the Vatican has been undermined from within has parallels to the same way that similar Zionist water-carriers inside the Protestant churches–such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson–have also engaged in similar intrigues. The lessons of the dangers of such “Judas Goats” need to be examined in detail in order to understand how the Zionists engage in hard-core political wrecking operations designed to undercut all forms of Christian religions, yesterday and today. For more about the topic of the infiltration of the Catholic Church by Zionism.”

Here is a complete archive of information exposing zioninst-operative inside The Vatican « Father » Malachi Martin: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/201…hi-martin.html
Specifically this essay: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/201…ns-coffin.html

5. Les liens d’amitié de Malachi Martin avec l’agent de la CIA William F. Buckley (cheval de troie néocon chez les nationalistes), ennemi déclaré de Liberty Lobby et de l’IHR de Willis Carto.

 

Dès sa fondation par Robert Welch (que Eustace Mullins identifie comme un franc-maçon du 32e degré), la John Birch Society  a servi à influencer de la manière la plus néfaste le mouvement nationaliste américain. La JBS sert à injecter dans le mouvement nationaliste la pensée internationaliste des néocons de même que le sionisme. Les têtes pensantes de la JBS étaient des ex-trotskyites, néocons et sionistes. Le financement du fondateur de la JBS Robert Welch (lié à la puissante industrie du sucre) par les Rockefeller est reconnu par Eustace Mullins dans son fameux livre sur le Réserve fédérale. La JBS vantait les mérites d’Israel en disant par exemple qu’Israel était un bastion de l’anti-communisme. Mais en réalité au Moyen-orient à cette époque, c’était en Israël qu’on dénombrait le plus de partis communistes, alors que les pays musulmans en comptaient très peu voire pas du tout! Le journal de la JBS a aussi grandement contribué à faire connaître l’ « oeuvre » d’Antony 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). Une idée récurrente de la JBS est que la finance de Wall Street, Rockefeller et les think tanks mondialistes du CFR, de la Trilatérale et surtout l’Onu conspirent enemble pour instaurer un gouvernement mondial communiste (!), suivant le projet des illuminati (communistes) qui ont pris contrôle, selon leurs sources, de la franc-maçonnerie. Les propos d’auteurs comme Gary Allen (None Dare Call It Conspiracy) et d’influenceurs d’opinion comme Alex Jones et Joel et Alex Skousen viennent tout droit de la JBS. La propagation des théories du complot impliquant la fluoration, les vaccins, les camps de la FEMA, les armées secrètes de l’Onu, l’abolition des droits et libertés individuelles par un gouvernement totalitaire, témoigne de l’influence de la JBS. Les adeptes de la JBS blâment systématiquement Wall Street et Rockefeller, mais jamais ils ne blâment la franc-maçonnerie ou les sionistes, encore moins les juifs. Leurs sources conspirationnistes basiques sont Nesta Webster, Ford et Lindbergh, mais ils ne réfèrent explicitement qu’à Nesta Webster et Lingbergh (Ford est exclu pour son antijudaïsme). Pour Nesta Webster, la franc-maçonnerie anglaise ne fait pas partie du grand Complot, lequel est essentiellement de source illuminati et d’orientation communiste-révolutionnaire, car les illuminati auraient pris le contrôle de la franc-maçonnerie.  Pour Revilo P. Oliver, un ancien leader de la JBS, cette dernière était tellement opposée à tout antijudaïsme et à toute dénonciation du pouvoir juif, qu’elle aurait dû selon lui être baptisée la BNai Birch! Concernant l’assassinat de JFK, la position de la JBS est que la commission Warren dit vrai: Oswald était le tireur fou solitaire et communiste qui a tué JFK. Alors qu’il était encore un  leader de la JBS, Revilo P. Oliver défendit la théorie du complot accusant les soviétiques d’avoir tué JFK (théorie conçue et propagée par James Jesus Angleton, numéro 2 de la CIA et liaison officielle entre la CIA et Israël). Mais il avait déjà compris à quel point il avait été berné par la JBS lorsqu’il eu enfin la chance de lire Final Judgment, au sujet duquel il a déclaré qu’il en aurait écrit un compte-rendu des plus élogieux s’il n’avait été aussi malade dans ses derniers jours.

Quelques images de la section photo de The Judas Goats

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Final_Judgment/FJ-14-PhotoSection.11.html

Le fondateur du journal National Review, William F. Buckley Jr. était très influent au sein de la JBS et de son lectorat. Tout un traître à la cause nationaliste! Pseudocatho, demi-juif, prosioniste, prestigieux invité de Bilderberg, membre du CFR (la succursale américaine du RIIA des Rothschild basé dans la City de Londres), gradué de Yale, Skull and Bones, et « ex » agent de la CIA.  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 l’ex-jésuite Malachi Martin, un pur agent sioniste qui deviendra l’un des plus importants traîtres envers l’Église catholique, supervisant 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. Revilo P. Oliver affirmait lui aussi que Malachi Martin était un agent sioniste, et il disait même que Martin était un courier transportant d’importantes sommes d’argent lors de ses aller-retours constants entre le Vatican et New York. Dans son livre The Judas Goats, Michael Collins Piper parle beaucoup de William F. Buckley Jr. 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 ». Buckley a aussi des liens avec le célèbre agent de la CIA E. Howard Hunt : Buckley était rien de moins que le supérieur immédiat de Hunt à la CIA!

(The Judas Goats – The Enemy Within, Michael Collins Piper, 2006)
amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Judas_Goats/JudasGoats_Art/JudasGoats-p356-125pc529x907.jpg

Photo ci-dessus: 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.

 

Chapter Twenty-Two
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 and 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? 

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)

6. Les liens d’amitié de Malachi Martin avec l’agent de la CIA et E. Howard Hunt (ami de Buckley) et le procès de ce dernier contre Liberty Lobby (Carto, Piper, etc.) représenté par Mark Lane.

THE JUDAS GOATS–THE ENEMY WITHIN
 Chapter Twenty-Four
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 namedMatthew Peter Balicwho 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.
[END OF CHAPTER]

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
liberal.”

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 was Marvin 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 LaneHunt’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.
[END OF ARTICLE]
 

Michael Collins Piper, in The Judas Goats–The Enemy Within

DELMAR DENNIS
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 theclaim 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.

(…)

THE JUDAS GOATS–THE ENEMY WITHIN
An introduction to Part III
The Rise of the
“Responsible Conservatives”
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.

(…)

THE JUDAS GOATS–THE ENEMY WITHIN
Chapter Seventeen
Early Zionist Corruption
of the American Nationalist and
Anti-Communist Cause
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.




Chapter Eighteen
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. Buckley—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.

Toujours William F Buckley (et son ami Malachi Martin) appuyant E. Howard Hunt dans sa lutte juridique contre Liberty Lobby:

Détails sur la victoire de Mark Lane représentant Liberty Lobby dans le procès intenté contre eux par E. Howard Hunt.

 

 

Piper Michael Collins – Final Judgment

Extrait des remerciements de Final Judgment:
Aknowledgements–and Intrigue…
(…)What’s more, as you’ll see in Final Judgment, Liberty Lobby became embroiled in a heated libel trial after ex-CIA figure E. Howard Hunt brought a lawsuit against Liberty Lobby for publishing an article alleging the CIA intended to frame Hunt for involvement in the JFK assassination. Handling The Spotlight‘s successful defense, appropriately enough, was Mark Lane, dean of the Warren Commission critics. Lane put aside presumed ideological differences with Liberty Lobby and skillfully used the Hunt case to explore the JFK assassination in a legal forum—the first such opportunity since Jim Garrison’s ill-fated prosecution of Clay Shaw. Thus, following the Hunt case from the « inside »—and later studying Lane‘s account of the affair in Plausible Denial—gave me a unique vantage point others haven’t had. I thank Mark Lane—and Willis Carto, the founder of Liberty Lobby—for this opportunity. Willis Carto’s encouragement and enthusiasm were most important in making this book possible. The title for Final Judgment was his suggestion and right on target. As for Mark Lane, let it be noted that had he not written one word after Rush to Judgment—the book that proved the Warren Commission Report a fraud—we would still be indebted to Mark for that alone. Although many books from others came later, Mark’s singular crusade convinced the world there was much more to the story. Mark and his one-of-a-kind wife, Trish, are tremendous human beings and valued friends.(…)

p.114-118:
THE CIA PREVAILS

In his book Plausible Denial, Mark Lane summarizes the events which occurred: « Just four days after the death of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson signed NSAM 273 that began to reverse the policy of withdrawal from Vietnam and signified the beginning of the escalation of the conflict. The CIA had prevailed. The effort in Southeast Asia was to become a massive land-based war. »
« During March, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM 288 that repudiated Kennedy’s plan to end the U.S. military participation in the war that year. In the months that followed, Johnson increased the military commitment from under 20,000 troops to approximately a quarter of a million. » (311)
« Years later . . . after the deaths of more than 50,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, the war finally ended with the military defeat of the United States. »(312)
However, as we have seen in Chapter 6, the war in Vietnam proved a boon to the CIA’s allies in Israel, allowing the Middle East state to flex its muscles in the region. And in Chapter 12 we shall see that a joint CIA-Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate venture in the international drug racket out of Southeast Asia proved so very profitable, conducted under military cover in the midst of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
THE CIA AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
It was not until the release of Plausible Denial that the extent of the CIA’s involvement in the JFK assassination was fully outlined. Suspicion of the CIA’s complicity was commonplace over the years, but Lane‘s book proved the matter once and for all. And, significantly, his book was a written summation of a libel trial in Miami some years previously in which the jury had concluded that the CIA had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up.
The circumstances of how the trial came about are interesting. It was in 1978, that a Washington-based weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, published an article by former high-ranking CIA official Victor Marchetti which alleged the CIA intended to frame longtime CIA operative E. Howard Hunt for involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
Hunt, of course, was the CIA’s chief political liaison with the anti-Castro Cuban community during the period leading up to the JFK assassination and who had, subsequently, over the years, been mentioned as a suspect in the assassination conspiracy.
(Hunt had organized, on the CIA’s behalf, several anti-Castro Cuban groups, including the Revolutionary Democratic Front. Hunt‘s Cuban point man in the RDF, Antonio de Varona, in fact, personally received funding for the RDF from Meyer Lansky himself.) (313)
Marchetti’s article suggested that there was then so much growing suspicion that the CIA had been involved in the JFK assassination that the CIA had decided that it would sacrifice Hunt and say that Hunt was a « renegade » operative involved in the president’s assassination.
HUNT A FREE-LANCE OPERATIVE?
However, according to Marchetti, the CIA intended to say that Hunt and his co-conspirators had been operating independently—that the CIA as an institution had not been part of the conspiracy.
Although the editors of The Spotlight felt Marchetti’s article served, if anything, as an advance warning to Hunt about what his former employers had in mind, the ex-CIA man decided to sue, even though he ultimately admitted under oath that he believed The Spotlight‘s story seemed plausible. When the case finally went to trial in federal court in Miami, the newspaper suffered a devastating loss. The jury found in favor of Hunt and ordered The Spotlight to pay $650,000 in damages.
Fortunately—for The Spotlight—an error in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury gave the populist weekly grounds for an appeal. When the case was successfully appealed and ordered for retrial, Mark Lane—an attorney—stepped in for the defense.
Among the big names deposed during the Hunt case were: former CIA Director Richard Helms; former CIA Director Stansfield Turner; former CIA chief for the Western Hemisphere David Phillips; and former CIA and FBI man (and Watergate celebrity) G. Gordon Liddy. The most damning evidence against Hunt came, however, when attorney Lane presented the deposition of former CIA operative Marita Lorenz.
HUNT, STURGIS AND RUBY IN DALLAS
Miss Lorenz testified that one day prior to the president’s assassination she arrived in Dallas (traveling from a CIA « safe house » in Miami) in a twocar caravan. Accompanying Miss Lorenz on what she described as a secret mission were several CIA operatives, led by Miss Lorenz’ CIA « handler, » Frank Sturgis, armed with telescopic rifles. According to Miss Lorenz she had not been apprised of the purpose of the mission. Upon arrival in Dallas, according to Miss Lorenz, they met with not only E. Howard Hunt, who was functioning as the CIA operatives’ paymaster, but also nightclub operator Jack Ruby who later executed the president’s alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. When Hunt himself took the stand, attorney Lane, while questioning Hunt, pointed out numerous inconsistencies in Hunt’s testimony. Hunt himself had told several stories, over the years, about where he had been on the day the president was assassinated. It was Miss Lorenz’ testimony, however, that convinced the jury that the CIA had been involved in the Kennedy assassination. The jury found in favor of The Spotlight and dismissed Hunt‘s claim. Leslie Armstrong, a Miami resident who was jury forewoman in the case, issued a statement in conjunction with the release of Lane‘s written account of the trial: « Mr. Lane was asking us [the jury] to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy. » (314) In his best-selling Plausible DenialLane recounted this exciting trial and demonstrated other compelling evidence that he uncovered which proves that the CIA did indeed have a hand in the president’s assassination But in Chapter 16 of Final Judgment we will look more closely at the activities of both E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, examining remarkable evidence which points further toward the involvement of the Mossad—alongside the CIA—in the JFK assassination conspiracy.
THE NOVO BROTHERS
But there are other interesting connections, in the meantime, that should be explored. Lane has described how Miss Lorenz had gone even further in her testimony, naming other CIA operatives who had been in the two-car caravan organized by Frank Sturgis in which Lorenz traveled from Miami to Dallas. According to Lane, « Before Miss Lorenz testified, I asked her, Will you tell me the names of the people who traveled with you in that two-car caravan?’
« She said that she wouldn’t name names. ‘That could get me killed,’ she said. ‘Don’t ask me that question. I want you to promise me that you won’t ask me that question.’ However,  » according to Lane, « Mr. Hunt‘s lawyer asked her that question and she answered it, to my surprise. She said that it was the Novo brothers. »
According to Lane, « The Novo brothers—Guillermo and Ignacio—are very interesting characters. I’ve done some research on them. I can assure you, » said Lane, « that the first time I heard their name connected with the Kennedy assassination was when Miss Lorenz gave their names to Hunt‘s lawyer. She had not told me anything before that.
« After her testimony to Hunt‘s lawyer, I asked Miss Lorenz, ‘Why did you tell them?’ She said—referring to Hunt, the CIA and his lawyers—`If they are so dumb as to ask me that question, then it is not my fault if I give them the answer. It’s on their heads,’ said Miss Lorenz. `If you had asked me, it would have been a different story. However, if the CIA—through Hunt and his lawyers—asked that question, then it’s on the record and it’s their fault, not mine.’ »
THE HUNTBUCKLEY CONNECTION
« These Novo brothers that Miss Lorenz named have been involved in a series of intelligence related crimes. They were involved in the murder in Washington, D.C. in 1976 of former Chilean government official Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffit, a woman who was with him. A man named Michael Townley who was connected with the Chilean secret police was involved in planning the Letelier murder with the Novo brothers. When Townley was indicted, he testified against the Novos.
« Townley was questioned by the FBI who asked Townley to show them where in New York City he had his first meeting with the Novos. Townley pointed out a building at 500 Fifth Avenue and showed the FBI the office on the 41st floor where the first meeting was held. » (315)
According to Lane, research indicated that the meeting was held in the office of then-U.S. Sen. James Buckley (C-N.Y.). Now a federal judge on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Buckley is the brother of former CIA operative and conservative fortnightly National Review founderWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.
(E. Howard Hunt was William F. Buckley’s immediate superior in the CIA during the period that the two served together in the CIA in Mexico for nine months in the period of 1951-52.)
According to Lane, « The testimony by Townley made reference to a William Sampol who worked in James Buckley‘s office. Sampol was a cousin of the Novo brothers. »(316)
Lane points out that the murder of Letelier took place during the time that George Bush was director of the CIA: « There is evidence that Bush was given information that indicated that the Chilean government was responsible for the murder of Letelier. However, Bush gave information to selected friends in the news media the story that Letelier was killed by his own supporters who wanted to make him [Letelier] a martyr. According to Lane, « It was William F. Buckley, Jr. who took that story from Bush and ran with it. The media followed Buckley‘s lead, but the story turned out not to be true. »
(In Chapter 20, as we shall see, it was George Bush who, in many ways, had very close connections to a number of the key players in the strange netherworld of international intelligence as it is linked to the JFK assassination.)
As Lane points out: « The Novos were both convicted of the Letelier murder and sentenced to prison. These are the brothers that Marita Lorenz testified were in the two-car caravan of killers traveling from Miami to Dallas for the purpose of assassinating President Kennedy. » (317)(…)
Chapter Sixteen

Double Cross in Dallas? What Really Happened in Dealey Plaza ?

James Jesus Angleton, E. Howard Hunt and the JFK Assassination.

The Truth About the « French Connection » It was in a little publicized libel trial conducted in Miami in 1985 that veteran Kennedy assassination investigator Mark Lane proved to the satisfaction of a jury that the CIA played a part in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Lane’s groundbreaking best seller, Plausible Denial, published in 1991, told the whole incredible story. Evidence from that trial also points toward Israel’s connect ion to the assassination through the off ices of Israel’s CIA ally, James Jesus Angleton. It was Angleton who assisted in the cover-up of his favorite foreign nation’s central role alongside the CIA in the murder of JFK. There is also strange new evidence that there was much more happening in Dealey Plaza in Dallas than even many o f those involved in the events surrounding the JFK assassination really knew.

Mark Lane‘s Plausible Denial proved conclusively that the CIA had a hand in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As we saw in Chapter 9, Lane‘s book told how the Washington-based Spotlight newspaper’s libel trial with ex-CIA man E. Howard Hunt brought into a Florida courtroom the first hard evidence linking the CIA to the Kennedy assassination. As noted previously, Lane agreed to serve as The Spotlight‘s defense attorney after Hunt won a $650,000 libel judgment against the populist weekly. It was Lane who successfully handled The Spotlight‘s defense after the case again went to trial after the initial libel verdict was overturned. The libel action stemmed from an article published in the pages of The Spotlight in 1978. The article was written by Victor Marchetti, an ex-CIA executive officer who had become internationally famous after he published his best-selling critique, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, the first book ever censored prior to publication by the CIA. After leaving the CIA, Marchetti became a journalist, specializing in matters relating to the CIA and the intelligence community in general. As such he was a recognized authority in his field and had done a number of intelligence-related articles for The Spotlight, among numerous other publications, both here in the United States and abroad. As a consequence, when Marchetti approached The Spotlight with a rather intriguing article which gave an interesting new slant on the JFK assassination furor (in the midst of the House Assassinations Committee investigation), the editors of the weekly newspaper were interested.

CIA TO FRAME HUNT?

Marchetti’s article suggested that upper echelon executives of the CIA had decided to frame E. Howard Hunt for involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Not that Hunt was involved in the crime—simply that the CIA had decided to frame Hunt for the deed. This distinction is important. Over the years, several assassination buffs had claimed that the famous photographs taken in Dealey Plaza of three so-called « tramps » being led away from the scene by police officers revealed Hunt as one of those tramps. This story was picked up the tabloids and given wide play.

A CIA-MOSSAD CONCOCTION?

However, there are those who believe that the « Hunt as a tramp » story was, in fact, deliberately trumped up as part of the CIA’s scheme to frame Hunt for involvement in the assassination. It was the CIA’s plan to implicate Hunt that Victor Marchetti exposed in The Spotlight. The leading promoter of the theory that Hunt was one of the « tramps » in Dallas is A. J. Weberman who maintains very close ties to the Jewish Defense League. Weberman has also been closely associated with Mordechai Levi, a known agent provocateur of the Israeli Mossad’s propaganda and intelligence arm, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, which we examine in further detail in Chapter 17.

(Levi was also active in the Jewish Defense League (JDL), created by militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. In Chapter 8 we saw that Kahane was a CIA asset and protégé of Jay Lovestone who handled CIA liaison with the Meyer Lansky-linked French Corsican and Sicilian Mafias. Lovestone’s operation was directed out of James J. Angleton’s Israeli desk at the CIA.)

It may very well be that the « Hunt as a tramp » story being touted by Weberman was indeed a CIA-Mossad concoction to further muddy the waters. What is interesting is that in 1975—precisely at the time when Weberman was publishing and promoting a book that named Hunt as one of the tramps—a strange letter appeared, anonymously, in the mailbox of another (and more reliable) assassination researcher, Penn Jones, Jr. The letter was written in Spanish and its envelope earned a Mexico City postmark. The letter accompanied another letter which read as follows: « 

Dear Mr. Hunt, 
I would like information concerding [sic] my position. 
I am asking only for information. 
I am suggest ing that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.
Thank you,
Lee Harvey Oswald

Subsequent analyses suggested that the letter may or may not have been Oswald’s handwriting (although he was known to misspell even his own middle name as it was misspelled in the letter. When word of the letter’s existence gained circulation, the reference to a « Mr. Hunt » created immediate speculation that the Hunt in question was either Texas oilman H. L. Hunt or, more than likely, E. Howard Hunt.
In light of the then-current rumors about Hunt‘s alleged role in the JFK affair, coupled with his known connections to the CIA and, in particular, Mexico City, where he had been active during his CIA career, the suspicions about E. Howard Hunt were quite natural.
It is interesting, though, that the letter was sent from Mexico City, Hunt‘s former base of operations. Whether the letter was real or not, it is obvious that someone wanted to throw further suspicion on E. Howard Hunt—and succeeded.
That the Weberman story of « Hunt as a tramp » and the « Dear Mr. Hunt » letter appeared at the same time are particularly intriguing in light of another matter we are about to consider.
Both the « Hunt as a tramp » story and the « Dear Mr. Hunt » letter appear to be part and parcel of a CIA black propaganda operation run by the Mossad’s man at the CIA, James J. Angleton.

HUNT WAS IN DALLAS
Ironically, as we shall see, the evidence suggests that E. HowardHunt was indeed in Dallas—on, at the very least, November 21, 1963—and very much involved in strange activities in league with key players in the JFK assassination scenario.
According to Marchetti, widespread public suspicion of CIA involvement in the president’s murder was forcing the CIA to play its hand and « admit » that, in fact, one of its more notorious longtime operatives, Hunt, had indeed been in Dallas on the day that Kennedy was killed.
Obviously, Hunt—with his well-known ties to the anti-Castro Cubans, often considered prime suspects in the JFK assassination—would have a difficult time explaining why he had been in Big D on that fateful day—if indeed he had been.
Interesting, Marchetti’s article never said that Hunt had, in fact, been involved in the assassination conspiracy.
Marchetti’s article said only that top-ranking CIA officials had decided to frame Hunt for the crime. Hunt, according to Marchetti’s sources, was deemed expendable. Marchetti’s article r eported that a strange in-house CIA memo—allegedly written some years previously—had somehow ended up in the hands of investigators for the House Assassinations Committee and that Hunt, as a consequence, would ultimately be forced to explain his reported presence in Dallas (as described in the memo) on November 22, 1963.
The editors of The Spotlight felt Marchetti’s article served, if anything, as an advance warning to Hunt of what his former employers had in mind. The Spotlight‘s editors didn’t, in fact, feel that the article implicated Hunt in the president’s murder.
Inexplicably, however, the ex-CIA man decided to sue, even though he ultimately admitted under oath that when he first read The Spotlight‘s story that Marchetti’s contentions seemed plausible indeed. In short, that Hunt did believe that his former colleagues would be willing to throw him to the wolves—for their own nefarious reasons.
Hunt‘s lawsuit against The Spotlight did go to trial. However, The Spotlight‘s management did not take the lawsuit seriously. They did not believe either that the article damaged Hunt‘s reputation or that Hunt‘s attorneys could prove that the newspaper had published the article maliciously.
(In fact, The Spotlight had invited Hunt to visit the newspaper’s editorial offices for an interview to rebut the claims made in Marchetti’s article or to even write an article rebutting Marchetti’s article.)
During that trial, The Spotlight‘s attorney unexpectedly stipulated that the newspaper did not believe that Hunt had been in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The trial, however, resulted in a massive $650,000 libel judgment against the newspaper. The Spotlight appealed the judgment and the appeals court granted a new trial on the basis that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury had been faulty .

LANE ENTERS THE CASE
It was at this point that famed JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane, an attorney, entered into the case—almost purely by chance, having been introduced to the publisher of The Spotlight by a mutual acquaintance shortly before the case was heard on appeal.
Based upon his own decades of intensive research, Lane had long been convinced that the CIA had been instrumental in orchestrating the JFK assassination, but he had never had a legal forum in which to conduct an investigation of this sort.
The new trial—which took place in 1985 (some seven years after the controversial article had first been published) gave him that opportunity. Lane launched The Spotlight‘s defense with a very different approach.
He contended that Hunt had indeed been in Dallas just prior to the president’s murder and that he would be able to prove it. This took Hunt‘s lawyers by surprise, to say the least, but despite their efforts to derail Lane‘s new approach, they were unsuccessful.
The key witness in the second libel trial (conducted in Miami) was Marita Lorenz, a former CIA operative who had testified before the House Assassinations Committee in 1978, relating what information she had in connection with the president’s assassination.
Yet, despite the inflammatory nature of what Miss Lorenz had told the committee, her testimony was discounted by the House Committee director G. Robert Blakey (about whose own connections with the CIA and the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate we learned in Chapter 10). Miss Lorenz, a German-born beauty, had, in fact, been the one-time mistress of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, but she had ultimately turned on the Cuban leader and had become involved in anti-Castro activities under the CIA’s tutelage. Among her key contacts in the CIA during this period was the CIA’s chief liaison with the anti-Castro Cuban operatives, E. Howard Hunt, as well as veteran CIA contract agent Frank Sturgis who essentially functioned as her handler. Mark Lane asked Miss Lorenz to testify in the Hunt trial in The Spotlight‘s defense, restating—again under oath—what she had told the House Assassinations Committee and what she had told Lane himself years previously.

HUNT AND RUBY IN DALLAS
So it was that during the Hunt libel trial, Miss Lorenz testified in a deposition that just one day prior to Kennedy’s assassination, she, along with Sturgis and several anti-Castro Cuban exiles, met in Dallas with not only E. Howard Hunt, but also nightclub operator Jack Ruby who later killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s alleged assassin. According to Miss Lorenz, Hunt was the CIA paymaster for a top-secret operation, the purpose of which she did not know. Miss Lorenz said that she had been told by Sturgis that she was to serve as a « decoy. » However, feeling uneasy, Miss Lorenz left Dallas on November 22 and never participated in the operation. It was later she learned that President Kennedy had been assassinated and that, of course Jack Ruby had killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s alleged assassin. (589) As for Hunt himself, his contradictory stories about where he was situated both the day before the Kennedy assassination and the day of the assassination itself were suspicious. Lane took excellent advantage of Hunt‘s sworn statements (in deposition and during the two trials, as well as several other forums) to show those contradictions. These contradictions alone could have spelled Hunt‘s courtroom demise. What’s more, the witnesses called in Hunt‘s defense by the ex-CIA man’s attorneys only ended up suggesting Hunt had more to hide than he had to admit. Many of these witnesses, in fact, were an assortment of Hunt‘s former CIA colleagues, a number of whom were represented during their testimony in deposition by CIA-dispatched lawyers. However, it was the testimony of Marita Lorenz that convinced the jury, once and for all, that The Spotlight (and Lane himself) had a much more plausible story than Hunt. Thus, the stunning courtroom victory for The Spotlight, vanquishing Hunt‘s libel action. Leslie Armstrong, a Miami resident who was jury forewoman in the case, issued a statement in conjunction with the release of Lane‘s written account of the trial: « Mr. Lane was asking us [the jury] to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy. » (590) Despite this stunning conclusion, the media remained silent. Very little about Hunt‘s courtroom defeat appeared in the media, particularly the sum and substance of Miss Lorenz’s amazing allegations. This, of course, was real news in every sense but the media chose to ignore what had taken place in that Miami courtroom. Interestingly, however, as we shall see, there was yet another newspaper report (similar in content to that of Victor Marchetti’s disputed article) which—like Marchetti’s—suggests that there was a lot more to the story than meets the eye.

THE ANGLETON CONNECTION
In fact, the in-house CIA memorandum linking Hunt to the JFK assassination was the work of Israel’s ally at the CIA, James Jesus Angleton, whose own history we examined in Chapter 8 and whom we have met repeatedly throughout these pages. This is not to suggest, though, that Hunt was not in Dallas on either November 21 or November 22, 1963. On the contrary, the evidence we are about to relate suggests that Hunt‘s presence in Dallas—for whatever purpose—was indeed linked in some fashion to the circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination conspiracy. This evidence suggests, as we shall see, that it was Angleton—who was also responsible for leaking the memo he drafted that linked Hunt to the JFK assassination. Before proceeding further with our exploration of Angleton’s deeds and misdeeds, particularly in relation to Hunt, it is important to review Victor Marchetti’s article (printed in The Spotlight on August 14, 1978) which is published here in pertinent part:
A few months ago, in March, there was a meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the plush home of America’s super spooks overlooking the Potomac River. It was attended by several high-level clandestine officers and some former top officials of the agency. The topic of the discussion was: What to do about recent revelations associating President Kennedy’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, with the spy game played between the U.S. and the USSR? A decision was made, and a course o f action determined. They were calculated to both fascinate and confuse the public by staging a clever ‘limited hangout’ when the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) holds its open hearings, beginning later this month. A « limit ed hangout » is spy jargon for a favorit e and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals.
When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further. We will probably never find out who mast erminded the assassination of JFK—or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder. But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensat ional, but only superficially so. A f ew of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and it s subsequent cover-up will be identified for the first time—and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead. But once again, the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another cover-up, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration. A classic example of a limited hangout I show the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee’s invest igat ion [of the CIA] two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK’s murder. Chief among those to be exposed by the new investigation will be E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame. His luck has run out, and the CIA has decided to sacrifice him to protect its clandestine services. The agency is furious with Hunt for having dragged it publicly into the Nixon mess and for having blackmailed it after he was arrested. Besides, Hunt is vulnerable—an easy target as they say in the spy business. His reputat ion and int egrity have been destroyed. The death of his wife, Dorothy, in a mysterious plane crash in Chicago still disturbs many people, especially since there were rumors from informed sources that she was about to leave him and perhaps even turn on him. In addition it is well known that Hunt hated JFK and blamed him for the Bay of Pigs disaster. And now, in recent months, his alibi for his whereabout s on the day of the shooting has come unstuck. In the public hearings, the CIA will ‘admit’ that Hunt was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The CIA may go so far as to ‘admit’ that there were three gunmen shooting at Kennedy. The FBI, while publicly embracing the Warren Commission’s ‘one man acting alone’ conclusion, has always privately known that there were three gunmen. Th e conspiracy involved many more people than the ones who actually fired at Kennedy, both agencies may now admit . . . Now, the CIA moved to finger Hunt and tie him to the JFK assassination. HSCA unexpectedly received an internal CIA memorandum a f ew weeks ago that the agency just happened to stumble across in its old files. It was dated 1966 and said in essence: Some day we will have to explain Hunt’s presence in Dallas on November 22, 1963—the day President Kennedy was killed. Hunt is going to be hard put to explain this memo, and other things, before the TV cameras at the HSCA hearings. Hunt’s reputation as a strident fanatical anti-communist will count against him. So will his long and close relationship with the anti-Castro Cubans, as well as his penchant for clandestine dirty tricks and his various capers while one of Nixon’s plumbers. E. Howard Hunt will be implicated in the conspiracy and he will not dare to speak out— the CIA will see to that. [Marchetti noted, at this juncture, that Fidel Castro’s former mistress, Marita Lorenz had alleged that Hunt was part of a CIA hit squad aiming for President Kennedy.] Who else will be identified as having been part of the conspiracy and/or cover-up remains to be seen. But a disturbing pattern is already beginning to emerge. All the villains ha ve be en prev ious ly di sg ra ced in one wa y or another. They all have ‘right wing’ reputations. Or they will have after the hearings. The fact that some may have had connections with organized crime will prove to be only incidental in the long run. Those with provable ties to the CIA or FBI will be pres ent ed as renegade s who act ed on their own without approval or knowledge of their superiors. As for covering up the deed, that will be blamed on past Presidents, either dead or disgraced. Thus, Carter will emerge as a truth seeker, and the CIA and FBI will have neatly covered their institutional behinds. (591)

Marchetti’s article is very interesting in many respects. First of all, as noted previously, Hunt himself initially admitted that he believed that the story had a basis in truth—that it was plausible, that indeed his former colleagues in the CIA did consider framing him for involvement in the JFK assassination. The origin of the memorandum linking Hunt to the JFK assassination is interesting as it is presented by Marchetti. He describes it as a memorandum that “the agency just happened to stumble across in its old files. » In other words, one might presume from Marchetti’s flippant reference, the CIA had, instead, perhaps concocted the memo. That the agency « just happened to stumble across » the memo at a time when public suspicion of CIA involvement in the JFK assassination was growing is, of course, interesting, to say the least. If Hunt were indeed in Dallas either on the day JFK was killed—or even the day prior—it would look suspicious. Hunt‘s long-standing involvement with anti-Castro Cubans through the aegis of his CIA activities—would make Hunt a likely suspect were he, in fact, proved to have been in Dallas at the critical time. As Marchetti points out, linking Hunt to the JFK assassination would be a cover story that the public would easily accept. The CIA, as an institution, would absolve itself of any responsibility, having thrown Hunt to the wolves as an independent operator out of the CIA’s control. Indeed, the CIA could then lay claim to having « solved » the JFK assassination at last. Hunt‘s alleged involvement would also draw in a number of other false flags—not only the anti-Castro Cubans, but also « right wingers » in general. What’s more, considering Hunt‘s involvement in Watergate (and with Richard Nixon having left the presidency in shame), Nixon himself may have taken some of the heat with many of the public suspecting the very worst—that perhaps Nixon might have had a hand in arranging the JFK assassination. Not only had Nixon been involved in the earliest high-level anti-Castro planning, alongside Hunt and the CIA, but Nixon himself had been vanquished in the 1960 presidential campaign by Kennedy. That one of Nixon’s Watergate burglars was being implicated in the JFK assassination would do no service to Nixon’s already tarnished image. Marchetti also pointed out that « The fact that some [of Hunt‘s to-bealleged co-conspirators] may have had connections with organized crime will prove to be only incidental in the long run. » This « limited hangout » by the CIA would have, as a consequence, covered up the role of the Israeli-linked Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate. To delve too deeply into the real origins and linkage of the crime network would have dragged the Israeli connection into the open—if pursued to its logical conclusion. Now, obviously, the scenario presented in Marchetti’s article—the framing of Hunt by the CIA—never, in fact, took place. That it had a basis in truth—that Hunt was being pondered as a « fall guy »—however, seems apparent.

This is supported by the fact that a similar article, based on relatively the same fact situation, appeared during the same period in another newspaper. While the claims made in the second article are somewhat different than those which appeared in Marchetti’s article, it is clear that the similarities, in general, are what are most significant. The article appeared in the Wilmington, Delaware Sunday News Journal on August 20, 1978. The authors were Joe Trento and Jacquie Powers. The article reads [in pertinent part] as follows:
 WASHINGTON—A secret CIA memorandum says that E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day President John F. Kennedy was murdered and that top agency officials plotted to cover up Hunt’s presence there. 
Some CIA sources speculate that Hunt thought he was assigned by higher-ups to arrange the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. 
Sources say Hunt, convicted in the Watergate conspiracy in 1974, was act ing chief of the CIA stat ion in Mexico City in the weeks prior to the Kennedy assassination. Oswald was in Mexico City, and met with two Soviet KGB agents at the Russian Embassy there immediately before leaving for Dallas, according to the official Warren Commission report. 
The 1966 secret memo, now in the hands of the House assassinat ion committee, places Hunt in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963. 
Richard M. Helms, former CIA director, and James J. Angleton, former count erintelligence chief , init ialed the memo according to investigators who made the information available to the Sunday News Journal. 
According to sources close to the Select Committee on Assassinations, the document reveals:  *Three years after Kennedy’s murder, and shortly after Helms and Angleton were elevated to their highest positions in the CIA, they discussed the fact that Hunt was in Dallas on the day of the assassination and that his presence there had to be kept secret. 
* Helms and Angleton thought that news of Hunt’s presence in Dallas would be damaging to the agency should it leak out.  
*Helms and Angleton felt that a cover story, giving Hunt an alibi for being elsewhere the day of the assassination « ought to be considered. » . . .
. . . Helms could not be reached for comment. A secretary said that he was out of town and would not be available. When Angleton was questioned by committee staffers, he was « evasive, » according to a source who was present. Angleton could not be reached for comment. Asked to explain why a potentially damaging cover-up plot would be put out on paper, one high-level CIA source said, « The memo is very odd. It was almost as if Angleton was informing Helms , who had just be come director , that there was a skeleton in the family closet that had to be taken care of and this was his response. » One committee source says the memo « shows the CIA involvement in the Kennedy case could run into the CIA hierarchy. We are trying not to get ahead of ourselves but the mind boggles. » . . . . . . Hunt’s appearance on the scene in Dallas and Mexico City at the time of the murder adds strength to a theory shared by some int ernal CIA investigators. They believe Oswa ld was working for U.S. intelligence, tha the wa s ordered to infiltrate the KGB, and that this explains his life in Russ ia. They al so believe that Oswald proved to be so unstable that he was « handled » by the KGB into becoming a triple agent, and assigned for the Dallas job. The same invest igators theorize that Hunt was in Dallas that day on the orders of a high-level CIA official who in reality was a KGB mole. Hunt allegedly thought he was to arrange that Oswald be murdered because he had turned traitor. Actually he was to kill Oswald to prevent him from ever testifying and revealing the Russians had ordered him to kill Kennedy, the CIA sources speculate. CIA investigators are most concerned that either Helms or Angleton might be that mole. Hunt first detailed the existence of a small CIA assassination team in an interview with the New York Times while in prison in December 1975 for his role in Watergate. The assassination squad, allegedly headed by Col. Boris Pash, was ordered to eliminate suspected double agent s and lowranking officials. Pash’s assassination unit was assigned to Angleton, other CIA sources say . . . It was also learned from CIA and committee sources that during the time that the Warren Commission was investigating the Kennedy assassination, Angleton met regularly with a member of the commission—the late Allen Dulles, then head of the CIA and Angleton’s boss. Dulles, on a weekly basis, briefed Angleton about the direction of the investigation. Angleton, according to sources, in turn briefed Raymond Rocca, his closest aide and the CIA’s official liaison with the commission. (592)

This article is interesting in many ways. First of all, one of the coauthors, Joseph Trento, admitted under oath during the E. Howard Hunt-Spotlight libel trial that he had actually seen the controversial memo in question. Trento also noted that he knew James Jesus Angleton of the CIA and had utilized him as a source on occasion. In fact, we know, as a consequence of the Hunt libel case against The Spotlight that intelligence writer, William R. Corson—a longtime Angleton asset in the media—was actually the immediate source of both the Marchetti and Trento stories. Corson was obviously working as Angleton’s « cutout » passing on the information that appeared in the two stories.
(And it’s probably no accident that one of Corson’s associates, in later years before Corson died, engaged in a longtime and determined covert effort to undermine the distribution of Final Judgment and to personally destroy this writer, but to also undermine Mark Lane, whose courtroom victory over Hunt [and effectively over Angleton and Corson] left the intelligence community reeling. But that’s another story for another time—but significant still indeed.)
That Angleton was the author of the memo addressed to his CIA superior (and longtime patron) Richard Helms is also of interest, considering Angleton’s close working relationship with Israel’s Mossad (documented in Chapter 8).
While the Trento story claims that the CIA memo was ostensibly drafted in 1966, the actual date the memo first appeared is subject, of course, to question, as is the actual intent of the memo itself. The article itself notes that a « high-level CIA source » considered the memo to be « very odd » in that it recorded—in writing—the alleged presence in Dallas of longtime CIA operative, Hunt, at the time of JFK’s murder. The evidence suggests that the reason why Angleton’s memo was put on paper—and then subsequently released—was that Angleton wanted the story to be leaked to the press—as part of a continuing cover-up of the real origins of the JFK assassination. Hunt—a lower level CIA operative (already tarnished by Watergate)—was being hung out to dry and the real conspirators at the top were washing their hands of the matter.

WAS THE MEMO LEAKED DELIBERATELY?
Did Angleton and Helms really worry, as the article suggests, that the agency would be damaged by the revelations, or did they, instead, arrange for the memo to be leaked so that there would be, as Victor Marchetti’s aforementioned article suggested, a « limited hangout » which would absolve the CIA as an institution of any involvement in the crime? Joe Trento has subsequently revealed that Angleton did in fact leak the memo to the House Assassinations Committee. However, according to Trento,  »It was all handled in such a way that Angleton was not the source.”(593)
That the Trento article suggests that Hunt was in fact in Dallas and that he was there on an assignment involving Lee Harvey Oswald is significant as well.

WAS HUNT ORDERED TO DALLAS?
Could it be that Hunt had somehow been manipulated into involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy, not knowing that there were bigger and more insidious things going on in the strange world of Lee Harvey Oswald? Was Hunt indeed sent to Dallas on a CIA-sponsored pretext, orchestrated by one of his superiors—namely James Jesus Angleton—only to discover, after the fact, that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was in the works? According to Trento, Angleton told him that Hunt had been sent to Dallas by a high-level Soviet KGB mole working in the CIA. However, says Trento, « I later came to conclude that the mole-sent-Hunt idea was, to use his phrase, disinformation; that Angleton was trying to protect his own connections to Hunt‘s being in Dallas . . . My guess is, it was Angleton himself who sent Hunt to Dallas, because he didn’t want to use anybody from his own shop. »594 All of this is interesting, to say the least, and pinpoints Angleton as a key player in the events linking the CIA and Hunt to Dallas. Yet, as we shall see, there is much more to the story of the role played by the CIA’s Mossad ally James J. Angleton in the JFK assassination and cover-up. In fact, Angleton had a hand in the very part of the assassination conspiracy that involved the frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald as a « pro- Castro agitator » guilty of associating with the Soviet KGB.

THE CIA AND THE MEXICO CITY SCENARIO
The Trento article accepts, as its basis, the story that Lee Harvey Oswald had been in Mexico City meeting with the Soviets and the Castro Cubans. However, as Mark Lane demonstrated in Plausible Denial, the story that Oswald had been in Mexico City meeting with the communists was an outright fraud—a concoction of the CIA itself. Lane summarized the situation: « At the outset it should be understood that almost all of the information regarding Oswald’s alleged visit to Mexico and his contact with the Soviets and Cubans while there had been fabricated by the Central Intelligence Agency. In its report, the [Warren] commission cited the CIA as the primary source for the Mexico City scenario, declining to seek independent corroboration for the CIA’s version of events. « Nevertheless, the Mexico City scenario constitutes the conventional wisdom as promulgated by the CIA and accepted by the Warren Commission. It remains an article of faith for those who subsequently endorsed theWarren Report, including journalists and official investigating committees. One of the central tenets of the lone assassin theory is Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence in Mexico City. « Soon after the commission was created, the CIA informed Earl Warren that Oswald had been in Mexico from September 26 to October 3, 1963 and that he had spent most of that time in Mexico City. « According to the CIA, Oswald had visited the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City on September 27 and the Soviet Embassy on October 1. Proof that Oswald had been in the Cuban Embassy, the CIA reported, came from Senora Silvia Duran, a Mexican employed at the Cuban Embassy. Proof that Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy, the CIA claimed, came from the observations of its own agents. »(595)

OSWALD AND THE KGB?
The CIA told the Warren Commission that Oswald had met with a Soviet KGB officer named Valeriy Kostikov who was a specialist in assassination and sabotage; that Kostikov was in charge of Sovietorchestrated assassinations in the United States. Clearly, the CIA’s implication was that Oswald had been meeting with the KGB officer to plan JFK’s murder. However, even the Warren Commission was suspicious and asked for evidence of Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. Some four months went by before the CIA could provide anything other than the testimony of the aforementioned Miss Duran. Yet, as the evidence shows, Miss Duran only identified Oswald as a visitor to the Cuban Embassy after she had been arrested by the Mexican police at the direction (unknown to her) of the CIA. She was forced into making the statement that the CIA wanted: that Oswald had been to the Cuban Embassy. After she was released from custody, she spoke out about her experience and the CIA cabled the Mexican police to re-arrest the young lady, but cautioned the police to make sure that Miss Duran knew nothing about the CIA’s involvement in her imbroglio. Finally, under pressure to provide further corroboration of Oswald’s activities, the CIA managed to come up with recordings of a telephone conversation between someone alleged to be Lee Harvey Oswald and someone at the Soviet Embassy. However, even the FBI, having reviewed the recording, concluded that its agents were of the opinion, that it « was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. »596 Despite this provocative conclusion, the FBI report never reached the Warren Commission. Warren and company had only to rely upon the reports from the CIA. (The FBI report only became public some years later when Mark Lane obtained it through the Freedom of Information Act.) In 1977 David Atlee Phillips, former head of the Western Hemisphere for the CIA, admitted publicly that Oswald had not been to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City.
Phillips, if anybody, should have known inasmuch as he had been CIA station chief in Mexico City at the time of Oswald’s alleged visit. (There have been allegations also, incidentally, that Oswald may have been spotted in Dallas with a CIA operative known as « Maurice Bishop » whom many believe, in fact, was Phillips.) In a rather fierce debate with Mark Lane at the University of Southern California, a somewhat distressed Phillips confessed: « I am not in a position today to talk to you about the inner workings of the CIA station in Mexico City . . . but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there . . . is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet Embassy. »(597)

WARREN ‘HELD HOSTAGE’
According to Mark Lane: The magnitude of this CIA misconduct can be fully understood only when its conspiracy to cover up is traced to its origin. For the CIA charade, which evidently included employing an imposter for Oswald, began no later than October 1, 1963. « One month and twenty-two days before President Kennedy was assassinated, the CIA had set into motion a series of events apparently designed to prevent any American institution from ever daring to learn the truth about the assassination, an assassination that had not yet taken place. « More than seven weeks before President Kennedy was murdered, the CIA was dramatically and falsely establishing a link between Lee Harvey Oswald and a Soviet diplomat, whom the CIA would later designate as the KGB authority on assassinations in the United States. » (598)

As a consequence, the Warren Commission, confronted by the CIA with what appeared to be possible Soviet involvement in the Kennedy assassination, moved to suppress what it mistakenly believed to be « the truth. » The fate of the world was in the hands of Chief Justice Earl Warren and his fellow commission members. If the public learned that Oswald was a pawn of the Soviets, a nuclear war could break out. As Mark Lane commented, Warren was « held hostage »599 by the CIA’s provocative lie. During his debate with David Atlee Phillips, Mark Lane exposed all of this before the audience. When confronted and following his confession that Oswald had not been at the Soviet Embassy, Phillips suggested essentially that he didn’t want either the CIA or himself to be held responsible for « some CIA guy that I never saw [who] did something that I never heard of.” (600)

Now while Phillips was being disingenuous at best, the fact is that it was indeed someone whom he certainly knew who was behind the Mexico City scenario. It was none other than his CIA colleague, James J. Angleton.
(…)

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Final_Judgment/FJ-14-PhotoSection.04.html
(…)
http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Book_Preview_Pages/piper-michael_collins/Final_Judgment/FJ-14-PhotoSection.03.html

(…)

Questions and Answers:

How did you first come up with the theory that the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, had a hand in the assassination of President Kennedy? That’s a highly controversial allegation considering all of the other theories that have been presented. How did you come about researching and writing this book?
(…) At any rate, it was essentially, however, around the time of 1992 that my interest in the assassination was beginning to develop more extensively, largely because of the fact that The Spotlight, the newspaper by which I had been employed for a decade, had been involved in the E. Howard Hunt libel trial. In 1991 Mark Lane‘s book, Plausible Denial, had been released and that was the book that outlined the circumstances of the Hunt libel case involving The Spotlight and this was also the time that Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, was in the process of being made and released. Consequently there was a newly revived and reinvigorated interest in the JFK assassination.
As I read Mark Lane‘s book, which focuses on the CIA’s role in the assassination of President Kennedy, it became clear to me that one of the primary high-level CIA players behind the scenes in manipulating events which made it appear that the president’s alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was perhaps some sort of « pro-Castro agitator » with ties to the Soviets, was James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s director of counterintelligence.
Angleton was not only the number three man in the CIA and one of its veterans, but he was, more importantly, in our context, very close to the Israeli Mossad as a consequence of his role as the very jealous guardian of the CIA’s Mossad desk. This is information that has long been in the public domain. Angleton’s ties to the Mossad were no real surprise.
However, the very fact that Angleton was the central player in the CIA’s relationship to the circumstances surrounding the JFK assassination was interesting to me, inasmuch as over the years although there has been a lot of research and inquiry into what one might call « who’s who in the JFK assassination? » and the conspiracy and cover-up, Angleton’s prominent role had never been given the scrutiny it certainly deserved. He is mentioned in some (but not all) of the books on the subject, but generally only in passing. In fact, Angleton is only looked upon as some sort of « right wing anticommunist » who was involved in the CIA.
Parenthetically, I might note that a lot of the JFK assassination researchers who have looked into the CIA’s intrigue in relation to the assassination seem to have this desire to deny any institutional involvement by the CIA and present those conspirators from the CIA or who were linked to the CIA and who were involved in the assassination, as somehow being « rogue elements. »
However, as Lane showed in Plausible Denial and as I think I firmly amplified upon in Final Judgment, these CIA figures were working institutionally. They weren’t « rogue elements » but were working on behalf of the CIA itself, in collaboration with the Israeli Mossad and elements of organized crime, to both of which they had long been intimately tied. In any case, Plausible Denial cemented in my own mind the fact that the CIA player—in this instance, Angleton—who was involved in the assassination conspiracy was, in fact, the Mossad’s key man at the CIA.(…)
To the best of my knowledge the one and only author (other than myself, of course) to say that the CIA had an institutional role in the affair was Mark Lane, writing in Plausible Denial. So, for whatever reason or reasons, there have been many « researchers » who have been unwilling or unable to acknowledge the depths of detail that have been unearthed in Plausible Denial that pinpoint institutional CIA involvement in the president’s murder.(…)
As an aside, I have to say that after Mark Lane came out with Rush to Judgment, most of the books on the JFK assassination (with a few notable exceptions) have essentially rehashed the initial material that Mark uncovered. He laid the groundwork for and publicized and popularized the national and international body of opinion that there was another story that needed to be told: that the Warren Commission Report was a fraud and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not « one lone nut, » by any means.
Suffice it to say that Rush to Judgment laid the groundwork for all future efforts. However, if future « researchers » had investigated further, a book similar to Final Judgment might have been written a year or two after Rush to Judgment came forth. As it stands, that wasn’t the case and the whole controversial project had to land in my lap.(…)

What did Mark Lane have to say about Final Judgment
I did not indicate to Mark during the writing of Final Judgment that I was writing the book. As I’ve pointed out, I actually told very few people that I was writing the book. I didn’t want Mark—or anybody else—to judge the book prior to its completion based on a sketchy overview. I wanted Mark (and others) to read the book in its entirety. I presented the completed first draft to him and said, « Well, let me know what you think. »
Mark’s response was heartening. He said that the book did make a « strong case » for Mossad involvement and he did not believe that the book conflicted in any way with his own book, Plausible Denial, which pinpointed the CIA’s role in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Whether the actual idea for the assassination first originated at the CIA or at the Mossad, the fact remains that those at the CIA who were the prime CIA players in the assassination conspiracy were intimately tied to the Mossad and were operating in its spheres of influence, even including in the so-called « French Connection. » So in the JFK assassination the CIA and the Mossad were essentially two sides of one coin.
As far as Mark Lane‘s opinion of Final Judgment is concerned, it was suggested to me prior to publication that I ask him to write an introduction to the book. I rejected this suggestion out of hand. Not that it wouldn’t have been an honor and a privilege to have Mark write the introduction. However, the fact is that Mark has stirred up a hornet’s nest with his own books on the JFK assassination and on other subjects for that matter.
Mark had not researched the Mossad aspect as I had, so I didn’t feel it would be appropriate to expect him to put his name in defense or endorsement of a thesis—quite a revolutionary one, I suppose—that he himself had not originated. Additionally, because of the very fact that Final Judgment tied Israel to the JFK assassination I did not think it would be appropriate for Mark to have his name appended to an introduction to the book, precisely because of the fact that Mark himself had become involved in the Middle East controversy and had been a critic of Israel.
I recognized that the thesis of Final Judgment was inflammatory on its own and I didn’t want to put Mark in the position of having to defend my work. He’s been busy enough as it is fighting off the efforts of the CIA and the FBI and the media to ignore or suppress or distort his own efforts.

Doesn’t Final Judgment conflict with Mark Lane’s book, Plausible Denial, which contends the CIA was responsible for the JFK assassination?

There is no conflict whatsoever. Plausible Denial is first and foremost an account of Mark Lane‘s defense of The Spotlight newspaper against E. Howard Hunt‘s libel suit. Final Judgment, in my view, amplifies many of the findings in Plausible Denial and further confirms the conclusions of Plausible Denial and adds further details that prove that the CIA was indeed involved in the assassination. The greatest strength of Mark’s book, I believe, is that it demolishes the myth that there were « rogue elements » of the CIA involved in the president’s murder. These were not « rogue elements. » The assassination was an act that involved the CIA at its highest levels—and specifically James Angleton, the Mossad’s ally at the CIA.

Someone once described Final Judgment as a « sequel » to Plausible Denial and I would like to think that this is an accurate description. But you can’t make a serious study of the JFK assassination without having read Plausible Denial.


Piper Michael Collins – False Flags: Template for Terror

Author : Piper Michael Collins Title : False flags Template for terror

Year : 2013

An analytical critique of the covert model utilized by the conspirators who orchestred 9-11, the Oklahoma bombing, the JFK assassination, Sandy Hook and Boston.
Continue reading
The « how » and « why » as never explained before… Michael Collins Piper’s controversial writing have been translated into multiple languages and distributed all over the world. False Flags may well be his most extraordinary work yet – a final judgment on the reality of modern terrorism…

 

Extraits du livre impliquant Mark Lane et l’affaire E. Howard Hunt: 

||p.68-70:

It was not until the release in 1991 of Mark Lane’s best-selling book, Plausible Denial, that the extent of the CIA’s involvement in the JFK assassination was fully outlined. Suspicion of the CIA’s complicity had been growing over the years, but, in the minds of most observers, Lane‘s book proved the matter once and for all.

While primarily a written summation of a libel trial in Miami in 1985 in which the jury had concluded that the CIA had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up, Lane’s book was also a wide-ranging reflection by Lane on his own singular role as one of the earliest and most effective critics of the Warren Commission.

The circumstances of how the trial came about are interesting. It was on August 14, 1978, that the Washington-based weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, published an article by former high-ranking CIA official Victor Marchetti, then best-known as the author of the controversial 1973 best-seller, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, which was the first book ever censored prior to publication by the CIA.

In essence, Marchetti’s article for The Spotlight alleged the CIA intended to frame or otherwise implicate E. Howard Hunt with involvement in the Kennedy assassination.

The article suggested there was then so much growing suspicion the CIA had been involved in the JFK assassination that the CIA had decided to sacrifice Hunt and say that Hunt was a « renegade » operative involved in the president’s assassination, that the CIA as an institution had not been part of the conspiracy.

The article, of course, came in the contentious years following the Watergate scandal in which Hunt had been a major player, and in the wake of the highly-publicized Senate hearings of 1975 in which the CIA came under focus for its involvement in a variety of misdeeds, ranging from foreign assassination plots to bizarre mind control experiments to illegal activities on American soil.

And while subsequent media commentary suggested The Spotlight article was based on the theory that Hunt was one of the famous “tramps” (discussed earlier) that was never, in any way, a foundation of the article by Marchetti.

Although the editors of The Spotlight felt Marchetti’s article served, if anything, as an advance warning to Hunt about what his former employers had in mind, the ex-CIA man decided to sue The Spotlight, even though Hunt himself initially admitted under oath in the earliest stages of his libel suit that he believed that Marchetti’s story had a basis in truth—that it was plausible, that his former colleagues in the CIA did indeed consider framing him for involvement in the JFK assassination.

Now what is particularly interesting, in light of Hunt’s lawsuit against The Spotlight, is that Hunt did not bring suit against another newspaper, the Wilmington, Delaware-based Sunday News Journal that, on August 20, 1978, had published an article remarkably similar in most respects to the article that had just been published in The Spotlight.* We’ll come back to that second article shortly.

*note on The Spotlight (p. 70): Because The Spotlight was “controversial”—often accused of “anti-Semitism,” and attacked for its stand against the influence of the Israeli lobby—the populist newspaper, quite naturally,was viewed by Hunt and his attorneys as an easy target and this is basic explanation as to why that newspaper was targeted whereas the Wilmington Sunday News Journal was not.

But there was also another factor at work. At the very time Hunt moved against The Spotlight, Hunt’s longtime close friend, William F. Buckley, Jr.— owner/editor of the conservative journal, National Review—was himself engaged in a contentious, long-standing war of words with the publisher of The Spotlight going back nearly a decade. It was subsequently revealed that Buckley—who had served under Hunt in the CIA in Mexico in the 1950s and who was the godfather of one of Hunt’s children—had actually provided Hunt the financial resources to pursue his libel suit against The Spotlight.

Buckley himself ultimately brought his own libel suit against The Spotlight and in 1985—not long after the Hunt case came to a close—Buckley and his attorneys were dealt a devastating courtroom defeat by no less than Mark Lane, the attorney and JFK assassination investigator who had spearheaded The Spotlight’s defense against Hunt.

But for the present, we’ll take a look at Marchetti’s article, which was most intriguing, by any estimation.

The origin of the memorandum linking Hunt to the JFK assassination, as outlined by Marchetti, is especially interesting. He described the memorandum as one that “the agency just happened to stumble across in its old files. »

In other words, one might presume from Marchetti’s flippant reference, the CIA had, instead, perhaps concocted the memo.

That the agency « just happened to stumble across » the memo at a time when suspicion of CIA involvement in the assassination was growing is, of course, interesting, to say the least.

Had Hunt been in Dallas the day JFK was killed, it would look suspicious. His intimate involvement with the anti-Castro Cubans would have made Hunt “a likely suspect,” and as Marchetti pointed out, linking the controversial Hunt to the assassination would be a cover story the public would easily accept.

The CIA, as an institution,would absolve itself of any responsibility, having thrown Hunt to the wolves, calling him as a“rogue” operator out of the CIA’s control. The CIA could lay claim to having « solved » the JFK assassination at last. An additional benefit: Hunt‘s alleged involvement would also draw in a number of other false flags—not only the anti-Castro Cubans, but also « right wing” critics of JFK in general.(…)

*note on Robert Corson (p. 73): It’s probably no accident that one of Corson’s associates, in later years before Corson died, engaged in a longtime and determined covert effort to undermine the distribution of Final Judgment and to personally destroy this writer, Michael Collins Piper, and to also undermine Mark Lane,whose courtroom victory over Hunt [and effectively over Angleton and Corson] left the intelligence community reeling. The Corson-connected “black operation” against Lane and Piper involved distribution of disinformation documents (ostensibly from CIA files) purporting to “admit”CIA and Israeli involvement in the JFK affair.The phony documents were released with the expectation that they would be easily discredited, as indeed they were. Now the CIA and the Israelis proclaim: “The theory of CIA and/or Israel collaborated in the JFK assassination was based on fraudulent documents, so the work of both Lane and Piper is therefore discredited.” However,what the critics do not mention is this: neither Lane nor Piper relied on those obviously forged documents. But that’s another story for another time—but significant still indeed.

(…)

||p.74 :

In any case, when the Hunt libel case against The Spotlight finally went to trial in federal court in Miami in 1981, the newspaper suffered a devastating loss. The jury found in favor of Hunt and ordered The Spotlight to pay $650,000 in damages. Fortunately, however, for The Spotlight an error in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury gave the populist weekly grounds for an appeal.

When the case was successfully appealed in 1983 and ordered for retrial, attorney Mark Lane stepped in for the defense and the case finally once again went to trial in federal court in Miami on January 28, 1985.

Among the big names deposed by Lane during the Hunt case were: former CIA Director Richard Helms; former CIA Director Stansfield Turner; former CIA chief for the Western Hemisphere David Phillips; and former CIA and FBI man (and Watergate celebrity) G. Gordon Liddy.

This time, rather than pointing out that its article had only accused the CIA with attempting to frame Hunt for involvement in the assassination, The Spotlight went on the offensive and charged—flat out—that Hunt and the CIA had actually been involved in the assassination, a tactical move that put Hunt (and the CIA) on the defensive. Mark Lane—a skilled trial attorney who pulled no punches—adopted a combative “take-no-prisoners” approach and effectively put the CIA itself on trial.

In the end, the most damning evidence against Hunt and the CIA came during the second trial when Lane presented the deposition of former CIA operative Marita Lorenz, a German-born beauty who had been Castro’s mistress but who, upon breaking with Castro, was lured by Hunt’s associate—American mercenary Frank Sturgis—into the web of the CIA’s anti-Castro operations.

Miss Lorenz testified that one day prior to the president’s assassination she arrived in Dallas (traveling from a CIA « safe house » in Miami) in a two-car caravan on what she described as a secret mission, the purpose of which she had not been apprised. Accompanying her were several anti-Castro Cuban exiles and her CIA « handler, » the aforementioned Sturgis. The group was armed with telescopic rifles.(…)

||p.75 :

When Hunt took the stand, Mark Lane pointed out numerous inconsistencies in Hunt‘s testimony regarding his whereabouts on the day of the JFK assassination.Over the years, Hunt had told several stories about where he had been on the day the president was assassinated.

In this trial, however, Hunt insisted he was in theWashington, D.C. area—at home in the suburbs or at the office or downtown shopping at one or more points during the day—on November 22.

Hunt‘s answers, while under sharp cross-examination by Lane, were inconclusive at best and left Hunt looking as though he had something to hide relating to where he happened to be that day.(…)

||p.76 :

Although media accounts at the time desperately tried to dismiss the idea that the jury had rejected any thought of CIA involvement in the assassination, Leslie Armstrong, jury forewoman in the case, later issued a statement that settled the matter once and for all. She said:

Mr. Lane was asking us [the jury] to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy.

||p.96 :

it is my contention here—and always has been, as carefully delineated in Final Judgment— that if there was anybody on the face of the planet who did have inside information (or at least an inkling thereof) about the details surrounding the events in Dealey Plaza, it was E. Howard Hunt.

That conclusion was based on: (a) what Mark Lane had uncovered in his defense of The Spotlight in the Hunt libel trial; (b) what Lane had written about that case in his book, Plausible Denial; and (c) my own subsequent research, including that founded on the revelations of Gary Wean and other data that seemed to provide a foundation for what Wean had alleged.(…)

||p.97 :

Now, today,many years later I can reveal that I made that assertion regarding a possible impending “confession” by Hunt based upon some very real inside information revealed personally to me by Mark Lane.

During the late 1990s—probably around 1999-2000—I learned from Mark Lane (quite confidentially at the time) that Canadian journalist David Giammarco was engaged in a lengthy series of interviews with E. Howard Hunt.

During that time, Giammarco—who was very much interested in Hunt’s possible role in the JFK assassination—was quietly and regularly consulting via telephone with Lane, asking Lane for possible questions to address to Hunt.

Ultimately, it seems, Hunt finally figured out what Giammarco’s real interest was and Hunt said to the journalist (as related by Giammarco to Lane) in words to this effect: “Look, I know what you’re really interested in. If you want to know what really went down with the JFK assassination and what I know about it, I’ll tell you. But I’ll need $14 million dollars before I’ll do it.”*

*note on St. John Hunt’s book (p.97) : In his book Bonds of Secrecy, St. John Hunt reported that his father, while working as a consultant to Oliver Stone on his film, Nixon, had been grilled by Stone as to his (Hunt’s) knowledge about the JFK assassination. At that time, the younger Hunt reports, his father told Stone that he would tell him what he knew for the sum of $5,000,000—a substantially lower figure than the $14 million Giammarco described to Mark Lane.

(…)

7. Malachi Martin et Vatican 2

 

À l’heure où c’est surtout Israel qui mène l’Occident par le bout du nez, parler des jésuites est une distraction, une habile diversion, pour la simple et bonne raison qu’à l’heure actuelle les complots qui ont une importance et une incidence réelle, géopolitiquement parlant, ne viennent pas des milieux Jésuites ou du Vatican comme tel – car leurs relais dans ces milieux sont des agents sionistes (Malachi Martin) et/ou franc-maçons (Paul VI) !

THE JUDAS GOATS–THE ENEMY WITHIN

Michael Collins Piper, in The Judas Goats–The Enemy Within

Chapter Nineteen 

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”Martinwas 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 P. 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.

 

  • Sur ce blog:
This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.