From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyénot


FOTCM Member
Finished the book recently and I must say that in certain aspects it's a real eye-opener and at the same time very tragic. Here are some interesting quotes.

The Theoclastic God

For the Egyptians, gods are social beings, who collaborate in the management of the cosmos. The harmony of this world, including human affairs, depends on good cooperation between the gods. Hebrew theology, on the other hand, promotes the war of one god against all others.

Yahweh, however, could not be matched up with any other god, and his priests forbade doing so. “Whereas polytheism, or rather ‘cosmotheism,’ rendered different cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion [Yahwism] blocked intercultural translatability.” And when the Lord directs his people, “You will make no pact with them or with their gods” (Exodus 23: 32), or “Do not utter the names of their gods, do not swear by them, do not serve them and do not bow down to them” (Joshua 23: 7), he is in effect preventing any relationship of trust with the neighboring peoples.

It perfectly illustrates how, to arrive at monotheism, Yahwism takes the diametrically opposite path from other cultures of the same period: Rather than reaching philosophically the notion of the unity of all gods under a universal Godhead, the Yahwists pursued the outright negation of other gods and the extermination of their priests.

There is no trace in the Torah of a cosmic struggle between two principles, as in the myth of Osiris or in Persian Zoroastrianism. The fundamental tension is not between good and evil, but between Yahweh and the other gods.

The Yahwist priests stripped man of this fundamental responsibility, in order to deify law and history. According to the great Jewish thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “The Torah does not recognize moral imperatives stemming from knowledge of natural reality or from awareness of man’s duty to his fellow man. All it recognizes are Mitzvot, divine imperatives.” The hundreds of mitzvot (“ commandments”) are an end in themselves, not a way to a higher moral consciousness. In fact, according to Gilad Atzmon, Jewish legalism stifles genuine ethical judgment, for “ethical people don’t need ‘commandments’ to know that murder or theft are wrong.”

Neither is there is any trace in Yahwist metaphysics of gender complementarity. According to the Bible, Yahweh needed no female deity to create the world... Yahweh is a god without history, without genealogy, without wife or mother or children; and therefore without mythology.

And so, even while claiming to be the Creator of the universe and humanity, Yahweh remains a national, chauvinist god; that is the basis for the dissonance between tribalism and universalism that has brought up the “Jewish question” throughout the ages. In fact, the Jewish conception of Yahweh parallels the historical process, for in the development of Yahwism, it is not the Creator of the Universe who became the god of Israel, but rather the god of Israel who became the Creator of the Universe. And so for the Jews, Yahweh is primarily the god of Jews, and secondarily the Creator of the Universe; whereas Christians, deceived by the biblical narrative, see things the other way around.

The overarching theme of the Bible is the relationship between Yahweh and his people. But according to a critical reading, the Bible is actually the history of the relationship between the priestly elite speaking for Yahweh and the Jewish people, who are sometimes submissive, and sometimes rebellious to authority. The Bible itself shows that it is the priests that prevented the Jewish people from establishing any form of alliance with the surrounding peoples, and pushed them to genocidal violence against their neighbors.

The Yahwist lesson is always the same. Each time the Hebrews begin to sympathize with other nations to the point of mingling with their religious life (social life being inseparable from worship), Yahweh punishes them by sending against them … other nations. The hand of friendship held out by others is a death trap. He whose friendship you seek is your worst enemy. This principle in Yahwist ideology encloses the Jewish people in a cognitive vicious circle, preventing them from learning the only sensible lesson from their experience: that contacts promote cultural understanding between peoples, while refusal of contact generates hostility. According to the Bible, the chosen people have obligations only toward Yahweh, never toward their neighbors.

For two thousand years, Jews have been constantly reminded by their elites that the persecutions they suffer are not the result of offensive behavior against Gentiles, but rather their efforts to live with them in harmony— efforts that amount to infidelity to God and to their vocation as “a people apart.”

The Prince Of This World

Unlike the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, or Roman traditions, the Hebrew religion is hostile to any imaginary form of the hereafter. In the Hebrew Bible, one would search in vain for the idea that the dying man will meet his Creator: the life of each of the patriarchs ends simply by mentioning their place of burial. About Jacob, it is said that, “breathing his last, he was gathered to his people” (Genesis 49: 33), but nothing suggests here anything more than a conventional euphemism. Jacob, in any case, does not join Yahweh. In fact, Yahweh does not seem to reside in any other place than the earthly Jerusalem Temple. Reflecting a Sethian vision of life and death, the Judaic tradition knows nothing of the funerary myths so popular in other cultures, whose heroes explore the Other World.

In conclusion, the biblical scribes strongly disliked the heroic ideology that grants the noble dead a blessed immortality and a role in enhancing the welfare of their community. Yahwist religion erased this ideology from ancient legends, but not to the point of making it undetectable by historical criticism. Contrary to a widespread idea, the denial of the individual soul in the Hebrew Bible is not an archaism dating back to a stage when men had not yet developed this concept. On the contrary, it is a revolutionary ideology, aggressively set against a universal belief that is probably as old as humanity, judging by funerary archeology. Critical analysis of the biblical legends proves that the Yahwist editors deliberately eliminated every notion of heroic immortality from the traditions that they appropriated from the ancient kingdom of Israel.

The Last Hero

According to the testimonies of Tertullian, Justin, Origen, and Eusebius, it was the Jews who incited the Romans to persecute Christians, denouncing them with slanderous accusations, such as allegedly eating children slaughtered in nocturnal gatherings: “The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith,” affirms Saint Justin around 116 CE. The Martyrdom of Polycarp (second century) underlines the importance of the Jewish participation in the persecution of the Christians of Smyrna. It seems therefore very likely that Jesus was a victim of the same methods.

The most important apocalyptic text of the Christian tradition, known as the book of Revelation, is not only foreign to the message of the earthly Jesus, but is today regarded as of non-Christian origin, for its central part (from 4: 1 to 22: 15) refers neither to Jesus nor to any Christian theme evidenced elsewhere. Only the prologue (including the letters to the seven churches in Asia) and the epilogue are ostensibly Christian, and they are attached to the body of the text by easily identifiable editorial transitions (not to mention the double signature of “John” in 22: 8 and “Jesus” in 22: 16).

We may therefore look at the apocalyptic current as the result of a re-Judaization of the Gospel message, under the influence of a turn of mind foreign to Jesus. This is a relevant observation for our time, for we shall see that apocalypticism has distorted so-called “evangelical” Christianity to the point of transforming it into an objective ally of American-Zionist militarism.

More important still in the evolution of Christianity was the adoption of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, into its canon. What has Christ to do with Yahweh? How can we think of Yahweh as the Father (Abba) that Jesus knew? How should we interpret the fundamentally anti-Jewish dimension of the Gospels, whose supreme expression is the accusation hurled by Jesus at the “Jews” (meaning the mob as well as the political and religious elite): “You are of the devil, your father, and it is the desires of your father you want to accomplish. He was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8: 44).
Who is this diabolos who wants to murder Christ, if not Yahweh-Seth? Is not this Yahweh who promises his people, in exchange for their submission, domination over the nations of the world (Deuteronomy 28: 1) the very Devil who offers Jesus the exact same bargain (Matthew 4: 8-10)? The so-called Gnostic Christians were well aware of the problem. They held Yahweh as an evil demiurge who had enslaved men through terror and deceitful promises of material well-being, while the loving God of Christ came to liberate them through “knowledge” (gnosis, a term indicating a deeper transformation of the self than a mere intellectual understanding). Yahweh, they believed, is the Prince of this world, while Christos came from heaven to rescue them.

The Old Testament was to become the Trojan horse of Yahwism within Christianity. By enhancing its status, the reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries launched an irreversible return to Judaism. For this reason, some Catholics call Protestantism “Old Testamentism.” That is overly simplistic: it was the bishops of the first centuries who opted for the adoption of the Hebrew Bible into the canon. Later the “reforming” popes of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries relied heavily on it to mobilize the crusaders. Be that as it may, the Judaization of Christianity, to which Protestantism made a decisive but not exclusive contribution, paved the way for the anti-Christianism of the Enlightenment.

The Talmud was the Jews’ response to the appropriation by Christians of their heritage. It transformed rabbinic Judaism into a fundamentally anti-Christian religion. Christianity and Talmudism were both born from the ashes of the old biblical religion after the crises of the first two centuries CE, which saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the expulsion of its Jewish population in 135. Both reached their discernible outlines only in the fourth century, and both pretended to reform ancient Judaism, but in opposite directions and in vicious competition: Talmudism, emerging from the Pharisaical current, exacerbated the purificationist, ritualistic, legalistic, and separatist tendencies; while Christianity opposed it and, under the inspiration of Paul, rejected circumcision and the Mosaic law as a whole.

The Wandering Crypto-Jew

The rise of European Jewish communities in the Middle Ages is shrouded in mystery, as are many other aspects of medieval civilization until the twelfth century. What emerges from the chronicles most clearly is the fact that, although excluded from Christian society, Jews had a virtual monopoly on the practice of lending at interest— an economic power that the Church denied Christians for moral reasons. By contrast, the practice of usury as a weapon of domination over “the nations” is promoted by the laws of Deuteronomy (15: 6), by the “heroic” legends in the Hebrew Bible (Joseph in Egypt), by the Talmud, and even by Maimonides, now considered the greatest Jewish thinker of the Middle Ages.

Throughout medieval Europe, from France to Russia passing through Germany and Poland, the Jews were hated; they were perennial victims of popular anger for their ruthless usury, alongside their aggressive commercial practices such as client-hunting, predatory pricing, and other violations of the codes of the guilds and corporations from which they were excluded. Even the bourgeois would complain about these practices and petition or even pay princes to put an end to them. Kings and princes, however, granted Jewish usurers protection whenever Judeophobia arose among the people. The tax on interest made Jews an important source of contributions to the royal treasury. Additionally, the kings and princes would themselves fall under the control of the moneylenders. Indeed, usury allowed Jews, operating in a network, to concentrate in their hands an ever-greater share of the money supply. Jews became the king’s creditors whenever he ran out of money, especially in wartime. It was these Jewish bankers, says Abraham Leon, who “allowed the kings to maintain the costly armies of mercenaries that begin to replace the undisciplined hordes of the nobility.”

The powerful used Jews as intermediaries for collecting taxes, in kind and in cash. “Tax farming” and lending at interest are activities that combine into a formidable power, since it is often taxes that force producers into debt. Occupying powers have always been able to count on the collaboration of the Jews as an intermediate class to exploit, and force into submission, the population of the occupied country; such was already the case in Egypt under Persian rule in the fifth century BCE, and again under the Ptolemies. Jewish elites, it seems, felt no solidarity with oppressed people, but remained loyal to the monarch who granted them privileged status and protected them from the vengeful mob.

England offers a good illustration of this phenomenon. The first Jews, mostly from Rouen, arrived there with William the Conqueror in 1066.156 They were soon in all major cities of England, serving as intermediaries between the new elite and the Norman Anglo-Saxon population. The king and his barons, who had decimated and replaced the Anglo-Saxon nobility, granted the Jews a monopoly on tax collection, which at the time was a profession akin to racketeering under royal protection. According to historian Edward Freeman, a specialist in the Norman Conquest, “They came as the king’s special men, or more truly as his special chattels, strangers alike to the Church and the commonwealth, but strong in the protection of a master who commonly found it his interest to protect them against all others. Hated, feared, and loathed, but far too deeply feared to be scorned or oppressed, they stalked defiantly among the people of the land, on whose wants they throve, safe from harm or insult, save now and then, when popular wrath burst all bounds, when their proud mansions and fortified quarters could shelter them no longer from raging crowds who were eager to wash out their debts in the blood of their creditors.”

Despite these violent episodes, the economic clout of the Jews quickly rose. The king became obliged to his Jewish bankers and made them his advisers. In the second half of the twelfth century, Henry II owed the Jewish financier Aaron of Lincoln alone a sum equivalent to the kingdom’s annual budget. Aaron died as the richest man in England, but the king then seized his property.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Church continued to condemn Jewish usury for its damage to the social fabric. The issue was central to the Fourth Lateran Council convened in 1215 by Innocent III. Five edicts issued by the council concerned the Jews, two of them condemning the usurers’ abusive practice of appropriating the properties of defaulting debtors.

Truth be told, the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude toward moneylending and banking was ambivalent. The crusade spawned a huge increase in banking activity, since it required mortgages, interest-bearing loans, and bills of exchange at a scale previously unknown. Such activity became the specialty of the Knights Templar (the Poor Knights of Christ of the Order of the Temple of Solomon, by their full name), founded in the early twelfth century by nine soldier-monks from Troyes— a city with an influential Jewish community. Taking as their insignia the seal of Solomon (or Star of David) in the middle of the Cross Pattée (footed cross) the Templars were heavily influenced by the trade and finance of the Jews. In an 1139 bull, Pope Innocent II granted them exemption from paying tithes (church tax), full use of tithes they collected, and the right to keep any kind of booty seized in the Holy Land from conquered Saracens.

The Templars invented modern banking
. They issued the check or money order called the “letter of credit” and their command posts served as safe-deposit boxes for kings and wealthy individuals. They provided transportation of funds secured by their reputation and warrior tradition. They also acted as officers to recover debts or safeguard property under litigation. The prohibition of usury was circumvented by “reciprocal gifts.” By seizing their debtors’ assets at death, they appropriated, in the middle of the thirteenth century, part of France’s territory and formed a state within the state. When French king Philip the Fair targeted the Jewish financial networks in 1306, he simultaneously attacked the Templars, who were an essential link in these networks.

The “Jewish question” became complicated in Europe when the Talmud became known to Christians. Written in Hebrew, it had been carefully concealed from public view,
actually containing the statement: “The goyim who seek to discover the secrets of the Law of Israel commit a crime that calls for the death penalty” (Sanhedrin 59a). It was in 1236 that Nicolas Donin, a converted Jew who became a Dominican monk, gained an audience with Pope Gregory IX to convince him of the blasphemous character of the Talmud, which presents Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a), capable of miracles only by sorcery, and not risen but “sent to hell, where he was punished by being boiled in excrement” (Gittin 56b).

Throughout the sixteenth century, the Marranos migrated to nations with Jewish communities, but were not allowed to officially join them. Many, feeling as foreign to one religion as the other, lost their faith. But their rejection of Jewish religion was not a rejection of Jewishness. On the contrary: beginning in the fifteenth century, a heightened racial pride emerged among the New Christians, in direct contradiction to the Christian concept that, among the baptized, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3: 28). Having been forced to change their religion, the Marranos minimized the importance of religion and interpreted their Jewishness in racial terms, allowing them to view themselves as fundamentally Jewish, and only incidentally Christian. It was the Marranos who, inspired by the Talmud, disseminated the first racist theories...

Far from blending in with Christian society, New Christians socialized and married only among themselves, continued to practice usury, and still served as intermediaries between the elite and the masses of Old Christians, only with increased freedom and legitimacy. This behavior was the determining factor in the transformation of religiously based Judeophobia into the racial Judeophobia that would later be called “anti-Semitism”...

Part of the Marrano community never left Portugal, and in the early twentieth century, ethnographers were able to document remnant Marrano communities that had maintained their secret customs for more than five centuries, oblivious to their specific historical ties with the Jews of the world...

But a larger number of Portuguese Marranos spread around the world beginning in 1507, when they were first allowed to trade internationally. Some crossed the Pyrenees to reach Bayonne and Bordeaux, others settled in Northern Europe or in the Mediterranean basin, while others sailed to Lima in South America, or Goa in India. “From the mid-seventeenth century onward,” summarizes Yovel, “the Marranos created a worldwide network of Spanish-Portuguese establishments, a kind of archipelago of islands where they interacted to some degree with their surroundings, bringing with them their languages, their cultures, their Iberian customs, their skills and trade networks along with the restlessness and split identity that was their own special characteristic.” The conversos quickly became first-class international businessmen, confidently exchanging bank notes and IOUs. They “created the first pre-modern, albeit fragmented, model of economic globalization” and “soon began to rise to the forefront of international trade, virtually monopolizing the market for certain commodities, such as sugar, to participate to a lesser degree in trading spices, rare woods, tea, coffee, and the transportation of slaves.” Their strength lay not only in their network of solidarity, but also in their great mobility, with wealthy families always ready to respond to constraints or opportunities by a new exile.

Fleeing the Inquisition, many Marranos took refuge in the Ottoman Empire, particularly in the city of Thessaloniki, where they were free to practice their religion. They converted nominally to Islam in large numbers during the seventeenth century, following the example of Sabbatai Zevi, the Kabbalist and self-styled messiah, forming the Dönmeh community, whose numbers were assessed at more than one million in the early twentieth century. In 1550, the French King Henri II allowed “merchants and other Portuguese called New Christians” to settle in Bordeaux, granting them privileges that allowed them to acquire great wealth in maritime trade, including the slave trade. In Venice, Portuguese Marranos settled in the early sixteenth century. By the middle of the seventeenth century “they attained the hegemony in local affairs,” according to Cecil Roth. It is worth mentioning that the first edition of the Babylonian Talmud was printed in Venice in 1520. From 1512 onward, an even larger Marrano community settled in the Netherlands, then under Spanish rule. Antwerp became their capital and emerged as a booming economic center. Calvinist uprisings led to the independence of the United Provinces in 1579. When, in 1585, Philip II of Spain temporarily retook Antwerp, Jews and Calvinists transferred their businesses to Amsterdam. In the seventeenth century, the Jewish community of Amsterdam, called the “New Jerusalem of the North,” was composed largely of conversos who had returned to Judaism. Ashkenazi Jews also flocked to Amsterdam after the pogroms in Poland and Ukraine in 1648. Many of these Jews and crypto-Jews eventually would join the “New Amsterdam,” later renamed New York.

When circumstances permitted, the Marranos returned to Judaism. But if it benefitted their affairs, they could also re-don the Christian mask when travelling back to Spain, Portugal, or in the Iberian colonies. Many made use of two names: a Hebrew name within the Jewish community, and a Spanish or Portuguese name in international affairs.

Firmly established in all major European ports, the Marranos played the leading role in the commercial and colonial expansion of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century Europe. Their networks were not only the link between the maritime empires of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French, and English, but also took on a global dimension, connecting Asia, Africa, Europe, and America. Portuguese Marranos mastered large-scale trade, on the routes to the East Indies as well as the newly opened sea routes to the “West Indies,” meaning the American continent.

Christopher Columbus— who left Spain during the same month that the decree of expulsion of the Jews was declared— was himself Marrano, according to a thesis defended by several Jewish historians, including Cecil Roth, author of an authoritative history of Marranism: “That epoch-making expedition of 1492 was as a matter of fact very largely a Jewish, or rather a Marrano, enterprise. There are grounds for believing that Columbus was himself a member of a New Christian family.” Christopher Columbus, we may recall, was the author of a genocide-by-forced-labor of Caribbean populations, island after island. In 1495, he sent the first shipments of Indian slaves to Spain: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity, go on sending all the slaves that can be sold,” he wrote. Others were enslaved in their own lands for the extraction of the gold that Columbus intended to send back to his sponsors. Each Haitian above the age of thirteen was required to bring in a quota of gold, and those who failed had their hands cut off. The hell imposed on these populations resulted in the first known mass suicides. The population was decimated in two generations. The unspeakable cruelty of Columbus and his men was documented by the priest Bartolome de las Casas.

In the wake of Columbus, the Marranos became the main catalysts of the new spirit of colonial expansion, from Mexico to Peru and from the Caribbean to Brazil.

No international trade escaped them, and in time of war, they traded with enemy countries equally.
Naturally, said Wachtel, “the traffic of African slaves [. . .] was virtually controlled at the end of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, by the networks of the Marrano diaspora,” all beneficiaries of asientos (exclusive contracts granted by the Crown) being Portuguese businessmen. Some were at the same time priests, like Diego Lopez de Lisboa in the first decade of the seventeenth century. Note that, out of a little over nine million slaves imported to the Americas between 1519 and 1867, eight million were in Brazil and the Caribbean, where the traffic was in the hands of Marranos. The conditions were much harder there than in North America; the majority of slaves died young without founding families. Jewish justification of this traffic, inspired by the Hebrew Bible, was voiced by Jacob ben Isaac Achkenazi de Janow in his Commentary on the Torah in the early seventeenth century: Blacks were descended from Ham, the youngest son of Noah, who was cursed by the Lord with these words: “Accursed be Canaan, he shall be his brothers’ meanest slave” (Genesis 9: 25). 193 It is fair to mention that Pope Paul III proclaimed in 1537 his bull Sublimus Dei prohibiting slavery of American Indians and all other peoples, denouncing such practices as directly inspired by “the enemy of mankind.”

The controversy of Reuchlin led to an unquestionable victory of Judaism over Christianity, and it was the starting point of the Reformation. According to Heinrich Graetz, “We can boldly assert that the war for and against the Talmud aroused German consciousness, and created a public opinion, without which the Reformation, like many other efforts, would have died in the hour of birth, or, perhaps, would never have been born at all.”

Since its appearance, the Protestant Reformation has been seen by Catholics as effecting a return to Judaism under the influence of Jews and Marranos. Its contempt for saints and destruction of the Marian cult, in particular, are an indirect attack against Christ. If the Jews shunned the Reformation, this was not the case for crypto-Jews, who saw it as a way to leave the Church and gain easier access to the Hebrew Bible. The role of the Marranos was particularly important in the Calvinist movement, which not only brought back the God of the Old Testament, but also condoned moneymaking and usury. During his lifetime, Calvin was already suspected of having Marrano origin. His name, spelled Jehan Cauvin, plausibly derives from Cauin, a French version of Coen. Calvin wrote commentaries on the entire Old Testament and perfectly mastered Hebrew, which he learned from rabbis. He heaped praise on the Jewish people: pure knowledge of God comes from them, as did the Messiah. His obsession with the law, and his belief that idolatry should be eradicated by military force, have their roots in the Old Testament, as does his obsession with purity.

To be continued.
The Imperial Matrix

The influence of the Marranos in England began under Henry VIII (1509– 1547). It initially coincided with that of the Venetians, who, in the 1530s, gained the upper hand over the king’s government by heavily indebting it...

England sought to undermine Spain’s control over its seventeen provinces in the Netherlands, including Belgium, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and part of Picardy. It benefited from the support of many crypto-Jews converted to Calvinism. According to Jewish historian and journalist Lucien Wolf, “the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. […] The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. […] Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism.” Deeply involved in the development of printing in Antwerp and Amsterdam, these Calvinist Marranos actively contributed to the propaganda against Philip II, Spain, and Catholicism. In 1566 they triggered a revolt in Antwerp that spread to all the cities of Holland. In one year, 4,000 priests, monks, and nuns were killed, 12,000 nuns driven out of their convents, thousands of churches desecrated and ransacked, and countless monasteries destroyed with their libraries.

Many Spanish contemporaries, like the poet Francisco de Quevedo (1580– 1645), discerned a Jewish conspiracy at the source of these revolts and the concurrent decline of Spain. The revolts led to the independence of the United Provinces in 1579 (which Spain did not recognize until 1648). When Philip II temporarily took over Antwerp in 1585, Jews, Marranos, and Calvinists transferred their economic activity to Amsterdam. Many returned to Judaism, even bringing with them certain Calvinists of non-Jewish origin. During the reign of Elizabeth (1558– 1603), although the Jews remained officially banned in the kingdom, many of them penetrated into the higher spheres of the state under an (often perfunctory) Anglican or Calvinist disguise. Under the double Marrano/ Puritan influence, the Hebrew vogue spread through the aristocracy. A Judeophilic climate prevailed in the court of Elizabeth. Jewish and Christian Hebraists were sought after, producing in 1611 the translation known as the King James Bible. The Kabbalah, one of the Trojan horses of Judaism in European Christianity, also gained adherents among English nobles and intellectuals, and gave birth to a prolific literature. The Hebraist John Dee was the most important promoter of occultism in the Elizabethan period. When in 1558 Queen Elizabeth acceded to the throne, Dee became her close personal adviser in science and astrology, to the point of fixing the date of her coronation. Dee may have inspired playwright Christopher Marlowe’s main character in his tragic story of Doctor Faustus, a man who sells his soul to the devil to satisfy his greed for knowledge...

Beginning in the seventeenth century, it was the Jews who made London the world’s foremost financial center, on the model of Amsterdam. The death of Cromwell in 1657 was followed by the restoration of Charles II, son of Charles I, who was succeeded by his brother James II, Catholic and pro-French, later overthrown by the Glorious Revolution (1688– 89) that brought to power his son-in-law William III of Orange, with the help of the Huguenots of Amsterdam. William of Orange, responsible to his bankers, authorized them to found the Bank of England in 1694. He granted the Bank a monopoly on the issue of money, that is to say, on the public debt, ordering the British Treasury to borrow 1,250,000 pounds from his bankers. The Bank of England is in essence a cartel of private bankers, who have the exclusive privilege of granting the government interest-bearing loans guaranteed by taxes. This institution was the first of its kind. (Napoleon created the Bank of France on the same model in 1800). The Bank of England laid the foundations for the financial domination of the world by the usurers of the City of London...

When a British Jew such as Disraeli says “we,” there is always a possible double sense. And the ambiguity is always strategic, for a large part of the Anglo-Saxon industrial, political, and cultural elite shared a common belief in the British Empire’s global mission to civilize the world. Cecil Rhodes (1853– 1902), who gave his name to two African countries, Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), was an ardent propagandist for world government by the “British race.” According to Carroll Quigley, in 1891 Rhodes founded a secret society devoted to this cause, which was later developed by his friend Lord Alfred Milner, and known since 1909 as the Round Table or the Rhodes-Milner Group. Lord Salisbury, minister of foreign affairs in the Disraeli cabinet (1878– 1880), then prime minister in 1885, was a member of this secret society, according to Quigley, as was Lord Nathan Rothschild. Many other connections could be evoked to illustrate that, from the mid-nineteenth century onward, British imperialism and Zionism have been intimately intertwined.

The question of the relationship between Albion and Zion is also related to that of the relationship between legal and occult power, and in particular the measure of the real power of the Rothschild dynasty over British policy. There is little question, for example, that without the Rothschilds, Great Britain would never have gained control of the Suez Canal, which was the cornerstone of the empire in the Middle East, and sealed its alliance with Zionism. The Rothschilds never sought political office, preferring the less visible but much greater financial power...

It was also in 1881, the year of Disraeli’s death, that Baron Edmond de Rothschild, from the Parisian branch, started to buy land in Palestine and funded the installation of Jewish settlers, especially in Tel Aviv. More than twelve thousand acres of land were bought, and more than forty colonies were founded under the aegis of his Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA). His son James later continued this philanthropic investment. Yesterday hailed as “the Father of the Yishuv,” Edmond is honored on Israeli currency today...

A quarter century after Disraeli had saved the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan’s opposition stymied all hope of acquiring Palestine; it was thus necessary that the Ottoman Empire disappear and the cards be redistributed. Herzl understood that “the division of Turkey means a world war.” His partner Max Nordau, a speaker with incomparable prophetic talent, made before the 1903 Zionist Congress a famous prophecy of the upcoming war whence “a free and Jewish Palestine” would emerge. (In the 1911 congress, he would make another prophecy: that the European governments were preparing the “complete annihilation for six million [Jewish] people.”)

Writing in 1938, Jewish historian Benzion Netanyahu (father of the later prime minister) summarized the feverish anticipation of this great cataclysm in the Zionist community. As is always the case in Jewish historiography, all eyes were fixed on the fate of the chosen people with complete indifference to the collateral victims: “The great moment came, as he prophesied, bound together with the storm of a world war, and bearing in its wings an exterminating attack on world Jewry, which began with the massacre of the Jews of Ukraine (during the Russian Civil War) and continues to spread to the present day. Herzl’s political activity resulted in the fact that the Jews, whom he had united in a political organization, were recognized as a political entity, and that their aspirations […] became part of the international political system. Indeed, due to the war, those aspirations had become so important that the major powers turned to the Zionists.”

Shortly before the outbreak of the World War, in 1908, the sultanate itself would be destroyed from within by the secular revolution of the Young Turks, a movement described by T. E. Lawrence as “50% crypto-Jewish and 95% freemasonic,” and, according to Rabbi Joachim Prinz, led by “ardent ‘doennmehs’,” that is, crypto-Jews who, though nominally Muslims, “had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna” (The Secret Jews, 1973). After having attracted Armenians to their revolution with the promise of political autonomy, the Young Turks, once in power, suppressed their nationalist aspirations by the extermination in 1915– 16 of 1,200,000 of this ancient and vibrant people whom rabbinic tradition assimilated to the Amalekites of the Bible...

Thus, while the English were bringing America into war by supporting a Jewish movement (Zionism), the Germans managed to get Russia out of the war by supporting another Jewish movement (Bolshevism)
. Robert Wilton, the Times correspondent in Russia until 1920, writes in The Last Days of the Romanovs: “The Germans knew what they were doing when they sent Lenin’s pack of Jews into Russia. They chose them as agents of destruction. Why? Because the Jews were not Russians and to them the destruction of Russia was all in the way of business, revolutionary or financial. The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of alien invasion.” The Bolshevik regime was predominantly Jewish from its inception. The Central Committee, which exercised supreme power, consisted of nine Jews and three Russians (Lenin was counted among the Russians, although his maternal grandfather, born Srul [Israel], was Jewish). Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918– 1919, 458 were identifiable as Jews, according to Robert Wilton...

The Birth Pangs Of Zion

Marxism and Zionism

By defining itself as a religion and officially renouncing any national or ethnic claim, Reform Judaism of the nineteenth century made itself vulnerable to the general decline of religious piety that also affected Christianity. Many emancipated Jews rejected not only the ethnic-national conception of Judaism, but also its religious conception. Some converted to Christianity, less to change their religion than to break with their inheritance and better assimilate. This was the case with Heinrich Heine in 1825. It was also the case a year earlier with Herschel Levi, who baptized his whole family and changed his name to Heinrich Marx. His son Karl was then six years old. Twenty years later, Karl Marx displayed a virulent hostility to Judaism, which he saw as the source of the capitalist spirit. However, in a notable and widely-noted paradox, the humanism of Marx remains imprinted with the very Judaism he execrated. Marx’s vision of world revolution painfully giving birth to the new world seems haunted by Hebrew messianism. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party cosigned by Friedrich Engels in 1848, the Communists “openly proclaim that their goals cannot be reached except through the violent overthrow of the entire social order of the past.” The proletariat, composed at that time of disinherited and uprooted peasants, became a new “chosen people” guiding humanity toward happiness. According to the Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, the Jewish traditional denial of the spiritual world is the source of Marx’s philosophical materialism, in the name of which he ousted Gospel-friendly brands of socialism: “Having no hope of future compensation, the Jew could not resign himself to the misfortunes of life. [. . .] To the scourges that struck him, he replied neither by the fatalism of the Muslim, nor by the resignation of the Christian: he answered by revolt.”

It should be pointed out, however, that revolutions are not a Jewish specialty— the Jews have been more often the victims than the instigators of revolutions. According to the more detailed analysis of Hilaire Belloc, leader of the English “distributist” current, Marxism proves its filiation with Judaism by its determination to destroy three things valued by Europeans and traditionally despised by Jews: (non-Jewish) patriotism, (Christian) religion, and (landed) property.

The first point is symptomatic of the failure of Jewish assimilation, since the aim of assimilation was to make Jews national citizens and not “citizens of the world,” that is, stateless internationalists. Marx’s internationalism is blind to the patriotic feeling of the working classes, and reproduces Jewish hostility to nations and nationalisms of all kinds.

Until the end of the nineteenth century, the majority of Jews living in Germany for several generations remained as indifferent to the Zionist appeal as to the revolutionary appeal, cherishing above all their social success. It was among the Ashkenazi Jews who lived in Russian territory or had emigrated to Germany and Austria-Hungary that these movements would become tidal waves. These eastern European Jews formed the revolutionary vanguard that in March 1848 arose in the German Confederation and other regions under the domination of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia. It was among them also that in 1882, the appeal of the doctor Leon Pinsker of Odessa for the Jews’ “return to the ranks of the nations by the acquisition of a Jewish homeland” was taken up. At the seventh World Zionist Congress (1905), young Jews from Poland and Russia took the lead. Among them were Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, who later in London became key figures behind the Balfour Declaration...

At the end of the nineteenth century, conversion to communism or Zionism among the newly emancipated Ashkenazi Jews was associated with the rejection of the Talmud. But the split led to two divergent options and two visions of history. Chaim Weizmann recounts in his autobiography (Trial and Error, 1949) that Jews in Russia in the early twentieth century were divided, sometimes within single families, between revolutionary communists and revolutionary Zionists. These divisions, however, were relative and changeable; not only were the pioneers of Zionism often Marxist, but many communist Jews became ardent Zionists throughout the twentieth century. The borderline was all the more vague as the powerful General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia, better known as the Bund, inscribed in its revolutionary agenda the right of the Jews to found a secular Yiddish-speaking nation. Moreover, some financiers in Europe and America supported the two movements jointly, to make them the two jaws of the same pincers that would clutch Europe: Jacob Schiff, one of the richest American bankers of the time, financed Herzl and Lenin simultaneously...

Russia and the Jews

Before analyzing the impact of Zionism and communism in Europe during what Yuri Slezkine calls “the Jewish century,” we need to look back at the history of the Jews of Eastern Europe. From the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, the Jewish community in Poland was the largest in the world. Its origin remains difficult to explain, but immigration from the Rhine countries at the end of the Middle Ages is the most plausible hypothesis. In the seventeenth century, Poland was governed by an oligarchy that concentrated all the wealth in its hands, and relied on the Jews for the exploitation of the peasants. Totally unassimilated, speaking Yiddish and hardly any Polish, the Jews lived under the control of their own administrative and judicial system, the kahal, which maintained the cohesion of the community by prohibiting competition among its members. But the Jews were also important players in the national economy. They were the landowners’ administrators and tax collectors. As legal middlemen in the grain trade, they manipulated prices at will. Their complicity in the oppression of the peasant masses by the nobility inevitably generated resentments that were expressed in explosions of violence. When the Cossacks led by Bogdan Chmielnicki revolted against the Polish nobles in 1648, the Jews were the first to be massacred.

After the annexation of part of Poland by Russia between 1772 and 1795, these Ashkenazi Jews lived mainly in Russia, cantoned in their “Pale of Settlement.” They numbered six hundred thousand on the eve of the first partition (1772), and nearly six million by 1897. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, most still spoke neither Polish nor Russian. In 1801 a memoir written by the senator and writer Gabriel Romanovich Derjavin for Tsar Paul I after an observation mission in the Pale of Settlement, revealed that a majority of Jews made their living from the manufacture and sale of vodka, to which they were granted exclusive rights by the Polish nobility. By combining this activity with their second specialty, lending money at interest (i.e., selling alcohol on credit), they encouraged alcoholism among the peasants and indebted them to the point of ruin: “The Jews out of greed were exploiting the drinking problems of the peasants to cheat them out of their grain, in order to turn the grain into vodka, and as a result were causing famine.” Derjavin also denounced the Polish landowners, who did not administer their properties directly but instead used Jewish tenants: “Many greedy farmers ruin the peasants through back-breaking labors and impositions, and render them bereft of land or family.” Several efforts were made to put an end to this situation, but the lack of continuity in the policy of the successive tsars rendered them ineffective. A parallel policy of encouraging Jews to become farmers, through the granting of fertile lands, material, and animals, also failed and was abandoned in 1866.

Tsar Alexander II (1855– 1881), who emancipated the serfs in 1861, also abolished most of the restrictions imposed on the Jews and facilitated their access to Russian education. Between 1876 and 1883, the proportion of Jews in the universities increased considerably. Emancipated and educated, many young Jewish intellectuals became revolutionaries. While rejecting the Talmudism of their parents, they inherited their hatred of Christian and peasant Russia, while the Tsar remained in their eyes an avatar of Pharaoh. The assassination of Alexander II in March 1881, by a group of anarchists including Jews, triggered violent pogroms. Noting that more than 40 percent of law and medicine students at Kharkov and Odessa universities were Jewish, the new Tsar imposed a numerus clausus, which only reinforced the sense of injustice and revolutionary spirit among Jewish youth.

The revolutionary forces that forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate in February 1917 were far from being exclusively Jewish. There was great discontent in all underprivileged classes, especially among the peasants. However, both opponents and advocates of Bolshevism have noted the high proportion of Jews among the Bolsheviks who overturned the February Revolution and Aleksandr Kerensky’s provisional government by their own October Revolution. Jewish historian Angelo Rappoport wrote in his seminal work: “The Jews in Russia, in their total mass, were responsible for the Revolution.” Winston Churchill wrote in a famous article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald published February 8, 1920: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.” In this article titled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,” Churchill sided with the Zionist cause, referring to Bolshevism as “this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization.”...

Despite the many Russian pseudonyms adopted by the officers of the Bolshevik system, Russians were well aware that they had been conquered by a foreign people. A 1926 Agitprop report to the Central Committee secretariat expresses concern about a wave of anti-Semitism resulting from “the sense that the Soviet regime patronizes the Jews, that it is ‘the Jewish government,’ that the Jews cause unemployment, housing shortages, college admissions problems, price rises, and commercial speculation— this sense is instilled in the workers by all the hostile elements.” Repression of this “bourgeois anti-Semitism” was all the more brutal in that, as Yuri Slezkine notes, “the Soviet secret police— the regime’s sacred center, known after 1934 as the NKVD— was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions. […] Out of twenty NKVD directorates, twelve (60 percent, including State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement [deportation]) were headed by officers who identified themselves as ethnic Jews. The most exclusive and sensitive of all NKVD agencies, the Main Directorate for State Security, consisted of ten departments: seven of them […] were run by immigrants from the former Pale of Settlement.”

Robert Wilton, a Moscow correspondent for the London Times for seventeen years, provided precise indications as to the proportion of Jews among Bolshevik apparatchiks as early as 1920. The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which exercised supreme power, included 9 Jews and 3 Russians. (Lenin was counted among the Russians, although his maternal grandfather, born Srul [Israel], was Jewish). All the Central Committees of the parties represented included 41 identifiable Jews out of 61 members. The Council of People’s Commissars comprised 17 Jews out of 22 members. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik State officially published in 1918– 1919, 458 were identifiable as Jews.

The Bolshevik Revolution pulled the rug out from under the Zionist propaganda machine, which had hitherto been based on reports of the Russian pogroms, amplified by the Western press. On March 25, 1906, The New York Times could evoke the fate of “Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews”: “the Russian Government’s studied policy for the ‘solution’ of the Jewish question is systematic and murderous extermination.” But such alarmist propaganda was no longer possible in 1917, since one of the first measures taken by the Bolsheviks was a law criminalizing anti-Semitism.

It is often forgotten that in 1933, when Hitler came to power, the Soviets had just committed genocidal massacres followed by organized famine in Ukraine, at the gates of Germany, killing nearly eight million people, or one-third of the population. This crime against humanity, carried out by a predominantly Jewish NKVD, would never be mentioned in the Nuremberg trials, and still today is hardly ever discussed. (When in 2009, Ukraine opened a tribunal to prosecute the crime, Aleksandr Feldman, the chairman of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, forced the cancellation of the proceedings on the pretext that it would constitute an incitement to hatred, since the names of almost all the Soviet officers charged were Jewish.)

Zionism and Nazism

Nazism and Zionism shared more than one ideological foundation; they had as their common enemy the assimilationist Jew. They also had a common goal: the emigration of Jews from Germany. Reinhardt Heydrich, chief of the SS Security Service, wrote in 1935 in Das Schwarze Korps, the official SS journal: “We must separate Jewry into two categories: the Zionists and those who favour being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state. […]

The Nazis naturally wholeheartedly supported Jewish emigration to Palestine. In the spring of 1933, Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, one of the earliest SS officers, spent six months in Palestine in the company of Zionist Kurt Tuchler. On his return, he wrote for Angriff (a journal founded by Joseph Goebbels) a series of twelve articles expressing great admiration for the pioneering spirit of Zionist Jews. It is not surprising, therefore, that when in 1933, the American Jewish Congress declared economic war on Germany and organized the boycott of German products, the Zionist Federation of Germany addressed a memorandum to “the New German State” (dated June, 21) condemning the boycott, and expressing sympathy for the Nazi ideology: “Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities...

As Hannah Arendt has shown in her controversial book Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), Nazi policy was pro-Zionist until 1938, and “all leading positions in the Nazi-appointed ‘Reichsvereinigung’ [compulsory organization of all Jews in Nazi Germany] were held by Zionists.” This created “a situation in which the non-selected majority of Jews inevitably found themselves confronted with two enemies— the Nazi authorities and the Jewish authorities.” Arendt was the first Jewish intellectual to unveil one of the Zionists’ darkest secrets, which has been since abundantly documented (e.g., by Tom Segev in The Seventh Million): “There existed in those first years a mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine— a ‘Haavarah’, or Transfer Agreement, which provided that an emigrant to Palestine could transfer his money there in German goods and exchange them for pounds upon arrival. It was soon the only legal way for a Jew to take his money with him. The alternative was the establishment of a blocked account, which could be liquidated abroad only at a loss of between fifty and ninety-five percent). The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organize a boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of ‘goods made in Germany’.” Some sixty thousand wealthy Jews benefited from this Haavara Agreement, making a decisive contribution to the Jewish colonization of Palestine.

This collaboration between Ben-Gurion’s Jewish Agency and Hitler’s Nazi government started in 1933 and ended officially in 1938 with Great Britain’s entry into the war...

Hitler’s Prophecy

In the absence of a written document, historians are still debating the date when the expression “final solution,” borrowed from German Zionists who meant mass emigration to Palestine, would have become a Nazi code word for “extermination.”

Historians like Christopher Browning believe that if one were to specify the moment when Hitler and his entourage rallied to the idea of exterminating all the Jews of Europe, it was just after the US entry into the war. Hitler’s prophecy was the key to this development, not only among the elite of the Reich but also in German public opinion.

“Judea Declares War on Germany” is a well-established fact that the confessions of several convicted Nazi officers were obtained under torture. This is the case for Rudolf Höss, commander of Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943. According to the British sergeant Bernard Clarke, who captured him, “It took three days [of beating and sleep deprivation] to get a coherent statement out of him.” His deposition, which refers to three million deaths at Auschwitz under his responsibility, is today recognized as grossly exaggerated. There are many other proven cases of confessions extracted under torture and blackmail by the prosecution in Nuremberg..

Like the Paris Conference in 1919, the Nuremberg Trials were influenced by a staff composed of a majority of Jews (more than two thirds according to Hungarian journalist Louis Marchalko).
Benton Bradberry writes in The Myth of German Villainy that the trials were “permeated throughout with an atmosphere of Jewish vengeance seeking,” and remarks that the tens of Nazi leaders who were condemned to death were hanged on Purim day (October 16, 1946), the Jewish holiday celebrating the hanging of the ten sons of Haman. For the new Levitic elite, writing history always means writing the history of Israel. And writing the history of Israel always means reproducing biblical history...

We have already mentioned the Germans’ perception of the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution at the gates of Germany on the one hand, and in Germany’s defeat and economic collapse after the First World War on the other. These factors partly explain the rise of
Hitler, whose Judeophobia was clearly displayed in Mein Kampf. At the outbreak of war with England in 1939, the Nazis tried to convince the German people that the war had been willed and orchestrated by the Jews...

A few hours before his suicide, Hitler wrote again: “It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests.”

Some evidence supports this claim. Indeed, on March 24, 1933, less than two months after the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor of the Reich, the British Daily Express published a front page article entitled “Judea Declares War on Germany. Jews of All the World Unite in Action.” The article proclaimed: “The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews dispersed throughout the world have banded together as one man to declare war on the German persecutors of their co-religionists.” This campaign was supported by the majority of Jewish representative bodies and coordinated by influential Zionist lawyer Samuel Untermeyer.

Five days after the Daily Express article, Hitler publicly announced a counter-boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany as “merely a defensive measure exclusively directed toward Jewry in Germany,” and warned that international Jewry’s war on Germany would negatively affect German Jews. Goebbels broadcast a speech two days later explicitly warning that the attacks of international Jewry against Germany would rebound against German Jews. Jeffrey Herf, who cites these two speeches, fails to point out that they came in response to a declaration of war, accompanied by unfounded accusations, by American Jewish elites. This dishonest presentation is characteristic of mainstream historians of the Holocaust. Herf asserts that the Nazi leaders sincerely believed in the “Jewish conspiracy” they denounced, but fails to specify what their objective reasons for believing it were, so as to present their Judeophobia as a symptom of paranoia...

Interviewed by the Canadian Jewish Chronicle, Kaufman speaks of the Jews’ “mission” to guide humankind toward “perpetual peace”; thanks to them, “slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise”; but for the moment, “let us sterilize all Germans and wars of world domination will come to an end!” German Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels had a translation of Kaufman’s book massively printed and read on the radio, as a way to show the German people what awaited them if they showed signs of weakness. By further asserting that German Jews were of his opinion, Kaufman provided the Nazis with a pretext for stigmatizing Jews by the Yellow Star (September 1941) and their deportation as enemies of the nation.

Jeffrey Herf claims that Kaufman’s book had no impact except in Nazi propaganda. That is not the case. It was reviewed positively in The New York Times and The Washington Post. In 1944, it would be commented upon by Louis Nizer in his very influential book What to Do with Germany? (highly praised by Harry Truman). Nizer rejected Kaufman’s solution as exaggerated, but recommended the death penalty for 150,000 Germans, and “labor battalions” for hundreds of thousands more. The same year, celebrated Hollywood screenwriter Ben Hecht wrote in his Guide for the Bedeviled: “A cancer flourishes in the body of the world and in its mind and soul, and […] this cancerous thing is Germany, Germanism, and Germans.”

Louis Marschalko cites a few more well-published Jewish authors advocating a “final solution” for the “German question”:
Leon Dodd, who in How Many World Wars (New York, 1942), proclaims that no Germany and no German race must be left after the war; Charles Heartman, who in There Must Be No Germany After This War (New York, 1942), also demands the physical extermination of the German people; Einzig Palil, who in Can We Win the Peace? (London, 1942), demanded the dismembering of Germany and the total demolition of German industry; Ivor Duncan, who in the March, 1942, issue of Zentral Europa Observer, demanded the sterilization of forty million Germans, estimating the total cost at five million pounds sterling...

Shortly after the Normandy landings, Roosevelt and Churchill discussed the future of Germany at the Second Quebec Conference of September 11, 1944, and signed a project developed under the leadership of Jewish-Americans Henry Morgenthau Jr., the Secretary of the Treasury, and his assistant Harry Dexter White. This “Morgenthau Plan,” entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, or Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III, “is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character,” by dismantling and transporting to Allied nations “all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action,” while calling for “forced German labor outside Germany.”

The plan was abandoned in 1946 because of the Soviet threat. Germany needed to become a bulwark against communism, and would therefore be entitled to the Marshall Plan. But until then, the Germans experienced a “peace” more infernal than all wars: destruction and plunder, organized famine, mass rapes, and the deportation of millions of slaves to the Soviet Union, most of whom would never return. According to James Bacque, more than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the war. According to Jewish author John Sack, Jews played a major part in the massive cruelty perpetrated on the 200,000 German civilians parked in over a thousand concentration camps in Poland, “many of them starved, beaten and tortured.” On the basis of many documented cases, he claims that “more than 60,000 died at the hands of a largely Jewish-run security organization,” and lays the blame primarily on Zionist Jews.

Among the gray eminences behind Roosevelt were many Jewish personalities. In addition to Henry Morgenthau Jr. at the Treasury, we must mention the banker Bernard Baruch, already very influential under Wilson, and Felix Frankfurter, successor of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. According to Curtis Dall, son-in-law of Roosevelt: “Mr. Baruch, as top man, raised most of the campaign and expense money; Mr. Frankfurter approved, directly or obliquely, most of the important governmental appointments. They were, without doubt, the ‘Gold Dust Twins.’”

Birth of the “Jewish State”

By defining itself as a “Jewish state,” Israel also included racial discrimination in its birth certificate. A constitutional law was passed in 1985 to prohibit political parties from opposing this principle. Just five years after the end of the Second World War, Israel adopted the Law of Return that prevented the 1948 Palestinian refugees from returning to their villages. As Haim Cohen, former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, remarked: “The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel.”

Even before its birth, it was clear that Israel would carry in its genes, not only colonialist expansion and racial discrimination, but also terrorism, trademarked by the “false flag” strategy. The Irgun, a right-wing militia founded in 1931 as an offshoot of the Haganah, on the ideological basis of Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, whose leaders included future prime minister Menachem Begin, carried out dozens of bombings and other attacks against Palestinian and British targets between 1937 and 1948 (when it was integrated into the newly created Israeli army).

The “Human Material”

Anti-Zionist rabbi Moshe Shonfeld claimed that the Zionists had, during World War II, knowingly aggravated the Holocaust, as a necessary founding sacrifice for their Jewish state. Relying on numerous testimonies, he thus summarized the politics of the Zionist leaders: “The shedding of Jewish blood in the Diaspora is necessary in order for us to demand the establishment of a ‘Jewish’ state before a peace commission. Money will be sent to save a group of ‘chalutzim’ (pioneers), while the remainder of Czech Jewry must resign itself to annihilation in the Auschwitz crematoria.” In other words, “The Zionist leaders saw the spilt Jewish blood of the holocaust as grease for the wheels of the Jewish national state.”

Truman’s efforts were similarly hampered. Rabbi Philip Bernstein, who was in 1946 adviser on Jewish affairs to the US high commissioner in Germany, testified in 1950 in the Yiddish Bulletin that he had lied to the president by making him believe that the overwhelming majority of Jewish refugees wanted to settle in Palestine. In reality, they wanted either to return where they came from or to emigrate to the United States. Rabbi Abraham Klausner, chaplain and “father figure” at the Dachau concentration camp after its liberation in April 1945, wrote in a report of May 2, 1948, to the American Jewish Conference: “I am convinced that the people must be forced to go to Palestine. They are neither prepared to understand their own position nor the promises of the future. […] It must be borne in mind that we are dealing with a sick people. They are not to be asked, but to be told, what to do.” The means of “forcing” them to emigrate into Palestine against their will included propaganda (rumors of pogroms in the United States), harassment, and confiscation of food.

The operation was a success: between 1945 and 1952, nearly one million Jews settled in the territories evacuated by the Palestinians. Until 1948, this still had to be done in violation of British rule. But it could be done with the approval of world public opinion, provided the right symbols were mobilized. And what more powerful symbol than the Exodus, the eternally recyclable myth of the Jewish people in desperate search of its Promised Land?

The victims of Nazism were not the only ones “convinced” to immigrate to Israel. The Zionists also coveted the Jews of the Arab countries, especially those of Iraq— descendants of the millennial community of Babylon— who were unwilling to emigrate. The chief rabbi of Iraq, Khedourin Sassoon, spiritual leader of his community for forty-eight years, declared in 1950: “Iraqi Jews will be forever against Zionism. Jews and Arabs have enjoyed the same rights and privileges for 1000 years and do not regard themselves as a distinctive separate part of this nation.”

The Zionists then used a method that they later perfected: the fabrication of false anti-Semitic acts. Between 1950 and 1951, the city of Baghdad was hit by a series of explosions targeting Iraqi Jews, causing deaths, injuries, and material damage. These bombings, blamed on Arab nationalists, spread fear in the Jewish community.

The Soviet Union and Israel

The Eastern European Ashkenazim nevertheless remained the main reservoir of Jews coveted by the Zionist state. Since they were in the Soviet Union or its satellites, their immigration was subject to Stalin’s goodwill, and relations between Israel and Stalin would deteriorate.

In return for Zionist help in securing US military support for the Soviet Union in 1941– 1943, the Soviet Union would provide “political, military, and demographic support for the Zionist movement” from 1947 to 1949...

Recognizing the Jewish state on May 14, 1948, Stalin had good reason to hope that Israel would lean on the Soviet side in the Cold War that was looming. After all, the Israeli Labor Party, the founding and majority party, was of socialist and collectivist orientation. Israel thus obtained from the Soviets the armaments that enabled it to fight the Arab countries hostile to the new state in 1948, even while the United States was respecting the UN arms embargo.

The weapons came from Czechoslovakia, where the great Skoda arsenal had passed from the Nazis to the Communists. Without these weapons, it is likely that the State of Israel would not have survived. Moreover, more than two hundred thousand Jews, mainly from Poland, but also from Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria, were allowed to emigrate to Palestine, after the British withdrawal, during the years 1948– 1952. Stalin, however, was not long in noticing the double game Israel was playing in asking for American support. Moreover, Stalin was concerned about the unexpected and overwhelming enthusiasm of the Soviet Jews for Israel...

Stalin was also concerned about the loyalty of Soviet Jews in the war against America, where many had relatives. He began to repress the resurgence of Jewish nationalism in November 1948, arresting the leaders of the influential Anti-Fascist Jewish Committee, and closing many Jewish institutions in the country. On January 15, 1953, nine doctors, including seven Jews, were accused by Stalin of conspiracy to poison him. This affair of the “Jewish doctors” caused an uproar in the West. “Stalin will succeed where Hitler failed,” predicted Commentary, press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “He will finally wipe out the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe. […] The parallel with the policy of Nazi extermination is almost complete.” On February 11, the USSR broke off diplomatic relations with Israel. It was in this context that Stalin died suddenly, on the morning of March 6, 1953, at the age of seventy-four, officially of a cerebral hemorrhage, but more likely of poisoning. A month later, the “Jewish doctors” were released...

Nasser, the Useful Enemy

In 1948, the Arab countries had proven totally unfit to confront the Israeli intruder due to their dissensions, corruptions, and betrayals. But in 1952, a more formidable enemy stood against Israel in the person of Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, who took power in Egypt and soon became a hero of Arab nationalism and, even more dangerously, pan-Arabism. Nasser’s willingness to recognize Israel within the borders of the Partition made him an even more formidable obstacle to the secret project of Israeli expansionism. Israeli hawks reacted with a new, highly confrontational policy aimed at creating pretexts for attacking Egypt and conquering new lands, while discrediting Nasser in the eyes of the West so as to prevent any alliance between Egypt and the West...

Nasser’s priority in 1952 was to ensure that the British withdrew from the Suez Canal in 1956, as provided for by the agreement passed twenty years earlier. He needed this diplomatic victory to obtain sufficient credibility in the eyes of his people to weaken his internal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, and thus be in a position to negotiate with Israel. Israel’s hawks therefore decided to prevent this historic turn, with the aim of keeping Egypt cast as an enemy of the West. In the summer of 1954, four days before British Secretary of State for War Anthony Head traveled to Cairo to prepare for the withdrawal, Egyptian Jews trained in Israel committed several false flag bomb attacks against British targets, designed to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood. Dan Kurzman, Ben-Gurion’s hagiographer, sums up the logic of this psychological operation: “Why not blow up American and British property in Egypt ? Washington and London would think Nasser couldn’t control the extremist Moslem Brotherhood or the Communists. And if he cracked down on them, all the better. They would retaliate and there would be no end to violence in Egypt. Would Britain leave the strategic Suez Canal to a nation in flames? Would America let it? Presumably not.”

Operation Susannah, the second confirmed case of false flag terrorism in modern history, failed due to the arrest of one of the bombers, leading to the apprehension of twelve other Israeli agents...

Moshe Sharett, minister of foreign affairs from 1948 to 1956 and prime minister from 1954 to 1955 (who grew up in contact with the Arabs and knew their language and culture, unlike the Ashkenazi who constituted the majority of the government) advocated moderate Zionism and respect for international law. He was opposed by Ben-Gurion’s hawks, who conceived of the Arabs as a primitive enemy that had to be crushed purely by force. This clan, Sharett wrote regretfully in his newspaper in 1955, wanted “to set the Middle East on fire,” “to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims,” and thus “raises terrorism to the level of a sacred principle.” Sharett included in this condemnation Pinhas Lavon and Moshe Dayan, as well as Shimon Peres, who would eventually become president of Israel at the age of 84.

As a result of the Gaza attack, Nasser decided to arm Egypt appropriately, realizing that his only chance of peace rested on his ability to respond to Israel’s attacks. He therefore endeavored to convince the United States and Great Britain to sell arms to him, but rejected the condition imposed on him by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to engage in a formal alliance with the United States that would be unacceptable in the eyes of his people. Although ideologically anti-communist, Nasser was finally compelled to accept the competing offer from the Soviets, which was generous and theoretically unconditional. In September 1955 he signed a contract with the USSR for the purchase of arms through Czechoslovakia. It set off an intense Zionist campaign to discredit Nasser, in the eyes of the West, as a danger to the stability of the Middle East and, conversely, to present Israel as the only reliable ally in the region. On February 14, 1956, Ben-Gurion sent an open letter to Eisenhower, disseminated throughout the American Jewish community, demanding US arms aid for Israel.

On July 19, 1956, a month after the British withdrawal from Suez, the US government canceled financing for the Aswan Grand Dam, instantly destroying Nasser’s most ambitious project for modernizing Egypt. In response, Nasser nationalized the canal on July 26, compensating the shareholders. In October, the British and French signed the “Protocol of Sèvres,” a secret agreement with Israel to take back the Canal Zone from Nasser and, if possible, overthrow him. (France correctly saw Nasser as an ally of Algerian nationalists of the FLN.) The Machiavellian plan was as follows: Israel would attack Egypt and occupy the Sinai Peninsula; Britain and France would threaten to intervene, demanding that each side withdraw from the combat zone, while proposing an armistice that would be unacceptable to Nasser since it would leave Israeli troops inside Egypt. Nasser would have no choice but to refuse the ultimatum, and English and French troops could then launch a seemingly justifiable invasion.
The Invisible Coup

John F. Kennedy, the Lobby, and the Bomb

In his Pulitzer prize-winning book Profiles in Courage (1956), Kennedy had declared his admiration for Senator Robert Taft, who by calling the Nuremberg trials a shameful parody of justice had sacrificed his political career, including his chances for the presidency, rather than build it on hypocrisy. Worse, as a senator, Kennedy had expressed sympathy for the Palestinian refugees, whose camps he had visited in 1956...

Kennedy felt no sympathy for Israel’s anachronistic colonial adventure, but great admiration for Gamal Abdel Nasser,
the hero of Arab nationalism. Nasser was perceived by the Zionist leaders as the greatest obstacle to their secret expansionist agenda, especially because of his willingness to recognize Israel within the 1948 Partition borders...

So “Kennedy was forced by Israel’s supporters to take Johnson as his vice-presidential running mate.” Why would the Zionists want Johnson as vice-president, rather than keep him as Senate majority leader, a better position for blocking anti-Israel legislation? It can only be because they saw the vice-presidency as a step to the presidency. And the sooner, the better.

During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself in letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of state to supporting UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Former Undersecretary of State George Ball noted in his book, The Passionate Attachment (1992), that Ben-Gurion reacted with “a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish-American leaders, in which he stated: ‘Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser’s missiles and his Soviet MIGs. […] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.’”

But the greatest danger that Kennedy represented to Israel was his determination to stop its nuclear weapons program. By the early 1950s, David Ben-Gurion, both prime minister and defense minister, had entrusted Shimon Peres to nudge Israel toward the secret manufacture of atomic bombs, by diverting materials from the cooperation program Atoms for Peace, launched naively by Eisenhower, and by organizing industrial espionage and smuggling. Kennedy had made nuclear disarmament one of his grand missions on the international level. He had announced it at the General Assembly of the United Nation on September 25, 1961, with a powerful speech declaring his “intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race— to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved.” The challenge had been well received by Nikita Khrushchev, and the first step was taken on August 5, 1963, with the signature of the first international Test Ban Treaty...

Israel, however, was just as determined in its secret race to be the first and only country in the Middle East with the bomb. Informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, Kennedy did his utmost to force Israel to renounce it.

The secret showdown between Kennedy and Ben-Gurion on the nuclear question was revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh’s The Samson Option in 1991, then Avner Cohen’s Israel and the Bomb in 1998. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a review of Cohen’s book on February 5, 1999, which reads: “The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the US administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program. Cohen demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy on Ben-Gurion. He brings the fascinating exchange of letters between the two, in which Kennedy makes it quite clear to [Ben-Gurion] that he [JFK] will under no circumstances agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.”

Who Killed Kennedy?

Oswald’s assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants, and that, asked by the Warren Commission how he had been allowed into the Police Station, he claimed he had been translating for Israeli reporters. (Ruby spoke Yiddish, but what Israeli reporter in the US could possibly need a Yiddish translator?)

Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld, and a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and idolized since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, a.k.a. Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated. Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, to which he had been introduced by Hollywood script writer Ben Hecht, as he explained in his memoirs: “Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war.” What kept him so busy, he goes on to explain, was stealing surplus weapons coming back from Europe after WWII and sending them to the Irgun. Like Ben Hecht, Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he even “spent a lot of time,” according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. (Incidentally, Wean claims that Cohen, who specialized in sexually compromising Hollywood stars for the purpose of blackmail, was responsible for pushing Marilyn Monroe into Kennedy’s bed.) The major godfather to whom Cohen was accountable was Meyer Suchowljansky, known as Lansky, himself a dedicated Zionist and a generous donor to the Anti-Defamation League. (His granddaughter Mira Lansky Boland would become an ADL official.) So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror...

Ruby seems to have wanted to send through the Commission a message to Johnson, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel’s involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor.
We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him— just as in 1952 Johnson had managed, through corruption of the judge and threats to the jury, to keep his personal hitman Mac Wallace out of jail, with only a five-year suspended sentence, despite his conviction for first-degree murder, which is normally a sure ticket to death row in Texas. Ruby’s sense of betrayal would explain why in 1965, sentenced to life in prison, Ruby implicitly accused Johnson of Kennedy’s murder in a press conference: “If [Adlai Stevenson] was Vice-President there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy.”..

Complicity among high-ranking Navy officers is also certain. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, but his body was literally stolen at gunpoint from the appointed coroner, Earl Rose, and the autopsy was performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington by an inexperienced military doctor (James Humes), flanked by senior officers and federal agents. The autopsy report stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of the skull, contradicting testimony of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy’s body. Dr. Charles Crenshaw, for example, divulged in 1992: “From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front”— an account that exonerates Oswald, who was behind the president at the time of the shooting. Navy involvement links directly to Johnson, who had many shady business partners there...

From the moment he became president while Kennedy’s body was still warm, Johnson used all the weight of his newly acquired authority to kill the investigation and impose the necessity of selling to the public the “lone gunman” theory. In order to do that, he didn’t try to convince people around him that this was the truth; rather, he claimed it was a matter of national security...

The man who played the key role in fabricating the government lie purveyed by the commission was Arlen Specter, the inventor of what came to be called the “magic bullet” theory: a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally, who was sitting in front of him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Specter was still defending his theory in his 2000 autobiography entitled, with an ironic touch of chutzpah, Passion for Truth. At his death in 2012, Specter, the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, was officially mourned by the Israeli government as “an unswerving defender of the Jewish State,” and by AIPAC, as “a leading architect of the congressional bond between our country and Israel.”..

The Hijacked Conspiracy

This raises the hypothesis that the assassination of Kennedy was designed as a false flag attack, meant to provide a false pretense for invading Cuba and overthrowing Castro, but that Johnson thwarted the second part of the plan. This is the thesis put forward by the majority of Kennedy conspiracy theorists, or at least by the most visible ones, such as James Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable (2008): Kennedy, they say, fell victim to a plot by the anti-communist far-right in the military-intelligence complex with accomplices in the community of Cuban exiles. James Douglass and like-minded researchers do indeed demonstrate convincingly that Kennedy was in conflict with the old guard of the CIA and the Pentagon, since he had spoiled the Bay of Pigs operation (April 1961) by refusing to involve US military units. Worse, he had negotiated a peaceful outcome to the Cuban Missile Crisis with Nikita Khrushchev (October 1962) by pledging to dismantle the American missiles in Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Some of those researchers never attempt to explain why, if the Dallas shooting was staged as a pretense for invading Cuba, that invasion never took place. Those who address the question, like James Douglass, credit Johnson with preventing the invasion. Johnson, we are led to understand, had nothing to do with the assassination plot, and thwarted the plotters’ ultimate aim to start World War III. This is to ignore the huge amount of evidence gathered against Johnson for fifty years. It also begs another question: if Johnson resisted the hawks’ pressure to invade Cuba, why did he escalate the Vietnam War? In late 1963, Kennedy had decided to evacuate all US military personnel in Vietnam (who amounted to only 15,000 “military advisors”). On November 11, he signed directive NSAM-263 for the removal of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963,” in anticipation for withdrawing “by the end of 1965 […] the bulk of U.S. personnel.” On November 21, the day before his fatal visit to Texas, he expressed his resolution to his assistant press secretary Malcolm Kilduff, after reading a report on the latest casualties: “After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.”...

In my analysis, authors arguing for a conspiracy hatched within the US military-industrial-intelligence complex (let’s call it the inside job thesis) prove convincingly that the leadership in the CIA and the Pentagon was desperately trying to start a war against Castro, and that they were prepared to deceive the president in order to do that. But they fail to demonstrate that they were prepared to assassinate the president: there is a huge difference between setting up a secret operation behind the president’s back and committing high treason by murdering their own president...

The assumption is that the CIA and their Cuban exile associates intended to spare Kennedy’s life but force him to retaliate against Castro. It was a false flag operation:
Oswald, the patsy, had been groomed with the “legend” of a pro-Castro communist activist, to be sold to the public by news media on the day of the assassination. According to what Tower told Wean, “There was to be an attempt on the life of President Kennedy so ‘realistic’ that its failure would be looked upon as nothing less than a miracle. Footprints would lead right to Castro’s doorstep, a trail that the rankest amateur could not lose.”

Israel had no interest in Cuba but wanted Kennedy dead. So did Johnson. So they hijacked the operation, probably by providing the real snipers on the grassy knoll. The national security state was too deeply involved to be able to protest, and had to go along with its original plan to blame Oswald, knowing that if they tried to expose Israel’s coup, they would be the first to be exposed.

Several researchers have independently reached the same conclusion that a fake assassination attempt by CIA-led Cuban exiles was turned into a real assassination by a third party, but few succeeded— or, more probably, dared— to name that third party...

Whether or not the CIA was implicated in a fake assassination attempt on Kennedy is, after all, secondary— for a person’s or an organization’s vulnerability to blackmail is proportional to the number of illegal activities he or it wants to keep secret, and no organization has more dirty secrets to hide than the CIA. By its privileged access to the media, the Zionist network had plenty of means of keeping the agency on the defensive...

The theory that the conspiracy trail leading to the anti-communist far right in Kennedy’s assassination was planted deliberately by Israel’s sayanim can explain a number of oddities in some of the clues. How else can we reasonably explain, for example, the full-page advertisement printed in The Dallas Morning News of November 22, bordered in black like a funeral notice and carrying the ironic bold headline “WELCOME, MR. KENNEDY TO DALLAS…,” that accused the president of having betrayed the Cubans now “living in slavery”? The veiled threat was authored by a nonexistent American Fact-Finding Committee.

How can any serious investigator take this at face value, and believe that a right-wing group planning to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 would sign their crime in such a way, while at the same time trying to blame it on the communists? Yet this is exactly what most “inside job” theorists do. What they usually fail to mention is that the announcement was paid and even signed by a certain Bernard Weissman, a Jewish American who had moved to Dallas no sooner than the 4th of November, and who had been seen on the 14th in Jack Ruby’s strip-tease bar the Carousel Club, in a two-hour meeting also attended by J. D. Tippit, the police officer who would be shot to death one hour after Kennedy, supposedly also by Oswald while resisting arrest...

While it massively supported the government thesis of the lone gunman, the mainstream media subtly fed suspicions directed at the CIA. For maximal efficiency, the expectation of a CIA coup was even planted into public opinion before the assassination. This was done on October 2 with an article in The Washington Daily News, by an obscure Saigon correspondent named Richard Starnes, picked up the next day by The New York Times’s chief Washington correspondent Arthur Krock. The article denounced the CIA’s “unrestrained thirst for power” and quoted an unnamed “very high official” who claimed that the White House could not control the CIA, and that: “If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The agency represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.” In such a way, The New York Times was planting a sign, a month and a half before the Dallas killing, pointing to the CIA as the most likely instigator of the upcoming coup...

In the 70s, the mainstream media and publishing houses again played a major role in steering conspiracy theorists toward the CIA trail, while avoiding any hint of Israeli involvement...

The “Jewish mafia” is taboo, in Kennedy research as well as in mainstream news. However, much has been said about the involvement of other “mafias”: “MOBSTERS LINKED TO JFK DEATH,” ran a Washington Post headline in 1977, after the HSCA report was released. 449 It is commonly admitted that Jack Ruby belonged to the underworld, but saying he belonged to the Jewish community is considered bad taste. His real name is hardly mentioned in the book by Jewish journalist Seth Kantor, Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978, retitled The Ruby Cover-Up in 1980). Note that Kantor, who was working for the Dallas Times Herald in 1963, had then given the Warren Commission false testimony about a conversation he had had with Ruby in front of Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where Kennedy had been taken, during which Ruby had appeared distressed by the death of his beloved president.

All the above examples illustrate a fundamental principle of the propaganda destined to maintain Americans in the ignorance of the real nature of the forces that dominate the “deep state.” This propaganda functions on two levels: on the surface is the official lie of the Warren Commission Report (Oswald the lone nut); below that are several lies or half-truths focusing on government and underworld complicity. The involvement of elements from the CIA, implicitly suggested by mainstream media and fully exploited by the controlled opposition, acts as a lure for all skeptics, and keeps most of the conspiracy sphere from going after Israel.

It is important to stress that investigators who focus their attention on the CIA and ignore Israel are not necessarily involved in conscious deception. I agree with Kevin Barrett that “a big part of this is the semi-conscious knowledge that if you ‘go there’ you will never get serious publishing and distribution.”
And in the early stage of the investigation, the CIA was the natural suspect for anybody considering the Warren Report as a fraud...

It is therefore no wonder that Stone’s film gives no hint of the Mossad connection that Garrison stumbled upon. So it appears that the confrontation between the official theory and the inside-job conspiracy theory is largely staged by Zionist interests, or at least serves the interest of Israel by keeping the public’s attention away from any thought of Israeli participation. At the same time, the half-truth of the CIA’s involvement serves as a constant threat of blackmail against American institutions, forcing the state to defend tooth and nail its impossible theory (magic bullet and all), knowing full well that, if this cover-up is ever revealed, it will be the first to be exposed (for both the operation and its cover-up). Such is the general operating mode by which Israel controls the US: it implicates elements of the US government in its black operations, in order to involve them in the cover-up, as the Zionist-controlled mainstream media serves as a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads...

Once the risk of triggering a world war had disappeared, the conspiracy theory of the CIA plot took on the function of the new dangerous thesis that had to be smothered, lest the fire of popular outrage lead to a major crisis. The CIA theory invaded popular culture in the 70s, together with other false leads such as the mafia theory. Besides this method of “triangulation,” which consists of one camp staging a fight between two other camps while remaining invisible, the general strategy of controlled opposition can be summarized as “contain and contaminate.” First, contain public opinion within strict limits to prevent Israeli involvement from ever being mentioned. Second, contaminate public opinion by a variety of false leads that, by their sheer number, generate a sort of learned helplessness, the sense that “the truth will never be known.” And finally, promote the most bizarre theories that serve as a scarecrow to keep reasonable people away from alternative theories in general...

The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi should be counted among those convinced by Piper. He declared in 2008: “Kennedy decided to monitor the Dimona nuclear plant. He insisted on doing so, in order to determine whether or not it produced nuclear weapons. The Israelis refused, but he insisted. This crisis was resolved with the resignation of Ben-Gurion. He resigned so he would not have to agree to the monitoring of the Dimona plant, and he gave the green light for the killing of Kennedy. Kennedy was killed because he insisted on the monitoring of the Dimona plant.” On September 23, 2009, Gaddafi had the guts to demand a new investigation in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Johnson, a “Jewish President”?

The assassination of President Kennedy was a hidden coup d’état meant to replace an independent government with a government subservient to Israel’s interests. From the very next day, all of Kennedy’s policies hostile to Israel’s agenda were reversed, without the American people having the slightest idea of what was going on. The American Zionist Council escaped foreign agent status by renaming itself the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The consequence was that, by 1973, as Senator William Fulbright would remark on CBS, “Israel controls the Senate, […] anything Israel wants, Israel gets.” Kennedy’s death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program, or even to be forced to acknowledge it...

The article also mentions that “research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America.” And, in an additional note: “The facts indicate that both of Lyndon Johnson’s great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish. […] The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.”

With Johnson in control of the White House, Israel could resume its plan of expansion without fear of US interference. Johnson ignored all of Khrushchev’s overtures to pursue the peace process he had started with Kennedy, thus making sure the Cold War would continue to provide the necessary context for America’s support of Israel’s aggression against Egypt. Military involvement in Vietnam, which Kennedy had decided to reduce leading toward full withdrawal by 1965, was instead escalated by Johnson for that very purpose (and for the profit of the military-industrial complex, in which Johnson invested heavily). In 1967 Israel tripled its area in less than a week,
extending to the south, north, and east. It amputated the Gaza Strip and Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan. Having learned the lesson of its failure in 1956, Israel succeeded in creating the illusion that it was acting in self-defense. By poisoning Soviet espionage with false communications, Israel incited Nasser to begin troop movements in Sharm el-Sheikh near the Israeli border. On May 27, 1967, Nasser blocked access to the Straits of Tiran, cutting the Israeli Navy’s access to the Red Sea. Israeli propaganda, disseminated in the United States, cast these defensive movements as preparations for aggression, justifying a preventive attack by Israel...

Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its objectives. It was then that, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, an NSA spy ship, easily recognizable by its large American flag, covered by radar antennae and unarmed, was stationed in international waters off Sinai. For seventy-five minutes, the ship was bombed, strafed, and torpedoed by Israeli Mirage jets and three torpedo boats, with the obvious intention of sinking it without leaving any survivors. (Even the lifeboats were machine-gunned.)

The spy activity of the USS Liberty, some analysts say, was to ensure that Israel would not go beyond the secret US permission to invade Sinai. But the Israeli military hierarchy, and Moshe Dayan in particular, intended to take full advantage of the situation, and as soon as the fighting in Egypt ceased, it redeployed its troops to the north to annex Syrian and Jordanian territories. The attack on the USS Liberty therefore had two objectives: it sought to neutralize US surveillance and with it the American ability to interfere; but it was also conceived as a false flag operation that would have been blamed on Egypt if it had succeeded, that is, if the ship had been sunk and its crew exterminated. Testimonials indicate that Johnson supported this option by intervening personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS. Everything suggests that the attack on the USS Liberty had been secretly authorized by the White House. Had the subterfuge of blaming the Egyptians worked, the United States would have used the pretext to intervene militarily alongside Israel, probably forcing the USSR to go to war...

On November 27, 1967, faced with Israel’s refusal to comply, De Gaulle denounced in a press conference Israel’s illegal occupation of the territories, “which cannot go without oppression, repression, expulsions. [. . .] Unless the UN itself tore up its own charter, a settlement must be based on the evacuation of the occupied territories.” Some believe that this de Gaulle statement (accompanied by his famous description of the Jewish people as “cocky and domineering”) was not unrelated to the destabilization of his government in May 1968, carried out mainly by Trotskyites with the main agitator being Daniel Cohn-Bendit...

Serial Assasinations

Reverend King had embarrassed Johnson’s government through his stance against the Vietnam War, and further through his project to gather “a multiracial army of the poor” in a “Poor People’s Campaign” that would march on Washington and camp on Capitol Hill until Congress signed a “Declaration of the Human Rights of the Poor.”...

In return for their support, Zionists expected from King some friendly gesture toward Israel. He was officially invited more than once to Israel, but always politely declined (“ too busy”). According to Haaretz, “Documents that have come to light 45 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. show Israel’s efforts to woo the civil rights leader— a campaign that never came to fruition.” 473 After 1967, black nationalists, such as SNCC’s leadership, became increasingly critical of Israel. There was a rift within the civil rights movement, many resenting the disproportionate presence of Jews. King’s visit to Israel would have broken the movement apart...

Two months after King’s death, it was the turn of Robert Kennedy, John’s younger brother and former attorney general— and a strong supporter of King— to be assassinated in a still more bizarre way. On March 16, 1968, Robert had announced his candidacy for the presidency. All those who had mourned John found hope that Robert would regain control of the White House and, from there, reopen the investigation into his brother’s death. He was assassinated on June 6 in Los Angeles, just after winning the California primaries and thereby becoming the most likely Democratic candidate. The presumed assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, has always claimed, and continues to claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act: “I was told by my attorney that I shot and killed Senator Robert F. Kennedy and that to deny this would be completely futile, [but] I had and continue to have no memory of the shooting of Senator Kennedy.” He also claims to have no memory of “many things and incidents which took place in the weeks leading up to the shooting.” Psychiatric expertise, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed that Sirhan’s amnesia is not faked.

Besides the question of Sirhan’s programming, there are serious ballistic and forensic contradictions in the official explanation of Kennedy’s murder. Evidence suggests that, in fact, none of Sirhan’s bullets hit Kennedy. For according to the autopsy report of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Dr. Thomas T. Noguchi, Robert Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the brain, fired from behind the right ear at point blank range, following an upward angle. Noguchi restated his conclusion in his 1983 memoirs, Coroner, and his conclusion has been backed by other professionals...

On April 23, 2011, attorneys William Pepper and his associate, Laurie Dusek, gathered all this evidence and more in a 58– page file submitted to the Court of California, asking that Sirhan’s case be reopened. They documented major irregularities in the 1968 trial, including the fact that laboratory tests showed the fatal bullet had not been shot from Sirhan’s revolver, but from another gun with a different serial number; thus, instead of incriminating Sirhan, the ballistic test in fact should have proved him innocent. Pepper has also provided a computer analysis of audio recordings during the shooting, made by engineer Philip Van Praag in 2008, which confirms that two guns are heard.

There are strong suspicions that the second shooter was Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard hired for the evening, who was behind Kennedy at the time of shooting, and seen with his pistol drawn by several witnesses, one of whom, Don Schulman, positively saw him fire. Cesar was never investigated, even though he did not conceal his hatred for the Kennedys, who according to him had “sold the country down the road to the commies.”

If Sirhan was, like Oswald, a patsy, only of a more sophisticated type (a Manchurian candidate), the next question is: who had an interest in having people believe that Robert was killed by a fanatic Palestinian motivated by hatred of Israel? To raise the question is to answer it. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, why would Israel kill him? The dilemma is an illusion, since it rests on a misleading assumption, which is part of the deception: in reality, Robert Kennedy was not pro-Israel. He was simply campaigning. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable ritual in such circumstances...

All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly Israel-friendly. His brother certainly had not been. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics..

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Robert Kennedy was perceived as pro-Israel in 1968. All the same, Israel would have had a compelling motive to eliminate him, for the simple reason that Robert was, above all else, his brother’s heir and avenger. All of his biographers have stressed his total commitment and loyalty to his brother John, whom he idolized. In return, John had come to trust his judgment on almost every issue, and had made him, not only his attorney general, but also his closest adviser...

John and Robert were two brothers united by an unshakable love and loyalty,. What is the probability that their murders are unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. For there is a good chance that their solution resides in the link between them. In fact, common sense naturally leads to the hypothesis that Robert was prevented from becoming president because, obsessed with justice as he was, he had to be prevented from reaching a position where he could reopen the case of his brother’s death. Both murders have at least two things in common: Johnson and Israel...

History seems to replay indefinitely the mythical struggle of Seth against Osiris. The story of the Kennedy brothers and their nemesis Lyndon Johnson is an Osirian tragedy, with two Irish-Catholic siblings as Osiris and, playing Seth, a crypto-Jewish Texan who, having seized the throne by murder, hastened to tie the destiny of America to that of Israel. This time, Seth did not give Horus a chance: John John (JFK Jr.), who had turned three on the day of his father’s funeral, was eliminated in a suspicious plane crash on July 16, 1999, in the company of his pregnant wife and sister-in-law.

At the age of 39, JFK Jr. was preparing to enter politics. In 1995 he founded George magazine, which seemed harmless until it began to take an interest in political assassinations. In March 1997, George published a 13-page article by Guela Amir, the mother of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had offended the Israeli right-wing by agreeing to a “land for peace” exchange with the Palestinians. Guela Amir revealed that her son operated under the guardianship of a Shin Bet agent opposed to the peace process. Thus, John Jr. was eliminated while following in the footsteps of his father, entering politics through the door of journalism and taking an interest in the crimes of the Israeli deep state.

In 1968, the death of Robert Kennedy benefited Republican Richard Nixon
, who won the presidency eight years after being beaten by John F. Kennedy. Nixon made Henry Kissinger his national security advisor...

On August 6, 1974, Nixon announced to Kissinger that he intended to cut off all military and economic aid to Israel if it refused to comply with the UN resolutions. Just three days later, Nixon was forced to resign by the intensification of the Watergate scandal...

Nixon was replaced by his vice-president Gerald Ford, a former member of the Warren Commission, known for his pro-Israel positions. One of his first decisions was to recognize Jerusalem as capital of the Jewish state, in violation of UN resolutions. Under Ford, the infiltration of Israel into the heart of the American state apparatus entered a new stage, which we will explore in the next chapter...

The Triumph of Zionist Propaganda

It was only after the Six-Day War of 1967 that American Jews began to support Israel more actively and openly. Many American Jews could recognize themselves in Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel’s comment that until June 1967, “I had not known how Jewish I was.”

There were two reasons for this change of mind. First, Zionist control of the press had become such that American public opinion was easily persuaded that Israel had been the victim and not the aggressor in the Six-Day War. The mainstream media took seriously the statement of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to the Knesset on June 12, 1967, that “the existence of the State of Israel was hanging by a thread, but the hopes of the Arab leaders to exterminate Israel have been wiped out.” Israel’s victory was a divine miracle, according to the storytelling propagated in the United States. It was pure propaganda, as several Israeli ministers and high-ranking officials later disclosed: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it,” confided chief of staff and future prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (Le Monde, February 28, 1968). “The claim that the danger of genocide was hanging over our heads in June 1967, and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence was only a bluff,” revealed General Matetiyahu Peled, head of the logistics command (Le Monde, June 3, 1972)...

It is important to emphasize that the commitment of an international Jewish elite capable of influencing foreign governments has been necessary not only for the foundation of Israel, but also for its survival. Even today, Israel’s survival is entirely dependent on the influence of the Zionist network in the United States and Europe (euphemistically called the “pro-Israel lobby”)...

The Holocaust, the avatar of Yahweh, escapes history to join the category of myth, which is why “it is not within reach of historians.” This sacralization of the Holocaust through permanent media brainwashing fulfills two complementary functions: guilt in the Gentiles, fear among the Jews. Through guilt, the Gentiles are kept in check and all their criticisms are neutralized under the threat of passing for potential gas chamber operators. Through fear, the Jewish community is kept under control and their loyalty to Israel strengthened, Israel being presented to them as an “insurance policy,” a fortress (preferably well armed) in which to take refuge in the event of a new Holocaust. The spiritual power of this cult is such that the trauma of the Holocaust has now been proven to be passed from generation to generation on the genetic level, via what is called “epigenetic inheritance” according to a research team at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, led by Rachel Yehuda.

Every religion has its priests. It was in the late 1960s that Elie Wiesel became an international star of the Holocaust. His book Night, published in 1958 with a preface by François Mauriac, was translated into German in 1962 with, as if by magic, the “crematory ovens” (intended to incinerate the dead) systematically transformed (11 times) into Gaskammer, or “gas chambers,” which thus make their appearance in force in Holocaust mythology. As Alain Soral put it, “As founding sacrifice, the gas chamber has replaced the cross of Christ.”

To be continued.

For the French-speaking readers, many articles from the same author on this page :

And 3 articles in different languages (including English and French) on this page :
...of the blasphemous character of the Talmud, which presents Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute (Sanhedrin 106a) ...
So, Monty Python's Life of Brian was inspired by the Talmud here!
(Brian's mother, interpreted by Terry Jones, is a prostitute. According to her, Brian's father was a Roman soldier, a centurion in the Jerusalem Guard called Naughtius Maximus.) :lol:
The Vicious Cabal

As we have seen, the end of the 1960s marked a decisive turning point in the United States’ relationship with Israel. One key factor was the emergence of a new American Jewish elite who, under the misleading name of “neoconservatives,” was gradually gaining considerable influence over American foreign policy. The neoconservative movement was born in the editorial office of the monthly magazine Commentary, the press organ of the American Jewish Committee. “If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it,” writes Gal Beckerman in The Jewish Daily Forward, January 6, 2006. “It is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants’ grandchildren.”

Second, the neoconservatives of the first generation mostly came from the left, even the extreme Trotskyist left for some luminaries like Irving Kristol, one of the main editors of Commentary. It was at the end of the 60s that Commentary became, in the words of Benjamin Balint, “the contentious magazine that transformed the Jewish left into the neoconservative right.” Sexual liberation, which they had largely supported, suddenly seemed decadent; and pacifism, irresponsible. Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary from 1960 to 1995, changed from anti-Vietnam War activist to defense budget booster, leading the rest of the magazine along with him. He gave the explanation of this turning point in 1979: “American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs— from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood [. . .] that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.”

Since the survival of Israel depends on American protection and help, US military might and global involvement must be reinforced.
This is why Irving Kristol committed members of the American Jewish Congress in 1973 to fight George McGovern’s proposal to reduce the military budget by 30 percent: “This is to drive a knife into the heart of Israel. [. . .] Jews don’t like a big military budget, but it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States. [. . .] American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.” It is therefore good for Israel that American Jews become, as American citizens, ardent interventionists. But it was also necessary that this interventionism should appear on the national public scene as American patriotism. This explains why the neoconservatives take such special care to forbid any public mention of their Jewishness. Even Carl Bernstein, though a Jew himself, provoked a scandal by citing, on national television, the responsibility of “Jewish neocons” for the Iraq war. The truth is that the neoconservatives are crypto-Zionists. The “neoconservative” label they have given themselves is a mask.

Crypto-Zionism is a phenomenon that goes far beyond neoconservatism, and can even be compared to the crypto-Judaism of the sixteenth century. If, after June 1967, as Norman Podhoretz recalls, Israel became “the religion of the American Jews,” it goes without saying that this religion should remain discreet, if possible even secret, since it was incompatible with American patriotism, at least as conceived by those who, in a similar way, consecrate an almost religious worship to America. The loyalty of American Jews to Israel, of course, naturally engendered the fear of being accused of allegiance to a foreign state, and thus aroused in them, as protective camouflage, increased patriotism in their public proclamations. The more American Jews became Israelis, the more they felt the need to be American in the public square. It was not just about being a Jew in the tent and a man in the street, according to the saying of the Haskalah, but of being “an Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage.”

For most of today’s American Jews, this dual identity has become almost an unconscious reflex, as the interests of Israel and the United States seem to coincide in their mind. But to get there, it was necessary that this habit of thought be inculcated into them by their ruling elites. The neoconservatives were the spearhead of this ideological struggle, gradually dragging along with them almost all the Jewish representative elites of America. They highlighted a new form of US patriotism profitable to Israel, just as the sixteenth-century crypto-Jews had encouraged a new pro-Judaism form of Christianity (Calvinism)...

The Hijacking of the Republican Party

Thus those who were later called the neoconservatives entered the state apparatus for the first time— in the baggage of Rumsfeld and Cheney— and bound their fate to the Republican party. Those previously called “conservatives,” who were non-interventionists, were gradually pushed to the margins and described as paleo-conservatives, while the neoconservatives took over the reins of the Republican Party. During the parenthesis of Democratic president Jimmy Carter (1976– 80), the neoconservatives reinforced their influence within the Republican Party. In order to unify the largest number of Jews around their policies, they founded the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which became the second-most powerful pro-Israel lobby after AIPAC. One of its stated aims was: “To inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.”

Mimicking true conservatives, neoconservatives built their reputations for defending American traditional values. The best-known example is that of Allan Bloom, a disciple of Leo Strauss, who published The Closing of the American Mind in 1988. This moralistic posture, along with their warlike anti-communism, allowed the neocons to rally the Christian right. In 1980 evangelical Christians became for the first time a major electoral force mobilized to support Israel in the name of the struggle against communism. They had the advantage of being extremely manipulable, quaffing as “gospel truth” the inflamed sermons of the stars of their mega-churches, who assumed ever-more-assertive pro-Israel positions. Exemplifying this trend, televangelist Jerry Falwell received the Jabotinsky Centennial Medal from Menachem Begin in 1980 for services rendered to Israel, declaring “he who stands against Israel stands against God.”

Pastors such as Falwell help influence US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. But even more importantly, they serve as camouflage for the neoconservatives. The obtrusive presence of Christians makes Jewish influence less visible. In reality, evangelical Christians do represent an electoral force, but have no coherent political agenda and therefore no direct political power...

Bush’s opposition to the neoconservative agenda probably caused his defeat in the 1992 elections, just as the Democrat Jimmy Carter paid for his dovish policies and his critiques of Israel in 1980. It is a disconcerting fact that, since the end of World War II, the only American presidents deprived of a second term in office (including the partially deprived Nixon) were those who resisted Israel the most. The only exception is Johnson, whose unpopularity was irreversible.

Setting the Stage for the Clash of Civilizations

The Clinton Administration (1993– 2000) was itself “full of warm Jews,” in the words of an influential rabbi quoted by the Israeli newspaper Maariv. He deemed that the United States no longer possessed “a government of goyim.” In the National Security Council, for example, “7 out of 11 top staffers are Jews.”

The clan of the neoconservatives, for their part, entrenched themselves in the opposition. They reinforced their influence on the Republican party and on public opinion, thanks to a press more and more subservient to their crypto-imperial version of American patriotism. They indirectly influenced foreign policy in the Middle East by creating or taking control of a large number of think tanks: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), where Richard Perle has served since 1985; the Middle East Forum (MEF) founded in 1990 by Daniel Pipes (son of Richard); and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), founded by Meyrav Wurmser in 1998. William Kristol, son of Irving, founded in 1995 a new magazine, The Weekly Standard, which immediately became the dominant voice of the neoconservatives thanks to funding from the pro-Israel Rupert Murdoch. In 1997 it would be the first publication to call for a new war against Saddam Hussein. The neocons also flooded the book market with propaganda portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to America...

In 1996 the neoconservatives threw all their weight behind their ultimate think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), directed by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC recommended taking advantage of the defeat of communism to reinforce American hegemony by preventing the emergence of any rival. Their Statement of Principles vowed to extend the current Pax Americana, which entailed “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges.” In its September 2000 report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, PNAC anticipated that US forces must become “able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars.” This required a profound transformation, including a new military corps, the “US Space Forces,” to control both space and cyberspace, and the development of “a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements.” Unfortunately, according to the authors of the report, “the process of transformation […] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event— like a new Pearl Harbor.”...

One thing has not changed since the time of Ezra: Israel needs a foreign empire. Since its founding in 1948 and even more so since its expansion in 1967, Israel’s security and sustainability have depended totally on American support. America must therefore remain imperial. But the fall of communism meant the end of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold War would inevitably trigger a refocusing of the United States on internal politics, a return to the founding principles defended by the traditional conservatives (fallen to the rank of “paleoconservatives”)...

Israel needed to prevent at all costs an isolationist turn by the United States, which would lead to the abandonment of its “passionate attachment” for Israel. It was therefore necessary to boost the imperialistic spirit of the United States, relying on internal forces already predisposed to such a mission. These historically tended to be on the Democratic side, among the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, notably Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser and member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. Brzezinski was basically Russophobic due to his Polish origins. He was the figurehead of the geostrategic current advocating a modern version of the Great Game, which he summarizes in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative (1998). His vision, inherited from the British theorists of the end of the nineteenth century, consists essentially of preventing Russia from allying itself with Europe by digging a “blood trench” between the Slavic and Latin peoples and controlling everything from Central Asia to Ukraine. Afghanistan has always played an important role as a buffer state, and it was Brzezinski who, under Carter, had instigated the destabilization of the pro-Soviet secular regime through the financing and arming of the mujahideen (favoring the radical Islamic allies of Pakistan over the moderates like the pro-Iranian Ahmed Massoud). However, Brzezinski was far from sharing the neoconservative passion for Israel; he even spoke out against Bush Sr.’ s Gulf War I. In any case, he remained on the sidelines of the Clinton government and no longer had much influence in Washington in the 1990s.

The alliance of Brzezinski and his friends at the Council on Foreign Relations was therefore far from sufficient to bring America into a major military adventure in the Middle East. For this, the United States needed an enemy. Just as the First and Second World Wars were necessary to found Israel, the Cold War (or Third World War) provided the necessary context for the implementation of the Zionist program; the 1967 annexations would never have been possible without this context. After the dislocation of the Communist bloc, Israel needed a new world war, or at least a new threat of world war, to retain the support of the United States. So a new enemy, perfectly fitted to Israel’s needs, magically appeared. The new paradigm developed by the masters of hasbara (Israeli propaganda) is summarized in two slogans: the “war on terror” and the “clash of civilizations.”

The first was already widely disseminated since the 1980s, especially by Benjamin Netanyahu himself. During his years at the Washington embassy and the United Nations, Netanyahu contributed more than anyone else to introducing into the American consciousness the idea that Arab terrorism not only threatened Israel, but also the United States and the democratic world in its entirety. It is the central message of his books, International Terrorism: Challenge and Response (1982); Terrorism: How the West can Win (1986); and A Place Among the Nations: Israel and the World (1993). In the latter, he drew a systematic analogy between Arafat and Hitler, and introduced the farfetched claim that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, had been “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry” by advising Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Himmler (a claim without historical substantiation, but already current in Israeli propaganda). He also wrote: “Violence is ubiquitous in the political life of all Arab countries. […] International terrorism is the quintessential Middle East export and its techniques are those of the Arab regimes and organisations that invented it..” 557 In Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists (1995), he coined the term “war on terror.”...

The term “clash of civilizations,” which refers to a broader process encompassing “the war on terror,” was used for the first time by one of the most influential thinkers of the neoconservative current
, Bernard Lewis (holder of Israeli, British, and American passports) in an article in the September 1990 issue of Atlantic Monthly, entitled “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” The concept was taken up in a manifesto by Samuel Huntington in Commentary magazine in the summer of 1994 and then in a book by the same author published by the Olin Foundation, a neoconservative think tank. After the Soviet peril, prophesied Huntington, here comes the Islamic peril...

At the same time, the “clash of civilizations” has been implanted in mass consciousness by Hollywood, as Jack Shaheen explains in Real Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (Olive Branch Press, 2012), based on the analysis of more than a thousand films over thirty years...

After the Clinton administration successfully thwarted the Israeli psychological operation, on January 17, 1998, the first revelation of the President’s affair with 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky appeared in Newsweek. Lewinsky, the daughter of Zionist east European immigrants, and a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was a Queen Esther of a new kind. She had confided in her coworker Linda Tripp, who then proceeded to secretly record her torrid phone conversations with Clinton, while Lewinsky kept, unwashed for two years, her blue dress with the incriminating sperm stains. Syrian newspaper Tishrin Al-Usbu’a speculates that “her goal was to embarrass President Clinton, to blackmail him and weaken his status before Netanyahu’s government.”

Indeed, on January 21, 1998, while The Washington Post published an article on the Lewinsky case, Clinton urgently received Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for an unannounced 90-minute interview. On January 26, 1998, Clinton received a real ultimatum, in the form of a letter signed by Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and other neoconservatives urging him to use his State of the Union address to make removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime the “aim of American foreign policy” and to use military action because “diplomacy is failing.” Were Clinton to do that, the signers pledged to “offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.” Clinton did nothing: his speech was entirely centered on the economy (the central theme of his election campaigns and his presidency). In the months that followed, the “Monicagate” scandal became an ordeal for Clinton, who was charged with perjury and threatened with impeachment...

The “New Pearl Harbor”

The first to publicly announce the name of bin Laden was Ehud Barak, the outgoing Israeli prime minister (1999– 2001), in an interview with the BBC just one hour after the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (and again the following day). He concluded: “It’s a time to launch an operational, complete war against terror.”...

The secondary objective of September 11 and the other pseudo-Islamist attacks perpetrated on American and European soil is to persuade as many Jews as possible that they are not safe in the West and that they would do well to settle in Israel.

The Controlled Opposition

If the president was taken by surprise on the day of the attacks, why did he cover for the real culprits by validating the bin Laden-Al Qaeda thesis? It was necessary that a means of blackmail against the president and, more generally, against the American state, be prepared in advance. Indeed, as with the JFK assassination, the difficulty was not so much the logistics of the operation itself as the obstruction of the investigation...

Bush was certainly aware of the leverage that the neocons had acquired over the major print and television media. He was obliged, under penalty of ending in the proverbial trash bin of history, to endorse the invasion of Iraq that his father had refused the Zionists ten years earlier...

After 9/ 11, the media played the same double game as after the JFK assassination. Most of the major newspapers and television channels presented the official thesis as verified and incontestable. But some people simultaneously voiced an indirect suspicion of possible complicity of George W. Bush and his father, questioning their relations with the major Saudi families...

Graham made his first revelation on Democracy Now, the Pacifica network show founded by Amy Goodman, who, according to Wikipedia, is “of Orthodox Jewish heritage; her maternal grandfather was an Orthodox rabbi.”
Democracy Now, which regularly invites Noam Chomsky, is a typical example of controlled opposition whose aim is to maintain dissent within the dominant paradigm (bin Laden’s guilt) while giving the illusion of adversarial debate. But the threat of disclosing the classified pages, which have since been regularly mentioned by the press, also maintained the pressure on Bush and his clan and prevented them from pointing the finger at Israel...

In the quest for the truth about September 11 as in the Kennedy case, controlled opposition operates on many levels, and many honest scholars now realize that the 9/ 11 truth movement itself is largely channeled to hide the role of Israel.

The Great Game Of Zion

Darwinism, Racism, and Supremacism

Spencer’s theory, often called “social Darwinism,” is now stigmatized as an abusive misappropriation of Charles Darwin’s biological evolutionary thought. But it was actually Spencer who prepared the scene for Darwin; Spencer’s book appeared two years before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). So it is really Darwinism that should be called “biological Spencerism.”

Darwin was well received by the Victorian bourgeoisie because he blended the “natural sciences” with the Spencerian law of “survival of the fittest,” which was already in embryo in the thought of Thomas Hobbes. Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, author of Hereditary Genius, its laws and consequences (1862), invented “eugenics” to correct the perverse effect of civilization, which “diminishes the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection and preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands.” Apparently, Spencer’s laissez-faire was not enough; the state must intervene, not to help the weak, but to prevent them from reproducing themselves. It was Leonard Darwin, Charles’s son, who led the fight as president of the British Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1928.

Karl Marx, after having for some time shared his friend Friedrich Engels’s enthusiasm for Darwin’s Origin of Species as “the natural-history foundation of our viewpoint,” had second thoughts when he recognized that Darwin had merely projected the rules of British capitalism onto the animal kingdom.

It is important to understand that, according to Darwin, “natural selection” is not creative in itself, but destructive; it acts only negatively by eliminating the least able individuals. It allows only the preservation of accidental variations, when they are advantageous to the individual under the conditions of existence in which he is placed. Darwin had no idea of the nature and causes of these “accidentally produced variations,” and did not exclude factors yet unknown. (As is generally the case, the master was less dogmatic than his students.) It was not until the genetic discoveries of the 1940s that accidental variations were determined to be mistakes in the reproduction of the DNA code.

However, experiments show that genes are replicators and hence stabilizers, and that their accidental mutations only produce degenerations, which are generally sterile, and in no case carry any “selective advantage” that could be passed down. In other words, natural selection tends to preserve the genetic heritage by eliminating individuals who deviate too much from the standard. It has room for maneuver and may eventually produce some adaptation to changes in the environment, but in general it prevents evolution rather than encouraging it. It is true that “artificial selection” in the long run makes it possible to “improve” a domestic animal species from the point of view of a particular criterion (yield of milk or meat, for example) and thus create a new “race.” But not a new species; even modern genetic technology does not allow us to take this step.

Genetic discoveries and common sense should therefore have caused the extinction of Darwinism among the credible theories of evolution. Yet this was not the case. On the contrary, since it was less a scientific theory than a theology of the death of God, a new form of speculative Darwinism was coined under the name “the synthetic theory of evolution.” It relies entirely on the idea that man has developed purely accidentally from the first bacteria, without the intervention of any intelligent design, by the simple combination of “chance and necessity.” Darwinism today synthesizes the idea that modern man is supposed to have of himself and that is inculcated by orthodox education. It is both a doctrine of the essence of man and a myth of the creation of man. Darwinism is the heart of nihilist theology. For this reason, it will probably also resist the new challenge of epigenetics, which proves the genetic inheritance of acquired characteristics, as Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck had theorized.

In 1920, the English writer Bernard Shaw saw in Darwinism (or rather the dogmatic form elaborated by August Weismann and popularized at the time under the name of neo-Darwinism) a new secular religion whose philosophical foundation is the denial of any other reality than matter, alongside the ethical principle of competition for the survival of the fittest.

The paradigm of Malthus, Spencer, Darwin, and Galton deserves the name “Darwinian paradigm” for three reasons. First, it is the Darwinian idea of “selection” that best summarizes the paradigm. Secondly, this paradigm is now firmly rooted in the supposed Darwinian (actually pre-Darwinian) idea that “man descends from the ape.” And finally, Darwin is now the venerated prophet of this secular religion. By convention, therefore, let us call the processes of natural or artificial selection “Darwinian mechanisms” or “Darwinian strategies.” This is an abuse of language, since these very real mechanisms do not validate Darwin’s speculative theory on the appearance of species; but the terms are justified by usage...

Darwin is the direct descendant of Hobbes, via Malthus and Spencer. In fact, he only made literal what was still a metaphor in Hobbes: Man is an animal. Not only is the civilized man descended from the savage, but the savage himself descends from the ape. Darwinism soon imposed itself as the metaphysical framework of all “human sciences,” and the foundation of a new idea of man, who is no longer distinguished from the animal kingdom by a qualitative leap. Sigmund Freud, among others, owed his success to having re-founded psychology on Darwinian principles, that is to say, on the premise that the creative spirit of man was only a by-product of his (repressed) animal instincts: “The development of man till now seems to me to require no other explanation than that of animals” (Beyond the Pleasure Principle, 1920); “It is merely the principle of pleasure [. . .] which from the outset governs the operations of the psychic apparatus” (Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929). Since, according to Darwinian logic, procreation determines selective advantage, it was naturally in the sex drive that Freud found the key to the human psyche.

Darwinism scientifically condoned racism, the ideological justification for colonialism, slavery, and ethnic cleansing. Darwin had extended his theory from animal species to human races in his second work, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
(1871), in which he predicted that in a few centuries, “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Darwin brought to this idea the stamp of natural science, and above all, by linking it to his theory of the origin of species, he implicitly placed this genocidal process in the continuity of a positive evolution that had earlier produced the savage from the monkey...

Judaism as Darwinian Strategy

The Darwinian paradigm has a strong resonance among Jewish supremacists. Harry Waton wrote in his Program for the Jews, published in 1939: “Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews.”

In fact, the notion of natural selection among human races came to Jewish thinkers long before it dawned on Spencer and Darwin. As mentioned in chapter 5, the Marrano Isaac de la Peyrère can be considered as a precursor, with his Talmudic theory of the Adamic origin of the Jews and pre-Adamic origin of the Gentiles (Præadamitæ, 1655). Seven years before Darwin’s The Origin of Species, it was Disraeli who developed a proto-Darwinian vision of the struggle of the races: “It is in vain for man to attempt to baffle the inexorable law of nature which has decreed that a superior race shall never be destroyed or absorbed by an inferior” (Lord George Bentinck, 1852). Shortly thereafter, the inventors of the first Darwinian racialist theories were Jewish authors, such as Ludwig Gumplowicz, professor of political science in Graz for twenty years and author of The Struggle of Races (1883). Many of the most enthusiastic disciples of Spencer, Darwin, and Galton were Jewish...

This perception of persecution as a selective factor— a Spencerian mechanism ensuring the “survival of the fittest” by way of the expulsion of “soft” Jews from the gene pool— is a commonplace in the Jewish community’s discourse about itself.
Theodor Herzl, among many others, evoked this idea without bothering to argue for it, since it went without saying among those he was addressing: “Jew-baiting has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against them.”...

Blood, Race, and Genes is worth mentioning Richard Dawkins’s effort to resolve the contradiction of “group selection” in his best-selling book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins believes he can do it by taking the standpoint of the “gene,” defined as “any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection.” From that standpoint, “we and all other animals, are machines created by our genes,” allowing them to replicate indefinitely. This view seems to correspond fairly well to the Deuteronomic ideology. The insistence of the Jewish tradition on the law of endogamy from the Bible to the present day makes it possible to consider Judaism as a strategy of preservation, even improvement, of a genetic heritage. It is better understood by reading what Benzion Netanyahu, father of the Israeli prime minister, writes about transgressions against endogamy: “Only by intermarriage can a person uproot himself from a nation, and then only in so far as his descendants are concerned. His individuality, which is an extract and an example of the qualities of his nation, may then be lost in future generations, dominated by qualities of other nations. Quitting a nation is, therefore, even from a biological point of view, an act of suicide.” Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974, found a more modern formulation: “To marry a non-Jew is to join the six million [exterminated Jews].” Indeed, in Jewish Orthodox communities, the Jew who marries a goy is considered dead, and even given a symbolic funeral by his family.

In the world of the Jewish super-rich, genetic heritage and financial heritage are closely intertwined. Corporate mergers are consecrated by marriages: Solomon Loeb and Abraham Kuhn of Kuhn Bank, Loeb & Co (founded in 1867) married each other’s sisters, while Jacob Schiff married the daughter of Solomon Loeb to become boss of the bank in 1875. Similarly, the two Sachs sons married two Goldman daughters, forming the bank Goldman Sachs (founded in 1869). Conversely, marriages with non-Jews, amounting to genetic defections, are most frequent among the less well-off sections of the Jewish community— a phenomenon that, from the Judeo-Darwinian point of view, is tantamount to expelling the weak from the group.

We have shown in chapter 3 that the core teaching of the Hebrew Bible deprives the individual of any other life after death than through his progeny. Man’s only destiny beyond his earthly life is the survival of his people. It is as if the Jewishness in each Jew were a piece of a collective soul...

Assimilation, Dissimulation

Competitiveness with non-Jews involves strategies that can be described in Darwinian terms as “crypsis” and “mimicry.” The former, also called camouflage, is defined as “the faculty of a species to merge with its environment”; the second, as “the faculty of one species to resemble another.” These are adaptive strategies conventionally attributed to the Jews, and rightly so. The Jew has an extraordinary capacity “to conform externally to his temporary surroundings,” wrote Hilaire Belloc in 1922; “a Jew takes on with inexplicable rapidity the colour of his environment.” But this must not be confused with actual assimilation. Such crypsis is an adaptive strategy for security in a potentially hostile environment...

In A People That Shall Dwell Alone, social psychology professor Kevin MacDonald argues that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy among peoples.” He sees it as remarkably effective, providing the Jewish community with a decisive selective advantage. From his Darwinian perspective, Kevin MacDonald naturally sees crypto-Judaism as “an authentic case of crypsis quite analogous to cases of mimetic camouflage in the natural world.” This also applies, according to MacDonald, to the sincere converts who nevertheless maintain group separatism— those who, while willingly accepting the water of baptism, believe that it has not changed the nature of the blood flowing in their veins, and who feel the need to maintain the purity of this Jewish blood. “Indeed, one might note that New Christians who maintained group separatism while sincerely accepting Christianity were really engaging in a very interesting evolutionary strategy— a true case of crypsis entirely analogous to crypsis in the natural world. Such people would be even more invisible to the surrounding society than crypto-Jews, because they would attend church regularly, not circumcise themselves, eat pork, etc., and have no psychological qualms about doing so. […] Psychological acceptance of Christianity may have been the best possible means of continuing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy during the period of the Inquisition.”...

The book of Ezra is a key to understanding Judaism, since the Yahwist ideology with its tribal-universal ambiguity crystallized during this period. Put simply, it seems that Yahweh is the tribal god of the Jews that the rest of humanity takes for the universal God. This is why, although the Tanakh of the Jews and the Old Testament of the Christians are practically identical, they are two totally different books according to how they are read.

The Mission Theory

From the 1930s, Freudianism gained considerable influence in the United States, thanks to the immigration of a large number of members of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, almost all Jews. This current swarmed into a multitude of schools, and the 1960s produced the so-called Freudo-Marxists, equally inclined to diagnose the ills of society and the traditional family.

According to the psychoanalytic diagnosis, Christian societies suffer from sexual repression. The cure, therefore, is sexual liberation. Jewish intellectuals were the spearheads of the attack on moral and Christian values and the fight against the censorship of pornography. Norman Podhoretz pointed this out in an August 1995 Commentary article, and professor Nathan Abrams of the University of Aberdeen goes further in an article in The Jewish Quarterly (reprinted in the collection Jews and Sex): “Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.” The sexual revolution, like the drug culture, arrived just in time to depoliticize youth during the Lyndon Johnson era, when Israel’s parasitism of America was gaining critical mass.

Hijacking Christianity

While mimicking Christianity, Judaism also seeks to transform it. And so the counterpart of the Christianization of Judaism is the Judaization of Christianity. According to the historian of Judaism Daniel Lindenberg, “the Jewish Reformation does not only want to ‘assimilate’ unilaterally into the modern Christian world. In a way, it aims to ‘reform’ it, too. […] It is really about awakening the Hebrew ‘root’ of a Christianity reconciled with Human Rights.”

In fact, it is really about eradicating all traces of anti-Judaism from Christianity— from the Gospel if it were possible— in order to turn Christianity into a Judeophilic religion, that is, a branch of Judaism.

The Judaization of Christianity culminates in American Evangelical Christianity, the direct descendant of Calvinist Puritanism.
A few decades of skillful manipulation has succeeded in transforming Evangelicals into powerful allies of Zionism. The initial impulse can be traced back to Methodist pastor William Eugene Blackstone. His book Jesus Is Coming (1878) sold millions of copies and was translated into forty-eight languages. It became the key reference of what is called “dispensationalism,” the doctrine that the gathering of Jews in Palestine is the precondition for the Return of Christ on Earth...

It is through dialectical oppositions that the great Jewish movements of the 19th and 20th centuries have been able to bend history. The three major Jewish movements were hatched around the same time: Reform Judaism, the fruit of 18th century Haskalah; Bolshevism, based on Marxism, which fed on earlier socialist ideas before smothering them; and Zionism.
Reform Judaism and Zionism appeared in Western Europe almost simultaneously, in the same intellectual milieu which produced Heinrich Graetz’s History of the Jews. Both used the victimization of the Jews as a springboard for their ascent to positions of power. While Reform Judaism was crafting a new image of the Jews as the collective suffering Messiah, Zionism was capitalizing on the Russian pogroms to advance its claim for the Jews to have “a nation of their own, a nation like others.” While originally affirming their mutual incompatibility and competing for the heart of Jews— wealthy and destitute alike— these two movements finally joined hand and congratulated each other on their marvelous common achievement: a nation like no other, with both a national territory and an international citizenry.

The dialectical opposition between Zionism and communism is another case in point. Both originated, again, in the same milieu, and the very nature of their opposition is perhaps best represented by the friendship between Karl Marx and Moses Hess. Theodor Herzl, we remember, used the threat of communism in his Zionist diplomatic overtures to Russian and the German leaders: “Support my movement, and I will rid your cities of their revolutionaries.” Churchill, also on the Zionist side, dramatized the opposition between the “good Jews” (Zionists) and the “bad Jews” (communists) in his 1920 article “Zionism versus Bolshevism.”

Similar dialectical machinery can be found in all levels of Jewish movements. Consider, for example, the opposition between pro-Nazi Zionists and anti-Nazi Zionists in the 1930s. The Hegelian synthesis between the two is best embodied by Joachim Prinz, who in 1934 expressed sympathy for the Nazi racial laws, and in 1958 was elected president of the American Jewish Congress, the very organization which in 1933 had called for total economic war on Germany.

Reshaping the Cultural Environment

The manipulation of the Christian mind to make it favorable to the Jews and to Israel is one aspect among others of a general strategy of modifying the cultural environments of host nations to make them more conducive to the Jewish community. This strategy differs from the Darwinian crypsis by which the community blends into the environment to make its ethnic character less visible. Here, on the contrary, it is a question of modifying the environment to make it more tolerant of ethnic communities, or to diffuse the ethnic problem and thus divert Gentile hostility toward other ethnic communities. The Jews are then able, using the strategy of “triangulation,” to pose as mediators of conflicts.

This, for Kevin MacDonald, explains why “transforming the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal since the 19th century.”
The project entails both increasing national tolerance toward ethnic communities, but also increasing the numerical importance and diversity of ethnic communities through massive immigration, celebrating multiculturalism, and fostering ethnic pluralism.

Some Black American leaders like Louis Farrakhan believe that the Jews championed their cause out of self-interest, essentially hijacking it. Charles Silberman seemingly agrees, while extending the analysis to other battles: “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief— firmly rooted in history— that Jews are only safe in a society that welcomes a broad spectrum of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religions and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, and not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to support the rights of homosexuals.” And so, thanks to the “Jewish identity merchants,” as Gilad Atzmon call them, “We are transformed into a matrix of a manifold of Jew-like tribal groupings defined largely by biology (color, gender, sexual preferences, race, etc.). However, it is hardly surprising that Jewish identity merchants are way better than anyone else in being Jews. Jews have been practicing Jewish tribal survival strategies (identity politics and ethnocentrism) for 3000 years.”

Throughout the twentieth century, cinema has been a powerful means of shaping American culture. Hollywood was founded by newly immigrated Jews from Eastern Europe in the 1920s: the Warner brothers, Carl Laemmle, William Fox, Harry Cohn, Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Irving Thalberg, Adolph Zukor, and others.

Hollywood subversion exemplifies the thorn-in-the-side version of the “theory of mission,” according to which the attack on moral values is a service to society. It has largely been Jewish intellectuals who, possessed by this mission, have waged a war of attrition against Christian moral values, as Nathan Abrams noted in the article quoted above. It has also been Jews, beginning with the founder of Playboy Hugh Heffner, who, in pornography and erotica, have broken all the moral barriers one by one. “There’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana.” The testimony of its producers, cited by Abrams, suggests that pornography for them is not only a lucrative business, but also “a way of defiling Christian culture”: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks,” explains Al Goldstein.

Changing the cultural environment of a nation requires the control of the screen and the press— the dream factory and the manufacture of opinion. The first is centered in Hollywood, on the West Coast, while the second is traditionally concentrated in the East, its two historic landmarks being The Washington Post and The New York Times...

The television industry has followed a similar path, and the concentration of Jewish power there is even more extreme. “Today, seven Jewish Americans run the vast majority of US television networks, the printed press, the Hollywood movie industry, the book publishing industry, and the recording industry,” writes John Whitley. 709 The major news channels— ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN— are naturally included in this category, as well as Rupert Murdoch’s FOX empire, a mainstay of neoconservative propaganda. Murdoch, while not Jewish, is close to Ariel Sharon and Likud. In 2004 he directly or indirectly owned more than 175 print titles (40 million newspapers sold weekly) and 35 television channels, reaching 110 million spectators on four continents...
I read this book last year. It’s truly an eye opener! I know I’ve mentioned it here before. I’m surprised that Laura hasn’t read it, because I’m pretty sure I heard about it on SOTT, though of course I realize that she can’t read everything that gets posted there (or maybe she does). I guess I just assume she’s read everything under the sun! Stacks of books everywhere!!!:wow: :headbash: :lol:
Children Of The Mad God

Here, as throughout biblical history, the people are presented as rebelling against the authority of Yahweh, whether it is incarnated by Moses, the priests, or the prophets. Consequently, the Jewish national character or mentality cannot be deduced directly from the character or mentality of Yahweh. What interests us is the cognitive mechanisms that Yahweh induces in his people. To study Jewish collective psychology, we must consider how the believer or ethnic Jew cognitively internalizes the foundations of his religion and identity inscribed in the Bible. This is difficult for Christians, who are not used to reading the Bible as Jews do: Christians do not identify with the Jewish people, nor do they feel directly concerned with the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. They tend to rationalize Yahweh’s behavior in the Old Testament by the notion that he was dealing with a hardened people.

In this chapter, I will suggest that Yahweh, as the sociopathic or psychopathic god, has inculcated in the Jewish people the syndrome of the “psychopath’s son.” Philip Roth has formulated this very idea through the character of Smilesburger in Operation Shylock: “A Jew knows God and how, from the very first day He created man, He has been irritated with him from morning till night. […] To appeal to a crazy, irritated father, that is what it is to be a Jew. To appeal to a crazy, violent father, and for three thousand years, that is what it is to be a crazy Jew!”

This approach makes it possible to give a dialectical account of sociopsychological tensions in the Jewish community as a whole, and in each Jew individually insofar as he identifies with that community. The son of a psychopath, unless he escapes early on from his father, has no choice but to structure his personality by mimicking the paternal psychopathy. But his psychic autonomy also drives him to free himself from this father who lives in him, at the cost of terrible suffering...

The Psychopathic God

The behavior of Yahweh toward his people, as presented in biblical history, can be examined through the psychological prism we have just described. Yahweh is a father to his people, but a father who, to keep his son under his tight control, prevents him from forming any empathic alliance with other peoples. He convinces the Jews that all those who wish to be their friends are in fact their worst enemies, that all confidence in Gentiles leads only to disaster. The Jews must place their entire trust in Yahweh alone. The cultic and food prohibitions are there precisely to prevent all socialization outside the tribe: “I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine” (Leviticus 20: 26); “you, out of all peoples, shall be my personal possession, for the whole world is mine. For me you shall be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exodus 19: 5– 6). This last sentence is often cited out of context as evidence that the Jewish people are divinely commissioned to be the spiritual guide of humanity. It is a misunderstanding: what Yahweh wants is a people consecrated to his worship, just as the psychopathic father seeks, in the devotion of his son, the exaltation of his own narcissism...

In Kevin MacDonald’s words: “The idea that Jewish suffering results from Jews straying from their own law occurs almost like a constant drumbeat throughout the Tanakh— a constant reminder that the persecution of Jews is not the result of their own behavior vis-à-vis Gentiles but rather the result of their behavior vis-à-vis God.” If the Jewish people have sinned, it is against God, never against other peoples. And if they have sinned against God, it is precisely by sympathizing with other peoples, by “assimilating” with them...

Judaism (biblical Yahwism as well as Talmudic rabbinism) teaches the Jews that all their misfortunes are explained by their disobedience to Yahweh, and that their most serious fault is to fraternize with the non-Jews. The biblical message, in essence, is: “Do not frequent idolaters (non-Jews), despise their traditions, and— if possible— exploit them, enslave them, and exterminate them. If, after that, they violate you, it is your fault: you have not obeyed scrupulously enough.” Such is the insane cognitive logic, internalized over a hundred generations, that encloses the Jews in the infernal cycle of chosenness and persecution. This mode of thought is based on the denial of the other’s humanity, which is indeed the essence of psychopathy. It does not occur to the psychopath to question the feelings of the other in order to try to understand his anger, because the other is fundamentally an object and not a person: his actions are events whose motivation is irrelevant...

Of course, in speaking here of “Yahweh” as a psychopathic or sociopathic father, and of the election he confers as a curse, I am speaking metaphorically and abstractly. I do not believe in the objective existence of such a mad god. But if Yahweh is imaginary, that does not change his psychological stranglehold. Yahweh is the persona (the mask) invented by the Levitical elites; the relationship between the people and Yahweh in the Bible is in fact only a projection of the relationship between the people and their Levitical elites.

For a non-religious Jew, the Jews are not God’s chosen people, but his “inventors.” As David Ben-Gurion put it, it was not Yahweh who chose the Jewish people, but the Jewish people who chose Yahweh. So the covenant between Yahweh and his people is really only an alliance between Jews, whose elites dictate terms.

Killing Yahweh

Every Jew finds himself in such a situation, to the extent that he identifies himself as a Jew. He is torn by opposite and partly unconscious wills, which have their ultimate source in his ambivalent relationship to his ethnic god— who is, on the psychological level, merely the internalized symbolic representation of the tribal elites’ power over him. Every Jew, insofar as he believes himself to be Jewish, feels this schism, this inner tension, which is at bottom the struggle between his Jewishness and his humanity. This is the most probable explanation for the high rate of neuroses among Jews. The neurotic Jew is not just a Hollywood stereotype created by Woody Allen or the Coen brothers. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia wrote: “The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia appear to be most frequent.” Isaac Kadmi-Cohen speaks of “a congenital neurosis characterized by a lack of balance between objective data and judgment […] a nervous excitability, a chronic exaltation of passion.” This anomaly, often attributed to endogamy, has been a concern for many Jewish doctors and psychiatrists, including Sigmund Freud. Research by Leo Srole in the 1960s shows that the Jewish rate of neuroses and character disorders was about three times as high as that of Catholics and Protestants. Neurosis results from psychic tension that threatens the integrity of the self, and that can degenerate into psychosis when the tension reaches a point of rupture. Freud wrongly reduced this tension to a conflict between the id (sexual instinct) and the superego, but his schema nevertheless has the merit of emphasizing the role of the castrating image of the father. For the Jews, the symbolic image of the father internalized in the superego is superimposed on that of Yahweh...

There has always been a minority of Jews who, by self-examination (often under painful circumstances) succeed in escaping from the mental shackles of their Jewishness. They are stigmatized as suffering from “self-hatred,” and the anathema or persecution they endure only makes their emancipation more heroic. They have symbolically killed the father. The “murder of the father” is one of Freud’s most fertile intuitions, but Freud has mistakenly generalized: only the son of the destructive and manipulative father needs to “kill the father.” This is why Freudian psychoanalysis, born of the “self-cure” of its founder, is indeed, if not a “Jewish national affair” as Freud said, at least a theory deeply marked by the Jewish collective psyche. For the Jewish father is the representative of the Jewish collective superego, whose other name is Yahweh, and every Jew aspires to the depths of his soul to free himself from Yahweh...

When considering the traumatic essence of Judaism, we must consider the issue of ritual circumcision performed on eight-day-old infants as commanded by the Biblical God to Abraham (Genesis 17: 9-14). It must be distinguished from the circumcision practiced in ancient Egypt on fourteen-year-old boys as a kind of rite of passage, or from Islamic circumcision, which is not done before the age of five, generally later. Unlike the child or teenager, the infant is psychologically incapable of giving any positive meaning to the violence done to him. Eight days after emerging from his mother’s womb— a trauma in itself— what he needs most of all is to develop trust in the benevolence of those who welcomed him into this world, starting with his mother.

Because infants cannot speak, rabbis who justify the tradition speak in their place to minimize their physical pain and psychological plight. But according to Professor Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision, the Hidden Trauma, scientific studies prove the neurological impact of infant circumcision, for which there exists no effective anesthetic. Behavioral changes observed after the operation, including sleep disorders and inhibition in mother-child bonding, are signs of a post-traumatic stress syndrome. The loss of trust in the mother is the potential source of a future unconscious hatred of women, the social consequences of which can be tremendous...

Freud touches again on the subject in Moses and Monotheism, published a few months before his death: “Circumcision is a symbolical substitute of castration, a punishment which the primaeval father dealt his sons long ago out of the awfulness of his power, and whosoever accepted this symbol showed by so doing that he was ready to submit to his father’s will, although it was at the cost of a painful sacrifice.”...

The link between circumcision and paternal violence is also recognized by Jewish tradition, which has always related God’s two commands to Abraham— to circumcise his sons, and to sacrifice Isaac— although they are separate events in the Bible. Infantile circumcision physically impresses on every Jew, and on all Jews collectively, Yahweh’s abusive and traumatic domination. It is like a genetic mark, passed on from father to son, to engrave the Yahwist covenant in pain and in sexuality. It is also the ultimate sign of separation: The uncircumcised are deemed impure and the Torah forbids socializing with them, let alone marrying them. Circumcision is the lock of the “Jewish prison.”...

Jewishness and Selective Empathy

The fact that Jews today are disproportionately represented among the elite (“ though barely 2% of the [American] nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews,” remarks Benjamin Ginsberg in The Fatal Embrace) should not lead us to conclude that psychopathy is more prevalent among the chosen people. In a way, quite the opposite is the case: Jews demonstrate among themselves an extraordinary capacity for empathy, or at least familiarity, that breeds exceptional solidarity to the point of self-sacrifice. The anti-Semitic stereotype that Jews are more egotistical, less loyal, less courageous, and less generous than non-Jews is totally unfair, as Hilaire Belloc pointed out in 1922. On the contrary, their loyalty, courage, and generosity often far outstrip those of their neighbors. However, these qualities tend to be oriented selectively toward themselves, and it is perhaps for this reason that they are more intense...

In certain essential aspects, Judaism is a form of “collective sociopathy.” This does not mean that “the Jews” are sociopaths, but rather that they are victims of a mental trap inherited from their ancestors and imposed by their elites. The difference between collective sociopathy and individual sociopathy is the same as between collective neurosis and individual neurosis according to Freud: participation in a collective sociopathic mentality allows members of the community to channel sociopathic tendencies toward the outside of the community, and to maintain within it a high degree of sociability.

Universalism and the Chosenness Complex

Jewish universalism is artificial. It is a posture, a persona. Johann Gottlieb Fichte, writing in 1793, was not mistaken: “The Jew who overcomes the difficult, one may say insurmountable, barriers which lie before him, and attains a love of justice, mankind, and truth— that Jew is a hero and a saint. I do not know whether such Jews ever existed or exist today. I shall believe it as soon as I meet such Jews. But dare you not sell me beautiful appearances for the real thing.” Jewish universalism is a fable intended to obfuscate reality and confuse the goy. Aaron David Gordon, founder of the Zionist party Hapoel Hatzair (Young Worker), puts it this way: “We always shout the word Humanity louder than all others, not because we have an ethics superior to others but because Humanity is an abstraction, an ethereal notion: In life there are only peoples (Völker).”...

Jewish universalism is a part of the Jews’ self-image, and amounts to an expression of limitless ethnic narcissism. Remember: the best deceivers are self-deceivers, and the psychopath typically ends up believing in his own lies, for he ignores the value of truth...

Yahweh, the Jewish universal God, is only a narcissistic tribal god, in the clinical sense of the term. Jewish universalism is only a hypertrophied ethnocentrism. For if the Jew is the essence of humanity, it follows implicitly that the non-Jew is a little less than human. Many rabbis have made the idea explicit...

Jewishness seems to induce a blind spot among some high-level intellectuals: they become irrational as soon as they approach a subject with any relationship to their community, as if an unconscious imperative— some programmed subroutine in the superego— suddenly short-circuited their objectivity...

The Holocaust Attitude

The psychopath is unable to see the other person’s point of view, and criticism strikes him as irrational aggression. He does not know the feeling of guilt, and constantly plays innocent: those who have crossed his path are solely responsible for their own destruction. Their reproaches are baseless, and their anger an irrational hatred. This is the reaction of the Jewish elites to criticism: to them it can be nothing other than the expression of visceral anti-Semitism, an atavistic goyish disease. “Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy, with the distinction that it is not peculiar to particular races but is common to the whole of mankind,” writes Leon Pinsker, a medical doctor. It is “a psychic aberration...

Persecution is also the central theme of the liturgy and Jewish feasts: Passover, Hanukkah, Purim, Yom Kippur. Persecution is so essential to the Jewish identity that, when it does not exist, there is an urgent need to invent it. An obsessive fear of anti-Semitism must be maintained in the minds of the Jews, for it is the glue that holds the community together, the only thing capable of resisting the dissolving effect of assimilation...

The sacralization of the Holocaust and its media liturgy fulfills two complementary functions: guilt among the Gentiles, fear among the Jews. Through guilt, the Gentiles are kept in check, and all their criticisms are neutralized by equating them to gas chambers. Through fear, the Jewish community is kept under control, and its loyalty to Israel strengthened, as Israel is depicted as an “insurance policy,” a fortress (preferably well-armed), and a refuge in the event of a new Holocaust. The quasi-miraculous power of this cult is such that “the trauma of the Holocaust is transmitted genetically” by “epigenetic heredity,” according to a study by a team of researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York under the direction of Rachel Yehuda...

The conviction that Jew-hatred is inherent in Gentiles is so intimately linked to modern Jewish identity that the Jew who renounces Jewishness— or criticizes it too severely, like Gilad Atzmon— is treated as a self-hating Jew, that is to say, accused of having internalized the goyim’s hatred of him.

The Sociopathic State

Victimization has become the essence of Israeli national identity, according to Idith Zertal, professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem: “Israeli society nationalized the memory of the Holocaust.” “The Holocaust is inserted directly and metaphorically into everyday life in Israel, which is loaded, in this fashion, with meaning beyond itself, as are power and the ideology of power.” By this process, Israel has been transformed “into an ahistorical and apolitical twilight zone, where Auschwitz is not a past event but a threatening present and a constant option. By means of Auschwitz— which has become over the years Israel’s main reference in its relations with a world defined repeatedly as anti-Semitic and forever hostile— Israel rendered itself immune to criticism, and impervious to a rational dialogue with the world around her.”...

Our diagnosis should take into account Israel’s extraordinary manipulative capacity on the world stage via corruption and propaganda— the bank and the press. The relationship between Israel and the United States is akin to the bond between a typical psychopath and the impressionable bully he has decided to manipulate. Israel’s control of the American mind is achieved on the mass level through the press and the entertainment industry, on the governmental level through the irresistible influence of the neocons and AIPAC, and on a still deeper level through wide-scale spying and the infiltration and hijacking of intelligence and secret services. As Haaretz recently revealed, two Israeli high-tech firms (Verint and Narus) with ties to Mossad, have provided the spy software for the NSA, thus securing for Israel access to all collected data. Other Israeli software “front companies” have likewise infiltrated the US administration and military-industrial sector.

The golden rule of manipulation formulated by Colonel Mandell House (who was the intermediary between the Zionist network and President Woodrow Wilson) applies generally to Israel’s manipulation of the United States: “With the President [. . .] it was invariably my intention to always to make him believe that ideas he derived from me were his own.” Such is also the essence of Israel’s strategy with the US; behind the mask of American patriotism, the neocons have managed to lead America into a Middle East policy that only serves Israeli interests, by pretending to the American people that it serves their interests. The psychopath tries to interfere in all the human relationships of his prey, so as to prevent any alliance that could allow him to be unmasked. Isolate and divide-and-rule are the essence of this strategy. This is precisely what Israel and its neoconservative moles have done, by trying to split the United States from its historic allies in the Middle East, with the aim of one day remaining the only ally of the United States in the area. The demonization of all heads of state in the Arab world is part of this strategy. One of Israel’s great successes has been to ensure that its own enemies, the Arab peoples, today have a fierce hatred for the United States.

The power of the Zionist manipulation of the United States, based on quasi-total control of the mainstream media alongside large-scale psychological operations such as September 11, is truly bewildering.

By drawing a parallel between psychopathy as a personality disorder and the attitude of Israel, I do not mean, of course, the Jews in general. They are the first to be manipulated by their elites, and they are part of this collective psychopathy only to the extent of their submission to those elites. Jewishness, we must not forget, is whatever idea the Jews make of it; and the idea the Jews make of it is, almost entirely, the one imposed on them by their elites.

It was the last chapter of this lengthy book (492 pages). It's really loaded with details, has 808 references and is highly recommended. And by the way he wrote another book: JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State which was published in 2014.
Children Of The Mad God

It was the last chapter of this lengthy book (492 pages). It's really loaded with details, has 808 references and is highly recommended. And by the way he wrote another book: JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State which was published in 2014.

I just read another article by the same author where he focuses on the ponerological and psychopathological aspects, citing Lobacewski among others, here. Dovetails with the Darwin thread starting at this post.

Jewish ethnocentrism
In contrast to the empathy it shows for itself, the Jewish community as a whole, to the extent it submits to its representative elites, tends to behave towards the mass of Gentiles in a psychopathic rather than empathic manner. This is why a goy observer, Werner Sombart, despite his reputation as a Semitophile, highlights features of Jewish collective psychology that are similar to psychopathic tendencies including a temperament that is “coldly utilitarian” and “calculating,” alongside a propensity to mimicry, combined with a mechanical conception of human relations. (9) The founder of sociology Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), very critical of his Jewish community, noticed among Jewish intellectuals a pragmatic and self-interested notion of truth, which can be compared with that of the psychopath: “The Jew . . . seeks to learn not in order to replace his collective prejudices by reflective thought, but merely to be better armed for the struggle. . . . [H]e superimposes this intellectual life upon his habitual routine with no effect of the former upon the latter”. (10) Many Jewish historians, for example, seem to value History less as a pursuit of truth than as a means of power.
Top Bottom