See other History Articles
Title: Did Jews Trick America Into Entering The First World War?
Source:
Useless-Knowledge.com
URL Source: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/apr/article322.html
Published: May 30, 2005
Author: Thomas Keyes
Post Date: 2005-05-30 10:25:50 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Entering, America, Trick
Views: 1007
Comments: 94
Did Jews Trick America Into Entering The First World War? By Thomas Keyes Apr. 23, 2005 Herbert Asquith was the prime minister of England from 1908-1916, midway into the First World War. His chancellor, David Lloyd George, with the support of his confederates, who were critical of Asquith's direction of the British war effort, managed to topple Asquith, succeeding him as prime minister. David Lloyd George, though an evangelical Christian, like his American counterpart, Woodrow Wilson, was also an ardent Zionist, again like Wilson. Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), who would be the first president of Israel, was born in Motol, Russia (now in Belarus) and educated in Switzerland, where he received his Ph.D.in chemistry. Later he taught at Manchester University in England, becoming a British subject in 1910. According to most historical accounts, he helped Britain develop a procedure for producing acetone, a strategically important chemical used in manufacturing explosives, from horse chestnuts. Lloyd George claimed in his memoirs that it was in recognition of this contribution that he issued the Balfour Declaration, sometimes called the birth certificate of the state of Israel. However, historian David Fromkin of Boston University and others call this a fiction. Weizmann does not mention it in his autobiography. Here is the text of the the Balfour Declaration. "Foreign Office. November 2nd, 1917. Dear Lord Rothschild. I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.' I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely. Arthur James Balfour". If David Lloyd George did not issue the Balfour Declaration to recompense Weizmann's service, as a chemist, to Great Britain, then, why did he issue it? According to some researchers, Lloyd George and Weizmann made a deal. At the time, the war was stalemated. Weizmann agreed, according to this version, to help draw the US into the war on the side of the allies, Britain, France and Russia, tipping the balance in their favor, against Germany, Austria-Hungary (then one country) and Turkey. It will be remembered, for one thing, that Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire, as it was then called, controlled Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the Near East. If England could help found a Jewish state in the region, once it had appropriated it from the Turks, it would afford protection for their shipping through the Suez Canal. Weizmann, for his part, preferred Palestine to uninhabited parts of Uganda, where the Jews had already been offered a homeland. Apparently, Weizmann did not know of the existence of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, whereby France and England had already drawn a map of the Middle East that they would implement in the event of victory. England had also made conflicting agreements with the Arabs. Don't let Christianity stop anyone from making contradictory promises! What sparked America's entry into WWI was the Zimmermann telegram, which created a furor in the US, when released to the public on March 1, 1917. This was an encrypted telegram sent on January 16, 1917 by German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Count von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the US, to be forwarded to the President of México. Nigel de Grey and William Montgomery, of British intelligence had deciphered the intercepted telegram, according to the official version. The text of the telegram, from "The Zimmermann Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman, published in 1966 by Ballantine Books, follows. "Most Secret. For Your Excellency's personal information and to be handed on to the Imperial Minister in Mexico. We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare on the first of February. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an alliance on the following basis: Make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you. You will inform the President (of Mexico) of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the unrestricted employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England to make peace within a few months. Acknowledge receipt. Zimmermann". Firstly, here the Germans were offering the Mexicans an alliance to be effectuated if and only if the US should enter the war, which clearly the Germans were seeking, and had every reason to seek, to avoid, so that barring US's declaring war, the effect of the telegram would have been null and nil. So if the telegram had not been deciphered, the US might not have entered the war and the proffered alliance would never have come into play. Thus the recommendations of the telegram would have been strictly moot and academic, an historical curiosity. Secondly, one wonders if it was intended to be taken seriously. Could México have had even the remotest dream of recovering Texas, New Mexico and Arizona? Venustiano Carranza, the Mexican president, rejected the offer, as attractive as one might imagine he may have considered it. But the question here is how the telegram came to be decoded. The Germans, whom four years of wartime intelligence and espionage had made experts in cryptology, had encoded the telegram in a recently created code, Code 7500. According to some authorities, there had not been enough messages transmitted in Code 7500 for the British to have been able to decipher the telegram. These same authorities see the hand of Chaim Weizmann in this piece of treachery. Weizmann had connections in Germany in high places. Some authorities think that Weizmann may have been instrumental in getting one of the influential Jews in Germany to obtain Code 7500 from the German Foreign Ministry and to betray it to the British, which, of course, would have been a treasonable act. Anyway, the decipherment did accomplish the desired result of drawing the US needlessly into the war, thereby assuring an allied victory. Thus, the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine, came into Anglo-French hands, and the British were able to fulfill the promise made in the Balfour Declaration, in spite of their contradictory promises to the Arabs. Later the Balfour Declaration was introduced in US Congress by Hamilton Fish of New York and adopted. With Jewish control of the US media and publishing industry, this view of the events leading to American's entry into WWI has been played down or silenced for decades, but certainly provides a believable explanation. Winston Churchill later only vaguely alluded to such a deal, and was reluctant to abide by it. When asked by William Yale, of the US State Department what the Jews would do if the British failed to live up to their agreement, Chaim Weizmann retorted, "If they don’t, we’ll smash the British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire.” ------------
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zoroaster (#0)
Ridiculous. The British did it. No need to Jew obsess over what was obviously an Anglo-plot.
No- Anglophile banking elites lead us into WWI. Jews were still rag pickers and garment workers in 1917 for the most part in America.
I tend to agree, however a handful of Jews were among the banking plutocrats. The U.S. even argued for a bit, which side we should support. England had to do a sales job, to secure us to their side. WWI was a complete waste of an entire generation of men in the UK and Europe and of course, paved the way for WWII. If it was a conspiracy, it was very well done.
Remember, Burkeman1, the Rothschild family are the leaders of the banking elites. And you're right, the international bankers of the time pushed for America's entry into the war because they'd made enormous loans to England and France; loans that never would have been re-paid had Germany won the war. I always suspected the Jews had something to do with de-coding the Zimmerman telegram. Keyes confirms my suspicion. Here's the rest of the story: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Benjamin Freedman Speaks: A Jewish Defector Warns America by Benjamin H. Freedman Introductory Note: Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us -- his warning to the West -- is more urgent than ever before. -- K.A.S. Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co- religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep. What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria- Hungary, and Turkey. Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated. While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." 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. 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. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was almost totally pro- German, entered the war as Britain's ally. I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime. Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany. The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I. After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that. That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost. That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout." It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel. Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth." Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat. And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that? There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations. Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything. The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that. The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat. After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do? In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self- defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing. Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous. The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth. Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world. For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have. What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world. What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going. Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony. What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were. They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith -- either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith. These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you. That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble- rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.
Whoa. Downloaded for later reading. Donka.
For a comprehenisve history of WWI, how we got into it, how it was fought, and how it increased DC power and how it actually brought about the first real political terror in this country I suggest the work of paleocon historian Thomas Flemming and his book "The Illusion of Victory" and follow that up with his "The New Dealers' War, FDR and the war within World War II." Germany never had a chance. On the second day of the war in 1914- the British dredged up the two cable connections from Emden Germany on the North Sea to New York and cut them. Soon after a subsidiary line from Liberia to Brazil- American owned- was also cut by the British. Hence forth the British controlled all war news to the United States. That was just the first step of a well coordinated, sustained, heavily financed, propganda effort to get the US into the war on the part of the Brits and their blood brother Wasp elite in the US.
Oh man. More erroneous Jew-hating spam posted to support your original Jew- hating spam. For some balance, here's what the Jewish Encyclopedia says about "Kol Nidre": Use by Anti-Semites. The "Kol Nidre" has been one of the means widely used by Jewish apostates and by enemies of the Jews to cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of an oath taken by a Jew (Wagenseil, "Tela Ignea, Disputatio R. Jechielis," p. 23; Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum," vol. ii., ch. ix., pp. 489 et seq., Königsberg, 1711; Bodenschatz, "Kirchliche Verfassung der Heutigen Juden," part ii., ch. v., § 10, Frankfort and Leipsic, 1748; Rohling, "Der Talmudjude," pp. 80 et seq., Münster, 1877); so that many legislators considered it necessary to have a special form of oath administered to Jews ("Jew's oath"), and many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer (Zunz, "G. S." ii. 244; comp. pp. 246, 251). As early as 1240 Jehiel of Paris was obliged to defend the "Kol Nidre" against these charges. It can not be denied that, according to the usual wording of the formula, an unscrupulous man might think that it offers a means of escape from the obligations and promises which he had assumed and made in regard to others. Refers Only to Individual Vows. The teachers of the synagogues, however, have never failed to point out to their cobelievers that the dispensation from vows in the "Kol Nidre" refers only to those which an individual voluntarily assumes for himself alone (see RoSH to Ned. 23b) and in which no other persons or their interests are involved. In other words, the formula is restricted to those vows which concern only the relation of man to his conscience or to his Heavenly Judge (see especially Tos. to Ned. 23b). In the opinion of Jewish teachers, therefore, the object of the "Kol Nidre" in declaring oaths null and void is to give protection from divine punishment in case of violation of the vow. No vow, promise, or oath, however, which concerns another person, a court of justice, or a community is implied in the "Kol Nidre." It must be remembered, moreover, that five geonim were against while only one was in favor of reciting the prayer (Zunz, "G. V." p. 390, note a), and furthermore that even so early an authority as Saadia wished to restrict it to those vows which were extorted from the congregation in the synagogue in times of persecution ("Kol Bo," l.c.); and he declared explicitly that the "Kol Nidre" gave no absolution from oaths which an individual had taken during the year. Judah ben Barzillai, a Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his halakic work "Sefer ha- 'Ittim," declares that the custom of reciting the "Kol Nidre" was unjustifiable and misleading, since many ignorant persons believe that all their vows and oaths are annulled through this formula, and consequently they take such obligations on themselves carelessly ("Or7;ot 6;ayyim," p. 106a).
Don't fall for posts/writings by ignorant Jew-obsessors, JT.
I haven't fallen for anything A. I haven't read it. I plan to and see if it makes sense.
Jesus H. Christ.... If anything, our own fucking lying pricks got us into WWI. A lot of people were happy as hell to avoid a war, considering we just had a Civil War not 30 or so years before. The only people who decide to wage war, are the people who have the money and desire to do so. Every veteran after the American Revolution has died for some rich prick's desires for power, and NOT for freedom, or peace in our time. For anyone to make that claim, even the veterans who fought, would be ludicrous. Of course, they'd be right in saying they fought to keep themselves, and their fellow soldiers alive, and that would be truthful. However, every person who has died in war, has done so at the whim of a netherworldly cabal of bankers, lawyers, and politicians who are so removed from the common man it can't even be comprehended. This is why when our nation was founded the Constitution was explicitly written so that the common man of that time could understand it, PLAINLY. Now, we have people telling us lies about what phrases, and sentences mean, as a way to subjugate us further, oppress us, and take away our rights and freedom of choice. But hey, don't let me stop you and other people from blaming everything on the Jews. The Middle Eastern Conflict currently, I'd say is definitely an Israeli thing, but could I blame it all on just the Jews? Hell no. There's plenty of Goyim who are just as culpable for tyranny, and treachery.
I'll look into these books and bookmarking Z's post and info for later checking/reading. The Lusitania incident is a good picture of the whole conflict perhaps.
Amen, brother.
True, Tommy, the rich and powerful are the only winners in war. The Rothschild family, for example, funded the wars of the British empire. Jewish bankers, as well as their goyim counterparts, have been making money over Christians killing themselves since the Thirty Years War. Today it's Christians and Muslims killing themselves amid cries of the "eternally innocent" Jews.
So, why do you obsess over the mere war-funders and completely ignore the inbred Anglo elite war-wagers? Why obsess over the tail and ignore the dog?
The American/Anglo dog is killing Israel's enemies in the Mideast. The tail is wagging the dog.
I disagree.
Zionists have always been a tail, and when the Anglo dog is done using them, it
with turn it's attention to its tail and chew it up... Just look at what
Anglo treachery has done "for" Israel... Bush the father forced a PLO-lead
terror state into their midst and we've actively trained the PLO "security"
forces... And now, thanks to our invasion of the ME, Israel is even more
isolated and a pariah nation than ever before, thanks to their linkage with us.
The Anglo dog is setting the Israeli tail up for a terrible fall. They
are just one more pawn on the chessboard to be sacrificed when need be to
further the globe- wide Anglo-imperial-machine. Nothing more.
America circa 1914 was nearly fully under the control of about 4 wealthy men- all Anglophiles and not Jewish. The Mellon family alone had such political and economic power concentrated in their hands that it was said he picked the Presidents. I am more than a little tired of the Jew obssession. The funny thing about Jews- is that you can't get any three of them to agree where to go to lunch without an argument for 20 minutes but yet they have lead what? A two or three thoasand year ongoing anti Earth conspiracy to kill all the birdies and flowers and babies? So annoying.
This dog/tail Zionist/Anglo plutocrats argument is really very interesting. I'll check back later and see who's on first, who's on second, and where it stands ;)
Unlike Zionist, Christian Zionist asnd Noahide propagandists, I ignore posts that annoy me.
I think its a I'll scratch your back and vice versa.. I'm basing what I'm saying on this document: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm Written: Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated.
So annoying. LOL. They sure are a convenient scapegoat. What a great shield for evil elite Gentiles to wield. Just procure a few Jewish lackeys, then their ill- used subjects will obsess on and blame them for the evils THEY do, while they sit back and laugh all the way to the bank. Pretty neat trick, eh? Jew-obsessors, you all have been played!
More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.
Anglo-American elitists are profiting more from their deaths than Israel ever will.
There is obviously a certain segment of Jews in America who place their allegiance to Israel ahead of the US despite all their feet stomping that they don't. That this segment has powerful members in this administration is not in dispute. But one has to realize something about Israel. It provides a great excuse for the Beltway to be in the ME up to it's neck. It is a mutally beneficial relationship and the neotratiors, many of whom are Jewish, are just one element of why we are in the ME. Do you want to argue about what reason is more responsible for our current policies, the actions of some Israel firster traitors or just the natural benefit the Beltway elites have from being inconflict with something, anything? Fine, we can do that. But I am not going to entertian tired old tripe about the Rothschilds or Jew bankers behind massive world conspiracies or protocols or how the black plauge was a jew plot or whatever. In the words of Bush One as portrayed on SNL- "Nahgannadonit".
The Anglo dog is setting the Israeli tail up for a terrible fall. Uh, the tails operatives are currently under investigation for meddling in the dogs foreign policy. The tails lobby group is one of the most powerful in the dogs kennel. The dog indiscriminantly forks over billions of ducats a year to a fully capable and intelligent tail only to have that tail whipping other dogs and causing them to bite both tail and dog. What color is the sky in your world?
America had no enemies in the Mideast until the establishment of the Zionist entity there.
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."
Click here:This aggression will not stand"
In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.
LMAO.
This is totally ridiculous!
LOL!
Israel is a major factor to why the ME is the chosen "enemy". But if Israel didn't exist it may just of well have been chosen anyway- or whomever- China- as the "enemy" to scare the sissie soccerdads with, make them "feel a part of something larger than themselves" in some grand "Fight" they can root for like a football game. I actually had an otherwise non BOT rational poster lament that the Draft was not going on nowadays because young people "need to belong to something." Is that not just state programmed drivel or what? How about raising your son to feel like he "belongs" to a family that has dreams and goals and purpose and direction? What kind of father wants the Mega State to give his son a sense of "belonging" to something? ANd how pathetic is it if that "sense of belonging" is to a standing army of a collosal empire that in the end doesn't give a shit if you live or die?
That must be why they failed so miserably in Hollywood and the main-stream media.
Yeah- where their agenda was what exactly? Making movies like "Moses" and all sorts of bible stories that Christians loved? Geesus if the Jews had somehow ended up running the postal service you would blame them for the same things. Doesn't a Jew just ever want to make money? Can't they just make money and not have some grand conspiracy around them? A lot of Jews in the Hollywood? Gee- that's funny- it was friggin founded by Jews. And gee- they help each other out. What a surprise. I suppose the Armenians don't or Italians? You know what upsets people about the Jews? Is that they still have a sense of themselves wherever they go and they stick together.
Doesn't a Jew just ever want to make money? Can't they just make money and not have some grand conspiracy around them? The ones in power over the Western Media sure know how to pitch the same cultural indoctrination: Multiculturalism, Tolerance, Filth, subordination of Whites. It's like clockwork anywhere they control media. From Scandinavia to Sacremento, they whistle the same tune. You don't think people won't notice? You know what upsets people about the Jews? Yep. Because they place themselves at odds with the world and make themselves an supremely difficult burden to bear. Is that they still have a sense of themselves wherever they go and they stick together. Nope. Many foreigners the world over do these very things and no one is relentlessly hassling them. OTH, the record shows that one group specifically that is keen on remaking others in their fashion. And for them the bill always comes due.
Put themselves "at odds with the world". Well, how does one go about doing that? That is pretty tall order. And as for other ethnic groups going around the world not being targeted you are laughably woefully wrong. There are dozens of examples of high achieving groups going to other countries, quickly overtaking the locals in all professions and business and being despised for it. I suggest you read a book. Migrations and Cultures, by Thomas Sowell. In it he examines the experiences of high achieving ethnic groups in foreign lands they emmigrated too and in each case the sort of baloney BS against the Jews that has been created by a resentful local populace and exploited by opportunists and fantasists was created on these lessor known groups as well- like the Chineese in Malayasia and Indonesia or the Indians in Africa or even the Tutsi over the Hutu.
While we're recommending books to each other, might I suggest reading "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements" by Dr. Kevin MacDonald. I think you'll find it very interesting, and also answer a lot of questions you might have about why a lot of people are becoming rather concerned about Israel and Zionism. You might also want to read "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky. Again, I think you'll find it interesting, and it might also help to answer some of the questions you might have about why so many people are getting very concerned about Israel and Zionism.
And as for other ethnic groups going around the world not being targeted you are laughably woefully wrong. There are dozens of examples of high achieving groups going to other countries, quickly overtaking the locals in all professions and business and being despised for it. There's a difference between being a distrusted foreigner in a strange land and being universally despised and ejected from most every land you've ever set foot in. It's not a tall order really, simply insist on always having a moral hegemony over others, teach their impressionable youth to adopt destructive behavior, loose hordes of swarthy peasants upon them, replace their financial and governmental systems with ones favorable to you and inundate their legal system with your tricky nuances. A people born of the ancient Middle Eastern Bazaars who are experienced in fighting for nothing except their own interests should find it a cakewalk, except for the occasional ass-whoopin which their own forebearers have warned them about. Between the two of us, I'm really not passionate about the subject I'm just telling you how the educated world sees it. You're acting like Trace21230 on the subject, which is sad because I always thought you were cool.
That is surely something the MSM will never allow the sheeple to know.
Excellent article.
Is it any wonder they want to censor the internet?
Damn right. The ZOG and the establishment HATE the internet. They FEAR the internet. They fear an informed populace.
Here's an additionsl reason perhaps...
#2. To: Zoroaster (#0)
#3. To: Burkeman1, Arator, Zoroaster (#2)
No- Anglophile banking elites lead us into WWI. Jews were still rag pickers and garment workers in 1917 for the most part in America.
#4. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#5. To: Zoroaster (#4)
#6. To: robin (#3)
#7. To: Zoroaster (#4)
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble- rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void.
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#5)
Whoa. Downloaded for later reading. Donka.
#9. To: Arator (#8)
#10. To: Zoroaster (#0)
#11. To: Burkeman1, Zoroaster (#6)
It was a passenger ship, it was later proven to carry exactly what the Germans said it was carrying, weaponry. Outrageous to expose civilians this way, it was a legitmate target because of what it carried, but bad judgement on the part of Germany. The Germans perhaps do not play the PR game as well as other cultures?
#12. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#10)
Hell no. There's plenty of Goyim who are just as culpable for tyranny, and treachery.
#13. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#10)
#14. To: Zoroaster (#13)
The Rothschild family, for example, funded the wars of the British empire.
#15. To: Arator (#14)
#16. To: Zoroaster (#15)
The American/Anglo dog is killing Israel's enemies in the
Mideast. The tail is wagging the dog.
#17. To: Arator (#14)
#18. To: Burkeman1, Arator, Zoroaster, Zipporah, All (#17)
#19. To: Burkeman1 (#17)
#20. To: Arator (#14)
#21. To: Burkeman1, Zoroaster, Jethro Tull, Zipporah, robin (#17)
The funny thing about Jews- is that you can't get any three of them to agree where to go to lunch without an argument for 20 minutes but yet they have lead what? A two or three thoasand year ongoing anti Earth conspiracy to kill all the birdies and flowers and babies?
#22. To: Arator (#21)
#23. To: Zoroaster (#22)
More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.
#24. To: Arator (#21)
#25. To: Arator, Zoroaster (#16)
And now, thanks to our invasion of the ME, Israel is even more isolated and a pariah nation than ever before, thanks to their
linkage with us. own nefarious workings. fixed
#26. To: Burkeman1 (#24)
#27. To: Zoroaster, robin (#26)
America had no enemies in the Mideast until the establishment of the Zionist entity there.
John Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)
#28. To: Dude Lebowski (#25)
#29. To: Dude Lebowski (#25)
The United States (will become) a welfare state with a planned economy.Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents 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.
#30. To: Zipporah (#28)
This aggression will not stand, man!
#31. To: robin (#3)
If it was a conspiracy, it was very well done.
Next thing they will tell us is that they were able to overthrow the Czar and establish their Bolshevik regime in 1917.
There ought to be a law to silence these people just like in France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere.
Free Speech is fine, but needs to be severely restricted.
#32. To: Dude Lebowski (#30)
#33. To: Zoroaster (#26)
#34. To: Burkeman1 (#17)
The funny thing about Jews- is that you can't get any three of them to agree where to go to lunch without an argument for 20 minutes
#35. To: Indrid Cold (#34)
#36. To: Burkeman1 (#35)
#37. To: Dude Lebowski (#36)
#38. To: Burkeman1 (#37)
#39. To: Burkeman1 (#37)
Put themselves "at odds with the world". Well, how does one go about doing that? That is pretty tall order.
#40. To: Zoroaster (#22)
More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.
#41. To: 1776 (#40)
NOT OIL BUT ISRAEL
#42. To: wbales (#41)
Every single day another person finds out about the Secret
#43. To: 1776 (#42)
Is it any wonder they want to censor the internet?
#44. To: 1776, Zoroaster, Zipporah, wbales (#40)
NOT OIL BUT ISRAEL
#45. To: robin (#44)
VERY interesting point. Uncle Sam comes in and production goes way up.
#46. To: Burkeman1 (#35)
Usually I just stick to personal finance threads. But in response to your earlier comment about how Jews can't even decide where to go for dinner without 20 minutes of argument--if true, I find it more than a little creepy that Jews dominate not only Hollywood, but nearly all of the print and broadcast media too. I suppose Jews make up about as much of the American population as Armenians, maybe a little more, but wouldn't it be weird if the Armenians had nearly complete control over your entertainment and news sources? This goes quite a bit beyond just "sticking together" and "hiring others of your kind". Hell, the Belgian-Americans are famous for that, yet they don't control the American farming industry.
Yeah- where their agenda was what exactly? Making movies like "Moses" and all sorts of bible stories that Christians loved? Geesus if the Jews had somehow ended up running the postal service you would blame them for the same things. Doesn't a Jew just ever want to make money? Can't they just make money and not have some grand conspiracy around them? A lot of Jews in the Hollywood? Gee- that's funny- it was friggin founded by Jews. And gee- they help each other out. What a surprise. I suppose the Armenians don't or Italians?
#47. To: Indrid Cold, christine, robin, wbales, zipporah, Eoghan, Elliott Jackalope, Diana (#46)
How is it that much less than 2% of the population also are the commissioners of all 5 major pro sports leagues? I mean 5 out of 5, check it out for yourself, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, and they say that there is nothing going on?
I find it more than a little creepy that Jews dominate not only Hollywood, but nearly all of the print and broadcast media too.
#48. To: 1776 (#47)
And how many Senators and Representatives? It's funny. People say the White Gentiles are over-represented in any field they dominate and that their power must be broken up. Why does one group get immunity from that sort of criticism? Must be the P.R. department.
How is it that much less than 2% of the population also are the commissioners of all 5 major pro sports leagues? I mean 5 out of 5, check it out for yourself, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, and they say that there is nothing going on?
#49. To: 1776 (#47)
#13 "... In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about WE FURTHER DISTRACT THEM WITH AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, PASTIMES, PASSIONS, PEOPLE'S PALACES .... SOON WE SHALL BEGIN THROUGH THE PRESS TO PROPOSE COMPETITIONS IN ART, IN SPORT IN ALL KINDS: these interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them. ..."
#50. To: 1776 (#49)
Hey, wait,...I'm sorry, 1776...pay no attention to that forgery. ;>)
#51. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Brandeis.html Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky in 1856 to a family tolerant of Jewish and Christian rituals. In later life Brandeis might be best described as a secularhumanist. Although he completed his secondary education in Germany, he returned to the United States where he studied law at Harvard. After settling in Boston, Brandeis became a successful lawyer spending a good deal of his time pursuing cases with a political bent. In particular, he enjoyed representing small companies against giant corporations, and aiding the cause of the minimum wage against companies opposed to this principle. In 1912, he supported Woodrow Wilson's nomination for Presidency and in 1916, was appointed a Supreme Court judge, the first Jew ever to be appointed to this position. Brandeis showed little interest in Jewish affairs until the turn of the century when a combination of his professional work and a changing political climate brought about an alteration. He was introduced to Zionism by Jacob de Haas, an English Zionist, and later still by Aaron Aaronsohn, the Palestinian botanist and founder of Nili. Brandeis became active in Zionist affairs during the First World War, when he accepted the role of Chairperson of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. Brandeis had a major impact on the American branch of the Zionist movement, drawing to it a number of sympathizers, improving its organization and its finance. Whilst he resigned his official position on joining the Supreme Court, he nonetheless worked behind the scenes to influence President Woodrow Wilson to support the Zionist cause. After the war, Brandeis headed a delegation of American Zionists to London where at a conference differences emerged between Chaim Weizmann and himself. These arguments over the role of the organization and its pursuit of political activities caused a rift between the two leaders with Weizmann gaining the upper hand. Brandeis withdrew from Zionist activity although he continued to take part in EretzIsrael economic affairs. Brandeis did intervene from time to time in political matters for example he appealed to Roosevelt to oppose the British partition scheme of 1937 calling instead for the whole area of EretzIsrael to become a Jewish National Home. Brandeis represented a rather different genre of Zionism, one born out of the American context that affirmed Zionism as part of American ethnic identity. It was Brandeis who coined the term that "to be a good American meant that local Jews should be Zionists." He died in Washington, D.C. in 1941.
#52. To: honway (#51)
Hmm I vaguely remember something about this.. IF I remember correctly did he not 'blackmail' Wilson regarding his involvement in some way with a woman?
Whilst he resigned his official position on joining the Supreme Court, he nonetheless worked behind the scenes to influence President Woodrow Wilson to support the Zionist cause.
#53. To: honway (#51)
And, seemingly overnight, the federal media became a war party propaganda machine. And, the American sheeple went "BBBAAAAAAAAHHHH".
#54. To: Zipporah (#52)
It was very successful. So much so it appears today being "compromised" is a prerequisite for high government office;hence, the Jeff Gannons and Franklin Cover-ups.
IF I remember correctly did he not 'blackmail' Wilson regarding his involvement in some way with a woman?
#55. To: wbales (#53)
'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it'.
And, seemingly overnight, the federal media became a war party propaganda machine. And, the American sheeple went "BBBAAAAAAAAHHHH".
#56. To: honway (#54)
So much so it appears today being "compromised" is a prerequisite for high government office;hence, the Jeff Gannons and Franklin Cover-ups. True.. and the set up the situations for future 'need'.. sickening really..
It was very successful.
#57. To: wbales, robin (#50)
Just because it matches today's world events doesn't mean its true you know. ;)
pay no attention to that forgery.
#58. To: Burkeman1 (#35)
Moses was a Jew. An "Old Testament Jew", who was non-threatening to Christians, certainly, but a Jew nonetheless. It's not like they made a movie about Ganesh or Vishnu.
Yeah- where their agenda was what exactly? Making movies like "Moses" and all sorts of bible stories that Christians loved?
#59. To: Indrid Cold (#58)
Moses was an Israelite/Hebrew ... and NEVER WAS HE A JEW ... There were NO CHRISTIANS at the time of Moses ... The people calling themselves Jews today (90%) are in actuallity not at all ethnically related to Moses or Abraham or Jesus. They are Eastern European Mongols that adopted the religion of Judaism in the mid 8th Century AD.
Moses was a Jew. An "Old Testament Jew", who was non-threatening to Christians, certainly, but a Jew nonetheless.
#60. To: Burkeman1 (#24)
My "jew" detector is flashing incessantly !
But I am not going to entertian tired old tripe about the Rothschilds or Jew bankers behind massive world conspiracies or protocols
#61. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
Defenders of the poor, poor, persecuted jews ... nonsense. Funny how Arator and Burkeman jumped on this at exactly the same moment.
Jews were still rag pickers and garment workers in 1917 for the most part in America.
#62. To: noone222 (#59)
Moses, if he existed at all, was a Levite. In the OT ancient Israel was a confederation of twelve tribes generally traced to Jacob's twelve sons -- six by Leah (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, two by Rachael (Joseph, Benjamin), two by Rachel's maid Bihah (Dan, Naphtali, and two by Leah's maid Zilpha (Gad, Asjer; the name Israel has been given to Jacob after the story of his wrestling with a divine being.
Life is a tragety to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#63. To: noone222, Burkeman1 (#60)
Signed, Lord Burkemanstein. Yep, he's super sensative about this subject matter.
But I am not going to entertian tired old tripe about the Rothschilds or Jew bankers behind massive world conspiracies or protocols.
#64. To: All (#62)
CORRECTION two by Rachel's maid Bihah (Dan, Naphali) and two by Leah's maid Zilpha (Gad, Asher);. . ..
two by Rachel's maid Bihah (Dan, Naphtali, and two by Leah's maid Zilpha (Gad, Asjer; the name Israel has been given to Jacob after the story of his wrestling with a divine being.
Life is a tragety to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#65. To: Arator (#14)
You appear to be an "anti-anglo" jew propagandist ...
ignore the inbred Anglo elite war-wagers
#66. To: Zipporah (#20)
The "Synagogue of Satan"
Written: Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated.
#67. To: 1776 (#27)
Simple Logic is "BRILLIANCE" emancipated !
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." John Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)
#68. To: Zoroaster (#62)
I'm up to speed on your analysis of the Tribes of Israel and where they got their names. These Tribes having nothing whatsoever to do with modern Jewry from an ethnic perspective because 90% of modern Jewry are Ashkenazi Jews ... and are descendants of religious converts not ethnic Jews or Hebrews descended from The Tribes, Moses, or Abraham. All of the hocus pocus related to the current trespassers in Israel being Abraham's descendants and therefore inheiritors of the Promised land is just so much bullshit spewed by zionazis.
Moses, if he existed at all, was a Levite. In the OT ancient Israel was a confederation of twelve tribes generally traced to Jacob's twelve sons -- six by Leah (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, two by Rachael (Joseph, Benjamin), two by Rachel's maid Bihah (Dan, Naphtali, and two by Leah's maid Zilpha (Gad, Asjer; the name Israel has been given to Jacob after the story of his wrestling with a divine being.
#69. To: noone222, 1776, All (#67)
Simple Logic is "BRILLIANCE" emancipated ! That simple statement would give the sheeple something to think about, if they ever managed to hear it.
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." John Sheehan, S.J. (a Jesuit priest)
#70. To: noone222 (#61)
No, it isn't funny. See- my Jew Conspiracy decoder ring with built in two way communication allowed me and my fellow Jew conspirator to coordinate our psyops assault on this thread. You get the ring along with your packets poison for dropping in village wells at your bar mitsvah- when the Elders lay out "the plan" to you and assign you your role. Congrats, first person on 4Rum to go on my Bozo list.
Funny how Arator and Burkeman jumped on this at exactly the same moment.
#71. To: Arator (#21)
Why, exactly, do you think someone would be a "Jew-obsessor"? What would cause that?
Jew-obsessors,...
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#72. To: Burkeman1, 1776, Zoroaster, Arator, Indrid Cold, christine, robin, zipporah, Eoghan (#24)
In post #47, 1776 said: “How is it that much less than 2% of the population also are the commissioners of all 5 major pro sports leagues? I mean 5 out of 5, check it out for yourself, the NBA, the NFL, the NHL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, and they say that there is nothing going on?”. Responding to that in post #49 above, I posted an excerpt from the 13th Protocol of Zion: “…In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about WE FURTHER DISTRACT THEM WITH AMUSEMENTS, GAMES, PASTIMES, PASSIONS, PEOPLE'S PALACES .... SOON WE SHALL BEGIN THROUGH THE PRESS TO PROPOSE COMPETITIONS IN ART, IN SPORT IN ALL KINDS: these interests will finally distract their minds from questions in which we should find ourselves compelled to oppose them.” Is this type observation what you consider to be “tired old tripe”? Do you consider this observation/connection to be totally invalid and/or unreasonable?
But I am not going to entertian tired old tripe about the Rothschilds or Jew bankers behind massive world conspiracies or protocols or how the black plauge was a jew plot or whatever.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#73. To: wbales (#72)
Congrats, number 2.
#74. To: Burkeman1 (#73)
Congrats, number 2. I'll take that as a "Yes". :>)
Is this type observation what you consider to be “tired old tripe”? Do you consider this observation/connection to be totally invalid and/or unreasonable?
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#75. To: 1776 (#31)
God forbid us looking beyond the U.S. Constitution and to other nations for such laws. Nobody censors speech they agree with
There ought to be a law to silence these people just like in France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere.
Free Speech is fine, but needs to be severely restricted.
#76. To: Burkeman1 (#73)
I think what you are seeing is an attempt to understand patterns. Some have already come to conclusions about these particular patterns. Others are still forming an opinion. Still others have no opinion. My point is, discussing these patterns, or connecting these dots, should remain open. Chertoff, Negroponte, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, Zakheim and others have been appointed by this administration. And some of them have dual-citizenship with Israel. Given their positions, and our govt's policy trends, their loyalties should be scrutinized. The MSM is not even looking at these people or the potential for treason.
This forum is one of the few places trying to air these ideas. If sometimes one or two of us come across too strong, it is out of the frustration that these ideas are stifled everywhere else.
#77. To: wbales (#74)
ah, the clever zionists and their feigned innocence. How amusing. Yeah....it's all just a huge coincidence, with amazing, uncanny consistency and organization. And lets face it, all the evidence we have of this, is just to be ignored. who you gonna believe, some anonymous 'expert', or your own lyin' eyes? actually, the incredible protestations given in the face of these facts was what tipped me off. playing the victim is the tactic of one who has no substance to refute an argument. It is a mode of deception.
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
#78. To: gengis gandhi (#77)
Such as being Bozoed for asking a rational question in a civil manner.
actually, the incredible protestations given in the face of these facts was what tipped me off.
In 1947, the UN created a perpetual war and named it Israel.
#79. To: wbales (#78)
sure, it's always the victim game. an appeal to emotion, devoid of reason or fact. this is the method you use when you're not about discussing the facts, but STOPPING the discussion altogether. and now, class, who has a motive to do such a thing? those who benefit. and, class, who benefits from stifling legitimate criticism about certain behavior, certain collusion and power/control consolidation? oh, lets just say the group that has it's members in such positions. and, class, which group might this be, based on evidence and fact? ta-da. pretty easy to dismantle.
Whenever people ask me, 'hey, you know what you should do? I always say 'What? Buy a monkey?'
#80. To: Burkeman1 (#70)
Thanks ! Your buddy was quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia earlier ... do you have one too ?
Congrats, first person on 4Rum to go on my Bozo list.
#81. To: noone222 (#59)
Moses was most certainly a Jew. Judaism predated Christianity, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Quibbling over whether he should be called an Israelite or Hebrew is just semantics. I agree, however, that most people who call themselves "Jews" today are the descendants of converts, not relatives of Moses or Abraham.
Moses was an Israelite/Hebrew ... and NEVER WAS HE A JEW ... There were NO CHRISTIANS at the time of Moses
#82. To: Indrid Cold (#81)
Judaism was not in existence at the time of Moses. Judaism is based upon the Babylonian Talmud that was carried back to Palestine/Jerusalem "from" Babylon "AFTER" the second captivity of the Tribe of Judah and Benjamin, and didn't exist at the time of Moses. This religious philosophy called Judaism didn't exist among the Israelites until after the time of Solomon, which was long after the time of Moses. As far as Jesus was concerned he said this about the Babylonian Talmud (Traditions of Men/Elders)... "Your law makes my father's law of no effect" Take a closer look at your Bible and reflect on the comments that Jesus made to the Pharisees. The Pharisees of Christ's time are today the Rabbis of Judaism that study the Babylonian Talmud, and have done so in an unbroken historical line.
Moses was most certainly a Jew. Judaism predated Christianity, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Quibbling over whether he should be called an Israelite or Hebrew is just semantics.
#83. To: Bayonne (#72)
FYI
If you love America, you'll hate Israel.
#84. To: Zoroaster (#0)
This raises the temptation of "what if" history. What if we had entered the war in 1915, and it had ended earlier? There would be no Israel, there would be no Jewish-Palestinian conflict, and maybe German suspicion of Jewish betrayal might not have contributed to hatred that brought about the holocaust. France and England would still have divided up Arabia, but there would have been no betrayal of Arabs fighting on their side to do that. And the Arabs would have kicked them out, as they did do. Hell, we lost the first world war.
#85. To: Gene Douglas (#84)
interesting hypothesis to consider, Gene. welcome to 4!
"Freedom4um" -- The Forum for Real Americans and where America and Americans are always First!
#86. To: Zoroaster (#4)
This is patently untrue. See the battles of Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes. Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony. Enough said.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany.
#87. To: Arator, Zoroaster, All (#23)
Arator: Anglo-American elitists are profiting more from their deaths than Israel ever will. The point is that we would not be in Iraq in the first place were it not for the lobby efforts of AIPAC and IsraeliFirsters in very important policy level positions within the government eg. Feith and Wolfowitz to name but a few That other lobby groups were also happy for the US to invade Iraq - military defense industry - ( eg. Haliburton, Bechtel) is true and yes, this group is reaping considerable profits. However, the military industry lobby groups could not get the US to invade Iraq. That decision came as a result of the power and influence of Israel lobbyists both AIPAC and gov't policy makers. a. Here's some cut and paste from Mearsheimer and Walt, defending their research paper's conclusions: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/le tters.html "...We also explicitly stated that the lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war..." "...Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil- producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq..." b. Also here's some cut and paste from M & W's first submission re: their research study, which amplies on the Israeli lobbying efforts both "from without and within" that pressured/manipulated the WH to invade Iraq: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/me ar01_.html "...Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’ On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’ Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’ At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’ As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf. Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo- conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’...The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war. At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an invasion. Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power. We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable...Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist regime in the world’. This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese- American with close ties to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans, was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long- standing ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Douglas Feith. Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the 1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’. Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as ‘devoutly pro- Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in 2003. Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established close ties with Jewish- American groups and had pledged to foster good relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing Saddam Hussein’s regime.’ Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti- semite. There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo- Conservative Roots.' c. Also there's more from above article that speaks directly to Clean Break and what Sharon wanted and how they envisioned an invasion of Iraq would benefit Israel ( though that back-fired as we know now): "...By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential. By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued, the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’ study the neo- conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of faith in neo- conservative circles. Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003): Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction..." d. I have no problem with AIPAC et al as registering themselves as "foreign agent lobby groups." But they should not be allowed to function as they do today. Similarly, I have no problem with dual citizens being hired to positions at lower levels of the federal civil service. But dual citizens should not be allowed to fill policy level positions within the US gov't, federal or state.
Zoroaster: More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.
#88. To: Gene Douglas (#84)
Interesting thoughts. There have been editorials, books and even a movie with Rutger Hauer about what the world might have been like if Germany had won WWII, but nothing like that about WWI. Welcome to 4!
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
#89. To: scrapper2 (#87)
Strike that, and plan B, C and D.
Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction..."
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
#90. To: Gene Douglas (#84)
The Treaty of Versailles officially ended World War One. It assigned to Germany and her allies responsibility for causing the war, stripped her of all overseas colonies, and established liability for enormous reparation payments. Germany also lost considerable territory to Poland in the East, and the Rhineland was demilitarized and occupied by Allied troops. Many historians say it was an unjust treaty that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power in Germany and World War Two. Germany was not the only loser in World War Two. It was a victory for world Jewry over White folks everywhere.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#91. To: scrapper2 (#87)
Israel Shamir has an interesting, if not fascinating, view of the relationship between Anglo-American elitists and Zionist Jews: http://www.israelsh amir.net/English/Interview_Kim.htm For One Democratic State in the whole of Palestine (Israel) FOR FULL EQUALITY OF NATIVE AND ADOPTIVE PALESTINIANS FOR One Man, One Vote Interview with Israel Shamir Kim Petersen http://www.uruknet.info/? p=m22995 May 1, 2006 Israel Shamir is a prominent and controversial Russian-Israeli thinker, writer, and translator who lives in Jaffa. Shamir brings to his political writing a refreshing candor, sharp insight, and inspiring humanity. His principled stand supporting the Palestinian refugees’ right of return and the rebuilding of their destroyed villages led to his firing from the “progressive” Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Following Israeli attacks on Palestinians in January 2001, Shamir became dedicated to political writings in English. For the intellectual Karl Marx, the Jewish question was an “unreal subject.” Marx was baptized a Lutheran and married to a gentile. Shamir has renounced Judaism and embraced Christianity. He is a strong proponent of the “One Man, One Vote, One State” solution for a united Israel-Palestine. I interviewed the unflinching maverick writer Israel Shamir. Kim Petersen: You wrote recently that the historian David Irving, who the corporate media reports as being sentenced for holocaust denial, was sentenced for denial of “Jewish superiority.” Could you elaborate on this and what holocaust denial means for you? Israel Shamir: I wrote about it, in “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” and in the “Vampire Killers,” at length. No free man can agree with the proposition that Jewish death (and life) is more important than that of a goy. But the ban of Holocaust revisionism is the only legally enforced prohibition in our society. The Armenians were envious of this elevated status of Jews, and actually succeeded to protect their tragedy of 1915 by a similar law in France. The result was tragicomic. They brought an important Jewish historian (and warmonger of first degree) Bernard Lewis to the court of Paris, and he was found guilty of denying their tragedy, just like David Irving. But David Irving has got three years in jail, and now his name is always preceded with the title “discredited” (see an interview with him in the Observer), while Bernard Lewis was fined one franc and he still appears everywhere, and his name graces various petitions. He was not discredited, but the Armenians were. Apparently, Jewish blood is redder than Armenian, not to mention lesser species. I quoted an article by a Jewish American historian denying the genocide of the native Americans. He was not discredited, either. The scourge of Irving, Debora Lipstadt, denied the fiery holocaust of Dresden, and was not discredited, either. Face it, Kim: the very concept of H is a concept of Jewish superiority. This has an important religious meaning: Christianity is the denial of Jewish superiority. Whoever believes or accepts Jewish superiority, denies Christ for He made us equal. The French Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzman, the creator of “Shoah,” said: if you believe in holocaust, you can’t believe in Christ. I am ready to take his challenge: I believe in Christ. We can rephrase the words of Lanzman: belief in a special historical meaning of death of Jews is a sign of apostasy. Indeed, the creed of holocaust competes with the Church: we believe that Christ suffered for us and came back to life. The H believers believe that the Jewish people suffered and came back by creating the Jewish state. In this competition, the Jews win: as opposed to H, you can deny Crucifixion and Resurrection and your career won’t suffer a bit. Thus the question of H denial is the question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted by Christ, or will it worship the Jewish state. This is an important discovery of eternal religiosity of human spirit: the attempt to create a secular society did not work out. After an illusionary short break, the gods came back. KP: Is it appropriate to use such loaded terms as "goy"? IS: Well, I am not aware this is a loaded term. I translated some Hebrew books, from Samuel Yosef Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winner, to the Book of Lineage by Rabbi Zacuto, a 15th century Judaeo-Iberian sage, my most recent translation into English. They all used “goy” and so do Israeli newspapers. The word "goy" has a meaning: this is a non-Jew as seen by Jews. If you think it is not a complimentary term, you mean that in your view Jews look with distaste at a goy. Maybe. But we should deal with problems, not with words. Dealing with words is easier, but brings no relief. If we were to use 'gentile', would it change the Jewish attitude to one? This is also a sign of weakness. When (in 19th century) Jews felt weak, they liked to be called Israelites, or Hebrews. Now they do not mind being called "Jews." KP: You have described the US as a “greater Jewish state.” You laud Jeffrey Blankfort as having taken “an important next step” in rejecting the views of Noam Chomsky and others. Is the influence of the “Jewish lobby” preponderant over US corporate imperialism? IS: I wrote about it in “A Yiddishe Medina.” The US corporate imperialism is not a bodiless spirit; it is the sum of desires and actions by the US elites. And the US elites are Jewish, to great extent, and they have accepted Jewish values and ideas, to even greater extent. A few years ago, an American Jewish writer Philip Weiss wrote in the New York Observer: “I don’t claim to know how Jewish the membership of the establishment is. Twenty percent, 50 percent? I’m guessing 30.” Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students, reported The Forward, a Jewish American newspaper. The Hillel Society gives such numbers: Total Undergraduate Population: 6658; Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.); Total Graduate Population: 10351 Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.). Thus the US elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of the Yankees. A less known Marxist, Sombart, wrote about it at length. Thus in my view it is a mistake to speak of “Jewish Lobby” -- we may refer to a takeover, a displacement of the old WASP elites. The Jews constitute some three percent of the US population. The Brits took over India with much less percentage; so did the ruling minority in Syria. Normans ruled over Britain for centuries with less than that. All Russian nobility in the Tsar’s days was 2-3% of the population, while upper castes of Hindu societies constitute some 5% at most. Now, the Jews are well integrated in the “US corporate imperialism” on many levels, and they do not have to fight it, they use it. The Jewish Lobby is an additional mechanism, consisting of hard-core Jewish nationalists. The problem is that the rest, the non-Jewish-Lobby part of the US establishment consists, as I have said, of not-so-nationalistic Jews to great extent. They reach compromise, and this compromise is the middle ground of mild-Jewish-nationalism. KP: On the invasion of Iraq, you stated: “Too many coincidences for a purely American war.” To what extent do you see a Zionist hand behind the attack and occupation? IS: Yes, I partly agree with the Chicago-Harvard duo, the conquest of Iraq and present threat to Iran are caused by the Zionist affiliates within the Administration. The old canard of Oil Interests was debunked by reality: oil costs more, oil companies leave Iraq, none of their executives supported the war. Probably your readers do not even think of Iraqi WMD or the silly stuff of “bringing democracy” to the Arabs. Thus the Zionist plot is the first and obvious explanation. But the Iraqi war, as a part of War on Terror, has a second leg: this is an even more scary totalitarianism, the drive to create a caste-based oligarchy of the Iron Heel, in Jack London’s terms. Fear is its important tool; dismantling of civil freedoms and of cohesive natural society is the first goal. Without War on Terror, the US rulers wouldn’t be able to read our emails, listen to our conversations, store in their data banks every bit of information about our lives. This totalitarianism was predicted by George Orwell, an avid reader of the Protocols, and it was lauded by Leo Strauss, a guiding light of Neo-Cons. Strauss endorsed a society with dictatorial powers of elites; a follower of Hobbes, he distrusted the people. Though his views were formed before the WWII, after the war he frequently referred to the Holocaust as a phenomenon that is liable to come back unless the society is firmly kept in check. I called the supporters of this paradigm by the name “Mammonites,” mammon-worshippers. The Iraqi war, and the War on Terror in general, is a joint product of Zionists and Mammonites, while these two groups often coincide, as is the case with the leading Neo-Cons. That is why our struggle is with Zionists and Mammonites; this is not only a laudable campaign of support of the peoples of the Middle East, but first of all the decisive battle for preservation of democracy and freedom in the US and Europe, for a chance of better life for our children, for creation of a more egalitarian and more spiritual society, against the Dark ages were are being led to. KP: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken a lot of flak from the western media for citing the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini about wiping Israel off the map. Apparently, judging by the western media’s silence, it was okay to wipe Palestine off the map though. Is the state of Israel a legitimate entity? IS: No, it is not. We can’t consider legitimate a state that gives no rights to its inhabitants and officially belongs to World Jewry. It is in our interests to achieve full independence from the Jews, and to shift the whole lot of rights and responsibilities to the population of the country. The sovereignty should be ours, of the people of Palestine/Israel, not of the Jewish People, the extra-territorial worldwide body. I call upon my country-fellows to give up their “Jewishness” and to become adoptive Palestinians, brothers and sisters to the native folk. I hope eventually it will happen; we shall integrate and forget the overseas connection. Meanwhile we follow the colonial paradigm and exclude the natives in the name of “Jewishness.” We should follow the example of Mexico, where immigrants from Spain and Italy form one nation with the descendents of Montezuma. KP: What does the election of Hamas mean for you? Should Hamas recognize the state of Israel? IS: I wrote about the results. The Palestinians rejected the Fatah rule because they made too many concessions to Israel, and received nothing in return. Hamas should not recognise the state of Israel, at least until the Israeli rulers recognise the Palestinian independence, remove their armed forces and stop to interfere with the free traffic of Palestinians within and without Palestine. This is reciprocity. I can imagine an even better solution: Hamas may call for full integration of all Palestine from the River to the Sea, and for general elections on the basis of One Person-One Vote. But until it happens, Hamas should be guided by reciprocity principle: mutual recognition, inter alia. KP: You are an ex-Jew, a convert to Christianity -- why is this? You have written of “many ex-Jews.” Is this for the same reason as you? Do you think a growing trend in Jewish apostasy would be effective in bringing about justice for Palestinians? IS: Christianity and Judaism are strongly connected religions. A Christian, Karl Marx said: Christianity is sublime Judaism, while Judaism is sordid Christianity. A real Christian knows that a goy is not worse than a Jew; so the idea of Jewish exclusivity is not acceptable to a Christian. In our country we have many Russian Orthodox Christians (some of Jewish origin, and some not), and they pray and celebrate holidays together with our Palestinian Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters. I was baptised by the Palestinian priest, Archbishop Theodosius Attalla Hanna, and it helped me to sort out the question of identity. The important point is not to create a separate Jewish “Christian” set-up, for such an arrangement defeats its purpose. Thus I am worried that there are “Jewish Christian” churches that are devoutly Zionist. In short, yes, baptism is a solution, but only in connection with rejection of Jewishness. If it is done as an addition to Jewishness, it is void, and brings no benefit. Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in the traditional Mi'kmaq homeland colonially designated Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#92. To: Burkeman1 (#17)
I am, too. I know perfectly well what certain Jews have done to the world, but some non-Jews are just as bad. It's wasn't Jews who invented the concentration camp -- it was the English in the Boer War, when they slaughered one-fouth of the population. It wasn't Jews who murdered or exiled one-third of Ireland -- it was the English. Every group has its bad apples.
I am more than a little tired of the Jew obssession.
"Benjamin Franklin was shown the new American constitution, and he said, 'I don't like it, but I will vote for it because we need something right now. But this constitution in time will fail, as all such efforts do. And it will fail because of the corruption of the people, in a general sense.' And that is what it has come to now, exactly as Franklin predicted." -- Gore Vidal
#93. To: Gene Douglas, christine (#84)
There would be no Israel, there would be no Jewish-Palestinian conflict, and maybe German suspicion of Jewish betrayal might not have contributed to hatred that brought about the holocaust. France and England would still have divided up Arabia, but there would have been no betrayal of Arabs fighting on their side to do that. And the Arabs would have kicked them out, as they did do. We probably should have entered WW I in 1915, on the side of the Germans, and kicked the hell out of the nasty Brits and the French alike. Both of them were acting as genocidal maniacs, throwing their own troops into the meat grinder. It was the covert supply lines of war materiel to Britain that provoked the Wolfpack submarine attacks on U.S. and British shipping later in the war. When a neutral violates their own declaration of neutrality, all bets are off and any attacks are now within the rules of engagement under the Law of Nations.
This raises the temptation of "what if" history. What if we had entered the war in 1915, and it had ended earlier?
"Never has so much military and economic and diplomatic power been used so ineffectively, and if after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice, and all of this support, there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership not tied to the mistakes and policies of the past." Richard M. Nixon
#94. To: Zoroaster (#91)
Thank you for the article - it adds to the information provided by Mearsheimer and Walt. It's remarkable how the composition of the elites has changed over the course of 50 short years to now include approx. 30% Jews, considering that the WASP elite were so bigoted to Jews and Catholics at one time. Catholics are still marginalized today as are blacks, Hispanics, Asians, although the Asians may represent the up and coming power-house due to monies they bring with them from overseas and due to their innate intelligence, generally speaking.
IS: I wrote about it in “A Yiddishe Medina.” The US corporate imperialism is not a bodiless spirit; it is the sum of desires and actions by the US elites. And the US elites are Jewish, to great extent, and they have accepted Jewish values and ideas, to even greater extent. A few years ago, an American Jewish writer Philip Weiss wrote in the New York Observer: “I don’t claim to know how Jewish the membership of the establishment is. Twenty percent, 50 percent? I’m guessing 30.” Jews compose at least 30% of Harvard students, reported The Forward, a Jewish American newspaper. The Hillel Society gives such numbers: Total Undergraduate Population: 6658; Jewish Undergraduate Population: 2000 (approx.); Total Graduate Population: 10351 Jewish Graduate Population: 2500 (approx.). Thus the US elites are Jewish to a great extent, in the ordinary meaning of the word. As for spirit, Karl Marx spoke of “Jewish spirit” of the Yankees. A less known Marxist, Sombart, wrote about it at length. Thus in my view it is a mistake to speak of “Jewish Lobby” -- we may refer to a takeover, a displacement of the old WASP elites.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest