by ERIC STRIKER via National Justice Party

The Iraq war debacle, the relative (to Bush) restraint of the Obama administration, and the 2016 anti-interventionist campaign of Donald Trump may have seemingly discredited the neo-conservative movement and its personalities, but they have come roaring back.

This new stage in American foreign policy could be characterized as Kaganism: neither Democrat or Republican, but rather a non-partisan 21st century crusade for “liberalism.”

Donald Kagan, the patriarch of Kaganism, followed a similar intellectual trajectory to his colleagues Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz: Marxist academics who transformed into rabid Reaganoid Cold Warriors in response to the Soviet Union’s support for Arab nationalism and anti-Zionism in the 1960s. Donald was quite clearly in the Republican camp, though his children have dropped some of the “right-wing” elements of the neo-conservative doctrine (previously used to mobilize Evangelical Christian voting blocs) and replaced it with a unified American state ideology that is as at home in the Democratic Party as it is in the GOP.

Donald’s sons, the American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick Kagan and the Brookings Institute’s Robert Kagan, were highly influential in the George W. Bush administration through think-tanks such as the Project For A New American Century and the Foreign Policy Initiative, though today they have largely distanced themselves from the GOP following the party’s alienation of Jewish elites through Trumpification.

At PNAC, the Kagans were primarily concerned with expanding Israeli power by using the United States to topple Saddam Hussein, Bashar Al-Assad and strangling Iran, but by 2006, they grew increasingly suspicious and hostile towards Russia and China for seeking more control in how they interface with Western (read: Jewish) financial institutions and cultural values, while simultaneously choosing to pursue their own foreign policy paths independent of Pax Americana. Over time, the fears of Kaganism have been vindicated, as Russia and China have evolved from wild card United Nations votes to outright revisionist powers ready to directly confront Washington interlopers in their backyards.

The Kaganists blame the rise of China, Russia and Iran on the war and free trade weary American people, who in 2016 even managed to pressure Hillary Clinton into tactically walking back her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a move that enraged Kagan). For most Americans, the nation-wrecking trade deficits (which are in truth subsidies to buy subservience), trillion-dollar wars, and mountains of body bags required to oversee a world empire are neither necessary or worthwhile for the well-being of the geographically gifted and resource rich United States.

In 2019, current Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Robert Kagan, the husband Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, published an editorial excoriating the “America First” message embraced by segments of both parties and reiterated the minority Jewish-held internationalist elite consensus think-tanks have been churning out for decades. According to Blinken and Kagan, a world of realism, where countries are free of Jewish minders and American blood and treasure is exclusively reserved for the benefit of American people, is a “jungle” that allows budding Hitlers (Putin), Mussolinis (Iran) and Hirohitos (China) to spread “anti-democratic” revolution against “Anglo-American” (a term Kaganists use to identify their civilizational project even as they support demographic replacement of the European stock in English-speaking country) liberal-globalist hegemony.

Under the doctrine of Kaganism, the only solution to global conflicts is to refuse diplomacy with sovereign states that have different cultures or political traditions, and instead kill and replace them through the Bolshevistic export of “American” values around the world, which they describe as the primacy of New York finance and free trade, arbitrary and illegal regime change wars, open borders and the free movement of people, actively demoralizing and disempowering racial majorities, and other planks of the Jewish Open Society that intends to salt all potential seedbeds for “fascism” or “anti-Semitism,” even though much of the world, including the American people, don’t want it.

The central domestic political theory of Kaganism purports that liberalism is in perpetual antagonism with “populism,” (which the Kagans view as a strain of Fascism), in other words, the will of the people. The Kaganists view the democratic accountability of political leaders, self-interested (at least in the case of Gentiles) trade-offs, and the free discussion of ideas as a distraction or minor inconvenience to suppress and push through, as shown in their latest book celebrating Franklin Delano Roosevelt for deceiving the American people into fighting a world war against Germany and Japan, two countries Kagan admits never posed a security threat to the United States but had to be lured into a confrontation anyway.

At the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Frederick Kagan and ISW founder Kimberly Kagan (Frederick’s wife) have written extensively about the information space as a battle realm no different from the land, sea, and air. Under Kaganism, the minds of citizens are clay to be molded, and the role of the American government and business elites is to manufacture consensus for decisions made by Jewish policy makers through the control and manipulation of cyber space and mass media in the name of policing “misinformation.” The Department of Homeland Security, a highly insular Jewish wing of the US government dedicated to domestic spying, sought to formally implement this directive, but then paused its official establishment after popular outcry. The closure of this “disinformation” board was meaningless. Recent journalistic pieces have reported that much of the political content users consume on Facebook, Google and Twitter is subject to direct editorial oversight from droves of FBI and CIA agents employed full time by social media companies. In recent years, Western and Zionist intelligence agencies have been very active in seeking to manufacture popular support for foreign interventions, which in practice range from the amateurish and analogue Syria information war ten years ago to the much more sophisticated, very online and more organic looking pro-Ukraine push.

Most of the Kagan clan is dedicated to providing Washington’s ideological framework, but its most prominent member, Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, has been instrumental in implementing it around the world. Though previously not as well known, Nuland is no stranger to disastrous foreign policy decisions. Prior to serving under Obama, she was an important national security advisor making calls on Iraq for Dick Cheney during the first Bush government. While her husband was busy calling Europeans pussies for refusing to join the “coalition of the willing” against Saddam Hussein, Nuland was busy roping Europe into the Afghanistan quagmire in order to maintain the occupation while easing American logistical challenges in Iraq.

Nuland’s most famous moment came in 2014, after a phone call from to the US embassy was publicized exposing her as one of the shadowy figures behind the coup that overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian government and put the country on track for the bloody war it is currently engulfed in. Nuland has admitted that this coup cost American taxpayers $5 billion dollars.

For Nuland, the lives of “allies” and innocent people are disposable pawns on a chess board. Much like Jewish liberal interventionist Madeline Albright’s famously ghoulish appraisal of trading half a million Iraqi children’s lives just to weaken Iraq’s economy, the Kagans believe the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian casualties and irreparable harm done to the Ukrainian nation is a worthy exchange if it means potentially blemishing Russia and China’s prestige on the world stage or extending Washington’s universal hegemony by a few years.

As the war drags on, polls now show that the majority of Americans oppose giving Ukraine any more aid. Encouraging news for the Ukrainian side has become ever more scant and the famed “counter-offensive” appears to have amounted to nothing, yet Frederick Kagan — the warped mind behind the disastrous 2007 Iraq troop surgeand advocate of a second surge — continues to publish articles with titles like “How The Ukraine Counter-Offensive Can Still Succeed.”

Ukraine is by no means the last we have seen of Kaganism. While the world has reacted in a far more nuanced manner to the conflict than expected and the US has struggled to win most of the world over to the anti-Russian campaign, the neoconservative doctrine is once again ascendent.

Last July, Nuland assumed a new and more powerful role as undersecretary at the State Department. In her previous role as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nuland was publicly identified by the now imprisoned Pakistani leader Imran Khan as the principle architect behind the US orchestrated coup against him, which was executed in retaliation for Khan’s policy of neutrality regarding the Ukraine war. In Niger, where 1,000 US troops are stationed and refuse to leave, Nuland met with the country’s new government to threaten them with violence if they do not restore the deposed puppet government — a threat the Washington-Paris proxy African alliance of ECOWAS has been openly telegraphing as well.

Though Nuland has been lighting fires on every continent on the planet, the most trademark Kaganist escalation has been in the deployment of thousands of US Marines to the Persian Gulf in order to advance Israeli strategic interests.

Shortly after Nuland took her new office, the US State Department announced that continuing the Trump-era project of forging an anti-Iran and anti-Palestinian alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel is now its top Middle East priority.

Ever since Washington arbitrarily left the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, the US has been paying cat’s paws like Saudi Arabia to seize Iranian oil ships in the region in order to damage the Iranian economy. Under international law, this is an act of piracy and Iran is legally allowed to defend its vessels through military measures. Since the seizures began, Iran has been responding to hostile nations by hijacking their ships back and launching drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure.

The Saudis appear to have cut their losses and signed a Chinese brokered peace dealwith Tehran last spring. Riyadh’s demands for breaking this new understanding with Iran, understanding how desperate Washington is to advance Israeli interests, grow more audacious by the minute. In exchange for normalizing ties with Israel, the Saudis want the right to engage in nuclear proliferation, billions worth of high-tech offensive weapons, and a security guarantee that even the Biden administration knows will be heavily abused.

So far, Washington has been reluctant about granting all of Riyadh’s wishes, but the State Department is still keen on showing that it remains very invested in the Middle East. It could even be argued that it is seeking to find a footing for war.

This week, the Department of Defense announced that thousands of US soldiers and the Naval battleships will be deployed to the Strait of Hormuz with instructions to fire upon Iranian forces that attempt to seize any ships. This deployment is an open provocation that the Iranians have vowed to respond to in kind, including by utilizing hypersonic missiles if necessary.

There is a historical precedent for this. Previous US administrations have utilized belligerence at sea with the goal of generating cassus belli to gain popular support for a war elites have already planned. If Washington really wanted safe commerce at sea, they would stop ordering regional neighbors to hijack Iranian ships.

This outrageous behavior is reminiscent of what occurred in 1940 and 1941. While remaining officially neutral, Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided the US had a larger security sphere in the North Atlantic and deployed the Navy to escort British vessels that were losing the naval war to Germany.

By protecting British ships on the Atlantic while simultaneously allowing Allied forces to attack German ships, the US hoped to force the Axis into an open conflict, a point enthusiastically conceded by Robert Kagan in his most recent book on American foreign policy in the first half of the 20th century.

FDR finally got his wish in September 1941, when a German submarine mistakenly fired upon the USS Greer three months before Pearl Harbor. Historians, including Kagan, are in consensus that the USS Greer incident was an honest accident caused by America’s belligerent behavior at sea, but FDR blatantly lied about it and used the incident to incite anti-German and anti-Italian jingoism to try and crack the American people’s steadfast opposition to another European war.

After further over-the-top escalations by the FDR administration, Germany, Italy and Japan decided that they had to take a gamble and try and fight the trans-Atlantic juggernaut in a two front war that they eventually lost in the face of American industrial, financial and numerical advantage that was, even before Pearl Harbor, already powering the Soviet, French, and the British war efforts.

In his 2023 book, Kagan does not view World War III as a conflict humanity would be better off avoiding, but instead a testament to the American empire’s invincibility and the necessity of war to spread the ideologies of liberalism, capitalism and globalism. The Kaganists believe a multi-front war against nuclear-armed China, Russia and (soon) Iran is better than sharing the world with whoever they categorize as “anti-democratic” or “fascist.”

How many Americans agree with that insane prospect?

The Kaganists don’t care. Unless we organize politically to stop them, they’re taking us along for the ride whether we like it or not.

(Republished from National Justice Party

by Nick Kollerstrom via Unz

Untrue stories exist at each end of Jewish history’s three thousand years – fictional, fabricated and of immense magnitude. We may start in the tenth century BCE, where archaeologists have after diligent study found no trace of King Solomon, his Temple or his empire. Half a century of intensive excavation of the Holy Land has now reached that conclusion. The alleged mighty empire of David and Solomon, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates – on the basis of which the modern state of Israel was formed – did not exist. Meanwhile the Bible makes no mention of the great empire of Egypt, which really did in that period stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates. These things must be relegated to storyland, like Moses parting the Red Sea. Experts were finally attaining this negative conclusion as the new millennium dawned, e.g. –

• Mythic Past, Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel, Thomas Thompson, 1999
• David and Solomon, In search of the Bible’s sacred Kings, Israel Finklestein and N.A. Silberman, 2006
• The Quest for the Historical Israel, Finklestein and A. Mazar, 2007
• The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand, 2009
• Palestine, a Four Thousand Year History, Nur Masala, 2018.

Moses, Wikipedia assures us, is just a myth. ‘The Exodus’, traditionally the basis of Jewish self-identity and the most-told narrative in the western world,[1] spawns great conferences which tend to end up with the same threefold negation:

• no evidence for the Children of Israel in Egypt or escaping therefrom,
• no evidence of their trekking across the Sinai desert
• no evidence of them storming into Canaan and conquering the locals.

In modern times, Jews were given land in Palestine and called it ‘Israel.’ Inspired by a great hope, their conviction was that archaeology would validate their epic history, as it had unfolded through past millennia. They went to work with a trowel in one hand and the Bible in the other but received a big shock. The Holy Land did indeed reveal to them centuries of devout monotheism during the time recorded by their ancient scriptures – but, it was a reverence for the Goddess, as shown by the thousands of figurines dug up everywhere in Judea where they excavated. They were all similar with head, torso and large naked breasts.[2] Nor could any trace be discerned of a fierce invasion of Canaan by the Children of Israel as their texts averred, plus the odd record of their Jehovah-god had him with a partner, his ‘Asherath.’

It was discovered that, in the tenth century BCE there had been an intensive drought (the ‘Mycenaean Drought’ which spread across the whole Eastern Mediterranean, lasting for a couple of centuries, which caused many farms and villages to be abandoned. Jerusalem, built on a mountain, had little by way of water supply or fertile land and may well have then been uninhabited, or at best it was a small village selling olives – that’s all. It had no king because there were no kingdoms. Only a century later did the little kingdoms in Canaan – viz. Judea, Ephraim, Samaria/Israel, Moab and Edom, etc. – start to develop, as the drought eased off and the grip of Egypt’s empire weakened. The main cities having temples were then Samaria and Megiddio but not Jerusalem – the latter only grew into the thriving capital city of Judea a few centuries later.

Ancient Israel was sometimes called Samaria and the Assyrians alluded to it as the land of Omri or Omrides, king Omri being its first king. ‘Israel’ may have been more the name of a people than a nation-state. As a region West of the river Jordan – south of Galilee and north of Ephraim and Judea – it was wiped out forever in 720 BCE after it made the mistake of challenging the mighty Assyrian empire. Israel was defeated and absorbed by the Assyrian army, then Hebrews started moving south to Judea which grew strong and prosperous.

Hebrew scriptures told of a brutal god:

Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the Lord

(Leviticus 27:28) and gave heroic-but-fictional accounts of the wiping out cities, slaying of armies, grabbing the loot, etc., with a god constantly reassuring them that they were the apple of His eye and inherently superior to other peoples.

That narrative, whereby they were chosen, has been disintegrating during the 20thcentury. The hope at the foundation of modern Israel is in the process of self-extinguishing, as the full implications of the whole history-that-never-happened continue to unfold. The learned opus by professor Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, well reviewed this process of self-knowledge, a process of cultural implosion, of apprehending that which had not historically existed.

Jews today hardly believe any longer in the god of Deuteronomy or Leviticus. To quote the view of a modern Egyptologist:

The rules he [Yahweh] laid down … were draconian in the extreme, and the deity’s will utterly barbaric. Alien groups whose actions or even presence were deemed in opposition to Israel are consigned to genocidal slaughter at the behest of Yahweh (Exod. 17:14; Num. 31; 1 Sam. 15:3); even fraternization with foreigners brings the plague (Num. 25:9, 18). Anyone who dissents Yahweh burns up (Num. 11:1-3; 16:35); anyone who complains he strikes with plague (Num. 11:33; 14:37; 16:49), or sends poisonous snakes after (Num. 21:6). Aberrant cultic practices, even though indulged in innocently, bring death (Exod. 32:35; Num. 15 :37-40).[3]

With belief in their Yahweh god fading, can their collective identity endure?

The science of genetics looked as if it would come to the rescue, and the search for an ‘Abraham gene’ was on. Or, would it merely show that European Jews had come from Khazaria, an empire on the steppes of Russia which broke up in the tenth century, as Arthur Koestler had argued?[4] Koestler’s thesis remains moderately credible, though the historical record is scant: ‘Khazaria collapsed some time before the first indications of the presence of Jews in Eastern Europe, and it is difficult not to connect he two.” (Sand, p.246)

As regards the genetic studies, Shlomo Sand reckoned that, “The bottom line is that, after all the costly ‘scientific’ endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever.” (Sand, p.278) Modern Israel had become, Sand concluded,

‘a state whose main purpose is to serve, not a civil-egalitarian demos, but a biological-religious ethnos that is wholly fictitious. (p.307)

He was doubtful, as to whether that could endure.

Jews have always had a strong collective being. As an intellectual and cosmopolitan people they tend to lack an inherent connection to a land, a country, a geography. Their self-perception is a continual merry-go-round as to whether they exist as a race, nation or religion. The Hebrew script does extend right back to the 8th century BCE being one of the very first alphabetical scripts and the only one that has endured for so long. It is their story which unfolds over millennia that confers upon them their ‘we,’ binding them together. Their power comes from getting others to believe it.

Today, excitement thrums around the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Jews plan to build the Third Temple. Surely they cannot do so because no ‘First Temple’ ever existed, no temple was ever built on that site.[5] No Hebrew temple was built at the top of a mountain, whereas the Romans always built their forts at the highest point of a locality. That large, flat surface of 35 acres was built as the site of the Roman Tenth Legion and has amazingly lasted for two thousand years. There never was a Temple of Solomon or ruins thereof on it or underneath it.[6] That wall the Jews pray to is the side of a fort where dwelt the Tenth Legion – the one that helped to wipe out a million Jews[7] in 70 AD.

This could be a time for Christians to pay attention to the verse “Do not believe the stories of the Jews’ (Titus 1:14).

Comparing the land of Israel as it was formed in 1949 (see map) with the ancient land, one notes with amusement that the so-called ‘West Bank’ area, where ancient Israel did actually exist (see map) was excluded! That indicates a degree of historical confusion. Also, how come they got to claim that large chunk of the Sinai desert, nowhere near either ancient Israel or Judea?

Three millennia later, we arrive at a comparably massive untruth. The story of the Holocaust served to confer upon Jews their special ‘chosen’ identity in the 20thcentury. It came to the rescue, by employing a dualism whereby the Nazis of WW2 were Evil, and the Jews whom they targeted were Good. That Manichean dualism of good-versus-evil was established at the post-war Nuremberg trials, since when it has been promulgated relentlessly through the entertainment industry. If Jews had been rounded up by the evil Nazis, then by that modern secular criterion they could re-emerge as the Chosen Ones. It’s quite simple, just watch Stephen Spielberg.

This theme has been explored in Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?:

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the philosopher who was an observant orthodox Jew, told me once: “The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from the Holocaust” Remember what? Remember how? Uri Avnery 19.3.05[8]

[N.B., Atzmon, a Sephardic Jew who grew up in Israel and served in the IDF, was found guilty of ‘antisemitism’ in Marylebone Magistrate’s court – sued successfully by the Campaign Against Antisemitism! It was surreal: those guys just don’t know when to stop.]

Towards the end of the 20th century as belief in the origin stories was fading away, the Holohoax morphed into a fearsome modern religion, in which belief is compulsory. As a passport of identity it confers upon Jews a unity and reinforces their special status. Nowadays a mere statue of Anne Frank can conjure up the narrative.

How great an effect does such an untruth exert upon our world! As a science historian I appeal for a recognition of the way in which normal hygiene technology did then operate, in the German labour-camps.[9] Debate on this topic is prohibited because the Establishment knows that it will lose the argument. As to why they need to hang onto it, let us have the courage to answer that question.

Certainly, in WW2 the deadly Nazi cyanide gas chambers were most efficient and they killed millions. Yes. They killed millions of bugs, not jews. Is it not time Jews stopped trying to confuse themselves with bugs? It is undignified. Because of their high IQ their continual claim that it was they, not bugs, that the Zyklon killed continues to warp our whole culture.

Take the fact that around 40% of labour-camp inmates were Jewish. That is unbearable, and why is it unbearable? We are not allowed to discuss it even though it comes from public-domain information.[10] It is unbearable because it would destroy the ‘chosen’ status of Jews. They comprised less than half of the camp inmates. But that would mean they were no longer special. Whereas, it is OK to say that homosexuals were rounded up and likewise doomed to go into the ‘death camps.’ They are allowed to share the virtue of being rounded up by Ze Evil Nazis. They can participate in the fictional narrative because they would be very few in relation to the Jews and so their imaginary presence would not invalidate the holy, sacred doom of the Jews.

Or, take another simple fact: mortality of Jews in the camps was on average no different from other inmates, i.e. overall, they died at much the same rate. It is (I suggest) preferable to avoid giving numbers, so relentless has been the mental programming in that realm. People have padlocked minds and you’ll only get a short soundbite on the matter, if that. Nonetheless if humanity wants a constructive future it needs to endure open discussion on this topic, painful though it may be. Let’s be crystal-clear that the Revisionist is going to win any such debate. Try this for a short soundbite: ‘More Catholics than Jews died at Auschwitz.’[11] Simple facts like this could (I suggest) be effective. Or if you prefer to avoid using the J-word, how about: nobody died of gas in WW2; or maybe: ‘Large human gas chambers have never existed in human history .’ Such simple affirmations can clear away fear and horror. Or, an allusion to the colour pink should be fairly non-threatening, maybe? Try saying, ‘Shame they got the colour wrong’. Death by cyanide leaves a bright pink body, a result of its oxygen-denial mechanism and there was not a single allusion to a pink corpse in any German labour-camp made at Nuremberg,[12] or anywhere else. Bad science – they got the colour wrong! Or, try this short quip used by Kevin Barrett: Once Zyklon started to be introduced into the German labour-camps, in the summer of 1942, mortality went down, not up.

These soundbites are short enough that you might just be able to get them in before the key of the mental padlock is turned.[13]

Christians need to apprehend that it is not a virtue to believe in that which never existed. That won’t save your soul. At both ends of the amazing three-thousand years of Jewish history are tremendous phantoms, imaginations which we the Goyim have been led to believe. That which never was, which never had existence is inscribed as fact in books the whole world over. We need a collective therapy experience of discussing What Really Happened. Only the power of Truth can save us now. Are we capable of that?

Judaism we may conclude must inevitably self-terminate in this 21st century, simply because of the intellectual power of modern Jews, who cannot hope to avoid seeing how their identity-defining narratives have disintegrated. They were tremendous stories, but were never true.

Relevant texts: Shlomo Sand, Invention of the Jewish People 1999; Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? 2011; John Tiffany, Fountain of Fairytales a Scholarly Romp through the Old Testament, 2013; N.K. Breaking the Spell, the Holocaust Myth and Reality, 2014.

Notes

[1] Exodus ‘probably the most influential story ever told:’ Jan Assmann, From Akhenaten to Moses 2016, p.25.

[2] Sawah, Firas Jerusalem in the Age of the Kingdom of Judah, in Thomas Thompson 2003, pp.114-144.

[3] Donald Redford, Egypt Canaan and Israel in ancient times, 1992, p.274.

[4] Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe: the Khazar Empire and its Heritage, 1976.

[5] Robert Cornuke, Temple 2014; Marilyn Sams, The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, 2014.

[6] “No archaeological evidence, direct or indirect, supports the proposal that ancient Jerusalem should be sought within the present-day Temple Mount.” Geva H. and de Groot, A.’The City of David is not on the Temple Mount,’ Israel Exploration journal2017, 67,1, pp.32-49, 32.

[7] Over one million killed: Josephus The Wars of the Jews; the Roman historian Tacitus has less, 600,000.

[8] Quoted in Atzmon, The Wandering Who? P.148.

[9] NK, Breaking the Spell, The Holocaust Myth and Reality, 2014; whatreallyhappened.info.

[10] whatreallyhappened.info/daily.html (discussed in my book Breaking the Spellwhich is NB hard to obtain).

[11] whatreallyhappened.info => Bletchley Park Decrypts => Deaths at Auschwitz in 1942

[12] whatreallyhappened.info/pinknotblue.html

[13] For the changing zeitgeist on this topic, compare Ron Unz’s 2017 article russia-insider.com/en/mainstream-holocaust-narrative-substantially-if-not-entirely-false-editor-top-us-conservative-site with his more recent www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-harvard-racial-discrimination-and-holocaust-denial/

via Moon of Alabama

Just ten weeks ago I was in awe. “This is huge!” I wrote about the surprising news of the restoration of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran after mediation by China (and Russia).

With that it was obvious that the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen between Iran friendly and Saudi sponsored forces would be coming to an end. But no one predicted the speed with which that is now happening.

Today President Assad of Syria was welcomed back in Saudi Arabia to a summit of the Arab League.

Syria’s Assad shakes hands, kisses cheeks with onetime foes at Arab League summit

Every handshake would count, and Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad had plenty of them at Friday’s Arab League Summit – along with hugs and kisses – from his onetime foes in the region.As he strolled into the summit venue in the Saudi city of Jeddah on Friday afternoon, a beaming Assad extended his arms to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who grabbed them both and kissed Assad once on each cheek.

It was a symbolic moment, sealing Assad’s reintegration into the Arab fold after being suspended from the League and isolated by most of the region for over a decade over his crackdown on protests against him.

Attempts by the U.S. and the neoconned foreign minister of Germany Annalena Baerbock to prevent this have failed. Even countries still somewhat hostile to Syria – Qatar, the United Emirates and Marocco – refrained fromvetoing the step. Arab unity is more important to them than some out-of-area interests.

As Juan Cole summarizes:

Washington is now the skunk at the diplomats’ party. The Iranians were never likely to trust the Americans as mediators. The Saudis must have feared telling them about their negotiations lest the equivalent of another Hellfire missile be unleashed.
…
Where two sides are tired of conflict, as was true with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Beijing is clearly now ready to play the role of the honest broker. Its remarkable diplomatic feat of restoring relations between those countries, however, reflects less its position as a rising Middle Eastern power than the startling decline of American regional credibility after three decades of false promises (Oslo), debacles (Iraq) and capricious policy-making that, in retrospect, appears to have relied on nothing more substantial than a set of cynical imperial divide-and-rule ploys that are now so been-there, done-that.

Withe Arabs united Israel is now an isolated outlier. Salman Rafi Sheikh analyses the new situation it finds itself in:

While the US and Israeli officials have stated that the Iran-Saudia deal doesn’t impact the politics and the possibility of the possible extension of the Abraham Accords, it remains that the deal has not materialised despite various rounds of talks. While one of the key reasons is the change of government in the US, with the Biden administration not sharing the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for both peace in the Middle East and deep ties with Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, too, is not keen to make this deal. In other words, the China-led ‘new’ peace process in the Middle East is nothing short of a setback for Israel.
…
As irony would have it – and as it may further complicate the US position – China recently offered its services to mediate between Israel and Palestine to develop a realistic peace plan. If the US fails to convince Saudia, Israel, fearing increasing isolation, may ultimately move towards China for a new peace process.

The Saudis are even rebuilding their relations with Hamas, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood entity which the U.S. has declared to be a ‘terrorist group’:

For Israel, this move is a major setback for two basic reasons. First, it shows that the Saudi state is not mindlessly pursuing talks with Israel. In fact, Saudi moves are aimed at squeezing regional space for Israel in order to force it to make difficult choices. Secondly, the report shows that Saudi Arabia is actively countering the US in the Middle East. Establishing ties with Hamas directly confronts the US insofar as the Saudis do not consider Hamas as a terror group, at least in the same sense as Washington and Jerusalem evidently do.
…
For Israel, this is a challenging situation. It can either stick to its traditional way of geopolitics and pursue its interests aggressively and risk wider confrontation, or it can turn to China for the ‘new’ peace process. The latter option will, however, further undermine the US position in the Middle East.

I do not see much hope for any talks with Israel as it can not commit to any reasonable solution. Jonathan Cook provides that it is falling apart:

The surprise is that Israel’s woes spring not, as generations of its leaders feared, from outside forces – a combined attack from Arab states or pressure from the international community – but from Israel’s own internal contradictions.
…
Israel’s long-term problem is underscored by the current, bitter standoff over Netanyahu’s plan for a so-called judicial overhaul. The Israeli Jewish population is split down the middle, with neither side willing to back down. Rightly, each sees the confrontation in terms of a zero-sum battle.And behind this stands a political system in near-constant paralysis, with neither side of the divide able to gain a stable majority in the parliament. Israel is now mired in a permanent, low-level civil war.

Israel’s problem, since its founding, are the two distinct groups that it attempted to unite under the roof of Zionism. The more secular and liberal European Ashkenazi have mostly led the country while the Middle Eastern Mizrahim and Ultra orthodox Haredim played a side role. But they have the higher birthrate and are on their way to become the majority. The aims these different groups have are incompatible and feed a permanent conflict:

For decades, the Ashkenazi leadership assumed the religious right, especially the Mizrahim and Haredim, would accept their inferior status in Israel’s Jewish hierarchy so long as they were bought off with privileges over the Palestinians.But the religious right is now greedy for more than the right to oppress Palestinians. They want the right to shape Israel’s Jewish character too.

The religious fervor the Ashkenazi establishment hoped to weaponize against the Palestinians, especially through the settlement enterprise, has come back to bite it. A monster has been created that increasingly cannot be tamed – even by Netanyahu.

The new Middle East has now only one entity that is swimming against new the Zeitgeist current. That entity is disunited and unable to decide on anything. There is no one on the Israeli side with whom China, or anyone else, could make a deal over Palestine that would stick.

Should the Mizrahim and Haredim win, which they likely eventual will, the more secular Ashkenazi may even start to leave. Israel’s capabilities would leave with them. A reabsorption of a less capable and rich Israel into a wider Middle East might then become possible.

It would an astonishing development.

But so is the current one.

via Moon of Alabama

The Nation has a new, and way too long, piece about secret Israeli interventions in favor of Donald Trump during the 2016 election campaign:

The Trump Campaign’s Collusion With Israel
While US media fixated on Russian interference in the 2016 election, an Israeli secret agent’s campaign to influence the outcome went unreported.

The piece is by James Bamford who has revealed and written a lot about shady intelligence stuff.

Before we go into details here is a short summary of the story. A Netanyahoo aid with intelligence experience contacted Trump aide Roger Stone and fed him news of upcoming releases of the emails that were allegedly hacked from the Democratic National Council (DNC). Later similar occurred with the emails from Hillary Clinton and her political advisor John Podesta. The Israelis informed Stone of these ‘hacks’ before anyone else knew of those issues.

The ‘hacks’ were later claimed, without any evidence, to have been done by the Russians. Bamford, the author of the Salon piece, holds that up. However the details he describes, what the Israelis knew when and what they had told Roger Stone, make it way more likely that it was some Israeli entity which had acquired the emails and used them to give Trump an advantage in the campaign in exchange for political concessions.

It has never been proven that the DNC has been hacked. Many people have pointed to Seth Rich, a DNC IT administrator who had favored Bernie Sanders and was disgruntled after the DNC cheated to make Clinton the candidate. He may indeed have downloaded the DNC emails and may have given them to someone else. Later Seth Rich was murdered under curious circumstances. What I did know until I researched on him today is that Seth Rich was Jewish which may have played a role in the events Bamford tells about.

Here now is the essence of The Nation story:

While the American media and political system fixated on Russian President Vladimir Putin and his armies of cyber warriors, trolls, and bots, what was completely missed in the Russiagate investigation of 2016 was the Israeli connection. No details of it were ever revealed in the heavily redacted Mueller Report. Nor was there any mention of an Israeli plot in the similarly redacted Senate Intelligence Committee Report on collusion charges in the 2016 election, or in any of the indictments or trials stemming from the Russia charges. Nor did any mention of Israeli involvement ever leak into the press. Yet I can reveal here the details of an elaborate covert operation personally directed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that aimed to use secret intelligence to clandestinely intervene at the highest levels in the presidential election on behalf of Trump.Shadowy hints of the plot only became visible with the little-noticed release in 2020 of a heavily redacted May 2018 FBI search warrant and its accompanying affidavit.
…
Although the affidavit did not specify any individual defendants, the numerous potential criminal charges laid out in the FBI documents spoke to the seriousness of the Israeli plot.

For his intervention in the U.S. election Netanyahoo used Isaac Molho, a ‘trusted aide he would send on the most sensitive missions’:

The key for the Israeli agent was finding a back door—a covert channel—to Trump. Roger Stone, long a key Trump aide, fit the bill.
…
Another Trump aide heavily involved in the conspiracy, according to the FBI documents, was Stone’s associate Jerome Corsi, who appears to have been the original contact who connected the Israelis to Stone.
…
After Corsi provided contact information to Stone, the secret Israeli agent and Stone connected. Then, on May 17, the agent wrote, “Hi Roger, I hope all is well. Our dinner tonight for 7PM is confirmed. I arrive at 4PM. Please suggest a good restaurant that has privacy.” The original plan was for Stone and the agent to meet alone, but Stone wanted to bring Corsi along as backup. “I am uncomfortable meeting without Jerry,” Stone wrote, and then rescheduled the dinner for the next day.According to the FBI warrant, the same day that Stone communicated with the Israeli agent, he began Googling some very strange terms, including “guccifer” and “dcleaks.” It would be nearly a month before those same terms would make headlines around the world. On June 14, The Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked by Russian government agents. The next day, someone calling himself “Guccifer 2.0” took credit for the attack. He claimed to be an American hacktivist, but according to a Justice Department indictment in July 2018, he was actually a Russian GRU employee. Soon afterward, the website DCLeaks—another front for the GRU—began releasing hacked Democratic Party documents.

There is no evidence that the GRU, a military(!) spy service, had anything to do with the ‘hack’, the Guccifer entity or with DCLeaks. The claims were always evidence free and never made sense. But before these entities stepped into the world the Israeli spy briefed Roger Stone on them:

The timing implies that the Israeli agent was Stone’s most likely source of confirmed details of a Russian cyberattack on the DNC, a month before it became known to anyone outside of the Kremlin and the GRU. If that’s the case, there are two critical questions: How did the Israeli agent know, and why was he revealing the details to a close associate of Trump rather than to the Obama administration, Israel’s supposed ally?

The obvious answer is of course that there were no Russians involved and that the Israelis, maybe through Seth Rich, did the ‘hacking’:

On May 18, the day after Stone’s Google searches, Stone, Corsi, and the Israeli agent met for dinner at the 21 Club on 52nd Street in New York City.
…
The next day, the agent pressed Stone in an e-mail: “Did You Talk To Trump This Morning? Any News?” But Stone was coy. “Contact made—interrupted—mood good.”

Then, in early June, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Stone learned that Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, was about to release something “big.” Stone relayed the details to Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign manager, and told him that Assange appeared to have Clinton’s e-mails. Yet it wasn’t until later, on June 12, that Assange would publicly announce that WikiLeaks had “emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”

However it was later proven that Stone had never been in contact with Assange or Wikileaks. Someone else must have told him that Wikileaks had or soon would have the Clinton emails and would release them. It might well have been someone from the group that had actually acquired the emails:

These were the first of many tips to Stone that appear to have come from his new Israeli friend. Two days later, the DNC announced that it had been hacked by Russia. The day after that, Stone again Googled “Guccifer” and “dcleaks,” hours before Guccifer 2.0 publicly claimed responsibility. On June 21, as Guccifer released more documents, the Israeli agent notified Stone that he was in New York accompanied by a senior official and would like a meeting with Trump.
…
“Hi Roger,” the Israeli agent wrote on July 8. “Have you rescheduled the meeting with DJT? The PM is putting pressure for a quick decision.”

Stone seems to have had continuous contact with the Israeli agent:

As Trump stormed the Midwest for votes, Guccifer 2.0 was making final preparations for another major release of documents. On July 14, Guccifer sent WikiLeaks an e-mail titled “big archive,” with a one-gigabyte encrypted attachment. Four days later, on July 18, the WikiLeaks Twitter account notified Guccifer the data had been received and that release of the hacked DNC e-mails was planned for later in the week.On or around the next day, Donald Trump […] took a phone call from Roger Stone.

“Roger, how are you?” said Trump.

“Good,” Stone replied. “Just want to let you know I got off the telephone a moment ago with Julian Assange. And in a couple of days, there’s going to be a massive dump of e-mails that’s going to be extremely damaging to the Clinton campaign.”

Trump was pleased. “Uh, that’s good. Keep me posted,” he said into a small black speaker box on his desk. Sitting nearby was Michael Cohen. “Do you believe him? Do you think Roger really spoke to Assange?” Trump asked.

“I don’t know,” Cohen said. “Roger is Roger, and for all you know, he was looking on his Twitter account. I don’t know the answer.”

In the end, neither Mueller’s team nor the FBI could ever find any substantive or conspiratorial communications between Stone and WikiLeaks.

Again Stones information about the upcoming leaks was coming from the Israeli agent:

[T]here was no indication of how Stone could have known what he knew—which left only one apparent explanation: that the information had been passed to him by Netanyahu’s agent. As in the case of the DNC hack, the information was 100 percent accurate.

Then Bamford, promoting the Russian hack nonsense, puts up this weird attempt of an explanation:

There was never any evidence that Stone learned of the releases from either WikiLeaks or the Russians, but during that period both he and Jerome Corsi were in contact with the Israeli agent. Israel’s version of the NSA, Unit 8200, which employs some of the most highly trained signals intelligence specialists in the world and is equipped with advanced intercept capabilities, may well have been surveilling Russia and WikiLeaks.

The alternative, that some Israeli agents acquired the DNC emails, maybe through Seth Rich, and later got into Podesta’s email account, gets ignored. It would have been easy for them to set up the Guccifer entity and to push the material to Wikileaks.

I find that way more likely than Bamford’s evidence free speculation that Israeli spies had bugged the Russians and Wikileaks.

Three days later, on July 22, as Hillary Clinton was preparing to announce her choice of a running mate on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks released approximately 20,000 e-mails stolen from the DNC. “I guess Roger was right,” Trump told Cohen.

Now comes the Podesta case:

On Wednesday, July 29, the Israeli agent was back in touch with Stone and Corsi and eager to connect with Trump now that the convention was over and he was the Republican nominee. … The next day, the two spoke on the phone for 68 minutes. The following day, July 31, Stone had two phone calls with Trump that lasted over 10 minutes.Then on Tuesday, August 2, despite previous failed attempts to connect with Assange, Corsi was nevertheless able to send a detailed message to Stone about WikiLeaks’ future plans:

Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging…. Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke—neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle.

Corsi later told Stone that there was “more to come than anyone realizes. Won’t really get started until after Labor Day.” The details, including the first indication that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was a target, were coming from somewhere other than Assange.
…
[I]t appears that Israel either had its own October Surprise planned or was aware of Guccifer’s planned release of the Podesta e-mails before the election. The day after Corsi suggested meeting with Netanyahu’s agent, Stone for the first time publicly indicated that Podesta would soon become a target of WikiLeaks—thereby predicting the event six weeks before it happened. “Trust me, it will soon the [sic] Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary,” said his tweet. Since neither Assange nor Guccifer was a source for either Corsi or Stone, the tweet once again points to the Israeli agent who was in communication with both of them about the October Surprise.
…
Around the same time, Stone had a conversation with Paul Manafort, who by then had left the campaign but stayed in communication with Trump’s political circles. According to Manafort’s later Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Stone told him that “John Podesta was going to be in the barrel,” repeating the claim he made by tweet on August 21, and that “there were going to be leaks of John Podesta’s emails.” A few days later, on September 29, Stone called Trump, who was on the way to New York’s LaGuardia Airport in his black bulletproof limo. After concluding the call, Trump told Rick Gates, who was sitting next to him, that “more releases of damaging information would be coming.”

On October 7, WikiLeaks unleashed 2,050 Podesta e-mails that were damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign—just as Stone had predicted a month and a half earlier.

There was no ‘Russian intervention’ in the 2016 election but an Israeli intervention that was all over the place. As usual the deep state covered that up:

Throughout this chain of events—including the trial, the Mueller Report, and the nearly 1,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee Report—no hint of the involvement of Israel was made public. Despite the clear violations of US law and months of clandestine, high-level attempted interference in the presidential election, no details were released, and no congressional hearings or investigations took place. Nor was there ever a hint in the press, which remained transfixed by Russia.The evidence, however, suggests that throughout the summer and into the fall of 2016, Israel illegally interfered in the US presidential election. A top agent of Netanyahu was secretly offering intelligence and other covert assistance to Trump to get him elected—all with virtually no oversight or scrutiny by the FBI or the US media, though both had numerous personnel in Israel at the time.

Finally, nearly 8 years after it happened, we have for the first time a reasonable explanation for the ‘hacks’ and releases of the Clinton, DNC and Podesta emails. Natanyahoo’s agents did that in exchange for political concessions to Israel by Trump.

Those Israeli agents will have had a great time laughing about the ‘Russian intervention’ nonsense the U.S. public has failed for.

A secretive Israeli group allegedly manipulated more than 30 elections worldwide using hacking and state-of-the art disinformation techniques, according to an investigation conducted by an international consortium of journalists.

Several media outlets, including the Guardian, Le Monde, ZDF, Der Spiegel and El Pais looked into a team of contractors known as ‘Team Jorge’, run by Tal Hanan, a 50-year-old former Israeli secret services operative. The latter has denied any wrongdoing.

To expose the group’s alleged clandestine operations, the reporters passed themselves as prospective clients while covertly recording several hours of footage inside the meetings with the unit’s members. Hanan allegedly told reporters that his services could be used by both private companies and intelligence agencies, with operations taking place in Europe and Africa, as well as in North, Central and South America.

In a video clip released by The Guardian on Wednesday, Hanan himself appears to boast that his group has completed “33 presidential-level campaigns … 27 of which were successful.” He also reportedly said that he took part in two “major projects” in the US, adding that he does not engage directly in the nation’s politics.

According to the investigation, ‘Team Jorge’ would charge their clients between €6 and €15 million ($6.4–16 million) to interfere in elections.

During the meetings, the team reportedly demonstrated their methods for swaying elections, which included cyber hacking and special operations.

The key tool in the group’s arsenal, however, appears to be a software package called Advanced Impact Media Solutions, or Aims. With its help, the group is believed to be controlling some 30,000 sophisticated bots on various social media platforms.

The team also reportedly claimed that it had planted the required information in legitimate new outlets. Against this backdrop, French BFM TV Channel suspended one of its anchors, Rachid M’Barki, after undercover journalists were reportedly told by one of ‘Team Jorge’ members that the group was behind one report broadcasted by the outlet.

M’Barki himself told Politico that he “used information that [he] received from sources” and that “they did not necessarily follow the usual editorial process.”

A comment on the situation regarding the attacks on Iran: Israel is most likely carrying out those unprovoked attacks on Iran out of a desire to hide embarrassment at not being able to contain the most recent stabbings and shootings.

Israeli politics are already usually a clown show, a banana country on steroids. The prime minister is proven to be corrupt, a turd you simply cannot flush: no matter what happens, power ends up in his hands.

To make it worse, the current parties that back him are the most extreme, mentally deranged fascist lunatics and that is saying a lot, considering competition on that in Israel is very high.

It is insulting, infuriating, that the same group of rich countries constantly attacking Russia supports Israel to the hilt, refusing to condemn even their most blatant and absurd crimes. Here we have them doing pretty much everything Russia is accused of, in fact, going even further, as not even the most rabid western commentators would claim that Russia started a war so the president’s popularity could rise.

Every time Netanyahu wants to take the focus away from his mistakes, people randomly die. Or when they have an election, which in Israel is every six months. Neocons usually defend Israel as the “only democracy of the middle east”, a very misleading label, as their internal politics have spiralled out of control and are now a threat to the entire world. @Slavyangrad

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire Net

by LAURENT GUYÉNOT via Unz Review

Zionist crocodile’s tears

“Jack said it to me sometimes. He said, ‘Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president.’” (Jacqueline Kennedy, 1964)[1]

“President Kennedy’s unfailing support of the cause of Zion Reborn has enshrined his memory in the hearts of our people everywhere,” wrote Los Angeles rabbi Max Nussbaum, president of the Zionist Organization of America and chairman of the American Zionist Council, in a book published in 1965 by the Theodor Herzl Foundation, under the title John F. Kennedy on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Issues (online here). The book contains a meager collection of the rare friendly words Kennedy spoke about Israel, mostly during his tenure as senator. Nussbaum also wrote:

His staunch friendship for Israel, his concern for its security and for its survival as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East were natural outgrowth of his deep conviction that the rebirth of the State of Israel represents the rectification of the cruel wrong done to a people which suffered oppression and humiliation for two thousand years.[2]

Still today, Zionist Jews keep telling of their reciprocated love affair with Kennedy. Here Kennedy is listed among “the five American presidents who loved the Jewish people,” the evidence being a photo of Golda Meir and Kennedy walking through the same door and two Jewish names in Kennedy’s government (Abraham Ribicoff and Arthur Goldberg), as well as the fact that,

after Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the Jewish people reciprocated his love for them by renaming the Synagogue Council of America’s annual peace award “The John F. Kennedy Peace Award,” making him the only U.S. President for whom a national Jewish award has been named.

More “proofs” of Kennedy’s love for the Jews are given by Ron Kampeas on Haaretz. For instance: “In 1961, Kennedy pardoned Herman Greenspun, the Las Vegas Sunpublisher who had been convicted in 1950 on charges related to gun running to the nascent Zionist state.” In return, Jews proved their love for Kennedy when, “The night of assassination, nightclub owner Jack Ruby attended a memorial service for the president at Temple Shearith Israel in Dallas” (incidentally, Ruby and Greenspun actually belonged to the same arms-smuggling network of “gangsters for Zion”headed by Meyer Lansky). Moreover the film of Kennedy’s execution “was made by a Jewish Kennedy supporter from Dallas named Abraham Zapruder.” Fancy that! Zapruder, whose office was in the Dal Tex building overlooking Dealey Plaza, loved Kennedy so much that his camera didn’t tremble when Kennedy’s head exploded. Look how shocked he is when interviewed on Dallas TV just two hours later.

Zapruder (right) on Dallas TV two hours after shooting Kennedy’s death

And imagine how he felt when, the next day, he sold his film for $150,000 (more than $1 million today) to Life magazine. A funny book just came out about Zapruder’s “chance encounter with evil”, “by sheer happenstance”, that “ended up destroying the rest of his life”, and caused so much suffering to his family too. Imagine: in 1999 they received $16 million after suing the U.S. government for seizing the film.

But back to Ron Kampeas. He is the Washington bureau chief of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, so unless being an idiot was part of the job description, I assume he is taking the American Goy for a ride. And how are we to take the very title of the article, “John Kennedy: A Martyr Who Worried About the Spread of Nukes,” after reading the concluding paragraph:

Kennedy wanted Americans to inspect the [Dimona] plant; Israel kept dodging the requests. In May 1963, Kennedy threatened to isolate Israel unless it let in the inspectors. Neither he nor Johnson ever made good on the threat, and today, Israel’s nuclear capabilities are its worst-kept secret.

Perhaps Kampeas is an idiot after all. Informed Israelis, I reckon, now understand that the very purpose of Kennedy’s assassination was to prevent him from making good on the threat, and to replace him by Johnson, who “saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona,” as Stephen Green once wrote.[3] My best guess, though, is that Kampeas is being ironic, for he himself wrote about Johnson, in an article titled “Israel has had no better friend”:

Historians generally regard Johnson as the president most uniformly friendly to Israel … LBJ soon abandoned pressure on Israel to come clean about the Dimona reactor. He increased arms sales to Israel and in 1968, after Israel’s primary supplier, France, imposed an embargo as a means of cultivating ties in the Arab world, the United States became Israel’s main supplier of weapons, notably launching the talks that would lead to the sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel. … during the [1967 Six-Day] war, he ordered warships to within 50 miles of Syria’s coast as a warning to the Soviets not to interfere. In a speech in the war’s immediate aftermath, Johnson effectively nipped in the bud any speculation that the United States would pressure Israel to unilaterally give up the lands it had captured.[4]

On reflexion, I think the reason why Zionists go out of their way to present Kennedy as a friend of Israel is to conceal the most significant reversal of foreign policy that occurred after his assassination, because that reversal identifies the greatest beneficiary of the assassination. As an example of this distortion of historical truth, University of Haifa professor Abraham Ben-Zvi claimed in an article published in Israel Affairs titled “Stumbling into an Alliance: John F. Kennedy and Israel,” that Kennedy, not Johnson, is responsible for America’s special relationship with Israel, because he “upgraded security guarantees without insisting any longer on a reciprocal Israeli concessions concerning Dimona.”[5] That is demonstrably untrue, and Ben-Zvi must know it. The master of such deception is Noam Chomsky, who repeatedly declared that JFK’s murder is not worth investigating, since it had no effect on U.S. policy and therefore couldn’t possibly be a coup. Here he is quoted by Jim DeBrosse in See No Evil: The JFK Assassination and the U.S. Media:

There is a significant question about the JFK assassination: was it a high-level plot with policy implications? That’s quite important, and very much worth investigating. I’ve written about it extensively, reviewing all of the relevant documentation. The conclusion is clear, unusually clear for a historical event: no. / That leaves the question open as to who killed him: Oswald, Mafia, Cubans, jealous husbands, …? Personally, that question doesn’t interest me anymore than the latest killing in the black ghetto in Boston.

But Chomsky is lying. For, as DeBrosse comments, “there was at least one clear policy change in the transition from the Kennedy to the Johnson administrations: U.S. willingness to supply offensive weapons to Israel and to look the other way as Israel secretly developed a nuclear arsenal in the tinder box of the Middle East.”[6] Chomsky knows this. But he doesn’t want Americans to know it, for if they knew it, their interest in the assassination of President Kennedy would get rekindled, and they would start wondering if Israel had anything to do with it. That is why it is important for Zionists—even for anti-Zionist Zionists, as Gilad Atzmon called people like Chomsky—to keep saying that Kennedy loved Israel and would never have done anything that undermined its security. After all, wasn’t his brother murdered because he loved Israel too?[7]

Why Israel needed to subvert détente

November 22, 1963 was a coup d’état. That is the premise from which any discussion about JFK’s assassination should start. The coup was invisible at the time, because Johnson created an illusion of continuity. What changed dramatically only became public knowledge in the 1990s. In the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 2009, we read that, “Lyndon Johnson Was First to Align U.S. Policy With Israel’s Policies.”

Up to Johnson’s presidency, no administration had been as completely pro-Israel and anti-Arab as his. … Not only was he personally a strong supporter of the Jewish state but he had a number of high officials, advisers and friends who shared his view. … These officials occupied such high offices as the ambassador to the United Nations, the head of the National Security Council and the number two post at the State Department. They were assiduous in putting forward Israel’s interests in such memoranda as “What We Have Done for Israel” and “New Things We Might Do in Israel” and “How We Have Helped Israel.” … So pervasive was the influence of Israel’s supporters during Johnson’s tenure that CIA Director Richard Helms believed there was no important U.S. secret affecting Israel that the Israeli government did not know about in this period.[8]

Although Dimona was probably the most urgent reason for replacing JFK with LBJ, as Michael Collins Piper has shown in his groundbreaking book Final Judgment, it was not the only one. The problem of Dimona cannot be separated from the wider geopolitical context of the Cold War. For the Soviets were as worried as Kennedy about nuclear proliferation.[9] Against Piper’s theory, it has been argued that Kennedy had no power to stop Israel from getting the Bomb, and that there was therefore no necessity for Israel to kill him.[10] That may be true: the real danger for Israel was if both the United States and the Soviet Union joined their effort to thwart Israel’s nuclear ambition. When Khrushchev’s minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko visited the White House on October 3, 1963 to discuss ways of expanding the progress of the Limited Test Ban treaty, Kennedy tasked his Secretary of State Dean Rusk to bring up the issue of Israel’s secret nuke program with Gromyko in his evening meeting at the Soviet Embassy.[11] If Americans and Russians agreed to stop Israel from getting the Bomb, Israel would have had to comply.

But worst than the risk of being deprived of their “Samson option”, the nascent cooperation between Kennedy and Khrushchev toward détente presented an even more distressing danger: their common support of Israel’s greatest foe, Egypt. This point is well made by author Salvador Astucia in Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination (2002, in pdf here)[12]:

Both Kennedy and Khrushchev had stronger ties with Egyptian President Nasser than with Israel. Their befriending of Nasser, a living icon symbolizing Arab unity, was a signal to Israel that both superpowers had more interest in the Arab world than in Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish homeland, let alone its expansion into neighboring Arab territories.[13]

“In short,” writes Astucia, “détente would mark the beginning of the end for Israel as a world power because neither superpower had a strategic interest in Israel.”[14] What was urgently needed was to transform Egypt into a ground for confrontation rather than rapprochement.

Astucia published his book in 2002, and lacked hindsight on 9/11 to draw the parallel that can now be drawn between President Kennedy’s assassination and the false flag attacks of September 11th, 2001. The parallel should be clear to those who now understand that 9/11 was both a massive psychological operation and a foreign policy coup aimed at drawing the U.S. on the side of Israel against its Arab enemies (see my previous Unz Review article). As I wrote for the film 9/11 and Israel’s Great Game: “In 2001, Israel’s reputation had fallen to its lowest level in international public opinion. Condemnations were voiced from all sides against its apartheid and colonization policies, and its systematic war against Palestinian leadership structures. The attacks of 9/11 instantly reversed this trend. Americans experienced the attacks as an act of hatred on the part of the Arab world, and thus felt immediate sympathy for Israel. … Overnight, after the 9/11 attacks, Western opinion had amalgamated the Arab world and the Palestinian resistance with Islamic terrorism.”

In 1963, the situation was comparable. Israel was getting strong condemnations from world leaders, and heavy pressure from Kennedy’s administration. In his early months at the White House, Kennedy had committed himself to President Gamal Abdel Nasser and other Arab and African heads of State to support U.N. Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. In the fall of 1962, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had reacted to Kennedy’s insistent pressure with a letter to be circulated among Jewish-American leaders, in which he stated: “Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs. … Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.”[15] On November 20, 1963, Kennedy’s delegation to the United Nations was, again, urging Israel to implement Resolution 194.

During Kennedy’s presidency, Zionist influence over public opinion was still limited, and Kennedy had enough leeway to implement a balanced policy in the Middle East. Most Americans still had in mind Israel’s unprovoked aggression against Egypt in 1956, backed by France and England.

Incidentally, that crisis had revealed a major difference between Kennedy and Johnson. When Eisenhower backed UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld’s decision to impose sanctions on Israel, Johnson used all of his political muscle as Senate Majority Leader to save Israel from that embarrassment. He even wrote a letter of protest to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which made the front page of the New York Times on February 20, 1957.

John Kennedy did not challenge Johnson, a fellow Democrat, openly. But five months later, he came forward on the Senate floor as a strong supporter of Arab nationalism, denouncing French colonial occupation of Algeria. His speech also made the front page of the New York Times. As Astucia writes, “By supporting independence for Algeria, Kennedy had indirectly aligned himself with Israel’s nemesis, Egyptian President Nasser.”[16] This raised a red flag in Israeli circles. It is not farfetched to assume that, from that time, it was decided that, if Kennedy would beat Johnson to the Democratic primaries in 1960, every possible blackmail should be used to place Johnson right behind his back. Contrary to the public story, Kennedy didn’t choose Johnson as his running mate for political reasons: “I was left with no choice … those bastards were trying to frame me,” was Kennedy’s private explanation.[17]

As president, Kennedy remained faithful to his sympathies for Nasser and Arab nationalism. In October 1962, he invited first Algerian president Ahmed Ben Bella to the White House. Historian Philip Muehlenbeck writes in Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders: “While the Eisenhower administration had sought to isolate Nasser and reduce his influence through building up Saudi Arabia’s King Saud as a conservative rival to the Egyptian president, the Kennedy administration pursued the exact opposite strategy.”[18]Since the Soviet Union, standard bearer of anti-colonialism, was also a natural supporter of Arab independence, Israelis grew increasingly distressed at the sight of both Russia and America being friendly to their most fearful foe, and panicked at the prospect of the Middle East becoming the very place were the U.S. and the USSR would finally come to terms and end the Cold War, at Israel’s expense.

Kennedy had become a major threat for Israel. In a culture that has no inhibition against targeted assassinations of troublesome goyim (“Acts that people in other countries might be ashamed to admit to are instead a source of pride for Israelis”, explains Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First[19]), JFK’s assassination had become a matter of national security.

The 1963 Dallas ambush was a Zionist coup to replace Egypt-friendly Kennedy by Israel-friendly Johnson. If Americans did not see it that way, it is because Johnson’s pro-Israel record had by then become erased from the news media. “Ironically,” notes Astucia, “the only place where I read anything about Johnson’s 1957 damage control for Israel—other than in the New York Times itself—was from the pen of Louis Bloomfield in his 1957 book, Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba, p. 152.[20] Astucia finds it ironic because he identifies Bloomfield as a core member of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.[21]

Among those Jewish journalists who played a decisive role in supporting the cover story of Lee Harvey Oswald as lone gunman, Astucia mentions Martin Agronsky, Elie Abel, Irving R. Levine, Peter Hackes, Kenneth Bernstein, Lief Ede, Gabe Pressman, and Walter Lippmann.[22] They not only supported the official narrative, they also lost no time in bolstering Johnson’s image as the man of the situation. “As it Happened, a four hour film showing NBC-TV’s live coverage of President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, reveals that Agronsky aggressively promoted Lyndon Johnson as an able replacement for the slain Kennedy rather than merely report the tragic events.”[23]

Johnson turns Israel’s enemies into America’s enemies

With Johnson in power, the conditions for Israel to overthrow Nasser and annex new territory were much more favorable than in 1956. Astucia writes:

Things had changed a great deal over the ten years leading up to the Six Day War. Israel’s most influential adversaries had either died or left public office. Eisenhower had retired years earlier and was in failing health. John Foster Dulles had died of cancer in 1959. Dag Hammarskjöld had been killed in a mysterious plane crash in the Congolese province of Katanga in 1961. President Kennedy of course had been assassinated in Dallas in 1963. And Israel’s old ally, Lyndon Johnson, had become Commander-in-Chief of the United States. In July of 1965, President Johnson had appointed Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg as US ambassador to the UN. Goldberg—a Jew and ardent supporter of Israel—replaced Adlai Stevenson as US delegate to the UN after Stevenson died suddenly of a heart attack on July 14, 1965. The Yemen War had been eroding Arab unity since the conflict began in 1962. By 1967, Egyptian forces had suffered heavy losses and were weakened after five years of military involvement in the Yemen War.[24]

In June 1967, Israel launched an attack against Egypt, under a false pretext of self-defense. The Six Day War, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would admit in 1982, had not been a “war of necessity” but a “war of choice. … Nasser did not attack us. We decided to attack him.”[25] The attack had been green-lighted by Johnson, and in a Washington meeting on May 30th, the CIA had provided Mossad chief Meir Amit with photos taken from satellites and spy planes, which enabled Israel to destroy Egypt’s air forces in a day. That was the beginning of a longstanding cooperation between CIA and Mossad, under the supervision of James Jesus Angleton, Israel’s man in Langley.

Johnson authorized Israel’s false flag attack on the USS Liberty. In fact, he most probably planned it in advance together with his gang of sayanim, as Phillip Nelson argues in LBJ: From Mastermind to “The Colossus” and in Remember the Liberty. On May 23, 1967, the USS Liberty was ordered to leave its patrol on the West Coast of Africa into what would soon be a war zone off the Sinai Peninsula, while another spy ship, the USNS Private Jose F. Valdez, was ordered to leave the area. Nelson remarks:

Perhaps the reason that the Liberty was tagged by Johnson as a “sacrificial lamb” was because of its name: As suggested by author Tourney, a survivor, “Remember the Liberty,” like the Alamo, or the Maine, would be a much better battle cry to rally the troops than the name of the ship it replaced.924 “Remember the Private Jose F. Valdez” just did not have the same panache.[26]

When the crew managed to send an SOS after the Israelis had first machine-gunned the antennas, Johnson personally recalled the air rescue, ordering to Admiral Lawrence Geis, commander of the Sixth Fleet: “I want that Goddam ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings.”[27] But the Israeli torpedoes failed to sink the ship. Johnson accepted Israel’s phony excuse of “mistaken identity” and hushed the affair. Five months later, he invited Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to the White House, and paid him the rare compliment of inviting him to his ranch [top picture].

Besides Israel’s conquest of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, the Six Day War had three major consequences. First, it heated up the Cold War and marked Nasser as an enemy of the United States, while elevating Israel as a strategic asset of the United States. Nasser broke off diplomatic relations with the U.S., and ordered all Americans out of Egypt. Although up to this point he had tried to keep a neutral position, he now placed himself entirely under the protection of the Soviet Union. In 1970, the Soviets furnished him with a powerful air defense system, and sent him 1,500 Soviet technicians. The Nixon administration was then pressured to counter the Soviets by supplying Israel with 125 additional fighter planes.

Interestingly, when Nasser died on November 28, 1970, his successor, General Anwar el-Sadat tried to switch side, but to his surprise, his offer was rejected by Henry Kissinger under heavy Israeli influence. Again in February 1973, Sadat sent a private emissary to Kissinger to discuss a United States-brokered deal, with little more success.

Secondly, Israel’s swift victory in the Six Day War rallied the American Jewish community in support of Israel. Jewish scholars Michael Kazin and Maurice Isserman wrote in America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s:

For many American Jews, the 1967 conflict awakened and inspired passions that did much to transform the meaning of their identity. No longer was Israel just a reason for Jewish pride, a desert miracle of orange groves and thriving kibbutzes, whose creation was romanticized in Exodus — a popular novel and film of the late ’50s and early ’60s. Israel was now the homeland of fellow Jews who had fought alone for their survival and were resigned to living in perpetual danger.[28]

Moreover, as Norman Finkelstein explained, “After the 1967 war, Israel’s military élan could be celebrated because its guns pointed in the right direction—against America’s enemies. Its martial prowess might even facilitate entry into the inner sanctums of American power.”[29]

The third major consequence of the Six Day War was a transformation of Israel’s character. George Ball, former Undersecretary of State, wrote in The Passionate Attachment:

the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seems clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.[30]

This, and the new escalation of the Cold War in the Middle East allowed for the most hard-core Zionists — those that Prime Ministry Moshe Sharett (1954-55) had blamed for “raising terrorism to the level of a sacred principle”[31] — to seize the leadership of the Jewish State. Israel became a rogue state, the psychopath among nations. Ten years after 1967, Menachem Begin, former commander of the Irgun Zvai Leumi that perpetrated in 1946 the false flag bombing of the King David Hotel, became prime minister (1977-1983). He was succeeded by Yitzhak Shamir, former operational chief of the Lehi (aka the Stern Gang) that assassinated British diplomate Lord Moyne and UN peace mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, bombed the British embassy in Rome, and mailed letter bombs to every senior British cabinet member in London.[32] After Shamir, hope for peace was restored by Yitzhak Rabin, who shook hands with Yasser Arafat and signed the Oslo Accords. He was assassinated for this, and a new generation of Machiavellian extremists came to power: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon, the instigators of the 9/11 coup.

Conclusion

With John Kennedy as president until 1968, possibly succeeded by his brother Robert until 1976, there would have been no Six Day War, and the Palestinian question may have found a peaceful and lasting solution. The “passionate attachment” between the U.S. and Israel, which started under Johnson and has now morphed into a psychopathic bond, would never have developed. And the road to 9/11 would not have been paved.

This month, two conferences are held in Dallas about JFK’s assassination: one by the Citizens Against Political Assassination (CAPA), the other by the JFK Historical Group. In none of them will Israel’s name be uttered, unless my friend Karl Golovin, who plans to be there, finds the opportunity to raise the issue. He tried to get me invited but was pushed back with the insinuation that my book is anti-Semitic. CAPA call their conference, “the Continuing Search for Truth.” There is an Orwellian twist in their use of “truth”, not so different from when Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter titled his autobiography, Passion for Truth. As a matter of fact, Cyril Wecht, CAPA’s chairman and keynote speaker at the conference, supported Arlen Specter for U.S. Senate in 2004. That is not a unique case of a half-truther working hand in hand with a full liar. You also have Mark Lane, the earliest critic of the Warren report (Rush to Judgment, 1966), working for Gerald Posner, the latest apologist of the same report (Case Closed, 1993).

The case against Israel in JFK’s assassination is so clear and simple that self-proclaimed truthers who censor it deserve to be called hypocrites, cowards, or Israeli shills.

But things are moving, and hopefully, they will be different next year, for the 60thanniversary of the coup that transformed America into a client state of Israel (as Philip Giraldi just wrote). Can we start to imagine an international JFK conference exploring specifically the Israeli connection? Ron Unz would be the best keynote speaker. Phillip Nelson should be asked to give a talk on Lyndon Johnson and Peter Janney could speak on James Jesus Angleton. Salvador Astucia and Jim DeBrosse should be invited too. A tribute to Michael Collins Piper would have to be on the program. A contribution by the heroic Mordechai Vanunu would be welcome too (he has expressed the view that Kennedy was assassinated because of his opposition to Dimona),[33] although we don’t want him to get in any more trouble. I will make the trip, if I can fly from France unvaxxed.

In the meantime, share the film Israel and the Assassinations of the Kennedy Brothers

Notes

[1] Jacqueline Kennedy, Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, Hyperion , 2011.

[2] John F. Kennedy on Israel, Zionism and Jewish Issues, Theodor Herzl Foundation, 1965, on https://drive.google.com/file/d/19pqGMZjd4__mJ3oyIZu6zJOpRlwh0hwm/view.

[3] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

[4] Ron Kampeas, “Lyndon Johnson: Israel Has Had No Better Friend,” Haaretz, May 9, 2018, on www.haaretz.com/

[5] Abraham Ben-Zvi, “Stumbling into an Alliance: John F. Kennedy and Israel,” Israel Affairs 15, n°3 (2009), pp. 224-245, quoted in Jim DeBrossse, See No Evil: The JFK Assassination and the U.S. Media, TrineDay Press, 2018, p. 143.

[6] Jim DeBrossse, See No Evil: The JFK Assassination and the U.S. Media, TrineDay Press, 2018, p. 15.

[7] Judy Maltz, “Bobby Kennedy’s Little-known Visit to the Holy Land That Made Him pro-Israel – and Got Him Killed,” The Forward, June 8, 2018, on www.haaretz.com/

[8] Donald Neff, “Lyndon Johnson Was First to Align U.S. Policy With Israel’s Policies,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,November/December 1996, page 96, reposted in 2009:

[9] On Kennedy’s plan for world nuclear disarmament, you want to read James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, while asking yourself why Douglass omits Kennedy’s most serious concern in 1963: Israel’s determination to become the first nuclear power in the Middle East.

[10] For example, Jim DeBrossse in See No Evil, op. cit., p. 150: “But could JFK have prevented a nuclear-armed Israel? Perhaps not, not when Israel had a decisive start at Dimona by 1963, and an iron-willed determination to see it through. But there can be little doubt that Kennedy, up to the moment of his death, intended to try.”

[11] Michael Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960-1963, HarperCollins, 1991, pp. 646-649.

[12] I thank David Martin for recommending this book to me. Despite its lack of clear focus, it contains some valuable insights.

[13] Salvador Astucia, Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination, Dsharpwriter, 2002, p. 11.

[14] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 5.

[15] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present, W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51.

[16] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 10.

[17] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 320.

[18] Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy’s Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012, p. 122.

[19] Ronan Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, John Murray, 2019, p. xv.

[20] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 272.

[21] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 13.

[22] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., pp. 23-24:

[23] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. Cit., p. 30.

[24] Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 13.

[25] Ball, The Passionate Attachment, op. cit., p. 22.

[26] Nelson, LBJ: From Mastermind to “The Colossus”, op. cit., p. 508.

[27] Phillip F. Nelson, Remember the Liberty, Trine Day, 2017, Kindle l. 1307.

[28] Kazin and Isserman, America Divided, p. 253, quoted in Astucia, Opium Lords, op. cit., p. 192

[29] Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, 2014, p. 6.

[30] Ball, The Passionate Attachment, op. cit., p. 58.

[31] Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents, Association of Arab-American University Graduates‬, 1986, pp. 42-49.

[32] Ronan Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations, John Murray, 2019, pp. 18-20.

[33] Ariah O’Sullivan, “Vanunu – Israel Was Behind JFK Assassination,” July 25, 2004, on rense.com

by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured) via: National Vangard

First published in March 1996

STEVEN SPIELBERG’S pseudo-historical film about a 19th-century mutiny and massacre aboard a Spanish slave ship, Amistad, and the subsequent trial of the Black mutineers is being praised by the reviewers. Spielberg, one of the wealthiest and most successful of Hollywood’s Jewish film makers, also is being praised by his kinsmen in various so-called “human rights” organizations for using his propaganda skills to sensitize White, Gentile audiences to the horrors of slavery and make them feel just a little more guilty for treating non-Whites so badly in the past. What the film doesn’t mention, of course, is that Spielberg’s Jewish kinsmen owned many, though not all, of the ships involved in the 18th- and 19th-century Atlantic trade in Black slaves and, in fact, played a very prominent role in bringing Black slaves to America.

The film rather tends to steer one away from blaming anyone for slavery except White Gentiles. This bit of misdirection is interesting in light of the fact that Jews have been dominant in the slave trade since at least Roman times — especially the trade in White slaves. Jewish slave dealers followed Caesar’s armies everywhere — into Gaul, into Germany, and into other northern lands — eager to buy as slaves all of the captives of the Romans — especially the female captives. Jews have remained dominant in the White slave trade until the present day — although during the Middle Ages the Christian Church tried unsuccessfully a number of times to stop them, beginning in the fifth century with an edict by the emperor Theodosius II against Jews owning Christian slaves. After being banned from owning or dealing in slaves by one emperor, the Jews would wait until the next emperor came along, then they would buy a charter giving them a monopoly in the slave trade. Then public outrage against the Jews would grow until another emperor would ban their slave-dealing again. Most of the time, however, the Jews were the undisputed masters of the White slave trade, and that is still the case today.

Interestingly enough, this fact was revealed in a recent news report in the Jewish newspaper the New York Times, of all places. The January 11 issue has a major article titled “Contraband Women” and written by a Jewish reporter in Israel. The article deals specifically with the Jewish trade in Ukrainian and Russian women — although it doesn’t label the trade as “Jewish.” What the report does say is this, and I quote: “Centered in Moscow and the Ukrainian capital Kiev, the networks trafficking women run east to Japan and Thailand, where thousands of young Slavic women now work against their will as prostitutes, and west to the Adriatic coast and beyond. The routes are controlled by Russian crime gangs based in Moscow.” What the reader must understand is that these crime gangs don’t have a real Russian in them. They are entirely Jewish, but the agreed-upon subterfuge used by the newspapers in this country is to refer to them as Russian rather than as Jewish. Thus one reads in various news organs about the recent takeover of organized crime in many areas of America — especially the East Coast and Los Angeles — by Russian gangs and of the viciousness and cleverness of these Russian gangsters, but there is never any mention of the fact that they are not Russians at all, but Jews from the former Soviet Union: Jews like Mr. Clinton’s supporter Vadim Rabinovich, photographed shaking hands with Clinton at a Miami fundraiser when he was illegally in the United States, as I mentioned in my broadcast of December 27.

The story of the exploitation of eastern Europe by the Jews is a fascinating and infuriating story. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the modern era they focused on profiting from the weaknesses and vices of the Gentile populations of Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and others among whom they lived as a barely tolerated minority. In addition to being the moneylenders, they controlled the liquor business and owned the drinking establishments, the gambling dens, and the brothels. A number of 19th-century Russian writers, among them Dostoievski and Gogol, have described their destructive effects on Slavic peasant society and the perpetual condition of mutual hostility which existed between the Jews and the Slavs.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries the Jewish trade in White slaves from these lands expanded enormously. It has been described by the Jewish historian Edward Bristow in his 1982 book Prostitution and Prejudice, published by Oxford University Press and Schocken Books in New York. Although Bristow’s book is written from the viewpoint of one opposed to this Jewish trade in women, it is nevertheless enormously revealing. The Jews recruited peasant girls in Polish and Russian villages, usually under false pretenses, and transported them to brothels in Turkey, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East; to Vienna, Budapest, and other major cities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and as far away as New York, New Orleans, and Buenos Aires. This Jewish trade in Slavic women naturally caused a great deal of hatred against the Jews by the Slavs, and this hatred broke out in pogroms and other popular actions against the Jews over and over again.

One would believe from the works of Mr. Spielberg and other Jewish propagandists that the hatred the Slavs bore against the Jews was based only on religious bigotry and that the Jews were completely innocent and inoffensive. One fascinating fact which Bristow’s book reveals is that the center of the Jewish trade in Polish girls was in a little town called Oswiecim. The German name for this town was Auschwitz.

I don’t mean to imply that the Jews were the only ones at fault in the White slave trade. Gentile politicians and police officials gladly accepted bribes from the Jews and in return allowed them to carry on their dirty business. And in the United States non-Jewish criminal elements such as the Mafia collaborated with the Jews or even ran their own White slave operations. But the trade in White slaves from eastern Europe has been an exclusively Jewish activity for the last 200 years.

It is ironic that another Jewish enterprise, organized Marxism, put a temporary crimp in the Jewish trade in Slavic women. When the Jewish Bolsheviks seized control of Russia and Ukraine after the First World War, and of Poland and other Slavic lands after the Second World War, they clamped down on all capitalist activity, including that of their Jewish brethren in the White slave business. What they did instead was establish a huge empire of slave-labor camps, of which Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written so eloquently. Jewish slave dealers became commissars and slave camp bosses. And of course, they butchered their Gentile opponents by the millions. The time of communism was the Jews’ time for getting rid of all of the Russian and Ukrainian patriots, who had hated them for so long.

Actually, some capitalist activity did survive throughout the communist years in the form of organized crime. Two excellent books on the subject were published in the United States, both written by Soviet Jews thoroughly familiar with organized crime in the Soviet Union. In fact, one of the authors, Yuri Brokhin, was a former member of a Jewish organized crime gang in Russia, where he worked as a pimp. His book, Hustling on Gorky Street, was published in 1975 by Dial Press. The other author, Konstantin Simis, was a Jewish defense lawyer for organized Jewish criminals. His book, USSR: The Corrupt Society, was published in 1982 by Simon and Schuster. Both of these Jewish authors write quite frankly about the Jewish domination of organized crime during the communist years. Brokhin brags about it, in fact. He says Russians and other Slavs can only be ordinary criminals, depending on guns and strong-arm tactics, but they aren’t smart enough for successful, large-scale organized crime; only Jews are smart enough for that. A factor neither author mentions which was more important than smartness was the connections Jewish criminals had with Jewish communists in the Soviet bureaucracy. When Abe, who ran a prostitution and drug racket in Moscow, could count on his cousin Hymie in the prosecutor’s office to keep him informed about police plans for raids, as well as a little covert assistance if matters ever came to court, he had a distinct advantage over his Russian competitors.

Eventually communism bled eastern Europe dry, and with the economies of the countries under their control on the verge of collapse the communists switched hats, declared themselves “democrats” instead of communists, and announced a return to capitalism. The Jewish slave dealers went back into business, and business was good for them. Other Jewish communists went into business too. As the economies were “privatized” — that is, as state-owned factories and businesses were sold to private entrepreneurs at bargain-basement prices — Jews used their connections with their now-“democratic” kinsmen in the bureaucracies to snap them up. Other Jews, who had monopolized organized crime during the Communist years, remained as organized crime bosses but greatly expanded the scope of their operations. Often, the new entrepreneurs and the new crime bosses are the same people.

The richest man in Russia today is Boris Berezovsky, who since the collapse of communism has become a multi-billionaire by buying up banks, television networks, and newspapers from the government, with the aid of his fellow Jews still in the bureaucracy. Berezovsky speeds around Moscow in a bulletproof vest and an armored limousine, and anyone who gets in the way of his business interests has a tendency to get shot or simply to disappear. Second only to Berezovsky in wealth is another Jewish media mogul, Vladimir Gusinsky. Between them, Berezovsky and Gusinsky control most of the mass media in Russia. They also exercise pretty thorough control of Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s alcoholic president, who is sort of a Slavic version of Bill Clinton, plus vodka. It was only through the support of Berezovsky’s and Gusinsky’s media that Yeltsin won his last election.

If you remember, Clinton and all of the Jewish media in the United States also were rooting enthusiastically for Yeltsin during that election. They all were afraid that a genuine Russian patriot might beat Yeltsin, in which case the Jewish control of Russia would have been finished.

After the election, Yeltsin appointed Berezovsky to Russia’s national security council, but when some of the few media in Russia which still are independent publicized Berezovsky’s connections to Jewish organized crime gangs, Yeltsin was forced to fire him. Yeltsin has made up for that, however, by appointing another Jew, Boris Nemtsov, to the position of deputy prime minister, one of the most powerful positions in the government. One thing Yeltsin never has done, however, is make any move to curtail the operations of Russia’s organized Jewish crime gangs, which are running rampant through the country and displaying their wealth and power, while ordinary Russians struggle to feed themselves and keep their homes warm this winter.

And tens of thousands of pretty but naive young Russian and Ukrainian women are being swept up by the Jewish gangs — called “Russian” gangs by the New York Times — and shipped off to a life of misery and degradation in Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, and Israel, as well as to countries in Western Europe, where Jews also control organized crime. The young women, unable to find work in Russia or Ukraine or Poland and facing a bleak future in countries ravaged by decades of communism, are eager for any chance at a better life. They respond to advertisements that offer them work abroad as receptionists or secretaries and also promise free training and transportation. When the girls arrive at their destinations, however, they find something quite different — but by then it is too late.

One of these girls, Irina, a 21-year-old, green-eyed Ukrainian blond, was interviewed in Israel. She told how her Israeli employer took her to a brothel soon after her arrival in Israel. He took her passport away from her, burned it before her eyes, and told her that she now was his property and must work in the brothel. When Irina refused, she was beaten and raped. Luckier than most of the Slavic women lured to Israel, Irina eventually was swept up in a police raid and sent to prison as an illegal alien. She was awaiting deportation, along with hundreds of other Russian and Ukrainian women, when she was interviewed. She lamented the fact that the Israeli who had raped her and forced her to work in the brothel was not even arrested. Indeed, according to Jewish law, the rape of a Gentile woman is not illegal. Nor is it illegal in Israel to buy and sell slaves, so long as the slaves are not Jewish. Amazingly, the New York Times article reveals this fact.

The White slave trade is big business in Israel. Ukrainian authorities estimate that as many as 40,000 Ukrainian women under the age of 30 are taken from Ukraine each year. Some of these women respond to advertisements promising employment abroad, like Irina did, and some are simply kidnapped and smuggled out of the country. Those who try to escape from their Jewish captors are treated brutally. Often they are butchered in front of other captive women to keep the others terrified into doing whatever they are told. At slave markets operated by the Jewish gangs in Italy young Slavic women are stripped, put on blocks, and auctioned off to brothel owners.

The most astounding thing about this whole, filthy business is that most people are forced to learn about it from a Jewish newspaper like the New York Times. And really, you should read for yourself the article to which I referred. It was in the January 11 issue, and the news is not likely to be repeated. But ask yourself, why doesn’t Interpol, the international police agency, do something to put a stop to this White slave trade? Why don’t the governments of the countries from which the women are being abducted do something? Why don’t the mass media raise a hue and cry? Why don’t powerful feminist organizations demand the eradication of White slavery?

And the answer to all of these questions is easy: they dare not do or say anything because it is a Jewish business. In places like Germany, where the Jews have almost total control of organized crime, anyone who announces that fact publicly will be arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred. Germany and most other European countries have laws against what they call “hate speech.” Saying anything negative about Jews, true or not, invokes these laws. Jewish organizations — and of course, the Clinton administration — would like very much to have similar laws in the United States. Interpol, which has plenty of other work to keep it busy, is not eager to be charged with “anti-Semitism” by going after the Jewish White-slave gangs. Even if Interpol did arrest the gangsters, it wouldn’t do much good, because the fix is in nearly everywhere. There’s a huge amount of money made from selling women: enough money to pay off politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and policemen.

Jews like to say about the so-called “Holocaust” of the Second World War, “Never again.” They like to talk about how it is necessary to stamp out anti-Semitism and pass laws against so-called “hate speech,” so that there can never be another “Holocaust.” But by their own behavior they guarantee that there will be.

While some Jews beat the drums for more reparations payments from Switzerland, Germany, France, and other countries they claim didn’t treat them right or took some of their ill-gotten gold from them 55 or 60 years ago, other Jews are still bleeding countries like Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and the Baltic nations of money and of their young women. Countries which suffered for decades under the brutal rule of communist commissars are still being exploited by the same people, now calling themselves “democrats.”

The Jews believe that with their deathgrip on the mass media nearly everywhere, with their puppets — like Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin — in positions of power in the East and in the West, with the enormous wealth they have at their disposal, and with so many Gentiles buffaloed by “Holocaust” propaganda of the sort cranked out by Steven Spielberg and a hundred others, they can keep getting away with their exploitation of us forever. But they are wrong. They themselves are building up the hatred and the resentment and the rage which will destroy them all: the gang members, the media bosses, the “advisers” to Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, the professional “Holocaust” wailers, the former commissars, and all the rest, even those who are not currently involved in any of these activities. They are guaranteeing that there will be another “Holocaust.” And this time it will be a real one.

Thanks for being with me again today — and do find and read that article on the White slave trade in the January 11 New York Times.