GRAND DECEPTIONS: ZIONIST INTRIGUE IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES
by Brandon MartinezGrand Deceptions:
Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries
Copyright © 2016 by Brandon Martinez
All rights reserved. This book may not be copied, reproduced or distributed in any
way or in any form without the written consent of the author.
Cover art by David Barnett
A Non-Aligned Media Publication
ABOUT THIS BOOK
Grand Deceptions is a compact study of Zionism exploring:
- Israeli intrigue behind the 9/11 attacks and the fraudulent “war on terror”
- The Zionist roots of neoconservatism and their central role in fomenting Middle East wars
- Zionist manipulation behind the World Wars in order to establish Israel
- Their collusion with the Nazis to expedite Jewish emigration to Palestine
- Their key role in the Bolshevik revolution and Stalin's murderous regime
- The fabrication of Holocaust history to suit Zionist geopolitical imperatives
- The Zionist impetus behind Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School
- And more
Inquiries, typos, feedback: firstname.lastname@example.org
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Brandon Martinez is an independent writer and journalist from Canada who specializes in foreign
policy issues, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. For years he has written on
Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in
media and politics. His articles and analysis have appeared on Press TV, Veterans News Now, Media
With Conscience News, Intifada Palestine, Information Clearing House, What Really Happened,
Levant TV and other alternative media outlets. He is the co-founder of Non-Aligned Media
(http://nonalignedmedia.com), a news and commentary website aimed at cutting through the spin and
deception of mainstream media and deciphering truth in history. He is the author of Grand
Deceptions, Hidden History and The ISIS Conspiracy.
Other Books from Brandon Martinez
* Hidden History: Essays and Articles About War, Terrorism and Deception in
Media and Politics
* The ISIS Conspiracy: How Israel and the West Manipulate Our Minds
Available on Amazon and CreateSpace.
Chapter 1 Zionist Power in America
Controlling Minds Through Media
Chapter 2 Zionists, Neocons and the Iraq War
Chapter 3 September 11: The Neocons’ New Pearl Harbour
Chapter 4 “Good for Israel”
Chapter 5 False Flag Terrorism: Israel’s History of Deception
Chapter 6 The Grand Deception: Israel and 9/11
The 19 Hijackers: Villains or Patsies?
Zionists and the World Trade Center
Chapter 7 Controlling the Discourse
Chapter 8 The Ideological Weapon: Holocaust Dogma and Zionist Militarism
Chapter 9 Nazi-Zionist Collusion
Chapter 10 Whitewashing Communist and Anglo-American Crimes
Chapter 11 Hidden History: Jewish Extremists and Bloody Bolshevism
Chapter 12 Jewish Supremacy and the Multicultural Experiment
The Kalergi Plan and White Genocide
Chapter 13 Sudan, Libya, Syria and Iran: The Yinon Plan Marches Forward
Most people believe what they see on television and what they hear in school. After all, it takes effort
and courage to think critically and to challenge what you’ve been told by people in positions of
authority, whether they are school teachers, professors, religious leaders, self-styled “professionals,”
politicians, or even your own parents.
In Western society, the powers-that-be have created a climate of fear in order to suppress discussion
of certain subjects. They manipulate language as a means of controlling the discourse. Taboos have
been fashioned around particular topics that the rich and powerful would rather you not delve into.
As Napoleon once said, “history” is little more than a set of fables agreed upon by the victorious
powers. Those that win the war get to write the “history” as they see fit. Dissenting views that
challenge the victors’ version of events, which tends to always be a simplistic “good vs. evil”
narrative, are stamped out with an iron fist.
The powers-that-be would rather you just passively accept what you’ve been told and take it at face
value. Digging under the surface is frowned upon because if too many people decided to look a little
deeper into history, it could possibly cause a ripple effect that may upset the established order of
Social pressures to conform to established norms of thought is the principal reason why so many
people are dissuaded from voicing alternative viewpoints on subjects deemed “taboo” by the
architects of mainstream discourse.
Smedley Butler, a famous American military general, correctly observed that “war is a racket.”
Through the manipulation of perception and reality by way of well-crafted propaganda, bankers and
war profiteers have tricked nation after nation, people after people, into fighting senseless wars
against one another that ultimately benefit nobody but those at the top of the financial and political
Understanding true history is imperative to solving the problems we face today. If we don’t
understand history and the true circumstances and nature of certain events, then we can be easily
duped into repeating the same mistakes of the past.
Rejecting the fraudulent narratives of the official historical dogma of the Western establishment that
have been imprinted in our minds from an early age is a form of resistance to tyranny. Our
governments commit crimes in our name and will continue to do so until we stop believing their lies.
Overcoming the fear of speaking truth to power is the first step in making a positive change. Breaking
free from the mental shackles that are holding us back from expressing our true feelings and opinions
is a critical first step in the struggle for truth, freedom and justice.
This work is a brief attempt to awaken a few minds to what has really been going on behind the
Let’s take a look at some real history for a change.
Zionist Power in America
The ‘special relationship’ between the United States and Israel is a topic that most people dare not
touch. But one cannot even begin to understand the geopolitical reality of today’s world without
addressing the issue.
The old school of thought on the matter, proffered by left-wing thinkers Noam Chomsky, Norman
Finkelstein, Howard Zinn, William Blum and others, postulates that Israel is a tool of the United
States, an “outpost of Western imperialism” in the Middle East.
That view has been challenged by a growing number of intellectuals and scholars. The new school of
thought — spear–headed by people like renowned Professors John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt
(authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), Professor James Petras (author of The Power
of Israel in the United States), Dr. Stephen Sniegoski (author of The Transparent Cabal) and many
others — contends that that position is incorrect, a distortion of reality. Their view is the inverse of
the former: that Israel, through its powerful U.S.-based lobby and key insiders within the American
government, has been guiding America’s foreign policy in the Middle East for quite some time. In
other words, the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog.
The aforementioned author James Petras provides an abundance of evidence for this position in his
book The Power of Israel in the United States. Petras explains that Washington is controlled by
money, and the people with the most money in America happen to be Zionists. “The basis of the
[Zionist] Lobby’s PAC power is rooted in the high proportion of Jewish families among the
wealthiest families in the United States. According to Forbes, 25 to 30 percent of U.S.
multimillionaires and billionaires are Jewish,” Petras writes.
Stephen Steinlight, a card-carrying member of the Zionist lobby as the former Director of National
Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, confirmed Petras’s point of view. In a Nov. 2001 report
for the Center for Immigration Studies entitled “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing
Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy,” Steinlight talks openly about the
“disproportionate political power” of the Jewish community which, he notes, is “pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America.” He further states, “the great material wealth of the
Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages.” He goes on to state that the crux of
Jewish power is “disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news
Other Jewish individuals have written about the issue of Jewish power. Writer J.J. Goldberg
highlighted the power of American Jewry in his book Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish
Establishment. The Jewish author Henry L. Feingold revealed in his book Jewish Power in America:
Myth and Reality that “Over 60 percent of campaign funds collected by the Democratic Party and a
respectable percentage of Republican campaign funds stem from Jewish sources.” Petras surmised
that “No single other lobby including Big Pharma, Big Oil and Agro-business plays such a dominant
financial role in party funding.”
America’s Zionist lobby is comprised of dozens of organizations, the largest of which is AIPAC, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Essentially an arm of the Israeli government on American
soil, AIPAC is a behemoth on Capitol Hill, whose sole purpose is to lobby congress and other highranking
American officials to pursue pro-Israel policies. AIPAC is so powerful that members of
congress simply refer to it as “The Lobby.” According to Petras, AIPAC has 60,000 wealthy members
and an annual budget of $60 million. But that’s just AIPAC. The Conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations has 52 members, including the Zionist Organization of America,
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, B’nai Zion, Anti-Defamation League, American
Friends of Likud, American Jewish Committee, Jewish Federations of North America, Jewish
Council for Public Affairs, Israel Bonds, etc. Dubbing it the “Zionist Power Configuration,” Petras
explained in a radio interview:
One has to look at this beyond AIPAC. We have to look at a whole string of pro-Zionist
think-tanks from the American Enterprise Institute on down and then we have to look at a
whole power configuration which not only involves AIPAC but the [Conference of]
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which number 52. We have to look at
individuals occupying crucial positions in the government, as we had recently with Eliot
Abrams, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others. We have to look at the army of op-ed writers
who have access to the major newspapers. We have to look at the super-rich contributors to
the Democratic Party, media moguls, etc. … This together with the leverage in the media and
in congress is the decisive factor in shaping U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Two of those “super-rich contributors” are Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban and Las Vegas
casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Saban, a Zionist Jew of Egyptian origin, is the largest single
contributor to the Democratic Party, shelling out $13 million to various political candidates over the
years. A 2010 profile of Saban published in The New Yorker magazine quotes him as saying that
his greatest concern in life “is to protect Israel, by strengthening the United States-Israel
relationship.” The profile revealed that Saban attended a conference in Israel in 2009 where he
brazenly outlined his formula for harnessing the American government in the service of Israel: “make
donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.” Adelson is a major
financial contributor to the Republican Party, ensuring staunch support of Israel across party lines. In
the 2012 presidential election, Adelson donated a whopping $70 million to Republican candidates.
 In Oct. 2013, Adelson advocated dropping a nuclear bomb on a non-populated area of Iran as a
“warning shot” to intimidate the Iranians into complying with Zionist demands regarding their nuclear
program. “The next [nuclear bomb] is in the middle of Tehran,” he barked. A Jewish audience at New
York’s Yeshiva University greeted the sick suggestion with applause. Adelson is a vocal
supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party.
The viewpoint of Petras and other scholars that Tel Aviv dictates Washington’s mid-east foreign
policy has been corroborated by a number of former American politicians who decided to make their
voices heard on the matter. Pat Buchanan, a former Reagan administration official and presidential
candidate, once said Capitol Hill is “Israeli occupied territory.” Former congressman Paul
Findley recognized this reality in his book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions
Confront Israel’s Lobby. Former congressman James Traficant echoed this on Fox News, telling
Greta Van Susteren:
I believe that Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They control
both members of the House and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have
little or no interest… They’re controlling much of our foreign policy. They’re influencing
much of our domestic policy… We’re conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and
everybody’s afraid to say it.
Cynthia McKinney, a former congresswoman from Georgia, told an interviewer that 99 per cent of
members of the US congress put Israel’s interests above those of America. British MP Tam
Dalyell reiterated this perspective, affirming his belief that “a Jewish cabal has taken over the
government of the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians.”
Those “fundamentalist Christians” are represented by people like John Hagee and Pat Robertson, two
of Israel’s loudest proponents in the Evangelical community. Christian fundamentalists’ fanatical
support of Israel is based upon “end times” prophesies, which stipulate that all Jews must be gathered
in the land of Israel before Jesus Christ can return to rapture all Christians up to heaven.
In 2010, Helen Thomas, a renowned reporter and member of the White House Press Corps for more
than 50 years, was immediately fired from her job after she was recorded on video condemning
Israel’s occupation and treatment of the Palestinians. Later, she delivered a speech at a
conference in Detroit in which she expressed the view that “congress, the White House, Hollywood,
and Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question in my opinion.”
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, told Iran’s Press TV that the Zionist lobby has
“absolute control over the appointment of anyone either in a security position or a foreign policy
position that has anything at all to do with the Middle East.” Another former CIA official named
Michael Scheuer expressed the same view. “The Israelis are an immensely malign influence in the
United States. They steal our technology, they suborn government employees to spy for them and
transfer documents, and certainly their influence through U.S. citizen groups like AIPAC on the
Congress is politically corrupting,” Scheuer said in an appearance on Fox Business News. Israeli
journalist Ari Shavit acknowledged Zionism’s extreme power over America when commenting on
Israel’s murder of more than 100 Lebanese civilians in April 1996. “We killed them out of a certain
naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much
of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own,” Shavit
wrote in Haaretz.
As Michael Scheuer noted, the influence of Zionist money in Washington is “politically corrupting” to
an obscene degree. The facts detailed herein paint an unambiguous picture: Israel’s supporters have
an immense influence on the American government and have achieved a virtual stranglehold over the
foreign policies of both major parties, the Democrats and Republicans. As a haven of Zionist intrigue,
the United States has become little more than a vehicle of the Zionist agenda.
Controlling Minds Through Media
If the previously cited professors, scholars, and former politicians are to be believed, than it is no
stretch to say that the United States is a Zionist stronghold. In addition to immense financial influence,
Zionism’s hammerlock over the United States is rooted in its grip over the major media. Through
media control the powers-that-be can shape a population’s worldview. The mass media is an
indispensable tool for war propaganda. In an interview with Alternate Focus, a former Israeli soldier
named Noam Chayut recalled a statement of Israel’s minister of foreign affairs: “Public opinion in the
United States is the most powerful weapon that Israel has.”
Joel Stein, a Jewish writer for the Los Angeles Times, penned an honest op-ed boasting of Jewish
dominance in the entertainment industry. In his piece headlined “Who runs Hollywood? C’mon,”
Stein named some of Hollywood’s top Jewish executives, who include: News Corp. President Peter
Chernin, Viacom Executive Chairman Sumner Redstone (Rothstein), CBS Corp. Chief Executive
Leslie Moonves, Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Iger, Paramount Pictures CEO Brad Grey, Sony
Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton, Dreamworks founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and
David Geffen, former MGM Chairman Harry Sloan, former NBC Universal Chief Jeff Zucker (who
now heads CNN), and the Weinstein brothers. Stein then declared: “As a proud Jew, I want America
to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.” Stein opined that he doesn’t care if
Americans think Jews are running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. “I just
care that we get to keep running them,” he wrote.
Many prominent people have made similar judgments. For example, successful movie director Oliver
Stone shares Stein’s view that Zionist Jews dominate Hollywood and news media in America. Stone
observed that the media’s obsession with the holocaust is due to “Jewish domination” of the industry.
He also said that the Zionist lobby is “the most powerful lobby in Washington.” In a memorable
appearance on Larry King’s CNN talk show, legendary actor Marlin Brando said: “Hollywood is run
by Jews, it’s owned by Jews.” Neal Gabler, a Jewish author and media researcher, wrote the
book An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood documenting Jewish dominance
of America’s motion picture industry since its inception. A documentary based on Gabler’s work
called “Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream” acknowledged that Hollywood’s six
largest movie studios were “run for over 30 years by a group of Jewish immigrants” with “strikingly
The New York Jewish periodical, The Forward, published an article entitled “Billionaire Boychiks
Battle for Media Empire” which outlined the business intrigues of several Jewish media moguls.
One of those moguls, Sam Zell, purchased the Tribune Company, which owns 23 television stations, a
baseball team and many major newspapers, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.
The article noted Zell’s “intimate involvement with Jewish and Israeli causes” and revealed that he
donated $3.1 million to the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center in Israel and a right-wing Israeli think
tank called the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress. Zell’s rabbi, the Forward reported,
described him as “a committed Zionist, a generous supporter of Israel, and a member in good standing
of the synagogue.”
Jewish writer Elad Nehorai, writing for the ultra-Zionist Times of Israel, affirmed the same verdict in
an op-ed titled “Jews DO Control the Media.” Speaking candidly about the subject, Nehorai
wrote: “Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so
many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost
obscene.” Nehorai added that AIPAC is “an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the
Elders of Zion.” “The truth is,” writes Nehorai, “the anti-Semites got it right. … We own a whole
freaking country.” Nehorai’s pompous musings are similar to what Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff
once said: “In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force.”
Zionists, Neocons and the Iraq War
In addition to Israel’s powerful lobby apparatus and domination of the news and entertainment media
by Israel’s partisans, there is a third central element to the Zionist matrix of power in America.
Zionism possessed a small army of key insiders who penetrated deep within the highest levels of the
American government during George W. Bush’s presidency. Through their influential positions,
Zionist agents were able to manipulate America’s behemoth military industrial complex into the
service of the Israeli regime.
Known as “neoconservatives,” their primary loyalty to Israel is the worst kept secret in Washington.
The neoconservative movement is just another arm of Israel’s lobby, essentially functioning as
emissaries of the Israeli Likud Party in the United States. Since its inception in the 1960s,
neoconservatism has been a largely Jewish affair. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to
whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in an article
for the Jewish Forward newspaper. “As a political philosophy,” Beckerman continues, “neoconservatism
was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual
domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”
The ideology itself was engineered by a group of Jewish Trotskyites – principally Leo Strauss,
Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Max Shachtman, Albert Wohlstetter and others — who shifted
from the left to the right side of the political spectrum. They did this not out of any serious conviction
in conservative values, but primarily as a result of tribal loyalties. Concern for the well being of
Israel was slim on the political Left who viewed Israel as the offspring of European colonialism. Due
to the Left’s sympathy for the Palestinian cause, these seemingly dedicated communists morphed into
“conservatives” and attempted to hijack America’s political Right, headed by the Republican Party, in
an effort to shape it into a tool of Zionism. This ruse is called “entryism” whereby a group of political
ideologues covertly enter a rival group or organization in a bid to take it over. By utilizing this
deceptive method the neocons were acting in the tradition of communist ideologue Leon Trotsky who
staunchly advocated the technique.
The neocons promoted their agenda of war and militarism through think tanks, newspapers, magazines
and as pundits on mainstream media outlets like Fox News. Some of their influential “think tanks”
include the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the
Project for the New American Century, the Center for Security Policy and the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy to name a few. Zionist neocon pundits and writers such as Norman and John
Podhoretz, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, John Bolton,
Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, William Safire, Robert Kagan and others regularly occupied our
television screens to promote their Israel-centric foreign policy objectives.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the neocons achieved a virtual coup d’état of American
foreign policy. Israeli journalist Ari Shavit conceded that “the war in Iraq was conceived by 25
neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the
course of history.” In a BBC documentary entitled “The War Party,” British reporter Steve
Bradshaw followed the neocons around Washington during the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003.
He interviewed many prominent neocons and extracted some very candid and revealing remarks from
them. Neocon ideologue Richard Perle, who functioned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board in
the Pentagon during President Bush’s first term in office, acknowledged on camera that “the president
of the United States on issue after issue has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives.” “George
Bush’s current foreign policy is basically a neoconservative foreign policy,” boasted PNAC founder
William Kristol. Bradshaw also interviewed Meyrav Wurmser, the founder of the neocon group
called the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and wife of neocon David Wurmser.
When pressed on the issue of the neocons’ apparent passionate attachment to Israel, she confessed:
“Yes, many of us [neocons] are Jewish... Most of us, all of us in fact, are pro-Israel.”
Paul Wolfowitz, who once lived in Israel and whose sister is married to an Israeli, is widely held to
be the prime mover behind the war in Iraq. A profile of Wolfowitz in the New Yorker described him
as the “most passionate and compelling advocate” of the Iraq war within the Bush administration.
A New York Times magazine profile from 2002 revealed that Wolfowitz “is friendly with Israel’s
generals and diplomats” and that he is “something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative
movement.” New York Times writer Eric Schmitt noted Wolfowitz’s position as “one of Israel’s
staunchest allies” in the Bush regime. Wolfowitz functioned as the number two man in the
Pentagon as Undersecretary of Defense, spearheading the drive for war in Iraq.
Richard Perle was a close personal friend of Likud leader Ariel Sharon, a board member of the
Zionist newspaper Jerusalem Post and a former employee of the Israeli weapons manufacturer
Soltam. In the 1980s both Perle and Wolfowitz were investigated by the FBI for passing classified
defence documents to Israel while working in the Carter and Reagan administrations.
The number three man in the Pentagon was the staunch neocon Douglas Feith who served as the
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Feith wears his Jewish-Zionist bona fides on his sleeve.
Feith’s father, Dalck Feith, was a member of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s militant Zionist group, Betar, in
his youth. Betar was the predecessor to the Zionist terror force Irgun that would later form the base of
the Likud Party itself. In 1986, Douglas Feith founded a law firm in Israel called Feith & Zell. In
1997, Feith and his father both received awards from the Zionist Organization of America for a
“lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people.” In August 2010, Feith was a keynote
speaker at an event hosted by “Americans for a Safe Israel” which was held to honour Vladimir
Jabotinsky. Another clue into Feith’s mindset was to be found in his own house. In an article for
the New Yorker, writer Jeffery Goldberg revealed that Feith has a portrait of Theodore Herzl, the
“godfather of Zionism,” hanging on the wall of his library.
In his capacity as the third most powerful policy-maker in the Pentagon, Feith was placed in charge of
the ‘Office of Special Plans’ (OSP), a shadowy propaganda outfit created shortly after 9/11 that is
responsible for crafting all of the fabricated “intelligence” about Iraq’s non-existent “weapons of
mass destruction.” During this period, Feith met regularly with Israeli military and intelligence
officials in his offices at the Pentagon, who were “feeding” him fraudulent information that he would
use to bolster the case for war against Saddam. Journalist Julian Borger explained that the OSP
“forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel
specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on
Saddam’s Iraq.” Another key figure in the OSP was Zionist Abram Shulsky, a protégé of Richard
Perle and pupil of neocon ideologue Leo Strauss.
In 1999, Shulsky wrote an essay about Strauss within which he suggested that deception was a normal
thing in politics and should not be seen as a negative. Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh
revealed that Strauss advocated what he called “noble lies” — myths used to brainwash society at
large so as to control them. Strauss also argued for the need of an “external threat” to corral society
into accepting the agenda of the elite, and if no external threat actually exists then one is
manufactured. These Orwellian stratagems were employed expertly by the neocons in their quest
to hoodwink the American public into wars in the Middle East that serve Israel’s expansionist
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neocon think tank headed by
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had been relentlessly pushing for a war with Iraq since it was
formed in 1997. In 1998, PNAC members wrote a letter to then-President Bill Clinton, encouraging
him to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime. Among the signatories of the letter were Paul
Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams and John Bolton – all future high-ranking
members of the Bush regime.
Bush’s vice president and secretary of defense, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, were both
members of PNAC. Cheney and Rumsfeld both had long-standing ties with the neocons, and Cheney
had been courted by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs prior to becoming vice
president. Cheney’s chief of staff was Lewis Libby, a devout neocon and ardent Zionist. Ori Nir,
a writer for the Jewish Forward newspaper, made note of Libby’s intimate relations with the Israeli
regime.“Israeli officials liked Libby,” Nir writes, adding that the Israelis described Libby as “an
important contact who was accessible, genuinely interested in Israel ‐ related issues and very
sympathetic to their cause.” Nir cited Washington insiders who said Libby was the “most influential
Jewish foreign-policy maker” and that his fingerprints “were on most major foreign policy decisions
made by the Bush administration.” On Iraq and the war on terrorism, Libby is said to have “played a
President Bush was known for his ignorance and incompetence. Foreign policy and world affairs
were not his strong suit, and he therefore became heavily reliant on his advisors. In his essay “The
War in Iraq: Conceived in Israel,” historian Stephen Sniegoski explained: “Having no direct
experience in foreign policy and little knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes
— confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as ‘Grecians,’ and failing a pop quiz on the
names of four foreign leaders — George W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors.” Most
of his advisors, as previously noted, were Jewish neoconservatives, many of whom held dual IsraeliAmerican
In addition to foreign policy advisors, much of Bush’s other staff were Zionist Jews. Bush’s
White House spokesman was Ari Fleischer, a radical Zionist and member of the extremist Orthodox
Jewish sect of Chabad Lubavitch. “It is terribly important,” Fleischer told a Jewish audience in
2004, “for Israel to have throughout American political parties, strong support, in the most liberal
wings of the Democratic Party and the most conservative wings of the Republican Party. This is good
for Israel.” Dov Zakheim, another ardent Zionist and ordained rabbi, was put in charge of the
Pentagon’s finances as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). He was also a member of
PNAC. Another notable dual Israeli-American citizen was Michael Chertoff who served as the head
of the criminal division in the Department of Justice under Bush. Chertoff was then appointed the
director of Homeland Security in 2005.
Bush’s principal speechwriter who coined the “axis of evil” phrase was neocon David Frum. In an
article for The American Conservative, Jewish journalist Robert Novak exposed Frum’s ethnocentric
agenda, writing: “While Frum calls himself ‘a not especially observant Jew,’ he repeatedly refers to
his Jewishness. It is hard to recall any previous presidential aide so engrossed with his own ethnic
roots. Frum is more uncompromising in support of Israel than any other issue, raising the inescapable
question of whether this was the real reason he entered the White House.” Frum co-authored a
book with Richard Perle entitled An End To Evil: How To Win The War On Terror. President Bush
confirmed that he was strongly influenced by neocon Natan Sharansky’s book The Case for
Democracy. “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s
book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book,” Bush told reporters. Sharansky is a hard-line
Israeli Likudnik politician who was appointed chief of the Jewish Agency for Israel in 2009.
Within power cliques there is always the phenomenon where people who don’t necessarily share the
same motivations join forces in order to reap mutual benefits. The Jewish neocons are undoubtedly
motivated by ethnic considerations, which is plainly demonstrated by their unwavering loyalty to
Israel. As for non-Jewish neocons, money and power is perhaps the primary motivating factor in their
decision to aid and abet Israel’s designs. “As with the other Jewish intellectual and political
movements,” writes American psychology professor Kevin MacDonald in The Occidental Quarterly,
“non-Jews have been welcomed into the movement and often given highly visible roles as the public
face of the movement.” This is done, MacDonald explains, to “lessen the perception that the
movement is indeed a Jewish movement.” “It makes excellent psychological sense to have the
spokespersons for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince,” he writes.
MacDonald notes the neocons’ use of Iraqi defectors as tools for their agenda, such as Ahmed
Chalabi, a close associate of Richard Perle who was trained under the auspices of neocon theorist
Albert Wohlstetter at the University of Chicago.
An immensely important source elucidating the Israeli origins of the Iraq war is a strategy paper
authored by notable neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Meyrav Wurmser for
a hawkish Israeli think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).
Written in 1996, the paper is titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and was
intended as advice for the incoming Likud regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Zionist authors
outline a belligerent Israeli strategy going forward which included breaking off peace talks with the
Palestinians, re-occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and most tellingly, weakening and undermining
Iran, Syria and Iraq. Attempting to kill two birds with one stone, the Clean Break authors suggest:
Israel can shape its strategic environment … by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional
Interestingly enough, this “important Israeli strategic objective” of removing Saddam Hussein from
power would become America’s objective seven years later. Stephen Sniegoski pointed out:
Note that these Americans — Perle, Feith, and Wurmser — were advising a foreign
government and that they currently are connected to the George W. Bush administration: Perle
is head of the Defense Policy Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; and
Wurmser is special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator John Bolton.
It is also remarkable that while in 1996 Israel was to “shape its strategic environment” by
removing her enemies, the same individuals are now proposing that the United States shape
the Middle East environment by removing Israel’s enemies. That is to say, the United States
is to serve as Israel’s proxy to advance Israeli interests.
These hawkish, militarist policies advocated by the neocons were nothing new. In fact, the idea of
destabilizing Israel’s regional rivals was part and parcel of the Zionist impulse from the very
beginnings of the Jewish state. But the Zionist desire to crush all remaining impediments to Israeli
domination of the Middle East was most vividly put into words by Oded Yinon in his 1982 paper “A
Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” In the paper Yinon called for the dissolution and
fragmentation of the Arab states surrounding Israel by instigating internal ethnic and religious
conflicts. Yinon envisioned a situation where the Arabs and Muslims would all be fighting amongst
themselves and therefore could not mount any meaningful resistance to Israeli imperialism. This
sinister stratagem was successfully employed by Israel during its invasion and occupation of Lebanon
in 1982. Yinon singled out Iraq as Israel’s prime enemy and summarized its destruction in this way:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate
for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is
stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to
Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before
it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab
confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important
aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division
into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So,
three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul,
and Shiite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.
According to the research of Sniegoski, the main target of Israel’s strategy of subjugation was not
Israel’s external enemies, but rather her internal enemies: the native Palestinians. Lusting for a second
“Nakba,” Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was hoping to finish the job Ben-Gurion started in 1948 by
expelling all Arabs from what was left of Palestine. Sniegoski explained:
As Bush and his people came into office in January 2001, press reports in Israel quoted
government officials and politicians speaking openly of mass expulsion of the Palestinians.
Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001; noted for his
ruthlessness, he had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state where
Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated.
In order to accomplish this inhuman task, Israeli leaders needed to create conditions necessary to
facilitate such a heinous plan. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, engineered the forced
expulsion of at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and villages in 1948. Sniegoski
observed that “The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it would not incur
the world’s condemnation.” Ben-Gurion believed that what was not possible during normal times
was possible during times of upheaval. “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times,” he once said. Sniegoski surmised:
The “revolutionary times” would come with the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the
Zionists were able to expel 750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous
population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though its area did not include
the entirety of Palestine, or the “Land of Israel,” which Zionist leaders thought necessary for
a viable state.
The leadership of the Likud Party was married to the idea of expulsion but needed to foment
destabilization across the Middle East to create the necessary pre-conditions for such a cold-blooded
endeavour. Sniegoski writes: “Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988, that if the Palestinian uprising
continued, Israel would have to make war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide
‘the circumstances’ for the removal of the entire Palestinian population from the West Bank and Gaza
and even from inside Israel proper.” According to Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath: Life and
Loathing in Greater Israel, in 1989 Benjamin Netanyahu told a group of Israeli college students:
“Israel should have taken advantage of the suppression of the demonstrations in China in Tiananmen
Square, when the world’s attention was focused on what was happening in that country, to carry out
mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” A great Middle Eastern conflagration that
would provide cover for the Zionist desire for ethnic cleansing arrived in 2003 with the deployment
of American warplanes, tanks and troops against the people of Iraq.
Driven by fierce ethnocentrism, the neocons are committed not only to the “survival” of Israel, but the
expansion of that entity and its domination over the whole Middle East. A central component of the
neocons’ ideology was their adherence to the Likudnik Zionist concept of a “Greater Israel.” The
neocons identified closely with the ideology of Vladimir Jabotinsky, an early Zionist extremist leader
who called for unrelenting physical force to be brought down upon the Arab world in order to fulfill
his dream of establishing a “Greater Israel” that would encompass vastly more territory than was
illegitimately allocated to them under the United Nations partition plan. In his most famous essay
titled “The Iron Wall,” Jabotinsky argued that the indigenous non-Jewish inhabitants of these lands
would naturally resist the Zionist project and would thus have to be forcibly expelled to secure the
Israeli historian Tom Segev acknowledged that expulsion of Arabs from Palestine was an undisputed
viewpoint among the Zionist leadership from day one. Speaking bluntly about his extreme,
supremacist views, Jabotinsky once stated that Zionism “is naïve, brutal and primitive. It is savage.
You go out into the street and pick any man — a Chinaman — and ask him what he wants and he will
say 100 percent of everything. That’s us. We want a Jewish Empire.” Other Zionist leaders of the
th century yearned for a “Jewish Empire” as well. In 1907, David Wolffsohn, the chairman of
the World Zionist Organization, addressed the eighth annual Zionist Congress at The Hague. In his
closing remarks he called for a united Jewry to “conquer the world.” Jewish writer Gal
Beckerman pointed out that “most of the members of the current Israeli government would classify
themselves as ‘Jabotinskyites.’” Interestingly, Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion was
Jabotinsky’s press secretary in New York.
The first gulf war was conceived in much the same way as the second. When Saddam Hussein
invaded Kuwait in 1991 most Americans wanted no part of the conflict, and most American
government officials were hard-pressed to get involved. This all changed with the help of a cleverly
constructed propaganda hoax engineered primarily by Tom Lantos, a U.S. congressman from
California. Lantos, a Zionist Jew of Hungarian origin, conspired with a public relations firm called
Hill & Knowlton to cook up a fraudulent tale about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Lantos and his coconspirators
established a ‘human rights’ front group called the “Congressional Human Rights
Foundation.” They then organized a televised hearing where Kuwaiti actors pretending to be
witnesses to Iraqi misdeeds in Kuwait provided fake tears and testimony in front of the cameras. The
star of the show was a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl who appeared at the hearing under the assumed name
“Nayirah.” She gave a tearful testimony alleging to have witnessed Iraqi troops enter a hospital in
Kuwait City and then proceed to remove hundreds of babies from incubators, leaving them to die on
the cold floor.
“While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room
where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators,
and left the children to die on the cold floor,” she said.
The story spread like wild fire across the mainstream media and President George H. W. Bush
trumpeted it from the Oval Office pulpit, using it as an excuse to attack Saddam and remove him from
Kuwait. After the incubator story took root, America quickly found herself in a war with Iraq. The
problem with the story was that “Nayirah” was never actually in Kuwait. She was the daughter of
Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the U.S., and had lived in America most of her life.
Later, it was revealed that the entire escapade was a monstrous ruse that contained not one shred of
truth. “Nayirah” and her fellow witnesses were actors in the pay of Lantos and the public relations
firm Hill & Knowlton. The “incubator babies” story was pure myth. In conjunction with Lantos’s
scam, Richard Perle and other neocons established the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf
to promote the war.
Based on these lies, America was sucked into a senseless war that cost the lives of tens of thousands
of Iraqis. Unable to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the American regime immediately imposed
crippling economic sanctions on the shattered nation of Iraq. It is estimated that these inhuman
sanctions resulted in the deaths of more than a million Iraqi men, women and children. A troubling
illustration of the callous disregard for the lives of Arabs by American officials came from
Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state under Bill Clinton. In a 1996 televised interview with
CBS’s 60 Minutes program, Albright was informed of the incalculable loss of life in Iraq due to
America’s sanctions. When told that 500,000 Iraqi children had died and asked if it was “worth the
price,” Albright coldly responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was
In 2002, shortly before America embarked on a second crusade against Iraq, Tom Lantos assured his
Israeli colleagues that Saddam Hussein would soon be removed from power. “You won’t have any
problem with Saddam,” the Jewish congressman told MK Colette Avital of Israel’s Labour Party.
“We’ll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we’ll install a pro-Western dictator, who
will be good for us and for you.” Believing their struggle against the Arab world is a divinely
inspired duty sanctioned by god, Israel’s religious leaders were jubilant at the prospect of Iraq’s
demise. “I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against
Iraq,” Israel’s chief Ashkenazi rabbi Yona Metzger told President Bush in a brief verbal exchange at
At least 1.5 million Iraqis have died as a result of the American invasion and occupation of their
country in 2003. Millions more have been severely wounded, displaced and their lives
completely ruined. The Zionists’ perversion of reality and manipulation of discourse through their
control of America’s mass media and political system has had disastrous consequences. The pivotal
role played by Zionists in fomenting two wars against Iraq for their own selfish interests cannot be
The Neocons’ New Pearl Harbour
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, upon New York City’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon
were a dream come true for Israel and its neocon allies. The Likudniks were itching for an “event”
which would create the necessary circumstances that would allow them to act brutally against the
Palestinians without any serious scrutiny. Stephen Sniegoski cogently observed that “The September
11 atrocities provided the ‘revolutionary times’ in which Israel could undertake radical measures
unacceptable during normal conditions.”
The neocons outlined their imperialist plans and what was needed to accomplish them rather bluntly.
The Zionist neocons of the Project for the New American Century group released a report in Sept. of
2000 entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in which they called for an expansion of America’s
military might and global reach. In particular, they argued in favour of an increased American
military presence in the Gulf. Section V of that report titled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”
includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change,
is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
In other words, it would take a long time for the neocons to implement their militarist goals unless
there was a catastrophic event that could be used to corral the masses behind their war agenda, much
like Pearl Harbour did. Remember, this report was penned one year before 9/11.
Before the dust of the collapsed Twin Towers had even settled on the ground, Israeli propagandists
and their fifth columnists in Washington immediately embarked on an intense campaign of innuendo
and insinuation to link Iraq to 9/11. Zionists in Tel Aviv and Washington were pointing the finger of
blame at Iraq from the get-go. In his essay “The War in Iraq: Conceived in Israel,” Stephen Sniegoski
discerned that “For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated
an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext.”
Proof of this is abundant. For instance, Israel’s central military intelligence service, Aman,
immediately disseminated disinformation that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Rafi
Eitan, a former chief of Mossad, joined in Aman’s anti-Iraqi chorus when he asserted without any
evidence that “the Iraqi dictator,” Saddam Hussein, was the “mastermind” of the attacks. These
spurious charges were repeated by the neocons in Washington. The false innuendo implicating Iraq
permeated throughout the mass media to such an extent that a 2007 poll conducted by Newsweek found
that 41 per cent of respondents believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
An obvious question is: Why would Hussein be insane enough to perpetrate such a reckless act and
thereby offer the United States — already gung-ho to remove him from power — an open invitation to
lay siege upon his country? Of course, he wasn’t.
Zionist war cries for the decimation of the entire Islamic world commenced almost as soon as the
planes hit the towers on 9/11. Israeli officials and neocons made some striking statements on the day
and evening of Sept. 11, 2001. A short time after the Twin Towers collapsed Israel’s former Prime
Minister Ehud Barak made an in-person studio appearance on the BBC. On the program, Barak
laid out his preferred plan of action going forward after the tragic events of the day. Barak announced
that “The world will not be the same from today on, it’s an attack against our whole civilization.” He
went on to say, “I believe that this is the time to deploy a globally concerted effort led by the United
States, UK, Europe and Russia, against all sources of terror.” This global “war on terrorism,” Barak
explained, will be “a tough struggle. There will be many tough and painful moments along the way,
but I believe that if we will coordinate diplomatic, operational, intelligence and economic activities
that will not let them land at any airport and will isolate automatically any nation that is ready to host
terror or support them.” “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror even if it
takes certain pains from the routine activities of our normal society,” he said. Barak identified several
groups and countries he wished for the United States to strike pre-emptively: “Bin Laden sits in
Afghanistan… Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea… these kinds of states should be treated as rogue
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Israeli President Shimon Peres also made their
Likudnik perspectives heard on 9/11. At a press conference in Israel shortly after the tragedy Sharon
declared: “[The] war against terror is an international war, a war of a coalition of the free world
against all the terror groups and against whoever believes they can pose a threat to freedom. This is a
war between the good and the bad, between humanity and those who are blood-thirsty.” The 9/11
attacks, Sharon announced, were a “turning point in the war against international terror.” Peres
echoed the same sentiments as his Likudnik colleagues. “The fight against terrorism,” Peres
proclaimed, “is an international struggle of the free world against the forces of darkness who seek to
destroy our liberty and our way of life. I believe that together we can defeat these forces of evil.”
Later in the day, Ehud Barak and Richard Perle appeared on the BBC’s Newsnight program to deliver
even more Orwellian grandiloquence. Adding to his list of “rogue actors,” Barak fingered
Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as adversaries that need to be dealt with. Richard Perle
emphasized that 9/11 could not have been done without “state sponsorship” and that the “states that
sponsor terrorism” must be confronted with military action. The next day Netanyahu added the
Palestinian Authority to the list of enemies. Conveniently, all of Israel’s opponents in the Middle
East were being presented as the main targets of this Zionist-devised “war on terror.” Netanyahu
expanded his catalogue of foes nine days after 9/11 in a speech before the U.S. House of
Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on Sept. 20. Netanyahu called for the United
States to exact vengeance upon “Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian
Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan.” He also named “Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan, Hizbullah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the
recently mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories” as prime targets.
Netanyahu’s speech was essentially a declaration of war against the entire Arab/Islamic world with
Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy echoed these frenzied Likudnik pronouncements. In a 2002
speech at a closed meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels, Halevy postulated that “The
11th of September was, if you will, an official and biting declaration of World War III. … It is a war
which does not have clear fighting lines; it is a war that is being waged against free societies, with
weapons and strategies we have not known until now. It is a war which does not adhere to the rules of
war, or the international legal norms.” Halevy was suggesting that the Western powers should
have free reign to act as aggressively and recklessly as they wished, since this war, according to
Halevy, “does not adhere to the rules of war, or the international legal norms.” Anyone deemed an
“enemy,” in the eyes of the Zionists and their allies, was considered a fair target.
The PNAC war planners wasted no time to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks to push forward their
ultimate agenda of destroying Iraq. In an attempt to use 9/11 to link the foreign policies of Israel and
the United States, the group issued a letter to President Bush dated April 3, 2002, calling for him to
support Israel by attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, thereby unveiling their true concern:
Israel’s security. They wrote:
In particular, we want to commend you [President Bush] for your strong stance in support of
the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. … Israel now
needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s
continued survival … for only the United States has the power and influence to provide
meaningful assistance to our besieged ally.
The Israel-firster neocons continued:
And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and
hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed
with a fellow victim of terrorist violence. No one should doubt that the United States and
Israel share a common enemy. … You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr.
President. Israel is fighting the same war. … Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to
accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. … It is now common
knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against
Israel. … If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli
friends … have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater
horrors. Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our
victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against
The neocons were right in one thing: the “war on terror” is indeed an Israeli construct, and was
adopted by the American government after the 9/11 attacks. Using 9/11, the Zionists exported their
propagandistic memes to the West and as a result millions of Americans and other Westerners were
hoodwinked into viewing the world through Israel’s spectacles. Writing in The New Statesman,
Kevin Toolis keenly observed: “In the wake of 11 September 2001, American neoconservatives such
as Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and Richard Perle incorporated the Israeli counter-terrorist
model into US foreign policy.”
The Likud leadership trumpeted the bombastic rhetoric of the “war on terrorism” long before 9/11. In
fact, the terminology and phraseology of the “war on terror” was invented many decades before 9/11
by a little known Israeli think tank called the “Jonathan Institute.” Formed in 1979 by Benjamin
Netanyahu, it was named after his brother Jonathan who had been killed during the Israeli military
raid on Entebbe airport in Uganda in 1976. Netanyahu and his Likudnik associates organized two
conferences to study “international terrorism.” “The two conferences organized by the Jonathan
Institute, in Jerusalem in July 1979 and in Washington, D.C., in June 1984, were major events and
highly effective for Israeli and Western propaganda,” wrote authors Edward S. Herman and Gerry
O’Sullivan in their book The “Terrorism” Industry.
The conferences were aimed at seducing Western military and political figures into joining Israel’s
crusade against the Muslim world. The second conference produced a book edited by Netanyahu
entitled Terrorism: How the West Can Win. At its very core, Netanyahu’s “war on terror” dogma
is nothing more than a deceitful Zionist propaganda initiative designed to legitimize Israel’s existence
and its acts of aggressive warfare, state-terrorism and land confiscation, while delegitimizing
Palestinian/Arab resistance to Israeli occupation and subjugation.
In the wake of 9/11, the unhinged hubris of American and Israeli leaders reached new heights of
absurdity. No intelligent person, looking at the long history of extreme violence perpetrated by the
governments of Israel and America and the terroristic tactics employed by these rogue states to
accomplish their ends, can take seriously their disingenuous claims of “fighting terrorism.” Such
puerile assertions are an affront to the millions of innocent people killed and displaced by Israel and
As we have seen, the attacks of Sept. 11 were little more than a convenient pretext for the neocons’
war plans – the “new Pearl Harbour” they had been yearning for. Paul Wolfowitz made this clear
shortly after the attacks in a Feb. 2002 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, where he
described the 9/11 attacks as “an opportunity” to implement his belligerent policies of aggressive
warfare. Stephen Sniegoski contends, “The ‘war on terrorism’ was never intended to be a war to
apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. September 11 simply provided
a pretext for government leaders to implement long-term policy plans.”
Confirmation of this view is illustrated by the Bush regime’s rejection of a Taliban offer to capture
and hand over Osama bin Laden to a third party country in Oct. 2001. Taliban officials proposed a
conditional agreement asking for Washington to cease its bombing campaign against Afghanistan in
exchange for bin Laden. In the spirit of due process of law, the Taliban merely asked for evidence that
bin Laden was guilty of the crimes he stands accused of by the Bush regime. Instead of cooperating
with what should have been a simple task (if bin Laden was indeed responsible), the Bush regime
shirked the offer and continued its merciless offensive against the downtrodden country of
Afghanistan. Bush reportedly said, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know [bin
The reason why the Bush regime neglected to provide the Taliban with evidence of bin Laden’s guilt
lies in the fact that there simply was no evidence. A heavy-handed media campaign to link bin Laden
to 9/11 was not rooted in any semblance of proof. Much like the Likudnik/neocon campaign of
innuendo against Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks, bin Laden’s presumed guilt was bereft of any
solid evidence. In 2006, Rex Tomb, the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity, admitted that the
Bureau had “no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” “Bin Laden has not been formally
charged in connection to 9/11,” Tomb told journalist Ed Haas.
In a Sept. 2001 interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave of The Washington Times, Hamid Gul, a
former Pakistani intelligence chief, presciently pointed out: “Within 10 minutes of the second twin
tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a
planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public
opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.”
Within hours of the attacks, self-styled terrorism “experts” were pointing the finger of blame at alQaeda
and bin Laden. How could they have known so very quickly that al-Qaeda was responsible?
More importantly, how was a rag-tag group like al-Qaeda able to outwit the United States’ multibillion
dollar military defense system with such ease? Hamid Gul dismissed the notion of bin Laden’s
involvement as sheer fantasy: “From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant’s hovel? Let’s be serious.
… [Al-Qaeda] doesn’t have the means for such a sophisticated operation.”
Gul wasn’t alone in his prognosis. On the day of 9/11, veteran CIA officer Milt Bearden told CBS’s
Dan Rather: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States — more
sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” Bearden added that whoever
is truly responsible for the attacks may be using bin Laden as a scapegoat: “Now I would go so far as
to say that this group who was responsible for [the attacks], if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden
out there they’d invent one because he’s a terrific diversion for the rest of the world.”
With no evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11, Washington’s use of lethal force against
Afghanistan was thus an illegitimate act of naked aggression based upon false pretences. Let us
presuppose that bin Laden was guilty – that does not give the U.S. the right to start bombing an entire
country, especially when the government of that country was indeed willing to cooperate with the
apprehension of those accused of the crimes of 9/11. It was the U.S. government that refused to
participate in negotiations, not the Taliban.
A 2010 survey conducted by the International Council on Security and Development found that 92 per
cent of men in Afghanistan’s major provinces had no idea what took place on 9/11 – they had never
even heard of it. Hundreds of ordinary Afghans were shown famous photographs of the burning World
Trade Center towers, but could not recognize the images. This is hardly surprising considering
Afghanistan’s extreme poverty and detachment from the outside world, but it illustrates so well why
the American occupation of that country was completely senseless to begin with.
Moreover, the Bush regime’s war plans against Afghanistan were actually in place prior to 9/11. Niaz
Naik, a former high-ranking Pakistani diplomat, confirmed Washington’s war on Afghanistan was prearranged.
Naik told the BBC’s George Arney that U.S. officials made him aware of their intention to
invade Afghanistan months before 9/11. “The US was planning military action against Osama Bin
Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s [9/11] attacks,” he told BBC News. According
to Naik, the objective of the U.S. invasion would not be to capture bin Laden but rather would be
aimed at ousting the Taliban and installing “a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its
place.” Naik surmised that the U.S. would not drop its aggressive plans against Afghanistan “even if
Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.” Naik also revealed that several other
countries including Russia and Uzbekistan had been made aware of Washington’s intentions vis-à-vis
Afghanistan and were expected to collaborate.
Naik’s allegations were confirmed by a May 2002 MSNBC exclusive report headlined “U.S. sought
attack on al-Qaida: White House given plan days before Sept. 11.” The article detailed the
contents of a formal National Security Presidential Directive, which revealed that the Bush regime
had already drafted detailed plans of a “worldwide war against al-Qaeda” prior to 9/11 and that
President Bush was expected to approve the plan two days before the attacks. “The document, a
formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a game plan to remove al-Qaida from
the face of the earth,” MSNBC’s report stated. “The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against alQaida,
ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan.”
MSNBC’s report added that the directive “outlined essentially the same war plan that the White
House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks.” It continued: “In another
striking parallel to the war plan adopted after Sept. 11, the security directive included efforts to
persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden over to the
United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.” “The couching of the plans as a
formal security directive is significant,” the MSNBC report concluded, “because it indicates that the
United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.”
So the Bush regime was planning to strike Afghanistan even if 9/11 had not happened, but it is
unlikely the public would have consented to such aggression before the attacks. The same can be said
of Iraq. In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes program, Paul O’Neill, Bush’s former treasury
secretary, said that the administration had been itching to invade Iraq eight months before 9/11. Iraq
had nothing to do with 9/11 anyway, but O’Neill revealed that during Bush’s first ever National
Security Council meeting upon taking office in January 2001, he and his neocon advisors were
already making detailed plans for the invasion of Iraq. According to O’Neill, Bush purportedly asked
his foreign policy advisors to “find” him a pretext to topple Saddam Hussein.
For the neocons, the war in Afghanistan was merely a starting point from which a broader
conflagration against other Middle Eastern countries could be ignited. Sniegoski observed: “The war
on Afghanistan may simply have been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and
crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of Israel. That is analogous to what
revisionist historians have presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘back door to war’ approach to
World War II.” They intended all along to spread chaos across the whole Middle East as per the
Yinon plan. This “broad war” against the Muslim world was needed to destabilize and fragment
Israel’s enemies and give Israel a free hand to carry out its imperial schemes.
When asked who he believed sponsored the 9/11 attacks, Hamid Gul theorized: “Mossad and its
accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That’s $400 billion
in 10 years. Yet the Bush administration says it was taken by surprise. I don’t believe it.” In a
2008 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Gul reiterated: “I have been on record and I said [9/11
was committed by] the Zionists and the Neocons. They have done it, it is an inside job and they
wanted to go on the world conquers.” Gul is not alone in this belief. Italy’s former president
Francesco Cossiga said 9/11 was a false-flag operation conducted by the Israeli Mossad and the
American CIA. “All of the democratic circles of America and of Europe […] now know well that the
disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the
Zionist world to place the blame on Arabic countries and to persuade the Western powers to
intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the late Italian president told the Corriere della Sera newspaper.
The former German parliamentarian Andreas von Bülow expressed the same view in an interview
with the American Free Press. “These attacks were carried out to turn public opinion against the
Arabs, and boost military and security spending,” he said. Dr. Alan Sabrosky, the former
director of the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College, advanced a similar viewpoint
in an interview with Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth. “It is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad
operation,” he said. “The Zionists are playing this as truly an all-or-nothing exercise, because if they
lose this one, if the American people ever realize what [really] happened [on 9/11], they’re
done.” Iran’s former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also challenged the official story of 9/11,
theorizing that the World Trade Center buildings could not have collapsed without explosives being
planted within them. He added: “[The West] threaten anyone who questions the Holocaust and the
September 11 event with sanctions and military actions.”
Despite popular belief, Osama bin Laden did not “take credit” for the 9/11 attacks. In a little-known
interview published in the Sept. 28, 2001, edition of the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, bin Laden
vehemently denied any involvement. Explaining that killing innocent women and children is
forbidden in Islam, he said:
… I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my
best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing
of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids
causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people.
It is the United States and Israel, bin Laden argued, “which is perpetrating every maltreatment on
women, children, and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.” The true
perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden theorized, “are … persons who want to make the present
century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation,
country, or ideology could survive.” Bin Laden shed light on the intrigues of American intelligence
agencies, which require big budgets and need to manufacture enemies to maintain those budgets and
exert their importance. He explained:
[U.S. intelligence agencies] require billions of dollars’ worth of funds from the Congress and
the government every year. This funding issue was not a big problem till the existence of the
former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They
needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usamah and Taleban and then this
incident happened. You see, the Bush administration approved a budget of 40bn dollars.
Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge
funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion
and for increasing their importance.
“Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States?” bin Laden asked.
“That secret government must be asked as to who made the attacks.” Bin Laden stressed that he is
“not hostile to the United States. We are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the
United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom.” The American
system, bin Laden explained, “is totally in [the] control of the American Jews, whose first priority is
Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the American people are themselves the slaves of the
Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them.” In another interview
from 1998 bin Laden warned that, “The leaders in America and in other countries as well have fallen
victim to Jewish Zionist blackmail.”
“Good for Israel”
Buried beneath an avalanche of Zionist propaganda was the inescapable reality that the only country
to substantially benefit from the Sept. 11 attacks was Israel. “From the time of the 9/11 attack,”
Stephen Sniegoski explained, “neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish
ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of 9/11 to foment a broad war
against Islamic terrorism, the targets of which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.”
From the very moment of the first plane impact into the World Trade Center, Israel’s leaders were
celebrating with glee. A Sept. 12, 2001, New York Times article headlined “A DAY OF TERROR:
THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer” quoted an elated
Benjamin Netanyahu. When asked what the 9/11 attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations,
Netanyahu remarked: “It’s very good. … Well it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy
[for Israel].” He added that the attack would help forge a closer bond between Israel and America:
“[The Sept. 11 attack will] strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced
terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of
terror.” The Times’ article further reported that the Israeli public “took cold comfort in concluding
that Americans now share more of their fears.” Israel’s leaders, the article continued, “who chafed at
American criticism of their measures against Palestinians, said the day’s attacks would awaken the
United States to the threat of global terrorism.”
In 2008, Netanyahu restated that the attacks benefited Israel, saying: “We are benefiting from one
thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,”
adding that the atrocity “swung American public opinion in our favor.” Israel’s prime minister
on 9/11, Ariel Sharon, duplicated Netanyahu’s callous proclamation. Sharon and the top
military/intelligence brass of the Israeli state had come to the conclusion that the events of 9/11 were
a “Hanukkah miracle” of good fortune for Israel. “The Israeli political-security establishment is
coming to the conclusion that the terror attacks on September 11 were a kind of ‘Hanukkah miracle’
for Israel, coming just as Israel was under increasing international pressure because of the ongoing
conflict with the Palestinians,” wrote Aluf Benn in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper. Benn continued:
Osama bin Laden’s September 11 attacks placed Israel firmly on the right side of the
strategic map with the U.S., and put the Arab world at a disadvantage as it now faces its own
difficult decisions about its future. That’s the impression left by the speeches given by
Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy and National Security Council chairman Maj. Gen. Uzi
Dayan, at this week’s Herzliya conference on national security.
Benn quoted Israel’s security leaders who said that the hostile anti-Muslim atmosphere stemming
from 9/11 would give the United States and Israel “the chance for victory over a common enemy.”
Benn further reported that Mossad chief Efraim Halevy “spoke about ‘a world war different from all
its predecessors’ and about global agreement that ‘combined all the elements of Islamic terror into
one clear and identifiable format,’ creating ‘a genuine dilemma for every ruler and every state in our
region. Each one must reach a moment of truth and decide how he will position himself in the
Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s internal security agency Shin Bet, confirmed that Israel’s
leadership were overjoyed. “Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric,” he told France’s
Le Monde newspaper. “With no more international pressures on Israel, they think, the way is
open.” Ehud Sprinzak, an Israeli professor and expert on security matters, expressed a similar
sentiment. “From the perspective of the Jews, [the Sept. 11 attack] is the most important public
relations act ever committed in our favour,” he said. Within hours of the tragedy, pro-Israel
analyst George Friedman, the director of Stratfor, proclaimed that Israel was the “big winner” of the
day. “The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel,” Friedman wrote in an article on his
website, adding, “The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war
against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack.” Friedman
went on to explain that the attacks would have the effect of aligning “U.S. and Israeli interests [and it
will also make] the United States dependent on the Israelis,” concluding that “the Israeli leadership is
feeling relief. Given that pressures for Israel to restrain operations against the Palestinian Authority
and other Palestinian groups will decline dramatically.”
The former chief of Israel’s Mossad also admitted that the Zionist state was the prime beneficiary of
9/11. In a televised interview, Efraim Halevy, who headed Mossad when the 9/11 attacks occurred,
was asked about Mossad’s infamous reputation. “[Mossad’s] reputation could also backfire can’t it?”
asked journalist Peter Klein, host of The Standard, a Canadian current affairs television program.
 Klein continued his query:
After 9/11, for instance, there were conspiracies all over, certainly within the Arab world
but even beyond that, that Mossad was the only one who had the power and the strength and
the organizational skills to pull off something that spectacular — somehow Israel was behind
that for political gain. Do you feel that’s the dark side of the reputation of Mossad?
“One of the immediate results of 9/11 was clearly a very, very severe backlash of international
approbation of Islam in general,” Halevy acknowledged. “Obviously Israel benefited, the Jewish
people benefited [from 9/11],” he capitulated. Predictably, Halevy denied his agency was involved in
9/11, suggesting Israel’s gain from the attacks was merely coincidental.
Celebrating massacres is not uncommon for Israelis. In 1994, a Jewish extremist named Baruch
Goldstein carried out a gruesome massacre of at least 29 Palestinian Muslims in the West Bank city of
Hebron. Goldstein entered a mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs and shot down his victims with an
automatic assault rifle as they were kneeling in prayer. Ensconced in the racist, anti-Gentile doctrine
of ‘Kach’ leader Meir Kahane, Goldstein acted out of hatred and malice towards Arabs. Goldstein’s
terrorist crime was praised by thousands of Israelis, including several prominent rabbis, who
venerated the mass murderer as a “saint” and a “hero of Israel.” At Goldstein’s funeral
procession, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin remarked: “One million Arabs are not even worth a Jewish
In 2010, the head rabbi of Israel’s Sephardic community delivered a hate-filled sermon in which he
excoriated non-Jews as “donkeys” who, according to the rabbi, “only exist to serve Jews” as slaves.
The elderly rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, told his followers: “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without
that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. … Why are gentiles needed?
They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why
gentiles were created.” As the spiritual leader of Shas, Israel’s fourth largest political party,
Yosef had been dubbed a “kingmaker” in Israeli politics. The rabbi died in Oct. 2013 and more than
800,000 Israelis attended his funeral.
In 2001, the same rabbi unleashed a hysterical war cry for the annihilation of Arabs and Palestinians.
“They are evil and damnable,” Yosef said. “It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send
missiles to them and annihilate them. … Waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and
vanish them from this world,” the ‘man of God’ declared. Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfur
observed that Israel’s political culture and actions are fully in line with the rabbi’s racist mandate.
False Flag Terrorism:
Israel’s History of Deception
We have seen that Israel and its neoconservative patrons in Washington orchestrated the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan based upon false pretenses. Saddam’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” were a
Straussian myth and Osama bin Laden’s purported involvement in 9/11 was predicated on flimsy
innuendo and has never been proven in any court of law.
The 9/11 attacks represented the “new Pearl Harbour” spoken of by the Likudnik neocons a full year
before that fateful September day. This truly “catalyzing event” was described as a “good thing for
Israel” and a “Hanukkah miracle” by Israel’s leaders.
Twenty-one years prior to 9/11, the founder of Israel’s intelligence services made an astonishing
prediction. Michael Evans, a pro-Zionist Evangelical Christian from the U.S., made a trip to Israel in
1979. On his trip he met with Isser Harel, the Israeli spy chief, at his home. Over dinner, Harel
imparted to Evans that “Islamic fundamentalists” would soon attack America and that they would
strike New York City’s “tallest building” because it represented a “phallic symbol.” This
remarkable “prediction” can be interpreted as either evidence of foreknowledge or proof of planning.
As Israel’s chief spymaster from 1947 to 1963 and a member of the Zionist underground prior to
Israel’s formation, Harel and his fellow Zionists had been responsible for a multitude of “false flag”
terrorist tricks. The year 1946 witnessed a devastating Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem, which was housing the British Administrative Headquarters for Palestine at the time. The
Irgun, a Zionist terror group waging an insurgency against the native Arabs of Palestine as well as the
British colonial rulers of that land, planted and detonated bombs in the hotel’s basement, killing 91
people, including dozens of British personnel. In a 2002 BBC documentary called “Age of Terror,”
the Zionist bombers admitted to disguising themselves as Arabs as they carried out the attack.
Irgun’s leader at the time of the bombing was none other than Menachem Begin, who later became the
prime minister of Israel in 1977.
Israel initiated another false flag deception in 1954, this time in Egypt. Egyptian Jews who had been
recruited by Israeli intelligence planted firebombs in British and American-owned cinemas and other
buildings in Cairo and Alexandria. The attacks were designed to frame Egyptian Muslims and thereby
poison relations between Egypt and the West. Codenamed “Operation Susannah,” the plot was foiled
after one of the Zionists’ explosives detonated prematurely in his pocket, leading to the capture and
confessions of all the Zionist conspirators. The incident was later dubbed the “Lavon Affair,” named
after Israel’s then-Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon who was forced to resign as a result of the debacle.
Instead of condemning this act of terrorism, Israeli President Moshe Katsav held a ceremony in 2005
honouring several of the surviving terrorists who took part in the operation with medals of
In 1967, Israel turned its aggression against America once again. During the Arab-Israeli Six Day
War, Israel attacked an American surveillance ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters. In a
prolonged two-hour assault, the Israelis mercilessly attacked the American vessel with warplanes
and torpedo boats. Killing 34 and critically wounding 171 others, the Israelis intended to sink the
ship, killing all on board. The ship, however, did not sink, and Israel’s treachery was exposed.
Israel’s purpose for attacking this U.S. ship was quite simple: the Liberty was a sophisticated
surveillance vessel and had caught wind of war crimes the Israeli Army committed in the Sinai desert
as well as Israeli military plans to seize large chunks of land from the neighbouring Arab states of
Syria and Egypt. To prevent any information about their militarist plans from being relayed back to
Washington, who may well have intervened to stop them, the Israelis decided to bomb the ship and
perhaps have it blamed on the Arabs afterwards. The corrupt American government under Lyndon
Baines Johnson, an ardent Zionist, promptly ordered a cover up of the incident so as to not embarrass
The Six Day War itself was little more than a pre-meditated imperialist Israeli land-grab. Zionist
propaganda always presents Israel as the poor victim of “Arab aggression,” but reality is very much
the opposite. Israeli PM and Irgun terrorist Menachem Begin admitted Israel’s bellicose intent. Begin
addressed Israel’s National Defense College on August 8, 1982, wherein he attempted to justify his
invasion and occupation of Lebanon that same year. In reference to the Six Day War, he proudly
confessed: “The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
In 1983 during the Lebanese civil war, which was to a large extent fostered by Israel’s invasion of
that country a year earlier, American and French military units were dispatched into Lebanon as a
“peacekeeping” force. In October of that year two truck bombs are said to have exploded outside of
two separate marines barracks housing American and French troops in Beirut. The blasts killed 299
American and French military personnel and wounded hundreds more. Victor Ostrovsky, a former
Mossad officer, reported in his book By Way of Deception that Israeli intelligence had prior
knowledge of the attacks, but chose not to warn their American and French “allies” of the imminent
danger. This tacit complicity in the killing of hundreds of Western troops unveiled Israel’s coldblooded
exploitation of any possible schism between the Arab/Muslim world and the West. Some
commentators have inferred that Israel may have even had a direct hand in the Beirut bombings to
encourage America and France to get out of Israel’s way and let her deal with the Arabs as she
In 1986, a bombing took place in Germany at La Belle disco, a Berlin-based nightspot frequented by
U.S. military personnel stationed in the area. The explosion killed three people and wounded
hundreds of others. The incident was immediately blamed on Libya, and was used by U.S. President
Ronald Reagan as a pretext for a bombing campaign against the North African country. Reagan
launched air assaults on Libya 10 days after the incident in Germany. As a result, at least 60 Libyans
were killed, hundreds more were wounded and much infrastructure in the Libyan cities of Tripoli and
Benghazi was destroyed. Despite Reagan’s claims, there was no evidence of Libyan state
involvement in the nightclub bombing in Berlin, but there is strong evidence which suggests the attack
was the handiwork of American and Israeli intelligence.
A 1998 report published on the World Socialist Web Site headlined “German TV exposes CIA,
Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing” details the findings of a German documentary that
investigated the Berlin disco incident. The investigation was conducted by Frontal magazine
and the video was produced and aired by Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF television). The World
Socialist Web Site’s report explained that the German documentary “presents compelling evidence
that some of the main suspects in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, the event that provided the pretext
for a US air assault on Libya, worked for American and Israeli intelligence.”
According to the German documentary’s investigation, the principal protagonists of the bombing,
Musbah Eter and Mohamed Amairi, worked for the CIA and Mossad respectively. A Libyan man
named Yasser Chraidi was made into a scapegoat by German intelligence, at the behest of the CIA
and Mossad. Mohamed Amairi’s Norwegian lawyer, Odd Drevland, confirmed that Amairi was “a
Mossad man.” The German documentary concluded: “One thing is certain, the American legend of
Libyan state terrorism can no longer be maintained.” The World Socialist Web Site’s report reiterated
that the German documentary investigation proved without a shadow of doubt that the Berlin disco
bombing was “a carefully prepared provocation” by the CIA and Mossad.
Victor Ostrovsky provided corroboration of this frame-up. In his book By Way of Deception,
Ostrovsky revealed that a short time before the Berlin disco bombing Mossad agents snuck into Libya
and planted a “Trojan” device in an apartment building in Tripoli. “The device would act as a
relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP,
and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” writes Ostrovsky. The
special device broadcast fabricated transmissions that made it appear as though the Libyan
government was dispatching terrorist directives to its embassies worldwide. These phony messages
were then picked up by American intelligence and used as evidence to blame Libya for the Berlin
attack. “The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the
name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse,” writes Ostrovsky. He continued:
Mossad was tied in to many of the European terrorist organizations, and it was convinced
that in the volatile atmosphere that had engulfed Europe, a bombing with an American victim
was just a matter of time. Heads of the Mossad were counting on the American promise to
retaliate with vengeance against any country that could be proven to support terrorism.
Ultimately, the Americans fell for the Mossad ploy head over heels dragging the British and
the Germans somewhat reluctantly in with them. Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad’s
greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President Reagan had
The year 1993 saw a major terrorist attack on American soil. In February of that year a truck bomb
was detonated in the basement of the north tower of New York City’s World Trade Center, causing the
deaths of six people and wounding more than a thousand others. Likudnik neocons in the American
Enterprise Institute immediately tried to pin the bombing on Iraq, but few believed their flaccid
propaganda. Interestingly, Saddam Hussein had a theory of his own about the incident. In 2008 the
Pentagon released a study of 600,000 Iraqi government documents that had been seized in the 2003
invasion. Among the files was an audio recording of Hussein speculating that the 1993 WTC attack
may have been the handiwork of Israeli or American intelligence.
Saddam’s suspicions were on track. Israeli and American intelligence had intimate foreknowledge of
and direct involvement in the bombing. The FBI had a key mole inside the group of conspirators
alleged to have perpetrated the act. Emad Salem, a former Egyptian army officer, exposed his own
FBI handlers’ complicity in the WTC attack by secretly recording his conversations with Bureau
officials. The recordings undoubtedly indicate that the FBI was fully aware of the plot to bomb the
WTC and with Salem’s help were supposed to swap the real bombing materials with a harmless
powder, but that did not happen. Salem blamed the FBI for messing up what he thought would be a
sting operation. Ralph Blumenthal of the New York Times reported in the Oct. 28, 1993, edition of the
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually
used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly
substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. The
informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the
plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The Times article, headlined “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,”
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr.
Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of
New York City’s tallest towers.
Journalist and author Ralph Schoenman highlighted Israel’s hand in the operation in an investigative
report entitled “Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993: Growing Evidence Points to
Role of FBI Operative.” According to Schoenman’s research, Josie Hadas, a Mossad agent, had
infiltrated the “Islamist” group said to have been responsible for the bombing. Hadas was linked to
the Ryder rental truck used in the bombing. A Muslim man named Mohammad Salameh had rented the
truck presumably on her behalf because he wrote down her telephone number on the rental agreement.
Later, police traced the phone number to an apartment in Jersey City and found incriminating
materials used in bomb making as well as a note addressed to Salameh, but Hadas had vanished.
After the discovery, authorities quickly zeroed in on Salameh and attempted to build a case around
him, despite numerous indications that he was an innocent victim of a frame-up.
After the explosion at the WTC on Feb. 26, 1993, Salameh went back to the Ryder rental office in
Jersey City requesting a refund for the $400 deposit he made on the truck, claiming it had been stolen
the night before the blast. Would a sophisticated terrorist who had just committed a serious crime
deliberately draw attention to himself by doing this? Not likely. But a patsy who did not understand he
was being framed would. The New York Times inferred the same: “Such enigmas caused local
investigators to ‘dismiss Mr. Salameh as perhaps a patsy for others, someone who may have been
duped into carrying out the attack and taking the blame.’”
In his report, Schoenman also detailed Israel’s advanced prior knowledge of the attack. On the day of
the bombing, Schoenman writes, “an Israeli intelligence group sent an urgent communiqué over a
telephone access computer network about the event.” The communiqué was discovered
accidentally on an Israeli government information database pertaining to espionage and security
matters called “Matara” and then leaked to the Israeli press. According to Schoenman’s sources the
communiqué “states that Israeli Intelligence had advance knowledge of the timing and target of the
World Trade Center bombing and that it would be attributed to ‘known activists from the Occupied
Territories (i.e., Palestinians).’”
In addition to Hadas, another Mossad mole had penetrated the “Islamist” group in New York. A
Palestinian man named Ahmad Ajaj was indicted as one of the “masterminds” of the 1993 WTC
attack, but he was later exposed by investigative reporter Robert Friedman as a double agent who had
been recruited to work for Mossad while serving prison time in an Israeli jail. Interestingly, the
aforementioned Israeli intelligence communiqué spoke of “known activists from the Occupied
Territories” who would be blamed for the WTC bombing. Ajaj, a Palestinian, was the perfect patsy.
A plausible scenario is that this Mossad asset Ajaj was being used as a dupe to take the fall for the
WTC bombing, thereby linking Palestinian resistance groups to an act of terrorism on American soil
— a standard Zionist technique to demonize those resisting Israeli occupation.
Unfortunately for those in Mossad seeking to double-cross Ajaj and thus turn public opinion against
Palestinian resistance groups as a whole, the facts don’t bear out that he was anything near an activist
for the Palestinian cause. American Free Press reported that “Kol Ha’ir, a respected Hebrewlanguage
weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with
Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.” Ajaj, writes American Free Press
reporter Michael Collins Piper, “was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S.
dollars out of East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of counterfeiting and then sentenced to two-and-ahalf
years in prison.” It was during his stay in an Israeli jail when Mossad recruited him, according to
Piper’s source Robert Friedman. Piper continues:
Friedman reports that [upon his release from prison] Ajaj had suddenly become a devout
Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist. Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling
weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah, a subdivision of the PLO. But
Friedman’s sources in Israeli intelligence say that the arrest and Ajaj’s subsequent
deportation were “staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist.”
Mossad allegedly “tasked” Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside
Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for
Mossad to recruit from the ranks of common criminals.
Strangely, two years before the bombing Israeli security officials inspected the garage of the World
Trade Center for Zim American Israeli Shipping Co., which had offices in the towers. The Israelis
determined that the towers were indeed vulnerable to a truck bomb. One is left to ponder
whether this Israeli “inspection” of the WTC’s garage was part of the preparation for the attack or
just some innocent coincidence. The former seems the more likely scenario, given Israel’s long
history of false-flag terrorism and the proven role of Mossad moles within the cell said to be
responsible for this lethal attack.
There are also strong indications that Israeli intelligence had detailed foreknowledge of the 1998 U.S.
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in which 212 people were killed and thousands more
wounded. A largely unknown clue as to Israel’s involvement in the bombings was written about on the
World Socialist Web Site and in the Washington-based Spotlight newspaper.
The World Socialist Web Site ran a report by Martin McLaughlin titled “Questions mount in Kenya,
Tanzania bombings” with the sub-heading “US government, Israeli intelligence had advance
warning.” McLaughlin cited ABC News and the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz who divulged that
a Kenyan informer warned the American government two weeks prior to the August 7, 1998,
bombings that the U.S. embassy in Nairobi was going to be targeted by terrorists. The informant was
one of Mossad’s contacts in the country. The Americans, observed McLaughlin, asked the Israelis
about the reliability of the source and they dismissed him as untrustworthy, telling the Americans to
ignore his warnings. As a result, no special security precautions were taken at the embassy to guard
The Spotlight carried a story headlined “Zionists Target Iran” reporting much the same thing. “The
Mossad, Israel’s secret service, literally set up the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, for the August 7
truck bombing by persuading the CIA and the White House to disregard American intelligence
reports,” wrote Warren Hough, a reporter for The Spotlight. Hough continued:
Those reports warned that a terrorist raid against this facility was imminent, it was learned
as this issue of The SPOTLIGHT went to press. Four months worth of tips and alert signals
that the Nairobi embassy was facing a potential disastrous explosives attack were sent to
Washington last month by the U.S. ambassador in Kenya, Florence Bushnell, and by
intelligence controllers of the U.S. Central Command. But nothing was done to protect this
poorly shielded facility because, on the standard operating procedure inaugurated in the
Reagan era, the FBI had to turn to the Israelis for a definite evaluation of these early
The Mossad urged the U.S. government to disregard the warnings. “Ignore them, it’s just another false
alarm,” Mossad purportedly told their counterparts in the CIA. Hough further discerned: “This
information, delivered to Washington just weeks before the monstrous explosion, was the key factor
in persuading the U.S. to let its guard down, resulting in the loss of life of at least 250 victims
including 11 Americans, angry Washington intelligence sources told The SPOTLIGHT.”
The U.S. embassy building in Nairobi, Kenya, had once been Israel’s embassy. An August 10, 1998,
article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that “The embassy was built 30 years ago by
Israel. … It housed the Israeli embassy briefly before Israel was forced to close it … after the 1973
Mideast war.” Interestingly, Israeli military and intelligence officials were unusually quick to
arrive at the bombed-out sites as part of the “rescue crew.” Journalist Ralph Schoenman
reported that “The first soldiers on the scene [in Kenya and Tanzania] were special units of the Israeli
armed forces and high level agents of the Mossad.” Analyst George Pumphrey, in an article
entitled “US Embassy bombings in East Africa (1998),” alleged that “Neither the surveillance
cameras in Dar es Salaam nor in Nairobi were set to film.” He noted that Osama bin Laden,
who was blamed for the attacks, could not have performed this feat.
Former Pakistani spy chief Hamid Gul posited a theory about the embassy attacks in an interview
with The Washington Times. When asked who he believed was responsible for the bombings, Gul
Mossad is strong in both countries. Remember the Israeli operation to free hostages in
Entebbe (Uganda)? Both Kenya and Tanzania were part of the logistical tail. A so-called
associate of Osama was framed at Karachi airport. The incidents took place on Aug. 8, 1999,
and on the 10th a short, clean-shaven man disembarks at Karachi airport and presents the
passport of a bearded man. Not your passport, he was told. He then tries to bribe the clerk
with 200 rupees. A ludicrously small sum given the circumstances. The clerk says no and
turns him in and he starts singing right away. Not plausible. Osama has sworn to me on the
Koran it was not him and he is truthful to a fault. Pious Muslims do not kill innocent civilians
who included many Muslim victims. The passport must have been switched while the man
was asleep on the plane in what has all the earmarks of a Mossad operation. For 10 years,
the Mujahideen fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and not a single Soviet embassy was
touched anywhere in the world. So this could not have been Osama’s followers.
These historical examples illustrate in no uncertain terms that Israel has continuously used terrorism
and trickery as a method of coercion. Author and musician Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli citizen who
now resides in Britain, said, “Israel has made false-flag terrorism into an art-form.” Journalist Greg
Felton commented that Israel’s effectiveness lies in its ruthlessness. “[Israel] commits murder,
blackmail, terrorism; it knows no limits to its arrogance. And countries who are afraid of being
targeted by Israel will naturally not want to upset it,” he said in an interview with American Free
Press. Felton opined that Israel “has no moral, political or historical legitimacy. It exists solely
because it terrorized the world into approving its existence.”
The Grand Deception: Israel and 9/11
An elite U.S. Army study center acknowledged Israel’s penchant for ruthlessness and deception. A
Washington Times article with the heading “U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study”
outlined the findings of a 68-page paper produced by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies
(SAMS) who “devised a plan for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.” The
study’s authors described the Israeli Army as a “500-pound gorilla … well armed and trained.
Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank.” It further suggests that Israel is “known to disregard
international law to accomplish mission.” The study was even more forthright in its assessment of
Israel’s Mossad secret service, calling the agency a “wildcard” that is “ruthless and cunning.”
Expounding on this point, the authors said the Mossad “Has [the] capability to target U.S. forces and
make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” Ironically, the Washington Times article revealing the
contents of the SAMS study was published one day before the 9/11 attacks on Sept. 10, 2001.
As with previous false flags, Israel set the stage for the 9/11 operation by laying a false trail of blame
on those who would later be made into scapegoats. In an article headlined “Israeli security issued
urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks” the Telegraph reported on a “warning” issued by
the Mossad in August of 2001 in which they tipped off the CIA to the presence of as many as 200
terrorists on American soil who were said to be planning a major operation. “Israeli
intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that largescale
terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent,” the article
stated. The Telegraph then quoted an Israeli intelligence source who said Mossad provided no
specific information about what was being planned, but linked the alleged terror plot to Osama bin
Laden and told their counterparts in the CIA that there were “strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi
Victor Ostrovsky indicated in his book By Way of Deception that Mossad often give out useless
warnings in order to deflect suspicion away from themselves as perpetrators. For Mossad, the
purpose of such a disingenuous warning was twofold: 1) it created an alibi for Mossad to point to
afterwards, and 2) it directed attention onto the designated patsies whom Israel endeavoured to set up
as targets of the pre-planned “war on terror.” Hoping to avoid suspicion Israel can announce to the
world that it “warned” the American government and that the U.S. simply did not heed its warnings.
Unfortunately for Israel, not everyone was fooled.
Mossad’s bogus warning was particularly interesting in that it identified a cell of 200 “terrorists” on
American soil who were embarking on a plot against major U.S. landmarks. Coincidentally, there
were indeed 200 such people in America, but they were not Arabs or Muslims with links to al-Qaeda
or Saddam Hussein – they were Israelis with ties to the Mossad. This Zionist inversion of reality was
undermined three months after 9/11 when Fox News aired a four-part series in mid-December about a
“secretive and sprawling” investigation into Israeli espionage in the United States in the year leading
up to the attacks.
In the opening sequence of the first part of the series, Fox News anchor Brit Hume announced: “Fox
News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in
spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn’t tell us before September 11.” Fox
News correspondent Carl Cameron spearheaded coverage of the Israeli spy scandal. His research
unearthed evidence proving more than 60 Israelis were arrested shortly after 9/11 in connection with
the investigation into the attacks and that federal authorities had apprehended 140 other Israelis
months beforehand. These Israelis, it turned out, were part of a vast espionage ring, the largest ever
uncovered on American soil since 1985 when an Israeli spy named Jonathan Pollard was discovered
to have stolen and sold 800,000 classified documents to Israel. The Israeli spy ring was described by
sources within U.S. law enforcement agencies as “an organized intelligence gathering operation” that
was designed to “penetrate government facilities.” It is necessary to quote Cameron’s first
report at length here:
Since Sept. 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new
patriot anti-terrorism law, or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military
were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also
failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in
the United States.
There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators
suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not
shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are “tie-ins.” But when asked for details, he
flatly refused to describe them, saying, “evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I
cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.”
Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is
suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United
States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by
Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been
detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by
Israelis in the United States.
Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that’s been
compiling evidence since the mid ‘90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in
cities and towns across the country that investigators say, “may well be an organized
intelligence gathering activity.”
The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the
University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S.
government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.
Documents say they, “targeted and penetrated military bases.” The DEA, FBI and dozens of
government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement
and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, “stated they served in military
intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units.”
In the closing segment of the report, Brit Hume posed the question: “What about this question of
advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some
Israeli agents may have known something?” Cameron responded by quoting investigators who in turn
posed a question of their own: “How could [the Israelis] not have known?”
The second and third reports in Fox News’ coverage of this explosive story zeroed in on two shady
Israeli companies: Amdocs Ltd. and Comverse Infosys. It was revealed that a half-dozen or so of the
Israelis arrested in connection with the 9/11 investigation worked for Amdocs, an Israel-based
private telecommunications company. Brit Hume observed: “American investigators fear information
generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeding the Sept.
11 terror inquiry.” Carl Cameron pointed out that some American investigators “fear certain suspects
in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them, by knowing who and when
investigators are calling on the telephone.” This was achieved, said Cameron, “by obtaining and
analyzing data that’s generated every time someone in the U.S. makes a call.”
Cameron noted that almost all call records in the U.S. are routed through the Israeli firm Amdocs that
has contracts with the 25 largest phone companies in the country. “It is virtually impossible to make a
call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it,” said Cameron. The FBI
investigated Amdocs more than once in the 1990s and in 1999 the National Security Agency (NSA)
sounded the alarm about the company, alleging it was channeling American call records information
to Israel. The extent of Israel’s control of American phone records alarmed American intelligence,
prompting NSA officials to convene several secret conferences warning the FBI and CIA of the
breaches to security that could effectively be achieved through Amdocs.
In the third Fox News report, Brit Hume opened by saying: “As Carl Cameron reported, U.S.
investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what
they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.” The other Israeli company that worried U.S.
investigators was Comverse Infosys, which provides wiretapping equipment for law enforcement.
The company is half-owned by the Israeli government itself. Carl Cameron reported that technology
produced by Comverse has “a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by
unauthorized parties.” The troubling reality that Comverse is able to snoop on secret wiretaps is
coupled with the fact that the company, Cameron said, “works closely with the Israeli government,
and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development
costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade.” Cameron added that investigators within the
DEA, INS and FBI all told Fox News that to even hint at Israeli spying or misconduct is “career
suicide.” In relation to the 9/11 inquiry, investigators said that some of the individuals who authorities
sought to wiretap and monitor abruptly changed their communication habits. “They started acting
much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place,” said Cameron.
This extremely damning and honest reportage by Carl Cameron of Fox News ruffled some feathers in
the Zionist community, who immediately mobilized to have the four-part series quashed and any
further reporting on the matter silenced. Soon after the report aired, representatives of the AntiDefamation
League, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and other Zionist lobby groups
began stiff-arming Fox News executives, demanding they take down any traces of the report from
their website. Eventually, Fox News caved to Zionist pressure and removed the video as well
as its transcript and anything else related to the report from their website. Internet users attempting to
access the page are now greeted with the Orwellian message: “This story no longer exists.”
The significance of the Israeli spy ring was outdone by several other incidents that took place on
Sept. 11, 2001, that unveiled Israel’s active participation in the attacks. The first incident — which
the mainstream media flatly refused to cover in any substantial way — was the arrest of five Israelis
on 9/11 who witnesses observed filming and subsequently celebrating the attacks. Witnesses saw the
men standing on top of a white van shouting with joy and mockery after the first plane struck the north
tower of the World Trade Center. The New York Times briefly mentioned the incident in a Sept. 13,
2001, report, but failed to identify the suspects as Israelis. “[O]fficials said a group of about five men
were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers,” wrote New York
Times reporters David Johnston and James Risen. “In addition, the officials said the men had
apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They
photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward.”
Local New Jersey reporter Paulo Lima covered the incident extensively. In his Sept. 12, 2001, report
for the Bergen County Record which carried the headline “Five men detained as suspected
conspirators,” Lima wrote: “About eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan’s tallest skyscrapers,
police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to
the blasts.” Sources close to the investigation told Lima that the suspects had “maps of the city in the
car with certain places highlighted.” “It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It looked like they
knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park,” said Lima’s sources in the
police. Lima quoted Bergen County Police Chief John Schmidig, who said, “We got an alert to be on
the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side,” adding
that “Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three
people were jumping up and down.”
ABC News 20/20 covered the story in a June 24, 2002, report entitled “The White Van: Were Israelis
Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?” The report’s description read: “Millions saw the horrific images
of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won’t forget them. But a New Jersey
homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and
their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.” In the article, a New Jersey woman identified only
as Maria recounted what she saw. Upon hearing from a friend that a plane hit the WTC, Maria
grabbed her binoculars and peered out the window of her apartment. She saw three men kneeling on
the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment. “They seemed to be taking a movie,” she
said. Maria noticed them taking video and photographs of themselves with the burning towers in the
backdrop. “They were like happy, you know … They didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was very
strange,” she said.
Alarmed by what she saw, Maria promptly took down the van’s license plate and reported the
incident to the police who issued a state-wide bulletin on the van. Through the license plate number
police traced the van to a moving company operating out of Weehawken, New Jersey, called Urban
Moving Systems. Police eventually spotted the van at around 4 p.m. and the five Israelis were
detained. The ABC News story observed:
A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the
vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police. The
arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the
passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign
passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers
came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.
Upon his arrest, the driver of the van, who ABC News identified as Sivan Kurzberg, pleaded with the
arresting officer to let him and his compatriots go, saying: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem.
Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” ABC News identified the other
detained Israeli suspects as Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. Marc
Perelman, a reporter for the Jewish Forward newspaper, confirmed from FBI sources that at least
two of the men were Mossad agents. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told
ABC News that the FBI’s interest in the case increased when some of the men’s names showed up in
a national intelligence database.
Journalist Christopher Ketcham, who writes for the online publication Counter Punch, covered the
story extensively and concluded that there is a very good probability these five Israelis had
foreknowledge of the attacks. Discussing his coverage of the story in an interview with Democracy
Now, Ketcham astutely pointed out: “Well, what’s interesting there is that, you recall after the first
plane hit, no one really thought that this was a terrorist attack. I mean, most people thought … it was
an accident. These [five Israelis], when they were interrogated by FBI, told them … that they
immediately knew it was a terrorist attack.” How could the Israelis have immediately known
upon the impact of the first plane that it was a terrorist attack unless they had foreknowledge?
Moreover, their celebrations gave away their foreknowledge as well. FBI reports obtained through a
Freedom of Information Request confirm the Israelis were indeed celebrating minutes after the first
plane impacted the north tower of the WTC and had taken 76 photographs of themselves in which they
appear to be “visibly happy.” The documents also confirm that during interrogations with the
FBI, the Israelis admitted the reason for their apparent jubilation: the attacks would benefit Israel.
One of the FBI documents quotes Oded Ellner who confessed to being happy because “the United
States will [now] take steps to stop terrorism in the world.” Omer Marmari remarked: “Israel now
has hope that the world will now understand us.” Christopher Ketcham, in the aforementioned
interview, explained: “And [the Israelis] actually told the FBI that the reason they were celebrating
was because the attacks would be beneficial to Israel, that it was, quote, ‘a good thing for Israel’ —
that’s according to the FBI spokesman who spoke on the record about this — and that it would bring
sympathy for Israel’s political agenda in the Middle East.”
Ketcham’s observation begs the question: how did these Israelis know the attack would benefit Israel
before it was determined who was behind it? Logic dictates that if these Israelis “knew” the attacks
would benefit Israel they must have not only known beforehand that an attack against the WTC was
going to take place, but also who was going to be blamed for it: the Arabs. During their investigation
into the five Israelis, the FBI was quite convinced of the premise that the Israelis did have
foreknowledge of the attacks. Another possibility investigators took into account was that the Israelis
had set up their cameras to film the attack prior to the first plane impact.
In Oct. 2008, a curious Los Angeles activist queried Robert Baer, a former CIA officer, on the issue.
Baer acknowledged the five celebrating Israelis were indeed Mossad operatives and disclosed that
they were in place to film the attacks before either plane hit the WTC. Baer’s revelation begs
another important question: if the Israelis were in place in that New Jersey parking lot to film the
attacks prior to either plane crash, than wouldn’t that necessarily prove they had intimate
foreknowledge of the date, time, place, nature and outcome of the attacks? How can any of that
information have been known by anyone other than those who perpetrated the act itself?
The investigation into the Israelis culminated in an FBI inquiry into Urban Moving Systems, the New
Jersey-based moving company where the five Israelis worked. The Forward newspaper’s reportage
cited FBI sources who said the moving company was a “front operation” for Israeli intelligence.
“Two former CIA officers confirmed [that Urban Moving Systems was a front for Mossad], noting
that movers’ vans are a common intelligence cover,” wrote Christopher Ketcham in his detailed study
of the affair entitled “High-Fivers and Art Student Spies: What Did Israel Know in Advance of the
9/11 Attacks?” An American employee of Urban told investigators that his Israeli co-workers
were joking on the day of the 9/11 attacks. “I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered
me. These guys were like, ‘Now America knows what we go through,’” the man said.
The FBI questioned the company’s owner, Dominik Suter, but when Bureau officials attempted to pay
him a second visit to ask more questions he had disappeared. “[Suter] cleared out of his New Jersey
home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel,” reported ABC News. The FBI
eventually raided Urban’s offices and found it in a state of disarray with cell phones lying around and
clients’ property still sitting dormant in the storage facility. Why was Suter in such a hurry to
leave the U.S. if he had nothing to hide?
The five Israelis were held in custody for 71 days in total. Initially, they refused to submit to
polygraph tests to prove their innocence, but later agreed to take the tests and failed. Eventually they
were deported back to Israel on minor visa violations. Israel and the Zionist lobby in America
secured the release of the five Israeli suspects through months of intense lobbying pressure. “After
those 71 days was up, they were sent home, apparently under pressure or because of pressure brought
by the Israeli government and by certain players in the US government,” Christopher Ketcham told
Democracy Now. In his previously cited report, Ketcham quoted a former CIA counter-terrorism
official who said the investigation into the five Israelis was closed down due to pressure from
Zionists in the Bush administration:
There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the
White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going
to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in
mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody
says we don’t want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they’ve been spying the hell
out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this
would be a political nightmare to deal with.
One of the Zionists in the Bush administration responsible for getting the five Israelis off the hook
was Michael Chertoff, the assistant attorney general and head of the criminal division in the
Department of Justice. “Chertoff has long-standing ties to the State of Israel and Israeli intelligence,”
wrote investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn in his article “Michael Chertoff’s Childhood in
Israel.” Bollyn revealed that Chertoff’s mother, Livia Eisen, was an employee of El Al airlines,
which is a deeply connected to Mossad. He also discovered that she took part in a Mossad secret
operation in the 1950s codenamed “Operation Magic Carpet” which was an airlift of Yemenite Jews
to the nascent Jewish state. Chertoff’s wife Meryl served on the board of directors of the New Jersey
branch of the Zionist Anti-Defamation League.
The Zionists could not let such an incriminating story reach critical mass. They worked frantically
behind the scenes to derail federal investigations and media reporting into the five celebrating
Israelis incident and the Israeli spy ring. On 9/11, the Zionists had another trick up their sleeve to
fashion the Western public’s collective consciousness around the desired anti-Arab narrative.
Most people will remember seeing a video on 9/11 that was aired repeatedly across all of the major
media networks. It purportedly showed Palestinians cheering and celebrating in the streets of East
Jerusalem. As the video played a CNN narrator commented: “The United States [is] blamed by some
Palestinians for ongoing support … of Israel in this Middle Eastern conflict … while some
Palestinians have taken to the streets in apparent celebration, one youth was quoted as saying as he
received a sweet: ‘This is a sweet from Osama bin Laden.’” How a Palestinian child could
have known that Osama bin Laden was behind the attack he just witnessed on a television screen
before anyone had even raised the spectre of bin Laden’s involvement gives away the manipulative
Zionist intent behind the airing of the video. It is not hard to imagine why some Palestinians would
celebrate a strike against the U.S. seeing as the American government has for decades propped up the
Zionist regime that oppresses them with billions of dollars each year in foreign aid and advanced
military hardware. But the video was highlighted and hyped to an extreme degree by a Zionistcontrolled
American media for the purpose of demonizing Palestinians and distracting the American
public from the very real prospect of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in 9/11.
Demonizing Muslims and Arabs in general was a principal factor motivating the real forces behind
the 9/11 operation. But Israel’s particular axe-to-grind with Palestinians came to the fore in several
meaningful ways on 9/11, further revealing Israel’s manipulation of events. A little-known but
indisputable fact of the day was the existence of a truck packed with explosives that was stopped by
police as it was approaching the George Washington Bridge in Manhattan. Many major media outlets
reported the existence of the bomb-laden truck. The Jerusalem Post issued this brief report on Sept.
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge
connecting New York and New Jersey. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an
approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main
crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported.
A CBS News broadcast made a similarly brief but potent mention of the truck bomb:
… [T]wo suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around
the George Washington Bridge… The FBI … says enough explosives were in the truck to do
great damage to the George Washington Bridge.
WCBS News reported:
… Most of New York City’s rescue operations and their police and fire departments have
been concentrating their actions down in lower Manhattan where two planes hit the two
towers of the World Trade Center. But some very … intelligent and aggressive cops also
stopped another terrorist attack from happening on the George Washington Bridge. CBS2 has
learned exclusively that two men are in custody after being arrested at the George
Washington Bridge with an entire truckload of explosives. Now I’m told that those
explosives could have been enough to blow up the entire span [of the bridge] and all the cars
and the people that were on it.
CNN’s Deborah Feyerick reported:
[T]he information that I am getting from two sources, that there was a van either on the New
Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway, and that it was near the George Washington
Bridge. There were two or three men who were in the van that was pulled over. It is not
clear why the van was pulled over, but when it was, law enforcers found tons of explosives
inside of the van.
One peculiar aspect of the incident was that the police refused to release any information about the
two or three suspects arrested in connection to the truck. Even stranger, shortly after these initial
media reports aired the story quickly dropped off the map, and was never heard of again. No mention
was ever made in any official report. A clue as to the authorship of this attempted terror plot came in
the form of two anonymous calls placed to the NYPD. The two callers attempted to implicate
“Palestinians” and “Arabs” as bomb-makers. WNBC News produced a partial transcript of the calls.
 The relevant portion of the conversation went as follows:
Dispatcher: Jersey City police.
Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going
around a building.
Caller: There’s a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark
Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.
Dispatcher: He has what?
Caller: He’s dressed like an Arab.
It is unclear how the first caller knew that the people he was allegedly observing “look like
Palestinians.” Palestinians and other types of Arabs (Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.) are
virtually indistinguishable so the insinuation that they were specifically Palestinians is an anomaly
that unveiled the caller’s antipathy towards Palestinian people. The second caller alleges he saw a
group of people dressed in Arabic “sheikh uniform” mixing substances in a van that was headed
towards the Holland Tunnel. Why would terrorists go out of their way to draw attention to themselves
by dressing in “sheikh” outfits? This claim is too ridiculous to be serious, and is indicative of an
attempt being made to implicate Palestinians and Arabs as terrorists responsible for an explosiveladen
van in New York City. If the operation went down as planned, the police, not knowing any
better, would have been tricked into making the linkage between these calls implicating Arabs and the
truck bomb that was supposed to be detonated on or near the George Washington Bridge.
However, the would-be bombers were arrested and the plot fell through. The veritable media
blackout on the incident is damning in and of itself. If the suspects apprehended with the truck bomb
near the G. W. Bridge were in fact Arabs or Muslims, the mass media would have been jumping all
over themselves to cover the story. Furthermore, it would have fit with the official fiction of an alQaeda-directed
operation against America. The fact that the incident is not mentioned in any of the
official 9/11 reports issued by the U.S. government is proof of a cover up. The only possible reason
that this incident needs to be covered up is that the people involved were not al-Qaeda operatives,
but were, in all likelihood, Israelis.
An even more unusual and bizarre occurrence took place on 9/11. Police in downtown Manhattan
stopped another suspicious van. What drew the police’s attention to this van was the fact that it had a
mysterious painting on its side depicting a plane crashing into New York City and exploding. That’s
right, a van with a mural of a plane diving into the city and exploding was parked blocks from the
World Trade Center on the very day that such events unfolded. An audio transmission of NYPD
officers discussing the mural van was picked up on Channel 30 NYC, an emergency communications
channel, and released on the Internet. In the audio, police officers make reference to the mural
van as well as two suspects connected to the van who purportedly tried to run away but were
apprehended. The audio also indicates that the van subsequently exploded.
One officer says: “Central I got a message on that, uh, plane. It’s a … big truck with a mural painted
of … an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. We don’t know what’s in the truck … the
truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street.” Later in the recording, a different officer says the van
actually exploded and that two suspects were arrested: “We have both suspects under, Kay… We
have the suspects who … drove in the van, THE VAN EXPLODED, we have both of them under, Kay,
let’s get some help over here.”
Confirmation of the existence of this van can be found buried in a report authored by the Norman Y.
Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) entitled “Saving City
Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks.” Page 20 of the report states:
There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into
the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be
rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it
might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb
squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found
to be an innocent delivery truck.
For some odd reason, this report omitted the fact that the van exploded, which was indicated on the
police recording. The report’s authors erroneously concluded that the van “was found to be an
innocent delivery truck.” People who went out of their way to decorate their van with a painting of a
plane crashing into the World Trade Center, and then parking it near the WTC on the very day that
such an event took place, is hardly “innocent.” However, the report made one very useful concession:
the truck was rented to “ethnic Middle Eastern people.” This is extremely significant and indicates
several things. Firstly, if these Middle Easterners were Arabs or Muslims, it would have been
trumpeted all over the mass media — one can imagine the headlines: “Arabs painted truck with plane
crashing into World Trade Center,” “Al-Qaeda operatives caught with mural van depicting 9/11 attack
scenario,” etc. But no such headlines appeared in our newspapers. The media’s silence shows that it
is very unlikely these “ethnic Middle Eastern people” were Arabs or Muslims. If they turned out to be
Arabs or Muslims, surely the U.S. government’s official 9/11 Commission Report issued after the
attacks would have mentioned the incident. But no such references exist. The curious absence of
coverage of the incident leads many to believe that the two Middle Eastern suspects were perhaps
from a little country in the Middle East that the media tends not to criticize: Israel.
More evidence of an undertaking to implicate Palestinians in 9/11 surfaced shortly after the planes hit
the towers. At 9:43 a.m. on the morning of the attacks, an Abu Dhabi television station reported
receiving a call from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) claiming
responsibility for flying two planes into the WTC. Later in the day, DFLP leader Qais abu Leila
denied the allegation, saying his group has always opposed “terror attacks on civilian targets.”
Who then made the call to the Abu Dhabi television station attributing responsibility to this
Common sense dictates that the effort to falsely implicate Palestinians in the 9/11 attacks can only
have one potential source: Israel. In an interview with Alternate Focus, the former Israeli soldier
Noam Chayut made a significant revelation: a mere 10 minutes after the first plane hit the north tower
of the WTC, Ariel Sharon launched incursions into the West Bank city of Jenin and ordered the
demolition of Palestinian homes. “The big brother [United States] wasn’t watching,” an Israeli
soldier who took part in the Jenin incursion told Chayut. The New York Times confirmed the Israeli
onslaught in a Sept. 13 report, stating:
A surge of violence punctuated by an Israeli tank thrust into [the] West Bank town [of Jenin]
left eight Palestinians dead today, including a 9-year-old girl, as well as an Israeli settler
shot dead by Palestinian gunmen. After a day of intense violence, Palestinian officials
accused the Israelis of stepping up military actions while international attention was focused
on the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. “The Israelis are exploiting the world’s
preoccupation with events in the U.S. to carry on with their crimes against the Palestinian
people,” said Yasir Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.
In late 2002, Ariel Sharon initiated a propaganda campaign against Palestinians, alleging that alQaeda
had established a presence in the Gaza Strip. In December of that year, Palestinian police
uncovered a phony al-Qaeda cell in Gaza that had been created by the Mossad as a trick to justify
more Israeli incursions into Palestinian territories. “Colonel Rashid Abu-Shbak, the Palestinian head
of preventative security, said eight Palestinians had been approached from outside Gaza, and had
been asked by Israeli agents to work for al-Qaeda with offers of money and weapons,” BBC News
reported. Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat called Sharon’s putrid allegations “a big … lie to cover his
attacks and his crimes against our people everywhere,” adding that Israel set up the mock al-Qaeda
cell to facilitate its aggression against the Palestinians.
There are many misleading claims and myths about al-Qaeda. In mainstream discourse, al-Qaeda
(Arabic for “the base”) is said to be an independent Islamist militant or “terrorist” group led by
Osama bin Laden that is driven solely by a hatred for Western values and way of life. A brief history
lesson is in order.
What is today known as al-Qaeda is basically a remnant of the Islamic Mujahedeen fighting force
sponsored by the CIA and the Mossad in the 1980s to fend off the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
In essence, the CIA induced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 by arming and supporting the
Mujahedeen rebels as a counterweight against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. The CIA provided the
rebels with stinger missiles, AK-47s and a plethora of other military hardware as well as training.
The CIA operation to arm the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan was known as “operation cyclone” and
was the second largest covert operation conducted in the agency’s history. Victor Ostrovsky
acknowledged in his book The Other Side of Deception that Israel’s Mossad played an integral role
in the operation as well. Hamid Gul also participated in the Mujahedeen insurgency as the chief of
Pakistan’s spy service from 1987 to 1989. “Islamic fundamentalists got their big boost in the modern
age as CIA assets in the covert campaign I was also involved with to force the Soviets out of
Afghanistan,” Gul said in an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Washington Times.
During the covert campaign, the CIA endeavoured to radicalize Muslims in Afghanistan by funnelling
school textbooks that promoted violence and militancy into the country, so as to indoctrinate young
Afghans and spur them into embracing the Mujahedeen cause against the Soviet occupation. In a
report entitled “From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad: Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan
Education Efforts,” Washington Post staff writers Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway explained:
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan
schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part
of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were
filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have
served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum.
At that time, “al-Qaeda” merely referred to the CIA’s database of Muslim fighters and assets who
were being used as cannon fodder during the CIA’s proxy war against the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan. Interestingly, Osama bin Laden led a segment of the Mujahedeen fighters against the
Soviets. Bin Laden was one of the CIA’s treasured assets.
Much of al-Qaeda’s modern reputation is sheer myth and fantasy, and mainstream commentators
seldom mention its origins as the spawn of a CIA Cold War op. When the Soviet Union collapsed as a
result of the prolonged conflict in Afghanistan, the USA found itself without a formidable enemy.
America’s massive military industrial complex was therefore in danger of losing its relevance
because without an enemy there is no justification for spending tens of billions of dollars each year on
Soon after the collapse of the USSR, the American regime initiated a propaganda offensive against
their former Mujahedeen mercenaries, depicting them in the same vein as the old “red menace.” In
reality, al-Qaeda is little more than the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of American propaganda, providing
the U.S. war machine with a boogeyman to justify empire building in the resource rich Middle East
and North Africa.
The 19 Hijackers: Villains or Patsies?
We are told that 9/11 was committed by 19 fanatical Muslims who were motivated solely by a hatred
of American freedoms and way of life. We are also told that these 19 Muslims were dispatched on a
suicide mission against the U.S. by Osama bin Laden. We are told that these 19 relative amateurs with
limited piloting experience penetrated the most sophisticated and expensive defense system on earth,
and managed to hit 75 per cent of their targets without any interference from U.S. intelligence
agencies or U.S. air defenses. Is this believable?
Much evidence has come to light that casts some grave doubts on the official narrative. The first sign
of fraud emerged a few days after the attacks when New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik
announced the police had in its possession a passport of one of the suspected hijackers.
According to the story, the passport of Satam al Suqami miraculously survived the explosive crash
into the WTC, escaping the cabin of the plane and falling hundreds of feet to the ground where it was
then picked up by a random pedestrian and turned in to the police. Amazingly, the passport was found
in pristine condition, having no burns, rips, tears or damage whatsoever. The unlikelihood of this
story is beyond the pale.
The police chief Bernard Kerik has an interesting background that deserves mention. In 2007, Kerik
was indicted on 16 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Included in the indictment was Kerik’s
failure to report a $250,000 personal loan he received from an Israeli businessman named Eitan
Wertheimer whose family’s vast holdings, the New York Times reported, “include companies with
United States Defense Department contracts.” The intermediary in the loan transaction was Shimon
Cohen, a Jewish marble and stone merchant from Brooklyn. A few weeks before the 9/11 attacks on
August 26, Kerik made a four-day trip to Israel where he met with Israeli security officials to discuss
terrorism. NY Daily News revealed that Kerik had “traveled to Israel before becoming [NY
Police] commissioner.” Evidently, New York’s police commissioner, who was instrumental in
the initial stages of the 9/11 investigation, was heavily tied in with Israel. Pursuing 9/11’s Israeli
suspects was clearly of no interest to Kerik, as that would have displeased his Israeli and New York
Zionist friends and financial benefactors. Instead of investigating the Israeli suspects arrested on 9/11
and their connections to Mossad, Kerik instead proffered a magical, seemingly indestructible
passport sporting an Islamic name and face for the cameras.
A similarly implausible story was posited about Flight 93. The FBI presented several items allegedly
recovered from the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, that were used to bolster the
official narrative: the passports of alleged hijackers Ziad Jarrah and Saeed Al Ghamdi, a “martyrdom
note,” and a red headband said to have been worn by one of the hijackers. Like the passport
found near the WTC, all of the items showed minor blemishes despite being in an intensely explosive
crash. The survival of these items is highly unlikely considering no identifiable plane debris could be
seen in images and video taken of the Shanksville crash site. Authorities attempted to explain away
the lack of plane debris by saying that Flight 93 crashed so horribly and at such a high rate of speed
that the plane and everything onboard was either destroyed or buried deep underground. “United
Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than
500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh,” wrote Steve Levin of the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. How then did two paper passports, a hand-written note and a
headband manage to survive a crash that metal, bone and flesh could not?
Much of the official narrative hinges upon the discovery of luggage allegedly belonging to Mohamed
Atta, who was said to be the ringleader of the 9/11 attackers. Investigators claimed to have recovered
several pieces of luggage that Atta is said to have attempted to bring on board Flight 11 at Boston’s
Logan airport, but the bags never made the flight and fell right into the hands of the FBI. Suspiciously,
the bags are said to have contained incriminating items proving al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the
attacks, including a Koran, a video on how to fly commercial jets, and a fuel consumption calculator.
“The discovery [of Atta’s luggage is] the latest evidence pointing investigators toward Islamic
extremists as the perpetrators of Tuesday’s attacks in New York and Washington DC,” reported The
Telegraph. According to a former FBI agent and a former federal prosecutor who were
involved in the inquiry into the attacks, authorities found even more damning items in Atta’s bag
including “names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” “[Atta’s
luggage] had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation,”
former FBI agent Warren Flagg told Newsday. “How do you think the government was able to
identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks?” Flagg asked. “They were identified
through those papers in the luggage. And that’s how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind
This raises a few obvious questions: Why did Atta even pack luggage on a suicide mission? Why did
he fill his luggage with incriminating items and thereby risk being discovered at the security check in?
Why did the luggage not get loaded onto the flight? This all seems awfully conspicuous. The official
narrative also tells us that the night before 9/11 Mohamed Atta and Abdul Alomari made a mysterious
trip to Portland and stayed overnight. The next morning (Sept. 11) they are said to have caught a
connecting flight back to Boston and upon their arrival boarded and then hijacked Flight 11 from
Boston’s Logan airport. Why make such a needless trip the night before? If the connecting flight was
delayed they would have had to call off the whole mission. As the ringleader and alleged pilot of
Flight 11, Atta could not risk missing the flight he planned to hijack, so his trip to Portland is an
anomaly that has yet to be sufficiently explained.
Another problem with the Atta-to-Portland story is that initially two other Arabs were the ones said
to have driven the rented blue Nissan to Portland. At first it was said that the rented blue Nissan
found in the Portland airport parking lot was linked to two Saudi-born brothers, Adnan Bukhari and
Ameer Bukhari, who authorities originally named as hijackers. The rented Nissan is said to
have led authorities to a house in Vero Beach, Florida, rented by the Bukhari brothers and that two
pilots certificates brandishing their names were found inside. This story quickly fell apart when
it turned out Adnan Bukhari was still alive and well in Florida and his brother Ameer had died a year
earlier in a plane crash. The Bukharis’ attorney said their identities had been stolen. The FBI
rectified this bizarre discrepancy simply by substituting the Bukhari brothers with Mohamed Atta and
Abdul Alomari as the two men who rented the blue Nissan and made the trip to Portland on the night
of Sept. 10.
The Baltimore Sun reported that the FBI found a 1989 Pontiac Grand Prix that belonged to Atta
abandoned in the parking lot of Boston’s Logan airport. Yet at the same time we are told Atta
and Alomari rented a car in Boston to drive to Portland the night before the attacks. Why would Atta
abandon his Pontiac Grand Prix in the airport parking lot and purchase a rental? The FBI also claims
to have discovered Arabic language flight training manuals in a rented Mitsubishi Mirage abandoned
in a Logan underground garage. It seems patently absurd that the 19 hijackers could organize and
execute such a sophisticated operation, managing to evade authorities for years in the planning stages
of this plot, yet at the same time be so clumsy as to leave a plethora of clues behind to incriminate
themselves. Perhaps these convenient “clues” were meant to be found – planted by the real
Officially it is held that the hijackers were “devout Muslims” who took their religion so seriously
they were willing to die for it. A gaping hole in this narrative concerning the hijackers was the
seemingly un-Islamic behaviour they were engaging in in the immediate months and days preceding
the attacks. 9/11 researcher Joshua Blakeney pointed out: “There is in fact no evidence that the
alleged hijackers boarded the planes on 9/11 or that they were orthodox Muslims. Some of the
alleged hijackers were seen taking drugs, attending strip clubs and drinking alcohol prior to
This is confirmed by numerous reports in the U.S. media. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle
reported Mohamed Atta and other accused hijackers made at least six trips to Las Vegas, otherwise
known as “sin city.” “The self-styled warriors for Allah — who believed their hijackings would earn
them eager virgins in heaven — engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited
pleasures in America’s reputed capital of moral corrosion,” wrote Chronicle staff writer Kevin
Fagan. Among the “sampling of prohibited pleasures” were lap dances, alcohol and call girls.
About a week before the attacks Atta and two companions showed up at a Ft. Lauderdale bar called
Shuckums where they drank themselves into a stupor. The bar’s night manager Tony Amos described
them as “drunk and unruly.” Journalist Daniel Hopsicker reported in his book Welcome to
Terrorland that while at the Shuckums bar Atta also blasphemed, angrily shouting “Fuck God!” One
night before 9/11, three men showed up at an adult sports bar in Daytona Beach where witnesses
observed them making anti-American statements and speaking of impending bloodshed. “They were
talking about what a bad place America is. They said ‘Wait ‘til tomorrow. America is going to see
bloodshed,’” said John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack’s Sports Bar where the
incident took place. According to Kap, the men paid $200 to $300 each for drinks and lap dances and
one of them left a Koran behind at the bar!
Daniel Hopsicker in his aforementioned book details the activities of Mohamed Atta in Florida in the
year leading up to 9/11. Among his discoveries was that the Atta living and attending flight
training in Venice, Florida, was far from a devout Muslim. According to Atta’s former Florida
stripper girlfriend, Amanda Keller, he loved pork chops (pork is forbidden in Islam), spoke fluent
Hebrew, loved to party and had a habit of binge drinking and snorting cocaine. He also associated
with people connected to the mafia. Among Hopsicker’s discoveries was that Venice, Florida, is a
hotbed of covert CIA activity. The Venice airport was a transit point for drug trafficking operations
seemingly connected to the mafia and the CIA.
The Florida flight training facility Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi attended was Huffman
Aviation owned by Rudi Dekkers and his financial backer Wally Hilliard. Based on Hopsicker’s
investigation into Dekkers and his backer, it is very likely the pair was working at some level for the
CIA and that Huffman Aviation was a front for covert CIA activity. Strangely, 14 of the 19 alleged
hijackers made Florida their home away from home at one time. Unusual influxes of Arab flight
students were being funnelled into Florida in the year leading up to 9/11, many of whom trained at
Dekkers’ flight school.
Ziad Jarrah, the man said to have been at the controls of Flight 93 when it went down in Shanksville,
is also said to have taken pilot’s training in Florida. An investigative report authored by Paul
Thompson titled “The Two Jarrahs” uncovered several oddities surrounding Jarrah that have yet to be
explained. Thompson’s research revealed that in 1995 a man named Ziad Jarrah rented an
apartment in Brooklyn, New York. The landlords, writes Thompson, “identified his photograph as
being the same as that of the 9/11 hijacker.” The problem is that the alleged hijacker Jarrah did not
enter the United States until June 2000 upon which he attended the Florida Flight Training Facility in
Venice, Florida. On Jan. 30, 2001, a man named Ziad Jarrah was detained at Dubai International
Airport in the United Arab Emirates and was questioned for alleged ties to terrorist activity.
This was done at the behest of the CIA. That Jarrah acknowledged having spent the previous two
months in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Later, U.S. officials claimed this is when Jarrah attended an alQaeda
training camp in Afghanistan. The problem is the real Jarrah was in Lebanon at the time,
visiting his father in the hospital who had undergone heart surgery. Thompson pointed out:
These two examples are just the most glaring clues of many that someone was posing as Ziad
Jarrah for years. The story of Jarrah in New York in 1995 is truly amazing, because that
would have happened presumably before the 9/11 plot was even conceived, and before
Mohamed Atta or most of the other 9/11 terrorists even joined al-Qaeda. Additionally, it was
before Jarrah had moved to Germany so he couldn’t possibly have had come into contact
with any al-Qaeda operatives yet. Yet, not only is there another Ziad Jarrah, but [they] looked
similar enough for people in Brooklyn to confuse the two.
An even more incredible anecdote involving Jarrah came to light in Feb. 2009, when the New York
Times reported Jarrah’s cousin, Ali al-Jarrah, was arrested by Lebanese police on charges of spying
for Israel. Ali al-Jarrah had been fronting as a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause, but had been
secretly spying for Israel for 25 years, “sending reports and taking clandestine photographs of
Palestinian groups and Hezbollah since 1983” noted Times writer Robert F. Worth. Michael
Collins Piper observed: “The gratuitous Times suggestion that the two cousins ‘do not appear to have
known each other well’ is intriguing, inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one
another. And that could be very telling, for there are those who are now suggesting that the older
cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin as an asset for Israeli intelligence.”
Shortly after 9/11 several major media outlets carried reports suggesting that a number of the accused
9/11 hijackers were still alive, apparent victims of identity theft. Accused hijacker Abdul Aziz AlOmari
declared he was alive in Saudi Arabia and that his passport had been stolen in 1995 while
studying engineering at the University of Denver. “Another of the men named by the FBI as a
hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The
identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt,”
reported BBC News in a Sept. 23, 2001, article headlined “Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well.”
The BBC’s article acknowledged accused hijacker Waleed Al Shehri was a Saudi airlines pilot who
was still alive and protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. His name, date of birth and
picture were those used on the FBI’s hijackers list. The BBC’s report also named Saeed Alghamdi
and Khalid Al Midhar as being alive and well, falsely declared dead terrorists by the FBI. Despite
all of this, the FBI has made no effort to correct their discredited list of 9/11 terrorists.
In addition to Abdulaziz Al Omari, many other alleged hijackers reported their passports had been
lost or stolen years before Sept. 2001. FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that some of the
hijackers may have been using stolen identities. “FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that
some of those behind last week’s terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other people,
and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been ‘relatively easy’ based on their level
of sophistication,” reported CNN. Paul Thompson, writing in “The Two Jarrahs,” noted that
“Some time around February 2000, [Ziad Jarrah] lost his passport while waiting for a visa to go to
the US. This was only two or three months after Atta and Alshehhi lost their passports.”
Moreover, the passenger manifest of Flight 93 had the name of someone named Ziad Jarrahi with an
“i,” not Jarrah, and the passport picture allegedly recovered from the wreckage looks noticeably
different than the real, Lebanese-born Jarrah. Were these men framed?
Faking, forging and stealing passports to use on covert missions are a specialty of Israel’s Mossad.
Gordon Thomas, an espionage expert who authored the book Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of
the Mossad, explained that the Mossad “have a unit, a special team, who are trained in lifting
passports.” Victor Ostrovsky revealed in his book By Way of Deception that Mossad has a
factory in the Israeli settlement of Petah Tikva dedicated specifically to producing forged passports.
Mossad has put these passports to use on many occasions, such as in 1997 when two Mossad agents
used fake Canadian passports to enter Jordan in a failed assassination mission targeting Hamas leader
Khalid Meshal. In 2004, two Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Eli Cara, were convicted of
fraud in New Zealand for attempting to obtain a passport in the name of somebody else, to provide a
false identity for another Israeli agent named Zev Barkan. “Mossad has frequently been accused
of using fake passports to launch its operations,” the Guardian acknowledged. More recently, in
2010, more than a dozen Mossad agents used fake EU passports to gain entry to the United Arab
Emirates, where they tracked down and murdered Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh,
electrocuting and then strangling him to death in a Dubai hotel room.
This brings us back to the Israeli spies masquerading as “art students” who were running wild across
the U.S. in the year leading up to the attacks. “A number of the Israelis resided for a period of time in
Hollywood, Fla. — the small city where Mohammed Atta and three terrorist comrades lived for a
time before Sept. 11,” wrote Christopher Ketcham in a May 7, 2002, report titled “The Israeli ‘art
student’ mystery.” He continued:
According to Intelligence Online, more than one-third of the [Israeli art] students, who were
spread out in 42 cities, lived in Florida, several in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Fla. —
one-time home to at least 10 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers. In at least one case, the students
lived just a stone’s throw from homes and apartments where the Sept. 11 terrorists resided:
In Hollywood, several students lived at 4220 Sheridan St., just down the block from the
3389 Sheridan St. apartment where terrorist mastermind Mohammed Atta holed up with three
other Sept. 11 plotters.
The Israeli spies were in essence “shadowing” many of the Arab hijacker patsies. “A memorandum
sent to the 9/11 Commission, and Senate and House intelligence committees in Sept. 2004, suggests
that young Israelis who canvassed dozens of U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) offices in
2000 and 2001 trying to sell paintings to federal workers, may have been spying not only on the DEA,
but also on Arab extremists in the United States - including the Sept. 11 hijackers who were living in
Florida and New Jersey,” reported Keith Phucus in the Times Herald.
Many suspect the Israeli spies were not only tracking the Arabs but were in fact manipulating or
otherwise controlling their actions as part of the preparation for 9/11. Establishing a trail of evidence
and a back-story was necessary as part of the frame-up. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen
published a damning report alleging that Mossad agents pretending to be Arabs had penetrated all of
the “al-Qaeda” cells later blamed for the attacks, and had been steering the conspiracy from the
“British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells
that were later blamed by the U.S. government’s 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks
on the World Trade Center and Pentagon,” writes Madsen in an article called “Mossad ran 9/11 Arab
‘hijacker’ terrorist operation,” published on his website. “A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian
and Yemeni-born Jews,” writes Madsen, “infiltrated ‘Al Qaeda’ cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun
Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11.
The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would
eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston,
Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.”
This Mossad conspiracy, explains Madsen, was codified by means of an infiltration team that
“comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a
Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the ‘Al Qaeda’ cells. One
Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad’s
Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The threeman
Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who
believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of
Madsen’s investigation further revealed:
The two Mossad teams sent regular coded reports on the progress of the 9/11 operation to
Tel Aviv via the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. WMR has learned from a Pentagon
source that leading Americans tied to the media effort to pin 9/11 on Arab hijackers, Osama
Bin Laden, and the Taliban were present in the Israeli embassy on September 10, 2001, to
coordinate their media blitz for the subsequent days and weeks following the attacks. It is
more than likely that FBI counter-intelligence agents who conduct surveillance of the Israeli
embassy have proof on the presence of the Americans present at the embassy on September
10. Some of the Americans are well-known to U.S. cable news television audiences.
In mid-August, the Mossad team running the Hamburg cell in Boston reported to Tel Aviv that
the final plans for 9/11 were set. The Florida-based Mossad cell reported that the
documented “presence” of the Arab cell members at Florida flight schools had been
The Mossad essentially cultivated the Arab patsies by creating a narrative surrounding their activities
and movements throughout the U.S. It was all a clever ruse cooked up in Tel Aviv and Langley,
Virginia. Unfortunately for the real perpetrators, the Arab hijacker script was nonsensical from the
outset. Hani Hanjour, the accused hijacker who allegedly crashed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was
described as a “terrible pilot” by nearly all of his American flight instructors. A New York Times
article with the headline “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence” detailed Hanjour’s trials and
tribulations in American flight schools in the year leading up to 9/11. Hanjour’s flight
instructors at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Phoenix, Arizona, found his piloting skills so
poor that they reported him to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). “Mr. Hanjour … was
reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had
found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned
whether his pilot’s license was genuine,” writes Times reporter Jim Yardley. The Phoenix flight
school staff, writes Yardley, “feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if
he flew a commercial airliner.” “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the
Pentagon,” a former employee said, adding, “He could not fly at all.” Hanjour’s flight
instructors in Maryland said he had difficulties properly controlling and landing a single-engine
Cessna 172 plane.
Yet this is the man said to have precision piloted Flight 77 into the façade of the Pentagon, cruising
into the most protected airspace on earth without so much as a hiccup. Despite having never flown a
commercial aircraft before, we are told Hanjour executed a miraculous 320-degree turn while
descending seven thousand feet. Then, pointed out the research team of 911Research.com, “levelling
out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts.
After crossing the highway [Hanjour] had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to
crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated
three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this
while flying over 400 mph.” Hanjour’s aeronautical acrobatics do not pass the giggle test.
American Airlines Flight 11 is said to have harboured a most peculiar passenger: Daniel Lewin.
According to the official story, Lewin was killed by one of the hijackers. An FAA memo reported
Lewin was shot and killed by Satam al Suqami, which was later revised to a stabbing due to the
implausibility of the hijackers managing to smuggle a gun on the plane. “In another tragic irony of
Sept. 11, three of the five Islamic hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were seated next to
an elite Israeli commando. And it may just have gotten that Jewish passenger killed before all the
others,” writes Paul Sperry of World Net Daily. Lewin’s childhood friend, Yehuda
Schwartzberg, revealed that Lewin was a member of Sayeret Matkal, an elite unit in the Israeli Army.
“Danny was an officer in a secret unit of the Israeli army called ‘sayeret matkal’,” said Schwartzberg.
“My guess is that he did something in some way to stand up against the hijackers, and was executed
because of it.” World Net Daily acknowledged that Lewin “had extensive anti-terrorism
training.” Is this hero’s tale fashioned around Lewin credible or just another propaganda story
designed to generate sympathy for Israel?
Another question many people have asked is how these 19 hijackers managed to slip past airport
security at three separate airports without a hitch? Who was running security and why have they not
been held accountable for letting terrorists on board four different flights in one day? The answer may
lie in the fact that an Israeli company was responsible for security at two of the three airports where
hijacked flights originated. International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) and its subsidiary
Huntleigh USA was a Dutch-based, Israeli-owned security company staffed at the highest levels by
former Israeli intelligence and military figures. Israeli plutocrat Ezra Harel owned a 65 per cent
controlling stake in the company. Harel’s business partner Menachem Atzmon was a shareholder
in the company and served as its Chairman of the Board. In the late 1980s, Atzmon served as the cotreasurer
of the Likud Party alongside Ehud Olmert, who later became the prime minister of Israel.
During his stint as Likud treasurer Atzmon (and Olmert) became the subject of a criminal
investigation for campaign finance fraud, culminating in Atzmon’s conviction in 1996. “Atzmon,
a convicted criminal, political ally and co-defendant of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, was
directly responsible for passenger and airline security at Boston’s Logan Airport, whence the two
airliners which struck the World Trade Center originated,” noted Christopher Bollyn in his article
entitled “The Bloody Reign of Ehud Olmert and His Ties To 9/11.”
Zionists and the World Trade Center
Espionage writer Gordon Thomas spent years observing the secret practices and techniques of
Israel’s Mossad while researching his book Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of Mossad. Next to
Victor Ostrovsky, Thomas probably has more knowledge than anyone else regarding Israel’s covert
In a BBC Radio 4 interview, Thomas divulged the secret to Mossad’s success: the agency has as
many as one million Jews around the world at its disposal who are willing to provide various kinds
of assistance. “[The Mossad] have a whole back-up system... These are people who are local
residents, Jewish people who will help the Mossad and there are estimated to be in the world about
half a million, some people say a million, I tend to say half a million from what I’ve learned from the
Mossad people,” Thomas told BBC radio host Eddie Mair. Ostrovsky made a similar
assessment in his book By Way of Deception, calling this network of Jewish agents the “sayanim”
(Hebrew for “helpers”). The British tabloid Daily Mirror acknowledged the existence of this
network in an article titled “Israel’s Global Hit Squads,” noting that “At any one time, up to 50 senior
Mossad officers are based in Europe, running a network of thousands of agents loyal to Israel.”
Was the sayanim network used by Israel on 9/11? The curious privatization and acquisition of the
World Trade Center complex by two well-connected Zionists six weeks before the attacks leads many
to believe so. On July 24, 2001, New York plutocrat Larry Silverstein purchased a 99-year lease on
the entire WTC complex (he already owned WTC Building 7). Silverstein’s business partner,
Australian billionaire Frank Lowy, leased the shopping area underneath the towers, which comprised
approximately 427,000 square feet of retail floor space.
Many have questioned Silverstein’s reasoning for making such an odd purchase, considering the Twin
Towers were notoriously unprofitable – in 2001 tenants were at an all-time low and the buildings had
an asbestos problem. Toxic asbestos coating had been spread throughout much of the buildings
as fireproofing, but due to health hazards it required removal, the process of which would have
produced a cost that rivalled the lease of the WTC itself. But according to Silverstein he “felt an
uncontrollable urge to own them.”
Bad business judgment aside, Silverstein’s conspicuous political connections paint an interesting
picture. As a prominent member of New York’s Jewish community, Silverstein was a generous donor
to Israeli and Jewish causes. He served as the chairman of United Jewish Appeal Federation of New
York, a Zionist charity that raises millions of dollars annually in support of the Israeli state.
Silverstein donated more than $1 million to the Museum of Jewish Heritage and serves as a trustee.
 The real estate magnate was also on a first name basis with many of Israel’s leaders, including
Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu. “Many Israeli politicians are acquainted in one
degree or another with the 70-year-old Silverstein,” noted Israeli journalist Sara Leibovich-Dar in an
article for Haaretz. The WTC owner was particularly close with Benjamin Netanyahu, who
called him on the phone every Sunday afternoon. Leibovich-Dar further observed:
Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry
Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade
Center’s 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have
spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week
called Silverstein a “friend,” and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as
his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.
In the 1990s, Silverstein pushed for a free-trade zone to be implemented in the Negev region in Israel,
calling on his Likudnik friends to help realize the venture. To facilitate this project Silverstein cofounded
the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC). “The founders of IEDC, men like Robert
Tishman, Larry Tisch, Sy Syms and Larry Silverstein, were ardent supporters of the State of Israel,”
wrote David Yerushalmi of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), in an
essay titled “Resurrection.” The IEDC was for all intents and purposes an offshoot of the
IASPS, a right-wing Israeli think-tank that produced the infamous “Clean Break” paper whose
authors, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, later became the prime movers in the Bush regime
advocating for a war in Iraq. This necessarily connects Silverstein to the Zionist think-tank wherein
the conspiracy to topple Saddam Hussein, that ever-so-important “Israeli strategic objective,” was
first put to paper.
In his capacity as the WTC leaseholder, Silverstein had a routine business meeting with tenants each
morning at the Windows on the World restaurant, which was located virtually at the top of the north
tower, the first tower hit by a plane on 9/11. He was scheduled to be at this routine meeting on 9/11
too – but he didn’t show up. “My wife made an appointment for me at the doctor,” Silverstein said in
an interview with Charlie Rose, explaining his peculiar absence on 9/11 as a “miracle.” “On the
morning of 9/11 his wife insisted he make a dermatologist’s appointment and skip a breakfast with
tenants at the Windows on the World in the North Tower,” noted the Wall Street Journal. There
were other miracles in the Silverstein family that day – Silverstein’s daughter Lisa and son Roger
both worked in their father’s temporary offices on the 88
floor of the north tower, but were not there
on 9/11 either. “Running late” was the official explanation for their absences.
Another player in this who is often overlooked is Frank Lowy, the co-owner of a portion of the WTC.
Lowy’s pro-Israel credentials rival those of Silverstein. He is an Australian-Israeli businessman and
co-founder of the Westfield Group, which owns over 100 shopping centers on four continents. Born in
Czechoslovakia and raised in Hungary, Lowy made his way to British Mandate Palestine in the mid-
1940s where he joined the Zionist terrorist group Haganah, participating in the Zionist ethnic
cleansing effort in 1948 as a member of the Golani Brigade. Like Silverstein, Lowy is a lavish
contributor to Israeli and Jewish causes and is close friends with Israel’s Likudnik elite: Netanyahu,
Sharon, Olmert and Barak. “Frank Lowy may not be a household name in Israel, but if power and
influence are measured by the people you know, then his connections start at the top,” noted the
Sydney Morning Herald, who also described him as “a self-made man with a strong interest in the
Holocaust and Israeli politics.” Lowy’s interest in Israeli politics culminated in his launching of
the Institute of National Strategy and Policy at Tel Aviv University in 2005. He served as associate
international chairman of the Israel Democracy Institute in 2001. According to Ehud Barak’s brother
Avinoam Brog, Lowy’s influence “is such that if he wanted to talk to any politician in Israel, then he
could. And they will listen.” He is also a prominent member of multiple pro-Israel lobby groups
The head of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who oversaw the lease transfer of the
WTC to Silverstein and Lowy was Lewis Eisenberg, another card-carrying Zionist with strong ties to
the Israeli lobby. Eisenberg was a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition, AIPAC and the
United Jewish Appeal Federation. Another dedicated Zionist was instrumental in lobbying for
the privatization of the World Trade Center complex. Ronald Lauder, a Jewish-American billionaire
who runs the Estee Lauder Cosmetics empire, headed the New York State Commission of
Privatization and the New York State Research Council on Privatization. In this respect, Lauder
spearheaded the push for the WTC to be taken out of the hands of the state government and placed
under private ownership and control. Lauder is the president of the World Jewish Congress, and
works closely with a plethora of other Zionist lobby groups and charities, including the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish National Fund
and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. In 1999 he founded the Lauder School
of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy as part of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel, a
fertile recruiting ground for Mossad. Lauder is also a close confidant of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Journalist Michael Massing revealed Lauder is “a vocal Likudnik, with long-standing ties to
Netanyahu,” bankrolling the Likudnik politician during his 1989 run for prime minister.
So six weeks before 9/11 the WTC was consolidated into the hands of two Zionists with the help of
two other Zionists, three of whom have intimate ties to Israel’s Likud leadership. Not only did
Zionists own the WTC, they ran its security too. Kroll Associates had the contract to oversee security
at Silverstein’s WTC complex. The company, dubbed the “CIA of Wall Street,” was owned by
Jules Kroll, a wealthy New York Zionist whose wife Lynn has a résumé fit for an Israeli prime
minister. She served as the Vice Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York and
is the president of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture. She is also a board member of
the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Agency for Israel. The CEO of
Kroll was the Zionist Jew Michael Cherkasky and its managing director was Jerome Hauer. “Like
Benjamin Netanyahu, Jerome Hauer is a Zionist expert on terror,” writes Christopher Bollyn in an
article entitled “The Key Players of 911: Who Is Jerome Hauer?” Bollyn revealed that Hauer grew up
in a New York Jewish-Zionist family, whose mother was at one time the honorary president of the
New York chapter of Hadassah, the ‘daughters of Zion’ movement.
On 9/11, Hauer made an appearance on CBS to explain to the world what happened. “My sense
is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building
… that burned … the velocity of that plane … had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact
that it burned and you had that intense heat [which] probably weakened the structure … I think it
[was] simply the planes hitting the buildings … causing the collapse,” said Hauer, dismissing
suggestions that explosives could have been used to bring down the buildings. Not only did Hauer
have a “sense” that no explosives were involved in the gravity-defying free fall collapses of the Twin
Towers and Building 7, but he also had a hunch about who committed the crime. “[This attack]
certainly has the fingerprints of somebody like bin Laden,” he said. Was Hauer privy to some insider
information that the rest of us were not? How could he know so quickly the who and how question of
9/11 before any investigations were done?
Not only were the lives of Larry Silverstein and his two children spared by way of a “miracle,” other
Israelis seemed to have evaded certain death by being clued in to what would happen on 9/11
beforehand. Out of 4000 Israeli citizens said by Israel’s foreign ministry to have been either working
in the Twin Towers or in adjacent buildings, only three died on 9/11, with two other Israelis allegedly
being killed aboard the hijacked planes, amounting to five Israeli deaths in total. Statistically,
this is highly improbable.
Were Israeli citizens forewarned? Evidence of Israeli foreknowledge surfaced at an Israeli instant
messaging company called Odigo, which has offices in Israel and New York. Two employees of the
company received a warning two hours before the attack, predicting it would happen. “Odigo, the
instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin
Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen,” writes Yuval Dror in a Sept. 26,
2001, report for Haaretz headlined “Odigo says workers were warned of attack.” A
Washington Post article carrying the heading “Instant Messages to Israel Warned of WTC Attack”
reported: “Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received
text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed
planes into the New York landmarks.” Was this warning passed on to other Israelis via the
instant messaging service offered by Odigo? The FBI was supposed to investigate the matter, but
predictably failed to do so. Like all of the other reportage on Israeli foreknowledge and involvement
in the attacks, the Odigo story quickly vanished from the headlines.
Why have there been no legitimate federal inquiries into any of these troubling aspects of the official
mythology surrounding 9/11 and the Arab hijacker patsies? Why has the FBI relentlessly pursued
bogus clues leading to Arabs, but consistently ignored legitimate inferences pointing to Israelis?
In many respects, the FBI is a criminal organization that does not serve the interests of the American
people, but rather follows the dictates of the rich and powerful in American society. As noted earlier,
Zionists represent the wealthiest segment of American society, and thereby have substantial leverage
over the FBI’s conduct. Proof of this is abundant. The FBI’s official website boasts of its deep ties
with the Zionist Anti-Defamation League: “Before becoming special agents, students from the FBI
Training Academy tour the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This is the 10th year the FBI
has participated in the Law Enforcement and Society program, jointly run by the museum and the
Anti-Defamation League.” The FBI website reports that “More than 60,000 law enforcement
professionals—including about 10,000 new FBI agents and analysts—have gone through the
The ADL’s official website outlines its vast apparatus of training programs for American federal,
state and local law enforcement. The ADLboasted that since 9/11:
the scale of our work with law enforcement has increased significantly and the greatest
demand for ADL expertise has been in the area of training for law enforcement. As the
foremost non-governmental authority on domestic terrorism, extremism, organized hate
groups and hate crimes, ADL has been the leading non-government organization training
police. In 2010 alone, we trained more than 10,500 law enforcement officers from all over
The ADL’s Advanced Training School (ATS) has “now trained 700 senior level law enforcement
personnel, representing more than 220 federal, state, local and military law enforcement agencies
from across the country, including 24 of the 25 largest local police departments in the U.S.” The ADL
website brags of bringing 115 American law enforcement executives to Israel since 2004 for
“counter-terrorism” training “with commanders in the Israel National Police, experts from Israel’s
intelligence and security services, and the Israel Defense Forces.” The ADL’s “Lessons of the
Holocaust” program is mandatory for all new FBI trainees. Since 1999 more than 70,000 law
enforcement officers from the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Washington, D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department, Philadelphia Police Department and others have participated in the
group’s holocaust program.
The ADL is a veritable arm of the Israeli regime in the United States. Many analysts view its training
of American law enforcement as a method of co-option, bringing the police establishment of the U.S.
in line with Israeli Zionist objectives. The ADL is also a spy network for the Israeli state. In 1993,
the group was caught running a major spying operation in the U.S. against 950 political groups,
newspapers and labour unions, keeping secret dossiers on at least 12,000 Americans. Some of
the illegally obtained information, particularly relating to Arabs, was turned over to the Israeli secret
service. One of the targets of ADL spying and subterfuge was The Spotlight newspaper, now known
as American Free Press. A writer for that paper, Michael Collins Piper, explained that “the ADL has
been operating a massive and permanent espionage apparatus in [the United States], taking orders
from and acting as proxy for a foreign intelligence agency — Israel’s Mossad.”
In addition to serving the political and financial elite of the U.S., the FBI also acts on the impulse of
self-preservation. In order to maintain its massive yearly budget, the Bureau must continuously invent
new “threats” to maintain the status quo. In his book The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s
Manufactured War on Terrorism, investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson unveils how the FBI has,
since 9/11, built up a network of 15,000 informants whose purpose is to infiltrate Muslim
communities to cultivate and then “bust” phony terror plots so the Bureau can claim it is winning the
fraudulent “war on terrorism.”
The Central Intelligence Agency is likewise no stranger to Zionist power. President Roosevelt
established the CIA’s predecessor, known as the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), in 1942 with the
expressed purpose of undermining the German war effort during the Second World War. During the
war one of the OSS’s chief operatives responsible for training saboteurs for overseas missions
behind enemy lines was Nahum A. Bernstein, a dedicated Jewish-Zionist lawyer from New York who
went on to work for the Jewish Agency, the pre-state Zionist governing body in occupied Palestine.
“Bernstein was instrumental in providing funding for [the Zionist militia] Haganah … to illegally
purchase surplus transport aircraft for Israel,” noted the Institute for Research on Middle Eastern
Since that time, the CIA has been a loyal accomplice in Israeli crimes against Arabs and a willing
partner to Zionist intrigue. The CIA’s director on 9/11 was George Tenet. “I knew that on 9/11 we had
all become Israelis,” said Tenet at a dinner hosted by the ADLin 2008, adding that the U.S. and Israel
“will always be bound together.” The ADL’s National Director Abe Foxman praised Tenet as a
“committed friend to the State of Israel, who encouraged exchanges between the CIA and Israeli
intelligence services.” In 1999, Tenet worked closely with the ADL to stamp out any anti-Israel
sentiment within the CIA. “With the help of ADL trainers, we educated an entire bureaucracy and we
taught people [at the CIA] about how their words could be misinterpreted in a manner that was
detrimental to the interests of our country,” said Tenet. In 2005 Tenet received the ADL’s highest
honour, the “America’s Democratic Legacy Award,” and in 2008 he was awarded the group’s
William and Naomi Gorowitz Institute Service Award.
In addition to the co-option of both the CIA and FBI, Zionists also managed to usurp the official
commission tasked with investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, known as the 9/11 Commission. Strangely,
President Bush waited 442 days before finally establishing a commission to investigate the disaster in
Nov. 2002. The Commission’s final report, published in July 2004, shirked all of the critical issues
surrounding the events of 9/11, including the Israeli spy ring, the celebrating Mossad agents arrested
on the day, the blatantly out-of-character behaviour of Mohamed Atta and other alleged “hijackers” in
Florida and the implausible collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 at nearly free fall
speed. Instead of pursuing the truth wherever it happened to lead, the Commission cobbled together a
Bush administration-approved work of distortions, lies and evasions aimed at whitewashing what
really happened. Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, told Judge
Napolitano of Fox Business News that the 9/11 Commission report is a “whitewash and a lie from
top to bottom.”
The 9/11 Commission’s most influential member who chose what was and was not included in the
final report was the Executive Director Philip Zelikow. Zelikow is a well-known Jewish neocon and
Bush administration insider who later served as councillor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In
his book The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, author Philip Shenon
pointed out that Zelikow wrote a paper for the Bush regime in 2002 advocating a policy of preemptive
warfare. On a CSPAN program Shenon observed:
Zelikow was the author of a very important document issued by the White House in Sept.
2002 that really turned military doctrine on its head and said that the United States could
become involved in pre-emptive war, pre-emptive defense, that we could attack a nation that
didn’t pose an immediate military threat to this country. And obviously in September 2002, it
sure appeared that document was being written with one target in mind: Iraq.
Shenon concluded that the Bush regime’s appointment of Zelikow as the executive director of the
official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks was “akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”
Interestingly, throughout his academic career Zelikow’s musings have largely been focused on what
he calls “public presumptions,” or myths fostered by the political elite that take on a “transcendent”
importance which shapes mainstream discourse and public consciousness – events like Pearl Harbour
In Dec. 1998, Zelikow co-authored a peculiar paper entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the
New Danger,” published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, which contained
an eerily prescient forecast of the future. In the rich tradition of self-incriminatory Zionist
premonitions, Zelikow envisioned a “transforming event,” like Pearl Harbour, that would “divide our
past and future into a before and after.” This catastrophe, opined Zelikow, may result in the
implementation of police state measures in the U.S. and an aggressive U.S. foreign policy. “If the
device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively
dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to
describe it,” wrote Zelikow. He continued:
Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It
could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s
fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor,
this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might
respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance
of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow,
either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their
leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.
Zelikow’s “new Pearl Harbour” presage preceded the PNAC group’s similarly eerie divination in
Sept. 2000. In a rare display of honesty, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia that the
U.S. entry into the Iraq war was motivated by Washington’s desire to protect Israel. “Why would Iraq
attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?” Zelikow asked. “I’ll tell you what I think the real
threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel,” he said, adding: “And
this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that
threat… And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is
not a popular sell.” Zelikow’s blunt admission was the first of its kind from anyone closely
linked to the Bush administration.
Controlling the Discourse
Greg Felton, in an interview with the American Free Press, observed: “Israel cannot afford to be
rational. It cannot afford to debate facts or history… Israel will go to any length to stop people from
investigating history, asking intelligent questions, pointing out obvious contradictions in its
statements.” Not satisfied with outright ownership of large portions of mainstream television,
print and entertainment media, Israel’s partisans are also on a mission to control the Internet too.
Naftali Bennett, the current economy minister of Israel and leader of the ultra-Zionist ‘Jewish Home’
political party, organized a conference in 2010 to teach Israelis how to edit Wikipedia so that the
popular information website reflects the Zionist narrative. “[Zionist groups] have arranged for an
instruction day for Wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia
which is the number one source of information today in the world,” Bennett told Israel’s Arutz Sheva
TV. In a display of unreserved hubris, Bennett admitted the partisan inclination of the mission: “For
example, if somebody searches the Gaza flotilla we want to be there; we want to be the guys who
influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’s balanced and Zionist in
nature.” He did not explain how something could be both “balanced” and “Zionist in nature.”
In 2013, a member of NGO Monitor, a Zionist propaganda group, was banned from Wikipedia for
attempting to make biased edits of articles that don’t portray Israel in a favourable light. Dozens of
other Zionists have been caught manipulating Wikipedia content to suit Israeli interests. In 2008,
another Zionist group, CAMERA, called on volunteers to edit Wikipedia in Israel’s favour. In August
2013, the Israeli government recruited Israeli university students to defend the Zionist regime on
social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. “Israel is looking to hire university
students to post pro-Israel messages on social media networks — without needing to identify
themselves as government-linked,” the Associated Press reported. The Israeli government offered to
grant Israeli students full or partial scholarships for their contributions in combatting criticism of
The Israeli prime minister’s office oversees an international pro-Israel propaganda initiative called
“Hasbara” in order to improve the country’s image abroad. Hundreds of Hasbara groups have been
established across the Western world. The Hasbara Fellowships website lists 17 “partner”
organizations dedicated to disseminating Zionist propaganda in the West. The Coalition of
Hasbara Volunteers (CoHaV) describes itself as “an international umbrella organization for the many
volunteer Israel advocacy groups around the world.” The group lists 108 Hasbara “action groups” on
its website stretching from Australia to Europe, North America and South America. If Israel is
doing nothing wrong, as its dishonest leaders and supporters claim, than why does it have to go to
such extreme lengths to hire public relations firms to help improve its image as well as pay college
students and others to trumpet its propaganda?
In the documentary “Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land,” Professor Robert Jenson of the
University of Texas-Austin outlined Israel’s propaganda efforts in the U.S.: “Israel is really fighting a
war on two fronts. The first is a military campaign being waged in the occupied territories against the
Palestinian people. And the second is a PR campaign being waged here in the U.S. through the
American media to ensure continued support for Israel’s occupation. So you could say that in addition
to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is also involved in an attempt to
ideologically occupy the American media.”
Alon Pinkas, the Consul General for Israel in New York and coordinator of Israel’s PR efforts,
confirmed Jensen’s assertion when he stated: “We are currently in a conflict with the Palestinians…
and engaging in a successful PR campaign is part of winning the conflict.” Israel’s PM Benjamin
Netanyahu emphasized the same thing, saying: “We are (operating) on four fronts: The military front,
the home front, the diplomatic front and the public diplomacy front.”
Middle East analyst Alison Weir founded the group “If Americans Knew” which discusses Zionist
manipulation of the media at length. A 2005 study conducted by the group revealed that the New York
Times reported the deaths of Israelis at rates up to seven times higher than deaths of Palestinians,
even though far more Palestinians are killed in the conflict. In an article entitled “NY Times
headline reverses chronology, story leaves out important information,” Weir highlighted one
particular article from the Times which deceptively reversed the chronology of who initiated violence
between Israel and Palestinians in an attempt to make Israel appear as the victim, and neglected to
mention that four of eight Palestinians injured in an Israeli attack were young children. The article,
written by Israeli citizen Isabel Kirshner, provided no significant details of the eight Palestinians who
were injured, but thought it was important to mention that several Israeli goats had been killed in a
petting zoo. This prompted Weir to pose the question: “Does the New York Times consider Israeli
goats more important than Palestinian children?”
An article on the Jerusalem Post website titled “Judaism at the New York Times” revealed that all of
the New York Times’ Middle East bureau chiefs tasked with covering the Israel-Palestine conflict for
at least the last 15 years have been Jewish. The wealthy Jewish Ochs-Sulzberger family has
owned the paper since 1896. Its chief editors have also been consistently Jewish. Max Frankel, the
former executive editor of the paper from 1986 to 1994, admitted in his memoirs that he is “deeply
devoted to Israel” and that he wrote most of the paper’s Middle East commentaries “from a pro-Israel
perspective.” The current executive editor is Jill Abramson who is also Jewish.
In an interview with Russia Today, Grant F. Smith of the Institute for Research on Middle Eastern
Policy discussed the implications of declassified documents pertaining to a Senate investigation into
Israeli propaganda initiatives and lobbying activities in the United States. “These files are from a
sealed Senate investigation which was the result of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the
U.S. Department of Justice looking into groups that brought 36 million dollars into the U.S. to plant
stories in the U.S. media and promote Israeli foreign policy objectives in the U.S. They’re extremely
relevant because they revealed, for example, a vast effort to divert U.S. attention from the Israeli
Dimona nuclear weapons facility by saying it was merely a research center,” Smith said. He added
that “this reveals essentially that major U.S. publications that were on the receiving end of the 36
million dollars really fell into line for a whole host of initiatives.”
Israel’s partisans have infiltrated and subverted major media outlets in countries other than the United
States. Britain’s Daily Mail tabloid newspaper and online publication is for all intents and purposes
a Zionist propaganda organ. Alex Brummer, the Daily Mail’s City editor, flaunted the paper’s Zionist
credentials in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle. “The Daily Mail is filled with Jewish
journalists, it is one of the most pro-Israel papers on Fleet Street,” he said. Responding to a scandal
in which the Mail was accused of anti-Semitism, Brummer made it clear where he and the paper
stand: “[T]hroughout my time at the Mail the paper’s loyalty to Israel … has never wavered,” he said.
Brummer emphasized that the newspaper “has nurtured and promoted Jewish staff in every editorial
department. It is absurd to suggest that the Mail is anti-Semitic — for its deputy editor has Jewish
origins, and a leading columnist and many other staff are Jewish.”
The Electronic Intifada website published a damning report entitled “BBC editor urged colleagues to
downplay Israel’s siege of Gaza” showcasing the extent of Zionist infiltration of the BBC. The
report’s author, Amena Saleem, revealed that the Middle East online editor for BBC News, Raffi
Berg, instructed staff to write more favourably of Israel. During Israel’s eight day bombardment of
Gaza in Nov. 2012 in which nearly 200 Palestinians were killed, Berg sent out internal emails
advising writing staff to carefully word their stories so as to exonerate Israel for its aggression and to
promote the Israeli regime’s whitewashed narrative concerning the murderous onslaught. The
Redress Information and Analysis website issued a report headlined “Arch-Zionist gets top BBC
strategy job” detailing the Zionist pedigree of James Purnell who was appointed chief of strategy at
the BBC. The report’s author, Nureddin Sabir, noted that Purnell served as chairman of the Zionist
lobby group Labour Friends of Israel from 2002 to 2004 and has a long history of pro-Israel activity.
Sabir observed that Purnell “will be in charge of the corporation’s policy, strategy, digital services,
public affairs, communications, marketing and audience research – in other words, pretty much
everything that matters in the BBC.”
An influential British media mogul who purchased the Daily Mirror in 1984 was a man named
Robert Maxwell. Authors Martin Dillon and Gordon Thomas exposed Maxwell as an agent of
Israel’s Mossad in their book Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy. “As Seymour Hersh argues in
his book The Samson Option Maxwell helped Mossad kidnap Mordechai Vanunu, the dissident
Israeli nuclear scientist who passed information about Israel’s nuclear program at Dimona to the
media in 1986,” analyst Joshua Blakeney noted in an article for Veterans Today. Britain’s major
media, evidently, has been a malleable tool of Israeli propaganda for many decades.
The Australia-born media magnate Rupert Murdoch is the chairman and CEO of News Corp., one of
the largest media conglomerates in the world. Among Murdoch’s vast holdings are influential
newspapers like The Times (Britain), News of the World (Britain), The Wall Street Journal (U.S.),
New York Post (U.S.) and the Fox television network. Wikipedia reports that by 2000 Murdoch’s
media empire constituted “800 companies in more than 50 countries with a net worth of over $5
As one of the most powerful opinion-moulders in the world, Murdoch’s political leanings have come
under scrutiny. It is no secret that Murdoch is an ardent Zionist who maintains close personal
relationships with Israel’s political elite — he is good friends with Likudnik politicians Ariel
Sharon, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu and is a loyal supporter of the Likud Party. The Jewishoriented
magazine 15 Minutes reported in its April 2002 edition that Murdoch and a group of editors
from New York and London spent a weekend at Ariel Sharon’s ranch in Israel. They were
treated to a helicopter tour of parts of the country courtesy Sharon. Murdoch has openly expressed his
love for Israel, once saying: “I’ve always had sympathy for Israel, but it certainly intensified when I
moved to New York in 1973. I got to know Prime Minister Sharon, way back in the late ’70s. Through
the years, the support intensified.”
Murdoch’s pro-Zionist bona fides were recognized by a number of Zionist organizations that
bestowed numerous awards upon him for his “service” to Zionism and the Jewish state. In 1982, the
American Jewish Committee voted Murdoch the “Communications Man of the Year” and in 1997 the
United Jewish Appeal Federation awarded him its “Humanitarian of the Year” honour.
Murdoch’s News Corp. was praised for its pro-Israel pedigree at an America-Israel Friendship
League Partners for Democracy awards dinner. At another dinner hosted by the Museum of Jewish
Heritage, Murdoch boasted of his fervent support of Jewish nationalism, proclaiming: “I have always
believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community.”
Murdoch serves on the dinner committee of the Anti- Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and in Oct.
2010 he received that group’s “International Leadership” award for his dedication to Zionism and
Israel. Murdoch addressed his Zionist colleagues at the ADL dinner and in a fit of hysteria decried
what he called an “ongoing war against the Jews” that aims to “make Israel a pariah.” The
former governor of New York, George Pataki, praised Murdoch’s pro-Israel partisanship: “There is
no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel than [Murdoch’s] New York Post.” In a
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs article, analyst Richard H. Curtiss documents how
Murdoch effectively imposes stringent editorial censorship, stamping out any negative
characterizations of Israel within the pages of his newspapers and magazines. Moreover,
Murdoch subsidizes The Weekly Standard magazine, a hawkish neoconservative outlet whose chief
editor is William Kristol, a principal architect of the 2003 war in Iraq.
Zionists have also hijacked Canada’s major media. Until it folded in 2010, one company called
CanWest Global Communications owned more than half of Canada’s national media. The founder and
CEO of that company, Israel Asper, was an avowed Zionist who put Israel’s interests above those of
Canada. He was known for enforcing a rigid editorial policy forbidding any criticism of Israel.
When Asper died in 2003, his company issued a statement praising their founder as a “champion of
Israel.” In a short auto-biography published on the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba’s website,
Asper wrote openly of his life-long commitment “to a Jewish way of life and to Zionism.”
Asper was a prominent member of Canada’s Zionist lobby and helped established the Canada-Israel
Jonathan Kay is an influential columnist and editor at the National Post, one of Canada’s most widely
circulated newspapers. Critics have pointed out that Kay’s writings are regularly infused with Zionist
apologia and pro-Israel partisanship. He has authored two non-fiction books, the first of which
is a biography of a Canadian-born Mossad agent named Michael Ross entitled The Volunteer: A
Canadian’s Secret Life in the Mossad. Critics have described Kay’s second book, Among the
Truthers, as a 368-page ad-hominem attack on people who harbour alternative historical viewpoints,
mainly about the Sept. 11 attacks and especially those who implicate Israel. Ex-Mossad agent
Michael Ross can also be found excoriating anyone who doubts the official version of 9/11 in the
pages of the National Post. Two other prominent Zionist Jews working in tandem with Kay and Ross
to brainwash the Canadian public with Zionist agitprop are Ezra Levant and Michael Coren, both of
whom function as writers and television hosts for Sun News.
Another major media company in Canada, ZoomerMedia, is owned and controlled by Moses
Znaimer, whose Wikipedia profile identifies him as having been “born to Polish and Latvian Jewish
parents.” Moses Znaimer’s sister, Libby Znaimer, is the vice-president of news and information
for several ZoomerMedia-owned radio stations. The Canadian Jewish News website featured a
profile of Libby Znaimer wherein it detailed her “lifelong connection to Israel and its people.”
The article revealed that Libby grew up “in a Zionist home with her older brother, Canadian media
mogul Moses Znaimer” and further noted that she is a “self-proclaimed ‘staunch’ Zionist” who lived
in Israel for five years in the 1970s. In Oct. 2013, she spoke at a fundraiser for Beit Halochem, a
charity that helps disabled war veterans of the Zionist state. Moses Znaimer boosted his Zionist
credentials by producing a four-part documentary series called “Jew Bashing: The New AntiSemitism”
which aired on VisionTV in the summer of 2013. Through deceptive editing, Znaimer and
the documentary’s director Martin Himel, also a Zionist Jew, sought to paint all critics of Israel and
Zionism as irrational bigots.
Zionism’s stereotypical and altogether dishonest tactic to stifle dissent is to label all opposition “antiSemitic.”
On Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now webcast, the former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni
conceded that the “anti-Semitic” slur is “a trick, we always use it [to stifle criticism of Israel].”
In addition to being a deceptive ploy, the epithet is a misnomer too because Arabs are in fact Semites
and most Jews today are not. The vast majority of Jews in Israel and abroad are of European
(Ashkenazi) origin and have no Semitic or Middle Eastern roots to begin with. By levelling the antiSemitism
charge against critics of the war on terror and skeptics of 9/11, Zionists unveil their own
hand behind these injustices. As Joshua Blakeney cogently observed: “If everyone who opposes the
9/11 wars is anti-Semitic, doesn’t that make the protagonists of these illegal wars Jewish?”
The Ideological Weapon:
Holocaust Dogma and Zionist Militarism
“The Holocaust,” writes Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein in his book The Holocaust Industry,
“has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon.” Finkelstein argues that a mythology
has been crafted around the events of World War II which functions as a psychological tool used by
Zionists to gain money and to silence critics of Israel. “When in Europe somebody is criticizing Israel
then we bring up the holocaust,” said former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni in an interview with
Democracy Now, describing the dishonest practice as “a trick.”
“Invoking the holocaust,” writes Finkelstein, “is a ploy to delegitimize all criticism of Jews. By
conferring total blamelessness on Jews, the Holocaust dogma immunizes Israel and American Jewry
from legitimate censure.” Finkelstein says that organized American Jewry “has exploited the
Nazi Holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own morally indefensible policies.” This
exploitative effort forms what Finkelstein dubbed the “holocaust industry,” spearheaded by Jewish
and Israeli groups seeking billions in “reparations” money from Germany. Zionist-dominated
Hollywood constitutes an integral part of the industry as well, making millions off the promotion of
the holocaust story through movies and television shows. This dogma, notes Finkelstein, is a
mechanism of emotional blackmail designed to “sustain significant political and class interests.”
“Through its deployment,” Finkelstein argues, “one of the world’s most formidable military powers
[Israel], with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most
successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status.”
The mythology surrounding Jewish victimhood encapsulated in the holocaust dogma is a principal
source of militarism in today’s world. The state of Israel, one of the most militarized countries in the
world, is the embodiment of a paranoid, chauvinistic mindset. Kevin Barrett observed in an interview
with Press TV:
The Israelis are fanatical extremists who feel that they are being persecuted everywhere they
go and that they have to be extremely harsh, unyielding and aggressive, as well as deceptive
and violent with the world. They have a terrible track record of extreme deception, lies and
extreme violence… They’re ruthless, they’re psychopathic and they are the most likely
country in the world to use nuclear weapons.
This militant attitude stemming from a contrived persecution-complex carries over into the politics of
the neoconservative warmongers. In many respects, the holocaust dogma forms the foundational
framework of the neoconservative worldview. Gal Beckerman made note of this in an article for the
Jewish Forward newspaper. Acknowledging that neocons are driven by an intense devotion to
Jewish survival in a hostile world, Beckerman explained:
It was [neocon ideologue Norman] Podhoretz, however, who gave neoconservatism its most
explicitly Jewish cast. The August 1968 issue of Commentary featured Emil Fackenheim’s
famous essay, “Jewish Faith and the Holocaust: A Fragment,” which included Fackenheim’s
contention that after Auschwitz, Jews had a moral responsibility to defend Jewish interests
so as not to hand Hitler a “posthumous victory.” By February 1972, Podhoretz himself wrote
a piece titled, without irony, “Is It Good for the Jews?”
Holocaust consciousness was growing in the 1970s, as was a renewed sense of threat to
Jews and a feeling that, as Podhoretz put it, the postwar “statute of limitations” on
antisemitism had run out. Israel’s security, threatened in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur
War — both events that gave Jews existential pause — suddenly became a top American
Jewish concern. Podhoretz came to identify more and more with the defense of Jews, and by
the 1980s, half his articles on international affairs focused on Israel and threats to the Jewish
This hyper sensitivity and paranoia about perceived “threats to the Jewish people” enveloped the
thinking processes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and other Zionist architects of the
war in Iraq. Their unwavering loyalty to Israel and promotion of wars that strengthen Israel’s
hegemonic position is rooted in an obsession with holocaust mythology. Speaking in an interview for
the BBC documentary “The War Party,” Perle admitted:
For those of us who are involved in foreign and defense policy today of my generation, the
defining moment of our history was certainly the holocaust. It was destruction, a genocide of
a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was
clearly gathering. We don’t want that to happen again. When we have the ability to stop
totalitarian regimes we should do so because when we fail to do so the results are
Paul Wolfowitz expressed similar sentiments in an interview with the New York Times. Eric Schmitt,
writing in his 2002 profile of Wolfowitz titled “The Busy Life of Being a Lightning Rod for Bush,”
observed that Wolfowitz’s views are “forged by family history… Brooklyn-born and raised in Ithaca,
N.Y., Mr. Wolfowitz, 58, is the son of a Cornell University mathematician who escaped Poland after
World War I. The rest of his father’s family perished in the Holocaust. ‘That sense of what happened
in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views,’ he said.” In a 2005 profile of Douglas
Feith published in the New Yorker, the WMD myth maker was quoted as saying: “[M]y family got
wiped out by Hitler, and that all this stuff about working things out-well, talking to Hitler to resolve
the problem didn’t make any sense to me. … What’s the answer to the Holocaust? The surprising
thing is not that there are so many Jews who are neocons but that there are so many who are
Based on these testimonies, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the neocons are hardcore
Jewish chauvinists bent on shoring up the position of the Jewish state as an unbreakable fortress with
an overwhelming military advantage over all of its Arab neighbours. The neocons, steeped in selfserving
propaganda about Jewish victimhood, based their entire foreign policy advocacy not on what
is good for the United States, but rather on what is good for the Israeli garrison state. The neocons
are, in effect, opportunistically using the U.S. as a geopolitical guardian to protect Israel from any
possible threat to its continued dominance in the Middle East.
The holocaust dogma in its present form cannot be sustained. Many brave scholars have challenged
the veracity of claims made about the holocaust, particularly the casualty numbers and the methods
purportedly used, and by doing so have faced severe repercussions. In an Orwellian move that would
make Stalin envious, more than a dozen supposedly “democratic” countries, mainly in Europe, have
made it explicitly illegal to question the holocaust as it is defined by the victorious powers of World
War II in any form or fashion, jailing people simply for drawing politically incorrect historical
conclusions. What are these governments afraid of? If the victors’ version of the holocaust is
true, why do they need to legislate against dissenting viewpoints?
In multiple interviews and speeches, the former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked those
questions and raised a third prudent question: if the holocaust took place in Europe, why are the
Palestinians paying the price for it? Ahmadinejad’s detractors have never been able to answer
that question, and daring to raise the question at all is one of the main reasons the Zionists despise
him. Palestinian suffering at the hands of Zionist Jews for an alleged catastrophe that took place on a
different continent is of course morally indefensible. The Zionists’ impetus to seize and ethnically
cleanse Palestine in 1948 was facilitated in large part by sympathy extracted through the perceived
sufferings of Jews during the Second World War. Was this just mere happenstance or was it designed
A cursory look through the archives of the New York Times (NYT) reveals a pattern that seems to
indicate a pre-meditation that cannot be overlooked. It has been ingrained in us since birth that exactly
six million Jews perished as a result of Hitler’s policies. Where did this number – six million —
originate and what is its significance? Don Heddesheimer tackled this question in his book The First
Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War
One. In the book, Heddesheimer showcases clippings from the New York Times dating back
before, during and after the First World War, which include references to “six million Jews” in the
context of persecution or imminent destruction. Heddesheimer reproduces dozens upon dozens of
references to this number of Jews said to be persecuted in some way or otherwise on the precipice of
“destruction” or “extermination” or “annihilation” and even under threat of a “holocaust.” The source
of these reckless and exaggerated claims was almost always Jewish-Zionist pressure groups based
out of New York, like the American Jewish Congress, World Jewish Congress and the American
Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Throughout his work Heddesheimer linked these dishonest
propaganda initiatives to Jewish fundraising campaigns primarily aimed at advancing Zionist
colonization projects in Palestine.
Here are a few choice examples:
1) In 1902, the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes reference to “six million Jews” in
Rumania and Russia in a state of being “systematically degraded.”
2) A March 25, 1906, NYT article with the heading “Dr. Paul Nathan’s View of Russian Massacre”
highlights the claims of Dr. Paul Nathan, a German-Jewish philanthropist campaigning for the plight
of Russia’s Jews. Dr. Nathan alleged that the Russian government’s intention vis-à-vis the Jewish
question was a deliberate policy of “systematic and murderous extermination” and that six million
Jews were in danger.
3) According to Ben Hecht’s 1961 book Perfidy (p. 254), the Zionist leader Max Nordau announced
that it was only a matter of time before European governments would “annihilate” six million Jews.
Nordau’s prediction was made at the Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1911, which was 22
years before Hitler came to power and three years before World War I started.
4) A Dec. 2, 1914, NYT article entitled “Appeal For Aid For Jews” reported on a Jewish fundraising
campaign calling for relief funds to alleviate the suffering of “6,000,000 Jews who live within the
war zone.” This was during World War I.
5) A Jan. 14, 1915, NYT article entitled “Jews’ Indifference to War Aid Rebuked” reported
statements made by Louis Marshall, a Jewish leader who headed the American Jewish Relief
Committee during World War I. According to Marshall the lives of “6,000,000 Jews” were at stake
and that they were being subjected to “every manner of suffering and sorrow.”
6) An Oct. 31, 1919, article that appeared in The American Hebrew under the heading “The
Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop” spoke of a looming catastrophe that would afflict “six million Jewish
men and women,” calling it a “holocaust of human life.” The article’s author, the Governor of New
York Martin H. Glynn, pleaded for funds: “$35,000,000 in the name of the humanity of Moses to six
million famished men and women.” “Six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas;
eight hundred thousand Jewish babies are crying for bread,” he wrote.
7) A Sept. 8, 1919, NYT article entitled “Ukrainian Jews Aim To Stop Pogroms” alleges that
“127,000 Jews have been killed and 6,000,000 are in peril” of being killed in pogroms in the Ukraine
8) A July 20, 1921, NYT article with the heading “Begs America Save 6,000,000 In Russia” carried
the hysterical sub-heading “Massacre threatens all Jews as Soviet power wanes.” The opening
sentence of the article says, “Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre.”
9) As World War II approached, Zionists intensified their efforts to provoke hysteria about Jewish
persecution to facilitate their ends. In 1936, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann testified before the Peel
Commission, which was established by the British government to settle the violence between Arabs
and Jews in British Mandate Palestine. At the hearing, Weizmann proclaimed that “six million Jews”
in Europe had “neither hope nor future save in the land of Israel.” Again in 1936, the New York
Times published an article titled “Americans Appeal For Jewish Refuge” which reproduced the
contents of a petition from the Pro-Palestine Federation calling on the British government to establish
a state in Palestine for the Jews. The plea spoke of the “intolerable sufferings of the millions of Jews”
in “the European holocaust.” The Zionist authors of the petition yearned for England to “Throw open
the gates of Palestine and let in the victimized and persecuted Jews escaping from the European
holocaust” in order to swiftly facilitate “the restoration of the land of Israel to the children of Israel.”
This was three years before World War II began.
10) A Jan. 9, 1938, NYT article entitled “Persecuted Jews Seen on Rise” stressed the victimhood of
six million Jews said to be targeted by “governmental anti-Semitism and persecution.”
11) In 1940, Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, declared that if the Nazis
achieved victory in the war “6,000,000 Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction.”
12) As early as Nov. 1944, a full six months before the war’s end, articles began appearing in the
press claiming exactly six million Jews had succumbed. The Pittsburgh Press and the Palestine Post
carried the headlines “Six Million Jews Listed Slaughtered” and “Six Million Murdered.”
These stories were based on the reportage of Soviet-Jewish war propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg who
later announced in a March 15, 1945, issue of Soviet News Weekly that “the world now knows that
Germany has killed six million Jews.” Writing in the preface of The First Holocaust, German
scholar Germar Rudolf pointed out: “At that time, no demographic figures could have been available
to [Ehrenburg]. Just a year later, British Historian David Irving emphasized that as early as June
1945, in other words immediately after the end of hostilities in Europe, some Zionist leaders claimed
to be able to provide the precise number of Jewish victims - six million, of course - even though the
chaos reigning in Europe at that time rendered any demographic studies impossible.”
As we have seen, Zionists had routinely promulgated the claim of six million persecuted Jews for
decades prior to the Second World War. The repetitious pattern of Zionist propaganda claims
about “persecutions,” “pogroms” and “holocausts” of Jews was reverberating throughout the Western
world since the dawn of the 20
th century. However, the most damning quote of all was uttered in the
year 1900 when a Zionist leader proclaimed that six million suffering Jews was a good argument for
Zionism. “There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism,” declared
Rabbi Stephen S. Wise at a mass meeting held by the Federation of American Zionists. Wiseman
was the leader of Zionism in the U.S. and was an advisor to several American presidents, including
Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Evidently, Zionists had been endeavouring to use
perceived persecution of Jews — preferably six million – as a marketing strategy to sell their cause
of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine to the world.
Despite popular belief, the idea of establishing a “homeland” for Jews did not originate after World
War II and just come into being on a whim. In point of fact, Zionism as an organized movement dates
back to the late 19
th century with the publication of Theodore Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat (The
Jewish State) in 1896 and the formation of the Zionist Organization the following year. Claims about
six million suffering Jews surfaced shortly thereafter. Is this merely coincidental?
Why is the six million figure so dear to their hearts? Does it have any legitimacy? Although this is the
number commonly cited by officialdom in the Western world due to the intense Zionist campaign to
promote it, it has no basis in reality. Raul Hilberg, a mainstream holocaust writer and author of The
Destruction of the European Jews, arrived at a figure of 5.1 million Jewish casualties in the war.
Hilberg’s methodology for calculating this sum has been criticized by revisionist scholars who argue
it is still much too high, most notably Jürgen Graf who dedicated his book The Giant With Feet of
Clay to dissecting Hilberg’s errors and oversights.
Shortly after the war ended in 1945, the Soviets, having captured all of Germany’s concentration
camps located in Poland, promptly embarked on a propaganda offensive to portray these camps as
harrowing “death factories.” Most people naively believed the Soviet claims, despite the Soviet
Union’s horrendous track record of mass murder of their own. The Soviets claimed that four million
people were killed in the Auschwitz camp alone. This number became the ‘common wisdom’ about
Auschwitz for decades, repeated by historians as ‘fact,’ and was even inscribed on a large plaque at
the camp which read: “Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers
between the years 1940 and 1945.” After the fall of the communist iron curtain in 1990, the
plaque was officially amended, and now reads: “Forever let this place be a cry of despair and a
warning to humanity where the Nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women and
children, mainly Jews.” So 2.5 million “victims” have been subtracted from the total number of
Auschwitz deaths, which now officially stands at 1.5 million.
Revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson conducted a study of the death claims made about Auschwitz
from different sources dating from 1945 to 2002. In his report entitled “How Many Deaths at
Auschwitz?” Faurisson explained that the new and presumably final figure of 1.5 million deaths at the
camp “did not end the controversy about the actual death toll of Auschwitz. In 1993 and 1994, the
French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac, then promoted by the international media as the expert on
technical questions surrounding Auschwitz, reduced this figure twice, first down to 800,000, then
down to 700,000.” The most patently absurd figure Faurisson found was from a 1955 French
documentary titled “Nuit et Brouillard” (Night and Fog) which claimed nine million people died in
the camp. The lowest figure Faurisson found from a mainstream source was that of Fritjof Meyer, a
German historian who hypothesized based on new archival documents that the real death toll was
closer to 510,000.
Faurisson observed that in the 1980s the Auschwitz death registries (files kept by the Germans of
deaths in the camp) were retrieved from the Soviet archives due to pressure from revisionists, and
they revealed a list of 69,000 names of confirmed deaths of Auschwitz inmates from the period of
July 27, 1941, to Dec. 31, 1943. The death registries did not encompass the whole duration of
the camp’s existence, which was evacuated by the Germans on Jan. 18, 1945, so the real amount of
deaths would be a certain degree higher, but still astonishingly lower than all of the fantastic figures
provided by establishment sources. The revisionist consensus on Auschwitz is that somewhere
between 100,000 to 150,000 inmates, both Jewish and non-Jewish, died in the camp, primarily from
disease and starvation. Most of these deaths occurred in the final few months of the war, after the
Allies had carpet-bombed much of Germany’s critical infrastructure into smoldering ruins, thus
inhibiting shipments of food, medicine and other supplies to the labour and prison camps.
The Soviets not only tried to hide the death registries for decades, but also concealed the fact that the
room in Auschwitz’s main camp presented to tourists as a “homicidal gas chamber” was nothing more
than a morgue and later an air raid shelter that the Soviets had modified after the war to look like a
gas chamber. This Soviet deception, although now admitted to by the Auschwitz State Museum,
received no coverage in the Western press. “In a dramatic and unprecedented videotaped interview,”
writes P. Samuel Foner in The Spotlight, “Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of
archives of the Auschwitz State Museum admitted on camera that ‘Krema 1,’ the alleged ‘homicidal
gas chamber’ shown off to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at the Auschwitz main camp,
was, in fact, fabricated after the war by the Soviet Union - apparently on the direct orders of Josef
In light of these revelations, Faurisson concluded:
The supporters of the official version of the “Holocaust” have experienced some discomfort
facing the necessity, imposed by the revisionists, to revise downwards, in such proportions,
the number of the Auschwitz deaths. How can it be explained that at the Nuremberg trial
(1945-1946), such a deception had been taken straight off “judicial notice” of, thanks to
Section 21 of that Tribunal’s Charter? How can it be explained that, during official
ceremonies, so many of this world’s Greats, including Pope John Paul II, were asked to come
and bow in front of such an invention of quacks? How can it be explained that in 1990,
France equipped itself with an anti-revisionist law section forbidding any disputing of the
“crimes against humanity” such as described and evaluated by the Nuremberg tribunal? And
then, how can the figure of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Jews dead during the whole war be
protected from any revision, if it was necessary to revise to that extent the figure of the
deaths of Auschwitz?
The death figures at other German concentration camps have likewise been officially revised
downwards. For decades it was said that 1.5 million people were killed by the Nazis at the Majdanek
concentration camp in Poland, and Deborah Lipstadt, a mainstream holocaust writer, claimed it to be
the resting place of 1.7 million murdered Jews. Like Auschwitz, a new, revised death total at
Majdanek was unveiled in recent years, and now officially stands at 60,000, according to Majdanek’s
research director Thomasz Kranz’s estimation. The greatly exaggerated claim of 1.5 million
Majdanek deaths was a propaganda invention that originated with Raymond Arthur Davies, a
Canadian journalist and convicted felon who was on the payroll of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
 The 1963 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica alleged that “2,000,000 people, mostly
Jews” were killed in the German-run Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. Today the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s website tells us that 14,000 Jews perished while
interned there, a subtraction of 1,986,000. Who knows what the true figure is.
Israeli historian Tom Segev in his book Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends made an even more
shocking admission. In a review of that book published on the Jewish Review of Books website,
Deborah Lipstadt recounted an anecdote in the book wherein Segev explains how the figure of 11
million total victims of Hitler came into being. “In the 1970s, Wiesenthal began to refer to ‘eleven
million victims’ of the Holocaust, six million Jews and five million non-Jews, but the latter number
had no basis in historical reality,” she writes. “Wiesenthal’s contrived death toll,” she says, “has
become a widely accepted ‘fact.’ Jimmy Carter’s Executive Order, which was the basis for the
establishment of the US Holocaust Museum, referred to the ‘eleven million victims of the
Holocaust.’” She continues: “When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged
Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order
to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost,
but not quite, as large as six million.”
So why is the six million figure, or the eleven million figure for that matter, continuing to be widely
touted and repeated, despite it obviously having no basis in fact? Raul Hilberg hinted at the necessity
of maintaining these high numbers. “Call it religious if you like,” he said. The number of six
million does indeed have a religious foundation. It is a symbolic figure that has its genesis in Jewish
religious writings of the Torah and the Kabbalah. Ben Weintraub identified the Kabbalistic
origins and nature of the number of six million in his book The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism. A clue
as to the political purpose of the holocaust dogma was articulated by Ian J. Kagedan, a spokesman for
the Canadian branch of the Zionist society of B’nai B’rith. Memorializing the holocaust, wrote
Kagedan in the Nov. 26, 1991, edition of the Toronto Star, “is central to new world order.”
“Achieving our quest of a new world order,” Kagedan surmised, “depends on our learning the
What is this “new world order” yearned for by Zionists like Kagedan? An Oct. 6, 1940, article
appearing in the New York Times shed light on this question. Headlined “New World Order Pledged
to Jews,” the article reported statements made by Arthur Greenwood, a member of the British War
Cabinet during the Second World War and deputy leader of the British Labour Party. “[Greenwood]
assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to
found a new world order based on the ideals of ‘justice and peace,’” the article reported. Greenwood
declared that in this new world order the “conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the
wrongs suffered by the Jewish people … should be righted,” adding that after the defeat of Nazism
“an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive
contribution in the remaking of the world.”
Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion similarly espoused such grandiose dreams of Jewish
eminence. A Jan. 4, 1962, Jewish Telegraphic Agency article headlined “Ben-gurion Foresees
Gradual Democratization of the Soviet Union” reported: “Gradual democratization of the Soviet
Union and the abolition of wars by 1987 is predicted by Israel Premier David Ben-Gurion in a
statement published in the current issue of Look magazine.” In the statement, Ben-Gurion
outlined his forecast of the future where all of the countries of the world, with the exception of the
USSR, “will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police
force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars.” “In Jerusalem,” Ben-Gurion
declared, “the United Nations … will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of
all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among
the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.” Interestingly enough, Ben-Gurion also once said
that the ideals of the United Nations, which will necessarily lead this world government he
envisioned, are consistent with Jewish ideals. “We consider that the United Nations’ ideal is a Jewish
ideal,” he remarked.
Ben-Gurion predicated his “world government” presage on the writings of the Jewish prophet Isaiah.
The book of Isaiah in the Old Testament contains some striking passages worth quoting:
Ye shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings. (Isaiah 60:16)
Strangers will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards. (Isaiah
The wealth on the seas will be brought to you, to you the riches of the nations will come.
And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You
will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast. (Isaiah 61:6)
For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined. (Isaiah
The Lord of hosts will reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His elders shall be
Glory. (Isaiah 24:23)
Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow
down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. (Isaiah
I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as
with wine. (Isaiah 49:26)
As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather
abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries. (Isaiah 10:14)
This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all
nations. For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is
stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:26-27)
Looking at these passages it is hard to draw any other conclusion than that the worldview of BenGurion
and his compatriots is steeped in supremacy and chauvinism. “For thou art an holy people
unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself,
above all people that are upon the face of the earth,” it says in the book of Deuteronomy (7:6).
Believing themselves to be members of a holy “chosen people,” the Zionist Jews have sought to
engineer events to satisfy the supremacist edicts of their religion.
Zionist Hollywood’s portrayal of Adolf Hitler as a demonic villain is more than a little disingenuous,
considering Zionist Jews were quite happy to work with Hitler to advance their ultimate goal of relocating
European Jews to Palestine.
The worldviews of German National Socialists and Jewish Zionists were astonishingly similar – so
similar in fact that upon Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, Zionists immediately proposed an
agreement with the Nazi Party which would see the transfer of German Jews and their assets to
Palestine. A formal agreement between Hitler’s government and German Zionist organizations was
signed on August 25, 1933. By way of this agreement — called the Haavara (Hebrew for “transfer”)
agreement — the Third Reich and German Zionists worked together closely, culminating in the
peaceful transfer of about 60,000 German Jews and their assets to Palestine from 1933 through 1941.
 Wikipedia’s article on the subject noted:
The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was agreed to by the German government in 1933 to
allow the Zionist movement, in the form of the Haavara company to transfer property from
Germany to Palestine, for the sole purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany.
The Haavara company operated under a similar plan as the earlier Hanotea company. The
Haavara Company required immigrants to pay at least 1000 pounds sterling into the banking
company. This money would then be used to buy German exports for import to Palestine.
Historian Mark Weber analysed the Transfer Agreement and its ramifications in an essay entitled
“Zionism and the Third Reich.” According to Weber’s research, the Nazis were vigorously
supportive of Zionism as a means of encouraging Jews to leave Germany, to the point of helping
Zionist groups establish up to 40 training camps and agricultural centers across Germany to cultivate
Jewish settlers for Palestine. Although the Nuremberg race laws of 1935 forbade intermarriage or
sexual relations between Germans and Jews – a law actually supported by Zionists and religious
Jews who likewise advocated for the “purity” of their group – Hitler guaranteed Zionists the right to
fly the blue and white Jewish national banner, which later became the flag of Israel. Hitler also
supported the Zionist newspapers throughout Germany.
Weber’s analysis explored the relationship between the German SS (secret police) and the Zionist
militia group Haganah. The collaboration between the SS and Haganah included exchanges of
information as well as secret shipments of German weapons to Palestine for use against Palestinian
Arabs. Another Zionist militia known as Lehi (also sometimes called the Stern Gang) actually
proposed a military alliance with Hitler in January of 1941. Avraham Stern, the leader of Lehi,
submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a political-military alliance with the
Third Reich. Stern viewed Britain as the main enemy of Zionism at that time because it imposed
restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine. In his proposal, Stern declared the alliance would be
expedient to Germany “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation
of the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany.” The Germans, however, ignored Stern’s
Weber summed up the Transfer Agreement’s imperative role in the future establishment of Israel. The
vast sums of capital and agricultural equipment funnelled into Palestine via the Haavara company had
long lasting effects on Palestine. “The Ha’avara agreement greatly contributed to Jewish development
in Palestine and thus, indirectly, to the foundation of the Israeli state,” Weber wrote. Author
Edwin Black noted that the agreement “produced an economic explosion in Jewish Palestine” and
was “an indispensable factor in the creation of the State of Israel.” “The Transfer Agreement,”
concluded Weber, “was the most far-reaching example of cooperation between Hitler’s Germany and
international Zionism.” “Through this pact,” Weber opined, “Hitler’s Third Reich did more than any
other government during the 1930s to support Jewish development in Palestine. Indeed, during the
1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany.”
Hitler’s excessive policy of rounding up and deporting millions of European Jews to ghettos and
concentration camps played perfectly into the Zionists’ hands. The mass exodus of Jews from Europe
was in fact a Zionist scheme long before it was a Nazi one. In 1936, the Zionist leader Vladimir
Jabotinsky made clear his ultimate aim to sequester all of the world’s Jews in the land of Palestine,
saying, “It is not our task to establish in Palestine a home for selected people, not even a state for a
small portion of our people. The aim of our efforts is to organize a systematic massive Jewish
evacuation from all the countries in which they live.” In April 1940 Jabotinsky declared that
“The transfer of millions of Jews to their homeland will save the European Jewry from
extermination,” adding, “Evacuation of the Jewish masses is the only cure for the Jewish
This “catastrophe” Jabotinsky spoke of was perhaps a necessary precondition to facilitate the Zionist
transfer plan. It didn’t make much sense for Jews to just pack up and leave their lives of luxury in
Europe and embrace an uncertain future in Palestine. Some would argue that Zionists intentionally
provoked Hitler to become more and more anti-Jewish so as to hasten Jewish emigration to the
“promised land.” For instance, as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, before he had implemented
any serious measures restricting the rights of German Jews, Organized Jewry in America and Britain
initiated a global economic boycott of German goods. The front page of Britain’s Daily Express
newspaper of March 24, 1933, carried the headline: “Judea Declares War on Germany: Jews of All
the World Unite in Action.” The corresponding article announced:
The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany.
Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The
Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his
commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against
Already in a deep depression, such sanctions were intended to inflict more devastation upon
Germany’s fragile economy. Jabotinsky himself contributed in no small way to this effort of
provocation, publicly proclaiming in January of 1934:
For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each
conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to
believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and
material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to become once again a great
nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete
destruction of Germany.
Dr. M. Raphael Johnson in his study of German-Jewish tensions leading up to World War II entitled
“The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933,” made note of the
Zionists intention to stir the pot with Hitler in order to further their planned transposition of Europe’s
Jews to Palestine. “The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany,” writes Johnson,
“not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a littleknown
economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist
movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive
emigration to Palestine.”
The Jewish extremist Theodore Kaufman’s 1941 book Germany Must Perish! — which advocated
the extinction of all Germans — was likewise intended to stoke up even greater hostility between
Germans and Jews. Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was well aware of the book,
and widely publicized its contents throughout Germany in order to rally the German population
against Jews. More than just eliminating Germans, Kaufman also expressed a desire for a world
government led by his co-religionists. In an interview published in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle of
Sept. 26, 1941, Kaufman proclaimed in no uncertain terms:
I believe, that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the
world get together in one vast federation. “Union Now” is the beginning of this. Slowly but
surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have perpetual peace. And the Jews
will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain. But
how can you get peace if Germany exists? The only way to win an eternal peace is to make
the punishment of waging war more horrible than war itself. Human beings are penalized for
murder, aren’t they? Well, Germany starts all the wars of magnitude. Let us sterilize all
Germans and wars of world domination will come to an end!
The Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann did not do much to alleviate tensions either – in fact he did
everything in his power to intensify the situation. In a 1939 letter to British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain, Weizmann, speaking in the name of all Jews, declared: “I wish to confirm, in the most
explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made … that the Jews stand by
Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.” It was actions and statements like
these that ignited Hitler’s fury against Jews, which eventually dovetailed into his internment and
deportation policies once the great conflagration erupted into a world war. Interestingly, in his diaries
Zionist patron Theodore Herzl spoke about making use of anti-Jewish sentiment in order to expedite
the Zionist goal of gathering all Jews into a single state. “It would be an excellent idea to call in
respectable, accredited anti-Semities as liquidators of [Jewish] property,” wrote Herzl. “The antiSemities
will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
Herzl’s musings are intriguing insofar as there is some evidence indicating that Hitler received some
funding, at least initially, from Jewish sources. In his book Churchill’s War, renowned British
historian David Irving made mention of a letter written by Heinrich Brüning (Hitler’s predecessor as
German Chancellor) to Winston Churchill. In Brüning’s letter — which he insisted not be made
public due to the ramifications of what was stated — he unveiled that “from October 1928 the two
largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin
banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.” Samuel
Untermyer, a Jewish-Zionist businessman and civic leader from the United States who led the
economic boycott against Germany in 1933, also disclosed this partial Jewish funding of the Nazi
Party. In an Aug. 6, 1933, address on New York’s WABC Radio, Untermyer said, “[I]t would be an
interesting study in psychology to analyse the motives … that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend
money to Germany as they are now doing.” Another American Zionist named Rabbi Edward L.
Israel forwarded the same notion. “We cannot keep from mind the grim thought that during Hitler’s
rise to power a number of wealthy Jews helped finance his campaign,” the rabbi wrote in The
Pittsburgh Press of Nov. 20, 1938.
National Socialist and Jewish-Zionist ideas do indeed have many points of intersection. In his 1943
book Lest We Forget, the distinguished British journalist Douglas Reed relayed a conversation he had
with a Jewish journalist in Prague in 1939 who told him about a local rabbi who was preaching in the
synagogues that Hitler was a “Jewish Messiah.” Other Jews proclaimed Hitler a “messenger of
God” sent to further the work of Zionism. The American-Jewish journalist William Zukerman made
note of this in an article entitled “Zionism in Nazi-Land” published in the Canadian Jewish
Chronicle of Aug. 9, 1935, wherein he discerned:
Whether Zionists want it or not, they cannot get away from the fact that they share with the
Nazis the underlying principles of National Socialism. The Zionist theory fully accepts and
supports the Nazi claim of the alienism of the Jews in Germany and in other countries of their
birth. Some Zionist[s] frequently speak of Hitler as of a Messenger of God sent to further the
work of Zionism. All Zionist activity is directed toward the principal aim of the Nazis; that
of Jewish emigration from Germany. It was a Zionist scheme that we recently perfected for
the mass emigration of all Jews from Germany within twenty-five years. So eager is the Nazi
regime to bring about a Jewish exodus of this type that it is ready to lend its full support even
to a Jewish social movement so long as it furthers such an object.
Harry Waton, a Jewish author and rabbi, said in his 1939 book, A Program for the Jews, that
“Nazism is an imitation of Judaism” insofar as Nazism “adopted the principles and ideas of Judaism”
with which to trounce Jewish power. Much has been made of the supremacist ideals of National
Socialism, but little has been said of Jewish racism. According to Rabbi Waton in his aforementioned
book, Jews are a superior people destined to rule the world. “Since the Jews are the highest and most
cultured people on earth,” explained the rabbi, “the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the
rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth… this is the historic destiny of the
Jews.” The supremacist rabbi also opined that Jews are essentially gods on earth. “The Jews
should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we
must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within
Supremacist outbursts of this kind are commonplace among chauvinistic Jews. Chaim Weizmann, the
long-time chief of the World Zionist Organization and later the first president of Israel, pursued the
Zionist agenda with an indescribable ferocity. Threatening those who opposed his quest to conquer
Palestine and subjugate its people, Weizmann declared:
We reached the [Balfour] Declaration not by miracles, but through persistent propaganda,
through unceasing demonstration of the life force of our people. We told the responsible
authorities: We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not. You can
hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to
avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow
The “Balfour Declaration” Weizmann spoke of was the 1917 British decree to establish a homeland
for the Jews in Palestine. As Weizmann himself indicated, the Balfour Declaration was not an
organic pledge derived from any moral considerations on the part of the British government, but
rather was a by-product of Zionist coercion. Weizmann, as the leading representative of the Zionist
movement, was on a first name basis with all of England and America’s political leaders since the
First World War. That first great war, like the second one that followed it, was a necessary
precondition for the Zionist acquisition of Palestine.
In the early 1900s, Palestine was under the domain of the Ottoman Empire (present day Turkey).
Despite many Zionist offers to buy Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman ruler Abdul
Hamid II was reluctant to part with it. The Ottoman Empire’s defeat in World War I led to its
dissolution, which in turn freed up the land of Palestine and it quickly came into the possession of the
British Empire in 1922. The League of Nations, an international body established after World War I to
implement globalist initiatives, legitimized the British seizure of Palestine by putting its stamp of
approval on the mandate drafted by the British government outlining their plans to make Palestine a
“homeland” for Jews as per the Balfour Declaration. The League’s rubber-stamping of this
illegitimate imperial land-grab was also a consequence of Zionist intrigue. In 1922, Nahum Sokolow,
the chairman of the Zionist Executive Committee, confessed that the League of Nations itself was
nothing more than a tool of the Zionists. ”The League of Nations is a Jewish idea, and Jerusalem some
day will become the capital of the world’s peace,” he proclaimed at a Zionist conference in
Carlsbad, California. “The League has recognized our rights to our ancient home,” he continued. “We
Jews throughout the world will make the League’s struggle our own and will not rest until there is
During World War I, Zionists approached the British leadership with a proposal to bring America
into the war on England’s side in exchange for Palestine. The result of this behind-the-scenes
maneuvering was America’s entry into the war and the subsequent issuing of the “Balfour
Declaration” in 1917. Chaim Weizmann admitted the Zionist role in helping Britain to a victory
in World War I as a means of securing promises from Britain and of hastening the demise of the
Ottoman Empire. British historian David Irving uncovered a letter Weizmann sent to Winston
Churchill dated Sept. 10, 1941, in which Weizmann imparted a striking confession as well as a
demand. He wrote:
I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country, and clearly searching the
American scene. Forces over there are finely balanced; the position is uncertain. There is
only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy
of “all-out-aid” for her: the five million American Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau,
Governor Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they
are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the
last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are
keen to do it - and may do it - again. But you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and
blood, and the most elementary feeling of self-respect sets limits to service, however
willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliations. American Jewry waits for a
word - a call - from His Majesty’s Government. The formation of a Jewish fighting force
would be that signal.
The arch-Zionist Churchill was more than happy to oblige. Churchill had on more than one occasion
expressed his deep devotion to Zionism. In 1956 during the Suez crisis between Israel and Egypt,
Churchill informed U.S. President Eisenhower: “I am, of course, a Zionist, and have been ever since
the Balfour Declaration.” In Dec. 1964, the Zionist Organization of America presented
Churchill with the “Theodore Herzl Award” for his “outstanding services” to the Zionist cause. The
ZOA proclaimed Churchill an ideal recipient for the award as an “architect of the Jewish State and
protagonist of Zionism.” In 2012, Zionists commissioned the construction of a statue of
Churchill in Jerusalem. “As a passionate Zionist all his life and a philo-semite, Churchill has been
under-recognised,” said Anthony Rosenfelder, a representative of the Jerusalem Institute, which
spearheaded the statue project dedicated to the British wartime leader.
Benjamin Freedman, a successful Jewish-American businessman who defected from the Zionist
movement in the 1950s, corroborated much of the historiography concerning Zionist intrigue
surrounding the First World War and the Zionist takeover of Palestine. Freedman was a close
acquaintance of a number of American presidents and other high-ranking bureaucrats in the United
Nations and therefore had an insider’s view of international politics. In 1961, Freedman delivered a
speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., wherein he detailed the events leading up to World
War I and the Balfour Declaration. In the speech, Freedman argued that America was “suckered into
the war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.” “Now England had as much
right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for
any reason whatsoever,” he added. “It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any
connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the
realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.” The Zionists, said Freedman,
“have complete control of our government. … The Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United
States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.”
and Anglo-American Crimes
Besides providing Zionists a casus belli to invade and occupy Palestine, the holocaust dogma has
also been useful for the Anglo-American establishment and the communist Soviet Union whose
egregious crimes before, during and after the Second World War have escaped the gaze of the public
who are thoroughly distracted with endless holocaust hype.
The unique cruelness of the notion of killing mass amounts of people in “homicidal gas chambers” has
provided British, American and Soviet war criminals with a perfect smokescreen to hide their own
devilish deeds. Entranced with the tale of the “final solution,” average working class people who are
not particularly observant are hard pressed to see or care about any other evil in history.
Hollywood’s holocaust movie mayhem has cast a spell over the collective consciousness of the
Western world, effectively desensitizing the public to the suffering of non-Jews.
It should be pointed out that the infamous phrase “the final solution to the Jewish question” was not
conceived by German Nazis. The phrase was actually in quite common usage in the 1800s and 1900s
by Jews and non-Jews alike. The phrase was most often found in Zionist literature and was customary
in the Zionists’ vocabulary. Like the Nazis, the Zionists’ “final solution of the Jewish question”
referred to the establishment of a Jewish homeland somewhere in the world, preferably Palestine. For
instance, a German-Zionist society called National-Jüdische Vereinigung Köln published their
manifesto in 1897, which contained the sentence: “The final solution of the Jewish question lies
therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State.” In an 1899 letter to the Russian Czar,
Zionism’s godfather Theodore Herzl wrote: “Your Imperial Majesty, that I owe my permission to
submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question.” The Zionist leader Nahum
Sokolow wrote in his 1919 book History of Zionism (p. 18): “The progress of modern civilization
has come to be regarded as a sort of modern Messiah for the final solution of the Jewish problem.”
Jewish communist ideologues Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky both frequently used the phrase in their
writings as well, proposing socialism as the solution to the “Jewish question.” The phrase was even
used in Canada during World War II. In his 1943 book Clinching The Victory (p. 128), author Eldon
Griffin quoted a Canadian government official who spoke of “the final solution of the JapaneseCanadian
problem” which involved the forced dispersion of Canada’s Japanese population
throughout the provinces in order to diffuse their ethnic and cultural awareness.
This fact alone completely undermines the popular belief that the “final solution to the Jewish
question” was some sort of sinister Nazi conception. One point of fact that will doubtlessly shock
many is that a “final solution” of extermination was indeed proposed in the 1940s, but not by a
German Nazi. Rather, the idea was forwarded by an American Jew who sought to eliminate Germans.
Theodore Kaufman (mentioned in the preceding chapter) was a Jewish-American businessman who
resided in New Jersey. In 1941, before the United States entered World War II, Kaufman authored and
published a genocidal tome calling for the elimination of the whole German people through a forced
sterilization program and the dissolution of the German state. Scholar Kevin Barrett noted that
Kaufman’s genocide manifesto, titled Germany Must Perish!, “makes Mein Kampf look like a
Mother Theresa homily by comparison.” In the text, Kaufman called for a “final solution” of
German extinction, shamelessly articulating his desire to eliminate every last German man, woman
and child from the earth. “This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of
the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people,” Kaufman wrote in the
introduction, adding, “Also contained herein is a map illustrating the possible territorial dissection of
Germany and the apportionment of her lands.” He goes on to suggest:
A final solution: Let Germany be policed forever by an international armed force? Even if
such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war,
suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold. Thus we find that there is no
middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or
economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That
Germany must perish forever from this earth!
Such incendiary rhetoric, coupled with the mass media’s ceaseless campaign of war propaganda
against Germany, led to heinous Allied atrocities against Germans that would have made Kaufman
quite proud. American and British air forces mercilessly firebombed militarily useless German cities
such as Dresden and Hamburg, roasting to death hundreds of thousands of civilians in a fiery hellstorm.
After the war was over, the American and French armies inflicted another holocaust on
Germany by deliberately starving to death more than one million German POWs who were holed up
in makeshift Allied concentration camps. Surrounded by barbed wire fencing and denied food, water
or medical treatment, these captured German soldiers quickly succumbed to starvation and exposure
on orders of General Dwight D. Eisenhower who would later become U.S. president. In his book
Other Losses, historian James Baque humbly outlines the shocking details of this largely unknown
The Allied powers trumped this crime against humanity with an even greater one. According to James
Baque’s second book Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation,
1944-1950, more than 15 million Germans were ethnically cleansed by Allied and Soviet forces
which stripped Germany of one quarter of its territory after the war. Baque estimates that more than
nine million Germans died as a result of deliberate Allied-Soviet starvation and expulsion policies –
thousands more Germans languished and died in Soviet concentration camps. In his book An Eye
for An Eye, the Jewish journalist John Sack documents how Jews were placed in charge of more than
1200 communist concentration camps in Poland after the war where they starved, beat and tortured
hundreds of thousands of Germans civilians and POWs. According to Sack’s research, somewhere
between 60,000 and 80, 000 Germans were killed by a “largely Jewish-run security
organization.” On top of that, more than two million German women were mass raped, many of
whom were gruesomely sexually mutilated and tortured, by Soviet Red Army soldiers at the war’s
end. These unspeakable crimes were spurred on by the anti-German screeds of Jewish-Soviet
war propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg, who declared in a propaganda leaflet entitled “Kill”:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most
terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any
more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a
day, you have wasted that day. … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with
your bayonet. Kill the German! Kill the German!
What’s more is that the “good war” myth of World War II falls apart at even the most tepid inspection.
If the Allies’ cause was just, then why did they join hands with Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union, who
had killed and enslaved in the Gulag at least 20 million people prior to the war even beginning? If
defending Poland’s sovereignty from German encroachment was a serious concern of Britain and
France, why did they not declare war on the Soviet Union when it occupied Eastern Poland two
weeks after German forces moved into Western Poland? Why did the Allies not declare war on Stalin
when he invaded and brutalized Finland in November of 1939? Why did the Allies not lift a finger or
utter so much as a whisper against the Soviet conquest of the Baltic states – Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia – in 1940? Moreover, why then did Britain, under the rule of Winston Churchill, freely gift
Stalin and the communists all of Eastern Europe after the war? Historian Mark Weber deconstructed
the good war myth, observing that “America’s two most important military allies in the war were
Great Britain and the Soviet Union – that is, the world’s foremost imperialist power, and the world’s
cruelest tyranny.” Indeed, the dynamic imperial duo of Britain and Soviet Russia jointly invaded
and occupied Iran in August 1941, just as they had both done in the First World War.
When the Soviets occupied Eastern Poland in Sept. 1939, Stalin swiftly eliminated any possible
resistance to a Soviet takeover by liquidating the Polish intelligentsia and military elite. One of many
infamous massacres took place in the Katyn forest, where the decayed corpses of more than 20,000
Polish military officers, policemen, artists and politicians were discovered by the German Army in
the summer of 1943. These Polish prisoners had been captured by the Soviet secret police
(NKVD) and in April and May of 1940 were hauled off to three Soviet prison camps in Western
Russia (Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov), whereupon Soviet secret police executioners
slaughtered them one by one with a bullet in the back of the head. Their bodies were transported to
the Katyn forest in black raven cattle cars and promptly buried. Others were brought to the forest
alive and shot at the edge of the grave, falling forward into the piles of corpses. The NKVD then
planted trees on top of the mass graves to conceal their murderous deed. For years the Soviets blamed
the Nazis for the horrific act, even though it was the Germans who had discovered the bodies of the
Polish victims and established an international commission to investigate the murders, which
publicized its findings in 1943.
American and British wartime leaders Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt went along with
Stalin’s big lie that the Katyn murders were a German act, and allowed Stalin’s hand-picked Soviet
prosecutors and judges to falsely impute blame on Germany for the atrocity once again at the rigged
Nuremberg show trial in 1945. Churchill, for instance, admitted during a conversation with
General Sikorski (the Polish president-in-exile): “Alas, the German revelations are probably true.
The Bolsheviks can be very cruel.” Classified British documents confirmed the “near certainty”
of Soviet guilt, but Churchill swore his upper command to secrecy on the issue. “We shall never
speak a word about it!” he said. In 2012, the U.S. National Archives released documents
proving Roosevelt knew in 1943 that the Soviets were responsible for the Katyn massacre, but
deliberately hushed it up so as not to upset his ally Stalin. A Sept. 2012 BBC News report entitled
“US ‘hushed up’ Soviet guilt over Katyn” noted:
New evidence appears to back the idea that the Roosevelt administration helped cover up
Soviet guilt for the 1940 Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers. Historians said documents,
released by the US National Archives, supported the suspicion that the US did not want to
anger its wartime ally, Joseph Stalin. They showed the US was sent coded messages
suggesting the Soviets, not the Nazis, carried out the massacre. More than 22,000 Poles were
killed by the Soviets on Stalin’s orders. Soviet Russia only admitted to the atrocity in 1990
after blaming the Nazis for five decades.
According to a review of the documents by the Associated Press, they show that American
prisoners of war sent coded messages to Washington in 1943 saying they had been taken to
see corpses in an advanced state of decay in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, in western
Russia. The group of American and British POWs had been taken by the Nazis against their
will to witness the scene. What they saw convinced two Americans, Capt Donald B Stewart
and Lt Col John Van Vliet, that the killings must have been carried out by the Soviets, rather
than the Nazis, who did not occupy the area until 1941.
More troubling secrets about massive Soviet atrocities were unearthed by Russian historian Nikolai
Tolstoy. In his controversial book Stalin’s Secret War, Tolstoy makes a convincing case that of the 25-
30 million Russians who perished during the chaos of the Second World War, two thirds of them were
not killed by Axis forces, but were actually victims of the Soviet regime itself. In his review of
Tolstoy’s book entitled “Stalin’s War: Victims and Accomplices,” Charles Lutton explained that
during the war Stalin was intensely paranoid about the collapse of his regime and so he unleashed
most of his fury against the Russian people who he viewed as the main threat to his power. “It is
Tolstoy’s contention that Stalin was haunted by the fear that the Communist state was essentially a
house of cards that could easily collapse. His overriding concern was to shore up the position of the
regime, largely through a policy of terrorizing the various peoples who inhabited the USSR,” writes
Reflecting on the first four chapters of Tolstoy’s book, Lutton opined that the Soviet Union “was an
unrestricted police state, run by perhaps the foulest collection of congenital criminals ever
assembled.” The Soviet experiment, writes Lutton, “rested upon the output of 15-20 million slaves,
laboring in Siberia and mines in the Arctic Circle, where the annual death rate of 50-70% far
surpassed that of any previous slave society. Stalin’s Russia was a land with three categories of
citizens: prisoners, former prisoners, and future prisoners.”
Stalin was unshaken when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 and he continued to place
priority in eliminating people living under Soviet rule who he viewed as opponents of his regime,
instead of any outside force. In Tolstoy’s estimation, Stalin liquidated as many as 23 million of his
own subjects within Soviet Russia during the war. A portion of those deaths stemmed from the Soviet
Red Army’s crude methods of warfare, which were to blame for many of their own soldiers’ deaths.
[H]igh Russian military casualties were largely due to the Soviets’ crude methods of waging
war. “Penal battalions” composed of “enemies of the people” (i.e., inmates of prisons and
camps, and luckless peasants, including women and children) were hurled in waves against
German defensive positions. Frequently unarmed and at times deprived of camouflaged
uniforms to better draw enemy fire, they were often used to clear minefields. With NKVD
machine-gunners poised behind them, they were forced across minefields until a path was
cleared. The wounded were killed off by the NKVD. General Ratov, chief of the Soviet
Military Mission to Britain, actually declined an offer of British mine-detectors, remarking
that “in the Soviet Union we use people.” SMERSH (from the initials “Death to Spies”), the
NKVD’s special murder arm made famous by Ian Fleming in his James Bond thrillers, was
created in 1942 as an additional guard on Soviet front-line troops. The NKVD placed large
heavily-armed formations at the rear of Soviet units to discourage withdrawals and to pick
off “stragglers” and “cowards.” In a number of instances, NKVD units fought pitched battles
with Red Army detachments trying to retreat in the face of superior enemy forces. Stalin
continued to purge his armed forces even as the Axis advanced. It is likely that hundreds of
thousands of Russians were killed in such actions.
Tolstoy revealed that official Soviet policy deemed Russian POWs “traitors” simply for having been
captured or having surrendered. Russian POWs who were repatriated back to the Soviet Union after
the war were immediately liquidated by the NKVD or sent to the Gulag. Britain and America were
fully complicit with these Soviet crimes. Moreover, inhuman torture was a common practice of the
NKVD. Lutton’s commentary describes how German forces not only discovered mass graves of
NKVD victims in L’vov, Vinnitsa and Katyn, but they also found,
[M]ass-produced torture instruments, including devices for squeezing the skull, another for
the testicles, and tools used to skin prisoners alive. Ice picks, broken bottles, or whatever
else was handy or preferred were also used. Tolstoy observes that “Soviet cruelty far
outstripped that of National Socialism. . . . Torture in the USSR was (and is) employed on a
mass scale as an important punitive means of overawing a resentful population.” He goes on
to explain that these ghastly scenes of state-sanctioned depravity “confirmed the German
view that Bolshevik Russia was irredeemably savage and backward.”
Stalin, in his unforgiving cruelty, gleefully invited German mistreatment of Russian POWs. According
to Tolstoy, Stalin “went out of his way to invite Nazi ill-treatment … of Russian prisoners-of-war.”
The deaths of Russians in German custody, writes Tolstoy, “was a piece of deliberate Soviet policy,
the aim of which was to cause the liquidation of men regarded automatically as political traitors,
whilst directing the anger of the Soviet people against the perpetrators of the crime.” Lutton summed
up Tolstoy’s analysis of the death figures, estimating that at least 20 million of the Russian war dead
were “killed in the course of Stalin’s ‘secret war’ against his own subjects.”
Lutton also called attention to historian Mark Elliott’s book Pawns of Yalta, a study of American
involvement in forced repatriation of Russians back to the USSR after the war. According to Elliott’s
research, of the 2.5 million Russians sent back to the Soviet Union by the Western Allies, 300,000
were swiftly executed by the NKVD and the rest were, in the words of Lutton, “condemned to the
lingering doom of 10 to 25 year sentences in labor camps, [an] ordeal few survived.” The Soviets
never released between 1.5 and 2 million German POWs or 200,000 to 300,000 Japanese POWs who
most certainly perished in the ubiquitous Gulag as well.
Hidden History: Jewish Extremists
and Bloody Bolshevism
Much like Zionism, the true history and nature of Bolshevism has been hidden from the Western
public. Despite Bolshevism’s bloody track record, few are aware of the destructive legacy of this
movement. Hollywood has always avoided the subject altogether, and official histories neglect to
honestly report the true origins of the Red Terror.
Mainstream historians have now conceded that the Soviet Bolsheviks killed far more people than
even the highest exaggerations about those who died under Hitler’s rule, but few, if any, are willing to
recognize the prominent Jewish role in Bolshevism and the Soviet regime. Pointing out the vast
overrepresentation of Jews in the communist regimes of Russia and Eastern Europe has been deemed
politically incorrect. The architects of historical discourse have made identifying Jewish wrongdoing
in any form or fashion a veritable taboo.
The two principal architects of the communist doctrine were Karl Marx and his mentor Moses Hess,
both of whom were Jewish extremists. Hess was also an ideological forbearer of Zionism. The
communist/socialist ideology espoused by Marx and Hess played an integral role in Jewish life
throughout the 19
th and 20
th centuries. “The Communist movement and ideology played an important
part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s, and during and after World War II,” writes the
Encyclopaedia Judaica in its article on Communism. “Individual Jews,” the article continues,
“played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime.” Pro-Czarist
forces opposing the 1917 revolution identified Jews as the principal protagonists of the Bolshevik
uprising, which had the effect of driving “the bulk of Russian Jewish youth into the ranks of the
Bolshevik regime,” according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica’s article.
“In some countries,” the Judaica admits, “Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal
Communist parties and in some cases were even instructed by the Communist International to change
their Jewish-sounding names and pose as non-Jews, in order not to confirm right wing propaganda
that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.” The article acknowledged that Jews
occupied “many responsible positions in all branches of the party and state machinery at the central
and local seats of power.” Jewish cultural life was promoted and nurtured by the Soviet regime,
culminating in the establishment of a “Jewish Autonomous Region” in the Far East of Russia
(Birobidzhan) in 1934.
The Encyclopedia Judaica produced a sizable list of prominent Jews in the upper echelons of the
communist party and Soviet state apparatus. The list included the following people: Maxim Litvinov
(Wallach), M. Liadov (Mandelshtam), Grigori Shklovsky, A. Soltz, S. Gusev (Drabkin), Grigori
Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Rozaliya Zemliachka (Zalkind), Helena
Rozmirovich, Yemeli Yaroslavsky (Gubelman), Serafima Gopner, G. Sokolnikov, I. Piatnitsky, Jacob
Sverdlov, M. Vladimirov, P. Zalutsky, A. Lozovsky, Y. Yaklovlev (Epstein), Lazar Kaganovich, D.
Shvartsman, Simon Dimanstein, Leon Trotsky (Bronstein), M. Uritsky, M. Volodarsky, J. Steklov,
Adolf Joffe, David Riazanov (Goldendach), Yuri Larin, and Karl Radek (Sobelsohn).
The article also mentioned the pro-Jewish tendencies of Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the communist
takeover of Russia and in turn the first Soviet dictator. Lenin’s maternal grandfather, Israel Blank, was
of Jewish origin. Lenin identified strongly with his partial Jewish roots, and made clear his
supremacist attitude when he said: “The clever Russian is almost always a Jew or has Jewish blood
in him.” Lest someone were to accuse the source of these revelations of being “anti-Semitic,”
Wikipedia states that the Encyclopaedia Judaica publication “is a 26-volume English-language
encyclopaedia of the Jewish people and their faith, Judaism.”
A substantial clue as to the Jewish nature of the communist revolution in Russia lies in the fact that the
first order issued by Lenin during the Bolshevik insurgency was outlawing any and all expressions of
anti-Jewish sentiment. In a 1918 decree, Lenin instructed all Soviet Deputies stationed throughout the
country to “take uncompromising measures to tear the anti-Semitic movement out by the roots.
Pogromists and pogrom agitators are to be placed outside of the law.” Lenin declared that
expressions and actions against Jews “are fatal to the interests of the … revolution,” calling upon
everyone sympathetic to the Bolshevik advance to “fight this evil with all the means at their
disposal.” If those opposing the Bolshevist takeover were “anti-Semitic” by default, wouldn’t
that necessarily mean that those spearheading the revolution were Jewish? Leon Trotsky (Bronstein),
Lenin’s right-hand man and the founder of the Soviet Red Army, admitted in an interview with
journalist Herman Berstein that the very first order of the Bolshevik regime was to execute antiSemites
“on the spot without trial.”
Once the communists achieved victory over the pro-Czarist forces and became the undisputed rulers
of Russia, Lenin’s order to stamp out anti-Jewish sentiment by force was made into law. Josef Stalin
confirmed this in a letter to the Jewish News Agency in the United States, wherein he said that in the
Soviet Union “anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon
deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death
penalty.” The Soviet foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, reiterated the official Soviet policy
of executing accused anti-Semites without trial. “Hitler is using the Jews as scapegoats for his
nation’s internal difficulties,” Molotov said in a 1936 speech before the eighth All-Union Congress of
Soviets. Molotov contrasted Hitler’s treatment of Jews with that of the Soviet regime, proudly noting:
“Whereas in the Soviet Union actual anti-Semities are shot.” Curiously, equating antiCommunism
with anti-Semitism was quite commonplace at this time. In 1941, both the Jewish Voice
and Jewish Life publications of New York made this self-incriminatory inference, telling their
readers “Anti-Communism is anti-Semitism” and “Scratch a professional anti-communist and you
will find an anti-semite.”
A surprising source of confirmation that Bolshevism was a movement led primarily by Jewish
extremists was Winston Churchill. In his younger years, Churchill authored an article entitled
“Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” published in the
Illustrated Sunday Herald of Feb. 8, 1920, in which he argued that Bolshevism and its triumph over
the Russian Czar was indeed a Jewish phenomenon. Churchill spoke of the “schemes of the
International Jews” who he described as a “sinister confederacy” dedicated to a “world-wide
conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation.” Churchill named some of the personalities involved:
“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl
Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma
Goldman (United States).” The designs of the international Jews, writes Churchill, “has been the
mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of
extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have
gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed
masters of that enormous empire.”
Expanding on this theme, Churchill elaborated:
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual
bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic
Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable
exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure
Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like
Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the
Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews.
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the
prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the
Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and
in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the
brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has
been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed
to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries
there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part
played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
Churchill’s intriguing analysis of the predominant Jewish element behind the communist upheaval in
Russia and across Europe can be corroborated with many other sources. One of those sources was
Robert Wilton, a correspondent of The Times of London stationed in St. Petersburg, Russia, during the
communist coup of 1917. Wikipedia notes that Wilton “became known as a keen observer of events in
Russia during the last years of the Tsarist regime,” relaying what he witnessed back to London.
It quickly became evident to Zionists that Wilton was not going to self-censor his reports to conform
to political correctness. He reported honestly that most of the communist revolutionaries and leaders
Douglas Reed observed in his book The Controversy of Zion (pp. 192-193) that Zionists in England
maneuvered behind-the-scenes to prevent Wilton’s honest reportage from reaching the public, fearing
that the prominent role of Jews in the Bolshevik upheaval would provoke anti-Jewish sentiment.
Appointing themselves the sole arbiters of public discourse, the Jewish elite of Britain stifled any
open discussion of the role of radical Jews in the Bolshevist seizure of power in Russia. Zionists in
the U.S. and other Western countries took a similar course of action – no discussion of the Jewish role
in Bolshevism was to be allowed to enter the public domain.
Due to the censorship Wilton encountered, he decided to publish everything he learned in a book
titled The Last Days of the Romanovs. On page 184 of the text, Wilton noted the ethnic make-up of
the fledgling Bolshevik regime:
According to the data furnished by the Soviet press, out of 556 important functionaries of the
Bolshevik State there were in 1918-1919: 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Lets,
15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 2 Poles, 2 Finns, 1 Karaim, 457 Jews. As the
decades past by—after the fateful year 1917—Judaized Khazars kept a firm hand on the helm
of the government in the occupied land of Russia. In due time they built a bureaucracy to their
Wilton further observed that the few high-ranking Russian members of the regime “are all mere
screens or dummies behind which the Sverdlovs and the thousand and one Jews of Sovepedia
continue their work of destruction; having wrecked and plundered Russia by appealing to the
ignorance of the working folk, they are now using their dupes to set up a new tyranny worse than any
that the world has known.” According to Wilton, the Bolsheviks erected three monuments to
commemorate the idols of their cause: Karl Marx, Judas Iscariot and Leo Tolstoi. “The three names,”
writes Wilton, “are associated with the Revolution, Apostasy and Anarchism; two of them [are]
The British government’s 1919 White Paper on Bolshevism (Russia No.1 A Collection of Reports on
Bolshevism in Russia) revealed much the same thing. The report quoted a statement from the
Dutch foreign minister in St. Petersburg, M. Oudendyke, who said: “Bolshevism is organized and
worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the
existing order of things.” The report noted that 90 per cent of the Russian people opposed Bolshevist
rule and that as soon as the Bolsheviks achieved power they abandoned their communistic principles
by forming a “relatively small privileged class.” The Bolshevik leaders, noted the report, “do not
represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews.”
New York Jewish financier Jacob Schiff subsidized the Bolshevik conspiracy to depose the Czar to
the tune of $15-20 million. The Jewish Communal Register of New York City (1917-1918)
acknowledged Schiff’s role in this regard, noting: “Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his
influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of the autocratic Russia and used
his financial influence to keep Russia away from the money market of the United States.” Schiff
publicly boasted of Jewish responsibility for the Russian revolution. In the first week of May 1917,
speaking before a crowd of 3000 members of the “Jewish League of American Patriots,” Schiff
declared: “[T]hanks are due to the Jew that the Russian revolution succeeded.” A week later at
a dinner hosted by “American Jewish Friends of Free Russia,” Schiff was introduced as a “Russian
revolutionist.” During his speech, Schiff announced that following the ouster of the Czar the first act
of the new government was to emancipate Russian Jews. “The Russian Jew has been liberated and
will remain so forever,” said Schiff. The former U.S. President William Taft also attended the dinner
and congratulated Jews on their successes in bringing about the overthrow of the Czar. Schiff
continued to gloat about the triumph of his anti-Russian coup d’état, saying: “The Russian revolution
is possibly the most important event in Jewish history since the race was brought out of
Soon after the communists overthrew Czar Nicholas II in 1917, they had him, his wife, four daughters
and son executed in a brutal fashion. Robert Wilton reported in his book The Last Days of the
Romanovs (p. 148) that “The whole record of the Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with
the stamp of alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov and
carried out by the Jews Goloshekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yurovsky, is the act, not of the
Russian people, but of this hostile invader.” The most depraved and despotic cruelty and barbarism
that the world has ever seen quickly enveloped the country. The dreaded Bolshevik secret police, the
Cheka (later the GPU, NKVD, KGB, etc.), operated as the all-seeing-eye of the state, kidnapping
people in the middle of the night and shipping them off to the monstrous Gulag, an apparatus of
hundreds of labour and prison camps dotted across the vast territory of Russia and Siberia. The Gulag
system was overseen by a group of Soviet commissars and Chekists, most of whom were Jewish,
including Aaron Soltz, Naftali Frenkel, Yakov Berman, Sergei Zhuk, Yakov Rapoport, Nakhimson,
Yakov Moroz, Abramson, Pliner, Matvei Berman, Samuil Kogan, Samuil Firin, Biskon, Finkelstein,
Serpukhovsky and others.
In his book Under the Sign of the Scorpion (pp. 106-114), Estonian author Juri Lina meticulously
documents the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Bolsheviks. Lina’s research
highlighted a deluge of Bolshevik acts of savagery, which included dismemberment, boiling, flaying,
burning and burying people alive, mass shootings, hangings, drownings and poisonings, horrific
torture, working people to death in slave labour camps, etc. Lina emphasized the cruelty of the
Bolshevik regime’s favourite instrument of mass murder: artificial famines. In 1921, Lenin
deliberately engineered a famine that extinguished the lives of more than five million Russian
peasants. Lenin’s diabolical reasoning behind the famine was to crush the peasants’ faith in the Czar
as well as in god, which he believed would cause them to view the Bolsheviks more favourably or at
least with indifference. Under the rule of Lenin and Trotsky, millions of people were labeled
“class enemies” for any spurious reason and were swiftly executed by the Cheka. The most intelligent
and active in society were killed first, and then the Bolsheviks directed their vengeance at the peasant
classes of farmers and workers. In 1921, Winston Churchill described Lenin as an “arch-miscreant
and villain” who destroyed Russia “for the sake of his theories.”
The Jewish historian Leonard Shapiro acknowledged that, “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall
into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly
shot by, a Jewish investigator.” W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history,
noted that Jews made up 80 per cent of the rank-and-file Cheka officers in the Ukraine. A Dec.
20, 1922, New York Times article entitled “South Russian Jews Raise Strong Army” detailed the
activities of a “Jewish Army” made up of 500,000 men that was established by Lenin’s Bolshevik
regime to do its bidding in Ukraine. This Jewish militia worked hand in hand with Soviet authorities
and was, according to the Times, “a supreme force in some cities” implementing Lenin’s terrorist
These Jewish Chekists were careful to spare fellow Jews, but unleashed a ferocious onslaught against
non-Jews, particularly Christians. The Bolsheviks’ hatred of the indigenous peoples of Russia and
Eastern Europe was evident in their writings, speeches, and of course their actions. For instance,
Lenin once stipulated that if 90 per cent of the Russian population must perish to fulfill his dream of a
communist revolution, it was a necessary evil. In 1918, Zinoviev called for the annihilation of at
least 10 million Russians as enemies of the communist revolution. “To overcome our enemies,”
Zinoviev proclaimed, “we must have our own Socialist Militarism. We must win over to our side, 90
millions out of the 100 millions of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have
nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated.” Lenin fervently advocated extreme terrorism,
mass murder and deception in order to accomplish his goals. Lenin instructed his underlings to
“utilize all possible cunning and illegal methods, deny and conceal the truth.” “A lie told often
enough becomes the truth,” Lenin surmised.
The murderous policies instituted by Lenin and Trotsky intensified under Stalin. The Stalin era
brought an even greater doom upon tens of millions more Russians and Eastern Europeans. Ukraine
became a principal target of Stalin’s wrath. In 1932, Stalin dispatched his right-hand man Lazar
Kaganovich, NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda and thousands of other fanatical party functionaries and
secret police officers to Ukraine under the guise of collectivizing the farming industry. This was in
reality a scheme for the deliberate starvation of the Ukrainian people. In a genocidal effort to
exterminate Ukraine’s language, culture and people from the earth, the Soviet state eliminated more
than six million Ukrainians in the span of a few years.
Canadian journalist Eric Margolis described this genocide as Ukraine’s “unknown holocaust,” which
is today known as the Holodomor. In his 1998 Toronto Sun column entitled “Remembering Ukraine’s
Unknown Holocaust,” Margolis outlined the sordid details of this wicked calamity. He
In 1932, Soviet leader Josef Stalin unleashed genocide in Ukraine. Stalin determined to force
Ukraine’s millions of independent farmers - called kulaks - into collectivized Soviet
agriculture, and to crush Ukraine’s growing spirit of nationalism.
Faced by resistance to collectivization, Stalin unleashed terror and dispatched 25,000
fanatical young party militants from Moscow - earlier versions of Mao’s Red Guards - to
force 10 million Ukrainian peasants into collective farms. Secret police units of OGPU
began selective executions of recalcitrant farmers.
When Stalin’s red guards failed to make a dent in this immense number, OGPU was ordered
to begin mass executions. But there were simply not enough Chekists (secret police) to kill
so many people, so Stalin decided to replace bullets with a much cheaper medium of death -
All seed stocks, grain, silage and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine’s farms.
OGPU agents and Red Army troops sealed all roads and rail lines. Nothing came in or out of
Ukraine. Farms were searched and looted of food and fuel. Ukrainians quickly began to die
of hunger, cold and sickness.
When OGPU failed to meet weekly execution quotas, Stalin sent henchman Lazar
Kaganovitch to destroy Ukrainian resistance. Kaganovitch, the Soviet Eichmann, made quota,
shooting 10,000 Ukrainians weekly. Eighty percent of all Ukrainian intellectuals were
executed. A Ukrainian party member named Nikita Khruschchev helped supervise the
During the bitter winter of 1932-33, mass starvation created by Kaganovitch and OGPU hit
full force. Ukrainians ate their pets, boots and belts, plus bark and roots. Some parents even
ate infant children.
The precise number of Ukrainians murdered by Stalin’s custom-made famine and Cheka
firing squads remains unknown to this day. The KGB’s archives, and recent work by Russian
historians, show at least seven million died. Ukrainian historians put the figure at nine
million, or higher. Twenty-five percent of Ukraine’s population was exterminated.
Margolis conceded that “Kaganovitch and many senior OGPU officers (later, NKVD) were Jewish.”
“The predominance of Jews among Bolshevik leaders,” writes Margolis, “and the frightful crimes
and cruelty inflicted by Stalin’s Cheka on Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland, led the victims of
Red Terror to blame the Jewish people for both communism and their suffering.” In a later column for
the Toronto Sun entitled “Seven million died in the ‘forgotten’ holocaust,” Margolis reiterated the
details of the genocide. “Josef Stalin’s Soviet regime murdered seven million Ukrainians and
sent two million more to concentration camps,” he wrote, adding that this colossal crime has “almost
vanished into history’s black hole.” Margolis noted the silence of Western leaders, press, and
governments while Stalin was exterminating the Ukrainian people:
Pro-communist westerners, like The New York Times’ Walter Duranty, British writers
Sidney and Beatrice Webb and French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, toured Ukraine,
denied reports of genocide, and applauded what they called Soviet “agrarian reform.” Those
who spoke out against the genocide were branded “fascist agents.” The U.S., British, and
Canadian governments, however, were well aware of the genocide, but closed their eyes,
even blocking aid groups from going to Ukraine.
Margolis contends that,
The British-U.S. alliance with Stalin [during World War II] made them his partners in
crime. Roosevelt and Churchill helped preserve history’s most murderous regime, to
which they handed over half of Europe in 1945. After the war, the left tried to cover up
Soviet genocide. Jean-Paul Sartre denied the gulag even existed. For the western Allies,
Nazism was the only evil; they could not admit being allied to mass murderers. For the
Soviets, promoting the Jewish Holocaust perpetuated anti-fascism and masked their own
He added that Hollywood and academia keep attention focused on the Jewish holocaust while
ignoring or downplaying Soviet-Communist atrocities. Unlike Germany’s wartime leaders who have
been hunted down and crucified to the last man, Soviet war criminals have never been prosecuted.
Likewise, American and British war criminals have always evaded justice – not to mention the
militarist hoodlums of the Israeli state.
Perhaps the main reason why no Soviet officials have ever been brought to justice is because many of
them were Jews who had international connections that protected them from prosecution. This reality
was illustrated in 2009 when the Ukrainian security service drafted a list of Soviet officials
responsible for the Holodomor, demanding they be prosecuted for genocide. The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency reported that Jewish groups vehemently opposed the motion to pursue a case against the listed
communist culprits because “most of the names on the list were Jewish.” The Ukrainian Jewish
Committee called on state officials to censor the list by removing the names of Jews involved in the
genocide, so as to protect Ukraine’s Jewish community from “hatred.” In 2010, the Israeli politician
Shimon Peres visited Ukraine and advanced a similar Orwellian plea, calling on Ukrainians to
“forget history.” “If I were asked what advice Ukraine, I would say: forget history. History in general
is not important at all,” said the arrogant Zionist leader in a vile display of contempt for Ukrainian
victims of the Holodomor. It is not much of a mystery why Peres wants Ukraine to forget its
Jewish groups and media outlets responded in much the same way to a more recent confirmation that
Jews dominated the Soviet regime, which came from none other than Russia’s current president
Vladimir Putin. During a June 2013 visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, Putin
alluded to the fact that 80-85 per cent of the first members of the Soviet regime were Jewish who
were, Putin stressed, “guided by false ideological considerations.”
Another who emphasized the vast disproportion of Jews in the Soviet hierarchy is the Jewish writer
Sever Plocker. In an article published in the Israeli periodical Ynet News entitled “Stalin’s Jews,”
Plocker opened the piece with the revealing sentence: “We mustn’t forget that some of greatest
murderers of modern times were Jewish.” Plocker acknowledged that the Soviet regime killed 20
million people at the very least, and that the Cheka secret police responsible for this crime against
humanity was dominated by Jews. He observed that Genrikh Yagoda, the fearsome NKVD founder
and chief for many years, was “the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century.” “Yagoda diligently
implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders,” writes Plocker, “and is responsible for the deaths of at
least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.” He also
made note of the integral role of the Jewish official Lazar Kaganovich — Stalin’s right-hand man for
the entire duration of his regime and the prime architect of the Holodomor – in Soviet bloodletting.
Kaganovich will go down as one of the greatest murderers in history since Genghis Khan. “Many
Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for
eternity,” writes Plocker, concluding: “Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of ‘our
hangmen,’ who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all,
others will always remind us of their origin.”
Jewish Supremacy and the Multicultural Experiment
The Zionist-directed strategy of tension outlined in the previous pages does not begin and end with
the Middle East. While the Middle East is certainly a major focal point of Zionist intrigues in modern
times, there are other less-overt machinations at work, aimed in large part at the West.
Following the Second World War and the defeat of Nazi Germany, Jewish intellectuals in the West
began formulating a cohesive plan designed to weaken and subdue Western cultures. From their view,
the scheme amounted to a preventative measure against any possible future backlash on par with what
happened in Germany under Hitler.
In places like the Middle East and Latin America, multiculturalism and multiethnicism were a
somewhat organic outgrowth of historical circumstances. The Middle East functioned as a crossroads
of sorts between the global East, West, North and South, and the large population movements across
the region resulted in the heavily mixed (ethnically speaking) societies that exist there now. Likewise,
the modern nation-states of Latin America were formed through Spanish and Portuguese colonialism.
The introduction of African slaves to the area as well as intermixing between natives and the
occupying Spanish and Portuguese colonials has produced a medley of multiethnic countries, with the
exception of Argentina and Uruguay (which are majority European).
But Europe itself, while multicultural and multiethnic on a continental level in the sense that many
sub-ethnicities and sub-cultures of Europeans exist more or less in their own spaces, did not open
itself up to the rest of the world in the way we are seeing today with mass immigration from the Third
World. It is one thing to have different types of Europeans, who have similar cultures, languages and
genetic stock, living with or near each other; it is another thing altogether to have masses of nonEuropeans
with starkly different cultures, customs and genetics to be artificially inserted into the
bosom of Europe without the consent of its people.
This synthetic introduction of millions of non-Europeans into Europe, peoples very different from
those native to the continent, did not happen by chance, but by deliberate calculation on the part of
Western power elites. These predominantly Jewish-Zionist elites adhere to a globalist creed that sees
ethnicity, race and culture as impediments to their aim of a one world government and one world
economy. In conjunction with the ideas promoted by the Cultural Marxist New Left – notions that
encourage dysgenic social norms (feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.) designed to
deracinate European peoples and cultures globally – the open-borders policies of the West’s present
political establishment could eventually result in the genocidal ethnic and cultural dissolution of all
White European-derived ethnic groups. And, as we will see, that is the end game.
In his study of Cultural Marxism entitled The Culture of Critique, evolutionary psychologist Kevin
MacDonald notes that the “first generation of the Frankfurt School were all Jews by ethnic
background and the Institute of Social Research itself was funded by a Jewish millionaire, Felix
Weil.” The Institute of Social Research was founded in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1923 by Carl
Grünberg, a Jewish-Marxist professor who taught law and politics at the University of Vienna and
Goethe University Frankfurt. The Institute later became informally known as the Frankfurt School and
boasted a nearly-exclusive Jewish cast of thinkers, researchers and ideologues, which included:
Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto
Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal, Franz Leopold Neumann and Henryk Grossman.
The primary purpose and aim of the Jewish-Marxist ideologists of the Frankfurt School was to
stigmatize “anti-Semitism” through convoluted social and cultural delegitimation theories. They were,
in essence, a coterie of Jewish supremacists bent on the psychological subordination of Gentiles,
thereby producing a social, cultural and political environment in which Jews could thrive without
much resistance. The Frankfurt School brain trust acted freely during the Weimar period in Germany,
but was promptly dismantled and chased out of the country when Hitler and the National Socialists
seized power in 1933. The Institute quickly moved its base to the United States, principally Columbia
University in New York City after Max Horkheimer had convinced Columbia’s president to host the
Institute in 1934. At Columbia, the epicenter of Cultural Marxist activity in the U.S., the Frankfurt
School’s ‘Institute of Social Research’ was re-branded into ‘Studies in Philosophy and Social
Science’ which set out on a quest to discredit White European males with “fascistic” tendencies.
The two most prominent Jewish-Marxists of the Frankfurt School, often credited as the “fathers of the
Institution,” were Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer. The duo produced classic
aphorisms which form the basis of Cultural Marxism today. Adorno’s Freudian tome The
Authoritarian Personality embodies the deconstructionist philosophy of Cultural Marxism, intended
to demolish the “authoritarian” or “fascistic” tendencies in Western man in order to prevent “new
Hitlers” from arising. Wikipedia, a more or less philosemitic source, identifies the disputed
events of “the Holocaust” as the impetus behind Adorno’s work, disclosing that Adorno and other
Frankfurt School ideologists were a “predominantly Jewish group of philosophers and Marxist
theorists who fled Germany when Hitler shut down their Institute for Social Research.” It adds
Adorno et al. were thus motivated by a desire to identify and measure factors that were
believed to contribute to antisemitic and fascist traits. The book [The Authoritarian
Personality] was part of a ‘Studies in Prejudice’series sponsored by the American Jewish
Committee's Department of Scientific Research.
Adorno continued with this anti-fascist deconstructionist theme in his 1947 essay Wagner, Nietzsche
and Hitler and a 1950’s commentary entitled Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist
Propaganda. Max Horkheimer is best known for his book Eclipse of Reason and has been credited to
a large degree with the conception of Critical Theory, a radical form of social and cultural critique,
hence the term “Cultural Marxism.” Another Horkheimer classic was Dialectic of
Enlightenment, which was co-authored by Adorno. Horkheimer headed the ‘Studies in Prejudice’
initiative sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, which was for all intents and purposes an
exercise in prejudice against White European males.
In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald characterizes Horkheimer as a man with “a strong
Jewish identity that became increasingly apparent in his later writings.” MacDonald asserts that
Horkheimer’s commitment to Judaism was “evidenced by the presence of specifically Jewish
religious themes” in his writings. By his life’s end, MacDonald explains, “Horkheimer completely
accepted his Jewish identification and achieved a grand synthesis between Judaism and Critical
Theory.” MacDonald further observes that Horkheimer’s philosophizing and activism within the
framework of the Frankfurt School and its offshoots was aimed at “vindicating Jewish history.”
The Kalergi Plan and White Genocide
In early 2014, British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin made a bold statement in the meeting
hall of the European Parliament. Griffin forthrightly identified the machinations of a “human geneticmodification
industry” whose policies will result in the “ethnocide of the peoples of Europe.” The
encouragement of “mass non-White immigration” was “central to the plot,” Griffin declared in front
of his European Union colleagues. He specifically named an elite cabal of “leftists, capitalists and
Zionist supremacists” as the architects of White genocide in Europe, who constantly invent new
pretexts to actualize their globalist blueprint. Griffin elaborated that these globalist schemers
promote immigration and miscegenation with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of
existence in our homelands. As indigenous resistance to this human genetic-modification
industry grows, the criminal elite seeks new ways to camouflage their project. First, their
immigrant pawns were temporary guest workers; then it was a multiracial experiment; then
they were refugees, and then the answer to a shrinking population. Different excuses,
different lies – and asylum is just another one. But the real aim stays the same: the biggest
genocide in human history, the final solution to the Christian European problem. This crime
demands a new set of Nuremberg trials, and you people will be in the dock.
Griffin then traced the origins of the conspiracy of White genocide to Count Richard von
Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founding ideologue behind European integration and thus the European
Union itself. Kalergi, the product of an Austrian diplomat father and Japanese mother, was born in
Austro-Hungary in 1894 and is credited as the founding father of the Pan-Europa movement which
“strove to replace the nationalist German ideal of racial community with the goal of an ethnically
heterogeneous and inclusive European nation based on a commonality of culture.” Kalergi
headed the Pan-Europa movement for 49 years and authored its seminal founding text, Pan-Europa, in
1923. An Italian article on Kalergi noted:
[T]hanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the
relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away
from the glare of publicity, [Kalergi] managed to attract the most important heads of state
to his plan, making them supporters and collaborators for the ‘project of European
Kalergi’s beliefs were steeped in notions of Jewish supremacy, which he picked up from his father,
Heinrich Coudenhove-Kalergi, who had succumbed to radical philosemitism. His father aggressively
propagandized against anti-Jewish critiques and “sought to defend the Jews against … charges of
parasitic greed and cowardice.” Richard Kalergi was himself married to a Jewess, Ida Roland.
At the Pan-Europa conference in Vienna in 1926, Kalergi candidly outlined the movement’s
philosemitic program. He specifically stated that the creation of a “United States of Europe” would
“be beneficial to the Jews as it would eliminate racial hatred and economic rivalry.” An Oct. 5, 1926,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency report entitled “Jews Participate in Pan-europe Congress Sessions in
Vienna” highlighted the prominent Jewish presence at Kalergi’s conference, noting that:
Several Jewish European leaders took a prominent part in the first Pan-European Congress
which opened here Sunday, when the movement to establish a United States of Europe,
modelled after the United States of America, took definite shape.
The keynote of the Congress was sounded by Paul Loebe, president of the German
Reichstag, and Francis de Laisi, a Frenchman, Count Richard Coudenhove Kalergi, an
Austro-Japanese, who launched the movement in 1923, Rudolph Goldscheid and
Bronislaw Huberman, who delivered the principal addresses.
Many individual European Jews are furthering the Pan-European movement by giving it
financial support. Among the messages received from various countries were those from
Luigi Luzzatti, Leon Blum, Georg Brandes, Georg Bernhard, Harry Warburg and Max
Count Coudenhove Kalergi, who is married to Ida Roland, a Jewess, when interviewed by
the representative of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency here expressed his opinion that the
Pan-European movement ought to find particular support on the part of the Jews who are
scattered throughout the various countries in Europe. The creation of the United States of
Europe would be beneficial to the Jews as it would eliminate racial hatred and economic
rivalry, he said.
In his 1925 book Practical Idealism, Kalergi elucidated the Jewish supremacist ideals at the crux of
his thinking. In its alleged attempts at “destroying European Jewry,” Kalergi theorized, Europe
unintentionally “refined and educated this people” into a “future leader-nation through this artificial
selection process.” He further pontificated:
The main representatives of the corrupt as well as the upright brain aristocracy: of
capitalism, journalism and the literate are Jews. The superiority of their spirit predestines
them to become a main factor of the future nobility. One look at the history of the Jewish
people explains its lead in the struggle over the governance of humanity. For two thousand
years Jewry was a religious community, made up of ethical and religious predisposed
individuals from all nations of the classical cultural area, with a national Hebrew centre in
Palestine. … No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a
spiritual nobility of Europe.
… Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the
Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became
dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation. … The prominent position held by Jewry
these days is owed to its spiritual supremacy which enables it to win the spiritual battle
over enormous superior numbers of favored, hateful, jealous rivals.
While the Jews would form a “spiritual nobility” in Europe, Gentile Europeans were destined to be
bred out of existence, according to Kalergi’s master plan. He wrote that,
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually
disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race
of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity
of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
Kalergi’s grand strategy, evidently, was to deracinate Gentile Europeans through racial interbreeding,
whereas Jews – who adhere to an exclusivist, tribal culture – would remain relatively pure and
cohesive. This scenario, wholly artificial in its organism, would thus precipitate the ascent of Jews to
a position of an ethnic oligarchy and ruling super-class over an atomized mass of rootless
cosmopolitan “Eurasian-Negroid” plebs.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency report cited earlier disclosed how “[m]any individual European
Jews [furthered] the Pan-European movement by giving it financial support.” Among them were a
number of Jewish kings of high finance. Kalergi relayed in his autobiography that he maintained a
personal friendship with Baron Louis von Rothschild, the head of the Austrian branch of the infamous
Jewish banking dynasty, who introduced him to Max Warburg, a powerful German-Jewish banker.
Warburg purportedly financed Kalergi to the tune of 60,000 gold marks and continued to support the
Pan-Europa movement the rest of his life. In addition to providing crucial funding, Warburg
introduced Kalergi to wealthy Jewish financiers in the U.S. such as Bernard Baruch and Paul
Warburg; the latter being Max Warburg’s brother who has been described as the “chief architect” of
the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. In addition to the backing of many prominent Jews, Kalergi
succeeded in winning the support of conspicuous philosemitic politicians like former British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill and former U.S. President Harry Truman, among many other 20
tools of Zionism.
Like those of the Frankfurt School, Kalergi’s ideas were suppressed by Hitler’s National Socialist
regime, and the Count was driven into exile, eventually settling in the United States where he
continued to advocate for a unified Europe “along the Paris-London axis” during and after World War
II. Hitler and the Nazis denounced Kalergi’s movement and ideas as anathema to German nationalism
and pegged it as a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy with the goal of destroying genuine nationalism in
Kalergi’s movement was indeed supported by Europe’s Masonic lodges, particularly Austrian
Freemasonry. Kalergi himself was a member of the “Humanitas" lodge in Vienna. An official 1938
publication of the Nazis titled Die Freimaurerei: Weltanschauung, Organisation und Politik
(Freemasonry: Ideology, Organization and Policy) expounded on themes of Jewish-Masonic
collaboration and even mentioned Kalergi by name as an agent of said forces. The book opens with
this overview of Freemasonic goals and agendas:
Freemasonry is an ideological form of hostility to National Socialism, the significance of
which, in the historical development of the past two centuries, must be deemed comparable
to the effects of other supranational organisations, the political churches, world Jewry, and
Marxism. In its present form, it must be viewed as the bourgeois liberal advance troops of
It corrupts the principles of all forms of government based on racial and Folkish
considerations, enables the Jews to achieve social and political equality, and paves the
way for Jewish radicalism through its support for the principles of freedom, equality, and
brotherhood, the solidarity of Folks, the League Of Nations and pacifism, and the rejection
of all racial differences.
With the help of its international connections and entanglements, Freemasonry interferes in
the foreign policy relationships of all Folks, and pursues, through governmental leaders,
secret foreign and world policies which escape the control of those in government.
Through its personal influences and economic favouritism, Freemasonry ensures that all
dominant positions of the public, economic, and cultural life of a Folk are filled with lodge
brethren, who in fact translate the concepts of Freemasonry into action.
The National Socialist State has destroyed the organisations of Freemasonry in Germany,
and has likewise given rise to similar measures in a number of European States during the
present war. But the liberal, Masonic body of thought lives on in the former lodge brethren.
In addition, there is still a danger of a renewed penetration of Masonic ideas through the
lodge organisations of States in which Freemasons remain free to pursue their objectives
Thus, researching this enemy, and providing a basic education for all racial comrades on
the topic of Freemasonry, is not just a matter of expounding upon interesting historical
problems; rather, it is an urgent duty of alertness in the struggle against our enemy.
Freemasonry is tightly allied with Jewry, and not just through its organisation. Even the
symbolism of Freemasonry points to Jewry through its customs, and to Hebrew through its
words and signs, as its real origin. The Masonic conceptual universe is a reflection of
Jewish near eastern images and concepts. The central point of Old Testament thought is
represented by the concept of Yahweh as the Jewish God. Initially, the belief in many
national deities prevailed among the Jews, for whom Yahweh was still an entirely
insignificant desert god, until he sought out a Folk (the nomadic tribe of Israel) with whose
help he could set about to dethrone all other gods and achieve world domination. In later
Jewry, Yahweh was conceived of first as a High God, then as the One God; but his original
nature was strictly retained. To Jewry, the name Yahweh implies a program of world
enslavement (see Isaiah LX.).
Specifically on Kalergi, the pamphlet quotes the Masonic publication The Beacon, which purportedly
issued this statement in support of Kalergi and his movement:
Freemasonry, especially Austrian Freemasonry, may be eminently satisfied to have
Coudenhove-Kalergi among its members. Austrian Freemasonry can rightly report that
Brother Coudenhove-Kalergi fights for his Pan European beliefs: political honesty, social
insight, the struggle against lies, striving for the recognition and cooperation of all those of
good will. In this higher sense, Brother Coudenhove-Kalergi's program is a Masonic work
of the highest order, and to be able to work on it together is a lofty task for all brother
Kalergi’s prescriptions of racial interbreeding and cultural assimilation were consonant with the
long-term goals of Judaism and Freemasonry, the forbearers of modern-day globalism and
international finance. Smashing nationalism and ethnic allegiances has been a key objective of the
globalists, embodied by the roundtable brain-trusts of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission,
Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations et al., who seek to remove all the boundaries and
roadblocks inherent in the nation-state model which inhibits the mass movement of populations and
capital. In his book Babel Inc., author Kerry Bolton scrutinized the nefarious role of Kalergi in
engendering the ideas of integration and multiethnicism in Europe, writing:
This precisely explains the globalist alchemy of multiculturalism: to break down all
differences – in the name of promoting ‘differences’ – to recreate a formless mass of
individuals without bonds to ‘space,’ ‘time’ or ‘prejudice,’ or what we can call one’s
rootedness to land, heritage and destiny, and consciousness of identity. The goal is the
elimination of the idea of a collective identity and consciousness, or indeed of community
or society. This is what had been unfolding in the United States for decades: a collection of
individuals tenuously held together in the name of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and
the pursuit of the ‘American Dream’ of endless consumption.
Kalergi continued his subversive activities into the 1940s and 1950s, founding the European
Parliamentary Union (EPU) in 1947, a precursor organization to the modern-day European
Union (EU) which was formally declared in 1993; although past agreements virtually brought it into
existence long before that. Kalergi’s dream has essentially been realized as today’s EU works
towards the full erosion of national sovereignty in Europe through a panoply of “supranational
institutions” that dictate policy to member states. In 1950, Kalergi was awarded the Charlemagne
Prize for his ceaseless efforts to erase Europe’s borders and race-mix its peoples. Since April 2008
the European Parliament – the EU’s legislative council based in Brussels – took over stewardship of
the Charlemagne Prize and credits it to “people [who contribute] towards the process of European
integration.” Since 1950 the award has been given to such Zionist-Globalist luminaries as Winston
Churchill, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Angela Merkel.
Other Jews have been instrumental in foisting the ideas of multiculturalism and multiracialism on
Western populations. One major ideologist in this respect was Israel Zangwill, a British-Jewish
author and playwright who was “at the forefront of cultural Zionism during the 19th century.”
Zangwill, while an active proponent of Zionism during his day and associate of Theodore Herzl,
earned his fame by authoring a popular play titled “The Melting Pot,” within which he promoted
ideas of multiculturalism, tolerance and inter-mixing among the Gentile races as a prelude to world
peace and harmony. Throughout the play the protagonist, David, expressed “his hope for a world in
which all ethnicity has melted away.” The UK’s chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks opined that Zangwill
wrote his works “as a Jew” whose “real hope was for a world in which the entire lexicon of racial
and religious difference is thrown away”; except, of course, for the Jews who retain their strong
religious, cultural and ethnic identity (even getting their own ethno-state, Israel) in Zangwill’s Jewish
supremacist vision of the future. Kerry Bolton, writing in Babel Inc., characterizes Zangwill’s
vision for mankind as a “universal brotherhood under the auspices of the League of Nations,
predecessor of the United Nations Organization, with the world capital in Jerusalem, under tutelage
of Jewish holy law.”
Zangwill’s dual-advocacy of multiculturalism for Gentiles and ethnocentrism and group-loyalty for
Jews was rank doublespeak typified by activists of his ilk. Zangwill championed “Jewish
emancipation, Jewish assimilation, territorialism [and] Zionism” and is credited with constructing the
fraudulent mythos used by Zionists to justify the Jewish colonization and takeover of Palestine: that it
was a “land without a people for a people without a land.” Jewish settlers in Palestine would
“make the wilderness blossom as the rose,” Zangwill said; another line used frequently by Zionist
ideologues. In 1916 Zangwill contradicted his own ostensible pro-multicultural worldview, telling
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the extremist Zionist ideologist who founded the Irgun terror group, that,
If you wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it
to be the country of two peoples. This can only cause trouble. The Jews will suffer and so
will their neighbours. One of the two: a different place must be found either for the Jews or
for their neighbours.
These ideologists of multiculturalism and multiethnicism – the Frankfurt School, Kalergi, Zangwill et
al. – kick started the project of European genocide nearly a century ago, and their work is carried on
by their disciples and fellow travelers today. Two modern-day devotees to the Kalergi plan for
Europe are George Soros, Jewish billionaire “philanthropist” extraordinaire whose ‘Open Society
Institute’ stands behind a slew of pro-mass immigration NGOs; and Peter Sutherland, an ostensibly
Irish international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland who has worked for
Rothschild-Zionist companies Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum (BP).
In response to the present-day migrant crisis in which endless streams of Middle Eastern and African
refugees and asylum seekers are trekking deep into Europe by the millions, Soros outlined his
demands for the continent on his website. He brazenly called for the EU to accept “at least a
million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future.” He further encouraged the establishment
of “safe channels” so that migrants can move into Europe as they please. “Finally,” Soros arrogantly
demanded, “the EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to
act as sponsors” in order to “absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a
year.” Responding to accusations from Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban that he is funding the
migrant crisis to destabilize Europe, Soros doubled-down on his pro-open borders mass refugee
resettlement program, stating that, “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and
national borders as the obstacle.”
Soros’schemes are perfectly consonant with Kalergi’s vision of a mongrelized Europe detached from
its roots, and it’s hard to argue against his purposeful devotion to the plan. The aforementioned Peter
Sutherland – who now functions as the United Nations Special Representative for Migration –
publicly acknowledged, albeit in couched terms, the end-goal of White genocide. As the head of the
Global Forum on Migration and Development, an influential neoliberal think tank “which brings
together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas,” Sutherland has been lobbying
European leaders and policy makers to embrace massive, unrestricted non-White immigration into
Europe for some time. BBC News reported that in 2012 Sutherland told a UK commission on
migration that the EU should “do its best to undermine national homogeneity in Europe.”
Elaborating on that point, Sutherland affirmed that “an ageing or declining native population in
countries like Germany or southern EU states” was his “key argument … for the development of
multicultural states.” He further remarked:
It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other
argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the
people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated. The United States,
or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more
readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our
homogeneity and difference from others. And that's precisely what the European Union, in
my view, should be doing its best to undermine.
Sutherland advised that the EU should lift restrictions on “low skilled migrants,” advocating
unlimited, open borders for basically anyone wishing to set foot in Europe. Such a nonsensical and
insane policy can only be the desire of a madman following the Kalergi plan, hoping to push as many
non-Whites as possible into Europe in the furtherance of the planned Eurasian-Negroid plebeian mass
of acculturated zombies. The BBC report noted Sutherland’s attendance at Bilderberg Group meetings
where the global power elite iron out the details of their long-march towards global governance.
 He also serves as an Honorary Chairman of the Trilateral Commission.
In 2011, British PM David Cameron, French PM Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel all simultaneously declared that multiculturalism in Europe has been a monumental failure. A
February 2011 Telegraph article reported:
“We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not
enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," he [Nicolas Sarkozy] said
in a television interview in which he declared the concept a "failure". Prime Minister
David Cameron last month pronounced his country's long-standing policy of
multiculturalism a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat homegrown
extremism. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's former prime minister
John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar have also in recent
months said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.
The bold statements by Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy were disingenuous at best, designed as bait to
pacify the European masses and confuse them about where these politicians actually stand on the
issue. All three leaders have been instrumental in promoting the mass immigration agenda. Cameron
himself admitted that his attempts to stem the flow of immigration into Britain “hasn’t worked so far,”
or in other words, has not been a top priority for the fake conservative. Under his leadership
Britain has been taking in 330,000 immigrants annually. Merkel, a recipient of the Kalergiinspired
Charlemagne Prize, has been leading the effort to destroy Germany’s ethnic and cultural
fabric. In 2014 Merkel’s government opened the floodgates to Middle Eastern and African refugees,
having registered 964,574 new asylum seekers in the first 11 months of 2015. The Guardian
reported that Germany is now “the top European destination for people fleeing conflict, repression
and misery in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.” The Merkel regime planned to take in 1.5
million asylum seekers in 2015 alone, and there is no end in sight. And that doesn’t include
legal immigration into Germany, which has been ongoing for years.
Sarkozy feigned opposition to mass immigration during his stay in office, but France under his
guardianship has not slowed the process, which has been ongoing for decades and has already
severally defaced French identity. A 2008 study by INSEE, France’s national institute of statistics,
concluded that 19 percent of the French population are foreigners, either first generation immigrants
or their direct descendants. The same institute found that since 2004 200,000 immigrants are
accepted into France annually, many from the Arab Maghreb region and other parts of Africa.
Sarkozy unveiled his Kalergiite affinities when he announced in a 2008 speech that he aimed to
coercively enforce “racial interbreeding” on the French population. In the bizarre speech, which was
delivered under the banner of “Equal Opportunities and Diversity,” Sarkozy spoke of the “obligation”
of the French, and all Europeans, to engage in “racial interbreeding.” He stated:
What is the objective? It’s going to be controversial. The goal is to meet the challenge of
racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21
It’s not a choice, it’s an obligation. It’s imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We risk
finding ourselves confronted with major problems. We must change; therefore we will
change. We are going to change all at the same time; in business, in administration, in
education, in the political parties. And we will obligate ourselves as to results. If this
volunteerism does not work for the Republic, then the State will move to still more
Sarkozy’s attempts to artificially engineer race-mixing in France stands in stark contrast to his
positions towards other peoples. During a speech in Saudi Arabia, Sarkozy stated that it is
wrong to forcefully impose a “single model of civilization,” which he called a “tragic error which in
the past provoked so much misery.” To deny peoples’ identities, Sarkozy added, “would not arouse
peace and brotherhood, but violence.” He went on to say that, “There is nothing more dangerous than
an injured identity, a humiliated identity.” The rank hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Sarkozy has also
jealously sought to safeguard Jewish identity and culture, not only in France, but in Israel too. A rabid
supporter of Israel, Sarkozy told a Jewish journalist that the cause of Israel is “the fight of my
life.” Sarkozy’s love affair with Jews and Zionism can be partially explained by his own Jewish
roots. But more interestingly, according to a 2007 report in the French newspaper Le Figaro, Sarkozy
was at one time in the employ of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency as a “Sayanim” or “Jewish
helper” who volunteers to aid the Zionist regime.
Ex-insiders in Britain have admitted that the New Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon
Brown deliberately organized the immigration flood into their nation in order to advance the globalist
values of “multiculturalism” and “inclusiveness.” Lord Mandelson is quoted by the Telegraph stating
that the New Labour government under Tony Blair for which he worked “not only [welcomed] people
to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging
them … to take up work in this country.” Andrew Neather, a former Blair speechwriter and
advisor, broke the story in a 2009 Evening Standard article. In it he alleged that during his work for
Home Office he saw an earlier draft of a Labour Party-backed think-tank policy paper on immigration
which outlined a strategy to deliberately make Britain multicultural, and by extension undermine the
Labour Party’s political rivals on the Right. Neather attested that,
Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was
the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. I remember
coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended –
even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their
arguments out of date.
The paper was called “Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis” and was produced by the
Performance and Innovation Unit, a Labour-affiliated think tank.
The Jewish-Zionist elite’s pro-multiculturalism stance vis-à-vis the West is the ultimate form of
chutzpah, considering they hold opposite views when it comes to Israel. Strongly-identifying Jews,
especially the rabbinical elite, are staunchly opposed to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.
 In Israel, the religious authorities do not recognize mixed marriages. Israel is violently
nationalistic, indeed imperialistic in its constant land-grabs and settler expansion in the West Bank.
The Israeli regime bitterly guards the Jewish ethnic character of the state, and has the strictest
immigration laws on earth, effectively only allowing people of Jewish parentage to immigrate to the
‘Holy Land.’ A Russia Today (RT) report on an Arab man who was charged with ‘rape’ for having
consensual sex with a Jewish woman in Israel, related:
An Arab man is to appeal his conviction of ‘rape by deception’ in Israel after having
consensual sex with a woman who thought he was a fellow Jew. Sabbar Kashur, who
denies pretending to be Jewish, was sentenced to 18 months in jail. … But even couples
who knowingly choose to enter into an inter-faith relationship are ostracized [in Israel].
RT’s Jerusalem correspondent observed:
This Jewish Jerusalem suburb is surrounded by Arab neighbourhoods. And far from
cultivating a culture of tolerance, vigilante-style Jewish patrol groups calling themselves
‘Fire for Judaism’ stand watch outside the local shopping mall. Their mission: to prevent
Arab men mixing with local Jewish girls. The municipality has created a 24 hour hotline
where parents and friends can phone to rat on Jewish girls breaking this taboo. A specially
trained team of councilors and psychologists is on standby to rescue them. 
Alina, an Israeli anti-mixing campaigner, told RT: “It’s important to safeguard our traditions, culture,
history and identity because without this, who are we?” All major Jewish and Zionist
organizations in the world share Alina’s position on the need to preserve Jewish identity yet
simultaneously lobby and propagandize for open-borders, multiculturalism and race-mixing in the
West. The migrant crisis currently afflicting Europe, which began in earnest in 2015, has illuminated
these hypocrisies like never before. The World Jewish Congress, the Central Council of Jews in
Germany, the CRIF (Representative Council of Jews in France), the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai
B’rith and other establishment Jewish groups have all lent their voices in favour of the migrant influx,
preaching that allowing an unrestricted flow of migrants into Europe is the “right thing to do” and not
doing so would be “immoral.”
Israelis have even lent a helping hand to migrants seeking sanctuary in Europe. In September 2015 it
was reported that IsraAID, an Israeli ‘disaster relief’ NGO, sent a “team to help refugees in Europe.”
A report on the Israel21c website disclosed:
Streams of desperate refugees flooding Europe from the Middle East, Asia and Africa are
getting a helping hand from IsraAID, a non-profit, non-governmental organization founded
in Israel in 2001 to bring lifesaving disaster relief and long-term support wherever needed.
“We are running a campaign with the goal of inspiring the Jewish people and Israel to help
the hundreds of thousands of refugees washed up on the shores of Europe,” says IsraAID
Director Shachar Zahavi.
As of Tuesday evening, the NGO had raised enough money to send three professionals,
who will land early Wednesday in Athens and then later proceed to Lesbos. Zahavi tells
ISRAEL21c that he hopes to send additional volunteers to help manage the European
migrant crisis currently overwhelming several countries.
The director of IsraAID, Shachar Zahavi, invoked the Holocaust to guilt-trip Europeans into
accepting the migrants and called for Jews to take a leading role in facilitating the migratory wave. “I
think Jews have a responsibility, after the Holocaust in Europe only 70 years ago, to get involved and
actually become leaders in this. We know, more than others, what happened when countries wouldn’t
accept Jewish refugees of atrocities,” Zahavi said.
These pro-migrant sentiments contrast sharply with those of Israel itself. Since the Syrian civil war
began in 2011, Israel has taken in virtually no refugees, and has indeed pledged to keep them out. In
September of 2015 Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu announced the construction of a “security fence”
on Israel’s Eastern border with Jordan to block Syrian refugees from entering the country.
Netanyahu stressed that it is “imperative for Israel to have control over all of its borders.” He issued
a statement that same month declaring that Israel “is a very small country with neither geographic nor
demographic depth” to take in non-Jewish migrants and refugees. Netanyahu and other Israeli
leaders have repeatedly referred to Arab and African migrants and refugees seeking asylum in Israel
as “predators,” “infiltrators” and even as “cancer.” As soon as migrants cross into Israel they
are placed in holding pens and eventually deported.
Invoking the “Holocaust” and the alleged historical persecution of Jews in Europe is standard
psychological warfare on the part of the Zionists intent on transforming Western peoples into a
multicultural/multi-racial flock of serfs. Barbara Spectre, an American Jewess and Israeli citizen, let
slip the end game in a 2010 interview with Israeli television. She told the interviewer:
Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of
the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the
monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the
center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a
multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that
leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.
Spectre, shamelessly forwarding the customary chutzpah of the Jewish elite, is a Zionist for Israel but
a multiculturalist for Europe. She moved from Israel to Sweden in 1999 and founded Paideia, the
European Institute for Jewish Studies, whose mission is to promote multiculturalism and mass
immigration in the Scandinavian country and Europe generally. Her group is funded by the
Swedish government and the Wallenberg Foundation. The latter outfit was established in honour of
Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish architect, businessman and former diplomat heralded by the Jewish
elite as a “Righteous Gentile” for his pro-Jewish activities during the Second World War. So
there we have another “Holocaust” connection to the architects of European displacement and
Some Jews have been more forthright in their desire to erase Europe from the map as part of a
revenge fantasy. Baruch Efrati, an Israeli Yeshiva head and community rabbi, openly hailed the
Islamization of Europe “as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews.” He
implored Jews to “rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for
what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.” The rabbi took the vengeful
argument even further, stating:
We will never forgive Europe's Christians for slaughtering millions of our children,
women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a
consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity… And now,
Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will
be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it
won't be able to atone for.
In a sermon posted on YouTube, another rabbi declared the Islamization of Europe good for the Jews.
As opposed to revenge, this rabbi made a theological argument, stating that Europe and Christianity –
who, according to the rabbi, represent “Edom” (biblical enemies of the Israelites) – must be
destroyed in order for the Jewish Messiah to return to earth. “Is it good news that Islam invades
Europe?” the rabbi asked his pupils. “It’s excellent news! It means the coming of the messiah.”
Jack Engelhard, writing in the Israeli Arutz Sheva publication, gloated about the prospect of Germany
losing its identity to an incoming mass of Middle Eastern refugees let in by Merkel. Appealing to the
Holocaust revenge fantasy, Engelhard writes that Germany’s acceptance of 800,000 predominately
Muslim refugees from the Middle East,
will raise the total number of Muslims living within Germany to six million, the same
number of Jews that the Germans sent to the gas chambers merely a generation ago. We
called it karma and a trade, Muslims for Jews, that Germany will rue.
This hateful sentiment crops up time and again. Gregor Gysi, an influential left-wing Jewish politician
in Germany, similarly attempted to play on peoples emotions in an Orwellian plea for more Syrian
refugees. In a video address to supporters titled “Live Better Without Nazis – Diversity is Our
Future,” he implored Germans to be more welcoming of refugees and asylum seekers, invoking the
1933-1945 Nazi era in German history to trigger guilt-feelings among the populace. “Because of this
history,” Gysi said, it is incumbent upon all Germans to welcome their demographic displacement.
“By the way, every year more native Germans die than are born,” Gysi remarked, welcoming the
phenomenon as “very fortunate… Nazis are not very good at having offspring.” Gysi’s
deplorable comments are reminiscent of the manic screed Germany Must Perish!, published in 1941
by American Jew Theodore Kaufman, which advocated the genocidal sterilization of all Germans as
punishment for electing Adolf Hitler. Gysi’s stance on refugees and immigration in Germany
diametrically contradicts his views on Israel, a country which he more or less supports as a ‘Jewish
In line with Cultural Marxist tradition, the dedicated Jewish-Marxist Noel Ignatiev – a former
lecturer at Harvard University and Massachusetts College of Art – spearheaded a campaign to
explicitly attack White males. In 1994 Ignatiev launched Race Traitor magazine, which carried the
tagline: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” The aim of the magazine, explained Ignatiev,
“was to chronicle and analyze the making, remaking, and unmaking of whiteness.” An early
issue ran an article titled “Abolish the White Race - By Any Means Necessary” which stated the
magazine’s mission to “serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white
race.” The article added:
[Race Traitor Magazine] will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains [the
white race] and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that
hold it together and those which promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote
debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by
the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
Responding to a reader who objected to the overt anti-White message of the magazine, the editors
Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live
ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed
—not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.
Ignatiev denied he wished any physical harm to Whites, and that he only sought to dispose of “White
privilege” by doing away with the “White race” as a social category. But his aggressive and
incendiary rhetoric was obviously designed to produce a climate of loathing towards all White
people in his stated objective to depose Whites from any seat of power in countries where they are
the majority. Ignatiev once said “the goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable” that
the only people who would oppose it are “committed white supremacists.” In another interview
he said “whiteness is a form of racial oppression” and that it is “not possible to separate whiteness
from oppression.” “There can be no white race without the phenomenon of white supremacy,”
he added, shamelessly decreeing, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” He further identified
his mission to “make it impossible for the legacy of whiteness to continue to reproduce itself.” In the
1950s Ignatiev was a member of the Communist Party USA, and later dabbled in various MarxistLeninist,
Third Worldist and Maoist political groups, before embarking on a career as a professional
Another display of chutzpah appeared in the January 2016 edition of Foreign Policy magazine,
authored by its CEO and editor-in-chief David Rothkopf, an affluent Zionist Jew who once served in
the Clinton Administration. Rothkopf published a commentary headlined “The End of an Era … for
White Males” wherein he hailed the prospect of American Whites becoming a minority by the
year 2050. “White men have had a great run,” Rothkopf writes in the article. “From the rise of the
Greeks to the birth of Western-based global empires, they have controlled much of the world or
sought to: So much of history is a consequence of decisions made by—and at the behest of—the white
guys in charge.” Rothkopf saluted the destructive impact of feminism in contributing to the decline in
White birthrates, stating that “once male-dominated domains are now populated by more women than
ever before, and this trend shows no signs of reversing—thankfully.” He noted that in Europe “the
influx of migrants and refugees is already producing irreversible demographic shifts—a great
blending of cultures” and that in America “the former majority [White] population will be a minority”
by mid-century. He added,
By that time, Europe will include massive populations from Africa and the Middle East, as
well as Asia. This is to say that by 2050 white men will be the ones checking the “other”
box on census forms.
According to Rothkopf, anyone who opposes this dramatic shift in the ethnic balance in the West is
exuding irrational “intolerance” and appealing to “fear mongering.” He writes that “the politicians in
America and Europe who spew nationalist bile and fan the flames of anti-immigrant furor are tapping
into a growing if unconscious cultural recognition that time is running out on what has been the
world’s most privileged ethnic class.” The “most privileged ethnic class” is not White Gentiles, as
Rothkopf would have us believe, but the Jews – specifically the Ashkenazi variety of which he is a
prominent member. He goes on to praise the allegedly “wondrous benefits” of diversity, a position
that it is unlikely he also applies to Israel, a racist, Jewish supremacist ethno-state built through
conquest and ethnic cleansing of the native Arabs. Rothkopf ends his screed with this:
What we need instead are those who will stand up and say, “No. You have it wrong.
Diversity is not the threat. It is the answer.” That is, in fact, what has made America and
every diverse society great. To be sure, we should not—not for one minute—lament the
passing of the white-male era, for there is at least a glimmer of hope that soon to come is
the era of “all.”
The Columbia University-educated media mogul and business magnate appears to have received a
good schooling in Cultural Marxism at the former U.S.-based hub of the Frankfurt School.
Another Jewish writer, Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs correspondent Gideon Rachman,
penned a similarly gloating article entitled “Mass migration into Europe is unstoppable,”
observing the demise of the West vis-à-vis massive Third World immigration and the migratory wave.
Documenting the significant decline of White populations globally, he writes:
In the 18th and 19th centuries, Europeans populated the world. Now the world is
populating Europe. Beyond the furore about the impact of the 1m-plus refugees who
arrived in Germany in 2015 lie big demographic trends. The current migration crisis is
driven by wars in the Middle East. But there are also larger forces at play that will ensure
immigration into Europe remains a vexed issue long after the war in Syria is over.
Europe is a wealthy, ageing continent whose population is stagnant. By contrast the
populations of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia are younger, poorer and rising fast.
At the height of the imperial age, in 1900, European countries represented about 25 per
cent of the world’s population.
Today, the EU’s roughly 500m people account for about 7 per cent of the world’s
population. By contrast, there are now more than 1bn people in Africa and, according to
the UN, there will be almost 2.5bn by 2050. The population of Egypt has doubled since
1975 to more than 80m today. Nigeria’s population in 1960 was 50m. It is now more than
180m and likely to be more than 400m by 2050. The migration of Africans, Arabs and
Asians to Europe represents the reversal of a historic trend.
Rachman then indirectly identified the cause of Europe’s woes: guilt and shame about the so-called
Holocaust and other perceived historical wrongs, spawned in large part by Jewish media and
academic initiatives designed to stigmatize White European ethnic consciousness, identity and
culture, thereby securing Jewish ethnic advantages over guilt-ridden, self-hating White Gentiles.
Rachman explained: “But post-imperial, post-Holocaust Europe is much more wary of asserting the
superiority of its culture. It has replaced a belief in its civilising mission and the Bible with an
emphasis on universal values, individual rights and international treaties.” Rachman, an
“avowed secular Jew,” grew up in “a passionately liberal South African-Jewish family.”
Rachman told the Jewish Telegraph that he’s “always been conscious of being Jewish. It's part of my
identity.” He acknowledged that his parents were activists against apartheid in South Africa, a
movement that, Rachman affirmed, Jews were “disproportionately involved” in. It is unlikely,
however, that Rachman or his parents will ever take up the “struggle” against apartheid and Jewish
supremacy in Israel.
In the aftermath of the November 13, 2015, Paris attacks, Dov Lior, a chief Israeli rabbi, expressed
approval of the deaths of 130 Parisians as revenge for the Holocaust. “The wicked ones in bloodsoaked
Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago,” Lior declared. The
rabbi previously wrote a glowing appraisal of the 2009 book, The King’s Torah, which offered
religious justification for the murder of civilian non-Jews, including children, during wartime. The
Jerusalem Post revealed that Lior also “published a letter saying that Jewish law permits destroying
the entire Gaza Strip to bring peace to the south of the country.” A fanatical Gentile-hater with a
long history of incitement to genocide of Palestinians, Lior once praised the mass murderer Baruch
Goldstein – an extremist Jew who gunned down 29 unarmed Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in
1994 – as a ‘hero’ and ‘messenger of God.’ Avigdor Lieberman, the former Israeli foreign affairs
minister and head of the ultra-Zionist Yisrael Beiteinu Party, likewise hinted approval of the
November 13 Paris massacre due to Europeans’ growing support of the pro-Palestinian BDS
(Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) campaign against Israel. Commenting on the attack, Lieberman
When we look at Europe of today, which is busy labeling settlement products when the
Middle East is on fire in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and other places, we understand the
problem. The problem is that there is no political willpower or determination by the
Europeans to deal with reality.
A January 2015 article in the Irish Times entitled “Israel scathing of alleged pro-Palestinian stance by
Europe” noted Lieberman’s hostility towards the continent, particularly the governments of Ireland
and Sweden for siding with the Palestinians. Lieberman said that “the attitude of European
parliaments was like another chapter in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and accused them of
acting like “Nazi appeasers” who failed to act against Hitler during the 1930s.
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to cover in detail the inner workings of every Western country’s
descent into the multicultural/multi-ethnic fold. But the pattern described here uniformly repeats itself
across virtually the entire Western world: from Scandinavia to Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain,
Australia, Canada and the United States, it has been predominately Jewish ethnic lobbying, activism
and media campaigns that has led those countries to adopt liberal immigration policies and to
embrace the ideals of multiculturalism, diversity and an “open, tolerant” society.
The Jewish elite consensus on the issue is abundantly clear: multiculturalism and multiethnicism are
“good for the Jews” when they are a minority living among Gentiles, but such concepts are “bad for
the Jews” when they are the majority endeavouring to suppress and stifle the self-determination of
another people, the Palestinians, whose land they have usurped through deceit, terrorism and mass
Sudan, Libya, Syria and Iran: The Yinon Plan Marches Forward
Oded Yinon, the Zionist geo-strategist behind the infamous “Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” must be
celebrating in his grave. His plan, first printed in 1982, has effectively unfolded nearly word for
word as he envisioned. Since 9/11, Israel’s enemies have one by one been invaded, bombed and
dismembered through foreign-backed civil strife.
Wesley Clark, a retired four-star U.S. Army General and former Supreme Allied Commander of
NATO, publicly divulged the neocon war-plan after 9/11. In various interviews and public speeches,
the General recounted a story of how a high-ranking Army colleague showed him a top-level memo
with the names of seven Middle Eastern and North African countries that the Pentagon elite, under
neocon direction, planned to attack within five years. In a 2007 interview with Amy Goodman of
Democracy Now, Clark recalled that the memo he was shown “described how we’re going to take out
seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and,
finishing off [with] Iran.” In a speech that same year, Clark bemoaned how neocons, without
mentioning their Zionist affiliations, orchestrated a “policy coup” after 9/11 and steered the White
House towards all-out war in the Middle East. “Some hard-nosed people [in the Bush
Administration] took over the direction of American policy, and they never bothered to inform the rest
of us,” he lamented.
Nearly all of those countries on the infamous hit-list have since fallen victim to U.S.-led wars and
proxy wars. And all of them are long-time adversaries of the Israeli regime. Within an hour of the
9/11 attacks, Israeli politicians unleashed a coordinated barrage of war propaganda, imploring the
West to take unyielding military action against Tel Aviv’s Middle Eastern rivals. Ehud Barak
appeared on our television screens pontificating for the need to launch an “all out war on terror,”
naming Iraq, Iran, Libya, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority as prime targets. Benjamin
Netanyahu expanded that list of foes in a September 20, 2001, speech in front of the U.S. Government
Reform Committee, calling for war and sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Hezbollah in
Lebanon, virtually all Palestinian factions, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the Sudan. In February
2003, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister during the early stages of the “war on terror,”
demanded that Iran, Syria and Libya should “be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq”;
in other words, invaded accompanied by a regime-change.
There has been civil strife in Sudan for decades as different tribes and political factions jockey for
power. But shortly after 9/11, Israel stepped up support to rebel and separatist groups based in the
West and South of the country, principally the ‘Justice and Equality Movement’ and the ‘Sudanese
Liberation Army,’ which together initiated an armed insurrection against the Muslim-oriented central
government of Omar al-Bashir in 2003. Destabilization and civil war quickly consumed the country,
and has been ongoing ever since.
Israel has had a long-standing policy of hostility towards the regime in Khartoum because of its
principled support of the Palestinians. The Israelis routinely accuse the al-Bashir regime of supplying
weapons to Palestinian resistance groups. Israel conducted airstrikes on Sudan in 2009 and 2012,
ostensibly targeting munitions factories that Tel Aviv claims are used to supply Gaza militants.
This explains the Zionist regime’s desire to dismember the country by fuelling regional separatist and
sectarian groups. In accordance with the Yinon doctrine, the Israelis moved to exacerbate civil unrest
in the African country, exploiting ethnic and religious divisions; in this case Arab/Black and
Christian/Muslim differences. The Southern separatists have been receiving substantial support from
Israel for years in their bid to secede from the North. Avi Dichter, a former top Israeli security chief,
said in a 2008 lecture that Israel “had to penetrate the Sudanese arena to exacerbate existing crises
and foment new ones” in order to prevent Sudan from becoming an asset to the Arab world in its
struggle against Israeli imperialism.
In an interview with PressTV’s Afshin Rattansi, the Sudanese ambassador to the UK, Abdullahi alAzreg,
said that, “The government in Juha [South Sudan’s capital] is not actually working for the
benefit of the people of South Sudan. They are waging a proxy war to execute the projects of the
Zionist movement.” The ambassador stated that the Southern separatist regime, which gained
de-facto independence in 2011 and is headed by Salva Kiir Mayardit, was receiving massive support
and supplies of arms from Israel. He said:
They are getting the weapons mainly from Israel. And part of the money allocated for
projects, they [the South Sudanese regime] use it for buying arms. Their main source is the
Israeli government. [South Sudan] is the only government that announced they would open
an embassy in Jerusalem, rather than in Tel Aviv. They have very good relations to the
extent that they became [Israel’s] puppets actually, in terms of executing their designs
against Sudan and other Muslim and Arab countries.
The accusations of Israeli arms going to South Sudan are well documented. This process of arming
Southern insurrectionists in Sudan has been Israeli policy since the 1960s, spurred in large part due to
Sudan’s pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab stance. The Israelis aim to colonize South Sudan, use it as a
bulwark against non-compliant African governments and exploit its rich natural resources. A special
report in the Israeli-based +972 magazine titled “The untold story of Israeli military exports to South
Sudan” highlighted the extensive links between Israel and South Sudan:
Since the 1960’s Israel has been fighting a secret war in South Sudan by supporting the
rebels’ struggle to break free from Khartoum’s tyranny. Israel’s support does not reflect its
humanistic values or solidarity with a just and legitimate fight for freedom, but rather is the
result of various strategic interests in the region. In 2011 a referendum was held in South
Sudan following massive pressure from the international community. Ninety-nine percent
of residents voted in favor of breaking away from Khartoum, and on July 9th of the same
year South Sudan became an independent country.
The State of Israel was one of the first countries to recognize the new state, and in 2011
Salva Kiir Mayardit, president of South Sudan, came to Israel on official visit. For Israel,
an independent South Sudan was a golden opportunity to further its security and economic
interests in the area, and it subsequently made hefty investments in civil and military
infrastructure there. The relationship between the two countries is exceptional even when
compared to Israel’s close ties with other African countries, showing some signs of
… Despite the world’s reaction, Israel’s secret war in South Sudan continues according to
reports and information provided by human rights activists who have been, or still are, in
South Sudan. Since the country’s independence, Israel has continuously sent it weapons,
training government forces and providing various security-related technologies. There is
also cooperation between the two countries’ secret services, and Israeli entities have
established an internal control and surveillance system in South Sudan, which they
continue to maintain.
The current Israeli involvement in South Sudan is exceptional in the history of Israeli
military exports. This goes way beyond greed. Israel is currently fighting over the viability
of a project that it has invested much in over the years — a project whose failure may
damage its credibility in the eyes of other dictators and regimes that receive military aid
A United Nations report, released in 2015, revealed that Israeli weapons continue to flow into South
Sudan, despite that country descending into civil war after a power struggle in 2013. The Jerusalem
Israeli-made rifles are being used in the South Sudan civil war according to an interim
report for the United Nations Security Council drafted by a three-member panel of experts.
The 55-page document focused on the supply of arms and ammunition to the Sudan
People’s Liberation Army and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in
Opposition, as well as to affiliated forces. Such armament has been instrumental in
prolonging and escalating the war, the panel said. In one paragraph 74 of the report, it
noted that “Israeli-produced IWI ACE automatic rifles were identified in a series of
photographs taken on the ground in South Sudan.”
The Israeli arms flows continue unabated despite South Sudanese forces and rebels participating in
“rampant killing, rape, abduction, looting, arson and forced displacement and even such horrific acts
as burning of people inside their own homes,” according to UN aid chief Stephen O’Brien. 
In the previously cited interview with PressTV, North Sudanese ambassador al-Azreg identified the
Zionist hands behind the ‘Save Darfur Coalition,’ a PR initiative launched in 2004 to whip up
international support for Western military intervention against the government of al-Bashir. According
to al-Azreg, the ‘Save Darfur’ campaign was set up by two American Zionist organizations to smear
Sudan and promote exaggerated myths about a “genocide” in the country. The campaign recruited
actor George Clooney to push it into the mainstream, on behalf of the Zionists in Hollywood. AlAzreg’s
claims ring true. The Save Darfur Coalition was founded on July 14, 2004, at the ‘Darfur
Emergency Summit’ in New York City; an event organized and hosted by the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum and American Jewish World Service, and featured professional Holocaust
“survivor” Elie Wiesel. A 2006 Jerusalem Post article entitled “US Jews leading Darfur rally
planning” revealed the Jewish-Zionist origins and nature of the whole operation, noting:
Little known, however, is that the [Save Darfur] coalition, which has presented itself as
"an alliance of over 130 diverse faith-based, humanitarian, and human rights organization"
was actually begun exclusively as an initiative of the American Jewish community. And
even now, days before the rally, that coalition is heavily weighted with a politically and
religiously diverse collection of local and national Jewish groups. A collection of local
Jewish bodies, including the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, United Jewish
Communities, UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
sponsored the largest and most expensive ad for the rally, a full-page in The New York
Times on April 15. Though there are other major religious organizations … these groups
have not done the kind of extensive grassroots outreach that will produce numbers.
Evidently, ‘Save Darfur’ was little more than a cynical propaganda charade put on by the AmericanZionist
lobby in pursuit of Israeli geopolitical imperatives. Al-Azreg cited Mahmood Mamdani’s
book Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror which documents that claims of
“genocide” and 400,000 casualties in the Sudan civil war were exaggerated by Zionists to pressure
the North Sudanese government and ultimately effect its downfall. In another interview with PressTV,
al-Azreg theorized that since the reign of David Ben-Gurion, Israel has been executing a
Machiavellian strategy of “[mobilizing] the ethnic minorities and the religious minorities in Arab and
African states against any state that is supporting Palestinian rights.”
At a 2008 summit of the Arab League, the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi predicted his own
demise in a speech to the assembly. “What is the reason for the invasion and destruction of Iraq?”
Gaddafi pondered. He continued:
Let our American friends answer this question. Were there WMDs in Iraq? No, there were
not. Even if Iraq did have WMDs – Pakistan and India have nuclear bombs, and so do
China, Russia, Britain, France and America. Should all these countries be destroyed? …
Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country and hangs its president, and we
all sit on the sidelines, laughing. … An entire Arab leadership was executed by hanging,
yet we sit on the sidelines. Why? Any one of you might be next. America fought alongside
Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. He was their friend. Cheney was a friend of Saddam
Hussein. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defense Secretary at the time Iraq was destroyed, was a close
friend of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately they sold him out and hanged him. You are friends of
America – let’s say that “we” are, not “you” – but one of these days, America may hang us.
Gaddafi’s presage came to pass in 2011, when a U.S.-led NATO-backed insurrection engulfed his
country. An array of anti-Gaddafi factions and radical Islamists joined forces to dethrone the Libyan
potentate. The main rebel groups that initiated and led the revolt against the Gaddafi regime were alQaeda-affiliated
Takfiris, principally the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which were armed, trained and financed by Western powers and their Gulf
State proxies – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Gaddafi himself identified the Takfiri nature of the
“uprising,” stating in speeches and interviews that drug-fuelled al-Qaeda fanatics were at the heart of
the unrest. Many of the radicals who took up arms against the Libyan State in 2011 had been
previously jailed and then released by Gaddafi himself under his “reform and repent” clemency
The CIA and MI6 quickly established a gun-running ring in Benghazi, overseen by U.S. Ambassador
Chris Stevens (who was later killed), that funneled an endless supply of weapons and ammunition to
anyone willing to take up arms against Gaddafi, including known al-Qaeda affiliates. The Citizens
Commission on Benghazi, a grouping of ex-intelligence officials and U.S. Army veterans, released a
report in 2015 which noted that “the U.S. was fully aware of and facilitating the delivery of weapons
to the Al Qaeda-dominated rebel militias throughout the 2011 [Libyan] rebellion.” A 2012 New
York Times report detailed how Washington rubber-stamped Qatari arms shipments to anti-Gaddafi
rebels, noting that: “The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan
rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar
was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants.” Jeffery Shapiro, writing in the
Washington Times, revealed that “weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to
al Qaeda,” citing a secret U.S. intelligence report which included “a 16-page list of weapons that
Libyans supposedly tracked to the rebels from Western sources or their allies in the region.”
On top of the guns, Washington even supplied rebel leaders to the conflict, namely ex-Libyan army
officer turned anti-Gaddafi ex-pat Khalifa Hifter who lived in the U.S. for 20 years – most likely on
the CIA’s payroll – before “returning” to help depose Gaddafi. Washington embraced
Abdelhakim Belhaj, a former terror suspect who was captured by the CIA in 2004 and sent to Libya
where he was jailed for seven years. Belhaj went on to become a top commander leading al-Qaedalinked
rebel forces in their battles against Gaddafi, and who now purportedly heads up the Libyan
chapter of ISIS.
All of this clandestine support, which began long before the outbreak of hostilities between Libyan
rebels and government forces, was backed up by a NATO air campaign. NATO’s intervention came at
just the right moment to tip the balance in favour of the rebels. Reporting for the Ottawa Citizen,
journalist David Pugliese disclosed that Canadian military officers participating in the NATO mission
in Libya privately joked about being “al-Qaeda’s air force” during the conflict, “since their bombing
runs helped to pave the way for rebel groups aligned with the terrorist group.” NATO’s rebels
eventually sealed victory by capturing and then brutally murdering Gaddafi in October of 2011.
Washington, London, Paris and other Western powers initially spun the crisis as a “popular revolt” –
but that narrative quickly fell apart and is belied by all available evidence. All of the claims made by
the Obama Administration to justify the intervention on the side of the rebels – principally that
Gaddafi was imminently preparing to unleash a “genocide” on his people and that he was supplying
troops with Viagra to commit a rape-frenzy – proved false. These accusations were classic war
propaganda – every U.S. war is sold to the public with a series of monumental lies – designed to
whip up support for immediate intervention.
A January 2015 Washington Times report, authored by Kelly Riddell and Jeffrey Shapiro,
deconstructed Hilary Clinton’s shameless deceptions during the run-up to war. Citing unnamed
intelligence officials close to the Obama Administration, Riddell and Shapiro noted that the U.S.
intelligence community “gathered no specific evidence of an impending genocide in Libya in spring
2011, undercutting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's primary argument for using the U.S.
military to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power.” Clinton’s case for war rested entirely
on “speculative arguments,” the Defense officials said. Starkly contradicting the Obama
Administration’s flaccid assertions, an asset in direct contact with the Libyan regime during the early
stages of the rebel insurgency notified superiors in the U.S. intelligence community that Gaddafi
“gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels.”
There was effectively “no intelligence [that] suggested that a genocide was imminent,” but that didn’t
stop Obama, Clinton and others in the White House from deliberately lying to the public to ignite
another disastrous war.
The story about a Viagra-fuelled rape spree on the part of Gaddafi’s troops – a major selling point for
the war – was an unsubstantiated rumor that originated from a dubious “rebel” source. It was brought
to the attention of Hilary Clinton by her top aide Sidney Blumenthal in an email to the former
Secretary of State entitled, “Rumor: Q’s rape policy.” Blumenthal’s email read: “Sources now say,
again rumor (that is, this information comes from the rebel side and is unconfirmed independently by
Western intelligence), that Qaddafi has adopted a rape policy and has even distributed Viagra to
troops.” The phony rumor-mill-derived allegation was then repeated by Susan Rice, U.S.
ambassador to the UN, during a speech to the UN Security Council and later spread like wildfire in
hostile media outlets. At the time he floated the “rape” rumors, Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s Jewish-
Zionist aide, was working for Osprey Global Solutions, a defense company vying for contracts in the
Many have speculated as to the true motive behind NATO’s crusade to unseat Gaddafi. Some have
suggested that Gaddafi’s attempts to establish an independent African currency, the Gold Dinar, was
the prime incentive for Western powers to seek his ouster. A May 2011 Russia Today report
propelled that narrative:
More speculation has been raised on the reasons for NATO’s intervention in Libya. As
RT’s Laura Emmett reports, the organization may have been trying to prevent Gaddafi from
burying the American buck.
According to some it’s about protecting civilians, others say it’s about oil. But some are
convinced the intervention in Libya is all about currency, specifically Gaddafi’s plan to
introduce the Gold Dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the
In the months leading up to the military intervention, [Gaddafi] called on African and
Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the Dollar and
Euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for Gold Dinars. It’s
an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
Others have said it was about oil and other natural resources. While these may have been
‘aggravating factors’ which sealed Gaddafi’s fate, none of it overshadows the elephant in the room:
Gaddafi was a long-time foe of Israel, being a steadfast and uncompromising supporter of the
Palestinian struggle against Zionism. Since he first came to power in a bloodless coup in 1969,
Gaddafi demanded that the Israeli Jews relinquish political control of all of historic Palestine. He
never really moderated that stance in later years. During the 2008 Arab League speech mentioned
earlier, Gaddafi criticized Arab leaders for compromising with Israel on the issue and backing the
proposal for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement along the pre-1967 borders (which Israel rejects
anyway). Gaddafi lamented:
People here have talked about the pre-1967 borders. To tell you the truth, this is
astonishing. Whatever happened to the Palestinian cause that we had before 1967? Were
we lying to ourselves or to the world? Thousands of martyrs fell before 1967. What for?
How can you say that Palestine was occupied only in 1967 and that Israel must return to
the pre-1967 borders? Does Palestine consist only of the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
An independent Arab leader with the power to unify others behind a common struggle – a united front
against Israel, Zionism and Western imperialism – is anathema to the global order, controlled to a
large extent by Jewish interests. And that’s what Gaddafi represented. His pan-Arabist and panAfricanist
ideology was a threat to the Zionist-Globalist consensus on the financial front as well as
the geopolitical one. His continuous calls for the liberation of Palestine, in conjunction with financial
support to Palestinian resistance, earned him a top spot on the Zionist “hit list” since the 1970s. Israel
made many attempts to instigate Gaddafi’s demise previously, to no avail. Gaddafi evaded and
scuttled their plots for four decades, and they were livid about it. The tenacious malcontents in Tel
Aviv never truly gave up in their quest to remove him. Revenge is their life-blood.
Gaddafi used Libya's vast oil wealth to educate and take care of his people. He utilized oil proceeds
to fund infrastructure projects, farming, education, health care, housing and other social programs
which significantly increased the standard of living for Libyans. Gaddafi's “Islamic socialism”
model, outlined in detail in his famous Green Book, was anathema to globalism, Zionism and
international finance. The Zionists and their globalist henchmen view all of the world's resources as
their own. According to the powers-that-be, Libya’s natural resources are not the domain of its
people, but the rich oligarchs and kleptocrats in Washington, London and Tel Aviv who want to use it
to enrich themselves and their banker friends.
While left-wing anti-war pundits continue to point to purely economic motives behind the 2011 Libya
war, they timidly avoid naming the Jewish architects (and Zionist motives) behind the destruction that
rained down on the Libyan people. A man key to solving the Libya puzzle is Bernard-Henri Levy, a
French-Algerian Jew often touted as a “philosopher.” Far from being a “philosopher,” Levy is little
more than a self-promoting narcissist and professional revolution-monger who showed up on the
frontlines of every major conflict of the late 20
th and early 21
st centuries, promoting his perverse
brand of Judeo-Globalist interventionism. While he won’t acknowledge it publicly, his mission is to
create a world where Jews emerge as a political and economic over-class, a “spiritual nobility” of
Commenting on the ‘Arab Spring,’ Levy told Al Jazeera: “The future [of the Arab world] is an age of
enlightenment. We are at this point. The enlightenment begins today in the Arab world. And then
everything is possible. Democracy, peace, new relationships with Europe, new relationship with
Israel…. I’m so happy with what is happening.” In other words, the “enlightenment” Levy
speaks of is in reality a series of Israeli-approved regime-changes in the Arab/Muslim world. Levy’s
universalist rhetoric, like that of Jewish neoconservatives in Washington, is designed to deceive and
confuse the masses about his true motives: strengthening Israel and weakening its opponents.
Levy is a fanatical supporter of Israel and a committed apologist for its terrorist crimes against
Palestinians. Critics have described him as a “propagandist for the Jewish State” and even as a
“zealous spokesman” for the Israeli Defense Forces. “Bernard-Henri Lévy has never hidden his
support for the Israeli state. It is a constant in his public utterances, whether made in France, the US
or Israel,” wrote Jade Lindgaard and Xavier de la Porte in their book entitled The Impostor: BHL in
As Israel’s emissary in France, Levy almost single-handedly orchestrated France’s involvement in the
Libyan war. Levy had constant meetings with then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and is widely
credited with convincing the French leader to first back the rebels and then NATO’s air war that
effectively paved the way for a rebel victory over Gaddafi. Not that Sarkozy needed much prodding,
he is himself a Jew and ardent Zionist who once said Israel’s cause is the “fight of my life.” Levy
seems to have stoked American officials into a pro-interventionist mood as well. In a leaked Hilary
Clinton email, the former Secretary of State under Obama asked for a copy of Levy’s film “The Oath
of Tobruk” which she was featured in. That film detailed Levy’s crusade to spark Western
intervention in Libya on the side of the Western-backed rebels.
A France24 report on the film noted Levy’s intrigues behind the Libya war:
In his new documentary, “The Oath of Tobruk,” Bernard-Henri Levy details how a selfpromoting
leftist intellectual persuaded a conservative French president to back the Libyan
In a documentary titled, “Le Serment de Tobrouk” - or “The Oath of Tobruk” – released in
France Wednesday, French philosopher-writer Bernard-Henri Levy is the narrator,
director, star of a documentary about his role in the 2011 Libyan intervention.
More than a year after UN Security Council Resolution 1973 - which provided the legal
basis for the NATO intervention in Libya - was adopted, the documentary charts the
unprecedented saga of how one intellectual managed to bulldoze the international agenda
The storyline of Levy’s extraordinary role in Libya is by now fairly well-known, certainly
across France. In early March 2011, Levy – or “BHL” as he’s called in his native France -
traveled from Egypt into eastern Libya. There, he met Libyan rebel leaders and proceeded
to convince then President Nicolas Sarkozy to support the rebels diplomatically and
… For the next few months, the French people witnessed the unusual spectacle of a
notoriously self-promoting leftist intellectual joining forces with a notoriously energetic
conservative president to wage war in a distant, sandy nation.
It was France’s recognition of the Libyan NTC (National Transitional Council) back in
March 2011 that paved the way for the international intervention that helped oust Muammar
The report also identified Levy’s pro-Israel agenda, observing that his documentary:
has footage of Levy’s June 2011 visit to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. But it makes no mention of the gaffe he committed when he assured
Netanyahu that the NTC [the rebel National Transitional Council] would seek diplomatic
ties between Libya and Israel if it came to power. The NTC responded by promptly issuing
a statement denying the reports but the damage was already done in the Arab world, where
Levy’s Jewish roots and his pro-Israeli views are a matter of deep suspicion.
At the CRIF’s (Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions) national convention in 2011,
Levy admitted that his warmongering vis-à-vis Libya was done “as a Jew.” Despite the delusory
justifications he conjured up at the time, Levy confided to his co-religionists that it was ultimately his
“loyalty to Zionism and Israel” that guided his actions in the endeavor to destroy Libya. Jewish
supremacism is at the heart of everything Levy does, exemplified by his new book The Spirit of
Judaism. In the true spirit of Judaic messianic lunacy, Levy once said that “Jews ought to
provide a unique moral voice in the world,” which translates to Jews controlling the world.
Zionist neocons in Washington joined the anti-Gaddafi chorus at the first hint of turmoil in the North
African country. Libya was another “domino” to be knocked down in the Zionist-Neocon chess game
of reshaping the Middle East and North Africa to their liking. As NATO’s involvement in the conflict
escalated, Max Boot, a prominent neocon columnist, penned an article in the Weekly Standard with
the headline, “Qaddafi Must Go.” “Now we need to muster the will and the resources to oust the
dictator,” Boot wrote, hailing Obama’s decision to intervene. In early March 2011, the Foreign Policy
Initiative – a neocon think-tank staffed by Zionist stalwarts Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, Robert Kagan,
Eric Edelman and others – issued a policy paper titled “The Case for Intervention in Libya.” In
it the neocon hawks made their “case” for deepening U.S. involvement in Libya on the side of the
rebels. “Regardless of whether Qaddafi’s exit is engineered by the tightening noose of international
sanctions or by the pressure placed on his military by coalition forces, Qaddafi’s days are
numbered,” they wrote.
The facts are clear: Tel Aviv and its loyalists in Washington, London and Paris stage-managed yet
another imperialist war to unseat a leader seen as a roadblock to Zionism’s drive for world
The destabilization of Syria, and the current bloody predicament the Arab country finds itself in, was
engineered by the same forces behind all of the Middle East’s present troubles. The Neocon-Zionists,
following the instructions laid out in the Yinon plan, plotted the downfall of Syria long ago. The plan
for Syria, Oded Yinon expounded in his Machiavellian manifesto, was to break the country up into
four parts along ethnic and religious lines.
“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in
Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run,” Yinon wrote, “while the
dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.” According to
Yinon, Israel’s imperialist goals would best be served if Syria fell apart “in accordance with its
ethnic and religious structure, into several states.” This would include a “Shi’ite Alawi state along its
coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern
neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan.” This scenario of a
fragmented and weak Syria would “guarantee” hegemony for Israel in the long run, Yinon stressed.
Grumblings in this direction have been constant in Neocon-Zionist and Israeli circles for years, and
have intensified since the outbreak of civil war in Syria in 2011. Israel’s current defense minister,
Moshe Ya’alon, has essentially called for the implementation of the Yinon plan in Syria. At multiple
points during the crisis, Ya’alon has openly advocated for the partitioning of Syria along ethnic and
religious fault-lines. In an October 2014 interview with National Public Radio, Ya’alon said that, “a
future map of the Middle East will look very different from the one that exists today.” “Can you unify
Syria?” he asked rhetorically, adding that “[President] Bashar al-Assad is controlling only 25 percent
of the Syrian territory. We have to deal with it.” At a February 2016 security conference,
Ya’alon said that “sectarian partition of [Syria] was inevitable and perhaps preferable.” Bluntly
laying out his preferred roadmap of a divided Syria, Ya’alon said:
Unfortunately we are going to face chronic instability for a very, very long period of time.
And part of any grand strategy is to avoid the past, saying we are going to unify Syria. We
know how to make an omelette from an egg. I don't know how to make an egg from an
omelette. We should realise that we are going to see enclaves - 'Alawistan', 'Syrian
Kurdistan', 'Syrian Druzistan'. They might cooperate or fight each other.
Israel’s intelligence director-general Ram Ben-Barak echoed Ya’alon’s Yinonist sentiments, stating
that partition is “the only possible solution in Syria.” He added: “I think that ultimately Syria should
be turned into regions, under the control of whoever is there… I can't see how a situation can be
reached where those same 12 percent Alawites go back to ruling the Sunnis.” A healthy and
stable Syria is not in the interests of the imperial, expansionist Jewish settler state, which seeks to
dominate the land and natural resources of all surrounding regions and to supplant regimes not
compliant with its plunderous aims.
Syria featured prominently in neocon ‘war on terror’ rhetoric in the early days after 9/11. Ehud Barak,
Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and their U.S.-based neoconservative henchmen – Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith, Ledeen, Frum et al. – had been agitating against Syria from the outset. Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad’s policies of defiance against Israel sealed his fate. The BBC noted that in the realm
of foreign policy Bashar al-Assad “continued his father's hardline policy towards Israel. He
repeatedly said that there would be no peace unless occupied land [the Golan Heights] was returned
‘in full,’ and continued to support militant groups opposed to Israel.”
In 1996, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser – all future members of the Bush
Administration – authored a profound policy document, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm,” intended as advice for the Likud regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. In it they
argued the need for Israel to undermine its regional foes – using divide and conquer subterfuges – in
order to “secure the realm” for Israeli exploitation and domination. The first step in a multi-front
effort, the Israeli militarists suggested, was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, which
constituted an “important Israeli strategic objective” that would ultimately serve to weaken Syria.
After Hussein is deposed, the strategists insisted, Israel could then step up the pressure on its other
enemies: Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Specifically recommended was for Israel to militarily engage
those forces by “striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient,
striking at select targets in Syria proper.” They also advised Tel Aviv to wage proxy warfare against
Syria by mobilizing Israeli-backed militants from Lebanon. This would ostensibly establish “the
precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy
forces.” Turkey and Jordan were mentioned as two countries Israel could align itself with in a broad
effort aimed at “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.”
Such a scenario has unfolded exactly as envisaged by the ‘Clean Break’strategists. Since 2011, Syria
has been consumed by a brutal terrorist insurgency, wherein a panoply of anti-Assad rebel militias
and terrorist outfits (comprised of mostly foreign nationals) have besieged most of the country with
unrelenting violence, aided and abetted every step of the way by NATO, Israel, the Gulf States,
Jordan and Turkey. The emergence of ISIS – now known as the Islamic State – as the primary fighting
force in Syria battling the Syrian military is the by-product of a fully calculated strategy of tension
engineered by Israel, the U.S. and co-opted regimes in the Persian Gulf, principally Saudi Arabia.
Effectively a re-run of Libya, these powers have armed, trained, transported, financed and assisted all
of the rebel factions fighting against Assad.
In a 2007 report, published in the New Yorker under the heading “The Redirection,” Pulitzer Prizewinning
journalist Seymour Hersh unleashed bombshell evidence that the Bush Administration, Israel
and Saudi Arabia had come to an agreement that would see the three powers work together to
weaken, and ultimately destroy, the governments of Syria and Iran, as well as Hezbollah. Hersh
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that
are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S.
has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product
of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
To avoid detection, Washington endeavored to work through the Saudis “by leaving the execution or
the funding to” them, Hersh wrote, citing intelligence officials close to the Bush Administration.
Washington also sought to find “other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations
process” to disguise the criminal operation to arm and deploy terrorist proxies against Syria, Iran and
Hezbollah. This “redirection” policy shift saw Israel and Saudi Arabia form a strategic partnership to
curtail Iranian power. “They [Saudi Arabia and Israel] have been involved in direct talks,” Hersh
A U.S. government consultant familiar with the arrangement recounted to Hersh that the then-Saudi
ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan, told his counterparts in Washington that Riyadh had
the Islamic religious fundamentalists – Salafists, Wahhabis, etc. – under its control and would
mobilize them to “throw bombs … at Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they
continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.” One major point of the agreement was that “Israel would
be assured that its security was paramount” in the operation and that “Washington and Saudi Arabia
and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran.” The overarching game-plan, agreed upon by all
parties, was to “counteract Shiite ascendance in the region,” embodied by the Syrian-IranianHezbollah
axis. The fabulously wealthy Saudis were to act as the money-men to “provide funds and
logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria,” Hersh explained. That
was an objective, Hersh wrote, that the Israelis believed would pressure the Assad government to be
”more conciliatory and open to negotiations” with Tel Aviv.
Within the bombshell article Hersh recounted details of his interview with Hezbollah’s Secretary
General, Hassan Nasrallah. The Lebanese resistance leader told Hersh that the Israelis were
attempting to provoke “fitna,” an Arabic expression that means fragmentation and dissension within
Islam. Clearly familiar with the Yinon plan, Nasrallah said that the Zionists, more or less working
through the Bush Administration, are pushing for a re-configuration of the region which would firstly
see Iraq partitioned into three parts along Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish lines. Nasrallah’s suspicions
All of this explosive information was written in 2007, four years before Syria would be engulfed in a
civil war featuring all of the elements that Hersh outlined so clearly. The anti-Assad rebels – ISIS, alNusra
Front, Ahrar al-Sham, etc. – are almost entirely comprised of radical Wahhabis and Salafists,
backed primarily by Saudi largesse and Western military hardware, who immediately began hacking
off heads and limbs as they steam-rolled towards Damascus.
Israel’s hidden hand behind Syria’s internal woes was readily apparent from the outset. France’s
former foreign minister, Roland Dumas, let slip on a French television talk show that he had known
about a plot to spark a rebel invasion of Syria two years before it happened. Dumas related how
on a visit to Britain in 2009, British officials he had met with confessed to “preparing gunmen to
invade Syria,” asking Dumas if he was interested in influencing France to get on board with the
nefarious scheme. Dumas refused to take part in it. He further suggested that the regime-change
operation in Syria “goes way back” and was “prepared, conceived and planned” by outside forces.
“It is important to know in the region that [the Syrian regime] has an anti-Israeli stance,” Dumas told
his stunned co-panelists on the show, “and consequently everything in the region revolves around it.”
Dumas then confided that an unnamed Israeli prime minister once told him that Israel will “try to get
along with our neighbours, but we will strike those who refuse to get on with us.” In 2013,
Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, publicly affirmed that Israel has been engaged
in a conspiracy to bring about regime change in Syria and Iran. In September of that year Oren gave
an interview to the Jerusalem Post, in which he brusquely remarked that Tel Aviv “always wanted
[President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the
bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Oren delineated that,
the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to
Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had
well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we
continued to want Assad to go.
The former ambassador then hailed Israel’s newfound love affair with the fundamentalist
dictatorships of the Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE – stating that in the last
six decades there has (as of 2013) “never been a greater confluence of interest between us and
several Gulf States.” Israel and the corrupt Arab oil barons and kleptocrats now “have agreements on
Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those
opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.”
The real reason Israel is so comfortable with the head-chopping, heart-eating militant psychopaths
operating right next door is that ISIS and its Takfiri accomplices are being puppeteered by Saudi
Arabia, who, as Hersh recorded in his “redirection” reportage, pledged to safeguard Israel’s security
in the regime-change gambit in Syria. ISIS itself affirmed this on its official Twitter page, stating that
it is more interested in quarreling with “Muslims who have become infidels” than it is in confronting
Israel. Israel has indeed done everything in its power to aid the Takfiri insurgents in Syria.
Since the conflict began Israeli warplanes have attacked Syrian army outposts dozens of times. The
continuous Israeli attacks have killed scores of Syrian soldiers and allied Hezbollah fighters.
But never once have Israel’s bombs fallen on anti-Assad rebels. This is why Assad pegged Israel as
“al-Qaeda’s air force,” operating as the terror group’s air support during surges against Syrian forces.
 After an Israeli airstrike in December 2014 that hit a Syrian military outpost, commander of the
Syrian Armed Forces Lt. General Ali Abdulla Ayoub declared that the attack and others like it
“confirms Israel directly supports terrorism in Syria, in addition to the known Western and regional
countries, raising the morale of terrorist organizations, led by Jabhat al-Nusra, an arm of al-Qaida in
the Levant, and ISIS.”
In addition to periodic airstrikes in their favour, Israel has provided hospital care to anti-Assad
militants. A Vice News documentary actually filmed some militants inside an Israeli hospital, where
one wounded insurgent admitted he was a member of the “Free Syrian Army” and spoke fondly of the
“brothers” in al-Nusra Front. A December 2015 Daily Mail report noted that, “In the three years
that Israel has been running these [rescue] operations, it has saved the lives of more than 2,000
Syrians – at least 80 per cent of whom are male and of fighting age – at a cost of 50 million shekels
(£8.7 million).” The Mail further acknowledged that at least some of these men “may even be
fighters for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda.” UN observers stationed in the Golan Heights compiled a
report, published in late 2014, which documented cooperation between the Israeli army and Syrian
militants. A Jerusalem Post article on the issue reported:
The new documents show that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded
Syrian civilians in hospitals. The Syrian ambassador to the UN has long complained of a
Zionist conspiracy working with the Syrian rebels to overthrow President Bashar Assad.
Now, a report from the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) reveals that Israel
has been working closely with Syrian rebels in the Golan Heights and have kept close
contact over the past 18 months. The report was submitted to the UN Security Council at
the beginning of the month.
This and a few past reports have described transfer of unspecified supplies from Israel to
the Syrian rebels, and sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with the Syrian opposition east of
the green zone, as well as incidents when Israeli soldiers opened up the fence to allow
Syrians through who did not appear to be injured.
In a 2012 interview with the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom, a “key figure” in the Free Syrian
Army (FSA), one of the early rebel factions that took up arms against Assad, outlined in no uncertain
terms the commonality between the goals of his group and those of Israel. The man, speaking
under the alias Kamal, told the Israeli paper that the FSA and Israel share “an interest for Assad to
disappear. The Syrian people and the Israeli people only stand to benefit from this.” Courting Israeli
support for his mission to oust Assad, Kamal explained the benefits Israel will reap from Assad’s
departure: “Let him go, cut him loose. Assad’s fall will eliminate the link in the chain that ties Iran
with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Not only would you be rid of an enemy, but you would also weaken two
others.” “I fully understand the moral responsibility that the West has toward Israel after the
Holocaust,” Kamal said, insisting that if the anti-Assad opposition group came to power they would
seek to normalize relations with the Zionist regime. Giving away his pro-Zionist agenda, Kamal
opined that Bashar al-Assad “wanted to lead a nation that has been instilled with a fear of the enemy
[Israel] and has been programmed to hate. That is why the Middle East must be rid of the Assad
The FSA was initially labeled by its Western supporters as the “democratic” opposition in Syria, and
as such received huge shipments of arms, aid and financing from the U.S., Britain and France. But
from the start the FSA acted as little more than a soft PR ‘face’ for the armed opposition, a cutout that
functioned more as an arms distribution network than an actual fighting force. Western powers
helped set up the FSA for the purpose of transferring weapons and ammunition to anyone willing to
fight Assad, including the Wahabbi-Salafist extremist elements that later took control of the
insurgency, metastasizing into the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front. The “secular, democratic” veneer
of the FSA gave Western powers plausible deniability to clandestinely traffic arms to extremists and
When information started to come out exposing American support for anti-Assad rebels, no matter
their orientation or activities, some American politicians began to speak out against the policy. Some
did this sincerely but others did so in an underhanded attempt to distance the U.S. government from
the Frankenstein they helped create. Former U.S. General Thomas McInerney told a Fox News
interviewer that the U.S. government “helped build ISIS.” The retired General pointed to the
Benghazi operation in Libya where the CIA and MI6 trafficked weapons pilfered from Gaddafi’s
stockpiles to militants in Syria. U.S. Senator Rand Paul spoke out many times against the arming
of rebels. In a 2014 CNN interview, Paul said that, “we [the U.S. government] are allied with ISIS in
Syria.” The Senator said that ISIS “would not be empowered in Iraq if we hadn’t been
providing them a safe haven in Syria by arming their allies.” He added that, “we are where we are
because we armed the Syrian rebels.” Responding to criticism that he was too “weak” on the issue,
Paul said in another interview that “hawks in my party” essentially “created ISIS” by funding and
arming militant groups aligned with them in Syria.
In mid-2014 the U.S. military and political elite began trying to delegate blame onto their regional
puppets and accomplices – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – for the emergence of ISIS. In a typical
sleight of hand ploy, the establishment sought a way to deflect responsibility. Retired General Wesley
Clark postured in this direction, telling a CNN interviewer that:
ISIS got started through funding from our friends and allies. People will tell you in the
region that if you want somebody who will fight to the death against Hezbollah, you don’t
put out a recruiting poster saying ‘sign up for us we’re gonna make a better world.’ You go
after zealots and you go after these religious fundamentalists. That’s who fights Hezbollah.
It’s like a Frankenstein.
At a September 2014 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, top U.S. General Martin E.
Dempsey stated that America’s Arab Gulf allies were “funding” ISIS. “I know major Arab allies who
fund them,” Dempsey said in response to a question about the U.S.’s regional allies who embrace
ISIS. American Vice President Joe Biden himself acknowledged this, in an obvious attempt to
obscure the White House’s central role in formulating the criminal conspiracy to overthrow Assad. In
October 2014, during a speech at Harvard University, the vice president told his audience that “our
allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria.” He pointed fingers directly at Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE as the main sponsors of ISIS and al-Nusra Front, acting like
Washington had no idea this was happening. “They were so determined to take down Assad and
essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that they began pouring] hundreds of millions of dollars
and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad,” Biden said.
“Except that the people that were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist
elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” Biden then lamented that “we could not
convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.” This is, of course, only half of the story. Biden’s
“admission” was intended to conceal Washington’s hand in the carnage that has befallen Syria by
placing all of the blame on America’s underlings who cannot undertake major foreign policy
endeavours without approval from the White House and Pentagon.
A 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, released under FOIA in May 2015, flatly
contradicts Biden’s protestations of Washington’s innocence and lack of foresight into what was
brewing in Syria. The top-level report, written during the early stages of the insurgency in Syria
and widely distributed to the upper-echelons of the U.S. intelligence community, admits that the rebel
factions opposing Assad were dominated by “Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [Al Qaeda
in Iraq].” These extremist elements were, the report admits, the “major forces driving the insurgency
in Syria” from the onset of the unrest. It then acknowledges that this extremist-led opposition in Syria
was being supported by “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Astonishingly, the report then predicts
that these groups would eventually push into Iraq and declare an Islamic Caliphate straddling the
Iraqi-Syrian border. The report’s authors envision “the possibility of establishing a declared or
undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria” which is “exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want” (the “supporting powers” were listed previously as “the West, Gulf States and
Turkey”). The report states that Western powers and their regional accomplices were keen to see this
“Salafist Principality” scenario succeed “in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is consider the
strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
U.S. General Michael Flynn, the head of the DIA at the time this report was prepared, gave a
revealing interview to Al Jazeera in August of 2015 wherein he confirmed the authenticity of the
document and reinforced its stunning implications. After quoting the more illuminating parts of
the 2012 DIA document, Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan said, “The U.S. saw the ISIL Caliphate coming,
and did nothing.” Flynn tried to deflect with a convoluted answer that “more needed to be done early
on” to prevent the extremists from taking over the opposition in Syria. “But why did you allow them
to do that, General?” Hasan quipped. Flynn, becoming more candid, said, “I do believe the
intelligence [in 2012] was very clear” about the radical affiliations of the Syrian rebels. Hasan
pressed the General:
But in 2012, your Agency was saying ‘the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda
in Iraq were the major driving forces of the insurgency in Syria.’ In 2012, the U.S. was
helping coordinate arms transfer to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you
were worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?
Flynn, attempting to shirk any personal culpability, said it was not his job to stop it, but that he
“argued” with Administration officials about the policy of arming radicals in Syria. In his most frank
statement of the interview, Flynn said that the Obama Administration’s policy of arming Syrian rebels
who they absolutely knew were extremists was a “willful decision.”
The program of arming extremist Syrian rebels – Salafist jihadists who believe killing “infidels” is
their religious duty – was indeed not a mistake but deliberate Western policy. They knew that the
religious fanatics would be better, more determined fighters than the secular types. A June 2015
Washington Post report, citing secret documents obtained from NSA whistleblower Edward
Snowden, revealed that the CIA was spending upwards of $1 billion a year for the past two years to
arm, finance, train and deploy rebel mercenaries into Syria to fight Assad. The report, written
by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, states: “At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about
$1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The
Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.“ Citing their
sources in the U.S. government, the authors explained that “the CIA has trained and equipped nearly
10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending
roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.” The CIA
effort was part of a broader coalition to precipitate regime change in Syria:
The CIA declined to comment on the program or its budget. But U.S. officials defended the
scale of the expenditures, saying the money goes toward much more than salaries and
weapons and is part of a broader, multibillion-dollar effort involving Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey to bolster a coalition of militias known as the Southern Front of the Free Syrian
Army. Much of the CIA’s money goes toward running secret training camps in Jordan,
gathering intelligence to help guide the operations of agency-backed militias and managing
a sprawling logistics network used to move fighters, ammunition and weapons into the
All of this meshes well with the precision reportage of Seymour Hersh, who detailed in 2007 a Bush
Administration “redirection” policy, working in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and Israel, to counteract
“Shiite ascendancy” in the Middle East. Nothing of what we saw take place in Syria was unforeseen:
it is all part and parcel of a long-standing, meticulously planned conspiracy to usher in an IsraeliZionist
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, which supplanted the pro-Western, pro-Israel monarchy of
Shah Reza Pahlavi, Israel and its Western lackeys have been conspiring to bring down the Shiite
Islamic government in Tehran. The Islamic Revolution brought an anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist
religious nationalist regime to the forefront of Middle Eastern politics. Shortly after Ayatollah
Khomeini took over the reigns of power in Iran, the Shah’s status quo ante of silent acquiescence to
Israeli and American designs was quickly replaced with staunch ideological and financial support to
the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.
Israel fears Iran for many reasons. Iran’s large population of nearly 80 million people, all of whom
have been fully educated about the nefarious inner workings of Israel and Zionism by their
government, represents a major human force of resistance that could one day be mobilized to bring an
end to the Zionist project. Absent some massive de-Nazification-style re-education project, it will be
impossible for Israel to undo what the Khomeini regime has done in terms of reversing the ideas and
attitudes of anti-Zionism that so thoroughly permeate Iranian society.
Tel Aviv also worries about Iran’s military capacity, which is one of the most formidable in the
region. Israel endeavors to always maintain a significant military advantage over all of its
neighbours. Through its domestic American lobby, Israel has enlisted the U.S. military-intelligence
behemoth as its big brother protector who will ensure that no regional power will ever be able to
overcome Zionist domination. But as Iran grows in strength year by year – politically, military and
spiritually – the Israelis lose footing.
This is what motivated Israel’s behind-the-scenes dealings with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the
1980s. In that war, the U.S. was openly backing Saddam Hussein, while covertly organizing arms
transfers to Iran through Israel. This scheme became known as Iran-Contra. The Israeli-American
impetus behind arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq war was to weaken both countries. The aim was not
necessarily to make one side win, but to have them kill each other for as long as possible, so at the
end of it both countries would have depleted both their military capacities and manpower. Some half
a million Iraqis and a million Iranians died during the conflict, much to Israel’s liking. As Oded
Yinon gleefully expounded in his “Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”:
An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is
able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab
confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important
aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
Unfortunately for Israel, both powers survived the clash, and continued to represent a major challenge
to Israeli hegemony, which leads us to today’s subterfuges and scams. Iran is known to bankroll and
arm Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah: three of Israel’s most immediate adversaries. Bringing
down the Iranian government would deal a serious blow to those forces as well, as few other Arab or
Muslim governments support them.
Like Syria and Iraq, Iran was placed on Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ hit list after 9/11. As Wesley Clark
revealed, Iran was definitely on the list of seven countries that the Zionist-dominated Bush
Administration earmarked for regime-change post-9/11. The 2007 Seymour Hersh report cited in the
preceding section on Syria detailed the Bush regime’s “redirection” strategy, which aimed to weaken
Syria through a proxy insurgency that would then clear the way for an all-out assault on Iran.
Disrupting the Syrian-Iranian alliance would work to undermine Iran’s position and open it up to
future attack. Iran has indeed been drawn into the conflict in Syria, knowing that if Assad falls, Tehran
is next. As Hersh revealed, the Bush regime began covert operations against Iran at least as early as
Hersh’s reporting was complimented by a May 2007 ABC News report entitled “Bush Authorizes
New Covert Action Against Iran.” In that report journalists Brian Ross and Richard Esposito inform
us that, “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to
destabilize the Iranian government,” citing current and former U.S. intelligence officials. Their
investigation uncovered that the CIA began a sustained covert operation of economic sabotage against
Iran which “includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of
Iran's currency and international financial transactions.” A 2008 Seymour Hersh investigation,
published in the New Yorker under the heading “Preparing the Battlefield,” unearthed more details
about the White House’s clandestine operations against Iran:
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation
of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence,
and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four
hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are
designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve
support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations.
They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
The covert initiative also focused on support for anti-Iranian opposition groups, insurgents and
terrorists such as Jundullah, the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (MEK) and Kurdish and Baluchi
separatists. Such groups had been benefitting from American largesse and arms for years, Hersh
noted. Another ABC News report from April 2007 noted that, “A Pakistani tribal militant group
[Jundullah] responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged
and advised by American officials since 2005.” Mobilizing all opposition forces to Iran, both
internal and external, violent and non-violent, was part and parcel of Washington’s regime-change
strategy. Israel too had been providing substantial support to anti-Iranian terrorists for years. A
February 2012 NBC News report exposed Israel’s role in sponsoring the assassination of a slew of
Iranian nuclear scientists, using anti-Iranian insurgent groups as proxies. The article, headlined
“Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists,” cites U.S. intelligence officials who
confirmed that assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists “are being carried out by an Iranian
dissident group [the MEK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.” The Israelisponsored
killings have taken the lives of at least five Iranian scientists since 2007 and “have been
carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic
bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.”
All of these dirty tricks were put into effect in and around the 2005 period, as the Bush
Administration turned its guns towards Iran and Syria, having already toppled Saddam Hussein in
Iraq. Despite the intense pressure mounted against Iran by way of U.S. and Israeli sponsored
terrorism, economic sabotage and sanctions, the government in Tehran has refused to abandon its
principled support of Israel’s imperial subjects in Palestine and Lebanon. The Zionists, however,
never waver in their quest to dethrone enemies, and are constantly devising new plots. One Zionist
tactic has been to spread disinformation through the press that Iran is hot in pursuit of a nuclear
weapon. These paltry claims were refuted even by the U.S. intelligence community who produced a
National Intelligence Estimate in 2010 which determined Iran has no plans or even the capacity to
produce nuclear bombs. This WMD fear mongering, heralded loudly by Benjamin Netanyahu
and other Likudnik warmongers, is little more than a regurgitation of the putrid war propaganda about
Iraq in the run-up to that illegal invasion. The fact remains that it is Israel, not Iran, that possesses
hundreds of lethal nuclear weapons, and refuses to submit to any international inspections or
In 2009, the Brookings Institution, a neocon think-tank based in Washington, D.C., produced a
Machiavellian policy paper brainstorming ways in which the U.S. could bring about a regime-change
in Iran. The document was called “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy
Toward Iran” and was sponsored by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a wing of the
Brookings Institution that was established in 2002 and paid for by Haim Saban, the Israeli-American
media mogul who once said strengthening Israel is his main mission in life. The report’s authors, four
of whom are Jewish including the former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, summarized a
plethora of deceptive and downright criminal methods to weaken and destroy Iran. The Zionist
tacticians weighed the options and effectiveness of the following devious methods to bring about
upheaval, destabilization and ruin to Iran: economic sanctions, an overt U.S. military invasion,
manufactured provocations as a prelude to war, a foreign funded colour revolution, sponsoring
internal terrorism and armed insurgency, and a military coup. Absent any legitimate rationale for
war, the Brookings neocons advised that “it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation.” They
called for Washington to “take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would” retaliate; in
other words, goading Iran with provocations in the hopes of a reprisal that could then be seized upon
as an excuse for war. They went even further with this maniacal line of reasoning, stating:
it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without
the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method
that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change
efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could
then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
Some of the ideas in “Which Path to Persia?” had already been implemented by Israel and the U.S.
prior to publication, such as funding and arming opposition and terror groups to destabilize Iran. But
it gives us in plain language a glimpse into the bloodthirsty mindset of the Zionist criminal elite.
Written down for all to see, the document outlines all of the covert strategies and subversive tactics
that they have been using for decades to bring down governments that don’t serve their interests.
Frustrated with their failures to overturn the Iranian regime, Zionist neocons have been getting more
frantic in their war cries against the Islamic Republic and more brazen about the illicit means which
they intend to employ to bring about its downfall. In 2012, Patrick Clawson, a key member of the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) – a pro-Israel neocon think tank spawned by the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – publically called for the U.S. government to
instigate a war with Iran by way of a false-flag operation. At a WINEP conference, Clawson
reminded his neocon co-conspirators that nearly every major war in U.S. history was initiated on the
back of a false-flag operation or at the very least a ‘let it happen’ event. He cited the USS Maine
(Spanish-American war), the sinking of the Lusitania (World War I), Pearl Harbour (World War II),
the Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnam war) as examples of “war trigger” incidents that the U.S.
government either made to happen or allowed to take place in order to propel the nation into conflicts
that were otherwise unpopular with the American masses. Clawson then argued for the necessity of
another such “trigger incident” in order to fabricate a pretext for a full-blown military confrontation
So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else
started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that
explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian
submarines periodically go down, and some day one of them might not come up. Who
would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wished to increase the pressure. I’m
not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either or proposition… We are
in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.
Since the false-flag attacks of 9/11, the Zionist-Neocon conspirators succeeded in plunging the West
into wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and have further influenced Western governments to covertly
sponsor ruthless insurgencies, followed in some cases by NATO intervention, that have destabilized
and destroyed Libya, Syria and Sudan. The last domino to fall in this Zionist geopolitical war is the
Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been under assault from all directions by the usual suspects for
years, who have utilized every dirty trick in the book to harm the Persian nation. The bloodthirsty
aims of this pernicious elite, who have hijacked most Western governments, knows no bounds or
limits. If left unchecked, their increasingly bold policies may well precipitate a global war, on par
with the First and Second World Wars that left much of the planet in abject ruin.
The purpose of this work is not to cast blame or responsibility upon all Jews for the crimes and
misdeeds of some Jews. This would be no more rational than blaming all Americans for the war
crimes of the American government, or castigating all Brits for the excesses of British colonialism.
Like Brits, Americans and others, Jews too have fallen victim to the propaganda of their
dishonourable leadership. It is unfortunate to see many Jews blindly support and defend the crimes of
Israel due to their impulses towards ethnic loyalty. This is an irrational, bigoted and tribal approach
to human affairs, and as we can observe, has led to nothing but hostility and bloodshed.
There are indeed many examples of courageous Jewish individuals who have spoken out against the
evils being committed in their name. Many have been cited throughout this work, such as Benjamin
Freedman, Norman Finkelstein and Gilad Atzmon. Each year Orthodox Jews representing the Neturei
Karta sect have organized rallies across the U.S., Canada, Britain and other countries protesting
against Zionism, Israeli war crimes and the brutal occupation of Palestine.
Many individual Jews have made great contributions to historical truth and must be commended for
their efforts to awaken the masses to what has really been going on. Like non-Jews who speak out
against Zionism, Jews too have been subjected to abuse for morally opposing the actions of their
elite, and are often chastised as “self-hating Jews” and other ad-hominem smears.
Like most rational people, this author is against all forms of ethnic supremacism, and that includes
Jewish supremacism. Widespread denial of the existence of Jewish supremacism reveals the
dangerous degree of ignorance, cowardice and inhumanity that afflicts much of the human population,
particularly people in the Western world.
The Zionist inclination towards secrecy and deception is a prime cause of aversion directed at Jews
today. Attempting to cover up historical wrongs and to silence discussion of the issues raised in this
book will only cause more consternation and resentment. The total lack of introspection on the part of
Jewish chauvinists is a principal factor underlying their inability to improve their behaviour. Their
adherence to a supremacist ideology renders any possible peaceful co-existence with non-Jews
Ariel Sharon’s son, Gilad Sharon, made Zionism’s fundamentally inhuman, bellicose and bloodthirsty
precepts abundantly clear in a 2012 op-ed for the Jerusalem Post wherein he declared: “We need to
flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima
– the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.” Reflecting on that
statement, one would be foolhardy to disagree with ex-Zionist Rich Siegel’s depiction of Zionism as
a “death-crazed narcissistic cult.”
As demonstrated in previous chapters of this work, Zionists have used the embellished holocaust
story as an ideological weapon to suppress criticism of their criminal actions and exploitative agenda
in the Middle East. The mythology surrounding the holocaust and Jewish victimhood has been
indelibly etched into our collective consciousness, and as such has been employed to mobilize the
Western public behind the Zionist cause. It is utilized as a guise to mask crimes against the
Palestinians and to shift attention from historical wrongs committed by Jewish extremists and their
collaborators, such as the murder of millions in Russia and Eastern Europe under Communism and the
devastation inflicted upon the people of Germany and Japan by the Allied powers during the Second
Today’s disastrous wars in the Middle East are driven by Zionist fanaticism and ethnocentrism
embodied by the neocons who engineered these conflicts for their own selfish interests. The 9/11
terrorist attacks were most likely created by these same Zionist forces to bring about a century of
conflict between Christians and Muslims, Westerners and Middle Easterners, for the near-exclusive
benefit of Israel and the American-Zionist war machine.
The disclosure of these undeniable truths is of the utmost importance. History must be brought into
accordance with the facts; otherwise the mistakes of the past will be repeated time and again without
anyone even realizing it. If we do not speak out now, the victims of mistreatment and injustice will
never receive fair compensation for their suffering. Moreover, historical truth is an important element
in elevating human consciousness to a higher level of understanding and harmony with the universe.
An open dialogue and a free exchange of ideas is the only practical way forward, but Zionists are
doing everything in their power to prevent an unbridled discourse.
More people need to stand up and announce their opposition to the evils being committed in their
name. This madness has gone on for far too long and will continue to get worse if we allow the lies to
persist unchallenged. As George Orwell once said, “In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is
a revolutionary act.”
We must speak the truth fearlessly and without reservation.
“Controversial cartoon depicts Netanyahu as 9/11 pilot”
—UPI/Haaretz, Oct. 30, 2014
CHAPTER 1 NOTES
Petras, James F. The Power of Israel in the United States. Atlanta: Clarity, 2006, p. 14.
 Stephen Steinlight, “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography: Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy,” Center
for Immigration Studies, October 2001. https://web.archive.org/web/20060107015859/http:/www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html
 Feingold, Henry L. Jewish Power in America: Myth and Reality. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2008, p. 4.
 Petras 2006, p. 13.
 YouTube video, “Norman Finkelstein vs. James Petras”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJi7eugSRAM
 Itamar Eichner, “Israeli billionaire Saban biggest donor to US politicians,” Ynet News, Jan. 23, 2007.
 Connie Bruck, “The Influencer: An entertainment mogulsets his sights on foreign policy,” The New Yorker, May 10, 2010.
 “Sheldon Adelson Sets New US Political Donation Record: Report,” The Huffington Post/Reuters, Sept. 24, 2012.
 Rachel Delia Benaim and Lazar Berman, “Sheldon Adelson calls on US to nuke Iranian desert,” Times of Israel, Oct. 24, 2013.
 Richard A. Viguerie, “Exclusive Report from Israel: Deputy Speaker of Knesset Says ‘I don’t trust Obama,’” Conservative HQ,
Dec. 9, 2013. http://www.conservativehq.com/article/15676-exclusive-report-israel-deputy-speaker-knesset-says-%E2%80%9Ci-donttrust-obama%E2%80%9D
 McKinney said this in an interview with The Information Underground:
 “Anger over Dalyell’s ‘Jewish cabal’ slur,” The Scotsman, May 5, 2003. http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/anger-overdalyell-s-jewish-cabal-slur-1-646756
 “Helen Thomas Comes Under Fire for Remarks on Jews, Israel,” CBS News, June 7, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/helenthomas-comes-under-fire-for-remarks-on-jews-israel/
 “Wayne State ends Helen Thomas Award,” United Press International, Dec. 4, 2010.
 YouTube video, “Former CIA Officer Israel Controls U.S. Government & Media”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-SszJkjy60
 YouTube video, “Retired CIA Chief: Israelis immensely malign influence in United States”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 Joe Sobran, “‘In Our Hands,’” The Wanderer, June 13, 1996.
 Documentary video, “Burning Conscience: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3ISoJXl-jA
 Joel Stein, “Who runs Hollywood? C’mon,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 19, 2008.
 “Oliver Stone:Jewish control of the media is preventing free Holocaust debate,” Haaretz, July 26, 2010.
 YouTube video, “Marlon Brando Very Angry at Jews in Hollywood”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN17c2v2Vgk
 Nathaniel Popper, “Billionaire Boychiks Battle for Media Empire: ‘Committed Zionist’ To Buy Papers With Troubled Ties to
Community,” The Forward, April 13, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20130420022633/http://forward.com/articles/10507/billionaireboychiks-battle-for-media-empire/
 Elad Nehorai, “Jews DO control the media,” Times of Israel, July 1, 2012. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-themedia/
 Rushkoff said this in an interview for the 2005 documentary “Protocols of Zion” produced by Marc Levin. He also said that the
goal of Judaism is to destroy other religions. Levin’s biased documentary set out to debunk claims of a Zionist world conspiracy.
CHAPTER 2 NOTES
Sniegoski, Stephen J. The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of
Israel. Norfolk, VA: Enigma Editions, 2008.
 Gal Beckerman, “The Neoconservative Persuasion Examining the Jewish roots of an intellectual movement,” The Forward, Jan.
6, 2006. https://web.archive.org/web/20120304145938/http:/galbeckerman.com/crit9/
 Ari Shavit, “White man’s burden,” Haaretz, April 3, 2003.
 BBC video documentary “The War Party”: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3021001.stm
 Peter J. Boyer, “The Believer Paul Wolfowitz defends his war,” The New Yorker, Nov. 1, 2004.
 Bill Keller, “The Sunshine Warrior (Paul Wolfowitz),” The New York Times Magazine, Sept. 22, 2002.
 Eric Schmitt, “The Busy Life of Being a Lightning Rod for Bush,” New York Times, April 22, 2002.
 Stephen Green, “Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration,” Counterpunch, Feb. 28-Mar. 02, 2004.
 Zionist Organization of America News Release, Oct. 13, 1997.
 Fern Sidman, “Remembering Ze’ev Jabotinsky on his 70th Yahrtzeit,” Israel National News, Aug. 19, 2010.
 Jeffrey Goldberg, “A LITTLE LEARNING: What Douglas Feith knew, and when he knew it,” The New Yorker, May 9, 2005.
 Jim Lobe, “Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network,” Inter Press Service, Aug. 7, 2003.
 Julian Borger, “The spies who pushed for war,” The Guardian, July 17, 2003.
 Source Watch profile of Abram Shulsky: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Abram_N._Shulsky
 Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception,” AlterNet, May 18, 2003.
 The PNAC group authored a Jan. 26, 1998, letter addressed to Bill Clinton in which they advocated “removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.”
 Dick Cheney was on JINSA’s Board of Advisors before becoming vice president: http://www.rightweb.irconline.org/profile/Jewish_Institute_for_National_Security_Affairs
 Oir Nir, “Libby Played Leading Role on Foreign Policy Decisions,” The Forward, Nov. 4, 2005.
 Stephen J. Sniegoski, “The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel,” 2003. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm
 Dan Eden, “Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?” ViewZone, March 2010. http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
 The Zionist website “Jewish Virtual Library” produced a list of Jewish members of the Bush administration from 2001-2009
including their position titles: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bushjews.html
 Cathy Polakoff, “Former Bush press secretary draws hundreds,” Dallas Jewish Week, Jan. 24, 2004.
 Jewish Virtual Library’s profile of Dov Zakheim: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Zakheim.html
 Christopher Bollyn, “Controlled Press Hides Chertoff’s Israeli Roots,” Rumor Mill News, March 4, 2005.
 Robert D. Novak , “Axis of Ego,” The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
 Michael Collins Piper, “Israeli Fanatic is Mr. Bush’s ‘Brain’,” American Free Press, Feb. 14, 2005.
 Kevin MacDonald, “Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” The Occidental Quarterly.
 See note 47.
 Oded Yinon’s paper “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” was originally published in 1982 by Kivunim (Directions), the
journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. It was translated into English and edited by Israel Shahak:
 See note 47.
 Israeli historian Ilan Pappé’s book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006) is a thorough study of the
Zionists’ brutal ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine in 1948, also known as the “Nakba” (catastrophe).
 See note 47.
 Quoted by Jewish journalist Max Blumenthal in his book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel (New York: Nation,
2013). Quote reproduced in an article/video on The Real News Network entitled “Netanyahu’s Greater Israel Based on Expulsion and
Annexation - Max Blumenthal on Reality Asserts Itself pt3” (Nov. 18, 2013): http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?
 Compendium of information about the Zionists’ “Greater Israel” project:
 Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” essay (1923): http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
 Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. London: Croom Helm, 1983, ch. 10.
 “SAYS JEWS MUST CONQUER.; Dr. Wolffsohn Delivers Closing Speech at Zionist Congress.,” New York Times, Aug. 22,
 Gal Beckerman, “Yizkor for Jabotinsky: The Prophet Half-Heeded, Analysis,” The Forward, Aug. 25, 2010.
 Video documentary “To Sell a War,” CBC The Fifth Estate, Dec. 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Sell_a_War Video
viewable here: http://vimeo.com/13977975
 “Punishing Saddam,” CBS News 60 Minutes, May 12, 1996. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Raa7W0k0l34
 Akiva Eldar, “They’re jumping in head first,” Haaretz, Sept. 30, 2002.
 “Chief rabbi thanks Bush for ‘war against Iraq’,” The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 10, 2008. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Chief-rabbithanks-Bush-for-war-against-Iraq
CHAPTER 3 NOTES
See note 47.
 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” Project for the New American Century,
Sept. 2000. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
 Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, (2008), p. 146.
 Dennis Eisenberg, “Saddam link to attacks,” The Sunday Herald (Australia), Sept. 23, 2001.
 Josh Catone, “Number of Americans who believe Saddam-9/11 tie rises to 41 percent,” The Raw Story, June 24, 2007.
 YouTube video, “A chief architect of 9-11, Ehud Barak, interviewed on BBC an hour after attacks”:
 CNN transcript of Sharon/Peres statements on September 11, 2001:
 YouTube video, “BBC-Zionist pointing fingers on 911”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFxcX5XrT2E
 “Netanyahu: Designate PA ‘enemy’,” The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12, 2001.
 Transcript of Netanyahu’s speech before US House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee on Sept. 20, 2001:
 “MOSSAD CHIEF EFRAIM HALEVY IN SPEECH TO NATO: ON SEPTEMBER 11 WORLD WAR III STARTED,” Yidiot
Aharonot, June 28, 2002. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/710341/posts
 PNAC letter to President Bush (April 3, 2002):
 Kevin Toolis, “Rise of the terrorist professors,” The New Statesman, June 12, 2004.
 Power Base website’s profile of the Jonathan Institute:
 Los Angeles Times review of Netanyahu’s 1986 book Terrorism: How the West Can Win: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-
 The United States has invaded and bombed several dozen countries since World War II, causing the deaths and displacement of
untold millions of people. The U.S. has staged countless coups and sponsored innumerable brutal insurgencies on every continent on
earth. Israel has continuously waged wars against neighbouring countries since its inception in 1948, in addition to the originalsin of
ethnically cleansing most of historic Palestine of its indigenous Arab population.
 Wolfowitz interview with the San Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 23, 2002):
 See note 47.
 “Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over,” The Guardian, Oct. 14, 2001.
 “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’,” Global Research, June 6, 2006.
 Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Arnaud de Borchgrave’s exclusive September 2001 interview with Hamid Gul,” The Washington
Times, July 28, 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20101109070605/http:/www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/28/deborchgrave-sept-
 YouTube video, “CIA Talks About Bin Laden Being Trained By CIA on CNN”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 “What’s this ‘nineleven’ you conquered us for?” Russia Today, Sept. 9, 2011. http://rt.com/news/911-afghans-al-qaeda-taliban-
 George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’,” BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001.
 “U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida White House given plan days before Sept. 11,” MSNBC/NBC News, May 16, 2002.
 Rebecca Leung, “Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?” CBS News 60 Minutes, Jan. 9, 2004.
 See note 47.
 See note 101.
 YouTube video, “Former head of ISI: 911 ‘Inside Job’ by Zionists and Neocons”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Lbmb0-
 “Osama-Berlusconi?” Corriere della Sera, Nov. 30, 2007.
 Christopher Bollyn, “Intel Expert Says 9-11 Looks Like A Hollywood Show,” American Free Press, March 22, 2004.
 Dr. Alan Sabrosky made the remarks in a March 14, 2010, interview with The Ugly Truth radio host Mark Glenn:
 “Ahmadinejad espouses 9/11 truther theory,” CBS News, Sept. 22, 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmadinejad-espouses-
 “Interview with Osama bin Laden. Denies his Involvement in 9/11,” Global Research, May 9, 2011.
 Christopher Bollyn, “What Does Bin Laden Really Want?” American Free Press, Oct. 11, 2001.
CHAPTER 4 NOTES
See note 47.
 James Bennet, “A DAY OF TERROR: THE ISRAELIS; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer,” New
York Times, Sept. 12, 2001. http://web.archive.org/web/20101113223254/http:/www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilledblood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html
 “Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel,” Haaretz/Reuters, April 16, 2008.
 Aluf Benn, “Israelstrives to import America’s war on terror,” Haaretz, Dec. 18, 2001. (Haaretz later changed the original
wording of the text, removing the term “Hanukkah miracle” and replacing it with “granted Israel an advantage”)
1.77658 The original unaltered text is archived here: http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg01134.html
 Sylvain Cypel, “An unconditional withdrawal from the territories is urgently needed,” Le Monde, Dec. 22, 2001.
 Alan Philps, “Lost sympathy worries Arafat,” The Telegraph, Sept. 13, 2001.
 George Friedman, “The Big Winner Today, Intended Or Not, Is The State Of Israel,” STRATFOR, Sept. 11, 2001.
 YouTube video, “Efraim Halevy interviewed by Peter Klein on The Standard - Part 1”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 Clyde Haberman, “Hundreds of Jews gather to honor Hebron killer,” New York Times, April 1, 1994.
 Scott Kraft, “Extremists Pay Tribute to Killer of 48 at Funeral,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 28, 1994.
 Jonah Mandel, “Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews,” The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 18, 2010.
 “More than 800,000 attend Jerusalem funeral for Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Oct. 8, 2013.
 “Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs,” BBC News, April 10, 2001.
CHAPTER 5 NOTES
Michael Evans relayed his conversation with Harel in a 2004 interview with Deborah Caldwell of the Christian Zionist website Belief
 BBC documentary video, “Age of Terror”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hf1OhxMoiY
 . “Egypt questions Israel’s tribute to ‘spies’,” Ynet News/Reuters, March 4, 2005.
 Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defense College, August 8, 1982:
 Joseph Sobran, “Did Israel deliberately allow 241 American Marines to die?”
 “German TV exposes CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing,” World Socialist Web Site, Aug. 27, 1998.
 Ostrovsky, Victor, and Claire Hoy. By Way of Deception. New York: St. Martin’s, 1990.
 Eli Lake, “Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties,” New York Sun, March 14, 2008.
 Ralph Blumenthal, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” New York Times, Oct. 28, 1993.
 Ralph Schoenman “Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993: Growing Evidence Points to Role of FBI Operative,”
Prevailing Winds Magazine, Number 3, 1993. http://web.archive.org/web/20130420014926/http:/takingaimradio.com/articles/wtc93.html
 Michael Collins Piper, “Mossad Link to First WTC Bombing Raises Eyebrows,” American Free Press, Aug. 16, 2001.
 “Early Warning,” Time Magazine, March 22, 1993.
 Martin McLaughlin, “Questions mount in Kenya, Tanzania bombings US government, Israeli intelligence had advance warning,”
World Socialist Web Site, Aug. 13, 1998. https://web.archive.org/web/20000620103509/http:/www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomba13.shtml
 Warren Hough, “ZionistsTarget Iran,” The Spotlight, 1998. http://tinyurl.com/m52zfac
 “Rescue gives hope to those still trapped,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Associated Press, Aug. 10, 1998.
 JAMES C. McKINLEY, JR., “Bombing Toll Rises as Rescue Effort in Nairobi Intensifies,” New York Times, Aug. 9, 1998.
 Ralph Schoenman,“RESIST U.S. AGGRESSION! Who Are the Real Terrorists?”
 George Pumphrey, “US Embassy bombings in East Africa (1998),” Global Research, Dec. 22, 2002.
 See note 101.
 YouTube video, “Exploding Middle East Myths”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5OpnnYQjww
CHAPTER 6 NOTES
“U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study,” The Washington Times, Sept. 10, 2001.
 David Wastell and Philip Jacobson, “Israelisecurity issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks,” The Telegraph,
Sept. 15, 2001.
 Fox News series on Israeli espionage ring connected with Sept. 11 attacks (Dec. 24, 2001): http://cryptome.org/fox-il-spy.htm
 Christopher Ketcham, “The Israeli ‘art student’ mystery,” Salon, May 7, 2002.
 DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN, “AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE INVESTIGATION; BIN LADEN TIE CITED,”
New York Times, Sept. 13, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html
 Paulo Lima, “Five men detained as suspected conspirators,” Bergen County Record, Sept. 12, 2001.
 “The White Van Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?” ABC News 20/20, June 24, 2002.
 YouTube videos, “Cheering Israelis,Were they Tracking Hijackers pre 9/11 1/2” and “Cheering Israelis,Were they Tracking
Hijackers pre 9/11 ½”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98u5K448WQc & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3t9pkF31wo
 FBI reports concerning the five dancing Israelis released through FOIA request:
 See note 175.
 YouTube video, “WeAreChangeLA debriefs CIA Case Officer Robert Baer about apparent Mossad and White House 9/11
 Christopher Ketcham, “High-Fivers and Art Student Spies What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks?”
Counterpunch, March 7, 2007. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israeli_spies_911.html
 “Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001,” Sunday Herald (Scotland),
Nov. 2, 2003. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/11/SundayHerald_021103.html
 See note 171.
 See note 180.
 Christopher Bollyn, “Michael Chertoff’s Childhood in Israel,” Oct. 26, 2007. http://www.bollyn.com/michael-chertoffs-childhoodin-israel
 Meryl Chertoff’s Huffington Post profile says she “served on the Board of the Anti-Defamation League on New Jersey, and
chaired it civil rights committee.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meryl-chertoff/
 YouTube video shows collection of mainstream media clips of celebrating Palestinians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 “Car bomb found on George Washington Bridge,” The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12, 2001. (Shortly after publishing the report the
Jerusalem Post quickly removed scrubbed it from their website) http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/jpost.html
 YouTube video, “Israeli Truck Bombs On 9/11”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDqNLrOd_SY
 YouTube video, “9/11 Truck Bombs Found On George Washington Bridge - CBS News Report”:
 See note 188.
 “Exclusive: 911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11 (Part 2): Tapes Released For First Time,” WNBC, June 17, 2002.
 YouTube video, “9-11 Mural Van Confirmation”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb2e9Xiq0y0
 “Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks,” Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface
Transportation Policy Studies (MTI), Sept. 2003, p. 20. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/02-06.pdf
 “America’s day of terror: Timeline,” BBC News, Sept. 12, 2001.
 “World shock over U.S. attacks,” CNN, Sept. 11, 2001.
 See note 20.
 Joel Greenberg, “8 Palestinians and an Israeli Settler Killed in a Surge of Violence,” New York Times, Sept. 13, 2001.
 “Israel ‘faked al-Qaeda presence’,” BBC News, Dec. 8, 2002.
 Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, “From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad: Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan
Education Efforts,” The Washington Post, March 23, 2002. http://www.globalissues.org/article/430/from-us-the-abcs-of-jihad
 “New arrest warrants issued in terrorism probe,” CNN, Sept. 17, 2001.
 WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM, “Kerik Loan Activity Is Brought to Light After Indictment,” New York Times, Nov. 24, 2007.
 JOHN MARZULLI, “KERIK PLANS MISSION TO ISRAEL,” NY Daily News, Aug. 26, 2001.
 Steve Levin, “Flight 93 victims’ effects to go back to families,” The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dec. 30, 2001.
 “Koran and plane video found in flight bag,” The Telegraph, Sept. 12, 2001. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340285/Koranand-plane-video-found-in-flight-bag.html
 Michael Dorman, “An untold story of 9/11,” Newsday, April 17, 2006.
 “Two Brothers among Hijackers: CNN Report,” People’s Daily, Sept. 13, 2001.
 “Evidence trails lead to Florida,” BBC News, Sept. 13, 2001.
 “Feds think they’ve identified some hijackers,” CNN, Sept. 13, 2001.
 Naftali Bendavid, “Officials scour U.S. for clues Hijack suspects received flight training in Florida,” The Baltimore Sun, Sept. 13,
 Joshua Blakeney, “Israel, 9/11 and Jonathan Kay,” Veterans Today, July 13, 2011.
 Kevin Fagan, “Agents of terror leave their mark on Sin City / Las Vegas workers recall the men they can’t forget,” San
Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2001. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Agents-of-terror-leave-their-mark-on-Sin-City-2873407.php
 See note 213.
 “Manager: Men spewed anti-American sentiments,” USA Today, Sept. 14, 2001.
 Hopsicker, Daniel. Welcome to TerrorLand: Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida. Eugene, Or.: MadCow, 2004.
 Paul Thompson, “The Two Jarrahs,” Sept. 9, 2002. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/essayjarrah.html
 Sheila MacVicar and Caroline Faraj, “September 11 hijacker questioned in January 2001 / Sources: CIA was interested in his
travels in Afghanistan,” CNN, Aug. 1, 2002.
 See note 220.
 Robert F. Worth, “Lebanese in Shock Over Arrest of an Accused Spy,” New York Times, Feb. 18, 2009.
 Michael Collins Piper, “Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers,” American Free Press, March 2009.
 “Who Did It? FBI Links Names to Terror Attacks,” ABC News, Sept. 22, 2004.
 “Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well,” BBC News, Sept. 23, 2001.
 Daniel Sieberg, “Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs,” CNN, Sept. 21, 2001.
 See note 220.
 Elizabeth Neuffer, “Hijack suspect lived a life, or a lie,” Boston Globe, Sept. 25, 2001.
 “Gordon Thomas, Mossad expert, on Dubaigate,” Euro News, March 15, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 “Israel to probe assassination attempt in Jordan,” CNN, Oct. 6, 1997.
 David Fickling, “’Mossad spies’ jailed over New Zealand passport fraud,” The Guardian, July 16, 2004.
 Gordon Rayner and Martin Evans, “Arrest head of Mossad, Dubai police chief says,” The Telegraph, Feb. 18, 2010.
 Christopher Ketcham, “The Israeli ‘art student’ mystery,” Salon, May 7, 2002. http://www.salon.com/2002/05/07/students/
 Keith Phucus, “Sept. 11 riddles remain,” Times Herald, Aug. 29, 2005.
 Wayne Madsen, “Mossad ran 9/11 Arab “hijacker” terrorist operation,” Wayne Madsen Report, Jan. 27, 2011.
 Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, May 4, 2002.
 Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail Of Hijackers,” Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001.
 “Clueless Super-Pilot Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Dropout Who Never Flew a Jet,” 911 Research.
 Paul Sperry, “Friends think Flight 11 Israeli was ‘executed’ Daniel Lewin, named in FAA shooting memo, was officer in elite unit
of Jewish state’s military,” World Net Daily, Jan. 3, 2002. http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/12989/
 Eytan Avriel and Rotem Starkman, “Ezra Harel dies of heart attack,” Haaretz, Nov. 26, 2003. http://www.haaretz.com/print-
 Anton Chaitkin, “A Bigger Scandal: Illegal U.S. Funding of Sharon’s Likud,” Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 24, 2003.
 Christopher Bollyn, “The Bloody Reign of Ehud Olmert and His Ties To 9/11,” Rumor Mill News, June 18, 2006.
 Robyn Rosen, “Million Jews aid Mossad says writer on Radio 4,” The Jewish Chronicle, Feb. 25, 2010.
 Chris Hughes, “Israel’s Global Hit Squads,” The Daily Mirror, Dec. 5, 2011.
 “Asbestos in the WTC: Towers’ Destruction ‘Solved’Asbestos Problem,” 911 Research.
 Sara Leibovich-Dar, “Up in Smoke,” Haaretz.
 David Yerushalmi, “RESURRECTION,” IASPS.
 YouTube video, “Where was Larry Silverstein on 9/11?”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM
 Matthew Kaminski, “The Man Who Is Rebuilding Ground Zero,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2010.
 Tom McGeveran, “Mike Sees City Taking Control At Ground Zero,” New York Observer, March 13, 2003.
 Herb Keinon, “Frank Lowy: From Hagana to $3.8 billion magnate,” The Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2006.
 “The quiet benefactor: Lowy’s close ties with Israel,” Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 29, 2008.
 Bob Feldman, “The Republican Jewish Coalition and the pro-Israel Lobby,” The Electronic Intifada, Feb. 21, 2005.
 “Green Acres,” New York Press, Feb. 8, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20120702215919/http://nypress.com/green-acres/
 Michael Massing, “Deal Breakers,” American Prospect Magazine, March 2002.
 Lynn Kroll’s ZoomInfo page: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Lynn-Kroll/2912680
 Christopher Bollyn, “The Key Players of 911: Who Is Jerome Hauer?” Jan. 26, 2008. http://rense.com/general80/key.htm
 YouTube video, “The 9-11 Solution -How the myth was sold”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GDa-L4hHHo
 Greer Fay Cashman, “Five Israeli victims remembered in capital,” The Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12, 2002.
 Yuval Dror, “Odigo says workers were warned of attack,” Haaretz, Sept. 26, 2001.
 “Instant Messages to Israel Warned of WTC Attack,” The Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2001.
 “A Different Kind of Training What New Agents Learn from the Holocaust,” FBI official website, March 30, 2010.
 “ADL and Law Enforcement: Fighting Terror before 9/11 and Beyond,” ADL official website, Aug. 24, 2011.
 Michael Collins Piper, “ADL spying exposed nationally,” The Spotlight, April 1993.
 Aaronson, Trevor. The Terror Factory inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism. Ig Publishing: Brooklyn, NY, 2013.
 “Nahum A. Bernstein FBI File,” The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy: The Israel Lobby Archive.
 “Former CIA Director Reaffirms United States’ ‘Strategic Relationship’ With Israel In Fight Against Terrorism,” ADL official
website, Oct. 7, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20110213145508/http:/www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5368_00.htm
 “CIA Director Tells ADL He Will Not Tolerate Anti-Semitism at Intelligence Agency,” ADL official website, April 14, 1999.
 YouTube video, “U.S. Army & CIA - 9/11 Commission A Cover Up From Top To Bottom”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
 Satyam Khanna, “Shenon: Zelikow Designed Bush Administration’s Pre-Emptive War Doctrine In 2002,” Think Progress,
March 10, 2008. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2008/03/10/20180/zelikow-shenon/
 Philip Zelikow, “Thinking About Political History,” Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, p.5.
 Philip Zelikow, Ashton Carter and John Deutch, “Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger,” Journal Article, Foreign
Affairs, volume 77, issue 6, pp. 80-94, November / December 1998.
 Emad Mekay, “IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser,” Inter Press Service, March 29, 2004.
CHAPTER 7 NOTES
See note 158.
 Robert Mackey, “Wikipedia Editing for Zionists,” New York Times (The Lede), Aug. 20, 2010.
 “Biased Wikipedia editing in Israel raises concerns of political meddling,” France 24, June 17, 2013.
 “Israel to pay students to defend it online,” USA Today/Associated Press, Aug. 14, 2013.
 See note 293.
 Alison Weir, “NY Times headline reverses chronology, story leaves out important information,” The Council for the National
Interest, Oct. 8, 2012. http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/mediabias/item/2030-ny-times-headline-reverses-chronologystory-leaves-out-important-information
 Ashley Rindsberg, “Judaism at the New York Times,” The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 17, 2012.
 John Mersheimer and Stephen Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” London Review of Books, Vol. 28, No. 6 · 23, March 2006, pp. 3-12.
 “Inquiry exposes massive Israeli media manipulation campaign in US,” Russia Today, Aug. 19, 2010. http://rt.com/usa/israeli-usmedia-manipulation/
 Simon Rocker, “Top journalist defends Mail over Miliband article,” The Jewish Chronicle, Oct. 4, 2013.
 Alex Brummer, “My father, like Ed Miliband’s, was a Jewish refugee from the Nazis,” The Daily Mail, Oct. 4, 2013.
 Amena Saleem, “BBC editor urged colleagues to downplay Israel’s siege of Gaza,” The Electronic Intifada, Aug. 30, 2013.
 Nureddin Sabir, “Arch-Zionist gets top BBC strategy job,” Redress Information & Analysis, Feb. 16, 2013.
 Thomas, Gordon, and Martin Dillon. Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul. New
York: Carroll and Graf, 2002.
 See note 215.
 “Rupert Murdoch’s televised statements on Israel,” 15 Minutes Magazine, Issue 35, April, 2002.
 Jonathan Mark, “Murdoch’s News: Fighting ‘Fair’ For Israel,” The Jewish Week, Nov. 26, 2004.
 Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal, (2008), p. 88.
 “Rupert Murdoch Praises His PR Exec Howard Rubenstein,” 15 Minutes Magazine, Issue 26, July 1, 2001.
 Natasha Mozgovaya, “Accepting ADL award, Murdoch decries ‘ongoing war against Jews’,” Haaretz, Oct. 14, 2010.
 See note 311.
 Richard H. Curtiss, “Rupert Murdoch and William Kristol: Using the Press to Advance Israel’s Interests,” Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs, June 2003, pp. 24-26. http://www.wrmea.org/archives/251-washington-report-archives-2000-2005/june-
 Bill Schiller, “Aspers flex their media muscle,” Toronto Star, Dec. 23, 2001.
 Terry Weber, “CanWest founder Asper dies,” The Globe and Mail, Oct. 7, 2003.
 I.H. Asper profile, The Jewish Foundation of Manitoba (Sept. 29, 1999):
 Marc Edge, “The Asper Slam on News Media,” The Tyee, Nov. 23, 2007.
 See note 215.
 Sheri Shefa, “Cancer survivor can relate to disabled Israeli vets,” The Canadian Jewish News, Sept. 16, 2013.
 YouTube video, “It’s a trick we always use it”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqJH1KXlPs
 Joshua Blakeney, “Christopher Hitchens, a warmonger gets cancer as babies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and soon Iran,” The
Canadian Charger, Aug. 13, 2010. http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=535
CHAPTER 8 NOTES
Finkelstein, Norman G. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. London: VERSO, 2000, p. 3.
 See note 327.
 Finkelstein 2000, p. 19.
 Finkelstein 2000, p. 75.
 Finkelstein 2000, p. 3.
 “‘Mossad major player in Kennedy killing’,” Press TV, Nov. 25, 2013. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/25/336583/mossadmajor-player-in-kennedy-killing/
 See note 29.
 See note 31.
 See note 34.
 See note 38.
 YouTube video, “Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Holocaust”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47xf0W5-2CQ
 Heddesheimer, Don. The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims during and after World
War One. Chicago, IL: Theses & Dissertations, 2003. http://vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th Edition, Vol. 25, 1902, page 482. A facsimile of the article can be viewed here:
 “Dr. Paul Nathan’s View of Russian Massacre,” New York Times, March 25, 1906. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archivefree/pdf?res=9A00E7DE113EE733A25756C2A9659C946797D6CF
 Blogger Winston Smith Ministry of Truth produced a facsimile of page 254 of Ben Hecht’s book Perfidy containing Max
Nordau’s miraculous prediction: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/03/1911-zionist-warns-6000000-jews-to-be.html
 “Appeal For Aid For Jews,” New York Times, Dec. 2, 1914. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 “Jews’ Indifference to War Aid Rebuked,” New York Times, Jan. 14, 1915. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 Martin H. Glynn, “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop,” The American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919. A facsimile of the article is
reproduced here: http://jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The%20Crucifixion%20of%20Jews%20Must%20Stop.htm
 “Ukrainian Jews Aim To Stop Pogroms,” New York Times, Sept. 8, 1919. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 “Begs America Save 6,000,000 In Russia,” New York Times, July 20, 1921. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 Weizmann’s statement was quoted in the Israeli Government Year Book (1953) as well as The Jewish Western Bulletin (Dec.
11, 1936). Facsimiles of both clippings are reproduced here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/6000000-figure-ofjews-from-1936.html
 “Americans Appeal For Jewish Refuge,” New York Times, May 31, 1936. A facsimile of the article can be found here:
 “Persecuted Jews Seen on Increase,” New York Times, Jan. 9, 1938. A facsimile of the article is here: http://exposing-theholocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/2009/10/9-months-before-kristalnacht-7-years.html
 “Doom of European Jews is Seen if Hitler Wins,” The Palm Beach Post, June 25, 1940. Other articles mentioning Goldmann’s
prediction can be found here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2013/12/nahum-goldmann-soothsaying-six.html
 The Pittsburgh Press, Nov. 28, 1944, p.5 / The Palestine Post, Nov. 28, 1944. Facsimiles of these articles can be found here:
 “Wolves they were—wolves they remain,” Soviet News Weekly (London), March 15, 1945. A facsimile of this and other articles
where Ehrenburg invokes the bogus six million number prior to the end of the war can be found here:
 Heddesheimer 2003, preface.
 Blogger “Winston Smith Ministry of Truth” compiled a list of 256 references to the six million number in various publications from
1900 to 1945: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/02/145-references-to-6000000-jews-prior-to.html
 “ZIONISTS’ MASS MEETING,” New York Times, June 11, 1900. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 Swiss revisionist historian Jürgen Graf produced a devastating critique of Raul Hilberg’s text The Destruction of the European
Jews. Graf’s book The Giant With Feet of Clay is available online here: http://vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/
 University of Minnesota, Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial:
 Dr. Robert Faurisson, “Auschwitz the Dwindling Death Toll: How Many Deaths at Auschwitz?” Historical Revisionism –
International and Independent Scientific Historical Research, (2003), pp. 17-23. http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Faurisson17-23.html
 P. Samuel Foner, The Spotlight: http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm
 See note 365.
 “1.7 million Jews killed at Majdanek, says Lipstadt,” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, Oct. 13, 2013.
 “The convicted fraudster & the Majdanek death camp,” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, Feb. 10, 2011.
 Encyclopaedia Britannica: A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 10, 1963, p. 288.
 Deborah E. Lipstadt, “Simon Wiesenthal and the Ethics of History,” Jewish Review of Books, No. 4, Winter 2011.
 DD Guttenplan, “The war on truth,” The Guardian, March 12, 2001.
 “The Kabbalah, gematria, Jewish Magic & the Holocaust’s sacred 6,000,000,” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, June 10, 2010.
 “Memory of Holocaust central to new world order,” Toronto Star, Nov. 26, 1991.
 “New World Order Pledged to Jews,” New York Times, Oct. 6, 1940. A facsimile of the article is here:
 “Ben-gurion Foresees Gradual Democratization of the Soviet Union,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jan. 4, 1962.
 “ISRAEL: The Watchman,” Time Magazine, Aug. 16, 1948. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,798932,00.html
CHAPTER 9 NOTES
A detailed study of the Haavara/Transfer agreement can be found in The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black and The Secret
Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 by Klaus Polkehn.
 Mark Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 4), pages 29-
 Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 254. A facsimile of this page is here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/zionist-aimto-drive-jews-from-europe.html
 The Daily Express (London), March 24, 1933, pp. 1-2. A facsimile of the front page of the paper and full text of the relevant
article is here: http://www.biblestudysite.com/judeawar.htm
 Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Histoire de l’Armée Allemande, Vol. IV, p. 303. http://guardian.150m.com/jews/jews-declare-war.htm
 Dr. M. RaphaelJohnson, “The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933,” The Barnes
Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
 Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! Newark, NJ: Argyle, 1941. https://archive.org/details/GermanyMustPerish
 “’Hitler Will Be Nothing But a Rosebud’ Says the Author of ‘Germany Must Perish,’” The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, Sept.
26, 1941. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rPJOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gkwDAAAAIBAJ&dq=theodore
 “Jews To Fight for Democracies: Dr. Weizmann’s Letter to Mr. Chamberlain,” The Times (London), Sept. 6, 1939. A facsimile
of the article is available here: http://oi44.tinypic.com/ege6v6.jpg
 The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol. 1, pp. 83-84. Facsimiles of these pages are here:
 Irving, David John Cawdell. Churchill’s War. Bullsbrook, W.A., Australia: Veritas Pub., 1987, p. 134.
 “Text of Untermyer’s Address,” New York Times, Aug. 7, 1933. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/1933-
 “As Religion Sees It,” The Pittsburgh Press, Nov. 20, 1938. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/07/1938-
 Douglas Reed, Lest We Forget, p. 238. A facsimile of this page is here:
 William Zukerman, “Zionism in Nazi-Land,” The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, Aug. 9, 1935.
 Waton, Harry. A Program for the Jews. Brooklyn, NY: Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, 1938, p. 54.
 Ibid, pp. 99-100.
 Ibid, p. 148.
 Judische Rundschau (Jewish Review), Jan. 16, 1920. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2013/03/internationaljewry-is-power-after-all.html
 “Says Jews Will Back League,” New York Times, Aug. 28, 1922. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 Robert John, “Behind the Balfour Declaration,” Institute for Historical Review. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html
 Transcript of Sept. 10, 1941, letter from Chaim Weizmann to Winston Churchill that asserts “the Jews” helped bring the U.S. into
World War I on Britain’s side, and would be keen to do it again:
 “Books of The Times; The Official Churchill in One Volume,” New York Times, Nov. 6, 1991.
 “Churchill Honored by Zionists,” The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 25, 1964.
 Catrina Stewart, “Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero,” The Independent, Nov. 3, 2012.
 Transcript of Benjamin Freedman’s 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.:
CHAPTER 10 NOTES
“The Zionist Plan for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question,” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, Feb. 4, 2011.
 “Final Solution of the Canadian-Japanese problem,” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, July 18, 2011.
 See note 390.
 See note 390.
 Bacque, James. Other Losses: The Shocking Truth behind the Mass Deaths of Disarmed German Soldiers and Civilians
under General Eisenhower’s Command. Rocklin, CA: Prima Pub., 1991.
 Bacque, James. Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950. Toronto: Little,
Brown and (Canada), 1997.
 Sack, John. An Eye for An Eye: The Story of Jews Who Sought Revenge for the Holocaust. New York, NY: Basic, 1993.
 Eric Westervelt, “Silence Broken On Red Army Rapes In Germany,” NPR, July 17, 2009.
 Mark Weber, “The Strange Life of Ilya Ehrenburg,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pp. 507-
 Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two,” Institute for Historical Review.
 “OK, we lied about Katyn, but we told the truth about Auschwitz ... honest!” Winston Smith Ministry of Truth, Jan. 14, 2012.
 Carlton, David. Churchill and the Soviet Union. Manchester, England: Manchester UP, 2000, p. 105.
 Rees, Laurence. World War II behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West. New York: Pantheon, 2008. pp. 243–
 “US ‘hushed up’ Soviet guilt over Katyn,” BBC News, Sept. 11, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19552745
 Tolstoy, Nikolai. Stalin’s Secret War. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1982.
 Charles Lutton, “Stalin’s War: Victims and Accomplices,” The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 84-94.
CHAPTER 11 NOTES
Encyclopaedia Judaica entry on “Communism”: http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2587504545/communism.html
 Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography, p. 112.
 Baron, Salo W. The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets. New York: Macmillan, 1976., p.180.
 The Ogden Examiner, Aug. 11, 1918, p.24. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2012/06/jewish-priority-ofbolsheviki.html
 J.V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 13, 1952. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm
 Hunterberg, Max. Tragedy of the Ages; Anti-Semitism, the Root, Cause, and Cure. New York: Association, 1937, p.144.
 Federal Communications Commission Reports, Decisions and reports of the Federal Communications Commission of the
US, p. 211. Facsimiles of these quotes can be found here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/anti-communism-isanti-semitism.html
 Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb.
8, 1920. A facsimile of the article is available here: http://www.patriot.dk/churchill.html
 Reed, Douglas. The Controversy of Zion. Durban, Natal, South Africa: Dolphin, 1978, pp. 192-193.
 Wilton, Robert. The Last Days of the Romanovs. New York: George H. Doran, 1920, p. 184.
 British White Paper on Bolshevism, Russia No.1, A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia (1919). A facsimile of the
report is available here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/07/1919-british-report-on-jewish.html
 Palm Beach Daily News, Feb. 3, 1949. http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-do-you-think-financedlenin-stalin.html
 The Jewish Communal Register of New York City (1917-1918), Kehillah Jewish Community of New York City, p. 1019. A
facsimile can be found here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/08/even-more-proof-jacob-schiff-financed.html
 “Untermyer Joins Protest On Root,” New York Times, May 4, 1917. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 “Warning to New Russia,” New York Times, May 11, 1917. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 B.C. Forbes, Men Who Are Making America, p. 334: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/07/jacob-schiffmoses-of-bolshevism.html
 Lina, Jüri. Under the Sign of the Scorpion: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire. Stockholm: Referent Pub., 1998, pp. 106-
 Harun Yahya, Communism in Ambush, pp. 45-48: http://tinyurl.com/84n54df
 Western Gazette, Sept. 30, 1921, p.12. A facsimile of the article is here:
 Schapiro, Leonard Bertram. Russian Studies. Penguin Books, 1988, p. 286. http://tinyurl.com/lqj9mjx
 The Atlantic, Volume 268, Sept. 1991. http://tinyurl.com/pfrxkhc
 “South Russian Jews Raise Strong Army,” New York Times, Dec. 20, 1922. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
 “Foreign News: The Trail of Lenin,” Time Magazine, Feb. 11, 1924.
 British White Paper on Bolshevism, 1919, p. 99.
 Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin, Richard Pipes, David Brandenberger, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive.
 M. Kumar, Dictionary of Quotations, p. 241.
 Eric Margolis, “Remembering Ukraine’s Unknown Holocaust,” The Toronto Sun, December 13, 1998.
 Eric Margolis, “Seven million died in the ‘forgotten’ holocaust,” The Toronto Sun, 2003.
 Vladimir Matveyev, “Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 15, 2009.
 “Israeli President advises Ukraine to forget history,” BBC News, Nov. 25, 2010.
 “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 19, 2013.
 Sever Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews,” Ynet News, Dec. 21, 2006.
CHAPTER 12 NOTES
 MacDonald, Kevin. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century
Intellectual and Political Movements. Authorhouse; 2nd edition (2002), pp. 155-156. http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf
 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (2002).
 “The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan - The Genocide of the Peoples of Europe,” Identità, Jan. 2013. http://golden-dawn-internationalnewsroom.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-genocide-of.html
 “Jews Participate in Pan-europe Congress Sessions in Vienna,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Oct. 5, 1926.
 Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard. Practical Idealism. PANEUROPA – VERLAG (1925), pp. 20, 23, 50.
 Kalergi, Practical Idealism (1925).
 Livingstone, David. Transhumanism: The History of a Dangerous Idea. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, July
2015, pg. 128. https://goo.gl/8TxaQB
 Freemasonry: Ideology, Organization and Policy. 6th edition, Berlin: Central Publishing House, NSDAP, 1944. http://derstuermer.org/freemasonryen.htm
 Bolton, Kerry. Babel Inc. (Kindle Edition), Black House Publishing, 2013.
 Zangwill’s Wikipedia page, under “Writings”.
 Sacks, Jonathan. The Home We build Together. Continium Books, 2007, P. 26.
 Bolton, Babel Inc.
 Zangwill’s Wikipedia page, under “Jewish Politics” section.
 Quoted by Wikipedia, cited in Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882–1948 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 271.
 George Soros, “Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, Sept. 26, 2015.
 Nick Hallett, “Soros Admits Involvement In Migrant Crisis: ‘National Borders Are The Obstacle’,” Breitbart, Nov. 2, 2015.
 Brian Wheeler, “EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief,” BBC News, June 21, 2012.
 “Nicolas Sarkozy declares multiculturalism had failed,” The Telegraph , Feb. 11, 2011.
 “Immigration policy 'hasn't worked so far', says David Cameron,” BBC News, Oct. 6, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/ukpolitics-34453674
 “Germany on course to accept one million refugees in 2015,” The Guardian, Dec. 8, 2015.
 Michael Kaplan, “Syria Refugee Crisis: Germany To Expect 1.5M Asylum Seekers In 2015, As Merkel's Support Suffers,”
IBTimes, Oct. 5, 2015. http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-refugee-crisis-germany-expect-15m-asylum-seekers-2015-merkels-support-suffers-
 Gamal Nkrumah, “Sarkozy accused of working for Israeli intelligence,” Al Ahram Weekly, Nov. 3, 2007.
 “Labour 'sent out search parties for immigrants', Lord Mandelson admits,” The Telegraph, May 14, 2013.
 “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser,” The Telegraph, Oct. 23, 2009.
 “Israel Bars “Refugees,” Builds Wall—While Jews Support “Refugee” Invasion of Europe,” The New Observer, Sept. 7, 2015.
 “IsraAID sends team to help refugees in Europe,” Israel21c, Sept. 3, 2015. http://www.israel21c.org/israaid-sending-team-tohelp-refugees-in-europe/
 “Netanyahu at Jordan fence launch: Israel must have control over all its borders,” Jerusalem Post, Sept. 6, 2015.
 “Netanyahu:Jordan border wall to keep out 'predators',” AlJazeera, Feb. 10, 2016.
 “'Islamization of Europe a good thing',” Ynet News, Nov. 11, 2012. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4299673,00.html
 “Op-Ed: Why Aren’t Palestinians Joining The Rush To Europe?” Israel National News, Sept. 16, 2015.
 “Abolish the White Race,” Harvard Magazine, September-October 2002. http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/09/abolish-the-whiterace.html
 “Abolish the White Race - By Any Means Necessary,” Race Traitor no. 1 (Winter 1993). http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html
 See note 544.
 David Rothkopf, “The End of an Era … for White Males,” Foreign Policy Magazine, January 25, 2016.
 Gideon Rachman, “Mass migration into Europe is unstoppable,” Financial Times, Jan. 11, 2016.
 “LUCK HELPS GIDEON TO SUMMIT OF JOURNALISM,” The Jewish Telegraph, 2012.
 “Far-right settler rabbi: Paris attacks are payback for the Holocaust,”
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 15, 2015. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Far-right-settler-rabbi-Paris-attacks-are-payback-for-the-Holocaust-
 “Netanyahu responds to Paris terror: 'An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us',” Jerusalem Post, Nov. 14, 2015.
 “Israelscathing of alleged pro-Palestinian stance by Europe,” Irish Times, Jan. 5, 2015.
CHAPTER 13 NOTES
 Aluf Benn, “Sharon Says U.S. Should Also Disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, Feb. 18, 2003.
 Ian Black, “'Israeli attack' on Sudanese arms factory offers glimpse of secret war,” The Guardian, Oct. 25, 2012.
 “Story of Israel's hand in Sudan division,” The National, Jan. 12, 2011.
 Itai Mack and Idan Landau, “The untold story of Israeli military exports to South Sudan,” +972 Magazine,
 Tovah Lazaroff, “UNSC report: Israeli weapons used in South Sudan’s civil war,” Jerusalem Post, Aug. 26, 2015.
 Gal Beckerman, “US Jews leading Darfur rally planning,” Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2006. http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jewish-News/US-Jews-leading-Darfur-rally-planning
 “Gaddafi blames uprising on al-Qaeda,” AlJazeera, Feb. 24, 2011.
 Ian Black, “Libya rebels rejects Gaddafi's al-Qaida spin,” The Guardian, March 1, 2011.
 Jerome Corsi, “GENERALS CONCLUDE OBAMA BACKED AL-QAIDA,” World Net Daily, Jan. 19, 2015.
 “U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands,” New York Times, Dec. 5, 2012.
 Jeffrey Shapiro, “Secret Benghazi report reveals Hillary’s Libya war push armed al Qaeda-tied terrorist,” Washington Times,
Feb. 1, 2015.
 Russ Baker, “Is General Khalifa Hifter The CIA’s Man In Libya?” WhoWhatWhy, April 22, 2011.
 “U.S. backed rebel reportedly leads Islamic State in Libya,” Washington Times, March 3, 2015.
 David Pugliese, “Canadian military predicted chaos in Libya if NATO helped overthrow Gadhafi,” The Ottawa Citizen, March 1,
 Kelly Riddell and Jeffrey Shapiro, “Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya,” Washington
Times, Jan. 29, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/print/
 Chuck Ross, “Sid Blumenthal Floated Disputed Gaddafi Viagra Rape Rumor In Confidential Memo To Hillary,” The Daily Caller,
Dec. 31, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/31/sid-blumenthal-floated-disputed-gaddafi-viagra-rape-rumor-in-confidential-memo-tohillary/
 “Bernard-Henri Lévy, a friend to Israel,” AlJazeera, April 22, 2012.
 Chuck Ross, “On Day Of Benghazi Attack, Hillary Sent Email Requesting Copy Of Libya Documentary She Starred In,” The
Daily Caller, May 22, 2015. http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/hillary-asked-for-copy-of-libya-documentary-she-starred-in-on-day-ofbenghazi-attack/
 Leela Jacinto, “The Libyan War, brought to you by Bernard-Henri Levy,” France24, June 7, 2012.
 “Libya: BHL is committed ‘as a Jew,’” Le Figaro, Nov. 20, 2011. http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2011/11/20/97001-
 Guillaume Durocher, “Bernard-Henri Lévy on Wars and Anti-Nationalism: It’s Judaism, Stupid!” The Occidental Observer, Feb.
5, 2016. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/02/bernard-henri-levy-on-wars-and-anti-nationalism-its-judaism-stupid/
 Ramzy Baroud, “Bernard Henri Levy and the Destruction of Libya,” The Palestine Chronicle, Nov. 20, 2013.
 Max Boot, “Qaddafi Must Go,” The Weekly Standard, March 28, 2011. http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/qaddafi-mustgo/554818
 “The Case for Intervention in Libya,” Foreign Policy Initiative, March 20, 2011. http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/fpi-factsheet-case-intervention-libya-0#sthash.RhUSR7do.dpuf
 “Israel's Defense Minister: Mideast Borders 'Absolutely' Will Change,” National Public Radio, Oct. 23, 2014.
 Dan Williams, “Israel pessimistic on Syria ceasefire, talks up sectarian partition,” Reuters Africa, Feb. 14, 2016.
 “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: Facing down rebellion,” BBC, Oct. 21, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/10338256
 “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, 1996.
 Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection,” The New Yorker, March 5, 2007. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/theredirection
 Herb Keinon, “'Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war',” Jerusalem Post, Sept. 17, 2013.
 Elad Benari, “ISIS: Fighting 'Infidels' Takes Precedence Over Fighting Israel,” Arutz Sheva, July 8, 2014.
 David Lev, “Assad: Israel, Not Revolution, 'Behind Syrian Instability',” Arutz Sheva, Feb. 3, 2013.
 “Syria civil war: Assad regime accuses Israel of being ‘al-Qaeda’s air force’ as conflict edges closer to shared border,” The
Independent, Jan. 21, 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-assad-regime-accuses-israel-of-beingal-qaeda-s-air-force-as-conflict-edges-closer-a6826306.html
 “Head of Syrian army after alleged airstrikes: Israel working with ISIS and al-Qaida,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 7, 2014.
 “Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone,”
Daily Mail, Dec. 16, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-saveIslamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html
 “New UN report reveals collaboration between Israel and Syrian rebels,” Jerusalem Post, Dec. 7, 2014.
 Boaz Bismuth, “’If Israel gives up Assad, he’s finished,’” Israel Hayom, March 2, 2012.
 Aron Lund, “The Free Syrian Army Doesn’t Exist,” Syria Comment, March 16, 2013. http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/thefree-syrian-army-doesnt-exist/
 PaulJoseph Watson, “GEN. MCINERNEY: ‘WE HELPED BUILD ISIS’: Weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of
Islamic State radicals,” Infowars, Sept. 3, 2014. http://www.infowars.com/gen-mcinerney-we-helped-build-isis/
 Patrick Cockburn, “MI6, the CIA and Turkey's rogue game in Syria,” The Independent, April 12, 2014.
 “Rand Paulsays GOP hawks ‘created’ ISIS,” New York Post, May 27, 2015. http://nypost.com/2015/05/27/rand-paul-says-gophawks-created-isis/
 PaulJoseph Watson, “TOP U.S. MILITARY OFFICIAL ADMITS: OUR ARAB ALLIES ARE FUNDING ISIS,” Infowars,
Sept. 17, 2014. http://www.infowars.com/top-u-s-military-official-admits-our-arab-allies-are-funding-isis/
 “Biden blames US allies in Middle East for rise of ISIS,” RT, Oct. 3, 2014. https://www.rt.com/news/192880-biden-isis-us-allies/
 Brad Hoff, “2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State ‘in order to isolate the Syrian
regime,’” Levant Report, May 19, 2015. http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-willfacilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
 Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, “Secret CIA effort in Syria faces large funding cut,” Washington Post, June, 12, 2015.
 Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, “Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran,” ABC News, May 24, 2007.
 Seymour Hersh, “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran,” The New Yorker,
July 7, 2008. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/07/preparing-the-battlefield
 Brian Ross and Christopher Isham, “ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran,” ABC News, April 9, 2007.
 “Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News,” NBC News, Feb. 9, 2012.
 “U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb,” New York Times, Feb. 24, 2012.
 “Which Path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” Brookings Institution (Saban Center), Number 20,
June 2009. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf
 Tony Cartalucci, “Which Path to Persia?: Redux,” Land Destroyer Report, May 18, 2011.
 “Lobbyist Says Israel Should Create A 'False Flag' To Start A War With Iran,” Business Insider, Sept. 26, 2012.
Gilad Sharon, “A decisive conclusion is necessary,” The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 18, 2012.
 “Words from an Honest, Intelligent & Compassionate Jew – Rich Siegel,” Ken O’Keefe Blog, Nov. 15, 2012.
ï¿½ 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: email@example.com