New York Times: The Stolen Legacy of Anne Frank – Meyer Levin, Lillian Hellman, and the Staging of the Diary


Yale University Press

 Read the Review

With My Own EyesMeyer Levin’s search for an authentic Holocaust voice began shortly after he entered the first of the many Nazi death camps to which he would bear witness as a war correspondent in the final days of the killing. Among them was Bergen-Belsen, the camp in which Anne Frank had been murdered. The mere hint of the camps’ existence had left him “haunted by the need to go forward, to learn the whole truth” of those horror-filled days. Five years later, in 1950 he wrote in his “book about being a Jew,” In Search, that “of all the commandments, I feel this to be the only one that was eternally applicable in the same form in which it had been issued … the commandment of truth, the commandment against bearing false witness.”

It was a revelation that had first come to him while returning a Torah to a decimated Jewish community in Germany in the early days after the killing had stopped. “For me, this was the essence of our fate…. This then was my inmost behest.” And though he knew that “the practice of absolute truth must be crippling in an imperfect world,” he had persisted, writing not the falsely “hopeful story … of the indestructibility of the Jewish community” that others would insist upon in the decades ahead, but “of the Jews of Europe as they were: broken, finished.”

Thomas Mann later praised Meyer’s memoir In Search as “a human document of high order, written by a witness of our fantastic epoch whose gaze remained both clear and steady, notwithstanding the shocking turmoil about him.” It would serve the future, Mann added, “as a source of enlightenment and as a living image of all that we had to experience,” for here was a book “bent on preserving what humanity is only too ready to forget.”

“It was not for me to bear false witness,” Meyer would affirm again and again, for the visions had remained as sharply drawn as when he had first brought them to his readers in America, Jew and non-Jew alike:

    Buchenwald, May 2 [1945]–All week I have been talking to Jews who survived the greatest mass murder in the history of mankind. Each one owes his continued existence to a succession of miracles, accidents, oversights. My mind has become in the faintest way like their minds; I am beginning to understand how they feel. No one who has not been through their experience can ever understand them, for these people have gone through a sieve of death four years, five years, six years continuously. Tons of ashes, the ashes of seven million of their people have gone through the sieve, and these few are the last bits of cinder and stone somehow adhering to the mesh. My mind, after this week, faintly reflects their minds. It is a composite image of trains running three-tracked into smoking crematoriums, of remote Polish villages whose mud ruts were filled with human bodies, of a German officer, playfully lining up a group of Jewish children until they were precisely one head behind the other and then putting a single bullet through the line, of a woman holding her baby aloft over her head while savage police dogs ripped her apart, and through every image I see the brown, earnest undeniable eyes of a survivor who tells me this, and over each image is stamped the ever-recurring line, “I saw it, I saw it with my own eyes.”

It was Meyer’s wife, Tereska Torres, who passed along the recent French translation of Anne Frank’s Diary to her husband in the late summer of 1950. Tereska, a member of the Free French Army whose first husband had died in combat while she carried their child, had grown increasingly aware of the survivor’s guilt afflicting Meyer, in part because of the marginal role he had played in the struggle to stop the slaughter. “This is the guilt of the living,” he would write after returning home from the war, “a guilt that has invaded all humanity.” Yet for all the Holocaust’s universality of meaning, it was the Jews who had “sense[d] this guilt more painfully because they were closer to the center … yes, even … the Jews of America … who escaped because their forebears made the journey from Europe in steerage.” And if Jews everywhere questioned why they had survived, few did so with greater intensity than Meyer. “Isn’t there something we must do to pay for being alive?”

The answer came for Meyer in the words of an adolescent, clearly and powerfully spoken, thoughts that he could not adequately express himself. “How could he know, how could anyone here know, what was real?” he had written three years earlier in a novel of Holocaust victimization and survival. Here, at last, was “the voice from the mass grave” for which he had long been searching, and the means by which he could repay the debt owed for his own survival. Perhaps the Diary could provide some release from a part of his own suffering, if only he could share Anne’s book with those whose lives had remained largely untouched by the revelatory event out of which it had come. At work on a film adaptation of an earlier novel based on his life as a young Zionist on a kibbutz in the 1920s, Meyer at once put the script aside and finished reading the Diary. “From the first page the seizure was complete,” he wrote in his 1973 account of The Obsession that had captured his soul. “As I read on, I became certain–this was the needed document. For here, instead of a remote story-book journey, was an urban family with which every American reader could feel empathy.”

On September 8, 1950, Levin wrote the Diary’s French publisher, Calmann-Levy, asking for the agent handling the work in France and for the address of Anne’s father, Otto. Meyer was determined to see that an English-language edition appeared as soon as possible. “So I began a campaign to find a publisher,” he later wrote of the events that were to lead him “into a trouble that was to grip, occupy, haunt, and all but devour me, these twenty years.” On the nineteenth, Otto politely thanked Meyer for his interest, explaining that his “Paris agent Maison D. Clairouin are busy at present to place the English and American rights of Anne’s Diary, so that I cannot give you an option at present.”

Meyer was pleased to have established contact with Otto and sent him a copy of In Search two days later, “so that you may have some notion of my work.” He wished to assure Otto that his interest in the Diary was not commercial but “one of sympathy” with the experiences and ideas expressed throughout. It was his wish to translate the work and to “suggest … to my contacts in these fields” that it contained “the material for a very touching play or film.” While he believed that the likelihood of finding a commercial producer for such a project was “remote,” he hoped that with Otto’s consent, he could “feel free” to approach those whom he knew.

Otto had not yet begun to read In Search when he sent a long, detailed answer to Meyer’s several requests. Had Otto read his book, he might have responded with less enthusiasm, given its emphasis on Jewish themes and identity. He had, however, seen Meyer’s film on the Yishuv, the Jewish settlement in Palestine, and had been favorably impressed. Otto said that his friend of several decades, Nathan Straus, the president of New York’s WMCA Radio and scion of the influential Straus family, was at the moment discussing with Random House the possibility of British copublication. But he wanted Meyer to know that “in case you should have some ideas on the direction of the film, you are absolutely free.” And though he gladly placed himself at Meyer’s “disposal” should he need “any assistance,” he found it difficult to see how Anne’s book, whose “value … is laying in her thoughts,” could be transferred to the screen.

Perhaps Otto’s disavowal was sincere, but he had nonetheless included dramatic, radio, film, and television rights in his 1947 contract with Ernest Kuhn, a New York attorney who continued to represent him in any negotiations with American and Canadian publishers. Otto could hardly have been as surprised by the idea of dramatization for screen or other medium as he must have appeared to Meyer. Although nothing had come of a Twentieth Century Fox reading of the Diary a few years earlier, Otto had some hope that it could be sold now that he had witnessed the interest of a major film company. Without offering a firm commitment, Otto encouraged Meyer to do all that he could to secure a producer, aware not only of the role of an agent, but of the difference between one under contract and another who worked without a binding agreement. If dramatized, the film would in all likelihood be the first of its kind, Otto noted six days after his first letter to Meyer, “the situation of a hiding family … not yet worked out in a film as far as I know.” He hoped to hear from Meyer again, even if a film of Anne’s work would ultimately “be rather different from the real contents of her book,” a prospect seemingly of less concern to him than one might otherwise have expected.

Meyer assured Otto that no such compromise was necessary, that given “a sensitive and daring producer, a very wonderful film could be made, staying very close to the book,” even filming in the house to give it “the fidelity of a record … if the thought does not shock you.” Meyer must have wondered at Otto’s willingness to compromise his daughter’s work for the sake of a cinematic treatment, and assured him that “such a film could do a great deal toward bettering human understanding” without “the thoughts and ideas of the book … [being] changed or lost.” He would soon be going to New York for several months and, with Otto’s permission, would raise the possibilities of publication and a film, “if after reading my book you feel I am the right person.” Meyer believed that his ideas resonated in Anne’s and that Otto’s consent to this search would be acknowledgment of this fact. It was a reasonable expectation, given Meyer’s repeated request that Otto consider his thoughts on Jewish identity and Zionism before agreeing to such an arrangement. So convinced was Meyer of this spiritual bond between himself and Anne that he further offered to undertake, as a “mitzvah” (a morally sanctioned religious act), the translation of the Diary. Together with his help in securing a publisher and a producer, he was offering Otto “a combination in which I may be of use … with no commitment on your part.”

“I want to answer your kind letter of Sept. 26 immediately and thank you for it,” began Otto’s encouraging response. Although an English translation was already under way (ultimately to be replaced by another), he encouraged Meyer to “find the right connection or person,” as long as it was not “an unknown house.” Otto confided to Meyer: “I rather prefer to wait” than give the book to an obscure publisher, though he was soon to receive a rejection from Random House, the book’s sixteenth from an English or American press. Victor Gollancz, Albert Heinemann, Allen and Unwin, Macmillan, Scribner’s, Sedgewick and Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Viking, Vanguard, Warendorf, Simon and Schuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, and Hutchinson had all previously rejected the Diary. Otto was far more encouraging to Meyer concerning the prospect of a him, for no other agent in Europe or America was now actively at work on this possibility. Thanking Meyer again for his interest “in Anne’s book and my person,” he supported the suggestion of using the actual hiding place (“I would try my best to overwin my inner feelings”) and expressed new confidence that “a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas” of the Diary might be found, rather than seeing “the exciting and thrilling actions … prevail to please the public.” Otto’s favorable impression of Meyer’s Zionist film, My Father’s House, had convinced him of the seriousness with which Meyer was likely to undertake the project and promised that “if you see it in another way you just go on and I shall not interfere.”

Even before receiving Meyer’s response, Otto essentially granted him the role of American agent. Clairouin had been told that no decision regarding English-language publication would be taken “before I heard from this gentleman.” Meyer was to meet in New York with Random House and “to let me know your opinion about the chances as soon as possible.” Should they decline or offer an unacceptable arrangement, he was to send Otto his further “suggestions.”

Without a contract, and acting solely on good faith, Meyer had already made preliminary inquiries with the British Jewish publisher Valentine Mitchell, which, as Meyer immediately wrote Otto, was “eager to have Anne’s Diary.” Meyer, however, was reluctant to assume the position offered by Otto, having learned from him that others were already engaged in this role on both sides of the Atlantic. “I feel a little like an unnecessary intermediary,” he commented to Otto, though he promised to do what he could with the publishers. More important, he was pleased to report that his conversation with a film producer had resulted in “at least a preliminary interest in the project.”

Otto wrote again on October 9 concerning Random House and thanked Meyer “for all you are doing!” But Meyer thought it best for Otto to deal directly with the publisher and to allow his Paris agent to pursue the progress already made with Valentine Mitchell. Meyer would, of course, be willing to help with publication of the Diary if a problem developed. Two weeks later, Meyer wrote Otto from New York of the interest shown by two film producers, for whom Otto then sent copies of the French translation. With Random House awaiting “further word” concerning publication arrangements with Valentine Mitchell, Meyer advised Otto to sign with the British house so that an American contract could at last be negotiated.

On November 13, Meyer published a brief summary of the Diary in the American Jewish publication Congress Weekly as a part of the larger discussion of “the restricted market” for “too special” Jewish material. He wrote of the ease with which the prominent non-Jewish writer John Hersey had found a publisher for The Wall, a fictionalized account of the Warsaw Ghetto with a universal message of human triumph over evil, and compared it with the difficulty in placing Anne’s Diary, “a real document” of specifically Jewish suffering. To date it had been rejected by many of the same publishers who had recently declined to bring out In Search (as they had other Jewish works he had proposed over the previous two decades). Was Anne’s book, like his, “too Jewish”? Was it merely a commercial decision, as some insisted, pointing to The Wall’s marketable author? Or was there an overriding reluctance to speak to the particularity of the Jewish condition, to its uniqueness and to the moral questions and imperatives evoked and imposed by that uniqueness? “I bring this out to emphasize that work in our field continues to suffer a handicap, based upon obscure and sometimes not-so-obscure desires to be relieved of the continuous confrontation of the conscious problems evoked by the Jew.” Whatever the personal cost, he had no intention of removing himself from this struggle. “For myself, I believe that we must keep up the fight for attention, even if it sometimes makes us appear to be disagreeable characters.”

Otto’s search for an American or British publication arrangement continued to involve Meyer in the weeks that followed. Otto sought Meyer’s opinions regarding the best house, the proper tone of translation, and the intricacies of negotiating simultaneous contracts separated by three thousand miles. “What do you think?” and “Thanks for everything” became repeated refrains in his correspondence with Meyer. The high level of assistance rendered by Meyer was acknowledged by Otto in a letter to Nathan Straus, with whom Otto continued to discuss the possibility of Random House, though he had himself begun to encourage Little, Brown. “I am writing to another man too,” he told Straus, “Mr. Meyer Levin, an American writer who is very interested in Anne’s book. It was he who advised [me] to take up the matter with Valentine Mitchell. He spoke to Random House about it [a] short time ago.”

Otto similarly credited Meyer’s ongoing efforts in letters to him on November 23 and 24, though by now Little, Brown had made a solid offer, which Otto was inclined to accept. (The publisher may have been influenced by Janet Flanner’s “Letter from Paris” in the New Yorker of November 11, praising it as the work of “a precocious, talented little Frankfurt Jewess … [who] rightly aimed to be a writer when she grew up.”) “I hope that I do not bother you too much with my affairs,” Otto wrote Meyer, “but I know how interested you are in this book. I want you to know all steps taken.” Meyer responded immediately, unaware that Otto had already cabled Little, Brown with an acceptance of its offer, together with his suggestion that “details regarding translation” be discussed with Valentine Mitchell, whom he had decided upon as the Diary’s British publisher. Meyer spoke of Little, Brown as a “first class” house but advised going with whomever demonstrated the greater “enthusiasm and decisiveness.” He further urged Otto to retain all rights beyond simple publication, “particularly drama and film,” and to offer only a small percentage to whichever house he went with. “As the book is already known, anything you allow would be generous,” he wrote. “Convinced that the journal has stage and film possibilities,” he concluded with his “hope that in these matters you will refer to me, should any offers arise.”

Meyer continued to offer his assistance with the translation to assure its “literary flow” and to prevent the incursion of “Americanisms … providing the publishers and translator consent.” He was hesitant to tread on another’s territory but wanted the Diary to retain its authentic voice and not sound as if it had been written by an adolescent from the States. Meyer added news of his ongoing search for a producer, that he was “continually trying to interest friends of mine in the theater here, and also film people.” Certain that “the appearance of the book [would] undoubtedly stimulate interest in these fields,” he was concerned that the right person be found, not merely the best commercial arrangement. “It is here that it would be necessary for true sympathy in order that the material can be transferred from one medium to another without loss of fidelity.” Having witnessed Otto’s quick turnarounds regarding publishers and translators, Meyer worried that a compromise might be reached that would sacrifice Anne’s thoughts and vision. (Otto had already consented to two English translations, both of which he was now willing to reject for a third in order to sign with Little, Brown. Neither translator would ever receive compensation, though Otto thought the work of one “a good base for another translation.”)

From the start, Meyer’s emphasis on the critical importance of “fidelity” to the text was tied to his belief in the consonance between his own ideas and Anne’s. It was for this reason that he had sent Otto a copy of In Search, which Otto had begun to read by mid-November (“It will take some time to get through,” he commented), and why he was now forwarding a copy of his Congress Weekly article concerning the fate of publications considered to be “too Jewish.”

Otto responded twice to Meyer’s latest appeal, informing him of the arrangements with the two publishers and of his having “warned Little, Brown to have it translated by someone who is not in school in [the] USA as the charm of the book could be spoiled.” He then reassured Meyer that he would not grant film or theater rights to either house but that “if I get inquiries … I shall let you know and do nothing.”

When a dispute arose with Little, Brown, Otto wrote Meyer detailing his concern that a contract with them might force him to concede these rights. To protect himself, he asked Meyer to inform the translator and publisher that he was “busy in this matter already and … that the American publishers (or the English and others) had no [dramatic] rights as the book is known already.” Whether sincere or merely following his business sense, Otto assured Meyer that “it is self-understood that I refer to you in case someone else would write me about these rights.” Although Meyer would not participate in this questionable scheme (“I didn’t feel that I should further interject myself,” he wrote Otto upon his return to Paris on December 29), he was pleased to receive Otto’s confirmation that he would indeed play a prominent role as a writer in any future dramatization of the Diary.

Having heard from Meyer that efforts “to interest people in the film and stage possibilities” were continuing, Otto again promised that “about film and stage rights we will stay in contact.” It is curious that Otto made no comment on Meyer’s “Restricted Market” Congress Weekly other than to thank him for the “fine article.” He continued to read In Search, but being “pretty nervous” and unable to “find yet rest,” he still had not finished the book. (When Meyer later raised the issue of Otto’s emotional state at this time, Otto denied ever having experienced such agitation.) Negotiations between Little, Brown and Valentine Mitchell over Canadian rights were in the meantime delaying publication. “It is their fault,” Otto told Meyer, as Little, Brown had initially asked only for “U.S. rights”; Canada was a Commonwealth nation and rightly Valentine Mitchell’s.

While Meyer independently continued his search for a producer over the next two months, little occurred beyond negotiations with Little, Brown concerning film and theater rights. Then, on March 14, 1951, Francis Price, Doubleday’s European agent, wrote Otto for the second time of their interest in the Diary. Having failed to receive a response to his first inquiry some months earlier, he repeated Doubleday’s firm offer of terms financially similar to Little, Brown’s.

More than twenty years later, Price responded to the claim of a former Doubleday editor, Barbara Zimmerman, of a central role in the book’s publication and success, by sketching the sequence of events that had led to the publisher’s offer:

    The facts of the matter are this: In September of 1949 I was sent to Paris to open Doubleday’s first editorial and sales office in Europe, and the very first book for which I contracted for American publication was Manes Sperber’s “The Burned Bramble.” Manes was then (and still is) an editorial consultant for the Paris publishing house of Calmann-Levy, and in this capacity he had come across “The Diary of Anne Frank,” which at that time had been published only in Amsterdam. He immediately recognized the unique quality of the diary and arranged for its translation and publication in France. And as soon as the French translation was completed, he brought it to me. I sent it on to Donald Elder, the senior editor at Doubleday who was in charge of liaison with the Paris office, with the strongest possible recommendation for its acceptance. A month later I was authorized to offer an advance and a contract to Anne’s father, Otto Frank.

Although Zimmerman was “present at the creation,” Price denied any legitimacy to her “truthfully claiming to be the mother.” Rather, the Diary’s “success came about primarily as a result of something over which they had no control–Meyer Levin’s memorable front-page review … in the New York Times Book Review.” Zimmerman’s otherwise crucial role in the Diary’s postpublication history, however, remained forever unknown to Price.

The arrival of Price’s letter even as Little, Brown continued to demand a significantly larger percentage of the sale of the book for film, radio, television, and theater settled the matter for Otto. Little, Brown maintained that its offer had been based on this assumption of “special rights.” No matter how lucrative the book might prove, the publisher insisted that such additional revenues were necessary to offset the “high operating costs in publishing now” and it had taken the liberty of restoring this “special rights” clause, which Otto had crossed out when signing the contract several days earlier.

On March 21, Otto informed Price that he was willing to discuss the Doubleday offer now that negotiations with Little, Brown had foundered, though “the question of moving picture and dramatic rights” was “more a matter of sentiment on my side than a financial one.” Perhaps a film or play might never be made, but if one were, it had to be done from a particular perspective. “I do not want a film to be made based on terror, bombardment and Nazis spoiling the ideal base of the diary and therefore want to keep these rights under control,” including the “right to interfere” so that Anne would be seen as he wished to portray her according to these ideals. The “decision depends on it to a great extent,” he carefully stated, promising to discuss contract possibilities “as soon as I know your standpoint about the film question.”

Having edited the Diary, Otto insisted upon the right to determine Anne’s theatrical portrait as well. It is clear, however, that in selecting material from her original text, he had altered not only her growing sense of terror and the seriousness with which she regarded her situation, but, more significantly, her search for peace both in a comforting God and in a deepening awareness of herself as a Jew. Although she disdainfully recorded her mother’s efforts to make her read prayers during their opening weeks in hiding, Anne wrote after a year in the Annex, “My fear vanished, I looked up in the sky and trusted in God.” Two months later she added: “I know that I have God … and that’s what keeps me going. Without the voice that keeps holding out comfort and goodness to me I should have lost all hope long ago, without God I should long ago have collapsed. I know I am not safe, I am afraid of prison cells and concentration camps, but I feel I’ve grown more courageous and that I am in God’s hands!” Otto chose to delete all of this, together with numerous other entries expressing similar thoughts, thereby offering a distorted portrait of Anne. Thirty years later, he still insisted that “she didn’t show any feeling for religion,” though privately, to the second Mrs. Frank, he had admitted as early as 1945 to being profoundly astonished at discovering her deep faith. Fritzi Frank related after his death that it had taken Otto a long time to read the Diary, “as he found it such an overwhelming emotional experience. When he finished it he told us that he had discovered that he had not really known his daughter. Although, of course, he was on good terms with her, he had never known anything about her innermost thoughts, her high ideals, her belief in God and her progressive ideas which had surprised him greatly.”

Otto similarly removed many of the passages that reflected Anne’s deepening awareness of herself as a Jew. “This morning Miep told us that last night they were dragging Jews from house after house again,” Anne had recorded during their early weeks in hiding. “If I just think of how we live here, I usually come to the conclusion that it is a paradise compared with how other Jews who are not hiding must be living,” she noted some time later. After only three months in the Annex, Anne wrote, “Yesterday it was Yom Kippur, and there can’t be many people who will have kept it as quietly as we did.” More than a year later, she further noted the passage of Jewish time by recording how the group had “skipped Chanuka” in their second year of hiding, an event unparalleled in the life of her family. Each of these references, and others, Otto would delete, denying Anne her own voice as she grew. In “the second half of 1943,” she noted in a similarly excised passage, “I became a young woman, an adult in body and my mind underwent a very great change, I came to know God!” Having so carefully molded the Anne he wished the world to see, an Anne reflective of his own background–secular, uneducated in Judaism, and anti-Zionist–Otto could not allow others to reshape his daughter’s portrait in her own image.

Price, of course, was excited by the possibility of acquiring the Diary for Doubleday, and he responded immediately upon receipt of Otto’s answer, feeling “quite sure there would be no difficulty with Doubleday about leaving all of the motion picture, dramatic, and television rights in your control.” All of this would be in a letter from Clairouin. He asked only that Otto inform him of his decision so that he and Clairouin might settle the details of their contract. On March 27, Otto notified Little, Brown that because of its insistence upon unfavorable terms concerning dramatization rights, “it would not serve any useful purpose to continue our correspondence.”

Before leaving for Amsterdam, Otto fulfilled a long-standing promise to visit with Meyer and his family. The contents of their conversation on March 30 were later the subject of much dispute. For the moment, it was a chance for all to meet. Meyer and Tereska repeated their interest and thoughts concerning Anne’s Diary and the young woman they had come to know through it, while Otto thanked them for the kindnesses they had shown over the past half year toward him and his efforts to bring Anne’s work to an ever-greater audience. Just how much discussion took place at this time regarding Meyer’s efforts to secure a film or theater producer ultimately became the basis for an extended legal battle.

From Amsterdam, Otto wrote Clairouin on April 3 that he had begun to negotiate with Doubleday on his own and that despite the agency’s having made initial contact with Price, it was no longer needed. He promised, however, to keep the agency informed of developments. Clairouin’s Madame Tschebeko responded three days later and wrote again after another three weeks, arguing that the agency was entitled to a standard commission for all its work over the last year or more and for a continuing role in the negotiations. But by that time, Otto’s contract with Doubleday had been signed.

Price had sailed to New York immediately after his meeting with Otto in Paris and had secured a contract for him with the unusual stipulation that “the ultimate decision” concerning all nonprint use of the Diary would “remain entirely in your hands.” Receipt of this contract had allowed Otto to send his final note of refusal to Little, Brown on April 18. “I suppose that it is useless to go further into the matter,” he wrote, without mentioning that he had reached an agreement with another publisher.

Otto’s signing with Doubleday on April 27 brought him great relief. Within days, word of the Diary’s future publication in English prompted the first request to reprint portions of it. Otto was pleased to refer the leading American Jewish journal Commentary to Doubleday as proof to himself that the search begun four years earlier had been happily concluded. There were, however, significant costs to others that Otto felt free to disregard. Clairouin had opened several doors for him, including Doubleday’s, and was entitled to a full commission by all standards of fairness. Otto’s direct negotiation with Price had not been an amateur’s oversight. In a letter to Nathan Straus the previous August 11, Otto had already discussed the possibility of bypassing Clairouin in his negotiations with Random House. “If I would have asked Clairouin to write … I would have to pay agents fees for something they did not work for,” he wrote Straus with self-justification. On the other hand, “if they bring a firm [offer], this is without discussion.” (Little wonder that he had been so eager to have Meyer, who asked for no compensation, negotiate with Random while in New York.) Yet, when the contract with Doubleday was signed, following Clairouin’s initial contact and several conversations with Price, Otto saw himself as free of all monetary obligations toward the agency. (Had Otto neglected to encourage Price’s first approach in order to avoid this fee?) Price, unaware of Clairouin’s extensive work on the project in the years before his involvement, agreed with Otto when he sought advice on the matter. Only after a rancorous exchange of letters did Otto agree to pay a third of the customary agents’ fee “pour les efforts que vous avez fait en generale.”

Equally questionable, in light of Otto’s encouragement of Meyer’s efforts on his behalf, were the actual terms of the media clause with Doubleday. Promising to make no decision without Meyer’s involvement, he had negotiated terms with Doubleday that clearly could jeopardize Meyer’s interests. There is no evidence that Otto had ever mentioned Meyer to Price, whose understanding “after our discussion” in Paris was that Otto would want Doubleday “to handle any approach … from a film or radio concern, should there be interest in the dramatization in one form or another.” As yet unaware that Otto had signed a contract, Meyer wrote him three weeks later of new interest in the Diary by an American film producer. “And what finally came of the American negotiations?” Meyer asked, still believing himself to be an important part of the process of bringing Anne’s message to the world. “Is Doubleday going to do it?”

Meyer requested a copy of the Diary’s English translation to give to this potential producer for consideration. Otto advised Meyer that although Valentine Mitchell’s retranslation was only partially completed, the earlier English version was available and would be sent. It was the translation whose rendering he had encouraged but for which, because it would not be published, he had refused to make payment. Still not mentioning his Doubleday contract, Otto asked Meyer what he knew of the Italian film producers who had shown some interest (a question he also had recently put to Price).

Meyer advised Otto on May 12 that the best Italian producers had focused exclusively on “Italian life” and that with finances being an essential question everywhere, it would be best to continue looking in England and America, where “one would [not] have to ‘sell’ one of the producers on doing the film.” Otto again thanked Meyer and, without mentioning the Doubleday contract, continued to encourage representation in these matters. “I have enough confidence in you and your wife [whose ongoing interests had begun with her letter to Otto a day before Meyer’s first] to leave the film question to your judgment, knowing that you will not start any binding arrangements and keep things in hand.” By spring 1951, Otto had managed to secure the services of two agents in his search for wider exposure for Anne’s Diary. But to one, he had made no binding commitment of his own.

(C) 1997 Yale University All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-300-06907-3

A Memorial for Margot and Anne Frank shows a Star of David and the full names, birthdates, and year of death of each of the sisters, in white lettering on a large black stone. The stone sits alone in a grassy field, and the ground beneath the stone is covered with floral tributes and photographs of Anne Frank

Memorial for Margot and Anne Frank at the former Bergen-Belsen site

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1980)

Tucked away on pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war.

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

Beyond this, the exposure of the Anne Frank forgery is important because of the sheer magnitude of the fraud and the key role it has played in underpinning the entire Jewish scenario of the war. What is known as a fact is that one Otto Frank, a Jewish merchant, formerly of Frankfurt, who had been arrested in the Netherlands and interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war, began visiting publishers in 1946 with what he claimed was a diary written by his young daughter during the time the Frank family was hiding from the German police in occupied Holland. The girl later perished at Auschwitz, Frank said.

The diary, filled with touching adolescent reveries and homely little anecdotes, was exactly what the Jewish “Holocaust” propagandists were looking for: a highly effective piece of ammunition to generate a maudlin, emotion-laden sympathy for the poor, persecuted Jews — as typified by Anne Frank — and generate hatred against the wicked Germans, who had killed her and six million other Jews.

Otto Frank cashed in on the diary in a big way. Not only did he find a publisher, but he found people hot to buy stage and film rights as well. Shortly after its appearance in book form, the diary had been translated into a score of languages and printed in millions of copies, from all of which Frank received royalties. The English version alone, under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, has sold more than 4,000,000 copies to date. A television dramatization based on the diary was aired in this country last month, accompanied by the usual ballyhoo.

Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.

And then there was the matter of the script for the film version of the diary: Otto Frank was sued by a New York scriptwriter, Meyer Levin, who claimed that Frank had taken large portions of a script he, Levin, had written and had not paid Levin for his work. The court ordered Frank to pay Levin $50,000. One can easily understand why some observers began to wonder how much, if any, of the content of the various Anne Frank books, films, and plays in circulation was actually written by a little Jewish girl named Anne Frank.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death this year.

In Germany, however, it was not wise to speculate about such matters publicly. The line laid down by the government and the media is that Anne Frank is gospel, and anyone who suggests otherwise leaves himself open to criminal charges (“defaming the victims of Nazi persecution”) as well as to civil suits. Otto Frank himself made a regular habit of hauling Anne Frank detractors into German courts, which invariably decided in his favor — until recently, that is.

When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.

Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.

Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.

The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!

Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.

For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”

Otto should have been more careful in his choice of writing instruments. It is now quite clear that he finished hoking up the “original” of the diary after he had found a publisher for what, in 1946, was nothing more than some rough notes and an idea in his head which seemed to have prospects for making him a lot of money with little effort. First a typescript for the publisher, and then, as sales of the book began to mount, a completed handwritten “original” to show to doubters.

Just after the report of the Federal Criminal Office was given to the court, Otto Frank conveniently died — before he could be asked a number of very interesting questions. Meanwhile, the worldwide Jewish propaganda apparatus has continued its promotion of the Anne Frank myth as if nothing had happened. Der Spiegel seems to be the only mass-circulation news periodical to have exposed the fraud to date.

From Attack! No. 79, 1980, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer

John McCain and the POW Cover-Up

The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.

Eighteen months ago, TAC publisher Ron Unz discovered an astonishing account of the role the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, had played in suppressing information about what happened to American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam. Below, we present in full Sydney Schanberg’s explosive story.

TAC-McCainPOWsJohn McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain’s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

Mass of Evidence

The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What’s more, the Pentagon’s POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of “debunking” POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon’s performance was an insider, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon’s position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general’s briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war’s end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a Feb. 2, 1973 formal letter to Hanoi’s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid “without any political conditions.” But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party “in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.” That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored—and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi’s desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men—those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture—were eventually executed.

My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few—if any—are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the Agency’s Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted “off the record,” but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans’ groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain’s role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

The Arizona senator, now the Republican candidate for president, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon’s, and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief, and national security adviser, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H.W. Bush’s Defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.

McCain’s Role

An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called “the Truth Bill” and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: “[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.”

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as “the McCain Bill,” suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios, and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying, “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said, “This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington.” He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, “would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks.”

McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That’s an odd argument to make. Were staffers only “willing to work” if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence—documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs’ sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned—has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.” He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as “hoaxers,” “charlatans,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “dime-store Rambos.”

Some of McCain’s fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn’t share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter—a response to McCain’s stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote, “John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ‘last known alive’? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?”

It’s not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his postwar behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo—to try to break down other prisoners—and was broadcast over Hanoi’s state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain.

All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the “Crown Prince,” something McCain acknowledges in the book.

Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. “I felt faithless and couldn’t control my despair,” he writes, revealing that he made two “feeble” attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in “dread” that his father would find out about the confession. “I still wince,” he writes, “when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.”

He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but “never discussed it at length”—and the admiral, who died in 1981, didn’t indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes, “I only recently learned that the tape … had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father.”

Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.

Many stories have been written about McCain’s explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loath to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: “This is a man not at peace with himself.”

He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain’s mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: if American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that’s something the American public ought to know about.

10 Key Pieces of Evidence That Men Were Left Behind

1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on Jan. 27, 1973 without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, U.S. intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on Feb. 2, 1973 about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part, “Laos POW List Shows 9 from U.S.—Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing.” And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials “believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher.” The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting—nor did any other mainstream news organization.

2. Two Defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data—letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: “I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion … some were left behind.” This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: “Tonight,” Nixon said, “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in 12 years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.” Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied, “One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States … was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters…” This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed “credible” in the agents’ reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they “do not constitute evidence” that men were alive.

4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a “third party”—namely Thailand—they could not be regarded as authentic. That’s some Catch-22: the U.S. trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren’t valid.

Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On Dec. 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft “at 1230 hours.” Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director’s office in Langley. It read, in part: “The prisoners … are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places … POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving.” Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared “invalid” by Washington because the information came from a “third party” and thus could not be deemed credible.

5. A series of what appeared to be distress signals from Vietnam and Laos were captured by the government’s satellite system in the late 1980s and early ’90s. (Before that period, no search for such signals had been put in place.) Not a single one of these markings was ever deemed credible. To the layman’s eye, the satellite photos, some of which I’ve seen, show markings on the ground that are identical to the signals that American pilots had been specifically trained to use in their survival courses—such as certain letters, like X or K, drawn in a special way. Other markings were the secret four-digit authenticator numbers given to individual pilots. But time and again, the Pentagon, backed by the CIA, insisted that humans had not made these markings. What were they, then? “Shadows and vegetation,” the government said, insisting that the markings were merely normal topographical contours like saw-grass or rice-paddy divider walls. It was the automatic response—shadows and vegetation. On one occasion, a Pentagon photo expert refused to go along. It was a missing man’s name gouged into a field, he said, not trampled grass or paddy berms. His bosses responded by bringing in an outside contractor who found instead, yes, shadows and vegetation. This refrain led Bob Taylor, a highly regarded investigator on the Senate committee staff who had examined the photographic evidence, to comment to me: “If grass can spell out people’s names and secret digit codes, then I have a newfound respect for grass.”

6. On Nov. 11, 1992, Dolores Alfond, the sister of missing airman Capt. Victor Apodaca and chair of the National Alliance of Families, an organization of relatives of POW/MIAs, testified at one of the Senate committee’s public hearings. She asked for information about data the government had gathered from electronic devices used in a classified program known as PAVE SPIKE.

The devices were motion sensors, dropped by air, designed to pick up enemy troop movements. Shaped on one end like a spike with an electronic pod and antenna on top, they were designed to stick in the ground as they fell. Air Force planes would drop them along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other supply routes. The devices, though primarily sensors, also had rescue capabilities. Someone on the ground—a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor gang —could manually enter data into the sensor. All data were regularly collected electronically by U.S. planes flying overhead. Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors—as U.S. pilots had been trained to do—no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 U.S. POWs who were lost in Laos. Alfond added, according to the transcript, “This PAVE SPIKE intelligence is seamless, but the committee has not discussed it or released what it knows about PAVE SPIKE.”

McCain attended that committee hearing specifically to confront Alfond because of her criticism of the panel’s work. He bellowed and berated her for quite a while. His face turning anger-pink, he accused her of “denigrating” his “patriotism.” The bullying had its effect—she began to cry.

After a pause Alfond recovered and tried to respond to his scorching tirade, but McCain simply turned away and stormed out of the room. The PAVE SPIKE file has never been declassified. We still don’t know anything about those 20 POWs.

7. As previously mentioned, in April 1993 in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 U.S. prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang’s report added: “This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number … and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo’s instructions.” The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

The reaction to the document was immediate. After two decades of denying it had kept any prisoners, Hanoi responded to the revelation by calling the transcript a fabrication.

Similarly, Washington—which had over the same two decades refused to recant Nixon’s declaration that all the prisoners had been returned—also shifted into denial mode. The Pentagon issued a statement saying the document “is replete with errors, omissions and propaganda that seriously damage its credibility,” and that the numbers were “inconsistent with our own accounting.”

Neither American nor Vietnamese officials offered any rationale for who would plant a forged document in the Soviet archives and why they would do so. Certainly neither Washington nor Moscow—closely allied with Hanoi—would have any motive, since the contents were embarrassing to all parties, and since both the United States and Vietnam had consistently denied the existence of unreturned prisoners. The Russian archivists simply said the document was “authentic.”

8. In his 2002 book, Inside Delta Force, retired Command Sgt. Maj. Eric Haney described how in 1981 his special forces unit, after rigorous training for a POW rescue mission, had the mission suddenly aborted, revived a year later, and again abruptly aborted. Haney writes that this abandonment of captured soldiers ate at him for years and left him disillusioned about his government’s vows to leave no men behind. “Years later, I spoke at length with a former highly placed member of the North Vietnamese diplomatic corps, and this person asked me point-blank: ‘Why did the Americans never attempt to recover their remaining POWs after the conclusion of the war?’” Haney writes. He continued, saying that he came to believe senior government officials had called off those missions in 1981 and 1982. (His account is on pages 314 to 321 of my paperback copy of the book.)

9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice President Bush, CIA director William Casey, and National Security Adviser Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.

Allen was allowed to testify behind closed doors and no information was released. But a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Robert Caldwell, obtained the portion relating to the ransom offer and reported on it. The ransom request was for $4 billion, Allen testified. He said he told Reagan that “it would be worth the president’s going along and let’s have the negotiation.” When his testimony appeared in the Union-Tribune, Allen quickly wrote a letter to the panel, this time not under oath, recanting the ransom story and claiming his memory had played tricks on him. His new version was that some POW activists had asked him about such an offer in a meeting that took place in 1986, when he was no longer in government. “It appears,” he said in the letter, “that there never was a 1981 meeting about the return of POW/MIAs for $4 billion.”

But the episode didn’t end there. A Treasury agent on Secret Service duty in the White House, John Syphrit, came forward to say he had overheard part of the ransom conversation in the Roosevelt Room in 1981, when the offer was discussed by Reagan, Bush, Casey, Allen, and other cabinet officials.

Syphrit, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told the committee he was willing to testify, but they would have to subpoena him. Treasury opposed his appearance, arguing that voluntary testimony would violate the trust between the Secret Service and those it protects. It was clear that coming in on his own could cost Syphrit his career. The committee voted 7 to 4 not to subpoena him.

In the committee’s final report, dated Jan. 13, 1993 (on page 284), the panel not only chastised Syphrit for his failure to testify without a subpoena (“The committee regrets that the Secret Service agent was unwilling …”), but noted that since Allen had recanted his testimony about the Roosevelt Room briefing, Syphrit’s testimony would have been “at best, uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness.” The committee omitted any mention that it had made a decision not to ask the other two surviving witnesses, Bush and Reagan, to give testimony under oath. (Casey had died.)

10. In 1990, Col. Millard Peck, a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam then working at the DIA as chief of the Asia Division for Current Intelligence, asked for the job of chief of the DIA’s Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. His reason for seeking the transfer, which was not a promotion, was that he had heard from officials throughout the Pentagon that the POW/MIA office had been turned into a waste-disposal unit for getting rid of unwanted evidence about live prisoners—a “black hole,” these officials called it.

Peck explained all this in his telling resignation letter of Feb. 12, 1991, eight months after he had taken the job. He said he viewed it as “sort of a holy crusade” to restore the integrity of the office but was defeated by the Pentagon machine. The four-page, single-spaced letter was scathing, describing the putative search for missing men as “a cover-up.”

Peck charged that, at its top echelons, the Pentagon had embraced a “mind-set to debunk” all evidence of prisoners left behind. “That national leaders continue to address the prisoner of war and missing in action issue as the ‘highest national priority,’ is a travesty,” he wrote. “The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort, and may never have been. … Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow through on any of the sightings, nor is there a responsive ‘action arm’ to routinely and aggressively pursue leads.”

“I became painfully aware,” his letter continued, “that I was not really in charge of my own office, but was merely a figurehead or whipping boy for a larger and totally Machiavellian group of players outside of DIA … I feel strongly that this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity.” He named no names but said these players are “unscrupulous people in the Government or associated with the Government” who “have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows, while using the [POW] Office as a ‘toxic waste dump’ to bury the whole ‘mess’ out of sight.” Peck added that “military officers … who in some manner have ‘rocked the boat’ [have] quickly come to grief.”

Peck concluded, “From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with ‘smoke and mirrors’ to stall the issue until it dies a natural death.”

The disillusioned colonel not only resigned but asked to be retired immediately from active military service. The press never followed up.

My Pursuit of the Story

I covered the war in Cambodia and Vietnam, but came to the POW information only slowly afterward, when military officers I knew from that conflict began coming to me with maps and POW sightings and depositions by Vietnamese witnesses.

I was then city editor of the New York Times, no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later, in 1991, when I was an op-ed columnist at Newsday, the aforementioned special Senate committee was formed to probe the POW issue. I saw this as an opening and immersed myself in the reporting.

At Newsday, I wrote 36 columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain’s key role.

Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair, and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice, and publications just weren’t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.

Serving in the Army in Germany during the Cold War and witnessing combat firsthand as a reporter in India and Indochina led me to have great respect for those who fight for their country. To my mind, we dishonored U.S. troops when our government failed to bring them home from Vietnam after the 591 others were released—and then claimed they didn’t exist. And politicians dishonor themselves when they pay lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers only to leave untold numbers behind, rationalizing to themselves that it’s merely one of the unfortunate costs of war.

John McCain—now campaigning for the White House as a war hero, maverick, and straight shooter—owes the voters some explanations. The press were long ago wooed and won by McCain’s seeming openness, Lone Ranger pose, and self-deprecating humor, which may partly explain their ignoring his record on POWs. In the numerous, lengthy McCain profiles that have appeared of late in papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I may have missed a clause or a sentence along the way, but I have not found a single mention of his role in burying information about POWs. Television and radio news programs have been similarly silent.

Reporters simply never ask him about it. They didn’t when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2000. They haven’t now, despite the fact that we’re in the midst of another war—a war he supports and one that has echoes of Vietnam. The only explanation McCain has ever offered for his leadership on legislation that seals POW files is that he believes the release of such information would only stir up fresh grief for the families of those who were never accounted for in Vietnam. Of the scores of POW families I’ve met over the years, only a few have said they want the books closed without knowing what happened to their men. All the rest say that not knowing is exactly what grieves them.

Isn’t it possible that what really worries those intent on keeping the POW documents buried is the public disgust that the contents of those files would generate?

How the Senate Committee Perpetuated the Debunking

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn’t contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached. Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked “credible” that covered POW sightings through 1989: “There can be no doubt that POWs were alive … as late as 1989.” That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

This internecine struggle continued right up to the committee’s last official act—the issuance of its final report. The Executive Summary, which comprised the first 43 pages, was essentially a whitewash, saying that only “a small number” of POWs could have been left behind in 1973 and that there was little likelihood that any prisoners could still be alive. The Washington press corps, judging from its coverage, seems to have read only this air-brushed summary, which had been closely controlled.

But the rest of the 1,221-page Report on POW/MIAs was quite different. Sprinkled throughout are pieces of hard evidence that directly contradict the summary’s conclusions. This documentation established that a significant number of prisoners were left behind—and that top government officials knew this from the start. These candid findings were inserted by committee staffers who had unearthed the evidence and were determined not to allow the truth to be sugar-coated.

If the Washington press corps did actually read the body of the report and then failed to report its contents, that would be a scandal of its own. The press would then have knowingly ignored the steady stream of findings in the body of the report that refuted the summary and indicated that the number of abandoned men was not small but considerable. The report gave no figures but estimates from various branches of the intelligence community ranged up to 600. The lowest estimate was 150.

Highlights of the report that undermine the benign conclusions of the Executive Summary:

• Pages 207-209These three pages contain revelations of what appear to be either massive intelligence failures or bad intentions—or both. The report says that until the committee brought up the subject in 1992, no branch of the intelligence community that dealt with analysis of satellite and lower-altitude photos had ever been informed of the specific distress signals U.S. personnel were trained to use in the Vietnam War, nor had they ever been tasked to look for any such signals at all from possible prisoners on the ground.

The committee decided, however, not to seek a review of old photography, saying it “would cause the expenditure of large amounts of manpower and money with no expectation of success.” It might also have turned up lots of distress-signal numbers that nobody in the government was looking for from 1973 to 1991, when the committee opened shop. That would have made it impossible for the committee to write the Executive Summary it seemed determined to write.

The failure gets worse. The committee also discovered that the DIA, which kept the lists of authenticator numbers for pilots and other personnel, could not “locate” the lists of these codes for Army, Navy, or Marine pilots. They had lost or destroyed the records. The Air Force list was the only one intact, as it had been preserved by a different intelligence branch.

The report concluded, “In theory, therefore, if a POW still living in captivity [today], were to attempt to communicate by ground signal, smuggling out a note or by whatever means possible, and he used his personal authenticator number to confirm his identity, the U.S. government would be unable to provide such confirmation, if his number happened to be among those numbers DIA cannot locate.”

It’s worth remembering that throughout the period when this intelligence disaster occurred—from the moment the treaty was signed in 1973 until 1991—the White House told the public that it had given the search for POWs and POW information the “highest national priority.”

• Page 13: Even in the Executive Summary, the report acknowledges the existence of clear intelligence, made known to government officials early on, that important numbers of captured U.S. POWs were not on Hanoi’s repatriation list. After Hanoi released its list (showing only ten names from Laos—nine military men and one civilian), President Nixon sent a message on Feb. 2, 1973 to Hanoi’s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong saying, “U.S. records show there are 317 American military men unaccounted for in Laos and it is inconceivable that only ten of these men would be held prisoner in Laos.”

Nixon was right. It was inconceivable. Then why did the president, less than two months later, on March 29, 1973, announce on national television that “all of our American POWs are on their way home”?

On April 13, 1973, just after all 591 men on Hanoi’s official list had returned to American soil, the Pentagon got into step with the president and announced that there was no evidence of any further live prisoners in Indochina (this is on page 248).

• Page 91: A lengthy footnote provides more confirmation of the White House’s knowledge of abandoned POWs. The footnote reads, “In a telephone conversation with Select Committee Vice-Chairman Bob Smith on December 29, 1992, Dr. Kissinger said that he had informed President Nixon during the 60-day period after the peace agreement was signed that U.S. intelligence officials believed that the list of prisoners captured in Laos was incomplete. According to Dr. Kissinger, the President responded by directing that the exchange of prisoners on the lists go forward, but added that a failure to account for the additional prisoners after Operation Homecoming would lead to a resumption of bombing. Dr. Kissinger said that the President was later unwilling to carry through on this threat.”

When Kissinger learned of the footnote while the final editing of the committee report was in progress,he and his lawyers lobbied fiercely through two Republican allies on the panel—one of them was John McCain—to get the footnote expunged. The effort failed. The footnote stayed intact.

• Pages 85-86: The committee report quotes Kissinger from his memoirs, writing solely in reference to prisoners in Laos: “We knew of at least 80 instances in which an American serviceman had been captured alive and subsequently disappeared. The evidence consisted either of voice communications from the ground in advance of capture or photographs and names published by the Communists. Yet none of these men was on the list of POWs handed over after the Agreement.”

Then why did he swear under oath to the committee in 1992 that he never had any information that specific, named soldiers were captured alive and hadn’t been returned by Vietnam?

• Page 89: In the middle of the prisoner repatriation and U.S. troop-withdrawal process agreed to in the treaty, when it became clear that Hanoi was not releasing everyone it held, a furious chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Thomas Moorer, issued an order halting the troop withdrawal until Hanoi complied with the agreement. He cited in particular the known prisoners in Laos. The order was retracted by President Nixon the next day. In 1992, Moorer, by then retired, testified under oath to the committee that his order had received the approval of the president, the national security adviser, and the secretary of Defense. Nixon, however, in a letter to the committee, wrote, “I do not recall directing Admiral Moorer to send this cable.”

The report did not include the following information: behind closed doors, a senior intelligence officer had testified to the POW committee that when Moorer’s order was rescinded, the angry admiral sent a “back-channel” message to other key military commanders telling them that Washington was abandoning known live prisoners. “Nixon and Kissinger are at it again,” he wrote. “SecDef and SecState have been cut out of the loop.” In 1973, the witness was working in the office that processed this message. His name and his testimony are still classified. A source present for the testimony provided me with this information and also reported that in that same time period, Moorer had stormed into Defense Secretary Schlesinger’s office and, pounding on his desk, yelled: “The bastards have still got our men.” Schlesinger, in his own testimony to the committee a few months later, was asked about—and corroborated—this account.

• Pages 95-96In early April 1973, Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements “summoned” Dr. Roger Shields, then head of the Pentagon’s POW/MIA Task Force, to his office to work out “a new public formulation” of the POW issue; now that the White House had declared all prisoners to have been returned, a new spin was needed. Shields, under oath, described the meeting to the committee. He said Clements told him, “All the American POWs are dead.” Shields said he replied: “You can’t say that.” Clements shot back: “You didn’t hear me. They are all dead.” Shields testified that at that moment he thought he was going to be fired, but he escaped from his boss’s office still holding his job.

• Pages 97-98: A couple of days later, on April 11, 1973, a day before Shields was to hold a Pentagon press conference on POWs, he and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, then the deputy national security adviser, went to the Oval Office to discuss the “new public formulation” and its presentation with President Nixon.

The next day, reporters right off asked Shields about missing POWs. Shields fudged his answers. He said, “We have no indications at this time that there are any Americans alive in Indochina.” But he went on to say that there had not been “a complete accounting” of those lost in Laos and that the Pentagon would press on to account for the missing—a seeming acknowledgement that some Americans were still alive and unaccounted for.

The press, however, seized on Shields’s denials. One headline read, “POW Unit Boss: No Living GIs Left in Indochina.”

• Page 97: The POW committee, knowing that Nixon taped all his meetings in the Oval Office, sought the tape of that April 11, 1973 Nixon-Shields-Scowcroft meeting to find out what Nixon had been told and what he had said about the evidence of POWs still in Indochina. The committee also knew there had been other White House meetings that centered on intelligence about live POWs. A footnote on page 97 states that Nixon’s lawyers said they would provide access to the April 11 tape “only if the Committee agreed not to seek any other White House recordings from this time period.” The footnote says that the committee rejected these terms and got nothing. The committee never made public this request for Nixon tapes until the brief footnote in its 1993 report.

McCain’s Catch-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee’s full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a “conspiracy theory.” But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security adviser, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington’s terms. That president seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi’s hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for president is the contemporary politician most responsible for keeping the truth about this matter hidden. Yet he says he’s the right man to be the commander in chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly, “We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence—though no proof—to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America’s military involvement in Vietnam.”

“Evidence though no proof.” Clearly, no one could meet McCain’s standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

To this reporter, this sounds like a significant story and a long overdue opportunity for the press to finally dig into the archives to set the historical record straight—and even pose some direct questions to the candidate.

Sydney Schanberg has been a journalist for nearly 50 years. The 1984 movie “The Killing Fields,” which won several Academy Awards, was based on his book The Death and Life of Dith Pran. In 1975, Schanberg was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting “at great risk.” He is also the recipient of two George Polk awards, two Overseas Press Club awards, and the Sigma Delta Chi prize for distinguished journalism. His latest book is Beyond the Killing Fields ( This piece is reprinted with permission from The Nation Institute.

Beyond the Killing Fields: War Writings 1st Edition

This first-ever anthology of the war reporting and commentary of Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Sydney Schanberg is drawn from more than four decades of reporting at home and abroad for the New York Times, Newsday, the Village Voice, and various magazines. The centerpiece of the collection is his signature work, “The Death and Life of Dith Pran,” which appeared in the New York Times Magazine. This became the foundation of Roland Joffé’s acclaimed film The Killing Fields (1984), which explored the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia during the late 1970s.

Although Schanberg may be best known for his work on Cambodia, he also reported on the India-Pakistan war that ended Pakistan’s brutal attempt to crush the Bangladesh freedom movement in the 1970s. His striking coverage of the Vietnam conflict recounts Hanoi’s fierce offensive in 1972 that almost succeeded. Years later, citing official documents and other hard evidence that a large number of American POWs were never returned by Hanoi, Schanberg criticized the national press for ignoring these facts and called for Washington to release documents that had been covered up since 1973. As the media critic for the Village Voice, Schanberg offered a unique and searing viewpoint on Iraq, which he called America’s “strangest war.” His criticism of the Bush administration’s secrecy brings his war reportage into the present and presents a vigorous critique of what he considers a devious and destructive presidency. Beyond the Killing Fields is an important work by one of America’s foremost journalists.

ISBN-13: 978-1597975056
ISBN-10: 1597975052

Corbyn Is Being Destroyed – Like Blowing Up a Bridge to Stop an Advancing Army




The latest “scandal” gripping Britain – or to be more accurate, British elites – is over the use of the term “Zionist” by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country’s next prime minister.

Yet again, Corbyn has found himself ensnared in what a small group of Jewish leadership organisations, which claim improbably to represent Britain’s “Jewish community”, and a small group of corporate journalists, who improbably claim to represent British public opinion, like to call Labour’s “anti-semitism problem”.

I won’t get into the patently ridiculous notion that “Zionist” is a code word for “Jew”, at least not now. There are lots of existing articles explaining why that is nonsense.

I wish to deal with a different aspect of the long-running row over Labour’s so-called “anti-semitism crisis”. It exemplifies, I believe, a much more profound and wider crisis in our societies: over the issue of trust.

We now have two large camps, pitted against each other, who have starkly different conceptions of what their societies are and where they need to head. In a very real sense, these two camps no longer speak the same language. There has been a rupture, and they can find no common ground.

I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow.

First, let us outline the growing ideological and linguistic chasm opening up between these two camps: a mapping of the divisions that, given space constraints, will necessarily deal in generalisations.

The trusting camp

The first camp invests its trust, with minor reservations, in those who run our societies. The left and the right segments of this camp are divided primarily over the degree to which they believe that those at the bottom of society’s pile need a helping hand to get them further up the social ladder.

Otherwise, the first camp is united in its assumptions.

They admit that among our elected politicians there is the odd bad apple. And, of course, they understand that there are necessary debates about political and social values. But they agree that politicians rise chiefly through ability and talent, that they are accountable to their political constituencies, and that they are people who want what is best for society as a whole.

While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market – the need to sell papers and audiences – guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers.

Both politicians and the media serve – if not always entirely successfully – as a constraint on corruption and the abuse of power by other powerful actors, such as the business community.

This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust – rather uncomfortably – into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage “good wars” to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen.

Russian conspiracies

Once upon a time – when this camp’s worldview was rarely, if ever, challenged – its favoured response to anything difficult to reconcile with its core beliefs, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crash, was: “Cock-up, not conspiracy!”. Now that there are ever more issues threatening to undermine its most cherished verities, the camp’s response is – paradoxically – “Putin did it!” or “Fake news!”.

The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage.

This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within.

This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power.

These structures are no longer primarily national, but global. They are not immutable but as fabricated, as man-made and replaceable, as the structures that once made incontestable the rule of a landed aristocracy over feudal serfs. The current aristocracy, this camp argues, are globalised corporations that are so unaccountable that even the biggest nation-states can no longer contain or constrain them.

Illusions of pluralism

For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies.

For the second camp, this fact was well illustrated in 2008 when the political class did not – and could not – punish the banks responsible for the near-collapse of western economies after decades of reckless speculation on which a financial elite had grown fat. Those banks, in the words of the politicians themselves, were “too big to fail” and so were bailed out with money from the very same publics who had been scammed by the banks in the first place. Rather than use the bank failures as an opportunity to drive through reform of the broken banking system, or nationalise parts of it, the politicians let the banking casino system continue, even intensify.

Likewise, the media – supposed watchdogs on power – are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse – and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse.

This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations’ public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism.

Manufactured enemies

These domestic structures are subservient to a still-bigger agenda: the accumulation of wealth by a global elite through the asset-stripping of the planet’s resources and the rationalisation of permanent war. That, this camp concludes, requires the manufacturing of “enemies” – such as Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea – to justify the expansion of a military-industrial machine.

These “enemies” are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home.

The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western “humanitarian interventions” abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Syria’s Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world’s ills.

The second camp argues that it is none of these things: it is anti-imperialist. It does not excuse the crimes of Putin or Assad, it treats them as secondary and largely reactive to the vastly greater power a western elite with global reach can project. It believes the western media’s obsession with crafting narratives about evil enemies – bad men and madmen – is designed to deflect attention from the structures of far greater violence the west deploys around the world, through a web of US military bases and Nato.

Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia’s crimes without first admitting the west’s greater crimes, our crimes.

While the whole US political class obsess over “Russian interference” in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia’s borders.

Different languages

Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.

These camps may be divided, but it would seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.

One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media. Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.

The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt – social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.

This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost.

That is not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.

The two most significant disrupters of the first camp’s narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point.

It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth’s climate is already turning against humankind.

Out of the darkness

Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.

It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.

We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt.

The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don’t choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we can build something better from the ruins.

We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their power.

They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we – the 99 per cent – have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning.

No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political, social and spiritual growth.

And what the elite don’t own or control, they fear.

Putting the genie back

The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.

Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.

Corbyn’s significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.

That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army.

It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment; that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.

And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn’s decades spent as an anti-racism activist.

The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears and assassination – they have in their armoury.

The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us – the 99 per cent – are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.

The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is



They follow the Kol Nidre from the Talmud, which allows them to lie to any goyim for whatever reason. They are allowed to steal from the goyim. Do whatever they like to the goyim that is to their benefit

La Kosher Nostra Flame Chrone


Are Multiple “Failed Coups” Leading To The Engineered Fall Of America

The only things that the coup seems to have accomplished are cementing Erdogen as the center of political dominance for years to come.

The Duran





Authored by Brandon Smith via

There has been a lot of talk about “coups” the past two years, not just in the U.S. but around the globe. As I have noted in recent articles, failed coups in particular have been very popular as a way for certain governments to solidify power and assert dictatorial changes. In some cases, there has been no concrete evidence presented that the coup ever really existed.

In Turkey in 2016, Recep Erdogan claimed “success” in stopping a potential coup involving numerous government employees and military personnel which included active combat around major government sites such as the presidential palace and Turkish parliament. Erdogen argues that the coup was a part of the “Gulen Movement,” a political opposition movement surrounding Fethullah Gulen, a former ally of Erdogen who has resided in the U.S. since 1999 and had a falling out with the Turkish president in 2013 after criticisms of Erdogen’s corruption.

So far, evidence of actual “combat” with coup forces is thin to the point that it is questionable whether a coup ever really happened. Most reports cite fire from tanks and planes, as well as nearly 300 people killed. Video footage shows random firing, some explosions in civilian areas as well as Turkish citizens mobbing aimlessly around tanks. With tens of thousands of government employees imprisoned or dismissed after the event, the amount of kinetic conflict seems rather limited and tame.

Two years later, Turkey has yet to produce any hard proof of a coup, let alone proof that the “Gulen Movement” was involved. In July of this year, Erdogen submitted “evidence” which he says is grounds for extradition of Fethullah Gulen. This evidence appears to revolve around alleged visits made to Gulen’s FETO compound in Pennsylvania by accused members of the coup, but does not provide any clarification on evidence of the coup itself.

The chaotic event lasted mere hours and smells of a “wag the dog” scenario; a completely fabricated “Reichstag Fire” attack which could have been easily scripted by Erdogen himself as an excuse to assert totalitarian controls in Turkey and to remove pesky political critics and people within government and the military that held contrary views to Erdogen. Erdogen pointed a finger at the Gulen Movement before the smoke even cleared on the coup attempt, which suggests a predetermined scapegoat. Erdogen controls the Turkish media (including access to social media) and the judiciary, which means he also controls the narrative leaving the country in terms of facts and evidence.

The only things that the coup seems to have accomplished are cementing Erdogen as the center of political dominance for years to come, and causing considerable division between the U.S. and Turkey, threatening the breakup of NATO. Turkey is now moving toward bilateral agreements with Russia, which may have been the plan all along.

As I have noted in my articles on the false East/West paradigm, financial elites are getting ready to initiate what they call the “global economic reset,” and this reset will shift economic power (and thus geopolitical power) away from the U.S. and parts of the West into the hands of Eastern nations as well as institutions like the IMF and BIS. Turkey is a key component of geostrategic dominance for the U.S. and NATO. The nation’s realignment to the East will change the center of power for the globe.

A “failed coup” or what some analysts might call a “self-coup” also took place this year for another key U.S. ally — Saudi Arabia. Rumors of attempts on the life of Saudi Prince Mohammad Bin Salman as well as calls for a coup by exiled crown prince Khaled bin Farhan culminated in the arrest and detainment of numerous Saudi officials by MBS. No evidence of an actual coup against the Prince has been presented so far.

Salman proceeded in the wake of the crisis to consolidate his power as the successor to the king, as well as extorting billions of dollars from his captives in exchange for their freedom. He has retained the most vital positions in the Saudi government for himself, including the positions of Defense Minister, Interior Minister and head of the National Guard.  His only obstacle now is to wait for the king to officially abdicate or die.

MBS is best known in the economic world for his “Vision For 2030,” which is designed to end Saudi reliance on oil revenues, but also appears to seek alternatives to the petrodollar in terms of trade as the nation strengthens ties to China and Russia. If Saudi Arabia breaks from the U.S. dollar as the primary means of oil trade, this will inevitably kill the dollar’s world reserve currency status.  The Vision For 2030 also appears to align exactly with the “sustainable development goals” of the IMF’s 2030 Agenda.

Salman is supported in his 2030 endeavor through his Public Investment Fund (which in ironic globalist style is not actually a public fund).  The fund is heavily financed by major globalist donors including The Carlyle Group, Goldman Sachs, as well as Blackstone and Blackrock. This support for a decoupled Saudi Arabia by international corporations suggests yet again that the globalist goal is to kill the dollar’s world reserve status, rather than protect it.

As the “failed coup” narrative continues to escalate, I have noticed a disturbing trend in America which matches certain elements of the coups in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. That is to say, it is possible that another “failed coup” is pending for the U.S, opening the path for Donald Trump to initiate martial law-like measures.

I warned of this possibility months before the election in my article ‘Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement‘, which partially explains the reasons why I predicted that Trump would win and ascend to the Oval Office.

At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency, more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering.  Now it appears that he is both.

Trump’s history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross, which saved him from embarrassment and possibly saved his entire fortune. This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the benefit of the doubt in my view.

Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.

Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of Trump’s associations. “What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn’t this indicate he’s not controlled?” they say. I say, not really.

If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets.  This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche.

This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as “Left vs. Right.” Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become.

Meaning the globalists are hoping that through the exploitation of useful idiots on the left they can infuriate conservatives to the point of abandoning their constitutional principles. For example, the use of social media censorship of conservative views is clearly designed to lure conservatives into turning to big government to force companies like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube into the role of “public utilities.” In other words, conservatives would be abandoning their principles on private property by nationalizing social media much like communists would do.

Of course, a simpler solution would be for conservatives to launch their OWN social media platforms and offer a better alternative. We should be reducing government influence in these sectors and ending protections for corporations, not increasing the influence of government even further. But this solution is never offered within the narrative, thus, the public discourse is completely controlled.

As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent ideas of “Russian collusion.”

To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law. They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn’t suit them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a “coup,” but it would inevitably be a failed coup.

Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional “safeguards.” And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.

I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the globalists are well aware of this strategy.

Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is quoted in his address ‘Dissent: Do We Need It‘:

“They say, “The Congress is corrupt.” I ask them, “What do you know about the Congress? Do you know your own Congressman’s name?” Usually they don’t. It’s almost a reflex with them, like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions, and then work within the system. But most of them just won’t buy that. They insist the system is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.

For example, I’ve talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are pretty generally in this group.”

Is a “failed coup” being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very “fascists” the left accuses us of being?  The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this is the game plan.

Russian Flag

Hyping the anti-Russia hysteria: ‘Vital’ US moles in the Kremlin go missing!


© Ria Novosti
The Kremlin

According to New York Times, intel leakers, “informants close to” Putin have “gone silent.” What can it all mean?

For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting America’s place in the world. In recent days, for example. French President Emmanuel Macron declared “Europe can no longer rely on the United States to provide its security,” calling for instead a broader kind of security “and particularly doing it in cooperation with Russia.”About the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin met to expand and solidify an essential energy partnership by agreeing to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, despite US attempts to abort it. Earlier, on August 22, the Afghan Taliban announced it would attend its first ever major peace conference – in Moscow, without US participation.

Thus does the world turn, and not to the wishes of Washington. Such news would, one might think, elicit extensive reporting and analysis in the American mainstream media. But amid all this, on August 25, the ever-eager New York Times published yet another front-page Russiagate story – one that if true would be sensational, though hardly anyone seemed to notice. According to the Times‘ regular Intel leakers, US intelligence agencies, presumably the CIA, has had multiple “informants close to… Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial details” about Russiagate for two yearsNow, however, “the vital Kremlin informants have largely gone silent.” The Times laces the story with misdeeds questionably attributed to Putin and equally untrustworthy commentators, as well as a mistranslated Putin statement that incorrectly has him saying all “traitors” should be killed. Standard US media fare these days when fact-checkers seem not to be required for Russia coverage. But the sensation of the article is that the US had moles in Putin’s office.

Skeptical or credulous readers will react to the Times story as they might. Actually, an initial, lesser version of it first appeared in The Washington Post, an equally hospitable Intel platform, on December 15, 2017. I found it implausible for much the same reasons I had previously found Christopher Steele’s “dossier,” also purportedly based on “Kremlin sources,” implausible. But the Times‘ new, expanded version of the mole story raises more and larger questions.

If US intelligence really had such a priceless asset in Putin’s office – the Post report implied only one, the Times writes of more than one – imagine what they could reveal about Enemy No. 1 Putin’s intentions abroad and at home, perhaps daily – why would any American Intel official disclose this information to any media at the risk of being charged with a treasonous capital offense? And now more than once? Or, since “the Kremlin” closely monitors US media, at the risk of having the no less treasonous Russian informants identified and severely punished? Presumably this why the Times‘ leakers insist that the “silent” moles are still alive, though how they know we are not told. All of this is even more implausible. Certainly, the Times article asks no critical questions.

But why leak the mole story again, and now? Stripped of extraneous financial improprieties, failures to register as foreign lobbyists, tacky lifestyles, and sex having nothing to do with Russia, the gravamen of the Russiagate narrative remains what it has always been: Putin ordered Russian operatives to “meddle” in the US 2016 presidential election in order to put Donald Trump in the White House, and Putin is now plotting to “attack” the November congressional elections in order to get a Congress he wants. The more Robert Mueller and his supporting media investigates, the less evidence actually turns up, and when it seemingly does, it has to be considerably massaged or misrepresented.

Nor are “meddling” and “interfering” in the other’s domestic policy new in Russian-American relations. Tsar Aleksandr II intervened militarily on the side of the Union in the American Civil War.

President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to fight the Reds in the Russian Civil War. The Communist International, founded in Moscow in 1919, and its successor organizations financed American activists, electoral candidates, ideological schools, and pro-Soviet bookstores for decades in the United States. With the support of the Clinton administration, American electoral advisers encamped in Moscow to help rig Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s reelection in 1996. And that’s the bigger “meddling” apart from the decades-long “propaganda and disinformation” churned out by both sides, often via forbidden short-wave radio. Unless some conclusive evidence appears, Russian social media and other meddling in the 2016 presidential election was little more than old habits in modern-day forms. (Not incidentally, the Times story suggests that US Intel had been hacking the Kremlin, or trying to, for many years. This too should not shock us.)

Comment: US hacking of Russian systems is commonplace: Putin: ‘Russia stopped nearly 25 million cyber attacks during World Cup’

The real novelty of Russiagate is the allegation that a Kremlin leader, Putin, personally gave orders to affect the outcome of an American presidential election. In this regard, Russiagaters have produced even less evidence, only suppositions without facts or much logic. With the Russiagate narrative being frayed by time and fruitless investigations, the “mole in the Kremlin” may have seemed a ploy needed to keep the conspiracy theory moving forward, presumably toward Trump’s removal from office by whatever means. And hence the temptation to play the mole card again, now, as yet more investigations generate smoke but no smoking gun.

The pretext of the Times story is that Putin is preparing an attack on the upcoming November elections, but the once-“vital,” now-silent moles are not providing the “crucial details.” Even if the story is entirely bogus, consider the damage it is doing. Russiagate allegations have already delegitimized a presidential election, and a presidency, in the minds of many Americans. The Times‘ updated, expanded version may do the same to congressional elections and the next Congress. If so, there is an “attack on American democracy” – not by Putin or Trump but by whoever godfathered and repeatedly inflated Russiagate.

As I have argued previouslysuch evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama’s head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI. Indeed, the Times story reminds us of how central “intelligence” actors have been in this saga. Arguably, Russiagate has brought us to the worst American political crisis since the Civil War and the most dangerous relations with Russia in history. Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow.

About the author

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.



Professor Roman Yushkov is the First Russian On Trial for ‘Holocaust® Denial’

In May 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a draconian law that makes any “denial” of the official story of “Nazi crimes” a criminal offense. The law also includes “wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two” or portraying the Third Reich in a positive light.

While many people within the alternative media worship Putin as a great White savior, some of us having been paying close attention to many indicators that the former Soviet Union has become increasingly repressive and totalitarian.

Putin has an army of jewish billionaires at his side, was voted Israel’s Man of the Year in 2015, married his daughter off to Kirill Shamalov (a jewish tycoon, like Jared Kushner), passed anti-gentile laws (like outlawing ‘anti-semitic’ Biblical criticism), is intimately tied to the Chabad mafia (along with Trump), and much more. Yet we are told by Putin apologists that these moves were symbolic and that we should not worry since Vladimir is a master 4D chess player and he is on our side. Some have put forth the theory that Putin only needed laws such as the one that forbids “Holocaust denial” in order to deal with fake “neo-Nazis” in Russia who are being funded by the evil Western powers. 

Now Roman Yushkov, a Perm University Professor, has been fired from his position and his social media and videos of his presentations thrown into Russia’s giant memory hole.

In “Trump and Corbyn And the Russian Warning Over Syria” by Israel Shamir, the news is reported:

The first ever trial of a Holocaust Denier in Russia is taking place now in Perm, the Doctor Zhivago city. Roman Yushkov, a Perm University Professor, had been sacked; his social accounts erased, his YouTube presentations removed; there is practically no publicity at all. He reposted an article expressing doubt of the amount of Jewish dead, and a local resident of Habad Chassid House reported him to authorities. There is no law forbidding H denial in Russia, but there is a law forbidding to cause interethnic wrangle. The verdict is expected on September 4.

From a Russian source (translated):

Note also that there was a case commenced in August against Perm journalist and activist Roman Yushkov according to part 1 article 282 of Criminal Code and part 1 article 354.1 of Criminal Code. The case was commenced for re-publication of a link to an article in Facebook of nationalist Anton Blagin «Jews! Return the Germans money for fraud with Holocaust six millions jews!». This case has become the third case against Yushkov during the year, and in October the fourth case according to article 282 was commenced against him, and all four cases were united into one. The reason for commencing each of these cases was publication of xenophobic materials, but only in the above-mentioned case there was an anti-Semitism motive.

We are able to hear from Professor Yushkov himself in a translation of his blog post “What I would say to a jury in my case, if I had not been shut up“:

To Englishmen and Americans, to be exact, influential Jews over them, it was extremely important to shove the basis of mythology and the Holocaust industry into the Nuremberg verdict. That then, in subsequent decades, deploy them on an industrial scale in the form of payments to Israel reparations from Germany and receive other and other financial and political benefits. Therefore, the German officers summoned to the court as witnesses ruthlessly tortured and broke, providing the necessary testimony. This is convincingly shown by the studies of many scientists, in particular, Professor Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyons.

It is well known that they tortured the defendants Julius Streicher and Hans Fritsche and witnesses Oswald Paul, Franz Qirais and Joseph Kramer. And especially cruelly – the commandant of the labor camp Auschwitz (Auschwitz) Rudolf Höß. As a result, he confessed to those wild phantasmagoric horror stories that the prosecutor frightened you by reading out excerpts from the Nuremberg verdict: gas chambers, fat burning from dead Jews, mattresses from women’s hair … Most of this Nuremberg mythology has been abandoned even today by the most furious Zionist propagandists Israel. Nobody prefers not to remember about the resulting fat and collected by the Germans fat from the bodies piled in a heap and set on fire (!), Because the absurdity and technical impossibility of this is too obvious. But for the gas chambers uncovered by scientists in Auschwitz with gas from insects cyclone-B, the merchants from the Holocaust are still holding on, because something quite fantastic, the uniquely awful thing in this mythology must certainly be.

And, of course, incredible figures … Tortured to death and psychologically crushed RudolphHöß said to the man who was transported with him in one car to the Nuremberg trial Moritz von Schirmaister that “there are methods by which any confession can be achieved” and that he would sign any figures. But they demanded from him 6 million, mystically significant for the Jews from biblical times. [read the whole translation here]

The man speaks the truth, but truth is the new hate speech. As we learned from the Zundel trials, “truth is no defense.” This is the Orwellian world in which we live, and yet people really seem to think the grass is greener in Eurasia just because Oceania’s Big Brother is so noxious.

At least here in America I cannot be sent to the gulag just for calling the 6 million number a lie… at least not yet.

US, Israel form new joint task force to take on Iran

Wed Aug 29, 2018 08:10PM
Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (File photo)
Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (File photo)

The United States is teaming up with the Israeli regime to enforce economic sanctions against Iran in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the internationally backed nuclear deal with Tehran.

Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed to set up a joint team for that purpose after meeting in Washington Tuesday.

This was the fourth time Mnuchin, also a Jew, was meeting with Kahlon in the past 12 months.

“The meeting with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is intended to deepen our strategic-economic ties with the US. The joint task force which we established will be crucial in tightening sanctions on Iran,” said the Israeli minister, further claiming that “The economic sanctions that the US imposed on Iran are proving themselves.”

‘Israel thankful to US’

The administration of US President Donald Trump illegally re-imposed sanctions on Iran earlier this month after pulling the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May despite Tehran’s compliance with the agreement, which is still supported by the UK, Russia, Germany, China and France.

Kahlon cited “Israel’s security,” asserting that “we should be thankful to the US” for reintroduction of the illegal sanctions.

With an estimated 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, the TEl Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections of its military nuclear facilities or sign the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

On February 22, 2012, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said that Iran considers the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons “a grave sin” from every logical, religious and theoretical standpoint.

Washington’s recent attempts to pile up economic pressure will face defeat, according to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

“We need to tell the Iranian nation that we will not allow the United States’ plots to succeed. The nation should be sure that we will not allow a bunch of anti-Iranians, who have gathered at the White House today, to plot against us,” Rouhani said during his comments to Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday.


Sam Samvor 22 Stunden
Two Zio Jews…One rulling US and the other working for the Zio/Nazi Isreli regime…
US, Israel form new joint task force to take on Iran.
take on Iran???????????????????WOW.
USA is FUNDING ISIS and ISRAELI TERRORISTS also supplying Arms and Ammunition to ISIS and ISRAELI TERRORISTS.
Trump and Iran MUST BE FRIENDS.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.”
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
JEW Netanyahu Lies, Lies, Lies and more LIES.
hbgestern um 14:54
It is very strange to see a group of harmful Zionist to have so much influence on some countries, in US they seem controlling every thing even though some might disagree.
Iranians with all obstacles of their own seem like chosen the right path for the good of humanity to confront them! Enemy is hurting, it will do anything to hurt Iran. Iran is in good hand, the leadership proved to be capable to lead the nation victoriously through much stronger storm, Yes Iran is in a very good hand.
iranigestern um 12:41
they are really running out of ideas…
sosgestern um 12:03

PARASITE OCCUPATION ENTITY Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin OF THE PRIVATELY ZIONIST ROTHSCHILD-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE

“The meeting with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is intended to deepen our strategic-economic ties with the US.

‘Israel thankful to US’

thank you us people for helping us in our PALESTINE occupation and genociding PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

our zionist khazarian settlers greatly appreciate it.

What is awaiting Israel in the next war?

The video explains the history of Israel’s wars and their outcomes, But what really will happen to Israel in case of any new war?


Iran vs Israel: Who should India ally with?

Neti, King Salman, nukeface

MINT PRESS: Brothers in Nukes


Suppressed: David Irving and the Manipulation of History (Videos)


By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Irving as a person can be both irritating and exasperating but as a historian, he is the foremost authority on World War II.  He exposed the Dresden bombing of 1945 as a part of a very real holocaust against the Germans and was persecuted for it.  This is now “mainstream” history only because he wrote of it when it had been censored.

Then he explored the other holocaust involving Hitler and the Jews and published on that.

They sent him to jail.  Read his Wikipedia if you want to know how dangerous he is.

For those of you who are still Trump supporters, David Irving is Trump’s “go to” guy for debunking fake history.


History Never Happened, Who is David Irving?

Who put the hit on Julius Caesar?

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

November 2, 2010

Editor’s note:  Yes, the date is right, this article is 7 years old.  Why then has it upset people today, and it has?  Over the past few years, author and historian David Irving has slowed down a bit and moved into the shadows.

At one time, the greatest WW2 researcher of all time, Irving was a pop star type celeb, first historian to ever get that far.  Then he began destroying the fictional historical narratives that our dark overlords depend on so much.  Watch the videos, and read my tired, nearly decade old prose. .. Gordon Duff

Editor’s Note Two: I had the pleasure of video taping four of Irving’s visits to Atlanta, one of them where C-Span was taping, which the AIPAC Lobby nixed the show by backing out, giving C-Span a way out of being tagged for censoring because they claime could not show just Irving’s part of the story without  AIPAC’s.

Of course they could have had a number of stand ins play the Israeli position role, but the goal was to not let Americans see what a solid lecturer that Irving was at the time. This is the same reason why VT has a corporate media blackout in the US, and is rarely publicly attacked. They do not want us to be able to respond and be heard.

My footage is still sitting on the archive shelves waiting to be edited someday, while the David Irving story continues to be a moving one. What he has accomplished through his writing was a gift to us all, and any who have seen him lecture in person will never forget it. He is a walking billboard as to why historical truth is hated so much… Jim W. Dean ]

Was it Osama bin Laden or the Mossad?  Was it the Illuminati or the Council on Foreign Relations?  Did they do it together?  Where was Marc Anthony after 9/11 when we really needed him? 

A sad thing, perhaps beyond comprehension, is that we know more about Julius Caesar than we know about or own recent history.  A few days ago someone sent me a link to a video by David Irving, the British author who professionally debunks everything.

Irving, famous of late for taking on the holocaust, is the “go to guy” on World War II and Germany in particular.  His research is, hands down, the best out there and he loves humiliating others for being duped by writing academic garbage based on secondary sources, too often proven, not just unreliable, but utter fiction.

Irving takes on a lot of targets but his best debunking is Winston Churchill.  Sitting through his book tour lecture from the 1980s, a grainy video, was surprisingly painless.  With the rise of cable television, the new networks have made a cottage industry out of debunking our phony history, shows on military secrets, scandals and cover-ups run for hours each day.  These are humiliating for historians who made their reputations writing “definitive” works based on what we now know to be forgeries, propaganda and disinformation. (optional full length Google Video below)

Irving’s case against Churchill is shocking and, worst of all, nobody has been able to debate him face to face.  His sources are impeccable and his research beyond anything yet seen.  This is a guy who will spend years reading letters, bank statements or travel around the world to get primary documents.  Irving paints Churchill as a villain as great as Hitler, nearly as great as Stalin.

Was World War II started by Churchill, a brilliant but immoral drunk, art forger and scoundrel who took payoffs from foreign intelligence services, banking cabals and anyone else willing to shove an envelope in his pocket?

If so, then everything we know of World War II, of Hitler, of events of the 20th century is, not just a little bit wrong, but outrageously false.

Most damning, to me at least, is learning that Churchill’s History of the Second World Warwas largely fabricated, ghost written by his American editors who made sure the truth never got out.  Though Irving finds Churchill an easy target, it goes much further.  Embarrassingly, the Goebbel’s wartime attacks on Churchill were far more fact and far less propaganda than our “history” teaches.  A nasty thought, “What if Goebbels” was simply telling the truth?”

If the truth seems like outrageous propaganda, what have we allowed to happen to us?  How can there be honest discussion on any subject, politics, religion or where to get decent Chinese food if all research is either “secondary source recycling” or, even worse, simply invented as we are now beginning to learn.

Irving questions the nature of the holocaust, the gas chambers, the “soap and lampshade” stories  and has made some major enemies in the process.  What is particularly dangerous is his detailed analysis of Adolf Hitler as a masterful military strategist and pragmatic political leader.  The immediate response is to stand up screaming, “What the hell is he talking about?”

I can think of dozens of instances that absolutely prove Hitler was an incompetent, insane, brutal and…

Come to think of it, if I go on the internet, I can prove anything.  I can even prove Hitler was Jewish.  The accepted realities, our history as written in books, the history that defined Hitler, Irving implies, was as much history as today’s network news is, well, “fair and balanced.”  What if every “fact” we use to refute Irving’s ideas came from Stalin?

We know so much of what happened.  I am reading the battle diaries from D-Day.  I know there were landings, I know men died, but we don’t know why, only what we were told.

Everything we believe is based on one known fact, that Germans are brutal and insane, a race of criminals, vicious monsters with an inbred need to destroy.  40% of Americans are of German ancestry, of course.

It doesn’t take much research to learn that, in the 19th century, Germany became, not only powerful but the most advanced society on earth, science, philosophy, the arts, public welfare and education, Germany entered the 20th century as the leader of the world.  German colonial policies, when compared to Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal, were typified by decency and humanitarian values.  German citizens had more human rights, by a mile, than their British counterparts.

A century later, Germany is a virtual mirror of mainstream “Midwest” America.  Though politically castrated, Germany is what Americans wish their country was, in many ways at least.  Germany has almost no military, almost no debt and relative freedom with one glaring exception.  German’s have taken “political correctness” to a point that no American could imagine.  Things heard on American television daily are crimes in Germany.

If we aren’t willing to take the leap of faith that history demands, that Germans are monsters, then we are faced with something else.  If Germans are who we know them to be, then we are a nation of liars and cowards, fools willing to follow any road, eat anything put on a plate in front of us.  America could, very possibly, be a country scammed into war in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or, just maybe, into two wars with Germany.

But again we leap to our feet, and scream.  Many Americans are willing to consider that World War I was a “Vietnam” experience, phony atrocities and manipulation by a vast international conspiracy.  That information has been “out there” for awhile and more and more are willing to consider it.

However, the “sacred cow” of all time has been World War II.  We aren’t talking Japan.  No question, they attacked the United States.  Germany, on the other hand, was that something else?  We got used to lying to ourselves about the Civil War.  Ask any American, we went to war to free the slaves.  Problem is, the North only freed the slaves years later, when they were losing the war and only slaves in the South.  The Civil War was over economics and bad government, “States Rights,” not slavery.

How different is the truth about World War II?  Should we have never gone to war with Germany and let them destroy Russia?  How many Americans know that Hitler was willing to end the war in 1940 and withdraw his troops?  How many Americans know that World War I could have ended in 1916 with an honorable peace but was pushed on by Balfour and Rothschild?  Oh, you never heard that?

World War II would never have happened, there would have never been communism, no Korea, no Vietnam, no Cold War, no potential for nuclear holocaust.  Whose game are we playing then?

Books By David Irving

Ms. Lipstadt Given Million$ & a Legal Army to put History via David Irving on Trial

By John Wear

Lipstadt wrote: Virtually all the claims by Holocaust deniers prior to the spring of 2000 had been demolished.”[26] Lipstadt failed to explain how a decision by a British judge in a case not involving a Holocaust revisionist historian demolished Holocaust revisionist claims.

History on Trial

Background to David Irving’s Lawsuit

David Irving was viciously smeared by the media after his testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial. Irving’s books disappeared from many bookshops, he sustained huge financial losses, and he was ultimately labeled as a “Holocaust denier”.[1]

The harassment campaign against David Irving included numerous arrests in various countries. These arrests do not seem to bother British historian Sir Richard J. Evans. Evans writes:

One would not have expected a reputable historian to have run into such trouble, and indeed it was impossible to think of any historian of any standing at all who had been subjected to so many adverse legal judgments…”[2]

Richard Evans does not seem to be concerned that David Irving’s arrests were attributable to the fact that numerous countries make it a felony to dispute the so-called Holocaust. This reflects poorly on the countries Irving was arrested in rather than on Irving’s abilities as a historian. The question is:

What kind of historical truth needs criminal sanctions to protect it?”

The Holocaust story would not need criminal sanctions to protect it if it was historically accurate.

Deborah Lipstadt wrote in her book Denying the Holocaust that “on some level Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.” Lipstadt described Irving as a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers” who “distort[ed] evidence…manipulate[ed] documents, [and] skew[ed]…and misrepresent[ed] data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.”[3] David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd. in British courts to attempt to end these and other similar statements.

Financing Deborah Lipstadt’s Defense

Critics of David Irving emphasize that Irving’s libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt put Lipstadt in great financial peril. However, Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial reveals how easy it was for her to raise money for her defense. The President of Emory University and the Board of Trustees allocated $25,000 for Deborah Lipstadt’s defense.[4] Leslie Wexner, a wealthy Jewish retailer, told Deborah Lipstadt that he would give whatever it takes for her defense. Wexner’s only prerequisite was that Lipstadt must hire the best defense counsel possible. Wexner committed $200,000 to Lipstadt’s defense after determining she was hiring top-notch attorneys who would mount an aggressive defense.[5]

Deborah Lipstadt writes that a massive outpouring of funds were contributed by wealthy Jewish donors:

Soon a collaboration developed between Wexner and Steven Spielberg, whose own Shoah Foundation was deeply engaged in taking survivors’ testimonies. This collaboration resulted in the effective solicitation of a number of $100,000 dollar contributors. Bill Lowenberg, a survivor who lived in San Francisco, whose daughter—a participant in the Wexner programs—had briefed him on the case, called [Rabbi Herbert] Friedman. He said he would raise 20% of the costs and began to contact members of the Bay Area Jewish community. Ernie Michel, a survivor who lived in New York, took out his Rolodex and began to call other survivors. Other people pitched in to help. All of this was done quietly and without any publicity or fanfare…[6]

Friedman asked David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), to house a defense fund. The committee’s board agreed and then voted to make a major contribution to the fund. The Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center stepped forward to contribute. The AJC’s Harris assigned Ken Stern—the organization’s specialist on antisemitism and extremism—to assist me in any way he could. Ken, a lawyer, immediately established contact with Anthony and James. In an unprecedented display of organizational restraint, none of these organizations publicized what they were doing. Within weeks other contributions began to arrive. One person quietly called another. Some of the donations were substantial; many were quite small. Most came from Jews. Some came from non-Jews. I did not solicit funds. Wexner had stressed in no uncertain terms, “Our job is to ensure that you have the means to fight. Your job is to fight.” When someone called the Wexners to suggest that I follow a particular strategy, they were told in no uncertain terms, “It’s between Deborah and her lawyers. She has the best. Let them do their job.”[7]

So within a few weeks, without publicity or any significant work on her part, Deborah Lipstadt had the millions of dollars needed to hire a top-notch defense team. Lipstadt adds the names Michael Berenbaum, Phyllis Cook, Robert Goodkind, Miles Lehrman and Bruce Soll as additional people who helped in the drive to create a fund for her defense.[8]

After pouring millions of dollars into Lipstadt’s defense case, certain Jewish backers had another $10,000,000 avaliable to pour into the movie euphemistically titled  ‘Denial’. It almost grossed $94,000 in its U.S. opening weekend.

Lipstadt seamlessly transitions from legal fiction to Hollywood “Blockbuster” fiction as she promotes the movie with is celebrities. Can you spot the real Deborah?

Deborah Lipstadt writes that her defense team included the following attorneys:

  1. Anthony Julius and James Libson of Mishcon de Reya;
  2. These two attorneys were skillfully assisted by Mishcon’s Juliet Loudon, Laura Tyler, Veronica Byrne, Harriet Benson, Michala Barham, and Pippa Marshall;
  3. Mishcon’s Danny Davis was a source of wise counsel after the trial;
  4. Richard Rampton, who Lipstadt describes as “one of England’s leading barristers in the field of defamation and libel,” was hired to present her case. She also describes him as “not only a uniquely gifted barrister, but the quintessential mench”;
  5. Heather Rogers, Penguin’s junior barrister, showed great legal acumen and an uncanny ability to retrieve a document at precisely the right moment;
  6. Penguin’s legal representatives, Mark Bateman and Kevin Bayes of Davenport Lyons, were important members of Lipstadt’s legal team;
  7. On the American side of the Atlantic, Joe Beck of Kilpatrick Stockton “offered his services with his typical giving spirit”;
  8. Lawyers David Minkin and Steve Sidman of Greenberg Traurig were also zealous in protecting Lipstadt’s interests.[9]

So Deborah Lipstadt acknowledges that she had at least 16 attorneys who worked on her case. All of these attorneys are described by her as some of the best money can buy. Penguin also had a team of in-house lawyers, headed by Cecily Engle, a former libel lawyer, and Helena Peacock, who were at the trial most days.[10]

Lipstadt’s team of paid expert witnesses includes Dr. Richard J. Evans, Dr. Christopher Browning, Dr. Peter Longerich, Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, and Dr. Hajo Funke. Lipstadt writes that these people “constituted the historian’s ultimate dream team.” Nikolaus Wachsmann, Thomas Skelton-Robinson and Tobias Jersak were also “critically important components of our research team.”[11]

Lipstadt also mentions Jamie McCarthy, Harry Mazal, Danny Kerem, Richard Green and the other members of The Holocaust History Project as “exceptionally forthcoming with their time and expertise.” There are also numerous other people Lipstadt mentions in her book as providing assistance.[12]

Richard Evans was apparently not aware of the financial backing Lipstadt received from mostly wealthy Jewish donors when he wrote his book Lying About Hitler. Evans writes:

Throughout the trial and long afterwards, Irving continually claimed on his website that the defense was being bankrolled by Jews, both wealthy individuals and organized groups, across the world. In fact, of course, there was no secret about the fact that the bulk of the funds came from Penguin Books Ltd., and Penguin’s insurers. “Despite Irving’s assertion to the contrary,” noted Mark Bateman, Penguin’s solicitor, “it was Penguin that paid the fees of the experts, leading counsel, junior counsel and my firm.” They had also paid the fees of all the researchers. Mishcon de Reya, Anthony Julius’s firm of solicitors, had indeed worked for the first two years of the case, in 1996 and 1997, pro bono, for no fee at all. They had only started to charge fees when the final preparations for and conduct of the case began to consume major resources within the firm (at one time, nearly 40 people were working on the case, many of them full-time). It was solely for these costs that Deborah Lipstadt was obliged to pay, and for which she received financial backing from supporters such as Steven Spielberg, amounting in total to no more than a fraction of the overall costs.[13]

Neither Deborah Lipstadt nor Richard Evans detail the total costs incurred to defend against David Irving’s libel suit. Lipstadt writes that a large envelope presented to her from Anthony Julius before the trial showed a bill of $1.6 million payable to Anthony Julius’s law firm.[14] This amount is “more than a fraction of the overall costs” of her trial as represented by Richard Evans. David Irving is clearly correct that a substantial portion of Lipstadt’s defense was bankrolled by wealthy Jews across the world.

The Trial 

David Irving in his opening address at the trial claimed that his career had been torpedoed by the defendants. Irving stated:

By virtue of the activities of the Defendants, in particular of the second Defendant, and of those who funded her and guided her hand, I have since 1996 seen one fearful publisher after another falling away from me, declining to reprint my works, refusing to accept new commissions and turning their back on me when I approach.”

Irving claimed this had been done as “part of an organized international endeavor.”[15]

Deborah Lipstadt’s attorney Richard Rampton opened with the defense’s bottom line: “My Lord, Mr. Irving calls himself an historian. The truth is, however, that he is not an historian at all but a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.” Rampton stated that the case was not about competing versions of history, but about truth and lies.[16]

David Irving’s biggest mistake in his case was choosing to be his own lawyer. Germar Rudolf wrote: “Those who choose to be their own lawyer choose a fool.”[17] Irving was at a major disadvantage in his case because he was up against a huge and experienced legal team with only himself as his attorney. Even though Irving testified that he was not a Holocaust historian,[18] much of the testimony in the trial involved the Holocaust story.

Judge Charles Gray’s adverse judgement against Irving in the case was based on ludicrous conclusions. For example, Judge Gray found the Sonderkommando testimony presented in the case to be highly credible. Gray remarked:

The account of, for example, [Sonderkommando Henryk] Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber’s account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon.”[19]

However, as I have previously written, there are numerous and powerful reasons for rejecting the Sonderkommando testimony as pure invention.[20]

Judge Gray in his decision concluded that “no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt” the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.[21] However, even with Gray’s dismissal of the Leuchter Report, the reports and testimony of Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz and other scientists were never refutedat the trial. Deborah Lipstadt and her team of experts were also not able to show how a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz actually operated.

Judge Gray also concluded that Irving’s treatment of the historical evidence “fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian” and that his estimate of “100,000 and more deaths [in Dresden]…lacked any evidential basis and were such as no responsible historian would have made.”[22] Gray based his conclusion primarily on the testimony of Richard Evans. However, as I have discussed in a previous article, the death toll at Dresden could have easily been as high as 250,000 people.[23]

Aftermath of Trial

After the trial, in front of numerous cameras and reporters in a hotel ballroom, Lipstadt described Judge Gray’s decision as a victory for all those who fight hatred and prejudice. She paid tribute to Penguin for “doing the right thing” and to her magnificent legal team. Lipstadt said she had no pity for David Irving, as it had been her life and work that had been disrupted by the trial. Lipstadt said that what she would write now would be far harsher than what she originally wrote in her book.[24]

The trial was the lead headline the next day in every single British daily as well as many foreign papers. A sample of these headlines reads:


Irving: Confined to History as a Racist Liar”


Racist. Antisemite. Holocaust Denier. How History Will Judge David Irving”

David Irving lost his case—and we celebrate a victory for free speech”


Racist who twisted the truth”

David Irving’s reputation as an historian is demolished”

Numerous editorials in the papers also hailed the verdict.[25]

Of course, even though David Irving never claimed to be a Holocaust historian, Lipstadt wrote: “Virtually all the claims by Holocaust deniers prior to the spring of 2000 had been demolished.”[26] Lipstadt failed to explain how a decision by a British judge in a case not involving a Holocaust revisionist historian demolished Holocaust revisionist claims.

In regard to David Irving, the harassment campaign against him continued after he lost his libel suit. For example, Irving spent over a year in jail in Austria from 2005-2006 for his views on the so-called Holocaust. Publishers and bookstore owners are still afraid to publish and sell his books for fear of the backlash from Zionist organizations. Of course, some people will still call you an anti-Semite for mentioning these facts; they claim that Zionist groups and organizations could not possibly have such power. Unfortunately, as David Irving made clear in his lawsuit, Zionist groups and organizations do in fact have such power.[27]


Further reading suggestions:

Wear’s War Movie Review: “Mr Death” An Epic Propoganda Stuff Up & The Jewish Panic To Remedy It

Why The Holocaust Story Was Invented

The Greatest Holocaust Trial: Using Adolf Eichmann To Falsify History

Do The Sonderkommandos Prove A Holocaust Or Holohoax?



[2] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 14.

[3] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. xviii; see also Lipstadt, Deborah E., Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, New York: The Free Press, 1993, p. 161.

[4] Ibid., p. 30.

[5] Ibid., p. 38.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 39.

[8] Ibid., p. 308.

[9] Ibid., pp. 51, 307.

[10] Guttenplan, D. D., The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, p. 85.

[11] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 307-308.

[12] Ibid., pp. 309-310.

[13] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 230.

[14] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. 37.

[15] Ibid., p. 80.

[16] Ibid., p. 82.

[17] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 496.

[18] Ibid., p. 137.

[19] Guttenplan, D. D., The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 279-280.

[20] Wear, John, “Sonderkommandos in Auschwitz”, The Barnes Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, Jan. /Feb. 2017, pp. 28-32.

[21] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. 274.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Wear, John, “The Dresden Debate”, The Barnes Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1, Jan. /Feb. 2016, pp. 50-56.

[24] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 277-278.

[25] Ibid., p. 283.

[26] Ibid., p. 298.


‘Guardian’ Op-Ed Defends View That Israel Has No Right to Exist

AUGUST 30, 2018 8:33 AM

avatarby Adam Levick

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn outside his London home. Photo: Reuters/Toby Melville.

The headline of a Guardian op-ed by Ahmad Samih Khalidi (“Siding with the Palestinian struggle is not antisemitic”) is of course a straw man, as nobody claims that merely “siding with the Palestinians” is antisemitic. Khalidi, a former adviser to both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, has a broader goal: to defend those who object to the continued existence of a Jewish state, based on the “profound injustice” at the root of Zionism.

In an effort to legitimize his anti-Zionism, Khalidi grossly misleads readers by claiming that “Jewish opposition to Zionism has a long and distinguished history.” In fact, whilst there was a lively debate before Israel declared independence on the question of Zionism, today, Jewish opposition to the living, breathing state of Israel represents a minuscule, politically irrelevant fringe.

Khalidi further charges that the “insidious goal of the ‘anti-anti-Zionist’ campaign is to silence the Palestinians and their supporters,” which would only hold true if you characterize attempts to delegitimize extremists who wish to wipe the world’s only Jewish state off the map as “silencing.”

AUGUST 30, 2018 10:25 AM

Is a Historic Decision on UNRWA Imminent?

The next few weeks could be remembered in the annals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as historic. The US administration is…

Following a brief moral throat-clearing on the legitimacy of fighting “real” antisemitism, Khalidi then suggests that Jews are only “pretending to be offended” by expressions of hostility towards Israel’s existence by Jeremy Corbyn and his defenders.

In an attempt to justify his anti-Zionist stance, Khalidi then cites a laundry list of so-called Israeli “massacres” since 1948. This includes an “Israeli massacre” in Lydda in 1948 that never actually occurred, and an equally fictitious “massacre” of Egyptian prisoners during the Six Day War in 1967. Likewise, Khalidi charges Israel with “shooting down a Libyan civilian aircraft in 1973,” without mentioning that the incident was widely understood to have been caused by Libyan pilot error and miscommunication, and that it actually elicited very little international criticism.

However, the broader problem with Khalidi’s allegations — as is the case with so many rhetorical assaults on Israel’s legitimacy in The Guardian — is that, in his condemnation of Israeli violence, he completely erases the context of Arab warfare, terrorism, and rejectionism. In his myopic tale of Israeli villainy, it’s as if Arabs and Palestinians don’t exist at all, at least not in any meaningful sense that would suggest they posses moral agency, or that the decisions they’ve made over the last 70 years have had a profound impact on their current predicament.

Finally, let’s remember what exactly Zionism is, and what anti-Zionism is.

Zionism is the simple recognition that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, and should not exist. Anti-Zionism not a theoretical argument, but a radical campaign that seeks the destruction of an actually existing nation-state. Anti-Zionists such as Khalidi don’t say nation-states shouldn’t exist. They say that only the Jewish state shouldn’t exist.

Anti-Zionism also necessarily disregards, and is hostile to, the values and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Jews in the UK and around the world.

As Khalidi argues, siding with the Palestinian struggle is not inherently antisemitic, but the struggle against the continued existence of the world’s only Jewish state most certainly is.

Adam Levick covers the British media for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.


Ex-Jew Benjamin H Freedman The Balfour Declaration


Robert David Steele, a former CIA clandestine operations officer, has said that “Zionism is a subversive force that includes global state-sponsored terrorism and global organized crime.”

In an interview with Shia Followers, Steele, who was recommended in 2017 for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: Only in the past year has it become clear to a majority of the U.S. public that Zionism is a subversive movement that has been destroying the U.S. economy, misdirecting the U.S. Government, and undermining U.S. society.

He emphasized that Zionism “cannot and should not be confused with Judaism, the religion. Zionism is dominated by the Chabad Supremacist cult within Judaism, and Orthodox Jews as its useful idiots.”

“Most Jews – and particularly Reform and Progressive Jews, want nothing to do with Zionism and understand that Zionist atrocities within Palestine – and Zionist bribery, blackmail, espionage, and financial crime all over the world but especially in the United States of America and the United Kingdom – are not the same as Judaism the religion. Zionism is bad but Judaism is good.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, “Israel is an invented state with absolutely no historically valid claim to Palestine. As Gandhi has stated so famously, ‘Palestine is to the Palestinians as France is to the French.’ It has been clearly established that there was no ‘up-rooting’ of the so-called Jewish people. Judaism is not Semitic – this is part of the Zionist myth – but to the extent it can be said to have roots, those roots are in Eastern Europe, among the Khazars.”

He also compared Israel with the Apartheid state of South Africa, saying, “Israel is an apartheid state – by definition – and in this I totally agree with Professor Richard Falk, the most distinguished UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories who equates the insistence on being a ‘Jewish state’ with the apartheid structure used to subjugate and displace the Palestinian people. The persistent definition of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ is in total contradiction to all authorizing documents and totally delegitimizes that state – it makes Israel an apartheid state meriting an absolute boycott by all citizens of the world who believe in human rights.”

He also said he believes that Zionism is over. “While most do not understand this yet, the Zionists have overplayed their hand and are about to lose their control of the U.S. economy, government, and society.”

“The Zionists cannot be defeated by direct diplomatic, financial, or militarily means. They can only be defeated by cutting them off from their sole major enabler, the U.S. treasury and this will only happen if the U.S. public is deeply educated with the truth about Zionism,” he stressed.

“Hence the only way to shut down the Zionists is to communicate Zionist atrocities and subversion to the U.S. public in such compelling terms that the U.S. ends all funding for Zionist Israel and Saudi Arabia, closes all its military bases around the world including the forty four around Iran, and begins demanding a two state solution that reduces the Zionist state of Israel to a small demilitarized enclave stretching from Tel Aviv to the sea, while restoring full Palestinian sovereignty over the rest of Palestine, and particularly from Gaza to Jericho.”

The Zionists must be removed from the Negev and Galilee, and the Golan Heights returned to Syria, Steele said, adding that Zionist theft of water from the Jordanian aquifers “must stop at the same time that a regional energy and water authority creates hundreds of water desalination plants along the coast.”

He also said Jerusalem must be an international city with no Zionist official presence, and a massive Palestinian repatriation movement must be funded, fully equal to the mass migration of Jews that the Zionists organized on the basis of lies in the past seventy-five years.

To achieve these righteous ends, he added, it will be necessary to confront both past Zionist lies – particularly their lies about their rights to all of Palestine and their lies about the holocaust – and present Zionist lies – particularly their lies about Iran and their lies about Syria.

“There are three elements that must be integrated if one is to create truth in depth and breadth sufficient to defeat the Zionists where it really matters: in the hearts and minds of Americans particularly and Europeans generally,” he stressed.

Read more at:


Robert David Steele is the Chief Enabling Officer (CeO) of Earth Intelligence Network. A former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer as well as Adjutant, and a clandestine operations officer (spy) for the Central Intelligence Agency, he was recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize in January 2017. He is the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, reading in 98 categories, and a prolific author on citizen-centered intelligence (decision-support) and evidence-based governance. In 2017 he founded the project #UNRIG with the intent of enabling an ethical non-violent revolution by the 99% against the 1%, first in the USA, then anywhere else that individuals desire to take back the power and end the looting of the Earth by the 1%.

“Britain to blame for Israeli-Palestinian conflict” – George Galloway



Trump’s Orders: US Backed White Helmets Kidnap 44 Children to Murder in Fake Terror Attack

Syrian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Walid Muallem have met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a visit to Moscow.

The visit is being held within the framework of the Syrian-Russian intergovernmental commissions.

“Russia is ready to increase its contribution to these tasks (the restoration of Syria and the solution of the issue with the return of refugees),” the minister said at a press conference following the talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem.

On Situation Around Idlib

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called the use of the de-escalation zone in Idlib by Al-Nusra* terrorists to attack Syrian and Russian forces “unacceptable.”

“It is unacceptable that the terrorists who are entrenched there, primarily from the Nusra Front [a terrorist group banned in Russia], are trying to use this de-escalation zone to prepare attacks on the positions of the Syrian army and even for attempts to attack the Russian military base in Hmeimim using aerial drones,” Lavrov said at a news conference following talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem in Moscow.

Moscow has warned the West that they should not play with fire by trying to create provocations in the Idlib area, Lavrov noted.”Another provocation by the West is being prepared in order to try to obstruct the anti-terrorist operation in Idlib,” Lavrov said at a joint news conference with his Syrian counterpart Walid Muallem in Moscow.

More White Helmet killings

Lavrov also stressed that the US attempts to establish “authorities” on the left bank of the Euphrates, as it may lead to Syria’s split.

“The US presence in Syria has not only a military aspect… Simultaneously, our American colleagues are actively developing the eastern bank of the Euphrates, restoring infrastructure there, social and economic networks and even creating quasi-state local government bodies,” he said.

On Western Meddling in Syria’s Affairs

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem has warned of possible US-UK-French aggression and of disastrous consequences of Western attempts to destabilize the country.Regardless of whether the US-UK-French attack happens or not, Damascus will accomplish its fight against terrorism, the minister noted.

“We will do our best to avoid possible civilian casualties and generally avoid bloodshed,” he said, noting that Al-Nusra front is trying to prevent such plans.

The US has lost to Syria in the military sphere, despite all its efforts, the Syrian foreign minister added.

“We can say that the Americans lost militarily in Syria, despite the efforts they have made, and now they want to take advantage of the moment to get any dividends through political processes and preventing the return of refugees to their homes,” Muallem told reporters.

On Possible Chemical Weapon Provocation

The White Helmets have kidnapped 44 children in Idlib to use in a staged chemical attack, according to the Syrian foreign minister.

“Behind the creation of the pseudo-organization the White Helmets, are the British special services: they sponsor them, they lead them. They were behind the organization of those fabricated scenarios for the use of chemical weapons and now they are preparing such a development of the situation with the use of chemical weapons in Idlib,” Muallem stated.

He also stated that there is no need for the Syrian army to use chemical weapons, emphasizing that it doesn’t possess such weapons.

READ MORE: Number of Civilians Killed in US-Led Operations in Syria, Iraq Rises to 1,061

Muallem noted that Damascus intends to expand its relations with Tehran.

Earlier this week, Russia’s Defense Ministry warned that the leader of the Tahrir al-Sham terrorist group, which is affiliated with the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat Nusra terror organization (banned in Russia), was planning a chemical attack against civilians in Idlib in order to provoke western nations into retaliating against Damascus.Russia, alongside Iran and Turkey, is a guarantor of the ceasefire regime in Syria. Moscow has also been assisting Damascus both through supporting the struggle against terrorist groups and providing humanitarian aid to the residents of the crisis-torn country.

*Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra, known as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham is a terrorist group banned in Russia


James Le Mesurier 44432

Who is James Le Mesurier, the former British army officer and military contractor who founded the White Helmets, the civil defence organisation which operates exclusively in opposition-held parts of Syria? It is a question more and more people are asking as their role and function comes under increasing scrutiny.

Le Mesurier carries about him the inescapable whiff of Britain’s malign legacy and history of dirty wars, waged in Kenya, Aden, Ireland, Iraq, Libya, in other words wherever London’s blood-soaked imperialist foot has tread around the world. A product of Britain’s prestigious Royal Military Academy of officer training at Sandhurst, he served in various UK military/NATO military deployments over the past three decades, specifically Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Lebanon.

In a short bio describing Le Mesurier’s work with the White Helmets, we are informed, “In addition to the White Helmets in Syria, Mayday is active in Mogadishu, developing the city’s emergency services network, and exploring the development of similar community-based resilience initiatives in other fragile and failing states (my emphasis).”

The question of why a given state becomes fragile and failing is of course neither asked nor explored, for doing so would dredge up the subject of imperialism, which for Western ideologues such as Mr Le Mesurier would be akin to a vampire being exposed to daylight.

In a wide ranging 2016 article, former US marine and UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, provides a forensic account of Le Mesurier’s background, including the time he spent in and around the murky world of private military contractors, who exist in the cracks of Western military deployments, able to operate beyond the inconvenient glare of public scrutiny and accountability.

Ritter writes:

“the organizational underpinnings of the White Helmets can be sourced to a March 2013 meeting in Istanbul between a retired British military officer, James Le Mesurier—who had experience in the murky world of private security companies and the shadowy confluence between national security and intelligence operations and international organizations—and representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Qatari Red Crescent Society. Earlier that month, the SNC was given Syria’s seat in the Arab League at a meeting of the league held in Qatar.”

So here we have a civil defence organisation being established in Syria by an ex-British army officer, a man with a background in the shadowy world of private security, in conjunction with a Syrian opposition group in exile. This civil defence organization, the White Helmets, receives funding from an array of states with a clear agenda of regime change in Syria, evidenced in the material, financial and political support they have given various armed opposition groups involved in the conflict.

In a 2015 speech Le Mesurier provides a précis of the roots of the conflict in Syria, starting with in 2011 a “volunteer uprising against the ruthless dictator, Bashar al-Assad,” before going on the assert that in 2012 the Syrian state turned its weapons on its “own people.”

Glaringly absent from this Manichean narrative is the fact that by 2012 various Salafi-jihadi groups, their ranks filled by thousands of extremists from outwith Syria, were rampaging across the country slaughtering and raping and terrorizing the very “own people” the Syrian army and its allies have been fighting to protect, save and liberate from the clutches of this latter day Khmer Rouge. And lest anyone has forgotten, the Syrian Arab Army is indistinguishable from the Syrian people, considering that its soldiers are drawn from the non-sectarian and multi-religious mosaic that makes up Syrian society.

Returning to Scott Ritter: “In this day of social media, it didn’t take long for photographs and video clips of known White Helmet members, in their distinctive uniform, openly celebrating with Al Nusra fighters in the aftermath of Syrian government defeats, and even carrying weapons, something their status as neutral first responders strictly prohibits.”

From the White Helmets’ own website, the lack of neutrality Ritter asserts is unambiguously expressed with the statement posted on its front page by Raed Saleh, the operational head of the organisation and himself a figure of some controversy. Saleh writes, “the UN Security Council must follow on its demand to stop the barrel bombs, by introducing a ‘no-fly zone’ if necessary.”

The barrel bombs referred to by Saleh, and emphasised by Le Mesurier as emblematic of the brutality of the ‘Assad regime,’ are inarguably indiscriminate and illegal under international law. But if we are judging the merits or demerits of a given side in a given conflict based on the use of indiscriminate weapons alone then regime change in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh is long overdue.

The brutality of the conflict in Syria is a reflection of the monumental stakes involved in the outcome. The conflict is in itself is a crime, but are we seriously suggesting that Libya is better, safer and more stable seven years on from the toppling and murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi, courtesy of NATO aligning with various Libyan opposition factions, prime among them Islamists, in 2011? And are we seriously arguing that Syria’s fate would not be Libya’s fate in the event of the toppling of Bashar al-Assad? And, too, is anybody able to maintain with a straight face that Bashar al-Assad does not enjoy the solid support of the majority of the Syrian people, who understand that the conflict is not about saving their government but saving their country?

Scott Ritter again:

“the White Helmets function as an effective propaganda arm of the anti-Assad movement…With their training, equipment and logistical sustainment underwritten exclusively by donations from Western governments (primarily the U.S. and U.K.), the White Helmets serve as a virtual echo chamber for American and British politicians and officials.”

Given Le Mesurier’s background, along with the evidence of how the White Helmets operate, it is reasonable to assume that what we have is the cultivation of the very Third Force Washington and London have been extending themselves in trying to locate and sell as the ‘good guys’ since the conflict began, doing so with the objective of enlisting domestic public support for intervention and regime change in Damascus.

Of course, there is always the possibility that Mr Le Mesurier is sincere in his desire to alleviate the undoubted suffering of the Syrian people – though in his case clearly not all the Syrian people, what with White Helmets only functioning and operating in opposition controlled territory, places where neither he nor any Western supporter of the White Helmets would dare set foot, knowing the moment they did they would be abducted, tortured, and brutally murdered.

But if so, if Mr Le Mesurier is sincere, then he is Britain’s answer to Pyle, the idealistic and naïve American interventionist in French-occupied Vietnam created by Graham Greene in his classic novel The Quiet American. To wit:

“He was young and ignorant and silly and he got involved. He had no more of a notion than any of you what the whole affair’s about, and you gave him money and York Harding’s books on the East and said, ‘Go ahead. Win the East for democracy.’ He never saw anything he hadn’t heard in a lecture hall, and his writers and his lecturers made a fool of him.”



Pro-Israel group helps raise $500,000 for embattled anti-Trump Senator Robert Menendez

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined at right by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 12, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) ** FILE **


A leading pro-Israel political action committee says it has helped raise over $500,000 for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a pro-Israel leader in the Senate who is in an unexpectedly tight race.

Image result for menendez netanyahu

NORPAC’s all-out push for Menendez, D-N.J., this election cycle is notable because Republicans currently lead in the Senate by just a 50-49 margin and Democrats hope to wrest control in November, as well as in the U.S. House of Representatives. President Donald Trump is warning supporters that a Democratic victory in either chamber could scuttle his agenda.

The most recent NORPAC fundraiser for Menendez was on Monday at $1,000 a plate.

Image result for menendez netanyahu

Ben Chouake, NORPAC’s president, told JTA in a recent interview that the group’s backing for Menendez was typical of its support for incumbent lawmakers who are leaders in the pro-Israel cause. That discipline is traditional for pro-Israel fundraising, and the polarized times have not changed the approach, he said.

“We follow the rules,” no matter the party, he said. “It simplifies everything because it’s simple and straightforward. A guy like Bob Menendez gets huge support because he was a huge champion on our issues.”

As a political action committee, NORPAC may not give more than $10,000 to a candidate in an election season, but it may organize fundraisers where donors cut individual checks and hand them straight to the campaign. The maximum individual donation is $2,700.

Menendez bucked President Barack Obama as one of only four Senate Democrats to oppose the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Corporate executive Bob Hugin, the Republican challenger, is within single digits of Menendez in the polls in a typically Democrat state.

Menendez was tarred by a corruption charge, although he was acquitted earlier this year. NORPAC donors helped fund Menendez’s defense, Chouake said.

NORPAC has also in recent years held fundraisers for Republicans in tight House races: Dan Donovan in New York’s 11th District, comprising Staten Island, and Leonard Lance in Northern New Jersey’s 7th District.

NORPAC also held a fundraiser last week for Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic senator from North Dakota who is facing a tight race in a state where Trump won handily in 2016. That meeting netted $25,000 for her, Chouake said.

“She’s an incumbent, she qualifies, it’s close, she needs it,” he said.

Chouake said the minority leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — who is Jewish and also opposed the Iran deal — asked NORPAC to hold the fundraiser and was present.

Menendez: Putin Made A Great Investment In Trump And Today It’s Paying Off

Image result for menendez netanyahu

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday that President Trump is doing the work Putin couldn’t achieve through Twitter troll campaigns. Menendez said on Morning Joe Putin “made a great investment” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and it is “paying off for him” today at the NATO summit.

“It’s so upsetting to see that Putin, whose number one goal is to divide the West, and particularly in NATO, has an American president doing his work for him in a way that all of his cyber attacks and Twitter disinformation and trolls have been unable to achieve. Putin made a great investment in the 2016 presidential elections and it’s paying off for him in Brussels today,” Menendez told MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Bob, we were just talking about what our Secretary of Defense had said about NATO a year or so ago that it’s so important that if NATO didn’t exist we would have to create it. I take it from the vote yesterday in the United States Senate that is the unanimous agreement of at least all of the Democrats and every Republican except for two.

SEN. MENENDEZ: It’s the near-unanimous agreement except for two Republicans. And today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will mark up an even more significant legislation that speaks to the importance of the NATO alliance, an alliance that has brought us peace and prosperity for 73 years. It was there in the aftermath of World War II. It was there to win the Cold War. It was there on September 11th when the only time that NATO has invoked the mutual self-defense provision was on behalf of the United States after it was struck on that tragic day on September 11th. And for 17 years NATO allies have fought with us in Afghanistan, and other engagements across the globe. So this is a critical part of our security infrastructure and at the same time it has created prosperity that we have been part of enjoying in a significant market for United States products and services. So this is critical.

And it’s so upsetting to see that Putin, whose number one goal is to divide the West, and particularly in NATO, has an American president doing his work for him in a way that all of his cyber attacks and Twitter disinformation and trolls have been unable to achieve. Putin made a great investment in the 2016 presidential elections and it’s paying off for him in Brussels today.

If Senator Menendez resigns, a rare species of pro-Israel Democrats may go extinct

U.S. Senator Bob Menendez speaks during a news conference at Newark, New Jersey March 6, 2015.
Corruption charges threaten to oust one of the last great Democrats prepared to support the Jewish state in an era of appeasing Obama.


News that U.S. President Barack Obama’s justice department is preparing to seek a criminal indictment for corruption against Senator Robert Menendez strikes me as no small matter for Israel, not to mention America. The senator is co-author of the bill known as Menendez-Kirk, also known as the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. It is the measure at the heart of the feud between Obama and the Congress. Already there are calls for Menendez to resign. If he does, it would be a big setback for the pro-Israel camp in Congress.

I don’t know Menendez personally and carry no brief on either side of the corruption case. It involves the senator’s dealings with a wealthy ophthalmologist in Florida, Salomon Melgen. The senator and Dr. Melgen have been cronies for many years. The senator admits to having failed to report rides he accepted on the doctor’s airplane; he has reimbursed some $58,000 for such travel and has denied any wrongdoing. In search of evidence the Justice Department is trying to pierce constitutional protections senators enjoy for what they say during their work.

It’s too soon to say what charges a grand jury will be asked to hand up (if it even agrees to hand up charges at all). But it’s not too soon to say that if the senator is indicted, his future in the senate is in doubt. His ouster would remove from the Senate a species that seems to be nearing extinction — the high-powered Democrat willing to take a high-profile stand in support of the Jewish state. In the fight over Iran, Menendez has had his head way above the parapet.

There just haven’t been all that many Democrats willing to take the lead in challenging the administration on Iran. What about — just to pick a famous name — Senator Charles Schumer? He’s a publicity hound; it’s said that the most dangerous place in politics is between Schumer and the network news cameras. Yet he’s been remarkably muted in the fight over the appeasement of the Iranian mullahs, even though he’s a co-sponsor of Menendez-Kirk and did attend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the joint meeting of Congress.

New York’s junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, and New Jersey’s, Cory Booker, have also been unwilling, it seems, to tangle with the president. In contrast, Menendez has been particularly courageous. Several weeks ago, when Obama suggested to his fellow Democrats that they were kowtowing to political donors on the Iran issue, it was Menendez who stood up and told the president to his face that he took offense. The other day in a hearing, he likened the president’s position to “talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”

This is coming from the highest ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee member from the president’s own party. It doesn’t prove — and I wouldn’t allege — that the pursuit of Menendez by the Justice Department is a political prosecution. But given the ideological way in which the Justice Department has been run and given the president’s own vows to use his pen and phone where Congress blocks him, it is not hard to imagine that Washington will debate this question.

Over the weekend at Des Moines, Iowa, a leading Republican, Senator Ted Cruz, bluntly suggested that political retribution is behind the charges, according to a report in a newspaper that covers Congress. “The timing,” the Hill quoted Cruz as saying of news of the pending charges, “seems awfully coincidental,” coming as it did “in the very week that Bob Menendez showed incredible courage to speak out and call out President Obama for the damage that his policy is doing to our national security.”

The bigger story is the dwindling of the pro-Israel Democrats, of which Menendez is a lion. It is an incredible thing that there are only eight Democrats among the sponsors of Menendez-Kirk. lists 41 Republicans. A greater chance of passage is given to a measure called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which would require that any pact with the mullahs be laid before the Congress. This has a smaller number of co-sponsors (it’s more recent) but the sponsors are more broadly bipartisan.

Not that Menendez is a patsy for the GOP; he threatened to vote against his own bill if the Republicans tried to take the measure directly to the floor without going through the Foreign Relations Committee where he’s the ranking member. It’s a reminder that he’s not to be taken for granted by the Republicans who now control the upper chamber, even if he is legendarily strong on the question of Israel. All the more newsworthy that if Senator Menendez goes down, he is going to be one Democrat who will be hard to replace.

How Trump’s Presidency Will End

Sooner or later, tyrants are always abandoned by their followers

ed note–keep in mind, that the author of this piece, a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Eliot Cohen–

…Is allied with this guy, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Bill Kristol

Who is allied with this guy, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Max Boot

And who is allied with this guy, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Paul Wolfowitz–

And who is allied with this guy, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Robert Kagan

along with his rather portly brother

And who is allied with this gal, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Jennifer Rubin–

And who all are allied with this guy, that is, before he died and went to hell, also a warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jew named Charles Krauthammer–

And who all are deeply, DEEPLY plugged into Israel’s Likud party, Israel’s intelligence apparatus and who were all in some way intimately involved not only with the events of 9/11, but as well, the disastrous ‘clash of civilizations’ better known as the ‘war on terror’.

In addition to this, they are all deeply, DEEPLY committed to seeing Trump impeached, and for the singular reason that he stands opposed to any new military adventures for Israel’s benefit and is dedicated to reigning in this Judaic mad dog before it blows up the entire world.

Also keep in mind, that an entire gaggle of geniuses, experts, and prophets, some of the brightest luminaries in fact within the ‘9/11 truth movement’, find themselves in the unusual circumstance of standing alongside these aforementioned warmongering, Neocon Zionist Jews and are lending their voices and their support in causing Trump as much discomfort as possible, thus assisting Israel in her drive to see Mike Pence take over as the new occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Just try doing the math on that one.

Eliot Cohen for The Atlantic

Michael Gerson, one of the most eloquent and principled critics of Donald Trump, insists that we are at June 1973, the moment when John Dean’s testimony broke the dam that a year later swept Richard Nixon off into disgrace. Others agree: This is an inflection point. And yet an equally well-informed friend insists, “I no longer believe in political inflection points and neither should you.” Who knows? But even if we do not recognize the turning points in the moment, we can anticipate what the end will feel like when it does arrive.

To be sure, Trump could hang on until the 2020 election. It is even possible, if considerably less likely, that he could be reelected and march off into a glitzy retirement at Trump properties in Florida and New Jersey, his retreat from public life punctuated only by bursts of increasingly senile bombast. But it does seem more likely than it once was that he will go down in disgrace.

The mood of that moment was given to us in an episode now faded into the remote, pre-Paul Manafort-conviction, pre-Michael Cohen-guilty-plea world, when Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the flashy villainess of more than one Trump reality-television show, turned on her benefactor with juicy and not entirely incredible revelations. A puerile justice this: the secret taper of others taped, the once upright Marine general caught trying to bully the only black woman close to the president by locking her in the Situation Room while threatening her with legal consequences to force her resignation. Her betrayal of her benefactor proved a tawdry but revealing final episode in this particular show.

But to really get the feel for the Trump administration’s end, we must turn to the finest political psychologist of them all, William Shakespeare. The text is in the final act of what superstitious actors only refer to as the “Scottish play.” One of the nobles who has turned on their murderous usurper king describes Macbeth’s predicament:

Those he commands move only in command,

Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title

Hang loose about him, like a giant’s robe

Upon a dwarfish thief.

And so it will be for Trump. To be clear, these are very different people. Macbeth is an utterly absorbing, troubling, tragic, and compelling figure. Unlike America’s germaphobic president, who copped five draft deferments and has yet to visit the thousands of American soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan or Iraq, he is physically brave. In fact, the first thing we hear about him is that in the heat of battle with a rebel against King Duncan (whom he later murders) Macbeth “unseamed him from the nave to th’ chops.” He is apparently faithful to his wife, has a conscience (that he overcomes), knows guilt and remorse, and has self-knowledge. He also has a pretty good command of the English language. In all these respects he is as unlike Trump as one can be.

But in the moment of losing power, the two will be alike. A tyrant is unloved, and although the laws and institutions of the United States have proven a brake on Trump, his spirit remains tyrannical—that is, utterly self-absorbed and self-concerned, indifferent to the suffering of others, knowing no moral restraint. He expects fealty and gives none. Such people can exert power for a long time, by playing on the fear and cupidity, the gullibility and the hatreds of those around them. Ideological fervor can substitute for personal affection and attachment for a time, and so too can blind terror and sheer stupidity, but in the end, these fall away as well.

And thus their courtiers abandon even monumental tyrants like Mussolini—who at least had his mistress, Claretta Petacci, with him at his ignominious end. (Melania’s affections are considerably less certain.) The normal course of events is sudden, epic desertion, in which an all-powerful political figure who loomed over everything is suddenly left shrunken and pitiful, a wretched little figure in gaudy robes absurdly too big for him, a figure of ridicule as much as, and even more than, hatred.

This is going to happen to Trump at some point. Of the Republicans in Congress it may be said of most of them: Those he commands move only in command, nothing in love. For now, admittedly, there are those who still court his favor—Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, once the trusty vassal of Senator John McCain, the bravest of warriors and noblest of dukes, seems to have switched his allegiance from his dying lord to the swaggering upstart aged prince. But that is about ambition, not affection.

For the moment, the Republicans will not turn on Trump. They fear a peasant revolt, many of them; they still crave favors; they may think his castle impregnable, although less so if they believe what the polls tell them about some of its tottering walls. But if they suffer a medieval-style slaughter on Election Day, the remnants of the knights of the GOP will know a greater fear than that of being primaried. And at the moment when they no longer fear being swept away in 2020, when the economy may be in recession and Robert Mueller’s probe is complete with revelations whose ghastliness would delight the three witches of the Scottish play, they will suddenly turn on Trump. Act V of this play will also have a nonlinear finish.

And what of Trump himself? In this respect he will be like Macbeth. Where Nixon, who was a statesman, saw the inevitable and resigned, this president is more likely to go down spitting defiance. As for the rest of us, Macduff says to the cornered king just before their final death grapple:

Live to be the show and gaze o’ th’ time.

We’ll have thee, as our rarer monsters are,

Painted upon a pole, and underwrit

“Here may you see the tyrant”

And so it will likely be, as Americans gaze back and wonder how on earth this rare monster, now deposed, ended up as their president.

Must Read–Israel’s Aggressive Behavior is Embodied and Prophesied in the Hebrew Bible


The biblical mindset of Israel’s founding fathers

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is for the committed Jew as much a record of his ancient origins, the prism through which all Jewish history is interpreted (is not the “Holocaust” a biblical term?), and the unalterable pattern of Israel’s promising future. That is why the Bible, once the “portable fatherland” of the Diaspora Jews as Heinrich Heine put it, remains at the core of the national narrative of the Jewish State, whose founding fathers did not give it any other Constitution.

It is true that the earliest prophets of political Zionism — Moses Hess (Rome and Jerusalem, 1862), Leon Pinsker (Auto-Emancipation, 1882) and Theodor Herzl (The Jewish State, 1896) — did not draw their inspiration from the Bible, but rather from the great nationalist spirit that swept through Europe at the end of the 19th century. Pinsker and Herzl actually cared little whether the Jews colonized Palestine or any other region of the globe; the first thought about some land in North America, while the second contemplated Argentina and later Uganda. More important still than nationalism, what drove these intellectual pioneers was the persistence of Judeophobia or anti-Semitism: Pinsker, who was from Odessa, converted during the pogroms that followed the assassination of Alexander II; Herzl, at the height of the Dreyfus affair.

Nevertheless, by naming his movement “Zionism,” Herzl himself was plugging it into biblical mythology: Zion is a name used for Jerusalem by biblical prophets. And after Herzl, the founders of the Yishuv (Jewish communities settled in Palestine before 1947) and later of the Jewish State were steeped in the Bible. From their point of view, Zionism was the logical and necessary end of biblical Yahwism.

“The Bible is our mandate,” Chaim Weizmann declared at the Peace Conference in Versailles in 1920, and David Ben-Gurion has made clear that he only accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan as a temporary step toward the goal of biblical borders. In Ben-Gurion, Prophet of fire(1983), the biography of the man described as “the personification of the Zionist dream,” Dan Kurzman entitles each chapter with a Bible quote. The preface begins like this:

“The life of David Ben-Gurion is more than the story of an extraordinary man. It is the story of a Biblical prophecy, an eternal dream. […] Ben-Gurion was, in a modern sense, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, a messiah who felt he was destined to create an exemplary Jewish state, a ‘light unto the nations’ that would help to redeem all mankind.”

For Ben-Gurion, Kurzman writes, the rebirth of Israel in 1948 “paralleled the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the land by Joshua, the Maccabean revolt.” Yet Ben-Gurion had never been to the synagogue, and ate pork for breakfast.

According to the rabbi leading the Bible study group that he attended, Ben-Gurion

“unconsciously believed he was blessed with a spark from Joshua’s soul.” “There can be no worthwhile political or military education about Israel without profound knowledge of the Bible,” he used to say.[1]

He wrote in his diary in 1948, ten days after declaring independence,

“We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight — we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo,” then he adds: “This will be in revenge for what they did to our forefathers during biblical times.”[2] Three days after the Israeli invasion of the Sinai in 1956, he declared before the Knesset that what was at stake was “the restoration of the kingdom of David and Solomon.”[3]

Ben-Gurion’s attachment to the Bible was shared by almost every Zionist leader of his generation and the next. Moshe Dayan, the military hero of the 1967 Six Day War, wrote a book entitled Living with the Bible (1978) in which he justified the annexation of new territory by the Bible. More recently, Israeli Education minister Naftali Bennett, a proponent of full-scale annexation of the West Bank, did the same.[4]

Zionism is biblical by ideology, but also in practice. As Avigail Abarbanel wrote, the Zionist conquerors of Palestine

“have been following quite closely the biblical dictate to Joshua to just walk in and take everything. […] For a supposedly non-religious movement it’s extraordinary how closely Zionism […] has followed the Bible.”[5]

The paradox is only apparent, because for Zionists, the Bible is not a religious text, but a textbook of history. And so it should be obvious to anybody paying attention that Israel’s behavior on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology.

Prophecy and geopolitics

Only by taking account of the biblical roots of Zionism can one understand why Zionism has never been a nationalist movement like others. It could not be, as Gilad Atzmon remarked, from the moment it defined itself as a Jewish movement, aimed at creating a “Jewish state”.[6] Jewish exceptionalism is a biblical concept that has no equivalent in any other ethnic or religious culture.

Neither can Zionism be correctly assessed as a form of colonialism, despite Jabotinsky’s effort to do so. For colonialism seeks not to expel the natives, but to exploit them. If Zionism is colonialism, it can only be in the sense of the colonization of the world by Israel, according to the program laid out by Isaiah:

“The riches of the sea will flow to you, the wealth of the nations come to you” (60:5);

“You will suck the milk of nations, you will suck the wealth of kings” (60:16);

“You will feed on the wealth of nations, you will supplant them in their glory” (61:5-6);

“For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish, and the nations will be utterly destroyed” (60:12)

Christians find hope in Isaiah that, some day, all peoples “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles. Nations will not lift sword against nation, no longer will they learn how to make war” (Isaiah 2:4).

But more important to Zionists are the previous verses, which describe these messianic times as a Pax Judaica, when “all the nations” will pay tribute “to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the god of Jacob,” when “the Law will issue from Zion and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem,” so that Yahweh will “judge between the nations and arbitrate between many peoples.”

No wonder Isaiah is the biblical prophet most often quoted by Zionists. In a statement published in the magazine Look on January 16, 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted for the next 25 years:

“All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”[7]

The launching of the Iraq War was a decisive step toward that goal of a new world order headquartered in Jerusalem. It was the context for a “Jerusalem Summit” held in October 2003 in the highly symbolic King David Hotel, to seal an alliance between Jewish and Christian Zionists.

The “Jerusalem Declaration” signed by its participants declared Jerusalem “the key to the harmony of civilizations,” replacing the United Nations that had become “a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships”:

“Jerusalem’s spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world’s unity. [. . .] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel’s divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.”

Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, the guest of honor, received on this occasion the Henry Scoop Jackson Award.[8]

When Israeli leaders claim that their vision of the global future is based on the (Hebrew) Bible, we should take them seriously and study the Bible. It might help, for example, to know that according to Deuteronomy Yahweh plans to deliver to Israel “seven nations greater and mightier than [it],” adding: “you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.

You shall not make marriages with them…” (7:1-2). As for the kings of these seven nations, “you shall make their name perish from under heaven” (7:24). The destruction of the “Seven Nations,” also mentioned in Joshua 24:11, is considered a mitzvah in rabbinic Judaism, included by the great Maimonides in his Book of Commandments,[9] and it has remained a popular motif in Jewish culture, known to every Israeli school child.

It is also part of the Neocon agenda for World War IV (as Norman Podhoretz names the current global conflict in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, 2007). General Wesley Clark, former commandant of NATO in Europe, wrote in his book Winning Modern Wars (2003), and repeated in numerous occasions, that one month after September 11, 2001, as he was paying a visit to Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon general showed him a memo “that describes how we’re gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran.”[10]

In his September 20, 2001 speech, President Bush also targeted seven “rogue states”, but included Cuba and North Korea instead of Lebanon and Somalia. The likely explanation to that discrepancy is that Bush or his entourage refused to include Lebanon and Somalia, but that the number seven was retained for its symbolic value, as an encrypted signature.

Without question, the neocons who were writing Bush’s war agenda were Zionists of the most fanatical and Machiavellian kind. But the neocon viper’s nest is not the only place to look for crypto-Zionists infiltrated in the highest spheres of US foreign and military affairs. Consider, for example, that Wesley Clark is the son of Benjamin Jacob Kanne and the proud descendant of a lineage of rabbis.

It is hard to believe that he never heard about the Bible’s “seven nations”? Is Clark himself, together with the Amy Goodmans who interviewed him, trying to write history in biblical terms, while blaming these wars on the Pentagon’s warmongers? What’s going on, here?

A lesson from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah

To understand how the crypto-Zionists have hijacked the Empire’s military power into proxy wars, a lesson can be learned from Book of Ezra and its sequel, the Book of Nehemiah. At the time of Ezra, the imperial power was Persia. After the Persians had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, some of the exiles and their descendants (42,360 people with their 7,337 servants and 200 male and female singers, according to Ezra 2:64-67) returned to Jerusalem under the protection of King Cyrus, with the project of rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus begins the Book of Ezra:

“Yahweh roused the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia to issue a proclamation and to have it publicly displayed throughout his kingdom: ‘Cyrus king of Persia says this, Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me to build him a temple in Jerusalem, in Judah.’” (Ezra 1:1-2).

For acting on behalf of Yahweh, Cyrus is bestowed the title of God’s “Anointed” (Mashiah) in Isaiah 45:1.

“Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one, to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand, to make the nations bow before him and to disarm kings: […] It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. […] Though you do not know me, I have armed you.” (Isaiah 45:1-5)

A succeeding Persian emperor, Darius, confirmed Cyrus’ edict, authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple, and ordering gigantic burnt offerings financed by “the royal revenue.” Anyone resisting the new theocratic power backed by Persia, “a beam is to be torn from his house, he is to be impaled on it and his house is to be reduced to a rubbish-heap for his offense” (Ezra 6:11).

Then another Persian king, Artaxerxes, is supposed to have granted Ezra authority to lead “all members of the people of Israel in my kingdom, including their priests and Levites, who freely choose to go to Jerusalem,” and to rule over “the whole people of Trans-Euphrates [district encompassing all territories West to the Euphrates]” (7:11-26). In 458 BCE, the priest Ezra went from Babylon to Jerusalem, accompanied by some 1,500 followers.

Carrying with him the newly redacted Torah, Ezra called himself the “Secretary of the Law of the God of heaven” (7:21). He was soon joined by Nehemiah, a Persian court official of Judean origin.

The edicts of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes are fake. No historian believe them authentic. But the fact that Persian kings granted to a clan of wealthy Levites legal authority for establishing a theocratic semi-autonomous state in Palestine seems historical. What did these proto-Zionists give the Persian kings in return? The Bible does not say, but historians believe that the Judeans exiles in Babylon had won the favor of the Persians by conspiring to help them conquer the city.[11]

What is of interest in this biblical narrative is the blueprint for the Zionist strategy of influencing the Empire’s foreign policy for its own advantage. In the late 19th century, the empire was British. Its foreign policy in the Middle East was largely shaped by Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Born in a family of Marranos converted back to Judaism in Venice, Disraeli can be considered a forerunner of Zionism, since, well before Theodor Herzl, he tried to include the “restoration of Israel” in the Berlin Congress’ agenda, and hoped to convince the Ottoman Sultan to concede to Palestine as an autonomous Jewish province.

He failed, but succeeded in putting the Suez Canal under British control, through funding from his friend Lionel Rothschild (an operation which also consolidated the Rothschilds’ control over the Bank of England). That was the first step in binding British interest and fate to the Middle-East[12]. In short, Disraeli was a modern-day Ezra or Nehemiah, capable of steering the Empire’s policy according to the Jewish agenda of the conquest of Palestine, a dream he had cherished ever since his first trip to Palestine in 1830, at the age of 26, and which he had expressed through the hero of his first novel, The Wondrous Tale of Alroy:

“My wish is a national existence which we have not. My wish is the Land of Promise and Jerusalem and the Temple, all we forfeited, all we have yearned after, all for which we have fought, our beauteous country, our holy creed, our simple manners, and our ancient customs.”

A quarter of a century after Disraeli, Theodor Herzl also failed to convince the Sultan. It therefore became necessary that the Ottoman Empire disappear and the cards be redistributed. Zionists then played the British against the Ottomans and, by means now well-documented, obtained from the former the Balfour Declaration (in fact a mere letter addressed by Secretary of State Arthur Balfour to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild).

But when the British started to limit Jewish immigration in Palestine in the 1930s, the Zionists turned to the rising new Imperial power: the United States. Today, the stranglehold of Zionists on US imperial policy is such that a few Jewish neocons can pull the US into a series of wars against Israel’s enemies with a single false flag attack.

The capacity of Israel to hijack the Empire’s foreign and military policy requires that a substantial Jewish elite remain in the US. Even Israel’s survival is entirely dependent on the influence of the Zionist power complex in the United States (euphemistically called the “pro-Israel lobby”). That is also a lesson learnt from Ezra and Nehemiah’s time: Nehemiah himself retained his principal residence in Babylone and, for centuries after, the kingdom of Israel was virtually ruled by the Babylonian exiles.

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, Babylon remained the center of universal Judaism. The comparison was made by Jacob Neusner in A History of the Jews in Babylonia(1965), and by Max Dimont in Jews, God and History (1962). The American Jews who prefer to remain in the United States rather than emigrating to Israel are, Dimont argued, as essential to the community as the Babylonian Jews who declined the invitation to return to Palestine in the Persian era:

“Today, as once before, we have both an independent State of Israel and the Diaspora. But, as in the past, the State of Israel today is a citadel of Judaism, a haven of refuge, the center of Jewish nationalism where dwell only two million of the world’s twelve million Jews. The Diaspora, although it has shifted its center through the ages with the rise and fall of civilizations, still remains the universal soul of Judaism.”[13]


In the words of the Zionists themselves, including Herzl himself, Zionism was supposed to be the “final solution” to the Jewish question[14]. In 1947, the whole world hoped that it would be, except for Arab leaders who warned against it. But Israel’s existence has only resulted in changing the “Jewish question” into the “Zionist question”: the question about the true ambitions of Israel. Part of the answer is to be found in the Hebrew Bible. The Zionist question is the Biblical question. Zionists themselves tell us so. Their mouths are full of the Bible.

On March 3, 2015, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dramatized in front of the American Congress his deep phobia of Iran by referring to the biblical Book of Esther (the only Bible story that makes no mention of God, incidently). It is worth quoting the heart of his rhetorical appeal to a US strike against Iran:

“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago.

But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.”[15]

Netanyahu managed to schedule his address to the Congress on the eve of Purim, which celebrates the happy end of the Book of Esther — the slaughter of 75,000 Persians, women and children included. This typical speech by the head of the State of Israel is clear indication that the behavior of that nation on the international scene cannot be understood without a deep inquiry into the Bible’s underlying ideology. Such is the main objective of my new book, From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, translated by Kevin Barrett.

May those who still want to believe that Zionism has nothing to do with the Bible think twice. Even the nuclear policy of Israel has a biblical name: the Samson Option.[16] And let them read the Prophets:

“And this is the plague with which Yahweh will strike all the nations who have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet; their eyes will rot in their sockets; their tongues will rot in their mouths.” (Zechariah 14:12)

With Israel’s Nation State Law, violence against Palestinians will increase

With Israel’s Nation State Law, violence against Palestinians will increase

Israeli forces fire tear gas at Palestinian during a protest in Nablus West Bank on 15 February 2018 [Nedal Eshtayah/Anadolu Agency]

Israel’s Nation-State Law, celebrated by many Jewish Israelis, is deeply worrying to Palestinian Israelis. Already, after just one month, violence, threats of violence, and discriminatory policies are in high gear – this after decades of unrestrained injustice. And still the world remains silent.

by Prof. Kamal Hawwash, Middle East Monitor

Ever since Israel passed the Nation State Law, Palestinians and neutral observers have been wondering about its possible impact on the substantial Palestinian minority in Israel as well as those living under occupation in the rest of historic Palestine. The law says that Israel is the state for Jews all over the world and that only Jews have a right to self-determination therein. It also demoted the status of Arabic, which has up to now been recognised as an official language. The law further proclaimed illegal Jewish settlements to be a national value. The Palestinians, whether citizens of Israel or living under its occupation, did not feature.

The signal going out to Jewish Israelis is that this is their land, even though its borders remain undefined, albeit they are assumed to be from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan. Non-Jewish Israelis have no rights in the land, despite the fact that the Palestinians are the indigenous people. The natural conclusion to this “logic” is that they should leave of their own accord, otherwise ways will be found to make their lives so unbearable that they leave out of fear, as happened in the 1948 Nakba when the majority of the Palestinians were expelled.

Democracy or apartheid?

The world’s shameful silence at Israel’s open declaration that it is a de facto Apartheid state was deafening. If a state can pass such a discriminatory law and get away with it, then it can do anything.

It is worth noting that Israel passed this law shortly after a bill was disqualified in the Knesset – it called for equal rights for all Israeli citizens, something we take for granted in real democracies. Readers are reminded that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considered “Arabs” voting in the last elections as such a threat that he appealed to his supporters to go out and vote, because “Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves.” So much for the self-proclaimed “only democracy in the Middle East”.

The reality is that Palestinian citizens of Israel — 20 per cent of the population — have always been seen as a threat rather than an asset. Israel is very aware of the “demographic threat” that they pose, simply for having beautiful babies.

Jewish residents in Afula protest the granting of a local housing tender to Israeli Arabs, December 6, 2015. The sign reads, “The mayor has betrayed us; he wants to build a mosque.” Credit: Gil Eliyahu (12/9/15)

The Israeli government can now use the Nation State Law as a backdrop to expand the gap further between its Palestinian citizens and their fellow citizens who happen to be Jews, particularly in relation to creating more settlements within the 1948 borders and further restricting building in Palestinian communities.

Jew-only communities can use entirely legal “admissions committees” to ban Palestinian Israelis from moving in, fearing that they may sully their neighbourhood. The recent demonstration in the northern town of Afula against the sale of one house to a Palestinian family is testament to the increasingly racist nature of Israeli society.

Violent attacks

Sadly, it does not stop at demonstrations or the pretence of a state that upholds international norms for a democracy or a fair legal system. Palestinians, both citizens and occupied, face increasing violence simply for who they are and that they remain in their land.

At Haifa’s Kiryat Haim beach recently, three Palestinian Israeli citizens from Shafram were approached by a group of Jewish Israelis who asked them if they were “Arabs”. Their answer in the affirmative resulted in the inquisitors leaving only for a group of eight to return with weapons, attack them violently and yell, “You are Arab dogs, do not stay here.” They explained later that they were not doing anyone any harm on the beach, but that the attackers “just decided to hit us without cause. They almost killed us. We asked them to stop but they continued. They were removed only after other people arrived at the scene. We hope the police find them.” The Palestinians acknowledge that it was other Israeli Jews who came to their rescue.

They worry about nationalist attacks. “Unfortunately, despite the various condemnations against racism, it persists,” they added. “Who will be next?” The Israeli police have arrested a 23-year-old resident of Kiryat Haim on suspicion of attacking the three men.

This incident is particularly worrying because it was an unprovoked attack on Palestinian Israelis just weeks after the passing of the Nation State Law. The only official condemnation reportedly came from President Reuven Rivlin, not Netanyahu.

This was not the first incident of such attacks by Israeli Jews on Palestinians. In May, bus driver Adham Badir, 38, was pepper sprayed and assaulted between Petah Tikva and Kafr Qasem by three young settlers simply for asking them to wait for the next bus as his was too full for them to bring their electric bikes on board.

A number of attacks have been carried out by members of far-right Jewish group Lehava, which is against romantic relationships between Palestinian men and Jewish girls. In April last year, five Israeli men and one juvenile, all of them Jews, were charged in connection with a series of brutal assaults on Palestinian men in the southern city of Be’er Sheva. The suspects confirmed that they had been involved in at least six separate incidents between December 2016 and 6 April 2017 carried out with the aim of stopping their targets from pursuing romantic relationships with Jewish women.

Settler violence

In the Occupied Territories, settler violence has been a feature of the daily lives of Palestinians for years. The most high profile incidents were the murders of Mohammed Abu Khdair in Jerusalem in 2014 and the burning to death of the Dawabsheh family a year later. Added to this is a long list of daily attacks on property, crops and olive trees, normally overseen by the Israel Defence Forces, the self-proclaimed “most moral army in the world”. IDF soldiers openly admit that they are there to protect the illegal settlers, not the Palestinians.

According to UN OCHA, settler violence has been on the rise: with a weekly average of six attacks in 2018, compared to three in 2017 and two in 2016.

The soldiers recently faced a dilemma when 10 Jewish Israeli settlers attacked 4 Jewish Israeli peace activists from Ta’ayush who were documenting illegal construction in the unauthorised Jewish outpost of Mitzpe Yair. Just who do they protect? In the event, injuries occurred only on the peace activists’ side, leaving us to draw our own conclusion about which side the soldiers are on.

Too many guns, too little regulation

It is particularly worrying that Israel is “relaxing the rules” on gun ownership and allowing up to 500,000 more civilians to carry lethal weapons. This would allow veterans of Israel’s infantry units to obtain licenses more easily, as well as officers and commanders who have completed their reserve duty to keep their weapons. The implication is that the overwhelming majority of those who will benefit will be Jewish Israelis. This poses a real threat to Palestinians across historic Palestine — Israel and the Occupied Territories, including Jerusalem —from trigger-happy Israeli Jews.

International solidarity activists have also faced violence from settlers and the IDF. Norwegian activist Kristen Foss, 43, was shot with rubber bullets on two occasions by soldiers, in the abdomen on 18 August and in the ankle almost a week later. She was taking part in demonstrations in Kafr Qaddum to express solidarity with the residents’ demand for the reopening of the direct road to Nablus and access to their farmland.

Elor Azaria received a hero’s welcome on his Tuesday return to the junction in the West Bank city of Hebron, where he shot dead an incapacitated Palestinian attacker. (7/3/18)

Calls for violence against Palestinians including “death to the Arabs” are a regular feature of right-wing rallies and extremist gangs. Thousands chanted this in Rabin Square in 2016 as the crowd gathered in support of Elor Azaria, the Israeli soldier filmed executing 21 year old Abdul Fatah Al-Sharif in illegally occupied Hebron, even though the young Palestinian was already incapacitated having been shot by other soldiers following an alleged knife attack. Azaria was convicted of manslaughter, though in the event he only served only half of his 18-month sentence. Even more troubling was Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated calls for Azaria’s pardon.

Upon his release in May, Azaria received a hero’s welcome when he returned to the scene of the crime. Activists of the far-right Otzma Yehudit group organised his homecoming.

Far from showing any remorse for what he did, Azaria has said, “I have no remorse. I am completely at peace with myself. I acted as needed. I went with my own [inner] truth. I acted in the most proper way possible and what happened afterwards [his trial and conviction] should not have happened.” What message does that send to other young Israelis?

The world stands silent

The lack of condemnation or even concern by Israeli leaders about rising Jewish Israeli violence against Palestinians serves to embolden the extremists. Israel’s leadership feels emboldened and protected by US President Trump and his administration, as well as the silence of the Arab and Muslim world; Netanyahu now feels that he can do whatever he wants with complete impunity.

The future, post the passing of the Nation State Law, is worrying for Palestinians across historic Palestine. They need protection from Israeli violence, which is currently going unchallenged. Is the so called “international community” willing to help, or even capable of doing so?

Related reading:

Let’s talk about the text of Israel’s new Nation-State Law

Arab Daily News: Violence in Israel defined by hypocrisy and race

Arab Daily News: Violence in Israel defined by hypocrisy and race

Israeli soldiers fired tear gas at Palestinians to disperse them after Friday Prayer on a street outside Jerusalem’s Old City. Credit Ammar Awad/Reuters

By Ray HananiahArab Daily News

Israel spotlights violence when it is committed by Palestinians and plays it down when it is committed by Israeli Jews or settler fanatics. Even the punishments are different, with Christians and Muslims being punished to the extreme while Israeli Jews and settlers are often given a pass. The homes of family and relatives of Palestinians accused of crimes are destroyed by Israel, but Israel does not punish the families or relatives of Israeli Jews. To see the shocking difference in morality in the deaths, visit the website

Last week, the mainstream American news media was inundated with stories about two Israeli police officers killed by three Palestinians near the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in occupied East Jerusalem.

Israeli police immediately killed the three Palestinian assailants who were Israeli Arab citizens from the Arab Israeli city of Umm al Fahm.

The violence took place on Friday July 14 at the entrance of the al-Haram Ash-Sharif, which the Israelis and the pro-Israel media refer to as “the Temple Mount.”

The pro-Israel news media described the victims in great personal detail naming them as Israeli police officers Haiel Sitawe, 30, and Kamil Shnaan, 22, who came from a Druze village in Northern Israel. The attackers were denounced as “terrorists,” and identified as Muhammad Ahmed Muhammad Jabarin, 29, Muhammad Hamad Abdel Latif Jabarin, 19 and Muhammad Ahmed Mafdal Jabarin, 19.

The Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the site of much anti-Palestinian protests and violence from Israeli extremist Jews and settlers‪ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many Israelis were shocked that the suspects were Israeli Arabs, rather than Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied West Bank.

Israeli officials are considering whether or not to apply Israel’s racist policy to destroy the homes of the accused assailants to punish their families. Israel does that to the family homes of Palestinians from the occupied West Bank accused of violence, but not to Israelis convicted of terrorism.

No one of any moral conscience can condone any of the violence by either side. But clearly the mainstream news media provides far more coverage when the Israeli victims are Jewish, and they downplay or forgo coverage when the victims are Christian or Muslim Palestinians and the assailants are Israeli Jews.

For example, on Wednesday July 12, only two days before the attack against the Israeli police, heavily armed Israeli soldiers invaded Jenin in the northern Occupied West Bank and murdered two young boys, Sa’ed Hasan Salah, 21, from Jenin city, and Aws Mohammad Salama, 17, from Jenin refugee camp.

There was very little coverage of the killings. There was no Israeli inquisition into the facts. Despite the cold blooded civilian murders, no one in Israel’s government called for an investigation or any retribution or consequences.

And certainly no Israeli is urging that the homes of relatives of the Israeli killers be demolished in reprisal, as they are for Palestinian assailants. None of the media in America or Israel, which so easily describe every Palestinian killed in a clash with Israelis as “terrorists,” described the Israeli killers as “terrorists.”

There is a website online called which uses data distributed by the Israeli civil rights organizations B’Tselem and lists every person killed on both sides.

In explaining what they do, the authors write, “This website includes every death we can find reported. While Israeli deaths, fewer in number, are reported widely and in great detail, it should be noted that Palestinians are frequently killed in large numbers during military incursions, and reporting agencies don’t always have adequate access to ensure they haven’t missed anyone.”

According to the site, which is affiliated with “If Americans only Knew,” (, at least 43 Palestinians (13 of them children) and 10 Israelis have been killed by someone from the other side in 2017.

The site notes that on the same morning, July 14, a 21 year old Palestinian, Bara’ Ismael Hawamda, 21, was killed by Israeli soldiers during a raid on the Deheishe Palestinian refugee camp which is located just south of Bethlehem.

Clearly driven by media bias, which showcases the killing of Israelis and ignores the killing of Palestinians, American politicians were quick on their feet to defend heightened Israeli security measures and to demand justice.

But there was no call for “justice” in the wake of the killings of the two young men from Jenin or the Palestinian killed outside of Bethlehem, which is the birthplace of Christianity and is under Israeli military siege.

Israel’s moderate President Reuven Rivlin expressed anger against Israel’s non-Jewish population for failing to speak louder in denouncing the attacks near the al-Aqsa Mosque. But his office was silent on the Israeli military killings in Jenin.

Israel’s Supreme court has ruled against destroying the homes of Israeli Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, such as in the case of the three Israeli Jewish terrorists convicted of kidnapping, beating, and then burning alive Palestinian teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir in 2014.

No American journalist who cares about his career would dare to make these points in their columns that fill the editorial pages of more than 1,300 daily newspapers in America. But many of these newspapers ran columns denouncing the murder of the Israelis.

That’s easy to do in a nation like America that has so little regard for life when the victims are Arab, or in Israel where the facts prove overwhelmingly that far more Palestinians are murdered by Israelis than Israelis murdered by Palestinians.

It shouldn’t be, but only in Israel is there hypocrisy in murder, death and destruction. In Israel, justice depends on your religion, not on international Rule of Law that governs everyone else.

Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist and author, and Managing Writer at the Arab Daily News

Meet Ahed Tamimi, 17-Year-Old West Bank Activist Jailed 8 Months for Slapping Israeli Soldier

Meet Ahed Tamimi, 17-Year-Old West Bank Activist Jailed 8 Months for Slapping Israeli Soldier

Ahed Tamimi, Lorde, & Monika Schaefer: the broader picture

Palestinians slam Nation-State Law as “racism, apartheid”

Palestinians slam Nation-State Law as “racism, apartheid”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a news conference following the extraordinary meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul, Turkey. (photo credit: REUTERS/OSMAN ORSAL)

Palestinian reaction to Israel’s newly minted Nation-State Law is, not surprisingly, hostile: words like “racism,” “ethnic cleansing,” “declaration of war,” “legitimization of hate,” and more. 

By Khaled Abu Toameh, Jerusalem Post

The Palestinians strongly condemned the Jewish nation-state bill that was approved by the Knesset on Thursday, dubbing it a “racist and apartheid law.”

The Palestinians also called on the UN General Assembly to reinstate the “Zionism is racism” resolution that was adopted in 1975 but repealed in 1991.The Palestinian Authority said in a statement that the new law “paved the way for ethnic cleansing and was a declaration of war on all Palestinians.”

A statement released by the PA Information Ministry in Ramallah said that the nation-state law was also a declaration of war on the Palestinians’ land, rights, identity, and language.”

The new law, the ministry charged, “unleashes the arm of terrorism and racism” and provides justification for harming the status of the Arab citizens of Israel.

It called on parliaments “in the democratic world to reject this dangerous law” and hold the Knesset responsible for “the legitimization of hate and incitement.”

In another statement, the PA Foreign Ministry said that by approving the new law, Israel has “officially declared itself an apartheid state.” The ministry said that the law was aimed at sending a message to the world to the effect that Israel “rejects any effort to solve the conflict peacefully, on the basis of a two-state solution.”

PLO secretary-general Saeb Erekat said that the new law “aims at legitimizing Israel’s institutional discrimination against its Arab Palestinian citizens.” The law, he added, turns Israel into a “de-facto apartheid regime.”

Erekat said that the law “builds up on dozens of racist and discriminatory laws against non-Jews, being an extension of racist and colonialist practices that aim at burying the rights of the Palestinian people.”

The law, he added, “would not have been passed without the culture of impunity that Israel continues to enjoy. It is time for the international community, and particularly for those who still claim to “share democratic values” with Israel, such as the European Union, to take measures in accordance with this new reality of Israel, a state that systematically violates its obligations under international law and UN resolutions, defining itself as an apartheid state. All people affected by this law must receive protection from the international community.”

Erekat said that “no racist law will undermine the rights of our people. We are proud of being a strong nation deeply rooted in our homeland. We will remain steadfast holding on tightly to the historic, national and human rights of our people, wherever they are, including by fully ending the Israeli occupation by freeing the state of Palestine on the 1967 border, with east Jerusalem as its capital, as well as fulfilling all our rights based on international law, including the refugee issue in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.”

Ahmed Majdalani, a senior PLO official in Ramallah, said that the nation-state law “exposed the true face of the state of terrorism, fascism and racism.” He called for reinstating the “Zionism is racism” resolution, adding that Israel “continues to pose the biggest threat to world peace and security.”

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas also strongly denounced the nation-state law and said it “legitimizes Israeli racism.”

Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum said that such laws would not have passed were it not for the “silence of the international community” and the backing of the US administration.

Russia and Syria preparing to retake Golan Heights, illegally occupied in 1967, from Israel?

Russia and Syria preparing to retake Golan Heights, illegally occupied in 1967, from Israel?


Robert David Steele, a former CIA clandestine operations officer, has said that “Zionism is a subversive force that includes global state-sponsored terrorism and global organized crime.”

In an interview with Shia Followers, Steele, who was recommended in 2017 for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: Only in the past year has it become clear to a majority of the U.S. public that Zionism is a subversive movement that has been destroying the U.S. economy, misdirecting the U.S. Government, and undermining U.S. society.

He emphasized that Zionism “cannot and should not be confused with Judaism, the religion. Zionism is dominated by the Chabad Supremacist cult within Judaism, and Orthodox Jews as its useful idiots.”

“Most Jews – and particularly Reform and Progressive Jews, want nothing to do with Zionism and understand that Zionist atrocities within Palestine – and Zionist bribery, blackmail, espionage, and financial crime all over the world but especially in the United States of America and the United Kingdom – are not the same as Judaism the religion. Zionism is bad but Judaism is good.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, “Israel is an invented state with absolutely no historically valid claim to Palestine. As Gandhi has stated so famously, ‘Palestine is to the Palestinians as France is to the French.’ It has been clearly established that there was no ‘up-rooting’ of the so-called Jewish people. Judaism is not Semitic – this is part of the Zionist myth – but to the extent it can be said to have roots, those roots are in Eastern Europe, among the Khazars.”

He also compared Israel with the Apartheid state of South Africa, saying, “Israel is an apartheid state – by definition – and in this I totally agree with Professor Richard Falk, the most distinguished UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories who equates the insistence on being a ‘Jewish state’ with the apartheid structure used to subjugate and displace the Palestinian people. The persistent definition of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ is in total contradiction to all authorizing documents and totally delegitimizes that state – it makes Israel an apartheid state meriting an absolute boycott by all citizens of the world who believe in human rights.”

He also said he believes that Zionism is over. “While most do not understand this yet, the Zionists have overplayed their hand and are about to lose their control of the U.S. economy, government, and society.”

“The Zionists cannot be defeated by direct diplomatic, financial, or militarily means. They can only be defeated by cutting them off from their sole major enabler, the U.S. treasury and this will only happen if the U.S. public is deeply educated with the truth about Zionism,” he stressed.

“Hence the only way to shut down the Zionists is to communicate Zionist atrocities and subversion to the U.S. public in such compelling terms that the U.S. ends all funding for Zionist Israel and Saudi Arabia, closes all its military bases around the world including the forty four around Iran, and begins demanding a two state solution that reduces the Zionist state of Israel to a small demilitarized enclave stretching from Tel Aviv to the sea, while restoring full Palestinian sovereignty over the rest of Palestine, and particularly from Gaza to Jericho.”

The Zionists must be removed from the Negev and Galilee, and the Golan Heights returned to Syria, Steele said, adding that Zionist theft of water from the Jordanian aquifers “must stop at the same time that a regional energy and water authority creates hundreds of water desalination plants along the coast.”

He also said Jerusalem must be an international city with no Zionist official presence, and a massive Palestinian repatriation movement must be funded, fully equal to the mass migration of Jews that the Zionists organized on the basis of lies in the past seventy-five years.

To achieve these righteous ends, he added, it will be necessary to confront both past Zionist lies – particularly their lies about their rights to all of Palestine and their lies about the holocaust – and present Zionist lies – particularly their lies about Iran and their lies about Syria.

“There are three elements that must be integrated if one is to create truth in depth and breadth sufficient to defeat the Zionists where it really matters: in the hearts and minds of Americans particularly and Europeans generally,” he stressed.

Read more at:


Robert David Steele is the Chief Enabling Officer (CeO) of Earth Intelligence Network. A former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer as well as Adjutant, and a clandestine operations officer (spy) for the Central Intelligence Agency, he was recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize in January 2017. He is the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, reading in 98 categories, and a prolific author on citizen-centered intelligence (decision-support) and evidence-based governance. In 2017 he founded the project #UNRIG with the intent of enabling an ethical non-violent revolution by the 99% against the 1%, first in the USA, then anywhere else that individuals desire to take back the power and end the looting of the Earth by the 1%.


Prominent Israeli historian Ilan Pappé says “Unless the international community and the Muslim world wake up and exerts pressure to stop the oppression, the Palestinians themselves cannot do it, and the few Jews in Israel who are anti-Zionist will not have enough influence from within.”

In an interview with Shia Followers, Pappé also said “I am optimistic as politics is not just pursued from above and if you look at the civil societies worldwide you can see a dramatic shift in favor of Palestine. We have to find a way of extending this shift to politics from above.”

Following is the full transcript of the interview:

At least 60 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces as tens of thousands protested along the frontier against the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. The move has been met with widespread anger from Muslim nations. What’s your take on the embassy relocation and its short and long-term consequences?

Ilan Pappé: I think in the short term the move of the embassy would just reaffirm what was already known with regard to the situation in Palestine in 2018. The U.S. supports Israel unconditionally, the Arab world is too divided to make any positive impact on the reality in Palestine and some of the regimes are too timid to face the U.S. and there is not as yet a political actor, by which I mean a state or an international organization that is willing to impose sanctions on Israel or punish it in any other way for its violations of the international law. The long term consequences are that this is the end of the pax-Americana, by which I mean that regardless of what Palestinian leaders thought of the U.S. hegemonic role in the “peace process” they accepted it. This could be an end to such involvement and hence it also means the death of the two states solution that was at the heart of this process and could not be maintained without American involvement. As we also see, this is also the return to neo-con American policies of aggression towards Iran, but it is hard to predict where this will take us.

Could you tell us how the ideological structure of Zionism and the idea of Israel has changed over time? What should the younger generations know about the creation of Israel?

Ilan Pappé: I think the most important thing to know is that Zionism is a settler colonial movement (very much as were the Europeans who came to North America, Australia and South Africa). And as such deems the natives as aliens and the new colonized land as exclusively theirs. Zionism from the beginning strove to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians in it as possible. The means for achieving this varied. In 1948, it was done by a massive ethnic cleansing operation that expelled half of Palestine’s population. Later it was done by means of a harsh military rule, enclaving communities, incremental transfer of people and economic strangulation and siege. While focusing on this in the last 70 years we should not forget that this did not prevent the Israeli society to develop its own culture, high tech capabilities, science etc. However, one can separate the state’s achievements from the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people.

How has Israel’s grip on U.S. foreign policy changed since Donald Trump became president?

Ilan Pappé: This reminds on the period before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Neo-cons who were the strongest allies of Israel in the U.S.A. pushed for the invasion (both for the sake of Israel and as an implementation of their worldview). Same happens now, Trump has his own neo-con, like Bolton, directing a certain American orientation who are also Israel most devoted allies and thus the policy is a blend of a neo-con vision of America’s involvement in the Middle East while serving the ambitions of the extreme right in Israel.

The definition of anti-Semitism has been extended in recent years as to silence any criticism of Israel or Zionism. What’s your own experience in this regard?

Ilan Pappé: As a Jew in my case it was translated into accusation of self-hate. I am surprised that it works as means of intimidation. For several reasons: at the forefront of the solidarity with the Palestinians, in particular in the U.S.A., there are many Jews, so the accusation is really baseless. Secondly, the true face of Zionism is now fully exposed as the current regime does not even try to hide its racist and aggressive policies. So how can a condemnation of racist policies be regarded racist? Finally, from my experience, if you do not succumb to the accusation and begin to apologize, it falls. But one need to educate people of the big difference between Zionism and Judaism as I did in my book The Ten Myths of Israel.

Any other thoughts on the future of Israeli military rule over the Palestinians and the Muslim world’s reaction to it?

Ilan Pappé: My feeling is that Israel will annex most of the West Bank and would like to think that this whole story is over. Unless the international community and the Muslim world wake up and exerts pressure to stop the oppression, the Palestinians themselves cannot do it, and the few Jews in Israel who are anti-Zionist will not have enough influence from within. However, I am optimistic as politics is not just pursued from above and if you look at the civil societies worldwide you can see a dramatic shift in favor of Palestine. We have to find a way of extending this shift to politics from above.


Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies.


The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Reprint Edition

by Ilan Pappe (Author)

ISBN-13: 978-1851685554

Ex-Jew Benjamin H Freedman The Balfour Declaration




Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth — False Flag Deep State Truth!

Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth — False Flag Deep State Truth! UPDATE Adds NRA & RNC Letters

Collective IntelligenceCultural IntelligenceEthicsGovernmentPeace Intelligence


USPS Tracking Number: 9505 5000 0074 8214 0000 93


God Bless America. On 15 February 2016, our President, speaking to a wildly enthusiastic crowd in Bluffton, South Carolina, promised that he would find out — and inform the American public — “who really knocked down the World Trade Center.”

As all engaged and informed citizens now know, the 9/11 Commission was a controlled cover-up at the same level of atrocity as 9/11 itself, and totally comparable to the Warren Commission controlled cover-up on the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lyndon Baines Johnson, Allen Dulles, J. Edgard Hoover, and varied private sector participants as well as the government of Israel, which sent two witnesses to Dallas.

This collection of twenty-seven memoranda, most one page but a few two pages and one four pages, provide the President all he needs to know to do three big things when he gives his planned speech on 9/11 on 11 September 2018:

01 Direct the Attorney General, Jefferson Sessions, to direct the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey S. Berman, to act on the petition for a Grand Jury and criminal investigation into 9/11 as delivered on 10 April 2018 from the Lawyer’s Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a 54-page petition with 57 categories of evidence about 9/11 crimes.

02 Support and call on Congress to pass — prior to the November 2018 elections — the Bobby Mcllvaine World Trade Center Investigation Act, to be completed and reported out to the President and the Public by 4 July 2019.

03 Utilize the information in this collection to inspire the expelling of the fake news media from the White House, the creation of a two-way truth channel engaging all 200 million US voters, the passage of #UNRIG Election Reform Act to give all #WalkAway voters a fair shake in a broader political system that terminates the two-party tyranny; and an end, for once and for all, of Deep State and Zionist control of the Shadow Government including the secret intelligence community that persists in advancing lies inciting assassination, defamation, and impeachment proceedings against the President.

Authors represented in this volume, each of whom created an original work of public intelligence, include, in alphabetical order:

Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred Burks; Steve De’ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton; James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks; T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom; John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele; and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood. Contact information for all authors is available to alternative and conventional media outlets desiring to do interviews.

Below is the Table of Contents in Abbreviated Form:

Donald Trump Makes A Promise
Letter of Transmittal
Overview & Call for A Presidential Truth Summit
Who Did It?

The two most shocking memoranda reveal that the WTC was condemned by 1989 and all parties including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Mayor of New York City knew the buildings would have to be brought down at a cost of $2B — this provides the commercial insurance fraud motivation and the foundation for the planning of a political false flag operation years in advance; and that 9/11 was used to launder $240 billion dollars used from 1998 to 2001 for a Gold War against Russia — an economic covert war not authorized by Congress or declared to the public, in which Buzzy Krongard, John Brennan, and William Browder appear to have been the principal actors, under the direction of George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and George Tenet.

All of those named are innocent until proven guilty. What this collection does is make it crystal clear to the public who has not been investigated, and why they should be.

This collection is free online at

PDF (101 Pages):   911 POTUS REVISED 20180828

FedEx Replication of Presidential Binder: Color, pages 1-5 single-sided, double-sided thereafter, spiral bound, clear plastic front, black plastic back.

DOC (98 Pages):  911 POTUS A Collected Memos 20180828

DOC (3 Pages):  911 POTUS A Index 20180828


Robert David STEELE Vivas

ROBERT STEELE: The matter of 9/11 Truth is now on the table at the White House, the National Rifle Asscoation (NRA) and the Republican National Council (RNC). Below are the three cover letters that accompanied the work shown and linked below.

DOC (1 Page): 911 POTUS A USPS Letter

DOC (1 Page): 911 POTUS A Letter to NRA

DOC (1 Page): 911 POTUS A RNC

The future course of America cannot be charted if we continue to tolerate the high crimes and lies of the Deep State and its Shadow Government. ENOUGH!


9/11 The Man Behind the Zionist Curtain?


Phase I ends 30 July and will result in a complete color PDF being delivered to the President by a mutual fan with direct access, and also published free online and as #33 in the Trump Revolution Series. The President will receive the contact information (cell number) for each of the authors.

Phase II will focus on the President’s planned speech for 9/11 2018, and include an international alternative media campaign to put this collection squarely in everyone’s face.




Donald Trump: A Promise About 9/11 Truth

Letter of Transmittal by Editor

Robert Steele: 9/11 Truth Letter of Transmittal

Overview & Call for A Presidential 9/11 Truth Summit

David Ray Griffin: Memorandum for the President: Proposal for a Presidential 9/11 Truth Summit

Eric Hufschmid: Memorandum for the President: Please Find the Courage to Declare 9/11 a False Flag Operation

James Fetzer: Memorandum for the President: Three Proofs We Have Not Been Told the Truth About 9/11

Sander Hicks: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Truth Can Unite the Public Against the Deep State

Robert Steele: U.S. Attorney Has Received a Petition Demanding 9/11 Investigation

Robert Steele: Memorandum for the President: 9/11, Domestic False Flag Operations, and Your Legacy

Who Did It?

Christopher Bollyn: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 and the War on Terror: Israel’s History of False Flag Operations against the U.S.A.

Victor Thorn: Memorandum for the President: The Zionist Role in Planning, Funding, and Controlling 9/11

Steve De’ak: Who Knew What When? The New York City Cover-Up…

Nicholas Kollerstrom: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 an Inside Job, Osama Bin Laden Framed, FBI Aware


Tom-Scott Gordon: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 WTC Towers Condemned Before 9/11, Cost to Dismantle $2B+, 2007 Deadline, Known to Rudy Giuliani (Mayor of NYC from 1994 – December 2001)

Fred Burks: Memorandum for the President: Evidence 9/11 Used to Launder $240 Billion in Covert Securities in a Covert Economic War

See references for Greater Israel / Yinon Plan


Peter Dale Scott: Memorandum for the President: 9/11, Dick Cheney, & The Hijacking of the U.S. Government

Susan Lindauer: Memorandum for the President: CIA’s Advance Knowledge of 9/11 Date Including Nuclear Possibilities

Ed Jewett: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 – The Zionist-Rothschild Use of Agents – Ashton Carter and Philip Zelikow Particularly

Scott Bennett: Memorandum for the President: How 9/11 Was Funded – The Man Behind the Missing $2.3 Trillion

Kevin Barrett: Memorandum for the President: Muslims Were Framed for 9/11 – Fake News MSM Silences Us


Richard Gage: Memorandum for the President of the United States: 9/11 Anomalies Not Addressed by the 9/11 Commission as Identified by AE911Truth

Pre-Planted Explosives?

T. Mark Hightower: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Twin Towers Collapse and Vaporization Cannot Be Explained by Nano-Thermite Alone

Barbara Honegger: Memorandum for the President: Pre-Planted Pentagon Explosives Went Off Almost Eight Minutes Prior to Any Alleged Impact on the Building


Gordon Duff, 9/11 NYC Was a Nuclear Event Crafted by Israel and Saudi Arabia with Help and Cover from Dick Cheney

Joe Olson: Memorandum for the President: The Twin Towers were destroyed using “clean nukes”, WTC 7 with conventional demolitions

Directed Energy?

Judy Wood by Robert Steele: Memorandum for the President: The Twin Towers Were Vaporized by Directed Energy Weapons

No Airplanes?

John Lear: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Illusions of Airplanes from Hollywood or US Air Force Holograms?

John Lear: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Twin Towers Were Not Hit By Nor Destroyed By Two Airliners

Aeronautical Engineer: Memorandum for the President: No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon


A. K. Dewdney: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Gratuitously False Narrative on Use of Cell Phones

Greg Felton: Memorandum for the President: 9/11 Zionism’s Great Feeding Frenzy – The Parasite Eats the Host


The Zionist Plan — The “Greater Israel” or Yinon Plan

Remember the USS Liberty!

Review: Enclosure – Palestinian Landscapes in a Historical Mirror

Zionism in America – 18 Strikes and Counting

CIA and the Deep State – A Threat to the President & The Republic


9/11 Memorandums for the President: Index


Berto Jongman: 9/11 Aftermath – 10,000 Cancer Patients

9/11 – What Was Israel’s Role by Justic Raimondo

9/11 and Zion: What Was Israel’s Role? by Nick Kollerstrom with Jim Fetzer

Nine Keys to 9/11 by Nicholas Kollerstrom

9/11 Reference: Original Insurance Report with Aircraft Strike Estimate and Tables of WTC 1 and WTC 2 Tenants

9/11: Dennis Cimino on 9/11 – A Swirling Volcano of Lies

9/11 Reference Document (2015): Meet Ashton Carter, Rothschild Agent?

911 Pre-Cursor Document: “Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Public Danger” — The Elegance of Zionist Information Operations Over Time

Mongoose: Is Rahm Emanuel in Chicago to Coordinate and then Cover Up the Next Zionist False Flag Attack in the USA?


Worth a Look: 9/11 Books, DVDs, Videos, and Other


9/11 @ Phi Beta Iota

Gerard Menuhin on “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil” _ on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio

Coming Up Wednesday, August 24th —
Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday at 8am Pacific * 11am Eastern * 16:00 GMT

Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad Radio

Gerard Menuhin on “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil”

Almost from the moment I garnered mainstream media notice as a voice of 9/11 truth, I became the target of a libelous Zionist campaign to smear me as a “holocaust denier” – even though I had never voiced any opinions on that issue, about which I knew next to nothing. A false and libelous Wikipedia paragraph spuriously linking me to “holocaust deniers” whose names I did not even recognize appeared, and reappeared every time it was taken down. After years of these bizarre false accusations, I grew curious: Who was doing this, and why? Who gave them such mendacious imaginations, complete control of Wikipedia, and immunity from libel laws? And what purposes were served by falsely accusing 9/11 truth advocates of “holocaust denial”? (These accusations resurfaced last week as part of a smear campaign against Green Party Vice Presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka.)

Gerard Menuhin, son of renowned violinist Yehudi Menuhin, offers disturbing answers. His book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil (click the title for a free download) provides a stunning compilation of repressed quotes and facts that, taken together, challenge the conventional narrative of mainstream history.

What led a prominent Jewish figure like Gerard Menuhin to take on such a “third rail” issue as holocaust revisionism – and then situate it in the context of an alleged intergenerational Jewish conspiracy for world domination via the “New World Order”? Those who find his message disturbing (as I do) should take the time to understand what he is saying, and then attempt to refute whatever is refutable. Calling him names does not qualify as a refutation.

Here is a brief statement by Gerard Menuhin elaborating on some of his statements in this interview:

Reflections on the Human Race and how it could have been successful
by Gerard Menuhin

The human race has failed and is doomed to a fate in which its state will be lower than any it has experienced to date, with the obvious exception of those who have placed it there.
Occasionally, I wonder what the world would have been like had a certain ethnicity, or in the majority of cases as is commonly accepted, a claimed ethnicity, and its rapacious followers, not intruded in its development. By this I mean that the average human, with all his inborn defects, but also his inborn abilities and interests, would quite likely have succeeded in creating a balanced environment for himself, in which the important human constituents counted most.
Deriving first from personal responsibility and common sense, he would have respected himself, as a responsible individual but also a member of a community, who lived among others and therefore was at all times potentially responsible towards (not for) them.
He would have respected the natural environment in all its forms, as he would have respected cultural diversity in all its forms. Different cultures would have been able to survive within their inherited territorial boundaries, independent of national borders.
Perhaps in solitary communion with nature, he would have accepted his role as a humble being among other beings, and yet have experienced the spiritual exaltation which comes from this bond.
He would have strived for a fulfilling existence through the realization of his internal drives, rather than by externalizing his modish persona, by buying unnecessary objects he couldn’t afford, as a distraction from the burden of being alive. He would not have degraded himself by debasing his body, his health, his appearance through bad food and absurd fashion.
Collectively, he would have ensured sufficient natural food, clean water and air for all. He would have developed an educational system which catered to individual needs, resulting in a fulfilled individual, who could form a life in tune with his interests.
He would have reproduced with forethought, according to his inherited culture.
Goods and services needed by any community would have been exchanged either by barter or by means of some commonly accepted, portable symbol of worth, which could not have been accumulated against interest. The exclusion of money and interest as we know it today, would remind us of its actual value as nothing more than a handy medium of exchange.
Finally, having concluded a fulfilled life, the individual would accept that he is a biological element of the planet, destined to die and to join other biological elements, without rebellion and without superstitious need of support from organized religion or any similar substitute.
This is not a utopian projection. It would have been perfectly feasible, if humanity had been allowed to develop organically.

Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer. 

9/11 Truth Film Festival to be Live Streamed Online Sept. 8th

15 Years after 9/11, our 12th annual 9/11 Truth FILM FESTIVAL
continues to Expose the Lie of the Century.Thursday, Sept. 8th at 1:00 PM Pacific * 4:00 PM Eastern * 20:00 GMT
2015 9/11 Film Festival ----- SPEAKERS INCLUDE:Graeme MacQueen, PhD — Author of “The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy”, steering committee member of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, and a co-editor of “The Journal of 9/11 Studies.” 
Tony Rooke —- Producer of the film “Incontrovertible,” which documents his refusal in the British courts to pay fees that support “terrorism.” 
John Meaders — Highly honored CHP police officer calling for a real investigation into 9/11.
Charles Ewing Smith — Producer of the documentary “The Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11,” which examines the psychological impact of 9/11, individually and collectively, and the healing process.FILMS INCLUDE: 
9/11: Decade of Deception
Demolition of Truth: Psychologists Examine 9/11

ALSO SPEAKING:Mistress of Ceremonies: Bonnie Faulkner
Attorney William Veale
Project Censored: Peter Phillips & Mickey Huff

CLICK HERE to reserve your live stream ticket or for more details.

Operation Terror, the 9/11 Hollywood Thriller banned from Theaters.



James Fetzer: In Solidarity with Alex Jones – How We Know Sandy Hook Was A FEMA Drill, Nobody Died, Obama Officials Confirmed It Was an Anti-Gun Propaganda Exercise

07 Other Atrocities09 Justice11 SocietyCorruptionCultural IntelligenceGovernmentIO Deeds of WarLaw EnforcementMediaOfficers CallPeace Intelligence

James Fetzer: How we Know Sandy Hook was a FEMA Drill for Gun Control where Nobody Died

Dear Mr. President,

The nation over which you currently preside has been subjected to an on-going series of staged shootings, most of which—for maximal emotional effect—have involved the reported deaths of children, none more dramatically than the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown CT, on 14 December 2012, where Adam Lanza was alleged to have killed 20 first-grade children and six adults. But there were boundless anomalies here from the beginning, where even (what would have been thought to be) an innocuous photo of the parking lot gives the scam away.

Notice, in particular, the absence of familiar blue-and-white signage for handicapped parking, mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because this parking lot does not have such special parking, the school was not in compliance with the ADA and therefore cannot have been legal open in Connecticut in 2012. We have photos of entrances and exits no wheelchair could navigate, including a wooden staircase with a steel rod extending, which could pop out the eye of a little kid running toward the building. Sandy Hook Elementary was not an operating school.

Moreover, because it was a 28*F ground temperature day, the school could not have housed students without heating the building; but there is no heat or steam rising from the structure, no doubt because it appears to have been closed by 2008, the furnaces were rusted out and dysfunction from lack of use. Notice the center rows of cars are all parked facing the school, which violates the driving instructions to turn right, curl around and park facing away. It was just too convenient to bring them in as props in a single line and put them in place, two-by-two.

When I published NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015), with fifteen contributors (including six current or retired Ph.D. college professors), we proved the school had been closed by 2008 and there were no students there. One contributor, Paul Preston, who had run drills for school systems as an administrator in the past, was so bother by what he observed being reported that he reached out to his contacts in the Obama Department of Education, all of whom told him that it had been a drill, that no children had died and that it was done to promote gun control. [PBI Emphasis Added.]

The book includes two chapters with 50 photos each, Ch. 7 of furnishing an empty house to serve as “the Lanza residence”, Ch. 8 of refurbishing the school to serve as the stage for the 2-day FEMA exercise, where we even include the FEMA manual as Appendix A. One photo in Ch. 8, Exhibit 26, shows (what we initially took to be) a SWAT vehicle present before the shooting had taken place—which is provable because the windows of Classroom 10, which would be shot out after the event, are intact. The flag is at full mast and, when you track down the staff, Wayne Carver, Medical Examiner, is patiently awaiting arrival of his portable mortuary tent.

When the book was banned less than a month after having sold nearly 500 copies, I released it to the public for free as a pdf, where anyone can download it to their own desktop by entering the title in their browser. When reported the ban, they featured Exhibit 26 even more clearly than in the printed book. But it was taken down about 38 minutes later after 178 comments, no doubt because of image credit to CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE, which William Powell had discovered had documented their own participation in the scam in their own files.

Among oddities of the press conference held by Wayne Carver, which James Tracy documented in his brilliant expose thereof, was that they did not allow the parents to see the bodies of their children but instead identified them using photographs. That was a violation of CT protocols but appropriate under the circumstances, since it turns out that the children were fictions who only existed in the form of photographs. “Noah Pozner”, shown here, for example, was made up out of photos of his “older step-brother”, Michael Vabner, which we have confirmed multiple ways.

Kelley Watt had over 100 hours of conversation with “Lenny Pozner”, who purports to be his father and who sent Kelley a death certificate for “Noah” as proof that he had died, which we included in the book. It turned out to be a fabrication, with the bottom half of a real death certificate and the top half of a fake, with no file number and the wrong estimated time of death at 11 AM, when “officially” the shooting took place between 9:35-9:40 that morning. Mona Alexis Pressley has now shown that “Lenny” is actually Reuben Vabner, Michael’s father.

Indeed, it appears that some of the “parents” may have used photos of themselves as children to perpetrate this highly-successful fraud upon the public. Without the complicity of the media and local, state and federal authorities, a scam of these dimensions could not have successfully been foisted upon the public—which continues as “Lenny Ponzer” and other fake parents are deceiving the Court by offering false testimony and concealing their identities in their suits against Alex Jones. Sandy Hook was faux terrorism to manipulate the public and promote the Obama administration’s political agenda.

Reference: “Sandy Hook Update: Tracy loses, Wolfgang wins. The Deep State Strikes Back!”,

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is Distinguished McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-founded with Mike Palecek, when they discovered was banning their books. He has published widely on conspiracies, including “False Flags on Five Fronts: Sandy Hook, Boston, Charlottesville, Las Vegas and JFK”, “How to Spot a ‘False Flag’: A Sampler of Representative Events”, and “The Parkland Puzzle: How the Pieces fit Together”, at, BitChute, and other secure sites.

DOC (5 Pages): Fetzer on Sandy Hook Opener

Phi Beta Iota: We have no direct knowledge but believe the perspectives assembled by Dr. Fetzer are so important to the protection of the 2nd Amendment that we have agreed to post a series of Memoranda to the President on this event. Like 9/11 Sandy Hook appears to have been a false flag attack. If the President is to win his fight with the Deep State, he must use the truth about 9/11 and the other domestic false flag events sponsored by Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden to show the American public that most of what they are being told by the government and the complicit media is a lie. This applies as much to Fox News as to Crap News Network — Fox News is pulling its punches and not serving the President or the public as it could.


Memoranda for the President on Sandy Hook: Is FEMA A False Flag Fake News Terrorist Node? Should #GoogleGestapo Be Closed Down?

See Especially:

Robert Steele: Megan Garber of Atlantic — Deep State Shill Attacks Alex Jones on Sandy Hook False Flag Operation

Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth — False Flag Deep State Truth!

See Also:

Mongoose: Mind Control History and Applications


Robert Steele: YouTube, Facebook, Apple Digitally Assassinate Alex Jones and InfoWars — Attorney General Needs to Act or Resign

Richard Spencer Pleads for Respect from Israelis While JF Gariepy’s Jewish Girlfriend Celebrates

I just could not help but post this “gossip column” type material after it had come across my desk thanks to John Hanley. I had previously covered how Richard Spencer had a black woman in his closet, but this time he is not the focus, despite his absurd Village People mustache. No, this time it is popular live streamer JF Gariepy who had a female pop in to the broadcast, just as Richard was mentioning how he is seeking approval from Israelis. There is almost no way this can be anything other than a jewess, perhaps even an Israeli who just could not help but celebrate how much the Alt Right has done for the jewish state.

Here is the brief clip from the show, which I obviously did not watch in full.

Bonus! Spencer promotes the “maligned” Count Kalergi and his genocidal plan for Europe:

Weaponizing the US Dollar Is Accelerating Global De-Dollarization

dedollarization 42512

Donald Trump has in just over two years abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), ditched the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), withdrawn the US from the Paris climate agreement, and unilaterally removed American participation in the Iranian nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Some of these decisions have undoubtedly received popular support from far beyond America’s shores. Washington’s withdrawal from the TPP was welcomed by the People’s Republic of China. During the Obama presidency, Xi Jinping strongly protested the exclusion of Beijing from the TPP. In the case of the TTIP, European allies, for the most part, were strongly opposed to the treaty because European multinationals would be subjected to sanctions and fines from American authorities.

The climate agreement, placing important limits on CO2 emissions as well as imposing regulations governing pollution, has been strongly resisted by US energy oligarchs. The withdrawal from the Paris accord has satisfied a substantial proportion of Trump’s donors linked to the hydrocarbon industry and beyond. Finally, the abandonment of the JCPOA was praised by Riyadh and Tel Aviv, two essential partners in Trump’s domestic and foreign strategies.

Observing the consequences of these political choices in the months since, it is easy to see how the world has reacted in a more or less similar fashion, which has been by ignoring the United States and emphasizing cooperation amongst themselves. The TPP, with its agreements between 11 countries, has remained in place without Washington. The development of relations between ASEAN and China continues on without Washington’s participation. While the TTIP has been halted, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), is in its final approval stage, an agreement between Canada and the EU that bypasses the American-inspired TTIP. The Iran deal remains in force despite Washington’s cowardly withdrawal, and the five countries remaining in the Iranian nuclear agreement have every intention of respecting the JCPOA, which had been negotiated over a number of years.

In addition to withdrawing from the above treaties, Washington has started a serious trade war and is imposing tariffs on allies and enemies alike. From Russia to the EU, as well as China, South Korea, Japan and Turkey, everyone is facing the unprecedented decision to apply tariffs on trade. In Trump’s mind, this is the only way to balance a trade deficit that has now reached more than 500 billion dollars.

In addition to the dismantled treaties and imposition of tariffs, Trump strongly criticized some pillars of the post-World War II liberal order, such as NATO and America’s European allies themselves. The suggestion that NATO may be obsolete has shaken the European capitals to their core, even as the Russian Federation may see it as signaling the prospect of positive relations with the United States. Later it was understood that Trump’s strategy was to present himself before his electors with tangible achievements, in this case, a substantial increase in military spending by NATO countries in Europe. Trump wants a commitment of 2% of GDP to be spent on defense, and NATO’s leaders are now agreeing on the need to invest more money.

Finally, the devastating blow came with the abandonment of the Iranian nuclear agreement, creating significant tensions with European allies. Washington has decided to impose sanctions on companies that do business with Tehran from November 2018. The EU immediately passed a law to shield EU companies from American fines, but many French and German companies appear to have already abandoned their projects in Iran, fearing Washington’s retribution.

Trump even began directly targeting historical allies, first strongly criticizing May in the UK over the slowness of Brexit, then Erdogan’s Turkey for the purchase of the S-400 system as well as the detention of an American pastor (accused of having participated in the attempted coup of 2016), and giving the green light to Saudi Arabia for its commercial and political war with Qatar, a close ally of Turkey.

In this uncertain and unprecedented environment, Donald Trump’s best friends are Israel and Saudi Arabia, with the Italian government offering a friendly face in Europe, the only big European country not opposed to The Donald. The Italian government intends to present itself in contradistinction to France and Germany, returning to influencing the European decisions. We shall come to see how valid this political path is, especially in light of what Trump will ask Conte in exchange for political support, especially with regard to Libya and on various trade and tariff issues.

Trump seems to have been outlining, over almost 24 months of his presidency, his political strategy. The neoconservatives, in the wake of 9/11, used military force in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no rival power able to stand in their way. With Obama, the strategy turned to operate under the cover of democracy and human rights, using more subtle means for bringing about regime change, such as color revolutions. It seems this general strategy continues with Trump, through the means currently available to him. US military planners nowadays must contend with an effective military force that keeps throwing a spanner in their works, Moscow returning Crimea to the Russian Federation and intervening in Syria to support the legitimate government of Syria.

Trump seems to have understood the message coming from Beijing and Moscow regarding the inviolability of their territory, their spheres of influence and their sovereignty. For this reason, Washington’s aggression seems to be focussing more on the economic arena. Trump has weaponized the dollar and is wielding it against allies and enemies alike to extract benefits for the United States. What the current administration intends to do is use the status of the dollar (already a reserve currency and the medium of exchange for such things as oil) as a weapon against adversaries and allies. And it is painful for those at the receiving end, given that the global economy revolves around Washington and the dollar.

The ability to bar European companies from operating in Iran derives from the status of the petrodollar. Washington forbids foreign banks from working with Iranian banks, effectively blocking the flow of US dollars into the country. This is aside from excluding targets from the SWIFT banking network.

To understand the consequences of these actions, it is important to note how presidents prior to Trump worked to advance American imperialism. As noted, following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several countries began to anticipate and plan against scenarios of American aggression. Alliances have been strengthened (Pakistan with China, India with Russia, Qatar with Turkey, Iran with Russia and China, Iran with Russia and Turkey), many issues are being slowly resolved (India and Pakistan, South Korea and North Korea) and many countries prefer to buy arms from Russia and China in order to keep American imperialism at bay.

The methodology of color revolutions, in the light of the protection now being offered by the likes of Russia and Iran, was employed in the place of direct military intervention (as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan) in other theaters (Libya, Ukraine, and Syria). After the wars in 2002 and 2003 in Iraq and Afghanistan, China, Russia, and Iran drew a red line regarding Washington’s interventionism. The effectiveness of color revolutions was diminished when the Russians, the Chinese and Iranians started expelling the various NGOs funded by the likes of Soros and other globalist financiers to bring about regime change under the cover of democracy and human rights.

The outlook of Washington’s political establishment is based on military hard power that is now inferior in offensive capability than the Sino-Russo-Iranian one, ensuring the strategic independence of Eurasia and its partners (Turkey, India, Qatar, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Egypt, the Philippines, etc.). In terms of color revolutions, the artifice has now been brought to light, and countries on the receiving end of such attacks can now recognize them and quickly act to forestall them, as happened in Hong Kong in 2014.

Donald Trump seems to have resorted to the only weapon left available to him, namely, the economic power of the US dollar, offering him the opportunity to shape events. It is a strategy with short-term benefits by devastating effects for Washington in the long run. Indeed, the only way to combat US financial dominance is to ditch the US dollar for other currencies. Washington’s economic power derives from the use that the world makes of the dollar. Clearly, then, Trump’s decision to use the US dollar as a weapon will cost his country dearly in the future, the dollar probably bound to lose its role as a global reserve currency. As history has shown, when a reserve currency is transferred to another currency, the empire that depended on this reserve-currency status itself went into decline. This occurred with France and Britain, and it will likely occur with the United States.

If the S-400 militarily represents the middle finger to Washington, denying as it does US air dominance, de-dollarization is the obvious answer to Trump’s use of the US dollar as a weapon to wield against friends and enemies.

This vulnerability is a wake-up call for US allies, who have filled their pockets and state coffers with US dollars printed at zero interest rates. Just look at the situation in Turkey, with almost 100 billion dollars in foreign debt. Ankara suffers from the excessive dollarization of its economy. It thus remains vulnerable to a US dollar attack by Trump, and without Qatar coming to the rescue with 15 billion dollars worth of investment, the Turkish lira would have not been able to resist for much longer. The danger of an economic collapse is real, along the same lines as was experienced in Asia in the late 1990s through devastating financial-speculation attacks. In contrast, Moscow finds itself with a very low public debt and just 13 billion in dollar-denominated securities, continuing apace the de-dollarization of its economy.

Trump has indirectly set in motion a much needed global rebalancing. Washington’s downsizing into a smaller power will come about above all through a fundamental change at the global economic level. As long as Washington is free to print money, increase debt, exchange dollars for real goods, and remain credible to the rest of the world that continues to purchase US treasuries instead of gold as a safe haven, Trump will be free to use the US dollar as a baseball bat with which he can whack friends and opponents over the head.

The potential use of the US dollar as a baseball bat has been evident for more than a decade for Russians, Chinese, and Iranians. For this reason, they have been exchanging their dollars for other currencies for years. The United States, as a declining empire, is lashing out, employing every weapon available to try and arrest its diminishing status as the world’s sole superpower. Now it is the turn of America’s allies to relinquish the dollar, coming to understand that real sovereignty is ensured through economic sovereignty.

 *This article was originally published on the Strategic-Culture.



One Dead McCain, 2.5 Million Dead Iraqis

photo 2018 08 29 10 34 04 b8b3d

The grossest thing in American society is the reactionary sentimentality that fill our gossip infected hearts with a chemical reaction every time one of our supposed war heroes moves on to a more peaceful place. The carefully rehearsed statements from useless political figures numb our minds as all those who are sane must collectively wonder what on earth has a fusty bag of bones like John McCain ever done for us? Donald Trump was once new to the political scene and was still capable of burning bridges that were worth burning. It was Mr. Trump’s finest moment when he said that McCain was not a war hero. Such a statement was so necessary one would have to say it was the finest moment the Not-So-Great Pumpkin has ever brought the American people. It goes without saying that the day Trump meets his twisted maker, all politically correct sentimentality for his passing must be resisted.

Donald Trump’s machometer for a war hero was whether or not they got caught. The phrase war hero is a paradox to begin with, so we must forgive the dull Cheeseball for his lackluster definition. His instincts were right. John McCain is no hero.

John McCain was a fierce Zionist, but such a trait is almost as American as apple pie. McCain, more than almost anybody else, pushed for more troops in Iraq. When George W. Bush caved and sent in 20,000 extra troops to Iraq in 2007, Democrats labeled the move “The McCain doctrine”. Americans even dumber than Bush II have begun to label Bush “reasonable”. The reasonable Bush talked of 50 years in Iraq, McCain raised him to 100. McCain was among the most enthusiastic advocates of war in Afghanistan as well. And like his buddy Barack across the aisle, he felt threatened by Libya’s success under Muammar Gaddafi. McCain’s virile posturing against Vladimir Putin has been just as eye-opening as Trump’s bromance with Putin.

It all smelled rotten when John McCain sided with those good ol’ American values and invited his brother from another party Barack Obama to speak at his funeral—presumably to spite Donald Trump. Politicians nowadays like to pretend that the good ol’ boys club of the past was free of Trump’s virulent misogyny. But dig through McCain’s public statements and you will find that there are plenty of sexist ones. Give Trump this: he wastes little time on sentimentality. He believes in nothing and nobody. Trump is the natural next step for a society that is morally bankrupt and relies purely on inauthentic jingoistic kitsch to justify its ridiculousness.

John McCain and his brand of old school Americana died upon the arrival of the wrecking ball Donald Trump. McCain’s body may have stuck around a little longer than we wanted, but it was only a matter of time before he joined his ideology in the grave. Now it is on the Democrats to take up the mantle, and they have done so honorably. Democrats preach an influx of women into the fray, but for a party that is already abandoning #MeToo and reproductive rights, we are left to wonder what this really means. What is clear is that the Democrats have become the safe haven for clean cut self-righteous ex-military/intelligence candidates. The Democrats are the party of McCain now.

I remember the day Osama bin Laden was assassinated. It was hard to find an American who was not in heat. Parades erupted. Bloodthirsty politicians licked their chops. There was a certain pride that it was “our guy” Obama who brought him down. This was enough to make anyone queasy. If this many Americans had a taste for blood then, who was surprised that so many of us have salivated over Donald Trump’s madcap bullying. American culture is just too extreme. We divide everyone into friends and foes. If our friends die, we all have to lie about them. If our foes die, we have a parade. I don’t purpose a parade over John McCain’s death, just a little perspective.

John McCain helped orchestrate the devastation of several countries. Millions of deaths are on his bloody hands. The world is more peaceful with him gone from it. Why didn’t the 22 Yemeni children killed the day before cause the same amount of grief as McCain’s death? The U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen was backed by McCain as well. John McCain will be remembered as a war hero, but if I can paraphrase the merciless hawk Donald Trump, ‘Real heroes don’t go to war.’



2012 Archive comes to life: Iran attack, Azerbaijan throws Israeli Air Force out after VT exposes plot

Prelude to World War III Outlined

Introduction:  The article below is from 2012.  We began working on this issue in 2010 when we set up our bureau in Georgia with Jeffrey Silverman and sent a team into Azerbaijan.
VT personnel have worked in Israel, representing the US there, and in Turkey and across the region.  This is a time capsule that has become quite amazing, reporting by VT, Press TV and VT together and Reuters.
Our predictions were magnificent.
Even Alex Jones used our reports, laundered through Global Research

Press TV just announced that Azerbaijan has assured Iran no Israeli attack would occur from their territory.  This is their announcement, from Tehran, moments ago:

October 2, 2012 Tehran

Press TV – Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Pakistan says Baku will not allow Israel to use its airspace or land to carry out a military attack on Iran or any other country.

“Azerbaijan has been following a policy of non-interference in the [internal] affairs of other countries,” Baku’s Ambassador to Pakistan Dashgin Shikrov said in an exclusive interview with the Pakistani daily The Newson Monday.

The ambassador strongly rejected rumors in Western media outlets about his country’s readiness for providing Israel ground facilities for attacking Iran’s nuclear sites. “Azerbaijan is member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and nobody should have any doubt that it will not permit the use of its territory for committing acts of aggression against another OIC member,” the ambassador added.

Israel has recently stepped up threats of carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities. The threats are based on the unfounded claims that the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic include a military component.

Iranian officials have refuted the allegation and have promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East


Earlier this week, Reuters confirmed through two Azeri officers that Israeli forces were in place in Azerbaijan and that the president was weighing options of supporting their attack.  That text is now below from Reuters.  Their unedited full text  is at Addendum I:

Reuters – Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.

“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Azerbaijan was “caught with their pants down” and is now trying to lie their way out of this.


In an explosive turn of events, Press TV announces Azerbaijan has “turned chicken” after receiving a chastising based on receiving an early distribution of this  Veterans Today document through Russian sources.

Additional VT staff were, while at the Pentagon, responsible for drawing up the war plans, not just for the initial invasion of Iran but the American invasion of Azerbaijan, slated for 2008, as part of a Bush administration military takeover of the entire Caspian Basin.

The map for that attack by US troops from Iran is below:

US Army 2006 “exercise” plans predicated on a 2005 successful invasion of Iran, confirmed by direct Pentagon sources. (the author)

The cover sheet for the War Plans/Exercise Plans is below, a document that contained a full outline for needed capabilities for the successful takeover of all of the former Soviet Republics, beginning with Azerbaijan as seen on the map above.

Today, Azerbaijan announced it would allow Israeli planes to use their air bases to attack Iran.  Reuters published the press release from Baku, one originally released in Veterans Today 27 months ago.  From Reuters:

BAKU (Reuters) – Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy. But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?

Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.


This attack might have happened sooner without the break in the Turkish relations

An investigation done by independent intelligence organizations made up of former CIA, Army Intelligence and FBI personnel as published on June 18, 2010, discovered a plot between Israel, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to attack Iran.

At that time, Israeli planes were training in Turkey on terrain meant to simulate Iran.  Israel would send over 8 planes at a time and 6 would return.  Sources report that two would fly to Azerbaijan where Israel now occupies two former Soviet fighter bases.

Israel was building a secret air force in Azerbaijan.  That “secret air force” is now no longer secret, it is public knowledge but few know its history or the threat to world peace this irresponsible act represents.

The bases were supplied through the Georgian port of Poti with cluster and bunker-buster bombs being delivered beginning June 10, 2010.  Units of the Russian Navy observed the deliveries and reported the incident to a world press that suppressed the story.  The ship delivering the illegal arms were flagged American, the USS Grapple.

In consultation with intelligence operatives, it was found that the USS Grapple had been leased to Germany who had then allowed Israel to use it to deliver bombs to the Black Sea port under American naval identity.

USS Grapple – ARS-53

We have since learned that Turkey, despite what they claim is a hostile relationship with Israel, has allowed over flight by Israeli military planes who are using Turkish air space to relocate to Azerbaijan after a two year period of disagreement.

This relationship, negotiated between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Turkish President Erdogan includes provision for Turkey to assume partial territorial control of a border region inside Syria. 

Turkey is planning to seize this territory and call it a “buffer zone” but the “buffer” may include up to 30% of Syrian territory.

Israel and Turkey have agreed to “Balkanize” Syria.  However, the roots of today’s announcement were known some time ago.

On June 18, 2010, over two years ago, this columnist released the following information:

Would Israel take the gamble, or make the U.S. do it?

“A week ago, Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. The Saudi’s quickly denied this.

The effort on Israel’s part was a ruse to cover their real plans, to attack from the Republic of Georgia, close to Iran’s northern border.

However, the breakdown in relations with Turkey after miscalculating the response to their Flotilla raid on a Turkish ship in international waters may have ended this operation.

Israel, whose arms agreements with Turkey mounted to nearly 5 billion dollars over a period of years, had been training pilots in Turkey for bombing attacks on Iran. During these training missions, Israel was smuggling aircraft through Turkish airspace.

Sources indicate that Georgia has become a major transshipment point for narcotics from Afghanistan and other countries in the region. Both a land route through Turkey and into Northern Cyprus and air and sea routes directly into Europe and North America have been cited.

Turkey had allowed Israel to use their air space for training because their terrain closely resembled areas of Iran that Israel planned to attack. However, Turkey was unaware that planes involved in this effort were being relocated to forward staging areas in the Republic of Georgia, making Turkey, technically, fully complicit in this planned illegal attack.

Israeli F-15

Helping coordinate the attack are intelligence units forward stationed in Azerbaijan, under the guise of technicians, trainers and advisors under the broad armaments agreements with that small nation.

Supply operations, moving necessary ordnance, much of it supplied by the United States under ammunition storage agreements, is being moved through the Black Sea to the Georgian Port of Poti, a major site for exporting coal and manganese ore.

Cover for the supply operations is being performed by the Georgian Coast Guard, set up by Israel and manned with Israeli observers. Their job is to keep Russian surveillance craft away from supply operations under the guise of a “Gaza type” naval blockade of Abkhazia, a separatist province supported by Russia.”

Reuters, in its story published today indicated confirmed sources within the military intelligence community of Azerbaijan.  Reuters goes further:

Israeli F-16

“Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.

“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”


That Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude, are well documented.

Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.

But a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.


The unknown factor is Azerbaijan’s ability to withstand a massive and immediate ground assault from Iran.  US Army experts on the region indicate that Iran has a “superhighway direct to Baku,” the capitol of Azerbaijan and keystone to the massive Baku/Ceyhan pipeline.

Azerbaijan’s military, 45,000 active duty, a few thousand reserves and an unarmed and untrained inactive reserve of 300,000 veterans is extremely small in comparison to Iran’s military.

A reasonable estimate is that, under the best of cases with support from both Turkey and Israel, that Baku could fall in 48 hours or less, should they choose to participate in an unprovoked attack on Iran.

If you are not getting a piece of the oil biz, drugs are the only option

Azerbaijan is closely aligned with Turkey.  However, they fought and lost a war in the early 1990’s against Armenia.  Azerbaijan lost 16% of their territory at that time.

During that war, Azerbaijan turned to Al Qaeda and Chechen forces for support, an act that angered Russia.  Azerbaijan is still a “safe haven” for terrorists and is commonly used to transit narcotics from Afghanistan and is a “way station” in human trafficking.

It is believed that an Israeli attack launched from Azerbaijan would unleash an immediate response from Armenia against Azerbaijan.  The two nations have been at the verge of hostilities for nearly two decades.

A recent estimate of regional forces paints a very dark picture for Azerbaijan:

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia has followed a policy of developing its armed forces into a professional, well trained, and mobile military. In 2000, Centre for International Studies and Research reported that at that time the Armenian Army had the strongest combat capability of the three Caucasus countries’ armies (the other two being Georgia and Azerbaijan.

CSTO Secretary, Nikolay Bordyuzha, came to a similar conclusion after collective military drills in 2007 when he stated that, “the Armenian Army is the most efficient one in the post-Soviet space”.

This was echoed more recently by Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Public Council, Russian Ministry of Defense, in a March 2011 interview with Voice of Russia radio.



Check out the company names on these oil fields. All would be grabbed in an attack on  Iran as compensation for the pre-emptive strike.

The 1100 mile pipeline is the only outlet for oil from the Caspian basin to outlets on the Mediterranean.  A branch of the pipeline services the massive Kirkuk oil fields of Northern Iraq.

The pipeline is owned by a number of companies with BP having a 30 percent stake.

The 25% stake theoretically held by SOCAR, the state oil company of Azerbaijan is under Israeli control, as collateral to underwrite Israeli weapons sales.

Israel has an agreement to link to the pipeline through Iraq, a deal negotiated between the Elat Ashkian Pipeline Company of Israel and the US backed Chalabi government that assumed control of Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

It is no longer clear as to whether the current government in Baghdad is still interested in this project.

Additional threats to the pipeline are in Armenia, where it may also be intercepted and in Turkey, where the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group, has put the pipeline out of commission many times.

The significance of the pipeline is great in that, even if Iran has no rationale to cut oil supplies through the Straits of Hormuz, it could easily gain control of 5% of the world’s oil output and put all Caspian Basin oil off the market without in any way interfering with free transit of sea-lanes.

Additionally, the transit fees charged for use of the pipeline are a major source of revenue for both Georgia and Turkey, a source that would immediately end.

Two “wild card” issues are Russia and Iraq.  As Iraq’s government is now under Shiite control and Azerbaijan’s relations with, not just Armenia but Russia have been extremely poor, the chances for this move by Israel turning into a regional conflict or world war are very high.

Taking into account Turkey’s “ham handed” plotting with Israel against Syria and their attempts to spread influence into Central Asia, their short lived position as a potential leader in the Islamic World has clearly taken a “back seat” to Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia.

Israel’s timetable to attack from Azerbaijan is entirely dependent on the risks their long time but highly secretive ally is willing to accept.

Minimally, Azerbaijan might actually disappear.  In a best case scenario, they would lose additional territory to Armenia and suffer total devastation of their oil production and processing facilities and destruction of their armed forces.

For the rest of the world, the result, as expected, higher gasoline prices, higher food prices and more threats to currencies already nearing collapse.

Editing:  Jim W. Dean


Addendum I

By Thomas Grove

BAKU | Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:46pm EDT

(Reuters) – Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy.

But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?

Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.

That is a far cry from the massive firepower and diplomatic cover that Netanyahu wants from Washington. But, by addressing key weaknesses in any Israeli war plan – notably on refueling, reconnaissance and rescuing crews – such an alliance might tilt Israeli thinking on the feasibility of acting without U.S. help.

It could also have violent side-effects more widely and many doubt Azeri President Ilham Aliyev would risk harming the energy industry on which his wealth depends, or provoking Islamists who dream of toppling his dynasty, in pursuit of favor from Israel.

Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.

“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”


That Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude, are well documented.

Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.

But a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.

That he would risk the wrath of his powerful neighbor by helping wage war on Iran is, however, something his aides flatly deny; wider consequences would also be hard to calculate from military action in a region where Azerbaijan’s “frozen” conflict with Armenia is just one of many elements of volatility and where major powers from Turkey, Iran and Russia to the United States, western Europe and even China all jockey for influence.

Nonetheless, Rasim Musabayov, an independent Azeri lawmaker and a member of parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that, while he had no definitive information, he understood that Azerbaijan would probably feature in any Israeli plans against Iran, at least as a contingency for refueling its attack force:

“Israel has a problem in that if it is going to bomb Iran, its nuclear sites, it lacks refueling,” Musabayov told Reuters.

“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access.

“We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations,” he added.


The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear it does not welcome Israel’s occasional talk of war and that it prefers diplomacy and economic sanctions to deflect an Iranian nuclear program that Tehran denies has military uses.

Having also invested in Azerbaijan’s defenses and facilities used by U.S. forces in transit to Afghanistan, Washington also seems unlikely to cheer Aliyev joining any action against Iran.

The Azeri president’s team insist that that will not happen.

“No third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran. All this talk is just speculation,” said Reshad Karimov from Aliyev’s staff. He was echoing similar denials issued in Baku and from Israel when the journal Foreign Policy quoted U.S. officials in March voicing alarm that Azeri-Israeli action could thwart U.S. diplomacy toward Iran and across the Caucasus.

Israeli officials dismiss talk of Azeri collaboration in any attack on Iran but decline public comment on specific details.

Even speaking privately, few Israeli officials will discuss the issue. Those who do are skeptical, saying overt use of Azeri bases by Israel would provoke too many hostile reactions. One political source did, however, say flying unmarked tanker aircraft out of Azerbaijan to extend the range and payloads of an Israeli bombing force might play a part in Israeli planning.

Though denying direct knowledge of current military thinking on Iran, the Israeli said one possibility might be “landing a refueling plane there, made to look like a civilian airliner, so it could later take off to rendezvous mid-air with IAF jets”.

A thousand miles separates Tehran and Tel Aviv, putting much of Iran beyond the normal ranges of Israel’s U.S.-made F-16 bombers and their F-15 escorts. So refueling could be critical.


There is far from unanimity among Israeli leaders about the likelihood of any strike on Iran’s nuclear plants, whether in a wider, U.S.-led operation or not. Netanyahu’s “red line” speech to the United Nations last week was seen by many in Israel as making any strike on Iran unlikely – for at least a few months.

Many, however, also assume Israel has long spied on and even sabotaged what the Western powers say are plans for atomic weapons which Israel says would threaten its very existence.

A second Israeli political source called the idea of Azerbaijan being either launch pad or landing ground for Israeli aircraft “ludicrous” – but agreed with the first source that it was fair to assume joint Israeli-Azeri intelligence operations.

The Azeri sources said such cooperation was established.

As part of last year’s arms deal, Azerbaijan is building up to 60 Israeli-designed drones, giving it reconnaissance means far greater than many analysts believe would be needed just to guard oil installations or even to mount any operations against the breakaway, ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

“With these drones, (Israel) can indirectly watch what’s happening in Iran, while we protect our borders,” legislator Musabayov said – a view shared by Azeri former military sources.

Less reserved than Israeli officials, the sources in Azerbaijan and in Russian intelligence, which keeps a close eye on its former Soviet backyard, said Baku could offer Israel much more, however – though none believed any deal was yet settled.

The country, home to nine million people whose language is close to Turkish and who mostly share the Shi’ite Muslim faith of Iran, has four ex-Soviet air bases that could be suitable for Israeli jets, the Azeri sources said. They named central Kyurdamir, Gyanja in the west and Nasosny and Gala in the east.

The Pentagon says it helped upgrade Nasosny airfield for NATO use. It also uses Azeri commercial facilities in transit to Afghanistan. But U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan is limited by Washington’s role as a mediator in its dispute with Armenia.

One of the sources with links to the Azeri military said: “There is not a single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is ‘officially’. Unofficially they exist, and they may be used.”

The source said Iran had been a main topic of talks in April with Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.


Azeri tarmac, a shorter flight from key sites in northern Iran including the Fordow underground uranium enrichment plant and missile batteries at Tabriz, might feature in Israeli war planning in less direct ways, the former Azeri officers said.

With Israel wary of its vulnerability to pressure over air crew taken prisoner, plans for extracting downed pilots may be a key feature of any attack plan. Search and rescue helicopters might operate from Azerbaijan, the sources said – or planes that were hit or low on fuel could land at Azeri bases in extremis.

Such engagement carries risks for Azerbaijan and its oil platforms and pipelines operated with international companies.

Defending against Iran is part of public debate in Baku. The United States has provided Azerbaijan with three Coast Guard cutters and has funded seven coastal radar sites as well as giving Baku other help in protecting its oil installations.

Relations have long been strained between the former Soviet state and Iran, which is home to twice as many ethnic Azeris as Azerbaijan itself. Tehran beams an Azeri-language television channel over the border which portrays Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and the West, as well as highlighting corruption in Baku.

Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies and agitators.

Faced with an uneven balance of force, Aliyev’s government makes no bones about Israel being an ally. As one presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained: “We live in a dangerous neighborhood; that is what is the most powerful driving force for our relationship with Israel.”

However, Israel’s confrontation with Iran may turn out, the arms build-up in Azerbaijan, including recent Israeli upgrades for its Soviet T-72 tanks, may have consequences for the wider region and for the stand-off with Armenia – consequences that would trouble all the powers with stakes in the Caspian region.

“We keep buying arms. On the one hand, it’s a good strategy to frighten Armenia,” one of the former Azeri officers said of the shaky, 18-year-old ceasefire over Nagorno-Karabakh. “But you don’t collect weapons to hang on the wall and gather dust.

“One day, all these could be used.”

(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

‘No place for the weak’: Netanyahu threatens Iran & Syria at nuclear reactor ceremony

‘No place for the weak’: Netanyahu threatens Iran & Syria at nuclear reactor ceremony
Israel will oppose Iranian presence in Syria with the same zeal it worked to destroy the nuclear deal, and hurt “whoever tries to hurt us,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as he dedicated a nuclear reactor facility.

The Middle East is “no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive,” Netanyahu said on Wednesday, at the ceremony to rename a nuclear research facility in the Negev after the former Prime Minister Shimon Peres. “The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.”

“But our enemies know very well what Israel is capable of doing. They are familiar with our policy. Whoever tries to hurt us – we hurt them,” he added.

PM of Israel


PM Netanyahu: Shimon aspired toward peace but he knew that true peace can be achieved only if our hands strongly grasp defensive weaponry. In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak.

As one example of Israeli determination, Netanyahu cited his efforts in bringing about the cancellation of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA. Israel has opposed the arrangement from the beginning, and though he could not stop the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany from signing the deal in 2015, Netanyahu has lobbied for the US to abandon it – which eventually happened in May this year.

Now, Netanyahu said, Israel will pursue preventing Iran from establishing a military presence in Syria with equal determination.

“No agreement between Syria and Iran will deter us; neither will any threat deter us,” he said. “Whoever threatens us with destruction puts himself in similar danger, and in any case will not achieve his goal.”

Netanyahu credited Peres for setting up the Negev Nuclear Research Center at Dimona in 1958, as part of a vision of “normalisation between core countries in the Arab world and a strong State of Israel.”

That process is “happening before our very eyes, on a scale that would have been impossible to imagine just a few years ago,” Netanyahu said, likely referring to Israel’s outreach to Gulf Arab states against Iran, which they all consider an enemy.

Israel has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and neither confirms nor denies having atomic weapons. Estimates put the Israeli atomic arsenal at anywhere between 80 and 400 warheads.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

…….They follow the Kol Nidre from the Talmud, which allows them to lie to any goyim for whatever reason. They are allowed to steal from the goyim. Do whatever they like to the goyim that is to their benefit

eretz israel spider middle  east


Idlib to become Syria’s final battle with terrorists… if the West stays out of it

Idlib to become Syria's final battle with terrorists… if the West stays out of it
Syrian forces are gearing up to take the last terrorist stronghold, the US is boosting its military presence, and Russia is warning of a false-flag chemical attack. RT looks at the aligning of forces ahead of the battle for Idlib.

American warships, cruise missile delivery systems, strategic bombers and other hardware has arrived to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf earlier this week. Washington is denying that any buildup is taking place, but Moscow says the assets are being gathered for a massive strike against the Syrian government.


A  provocation with chemical weapons, staged by the jihadists, will be used as a pretext for the attack, and Damascus will again be groundlessly accused of poisoning its own people, Russia said. In April, a massive bombardment of Syria by the US, UK and France was triggered by what Russia says was a similarly staged false-flag operation.

Jabhat al-Nusra and other militants in Idlib stand no chance against the Syrian military, backed by Russia and Iran, but Western interference may give them a fighting chance. The US and its allies are making every effort to preserve jihadist forces and use them to remove Syrian president Bashar Assad from power, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said .

READ MORE: Planned chemical weapon provocation in Idlib aimed to prevent removal of terrorists – Lavrov

And if the violence escalates in Idlib, the two million strong population of the northern province will be put in grave danger as the terrorists basically hold the people hostage and use them as a human shield.

The Russian Reconciliation Center continues talks to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Idlib standoff. However, the militants seem reluctant to lay down their arms, which makes the coming days crucial for the fate of Idlib and the whole of Syria.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

NATO mulls naming Brussels HQ after John McCain who “embodied its values”

NATO mulls naming Brussels HQ after John McCain who “embodied its values”
Nothing would embody NATO’s values and ideals more than naming its new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels after the late US senator – and outspoken warmonger – John McCain, said the official who made the proposal.

In a letter to NATO suggesting that the building be named after McCain, one of the senator’s British fans, Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, noted that “very few people embodied the values that NATO is built on” in the way McCain did and said there would be “no more fitting tribute” to his career and life than to have the military alliance’s building named in his honor, CNN reported.

Indeed, given McCain’s impressive record of support for the military organization, its continued expansion across Europe and all its various military interventions around the world, the potential naming of the new building after him does seem rather appropriate.

Since his death last week, McCain has been lauded by colleagues and journalists alike as a great American statesmen who was committed to human rights and justice at home and abroad — but his critics have been quick to note that McCain was perhaps one of the US Senate’s biggest war hawks and that his legacy is not entirely one of greatness.

McCain’s support for US militarism was no more obvious than when weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin released a touching tribute to him on Twitter following his death.

Tugendhat also wrote that there would be “no better message for NATO to send” to the world “at this time of global tension” than to name the building after the late senator.

While some on Twitter reacted to the news with delight, suggesting that naming the building after McCain would be a good way to annoy US President Donald Trump, others were more sarcastic, suggesting it might be appropriate to name a nuclear missile after the senator.

James Kosur


NATO could end up naming its new headquarters after John McCain. Nothing would piss off Donald Trump more so let’s do it! 

NATO Headquarters Might Be Named After Senator John McCain

John McCain may soon be honored by NATO. A new report suggests the organization is considering naming its new billion dollar headquarters after the former Arizona Senator. UK Parliament member Tom…

Jeffrey St. Clair


Maybe they can name a nuclear missile after him while they’re at it… 

NATO considers naming headquarters after McCain

NATO is considering naming its new headquarters after the late Sen.

NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said that Tugendhat’s request had been received by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and would be “considered carefully”.

There have also been calls in recent days to have the Russell Senate Office building on Capitol Hill in Washington renamed after McCain.

While some support the idea, partly due to the fact that the building’s current namesake, the late Georgia Senator Richard Russell, was a segregationist Democrat, others are not too keen on giving the posthumous honor to McCain — perhaps because Trump did not like McCain and therefore few are willing to irk the president by supporting a name change.

In what some on Twitter suggested was an attempt by Google to “troll” Trump after he accused the social media giant of rigging search results against him, Google Maps displayed the Russell Senate Office Building as the “McCain Senate Office Building” for a brief period on Wednesday.


Roger Waters takes aim at ‘scripted’ White Helmets, Facebook censorship in talk with RT

Pink Floyd ex-frontman Roger Waters took aim at the controversial White Helmets group, and spoke about censorship on Facebook and other social media platforms during an interview with RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze.

Waters told the host of SophieCo that he would offer his full support to the White Helmets if he saw that the organization was actually involved in helping victims of the Syrian conflict. But “all the evidence points to the fact that that is not the reality,” he said. Commenting on the Oscar-winning documentary about the supposed humanitarian group, Waters quipped: “Have you ever seen anything so obviously scripted and carefully shot?”

The rock legend also touched upon tech giants cracking down on undesirable speech.

“Now Facebook and Google and YouTube are the way that most people get their news. And they use social media in order to educate themselves or find out what’s going on. But the content is being censored by the corporations that own them. So it won’t be free – I mean, it’s not free now,” he said, adding that he wouldn’t be surprised if he was eventually banned from social media sites because he was anti-war.

Waters tells a personal anecdote about working with a music producer who claimed that RT was “pure propaganda.”

“Well, I watch RT,” Waters said with a grin. “You can’t see a documentary about fracking on American television. Because they’re not interested in telling you anything about anything.”

Watch the full interview in the next installment of SophieCo.

Roger Waters denounces “fake” White Helmets, Don’t bomb Syria

Roger Waters: Pink Floyd star on why his fellow musicians are terrified to speak out against Israel

Exclusive: ‘If they say something they will no longer have a career – I have been accused of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite’

Walters: 'I have been accused of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite'

Walters: ‘I have been accused of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite’ ( Getty Images )

American musicians who support boycotting Israel over the issue of Palestinian rights are terrified to speak out for fear their careers will be destroyed, according to Roger Waters.

The Pink Floyd star – a prominent supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel since its inception 10 years ago – said the experience of seeing himself constantly labelled a Nazi and anti-Semite had scared people into silence.

“The only response to BDS is that it is anti-Semitic,” Waters told The Independent, in his first major UK interview about his commitment to Israeli activism. “I know this because I have been accused of being a Nazi and an anti-Semite for the past 10 years.

“My industry has been particularly recalcitrant in even raising a voice [against Israel]. There’s me and Elvis Costello, Brian Eno, Manic Street Preachers, one or two others, but there’s nobody in the United States where I live. I’ve talked to a lot of them, and they are scared s***less.

“If they say something in public they will no longer have a career. They will be destroyed. I’m hoping to encourage some of them to stop being frightened and to stand up and be counted, because we need them. We need them desperately in this conversation in the same way we needed musicians to join protesters over Vietnam.”

Waters likened Israeli treatment of Palestinians to apartheid South Africa. “The way apartheid South Africa treated its black population, pretending they had some kind of autonomy, was a lie,” he said.

“Just as it is a lie now that there is any possibility under the current status quo of Palestinians achieving self-determination and achieving, at least, a rule of law where they can live and raise their children and start their own industries. This is an ancient, brilliant, artistic and very humane civilisation that is being destroyed in front of our eyes.”

A trip to Israel in 2006, where Waters had planned to play a gig in Tel Aviv and the end of the European leg of his Dark Side of the Moon Live tour, transformed his view of the Middle East.

Roger Waters alludes to the band’s lyrics while painting on the Israeli-Palestinian security barrier in Bethlehem in 2006 (Getty)

After speaking to Palestinian artists as well as Israeli anti-government protesters, who called on him to use the gig as a platform to speak out against Israeli foreign policy, he switched the concert from Hayarkon Park to Neve Shalom, an Arab/Israeli peace village. But as the tickets had already been sold, the audience was still entirely Jewish Israeli.

Waters said: “It was very strange performing to a completely segregated audience because there were no Palestinians there. There were just 60,000 Jewish Israelis, who could not have been more welcoming, nice and loyal to Pink Floyd. Nevertheless, it left an uncomfortable feeling.”

He travelled around the West Bank towns of Jenin, Ramallah and Nablus, seeing how the two communities were segregated – and also visited the security barrier separating Israel from the Occupied Territories spraying a signed message from his seminal work “Another Brick in the Wall”, which read: “We don’t need no thought control”.

Waters soon joined the BDS movement, inviting opprobrium and condemnation for daring to do what so few musicians are prepared to. “I’m glad I did it,” he says, as people in Israeli are “treated very unequally depending on their ethnicity. So Palestinian Israeli citizens and the Bedouin are treated completely different from Jewish citizens. There are 40 to 50 different laws depending on whether you are or you are not Jewish.”

Waters expected to be shouted down by critics, but it is the Nazi accusations that he considers the most absurd, especially given that his father, Lt Eric Waters of the 8th Royal Fusilliers, died aged 31 fighting the Nazis at Anzio, Italy, in early 1944. His body was never found but his name is commemorated at the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery at Monte Cassino.

The pain of not knowing his father, who was killed when Waters was five months old, influenced some of Pink Floyd’s most famous songs.

“I have veterans coming to all my shows and meet them at half time. At a gig in 2013, one veteran came up to me, took my hand, wouldn’t let go and looked me in the eye… I can hardly tell you this now without welling up. He said: ‘Your father would have been proud of you.’

“My father died fighting the Nazis, my mother [a strong CND and Labour supporter] devoted her life to doing everything she could to create a more humane world.

“We are asking questions that have never been asked until the last couple of years, which are bringing the wrath of the Israeli lobby down on people like me and all the others who dare to question and criticise.

“[The Israeli lobby] is determined not to let that conversation develop into one that people can listen to and that is why they accuse us of being Nazis. This idea that BDS is the thin end of some kind of genocidal Nazi wedge that ends up in another Holocaust – well it isn’t.”

Nick Mason, Pink Floyd’s drummer, wrote of Waters in his autobiography: “Once he sees a confrontation as necessary he is so grimly committed to winning that he throws everything into the fray – and his everything can be pretty scary.”

Israel’s incoming ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, Benjamin Netanyahu’s former spokesman, seems to be the next man in Waters’ sights over “this battle of words”.

He said: “I can tell you what Mark Regev is going to say about any situation. He is going to say: ‘What would you do if your children were being slaughtered by terrorists? Do we not have a right to defend ourselves?’ And that is the mantra.”

Waters cites growing activism on US university campuses, often by Jewish students, as reason for optimism that the status quo may change in his lifetime. He often writes letters to those students who, he said, are set to play as important a role in the future of Israel as the anti-Vietnam War protesters played in influencing US foreign policy in the 1960s and 1970s.

“It makes my heart sing to see these young kids organising themselves and I applaud them for taking a stand in what they believe in the face of such huge opposition,” he said.

Roger Waters endorses BDS and speaks against Israeli anti-boycott law



Learn about this colonial apartheid project in the Middle East, created by Britain and now maintained by the US…


The Chosen People and anti-Semitism

Most Jews are unable to adequately explain the concept of Jewish election to outsiders. Most Gentiles think Jews feel they are better than others because G-d chose them.

ed note–as we like to say here often, the ‘Jewish question’ is not as difficult to discern or deconstruct as we are led (by the Jews themselves) to believe. It really all boils down to a few basic protocols–

1. Jewish narcissism as characterized by the ‘we are the chosen people’ paradigm,

2. The elitist and narcissistic behavior (oftentimes criminal, violent, and irrational) that inevitably flows from the elitist and narcissistic mindset that embraces the notion of being ‘chosen’, and

3. The unwillingness on the part of these elitist and narcissistic elements to climb down from the exalted position they have created for themselves and deal fairly and squarely with others, or as famously put by Jesus Christ, the singular man most hated by the Chosen–

‘…Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.

As far as the piece itself, it is a typical, text-book case example of the thousands-of-years-old Judaic mental illness which we like to refer to here as ‘Jtosis’. However, just like a broken clock being right twice a day, our unesteemed Hebraic author does manage to hit the bulls-eye, although he fails to fully grasp the implications of just what he inadvertently blurted out in black and white letters for the entire world to see–

‘ this election (being ‘chosen’)  is probably one of the roots of anti-Judaism.’

Well, what more can we say about that other than–


In other words, Gentiles dislike of Jews throughout history–otherwise mis-named as ‘anti-Shemitism’–is not ‘racist’ in nature but rather–as our unesteemed Hebraic author states plainly–is due entirely to the elitist and narcissistic behavior (oftentimes criminal, violent, and irrational) that inevitably flows from the elitist and narcissistic mindset that embraces the notion of being ‘chosen’ and is therefore not some ‘irrational’ hatred as Jewish hasbaratchiks like to claim.


‘Anti-Shemitism’ is brought on by the Jews themselves, and anytime they truly want it ‘eradicated’, the ball is in their court to do so simply by detoxifying themselves of their Judaism and of its elitist and narcissistic behavior  that is oftentimes criminal, violent, and irrational.

Israel National News

Two days ago I remarked to my 6-year old daughter that I love the God of Israel. She fumed and cried out “Not only people in Israel love God, but other people too!” This remark provoked an epiphany.

If a 6-year child who has been raised in a heavily philo-Semitic environment feels aggravated by God’s special relationship with the Jewish people, this election is probably one of the roots of anti-Judaism.

The rabbinical sages were conscious of this reality and thus drew parallels between the word Sinai and the Hebrew word “sináh” which means hatred. Their inference was that hatred of the Jewish people is rooted in God’s election of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

It would nevertheless be wrong to take this teaching at face value. The Chinese, Japanese, Hungarians and Armenians each believe in different ways they are chosen nations. The fact no other nation believes them saves them from the envy and resentment faced by Jews.

Historically Christians and Muslims claimed they replaced Jews as God’s chosen people. This implicit acknowledgement of Jewish election was crucial in turning many Muslims and Christians into anti-Semites.

Historically Christians and Muslims claimed they replaced Jews as God’s chosen people. This implicit acknowledgement of Jewish election was crucial in turning many Muslims and Christians into anti-Semites.

Christians in the past hated Jews bitterly for their refusal to accept God’s “new Covenant”. It was only after Hitler murdered 6 million Jews that most Christians ceased hating Jews. Christian attitudes have been reformed by shame and guilt for the Holocaust taking place in Christian Europe. However it is no less true that after Auschwitz most Christians do not feel threatened by Jews’ special relationship with God.

Nowadays Muslims tend to hate Jews with a passion out of all proportion to Zionist actions. One of the reasons for this hatred is that Zionist success and Muslim failures discredit Islam’s claims to superseding Judaism. This threatens its doctrine that the Islamic Umma is God’s chosen community.

Secular totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Communism also hated Jews due to their rival narratives of election. The Nordic race and the international proletariat could not brook any competition from a Semitic nation of traders and merchants.

The roots of hostility towards Jews thus lie in Gentile recognition of the election of the Jewish people. This also explains why anti-Semitism is largely absent among Hindus and Buddhists, who ignore this election.

The fact anti-Judaism is partially motivated by a Jewish doctrine is encouraging. If anti-Judaism were solely due to social, political and economic factors extrinsic to Judaism, Jews could do little to remedy the situation. This is demonstrably untrue. The problem can be addressed by educating non-Jews on the genuine meaning of Jewish election.

Regrettably, most Jews are still unable to adequately explain the concept of Jewish election to outsiders. Jews therefore tend to downplay or deny this concept, fueling Gentile suspicions that Jews are not candid about their faith and pushing many Jews to abjure a key tenet of their religion.

Every Jew should be able to state that Jewish election was sealed between God and the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai, and involves Jewish obedience to numerous restrictions in return for divine blessings and protection. The fact these blessings have historically often not been forthcoming, bearing witness to how severely God punishes lax Jewish adherence to divine law.

Claims that divine election is racist must be countered by conversations on how Judaism welcomes sincere converts. Jews should also publicize the 7 Noahide Laws that enable ethical people outside the tent of Judaism to attain salvation. Jews could proudly point out that their religion does not restrict the afterlife to coreligionists.

These elements are essential to refuting the anti-Semitic libel that Jews view themselves as Übermenschen. Indeed, it is high-time the world realizes that no nation has embraced its spiritual mission with more abnegation and self-sacrifice than the Jewish people. Centuries of persecution have only cemented Jewish resolve to fight for global peace, freedom and justice. This is the reason the Chosen People’s relationship with God is, always was and will forever be a blessing for all humanity.